Thread: God

Originally posted by Nick
As I explained earlier this is a metaphore. The garden
of Eden aws totally different than our world.
Directly created from man's rib doesn't make much
sense anyways since I don't think there would be that
much to go around.


And this shows your own self importance.

Didn't really want to get involved here, but ..
????

I don't believe in any higher power. My friends and I always have these little debates about which we think to be more logical - evolution or creationism. I even have a debate like that about to start on my site. But since I was very little, I never believed. I do believe in evolution though.

just a thought:

Justice William Rehnquist demonstrated to Topkis that it is possible to believe in creation of life by God with no religious intent:

Rehnquist: My next question is going to be whether you considered Aristotlianism a religion?

Topkis: Of course not.

Rehnquist: Well, then, you could believe in a first cause, an umoved mover, that may be impersonal, and has no obligation of obedience or veneration from men, and in fact, doesn't care what's happening to mankind.

Topkis: Right.

Rehnquist: And believe in creation.

Topkis: Not when creation means creation by a devine creator.

Rehnquist: And I ask you, it depends on what you mean by divine. If all you mean is a first cause, an impersonal mover-

Topkis: Divine, Your Honor, has connotations beyond, I respectfully submit.

Rehnquist: But the statute doesn't say "divine."

Topkis: No.

Rehnquist: All it says is "creation."

So you're saying what makes a religion valid is the amount of people who believe it?

No, that's not what I ment. If monney was the answer then you would see more people worshiping it. Just as if Light bulbs provied answers then GE would be very happy.

If you think that's what you can conclude from science, then you just don't get it.

Really. What animal is the most complex? Humans. Witch animal is the most inteligent. Humans. What animal can reshape the earth dramaticly? Humans. The only thing that can kill of the Human race really is humans. Any thing else we could device a way prevent it, take take mesures to protect are selves, or avoid it.

Where on top.

then is it not equally valid to say the universe has no beginning?

The universe needs a begining as if it did not heat death would of happend a long time ago.

er... you kinda just took other people's ideas and said "i believe in this guy's crap". You never have questioned what they had to say, you simply took it all or nothing. When you post a link without anything about what in it you agree with, it is perfectly logical for me to assume that you believe in all that is said in that link.

True, you must relize though that there is a lot more information on the sites I posted that I don't agree with and as a result did not refer to them.

Nope. He also wants everyone to believe in him.

That to. It's really no diffent then your teacher wanting you to do your work. You don't do it you fail, it's compltly up to you.

then you obviously haven't been paying any attention to what Clyde has been saying throughout this thread.

Religion has many flaws, but you just choose to ignore them because they make things too complicated for your simple mind. (don't mean to be condescending here, but it seems to be the
truth)

The only flaws in Relgion that Cyde has pointed out are things science can not explain. Anything that Science can explain though is used as proof of there being no God. He selectivly uses the information to his own advantage.

Second don't confuse the Church with religon. Just as a computer can be infalable, it does not mean that someone trying to decode an error message will get it right.

Yeah, actually that is what your saying, and you just restated it in the second sentence. You're saying that more people believe in what is fact than what is not. That's entirely not true. Many people believed the world was flat, did that make it true? Numbers mean nothing.

I'm not going to be able to explain what I mean, so I'll just drop it.

Being "superior," which is just an opinion mind you, doesn't make you a god. Saying that there isn't a god doesn't mean that human's are deities. There are very little differences between human's and other animals.

Ok, but is the closest thing to it.

I can't figure out what you're even trying to say there. I'm guessing heat is a typo, but I can't tell what you meant instead. Either that or I'm just reading it weird. Restate it, please.

No, heat was not a typo. If the universe had no begining then all mater and energy would have dissipated and all would become the ultimate cold void.

The other theroy of how the universe will end is the Big Crunch witch currently there is not enough mass in the universe to have.

Something cannot be created out of nothing, say scientists. Therefore, from where did the material for the Big Bang come? From where did the first life forms that provided the raw material for evolution originate? Stanley Miller's creation of amino acids out of an inorganic "soup" and other biogenic molecules is not the creation of life.

Science may not be equipped to answer certain "ultimate"-type questions, such as what there was before the beginning of the universe or what time it was before time began or where the matter for the Big Bang came from. So far these have been philosophical or religious questions, not scientific ones, and therefore have not been a part of science. (Recently, Stephen Hawking and other cosmologists have made some attempts at scientific speculations on these questions.) Evolutionary theory attempts to understand the casuality of change after time and matter were "created" (whatever that means). As for the origin of life, biochemists do have a very rational and scientific explanation for the evolution from inorganic to organic compounds, the creation of amino acids and the construction of protein chains, the first crude cells, the creation of photosynthesis, the invention of sexual reproduction, and so on. Stanley Miller never claimed to have created life, just some of its building blocks. While these theories are by no means robust and are still subject to lively scientific debate, there is a reasonable explanation for how you get from the Big Bang to the Big Brain in the known universe using the known laws of nature.

The same way it's going to be end.. when we are tired.

>Based on what logic?

There are two theory's on how the universe is going to end. One is the big Crunch, and the other is heat death. Currently in order to have the Big Crunch we are missing 70% of the mass required.

http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/...ranscript.html

Read the intorduciton and the Roberet's concluding statment.

Well from one set of weak religious arguments (I just went to a lecture by a biochem prof at a local church entitled "Science rules: Is God Dead?") to another.

"Aeithest believe that they are different than those
who worship false idols. But look at abortion and
how they twist their morals to how they see fit"

........what?

"But look at the situation though.
You have argued about god with Sentantaku
Senshi 5 months ago and no one has changed.
What is your real purpose in arguing this? Are you jealous of his
convictions or are you just arguing to make fun of him?"

Neither, I attack religion and religious convictions where ever i can, because i firmly believe it to be an immensley socially damaging institution. By debating I hope to make people think, now the vast majority of religious people are far too indocrinated to ever be able to evaluate their position rationally however there are those that aren't and it is those whom I hope to reach.

I have had notable success in my life at pointing out the folly of religion and religious convictions, and that spurs me on.

"ok, try this Atoms were first theroized to exist by Democritus. He had no proof that they existed,"

Right........ however it WAS a reasonable hypothesis consistent with limitations present in th observeable world AND it was MERELY conjecture and was NOT "believed" to be fact untill evidence for it emerged.

"then scientst probly starting with Newton create the a corpuscular, or atomic, model yet there is still no proof of atoms"

... ok......

"Dalton proposed that all matter was made of atoms in the late 1700/early 1800's but he had not proved there existence."

....... yes.........

"It wasn't until Rutherford and his student C.T.R Wilson used a cloud chamber to show that if thin gold foil is bomared by heliun nuclei, most of the particles pass straight through but some were defected at a large angle"

And the conclusion is.........

"This deflection was caused by the alpha particles colliding wiht the nucleous of the gold atoms that we had proof of atoms"

Oh, there is no conclusion..... ok...... good argument.

"Not by the masses"

You're joking right?

"According to Science I am a god nothing is more evolved, more complex. I am by far supeiror to everything."

....... according to science you are totally insignificant.

"The same can be said about science."

What nonsense, science does NOT give us answers about how to live our life, and whilst it tells us what to believe its certainly NOT an easy answer in the way religion is. Furthermore SCIENCE HAS EVIDENCE.

"I don't think you see many football supporters waging war against supporters of the other team. (wait you mean socer don't you)"

Yes i mean soccer.

"Right, religion says that I'm going to die as a result of sin."

No, religion says "as long as i'm good i'll exist forever, and i'll never lose the people i love".

"Calling your self something and being it are diffent things"

Indeed which is why there are so many non-practicing Christians.

"Why not?"

You have not dealt with my original points yet! I gave you answers as to why religion is powerfull, and they have nothing to do with truth!

"Yet there social power ended up meaning nothing"

You have to sit down and work out HOW to reason. Your arguments are COMPLETELY INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT.

This is another one that makes no sense: Because Christianty is one of the latest religions therefore it must be true. (In fact if we take this to its (il)logical conclusion we therefore deduce that Christianity is wrong and Islam has it right).

So lets go back a few thousands years, at that time Paganism might have been the latest religion, so Paganists following your logic would therefore have concluded that "because they were the latest religion therefore they must be right". The point being HOW DO YOU KNOW there will not be another religion a few thousands years down the line?

"God has no begining therefor he needs no creator. Numbers have no beging nor end so not everythign needs a begining"

The universe had no 'before' therefore needs no creator.

"My faith is not blind"

Branching into comedy again?

"Do I find my relgion to have flaws? No"

LMAO

"My point is that if God is fake as an invicible Kangaroo with techno color fur. Then why would so many people choose to belive in him, even though it means death."

UH because they don't think hes fake....... duh.

"If you created a living thing, would you make it worship you?"

Err.... no.

"ok, im not saying that senshi is right, but isnt that what faith is, belief in the presense of doubt"

Belief lacking evidence, yes, which is why its so foolish..... a bit like............. believeing in aan invisible technicolour kangaroo.......

"If monney was the answer then you would see more people worshiping it."

You don't think people worship money? Errrrrrrrr HELLO. What are the biggest status symbols in Western society? People sure as hell do worship money. Albeit in a different way to religious worship.

"Really. What animal is the most complex? Humans"

That is MEANINGLESS. Complex with regards to what?

"Witch animal is the most inteligent. Humans"

Ok.......

"What animal can reshape the earth dramaticly"

Any animal. Infact photosynthetica bacteria have a FAR larger impact on the Earth than we EVER will.

"The only thing that can kill of the Human race really is humans."

Yea cause its not like disease could ever wipe us out, or a meteorite.......

"Where on top."

We are bright hairless apes, thats it, did you not grasp Sagan's quote? Here it is again:

'We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering"

Thats the scientific perspective of humanity in the universe.

"The universe needs a begining as if it did not heat death would of happend a long time ago"

Yes we do believe the universe had a beginning BUT IT WAS ALSO THE BEGINNING OF TIME.

"The only flaws in Relgion that Cyde has pointed out are things science can not explain."

Pardon me? The flaws in religion are that it is inherently IRRATIONAL; there is no evidence supporting there is no theory supporting it is is no different to believeing in a invisible kangaroo! I think thats a pretty freaking big flaw. Not to mention the huge swathes of the bible that if you take literally and YOU seem to take large potions literally are completely invalidated by the findings of science.

"Anything that Science can explain though is used as proof of there being no God."

And how exactly did you deduce that? Science provides NATURALISTIC explanations, and has shown time and time again that THEISTIC explanations are never right.