The basic question - Who is God? - Religious Political and General Discussion - Debate and Discussion - Atheist vs Theist Debate - Message Board

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

The basic question - Who is God?

Author	Comment
zenityerkes	The basic question - Who is God?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1 (11/07/09 09:43:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : zenit, yerkes, god, basic, question, dude Hi there. Name's Zenit Yerkes, Agnostic and Theist who came from Christian Catholic Church. Although I've got a lot of questions and answers to make, I want to begin from a simple one: What or who is God? Is he there? Why? Alright, those were three. And please always consider if your answers make sense.
ric		#1	[-]
Posts: 1 (11/10/09 05:22:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	GOD is the creator of heaven and earth Yes HE is there just look around Why because HE can. GOD created the universe and everthing in it because HE can. Just like artists create because they can so GOD did with the universe and everything else we can discern with out senses. It is what is beyond the senses that provides meaning and true life.
ilovelogic	This is just amusing..	#2	[-]
Posts: 2 (11/10/09 11:41:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"Yes HE is there just look around." Look around... at what? If you "just look around" you will see the wonders of nature (most of which is no mystery and the workings of can be explained by science.) So what exactly could I see by "just looking around" that would serve as any proof or even evidence that a God exists. I'm assuming you will reply with a statement regarding the miracle of life and nature that couldn't possibly happen on its own. It's hillareous that people can feel justified in their belief when they obviously have done no research to validate their claims. Everything that we see around us in nature can and did happen without a magical man in the sky. Things occur the way they do because of the laws of nature and biological evolution. No one has ever presented me with any evidence to the contrary. "Because HE can." How do you know HE can?? If you tell me because the Bible says so, that's not a good answer. The Bible is full of fallacies and fantasy. It's far from a reliable source. If I gave you a book claiming that fairies and gnomes live in your backyard (only they are invisible to the human eye), would you believe that book was reliable? Of course not. Why do you assess the Bible with less reason and logic than you would assess any other source? "Everything else we can discern without senses." What exactly does discern mean? Well, according to Webster.. it means to detect either mentally or with the senses. So, you are saying, you can either detect God's existence with your senses... or you "just know." Obviously, if we could detect God with our senses, we wouldn't be questioning his existence. So, you apparently "just know" he's there. That's probably the worst excuse for believing something that I've ever heard. Yet, that seems to be something I hear over and over from theists. That's only because they don't have a sufficient reason to give other than... they "just know." Or better yet... "I had an experience..." I did too, at a rock concert one time. I got chill bumps and everything. That's what happens when you get emotional.
zenityerkes		#3	[-]
Posts: 2 (11/10/09 11:46:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	1 - To say there is a God because Bible says so, we need to prove the Bible is true first, right? 2- Why we MUST be here by somebody's whim?
ric		#4	[-]
Posts: 2 (11/12/09 07:45:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ilovelogic You say "most of which science can explain" if you look at the history of science you will see that everything changes there is no scientific truth just scientific theories. Einstein said a million experiment can't prove me right but only one can prove me wrong. Lets look at science at the largest level we have the universe of which we have had propose the existence of "dark matter" and " dark energy" because our theories can't cope with what we observe. Then there is the big bang that created problems because it seems that we shouldn't be here if the big bang works because the probabilities are too small so we had to come up with the multiverse that says there are an infinite number of universes thus one have to be like ours. OF COURSE WE CAN NEVER SEE OR DETECT THESE OTHER UNIVERSES BECAUSE WE ARE CONFINED TO OURS. Before Einstein matter, time and distance was fixed but with relativity we find that time changes with speed and gravity, mass increases with speed and gravity. There is no unified theory that explains gravity and the other forces in nature. Then there quantum that says everything is probabilistic nothing can be predicted with certainty only with a certain probability. Then there is the atom first we had electrons and the protons and neutrons, but then we had to invent quarks of which there are eight to make up protons and newtons, then we had to go to string theory saying everything is make up of strings that are just vibrations and we had to have not three dimensions and time but 11 dimensions and time. SO IT SEEMS THAT OUR SCIENCE HAS A LOT MISSING SO THEY HAVE TO KEEP ADDING MORE AND MORE MADE UP STUFF TO KEEP THEIR THEORIES GOING. Biological evolution lets that is theory that is over 150 years old but we cling to it. Everything else in science has radically changed but that seems to hold even though there is no proof of one species evolving into another. What is called evolution explains micro evolution. Species adapt to change e.g. birds get bigger beaks, big cats grow bigger teeth, just look at man's breeding and you can see micro evolution. THAT DOES NOT PROOVE ANYTHING ABOUT ORIGINS OF SPECIES OTHER THAN WHEN A SEPECIES IS CREATED IT CAN DIFFERENTIATE BY PHYSICAL CHANGES BUT WE HAVE NEVER OBLSERVED ON SPECIES MORPHING INTO ANOTHER. If species all arose from small random mutations why isn't the fossil record full of these in-between species? It seems to me that there should be a lot more of these morphing species but guess what the fossil record is not there. The one case of a feathered dinosaur from Germany has bee disproved the bone structure of the legs shows it was a bird not a dinosaur. One last thing if you see a sailing ship at sea and then you see a different one you can say sailing ships evolved. But you would never say it all came together by random events you would know there was a designer and a creator. So when I say look around I mean look at the complexity and interdependence of all living things and one can only conclude there is at least a designer and creator. IF YOU ARE REALLY INTERSTED IN HAVING A DISCUSSION ON EVOLUTION REPOND TO IT AND WE CAN CONTINUE.
ric		#5	[-]
Posts: 3 (11/12/09 08:34:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	If you go into a city and you see the buildings, roads, cars, water system and everything else associated with a functioning city, would you rational to conclude that the city was designed to be what it is and that its complexity implies intelligent design. Of course you would anything else would be unreasonable. If I were to try to convince you with some theory that it all came together by successive chance chemical reactions over billions of years. You would not accept it. Yet we have people that are so engrossed in anti-GOD fervor that they will not look at the evidence objectively. Then they turn it around and say you prove GOD exists NO!!! They have to prove GOD doesn't exist because the evidence clearly shows intelligence. We are not here by somebody's whim. Just like an artist creates beauty that comes from his heart and reflects some of him so it is, I believe with GOD. HE created because of HIS love. Just as an artist loves his creation and wants to share it so it is with GOD. HE loves us and wants share HIS love with us. If you go into a city and you see the buildings, roads, cars, water system and everything else associated with a functioning city, would you rational to conclude that the city was designed to be what it is and that its complexity implies intelligent design. Of course you would anything else would be unreasonable. If I were to try to convince you with some theory that it all came together by successive chance chemical reactions over billions of years. You would not accept it. Yet we have people that are so engrossed in anti-GOD fervor that they will not look at the evidence objectively. Then they turn it around and say you prove GOD exists NO!!! They have to prove GOD doesn't exist because the evidence clearly shows intelligence. We are not here by somebody's whim. Just like an artist creates beauty that comes from his heart and reflects some of him so it is, I believe with GOD. HE created because of HIS love. Just as an artist loves his creation and wants to share it so it is with GOD. HE loves us and wants share HIS love with us. If you go into a city and you see the buildings, roads, cars, water system and everything else associated with a functioning city, would you rational to conclude that the city was designed to be what it is and that its complexity implies intelligent design. Of course you would anything else would be unreasonable. If I were to try to convince you with some theory that it all came together by successive chance chemical reactions over billions of years. You would not accept it. Yet we have people that are so engrossed in anti-GOD fervor that they will not look at the evidence objectivily. Then they turn it around and say you prove GOD exists NO!!! They have to prove GOD doesn't exist because the evidence clearly shows intelligence. We are not here by somebody's whim. Just like an artist creates beauty that comes from his heart and reflects some of himself so it is, I believe with GOD. HE created because of HIS love. Just as an artist loves his creation and wants to share it so it is with GOD. HE loves us and wants share HIS love with us
zenityerkes		#6	[-]
Posts: 3 (11/12/09 09:03:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@ric You assumed there is a God because of what you see, but there could be multiple explanations of why everything is like it is. What you see is not God for sure. Complex comes from simple. And Nature was simple at the beginning, then I think our starting point must begin by evidence and real life. And since nobody has seen God, neither has talked to him or had any contact with him, we must assume for the moment and as a first step that God doesn't exist. Now what does move us to think there must be a God, and why he must be there? If so, can we reach him by reason, avoiding the use of irrational faith?
ric		#7	[-]
Posts: 4 (11/12/09 10:03:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	do you have to have contact with the architedt of a building to know there was one? science is observation and then theories about what you observe. we observe complexity and we know from thermodynamics that left alone things move to less complex states not more it is known as entropy. Humans are only one of millions of different organisms. To integrate all organisms into a living ecosystem requires stupendous design and balance. If evolution happened, time and natural processes alone must have maintained a livable environment for most forms of life as each new organism came into existence and proliferated. No global contaminants, plagues, predators, or famines could be allowed for billions of years. Imagine what would happen if a few organisms at the base of the food chain became extinct. I was an agnostic for a lot of my life but as I became more educated and independent in my thinking I questioned and used what I know to be true "LIFE IS COMPLEX and has become more complex" and had to come to the conclusion that anything complex and becomes more complex with time it cannot be a random event. it would be like saying monkeys typing at random could write a scientific journal simply by random hits and enough time. Simply impossible from a mathematical point of view. Only conlcusion is intelligent designer GOD!! "... it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies ..." Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p. 280. "It appears that the neo-darwinian hypothesis is insufficient to explain some of the observations that were not available at the time the paradigm [the theory of evolution] took shape. ... [b]One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature." Above is a quote and that captures where we are at in neo-darwinism today.
zenityerkes		#8	[-]
Posts: 4 (11/12/09 11:14:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I can contact the architect by simply calling him. You cannot phone God. And the simple answer is not the best answer. If you don't have time enough to read the whole Darwinian theory or think it's boring then don't attack it. It's complex, because it explains a complex thing. And it's incomplete, because the only proof we have are fossils and only 200 years to watch how evolution works. It's slow. Too slow to be proved now. That's why it is a "theory" not a "fact". But we always have the simple answer there, don't we? Isn't it tentative to have the "it was made by God" and the intelligent design answer instead of working on improving the evolution theory? Also, science is trial and error. And most of the nowadays scientific facts were based on incomplete and erroneous knowledge. Example, the atom at the end of th 19th century was a big proton pudding cake with electrons in it. And it wasn't true, but we eventually knew how it actually was by trial and error. Rutherford, Bohr, Zeeman, Schrodinger,... It is still incomplete; but this doesn't mean it is useless. But now back to your post: 1- The simpler is the organism, the quicker it can be reproduced. Organic matter can be made quickly by combining carbon, sulfur, nitrogen,... And from that substances we can obtain, for example, proteins. And from that proteins be can make RNA, and from that RNA a cell can be made. So far we haven't got any artificial cell, but some people are working on that. http://www.dailymail.co.u...nths-say-biologists.html Anyways, if the organisms at the base of the food chain had never been extincted is because they reproduce themselves in minutes. They're simpler than an human being. 2- God is not the answer. Deal with it or prove me wrong. And if it was, firstly we need to prove that God exists. Without the vicious cycle of "God is the intelligent designer because everything it's so in order therefore God must exist as a perfect ordering thing because everything is perfectly ordered and...." And also if it is the Christian God too. How if it was the Muslim one?
ric		#9	[-]
Posts: 5 (11/13/09 05:04:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Zen, If the architect is dead and I show you a blueprint would you say I don't believe it you made that up. If i showed you a construction crew digging a foundation and you asked the crew what they were builing and they said don't know we are just digging the foundation. Then if I told you there was an architect, would you say I don't believe you? I want to talk to the architect and If he died and was cremated would you still insist you want to talk to him. Or would you come to the conclusion that these guys aren't here randomly but have a purpose. Or would you conclude that it is a random event and something complex will come out of randomness. Dude that would be denying your own senses and rationale. I am well versed in Darwin and it explains species adaptation in the macro level but not in the micro level. Species creation from and other species through long small changes has not been demonstated (there should be large numbers of inbetween species in the record but there isn't) . Then there is the MAIN QUESTION of the begining of life. There is no "scientific" proof on how life began all the soup experiments produced were organic molecules. The theory states that out of some soup which is made up of some chneicals life arose. These chemicals had to first sysnthesize the four main bases DNA is compsed of Guanine: A nitrogenous base. Pairs with cytosine in DNA molecules. Cytosine: A nitrogenous base. Pairs with guanine in DNA molecules. Adenine: A nitrogenous base. Pairs with thymine in DNA molecules Thymine: A nitrogenous base. Pairs with adenine in DNA molecules. These four base pairs had to then form a double helix ( look up microbiology and see how many complex chemical steps are required to create a DNA double helix. Then you have to create a system that is self correcting( DNA replication is self correcting to the point where there is less than one error in one billion). Then this system had to spontaneously arise inside a cell because the DNA double helix is fragile. THEN THERE HAD TO BE ENOUGH INTELLIGENCE IN THIS MOLECULE TO RANDOMLY MUTATE INTO EVERY SPECIES WE KNOW always becoming more complex. All this came out of some carbon, nitorgen and a few other elements. Crick the who discovered DNA has concluded intelligent design is the only answer. If one doesn't have an agenda that is anti Ceator and thus becomes dogmatic in his views, there is only one conclusion GOD the creator and HIS blueprint is everywhere. Just look around.
ilovelogic	Flaws in your argument	#10	[-]
Posts: 6 (11/13/09 07:45:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ric In your arguments for God's existence, you are using two basic arguments that alot of mislead theists use: God of the Gaps and the Design Argument. Unfortunately those arguments are flawed in an obvious way. However your vision is clouded by the need for God to exist. You'd benefit from thinking more rationally and using commen sense. 1. Just because there are gaps in our scientific knowledge does not mean we should seek to fill those gaps with the idea of "magic man did it." We may not understand everything (which is why I stated earlier we understand most of what we see around us.) It's funny that when you responded to my comment, you felt the need to fall back on the part of our environment that we know the least about (the universe and cosmos). When you originally stated "just look around," my assumption was that you meant "look around" literally. I was referring to the earthly environment that surrounds us. Science can explain most of what we see around us on earth. While we know a great deal about the universe beyond Earth, we cannot explain everything. That seems to spark insecurity in people, which is where we get "God of the Gaps." If we can't explain something, we find security in being able to say "God did it" rather than just accept the mystery of it. That idea (of a magic man) makes even less sense and is harder to grasp than some of the most bogus scientific theories. How can you deny that a complex and mysterious world can exist by chance when you can claim that an infinitely powerful being created it? Which explaination requires more effort to believe? I would easier believe that fairies live in my garden than that there is a "being" that can do anything is pulling strings to make everything happen! My theory is that it is so easy for theists to believe because it has been drilled into our minds since birth. While not everyone has grown up in a "Godly" environment, the idea permeates our society and societies around the world. It stems from our desire to understand when we don 't have all the knowledge (and our fear of death and the end.) It really irritates me that theists want undeniable proof that explains every tiny mechanism in our world and the universe, however they can provide no objective evidence or proof of their god. They even freely admit to gaps in their knowledge of their god (i.e. where did he come from? how does he do what he does? why does he let bad things happen?) Why must you demand facts and proof from science yet you are so complacent with the apparent gaps in your knowledge of your god? Why are you okay with not knowing where your god came from but you are unable to accept gaps in our knowledge of the origins of our universe and life? I might also mention that the gaps in your belief in God are much larger and your beliefs more subjective than the gaps in the understanding of science and the natural workings of our world. 2. To assert that the universe must have been designed would beg the assumption that we must live in the best possible world. Otherwise, why take the time to design something that is not in the best possible state? Here I can utilize your catch phrase. "Just look around." Even the most novice observer could deduct that we live in a world far from its best possible state. War, crime, murder, disease, famine, flood, tornadoes, hurricanes, car crashes, plane crashes, drugs... I could go on... There is no purpose or good sensible reason for a divine being to create such a destructive and unforgiving world just to sit back and watch His creation self destruct while His "unworthy" followers grovel for His acceptance so they can avoid an infinitely miserable eternity in Hell. It's the most self absorbed and self gratifying thing I've ever heard. I can tell you why it doesn't make sense. The idea was created and evolved over time in order to meet the needs of the people who molded it. Whether to explain what was unexplainable at the time or to control the actions of the people, the popular idea of God serves the purpose of the people who created the idea itself. Ensuring that the idea as a whole always made good sense was obviously not always in the forefront of those people's minds. 3. In regards to your comments on evolution, few people comprehend the amount of time that is required for evolution to take place. Someone once asked me "If evolution truly takes place, why don't we see a bunch of half monkey half humans walking around?" Obviously, those beings weren't best suited for the environment and they died off. What can successfully survive on Earth in the current environment is what we see around us today. You are criticizing the fossil evidence for evolution. The fossil evidence we have is not "complete" because fossilization is a rare occurence. However, we do have a wealth of evidence regardless. If you look at the fossil record, you find a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development from one species to another. You see very simple organisms at first and then new, more complex organisms appearing over time. The characteristics of newer organisms frequently appear to be modified forms of characteristics of older organisms. This succession of life forms, from simpler to more complex, showing relationships between new life forms and those that preceded them, is strong inferential evidence of evolution. There are gaps in the fossil record and some unusual occurrences, such as what is commonly called the Cambrian explosion, but the overall picture created by the fossil record is one of consistent, incremental development. Last Edited By: ilovelogic 11/13/09 08:26:06. Edited 3 times.
zenityerkes		#11	[-]
Posts: 5 (11/13/09 15:09:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@ilovelogic I agree in most of your explanation but the argument of the "God of the Gaps". Just my Religion teacher told me today, that just like a painter would tell you about the colors of a landscape, or a geologist will talk about the rocks found there and so on; religion just gives another point of view that does not have anything to do with scientific explanations. While the first one has as a main criteria the Bible and the Omnipotence of God, and science gives their explanations from empirical process and trial and error. What you believe in is just about if you tend to think about an always logic nature or an existence of an Omnipotent God capable of doing the impossible. I'd rather the first one, sincerely. Anyway, that's only my base from where I try to search the existence of that God every Theist seemed to find. (Thank goodness we still learn religion and ethics at school) -- @ric About the architect argument, the blueprint hasn't got any signature of God. It's not like in top of a hill it's written "THIS WAS MADE BY GOD". Therefore everything could be as it is because of thousands and thousands of explanations. Including my favorite one: when Earth had its first oceans a meteorite with alien life came, crashed and brought the first cell to the planet. Twisted? Prove it wrong. And about the Darwinian theory, the only thing I just need to say is, again, the atom theory example. Thomson thought the atom was a great proton pudding cake with electrons in it. And that was wrong, but from that base we improved his concept. Same with Darwin. His theory is 200 years old, things have changed and improved from then.
ilovelogic		#12	[-]
Posts: 7 (11/13/09 18:47:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	zen The reason I brought up "God of the gaps" is because rics argument for the existence of God was centered around the gaps in our scientific knowledge. It sounded as if that was his "proof" of God. "Because we don't know this, God must exist." "This doesn't make sense and can't be proven, so God must have done it." That seemed to be the basis for everything he had to say. And yes, "God of the Gaps" is a very commonly used idea however, theists will not admit it. They won't admit they are using God to fill in any gaps in our scientific knowledge primarily because they really do believe what they are saying. It's not their "excuse" it's their "reason" so to say. In addition, I applaud your attempt at viewing things in a logical and rational way. I do hope that your journey to find the truth will lead you in the right direction. In regards to something that can weigh so heavily on your life and the lives of others, I hope you continue to try to use logical rational thinking. I understand how difficult it can be to question something that so many others around you accept as infallable truth. I found my way into atheism very slowly. But that's how it must be. You will decide what you believe when you are fully ready. Until then, just keep questioning everything you hear. If it doesn't sound rational or doesn't make sense, don't just accept it because someone says so. Think for yourself! That's how I became the confident nonbeliever I am today! Last Edited By: ilovelogic 11/13/09 18:54:53. Edited 1 times.
ric	science	#13	[-]
Posts: 6 (11/16/09 06:43:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	zen, It is interesting that you use "magic man" in you response. Because when the science says complex life came out of nothing that is magic. Not the existence of a Craetor. If man can design and build due to intelligence how can one argue against intelligent design and accept magic from a few elements combined somehow in just the right conditions and viola life and all its beauty and complexity. Your view requires magic my view requires intelligence which I know exists. Just like the Big Bang everything out of nothing MAGIC so magical that science has to postulate dark matter, and dark energy, multiverses ( which we can't detect because we are confined to our universe)just to try to come up with something. Pretty make believe stuff. Oh yea lets see time, mass and length are fixed was scientific fact. Oh dear relativity blew that away time, mass and length change due to speed or gravity. That's right gravity changes time how magical that is and there are things like parallel time and perpendicular time . Science once were convinced that matter and energy were completely different. One is sold and the other is a wave. Oh dear Einstein did it again matter and energy are interchangeable they are the same thing in different states and can be changed into each other. Science was convinced that if we knew enough we could predict what can happen. Oh dear quantum came along and said no nothing is predictable everything is probabilistic. Oh and things can take on many things simultaneously and when measured take up only one state. Pretty interesting stuff leads one to believe we really don't know much about the nature of the universe. As for science. Science was once convinced that the atom was the smallest object. But alas there are quarks and alas these don't fit the bill so we have string theory with everything made up of little waves, oh by the way we need to have a few more dimensions like 11 of them. All of which are so small we can never see them. Can't see them but they have to there for the theory to work MAGIC AGAIN. As for the blueprint look at DNA and if you can't see a design why would you accept a blueprint as a design (consider that if you are not an in the construction business a blueprint is just a bunch of lines but one knows it represents a design) DNA is a bunch of chemicals but I know it represents a design. What has been promulgated as scientific evidence of the none existence of GOD came from 19^th century science that had concluded everything is knowable and explainable. Of course 20^th century science blue that out of the water. Quantum says nothing is knowable 100% everything at the subatomic level is probabilistic. Relativity says what we thought was fixed like time and mass isn't, energy and matter are the same only different states of the same thing, no fundamental particle has been found. As a rational questioning human being I have to conclude that 19^th century science was dead wrong and any theory that arose from that era has to be questioned in light of new evidence. Gradual EVOLUTION BY RANDOM EVENTS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ARCHIALOGICAL EVIDENCE. Evolution was based on the observation of micro-evolutionary adaptations. Yes animals due adapt to their environment. But the evidence for species morphing simply is not there( note there should be lots of them). You can grasp at straws but it isn't there. Last Edited By: ric 11/16/09 06:58:21. Edited 2 times.
ric	logic	#14	[-]
Posts: 7 (11/16/09 08:08:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ilovelogic "However your vision is clouded by the need for God to exist" My vision is not clouded what I do everyday is question accepted ideas and so called established science. Science is only theory. Einstein has been quoted as saying a million experiments cannot prove me right but one can prove me wrong. Since all science is theory and if we look at 19^th century science it has all been revolutionized. Things that were established have been unestablished like time, matter and energy, quantum theory etc etc. Therefore to continue to accept a 19^th century theory as established science that should not be questioned is really myopic at best and delusional at worst. "Irritates" an interesting choice. You don't irritate me. Look at my response to Zen to see a discussion on science. What I have done is observe the relentless intolerance from the atheists to discuss metaphysics without getting into accusatory language. Atheism is as much a religion as Hinduism or any other. It attempts to explain life and the reason for our existence. ""His "unworthy" followers grovel for His acceptance so they can avoid an infinitely miserable eternity in Hell. It's the most self absorbed and self gratifying thing I've ever heard"" From this I can conclude that your are referring to Christians not other religions. It simply reflects the intolerance of the atheist. What I did is clear my mind of these labeling words and said let me explore it without bias. This is what I saw. I look at the world around me and see an intricately connected web of life. I see man and his creations and I say we are an Intelligent species. I see animals exhibiting various levels of intelligence, I see life itself and its ability to adapt to changing environments as intelligent as the very basis lof life, I see life being present in all environments including those we thought impossible a few years ago (deep oceean), . What can I conclude from this inescapable view of the world. I am intelligent , nature is intelligent therefore either the intelligence has to be built in to the very fabric of the universe or it is magic. Since I find magic to be unacceptable, I must conclude that intelligence is not self generating .and therefore an intelligence is behind the universe.
zenityerkes		#15	[-]
Posts: 6 (11/17/09 09:33:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Again. Our knowledge is theorical. Scientific knowedge is still incomplete, imperfect; but it's not useless. For example, from Medicine they say soon they will have an AIDS vaccine. Is it useless because it's still incomplete? Shall we stop looking for it? Nope. Also, science changes as times passes by. It's unworthy to stay in the 19th century saying matter and energy are different things if Einstein proved that wrong. Science is not static as religion. Science can improve itself since we skip from speculative theories to experiments and real proofs. Theory can be wrong, experiments won't. Because in theory, we can say a million things about the same topic and be talking rubbish, but if we test them by experiments and see which theories are correct and which ones aren't. I want to put here a quote from the Bible, 1Tes 5:21 - Test everything. Hold on to the good. My favorite one to be honest. But back to the topic, if everything is probabilistic or not perfect, it's because it is like that. It's a real fact, proved by calculated experiments. We don't invent our knowledge. We've got proofs to think what we think. And now answering to your post: - Your God is an human and intelligent God. Why it has to be that way? Why does it have to be anthropomorphic? - We don't say everything came from nothing. We say we don't know it, and we won't do anything else but to speculate about it. Just as Theists speculate about the existence of a Creator which will be never proved by actual facts. Just as our speculations, but the only difference is that we accept the defeat and keep investigating in "terra incognita". - A theory is not THE theory. Inform yourself about more points of view, science is not dogmatic. There is a general consensus, sure; that's what they told you at school, but there are more people investigating in that. Staying at the same level as when you were 12 is not enough. - Complexity. Universe is complex, therefore simple answers given by Classic Physics are not enough. Since we need to explain complex events, we need complex answers. If you cannot deal with them it's not reason enough to say they aren't true. - If we cannot see it that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Can you see the air? No, but you feel it. Can we see sub-atomic particles? No, but we know there are there by the experiments made such as particle collision. Our statements are based on proofs. We don't have as many proofs as we wanted to have, so we have to make our way to the explanation about why everything works like that by ourselves. And evolution theory. Oh goodness, the evolution theory. It's from the 19th century. Give it a break. We are not at the 1800's. It has changed from then. Now it's completely different. Again, inform yourself. If you see holes at the General-not-only-Darwinian Evolution Theory, instead of complaining and saying "I am right, you were wrong and you're all going to Hell", think about why there is a hole. Lack of proofs, maybe? Not very deep thought about that point? Also, failed evolution theory (by the way, theories are called like that because they're speculative and not actual facts) isn't the main reason of why God exists. You will need a better argument if you want to convince us. Anyway, I think we're moving on the main topic. Why there must be a God?
ilovelogic		#16	[-]
Posts: 13 (11/17/09 09:38:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	1. "Science is only theory." Science is a study that seeks information about the world around us. The use of science provides us with theories AND facts. Theories themselves are based on FACTS! Your random quote from Einstien does not make your case. He merely makes the point that science is an ongoing process not a final product. That does not assert that not facts are derived from scientific exploration. Of course our knowledge of the world around us changes. That should not negate what we have learned from science in the past. Why are you even making reference to 19th century scientific theories when responding to my post? I would hope that you are not referring to my mention of fossil evidence as evidence for evolution given that fossil evidence is a currently accepted form of evidence for evolution. So, perhaps if you could clarify what 19th century scientific theory you are referring to, we could have a discussion on that. 2. "Irritates" is by no means accusatory language. The last time I checked the word "irritate" refers to the way something makes one feel. For example, the fact that you assume that I am intolerant because I am questioning your belief "irritates" me. I am not ridiculing or insulting your beliefs. I am questioning them. And I am stating my opinion. 3. "Look at my response to Zen to see a discussion on science" Due to your abuse of grammar, spelling, and the English language, I find your "discussion" on science pretty hard to follow and I have a hard time finding much credibility in your flawed ramblings. A random quote from Einstein, which merely asserts that science is an ongoing process rather than a final product, does very little to make your case. Yes science is ongoing. Of course, according to the idea of falsification something is much easier to disprove than it is to prove. That merely supports the idea that we don't know everything yet and we are in a constant state of disproving and making room for new ideas. 4. The fact that I would comment on common Christian beliefs only lends itself to the fact that I am not fluent in most other belief systems. It does NOT however mean that I am intolerant. I tolerate theists of all sorts every day. I will not apologize for stating my opinion whether you think it's intolerant or not. Atheism is NOT a religion. It is NOT a belief system. An atheist is someone who DOES NOT believe in a god. Atheists have varying beliefs beyond that. 5. As far as your criticism of macroevolution, just give this link a good read. It should be able to convince any reasonable person. Not to make any assumptions about you. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ What a miserable existence it must be to constantly strive to be worthy of a God who will never see you as worthy of anything more than Hell.
zenityerkes		#17	[-]
Posts: 7 (11/17/09 10:40:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	No need to be harsh at ric dude. Keep the respectful mood and be patient. I also hate when people just don't get what I say and repeat over and over again. If you want to prove ric wrong don't point at him and say he's absolutely going on the bad way. Give arguments, opinions and contrasts. But please keep the respectful mood.
ilovelogic		#18	[-]
Posts: 14 (11/17/09 14:53:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Zen.... being harsh at ric? I don't believe I was. I directly addressed each point he directed at me. "I also hate when people just don't get what I say and repeat over and over again." What does this mean? Did I do this or something? I'm not expecting or trying to prove anyone wrong. And I am most definitely not saying he's "absolutely going on the bad way." I am doing what everyone else is doing. I am stating my opinion and questioning what I don't understand or agree with. If my tact seems abrasive, then that's just the way you will have to perceive me. I won't apologize for boldly expressing myself. If anyone is offended by my posts then they have had little exposure to real disrespect or harshness. What a miserable existence it must be to constantly strive to be worthy of a God who will never see you as worthy of anything more than Hell.
zenityerkes		#19	[-]
Posts: 8 (11/18/09 09:21:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ilovelogic wrote: Zen.... being harsh at ric? I don't believe I was. I directly addressed each point he directed at me. "I also hate when people just don't get what I say and repeat over and over again." What does this mean? Did I do this or something? I'm not expecting or trying to prove anyone wrong. And I am most definitely not saying he's "absolutely going on the bad way." I am doing what everyone else is doing. I am stating my opinion and questioning what I don't understand or agree with. If my tact seems abrasive, then that's just the way you will have to perceive me. I won't apologize for boldly expressing myself. If anyone is offended by my posts then they have had little exposure to real disrespect or harshness. Nevermind. Anyway English is not my native language, so I might have misunderstood your answer.
ric		#20	[-]
Posts: 8 (11/19/09 06:39:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	zenityerkes wrote: Again. Our knowledge is theorical. Scientific knowedge is still incomplete, imperfect; but it's not useless. For example, from Medicine they say soon they will have an AIDS vaccine. Is it useless because it's still incomplete? Shall we stop looking for it? Nope. What you have discribed here is observational science. Man has used this throughout history to build buildings, make war machines, invent things, discover medicine, SHOW THAT ANIMALS ADAPT TO THE ENVIRONMENT (this is not evolution it is adaptation) etc I am in the oobservtional science rhealm myself. I AGREE WHOLRHEARTEDLY. All knowledge is incomplete and imperfect. What you use as an example is observational science. We use it everyday to build buildings, create medicine, build computers these are what we can see and touch. So I have used observation to put my forth my arguments. Also, science changes as times passes by. It's unworthy to stay in the 19th century saying matter and energy are different things if Einstein proved that wrong. Science is not static as religion. Science can improve itself since we skip from speculative theories to experiments and real proofs. Theory can be wrong, experiments won't. Because in theory, we can say a million things about the same topic and be talking rubbish, but if we test them by experiments and see which theories are correct and which ones aren't. I want to put here a quote from the Bible, 1Tes 5:21 - Test everything. Hold on to the good. Exactly test everything just don't accept so called consensus when it is not based on observational science as these have been wrong and will continue to be worong. Consensus is driven by other factors like political correctness, greed (support something to make money and get grants) etc. My favorite one to be honest. You ask for honesty I have given it can I expect the same from you. But back to the topic, if everything is probabilistic or not perfect, it's because it is like that. It's a real fact, proved by calculated experiments. We don't invent our knowledge. We've got proofs to think what we think. No quantum is a theory not a fact. The facts are that we observe behavior predicted by the theory. It doesn't change the theory to fact. Just like in 1800 people observed time and the theory said it is fixed. The theory was disproved by observed science and relativity had to be postualted as a new theory. There is no fact when it comes to explaining more than what you can observe. You observe time exists. Saying time is a fixed quantity for the universe is a theory. Theories have to predict stuff as well as explain what is seen. That is why einstein said a million experiments can't prove me right but one can prove me wrong. And now answering to your post: - Your God is an human and intelligent God. Why it has to be that way? Why does it have to be anthropomorphic? - We don't say everything came from nothing. We say we don't know it, and we won't do anything else but to speculate about it. Just as Theists speculate about the existence of a Creator which will be never proved by actual facts. Just as our speculations, but the only difference is that we accept the defeat and keep investigating in "terra incognita". You don't know is what an agnostic says that is better than atheists that say we do know. The whole premise of atheism is that life was not created therefore life had to come from nothing. Which of course is negated by what we can observe namely inteligence. To me than the atheist is a dogmatic closed minded adherent to a believe it has nothing to do with observational science. - A theory is not THE theory. Inform yourself about more points of view, science is not dogmatic. There is a general consensus, sure; that's what they told you at school, but there are more people investigating in that. Staying at the same level as when you were 12 is not enough. See my response on theory perhaps the you might want to retract the 12 year old comment. - Complexity. Universe is complex, therefore simple answers given by Classic Physics are not enough. Since we need to explain complex events, we need complex answers. If you cannot deal with them it's not reason enough to say they aren't true. - If we cannot see it that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Can you see the air? No, but you feel it. Can we see sub-atomic particles? No, but we know there are there by the experiments made such as particle collision. THANK YOU if we do not see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. True GOD can be felt but not seen doesn't mean HE doesn't exist. Our statements are based on proofs. We don't have as many proofs as we wanted to have, so we have to make our way to the explanation about why everything works like that by ourselves. And evolution theory. Oh goodness, the evolution theory. It's from the 19th century. Give it a break. We are not at the 1800's. It has changed from then. Now it's completely different. Again, inform yourself. You might want to read Darwin and than look at Darwinistic interpretations of life. Which states that all life came single celled creatures and these creatures came from WHERE the primodial soup. Where did the primordial soup come form organic chemical and where did organic chemicals come from inorganic chemicals and where did the inorganic chemicals come from atoms and what are atoms they are nothing just some electrons neutrons and protons. Evolution, note I did not say adaptation, is based on all intelligence arising from nothing. Pretty silly stuff if you let yourself stop being propagandized and think for yourself If you see holes at the General-not-only-Darwinian Evolution Theory, instead of complaining and saying "I am right, you were wrong and you're all going to Hell", think about why there is a hole. Lack of proofs, maybe? Not very deep thought about that point? Never used the words I am right. I simply presented what I see and how I came to my conclusions. Also, failed evolution theory (by the way, theories are called like that because they're speculative and not actual facts) isn't the main reason of why God exists. You will need a better argument if you want to convince us. Yes everything that attempts to explain the past and make predictions on the future is speculative and only a theory. Evolutionists say they know how life evolved from the begining(by random events acting on atoms) and how it will progress in the future (small random changes will create new species). So this theory should be able to be proven in the lab it isn't no organic soup has been created in the lab that spontaneously created life even thoug many have tried. No experiment that has intorduced random genetic changes has produced new species. note I don't mean adaptation or breeding creating new versions of the same specious lions and house cats are still cats. turn lizard into a cat and then you have species evolving from another species. Anyway, I think we're moving on the main topic. Why there must be a God?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

The basic question - Who is God?

The basic question - Who is God?

Quick Reply