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

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

The basic question - Who is God?

Author	Comment
ric		#21	[-]
Posts: 9 (11/19/09 07:11:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ilovelogic wrote: 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. True read my answer to zen on observatinal science and predictive theory. Einstein came up with a theory to explain what was being seen in the lab the old expalaination didn't work. It didn't change what was there it just gave us a theory so we could interpret it. The theory explains what it sees and makes predictions about past and future behavior of what it is explaining. It is never fact. It doesn't change reality it just allows we humans to look at nature and try to undrstand it with our limited knowledge and limited intelligence. 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. The fossil evidence is simply observed the explaination associated with the observation is the theory. That theory now implies that all of life came from inorganic matter some atoms got together via random events and made DNA which than changes do to random events and has evoloved one species making another each ever more complex. This is not what we observe what we observe is that we have bones of exstinct animals and plants that we can dig out of the ground and observe. Theory has to be proven with experiments not digging up more bones that is just more of the same observations. N 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. Thank you I appreciate that and I am sorry if I took it anyother way. 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. I am an engineer and am prone to not look over my grammer or run spell check at times. No excuse just who I am. If there are any ambiguities ask. 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. See previous discussion on observational science verses theory 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. No one asked you to. I just noted the negativity associated with a belief in GOD. 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. Metaphysics what attempts to explain why man is here and leads to the various religions that have existed since man was created. Atheism is metaphysical belief system and thus can be placed wthn the religious rhealm. 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/
ilovelogic		#22	[-]
Posts: 21 (11/19/09 10:15:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Seriously... I've completely lost the point you are trying to make... What was that point again?? Theories ARE based on facts. We must have some facts to work from to create a theory. Religion is defined as the service and worship of God or the supernatural; the commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. Religion is a belief system! Atheism describes a LACK of belief in a GOD! It carries with it no system of beliefs! If you are arguing FOR the existence of God, which I assume that you are, the weak points in the arguments for macroevolution hardly make a strong enough argument for the existence of God. Not all atheists are evolutionists. You don't have to believe in macroevolution to not believe in God. Of course you will say that you weren't implying that an atheist must be an evolutionist. I am merely asking if there are any other points to your argument other than supposed weak evidence for macroevolution. And yes, I do express negativity for the belief in a god. I feel that it is a foolish and illogical belief. 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.
ric		#23	[-]
Posts: 10 (11/19/09 10:52:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ilovelogic wrote: Seriously... I've completely lost the point you are trying to make... What was that point again?? Theories ARE based on facts. We must have some facts to work from to create a theory. My discussion is based on showing that there are no facts in science other than what we observe and what we observe changes because we invent things like micrscopes and telescopes and computers etc. So what we observe changes and so called science that attempts to find the fundamendal causes of the observed things is what HAS TO CHANGE. What reality is doesn't change we just can't see it yet. So when it comes to explaining how the universe began or how life began it is not observable so we have to use the word theory. The original thread was started on the existence of GOD. The main arguements against GOD is that everything can be explained via observed processes. Intelligence is excluded from this just random forces. I simply am showing the weakness of this point of view. Intelligence requires intelligence it does not happen randomly therefore GOD exists. Religion is defined as the service and worship of God or the supernatural; the commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. Religion is a belief system! Atheism describes a LACK of belief in a GOD! It carries with it no system of belief. Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to. At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion The above is a definition of religion the bullet was put in by the author not me. Atheism fits nicely If you are arguing FOR the existence of God, which I assume that you are, the weak points in the arguments for macroevolution hardly make a strong enough argument for the existence of God. Not all atheists are evolutionists. You don't have to believe in macroevolution to not believe in God. Of course you will say that you weren't implying that an atheist must be an evolutionist. I am merely asking if there are any other points to your argument other than supposed weak evidence for macroevolution. It is not meant to prove GOD exists it is meant to question the main argument used by atheists. And yes, I do express negativity for the belief in a god. I feel that it is a foolish and illogical belief. Quite frankly I don't have a negative feeling towards atheists. Do you know what a belief in GOD means if you think it is mindless devotion you are of course wrong. All it does is provide amunition for continued devotion to atheistic beliefs.
zenityerkes		#24	[-]
Posts: 9 (11/19/09 11:59:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ric You appear to be attacking hundreds of years of investigation with your arguments. Of course, our resources are limited and what we see now can change in just a couple of years. But theories and science in general are to help us to understand what surrounds us, and it's the only way to do it. It's called empirical method, and it's about experience, just as in: "I see water boils at 100 degrees, so if I repeat the experiment that will happen again". Problem is when we've got a lot of variables such as quantity, pressure, impureness in water,... And that changes our little and apparently simple water boiling experiment. The more factors we include, the more precise but complex will be our theory. So our theories aren't 100% correct, it's just we haven't got enough variables to predict what surrounds us. To know how to calculate and introduce them to complete our theories takes years of investigation. If science was just like "Oh it is like that, how simple" and everything could be written down in an equation, then all our knowledge would have been completed by the 1950s. Same with evolution theory. Do never expect a lizard to become a cat in a year's time. But how about in a million years' time? -From year 1 to 1,000: depending on the climate, lizards would make micro evolution. Suddenly there's a generation which has been born warm-blooded by that micro evolution. -From year 1,000 to 10,000: climate changes (maybe an ice age), and all cold-blooded lizards die. Warm-blooded ones survive and by micro evolution begin to develop some kind of fuzz on their scales. Due to the change of aliments (vegetables would not survive due to the extreme cold), lizards may adapt their mouth, teeth and also the sight and hearing to improve their hunting ability. -From year 10,000 to 100,000: the initial fuzz becomes hair. Lizards adapt their limbs to hunt better. Heart's septum eventually closes the third cavity of the heart and becomes a mammal heart. They also develop a pouch, just as in marsupials. -From year 100,000 to 1,000,000: Eventually, micro evolution makes little changes as the centuries pass by and we could have something that takes after a cat. Notice that if we've got micro evolution in just a few centuries, that effect will be greater if we increase the period. It's just a theory, we can't travel in time and see how lizards evolve. But you can't also travel in time and see how God created everything in 7 days. Last Edited By: zenityerkes 11/20/09 09:04:00. Edited 1 times.
ilovelogic		#25	[-]
Posts: 22 (11/19/09 19:26:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	What you've said does nothing to support the idea that intelligence comes from intelligence. I just don't see the connection between what you are saying about observational science and the existence of an intelligent creator. What you are saying is just not making sense. You are not succeeding in that quest, I'm sorry. In order to define religion, I am using Webster's definition. What are you using? For you to quote (from where ever you are quoting) that Star Trek is a religion, that shows that you have very loose standards for the word itself. By widely accepted definition for the word "religion" atheism is (I repeat again) NOT a religion. I believe I would know if I am taking part in some sort of religion. I am an atheist. You are not. Therefore you don't exactly have the credentials to tell me that I am taking part in a religion. Similarly, I don't attempt to tell you what you are or are not a part of. Ask any atheist and they will attempt to explain the same thing to you. Not that I think they could succeed in getting through to you anyway. What exactly was that main argument used by atheists that you are trying to question? I'm not clear on that. And good for you that you don't have negativity toward atheists. And yes I do know what it means to believe in God. I was a Christian for 23 years of my life. A devoted one. I understand all of the arguments that theists make because I used to make them myself. This is why I call belief in God ignorant and illogical. Hindsight is 20/20. 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.
ric		#26	[-]
Posts: 11 (11/23/09 13:19:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ilovelogic wrote: What you've said does nothing to support the idea that intelligence comes from intelligence. I just don't see the connection between what you are saying about observational science and the existence of an intelligent creator. What you are saying is just not making sense. You are not succeeding in that quest, I'm sorry. What I am saying is this; what we observe is real we can see it manipulate it and experiment on it. Theory is when we take what we observe and generalize on it. For example when Darwin saw different species of birds on different islands all he saw were different species of birds. His theory was that all animals and plants came from previous ones and he worked it all the way back saying we all came into being from single celled plants and animals after billions of years of evolution. Evolution being caused by random changes to DNA. This is a theory because we have never seen it. We have never observed one species morphing into another. So it is an unproved theory. We observe species changing like birds adapting with bigger beaks and dogs being bred to be big or small so this adaptation is observed science. Species morphing has not and thus is speculative and is called a theory. In order to define religion, I am using Webster's definition. What are you using? For you to quote (from where ever you are quoting) that Star Trek is a religion, that shows that you have very loose standards for the word itself. By widely accepted definition for the word "religion" atheism is (I repeat again) NOT a religion. I believe I would know if I am taking part in some sort of religion. I am an atheist. You are not. Therefore you don't exactly have the credentials to tell me that I am taking part in a religion. Similarly, I don't attempt to tell you what you are or are not a part of. Ask any atheist and they will attempt to explain the same thing to you. Not that I think they could succeed in getting through to you anyway. Wikopedia is where the definition came from. What exactly was that main argument used by atheists that you are trying to question? I'm not clear on that. That GOD does not exists because life can be explained by random chemical processes. They claim that all life came from a soup 4 billion years ago. This soup formed the first cells (not proved or observed in the lab) and random changes to the first cells DNA created all the species that exists including man. All one has to do is use logic and you can deduce the following. Life came from carbon and a few other atoms combined in just the right way all happening randomly. Then this randomness continued always making more complicated creatures. Man is at the top because he is the most intelligent. LOGIC THEN SAYS THAT LIFE CAME FROM CARBON AND THAT THIS CARBON AND SOME OTHER ELEMENTS HAD THE INTELLIGENCE TO DESIGN ALL CREATURES INCLUDING MAN THAT CAN INVENT OR CREATE THINGS ON HIS OWN. one must either believe that we are nothing but atoms randomly put together basically dirt and the intelligence came from dirt or WE LOOK AT THE INTELLIGENCE BEHIND CREATION AND SAY THERE MUST BE AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR intelligence cannot come from nothing. And good for you that you don't have negativity toward atheists. And yes I do know what it means to believe in God. I was a Christian for 23 years of my life. A devoted one. I understand all of the arguments that theists make because I used to make them myself. This is why I call belief in God ignorant and illogical. Hindsight is 20/20. I was an agnostic myself but the more I looked at what science is discovering the more convinced I am of a Creator. The main argument for atheism is random evolution and that simply is impossible randomness cannot produce intelligences period. Life cannot start in some chemical soup it is simply way too complex period. My answer is until you show me that you can make a living reproducing cell out of a chemical soup logic I simply cannot accept this as anything but a theory and a weak one at best. Logic tells me intelligence cannot come from carbon and a few other elements that somehow chose to come together in the most complex biochemical system ever imaginable called the human body and brain. Ask yourself really without preconceived notions, how can the most comples ecosystem imaginable crowned with a being that is self aware and creative (humans) come from dirt? It is simply impossible impossible?
ric		#27	[-]
Posts: 12 (11/23/09 13:39:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	zenityerkes wrote: ric You appear to be attacking hundreds of years of investigation with your arguments. Of course, our resources are limited and what we see now can change in just a couple of years. But theories and science in general are to help us to understand what surrounds us, and it's the only way to do it. It's called empirical method, and it's about experience, just as in: "I see water boils at 100 degrees, so if I repeat the experiment that will happen again". Problem is when we've got a lot of variables such as quantity, pressure, impureness in water,... And that changes our little and apparently simple water boiling experiment. The more factors we include, the more precise but complex will be our theory. So our theories aren't 100% correct, it's just we haven't got enough variables to predict what surrounds us. To know how to calculate and introduce them to complete our theories takes years of investigation. If science was just like "Oh it is like that, how simple" and everything could be written down in an equation, then all our knowledge would have been completed by the 1950s. Same with evolution theory. Do never expect a lizard to become a cat in a year's time. But how about in a million years' time? -From year 1 to 1,000: depending on the climate, lizards would make micro evolution. Suddenly there's a generation which has been born warm-blooded by that micro evolution. -From year 1,000 to 10,000: climate changes (maybe an ice age), and all cold-blooded lizards die. Warm-blooded ones survive and by micro evolution begin to develop some kind of fuzz on their scales. Due to the change of aliments (vegetables would not survive due to the extreme cold), lizards may adapt their mouth, teeth and also the sight and hearing to improve their hunting ability. -From year 10,000 to 100,000: the initial fuzz becomes hair. Lizards adapt their limbs to hunt better. Heart's septum eventually closes the third cavity of the heart and becomes a mammal heart. They also develop a pouch, just as in marsupials. -From year 100,000 to 1,000,000: Eventually, micro evolution makes little changes as the centuries pass by and we could have something that takes after a cat. Notice that if we've got micro evolution in just a few centuries, that effect will be greater if we increase the period. It's just a theory, we can't travel in time and see how lizards evolve. But you can't also travel in time and see how God created everything in 7 days.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply