The Catholics have stood up, where are the Baptists??

NEODinar · June 5, 2012

Ive enjoyed reading this debate for what its worth. Neodinar, I thought your answer was really well written and hard to poke holes in with the exception of this part. "then there's the nearly impossible intellectual leap that 13.7 billion years is anywhere near enough time for unguided atoms to randomly self assemble into a human brain, the most complex thing we know exists in a universe that is finely tuned for life to exist. If any of the constants in this universe were even slightly out of range, life in this universe would not be possible." Two words my friend, Drake Equation, if you think there isn't a an extremely high probability of billions and billions of other earth like planets with other humanoid beings similar to us, that simply would not make sense mathematically, there's evidence to suggest there was life on mars for heaven's sake. Yes from an earthbound and religious pov the odds are slim that earth developed as it did, but not when you look at it from a scientific pov under a bigger lens, we are most likely simply one of billions if not more inhabitable planets in the universe. I feel that makes us special and you obviously do to but in no way out of the ordinary on a cosmic scale. "It takes far far more faith to believe that a human could randomly self assemble in 13.7 billion years from unguided atoms than it does to conclude that humans were intelligently created." Really, so Adam/Eve, being created out of a part of a rib overnight is more reasonable to you than evolution which we can observe and have unparalleled evidence for? Um, ok. "If random atoms can self assemble into humans there's no reason they can't assemble into machines , especially if they have 13.7 billion years to do so, the key ingredients for evolution is matter and time. Why are there no machines in nature?" Machine by definition is, a tool consisting of one or more parts that is constructed to achieve a particular goal. In the context of evolution, how are living organisms not machines"? Humans are created, have moving parts, and are goal orientated. So if you are asking why haven't atoms formed to create living inanimate objects, well that would be an oxymoron. My question would be in relation to the difference between a machine and a living organism. The difference between the two imo is what makes this argument tricky. Whatever you want to call it, life force, energy, spirit, etc. Theres no debating its there and has some type of intelligence. Someone who has just passed is a sack of inanimate atoms vs someone who is alive. If the single cell evolution theory is correct then where did that life force or intelligence come from in that first living organism? This is where even people like Richard Dawkins grasp for answers that sound silly imo. Like... maybe it was seeded from another planet. Ok, well where did it come from on that planet? I dont think most reasonable people question that evolution exists but there is a difference between species evolving and changing and everything on earth evolving from a single cell. I agree with you on most all accounts but how do you account for that spark of life? Thanks.

Firstly, thank you,

"Whatever you want to call it, life force, energy, spirit, etc. Theres no debating its there and has some type of intelligence."

The fact that there is simply a difference between living and the non living does not equate to a spirit no more than it would the difference between a working and non working computer. Intelligence, yes but not a "higher intelligence". The non living can no longer think hence no intelligence. If the definition of possessing a spirit is simply being alive then all living creatures must then have spirits no? Do you feel insects have spirits and souls that are transcendental upon death? If so what differentiates them from us on the "spiritual level" If all living organisms have a spirit wouldn't squashing bugs be a sin?

"If the single cell evolution theory is correct then where did that life force or intelligence come from in that first living organism"?

Well there are degrees of intelligence. single cell organisms lack a brain and therefore thought, but as they evolved into more complex organisms with brains they developed the ability to think as in humans. You can look at the structure of the brain for instance and see that our brain cells, brain molecules, neurotransmitters and synapses are almost identical in all animals, so the brains of insects, fish, reptiles, birds and mammals are all made from the same building blocks. Going even further you can see how the brain developed differently amongst different organisms as a result of natural selection. Evolution can explain the amount of brain devoted to a particular task. For instance,

crocodiles have huge olfactory bulbs, the area of the brain that deals with smell. Humans have vast areas of the brain devoted to vision.

"This is where even people like Richard Dawkins grasp for answers that sound silly imo. Like... maybe it was seeded from another planet. Ok, well where did it come from on that planet?"

Well Dawkins believes in evolution and evolution explains how brains were developed so that is where he gets his understanding of brain evolution. The theory of another planet seeding the earth is surprisingly sound if you understand the science behind it. I'll give you a brief rundown of that theory. Scientist look at other planets such as mars and discover evidence that there may have been life there. Planetary cataclysmic events such as major meteor showers strike mars there by sending debris scattering across space, this debris now becomes meteors that hit earth, which in cosmic distance is basically right next door. These meteors contain billions of cellular organisms within them, that now are able to thrive and evolve on a planet that's rich, fertile and ideal for mutation to occur and life to evolve. This is simply a theory but completely probable and fathoms more realistic and rational then the story of genesis which has absolutely zero bases in science and what humans understand about the natural world. That's why they are stories about the supernatural, things that can not be observed or studied, things that require faith and not reason. Simply think about the migration of life on earth. At one point humans were in one spot, then over time they migrated to other areas spreading their seeds, whether that be with crops child birth, introducing new animals and species etc. It's the exact same general concept as the one you find to be silly, yet it happened and still continues to happen. Now scientist plan on attempting to travel to mars with a man missioned crew in the near future to attempt to terraform it. If successful, and scientists can properly make mars habitable, humans will "seed" a completely different planet. Think about it, if successful, We may have earth immigrants flocking and colonizing mars. When a young human/martian is asked where his ancestors came from they would respond from earth much like we say from Ireland, Italy, Africa, etc. This is all completely plausible and more likely then you may think. Just think about how preposterous the moon landing would have sounded to someone in the 1800's?

To address your question about where the first seeded planet developed life from, that is unknown to us. The existence of matter itself from a starting point, is not known to us, but again, that lack of understanding in no way points to a theistic deity. And if one subscribes to the belief that a theistic deity seeded the first planet that seeded many others then you must naturally and logically regress and ask what seeded the theistic deity. It's an infinite regression and a question that will most likely never be answered in any of our lifetimes.

"I don't think most reasonable people question that evolution exists but there is a difference between species evolving and changing and everything on earth evolving from a single cell."

Really, whats the difference? Evolution is simply change over time. It's certainly a more accurate representation of what most likely occurred vs the holy books explanation though would you agree? I mean given what you know of the natural world and science and assuming you are a logically thinking individual you can't possibly tell me that stories such as noah's ark, virgin births, talking snakes, a 10,000 year old earth, man and dinosaur coexisting and adam and eve makes any sense from a literal and scientific standpoint right? I'm assuming here, but sounds like you are more of a deist vs theist, as you at least accept evolution which most apologists do not.

"I agree with you on most all accounts but how do you account for that spark of life? Thanks."

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "spark of life" ? thanks, and good talks

Mongo · June 5, 2012

There really is no point in telling you that Jesus is infinite love when you can't make the intellectual leap to there being a God at all. It appears the whole concept makes you angry, but it is not unreasonable to conclude there is a God who is not a myth, the great sky fairy, flying spaghetti monster... or pick one of the derogatory terms used by Richard Dawkins the patron saint of modern militant athiesm, but a real entity who is a creative force that creates all things that exists.

I highly doubt this will convince you, but it works for me.

The reason I believe in God rather than not believe in God, is that God is the best explanation of why there's something rather than nothing. What can make itself exist out of nothing? Nothing can make itself exist out of nothing, not you, not me, not the universe, not anything. An unlimited amount of universes still doesn't answer why universes exist. yet there's a universe, there is

something rather than nothing.

It's reasonable to conclude there is an intelligent non contingent being, meaning the beings existence is not contingent on anything else to exist, who's nature is existence itself, who is simple, meaning non material... if there is no material then it doesn't require creation, but is pure intellect, unlimited, eternal... always existing... who exists in a non linear dimension of time that doesn't require a beginning or end, where cause and effect are non sequential on a linear time line where all points of possible time are present at the same time. Where time rather than being sequential like a reel of film where it progresses from one frame to the next, but rather all frames can be viewed all at once. Where there is no time, just the reel. There are places in the universe where time ceases but matter exists... the event horizon of a black hole, at least until it eventually evaporates. It's reasonable to conclude that the same condition could exist where an entity exists where time doesn't. If it doesn't require time it doesn't necessarily require a beginning, since beginning and time are inextricably linked. We don't know of a condition where something can begin without time. Time is contingent on a beginning. One can't exist without the other. If it doesn't need time then it doesn't necessarily need a beginning because it just simply exists. and why does it exist because there is something rather than nothing, and it made it so.

There needs to be one non contingent being, or first mover to start a series of contingent beings or contingent beings couldn't start. A being who doesn't require a cause, who is an uncaused cause which causes everything that is caused is a better explanation of why something exists rather than nothing. What existed before the big bang? nothing because there was no before. Space time is contingent on a universe, without a universe there is no space and time... not even a void... there is nothing. There are quantum fluctuations where sub atomic particles pop in and out of existence, but that happens within an already existing universe, it is impossible to know what happens in a non existing universe because that is where nothing exists. Not even where exists.

I've had people tell me that we just have to accept there is no answer for why there is something rather than nothing... that's just intellectual laziness.

So who created God? You can't have an infinite series in a set in reality, theoretically yes, but in reality no. There can't be an infinite amount of days prior to today, because if there were, there couldn't be a now, you can't get here from there because there is no starting point. You have to have a first day in the past to move forward in the future to the present, but we know that now from the cosmic background radiation from the wmap image that the universe had a first day. An infinite series of God's who could create the next God is not achievable. Out of necessity there needs to be one non contingent entity, a first mover, who's existence doesn't require being created especially if it is non material... no material then there's nothing to create, hence no need for creation, who is contingent only in itself. It sounds suspiciously like I'm describing nothing being there, except there is something rather than nothing. For me it is far easier to believe that something is there rather than nothing because it was intelligently willed to be there rather than it could self will itself into something from the state of nothing where not even will exists. Logically what makes itself out of nothing? nothing.

then there's the nearly impossible intellectual leap that 13.7 billion years is anywhere near enough time for unguided atoms to randomly self assemble into a human brain, the most complex thing we know exists in a universe that is finely tuned for life to exist. If any of the constants in this universe were even slightly out of range, life in this universe would not be possible.

It takes far far more faith to believe that a human could randomly self assemble in 13.7 billion years from unguided atoms than it does to conclude that humans were intelligently created. If it were possible for humans to self assemble in 13.7 billion years then there should be a machines in nature as well. If random atoms can self assemble into humans there's no reason they can't assemble into machines , especially if they have 13.7 billion years to do so, the key ingredients for evolution is matter and time. Why are there no machines in nature? Random atoms should be able to form anything including machines if they can form a human. Why are there no hot wheels that have evolved into ford f150's or tanks? If atoms can randomly move into increasing complex structures from simple structures which is the foundation of the belief in abiogenesis, then why aren't there machines in nature, why just biology and minerals?

Now that I think about it, it's impossible to not see God everywhere I look.

Yes if I was born in a Muslim country I would most likely be muslim, but muslims are intelligent and have a free will and do convert to Christianity, just like Christians convert to Islam. Jesus makes the most sense to me historically, and on an experiential level but that's another story. We all have free will to choose like you choose to believe there is no God. It's just the consequences for our belief or lack thereof are eternal, once we die there are no do overs. Either God is or God isn't, I believe it's the most reasonable to conclude God is.

I think that when Adam and Eve sinned, time was brought down on them, a beginning of coarse but a time line and an end. When GOD finishes this time line and the wheat is seperated from the tars and Satan is cast into the bottomless pit, time will be no more, eternity will ensue

amal · June 5, 2012

Firstly, thank you,

"Whatever you want to call it, life force, energy, spirit, etc. Theres no debating its there and has some type of intelligence."

The fact that there is simply a difference between living and the non living does not equate to a spirit no more than it would the difference between a working and non working computer. Intelligence, yes but not a "higher intelligence". The non living can no longer think hence no intelligence. If the definition of possessing a spirit is simply being alive then all living creatures must then have spirits no? Do you feel insects have spirits and souls that are transcendental upon death? If so what differentiates them from us on the "spiritual level" If all living organisms have a spirit wouldn't squashing bugs be a sin?

I would say yes insects have a life force, everything living does. As far at what happens to that when they die? Who knows. Obviously a great number of things differentiate them from us on an anatomical level and ability to reason but as far as a certain quality that makes them living? Im not sure there is a great difference. Im not talking from a religous perspective and Im not here to say this is a sin or that is a sin. A computer can run computations and complex math but it has no life force. Its a tool no different then a chain saw. The electrical impulses that leave your body when you die are more then just electrical impulses. Im sorry if that sounds esoteric or religous, its not meant to be. If the heart stops it may be restarted quickly with electricity. Like a computer could be repaired and replugged in. If your brain stops or that energy leaves your central nervous system there is no restarting it by adding electricity.

"If the single cell evolution theory is correct then where did that life force or intelligence come from in that first living organism"?

Well there are degrees of intelligence. single cell organisms lack a brain and therefore thought, but as they evolved into more complex organisms with brains they developed the ability to think as in humans. You can look at the structure of the brain for instance and see that our brain cells, brain molecules, neurotransmitters and synapses are almost identical in all animals, so the brains of insects, fish, reptiles, birds and mammals are all made from the same building blocks. Going even further you can see how the brain developed differently amongst different organisms as a result of natural selection. Evolution can explain the amount of brain devoted to a particular task. For instance,

crocodiles have huge olfactory bulbs, the area of the brain that deals with smell. Humans have vast areas of the brain devoted to vision.

Obviously there is a great difference between an amoeba and human but whats the same is that intangible thing that makes something living. You cant create a single cell living organism in a lab with some inorganic ingredients.

"This is where even people like Richard Dawkins grasp for answers that sound silly imo. Like... maybe it was seeded from another planet. Ok, well where did it come from on that planet?"

Well Dawkins believes in evolution and evolution explains how brains were developed so that is where he gets his understanding of brain evolution. The theory of another planet seeding the earth is surprisingly sound if you understand the science behind it. I'll give you a brief rundown of that theory. Scientist look at other planets such as mars and discover evidence that there may have been life there. Planetary cataclysmic events such as major meteor showers strike mars there by sending debris scattering across space, this debris now becomes meteors that hit earth, which in cosmic distance is basically right next door. These meteors contain billions of cellular organisms within them, that now are able to thrive and evolve on a planet that's rich, fertile and ideal for mutation to occur and life to evolve. This is simply a theory but completely probable and fathoms more realistic and rational then the story of genesis which has absolutely zero bases in science and what humans understand about the natural world. That's why they are stories about the supernatural, things that can not be observed or studied, things that require faith and not reason. Simply think about the migration of life on earth. At one point humans were in one spot, then over time they migrated to other areas spreading their seeds, whether that be with crops child birth, introducing new animals and species etc. It's the exact same general concept as the one you find to be silly, yet it happened and still continues to happen. Now scientist plan on attempting to travel to mars with a man missioned crew in the near future to attempt to terraform it. If successful, and scientists can properly make mars habitable, humans will "seed" a completely different planet. Think about it, if successful, We may have earth immigrants flocking and colonizing mars. When a young human/martian is asked where his ancestors came from they would respond from earth much like we say from Ireland, Italy, Africa, etc. This is all completely plausible and more likely then you may think. Just think about how preposterous the moon landing would have sounded to someone in the 1800's?

To address your question about where the first seeded planet developed life from, that is unknown to us. The existence of matter itself from a starting point, is not known to us, but again, that lack of understanding in no way points to a theistic deity. And if one subscribes to the belief that a theistic deity seeded the first planet that seeded many others then you must naturally and logically regress and ask what seeded the theistic deity. It's an infinite regression and a question that will most likely never be answered in any of our lifetimes.

I agree that mathematically speaking life is more then probable on other planets and understand its more then possible thats how it got here. It doesnt change my original point. I agree its not a question that can be answered in our lifetime.

"I don't think most reasonable people question that evolution exists but there is a difference between species evolving and changing and everything on earth evolving from a single cell."

Really, whats the difference? Evolution is simply change over time. It's certainly a more accurate representation of what most likely occurred vs the holy books explanation though would you agree? I mean given what you know of the natural world and science and assuming you are a logically thinking individual you can't possibly tell me that stories such as noah's ark, virgin births, talking snakes, a 10,000 year old earth, man and dinosaur coexisting and adam and eve makes any sense from a literal and scientific standpoint right? I'm assuming here, but sounds like you are more of a deist vs theist, as you at least accept evolution which most apologists do not.

Is it a more accurate representation or it is the right representation? Im not arguing for a biblical creationist story. Im just pointing out there is problems with the theory of evolution thus it remains a theory. To go from a single cell to the diversity we see now in the time we estimate it took does not add up. You cant say something is right just because it is more right then something we know is wrong. Just saying.

"I agree with you on most all accounts but how do you account for that spark of life? Thanks."

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "spark of life" ? thanks, and good talks

Im honestly not sure how to quickly answer that. There is a certain ethereal quality that makes something living and leaves when it dies. This can not be replicated by man. Does this prove there is a God? No and yes. Depends on how you define God. I'd love to type more but I have to run for now. Thanks for your reply and thoughts. Theyre appreciated.

colt32 · June 5, 2012

All good arguments on both sides. Suffice it to say that you cannot argue one into a saving faith in Christ. It is the work of the Holy Spirit. I point to Job in the bible. In the end how can the created question the creator? Or the creators motives? Also, I read a very good book on the subject from a former athiest. It's called the "case for christ" by Lee Strobel. It's a very good read. God is good and will not willing that any should perish. Here's my simple argument for God. And, you may tear it to pieces should you choose.

Imagine if you will a place in south america where only two tribes live and have never had any contact with the outstide world. No religion, no Jesus, no Muhammed, no Buddah. Just two tribes living on opposite sides of the road peacefully. One day a man from one of the tribes and a man from the other tribe are walking down the road in opposite directions about to pass each other. Upon reaching each other one of the tribesman strikes the other man across the face knocking him to the ground for no reason. What do you think the man who got knocked down will feel? Anger? Pain? What do you think he would do? Would he just get up and keep walking? No.. I think he would feel wronged and want to strike back or want to know at least why he was struck and that he would be mad and hurt about it. This is evidence of an internal moral compass. Who established right from wrong? Man? Did the tribesman teach this to their children? Where did they learn it from. From their anscestors? Where did they get it from?

If there is no "God" there is no right from wrong. There is no good and no evil. Striking a tribesman on the face and knocking him to the ground would be just an act, not right or wrong, but in all human cases there exists a moral compass. A right from wrong. If there is no God then why not just do whatever you please and get the most for yourself by whatever means possible because when you die there is nothing. No... Not many people live like this. There exists in each of us no matter what you believe a moral compass that says "thats right and that's wrong". Every religion on the earth has it even ones who do not believe in God. That's my simple argument for God.

God speed to all.

Edited June 5, 2012 by colt32

NEODinar · June 5, 2012

In response to Rightsonword.......

"It is impossible for the universe to always have existed due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.The First Law of Thermodynamic states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed".

Agreed, now apply those laws to your god.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, energy cannot be renewed, and thus will be lost until there is none left. The universe is a closed system. It is essentially a giant battery. Molecules are slowing down and will eventually come to a halt and life would cease to exist in all forms. If matter and energy always existed, then everything would be dead by now. The universe would not be expanding; all molecules would have stopped moving, etc. Thus, the universe has not always existed. You can find this answer in any physics textbook".

Agreed, now again apply these laws to god

"God on the other hand has always existed. Why couldn't he? He created the universe and time, thus, He is now bound by those Laws that govern the universe."

well that's where your faith comes in because it certainly doesn't make sense within the construct of the laws you just finished explaining. So if you choose to conclude your argument in the typical apologist manner by circulating your reasoning back to every believers stance of "well I just believe god always was" Well you are free to believe that but it holds no water in reality for it's complete lack of any scientific basis.

"Is Shakespeare bound by the paper he wrote his stories on? Of course not. He exists outside of it".

Well both Shakespear and his stories are both part of the material world so I find it hard to assimilate that analogy.

"Now, you can dent the fact that matter does not arise from thin air, but this is irrational".

LOL! If you are going to put words in my mouth at least attempt to get it right. AGAIN,,,, I never stated that matter can come from nothing. In fact I agreed numerous times throughout this discussion that according to what we know of the natural world and it's physical laws it can not. But then again that's arguable.

"So, don't sideskirt the question, where did matter come from? Where did the universe come from?"

No one is "side skirting" anything, please work on your comprehension friend. AGAIN,,, no one can answer the question of where matter came from, and my underlining point is that simply because we don't possess this knowledge doesn't in anyway shape or form point to the existence of a god.

"the bible says God created it, and the evidence supports it."

Such as?

"What evidence do you have to support your notion that we simply haven't found the evidence that matter can arise from thin air? There is none."

Well I never presented the notion at all, but there is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle "that you can’t know a quantum state’s energy exactly for a finite duration of time means that when you’re talking about very short time intervals, there are large uncertainties in the energy of a system. Over short enough timescales, the energies are large enough that particle-antiparticle pairs wink in-and-out of existence all the time!" Take two identical, uncharged, parallel metal plates, and put them close to one another. The vacuum fluctuations in between the plates cause there to be a pressure pushing the plates together. This isn’t the gravitational force or an electromagnetic force, but a force due to empty space itself. This has been proven through experimentation numerous times, although I don't really subscribe to the theory because there were things still needed to achieve this affect, but it really gets philosophical in the sense that one could question what exactly "nothing" is, is "nothing" actually something" Either way, at this point I would agree with you that matter can not come from nothing although Hawking would disagree lol.

"If I used your same logic, you'd say I have blind faith, which is what the athiest has to rely on when it come to the issue of material origins."

Umm, no my friend, Atheists don't have faith. Atheism is the opposite of faith. Believers are the ones attempting to provide an absolute. You just stated how all the physical laws of the natural world doesn't support the idea of spontaneous creation, yet you claim god exists outside of these stringent laws and yet your evidence for this is the typical christian circular conclusion of "Well the bible says so" Ok, well no one can argue with your belief. You can also believe in unicorns too, that doesn't make them real.

"Humind Skulls? Like Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon Man, Homo Erectus, and Homo Floresiensis? What about them? Like you said, they're humans."

Yes human but drastically different then humans today. The point is not that they're real which they obviously are but that you can observe how they have changed overtime lending even more credence to the theory of human evolution and that we evolved from an ape like common ancestor of the great apes.

"these aren't transitional fossils in any way. Please explain how they are? The most that can be said is that our ancestors look slightly different than us today, which in no way rationally shows a transition from one animal to the next."

Dude,,, look up Australopithecus afarensis and tell me they look "Slightly different". They look more like apes then they do human. Oh and here some more prominent examples….Archaeopteryx, Pakicetids, Ambulocetus, Tiktaalik, Amphistium, Runcaria. Happy reading

"I find it perplexing the statements you are making about biology and evolution like it has been observed and the evidence is undeniable."

Well it is and every scientist apart from "christian scientists" generally agree. Sorry if that conflicts with what your bible tells you.

"If so, provide the evidence."

Evolution = change over time,,,umm, look at a virus.

"I've supported my position and countered yours using secular science".

Um, not quite when your position is "the bible says so" Just saying.

"Contrary to what most scientists write"

Ok so you choose to follow the extreme minority of the scientific community. Ok so your in the flat earth club, nice.

"Atheists/naturalism/humanists, whatever always dodge the question of origins for the reason that they cannot provide answers"

Incorrect, Atheists don't "dodge" any questions, we simply say we don't know as opposed to "god did it because I don't know and a bronze aged book says so". Implementing a far fetched guess based on a man written text is providing an answer although logic and the majority of the scientific community suggests it's an incorrect answer.

"To believe that the universe and matter arose from thin is is not based on evidence, but is blind faith".

Well AGAIN,,, I never made this assertion, and to believe that god arose from thin air is just as irrational, how you can't grasp this double standard is beyond me. Oh wait no it's not, the bible told you so.

"1.) Have you ever told a lie? If you have then you are a liar by definition.

2.) Have you ever stole anything no matter how small? If you have then you are a thief.

3.) ever looked at someone with lust? Then you are an adulterer to God."

1. Of course, then so is every human being on earth.

2. See number one.

3. Also see number one.

"You are not a good person, no one is. People are only "good" based on what is relatively considered "good" at some point in time.Do you still think you are good? This is why we need God to save us. This is why He died to take our sins away so we can be made holy. I mean, wow, what a sadistic jerk God is for doing that".

Well perhaps by your definition and the bibles definition, but then again the bible's definition states that overweight people should be put to death, gays should be killed, slavery is ok, genocide is condoned, etc. LOL! I'm not exactly sure this "moral code" is one anyone should be following. I certainly don't subscribe to it, lol nor does any overweight person that considers themselves christian. No my friend, unlike you I don't need a book to give me my morals, it's what is know as being an individual and thinking for oneself. I subscribe to the golden rule, simple and perfect. Don't cause harm to anyone and treat people how you would want to be treated. Hasn't failed me yet. Sorry I can't say the same for christians who murdered millions with implementing their "moral codes".

"this is why we need God to save us. This is why He died to take our sins away so we can be made holy. I mean, wow, what a sadistic jerk God is for doing that".

Exactly, according to your beliefs if it wasn't for god we wouldn't need "saving". Let me paint you a picture. Say I raise and breed puppies, a few litters of say 20 or more pups, as soon as they are all born I place them in confinement and complete seclusion with absolutely no knowledge of my existence. Now I decide that these pups must worship me, keep in mind they have no idea I exist. These pups finally grow and now they are adults, however they still don't know I exist. I for some reason become angered and bitter by this so as punishment I decide to throw every one of them into the oven because they did not accept my existence and choose to worship me. Does this really sound like something a loving creator would do? Because this is what you have to believe if you want to buy the whole savior story.

So it's not the issue of saving it's the underlining issue of why we would even require saving from such a "loving god" in the first place. Take care, good talks

I actually posted accidentally before I was ready, but I have an addendum or two to God and time, and of course this is reality or lack there of according to cranster. God is eternal and doesn't change. Time is simply a measurement of change. Time is relative and can be affected either by mass or speed. The faster an object moves through space the more time slows, at the speed of light time stops which could explain why photons can persist without decay over billions of years as they move through the universe without decay, because they don't need to change because there is no time. Of course energy can neither be created or destroyed, which is another state than can be ascribed to God, God is pure energy, and like energy God can neither be created or destroyed... God is pure light... God is pure intellect... God is pure love... God is pure mercy... God is infinite and can't be remotely fathomed by finite creatures such as ourselves. Now back to time. Mass effects time. the closer you are to a massive object the more time slows. Time moves slower for astronauts than people on earth. The more massive the object the more time slows until you get to the event horizon of a black hole where time also ceases. What we percieve as time is actually the experience of the second law of thermodynamics... entropy... in which a system increasingly moves from order to disorder. What is actually happening is change, we move from order to disorder, from life to death so what we call time is actually change. Theoretically if we could move at the speed of light which we can't because mass becomes infinite if accelerated to the speed of light which is not possible, but for arguments sake if we could, time would cease and we would no longer change. No time... no change. It's said God is pure light which is considered to be intellect, but God is also actual light of a substance that is not photons, God is not made of photons because photons are material and God is not, and if any part of God were photons than God would have parts and would be limited, and God is not limited. We can't fathom what the substance of God is. God is in and of Himslef changeless so God does not require time... no change... no time. God just is. It's nearly impossible for contingingent beings such as ourselves who exist in the fabric of space time to get our limited intellect around this but it is possible. I don't want to get into God incarnate here who entered history as the Man God person of Jesus Christ... that's another topic. From that premise I'm drawing the conclusion that it is best to turn to, love, and serve God now while we can change and while we have time, Because when we enter eternity where space and time as we know it do not exist we are in a changeless state... forever set as we were at the point of death. No time... no change... we can't change after death that's why it's critical to get it right in an amount of time that is far shorter than planck time when we compare our life span to eternity. God is pure infinite acting power and created all possible things that can be created all at once without the necessity of time even though the universe unfolds or changes in time. All the constants, conditions, and math necessary for things to be as they are were present from the moment that singularity went pop. If we choose to ignore God in this life we are choosing to enter a changeless state where we have willfully chosen to separate ourselves from God forever, because we are in a state where we can no longer choose, because choosing takes time, No time...no change... no change... no choosing. The choice has to be in time... and my oh my time is short, and that change from order to disorder happens far more rapidly than we think it does. another addendum... Atheists want empirical evidence of the existence of God, They want to quantify and measure God, they want God in a test tube, they want to see God, but what they are demanding is literally not possible. They want God to open up the sky and say peekaboo. The problem there is that God is unlimited and is infinitely larger than the universe, The act of an infinite God placing Himself into a finite universe as God exists in the state of Being God would destroy the universe, Because something that's finite can't contain something that's infinite. So for arguments sake if God opened the sky and said peekaboo what we would see and perceive would be nothing, because we as limited beings could not see or perceive an infinite being. but that's not to say God is not present in the universe, God is present everywhere, or more accurately the universe is present to God, and God is in the universe but infinitely transcends the finite universe or multiverse. it's just the universe can't contain God in His entirety nor can we view God in His entirety as God is. That's why faith is substantially necessary... we can't see God as He is in this state... in this universe... so faith is necessary, faith and the light of reason are the only way in which we can perceive God as God is.

"Atheists want empirical evidence of the existence of God, They want to quantify and measure God, they want God in a test tube, they want to see God, but what they are demanding is literally not possible."

Exactly, and so do you when it comes to every other monumental supernatural claim except god's existence. If someone literally told you that they lived with leprechauns, would you believe them? Wouldn't you require more than their word on such a claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence my friend.

tim228 · June 5, 2012

In response to Rightsonword.......

"It is impossible for the universe to always have existed due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.The First Law of Thermodynamic states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed".

Agreed, now apply those laws to your god.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, energy cannot be renewed, and thus will be lost until there is none left. The universe is a closed system. It is essentially a giant battery. Molecules are slowing down and will eventually come to a halt and life would cease to exist in all forms. If matter and energy always existed, then everything would be dead by now. The universe would not be expanding; all molecules would have stopped moving, etc. Thus, the universe has not always existed. You can find this answer in any physics textbook".

Agreed, now again apply these laws to god

"God on the other hand has always existed. Why couldn't he? He created the universe and time, thus, He is now bound by those Laws that govern the universe."

well that's where your faith comes in because it certainly doesn't make sense within the construct of the laws you just finished explaining. So if you choose to conclude your argument in the typical apologist manner by circulating your reasoning back to every believers stance of "well I just believe god always was" Well you are free to believe that but it holds no water in reality for it's complete lack of any scientific basis.

"Is Shakespeare bound by the paper he wrote his stories on? Of course not. He exists outside of it".

Well both Shakespear and his stories are both part of the material world so I find it hard to assimilate that analogy.

"Now, you can dent the fact that matter does not arise from thin air, but this is irrational".

LOL! If you are going to put words in my mouth at least attempt to get it right. AGAIN,,,, I never stated that matter can come from nothing. In fact I agreed numerous times throughout this discussion that according to what we know of the natural world and it's physical laws it can not. But then again that's arguable.

"So, don't sideskirt the question, where did matter come from? Where did the universe come from?"

No one is "side skirting" anything, please work on your comprehension friend. AGAIN,,, no one can answer the question of where matter came from, and my underlining point is that simply because we don't possess this knowledge doesn't in anyway shape or form point to the existence of a god.

"the bible says God created it, and the evidence supports it."

Such as?

"What evidence do you have to support your notion that we simply haven't found the evidence that matter can arise from thin air? There is none."

Well I never presented the notion at all, but there is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle "that you can’t know a quantum state’s energy exactly for a finite duration of time means that when you’re talking about very short time intervals, there are large uncertainties in the energy of a system. Over short enough timescales, the energies are large enough that particle-antiparticle pairs wink in-and-out of existence all the time!" Take two identical, uncharged, parallel metal plates, and put them close to one another. The vacuum fluctuations in between the plates cause there to be a pressure pushing the plates together. This isn’t the gravitational force or an electromagnetic force, but a force due to empty space itself. This has been proven through experimentation numerous times, although I don't really subscribe to the theory because there were things still needed to achieve this affect, but it really gets philosophical in the sense that one could question what exactly "nothing" is, is "nothing" actually something" Either way, at this point I would agree with you that matter can not come from nothing although Hawking would disagree lol.

"If I used your same logic, you'd say I have blind faith, which is what the athiest has to rely on when it come to the issue of material origins."

Umm, no my friend, Atheists don't have faith. Atheism is the opposite of faith. Believers are the ones attempting to provide an absolute. You just stated how all the physical laws of the natural world doesn't support the idea of spontaneous creation, yet you claim god exists outside of these stringent laws and yet your evidence for this is the typical christian circular conclusion of "Well the bible says so" Ok, well no one can argue with your belief. You can also believe in unicorns too, that doesn't make them real.

"Humind Skulls? Like Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon Man, Homo Erectus, and Homo Floresiensis? What about them? Like you said, they're humans."

Yes human but drastically different then humans today. The point is not that they're real which they obviously are but that you can observe how they have changed overtime lending even more credence to the theory of human evolution and that we evolved from an ape like common ancestor of the great apes.

"these aren't transitional fossils in any way. Please explain how they are? The most that can be said is that our ancestors look slightly different than us today, which in no way rationally shows a transition from one animal to the next."

Dude,,, look up Australopithecus afarensis and tell me they look "Slightly different". They look more like apes then they do human. Oh and here some more prominent examples….Archaeopteryx, Pakicetids, Ambulocetus, Tiktaalik, Amphistium, Runcaria. Happy reading

"I find it perplexing the statements you are making about biology and evolution like it has been observed and the evidence is undeniable."

Well it is and every scientist apart from "christian scientists" generally agree. Sorry if that conflicts with what your bible tells you.

"If so, provide the evidence."

Evolution = change over time,,,umm, look at a virus.

"I've supported my position and countered yours using secular science".

Um, not quite when your position is "the bible says so" Just saying.

"Contrary to what most scientists write"

Ok so you choose to follow the extreme minority of the scientific community. Ok so your in the flat earth club, nice.

"Atheists/naturalism/humanists, whatever always dodge the question of origins for the reason that they cannot provide answers"

Incorrect, Atheists don't "dodge" any questions, we simply say we don't know as opposed to "god did it because I don't know and a bronze aged book says so". Implementing a far fetched guess based on a man written text is providing an answer although logic and the majority of the scientific community suggests it's an incorrect answer.

"To believe that the universe and matter arose from thin is is not based on evidence, but is blind faith".

Well AGAIN,,, I never made this assertion, and to believe that god arose from thin air is just as irrational, how you can't grasp this double standard is beyond me. Oh wait no it's not, the bible told you so.

"1.) Have you ever told a lie? If you have then you are a liar by definition.

2.) Have you ever stole anything no matter how small? If you have then you are a thief.

3.) ever looked at someone with lust? Then you are an adulterer to God."

1. Of course, then so is every human being on earth.

2. See number one.

3. Also see number one.

"You are not a good person, no one is. People are only "good" based on what is relatively considered "good" at some point in time.Do you still think you are good? This is why we need God to save us. This is why He died to take our sins away so we can be made holy. I mean, wow, what a sadistic jerk God is for doing that".

Well perhaps by your definition and the bibles definition, but then again the bible's definition states that overweight people should be put to death, gays should be killed, slavery is ok, genocide is condoned, etc. LOL! I'm not exactly sure this "moral code" is one anyone should be following. I certainly don't subscribe to it, lol nor does any overweight person that considers themselves christian. No my friend, unlike you I don't need a book to give me my morals, it's what is know as being an individual and thinking for oneself. I subscribe to the golden rule, simple and perfect. Don't cause harm to anyone and treat people how you would want to be treated. Hasn't failed me yet. Sorry I can't say the same for christians who murdered millions with implementing their "moral codes".

"this is why we need God to save us. This is why He died to take our sins away so we can be made holy. I mean, wow, what a sadistic jerk God is for doing that".

Exactly, according to your beliefs if it wasn't for god we wouldn't need "saving". Let me paint you a picture. Say I raise and breed puppies, a few litters of say 20 or more pups, as soon as they are all born I place them in confinement and complete seclusion with absolutely no knowledge of my existence. Now I decide that these pups must worship me, keep in mind they have no idea I exist. These pups finally grow and now they are adults, however they still don't know I exist. I for some reason become angered and bitter by this so as punishment I decide to throw every one of them into the oven because they did not accept my existence and choose to worship me. Does this really sound like something a loving creator would do? Because this is what you have to believe if you want to buy the whole savior story.

So it's not the issue of saving it's the underlining issue of why we would even require saving from such a "loving god" in the first place. Take care, good talks

 

"Atheists want empirical evidence of the existence of God, They want to quantify and measure God, they want God in a test tube, they want to see God, but what they are demanding is literally not possible."

Exactly, and so do you when it comes to every other monumental supernatural claim except god's existence. If someone literally told you that they lived with leprechauns, would you believe them? Wouldn't you require more than their word on such a claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence my friend.

Word to the wise. Keep word count low and points precise. Then people might actually read them.

BUSHMAN · June 5, 2012

you have to belive why you were put on this earth and it is not for your reason but for GOD reason to SHARE SHARE and to keep on share the good new of JESUS

NEODinar · June 5, 2012

In response to Rightsonword

Like the blind leap it takes to believe that the universe and all matter arose ex-nihilo. Or that life began even against the Law of Biogenesis? You still havent responded to the evidence of left and right handed amino acids forming into proteins

LWow. Again, words in my mouth. How does the reference to amino acids support the case for a god? It doesn't at all.

"just like the atheist says, "Well, we just haven't found the evidence to support our idea yet" Circular reasoning."

How is that circular? it's not an idea. It's simply a lack of faith based on lack of evidence. I'm assuming you don't believe in fictional monsters, so would it be "circular reasoning" for you to simply not believe in them? Lol! Of course not.

"And your idea that a deistic God cannot go to a theistic God is illogical."

Hmm, how is it "illogical" when you have absolutely no frame of reference for either or? How can you even make that claim?

"The God of the bible claims to have always cared about his creation and wanted to have a relationship with it because he cared about it from the beginning. "

Ok, thats what your book tells you, I got that.

"I really, rally don't understand your point here."

Obviously

"Lol, evidence on Mars. Please provide the evidence, then. Even secular scholars don't even wholly agree with you on this."

Lol! Dude, please, please work on your comprehension. I never said that there is concrete evidence that life existed on mars, only that there is evidence to suggest it. But fossils found and dried river beds would certainly suggest life once existed. I know crazy right, of the infinite number of inhabitable planets in the universe it's absurd to think life might have arose elsewhere, ahh, gotta love that good ol' christian arrogance, "god's chosen people" n' all.

"Again, this shows your lack of scientific understanding. Please provide the unparalleled evidence. Even Richard Dawkins and other staunch evolutionists admit that the lack of transitional fossils and the lack of evidence of genetic information gain is troubling for evolution."

Lol! well I considering there are transitional fossils I don't know where you get that from, I guess it's a good thing there is much more evidence to support evolution besides the fossil record.

"Replace machine with organism, bam. Cransters point holds weight as I've demonstrated in my post."

Bam, I agree, an organism can be considered a tool consisting of one or more parts that is constructed to achieve a particular goal.

"Whoever said god burns innocent people who have never heard the gospel before or had a chance to accept Christ or reject him. This is not the case. You show you do not understand biblical theology."

Umm, lets see,,,, Romans 10:9, John 3:16, Acts 2:38, Revelation 3:20, Romans 3:23,Acts 4:12, Galatians 3:26 , 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Romans 6:23, John 14:6 , John 3:1-36, 1 John 1:9 , Romans 10:13, 2 Peter 3:9 , Acts 2:41, Acts 2:21,,,,and those are just but a few. Now do me a favor and point to the passages where it says it's ok to not accept jesus and to not believe in god due to a simple lack of knowledge. Ironically friend it appears I know more about your bible than you do. Funny that numerous studies have proven this to be a consistent pattern amongst believers and non believers. Studies show that non believers are on average more knowledgable about religion than believers. They also tend to be more intelligent. Not gloating by any means just stating what the studies have shown.

"Are you serious? As someone who has taken many religion courses with atheist professors, and have read countless books by atheist scholars, all admit the Jesus did exist. There are historical accounts by Jospephus for goodness sake."

So your "historical evidence of jesus" is a third party story written by a man who was born years after jesus supposedly died? Ok, then I suppose Frodo Baggins is real to since J.R.R Tolkien wrote about him.

"Christ who rise from the dead attests to this. If you don't believe it, it doens't make it not true."

Correct it doesn't make it true, but because you believe it doesn't make it true either and the lack of actual physical evidence makes it highly unlikely.

"Even athiest scholars admit that the apostles saw something significant. Nevermind the conversion of enemies of Christ or the empty tomb"

Well all the physical evidence that supposedly supports jesus has been refuted and labeled non sufficient by pretty much everyone accept believers, including the of turin. Many people saw many significant things during those times. Could you imagine how significant an eclipse would be to a bronzed age shepherd?

"Just like you accept the claims that life arose on it's own with no evidence to support this notion or that the universe came from nothing?"

Except thats not my position.

Word to the wise. Keep word count low and points precise. Then people might actually read them.

Very hard to do when answering such long posts. Unfortunately long posts usually require long answers. Cause and effect my friend.

tim228 · June 5, 2012

In response to Rightsonword

Like the blind leap it takes to believe that the universe and all matter arose ex-nihilo. Or that life began even against the Law of Biogenesis? You still havent responded to the evidence of left and right handed amino acids forming into proteins

LWow. Again, words in my mouth. How does the reference to amino acids support the case for a god? It doesn't at all.

"just like the atheist says, "Well, we just haven't found the evidence to support our idea yet" Circular reasoning."

How is that circular? it's not an idea. It's simply a lack of faith based on lack of evidence. I'm assuming you don't believe in fictional monsters, so would it be "circular reasoning" for you to simply not believe in them? Lol! Of course not.

"And your idea that a deistic God cannot go to a theistic God is illogical."

Hmm, how is it "illogical" when you have absolutely no frame of reference for either or? How can you even make that claim?

"The God of the bible claims to have always cared about his creation and wanted to have a relationship with it because he cared about it from the beginning. "

Ok, thats what your book tells you, I got that.

"I really, rally don't understand your point here."

Obviously

"Lol, evidence on Mars. Please provide the evidence, then. Even secular scholars don't even wholly agree with you on this."

Lol! Dude, please, please work on your comprehension. I never said that there is concrete evidence that life existed on mars, only that there is evidence to suggest it. But fossils found and dried river beds would certainly suggest life once existed. I know crazy right, of the infinite number of inhabitable planets in the universe it's absurd to think life might have arose elsewhere, ahh, gotta love that good ol' christian arrogance, "god's chosen people" n' all.

"Again, this shows your lack of scientific understanding. Please provide the unparalleled evidence. Even Richard Dawkins and other staunch evolutionists admit that the lack of transitional fossils and the lack of evidence of genetic information gain is troubling for evolution."

Lol! well I considering there are transitional fossils I don't know where you get that from, I guess it's a good thing there is much more evidence to support evolution besides the fossil record.

"Replace machine with organism, bam. Cransters point holds weight as I've demonstrated in my post."

Bam, I agree, an organism can be considered a tool consisting of one or more parts that is constructed to achieve a particular goal.

"Whoever said god burns innocent people who have never heard the gospel before or had a chance to accept Christ or reject him. This is not the case. You show you do not understand biblical theology."

Umm, lets see,,,, Romans 10:9, John 3:16, Acts 2:38, Revelation 3:20, Romans 3:23,Acts 4:12, Galatians 3:26 , 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Romans 6:23, John 14:6 , John 3:1-36, 1 John 1:9 , Romans 10:13, 2 Peter 3:9 , Acts 2:41, Acts 2:21,,,,and those are just but a few. Now do me a favor and point to the passages where it says it's ok to not accept jesus and to not believe in god due to a simple lack of knowledge. Ironically friend it appears I know more about your bible than you do. Funny that numerous studies have proven this to be a consistent pattern amongst believers and non believers. Studies show that non believers are on average more knowledgable about religion than believers. They also tend to be more intelligent. Not gloating by any means just stating what the studies have shown.

"Are you serious? As someone who has taken many religion courses with atheist professors, and have read countless books by atheist scholars, all admit the Jesus did exist. There are historical accounts by Jospephus for goodness sake."

So your "historical evidence of jesus" is a third party story written by a man who was born years after jesus supposedly died? Ok, then I suppose Frodo Baggins is real to since J.R.R Tolkien wrote about him.

"Christ who rise from the dead attests to this. If you don't believe it, it doens't make it not true."

Correct it doesn't make it true, but because you believe it doesn't make it true either and the lack of actual physical evidence makes it highly unlikely.

"Even athiest scholars admit that the apostles saw something significant. Nevermind the conversion of enemies of Christ or the empty tomb"

Well all the physical evidence that supposedly supports jesus has been refuted and labeled non sufficient by pretty much everyone accept believers, including the of turin. Many people saw many significant things during those times. Could you imagine how significant an eclipse would be to a bronzed age shepherd?

"Just like you accept the claims that life arose on it's own with no evidence to support this notion or that the universe came from nothing?"

Except thats not my position.

 

Very hard to do when answering such long posts. Unfortunately long posts usually require long answers. Cause and effect my friend.

So, I know what I believe. And, when I die, I am under the firm belief that I'll go to Heaven. What if I'm wrong. I don't believe I am, but what if I was? Nothing, I would simply (under atheistic belief) die and cease to exsist. Now, what happens if you're wrong?

NEODinar · June 5, 2012

So, I know what I believe. And, when I die, I am under the firm belief that I'll go to Heaven. What if I'm wrong. I don't believe I am, but what if I was? Nothing, I would simply (under atheistic belief) die and cease to exsist. Now, what happens if you're wrong?

Well what you've just presented here my friend is something called pascal's wager. And there are a couple flaws with this type of "bet not to lose" form of faith.

A. Surely the biblical god who knows man's deepest secrets would know if someone genuinely had faith or was just playing the odds to avoid damnation.

B. You must apply this wager to every god. There are literally thousands of gods from all types of various belief systems from the dawn of mankind. So what happens if you're wrong about allah, mithra, zeus, poseidon, horace, ganesha, etc. The very fact that there are so many different god's is ample evidence imo that they are man made. Otherwise people would all believe in the same god if there actually were one true global god. It's not a coincidence that people believe different things based on their respective environments.

However, is it really logical to you that an "all loving" "all powerful" creator would have such an intense NEED to be worshiped? So much so that if they did not he would burn them? The need to be worshiped and revered is so obviously a human trait. They say man was created in his image. But would a god really think on par with a species that has only been around for at best a couple hundred thousand years? Do you really think a higher being of that magnitude, one that is responsible for all we know would be so fickle to damn his creations for such mundane things as non belief?? If you do believe in a loving god wouldn't a loving god that promotes forgiveness give his creations the chance to forgive and accept after death. How come when you die, god can't jut be like "Well I'm real so accept me and you can enter heaven"? An all loving god would accept everyone but at least a reasonable one without a napolean complex would give us the chance.

cranster · June 6, 2012

People love to talk about evolution... as though it somehow magically proves there is no God... lol... boring... it's mechanics... who cares.

I think pretty unconventionally and out of that unconventional thinking I'm going to pose a problem to our atheist friends. I'm going to call it the unintelligence is more intelligent than intelligence paradox. It goes like this... according to atheists there is no intelligent design, everything is random. We are the product of what the random formation of molecules can do over time. We are aware... we are intelligent, but we are the product of unintelligence. Forget the magic man in the sky... atoms and time are the true magic man in the sky.

Let's look at 2 types of code, one is from intelligence and one is not. 100100 10 100011 binary code. acgt cgta catg... dna the code of life. binary code arose from intelligence, dna arose from unintelligence. Dna can code a human, binary code can code a computer.

dna is far far more complex than binary code.

let's keep score

unintelligence wins the first round... unintelligence 1 intelligence 0

let's see what else unintelligence can do that intelligence can't. I posed the problem... why aren't there machines in nature?... let's simplify that a bit. I want 1 perfectly square rock. given enough molecules and enough time nature should provide at least one perfectly square rock... it had enough time to produce a human so where is it? Now let's look at what unintelligence can't produce and what it can. with enough time and atoms unintelligence can produce a human being which can contemplate an abstract concept like a perfectly square rock, and actually form a perfectly square rock, but it can't produce one perfectly square rock on it's own. So why can unintelligence produce a human but not a perfectly square rock?

unintelligence 2

intelligence 0

now let's move into the conundrum portion of the paradox. Intelligence can produce a super computer that's not as intelligent as a human, but now the super computer has intelligently with our help evolved... love that word... enough to beat the best chess player at chess. So which is smarter the super computer or the chess player? at one task the super computer is smarter than the human but still nowhere near as smart as a human in everything else. So for now the human beats the super computer but that will not always be the case. So eventually the super computer will surpass the human so intelligence will become more intelligent than unintelligence, but will it? Because the more intelligent super computer arose from the intelligent human which arose from unintelligent molecules. At the foundation of this whole mess is still unintelligence. No matter how smart the super computer becomes it still arose from the human which arose from the unintelligent molecules... so unintelligence wins again.

unintelligence 3

intelligence 0

So why is unintelligence more intelligent than intelligence?

and where is my perfectly square rock?

atheists love to pose the question why doesn't God heal amputees?

To which I counter with, why doesn't nature make perfectly square rocks?

cranster · June 6, 2012

People love to talk about evolution... as though it somehow magically proves there is no God... lol... boring... it's mechanics... who cares.

I think pretty unconventionally and out of that unconventional thinking I'm going to pose a problem to our atheist friends. I'm going to call it the unintelligence is more intelligent than intelligence paradox. It goes like this... according to atheists there is no intelligent design, everything is random. We are the product of what the random formation of molecules can do over time. We are aware... we are intelligent, but we are the product of unintelligence. Forget the magic man in the sky... atoms and time are the true magic man in the sky.

Let's look at 2 types of code, one is from intelligence and one is not. 100100 10 100011 binary code. acgt cgta catg... dna the code of life. binary code arose from intelligence, dna arose from unintelligence. Dna can code a human, binary code can code a computer.

dna is far far more complex than binary code.

let's keep score

unintelligence wins the first round... unintelligence 1 intelligence 0

let's see what else unintelligence can do that intelligence can't. I posed the problem... why aren't there machines in nature?... let's simplify that a bit. I want 1 perfectly square rock. given enough molecules and enough time nature should provide at least one perfectly square rock... it had enough time to produce a human so where is it? Now let's look at what unintelligence can't produce and what it can. with enough time and atoms unintelligence can produce a human being which can contemplate an abstract concept like a perfectly square rock, and actually form a perfectly square rock, but it can't produce one perfectly square rock on it's own. So why can unintelligence produce a human but not a perfectly square rock?

unintelligence 2

intelligence 0

now let's move into the conundrum portion of the paradox. Intelligence can produce a super computer that's not as intelligent as a human, but now the super computer has intelligently with our help evolved... love that word... enough to beat the best chess player at chess. So which is smarter the super computer or the chess player? at one task the super computer is smarter than the human but still nowhere near as smart as a human in everything else. So for now the human beats the super computer but that will not always be the case. So eventually the super computer will surpass the human so intelligence will become more intelligent than unintelligence, but will it? Because the more intelligent super computer arose from the intelligent human which arose from unintelligent molecules. At the foundation of this whole mess is still unintelligence. No matter how smart the super computer becomes it still arose from the human which arose from the unintelligent molecules... so unintelligence wins again.

unintelligence 3

intelligence 0

So why is unintelligence more intelligent than intelligence?

and where is my perfectly square rock?

atheists love to pose the question why doesn't God heal amputees?

To which I counter with, why doesn't nature make perfectly square rocks?

I think non intelligence is better than unintelligence

rightsonword · June 6, 2012

I think non intelligence is better than unintelligence

Information theory is great. I've coded simple programs and it takes an intelligent source to input information together in a way that works. Incidentally, information theory goes with what I was talking about earlier about the probability of amino acids coming together and the impossibility of those proteins forming a cell. Even if it were possible for amino acids to bond, which it isn't in the presence of oxygen, where did the information come from that would be needed to form a living cell and for the living cell to have the information to replicate, pass information, etc. This facts are conveniently ignored by atheists.

I also find it peculiar that if in space we hear a signal that goes BEEP....BEEP....BEEP.....BEEP. that this somehow equals an intelligent source, yet the information in DNA and the complexity of the genetic code is thought to have no intelligence behind it at all.

Edited June 6, 2012 by rightsonword

ATHIM · June 6, 2012

A. Surely the biblical god who knows man's deepest secrets would know if someone genuinely had faith or was just playing the odds to avoid damnation.

B. You must apply this wager to every god. There are literally thousands of gods from all types of various belief systems from the dawn of mankind. So what happens if you're wrong about allah, mithra, zeus, poseidon, horace, ganesha, etc. The very fact that there are so many different god's is ample evidence imo that they are man made. Otherwise people would all believe in the same god if there actually were one true global god. It's not a coincidence that people believe different things based on their respective environments.

However, is it really logical to you that an "all loving" "all powerful" creator would have such an intense NEED to be worshiped? So much so that if they did not he would burn them? The need to be worshiped and revered is so obviously a human trait. They say man was created in his image. But would a god really think on par with a species that has only been around for at best a couple hundred thousand years? Do you really think a higher being of that magnitude, one that is responsible for all we know would be so fickle to damn his creations for such mundane things as non belief?? If you do believe in a loving god wouldn't a loving god that promotes forgiveness give his creations the chance to forgive and accept after death. How come when you die, god can't jut be like "Well I'm real so accept me and you can enter heaven"? An all loving god would accept everyone but at least a reasonable one without a napolean complex would give us the chance.

A. He knows even more than your deepest secrets, He knows how, when and why they were formed, manipulated, distorted, accepted and hidden. Deepest darkest secrets normally have to do with what we Christians call sin. Now why do you think we keep these dirty little secrets? Because in our hearts we are ashamed of our sins, we are prideful and don’t want anyone else to know that we are sinners, ironically though there is only one person who has ever lived and not sinned. Jesus. Our actions are damnable because we know we have done shameful things - i.e. hurt love, which is God. God cannot be tricked, manipulated, rendered or understood, His judgment is concrete, flawless, righteous and justified. As Christians we seek to avoid that judgment by living after His principals which are irreproachable, unlike ours. If God is without dirty little secrets, then dirty little secrets separate us from Him and thus the need for a dirty secret savior, Jesus. You do not know Jesus, His work, His ministry, His relationship with the Father or the purpose and success according to which God was incarnated to reveal Himself to us. Because He revealed Himself to us and we saw God with our own eyes we can depict Him and have done so for 2,000 years, evidence.

B. Man out of the vain self righteousness created these false gods in a quest to find deeper meaning. Jesus was the fulfillment of that search and the revealer of the ultimate God, the Holy Trinity, one in essence and undivided. One does not know Him because of deception founded on worldly ideals and pride. YET, you have sinned and still need, as I do, a savior to be reconciled to the creator who, as creation proves through every molecule, is so far beyond us and without fault, as the incarnation, death and resurrection proves. You have no need for God, and thus you cannot see Him. He is hidden from you, not because He is not there, He is hidden from us because we become the blinders over ourselves. We are what stops us from finding Him.

C. God does not NEED to be worshipped. He is worshipped by those who have come into contact with His energies and essence, worshipped out of free will in acceptance and belief that His way is right and our way was and is not. As I said to you earlier we have screwed up but He still loves us unto repentance BUT not in a warm and fuzzy way, in a tangible, unquestionable way that affords us the opportunity to seek Him out and accept our failings and turn to Him as the ONLY one without failings. If a person does not believe in Him they will be held accountable to their conscience and our conscience will betray us as we have no justification, not for unbelief, but for the lies and treachery we have inflicted upon others. He gives us a chance during life to accept and change, only God knows if He will afford you the opportunity to be forgiven after you die no matter what anyone says about what God and can't do, God will do as He does because He is God. It is far wiser to seek Him here than to wait and find out.

God has never forced anyone to do anything? so No, so He does not have a Napoleonic complex. People adore and worship Him when there ayes are opened to Him. Funny thing is that He is the one that chooses who will and wont see Him, so we can not say or do nothing to reveal Him to you. IT'S BETWEEN YOU AND HIM.

If I might say, I think these things get to us because in our hearts we really want to know the truth. If you want the truth revealed to you, in the quite stillness ask Him. What is one hones minute going to cost you, noone but you and He will ever know you asked. You don’t even need to say the words, just think them and He will hear you. If you ask Him to prove himself He may not respond, but if you genuinely ask with sincerity and with an open heart, the one who created nothing for there to be something may respond to you, and if He does not, its not because He is not there, its because your are not.

cranster · June 6, 2012

and why does it exist because there is something rather than nothing, and it made it so"

"You can't have an infinite series in a set in reality, theoretically yes, but in reality no. There can't be an infinite amount of days prior to today, because if there were, there couldn't be a now, you can't get here from there because there is no starting point."

This again completely goes against your assertion that god always was. You are doing a very good job concisely and quasi scientifically explaining why there must be a beginning in order to attempt to prove that your god had no beginning. Hopefully you will grasp the irony in that.

This is fun, and your one smart dude, but I'm gonna have to take your counterpoints one at a time and it aint gonna be fast. so here goes...

I'm going to refine the hypothesis that an unlimited series in a set is unachievable with the exception of God who has a special circumstance.

I'm going to tackle your assertion that I've created a contradiction that God is eternal but you can't have an infinite series in a set.

first... I'm going to use the definition of God that most theologians use, that which nothing greater can be concieved. Now let's look at how some of the early Catholic Church fathers have described God. God is simple, meaning God is not divisible by parts. God is unlimited. God is pure actuality, there is no potential in God. Absolutely everything that can be achieved is achieved by God so there is no potential. God does not change, there would have to be limits or potential for change to occur, and God is neither limited nor does God change.

The condition of the set of Gods creating each succesive God is different than if I were counting an infinite set of me's that each created the next me. I can change and I have potential and am limited. So you could distinguish me from each me in the series by change. No God in the series can be less than the God I've described or it'd be limited with potential to become greater and there for not able to create the greatest thing that can be conceived. Each God in the series has to be equal to create the next God. Now this is a numbered series, we have to start with the current God and move to the one who created that God and so forth and we'll stop at infinity. Now while we count each God we have to apply all the conditions about what distinquishes God from any other entity or number in the series. Each God is unchanging, unlimited, pure actualization with no potential. what we notice about each God is that each is absolutely indestinquishable from the previous God in the series... each God always thinks the same thought which, since God is unlimited thinks all possible thoughts that could be thought all at the same time. Each God acts exactly the same as each prior God which are all actions that can be acted at the same time. If each God in the series is indestinguishable from the next as we move through the series we necessarily come to the conclusion that each indestinguishable God is the same God because there is no way to differentiate one God from the next so the series becomes irrelevent because it is always the same one God . So if each God in the series is contingent on the prior God in the series the inevitable conclusion is God is contingent on Himself, rendering God non contingent. The uncaused cause, the First mover, the being who neither needs creating nor can be created

Let's move this series from a numbered set and place it in a volume of space. Now God is infinite so the space has to be infinite. An infinite amount of Gods which are each infinite, unchanging, and pure actuality are now in an infinite volume of space. What do we observe? We see each God takes up the exact same space as each other God because each one occupies the same volume of space at the same time and there is nothing to distinquish each God from each other, if we could actually observe this we would see the same one God, and that series of God's in an infinite volume of space is irrelevent.

Let's change this series with the same God or God's which are all the same thing in place God's existence in a series of infinite days prior to today and subsequent to today with out end in either direction. We still have to apply the special circumstances that singularly belong to God and nothing else but place this entity in an unlimited amount of time. Now we have to look at what time is in it's essence besides being an illusion which I agree with you on that. We will consider time to be a measured interval between events. If there is no change between each measured interval of time each event is indestinquishable from the last event. We have to have change to distinquish each day from the prior day or future day. In this universe time is a measure meant of intervals between events and by the change that happens between events, because the events are actually change itself. Now let's move through each day in God land in time. For ever backward and forever forward. Each day is a new event so we move from day 1 to day 2 and what do we observe with God from today to the prior day. That change between events is impossible because all possible change that could happen has been actualized in each day so there is no potential for change between events at each moment of time. If all events are exactly the same and indestinguishable from the last event with out the possibility of change we see now actualized and forever set as today without change or the possiblity of change. The series of days are irrelevant because they are the same. All possible things that can happen on each moment of time happen without change we come to the conclusion that, all days are the same day so it's an eternal now. God is timeless, not constrained to time, not constrained to space time like we because God is unlimited. Eternity for God is not a verb it is a noun, it describes a state of being rather than a numbered series of endless days. It is the state of God to be forever present in the past, present, and future all at the same time in an endless now. If nothing changes a God day could most likely be viewed as a circle no beginning and no end.

This concept is consistent with how God describes Himself. When Moses asked God what His name is... God answered.... I AM WHO AM. Jesus described Himself as before Abraham ever was... I AM. Changeless, infinite, pure actuality, and eternal.

.

colt32 · June 6, 2012

Just another thought on God and acceptance. Simple one at best. God cannot accept an unrepentant person. This is called the unforgiveable sin. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

It's simply explained by a pure glass of water. Add anything to the pure glass of water even one atom of anything else and it is impure. God is pure. We are impure. Jesus is God and is pure. When we repent and ask Jesus into our hearts His purity becomes ours. We can then be with God because Jesus becomes our purity and our filthyness (sins) are washed away. If we do not accept this perfect gift there remains no alternative to being with God. Purity cannot abide impurity with itself or everything becomes impure, such as the glass of water.

It is not some God demanding our worship but a God of love seeking to redeem that which was lost (you and I). It is you and I that keep ourselves from Him by not accepting His perfect and free gift. Imagine this. Every perfect gift comes from the father of lights. That is all good things come from God. Imagine being without anything that is good. Light, love, peace, kindness, grace, on and on...etc. It's quite a thought when you think about it. Being with nothing that is from God cannot be a good thing, that's why it's called hell. It's not God damning us to Hell (separation from God) It is us in our fallen (chosen) way not accepting the free gift of salvation and the narrow road back to God that damns us.

To Neo. I still hold out hope for a lot of humanity. By simply explaining that you follow the golden rule to the best of your ability would for me say that your heart is in the right place. In Matthew 25 at the great white throne judgement there are a multitude that do not even know they are saved and are welcomed into the kingdom.

Matthew 25:31

The Sheep and the Goats

³¹“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

³⁷“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

⁴¹“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

⁴⁴“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

⁴⁵“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

⁴⁶“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”

God speed to you

Edited June 6, 2012 by colt32

cranster · June 6, 2012

Information theory is great. I've coded simple programs and it takes an intelligent source to input information together in a way that works. Incidentally, information theory goes with what I was talking about earlier about the probability of amino acids coming together and the impossibility of those proteins forming a cell. Even if it were possible for amino acids to bond, which it isn't in the presence of oxygen, where did the information come from that would be needed to form a living cell and for the living cell to have the information to replicate, pass information, etc. This facts are conveniently ignored by atheists.

I also find it peculiar that if in space we hear a signal that goes BEEP....BEEP....BEEP.....BEEP. that this somehow equals an intelligent source, yet the information in DNA and the complexity of the genetic code is thought to have no intelligence behind it at all.

no kidding, they are looking for that giant spike which will be an indication of intelligent contact, Binary code can't code itself but has to be coded in a logical way to construct a computer program by an intelligent programmer. but once it's coded the entire code is present and can be used to always construct the same program. It's taken for granted and assumed without question that that program was encoded by intelligence, but dna which rather than constructing an abstract program like binary code, has all the information or blueprint to construct a biological organism which is immeasurably more complex than any computer program, can unintelligibly self assemble with no guidance. When using words like information, blue print, code... they are synonymous with intelligence, and they belong to both dna, and binary code. The more complex arose from non intelligence the less complex arose from intelligence. :blink:

But for the magic of the random self assembly of molecules into biological organisms in 13.7 billion years actually shorter than that when you account for at least one supernova prior to our solar system to bake the heavy elements, and the time it took for our planet to cool and have enough conditions to maintain the first life it's a few billion years at best. Given all molecules present in the universe in 13.7 billion years rather than 3 or 4 tops... they couldn't unintelligibly string them selves together to form one square rock. Not that they don't exist but there's no evidence of one, but ironically if one were found it would be considered the product of intelligence.

Getting to the first living cell which had all the information to replicate and persist without being destroyed is imo insurmountable trying to fit it together from random molecules.

I've read in one of the science sites I go to that some scientists consider bubbles to be the first encapsulation of the materials for a cell. Ok, how many of those do you need all containing the exact same conditions before you find one that persists into an entire cell which isn't destroyed.

Edited June 6, 2012 by cranster

rightsonword · June 6, 2012

NeoDinar, first let me say I am enjoying this conversation. I am not offended by anything brought forth and I hope the feeling is mutual. If something sounds rude, I ask the benefit of the doubt that it was not intended that way since much is lost when writing on the internet. Good talks as you would say.

In response to Rightsonword.......

Agreed, now apply those laws to your god.

How would the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to God? God is not energy . . . He created energy, thus He is not bound by His creation.

Agreed, now again apply these laws to god

See above. Point is that the universe cannot have always existed. Energy cannot have always existed. Matter cannot have always existed. God has always existed. The bible makes a claim that God created everything, and I look at the science and test this claim for accuracy. The science confirms what the bible says. That only God can create things ex-nihilo.

well that's where your faith comes in because it certainly doesn't make sense within the construct of the laws you just finished explaining. So if you choose to conclude your argument in the typical apologist manner by circulating your reasoning back to every believers stance of "well I just believe god always was" Well you are free to believe that but it holds no water in reality for it's complete lack of any scientific basis.

See above. Natural laws cannot explain the origin of the universe, energy, or matter. Science confirms this. That is the scientific basis for knowing that things do not come into existence ex-nihilo. Thus, if the natural cannot explain something and God claims to have created everything ex-nihilo, and we know things don’t come about ex-nihilo naturally, then it seems God’s claim is accurate. Science destroys naturalist belief and confirms a supernatural origin for the universe.

Well both Shakespear and his stories are both part of the material world so I find it hard to

assimilate that analogy.

Yeah, Shakespeare and his works are part of the material world, but you’

Re missing the point. Shakespeare is not BOUND by his creation. He can change it, add to it, and remove it, as he wishes. Shakespeare is outside of his creation. Likewise, God is not BOUND by the Laws of nature He created or that came as a result of the fall. He can change it, add to it, or remove as He sees fit. God by definition is supernatural, then how is it reasonable to conclude He is bound by the natural, by his own creation?

LOL! If you are going to put words in my mouth at least attempt to get it right. AGAIN,,,, I never stated that matter can come from nothing. In fact I agreed numerous times throughout this discussion that according to what we know of the natural world and it's physical laws it can not. But then again that's arguable.

No, it is not arguable. If it is, show me the evidence that matter can arise ex-nihilo through natural processes. The problem is that though you admit to this, you claim with blind faith and with no evidence to support the notion that “well, we just haven’t found the evidence for this process, yet.”

No one is "side skirting" anything, please work on your comprehension friend. AGAIN,,, no one can answer the question of where matter came from, and my underlining point is that simply because we don't possess this knowledge doesn't in anyway shape or form point to the existence of a god.

I’ve comprehended every quite well, but you are playing a game of semantics and double standards. The Christian can answer where matter came from because since the laws of nature (naturalism) forbid the idea of matter arising ex-nihilo, credibility is given to the God of the bible when He says that creation was a supernatural act.

"the bible says God created it, and the evidence supports it."

Such as?

1.) Matter from ex-niholo. This is a supernatural event. Naturals laws deny the possibility of things arising from nothing.

2.) Life arising from nothing. I’ve already proven that life cannot start on its own, let alone the proteins needed for life to bond together. Science confirms this.

3.) Information theory. Information does not arise on its own. This has never been observed anywhere in a lab setting or in nature. Cells contain more complex information than computers and process information at faster rates. Information requires an intelligent source. Let’s be reasonable here.

4.) Moral absolutes

5.) Uniformity in nature: If everything is random explosion, we should find disorder, but we find order.

"What evidence do you have to support your notion that we simply haven't found the evidence that matter can arise from thin air? There is none."

Well I never presented the notion at all, but there is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle "that you can’t know a quantum state’s energy exactly for a finite duration of time means that when you’re talking about very short time intervals, there are large uncertainties in the energy of a system. Over short enough timescales, the energies are large enough that particle-antiparticle pairs wink in-and-out of existence all the time!" Take two identical, uncharged, parallel metal plates, and put them close to one another. The vacuum fluctuations in between the plates cause there to be a pressure pushing the plates together. This isn’t the gravitational force or an electromagnetic force, but a force due to empty space itself. This has been proven through experimentation numerous times, although I don't really subscribe to the theory because there were things still needed to achieve this affect, but it really gets philosophical in the sense that one could question what exactly "nothing" is, is "nothing" actually something" Either way, at this point I would agree with you that matter can not come from nothing although Hawking would disagree lol.

Huh? This doesn’t explain anything and is insignificant to the problem of universal origins. Even if the Uncertainty Principle were remotely true, the particles and energy still exist somewhere, so not sure how this theory pertains to the discussion about creation.

Umm, no my friend, Atheists don't have faith. Atheism is the opposite of faith. Believers are the ones attempting to provide an absolute. You just stated how all the physical laws of the natural world doesn't support the idea of spontaneous creation, yet you claim god exists outside of these stringent laws and yet your evidence for this is the typical christian circular conclusion of "Well the bible says so" Ok, well no one can argue with your belief. You can also believe in unicorns too, that doesn't make them real.

Really, can you point out where I ever said “Because God says so.” I haven’t. I’ve used logic to reason with you that God exists outside of His laws. I’m honestly confused as to how you deny that a person who creates something is not in any way bound by it. The bible makes a claim, and I’ve provided ample evidence to show that the claims are accurate. I’ve listed different Laws and reasons as to why God is the answer that best fits the evidence. If you want to deny this, that’s your prerogative, but please don’t act like I’m using circular reasoning. I haven’t. You’re knocking down a straw-man. However, how it the atheist that believes the universe and life arose ex-nihilo not practicing blind faith when there is NO evidence to support the notion?

"Humind Skulls? Like Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon Man, Homo Erectus, and Homo Floresiensis? What about them? Like you said, they're humans."

Yes human but drastically different then humans today. The point is not that they're real which they obviously are but that you can observe how they have changed overtime lending even more credence to the theory of human evolution and that we evolved from an ape like common ancestor of the great apes.

Uh, no they’re not. The hominids I listed are not in any way drastically different than us today. That’s why they’re classified as human by secular sources. Please, feel free to point out the significant changes over time of the hominids mentioned above. Especially the “ones” that show each hominid evolving into the other. It’s gonna be hard when they’re all humans with only slightly different skeletal traits.

Dude,,, look up Australopithecus afarensis and tell me they look "Slightly different". They look more like apes then they do human. Oh and here some more prominent examples….Archaeopteryx, Pakicetids, Ambulocetus, Tiktaalik, Amphistium, Runcaria. Happy reading

I don’t have time to go into details over all of these, but I’ll talk about Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and Archaeopteryx since they are the most recognizable. BTW, I find it odd that you were only able to name a handful of “supposed” transitional fossils. According to secular scientists, there should be an abundance of transitional forms that CLEARLY show transition. The fossils you listed are even debatable within secular scientific circles as I’m about to show you.

1.) Lucy:

1.) There I sdebate even among secular scholars if Lucy could even walk upright.

*Quotes from Secular scholars:

2.) One of the reasons Lucy is thought to have waked upright is because of footprints found beside her. As shown below, these prints look very much like Homosapian prints, not like lucy’s.

3.) Many scholars will admit they Lucy was most likely simply a knuckle walker like any other primate.

4.) Her features are much more closely related to chimps than to humans.

Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

“The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been”.2

2.) ‘Strictly on the basis of the morphology of the G prints [prints found at a site labelled ‘G’], their makers could be classified as Homo sp. because they are so similar to those of Homo sapiens, but their early date would probably deter many paleoanthropologists from accepting this assignment. I suspect that if the prints were undated, or if they had been given younger dates, most experts would probably accept them as having been made by Homo . . . .

‘If the prints were produced by a small species of Australopithecus (southern ape) then we must conclude that it had virtually human feet which . . . were used in a manner indistinguishable from those of slowly walking humans. . . . The feet that produced the G trails are in no discernible features transitional between the feet of apes . . . and those of Homo sapiens. They are like small barefoot Homo sapiens.’

3.) Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman2 have reported that the hands of this species are “surprisingly similar to hands found in the small end of the pygmy chimpanzee–common chimpanzee range.”

2.) Archaeopteryx

1.) Big problem. Birds are warm blooded, reptiles are cold blooded. No evidence dinos were warm blooded.

Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds and their evolution, has concluded that “there has never been, nor is there now, any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic (warm blooded).”4 Feduccia says that despite the lack of evidence “many authors have tried to make specimens conform to the hot-blooded theropod dogma.”

2.) Birds have fingers 1, 2, and 3. Birds have fingers 2, 3, and 4. The rest are lost during the embryonic stage. If they were related, we would expect to find the same fingers between birds and dinosaurs. Scholars admit this is a problem.

3.) The lungs of birds are highly differnet than those of theraod dinosaurs. They should have similar lung strucutres. The lung strucures of dinosaurs are like those of Crocodiles, not birds. Sinosauropteryx, a supposed link, has a lung structure like a croc, not a bird.

4.) True birds have been found among the Liaoning province fossils in the same layers as their presumed dinosaur ancestors. This is a big issue.

5.) One of the biggest dilemmas for those who want to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds is that the so-called feathered dinosaurs found thus far are dated to be about 20 million years more recent than Archaeopteryx. This is a problem for evolution because Archaeopteryx is now generally recognized to be a true bird.13

Well, then, so Archaeopteryx is considered a bird, not a transitional fossil since other fossils thought to eb transitional between birds and dinos are YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx.

Alan Feduccia, chairman of the biology department at the University of North Carolina ““It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails,’ exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.”4

“The theropod origin of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.”5

Well it is and every scientist apart from "christian scientists" generally agree. Sorry if that conflicts with what your bible tells you.

Really? Every scientist agrees? Yet, there are many quotes of scientist saying the evidence is lacking like the lack of transitional fossils and lack of new genetic information arising through mutations.

Evolution = change over time,,,umm, look at a virus.

No, evolution is not change over time. Evolution more specifically is a gain of new genetic information that changes a kind of animal into another. You need a gain, not a loss of genetic information for molecule to man evolution. Virus and bacterial anti-biotic resistance is NOT evolution. It is adaptation through natural selection. Most people do not understand the diffence between natural selection and evolution, but they are in no way the same. A virus or bacteria can become immune to some medicine because it has a mutation that allows it to survive. This is a loss in original genetic information. Like a person with sickle cell is immune to yellow fever, but they have lost the information to produce healthy blood cells. Evolution requires BILLIONS of new genetic information without loss. No where is this observed or has been observed.

Um, not quite when your position is "the bible says so" Just saying.

Again, where did I say this? At most I said the bible makes a claim, and the evidence supports it. This is called testing a claim through evidence.

Incorrect, Atheists don't "dodge" any questions, we simply say we don't know as opposed to "god did it because I don't know and a bronze aged book says so". Implementing a far fetched guess based on a man written text is providing an answer although logic and the majority of the scientific community suggests it's an incorrect answer.

If you have a textbook and it makes a claim, do you not test the claim to see if it is valid/ Likewise, the bibles claims have been tested for millennia and it hasn’t fallen due to the evidence supporting it’s claims. Maybe you should actually look into the evidence instead of making ad-hominem statements. Truth is, naturalist dodge the question, as you’ve been doing, of the lack of evidence supporting the origin of life and spontaneous creation.

Well AGAIN,,, I never made this assertion, and to believe that god arose from thin air is just as irrational, how you can't grasp this double standard is beyond me. Oh wait no it's not, the bible told you so.

Its what atheists, the naturalists, and the humanist have to believe in order to say there is not god. it doesn’t matter if you’ve vocalized it, it is what the naturalist HAS TO believe. Let’s be reasonable here.

How can God have arisen from thin air when the claim is He has always existed? Big difference. Again, the Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to the God who created them. Stop playing semantics and be rational.

1. Of course, then so is every human being on earth. (This is telling. It shows that man considers what is based on whatthe majority of man accepts as good or acceptable).

2. See number one.

3. Also see number one.

Ok, so then by your own admission you are a lying theif and an adulterer at heart. And you want me to believe you are a good person? Even by nonbiblical standards you are nto a good persno with your admission. You see, in an atheist world view, morals are relative. What is considered good today is bad tomorrow and vice versa as history attests. I consider you a bad person and in a relative world view my opinion has just as much validity as yours on the matter. But no, morals are absolute thoughout culture and time. Thus, we know that hate, stealing, adultery, lying, etc. is evil. But we justify it because most around us accept it. Absolute morals are actually another evidence for the reality of God. I don’t have the space to go into more details about what is in the bible, unless you’d like to.

More atrocities have been committed by atheists in the last 100 years than by any religious groups in history combined. I’m sure you’ve read about Stalin, Lenin, Kim jon il, Mao, etc. .

Exactly, according to your beliefs if it wasn't for god we wouldn't need "saving". Let me paint you a picture. Say I raise and breed puppies, a few litters of say 20 or more pups, as soon as they are all born I place them in confinement and complete seclusion with absolutely no knowledge of my existence. Now I decide that these pups must worship me, keep in mind they have no idea I exist. These pups finally grow and now they are adults, however they still don't know I exist. I for some reason become angered and bitter by this so as punishment I decide to throw every one of them into the oven because they did not accept my existence and choose to worship me. Does this really sound like something a loving creator would do? Because this is what you have to believe if you want to buy the whole savior story.

So it's not the issue of saving it's the underlining issue of why we would even require saving from such a "loving god" in the first place. Take care, good talks

Your analogy is quite flawed. I say this with respect, but you don’t know the biblical character of God nor what the bible says about Him. He never secluded Himself from His creation. From the first chapters of Genesis, He walked and talked with His creation and even after they sinned against Him. And He continued to talk and walk with His creation all throughout the Bible up to today. Adam, Eve, Moses, the apostles all knew God existed, so your analogy of puppies not knowing the master exists is confusing. Now, God doesn’t throw people in Hell becaue they don’t worship Him, he puts them there because He gives them exactly what they want: a life without God. He puts them their because they are tainted by sin, they are no longer holy and they refused to accept God’s forgiveness. Sin brings death and suffering to God’s once perfect world. It causes genocide. It causes families to break apart. It causes depresson ans suffering. This is why God must punish evil, because it is the antithesis of Love and Good. But God loves us and gave us the choice to be forgiven. In your analogy, the puppies do not have free will. They are animals. God gave us free will to accept Him or reject Him. To accept His forgiveness or reject His sacrifice. But out of love, He died for us.

rightsonword · June 6, 2012

In response to Rightsonword

Sorry for the long posts, you can have the last word in regards to our discussion. I hate typing a discussion on line. Something that would tkae a sitting at a coffee shop takes hours and days to do online.

LWow. Again, words in my mouth. How does the reference to amino acids support the case for a god? It doesn't at all.

Shows the impossibility of life through natural processes. Gives credibility the the Bible when it says God created life ex-nihilo.

"just like the atheist says, "Well, we just haven't found the evidence to support our idea yet" Circular reasoning."

How is that circular? it's not an idea. It's simply a lack of faith based on lack of evidence. I'm assuming you don't believe in fictional monsters, so would it be "circular reasoning" for you to simply not believe in them? Lol! Of course not.

So do you believe in monsters and unicorns simply because there is a lack of evidence for them? Of course not, you look at the evidence against their existence. Evidence can either confirm or deny a claim. Evidence confirms there is a God.

"And your idea that a deistic God cannot go to a theistic God is illogical."

Hmm, how is it "illogical" when you have absolutely no frame of reference for either or? How can you even make that claim?

Because Im speaking of the God of the bible and He was never, ever a ClockWork God. He is a God that has wlasy maintained a relationship with His creation.

"The God of the bible claims to have always cared about his creation and wanted to have a relationship with it because he cared about it from the beginning. "

Ok, thats what your book tells you, I got that.

You have any evidence to deny this claim?

"Lol, evidence on Mars. Please provide the evidence, then. Even secular scholars don't even wholly agree with you on this."

Lol! Dude, please, please work on your comprehension. I never said that there is concrete evidence that life existed on mars, only that there is evidence to suggest it. But fossils found and dried river beds would certainly suggest life once existed. I know crazy right, of the infinite number of inhabitable planets in the universe it's absurd to think life might have arose elsewhere, ahh, gotta love that good ol' christian arrogance, "god's chosen people" n' all.

Likewise, work on yours. I never said that you said there is concrete evidence of life on mars. At most I asked for good evidence that there once was, NOT speculation. Provide the evidence. What you believe to be microbes are Mars rocks are simply speculation. It’s not even enough for evolutionist to tout since there is so much disagreement among them about it.

Lol! well I considering there are transitional fossils I don't know where you get that from, I guess it's a good thing there is much more evidence to support evolution besides the fossil record.

See former post. There should be an abundance of transitional fossils, I find it interesting that secular evolutionist scholars admit the lack of transitional fossils is abig problem for evolution, yet you claim there are plenty. Modern academia disagrees with you.

"Whoever said god burns innocent people who have never heard the gospel before or had a chance to accept Christ or reject him. This is not the case. You show you do not understand biblical theology."

Umm, lets see,,,, Romans 10:9, John 3:16, Acts 2:38, Revelation 3:20, Romans 3:23,Acts 4:12, Galatians 3:26 , 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Romans 6:23, John 14:6 , John 3:1-36, 1 John 1:9 , Romans 10:13, 2 Peter 3:9 , Acts 2:41, Acts 2:21,,,,and those are just but a few. Now do me a favor and point to the passages where it says it's ok to not accept jesus and to not believe in god due to a simple lack of knowledge. Ironically friend it appears I know more about your bible than you do. Funny that numerous studies have proven this to be a consistent pattern amongst believers and non believers. Studies show that non believers are on average more knowledgable about religion than believers. They also tend to be more intelligent. Not gloating by any means just stating what the studies have shown.

This shows your lack of biblical understanding. The bible says, God is just. It says or at least hints that we are guilty based on what we know. The verses you mentioned apply to those who have heard of Christ by reject him.

The bible says that all know of God, but choose to deny him. It says the Law of God is on every man’s heart., so we know what is right and wrong. It says God can be seen in all of c reation, so no one is left ignorant of the reality of God. The bible also says we are guilty based on what we know and how we react to it (Proverbs). The bible says that people are without excuse for denying God, not Jesus. Now critically thinking, it is not possible for all men to hear of the name of Christ, but all men know God exists because God has revealed himself to them. Os, what they do with that knowledge, do they try to find the true God, do they listen to their God given conscience and not lie, steal, lust, etc. Do they long for knowledge of the true God? Then yes, the bible doe simply that these people are not judged to the standard of those who have more knowledge. The sincere person who has never heard of Christ, but longs for knowledge of God and seeks him out, then they will not be judged as someone who knows of God and Christ and rejects them. The bible says God reveals himself to those who seek Him. So if someone in the amazon seeks God, He will reveal Himsefl to them even if they die without knowing who Jesus is, but they Know who God is because He revealed Himself to them.

That, my friend, is what the bible says. Calvinists believe otherwise, but Calvinism is not biblical.

So your "historical evidence of jesus" is a third party story written by a man who was born years after jesus supposedly died? Ok, then I suppose Frodo Baggins is real to since J.R.R Tolkien wrote about him.

Really? Josephus is actually a very trusted source of the time for scholars today. Eye witnesses to Jesus life were still alive at the time of Jospehus writings. He worked with the Romans and had access to people who knew who Jesus was. Again, I fins it extremely odd that all major secular academics aknowlegde the reality of Jesus, yet you deny it. I don’t mean to sound rude, but it would benefit you to read up on scholarly works about the historical Jesus.

Enjoy the reading Historicity of Jesus

"Christ who rise from the dead attests to this. If you don't believe it, it doens't make it not true."

Correct it doesn't make it true, but because you believe it doesn't make it true either and the lack of actual physical evidence makes it highly unlikely.

Actually a lack of physical evidence of a body is evidence for the resurrection of Christ. I won’t go into details, but you can read work by a man named Professor Gary Habermas. Or read a book titled The Resurrection of Christ.” If you are truly interested and like to learn.

"Even athiest scholars admit that the apostles saw something significant. Nevermind the conversion of enemies of Christ or the empty tomb"

Well all the physical evidence that supposedly supports jesus has been refuted and labeled non sufficient by pretty much everyone accept believers, including the of turin. Many people saw many significant things during those times. Could you imagine how significant an eclipse would be to a bronzed age shepherd?

lol, what are you talking about? Shroud of turin, who cares about that. Im talking about textual and historical criticism. Again, read books by Gary Habermas, Lee Strobel, William Lane craig, etc. .

"Just like you accept the claims that life arose on it's own with no evidence to support this notion or that the universe came from nothing?"

Except thats not my position.

OK, then what is?

Wayfarer · June 6, 2012

People love to talk about evolution... as though it somehow magically proves there is no God... lol... boring... it's mechanics... who cares.

I think pretty unconventionally and out of that unconventional thinking I'm going to pose a problem to our atheist friends. I'm going to call it the unintelligence is more intelligent than intelligence paradox. It goes like this... according to atheists there is no intelligent design, everything is random. We are the product of what the random formation of molecules can do over time. We are aware... we are intelligent, but we are the product of unintelligence. Forget the magic man in the sky... atoms and time are the true magic man in the sky.

Let's look at 2 types of code, one is from intelligence and one is not. 100100 10 100011 binary code. acgt cgta catg... dna the code of life. binary code arose from intelligence, dna arose from unintelligence. Dna can code a human, binary code can code a computer.

dna is far far more complex than binary code.

let's keep score

unintelligence wins the first round... unintelligence 1 intelligence 0

let's see what else unintelligence can do that intelligence can't. I posed the problem... why aren't there machines in nature?... let's simplify that a bit. I want 1 perfectly square rock. given enough molecules and enough time nature should provide at least one perfectly square rock... it had enough time to produce a human so where is it? Now let's look at what unintelligence can't produce and what it can. with enough time and atoms unintelligence can produce a human being which can contemplate an abstract concept like a perfectly square rock, and actually form a perfectly square rock, but it can't produce one perfectly square rock on it's own. So why can unintelligence produce a human but not a perfectly square rock?

unintelligence 2

intelligence 0

now let's move into the conundrum portion of the paradox. Intelligence can produce a super computer that's not as intelligent as a human, but now the super computer has intelligently with our help evolved... love that word... enough to beat the best chess player at chess. So which is smarter the super computer or the chess player? at one task the super computer is smarter than the human but still nowhere near as smart as a human in everything else. So for now the human beats the super computer but that will not always be the case. So eventually the super computer will surpass the human so intelligence will become more intelligent than unintelligence, but will it? Because the more intelligent super computer arose from the intelligent human which arose from unintelligent molecules. At the foundation of this whole mess is still unintelligence. No matter how smart the super computer becomes it still arose from the human which arose from the unintelligent molecules... so unintelligence wins again.

unintelligence 3

intelligence 0

So why is unintelligence more intelligent than intelligence?

and where is my perfectly square rock?

atheists love to pose the question why doesn't God heal amputees?

To which I counter with, why doesn't nature make perfectly square rocks?

I support your attempts at establishing a "creator". However your method, like that of RIGHTSONWORDS, though witty and even scholarly, is still commonplace and very HUMAN. Because, in your attempts to assist atheists and agnostics to "see God", you have never uttered certain words essential to these types of exchanges, such as, I could be wrong. Or I'm not certain, Or reason does have a major role in religious understanding. Even the greatest of scientists admit uncertainty. But that is lacking in most expressions of religious belief, as continuing religious conflict worldwide shows us.

More, your religious assertions can only be posited from your personal experience of God which, by nature, is both limited and quite fallible, like those of the 5 blind men feeling an elephant. This applies to the convictions of every religious person, including myself, no matter how schooled or learned or how many clerical robes one wears. God is God, but we are the created. All attempts by the latter to comprehend the Creator, every attempt to establish his so-called "existence", all such things are unconvincing and doomed to fail. So why even try?

Set theory, information theory, even mathematics are human constructs for the investigation of physical reality, not something beyond it. Even conceptualizations of infinity, space and time fall far short in their ability to describe what can never be comprehended. Thus, God, the Creator, the Supreme Being or whatever we humans choose to call him can only be understood, even partially, thru the holy ones who come in his name. These are the ones who, historically, suffer our persecution, like Jesus. And by definition, that excludes you, me, and all now living people.

As for intelligence, it is confined to life itself. Intelligence has numerous components that machines can never have, even super computers, despite what science fiction writers have convinced many thinkers to believe. No computer is "intellegent". It is programmed with Boolean logic. It's a tool, like an abacus or a calculator, though more sopisticated.

I could be wrong, but the now popular religious concept of "Intelligent Design" is also erroneous for the same reason. It, too, represents a misapplication of the term "intelligence". As such, it posits the false assumption that Man, the species, can completely understand the mystery of its own creation thru the application of its intellect.

Yes, our computer programs have enabled us to see the mathematical and physical improbability that "life" could have originated by itself. But so what? If God exists beyond human intellectualization, why use this improbability as evidence of his existence. For, it is we who exist, not God. He brought us and the universe into existence. Besides, ascribing "intelligence" to God seems counter to the Holy Bible; nowhere can such an attribution to him be found. I could be wrong.

Simply describe love, compassion, mercy, etc. For, that's where God can be found for those who seek him.

cranster · June 7, 2012

This is in response to rightsonword and neodinar's discussion of this topic.

"And your idea that a deistic God cannot go to a theistic God is illogical."

Hmm, how is it "illogical" when you have absolutely no frame of reference for either or? How can you even make that claim?

Because Im speaking of the God of the bible and He was never, ever a ClockWork God. He is a God that has wlasy maintained a relationship with His creation.

"The God of the bible claims to have always cared about his creation and wanted to have a relationship with it because he cared about it from the beginning. "

Ok, thats what your book tells you, I got that.

Most people would agree that God is unlimited If He was limited then He would not be God. Why would God instill in His creation a capacity that he did not Himself posess?... the capacity to care. If God lacks any capacity then He would be limited. He would not be capable of doing what humans are capable of. If God is unlimited then He not only has the capacity to care about His creation but would be the perfection of caring, and care infinitely about creation.

cranster · June 7, 2012

I support your attempts at establishing a "creator". However your method, like that of RIGHTSONWORDS, though witty and even scholarly, is still commonplace and very HUMAN. Because, in your attempts to assist atheists and agnostics to "see God", you have never uttered certain words essential to these types of exchanges, such as, I could be wrong. Or I'm not certain, Or reason does have a major role in religious understanding. Even the greatest of scientists admit uncertainty. But that is lacking in most expressions of religious belief, as continuing religious conflict worldwide shows us.

More, your religious assertions can only be posited from your personal experience of God which, by nature, is both limited and quite fallible, like those of the 5 blind men feeling an elephant. This applies to the convictions of every religious person, including myself, no matter how schooled or learned or how many clerical robes one wears. God is God, but we are the created. All attempts by the latter to comprehend the Creator, every attempt to establish his so-called "existence", all such things are unconvincing and doomed to fail. So why even try?

Set theory, information theory, even mathematics are human constructs for the investigation of physical reality, not something beyond it. Even conceptualizations of infinity, space and time fall far short in their ability to describe what can never be comprehended. Thus, God, the Creator, the Supreme Being or whatever we humans choose to call him c

only be understood, even partially, thru the holy ones who come in his name. These are the ones who, historically, suffer our persecution, like Jesus. And by definition, that excludes you, me, and all now living people.

As for intelligence, it is confined to life itself. Intelligence has numerous components that machines can never have, even super computers, despite what science fiction writers have convinced many thinkers to believe. No computer is "intellegent". It is programmed with Boolean logic. It's a tool, like an abacus or a calculator, though more sopisticated.

I could be wrong, but the now popular religious concept of "Intelligent Design" is also erroneous for the same reason. It, too, represents a misapplication of the term "intelligence". As such, it posits the false assumption that Man, the species, can completely understand the mystery of its own creation thru the application of

intellect.

Yes, our computer programs have enabled us to see the mathematical and physical improbability that "life" could have originated by itself. But so what? If God exists beyond human intellectualization, why use this improbability as evidence of his existence. For, it is we who exist, not God. He brought us and the universe into existence. Besides, ascribing"intelligence" to God seems counter to the Holy Bible; nowhere can such an attribution to him be found. I could be wrong.

Simply describe love, compassion, mercy, etc. For, that's where God can be found for those who seek him.

Excellent post, and point taken, a little humbling, and an eye opener, does the soul good.

Edited June 7, 2012 by cranster

NEODinar · June 7, 2012

A. He knows even more than your deepest secrets, He knows how, when and why they were formed, manipulated, distorted, accepted and hidden. Deepest darkest secrets normally have to do with what we Christians call sin. Now why do you think we keep these dirty little secrets? Because in our hearts we are ashamed of our sins, we are prideful and don’t want anyone else to know that we are sinners, ironically though there is only one person who has ever lived and not sinned. Jesus. Our actions are damnable because we know we have done shameful things - i.e. hurt love, which is God. God cannot be tricked, manipulated, rendered or understood, His judgment is concrete, flawless, righteous and justified. As Christians we seek to avoid that judgment by living after His principals which are irreproachable, unlike ours. If God is without dirty little secrets, then dirty little secrets separate us from Him and thus the need for a dirty secret savior, Jesus. You do not know Jesus, His work, His ministry, His relationship with the Father or the purpose and success according to which God was incarnated to reveal Himself to us. Because He revealed Himself to us and we saw God with our own eyes we can depict Him and have done so for 2,000 years, evidence. B. Man out of the vain self righteousness created these false gods in a quest to find deeper meaning. Jesus was the fulfillment of that search and the revealer of the ultimate God, the Holy Trinity, one in essence and undivided. One does not know Him because of deception founded on worldly ideals and pride. YET, you have sinned and still need, as I do, a savior to be reconciled to the creator who, as creation proves through every molecule, is so far beyond us and without fault, as the incarnation, death and resurrection proves. You have no need for God, and thus you cannot see Him. He is hidden from you, not because He is not there, He is hidden from us because we become the blinders over ourselves. We are what stops us from finding Him. C. God does not NEED to be worshipped. He is worshipped by those who have come into contact with His energies and essence, worshipped out of free will in acceptance and belief that His way is right and our way was and is not. As I said to you earlier we have screwed up but He still loves us unto repentance BUT not in a warm and fuzzy way, in a tangible, unquestionable way that affords us the opportunity to seek Him out and accept our failings and turn to Him as the ONLY one without failings. If a person does not believe in Him they will be held accountable to their conscience and our conscience will betray us as we have no justification, not for unbelief, but for the lies and treachery we have inflicted upon others. He gives us a chance during life to accept and change, only God knows if He will afford you the opportunity to be forgiven after you die no matter what anyone says about what God and can't do, God will do as He does because He is God. It is far wiser to seek Him here than to wait and find out. God has never forced anyone to do anything? so No, so He does not have a Napoleonic complex. People adore and worship Him when there ayes are opened to Him. Funny thing is that He is the one that chooses who will and wont see Him, so we can not say or do nothing to reveal Him to you. IT'S BETWEEN YOU AND HIM. If I might say, I think these things get to us because in our hearts we really want to know the truth. If you want the truth revealed to you, in the quite stillness ask Him. What is one hones minute going to cost you, noone but you and He will ever know you asked. You don’t even need to say the words, just think them and He will hear you. If you ask Him to prove himself He may not respond, but if you genuinely ask with sincerity and with an open heart, the one who created nothing for there to be something may respond to you, and if He does not, its not because He is not there, its because your are not.

A. That was my point in regards to pascals wager. If god know's your deepest secrets etc, then he would know if your faith was truly genuine. That was my only point. Did you even soak in any of my response about pascal's wager. Did you understand it? If so what are your thoughts on it?

C. "God does not need to be worshipped"

Then he wouldn't burn people who don't?

You are completely missing the underlining point, I understand that god gave us free will. I get it, but look deeper than that, look outside the box. if he's omniscient, meaning he knows what you will do with the free will he gives you prior to creating you, why would he punish you for something he KNEW you were going to do? Do you understand how actions like this would be looked upon as monstrous if a human being would do something similar, as I have demonstrated with the puppy scenario??

I can't really discuss or debate your opinions my friend, You are basically paraphrasing scripture. Your opinions are your own, but I cant agree with them without any support.

This is fun, and your one smart dude, but I'm gonna have to take your counterpoints one at a time and it aint gonna be fast. so here goes... I'm going to refine the hypothesis that an unlimited series in a set is unachievable with the exception of God who has a special circumstance. I'm going to tackle your assertion that I've created a contradiction that God is eternal but you can't have an infinite series in a set. first... I'm going to use the definition of God that most theologians use, that which nothing greater can be concieved. Now let's look at how some of the early Catholic Church fathers have described God. God is simple, meaning God is not divisible by parts. God is unlimited. God is pure actuality, there is no potential in God. Absolutely everything that can be achieved is achieved by God so there is no potential. God does not change, there would have to be limits or potential for change to occur, and God is neither limited nor does God change. The condition of the set of Gods creating each succesive God is different than if I were counting an infinite set of me's that each created the next me. I can change and I have potential and am limited. So you could distinguish me from each me in the series by change. No God in the series can be less than the God I've described or it'd be limited with potential to become greater and there for not able to create the greatest thing that can be conceived. Each God in the series has to be equal to create the next God. Now this is a numbered series, we have to start with the current God and move to the one who created that God and so forth and we'll stop at infinity. Now while we count each God we have to apply all the conditions about what distinquishes God from any other entity or number in the series. Each God is unchanging, unlimited, pure actualization with no potential. what we notice about each God is that each is absolutely indestinquishable from the previous God in the series... each God always thinks the same thought which, since God is unlimited thinks all possible thoughts that could be thought all at the same time. Each God acts exactly the same as each prior God which are all actions that can be acted at the same time. If each God in the series is indestinguishable from the next as we move through the series we necessarily come to the conclusion that each indestinguishable God is the same God because there is no way to differentiate one God from the next so the series becomes irrelevent because it is always the same one God . So if each God in the series is contingent on the prior God in the series the inevitable conclusion is God is contingent on Himself, rendering God non contingent. The uncaused cause, the First mover, the being who neither needs creating nor can be created Let's move this series from a numbered set and place it in a volume of space. Now God is infinite so the space has to be infinite. An infinite amount of Gods which are each infinite, unchanging, and pure actuality are now in an infinite volume of space. What do we observe? We see each God takes up the exact same space as each other God because each one occupies the same volume of space at the same time and there is nothing to distinquish each God from each other, if we could actually observe this we would see the same one God, and that series of God's in an infinite volume of space is irrelevent. Let's change this series with the same God or God's which are all the same thing in place God's existence in a series of infinite days prior to today and subsequent to today with out end in either direction. We still have to apply the special circumstances that singularly belong to God and nothing else but place this entity in an unlimited amount of time. Now we have to look at what time is in it's essence besides being an illusion which I agree with you on that. We will consider time to be a measured interval between events. If there is no change between each measured interval of time each event is indestinquishable from the last event. We have to have change to distinquish each day from the prior day or future day. In this universe time is a measure meant of intervals between events and by the change that happens between events, because the events are actually change itself. Now let's move through each day in God land in time. For ever backward and forever forward. Each day is a new event so we move from day 1 to day 2 and what do we observe with God from today to the prior day. That change between events is impossible because all possible change that could happen has been actualized in each day so there is no potential for change between events at each moment of time. If all events are exactly the same and indestinguishable from the last event with out the possibility of change we see now actualized and forever set as today without change or the possiblity of change. The series of days are irrelevant because they are the same. All possible things that can happen on each moment of time happen without change we come to the conclusion that, all days are the same day so it's an eternal now. God is timeless, not constrained to time, not constrained to space time like we because God is unlimited. Eternity for God is not a verb it is a noun, it describes a state of being rather than a numbered series of endless days. It is the state of God to be forever present in the past, present, and future all at the same time in an endless now. If nothing changes a God day could most likely be viewed as a circle no beginning and no end. This concept is consistent with how God describes Himself. When Moses asked God what His name is... God answered.... I AM WHO AM. Jesus described Himself as before Abraham ever was... I AM. Changeless, infinite, pure actuality, and eternal. .

Agreed, thanks, you as well.

Interesting but you based all this on the concept that god exits and is defined by the christian faith, so right off the bat your example of creating infinite gods is a contradiction to the christian belief is that god always was and is eternal as you stated. If this were true there'd be no need for him to copy himself in the first place. Yet if you resort back to the actual belief that god is timeless, than that contradicts with apologist's main argument of something can not come from nothing. So either god always was (the christian belief), or he created himself an infinite amount of times (your theory). It's a double edge sword that pokes holes from both the scientific and religious perspectives.

Just another thought on God and acceptance. Simple one at best. God cannot accept an unrepentant person. This is called the unforgiveable sin. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit. It's simply explained by a pure glass of water. Add anything to the pure glass of water even one atom of anything else and it is impure. God is pure. We are impure. Jesus is God and is pure. When we repent and ask Jesus into our hearts His purity becomes ours. We can then be with God because Jesus becomes our purity and our filthyness (sins) are washed away. If we do not accept this perfect gift there remains no alternative to being with God. Purity cannot abide impurity with itself or everything becomes impure, such as the glass of water. It is not some God demanding our worship but a God of love seeking to redeem that which was lost (you and I). It is you and I that keep ourselves from Him by not accepting His perfect and free gift. Imagine this. Every perfect gift comes from the father of lights. That is all good things come from God. Imagine being without anything that is good. Light, love, peace, kindness, grace, on and on...etc. It's quite a thought when you think about it. Being with nothing that is from God cannot be a good thing, that's why it's called hell. It's not God damning us to Hell (separation from God) It is us in our fallen (chosen) way not accepting the free gift of salvation and the narrow road back to God that damns us. To Neo. I still hold out hope for a lot of humanity. By simply explaining that you follow the golden rule to the best of your ability would for me say that your heart is in the right place. In Matthew 25 at the great white throne judgement there are a multitude that do not even know they are saved and are welcomed into the kingdom. Matthew 25:31 The Sheep and the Goats 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ” God speed to you

"It is not some God demanding our worship but a God of love seeking to redeem that which was lost (you and I)"

Then why would he burn you and I if we didn't believe aka worship?? If you believe you must believe in god to get to heaven and if you believe in hell then you must believe god burns non believers. That means one could be a pedophile for their entire life and on their deathbed confess their sins, ask forgiveness and get the green light to heaven. Meanwhile a non believer could be the greatest humanitarian and will get burned simply because they didn't believe?? Are you sure god's not demanding worship? I guess he doesn't demand it he'll just burn you for eternity if you don't. C'mon friend, you can't possibly think this makes any logical sense.

Let me ask you, if hitler asked forgiveness before he died do you think he's in heaven?

Yeah you really can't go wrong with the golden rule. However scripture can be easily misinterpreted.

NEODinar · June 7, 2012

In response to Rightsonwords

"More atrocities have been committed by atheists in the last 100 years than by any religious groups in history combined. I’m sure you’ve read about Stalin, Lenin, Kim jon il, Mao, etc."

Sorry but these atrocities weren't committed in the "name of atheism" That's where believers always make the mistake. These were sick men with or without religion. Religion can cause good people to do bad things if they believe enough. Atheism doesn't cause anybody to do anything no more than not believing in santa clause would cause anyone to do anything.

"Your analogy is quite flawed. I say this with respect, but you don’t know the biblical character of God nor what the bible says about Him. He never secluded Himself from His creation."

If he never secluded himself from his creations there wouldn't be non believers. You can't tell me it's the non believers fault for not recognizing him as I'll ask AGAIN, is it in anyway reasonable to assume it's likely that someone can be born, raised and die in an environment entirely devoid of any christian teachings and still gain any knowledge of such teachings??? No it's not, therefore god didn't "walk and talk" with everyone.

No matter how many excuses you want to give your god for doing horrible things, at the end of the day he still does them. Sorry but, simply because I don't want a life with "god" doesn't mean I want to burn for eternity, nor should I deserve such a fate. What,, your god burns people who don't what to be his friend? Lol! What kind of weak, lonely, emo god is that? My puppy analogy was spot on.

"Ok, so then by your own admission you are a lying theif and an adulterer at heart. And you want me to believe you are a good person? Even by nonbiblical standards you are nto a good persno with your admission".

LOL! Well I guess by biblical standards perhaps, but sorry pal, I wouldn't say by non biblical standards. Yep,, I like to look at women, yep sometimes I lie, I haven't stolen anything since I was a kid stealing action figures and got caught,. Know what that makes me? A man. You must be an "angel" lol

"You see, in an atheist world view, morals are relative."

LOL! No more than any believer's, except we'll never blow up an abortion clinic or church because of our atheism.

"I consider you a bad person and in a relative world view my opinion has just as much validity as yours on the matter".

Lol! Right, I'm a "bad person" because I notice women and rarely tell white lies. Your about to lose your man card in a sec bro.

Dude let me sum up my argument. You are trying to use science to attempt to prove the existence of a god yet in order to do this you must suspend your logic and accept the bible's definition of god in order to make what you are saying feasible. Bottom line, your main argument that you have stayed consistent with amongst all the other quasi scientific counter arguments that the majority of the scientific community and evolutionists flat out disagree with is that something can not come from nothing except god. The "except god" part is where your faith comes in, as logic, science and a good portion of your arguments say matter can not be created EX-NIHLO. So after all your research your entire argument is circular falling back on the premise that there is a god that doesn't adhere to the law of thermodynamics, and why do you believe a god lives outside of natures laws? Because the bible says so. Well I don't accept the bible's claims, therefore I can not accept them as evidence for a god, therefore I can not agree with your scientific explanations, because each one requires the belief in the biblical god to make them remotely sensible. You have no evidence to suggest their is an eternal god in the first place other than what the bible says, so your attempt to scientifically explain anything more in depth about said god is futile because you can't explain scientifically how your god can exist outside of natures laws.

My one and ONLY question left I have for you is, How can god exist outside of nature's laws? If your answer has anything to do with what "the bible says" I'm afraid I can no longer even debate with you.

cranster · June 8, 2012

Interesting but you based all this on the concept that god exits and is defined by the christian faith, so right off the bat your example of creating infinite gods is a contradiction to the christian belief is that god always was and is eternal as you stated. If this were true there'd be no need for him to copy himself in the first place. Yet if you resort back to the actual belief that god is timeless, than that contradicts with apologist's main argument of something can not come from nothing. So either god always was (the christian belief), or he created himself an infinite amount of times (your theory). It's a double edge sword that pokes holes from both the scientific and religious perspectives.

Yes this is based on the concept God exists as defined by the Christian faith. It is not my theory that there is an infinite amount of Gods, I was demonstrating why an infinite series of God's is an impossibility. Before I proceed I'm curious what your concept of God would be if God exists. The Christian concept and specifically the early church fathers of the Catholic Church concept of God and the good old dictionary definition of God is the one I'm going to use. God be definition is that which nothing greater can be conceived nor has an equal. God as metaphysically defined by the early church fathers is existence itself, unlimited, simple meaning immaterial, pure spirit, unchanging, pure intellect, and eternal. Using these descriptions God essentially IS That is what God called Himself when moses asked His name. God replied, "I AM WHO AM" God described himself as the one who exists. Now let's look at what it means to be unlimited. It means this being has thought every thought that can be thought, has created everything that can be created, has taken every action that can be taken, and spoken everyword that can be spoken with no malice or evil. There can't be 2 of that. Hypothetically if there were there would be no distinction. Every possible condition that could exist in existence has been met by this being. Hypothetically if there were 2 they would be the same thing. It would be like asking what the difference between 1 and 1 is. There is no difference it is 1. They would be identical with no difference. It always comes down to one God. There can only be one being that is the Greatest thing which can be conceived who has no equal.

The problem of time... I agree it's an illusion. I still maintain an infinite series in a set is unachievable. Thanks to modern physics we know time is basically a measure of change which is a condition which doesn't apply to a being who doesn't change. Time is part of space time which is a condition of this universe so it's impossible to say what the condition was prior to the existence of the universe if there was a prior. Days are relative and are essentially a planet making one rotation as it revolves around it's star. Stars and planets are finite, they came into existence and will end. So an endless series of days prior to today and from here forward is not a condition that can exist thanks to good old entropy.

God is immaterial, God has no physical substance, because any physicality would be a limiting factor. Without material God does not require a volume of space, God doesn't change so God does not require time. Time can be a measurement of the enterval between events. Eterninty is often described as a non changing perpetual state of the present. God being pure acting power with no potential did everything that could be done, thought, said non linear and simultaneously... instantaneously with out change. That is a condition that does not require time. God is pure acting power so every possible thing that can be thought, acted, said, and created were created instantaneously at once. Eternity is a persistent now without change. How can that be? It can be in a closed eternity like a circle for instance. Rather than time being linear and sequential as it happens in this universe but theoretically not even that is an absolute. If God state for lack of a better word, rather than time which doesn't apply were like a circle then the question is where does it start, and where does it end? how many times can you go around the circle and how long does it take?

Who created God? I'll make you a deal, if you can tell me how to create existence itself which is the greatest thing that can be conceived and which has no equal who is unlimited, simple meaning immaterial, pure spirit, unchanging, pure intellect, and eternal, I'll tell you who created God.

CRYPTO REWARDS!

The Catholics have stood up, where are the Baptists??

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

cranster

nstoolman1

delta22

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Testing the Rocker Badge!

Live Exchange Rate

Important Information