[Toasty]

I've been thinking about this on and off for a little while. The whole theory of the big bang and whatnot, well, I don't believe a word of it. But I've devised my own reasoning for why there has to be some higher being, or at least someone or something pulling the strings (in my case it's a someone, as I'm a Christian).

Anyway, here is my reasoning:

Everything that's ever been related to large amounts of uncontrolled energy has been destructive in some way. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, for example, caused massive destruction. It released massive amounts of energy without control.

Basically, whenever you have uncontrolled energy, it always ends up destroying something. Always. There are no exceptions, other than so far unproven theories (i.e. the big bang). Radiation, when controlled, is constructive. It produces energy for our homes, it can be used to diagnose injuries, or even to treat cancer. When allowed to run rampad, though, you get things like the Chernobyl (sp?) and three mile isle (I think that's what it's called) incidents, or the destruction of entire cities (Hiroshima). In less extreme cases, instead of killing cancer, it causes it.

Explosives, when used properly, can blast away rock or demolish a building safely. When lit and tossed around, someone's bound to get their heads blown off.

Mt. St. Helens, when it erupted, sent a huge cloud of ash all around the globe, and even to this day, the landscape around the mountain still hasn't completely recovered.

Every sitiuation that I run through my head corresponds to this. I can't think of any situation where uncontrolled energy has been constructive. I may only be 15, and I may not be a scientist with a phd, but I've spent more than my fair share of time with my nose burried in science books and Wikipedia articles (normally I'd laugh at myself there, but these articels aren't influenced by religious or political views in anyway. The subjects themselves are unbiased).

I came to this conclusion on my own, and it makes perfect sense to me. And with this reasoning, then the big bang as well, cannot be a constructive force. It was an uncontrolled release of insanely massive amounts of energy. Even though the big bang doesn't fall under the realm of standard science, I think it's reasonable to believe that the chances of particles flying around at extremely high speeds, and then combining to form planets, or however it happened, well the odds of it being constructive in any way is astronomical. Therefore, the only way that massive amount(s) of energy could be used to create the univerese, is if someone was directing where everything was to go.

Now before this goes into the whole religious debate thing about "Well where did God come from then?" or numerous other questions, to tell you the truth, I don't know. I could ask you the same question, about where the super dense particles used in the big bang came from, but I won't because I'm far more interested in other things. All I know, is that I cannot answer those questions.

However, though I cannot answer where those particels came from, or where god came from, I've concluded for now that the big bang cannot have created the universe, because simply put, uncontrolled energy does not create things. It destroys them.

There is no way to take a stick of dynamite, stick it in a pile of lumber, light it off, and then magically get a house every time. I'm sure that it's possible, but the chances are less than a billion to the trillionth power.

Without control, nothing can be created. Period. Therefore, someone had to be pulling the strings.


That is what I have to say about this, and even though I'd like to bring religion into this more and say "well the bible said this would happen and it already has! See?!" I'd rather this be approached through a scientific standpoint to get some things out of the way and over with.

If you can find a science, or even a proven theory that uncontrolled energy can consistently create something (and I don't mean rubble, or jagged rocks, or whatever), then show me. I'll happily read through it.

[Laharl]

unless one of us is 4 and a half billion years old, then i'll admit there is no way of proving the big bang theory. Although an explosion cant be destructive if there is nothing there in the first place.

According to the bible, the universe is only a few thousands years old, which is utter bull****. It amazes me how so mant people can ignore and denounce things like carbon dating in favor of a book. The christian creation theory is only as credible as every other creation myth from every other culture in human history

if i went around saying Gaia created the universe from Chaos, i'd be locked up. despite it being no different to the christian myth

[Split Infinity]

Just so you know, Toasty, there's a fair bit more evidence in support of the big bang than there is in favour of a god. They've found traces of cosmic background radiation present throughout the whole universe that is very likely to have originated in said explosion. And yet as to the existence of God, or any other creator, we have only their religious texts and an army of believers.

You say that energy, when uncontrolled, causes nothing but destruction. What, then, is the very thing that makes our planet different to the others; the very thing that is keeping us alive at this moment? The Sun. Without it, our plants wouldn't grow, we would have no ongoing energy source, and all life would be extinguished. And even now, we are beginning to realise its potential in the form of solar power: the new form of energy that will save us from the plague of fossil fuels, and somewhat ironically, global warming.

But nobody controls the Sun. It's just a colossal ball of hydrogen gases burning away at the centre of our system. Sure, it may be held together by gravity, but sooner or later it's going to swell into a giant and ultimately fry the Earth. So as you can see, it is both productive and destructive. But in the end, it's just energy. And it follows the rules of nature just like the rest of the universe. So it can be harnessed, or it can be abused.

Ah, I always love a good ramble. :o

[Eugine]

I'm not going to argue what is correct since we do not know, but I believe whatever science has to offer, ie the Big Bang.
Personally haven't really researched any of these theories, but I doubt the scientific community will lead us astray. I do know the main reason why science cannot fully explain the big bang is due to our current Mathematics inability to explain at time=0. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means our way of thinking is just primitive for the big bang.
Oh, and according to the Big Bang, the universe is 13.73 billion +/- 0.12 years old.

I do know for sure that the Bible account on creation is Infinity squared% wrong. Well, its literal meaning. I believe it is a metaphor.

[Caael]

Laharl, on Apr 15 2008, 10:08 AM, said:

Although an explosion cant be destructive if there is nothing there in the first place.

QFT. I'll say more on the matter later when i'm at home.

[Platinum Sun]

Seeing as I am practically obligated to weigh in on this:

This is remarkably similar to the creationism case that a tornado hitting a junkyard can't assemble a 747, and the counter is much the same also. You didn't say anything in the Big Bang theory was impossible, just extremely unlikely, and in that you are entirely correct. You even went so far as to use the term 'astronomical odds' that term comes from needing a whole universe of probablilty for something to happen. We happen to have just that.

I'm not contradicting you. It is almost infinitely unlikely that the universe would turn out the way it did. Why did the universe turn out the way it did then? Some say God. I say it just happened. Think about it. We'll say that that quarter has a 50% chance of landing on heads. I doubt I'll take challengers on that assertion. Why did it land on heads though? There are a whole number of factors that let to this, the coin's starting position, initial upward velocity and rotational vector, air resistance and a host of other things. I could go into that every time I flip a coin, but it's just easier to say that it's random and that the chance is 50%. The fact is that nothing is truly random, events just depend on factors that we cannot realistically observe. If you had a lens that could see everything, you would be able to predict the actions of every heavenly body, down to the last molecule. We have no such device, so unobservable variables are accounted for by our great and shadowy construct, probability. Some put God in its place. Perhaps this is one of those 'mysterious ways' God works through, who am I to say?

The point is that all ways in which the universe could have turned out are equally unlikely. The specter of chance merely chose this one on a whim. We only know that this path is even possible because it happened already. Just as the Conquistadores didn't know one could return form a western journey across the Atlantic until someone did it, or how aviators thought that a plane couldn't fly faster than the speed of sound until someone did it. Some believe that the same may be true for the light barrier in the distant future. A body of well documented evidence and a consensus of scientists say that it is impossible; quite similar to the ones that said that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it.

My point is that astronomically unlikely things can happen if your criteria is the universe. Your observation states that you don't get a house if you blow up a cord of wood. Well, if you blew up a cord of wood in every corner of the universe once a second for 13 billion years, don't you think that, just maybe, a house might come of it?

[TheEnglishman]

I don't have any big theories, I only see two points.
a.) We're never going to go back and find out.
b.) It doesn't matter how it happened, it just did.

[Saturos S.]

But what if it happened again?

[TheEnglishman]

You mean, what if there was another Big Bang or whatever else created the universe?
To be honest, there's no real way for us to even predict when something like that could happen. I think we shouldn't worry about something we can't prove.

[Split Infinity]

A second Big Bang could only occur if the universe stop expanding and collapsed into a singularity under its own gravity.

[Eugine]

Me111, on Apr 15 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

I think we shouldn't worry about something we can't prove.

can't prove as of now*
We'll find out soon.

And Me111, with your thinking, we would never prove anything =)

[Golden Legacy]

Split Infinity, on Apr 15 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

A second Big Bang could only occur if the universe stop expanding and collapsed into a singularity under its own gravity.

That's the follow-up to the Big Bang. It's called the "Big Crunch", and it refers to when all the matter in the universe stops spreading out, and begins to move back towards the center. There is evidence of this in the form of "red shifts" - an electromagnetic spectrum of the universe indicates that most matter, roughly 90%, is in the blue end of the spectrum - that means they are moving away from us, outward. However, there is the remaining matter which is in the red end of the spectrum, and that indicates that matter is moving towards us, closer.


That said, regarding my own beliefs, I'm not sure what exactly I believe in for the Creation of the Universe. I do follow the Abrahamic faith and believe in the existence of God. I don't think I agree entirely with the Big Bang (simply because 15 billion years is not an easy concept to grasp), but I do believe that it doesn't disprove the existence of the God I believe in - because to God (or whatever "grand designer"), those millions and billions of years are something that make much more "sense" and are an easier thing to understand and grasp.

[Someone Else]

I'd just like to say that PS said everything that I'm thinking. Except he put it into coherent words. =P

I wish I personally knew somebody like you PS. I could learn so much from someone like you. =/

[Golden Legacy]

Hmm, I just read PS' post too. I have to admit, I've never thought of it that way, and I'm really impressed with your argument. Nicely done.

[TheEnglishman]

Eugine, on Apr 15 2008, 10:35 PM, said:

can't prove as of now*
We'll find out soon.

And Me111, with your thinking, we would never prove anything =)

Yeah but we wouldn't have long debates over it either.
I just doubt there will be a way to prove how the universe started, or if there was, it wouldn't happen in our lifetime.

[Mallick]

Toasty, on Apr 15 2008, 01:29 AM, said:

I've been thinking about this on and off for a little while. The whole theory of the big bang and whatnot, well, I don't believe a word of it. But I've devised my own reasoning for why there has to be some higher being, or at least someone or something pulling the strings (in my case it's a someone, as I'm a Christian).

Anyway, here is my reasoning:

Everything that's ever been related to large amounts of uncontrolled energy has been destructive in some way. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, for example, caused massive destruction. It released massive amounts of energy without control.

Basically, whenever you have uncontrolled energy, it always ends up destroying something. Always. There are no exceptions, other than so far unproven theories (i.e. the big bang). Radiation, when controlled, is constructive. It produces energy for our homes, it can be used to diagnose injuries, or even to treat cancer. When allowed to run rampad, though, you get things like the Chernobyl (sp?) and three mile isle (I think that's what it's called) incidents, or the destruction of entire cities (Hiroshima). In less extreme cases, instead of killing cancer, it causes it.

Explosives, when used properly, can blast away rock or demolish a building safely. When lit and tossed around, someone's bound to get their heads blown off.

Mt. St. Helens, when it erupted, sent a huge cloud of ash all around the globe, and even to this day, the landscape around the mountain still hasn't completely recovered.

Every sitiuation that I run through my head corresponds to this. I can't think of any situation where uncontrolled energy has been constructive. I may only be 15, and I may not be a scientist with a phd, but I've spent more than my fair share of time with my nose burried in science books and Wikipedia articles (normally I'd laugh at myself there, but these articels aren't influenced by religious or political views in anyway. The subjects themselves are unbiased).

I came to this conclusion on my own, and it makes perfect sense to me. And with this reasoning, then the big bang as well, cannot be a constructive force. It was an uncontrolled release of insanely massive amounts of energy. Even though the big bang doesn't fall under the realm of standard science, I think it's reasonable to believe that the chances of particles flying around at extremely high speeds, and then combining to form planets, or however it happened, well the odds of it being constructive in any way is astronomical. Therefore, the only way that massive amount(s) of energy could be used to create the univerese, is if someone was directing where everything was to go.

Now before this goes into the whole religious debate thing about "Well where did God come from then?" or numerous other questions, to tell you the truth, I don't know. I could ask you the same question, about where the super dense particles used in the big bang came from, but I won't because I'm far more interested in other things. All I know, is that I cannot answer those questions.

However, though I cannot answer where those particels came from, or where god came from, I've concluded for now that the big bang cannot have created the universe, because simply put, uncontrolled energy does not create things. It destroys them.

There is no way to take a stick of dynamite, stick it in a pile of lumber, light it off, and then magically get a house every time. I'm sure that it's possible, but the chances are less than a billion to the trillionth power.

Without control, nothing can be created. Period. Therefore, someone had to be pulling the strings.


That is what I have to say about this, and even though I'd like to bring religion into this more and say "well the bible said this would happen and it already has! See?!" I'd rather this be approached through a scientific standpoint to get some things out of the way and over with.

If you can find a science, or even a proven theory that uncontrolled energy can consistently create something (and I don't mean rubble, or jagged rocks, or whatever), then show me. I'll happily read through it.

Your parents had no control over your creation. :(

[Toasty]

Laharl, on Apr 15 2008, 02:08 AM, said:

unless one of us is 4 and a half billion years old, then i'll admit there is no way of proving the big bang theory. Although an explosion cant be destructive if there is nothing there in the first place.

According to the bible, the universe is only a few thousands years old, which is utter bull****. It amazes me how so mant people can ignore and denounce things like carbon dating in favor of a book. The christian creation theory is only as credible as every other creation myth from every other culture in human history

if i went around saying Gaia created the universe from Chaos, i'd be locked up. despite it being no different to the christian myth

Read up on how carbon dating works before you build your rebuttle on it. It's not an exact science. Or at least, not entirely.

Carbon dating is fairly accurate, but once the decaying matter (carbon 14) reaches a small enough amount, scientists can't accurately tell how much is left, and thus cannot tell how long it will be before the matter has completely decayed. Therefore, though carbon dating is accurate to an extent, it is still inaccurate. Though I'm not sure how innaccurate it is, so I'll leave it open for debate.

And to my knowledge, the bible doesn't state how old the earth is. A christian mathematician crunched some numbers, and assuming that Adam and Eve came about just after the universe was finished being made, then it would've taken about 10,000 years to reach the population of people we have today. I'd say that under those circumstances, it would be accurate to within 1,000 years.

So though the bible doesn't state it directly, the numbers used to calculate the age of the universe were taken from the bible, in a matter of speaking.

Platinum Sun, on Apr 15 2008, 08:29 AM, said:

Seeing as I am practically obligated to weigh in on this:

This is remarkably similar to the creationism case that a tornado hitting a junkyard can't assemble a 747, and the counter is much the same also. You didn't say anything in the Big Bang theory was impossible, just extremely unlikely, and in that you are entirely correct. You even went so far as to use the term 'astronomical odds' that term comes from needing a whole universe of probablilty for something to happen. We happen to have just that.

I'm not contradicting you. It is almost infinitely unlikely that the universe would turn out the way it did. Why did the universe turn out the way it did then? Some say God. I say it just happened. Think about it. We'll say that that quarter has a 50% chance of landing on heads. I doubt I'll take challengers on that assertion. Why did it land on heads though? There are a whole number of factors that let to this, the coin's starting position, initial upward velocity and rotational vector, air resistance and a host of other things. I could go into that every time I flip a coin, but it's just easier to say that it's random and that the chance is 50%. The fact is that nothing is truly random, events just depend on factors that we cannot realistically observe. If you had a lens that could see everything, you would be able to predict the actions of every heavenly body, down to the last molecule. We have no such device, so unobservable variables are accounted for by our great and shadowy construct, probability. Some put God in its place. Perhaps this is one of those 'mysterious ways' God works through, who am I to say?

The point is that all ways in which the universe could have turned out are equally unlikely. The specter of chance merely chose this one on a whim. We only know that this path is even possible because it happened already. Just as the Conquistadores didn't know one could return form a western journey across the Atlantic until someone did it, or how aviators thought that a plane couldn't fly faster than the speed of sound until someone did it. Some believe that the same may be true for the light barrier in the distant future. A body of well documented evidence and a consensus of scientists say that it is impossible; quite similar to the ones that said that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it.

My point is that astronomically unlikely things can happen if your criteria is the universe. Your observation states that you don't get a house if you blow up a cord of wood. Well, if you blew up a cord of wood in every corner of the universe once a second for 13 billion years, don't you think that, just maybe, a house might come of it?

I can understand that. The initial explosion (big bang) may not have destroyed anything because there was nothing to destroy, but any explosions afterwards (anything from gunpowder to supernovae) would destroy, since there is something there that can be destroyed.

And as for the pile of lumber thing, I can believe that it's possible given enough time, but it wouldn't be consistent.


And I'd like to bring up another point to discuss. If humans began as piles of sludge, and slowly evolved into what we are today, where along the lines did we gain intelligence? How are we able to have emotion? Scientifically speaking, the brain works in a similar fashion to a network of nodes, or an "artificial neural network" (obviousl). Basically, information is put in one end, and has several paths it could take, and several ending destinations (or answers/solutions). Where does emotion come into play, then? It's obvious where intelligence comes in, but how are we able to have emotion?

[Caael]

Why are you asking questions that you know full well cant be answered? Nobody knows any of this, and I doubt there's a way to prove it yet.

[Split Infinity]

Agreed. You can't prove that God exists just because we don't know everything.

[Caael]

You cant prove he doesn't exist either. I dont believe in God, just thought i'd throw that out there.

The way I see it, God is just used to explain the unexplainable. People feel safer when they know why something happened hence God was created.

[Split Infinity]

You can't prove he doesn't exist, but the difference is that science actually has evidence whereas creationism has only faith.

[Caael]

Pretty much. Science proves creationism wrong in so many ways.


And Toasty, just because carbon dating isn't accurate doesn't mean its wrong. The scientific definition of accurate means closest to the true value. So even if we tested soil dating back thousands of years back, just because it's not accurate doesn't make it wrong.

[Eugine]

http://www.thelocal.se/11054/20080411/

This tree is older than the world (well, its roots) ^___^

[Caael]

That tree alone proves the bible wrong :D

[Someone Else]

I don't know if I'd say that, but it does show a bit of doubt.

[Toasty]

Caael, on Apr 16 2008, 05:06 AM, said:

That tree alone proves the bible wrong :D

The roots are 8,000 years old. The earth (from a biblical point of view) is about 10,000 years old. How does that prove the bible wrong?


And the question I asked isn't impossible to answer. Some things I've read so far (and already knew), say that hormones are what gives us senses of happiness and sadness, and many other feelings. However, what I'm actually more curious to know about now, is exactly how we're able to remember things, or make things up with our minds. Or exactly how those hormones give us emotion.

[Split Infinity]

Because we evolved those traits, being the advanced species that we are.

[Toasty]

That doesn't explain it. How are we able to truely understand what emotions are?

[Split Infinity]

They're just electrical impulses in our brains that help to dictate our actions.

[Eugine]

Toasty, if you use the Bible timeline, the world is actually 6500 years old.

[Toasty]

Eugine, on Apr 17 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

Toasty, if you use the Bible timeline, the world is actually 6500 years old.

And why do you say that?

[Split Infinity]

Because you were just saying that the Bible says the world is 10,000 years old.

[Toasty]

Split, I meant "where did you hear this?" or "What's your proof?"

And I'll say this again. The bible doesn't explicitly say how old the earth is. But if Adam and Eve came just after the earth was formed, then it would've taken 10,000 years to reach the population we have today. Not sure if that includes the great flood depicted in the bible, but that's the number that a Christian mathemetician came up with.

[Mallick]

Yes, but if God did exist and did want them to breed, we all know he would give them super-bunny multiplying skillz.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Apr 18 2008, 12:39 AM, said:

Split, I meant "where did you hear this?" or "What's your proof?"

And I'll say this again. The bible doesn't explicitly say how old the earth is. But if Adam and Eve came just after the earth was formed, then it would've taken 10,000 years to reach the population we have today. Not sure if that includes the great flood depicted in the bible, but that's the number that a Christian mathemetician came up with.

That's so inaccurate it's laughable. I'm guessing he used an average 'reproduction rate' for every year or so, which already debilitates the accuracy, and an average doesn't take into account anomalies ( sudden drops/raises in the population due to disaster etc). If you know how he worked it out, please inform me so I can rape his theory some more.

[Toasty]

Hence why I said it was accurate to within a thousand years.

The guy didn't do this over night, and he's a lot older, and smarter, than anyone here. I'd like to provide an article, but this was something I saw on TV, and I can't remember which channel or whatever it was on. But I'm absolutely sure that he took into account sudden changes in population (like the Black plague in Europe during the whatever century).

[Gio]

Eugine, on Apr 15 2008, 08:11 AM, said:

I do know for sure that the Bible account on creation is Infinity squared% wrong. Well, its literal meaning. I believe it is a metaphor.

I agree

Who are we to say that a day back then was 24 hours. Who are we to say that their definition of a day is the same as ours. I do believe the bible is filled with a great deal of metaphors. Also nothing anybody here has said can really be proven so denouncing the bible and the Christian faith while trying to say other THEORIES disprove it is retarded because they are only theories.

[Eugine]

Toasty, that is a very inaccurate method for calculating the age of Earth (in accordance to the Bible). Imo, the best way for calculating the age of in accordance to the Bible is to use the timeline found in the Bible (Google it).

And Gio, I agree with you, but one point - A theory in science is different from the everyday word theory. It is basically a collection of facts based on reputable hypotesis and testings.

[Toasty]

Yeah, all the timelines say that the earth was created at around 4000BC. However, I have yet to see anything to back up that statement.

As for theories in science, if they aren't proven, then they're theories. If they're proven, then they're facts. Even though we have sets of theories that seem to be fact right now, we can't know for sure. Thus they are theories. Back in the 1800's or early 1900's, or whenever it was, scientists thought that protons floated around in a negatively charged goo. Now, we know that Protons and Neutrons cling to eachother, and electrons fly around them. More recently, we learned that Neutrons can emit an electron, becomming positively charged, and thus becomming protons in Beta Decay. Even MORE recently, we've learned that Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons are made up of even smaller particles, called Quarks. There are Up Quarks, Down Quarks, Strange Quarks, Charm Quarks, Top Quarks, and Bottom Quarks (they have strange names because they had to name them something, and so that's what they came up with).

But as you can see, theories either change or become obsolete over time due to new information being gathered, and new anomalies being discovered.

I wasn't saying that the earth is, for a fact, 10,000 years old, I just said that if you base the timeline off of the bible, then it's about 10,000 years old.

However, since there is no such thing as time in heaven (which is why everyone arrives there at the same time, according to the Christian religion), then a day to God could be a really long *** time to us. Therefore, it's still open for discussion. But I suppose that it's safe to say that Humans have only been around for 10,000 years.

[Split Infinity]

Except a theory as to the arrangement of protons in an atom is a lot less outrageous than one that suggests the universe is controlled by an all-powerful entity.

[Eugine]

http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html
Also, read the wikipedia on theory.

The beauty of science is that we are allowed to improve on our theories as more testings are done. Religion on the other hand... *sigh*

[Split Infinity]

Good article. Aren't you a Christian though, Eugine?

[Eugine]

Yeah =)
Currently a Protestant, but will be converting to Catholicism this year. Catholicism is actually the most open Christian denomination (the Pope believes in Evolution for eg.) imo.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

Unlike most denomination, Catholicism is actually pro-science =)

[Laharl]

Toasty, on Apr 16 2008, 10:37 AM, said:

Read up on how carbon dating works before you build your rebuttle on it. It's not an exact science. Or at least, not entirely.

please remind me where i said that, oh wait i didnt

Toasty, on Apr 16 2008, 10:37 AM, said:

So though the bible doesn't state it directly, the numbers used to calculate the age of the universe were taken from the bible, in a matter of speaking.

this being a book that claimed several people lived for hundreds of years ( people like Noah), yeah real accuracy

Once again Toasty you continue your trend of

- Asking stupid, unanswerable questions
- Making ridicolous accusations
- Demanding evidence from others
- Providing no evidence to support your own views

Work on this and i'll consider further discussion

[Mallick]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/betrayer93/funnies/05062006.gif

[Toasty]

Laharl, on Apr 18 2008, 10:03 AM, said:

please remind me where i said that, oh wait i didnt



this being a book that claimed several people lived for hundreds of years ( people like Noah), yeah real accuracy

Once again Toasty you continue your trend of

- Asking stupid, unanswerable questions
- Making ridicolous accusations
- Demanding evidence from others
- Providing no evidence to support your own views

Work on this and i'll consider further discussion

Back then the sun wasn't nearly as intense, and thus people didn't age as quickly (the sun plays a big role in how fast your body ages). It wouldn't be unheard of to live for a few hundred years.

I ask stupid, unanswerable questions to see people's views on them. Your accusations (like the conspiracy theories you believe), are just as ridiculous to me as my accusations are to you. I didn't demand, I asked. It's not like I put a gun to his head. If I have evidence, I'll give it. If not, then I don't. I could really care less if you believed what I say or not, because even if god opened up the heavens and looked you straight in the eyes, you still wouldn't believe he existed.

And besides, you rarely provide evidence yourself.

Eugine, on Apr 18 2008, 05:14 AM, said:

http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html
Also, read the wikipedia on theory.

The beauty of science is that we are allowed to improve on our theories as more testings are done. Religion on the other hand... *sigh*

Taken from the article itself:

Quote

Yes, a scientific theory can be wrong, as shown by experiment or observation, since one of its hypotheses might be wrong or the reasoning might be flawed or new data might come along that disagree with it. Or its validity might be limited (as are some of those listed above). So in science, a wrong theory gets modified, discarded, or replaced. This has happened, for example, in physics with the caloric theory of heat and the theory of the luminiferous ether, and in chemistry with the phlogiston theory of combustion.

Basically what I already said.

Quote

In physics, which is my field, theories such as classical mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism are thought to be on excellent ground in both evidence and reasoning, but each of them is still "just a theory". Other theories, such as in cosmology and elementary particles, are still being developed, and do get changed as new evidence and reasoning come in. The fact that theories are subject to improvement is the great strength of science.

Basically, it's not a fact, but a "theory".

Quote

Anti-evolutionists sometimes say that evolution has not been "proven". In a strict sense, no theory is ever proven in any field, with the possible exception of pure mathematics, since new data might come along that require a change, and there are always details that haven't been tested.

Again, basically what I've said before. And again, no theory is solid fact.

Quote

Supernatural creation is not a theory, but a hypothesis. Considered in a scientific sense, it has a fatal flaw: it is sterile. If someone asserts that there is a creator-god, one can ask "So what?" Nothing follows from it; it leads nowhere. Some religions have additional hypotheses, such as: only one creator-god, a great flood, the sun standing still, a virgin birth, a trinity, a resurrection, the efficacy of prayer; but no one of these is logically demanded, or even suggested, by the others. They are just added on.

With the exception of Islam, Christianity (and it's denominations), and Jewdaeism, which are the three major religions and all believe in there being one god, and all share a same base, other religions are completely different. Almost all other religions believe in multiple gods, or no god at all. There are many religions, but only one is true. No one can provide solid evidence about which one is true, which is why there are more than one.

But there are many things that science can't explaing, and even after millions of years, never will be able to.

For example, where did the super dense particles that made the big bang come from? If something made them, where did it come from? One scientific theory that has a strong base for it's reasoning, is that man cannot create something out of nothing, or completely destroy anything. Therefore, since those super dense particles couldn't have just appeared out of nowhere (unless they were created by god [/religous point of view]), then they had to some from somewhere.


Anyway, I just thought of something else. According to the theory of relativity, smaller, lighter things are drawn towards bigger, heavier things. Therefore, are the orbits of any of the planets in our galaxy decaying? I.E., are they moving closer and closer towards the sun?

If they're not, then that would have to mean that each and every one of the planets in our solar system are speeding along at the exact speed needed to stay in their respective orbits without flying away or falling in.

I don't even think that it's possible at all for that to happen randomly, but it might be. And if it is, even if the odds are astronomical, then science can say that given the billions of years since the big bang, there would've been plenty of time for this number of planets to end up in a perfect orbit around the sun.

But anyway, are they in decaying orbits around the sun?

[Eugine]

Well, Toasty, there's more reasons not to believe in God, than to believe in him (What transcending and omnipotent will allow so many people to be in poverty, allow AIDs, Cancer, and allow his own doctrine (specifically Christianity) to be a pass for slavery?). I dunno why you made a direct blow against Laharl's Atheism.

Wouldn't you prefer to live a life of logic and reasoning rather than one of faith? Which ever works for you I suppose. I choose both btw =)

And I pointed to that article because as the article says, just because it is a theory, it doesn't mean it isn't true. It is the closest we imperfect humans can establish as the truth. Actually, scientific theories are more reputable than most of the Bible fyi. I do think its message is wonderful though =)
Oh, and I love Buddhism. Probably prefer its teachings over Christianity. I personally do not see the need to convert to another religion though.

And rather than write long paragraphs you know most of us cannot answer (those experts in the fields cannot themselves x.x) I suggest doing your homework ^_~
Basically, stop asking unanswerable questions. My only answer to your questions is give us time. Do not underestimate the human element, we'll figure it out.

[Mallick]

Eugine, on Apr 18 2008, 09:36 PM, said:

Well, Toasty, there's more reasons not to believe in God, than to believe in him (What transcending and omnipotent will allow so many people to be in poverty, allow AIDs, Cancer, and allow his own doctrine (specifically Christianity) to be a pass for slavery?). I dunno why you made a direct blow against Laharl's Atheism.

Wouldn't you prefer to live a life of logic and reasoning rather than one of faith? Which ever works for you I suppose. I choose both btw =)

And I pointed to that article because as the article says, just because it is a theory, it doesn't mean it isn't true. It is the closest we imperfect humans can establish as the truth. Actually, scientific theories are more reputable than most of the Bible fyi. I do think its message is wonderful though =)
Oh, and I love Buddhism. Probably prefer its teachings over Christianity. I personally do not see the need to convert to another religion though.

And rather than write long paragraphs you know most of us cannot answer (those experts in the fields cannot themselves x.x) I suggest doing your homework ^_~
Basically, stop asking unanswerable questions. My only answer to your questions is give us time. Do not underestimate the human element, we'll figure it out.

Because over-population would be worse.

[Toasty]

True. Plus, according to the Christian religion, if you are a true Christian, than death is actually better. Doesn't mean that people should commit suicide though, because according to the bible, that's not what god wants.

Eugine, on Apr 18 2008, 09:36 PM, said:

Well, Toasty, there's more reasons not to believe in God, than to believe in him (What transcending and omnipotent will allow so many people to be in poverty, allow AIDs, Cancer, and allow his own doctrine (specifically Christianity) to be a pass for slavery?). I dunno why you made a direct blow against Laharl's Atheism.

Wouldn't you prefer to live a life of logic and reasoning rather than one of faith? Which ever works for you I suppose. I choose both btw =)

And I pointed to that article because as the article says, just because it is a theory, it doesn't mean it isn't true. It is the closest we imperfect humans can establish as the truth. Actually, scientific theories are more reputable than most of the Bible fyi. I do think its message is wonderful though =)
Oh, and I love Buddhism. Probably prefer its teachings over Christianity. I personally do not see the need to convert to another religion though.

And rather than write long paragraphs you know most of us cannot answer (those experts in the fields cannot themselves x.x) I suggest doing your homework ^_~
Basically, stop asking unanswerable questions. My only answer to your questions is give us time. Do not underestimate the human element, we'll figure it out.

I just came up with an idea of how to build a hypercube. Seriously. It's awesome.

Anyway, by asking these questions, it;s more likely that people will search for the answer themselves, and then fully understand it. That last question wasn't unanswerable. Infact, if our orbit is indeed decaying, it would also be a factor in global warming. The rest of it was just me rambling on.

And here's something that I ran through my head after reading up about space-time (which I got to after reading up about polyhedroids/polychorons).
This is the article.

So, if gravity can slow down light (and all objects) and thus time, since the rate that time passes is dependant on an objects velocity relative to the speed of light, than is it really slowing down time? It's slowing down movement, and the speed of light at the same time, therefore creating an illusion that everything is moving at normal speed, when infact, everything is moving much slower. So theoretically, if you could put a bubble around you that slowed down time and light within that bubble, than the amount of visual information being sent to your eyes would increase in density and make everything seem like it was moving faster. However, if you were outside of that bubble, everything inside that bubble would appear to be moving very slow.

So, theoretically speaking, time is always constant and never changes. Time passes by at the same rate in a black hole as it does on earth, because time is a measurement. Measurements do not change. However, things on a black hole (a black hole isn't really a hole, it's a ball of really dense stuff that only get's denser as time passes) would move much slower than things on earth, creating the illusion that time has slowed down.

Don't worry if you don't understand what I just said. I'm really bad at explaining things. XD But that's why I leave them as questions, because if I try to explain the answers myself, it makes it far more confusing, and drives people away from the answer instead of towards it.


Anyway, like I stated in the parent post, I'd prefer to keep things on a more scientific level. I was using refrences to the christian religion as a contrast. I wasn't stating anything as fact, unless it was related to science, and was proved a fact.


And my comment wasn't intended as a direct attack on atheism, but I suppose it could be considered one. Though I fail to see how my posts warranted an attack on my faith. Besides, as far as I know, you can't determine how old a person was unless there were still flesh based cells on the bones. If they found a skeleton that was 5000 years old, I don't think there'd be a way to tell how old the person was when they died according to the bone structure. And besides, it would be according to the rate that our bone structure grows and decays nowadays, and back then, the sun was less intense, and thus people wouldn't age as quickly. As I've stated before.

In response to whether I would rather live a life of faith or reasoning, I live both. Things I understand (which are many) are left to the reasoning, and things that can't be explained are left to faith. Just as many religious people do. Reasoning has a limit. Albeit an infinitly expanding one, but at any given time, there is a limit to what we know, and thus a limit to what can be explained. Faith is limitless. There are no limits to the number of things that can be explained simply with "Because god made it that way".

Both are valid answers, though whichever one you prefer depends on your religious standing. Though in most cases, choosing to believe the scientific explanation doesn't make you any less of a Christian/Muslim/etc. The obvious exception is the "Who created the universe?" question. I obviously wouldn't be a true christian if I said that God didn't create the universe. Though I suppose that maybe god created the big bang? There's nothing in the bible that says how the universe was created, only that it was created by God. However, the bible does clearly state that humans did not evolve from other animals. That is why I belive science will never be able to prove it.

From a religious point of view, I guess you could say that science is just a way of understanding how god made things. So science and religion should go hand in hand. Unfortunately, there's many people who think of science as anti-religious, because then they can't use the explanation of "god just made it that way" anymore. On the otherhand, many sicentists say "well I can explain everything myself, so I don't need god or religion to explain it for me."

We're at the point that we're at today because of misunderstandings of the bible, and our tendancy to try and do things ourselves, without the help of others. It's human nature, but we can (and should) still fight it.

For now, anything that can't be explained by science should just be explained as "god made it that way." Once we can explain them, then we'll understand it. There will always be an infinite number of things that science can't explain, and there will always be a constantly increasing number of things that science can explain. Because of that, there will always be room for religion. Therfore, scientists can't say that they can explain everything, and relgious people won't have to worry about not being able to use their "favorite" saying anymore.

I will always be interested in what science has to say, and as things are processed in my brain over time, my opinions will change. I'm a religious scientist.

But Eugine, what do you mean by christianity being a pass for slavery? (PM me)

[Mallick]

Toasty, on Apr 18 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

True. Plus, according to the Christian religion, if you are a true Christian, than death is actually better. Doesn't mean that people should commit suicide though, because according to the bible, that's not what god wants.




I just came up with an idea of how to build a hypercube. Seriously. It's awesome.

Anyway, by asking these questions, it;s more likely that people will search for the answer themselves, and then fully understand it. That last question wasn't unanswerable. Infact, if our orbit is indeed decaying, it would also be a factor in global warming. The rest of it was just me rambling on.

And here's something that I ran through my head after reading up about space-time (which I got to after reading up about polyhedroids/polychorons).
This is the article.

So, if gravity can slow down light (and all objects) and thus time, since the rate that time passes is dependant on an objects velocity relative to the speed of light, than is it really slowing down time? It's slowing down movement, and the speed of light at the same time, therefore creating an illusion that everything is moving at normal speed, when infact, everything is moving much slower. So theoretically, if you could put a bubble around you that slowed down time and light within that bubble, than the amount of visual information being sent to your eyes would increase in density and make everything seem like it was moving faster. However, if you were outside of that bubble, everything inside that bubble would appear to be moving very slow.

So, theoretically speaking, time is always constant and never changes. Time passes by at the same rate in a black hole as it does on earth, because time is a measurement. Measurements do not change. However, things on a black hole (a black hole isn't really a hole, it's a ball of really dense stuff that only get's denser as time passes) would move much slower than things on earth, creating the illusion that time has slowed down.

Don't worry if you don't understand what I just said. I'm really bad at explaining things. XD But that's why I leave them as questions, because if I try to explain the answers myself, it makes it far more confusing, and drives people away from the answer instead of towards it.


Anyway, like I stated in the parent post, I'd prefer to keep things on a more scientific level. I was using refrences to the christian religion as a contrast. I wasn't stating anything as fact, unless it was related to science, and was proved a fact.


And my comment wasn't intended as a direct attack on atheism, but I suppose it could be considered one. Though I fail to see how my posts warranted an attack on my faith. Besides, as far as I know, you can't determine how old a person was unless there were still flesh based cells on the bones. If they found a skeleton that was 5000 years old, I don't think there'd be a way to tell how old the person was when they died according to the bone structure. And besides, it would be according to the rate that our bone structure grows and decays nowadays, and back then, the sun was less intense, and thus people wouldn't age as quickly. As I've stated before.

In response to whether I would rather live a life of faith or reasoning, I live both. Things I understand (which are many) are left to the reasoning, and things that can't be explained are left to faith. Just as many religious people do. Reasoning has a limit. Albeit an infinitly expanding one, but at any given time, there is a limit to what we know, and thus a limit to what can be explained. Faith is limitless. There are no limits to the number of things that can be explained simply with "Because god made it that way".

Both are valid answers, though whichever one you prefer depends on your religious standing. Though in most cases, choosing to believe the scientific explanation doesn't make you any less of a Christian/Muslim/etc. The obvious exception is the "Who created the universe?" question. I obviously wouldn't be a true christian if I said that God didn't create the universe. Though I suppose that maybe god created the big bang? There's nothing in the bible that says how the universe was created, only that it was created by God. However, the bible does clearly state that humans did not evolve from other animals. That is why I belive science will never be able to prove it.

From a religious point of view, I guess you could say that science is just a way of understanding how god made things. So science and religion should go hand in hand. Unfortunately, there's many people who think of science as anti-religious, because then they can't use the explanation of "god just made it that way" anymore. On the otherhand, many sicentists say "well I can explain everything myself, so I don't need god or religion to explain it for me."

We're at the point that we're at today because of misunderstandings of the bible, and our tendancy to try and do things ourselves, without the help of others. It's human nature, but we can (and should) still fight it.

For now, anything that can't be explained by science should just be explained as "god made it that way." Once we can explain them, then we'll understand it. There will always be an infinite number of things that science can't explain, and there will always be a constantly increasing number of things that science can explain. Because of that, there will always be room for religion. Therfore, scientists can't say that they can explain everything, and relgious people won't have to worry about not being able to use their "favorite" saying anymore.

I will always be interested in what science has to say, and as things are processed in my brain over time, my opinions will change. I'm a religious scientist.

But Eugine, what do you mean by christianity being a pass for slavery? (PM me)

please tell me that was copy & paste :X

tl;dr

[Toasty]

Nope. I aactually spent a half hour writing that. XD

Half of it was just about distortions of light and time around black holes.

The other half was explaining that religion and science actually go hand in hand.

[Split Infinity]

Care to summarise it for the 90% of us who are getting tired of your verbosity?

[Eugine]

Toasty stop writing such long paragraphs =). I am not reading those stuff x3. I just skim through them =)
And Toasty, just read this link. Of course the Bible doesn't have a clear position on slavery, but it was used by some people as a justification for it.

[Toasty]

Well in response to that wiki article, the bible does have a standing. It states that all men are created equal, therefore no man is better than another. Slavery does not follow that, and therefore, Christianity does not support slavery.

And I know I make long posts, but I have a lot to say. =P I don't really get a chance to tell people everything that runs through my head, because they often don't listen. I have a better chance of people listening to what I have to say on the internet, than I do in real life.

@ Split:

Black holes can slow down the speed at which light and other things around it move. Since time is apparently dependent on the velocity of an object relative to the speed of light, then time, according to that theory, is slowed down in a black hole. However, since time is a measurement and has no substance, and is constant, it can't be manipulated. A black hole therefore, can't really slow down time. Just the speed at which light and objects travel. You'd be able to do more in 30 minutes on earth than on a black hole.

Basically, it only creates an illusion that time has slowed down.That's my standing on that for now, but I'm sure science doesn't agree with me entirely on that.

From a religious point of view, science is merely a way of explaining how and why god made things, and how those things work. Therefore, instead of each side (religion and science) shunning each other, they should accept each other's interpretation. There's really only one thing that I can think of that the bible explicitly disagrees with science on, and that's how man was created. Science said we evolved. The bible said that we were created by god in his image.

[Split Infinity]

Except science and religion can't work hand in hand if they're polar opposites. The only thing religion has ever done to support itself is try to prove science wrong.

[Toasty]

If you read my overly lengthy post, you'll understand my view on it more.


[EDIT] Here:

Toasty, on Apr 18 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

From a religious point of view, I guess you could say that science is just a way of understanding how god made things. So science and religion should go hand in hand. Unfortunately, there's many people who think of science as anti-religious, because then they can't use the explanation of "god just made it that way" anymore. On the otherhand, many sicentists say "well I can explain everything myself, so I don't need god or religion to explain it for me."

We're at the point that we're at today because of misunderstandings of the bible, and our tendancy to try and do things ourselves, without the help of others. It's human nature, but we can (and should) still fight it.

[Split Infinity]

The Bible still presents a lot of scenarios which have no scientific or historical backing. The existence of God is the very pillar of Christianity, yet nobody has put forward any evidence as to how this is possible. Why is it that God was busy sending messengers, burning bushes and parting seas 2000 years ago, yet has lied dormant ever since? Why not show us some sort of proof in an age where we could record it and still be credible for future generations?

It seems incredibly harsh to send people to eternal damnation just because they chose the wrong religion, or decided to live by logic and reasoning instead.

[Toasty]

Split Infinity, on Apr 19 2008, 05:31 PM, said:

The Bible still presents a lot of scenarios which have no scientific or historical backing. The existence of God is the very pillar of Christianity, yet nobody has put forward any evidence as to how this is possible. Why is it that God was busy sending messengers, burning bushes and parting seas 2000 years ago, yet has lied dormant ever since? Why not show us some sort of proof in an age where we could record it and still be credible for future generations?

It seems incredibly harsh to send people to eternal damnation just because they chose the wrong religion, or decided to live by logic and reasoning instead.

Let's put it this way:

You're the head of a club that only allows certain people in. No one ever sees you, but you can communicate with them through messages. Would you want to let people into the club who believe that you exist, and that truely trust you, or would you rather let people in who don't believe you exist, and don't trust you?

And like I've said before, religion and science (logic and reasoning) aren't polar opposites. They compliment eachother. You can believe in god and still have logic and reasoning. Thinking that they don't is what's led to the conflicts between the two. People (mainly un-religious scientists) who say that religious people are stubborn and won't listen to anything they have to say may be right more than half the time, but they're very hipocritical. They don't listen to what religious people have to say either.

Besides (according to the bible), all you have to do to get into heaven is believe that god died for your sins so you can go to heaven. As long as you believe that, the religion that you follow doesn't really matter. Just because someone's a Mormon or Muslim or whatever, for example, doesn't always mean that they don't believe that.

The main difference between the three major faiths isn't which god they believe in, but how they interpret the scriptures.

And as for god not sending us messages anymore, that's not true. Most missionaries (messengers) that go out to other countries to preach their teachings do so because "God told them to." There was a guy somehwere in either Asia or Africa, who was running away away from people who were trying to shoot him. He came upon a wall and started to climb it, and the people started shooting at him. He claims that the bullets stopped in mid-air before they hit him. He got over the wall and continued to run, while his persuers ran in the other direction for fear that he would use "magic" on them. He's a christian. I find that story a bit hard to believe myself, but stranger things have happened.

Pretty much anything that would be considered an act of god 2000 years ago is considered a coincidence nowadays. In that sense, the messages never stopped. People just changed the way that they interpreted them.

[Eugine]

Well, the more humans understand the world through science, the less we rely on faith. Plus, the religious community (Catholic church specifically) wasn't really always accepting to science since it undermines their power honestly.
Galileo anyone?

[Split Infinity]

Toasty, on Apr 20 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

Let's put it this way:

You're the head of a club that only allows certain people in. No one ever sees you, but you can communicate with them through messages. Would you want to let people into the club who believe that you exist, and that truely trust you, or would you rather let people in who don't believe you exist, and don't trust you?

Except God didn't send me messages even when I used to believe in him, and also, how can you have faith in something which you have no reason to believe it exists? I might as well preach the word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since it's just as believable.

[Caael]

Eugine, on Apr 18 2008, 02:16 PM, said:

Yeah =)
Currently a Protestant, but will be converting to Catholicism this year. Catholicism is actually the most open Christian denomination (the Pope believes in Evolution for eg.) imo.

Just make sure you dont do anything sinful or you'll be condemned to the deepest level of hell for life.

So no sex, no alcohol, no fast food, no entertainment, no anything really unless it involves praying to God.

Of course, that's exaggerated but I think Catholicism is the most extreme denomination of Christianity there is.

[Toasty]

Split Infinity, on Apr 19 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

Except God didn't send me messages even when I used to believe in him, and also, how can you have faith in something which you have no reason to believe it exists? I might as well preach the word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since it's just as believable.

First off, it's probably because you weren't looking for one. If you want a message, then ask. The bible says "ask and you shall recieve." Obviously god wouldn't give you a ferrari, but if you needed some way to get to work, you'd likely get it.

When I asked for a message, I ended up getting a ride home from school almost every day for a week. I didn't pay it much attention until one day, my youth pastor pulled up along side me when I was walking to school, and gave me a ride. Most of the people who were giving me rides were friends of my sister who I barely knew. They drive to and from school every day, so thy could've offered me rides at any time during this past school year, yet they chose to almost the day after I prayed.

PS will call it coinidence, and Laharl will say that and then call me a dumbass for believing that god exists. But things like that have happened more than once for me. They all happened after I prayed about something. It's not easy to pass them all off as coincidence anymore, because there's been too many "coincidences" for all of them to be coincidences.

And the whole point of faith is to believe without proof.
The point I was trying to get across with the "club" explanation, was that if people will believe in you and trust you without any proof of your existence, then they're definately going to when you pop out and prove to them that you do.

The same goes for god. He wants us to believe without needing proof. That way, only the people who truely want to go to heaven, and who want to praise him, will.

According to the bible, we were basically made to praise god. That is why we exist.

[Split Infinity]

So the only reason you believe in God is because of the occassional coincidence?

[Caael]

Quote

According to the bible, we were basically made to praise god. That is why we exist.

So if we're atheist, our lives dont mean anything?

[Toasty]

Split Infinity, on Apr 19 2008, 07:22 PM, said:

So the only reason you believe in God is because of the occassional coincidence?

Not occaisional. And that's why I continue to believe.

Caael, on Apr 19 2008, 07:22 PM, said:

So if we're atheist, our lives dont mean anything?

No, it just means that you're not doing what god wants you to do.

[Split Infinity]

Then Toasty, assuming there really is some supernatural force involved, how do you know it's God who causes those coincidences? How do you know (for example) it's not just the psychic ability present in every human being which causes unnatural things to happen every now and then?

Or maybe someone you know deliberately sent your youth pastor to pick you up that day, just to make you feel special?

[Toasty]

Split, he was on his way to work. Nobody sent him. If someone did, than he would've said so.

Why are so persistent in trying to disprove something that's never been proved in the first place?

Besides, if people were psychic, then scientists and doctors would's already found that out. They'd be able to notice changes in the brain's wave patterns when "communicating" to other people.

The fact is, I have all the proof that I need to believe in god. You obviously don't have enough proof for yourself, which is why you don't believe. I found mine because I searched for it.

[Split Infinity]

Your entire basis for the existence of God and everything that ever happened in the history of Christianity is because of a series of completely unrelated events which you fail to put down to mere chance?

I beat my dad the other day at a game of Mastermind by guessing his combination on my first turn. The odds of that happening are slim, yet entirely possible. Is it that hard to believe that sometimes, things don't always go in favour of the most likely outcome?

[Eugine]

"Are we not perhaps all afraid in some way? If we let Christ enter fully into our lives, if we open ourselves totally to Him, are we not afraid that He might take something away from us? No! If we let Christ into our lives, we lose nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing of what makes life free, beautiful and great. No! Only in this friendship do we experience beauty and liberation....When we give ourselves to Him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ – and you will find true life." - Pope Benedict XVI

This is basically why I am Christian. I just compare my life when I had trust in Jesus, and times when I did not, and the times when I do are always better =)

Like I said before, whatever works for you. I'm not going to force my views on anyone, but live by example. I hope my example will allow people to experience what I experience now =)

[Toasty]

That's pretty good quote. It's something that I was thinking about bringing up here.

Basically, why hate christianity? You lose absolutely nothing in choosing to believe in christ, so why not? No one can prove scientifically what happens to your "spirit" after you die, so why not at least get some insurance? It's even free.

Split Infinity, on Apr 19 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

Your entire basis for the existence of God and everything that ever happened in the history of Christianity is because of a series of completely unrelated events which you fail to put down to mere chance?

I beat my dad the other day at a game of Mastermind by guessing his combination on my first turn. The odds of that happening are slim, yet entirely possible. Is it that hard to believe that sometimes, things don't always go in favour of the most likely outcome?

And how many times has that happened, Split? Once? Twice? Three times?

These "coincidences" have happened more times than I can remember, and every single time they were related to things that I did, either (religious related ) actions or things I prayed about, anywhere between years to only moments before.

My first cat was a blue persian. She was one of the meanest cats that you'd ever come across. She would NEVER let anyone pet her, and she bit me twice while we had her. There was only ONE day. ONE DAY out of the 5 years that we had her, where she would let me pet her and not try and bite me, or swat at me and run away, even after 5 minutes. I prayed the night before for my cat to be nicer, if even for only a short while.

Being only 6 years old, it was a bit startling. That night I prayed that she wasn't so nice, but not as mean as before, and you know what? That's exactly what I got. From then on, she actually let me pet her, if only for a little while every now and then.

You'll obviously call that a coincidence, but if you knew my cat, there's no way that she would just decide one day that she was going to be nice.


That is one of many coincidences that have led me to believe that god does, infact exist.

[Split Infinity]

O rly?

I still put it down to coincidence. There's no way of knowing whether something you prayed for was going to happen in the first place, so it's not conclusive evidence; in the eyes of science, anyway. I completely understand why you'd feel that way, but it seems to me that you're overreacting a little.

[Laharl]

Eugine, on Apr 20 2008, 04:20 AM, said:

"Are we not perhaps all afraid in some way? If we let Christ enter fully into our lives, if we open ourselves totally to Him, are we not afraid that He might take something away from us? No! If we let Christ into our lives, we lose nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing of what makes life free, beautiful and great. No! Only in this friendship do we experience beauty and liberation....When we give ourselves to Him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ – and you will find true life." - Pope Benedict XVI

This is basically why I am Christian. I just compare my life when I had trust in Jesus, and times when I did not, and the times when I do are always better =)

Like I said before, whatever works for you. I'm not going to force my views on anyone, but live by example. I hope my example will allow people to experience what I experience now =)

your examplar was a nazi.

fear not Eugine! if you convert to Catholism, you'll be too old for the priests to molest.

Toasty, on Apr 20 2008, 06:27 AM, said:

Basically, why hate christianity? You lose absolutely nothing in choosing to believe in christ, so why not? No one can prove scientifically what happens to your "spirit" after you die, so why not at least get some insurance? It's even free.

my problem is with the christians who reinterpret the doctrine so its fits their own agenda, like you know most of them. To quote Mahatma Gandhi:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"

Toasty, on Apr 20 2008, 06:27 AM, said:

These "coincidences" have happened more times than I can remember, and every single time they were related to things that I did, either (religious related ) actions or things I prayed about, anywhere between years to only moments before.

My first cat was a blue persian. She was one of the meanest cats that you'd ever come across. She would NEVER let anyone pet her, and she bit me twice while we had her. There was only ONE day. ONE DAY out of the 5 years that we had her, where she would let me pet her and not try and bite me, or swat at me and run away, even after 5 minutes. I prayed the night before for my cat to be nicer, if even for only a short while.

Being only 6 years old, it was a bit startling. That night I prayed that she wasn't so nice, but not as mean as before, and you know what? That's exactly what I got. From then on, she actually let me pet her, if only for a little while every now and then.

You'll obviously call that a coincidence, but if you knew my cat, there's no way that she would just decide one day that she was going to be nice.
That is one of many coincidences that have led me to believe that god does, infact exist.

that is the worst arguement to prove the existence of a deity i've ever heard in my life.

here are plenty of reasons why God exists XD

and in regards to the accuracy of the bible

Perhaps some of the christians would like to try the Easter Challenge?

[Toasty]

First off, Laharl, I was giving reasons for why I believe in god, and not trying to prove he exists. Secondly, it's not just that one instance. There's numerous other "coincidences" that have crossed my path, that are even stranger than that.

Besides, the odds that all of these "coincidences" could have happened, all of them together, are pretty slim. And that's if you consider each coincidence to only have two possible outcomes. On top of that, since people have a limited lifespan, the chances that they were to happen to me during my lifetime, are even slimmer.

It could be explained by science if I had an infinite amount of time, but I don't.

And that foundation is run by athiests, agnostics, and skeptics. As stated on their "What is FFRF?" page.

If I have spare time, I'll read through the verses and see what I come up with.

[Laharl]

Toasty, on Apr 20 2008, 11:50 AM, said:

And that foundation is run by athiests, agnostics, and skeptics. As stated on their "What is FFRF?" page.

If I have spare time, I'll read through the verses and see what I come up with.

doesnt stop them being right :/

i look foward to your attempt at the Easter Challenge, while you're at it do you think you could turn some lead into gold? because you seem pretty skilled at doing impossible things

[Toasty]

The only difference between lead and gold is the number of protons in each one. Give me and unstable isotope of lead that decays through beta decay, and I'll give you gold.

And the coincidences aren't impossible, if that's what you meant. The odds of ALL of them randomly happening are just extremely low.

[Split Infinity]

But as Eugine said, the odds of anything else happening are equally low.

[Laharl]

Toasty, on Apr 20 2008, 12:11 PM, said:

The only difference between lead and gold is the number of protons in each one. Give me and unstable isotope of lead that decays through beta decay, and I'll give you gold.

And the coincidences aren't impossible, if that's what you meant. The odds of ALL of them randomly happening are just extremely low.

i think you'll find there a lot more to it than that, if they're basically the same why are they different catergories in the periodic table?

by impossible, i was refering to the Easter Challenge, which you'll probably just ignore until it goes away. Considering how skeptical Christians are of every other faith, they sure dont take criticism of their own faith very well

[Split Infinity]

They're in different catagories of the periodic table because they have different numbers of electron shells. Oh, and scientists have tried to convert elements to gold, but the amount of energy required to do so is completely impractical. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Laharl]

go not studying science for 5 years XD

Although i am worried the topic has drifted off with the example and the actual point was missed

[Caael]

I'm totally with Split and Laharl on this one

[Zeypher]

Wake up and smell the roses, guys. There is NO universe. We're all in the Matrix.

[Gio]

This debate is like a baseball team and a basketball team playing a game of football against each other.

[Eugine]

hmm. No one will ever win a debate on creation. I think only a life changing experience can make you switch the side you represent (ie, go from religious to Atheist and vici versa) or make you become even more religious.

I had mines already, and so did Toasty, so, yeah =)

[Toasty]

Well this actually went entirely off topic from my perspective anyway, so....XD

But really, this topic is for asking questions related to advanced science, or giving your interpretations of it.

I.E. my thoughts on black holes and their effect on time.

So. Anyone have any questions relating to hypercubes/polyhedroids? :o

[Laharl]

Gio, on Apr 21 2008, 03:11 AM, said:

This debate is like a baseball team and a basketball team playing a game of football against each other.

i believe the correct term is 'Cripple fight'

[Mallick]

Paraplegic long jump, beetches.

[Aquamarine]

Toasty, on Apr 20 2008, 04:11 AM, said:

When I asked for a message, I ended up getting a ride home from school almost every day for a week. I didn't pay it much attention until one day, my youth pastor pulled up along side me when I was walking to school, and gave me a ride. Most of the people who were giving me rides were friends of my sister who I barely knew. They drive to and from school every day, so thy could've offered me rides at any time during this past school year, yet they chose to almost the day after I prayed.

So wait a minute... You pray to God for such small, irrelevant things as a ride home? I am aethist, that's true, but I respect religion greatly. I disagree with religion, but that is all; I dislike when people flame and bash religion. And I also dislike it when people don't understand the point of God and the point of praying. And you obviously don't. If He really has been listening to your prayers you'd better stop praying for every little pathetic thing and only ask for the important stuff. And no, I don't mean a sleek new Lamborghini or a ****load of cash, I mean health for your family and friends, stuff like that.

Lowly little worms that "believe in God" so they could ask him for every single big and small thing they want disgust me.

[Split Infinity]

That's pretty harsh, Aqua. Toasty didn't ask for a ride home, or a Lamborghini, or a ****load of cash, or anything even remotely like that, and if you'd read his post more carefully you'd have seen that.

[Aquamarine]

Oh well, that's simply my opinion.

[Laharl]

Aquamarine, on Apr 21 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

I dislike when people flame and bash religion.

Aquamarine, on Apr 21 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

Lowly little worms that "believe in God" so they could ask him for every single big and small thing they want disgust me.

LOL HYPOCRISY

wait.....did i just defend Toasty...OH SHI- XD

[Aquamarine]

Heh, I lol'd at that. =P But I wasn't talking about religion in that second quote, I was speaking about people who are "religious" only because they think believing will bring them personal gain, or so that they wouldn't go to hell, no matter what they did.

[Split Infinity]

But it sounded like you were directing it at Toasty, which makes no sense.

[Aquamarine]

Sorry if that's what it sounded like. IF Toasty does pray for stuff like car rides from school to home, then I AM directing it at him, as well as all those people I spoke about in my previous post. If Toasty isn't one of those persons, than I apologize to him if he took my comment personally.

[Toasty]

Aquamarine, on Apr 21 2008, 05:50 AM, said:

So wait a minute... You pray to God for such small, irrelevant things as a ride home? I am aethist, that's true, but I respect religion greatly. I disagree with religion, but that is all; I dislike when people flame and bash religion. And I also dislike it when people don't understand the point of God and the point of praying. And you obviously don't. If He really has been listening to your prayers you'd better stop praying for every little pathetic thing and only ask for the important stuff. And no, I don't mean a sleek new Lamborghini or a ****load of cash, I mean health for your family and friends, stuff like that.

Lowly little worms that "believe in God" so they could ask him for every single big and small thing they want disgust me.

I didn't ask for a ride home. I asked for something that would solidfy my faith in him. Anything. Rides to school are what he gave me. It hit me that that's what he used to solidfy my faith when my youth pastor, of all people, gave me a ride. And after that, I've only recieved two rides since. I never prayed for a ride to school.

And Aqua, the bible says "Ask and you shall recieve." The only extra rule to that, is that you'll only get what god let's you have. If you ask for a Lambo, you probably won't get one. If you ask for a ride to work, so that you can either get, or keep a job, then you'll get a ride. Either in the form of a car, or someone willing to drive you places.

I don't ask for every little thing that pops into my head. I used to when I was a lot younger, but I stopped some time around 8 or 9 years of age. Most of my prayers have been for one person, and that person is someone who's well being I deem far more important than my own. All the others have been for my family, friends, people at our church who needed something that "only god could give them", and very rarely for myself. As far as the prayers for myself go, none of them are material.

The truth is, I actually don't pray very often. That's one reason why these "coincidences" mean far more to me than most of you.

But holy crap at Laharl defending me. XD

[Laharl]

Toasty, on Apr 22 2008, 12:43 AM, said:

It hit me that that's what he used to solidfy my faith when my youth pastor, of all people, gave me a ride.

if he's catholic, there was definately an ulterior motive XD

i'm sure your faith wouldnt have been the only thing 'solidifying' XD

[Toasty]

Thank god he's not Catholic. :o

He's a pretty cool youth pastor though. He's in his mid/late 20's, and he's married, but it's almost like he's still part teenager. XD

[Toasty]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say the Religion topic got deleted. This was the second best thing I could find.

This frustrated me a bit:

Golden Legacy, on Jul 10 2008, 01:09 PM, said:

I'm sorry, I laughed so hard at this. One of the most senseless illogical arguments I've ever seen.

With that logic, I could say that there is a 50% chance when flipping a coin it would land on a donkey - because hey, it either will, or it won't.

Likewise, your argument doesn't make the Big Bang any more likely than God - after all, there is a 50% chance that the Big Band happened, either it did or it didn't.


[/lol + sarcasm + WTF]

Split Infinity, on Jul 10 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

Holy crap, Toasty, are you honestly that retarded?

I wish people would actually carefully think about what's being said instead of just throwing out the first thing that comes to mind. Neither of you seem to get what I said.

When it comes to whether a god exists or not, are there any factors at all influencing the outcome? Because as far as I can tell, a god either exists or he doesn't. There isn't anything pushing the outcome to either side, so it stays at 50/50. There is nothing influencing whether a god exists, or doesn't exist.

When it comes to flipping a coin, GL, there is no chance at all that the coin would land on a donkey unless one side of the coin had a donkey on it, or unless a donkey was present when the coin was flipped. And in reality, there actually isn't a 50/50 chance of getting a heads or tails, because the amount of weight on one side of the coin interferes, any wind present when the coin was flipped could interfere, and the amount of force applied to the coin would also have an impact on the result. Therefore, while it may be close to 50/50, it is infact, not 50/50.

Do you both see where I'm comming from? In a similar respect, there's also a 50/50 chance that there could have been a big bang. However, there could still be a big bang and a god, because maybe the way God created the universe was with the big bang.

So Split, instead of calling me retarded, call me smart for thinking deeper than you thought I did. I didn't just throw that statistic out there without any further thought input.

Dipset, on Jul 10 2008, 07:16 AM, said:

WHo created God? If there was NOTHINGNESS, not black space, not darkness, NOTHING, then how could something happen. Something had to have created God, and therefore, he isn't the almighty being.

Go back and read my post again. I said the same rule applies to both ends of the argument. Where did God come from, you ask? Well how about you tell me where the big bang came from? You see, it applies to both sides. Therefore, the point you tried to make isn't very valid.

[Ironsight]

Toasty, on Jul 13 2008, 02:45 AM, said:

Do you both see where I'm comming from? In a similar respect, there's also a 50/50 chance that there could have been a big bang.

But there was a Big Bang. We can hear and see the radiation it left behind.

[Split Infinity]

Toasty, you can't put odds on the existence of God. That's like telling me there's a 50% chance that I'm thinking about polar bears right now. You should be smart enough to know that just because something will happen or won't happen, that doesn't instantly make it a 50/50.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Jul 13 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

I'm going to take a wild guess and say the Religion topic got deleted. This was the second best thing I could find.

This frustrated me a bit:


I wish people would actually carefully think about what's being said instead of just throwing out the first thing that comes to mind. Neither of you seem to get what I said.

When it comes to whether a god exists or not, are there any factors at all influencing the outcome? Because as far as I can tell, a god either exists or he doesn't. There isn't anything pushing the outcome to either side, so it stays at 50/50. There is nothing influencing whether a god exists, or doesn't exist.

When it comes to flipping a coin, GL, there is no chance at all that the coin would land on a donkey unless one side of the coin had a donkey on it, or unless a donkey was present when the coin was flipped. And in reality, there actually isn't a 50/50 chance of getting a heads or tails, because the amount of weight on one side of the coin interferes, any wind present when the coin was flipped could interfere, and the amount of force applied to the coin would also have an impact on the result. Therefore, while it may be close to 50/50, it is infact, not 50/50.

Do you both see where I'm comming from? In a similar respect, there's also a 50/50 chance that there could have been a big bang. However, there could still be a big bang and a god, because maybe the way God created the universe was with the big bang.

So Split, instead of calling me retarded, call me smart for thinking deeper than you thought I did. I didn't just throw that statistic out there without any further thought input.



Go back and read my post again. I said the same rule applies to both ends of the argument. Where did God come from, you ask? Well how about you tell me where the big bang came from? You see, it applies to both sides. Therefore, the point you tried to make isn't very valid.

1) That is completely irrelevant and unrelated to anything; just meaningless chatter in an attempt to try and make you look intelligent

2) No Toasty, you are not smart. That statistic was meaningless and false. You dont get points for 'trying'.

[Toasty]

Split Infinity, on Jul 13 2008, 03:45 AM, said:

Toasty, you can't put odds on the existence of God. That's like telling me there's a 50% chance that I'm thinking about polar bears right now. You should be smart enough to know that just because something will happen or won't happen, that doesn't instantly make it a 50/50.

Caael, on Jul 13 2008, 05:50 AM, said:

1) That is completely irrelevant and unrelated to anything; just meaningless chatter in an attempt to try and make you look intelligent

2) No Toasty, you are not smart. That statistic was meaningless and false. You dont get points for 'trying'.

*facepalm*

Read my post carefully a second time. There are no other factors when it comes to there being a god in existance, or not being a god in existance. No other factors, no other outcomes, etc, etc, etc.
In the end, you either have a god, or you don't. There is no inbetween, and there are no factors influencing the outcome. Therefor, there IS a 50/50 chance.

Ad that "meaningless chatter" was proving a point. I could care less whether or not I look smart here. I just want you to actually read and understand what I said so you don't make stupid responses.

Please don't respond until you've read that over more than once.

[Drizzy Drake]

I can either win the lottary, or I can't, that doesn't make it a 50/50 chance that I'll win.

[Kuchiyose]

With these topics its often: Toasty VS The whole GSSF. Wonderful, anyways this seems more appealing: he Big Bang is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. The essential idea is that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory. But these accelerators can only probe so far into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition. The theory accurately explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant. < this theory appeals more to me than how religion explains, although we can't prove religion is real nor it isn't real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang < this is a big article on the 'Big Bang theory' if you want ammo for your arguments this could provide to be useful.

[Split Infinity]

Toasty, on Jul 14 2008, 04:57 AM, said:

*facepalm*

Read my post carefully a second time. There are no other factors when it comes to there being a god in existance, or not being a god in existance. No other factors, no other outcomes, etc, etc, etc.
In the end, you either have a god, or you don't. There is no inbetween, and there are no factors influencing the outcome. Therefor, there IS a 50/50 chance.

What you don't understand is that there are a limitless number of outcomes. The existance of God and the Big Bang are simply two theories which have been put forward. There are all kinds of other possibilites for the creation of the universe, other religions, other scientific theories; maybe we haven't even discovered the real answer yet. But just because those are the two outcomes we're talking about, that does not instantly make it a 50/50, and again, you should be smart enough to know that.

[Toasty]

Split, it's true that there's literally an infinite number of ways the universe could've began. But a god could either exist or not exist in ANY of those cenarios, effectively keeping it at a 50/50 split.

And note how I didn't say "The big bang OR a God," but rather, "A god or not a god. The big bang can either be by itself, or be a part of it." In the end, that leaves "the big bang", "god" and "god made the big bang." Or you could throw in "Anything else." However, half of that "anyhing else" could also contain a god, therefore making the outcome nearly 50/50, with odss actually in favor of there being a god, albiet by only a small margine.

Dipset, on Jul 13 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

I can either win the lottary, or I can't, that doesn't make it a 50/50 chance that I'll win.

*double facepalm*

You STILL don't get it. In a lottery, there aren't only two outcomes. There's thousands. There's thousands of people who are entered in the lottery.

In this case, there are only TWO outcomes. A god existing, and a god not existing. TWO. Not THOUSANDS.

Read my reply to split for a more in-depth explanation.

[Split Infinity]

Do you have some strange mental image that the universe is a bag of marbles or something?

I keep telling you, the existance of God is only a theory (not to mention a completely unsupported one) so just because somebody was sitting down one day and suddenly though 'God?', that doesn't make it any more likely, or 50/50 for that matter.

[kate]

Actually toasty, it's not 50/50 because there are a whole lot of outcomes.

You are saying it's your God existing or not existing. There are thousands of different religions, so the probability of it being your God is actually quite diminished. However in science, the big bang is really the only working theory right now, so it's odds are much higher. Since that's the sort of pseudo logic we all seem to be using here.

There are more than two creation theories. Keep that in mind while you defend "God" because your theory is just as good as any other religious person, be they islamic or buddhist or jewish.

[Toasty]

It's the fact that it can fit with every other theorie thus far. Therefore, if you propose that say, the big bang theory was true, well a god could still either exist who created the big bang, or not exist, and the big bang happened just out of nowhere.
Regardless of whether there's proof or not (which there is imo, becuase there's anomalies even on earth that still can't be explained other than "god mde it that way"), it's still a possibility. One that can coexist with every other theory out there, or not exist at the same time. Effectively giving the theory that a god exists a 50% chance of being true.

From your perspective, it's either a god existing, or the big bang creating the universe, or etc. etc. etc.

From your point of view, the chance that god exists is only one in infinity, the same as every other theory. The only problem is, is that a god can exist in every outcome, or NOT exist in every outcome, because all of those theories could have been a product of god putting them in action, or they could have happened on their own.

Do you see where I'm comming from now?

[kate]

Ohh okay, well since I believe there are magical garden gnomes that cause everything in the world to work the way it does, yet everything would still work if they existed or they didn't, I guess that means there's a 50% chance they exist!

So God is very likely. So are magical garden gnomes. Pseudo science is fun kids n.n

[Split Infinity]

So it doesn't matter whether there's evidence or not, it's just 50/50 regardless? Right...

I've lost all hope for you.

[Drizzy Drake]

I can win the lotarry, or I can't. Two outcomes. Just because not winning the lottary can come in thousands of different ways, it's still the second outcome. Am I wrong? And somebdoy besides Toasty tell me it.

[Split Infinity]

Not to mention that there are thousands of combinations you could win with.

50/50?

[Toasty]

Dipset, on Jul 13 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

I can win the lotarry, or I can't. Two outcomes. Just because not winning the lottary can come in thousands of different ways, it's still the second outcome. Am I wrong? And somebdoy besides Toasty tell me it.

But you don't get my point. It's not that it's only tere is a god or there isn't, it's the fact there aren't any other outcomes. Yes, there's an infinit number of theories, but a god has a 50% chance of existing in any one of them. You and I are looking at the same thing from two different perspectives.

Yes, you can either win the lottery or not. If it was just that, it would be 50/50. But it doesn't work like that. In the case of a god existing or not existing, it does work that way.

And yes kate, that's a possibilty too. But that theory doesn't have a religion supporting it. And besides that, even though people can say there's little to no evidence supporting the theory that a god exists, there's absolutely no evidence to support that gnomes created the universe.


And I'll bring up this point again. Where'd the big bang come from? Someone or something had to create it, and even though science can explain how the universe was created with that theory, their theory still doesn't explain how the big bang came to be.

You can say the same for god, but the bible states that he is and always has been. That's not a good enough explanation for practically anyone here, but science can't say the same for the big bang, because they need solid evidence to support their claims. S far, they have no evidence to explain where the particles which created the big bang came from.


But in the end, why not believe that a god exists? If you're right that one doesn't, then nothing happens after you die. You don't have anything to worry about. If you're wrong and a god does exist, and you didn't believe he did, then you end up in hell. That's an eternity of the worst torture you can imagine times infinity. Never letting up for a moment. Never, ever stopping.

According to the bible though, god would rather you think of it as if you believe in him, you go to heaven. Rather than if you believe in him, you don't get sent to hell.

[Split Infinity]

Don't change the subject.

Now, what you keep saying, is that because 50% of theories would coincide with the existance of God, then apparently there must be a 50% chance of its existance. You fail to understand that this is WRONG. Those theories may be possible if God exists, but they don't support its existance in any way. This has nothing to do with factors or outcomes, nothing to do with whether something is or isn't. You can't put odds on something non-numeric in the first place.

[Toasty]

Is there any scientific law or rule of thumb that says otherwise?

Almost anything can be looked at with percentages.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if those theories support the existance of God or not. God can still be a part of ALL of those theories whether those theories themselves support his existance or not. What makes it 50/50, is that ANY one of those theories can be possible WITH or WITHOUT God. That's what makes it 50/50.

You weren't paying enough attention to my post to begin with.

[Split Infinity]

Then what's stopping there being a 50% chance that I am God?

[kate]

okay first of all, there is no hell. No loving God would create a hell, at least not a permanent one. When I say no loving God, I mean no God that I want to worship. Moving on, you say that since it's acceptable in religion to say "God is and always has been" with no evidence to support it, but in science the theories need to be backed with evidence, scientific theory is therefore not right? No all that means is there are people out there who demand actual answers and then there are people who delude themselves.

I personally believe God exists and set the big bang and everything in motion, but if someone asked me where life and the universe came from, I would answer with science, not God. God is personal and God is not applicable to science or logic, and so in the world we live in, creation by God is not a suitable answer. Especially if you're trying to use religion to disprove the big bang or evolution.

Oh and my garden gnomes don't have the same probability as God because they don't have followers? That's insane. But fine, you want followers, then cults beat out God in alot of ways. Guess we all should've drank the kool aid.

[Toasty]

Split, can you do anything far above and beyond what a normal person could do? Can you distort space and time at will? Can you just jump into the air and fly without wings? Can you create an entire universe from absolutely nothing? You can't. That's what prevents there being a 50/50 chance that you are god.

Kate, you have a twisted view of god and christianity in general. I can see why you left your christian church.

God didn't create hell for humans. God's right hand angle, Lucifer, defied god and was banished to hell. Later on when lucifer decieved Adam and Eve, and the two chose to believe and trust him over God. Thus, humans were introduced to sin. No human can go to heaven without the help of God because sin cannot enter heaven. If we can't enter heaven, then the only place left is hell. We can't live forever on earth. As humans, we have sin. No one on earth is sinless. There is not a single person on the earth who has not sinned. Those who're to young to no better, or to know what's going on when they accept God into their hearts get into heaven without needing to accept Christ as their god. Is that not a gracious and loving god?

Those who choose to either try to get into heaven without god (doing good deeds, etc.), or choose to not believe in god won't get to heaven, because god wants them to go through him. He wants them to accept that they are not even equal to him, because if they did, there would be problems in heaven, and sin would be set loose in heaven. HE doesn't want those who have chosen to put their faith in him to have to be exposed to sin again after being washed clean of it [when they enter heaven]. And to answer your eventual question as to why god does't just wash everyone clean of sin, he answer is this: To be washed clean of your sin, you first have to want to be washed clean of it. Your proof of wanting that is your submission to god's will. Ackniwleding that he is a supreme being who created the heavens wnd the earth, and that there is no path to heaven but through him.

That's what the bible and christianity teaches.

And I knew smeone was going to make a comment about that. Honestly, at some point, science in itself requires faith. Therefore, is it not also a religion? A lot of the proof relating to the big bang is subjective to opinion and viewpoint. If the big bang was real, then all of the planets in the galaxy would spin in the same direction. However, if I remember right, Venus doesn't. Some scientists speculate that a meteor hit it so hard that it forced the planet to rotate backwards. However, there's no proof of that happening that I know of. There's no crater large enough on Venus that I know of which could have been the point of impact for such a colossal force. The only evidence I know of which supports the theory, is that Venus has the longest day out of any other planet. If a commet/meteor/whatever hit Venus and made it rotate backwards, it certainly wouldn't have the power needed to rotate Venus at the same velocity in the opposite direction. The amount of energy needed for that to happen would've probably tore a huge chunk out of Venus. Heck, the amount of energy needed to rotate the dang thing in the opposite direct would probably be enough, but since I don't have proof, I can't prove that.
However, there isn't enough proof to prove the theory that Venus was hit by something so hard it spun it in the opposite direction. Therefor, it takes faith to believe that that's what happened.

Now that I'm done with that long, drawn out tangent, I'll get on with the rest. :P



Religion can't, and shouldn't be used to disprove the big bang theory, because in all likely hood, it could've been go who created the big bang to begin with. No one knows. And I'll say this for the second time, the only thing where science and religion truely clash, is when it comes to evolution. The two can coexist practically everywhere else. Even though science can explain many things with exact certainty, religion will always be an applicable factor in nearly every situation. Like I've said before, from my point of view, science is used to explain why god made things the way they are, why they work like they do, and how he made them that way. If the big bang is real, then it explains how god made the universe.

As far as evolution goes, the bible says god made animals, and then he made man. However, he made man in his image. So even though it's possible that evolution could apply to animals (though I still don't believe that's true), it doesn't apply to humans. To this day, sicentsts still don't have solid evidence to prove that we evolved from monkeys. Only that they're closely related to us (I believe humans only have one more gene than monkeys, and according to evolution, it apparently split apart in the transition from monkey to man).

For the garden gnomes, my point is this: There's got to be some reason why the three main religions all have such huge numbers of followers, and all share strikingly similar beliefs. As someone else put it nicely (I think it was actually GL, but it could've been a guy who wrote an article that GL linked to), they seem to view a sinlge mountain from three different sides. In my opinion, the reason for that is because god exists, and has "shown" himself (through dreams, or occurances) to people who have then spread the word. Those three religions are the top three largest ones in terms of followers (well, I could be wrong. I think one of them is actualy fourth, but I'm pretty sure they're the top 3. I'll have to double check).
If you're garden gnomes are gods, then why don't they have huge masses of followers?

[kate]

garden gnomes work in mysterious ways.

/topic

[Toasty]

o rly? :P

If you want to know more about what christianity is really like, kate, I know someone you could talk to.

[kate]

I've read the old and new testament thanks, I'm set. Like I've always said, I don't look for what organized religions say, I look at what is supposedly given from God Himself and then interpret it my own way. No matter where hell came from (I actually already knew that story, thanks though) it is not something that agrees with me on a spiritual level. It just doesn't sit right. God is infinitely wise and good and loving, I don't think He could let anyone burn in hell. Like on a fundamental level, I don't think he could. You know why? Because I couldn't let anyone burn for eternity. I don't care what they did, pedophile, mass murderer, I couldn't let them burn forever. And if I would let them into heaven, I'm pretty damn sure God would, because He is much better than me. So that just doesn't sit with me, along with other things, which is why I tend to not trust organized religion. I feel God has been greatly misunderstood and now people do horrible things in "his" name.

Annywho, that's just me. Creation of the universe-wise, I always saw it as what was written a looong time ago was simplified because humans wouldn't understand the whole "big bang" or whatever theory, evolution etc. So God was just like "okaaaay...I just made you all, okay? here's a story about adam and eve, it has some nice morals in it, it's all a big metaphor, take what you will from it". Now that we are delving further into science and can understand the way our universe works, we are revealing the true beauty of what God has done. So why not the big bang? Because the bible says so? Who are we to say that's not God working in mysterious ways. Seems to be a nice answer for everything else.

Oh and to some degree you're right toasty, science, when it comes to theories, requires a certain amount of faith. But scientists are forever trying to disprove themselves, until it can be taken as fact. And for the most part, science is fact and no faith is required. So I think people are kind of full of it when they say things like "science is just another religion". Religion requires faith despite evidence contrary to it, science requires evidence despite faith.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 13 2008, 10:17 PM, said:

Where'd the big bang come from? Someone or something had to create it, and even though science can explain how the universe was created with that theory, their theory still doesn't explain how the big bang came to be.

You can say the same for god, but the bible states that he is and always has been. That's not a good enough explanation for practically anyone here, but science can't say the same for the big bang, because they need solid evidence to support their claims. S far, they have no evidence to explain where the particles which created the big bang came from.

I have to say, I actually found this quite a decent point.

Everyone here is under the assumption that physical evidence is truth. No doubt, physical evidence is a valid enough way to support a hypothesis, and what with the remnant radiation still echoing in the universe from the supposed Big Bang is enough "proof" - that doesn't change the fact that it's theory however, and (here's the key point Toasty brings) - in relying on physical evidence, what happens when it can't be procured anymore?

The theory of the Big Bang relies on dictating where every single particle of matter in the universe came into existence - yet, simple sense would lead to the question, what came before? There is no physical evidence possible (at least, that we're capable of knowing of) to dictate how all the matter in the universe could have come out of nothing, and the Big Bang theory relies on that physical model to explain how it came into existence.

For the religious peoples of the world, God is (more or less) everything, or the divine creation of everything, and he always existed. That's a recursive sort of progression, for his origin is himself, and that particular issue of "what came before" is instantly addressed. It even justifies it by surmising that God is unique in being the only "force" in existence that can be its own anchor to its existence.


It doesn't disprove the Big Bang not does it prove God. But it is a point to be considered, and the gist of it is the Big Bang theory falls prey to its own necessity of needing some form of existence prior to it, while God addresses that by being the before and after.

Toasty, on Jul 14 2008, 01:07 AM, said:

And I knew smeone was going to make a comment about that. Honestly, at some point, science in itself requires faith. Therefore, is it not also a religion?

A little contrived perhaps, still makes a decent point. After all, if you want to prove a scientific theory, then surely you have at least an initial degree of faith that explains why you are searching for an experiment or idea that will justify it? Surely you must have some faith if you are willing to believe in the possibility of a scientific theory, and its worth in being tested?

Quote

For the garden gnomes, my point is this: There's got to be some reason why the three main religions all have such huge numbers of followers, and all share strikingly similar beliefs. As someone else put it nicely (I think it was actually GL, but it could've been a guy who wrote an article that GL linked to), they seem to view a sinlge mountain from three different sides. In my opinion, the reason for that is because god exists, and has "shown" himself (through dreams, or occurances) to people who have then spread the word. Those three religions are the top three largest ones in terms of followers (well, I could be wrong. I think one of them is actualy fourth, but I'm pretty sure they're the top 3. I'll have to double check).

Actually, it's one of my closest friends. A few of my best friends and I were hanging out in one of the local cafes afterschool, and we actually had a discussion about our faiths and how our families brought us up. He made the 3 faces of a mountain metaphor, and it is pretty insightful I agree.

Also, Christianity and Islam are the top two faiths in the world in terms of population - Christianity with its various denominations has 2 billion+, Islam is somewhere at 1.2 billion (and the fastest growing). Hinduism is third in terms of following with 800 million.

Judaism is, at best, in the top 10 in terms of population. Something like 15 million followers last I checked. Though, of course, it's prominence as one of the major 3 Abrahamic faiths along with Islam and Christianity is no less.

[Toasty]

Wow. GL and I not arguing in a debate? That's unheard of! XD That one point was the one I figured was least likely to get support, and yet here you are supporting it. Though you're religious yourself, so I shouldn't be surprised.

And your friend is a pretty deep thinker.

Also, I was pretty sure that Judaism wasn't #3, because I knew it wasn't huge, but I didn't know for sure. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

[EDIT] You also brought home my point on theories that I was trying to make quite a while back. They are but educated guesses. Not solid fact. But that's for another topic.

kate, on Jul 13 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

I've read the old and new testament thanks, I'm set. Like I've always said, I don't look for what organized religions say, I look at what is supposedly given from God Himself and then interpret it my own way. No matter where hell came from (I actually already knew that story, thanks though) it is not something that agrees with me on a spiritual level. It just doesn't sit right. God is infinitely wise and good and loving, I don't think He could let anyone burn in hell. Like on a fundamental level, I don't think he could. You know why? Because I couldn't let anyone burn for eternity. I don't care what they did, pedophile, mass murderer, I couldn't let them burn forever. And if I would let them into heaven, I'm pretty damn sure God would, because He is much better than me. So that just doesn't sit with me, along with other things, which is why I tend to not trust organized religion. I feel God has been greatly misunderstood and now people do horrible things in "his" name.

Annywho, that's just me. Creation of the universe-wise, I always saw it as what was written a looong time ago was simplified because humans wouldn't understand the whole "big bang" or whatever theory, evolution etc. So God was just like "okaaaay...I just made you all, okay? here's a story about adam and eve, it has some nice morals in it, it's all a big metaphor, take what you will from it". Now that we are delving further into science and can understand the way our universe works, we are revealing the true beauty of what God has done. So why not the big bang? Because the bible says so? Who are we to say that's not God working in mysterious ways. Seems to be a nice answer for everything else.

Oh and to some degree you're right toasty, science, when it comes to theories, requires a certain amount of faith. But scientists are forever trying to disprove themselves, until it can be taken as fact. And for the most part, science is fact and no faith is required. So I think people are kind of full of it when they say things like "science is just another religion". Religion requires faith despite evidence contrary to it, science requires evidence despite faith.

Fair enough, and for the most part, I agree with you. Religion for the most part has been skewed and incorectly portrayed in the eyes of men. Both by those following a religion, and those not. However, Jesus had desciples for a reason, and God spoke to people (for example, Daniel [from the lion's den fame], or Job [the man who never stopped believing in god, no matter how mch he was tested]) for a reason. Men can't properly interpret the bible by themselves, and that's why so many religions are screwed up now.

I know I can't prove it, but our church's head pastor is one heck of a preacher. He's not like the preachers in those really wealthy churches that just have powerful voices, or whatever, he always makes a valid point, and it's always crystal clear. And I don't believe his view of the christian bible is skewed at all.

As for a darker side of God, I'd suggest reading through Job in the Christian bible. The devil says that he can make Job quit believing in God, and God basically says "Go ahead and try it. I know you'll fail". So God basically tests Job's faith by letting the devil have his way with him. Job loses his his family (save for his wife), most (if not all) of his livestock and posessions, and because he continues to believe in Christ despite what is happening to him, his friends and neighbors call him crazy. Yet in the end, God rewards him for believing in him, and blesses him with ten times what he origionally had.

Also, if a master doesn't punish his dog when the dog disobeys, how will the dog ever learn? It may be cruel to sentence people to an eternity in hell, but in reality, it's not God who condemns people to hell it's themselves for not believeing in him. He wants all people to go to heaven. However, that's not possible, because if someone who doesn't believe in god gets into heaven just like others who did, how is that fair?

Heaven is a reward. People should work for it. And really, it doesn't take much work. Christ just wants you to believe that he died for your sins, and that the only way to heaven is through him. It's painfully easy to get into heaven. God didn'tmake it hard in the slightest. So how is it his fault if people don't choose to believe? If he didn;t give us the freedom of choice, and just forced us all in to heaven, how would that be fair? Personally, I would want to choose and say that I came of my own free will.

It may seem cruel for people to end up in hell, but they end up there of their own free will. God didn't force them. Infact, he embraced them with open arms, and yet they still turned away.


Anyway, I made this post a lot longer than I first intended to. As for your second paragraph, I agree whole-heartedly with all of it, save for "it's all a big metaphor, take what you will from it". In all honesty, it likely is a big metaphor. I'm just not quite sure where I stand on it though, because it's also likely that it's not a metaphor.


But as for science vs. religion, I dislike the general stance from both sides, and prefer to stay in the middle with one more toe towards religion. Science says a god doesn't exist. I say one does. Religion says science is wrong. I say, for the most part, science is right.
Both sides are stubborn to accept the other, when in all reality, God would want the sides to coinside with eachother. Religion paves the pathway to god, and science shines the light on that path, providing insight and explanations to things god has made, done, etc. Like I said, science is here to explain what could not previously be explained. Not to replace religion in it's entireity.

[Legolastom]

LMAO a master doesnt senatance his Dog to eternal suffering Toasty.

And Toast how exactly can you be in the middle when you agree with EVERYTHING the Bible says and do not support some of the more important scientific theories? Toasty logic strikes again!

[Nyktos]

Legolastom, on Jul 14 2008, 09:45 AM, said:

LMAO a master doesnt senatance his Dog to eternal suffering Toasty.

This. I just don't get how people can say "God is merciful" and then go around and say "people who don't believe in God will suffer for all eternity".

[Legolastom]

Legolastom, on Jul 14 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

LMAO a master doesnt sentance his Dog to eternal suffering Toasty. And Toast how exactly can you be in the middle when you agree with EVERYTHING the Bible says and do not support some of the more important scientific theories? Toasty logic strikes again!

Er mistakio.

[Toasty]

Legolastom, on Jul 14 2008, 06:45 AM, said:

LMAO a master doesnt senatance his Dog to eternal suffering Toasty.

And Toast how exactly can you be in the middle when you agree with EVERYTHING the Bible says and do not support some of the more important scientific theories? Toasty logic strikes again!

You're far to quick to respond. Use your brain next time. It might help you.

My point wasn't that hell was punishment. Hell is a sentence. For not believing in god, you're sentenced to hell for eternity.
But a master has to punish his dog to teach it right from wrong. That's why when people ask "why would god let [insert event here] happen?" I respond "because it's either punishment for doing wrong, or part of a plan he has for you."

I'm in the middle of SCIENCE and RELIGION (not the bible) becuase there's views shared on both sides of the isle that I agree with, and disagree with.

The bible can easily be misinterpreted. That's where extemeists come from. However, I agree with everything the bible says. I do not, however, agree with all of Christianity's interpretations of it. Most religions are quick to shoot down the big bang theory with "The Big Bang didn't create the universe, GOD did!" I however think that it's possible that god might have used the big bang to create the universe. When you look closely at what the scripture says, there's nothing in there that rules out the big bang in it's entireity. Therefor, the two can coexist.


So Lego, instead of trying to make yourself look cool by attempting to shoot down the relgious wacko's statements, try reading them more than once.

[kate]

K toasty, hell as a sentence blabla yeah, except why for eternity? How about until they learn their lesson? Same as how people who land up in purgatory must climb the mountain and cleanse their sin and then enter heaven. They're not there forever. Oh and I agree that some people who lose their way need a slap in the face to get back on the right path, but consider this:

you don't believe in christ, you go to hell forever. What about people raised in a non-christian society who from birth have been taught to be some other religion? Is it really so wrong that when later in life, if they ever are confronted with christ, they don't believe it and choose to stay with their religion? It's completely understandable, yet apparently enough to be condemned to an eternity of pain and suffering. In fact, according to your religion, anyone you know who is of a different religion is screwed. I'm sure you know some atheists, like people on this site. Are you fine with the idea that they'll burn forever? I couldn't be part of a religion that damns most of my friends to hell.

Oh and as for people bringing hell on themselves, it is God who passes the final judgment, so it is ultimately His decision. It is not out of His hands, because he is almighty and nothing is beyond His control. So I refuse to believe He could look at one of His children and sentence them to an eternity of pain and suffering. Nuh uh. Maybe a week in hell or something so they get the idea, but eternity? And then if that's not right, who's to say what other parts of the bible aren't right?

Anyways that's not what this topic is about, this is about creation, as in how we came into being. The big bang is an option, so is the creationist theory....so is a falcon punch apparently o.O Whether God exists or not is irrelevant, because as you so proudly advocate toasty, the big bang could still have happened if God exists. So what, do we all agree that's most likely what happened case closed? Or do you believe the whole 7 days thing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I
XD sorry I had to

[Toasty]

I know this is incredibly long, but please read through all of it.


Not everyone from a dfferent religion is screwed kate. It doesn't matter what religion you're in as long as you believe that christ died for your sins, and that the only way to heaven is through him.

As for if you're brought up in a different religion, it doesn't matter. You shouldn't have to be brought up in a christian household to understand that Christ is your savior. A lot of people from many different relgions have converted to Christ, so it obviously wouldn't be fair to let those who didn't into heaven, would it? Overcomming what you previously thought to be true, and deciding to believe what the bible says over what you've been taught is one of things you have to do to get to heaven. Because if you don't believe what the bible says, than how can you believe that Christ died for your sins?

The problem with sending someone to hell for a few weeks or whatever, is that in heaven, and even in hell, there is no such thing as time. That's how everyone will be able to arrive in heaven at exactly the same time, regardless of when they died.

But even though he decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, he gave us the bible to tell us what the consequences would be, so we would know ahead of time.

Let's say you're the head of a club. No one has ever seen you, or heard you speak. You only communicated through notes you left lying around. But let's say that everyone is in your club. EVERYONE. Who do you think would be more loyal to you? Those who believed you existed regardless of physical evidence, relying just on your unspoken word, or those who demand proof of your existance?

In a similar scenario, let's say some of them have been brought up believing that your existance is a lie, and some of them have been brought up believeing that you do exist. The rest have been brought up hearing both sides of the story. Who do you think will be more loyal? Those who have always believed and never wavered, those who decided to believe that you existed, those who did a complete 180 and despite what they were taught as children, decided for themselves to believe in you? Or those who questioned you existance, or stood firm on the idea that you weren't real?

That's the dillema here. God wants people to come to him regardless of what they've been brought up believing. He wants people who will believe in him before they even see or hear him, because those people are the ones who will put 100% of their trust in him, and never disobey once they've reached heaven.
He wants people to wnat to follow the bibles teachings, and want to rid themselves of sin. Once we get into heaven, who do you think will be more likely to sin? Those who still clung to their old habits, or those who wanted to do what's right?
Truthfuly though, there won't be sin in heaven because heaven is sinless. The only people who will get in are those who have come to Christ, and have been washed clean of their sin. Only Christ can cleanse you of your sin, and only once you have been washed clean may you enter heaven. However, it is up to you to choose whether or not to let god cleanse you of your sin.

Everyone has the option, and because everyone has a free will, everyone can choose which path they want to follow on their own accord


But that video was great. XD Though reading through the bible more would give him a better idea. I believe snakes used to have legs (science showed us that), and the snake was actually satan. As for why god didn't just throw the snake out beforeit could do any damage, I believe he wanted to test adam and eve.

But that bings up another point. If Adam and Eve, who had seen god with their own eyes, still didn't believe what God himself said, how can we? Life is meant as an obstacle we all must get over. Everything that happens in life should be used to strengthen your faith. Any time you are tested and fail, then you prove that you still aren't worthy of going to heaven. After all, if you fail (failure would be questioning your faith because of a hardship), then your faith isn't strong enough.

If god just let everyone into heaven, we'd have the Garden of Eden incident happen all over again. By sending people to hell, they're sort of being punished for what they would do had they been allowed into heaven. They would have sinned, and sin is punishable by an eternity in hell. That's why people who choose to not believe are sent to hell. If they don't believe, then they aren't cleansed of their sin. If they're not cleansed of their sin, then they still have sin. Since sin's punishment is hell, those people who have sin are sent to there.

God could easily wipe away everyone's sin, but if they aren't willing, then they will always turn back to it. That's why you must be willing before you can be cleansed.





And I'm not going to deny that the big bang could have happened, but I'm going to just leave it as an option until it can be 100% proven. I'm not going to go around saying that it's wrong, because it might not be. It could be exactly what happened. But everything just suddenly appearing (which is what can be inferred from the bible) may also be an option. I'm not going to stand firm on any theory yet, because really, does it matter that much how the universe was created? I think god just put that part in the bible so that we understood he was it's creator. I'm content with waiting until heaven to find the real answer.

[Drizzy Drake]

But what if somebody grows up in a place where Christ is not present? Somewhere deep in the Amazon or something? Is it truely their fault then that they did not welcome Christ as their savior?

Is it their fault that they do not believe in God's existence? Should they be sentenced to an eternity in hell for something they could not controle? Are they just supossed to know that he exists at birth?

[Legolastom]

Toasty, on Jul 15 2008, 12:15 AM, said:

You're far to quick to respond. Use your brain next time. It might help you.

My point wasn't that hell was punishment. Hell is a sentence. For not believing in god, you're sentenced to hell for eternity.
But a master has to punish his dog to teach it right from wrong. That's why when people ask "why would god let [insert event here] happen?" I respond "because it's either punishment for doing wrong, or part of a plan he has for you."

I'm in the middle of SCIENCE and RELIGION (not the bible) becuase there's views shared on both sides of the isle that I agree with, and disagree with.

The bible can easily be misinterpreted. That's where extemeists come from. However, I agree with everything the bible says. I do not, however, agree with all of Christianity's interpretations of it. Most religions are quick to shoot down the big bang theory with "The Big Bang didn't create the universe, GOD did!" I however think that it's possible that god might have used the big bang to create the universe. When you look closely at what the scripture says, there's nothing in there that rules out the big bang in it's entireity. Therefor, the two can coexist.
So Lego, instead of trying to make yourself look cool by attempting to shoot down the relgious wacko's statements, try reading them more than once.

*Facepalm* seriously Toasty this is my reply to everything you say, your just such a painfully stupid child. Instead of making **** up and using things which make no sense or dont exist (No I am not talking about God) to back up your arguments why dont you actually try using logic or, maybe even reading what people have said. ****ing hypocritical ass***.

[Golden Legacy]

Legolastam, all you've been doing is attacking Toasty with nothing other than "lol ur ignorant". Instead of criticizing him, how about you actually address his post and have a civilized conversation, as he and everyone else here have the good sense and patience to do so?

[Legolastom]

But how am I exactly supposed to attemtp to argue with him? When all he will do is make **** up. And most of the **** he says barely makes sense but ok then if you want I will.

Toasty, on Jul 15 2008, 12:15 AM, said:

You're far to quick to respond. Use your brain next time. It might help you.

My point wasn't that hell was punishment. Hell is a sentence. For not believing in god, you're sentenced to hell for eternity.
But a master has to punish his dog to teach it right from wrong. That's why when people ask "why would god let [insert event here] happen?" I respond "because it's either punishment for doing wrong, or part of a plan he has for you."

I'm in the middle of SCIENCE and RELIGION (not the bible) becuase there's views shared on both sides of the isle that I agree with, and disagree with.

The bible can easily be misinterpreted. That's where extemeists come from. However, I agree with everything the bible says. I do not, however, agree with all of Christianity's interpretations of it. Most religions are quick to shoot down the big bang theory with "The Big Bang didn't create the universe, GOD did!" I however think that it's possible that god might have used the big bang to create the universe. When you look closely at what the scripture says, there's nothing in there that rules out the big bang in it's entireity. Therefor, the two can coexist.
So Lego, instead of trying to make yourself look cool by attempting to shoot down the relgious wacko's statements, try reading them more than once.

"My point wasn't that hell was punishment. Hell is a sentence. For not believing in god, you're sentenced to hell for eternity.
But a master has to punish his dog to teach it right from wrong. That's why when people ask "why would god let [insert event here] happen?" I respond "because it's either punishment for doing wrong, or part of a plan he has for you."

Now GL how am I supposed to argue with this? Hmmm? All he is doing here is saying something stupid and then telling me things which are on topic but dont add anything to the debate "My point wasn't that hell was punishment. Hell is a sentence. For not believing in god, you're sentenced to hell for eternity." yes I know you are sentanced to hell for eternity but how is it not a punishment? A sentance is a punishment? So this makes no sense. And seriously look how ignorant the last part is, the Tsunami was caused by God on boxing day because all those people were bad? Of course... and even so its because "God has a play", ****ing hell.

Now then "The bible can easily be misinterpreted. That's where extemeists come from. However, I agree with everything the bible says. I do not, however, agree with all of Christianity's interpretations of it. Most religions are quick to shoot down the big bang theory with "The Big Bang didn't create the universe, GOD did!" I however think that it's possible that god might have used the big bang to create the universe. When you look closely at what the scripture says, there's nothing in there that rules out the big bang in it's entireity. Therefor, the two can coexist.
So Lego, instead of trying to make yourself look cool by attempting to shoot down the relgious wacko's statements, try reading them more than once." Now again, Toasty just posts something which just makes his posts longer and him look smarter, seriously what has this got to do with anything I said? While I can at least understand the beggining because I said he believes everything the Bible says.

And then he attempts to insults me for the second time in his post, even though he acts like a stupid little **** throughout every argument he gets involved with, the only thing is you guys dont say anything about it because he hides behind walls of text and makes **** up to make himself look less stupid and ignorant.

[Drizzy Drake]

Dipset, on Jul 15 2008, 09:18 AM, said:

But what if somebody grows up in a place where Christ is not present? Somewhere deep in the Amazon or something? Is it truely their fault then that they did not welcome Christ as their savior?

Is it their fault that they do not believe in God's existence? Should they be sentenced to an eternity in hell for something they could not controle? Are they just supossed to know that he exists at birth?

Toasty?

[kate]

Er see toasty, I understand everything you're saying, and if you're going by the bible you're completely right, but this is where we run into a problem. You learn all that and think "ok that's the way God wants it" and follow it. I stop and think "why?". Why does God need people to worship him? He's so almighty He should be above all that petty human things. And you keep saying "people with sin can't get into heaven because that's not how heaven works" Why isn't that how heaven works? I'd much rather believe in a heaven where everyone is accepted and cleansed at the front door. And you say there's no time in heaven or hell. Why not? Why can't there be, if God wants it, then there's going to bloody well be time. and frankly I'd rather take what my soul tells me is right to be true than what a book written by men tells me, because my soul is closer to God while the bible is just a connection.

Okay it's actually really funny when you talked about that bar owner story I thought of 4chan XD I mean, you go on /b/ any given day and there's a bunch of people who love m00t and then there's a bunch that think he's a ***. Yet I've never seen him (except the occasional banning spree for a joke) ban anyone for not liking or respecting him, even when they test him and say "I don't think you have the guts to ban me", he always responds "do something that requires banning". Now stop and think about that. M00t is not the nicest person on the planet (hence 4chan), but 4chan is his creation and he does alot of work on it and most would say he deserves respect for that, but he doesn't punish people who don't respect him. So m00t, a fairly despicable person, is more merciful than God? No thanks.

oh and the video wasn't actually to make a point, it's just damn hilarious. K I'm gonna go eat breakfast now, too much thinking without food n.n

[Drizzy Drake]

Kate has officially pwnd Toasty beyond repair.

[Toasty]

Skidz, you only say that because you want that. The thing is, no one is trying to beat anyone here at anything, so no pwning is taking place. Each person is trying to prove their own point. If you don't have input, then don't say anything. It's rude.

Dipset, on Jul 15 2008, 06:18 AM, said:

But what if somebody grows up in a place where Christ is not present? Somewhere deep in the Amazon or something? Is it truely their fault then that they did not welcome Christ as their savior?

Is it their fault that they do not believe in God's existence? Should they be sentenced to an eternity in hell for something they could not control? Are they just supossed to know that he exists at birth?

We discussed this at sunday school a few weeks back (this is just the highschoolers by the way). To tell you the truth, I can't quite remember what was said, but I know that we didn't fully answer that question. However, there are people who have never even heard of the bible who believed that Christ existed. They just didn't know his name. However, Jesus said something to the extent of "How can anyone follow me if they don't know be by name?" I'll have to look it up again, but that's the giest of it.

We also realised that since God is all knowing, he would also know who would, and wouldn't accept him into their hearts. So maybe for the people who never got a chance to read the bible, they get into heaven if God knew that they would accept him had they had the chance. I can't say for sure, so I'll have to come back to you on it.

Also, the bible says somewhere that God will only return once every tribe from every tounge and every nation knows his name, so once every group of people in the world hears about Christ, then the believers will be swept away to heaven, and the Apocalypse will ensue.

Legolastom, on Jul 15 2008, 09:27 AM, said:

But how am I exactly supposed to attemtp to argue with him? When all he will do is make **** up. And most of the **** he says barely makes sense but ok then if you want I will.



"My point wasn't that hell was punishment. Hell is a sentence. For not believing in god, you're sentenced to hell for eternity.
But a master has to punish his dog to teach it right from wrong. That's why when people ask "why would god let [insert event here] happen?" I respond "because it's either punishment for doing wrong, or part of a plan he has for you."

Now GL how am I supposed to argue with this? Hmmm? All he is doing here is saying something stupid and then telling me things which are on topic but dont add anything to the debate "My point wasn't that hell was punishment. Hell is a sentence. For not believing in god, you're sentenced to hell for eternity." yes I know you are sentanced to hell for eternity but how is it not a punishment? A sentance is a punishment? So this makes no sense. And seriously look how ignorant the last part is, the Tsunami was caused by God on boxing day because all those people were bad? Of course... and even so its because "God has a play", ****ing hell.

Now then "The bible can easily be misinterpreted. That's where extemeists come from. However, I agree with everything the bible says. I do not, however, agree with all of Christianity's interpretations of it. Most religions are quick to shoot down the big bang theory with "The Big Bang didn't create the universe, GOD did!" I however think that it's possible that god might have used the big bang to create the universe. When you look closely at what the scripture says, there's nothing in there that rules out the big bang in it's entireity. Therefor, the two can coexist.
So Lego, instead of trying to make yourself look cool by attempting to shoot down the relgious wacko's statements, try reading them more than once." Now again, Toasty just posts something which just makes his posts longer and him look smarter, seriously what has this got to do with anything I said? While I can at least understand the beggining because I said he believes everything the Bible says.

And then he attempts to insults me for the second time in his post, even though he acts like a stupid little **** throughout every argument he gets involved with, the only thing is you guys dont say anything about it because he hides behind walls of text and makes **** up to make himself look less stupid and ignorant.

Look. All I'm saying is that you seem quick to judge what I say. You misunderstood what I said, which is why I tell you to read it twice. Here is what I meant:

A sentence is something you recieve after you've already been taught right from wrong, or have been punished numerous times in an attempt to teach you. You recieve it when you choose to do the wrong thing anyway. It's more of an "end of the line" kind of thing. A punishment is something you recieve to teach you right from wrong. You might continuously be punished, heck, you might even already undertand what you're doing wrong. But a punishment leaves room for change. After being punished, you still get a chance to do the right thing. With a sentence, it's game over.

And I have made none of this up. Not a single word. If you read the bible for yourself, you'll find things that are strikingly similar to what I've been saying. I'd like you to take one sentence out of what I've said. Any post of mine made during this discussion, read through it a few times, and still say it's made up. Show me where I'm just throwing things out of my mouth.

kate, on Jul 15 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

Er see toasty, I understand everything you're saying, and if you're going by the bible you're completely right, but this is where we run into a problem. You learn all that and think "ok that's the way God wants it" and follow it. I stop and think "why?". Why does God need people to worship him? He's so almighty He should be above all that petty human things. And you keep saying "people with sin can't get into heaven because that's not how heaven works" Why isn't that how heaven works? I'd much rather believe in a heaven where everyone is accepted and cleansed at the front door. And you say there's no time in heaven or hell. Why not? Why can't there be, if God wants it, then there's going to bloody well be time. and frankly I'd rather take what my soul tells me is right to be true than what a book written by men tells me, because my soul is closer to God while the bible is just a connection.

Okay it's actually really funny when you talked about that bar owner story I thought of 4chan XD I mean, you go on /b/ any given day and there's a bunch of people who love m00t and then there's a bunch that think he's a ***. Yet I've never seen him (except the occasional banning spree for a joke) ban anyone for not liking or respecting him, even when they test him and say "I don't think you have the guts to ban me", he always responds "do something that requires banning". Now stop and think about that. M00t is not the nicest person on the planet (hence 4chan), but 4chan is his creation and he does alot of work on it and most would say he deserves respect for that, but he doesn't punish people who don't respect him. So m00t, a fairly despicable person, is more merciful than God? No thanks.

oh and the video wasn't actually to make a point, it's just damn hilarious. K I'm gonna go eat breakfast now, too much thinking without food n.n

God gave us the bible as a written testament to who he is, what he wants, and why he does things. Why not at least read it to understand him more? I don't connect to God through the bible. Heck, I've actually never sat down and flipped through the pages of the bible aside from a handful of times back when I was going to elementary school. I don't read it and then go "Oh, so that's what you meant!" I usually ask him questions myself, and usually, he answers. Though it's not like he comes out and says it, and I know that Skidz or Lego would put it off as "random occurances," and to anyone's eyes but a believers', they would be.

I also question why God needed people to worship him. In the end, I concluded that in a way, praising him is payment for being allowed into heaven. I know you'll ask "Why does he need payment? He's God! He shouldn't need to be payed!" But you could also see it as a way of prooving our humility. Not only that, but when someone gives you a gift, isn't it common curtosy to thank the person you recieved it from?


As for the 4chan thing, God is better than m00t. But you already know that. Your problem is with the way god, and Christianity in general portrays God. Right?

The bible was made by men. Yes. But those men wrote those books not from their own understanding, but from what God told them was true. They talked to God, he answered, they wrote. That's pretty much how it goes.

In this instance, God want's us to be loyal to him. m00t doesn't care for or expect loyalty because he knows he won't get it from everyone. However, that's because all men are created equal. He isn't better than them, so how can everyone respect him? I know this kind of applies to my stories as well, but for the sake of the argument, let's say that you were better than everyone else and apply that to those stories.

God is better than everyone, because he made us. He is to us, as we are to our dogs (though I guess that wouldn't be the best way to put it for you since you see animals and men as equal, correct me if I'm wrong, but anyway...). God could easily make everyone perfect and completely irradicate sin from the universe, but like I said, he wants us to choose for ourselves. He wants us to see both the good and the bad, and choose for ourselves which we prefer. That's why there's sin, that's why there's hell, that's why everything is the way it is.

If we don't come to him of our own mind, how is it fair to us? You (don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean it as an insult, or to sound rude) complain about how animals are mistreated. About how they don't get a choice. Well, if things were the way you suggested, if everyone was cleansed and put into heaven regardless of whether they wanted to or not, how would that be fair? They wouldn't get to choose.

You could say that anyone who knew what heaven was like, or had proof of it's existence, that they would want to go there. Well, that's pretty much true. But if they were allowed into heaven, still with the gift of free will, they could still choose to do the wrong thing.

God gave us a free will. We have the right to choose whatever we want. However, we can't get into heaven if we choose to do the wrong thing. If we get into heaven regardless, then we either bring sin with us, or if sin is irradicated, then we loose our will to choose sin. Which is a part of having a free will.

There are things that even God himself cannot do. As an example, he can't sin. That is impossible. It's also impossible to not have sin in heaven if people with free wills are allowed in, unless those people are willing to not commit any sin once in heaven. That's why people get sent to hell. It's not because God doesn't like them, or doesn't want them in heaven, it's because they chose to cling to sin. They have the free will to do so. For things to happen the way they wish, the free will we have all been given would have to be taken away.


Man, I makes these too long. D: I don;t know how to keep it short and to the point. I always end up repeating myself numerous times.

I'm not beating around the bush, am I?

[Drizzy Drake]

For once in my life, I'm gonna have to say tl:dr.

[Toasty]

XD

Fair enough. Though my response to you wasn't that long. I'd appreciate if you read it.

[Caael]

On my RE exam today, which was nothing to do with what I wrote, I wrote a massive 3 page long essay on why God doesn't exist.

Then I drew a cross between hitler and skeletor.

[Legolastom]

You dont do RE.

On my RE GCSE mock I wrote 8 page essay about what the questions asked me. Exciting.

[Kuchiyose]

RE is a good subject to get a useful grade in (say like 1 of the 5 C's or higher for college) when i did the exam (about 2 hours it was) I got an A xD But then we had to citizenship xD

[Caael]

Wtf of course I do RE it's compulsory.

[Toasty]

Caael, on Jul 16 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

On my RE exam today, which was nothing to do with what I wrote, I wrote a massive 3 page long essay on why God doesn't exist.

Then I drew a cross between hitler and skeletor.

That's nice. Must've been hard proving your point since there's no solid proof that God doesn't exist. :D Only theories. Though the same can be said for proof that God does exist, so any argument for or against his existence is very hard to prove.

You should post the essay if you can, or just what you remember writing. I'd like to read it.

[Blue]

So I came in here hoping to have atleast a civilized discussion, but I already see that the Christian bashing already began on page one. Whats the point of trying to talk about this if I'm going to be shot down for just saying what I believe in.

[Toasty]

There hasn't been much Christian bashing in the past few days besides Lego.

Anyway, what we've been talking about lately isn't what I made this topic for, this is just the best topic I could find to post what I was posting.

Anyway, not much bashing so far.

[Blue]

Yeah, but, Mars Dijinni told me that it was one of the reasons why he left. There isn't any real tolerance on this board for Christians. Anyways...
So, yeah, I'm a follower of Jesus. I believe that God created the world in seven days.
And I remember some one mention carbon dating. Didn't you here? Theres tons of new evidence that points to Carbon dating not being a valid form of dating bones? If there was a large flood that did cover the earth, which the bible isn't the only viable source of such said flood, it would move all the earth around and re-bury everything. Can't remember where I saw it, but there was this television event about it.

[Toasty]

MD told me the same thing.

But really, I could care less how much people bash me for my beliefs. I'll still stand up and defend them. I was a little dissapointed to hear that was his reason for leaving.

Anyway, that would make sense. But I don't think that moving earth around in the great flood would have an impact on carbon dating. There should still be just as many decayed carbon atoms afterwards as there would be if it didn't happen.

For the moment, I'm inbetween theories. The earth could be just a few thousand years old, but if time doesn't exist in heaven, then the universe would seem to spin pretty ast, don't you think? So what might seem like 7 days to him (though there isn't any time in heaven, so I'm not sure how that would work) could really be 7 billion years to us.

Can't prove that though, so it stays as a theory.

[Caael]

It wansn't really Christian bashing, it was reasons why I dont believe in God and ideas in the bible that just make no sense to me.

[Toasty]

Well what ideas don't make sense? Maybe I can clarify.

[Drizzy Drake]

All people are created equal---hate gays

We are superior---we are raping the world

The world is 10 thousand years old---the world is really millions of years old

I could go on, but you get the point.

[Legolastom]

I wasnt bashing your belief I was bashing how you acted.

[Toasty]

I was refrencing the bible. By saying I was just spewing random stuff from my mouth, you pretty much said the bible was fake.

I'll take your word on it for now, but it's still uncalled for. You don't see me saying things like that to you.

Dipset, on Jul 17 2008, 06:53 AM, said:

All people are created equal---hate gays

We are superior---we are raping the world

The world is 10 thousand years old---the world is really millions of years old

I could go on, but you get the point.

I don't hate them. I dislike the choices they've made. I still see them as equal.

Yeah, the environment has been taking hit after hit over the last century, but we are still superior to any other creature on earth. If we wanted to, we could even destroy the world (not that that's a good idea). That is how powerful the human race is. That can't be said for any other being on earth. If they tried, we would be able to stop them.

Neither has been 100% proven. Carbon dating isn't an exact science, and there's no proof that the world is only 10,000 years old. It could go either way.

I get your point, but you don't seem to get mine.

[Legolastom]

I wasnt talking about the bible I was talking about you saying stuff like the 50% thing.

[Toasty]

If you actually take a second to think about it, it's true.

[Drizzy Drake]

But we also have the power to stop destroying the planet, but we decide not to, because it makes life easier.

[kate]

There's more than one way to prove that the world is millions of years old, and while carbon dating may be flawed, it is ballrange accurate, which is enough to tell us that the bible is wrong.

Blue, if it makes you feel any better, according to christianity all of the jesus bashers are going to burn in hell for all eternity :D Which seems fair considering they insulted the religion. On the internet. Once.

Oh and toasty, bible was written by men who say God told them what to write. Given the number of writers collaborating on that bad boy, I bet you one of them was just on drugs and thought God spoke to him, or lied because he just thought he had some good stories.

And I think animals should be treated equally and well, not allowed complete freedom of choice. If my cat had the choice she would run off into the woods because she hasn't spent alot of time out there so she doesn't know there are dangers. I keep her inside because it's what's best for her, just like parents sometimes don't let kids make choices because they want what's best for them. So that excuse still isn't going to fly with me because God is like uber dad. Also I find it odd you're so certain what God wants. If you are asking and He's answering, then why is that more valid than when I ask and He answers?

[Nyktos]

Toasty, on Jul 17 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

If you actually take a second to think about it, it's true.

If you want to assume God and no God are equal probabilities, you also have to assume that every possible conception of God is also equally possible. Which means that the atheists still have a 50% chance of being right, but Christianity has a chance of 0.0000000000000000000001% or so. So it's a fairly self-defeating argument.

[Toasty]

Name all of the religions in the world. There certainly aren't 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them. I'll agree that since every other religion out there (except for argueably Jewdaism and Islam, which both seem to have a strikingly similar God to Christianity) has a different god, it would reduce the probabilty to something below 50%. But what if God made those other Gods?

And Kate, in my eyes, the bible is like life's manual. But you're free to believe what you want. I suppose we can leave it at that.

But those people who insulted the religion wouldn't be sent to hell because of that. Even if they criticised it, as long as they some day decide to follow Christ, they will be saved. That's what Christianity says. So even Athiests, or people who constantly bash Christians can be saved. It has nothing to do with anything other than who they believe in.

So then you'll agree that humans are superior? I'm not saying that animals should be treated like trash, because that's wrong. But god put us in charge for the very reason you stated. We are here to take care of them. However, they are also here to serve us. To me, animals shouldn't be treated equally. But they shouldn't be treated like trash either.

And I never said it was more valid when I asked. However, I believe that what the Bible says is exactly what God wants i to say. When it comes to such a holy book as the Bible, go wouldn't let anyone edit it, or add anything to it that he wouldn't want them to add. The bible even states that anyone who adds anything to the bible will be sentenced to hell. So the guy that wrote the bok of Mormon, is screwed. :D Mormons are safe as long as they believe in God (which I believe most of them do, though I can't be sure), or decide to somewhere down the road, but the guy who wrote the book is doomed.

[kate]

Aaaand you're ok with that? That sorta makes me mad, like someone watching someone else fall down and not helping them. Oh and yeah I know the bible states that God would damn them to hell if they lied in it (stop telling me what the bible says, I already know) I'm saying them burning in hell doesn't stop the fact that they lied in it while alive. And if you're saying divine intervention physically stopped them from putting anything false in there, then why didn't God just write it Himself and make it rain from the skies or put it on a mountain for Moses II to find. God requires enough faith as is without factoring in all this book nonsense.

And you say I should think animals are inferior to us because we take care of them? That's like saying teenagers and kids are inferior to adults because their parents take care of them. They are different, not inferior. And going creationist wise, God made them first, then humans to take care of them. So we're like animal servants.

Not everyone accepts Christ as their savior before they die. And when I say not everyone, I mean like the majority of people. You're fine with the idea that the majority of the world goes to hell? Fine, but I don't think God is. I can't prove it, I just feel it.

I think we should leave the whole bible thing as is, because you trust it and I don't, at least not in the way you do. You seem to stubbornly believe certain aspects of it but are open to different interpretation of other parts, which either means your degree of faith in the bible wavers, or you're a hypocrite. I hope it's not the latter, or it's the 8th level of hell for you XP

No there's not that many religions, but you know you're being silly by taking his percentage seriously. I would name all the religions but I can't....because there's too many XD It's faaaar more than you think since there are so many major religions, then minor ones, then cults, then specific wackjobs, then people like me who kinda have our own nameless religion going. It's probably in the millions. Sooo does .000001% chance sound good? Atheists still got 50%

See what I did there? Paragraphs are all backwards and shiz.

[Toasty]

Adding on to the bible is a sin, and the bible says those who do are damned to hell. Though the bible also says that all sins can be forgiven, so who knows. And I know you know what the bible says, but it's easier if I refrence it. :D

I suppose that's your opinion. However, we were created in God's image. Animals weren't. In my eyes, that means we were designed to be superior. However, It's open to interpretation, so interpret at will.

I know they don't, and of course he doesn't. We are his children, and hell is like true death. I know that if you had children, you wouldn't want them to die. Well God doesn't want us to end up in hell. any single one of us. But sometimes, that's the only option. It's like your child continuously defying you to such an extent that they become impossible to save. You want to save them with all your heart, but you can't. They have a free will. They have a right to choose things for themselves, and live with the consequences.
So of course God doesn't want everyone ending up in hell. However, like I said in post 137, it's just plain impossible to let everyone into heaven, because the chances of everyone meeting the requirments that logic puts in place are incredibly slim.

No, I'm not hipocritical about it. I agree with the whole thing. However, the Bible asks many redundant questions who's answersare open to interpretation, while other times it comes right out and says it. Though the redundant questions have obvious answers for the most part. Basically, some times it says it, and sometimes it leaves it open for interpretation.
For instance, the whole 7 days thing. Yeah, it says "On the first day blah blah blah," but since there's not time in heaven, then the universe would seem to be moving incredibly fast to him, I'd imagine. But tha's also open for interpretation.

Technically speaking, from that standpoint the Athiests' theory would have the same chance as any other theory. :o

[Caael]

LSD was discovered around the same time Jesus was around.

Coincidence?

I dont think so.

[Ironsight]

Blue, on Jul 16 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

Yeah, but, Mars Dijinni told me that it was one of the reasons why he left. There isn't any real tolerance on this board for Christians. Anyways...
So, yeah, I'm a follower of Jesus. I believe that God created the world in seven days.
And I remember some one mention carbon dating. Didn't you here? Theres tons of new evidence that points to Carbon dating not being a valid form of dating bones? If there was a large flood that did cover the earth, which the bible isn't the only viable source of such said flood, it would move all the earth around and re-bury everything. Can't remember where I saw it, but there was this television event about it.

Yeah, there was a flood. Millions of years ago, when the most evolved creature on the planet had just grown the first spine.

[Toasty]

Do you have an article?

[Nyktos]

Toasty, on Jul 17 2008, 11:09 PM, said:

Name all of the religions in the world. There certainly aren't 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them. I'll agree that since every other religion out there (except for argueably Jewdaism and Islam, which both seem to have a strikingly similar God to Christianity) has a different god, it would reduce the probabilty to something below 50%. But what if God made those other Gods?

Just because nobody's thought up a particular God yet doesn't mean it isn't possible. Actually, my number was pretty optimistic.

[Toasty]

From your point of view. It's all a matter of opinion, Nyktos.

[Nyktos]

You're the one who brought fuzzy math into this, I just went along with it.

[Toasty]

Fair enough. :D

[Golden Legacy]

I commend those of you who've been having civilized and worthwhile debating here, really interesting to follow. I wish I could contribute, but I simply haven't the strength and vigor you guys have about this, on both sides.

Keep it up, it's good stuff.

Toasty, on Jul 17 2008, 11:09 PM, said:

Name all of the religions in the world. There certainly aren't 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them. I'll agree that since every other religion out there (except for argueably Jewdaism and Islam, which both seem to have a strikingly similar God to Christianity) has a different god, it would reduce the probabilty to something below 50%. But what if God made those other Gods?

Just want to clarify on this point. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all refer to the same God, the prophets are likewise the same. Those faiths are not just sister faiths but practically identical, save for a few distinct points.


Oh, and where is that Religion topic? Can't seem to find it...

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 18 2008, 11:24 PM, said:

I commend those of you who've been having civilized and worthwhile debating here, really interesting to follow. I wish I could contribute, but I simply haven't the strength and vigor you guys have about this, on both sides.

Keep it up, it's good stuff.


Just want to clarify on this point. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all refer to the same God, the prophets are likewise the same. Those faiths are not just sister faiths but practically identical, save for a few distinct points.


Oh, and where is that Religion topic? Can't seem to find it...

Thanks. And I couldn't find it either. That's why I posted in here. Didn't really want to post in here though, as this was meant to approach religion in a scientific way. Not to prove or disprove anything, but to explain.

[Caael]

Turns out I got into a liiiiittle bit of trouble for that exam :!:

Apparantly the way I wrote it was disrespectful.


But an arguement for god I have heard is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it must have been around forever. Some christians believe this energy to be God.

Of course, this is likely not true because energy was released from the big bang, but it's an interesting arguement nonetheless.

[kate]

that would be cool though, because then God would literally be in everything, since there is energy in everything. lulz I make my coffee with one part cream two parts sugar and a pinch of God :!:

we were supposed to discuss science and religion? oh. This is what happens when I don't read the original post. K this part I got down. Religion has nothing to do with science. It's called faith for a reason (that should become my slogan), because it cannot be proven or even explained by science. Things in this universe that people use God to explain instead of science are wrong, science can always explain something, once we discover it. Just like people thought God and fancy magic air was the cause of spontaneous generation. Then Pasteur was like 'bother this nonsense' and showed there was an explanation. I'm not saying God isn't behind the science, moreso in some areas (for instance I think He set it in motion and then pretty much bowed out, but sometimes rearranges some stuff to do...something mysterious), however He can't be used as an explanation for things and science never really reveals God except if you go waaaay back to where all the trouble is around the big bang. That's the biggest place where people are like "well it had to come from somewhere, it must be God" However civilization also used to think if a stick fell in water it would change into a duck, so it's probably not that there's no explanation of where the big bang came from, we just haven't discovered it yet.

The only sort of evidence of God I see in science is when you look at it as a whole; how all the molecules interact and orchestrate the complex processes that occur within us and nature, how a beautiful field is really just interacting atoms that can never truly touch each other. There's God.

k, I'ma stop being a dork now.

[Toasty]

kate, on Jul 19 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

that would be cool though, because then God would literally be in everything, since there is energy in everything. lulz I make my coffee with one part cream two parts sugar and a pinch of God :D

we were supposed to discuss science and religion? oh. This is what happens when I don't read the original post. K this part I got down. Religion has nothing to do with science. It's called faith for a reason (that should become my slogan), because it cannot be proven or even explained by science. Things in this universe that people use God to explain instead of science are wrong, science can always explain something, once we discover it. Just like people thought God and fancy magic air was the cause of spontaneous generation. Then Pasteur was like 'bother this nonsense' and showed there was an explanation. I'm not saying God isn't behind the science, moreso in some areas (for instance I think He set it in motion and then pretty much bowed out, but sometimes rearranges some stuff to do...something mysterious), however He can't be used as an explanation for things and science never really reveals God except if you go waaaay back to where all the trouble is around the big bang. That's the biggest place where people are like "well it had to come from somewhere, it must be God" However civilization also used to think if a stick fell in water it would change into a duck, so it's probably not that there's no explanation of where the big bang came from, we just haven't discovered it yet.

The only sort of evidence of God I see in science is when you look at it as a whole; how all the molecules interact and orchestrate the complex processes that occur within us and nature, how a beautiful field is really just interacting atoms that can never truly touch each other. There's God.

k, I'ma stop being a dork now.

Well, that was the origional purpouse of the topic, but I revived it to talk about something else. =/

From my point of view, religion still takes faith becuase science can't prove whether or not there is a God. Therefore, science should be looked at as a way to explain how God makes thngs work. Even though the two are intertwined, science will never be able to prove that God does or doesn't exist, so in the end, it still takes faith.


@Caael: Well maybe god seperated himself into billions of smaller pieces at a super-rapid rate, creating the universe? Maybe the seperation was so fast and violent that it's been mistaken for the big bang. :!:

[Ironsight]

Toasty, on Jul 20 2008, 10:37 PM, said:

science will never be able to prove that God does or doesn't exist, so in the end, it still takes faith.

You underestimate science then. It will happen one day.

[Toasty]

Sorry, but it won't.

There is an unlimited number of questions in the universe, and science simply will never be able to answer them all, because there will always be more questions. As long as there are questions which cannot be answered by science, there will be room for faith.

[Split Infinity]

If science eventually disproves all of the points made in the Bible, then people will stop believing in God. The Christian god anyway. I can guarantee that.

[Toasty]

Luckily, the bible can be interpreted in numerous ways.

Besides, I don't think science will ever be able to explain where the big bang came from, becuase it's impossible to create something from nothing. As far as I know, science can only explain and prove things that are possible. They may be able to explain things that are impossible, but how can they prove their claims if they can't do the impossible? Thus, it would stay a theory.

The best science can do is explain what created the big bang, and then explain what created that, and then explain what created that, and so on and so forth.

[Split Infinity]

Nothing created the big bang. It was there at the beginning of time. So the theory goes anyway.

And saying the bible can be interpreted in different ways is just a BS excuse Christians use to conform it into whatever argument they want.

[Toasty]

It can be interpreted in many ways, but some of them are just obviously wrong.

Some people use that excuse to conform the bible to their own needs/ideals, but I'm not one of them.



But I haven't heard that part of the theory before. All I've heard is that there's been previous big bangs. I.E. Big bang, things come back together, big bang, etc.

[Split Infinity]

Well, based on the theory, the big bang would have been the beginning of time. There was nothing before that first minisecond when the universe starting expanding. You can't get any smaller than a singularity, otherwise there would have been nothing, and that's impossible.

[Toasty]

Then where'd that singularity come from Split? According to that theory, there was a beginning to the universe. The universe wasn't always there. And due to the apparent nature of the singularity, it couldn't exist for a very long period of time, so where'd it come from?

[Split Infinity]

It couldn't have come from anywhere, since it was the entire universe. Everything, ever.

[Toasty]

But it had to be created, didn't it? The singularity, according to science couldn't have always been there.

[Split Infinity]

That singularity was a hyperdense compression of the entire universe, it had to have always been there. The universe didn't just come out of nowhere, because there's nothing but the universe.

[Toasty]

So then have there been previous big bangs in the past? Because that's the only explanation that makes sense as far as this theory goes.

If there's only been one big bang (i.e. no cycle, it only happened once), then by logic, something had to create it. Due to the nature of the singularity (mass, density, etc.), it couldn't exist in it's super-dense form for a very long period of time. Something would have had to have caused the big bang.

But if it's a cycle (i.e. prevous big bangs have occured), then the big bang happens, universe expands, universe begins to condense again, singularity begins to form, singularity reaches critical mass, big bang, rinse and repeat.

However, for that cycle to work, there would have to be a perfect quantity of mass in the universe. Too much and cycle mis-fires, or gets disrupted. Too little and no big bang. Succesfully preventing the cycle from ever happening (or happening again).

And since there is only one universe that we know of, the chances of getting that perfect quantity of mass are infinitely slim. Though it's also possible that there are other universes, or even that there's a wider margine for the quantity of mass than I'm guessing. The whole cycle might even be able to operate with way more mass involved than needed for the big bang to happen, succesfully defeating my theory. I'm not a nuclear fissicist or an astronomer, so I wouldn't know.


So the question arises. How (if it is a cycle) did the cycle begin? Who/what started it? Where'd all this mass come from?

From what I understand, the theory behind the big bang doesn't say anything about it always being there.

[Split Infinity]

If it wasn't always there, what was there before it? Nothing? Because that would be impossible given that matter cannot be created.

[Toasty]

God came before it, and God created it. :o

According to science, something created the big bang, and something else created the something that created the big bang, and then even something else created the something else that created the big bang, and so on and so forth. As far as this theory goes, that's how it happened. Scientists just haven't been able to even figure out what created the big bang, though they're working on it as we speak. As it stands, they believe the answer lies in sub-atomic particles like quarks, gluons, leptons, and so forth. That's why the giant thing they recently finished building in Europe was created.

[Nyktos]

Well, the thing is, existence has to exist. There has to be something. My point is, in order for God to exist, there has to be such a thing as existance. With that in mind, I just don't find that God makes the big bang make any more sense. If God created the big bang, what created God? If some kind of supergod created God, what created supergod? Eventually, you have to admit that at some point, something existed for no explainable reason. That "something" could be God, or it could be a tiny speck that eventually became the universe.

So take your pick: an omnipotent being that can do anything, even create an entire universe, or a miniscule ball of matter that for no explainable reason eventually expand so big it became the universe? Either one is pretty hard to believe if you think about it objectively, but you have to choose one of them (or some other, equally hard to believe theory).

In case that made absolutely no sense (likely), the tl;dr is that the big bang theory does not make any more sense with God in the picture than it does without.

[Toasty]

I know all of that. That argument has been put forth by both sides numerous times. "What created the big bang?" or "What created God?" Bot are reasonable questions. But GL explined it a lot better than I could. While both theories can be seen as equally "out there" when you step back and look at them, they have a distinct difference:

Science has to have an explanation for everything. They can't just say "It's there because it's there" or "It happens because it happens". Threfore, they can't just say that the big bang was always there. From a scientific perspective, something had to create the big bang. Even if we can't understand what could have possibly come before it.

However, religion doesn't require complex and specific explanations. It would rewuire faith if everything needed an explanation. In the Christian bible (and I believe both Islam's and Jewdaism's bibles aswell), it states that "God is and always has been" "He is both the begnning and the end" meaning that nothing came before him. Nothing created him. No more explanations required. It's just like that.

So, while science must have an explanation for everything (which truthfully, is impossible and always will be), religion doesn't. That's why when people ask a Christian "What came before/created God, then?" They can simply reply "Nothing." While if someone asked a scientist "What created the big bang?" they would have to reply "We don't know yet."


However, I still stand firm on the belief that science and religion go hand in hand. Those who don't see it that way are either stubborn enough to believe that there is no "higher being," or stubborn enough to insist that science's only role is to disprove the existance of God, and so it must be evil and blasphemous.

Though from an Athiest's point of view, science isn't there to explain the bible, the bible is there to explain wht sicence cannot at the time, and as time passes, the bible will become "Obsolete".

[Legolastom]

I wouldnt say they go hand in hand, I would say that they dont oppose each other but they dont support each other either.

[Toasty]

And how do you figure?

It's obvious that one can't really exist without the other, because there will always be things that can't be explained (and require "faith"), while there will also always be things to discover and understand.

I'd say (for the most part) they un-knowingly work in tandem.

Whenever something requires faith, it takes religion. Whenever something can be explained, it takes science.

[Nyktos]

Quote

Science has to have an explanation for everything. They can't just say "It's there because it's there" or "It happens because it happens". Threfore, they can't just say that the big bang was always there. From a scientific perspective, something had to create the big bang. Even if we can't understand what could have possibly come before it.

Incorrect. By definition, something can't have "created" the big bang, because the small speck of matter was everything. There can't BE something else to create it. There can be something that caused the big bang, but that cause would've been something from within.

Quote

However, religion doesn't require complex and specific explanations. It would rewuire faith if everything needed an explanation. In the Christian bible (and I believe both Islam's and Jewdaism's bibles aswell), it states that "God is and always has been" "He is both the begnning and the end" meaning that nothing came before him. Nothing created him. No more explanations required. It's just like that.

Well, in order for God to exist, existence has to exist. From a scientific point of view, existence WAS that tiny speck of matter. There can't be something "outside" it, because it's everything. There's nothing that needs further explanation here. The question "why did that speck exist?" doesn't really make a lot of sense because that speck was "existence". If there's no existence, there's no "why". No more explanations required. It's just like that.

Quote

So, while science must have an explanation for everything (which truthfully, is impossible and always will be), religion doesn't. That's why when people ask a Christian "What came before/created God, then?" They can simply reply "Nothing." While if someone asked a scientist "What created the big bang?" they would have to reply "We don't know yet."

Again, wrong. If you ask a scientist "what created the big bang?" they will say "God" if they happen to be a Christian scientist, "nothing" if they happen to be an atheist scientist, "I don't know" if they happen to be an agnostic scientist, and so on. The speck is simply a state the universe used to be in, and asking what created it is the same thing as asking what created the universe.

Quote

However, I still stand firm on the belief that science and religion go hand in hand. Those who don't see it that way are either stubborn enough to believe that there is no "higher being," or stubborn enough to insist that science's only role is to disprove the existance of God, and so it must be evil and blasphemous.

Science and religion do not go hand in hand. In many ways, they are opposites. Science's job is to question everything. Religion's job is to prevent any questioning about anything that it already has an answer for. I agree that the two can coexist. I'm not one of those people who says that science will prove God wrong. Really though, they both would be better off without each other. But neither of them is going away any time soon, so they have to learn to work together as it were. And maybe I'm biased, but I think religion has a lot more work to do here. No (real) scientists are saying "nuh-uh, God can't exist because science says so", but there are lots of religious people who refuse to accept certain scientific theories (*cough*evolution*cough*) because the Bible (in their mind, at least) says that they're wrong.

Quote

Though from an Athiest's point of view, science isn't there to explain the bible, the bible is there to explain wht sicence cannot at the time, and as time passes, the bible will become "Obsolete".

That is true.

[Toasty]

Nyktos, on Jul 28 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

Incorrect. By definition, something can't have "created" the big bang, because the small speck of matter was everything. There can't BE something else to create it. There can be something that caused the big bang, but that cause would've been something from within.

Something (or someone) had to create the universe. If the big bang spawned the universe, then what created it? It may be everything and anything within itself, and thus be "existance," but something had to create the universe. It couldn't have just always been there. At the very least, that's what science infers.

Well, in order for God to exist, existence has to exist. From a scientific point of view, existence WAS that tiny speck of matter. There can't be something "outside" it, because it's everything. There's nothing that needs further explanation here. The question "why did that speck exist?" doesn't really make a lot of sense because that speck was "existence". If there's no existence, there's no "why". No more explanations required. It's just like that.

[insert previous response]

Again, wrong. If you ask a scientist "what created the big bang?" they will say "God" if they happen to be a Christian scientist, "nothing" if they happen to be an atheist scientist, "I don't know" if they happen to be an agnostic scientist, and so on. The speck is simply a state the universe used to be in, and asking what created it is the same thing as asking what created the universe.

Fair enough, and that's also exactly what many scientists and other people have been asking. They're asking "What created the Universe?" And so far, science hasn't been able to answer. Religion says God. Science says either "We don't know" or "Something that isn't god" depending on the scientists' beliefs.

Science and religion do not go hand in hand. In many ways, they are opposites. Science's job is to question everything. Religion's job is to prevent any questioning about anything that it already has an answer for. I agree that the two can coexist. I'm not one of those people who says that science will prove God wrong. Really though, they both would be better off without each other. But neither of them is going away any time soon, so they have to learn to work together as it were. And maybe I'm biased, but I think religion has a lot more work to do here. No (real) scientists are saying "nuh-uh, God can't exist because science says so", but there are lots of religious people who refuse to accept certain scientific theories (*cough*evolution*cough*) because the Bible (in their mind, at least) says that they're wrong.

You're seeing things from the scientist's point of view, and not from the middle. The general assumption is that religion is stubborn, and won't accept anything that goes against it's teachings, while science is always trying to disprove religion.

The people who think like that are the people who don't think that the two do (or can) co-exist.

I'll agree that a lot of religious people are stubborn and quick to deny science's claims, but I'm not one of them. Though I do disagree with some theories (evolution comes to mind), I'm open to consider others (the big bang theory).

The problem I have is with people who insist that everyone falls into one of two categories: Religious, or Scientific. Infact, there is a third. It falls between them, though it still as sides within itself. Believing tht the two can co-exist, while still throwing a spin to the idea from either side. One believing that science explains how god made things, while the other uses the bible to explain what can't yet be explained.

Though I can't see how the latter works, because you either believe in God or you don't. You can agree with religion's teachings, but there's no inbetween when it comes to whether or not you believe in God. On the other hand, because science isn't a religion, you can believe some of it, and not other parts of it.

The big bang has some sense behind it, and some proof to boot. The theory of evolution hasn't been proven, and frankly, I doubt it ever will. At least not legitimately. When they find the "missing link," and I don't just mean more similarities between men and monkeys, but an actual 'ape-man', then I'll take the theory of evolution more seriously.

[Nyktos]

Quote

Something (or someone) had to create the universe. If the big bang spawned the universe, then what created it? It may be everything and anything within itself, and thus be "existance," but something had to create the universe. It couldn't have just always been there. At the very least, that's what science infers.

No. By definition, the universe was always there, because if there is no universe, there's no time. Nothing can create existence, because nothing can exist without existence. Not even God can create the universe, because he can't be there without a universe to exist in. He can create everything in the universe except for himself, which is a different matter entirely.

Quote

Fair enough, and that's also exactly what many scientists and other people have been asking. They're asking "What created the Universe?" And so far, science hasn't been able to answer. Religion says God. Science says either "We don't know" or "Something that isn't god" depending on the scientists' beliefs.

Wrong. Scientists can be religious, stop acting like they can't. "What created the universe?" is not a scientific question. Science concerns itself on what happened after.

Quote

You're seeing things from the scientist's point of view, and not from the middle. The general assumption is that religion is stubborn, and won't accept anything that goes against it's teachings, while science is always trying to disprove religion.

Because that's pretty much true. Science is constantly trying to disprove everything, including its own theories.

Quote

The people who think like that are the people who don't think that the two do (or can) co-exist.

I think they can co-exist fine, but you can't deny that they get in each other's way. Either one could exist fine without the other, and probably do better.

Quote

I'll agree that a lot of religious people are stubborn and quick to deny science's claims, but I'm not one of them. Though I do disagree with some theories (evolution comes to mind), I'm open to consider others (the big bang theory).

Saying you have nothing against science but disagree with evolution is like saying "I think everything the Bible says is true, except for the part about Jesus". Evolution is one of most well-supported theories in the history of science, and virtually nothing in biology works without it.

Quote

Though I can't see how the latter works, because you either believe in God or you don't. You can agree with religion's teachings, but there's no inbetween when it comes to whether or not you believe in God. On the other hand, because science isn't a religion, you can believe some of it, and not other parts of it.

So agnostics don't exist? There are people who can quite simply go "I don't know if God exists or not and quite frankly I don't care". And sure you can believe some parts of science but not others, but if the parts you choose to ignore happen to be the parts that go against the Bible, you're still putting religion ahead of science.

Quote

The big bang has some sense behind it, and some proof to boot. The theory of evolution hasn't been proven, and frankly, I doubt it ever will. At least not legitimately. When they find the "missing link," and I don't just mean more similarities between men and monkeys, but an actual 'ape-man', then I'll take the theory of evolution more seriously.

The theory of gravity hasn't been proven either. And it's quite clear you don't even understand the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that humans descended from apes. It says that humans and apes descended from the same ancestors. There aren't "ape-men" because apes and humans are distant cousins, not direct relatives.

[kate]

stop talking. typing a lot =/= smart. Or actually typing a lot = I don't wanna read it D:

oh shi- I saw evolution stuff though. Can it be evolution time nowz?

evolution does have proof lalala

[Toasty]

Nyktos, on Jul 29 2008, 05:25 AM, said:

No. By definition, the universe was always there, because if there is no universe, there's no time. Nothing can create existence, because nothing can exist without existence. Not even God can create the universe, because he can't be there without a universe to exist in. He can create everything in the universe except for himself, which is a different matter entirely.

God is in heaven. You could infer that heaven is in another dimension, since it obviously can't be in this universe. God made the universe we know, while being in another, so to speak. It's not like the bible comes right out and says it, but that's the general assumption. Therefore, God could have made the universe we are in, because he was in another. Existing.

Wrong. Scientists can be religious, stop acting like they can't. "What created the universe?" is not a scientific question. Science concerns itself on what happened after.

I never said they couldn't. From your point of view though, a religious scientist isn't really a scientist because he doesn't believe everything science determines to be truth.

Because that's pretty much true. Science is constantly trying to disprove everything, including its own theories.

Fair enough.

I think they can co-exist fine, but you can't deny that they get in each other's way. Either one could exist fine without the other, and probably do better.

One cannot exist without the other. I'm not saying that they co-exist perfectly at the moment, because truthfully, that's impossible. Due to human nature, neither side will agree with most of the statements of the other. However, it's impossible for one to exist without the other. Gaps need to be filled, and simply saying "I don't know" doesn't suffice for many people. Likewise, many people won't agree with science's claims, because some of them are only backed by theories and not solid evidence (or at least only a little bit of evidence). Case in point, evolution.

Saying you have nothing against science but disagree with evolution is like saying "I think everything the Bible says is true, except for the part about Jesus". Evolution is one of most well-supported theories in the history of science, and virtually nothing in biology works without it.

I fail to see how nothing in biology works without it. There's a huge difference between the theory of Evolution and micro-evolution, and I don't just mean the prefix. Micro evolution is real. The birds on the Gallapagos (sp?) Islands really do develop different beaks season to season to accomodate for the food sources availble. However, no animal will ever truely evolve into another animal, because the core parts of any given animal will always remain the same. A cat will always be a cat. A dog will always be a dog. There are different kinds of cats and dogs, many with distinctly different features. However, they are all still cats and dogs.

I don't only disagree with the theory of evolution because the bible strongly suggests it isn't true (man was made in God's image, and god created us seperately, as he did every sother animal), though I'll admit it has a part in it. I disagree mainly because there's far too many holes in the theory. for example, we've never found the "missing link". Only some crude attempts to fake it.

So agnostics don't exist? There are people who can quite simply go "I don't know if God exists or not and quite frankly I don't care". And sure you can believe some parts of science but not others, but if the parts you choose to ignore happen to be the parts that go against the Bible, you're still putting religion ahead of science.

I never said agnostics don't exist. But do they believe that a god exists? No. They don't follow a religion because they're not religious. People who are religious are religious. People who aren't religious, aren't religious. Those people are either Agnostic or athiest.

The theory of gravity hasn't been proven either. And it's quite clear you don't even understand the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that humans descended from apes. It says that humans and apes descended from the same ancestors. There aren't "ape-men" because apes and humans are distant cousins, not direct relatives.

Regardless, we have yet to find any solid evidence. Only that we have similar genes. Besides that, every time I've ever read up on the theory, that same picture depicting the transformation from ape to man is thrown in with it, along with the assumption that man decended from ape. So please, offer me an article on the subject from a credible scientist who says that we didn't decend from them, becuase that's all I've ever heard.

[Nyktos]

Quote

God is in heaven. You could infer that heaven is in another dimension, since it obviously can't be in this universe. God made the universe we know, while being in another, so to speak. It's not like the bible comes right out and says it, but that's the general assumption. Therefore, God could have made the universe we are in, because he was in another. Existing.

If you want to believe that, fine. It doesn't really change my main point.

Quote

I never said they couldn't. From your point of view though, a religious scientist isn't really a scientist because he doesn't believe everything science determines to be truth.

Except that he does. Science hasn't determined that God doesn't exist.

Quote

One cannot exist without the other. I'm not saying that they co-exist perfectly at the moment, because truthfully, that's impossible. Due to human nature, neither side will agree with most of the statements of the other. However, it's impossible for one to exist without the other. Gaps need to be filled, and simply saying "I don't know" doesn't suffice for many people. Likewise, many people won't agree with science's claims, because some of them are only backed by theories and not solid evidence (or at least only a little bit of evidence). Case in point, evolution.

Evolution is one of the most well-suppored scientific theories in history. Disagree with it all you want, but don't use it as an example of a theory that isn't well-supported, because it is. You just don't want to admit it.

Quote

I fail to see how nothing in biology works without it. There's a huge difference between the theory of Evolution and micro-evolution, and I don't just mean the prefix. Micro evolution is real. The birds on the Gallapagos (sp?) Islands really do develop different beaks season to season to accomodate for the food sources availble. However, no animal will ever truely evolve into another animal, because the core parts of any given animal will always remain the same. A cat will always be a cat. A dog will always be a dog. There are different kinds of cats and dogs, many with distinctly different features. However, they are all still cats and dogs.

There is absolutely no difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". None whatsoever. The distinction was invented by creationists who wanted to appear reasonable. The only difference is the amount of time they take.

Quote

I don't only disagree with the theory of evolution because the bible strongly suggests it isn't true (man was made in God's image, and god created us seperately, as he did every sother animal), though I'll admit it has a part in it. I disagree mainly because there's far too many holes in the theory. for example, we've never found the "missing link". Only some crude attempts to fake it.

THERE ARE MORE HOLES IN THE THEORY OF GRAVITY THAN THERE ARE IN EVOLUTION. Please, just admit you're doing it for purely religious reasons.

Quote

I never said agnostics don't exist. But do they believe that a god exists? No. They don't follow a religion because they're not religious. People who are religious are religious. People who aren't religious, aren't religious. Those people are either Agnostic or athiest.

They also don't believe a God doesn't exist. Therefore, it's not "black and white" like you made it out to be.

Quote

Regardless, we have yet to find any solid evidence. Only that we have similar genes. Besides that, every time I've ever read up on the theory, that same picture depicting the transformation from ape to man is thrown in with it, along with the assumption that man decended from ape. So please, offer me an article on the subject from a credible scientist who says that we didn't decend from them, becuase that's all I've ever heard.

Find any article on the subject by any credible scientist. Our ancestors were more ape-like than we are. They are not the apes that exist today. And honestly, you believe in God based solely on a book written two thousand years ago. Don't give me "no solid evidence".

[Toasty]

Nyktos, on Jul 30 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

If you want to believe that, fine. It doesn't really change my main point.

You're saying god couldn't have created the universe because he had to have a universe to exist in in the first place. I think it throws your point out the window.

Except that he does. Science hasn't determined that God doesn't exist.

But science has determined that humans evolved from other animals. Not that we were created serperately. I'm pretty sure most religious scientists don't agree with the theory of evolution. Though I'll give you that there are some who do.

Evolution is one of the most well-suppored scientific theories in history. Disagree with it all you want, but don't use it as an example of a theory that isn't well-supported, because it is. You just don't want to admit it.

I never said it wasn't. I just said that the evidence that supported it wasn't as great as you make it out to be. You need to quit speculating.

There is absolutely no difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". None whatsoever. The distinction was invented by creationists who wanted to appear reasonable. The only difference is the amount of time they take.

Like I said before, animals can change some of their characteristics over time, but they will never be able to evolve into entirely new animals. And I know very good and well that the main difference between the two is the amount of time involved. But for macroevolutions to work, there has to be a point where an animal ceases to be what it origionally was. Where a cat would give birth to a dog. That simply isn't possible.

THERE ARE MORE HOLES IN THE THEORY OF GRAVITY THAN THERE ARE IN EVOLUTION. Please, just admit you're doing it for purely religious reasons.

Alright, then give them to me. Lighter objects are always attracted to heavier objects. I can't think of any instance where that is not true.
Though if you're talking about why it exists, it's because every object makes a depression in space. It's like putting a bowling ball on a matress and rolling a marble in the general direction of the bowling ball. Even if the marble only passes near the bowling ball, it will be attracted the the bowling ball because there is a depression there.
That part hasn't been 100% proven, but it's the best explanation we have so far, and it works wherever science applies the theory.

Macroevolution on the other hand, even if our ancestor's looked somewhat like apes, still has a big hole in it's theory because science still hasn't found evidence where man ceased being another animal and became human.

Besides, that theory also doesn't explain why we're the only species to have developed a higher sense of being. We are far more intelligent than any other animal, and yet out of all the different species, we are the only ones who can even say 1+1=2.

Obviously, I'm not doing this purely for religious reasons, otherwise I would just say "Evolution is fake because the bible says so". So quit being an ass and admit that the theory of evolution isn't rock solid.

They also don't believe a God doesn't exist. Therefore, it's not "black and white" like you made it out to be.

However, they don't believe that a god does exist. And that's my point. They do not follow a religion, therefore they are not religious. No matter how much you try to twist, that's the truth.

Find any article on the subject by any credible scientist. Our ancestors were more ape-like than we are. They are not the apes that exist today. And honestly, you believe in God based solely on a book written two thousand years ago. Don't give me "no solid evidence".

Religion doesn't require proof. That's why wehave faith. If we needed proof, then we'd be scientists.
God want's to believe he exists despite the lack of evidence. Those who do are far more likely to follow him and agree with him, wouldn't you say?
Though for your sake, I'll say that that's only assuming tht he does exist.

Besides, I'll say it again, scientists still don't have proof that the point where some animal evolved into man is. Even if man and ape evolved seperately, there is no physical proof to suggest we came from a similar animal.

[Nyktos]

Quote

You're saying god couldn't have created the universe because he had to have a universe to exist in in the first place. I think it throws your point out the window.

It does throw that point out the window, but not the main point of the post.

Quote

But science has determined that humans evolved from other animals. Not that we were created serperately. I'm pretty sure most religious scientists don't agree with the theory of evolution. Though I'll give you that there are some who do.

No, most religious scientists most definitely do.

Quote

I never said it wasn't. I just said that the evidence that supported it wasn't as great as you make it out to be. You need to quit speculating.

Yes, it is as great as I make it out to be. Again, you just don't want to admit it because in your mind it clashes with your religious beliefs.

Quote

Like I said before, animals can change some of their characteristics over time, but they will never be able to evolve into entirely new animals. And I know very good and well that the main difference between the two is the amount of time involved. But for macroevolutions to work, there has to be a point where an animal ceases to be what it origionally was. Where a cat would give birth to a dog. That simply isn't possible.

You're right, it isn't possible. But that isn't what "macroevolution" is. A dog would give birth a dog that's slightly more catlike. A few generations later, another catlike characteristic would appear. After thousands of mutations, you'd end up with a dog that looks very much like a cat. It's an incredibly gradual change.

Quote

Alright, then give them to me. Lighter objects are always attracted to heavier objects. I can't think of any instance where that is not true.
Though if you're talking about why it exists, it's because every object makes a depression in space. It's like putting a bowling ball on a matress and rolling a marble in the general direction of the bowling ball. Even if the marble only passes near the bowling ball, it will be attracted the the bowling ball because there is a depression there.
That part hasn't been 100% proven, but it's the best explanation we have so far, and it works wherever science applies the theory

You mean like evolution?

Quote

Macroevolution on the other hand, even if our ancestor's looked somewhat like apes, still has a big hole in it's theory because science still hasn't found evidence where man ceased being another animal and became human.

It wasn't a sudden change. The apelike creatures first evolved the ability to walk like humans do. Over time, they began to lose their hair and become more intelligent. There was no sudden change from an ape to a human, there was a change from an almost-human-but-not-quite into a human. That almost-human was a slight change from something that was itself slightly more apelike than that creature, and so on.

Quote

Besides, that theory also doesn't explain why we're the only species to have developed a higher sense of being. We are far more intelligent than any other animal, and yet out of all the different species, we are the only ones who can even say 1+1=2.

No, it doesn't. That's not a hole.

Quote

Obviously, I'm not doing this purely for religious reasons, otherwise I would just say "Evolution is fake because the bible says so". So quit being an ass and admit that the theory of evolution isn't rock solid.

The theory of evolution isn't rock solid. That's why it's called a theory. The thing is, virtually nothing in science is rock solid, including parts you have no problems with. The theory of evolution has far more going for it than most of those other things. I guarantee that if there were no religion, virtually nobody would be doubting evolution.

Anyway, I'm done debating this topic (for the moment at least) because at this point we're both just repeating the same arguments over and over and it's quite clear nobody's going to come over to the other's side.

[Toasty]

But that's not the reason why people debate. :P

But no, not everyone would believe the theory of evolution. Most probably, but not all. The same could be said if the theory of evolution never existed. Most people would likely go with the creationist theory.