|
Prove God Exists and Get $1,000,000
|
Posted By:
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange
Jan 12, 2005
|
<a href="http://www.thinkandreason.com/" title="Think and Reason">Think and Reason</a> is offering $1,000,000 if you can<b> prove</b> that God exists. There are conditions attached. But they do say: <i>"All you have to do is prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists. It is really that easy!"</i>
Is there really this money sitting waiting?
Supposing I said I was God - and prove I exist (should be easy) - is the money mine?
|
Comments
|
Page 21 of 24 pages ‹ First < 19 20 21 22 23 > Last › |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 | 04:19 AM
Good point. But surely you need to be exceptionally feeble minded to believe in santa claus in the face of the fact you've never received a mysterious present on xmas morning. Just because an unsubstantiated 2000 year old book that could have been written by anyone tells you he exists. right? |
christian girl
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 | 01:51 AM
i bet i can stump any anti-christ scientist. (yes i said anti-christ because not all scientist are christians.) okay lets talk evelution "were made from monkeys."(i dont believe that) where did the monkeys come from???? from some fish thing where did the fish thing come from okay lets talk earths creation BIG BOOM where did the comets come from???? where did anything come from???? where did oh lets say god come from?? (here is where it gets confusing) god is and was always here!! so if you dont believe me ask me some more questions i'll answer them without a doubt in my mind!!!! |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 | 06:18 AM
christian girl wrote:
"i bet i can stump any anti-christ scientist. (yes i said anti-christ because not all scientist are christians.)"
No, quite a lot of them follow other religions instead.
"okay lets talk evelution "were made from monkeys."(i dont believe that) where did the monkeys come from????"
Primates evolved from the Petrolemuridae of the early Paleocene era.
"from some fish thing where did the fish thing come from"
Lampreys, hagfish and some others come from Ostracoderms (Cambrian period). Fish with jaws evolved from the Placoderms (late Silurian).
"okay lets talk earths creation BIG BOOM where did the comets come from????"
Earth was not created by a "big boom" (or the Big Bang for that matter), it formed when a cloud of interstellar gas and dust called the solar nebula collapsed under its own gravity. The dust starts to accrete (clump together) forming a number of large structures, the dominant one of which is the protostar at the centre which eventually becomes massive enough to initiate sustained nuclear fusion.
Comets formed on the outer edge of the accretion disk. Long period comets formed in what is called the Oort Cloud (about 5 billion miles or more away), short period comets are most likely from the Kuiper belt (2.5 to 5 billion miles away).
"where did anything come from????"
It expanded from an fantastically hot and dense state about 13.7 billion years ago.
"where did oh lets say god come from?? (here is where it gets confusing) god is and was always here!!"
Yet if a scientist were to say that about the universe, you would claim that is illogical, preposterous, or otherwise demand proof. Incidentally, since the Big Bang is the theoretical creation of space and time, our universe can be said to have existed for all time, hence was also 'always here'.
"so if you dont believe me ask me some more questions i'll answer them without a doubt in my mind!!!!"
Which is sad. People should doubt things. They should question their most long cherished beliefs as much as they would question the most surprising belief in another, if not more so. Sceptical thinking isn't denying there's a god anymore than scientific thinking is, but if you don't know on what unproven assumptions your beliefs rest you will never know which ones are wrong.
In saying you have no doubt that your beliefs are correct, you are discounting any possibility that you have made a mistake somewhere or misunderstood something, you are claiming to be infallible. If your spelling and grammar are anything to go by, you are not.
Since you asked for questions:
What proof have you that it is the Christian faith that is true, and not say the Sikh, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu or Norse one?
How do you know your god is eternal? If he were indeed created (by a god over God, or GOG), his creator would be so much more powerful than God that there is no guarantee that God would even know GOG exists if he did not wish it. |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 | 08:57 AM
On the subject of the earth- (David B feel free to correct me)
So then the theory is...
(And remember christian girl this is 'science theory' which is all based on observable certainties, Evidence and facts, tested under the constraints of 'Scientific Method' as opposed to Any Religious theory which is "I think..." or "Somebody told me..." or "This old book i found says...")
...So, About 3 billion years ago the planet Theia collided with earth, a piece of it broke off into space creating the Moon, this moon then stabilized the earths orbit, allowing for it to cool down and create oceans and tides. These tides aerated the ocean. An ocean bloated with nutrients and minerals, and in some places with just the right mixtures of minerals and consistent warm temperatures to create proteins and nucleic acids. life. At its most simple form, Single celled organisms- Bacteria.
This (as with all living things) through the process of natural selection (Which is its own story) evolved into multi celled organisms which then evolved into invertebrates. And to cut a very long story short- evolution brought us here.
But don't take my word for it, thats 'faith' which is defined in the dictionary as 'belief in something for which there is no proof' which any child could tell you is just stooooooooopid.
READ! Proove it to yourself.
Discover how truly amazing the real world is, it will astound you. Its so much more fascinating than 'god made it all with his magic and now he will be angry if we dont worship him'
Yes we are an accident, we are an absolute improbability, And we have no purpose. But in a universe which is essentially infinite, We are something that was bound to happen somewhere.
This really is a completely fulfilling belief. Because its the truth. Or at least 99.999999% closer to the truth than any Supernatural ideology.
So get on with living, enjoy your life! Experience it as best you can, trust your own sense of right and wrong. Be happy to be apart of something so amazing! If everyone could do that then we could all get on with the responsibility of being the only species to exist on this planet with a knowledge of how we got here and where we could go.
I am more than happy to give you an abridged version of Natural Selection and the evolution of Man if your interested. Ask me some more questions I'll answer them without a doubt in my mind!!!! |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 | 09:16 AM
I just love it when someone with no understanding of even the most basic of scientific facts thinks they can out-argue people (on scientific matter) who actually graduated from high school.
Isn't it supposed to be common knowledge that you should first learn something about your opponent's arguments before trying to point out their flaws? Know thine enemy, and such. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 | 09:21 AM
And on a similar topic, it completely blows my mind how many people seem to think evolution argues that humans are decended from monkeys. Or in rare, but rather humorous cases, that we're made of monkeys by, I assume, some Marlon Brando-esque mad geneticist.
Even my father fell for this one, and he's a very well read man. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 | 11:33 AM
It's the ones who think we're made by monkeys that make me laugh.
Everyone knows we're made by gooseberry elves! |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 | 08:46 PM
I want a T-shirt that says "Made from Monkeys". |
Carter
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 | 03:21 AM
Great use of google and biology books guys. Effort is always encouraged.
Now, let's talk, in full length, about natural selection, metabolism, and the chemistry of life....That should take a couple minutes.
Oh, You know that documentary called "The Lord of the Rings"? What ever happened to the Hobbit race? Natural Selection perhaps?
But all jokes aside. Christian Girl and the like, please read as much of this thread as you can. If you don't change your mind in the end, at least you know the opposing side and will HOPEFULLY leave with a better perspective and a more open mind on this topic.
You will see some of my earlier posts. A lot of them immature rantings of my emotions and goofing off. But I was closed minded. Once a non-denominational Christian, I now call myself an Agnostic. I have grown up and I see the bigger picture that has been laid out in front of me. This thread was a step in that process.
Although some of these guys may sound harsh at times (can't blame them), their intentions are good. Perhaps someday those "clever" insulting statements made through out this debate will end. And a real intellectual and emotionless conversation, on both ends, can begin. |
Christian Girl
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 | 01:53 PM
dude idc wat u think i got ahead of myself cause i saw the 1million dollar prize any ways the way i see it is if i believe in him and he isn't real then it isn't hearting ne1 but if he does exist the 1s that dont believe r going to suffer in hell |
Christian Girl
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 | 02:12 PM
okay i went to this site to prove it (i care now) the url is godandscience.org
Introduction Who created God? It is an age-old question that has plagued all those who like to think about the big questions. Having grown up as an agnostic non-Christian, it provided me with a potential reason why there might not be any god. Various religions tend to solve the problem in different ways. The LDS church (Mormonism) says that the God to whom we are accountable (Elohim) had a father god, then grew up on a planet as a man, and progressed to become a god himself. Many other religions have claimed that gods beget other gods. Of course the problem with this idea is who is the first god and how did he get here?
Christianity's answerChristianity answers the question of who created God in the very first verse of the very first book, Genesis:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)
This verse tells us that God was acting before time when He created the universe. Many other verses from the New Testament tells us that God was acting before time began, and so, He created time, along with the other dimensions of our universe:
No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)
This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)
The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)
To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)
God exists in timeless eternityHow does this get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have existed from eternity. Therefore, God created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us.
God exists in multiple dimension of timeThe second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimension of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimension of time can travel anywhere in time and never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created. |
Christian Girl
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 | 02:13 PM
Why can't the universe be eternal?The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" to attempt to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.1 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe.
Conclusion God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of a plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist only ~13.7 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).
srry i couldnt fit it all in 1 part |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 | 07:43 AM
"Oh, You know that documentary called "The Lord of the Rings"? What ever happened to the Hobbit race? Natural Selection perhaps?"
OH NO!!! This stunning piece of logical thought has thrown my understanding of Evolution (Which I got from google! lol) out the window! I dont completely understand it of course (because of the share scale of nonsense it involves) but boy oh boy you must have a good point in there some where.
Christian Girl (And I mean no offense here because Im absolutely positive of your good intentions) if someone needs to explain to you that you cant quote the bible to Atheists to convince them of anything. Then your starting out two steps behind everyone else. Its like quoting spiderman comics to prove the existence of a real spiderman. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 | 04:56 AM
Christian girl wrote:
"The LDS church (Mormonism) says that the God to whom we are accountable (Elohim) had a father god, then grew up on a planet as a man, and progressed to become a god himself. Many other religions have claimed that gods beget other gods. Of course the problem with this idea is who is the first god and how did he get here?
Christianity's answerChristianity answers the question of who created God in the very first verse of the very first book, Genesis: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)"
So your answer to "Who created the first god and how did he get here?" is "No-one, he was always here."?!
How is this any more valid when applied to CHristianity that to any other religion? Zeus was the son of Chronos, who was the son of Uranus, who was the son of Aether, who was the son of Erebus, who was the son of Chaos. Chaos wasn't created by anyone, it was always here.
The point of the "who created God" question isn't to stump Christians, it's to make them realise that they explicitly accept that not everything must have a creator, so to apply that rule to the universe, M-space or whatever is inconsistent. It is a double standard called 'special pleading'.
Abrahamic religions posit an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, and hence infinitely complex being that started everything else off. In comparison, any explanation science might come up with is the height of simplicity.
"God exists in multiple dimension of timeThe second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimension of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimension of time can travel anywhere in time and never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created."
Quite aside from the fact that 'plane of time' may or may not have a starting point in exactly the same way that a 'line of time' would, the same reasoning would apply to a universe existing in a higher-dimensional 'bulk'. Both also exhibit the same problems.
If God exists in higher dimensions of space and time, who created these dimensions of space and time? If no-one created them, then why is the special creation of our spacetime necessary? If God created them, where was God before the creation of the space and time in which he (now) resides eternally? And who created that place? Hence your explanation of how God might not need a creator has exactly the same problem you assert it answers.
Infinite regress is a real philosophical problem. Drawing a line somewhere and saying 'before this, God' (A Priori Deus) is just an arbitrary descision unsupported by any proof. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 | 05:33 AM
Christian Girl wrote:
"Why can't the universe be eternal?The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct!"
Cosmologists, not atheists. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, hence all phenomena must be ascribed to other causes. That these other causes are frequently attributed to scientific theorys is because of science's success in explaining things, not because science is an atheist endeavour.
Whether the universe is eternal or transient would not bother an atheist one whit. If it was created, it would be by a natural cause; if it was not created, it would be a natural state.
"This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" to attempt to explain away the existence of God."
Please demonstrate where atheists invented this science. Show, with workings, that no theist of any description has ever contributed to this invented science. Show, with references, where this invented science made up fictional data to base its hypotheses on.
That's the trouble with getting you science from an apologetics site, they don't actually know any. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 | 05:34 AM
(cont.)
"Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.1 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists."
Given that many cosmologists are theists and deists, your first statement is false. Science also produces many hypotheses but always demands confirmation, so if the multiverse idea were really beyond the laws of the universe, it would have long since been rejected. It'd be like saying 'God exists in multidimensional time' and then not making a single argument to show why this must be so.
Paul Davies 2004 summary of the various multiverse theories and their consequences can be read here (http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0403/0403047.pdf). Davies isn't, by the way, an atheist.
"And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe."
First, Occam's razor doesn't say that, it says you should not multiply entities beyond necessity, so unless it is shown to be necessary for a creating force to be intelligent, that is what Occam's razor will cut. Also, the complexity of an infinitely powerful and infinitely knowledgeable god is infinite. A finite set of fundemental laws and observations that would create the same end result is immeasureably simpler.
"Conclusion God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of a plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist only ~13.7 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific)."
In conclusion, if God exists outside of time, then that 'outside' must either have been created or needed no creator independendly of God, ditto multidimensional time. Scientists have similarly posited an 'outside' that is multidimensional and needs no creator, but omit God. What's more, scientists expect their ideas to produce testable predictions which can eventually be used to confirm of refute their ideas.
How are you intending to prove that there is a multidimensional plane of time with God in it? |
Carter: traveling to find invisible land of magic
|
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 | 09:44 PM
The Fonz said:
"OH NO!!! This stunning piece of logical thought has thrown my understanding of Evolution (Which I got from google! lol) out the window! I dont completely understand it of course (because of the share scale of nonsense it involves) but boy oh boy you must have a good point in there some where."
Boy oh boy! My logic threw your googled understanding of evolution out the window!?
I Must apologize. But at least you thought it was STUNNING! That's exciting!
It's a shame that someone who seems somewhat intelligible can't even take a joke. tsk tsk.
It may not have been very funny (actually quite lame), but I can assure you that there was no point intended. I'm pretty sure everyone knew that.
Well, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings Fondu.
I do hope that you have a great day!
Christian Girl,
All I ask is that you keep an open mind and that you use full words. Instead of abbreviations.
You too Fonz. |
lebell frost
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 | 05:03 AM
Oh boy, prove that god doesn't exist? Prove that he does? Prove that my mother's apple pie is better than your mother's apple pie?
give it a break.
The big problem for evolutionists [and many who believe in god believe in evolution ...god created it] is how did life begin? How did life evolve from dead-matter? Hmmmm? A combination of chemicals that reacted weirdly and 'suddenly' produced life that the rest of evolution evolved from? [give me a break]. That belief requires 'faith'. As much as the god believers have.
It's just as believable that the dead matter to living matter scenario was created by god and not some [scientifically unexplainable] accident. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 | 09:23 AM
On the other hand, we have lots of evidence for life (whatever that actually means) from lifelessness. More than can be said for creationists.
And on the third hand(?), there's really no difference between 'alive' humans and 'alive' robots. 'Life' is simply a label that humans have applied to things, but that doesn't mean the universe differentiates between the two. Life is simply an extension of nonlife.
I'm sure that will go over like a lead balloon. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 | 04:26 PM
lebell frost wrote:
"It's just as believable that the dead matter to living matter scenario was created by god and not some [scientifically unexplainable] accident."
Not really, as an accident can just be an example of thermodynamic chance, whereas a god requires a whole theology explaining where he came from, why he created life, why we can't observe him directly, etc. Do you believe everyone who wins the lotto is personally picked for that privilege by god? Or do you believe that some (most) of them just 'got lucky'?
Besides, what you are alluding to is abiogenesis, not evolution. The theory of evolution wouldn't care if we found an ancient alien manuscript fossilised in a 3 billion year old stromatolite that, when deciphered, read "Life Creation for Dummies, (C)13323GI, Xenu Publishing Ltd." |
Lebbell Frost
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 | 06:41 PM
Abiogenesis IS required for the beginning of evolution. No abiogenesis, no evolution.
No acceptable scientific paradigms yet exist that explains that life on earth happened by chance and natural causes. There have obviously been quite a few theories but they have all been proved false or that they rely more on faith than scientific evidence.
To say god must be explained but the belief that the existence of life came about through chance [and must be accepted as an axiom] is poor argument.
One could equally propose that life came to earth because by chance, an advanced alien race stooped off here for a picnic and a toilet stop, so life here developed from the organic garbage they left behind!
The theory of evolution and the theory of God remain exactly that, theory. Both have too many missing links. |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 | 09:07 PM
Lebbell wrote
"No acceptable scientific paradigms yet exist that explains that life on earth happened by chance and natural causes."
Except for Natural selection.
"There have obviously been quite a few theories but they have all been proved false or that they rely more on faith than scientific evidence."
Any examples to offer?
See, I think this is what the problem is with theists and agnostics they just don't seem to understand this-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
How can an absurd fairytale hold as much (Let alone more) factual weight in someones mind as anything discovered by the above process?
Its safe to say it works. It split the atom. What does the Bible have to say about atoms? Nothing because the guys who wrote it knew nothing about atoms. You like using your cellphone and washing your hair with shampoo? Scientific method.
It is a process employed on a daily basis by millions of people, from high school kids to Nasa scientists. And guess what, the 'Process' is always right.
Scientific Method = Facts
And then the argument for god. um....an old book. About a being so powerful it can create a universe, but so emotionally immature it demands obedience and worship from its creations, on pain of infinite torture for those who do not bow down, Oh but you have free will. But use it to worship God, And its not that free because of course the Bible only has one ending, so Mankind can never truly shape its own destiny.
Religion = Opinion
If your going to say there is some error in the idea of evolution, then you should also stop believing in Gravity, Space travel, Physics, Medicine, Technology etc etc etc Because the same process worked these things out. |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 | 10:38 PM
.... and yes there are pieces missing from the puzzle of evolution. But there are millions of pieces present.
Religions - a couple of old books.
And how is it you people get to yell "Wheres your evidence!?" When it comes to evolution. (Managing to ignore the evidence) But you all start looking at your watches and mumbling "faith" when the same question is asked about this god character of yours.
Hows this for a reason why fossil records are slim. The hundreds of thousands of pieces of fossil EVIDENCE of creatures never mentioned in any religious tome were all found on land. Its estimated that we may have only discovered about 30% Of the fossil data out there. Which is a conservative estimate in my opinion considering the planet is 70% ocean.
So we are very lucky indeed to be in possession of such facts as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_evolution
All of which was worked out after Darwin published 'On the Origin of Species' But oddly enough the information (See facts and evidence) seemed to support what he was saying.
Again, if it was completely wrong it would have been shown to be wrong by now because of -see above post. Scientific method is unbiased. It only comes up with the truth.
Not what is 'Emotionally Satisfying' to believe. |
Lebbell Frost
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 12:19 AM
Oh how the God deniers love to stick to the biblical books and argue on safe ground with easy meat to shoot down: Torah, Bible, Quran etc. etc.
As any atheist knows, these books are pathetic material to try and prove that God exists or creationism is 'fact' and that's exactly why Atheists like believer's arguments to come from biblical books and have a traditional creationist viewpoint ...thank you very much!
I'm not trying to present 'proof' for the existence of God by trying to disprove evolution or prove creationism.
Outside of the three main Judea-Christian religions there are plenty of others who believe in a creator: The American Indians, the Aust. Aboriginals, The Eskimo, The Hindu etc. etc
Arguing biblically is a dead-end argument I'm not getting into, so why keep insisting that's my argument and that's where it has to come from?
There are many believers in god who embrace evolutionary theory rather than creationist theory [The Aust. Aboriginals for one].
Paul Davies the eminent physicist [an atheist] is saying that recent discoveries and paradoxes in particle physics are starting to lean argument toward there being a definite possibility of a creator of life, more so than just chance. As if science,[through it's own cleverness] is leaving fewer and fewer other options open to itself.
My point is, god[s] might ..or might not exist independent of who wins the creation or evolution argument.
There is no scientific proof either way and even if evolution becomes a 100% proven fact, it proves what? God does not exist? No, it just proves life evolved? So what? |
Lebbell Frost
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 02:13 AM
And on the subject of evolution [not the existence of god]These few points I read once come to mind:
If the theory of evolution were true [I'm not saying it is not,only unproven], it would be necessary to find remnants of all the unsuccessful mutations and adaptations which failed to compete successfully and eventually died out. But fossil records have not detected evidence of all or even any of these many failed species and biological versions which would have to be there if the theory of natural selection were true.
Fossil records do find evidence of large global catastrophes such as the Ice Age, which wiped out entire species, but this is not the same thing discussed in the incredibly drawn out processes of evolution and natural selection. The evidence is just not there. In the end, people believe these theories just as they believe any thing else which has no real basis in fact - and in this way it takes on the color of a "religion" more than "science".
"Faith" is defined as "belief in things unseen or unproven by sense evidence". There is much more of this faith sort of thing in the believers of evolution and Darwinism than anything approaching valid "scientific evidence" - although they would like to think and will vehemently claim otherwise.
Where are all the [countless] missing links? The stages of evolution such as from a bird without wings to a bird with wings? Where is the bird with a small stub of a wing? Or a half-developed wing? They don |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 02:26 AM
Um... ok. So There are hundreds of other religions out there, with less to confirm their validity than a bible. Good point.
Can I just clarify, Your point is...
"god[s] might ..or might not exist independent of who wins the creation or evolution argument."
Except in the event that Creation "wins the argument." Which would sort of point to some kind of god.
SO, is it fair to say your point is...
"If Creationism is true, then god probably exists. And if Evolution is true then God might exist."
Really? Thats all you wanted to say?
Heres a serious question for you. What is it, that makes you (Lebbell Frost) Think god is even a possibility. Your not a biblical chap. So how does the idea become a part of you? In the absense of ANYTHING to Suggest the idea of god is anything more than a residue from mankind's primitive cave dwelling origins, What is it that makes you think the concept has a chance of being a reality? |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 02:33 AM
Hey! we're crossing over posts. Anyway in response to your 12.13 post. See my previous ones. |
Lebbell Frost
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 03:06 AM
You are putting words in my mouth:
'Except in the event that Creation "wins the argument." Which would sort of point to some kind of god.'
Why do I need to think that? We could be a creation experiment from some very advanced alien race. Why not?
My point is, I don't know how the hell we got here or why. Science nor religion have 'proved' nothing conclusive. Regardless of creation or evolution.
Why do I think god is a possibility? Simply because it's as good an argument as any other 😊) |
Lebbell Frost
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 03:26 AM
A good read would be by Paul Davies [theoretical physicist and cosmologist] an Atheist: The Mind of God. Available in paperback. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 05:05 AM
Actually, Paul Davies isn't an atheist (read his acceptance speech for the 1995 Templeton Prize) he is a deist. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 09:13 AM
So Lebbell, what exactly is your point? We're well aware that evolution doesn't disprove God... nobody is claiming that.
The only reason we even argue for evolution is because so many people see that as the weak link in the argument against God, which of course it isn't. They think that by disproving evolution they can prove that God exists, which of course it wouldn't.
So once again, what's your point? Or do you just like to argue? |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 09:14 AM
Lebbell Frost wrote:
"Abiogenesis IS required for the beginning of evolution. No abiogenesis, no evolution."
In the trivial sense that as evolution deals with the development of living things, there must be living things, you are right. However, how life started is irrelevent to evolutionary theory.
No abiogenesis would mean no life. Look around you, I think we can take some form of abiogenesis as a given. If you want to give God the credit, be my guest.
"No acceptable scientific paradigms yet exist that explains that life on earth happened by chance and natural causes. There have obviously been quite a few theories but they have all been proved false or that they rely more on faith than scientific evidence."
The term is hypotheses, not paradigms. And science does not 'believe them on faith', it tests them as feasible ideas of how life may have come about by natural means.
"To say god must be explained but the belief that the existence of life came about through chance [and must be accepted as an axiom] is poor argument."
Not really. The scientific hypotheses for abiogenesis are, in principle, testable. How do you test "goddidit"? If it came about by chance then that is as far as need explaining, since you can't explain chance; you will, however, have to show that chance is a feasible explanation, that the hypothetical chain of events you are advancing are both sufficiently likely to occur and possible under the conditions of the time.
Science assumes that there are natural explanations for everything mostly because it's purpose is to find them. Every biologist expects 90% of everything that is currently believed about natural abiogenesis to be wrong. Not least because there are about 6 mutually exclusive hypotheses doing the rounds at the moment.
"One could equally propose that life came to earth because by chance, an advanced alien race stooped off here for a picnic and a toilet stop, so life here developed from the organic garbage they left behind!"
People have, though not in those exact words. It's called panspermia, the idea that life came to Earth from elsewhere in the galaxy.
"The theory of evolution and the theory of God remain exactly that, theory. Both have too many missing links."
God isn't a theory in the scientific sense. Evolution by natural selection is a theory because it has been confirmed many, many times. How would you even formulate a God hypothesis in such a way as it could make testable predictions about biology?
Missing links are irrelevant, partly because every for missing link (C) we find (between A and B) we just create two more we haven't (between A and C, and C and B), and because no scientific theory is ever complete or proven to the point of certainty. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 09:45 AM
Lebbell Frost wrote:
"If the theory of evolution were true [I'm not saying it is not,only unproven], it would be necessary to find remnants of all the unsuccessful mutations and adaptations which failed to compete successfully and eventually died out."
No more than for the theory of gravity to be true you would have to measure the masses and accelerations of every thing that ever fell, and the forces of every thing in the universe on every other thing.
It's a falacy called a 'council of perfection'.
"But fossil records have not detected evidence of all or even any of these many failed species and biological versions which would have to be there if the theory of natural selection were true.
Fossil records do find evidence of large global catastrophes such as the Ice Age, which wiped out entire species, but this is not the same thing discussed in the incredibly drawn out processes of evolution and natural selection. The evidence is just not there."
This is simply wrong. Fossil evidence isn't confined to a few extinction events, since these occur over (geologically) very brief periods, while fossils have been recovered from just about every age of rock since the Ediacaran period.
"In the end, people believe these theories just as they believe any thing else which has no real basis in fact - and in this way it takes on the color of a "religion" more than "science"."
Except your objects are equally true of all science, therefore no science is actually 'science', it's all just faith.
""Faith" is defined as "belief in things unseen or unproven by sense evidence". There is much more of this faith sort of thing in the believers of evolution and Darwinism than anything approaching valid "scientific evidence" - although they would like to think and will vehemently claim otherwise."
Where is your sense evidence for 'atoms'? Where indeed is your sense evidence for the Earth going round the Sun?
And faith is defined as "a belief and trust in and loyalty to God, belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion, firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Merriam-Webster). You apply a double standard to 'proof' that science does not.
See CA202
"Where are all the [countless] missing links? The stages of evolution such as from a bird without wings to a bird with wings? Where is the bird with a small stub of a wing? Or a half-developed wing? They don |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 09:46 AM
"In the end it |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 12:38 PM
You might want to try looking at: -
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php |
Lebbell Frost
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 03:49 PM
Evolution is a theory. The existence of god is another. There is no conclusive proof yet for either argument.
Neither theory can be proved by disproving or denying the other and that seems to be the main intent of the evolution supporters here [which make up almost all of the posters].
It is the evolutionists here who seem to think that proving evolutionary theory, or the inability of creationist to prove creation to them, somehow proves god does not exist[?], which of course is a nonsense as it proves no such thing. That is my point and that's all. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 04:15 PM
I think you've completely missed the point then. Defending evolution is required because creationists attack it. We do not use evolution to disprove God, we know we can't do that. We can only point out the flaws in creationist's beliefs and assertions and, hopefully, let intelligent people draw their own conclusions as to which is more likely. Yes we may seem to go overboard sometimes, but it's difficult not to when you're dealing with someone who's entire argument consists of 'God did it'.
Also, simply referring to evolution and creationism as theories is very (intentionally?) misleading. Evolution is backed up by vast amounts of evidence, from the fossil record to actual field observations, it fits very well in our understanding of how biology works, and has never encountered a critical flaw in the case for it.
Creationism is built solely on the premise that God exists. Take this away and every single part of it fails - this isn't true with evolution. There is no physical evidence for it, there is no explanation for how it works beyond 'God did it', and there are many, many, arguments against it that creationists have never successfully refuted.
Just because something is <i>possible</i> doesn't mean it should receive equal credence with something which is <i>probable</i>.
Lastly, the idea that life arose from apparent lifelessness is common to both biology and deism. In biology the exact manner in which life arose remains a mystery. In deism the manner is also a mystery, but one which is explained away as an act of God.
Frankly, I'm unsure why you would take a known mystery and purposely confuse the issue further with mythology, but then creationism isn't a logical field - it's one composed entirely of faith. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 04:18 PM
And sadly, for one who seems intelligent and capable you seem to have skipped straight to the end of this topic. Pretty much every issue you raise as been raised many times before, and suitably dealt with each time. Having to explain the same thing over and over again because people are too lazy to read through all the posts only helps make us crankier. |
Lebbell Frost
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 07:02 PM
Charybdis
Please name one reputable scientist who claims evolution is a proven fact.
If you wish to claim 'probable' fine, but please extend the same courteousness to creationists because to deny them plausibility you claim for your own belief system,you are being little more than an arrogant bigot.
And regarding you next post:
The thread heading here is $1,000,000 to prove god exists. So I'm not skipping straight to the end of the topic, my point[s] were going back to the beginning of it because it wasn't I who was way off track here. |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 | 11:51 PM
Lebbell wrote
"Evolution is a theory. The existence of god is another. There is no conclusive proof yet for either argument."
What we keep trying to point out is, yes Evolution is a theory. But one that is consistently backed up by so much observable certainty that it very quickly becomes the most likely theory.
And Yes God(s) is another theory. But one without any basis in fact. One with out even a pinch of the same credibility as Evolution. One which is, in the shadow of scientific discovery, completly improbable.
Whats so hard to understand here?
By your argument I should be open minded to the possibility that the island I live on was once a giant fish, simply because an old story claims it is and I cant prove it isn't.
But the idea that makes the most logical sense is that no, its not a fish, because its made out of rock and dirt and it doesn't rot or smell like fish and its hundreds of times larger than the biggest animal to ever live on this planet. And if thats not enough, then all these things can be measured and tested scientificly. But you still want us to be open minded to the fish! Dont be so silly.
Im open minded to any other theory on how we got here as long as the theory comes with testable evidence, as long as the theory stands up to at least a little scrutiny. |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 | 12:14 AM
I wrote..
"What we keep trying to point out is..."
Sorry, I dont speak for any one else here. So-
"What 'I' keep trying to point out is..." |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 | 03:57 AM
Lebbell wrote:
"Please name one reputable scientist who claims evolution is a proven fact."
Stephen J. Gould.
[color=purple]
The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 | 04:03 AM
Lebbell wrote:
"Evolution is a theory. The existence of god is another. There is no conclusive proof yet for either argument."
From the University of Waikato
To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world.
A theory is:
*Internally consistent and compatible with the evidence
*Firmly grounded in and based upon evidence
*Tested against a wide range of phenomena
*Demonstrably effective in problem-solving
In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws. The procedures and processes for testing a theory are well-defined within each scientific discipline.
Please demonstrate how God is internally consistent, based upon evidence, widely tested and useful. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 | 04:25 AM
Oh, and just in case you think this is a convenient 'evolutionist' definition of a theory...
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing." - About.com/Chemistry.
"A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing, almost always conducted over a span of many years. Generally, a law uses a handful of fundamental concepts and equations to define the rules governing a set of phenomena." - About.com/Physics.
"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability." - Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.
"Theory (n): An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence" Krimsley, Introductory Chemistry: 2nd Edition (1995).
"Theory: a hypothesis or group of hypotheses which have been validated but not to the point of near certainty." Journal of Theoretics, August 1999.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for your evidence that the Earth goes round the Sun. After all, according to you without sense evidence to support this view, it's just a matter of faith that it does ("Faith is defined as belief in things unseen or unproven by sense evidence), and Heliocentrism is a religion.
😊 |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 | 05:28 AM
Lebbell wrote:
"It is the evolutionists here who seem to think that proving evolutionary theory, or the inability of creationist to prove creation to them, somehow proves god does not exist[?], which of course is a nonsense as it proves no such thing. That is my point and that's all."
Actually, I would contend that it is the other way round. Topics like evolution, abiogenesis, big-bang cosmology, etc. come in to it in answer to statements like "If there's no god then where did life come from?", "The complexity of nature proves God exists", and countless other teleological arguments that have arisen here.
I am putting forward an alternative explanation to God for their facts to demonstrate that the facts do not prove God (the topic). They don't have to believe it, but that an alternative explanation exists is enough.
That science sticks with evolution over creationism is because it starts with hypotheses that seem like promising explanations and sticks with theories that have proved useful ones.
An alternative explanation to everything is that the universe spontaneously popped into existence in exactly its current state 3 minutes ago and that everything from the motion of atoms to planets is causes by hoardes of various sized angels pushing matter around. Please remember to extend my theory the same courtesy as any other. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 | 09:27 AM
Lebbell, I'll go over this one more time for you.
Evolution : vast amounts of evidence supporting it = probable
Creationism : a book supporting it = not probable
It's really very simple.
And I'll make the same argument back to you - if creationism <i>has</i> to be given equal credence with evolution, then so do all the other creation myths in the world. Hindu, various Native American beliefs, Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, Celtic, Shinto, Islam, African belief systems, and hundreds of others.
What makes <i>your</i> belief system more valid than any other that's also founded solely on belief?
I'll take evidence over belief any day. And really, there's nothing else you can do. Otherwise you have to believe everything that anyone ever claims is true. And to believe that your religion (if you have one) is the true religion while blasting us for not being open-minded and accepting of other viewpoints is the height of hypocrisy. |
Christian Girl
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 | 03:23 PM
you send me to much and you know what i think you have went through this and you know there is no possible way someone could prove it except by dying and right now i'm not in a good mood i just got back from church camp and now two of my kittens are dead so i'm sticking with my belief and you can stick with yours now leave me alone cause i'm mad right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 | 05:17 AM
Which sums it up really.
Not to belittle your pain at the loss of your kittens. That is completely valid.
its the statement
"my kittens are dead so i'm sticking with my belief"
My mother something similar. She never really put much stock in the idea of a god until someone in our family was brutally murdered. Now she believes in god. Not that I would ever argue the validity of this with her. But its this notion of 'CHOOSING' to believe in something. 'This horrible thing happened so now Im going to believe in a heaven because then it wont seem so bad.' I cant understand how a person could consciously make a decision to delude themselves like that but still feel confident in its authenticity.
I dont know.
Anyway best of luck to you. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 | 05:53 PM
Christian Girl:
You are entitled to your opinions and I admire your faith so in the words of Dave Allen, good luck and may your god go with you.
Still, maybe you'll 'stump us' next time, hey?
:roll: |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 | 05:54 PM
Shame really, I quite liked CG. One of our nicer visitors. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 | 07:23 PM
CG wrote:
"leave me alone cause i'm mad right now!"
Don't understand this bit though. Is someone forcing her to come here?
Captain Al, have you been 'pwn'ing the fundies again?! Shame on you! |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 | 11:26 PM
Yeah, I got the impression we were not the ones she was trying to convince.
I dont think she would have come here to be 'harassed'(haha) if she really believed in the 'petulant invisible magic god'. Its like that argument Ive heard theists use "Everyone knows inside of themselves that there is a god" The way I see it, Everyone knows inside of themselves that there probably really is no such thing as a Yeti. I mean Krampus. Wait..I mean easter bunny. No wait...um...Loki? Poseidon? Ah, you know who I mean. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 | 11:59 AM
"Captain Al, have you been 'pwn'ing the fundies again?! Shame on you!"
Don't blame me. I've done enough 'pwn'ing for a while. I don't think I'll be welcome around the new forum for at least a month. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 | 10:11 AM
My grandmother was much the same as your mother, Fonzie. I can't recall her ever going to church, and my mother can't either. Yet when my grandfather was dying she seemed to find her childhood Catholicism again. Until she became almost completely housebound she went to church regularly, claiming to have always done so even in the face of everyone teller her she didn't.
But I guess when faced with mortality many people panic. I suppose the feel that if they can fool themselves into believing they've always been devout then maybe they can fool God as well. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 | 03:43 AM
Having known a few people like that, I wonder about their motives too.
Clearly if they really believed in the God of the bible, they would know that they have the proverbial snowball's chance of fooling him. Also if they had read their bible a bit more closely, they would remember the parable of the prodigal son, which tells us that returning to the 'father' with sincere repentence is the key to forgiveness. Their denial is not only not going to fool God, it is the opposite of what he desired.
My guess (and it's only that) is that it is temporal, not spiritual, comfort that drives this behaviour. It is not salvation they are after but a salve, something to sooth away today's worries. |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 | 07:47 PM
Exactly.
I wish someone could package David B into a handy pocket size implement, that I could carry around with me for when I need a good answer. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 | 11:28 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Tumbleweed_038_.jpg/800px-Tumbleweed_038_.jpg |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 | 11:42 AM
I get it. Tumbleweeds exist therefore they must have a creator. And that creator must be God.
I was blind, but it all makes sense to me now - John Ford is God! |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 | 05:20 AM
So is Sam Peckinpah the messiah? |
Lebbell
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 | 08:35 PM
One of the problems with these types of debates, is they are really little more than a shouting match, and everyone wants the bigger megaphone.
For the atheists here [about 90% of the posts?], there is no need to listen to religious people or engage with their thinking because they are wrong, stupid, brainwashed, deluded or wicked and can even made fun of. That demonizing of most of the world's population rather closes off discussion.
Nobel laureate Herbert Hauptman, who was asked whether one could be a good scientist and believe in God? He replied that "belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, but damaging to the wellbeing of the human race".
Again, Hauptman is fully entitled to his opinion, but a pronouncement from a scientist doesn't make it science. That sort of intolerance stems not from science but other factors of psychology and experience that help shape his thinking. The problem is that because an eminent scientist says so, many people accept it unquestioningly. (The same is true, of course, of eminent religious figures.)
Science, as most scientists acknowledge, has limits. As Oxford University philosophy professor Dan Robinson has pointed out in the face of atheists' demands for scientific "evidence" of God, the evidence science produces is "that empirical sort confined chiefly to the marks that matter makes on matter".
Interestingly, prominent atheists such as Dawkins in his book The God Disillusion, seem not to have abolished God so much as replaced him |
|
Page 21 of 24 pages ‹ First < 19 20 21 22 23 > Last › |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
