If christianity is true than god is a hyprocrit

[taiko]

Good point. But you can choose another book. That is what Obama did right? I'll try and remember if I ever go to court to request another book. Anything but a religous book. Even a dictionary is better. As long as the cover is fancy black or whatever.

I doubt this is true. Obama proclaimed Christianity shortly before entering public political life. Just as President Clinton is seen carrying an oversized Bible I really doubt that if Obama took an oath on some other text that fact wouldn't have been outed or will be should Hillary feel political pressure.

 

I think you are thinking of Rep Ellison (?) the ex Nation of Islam, now conventional Sunni Muslim who was the first Muslim elected to Congress. He took his oath on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Holy Koran. In the political posturing move he failed to notice the rebuttal of Islam written as a foreward by Jefferson in the copy. But then since it was an English translation and not in Arabic I guess fundamental Muslims don't consider it an authentic, I forgot the precise term, Holy Koran.

[JamesM]

The bible can be plucked apart like feathers from a turkey. Theologists are aware of this. Like where did cains wife come from?

 

I know there are difficult portions, but most/many/if not all do have an explanation that is logical and rational. I am assuming that you heard this one before, but you have not taken the time to research the answer. This supposed difficulty has been around since at least the 1920s.

 

Cain married his sister. What? Incest! Actually, the biblical laws against incest came 400 years later when Moses was leader. At the time of Cain, based on the Bible, genetic defects would not have been a concern because there were few humans.

 

In Genesis 5:4 a statement gives a summary of the life of Adam and Eve...“And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.” This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.

 

Critically thinking is cool and all, but most people are like pack animals and act on subconcious or compulsion. Stimulus and Response.

 

I agree. Yet many more people than are given credit for actually DO reason to believe. And many, many people are taught non-religious beliefs and do not take the time to research and discover if those teachings are accurate. They simply "act on subconscious or compulsion" to use your terminology.

 

Theologists, or rather theologians, actually have many answers to these quandaries.

 

Comception isn't an act of god............................why were HUMANS able to clone rats, cats, and sheep?

 

Fallacy. Cloning is not equal to conception. It is a manipulation of reproduction...not a creation of life.

 

If everything is God, then how can anything be?

 

This belief is called pantheism. It is not the belief of Christianity, Judaism or Islam. They all share the common belief of montheism.

[Moai]

For some reason, I love this argument. Why religion is false and why it is true. The arguments are never-ending and only make me want to learn more on both sides of the conversation:p

 

I think that people arguing over beliefs in the first place is funny:lmao:. It's almost like disproving an opinion, but not exactly the same. God planted a seed called Christianity that grew into a tree of many branches, bearing many fruits that from time and time again fall from the tree they grew on, or were picked off by the hands that decided those that were better looking would taste better when eaten. God uses the weak, the ugly, the left-behind, and the losers, the fruits that weren't picked from the tree, to prove to the better apples that "too bad you had to get eaten.":laugh:

 

I'm gald you think that's funny. I don't understand it. Is English your second or third language?

 

People of God come from every branch of the Christian faith, and have different outlooks on their faith, and different interpretations. An apple that grows on the higher branch sees its tree differently than the one on the lower branch.

 

Ah, so Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et al are NOT people of god. You do know that they say the exact same thig about YOU, right?

 

I'm sure that the writers each had their own image of God based on what they were taught, and weren't taught. You tell someone how to write about what life would be like with hover cars, and a fourth of the class will have different images than another fourth, and so on for each fourth. Say, one student writes about multi-layered traffic with floating traffic lights, while another just has cars that can only hover about two feet from the ground and still use roadways and normal traffic lights suspended by metal poles and rods as we do today. Some people examine the topic differently than others.

 

Nice try, but no. Each person is not discussing a different topic and describing a different aspect of it. It is a black and white thing. "Should we sacrifice animals?" Some of the Bible says yes, some parts say no. One or the other pleases the Lord.

 

It would seem that your apology above would be better used in explaining the contradictions in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry and Crucifixion. It doesn't work any better in that context, really, but that is where it is used most.

 

When a cop has permission to enter someone's home, that would normally be against the law to do so, it's okay. Why? Well, he/she has permission. I might just be too general.

 

So, therefore, God wasn't actually picking out which sacrifice would be better, but instead he strategically picked out a specific sacrifice in order for a chain of events to unfold, and therefore giving Cain permission to perform the act.

 

I'll ignore the non-sequitur and focus on your second paragraph. Cain had free will, supposedly, so he already had permission to perform the act, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be punished for it. Also, the text actually says god DID favor one sacrifice over the other. He also seems surprised that Cain would kill Abel, and when Cain expresses fear that other men will kill him, god "marks" him and threatens that anything done to Cain will be avenged SEVENFOLD.

 

If all god wanted was Abel dead, why not just kill him with a lightening bolt or something? Oh, that's right, the Lord moves in mysterious ways--so mysterious they seem to work against what god actually wants in many cases. Neat-o.

 

Ummm... then why did God need to send his only son down to Earth?

 

Good question.

 

He wouldn't send him here just to mess with peoples heads. Why would God send his only son to a planet where everything was going great and the jews were doing great, everybody was following God's laws set before them and everyone was hugging and saying "will you forgive me for hurting you?" If I can recall, things were pretty bad down there before jesus, which is why he was sent in the first place.

 

They were no better or worse than they are now. Oh wait, how were the Norse doing? Ah, they aren't mentioned in the Bible. How about the Chinese? The Aztecs? Aboriginies? They aren't either. See, there are people all over the planet living their lives, worshiping other gods, engaging in acts specifically forbidden (although they would have no way of knowing). Yet god chose to focus on a little section of the desert. He chose the Jews over all the others--without bothering to tell the other people, who go along thinking that THEY are god's favorite.

 

Look at the spread of Abrahamic religions, and look at the spread of violence. The two go together like chocolate and peanut butter.

 

I also wonder where you came up with the idea of "apple" meaning "evil". As far as I can tell, Apple's are good for you:eek:

 

Probably from an apologetic website written by someone who only knows the Bible in English, or a pastor made it up.

 

Actually, in Rome's recorded history, Jesus was proven to be crucified. It was detailed as a man with a donkey's head, and was titled INRI.

 

False. Do you have a reference for this claim?

 

It was also proven that it wasn't actually across, more of a t-shaped thing. Michaelangello came up with the idea of it being the actual shape of the cross.

 

So? Funny how a primitive torture device is worn around people's necks and put up on buildings to represent love and/or god. I think Lenny Bruce observed that if Jesus had been electrocuted people would have little electric chairs around their necks.

 

To question this specific dispute, "Why doesn't God _______, being almighty as he is and all-powerful."

 

Well, why doesn't America throw a nuke at every country that's making it mad to change everything for "the better"? It might not be as easy as you think. They send ambassadors to settle disputes so nothing bad comes from it. It's something called "Strategy".

 

Why does god need a strategy? He can do anything he wants, and everything will result in the way he wants, no matter what. Also, the Bible claims that god DOES do things here on Earth.

 

So, the Holocaust, WWII, the Crusades, the Black Plague, children starving in the Sudan, human sacrifice in the Americas--all of this is part of a larger "strategy"?

 

You shall have no other Gods. Fortunately, there is evidence in God, but it's mixed in with the opinions. It's like finding hay in a needle-stack. [i meant it specifically that way]

 

No, there isn't. All evidence for your god could be evidence for all the others. Not only that, there is no evidence for god. 99% of all theologians admit this. There are those who see coincidence and chance as evidence for god, but it isn't.

[Moai]

One premise is you know what 2% milk is. Another premise is that you know if you are talking with your girlfriend.

 

You have faith in science because it appears to work.

 

There are many reasons why there are so many religions. You won't like some of those reasons.

 

Actually, I love those reasons. I love the idea that other religions were created to fool people and lead them astray, and that other religions are actually of Satan, and all that jazz.

 

All the other religions say the same thing about yours.

 

It's funny, but the Norse gods were created without any awareness whatsoever of the Jewish people or Jehovah. So if what you claim is true, god let Satan have free reign with the Norse peoples--and everyone else outside of his precious little patch of desert.

 

Now really, you don't see how totally stupid that is?

[Moai]

Actually, the bible says that God gives forgiveness. Our sermons and teachings come from the bible, but as being humans we're bound to make mistakes in understanding completely what the bible is actually telling us, leading to occassional false interpretations and misteachings. Don't forget that many aspects of the bible itself are widely accepted and agreed on, such as the sending of his son to Earth.

 

By people who believe the Bible. But there are people--namely the Jews--who don't agree that god sent his son to Earth. And they worship Jehovah, too. According to them, Jesus was not, and could not be the Messiah they are looking for.

 

Also, if one is a believer the Holy Spirit is supposed to guide their interpretation of the Bible. If that is so, why is there more than one? And how can you know yours is correct, seeing as how they feel the Spirit as much as you, and disagree?

 

Science also makes similar mistakes as well, but ultimately most scientific studies are widely agreed on as well, such as gravity. Much of science is under debate still, such as dark matter, evolution, the creation of the universe, etc.

 

No, it doesn't make similar mistakes at all. Science is a tool that is used to understand the world around us. We observe a phenomena, and use evidence to explain how said phenomena works. When an explanation is shown to be erroneous (based on evidence), it is abandoned.

 

FYI, we have no idea how gravity works. There is no debate as to evolution being a fact. There is much we don't know about the beginning of the Universe, but we get more data every day.

 

Understanding the bible requires being open-minded to different possibilities, as well as science does. To be able to grasp the different concepts thrown at you, you must make a decision upon which is true and which isn't. Your decision may go against some people's beliefs or ideas, but it is ultimately YOUR view. Your perspective on the matter.

 

Whereas science relies on evidence. Where there is disagreement, it is based on interpretation of said evidence, and when more evidence comes in one explanation is favored and the others abandoned. This does not happen in religion. Ever.

 

The bible is imperfect, yes. There's no doubt about it. It can be misinterpreted and therefore is not perfect. Unfortunately for you, the bible is a very important book to everyone! On trial, you MUST promise to tell the truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

 

Why is that unfortunate for me? Or anyone else? The Bible is only important because you believe it, act in certain ways that in turn effect everyone else. And I don't HAVE to swear on the Bible in court. There is a secular vow one can take, and Muslims swear on the Koran not the Bible. Look it up.

 

As far as I know, you don't swear to your science book in court. You swear to God. So help you God.

 

Nope. There is a document called The Constitution of the United States that guarantees I DON'T have to swear on the Bible. You would do weel to familiarize yourself with what it says.

[Moai]

I know there are difficult portions, but most/many/if not all do have an explanation that is logical and rational. I am assuming that you heard this one before, but you have not taken the time to research the answer. This supposed difficulty has been around since at least the 1920s.

 

No, it's been around since the Bible was written, and there has yet to be a logical/rational explanation for it. That's why Christians keep trying. Go to a bookstore and glance at the religion section.

 

Cain married his sister. What? Incest! Actually, the biblical laws against incest came 400 years later when Moses was leader. At the time of Cain, based on the Bible, genetic defects would not have been a concern because there were few humans.

 

Do you think this is logical and rational? Puhleeze. The opposite is true. Because there were fewer people, mutation would be MORE of a problem, not less of one. Right now, there are Pakistani communities in England that are experiencing dwarfism and birth defects at exponential rates because of inbreeding. The same is happening in Amish communities, the polygamous communities in Southern Utah, etc.

 

So, are you suggesting that god suspended genetic mutation during the time of Cain and Abel?

 

In Genesis 5:4 a statement gives a summary of the life of Adam and Eve...“And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.” This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.

 

That does not speak to the issue. They would all still only have the genetic material of two people.

 

Do you really believe that these people lived that long?

 

I agree. Yet many more people than are given credit for actually DO reason to believe. And many, many people are taught non-religious beliefs and do not take the time to research and discover if those teachings are accurate. They simply "act on subconscious or compulsion" to use your terminology.

 

Again, the opposite is true. Most people believe the way their parents did, and the way the were indoctrinated to from birth. All "reasons to believe" yet asserted aren't reasons at all, really.

 

Look at the claim that science leads us to god. That is contradictory, as science is by definition atheistic. "God did it" is not a scientific explanation. So, when one does science one looks for naturalistic explanations for things, and then these natural explanations somehow prove the supernatural? Not hardly.

 

Most, if not all of these "reasons" are like the puddle claiming that the pothole was created in just such a way as to hold the perfect amount of water that makes up the puddle.

 

Theologists, or rather theologians, actually have many answers to these quandaries.

 

No, they don't. Try reading some of their stuff. They actually don't explain anything, and in most cases raise more questions than they solve.

 

Fallacy. Cloning is not equal to conception. It is a manipulation of reproduction...not a creation of life.

 

Nope. Cloning is actually better than conception. It produces and exact copy of the organism, while sexual reproduction produces a hybrid. Sexual reproduction is actually a natural way of "cloning." Selective breeding is really a primitve form of genetic engineering as well.

 

This belief is called pantheism. It is not the belief of Christianity, Judaism or Islam. They all share the common belief of montheism.

 

Not really. Christianity actually has at least FOUR gods. There is the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit (but to maintain "monotheism" they are supposed to be the same thing, which cannot be--but whatever), and you have Satan, who is out there deceiving people etc. and doing things that are supernatural and god-like himself. He may not be as powerful as god, but he is more powerful than a human, and so could be considered a god by any standard. To concede a small point, he is a demi-god or lesser-god. But still a god.

[JamesM]

No, it's been around since the Bible was written, and there has yet to be a logical/rational explanation for it. That's why Christians keep trying. Go to a bookstore and glance at the religion section.

 

Thanks for your opinion. This explanation has also been around for a long time as well. And atheists have been trying for hundreds and thousands of years to explain away God. Check out the philosophy section...as I know you have.

 

The opposite is true. Because there were fewer people, mutation would be MORE of a problem, not less of one. Right now, there are Pakistani communities in England that are experiencing dwarfism and birth defects at exponential rates because of inbreeding. The same is happening in Amish communities, the polygamous communities in Southern Utah, etc.

 

Ok, this is unlike you. This is not even relevant. You are comparing years of inbreeding that started with more than two people. You are talking of years and years of inbreeding that started with thousands of years of genetic mutations. This cannot be compared to the explanation that Cain married a sister who was from the same parents who had no genetic mutations (since according to the Bible story they were the first humans).

 

According to your evolutionism theory, when that first group or few humans evolved, one of two things must have happened.

 

First, these humans would have had to reproduce with members of the tribe which did not have the "genetic defect" which caused the macro evolutionary event responsible for the evolution of man. This would have meant that at least half of their offspring would not have had the same genetic defect and only half would have had the defect.

 

Since you mentioned it, today this is true with dwarfism. If a dwarf has children with a non dwarf, then they only have a 50% probability of having a dwarf child. This means that is quite likely that the new genes causing the macro evolutionary event would not have continued.

 

Second, if other mutated offspring were produced at the same time, then they would have had to have mated in either a brother/sister relationship or a cousin relationship. These evolved tribes would not have had a big enough population for any other possibility. Even with that, only 75% of their children would have had the genetic mutation causing the macro evolutionary event. Again, this happens with genetic mutations such as dwarfism. If two dwarf's mate, then 25% of their offspring will be perfectly normal humans without even the gene for dwarfism.

 

With the imperfect gene pool required by evolution, this incest would have made it incredibly difficult...if not impossible... for humans to have evolved to this day.

 

So, are you suggesting that god suspended genetic mutation during the time of Cain and Abel?

 

No, I am suggesting that there were no genetic mutations yet.

 

That does not speak to the issue. They would all still only have the genetic material of two people.

 

Yes, and since these two people were recently created, then there would be no genetic mutations/defects yet. So, it does speak to the issue that Adam and Eve had more than just three sons.

 

Again, the opposite is true. Most people believe the way their parents did, and the way the were indoctrinated to from birth. All "reasons to believe" yet asserted aren't reasons at all, really.

 

This means that only those who change beliefs from how they were "indoctrinated" from birth have reasoned out their beliefs. This means that only they chose their beliefs/religions. This does not mean that anyone who stays with the beliefs that they were raised under is just following these beliefs blindly with no intellectual reasoning. Many people who were raised as Christians continue based on actual research into their religion. And many people who were raised as atheists continue based on an examination of their upbringing. But yes, it does go both ways. Unfortunately, many Christians and atheists and Muslims, etc., accept their upbringing without discovering why they believe as they believe. Then when they encounter opposition to their beliefs, they flounder and show their ignorance.

 

So, based on this logic, those who are born atheists are no smarter than those who are born Christians. Only those who change beliefs from how they were taught from childhood can be respected. The famous or rather infamous atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hare raised her children as atheists. Yet one son, John, chose Christianity. And many people like you, who were raised in a at least nominally Christian home, choose to become atheistic. Yet both beliefs by definition cannot be correct. Someone's reasoning was wrong. (I know...you believe those who chose Christianity.)

 

You know this is a fallacy. Just because one is raised a particular way does not mean that if he or she retains those beliefs into adulthood, he or she has not reasoned out those beliefs. Many of us have questioned our upbringing and do see it as the truth.

 

Look at the claim that science leads us to god. That is contradictory, as science is by definition atheistic. "God did it" is not a scientific explanation.

 

This is incorrect. The definition of science is (according to Biology-Online.org)

 

The study of the material universe or physical reality in order to understand it. This is done by making observations and collecting data about natural events and conditions, then organising and explaining them with hypotheses, theories, models, laws, and principles.

 

The organised body of knowledge about the material universe which can be verified or tested.

 

A particular branch of either the process of study or the body of knowledge, such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics.

 

Nothing says that God is excluded. What I think you mean to argue (if I can help you a minute) is that the scientific method rules out God. The scientific method is defined as (again by Biology-Online.org)....

 

Scientific method

 

The universally-accepted, organized approach to the study of science, which consists of the following steps:

 

1. observation - information or record secured by viewing or noting a fact or occurrence

 

2. research - diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise; investigate carefully

 

3. hypothesis - forming a preliminary possible explanation of the data.

 

4. testing - test the hypothesis by collecting more data.

 

5. results - interpreting the results of the test and deciding if the hypothesis should be rejected. The hypothesis is rejected if the results contradict it, showing that it is wrong.

 

6. Conclusion - stating a conclusion that can be evaluated independently by others. A method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses.The method used by scientists to validify their observations in an experiment by proving (or disproving all other possibilities) a hypothesis that they have made. The hypothesis may change throughout the experiment as new data and evidence is obtained,

 

Again, you have to assume that only naturalistic mechanisms are allowed in order to rule out God.

 

So, when one does science one looks for naturalistic explanations for things, and then these natural explanations somehow prove the supernatural? Not hardly.

 

You are correct. Yet when one rules out design, then one must begin looking for a naturalistic origin. This actually restricts scientific investigations. Then when one rules out design and intelligence, one must accept that everything had to have happened by random and without a plan. And the belief that chaos can become ordered must be believed. Saying God did it does not mean that investigations in how He did it have been ruled out. Saying that evolution happens does not mean that investigations no longer are done to see how evolution happened. Accepting that we came from some primordial soup does not mean that scientists are furtively trying to explain how that happened.

 

Cloning is actually better than conception. It produces and exact copy of the organism, while sexual reproduction produces a hybrid. Sexual reproduction is actually a natural way of "cloning." Selective breeding is really a primitve form of genetic engineering as well.

 

Interesting logic...or rather illogic. Check out the definition of hybridization again...I think you are confused. Cloning does not happen without design or intelligence either. Nor does genetic engineering. (Darwinism proposes that all of this life on earth happened without a goal and in a random fashion and with nobody behind it.) Conception takes an egg and a sperm (in humans) and creates a new being. Scientists have experimented with animal cloning, but have never been able to stimulate a specialized cell to produce a new organism directly. Instead, they rely on transplanting the genetic information from a specialized cell into an unfertilized egg cell whose genetic information has been destroyed or physically removed.

 

How is cloning better?

 

Not really. Christianity actually has at least FOUR gods

 

There is the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit (but to maintain "monotheism" they are supposed to be the same thing, which cannot be--but whatever),

 

Puhleeez....your interpretation. But as you well know, this is not what Christianity teaches. Go back to a basic Christian doctrine book for a good definition. Hey, since you don't think this is possible, then it cannot be possible. And any being that is more powerful than a human is not automatically not defined as a god. You are stretching it.

 

Interesting arguments and some challenging ideas. It is good to hear from you again, Moai.

[shadowofman]

So, based on this logic, those who are born atheists are no smarter than those who are born Christians.

But everyone is born an atheist. You have to be taught to believe something.

Forgive me Moai if I'm stepping on your toes here.

Nothing says that God is excluded. What I think you mean to argue (if I can help you a minute) is that the scientific method rules out God. The scientific method is defined as (again by Biology-Online.org)....

No JamesM, the arguement depends on your belief. Is "god" supernatural" or natural? Does "it" exist or live outside of existence? Science only deals with the real world, because only the real world exists. If it is outside of existence then it is made up by definition. So if "God" exists, he must be real and therefore an alien of some sort. To claim that supernatural or "outside of existence" is real is counterintuitive. The idea of a supernatural God is excluded from science. The scientific method can't rule out God, it can't even touch what is not real.

1. observation - information or record secured by viewing or noting a fact or occurrence

You could never get passed step one.

Again, you have to assume that only naturalistic mechanisms are allowed in order to rule out God.

But you can't rule out imaginary things. They exist in the minds of people. Like the dragon in my garage.

You are correct. Yet when one rules out design, then one must begin looking for a naturalistic origin. This actually restricts scientific investigations.

Why? No more then ruling out no design or intelligence.

 

Then when one rules out design and intelligence, one must accept that everything had to have happened by random and without a plan.

Scary isn't it? Although noone is suggesting the level of randomness that you imply. Humans are not randomly here like the dice were rolled and we just happened out of nothing. Humans are a product of trillions of random events. Just as you are the product of random parents. And they are the product of random parents.

And the belief that chaos can become ordered must be believed. Saying God did it does not mean that investigations in how He did it have been ruled out. Saying that evolution happens does not mean that investigations no longer are done to see how evolution happened. Accepting that we came from some primordial soup does not mean that scientists are furtively trying to explain how that happened.

And?

Interesting logic...or rather illogic. Check out the definition of hybridization again...I think you are confused. Cloning does not happen without design or intelligence either. Nor does genetic engineering. (Darwinism proposes that all of this life on earth happened without a goal and in a random fashion and with nobody behind it.) Conception takes an egg and a sperm (in humans) and creates a new being. Scientists have experimented with animal cloning, but have never been able to stimulate a specialized cell to produce a new organism directly. Instead, they rely on transplanting the genetic information from a specialized cell into an unfertilized egg cell whose genetic information has been destroyed or physically removed.

How is cloning better?

I don't think either is better really. Conception is better for mammals. Cloning is better for insects. I all depends on how we have adapted to our environments.

Puhleeez....your interpretation. But as you well know, this is not what Christianity teaches. Go back to a basic Christian doctrine book for a good definition. Hey, since you don't think this is possible, then it cannot be possible. And any being that is more powerful than a human is not automatically not defined as a god. You are stretching it.

 

Interesting arguments and some challenging ideas. It is good to hear from you again, Moai.

Sorry JamesM, but it seems you don't know your own theology or at least the common interpretations of it.

Your sacred Theologians actually do believe this.

And what is your definition of a God. If you encountered a being with the ability to stop time, be everywhere, create and destroy things from nothing (manipulate matter at the quantum level), you would be unable to distinguish it from a god. Logically, you would have to conclude that this being exists, therefore it is not a "god", but a powerful natural being. You know the Native Americans thought that the Europeans were magic gods because their technology was unbelievable. They quickly learned that these "gods" were not worth worshipping.

[JamesM]

But everyone is born an atheist. You have to be taught to believe something.

Forgive me Moai if I'm stepping on your toes here.

 

Yes, we agree. Man is born a sinner lost from God. Man is not born a believer, so yes, he is born an atheist. However, this does not relate to the point. The point here is that we follow blindly what we have been taught. While this is true that we do continue many times in the direction that our parents taught us, this is no way invalidates our beliefs or the beliefs they taught us. If we are brought up an atheist, then we by that definition invalidate the belief that there is no God. And then this means that we blindly follow the belief that there is no God without determining that fact for ourselves. (And here I think Moai would even agree....many people of all faiths or no faith unfortunately do believe without understanding why).

 

No JamesM, the arguement depends on your belief. Is "god" supernatural" or natural?

 

I will let Moai answer his own argument here. His point was not that God cannot be proved by the Scientific Method (although he and I would agree on this point), but he said that science by definition is atheistic.

 

Scary isn't it? Although noone is suggesting the level of randomness that you imply. Humans are not randomly here like the dice were rolled and we just happened out of nothing. Humans are a product of trillions of random events. Just as you are the product of random parents.

 

No, it is no more scary or amusing than imagining that the computer I am typing on was developed with no ultimate design or plan as its end. It is no more scary or amusing than to believe that the car I am driving was developed by some guy (which would still be intelligence) who started putting a pile of parts together for the fun of it with no goal, plan or even idea of what he wanted....and ended up with a car. Yet if we are not from a level of randomness as I described, then evolution had a plan. You are giving intelligence to the "decisions" that were made. You say that it was not as random as throwing dice...yet who or what decided that this is the next step towards developing (fill in the blank)? A simple adaptational response to a cvurrent need cannot deveop into such organs as we now have. We could go on and on about how an eye or an ear developed with no idea of the end result, but there have been books done about this already. Hey, if you have enough time ....even monkeys can type Shakespeare. And I guess I had bettter go back and be indoctrinated into the Darwin theory again.

 

Sorry JamesM, but it seems you don't know your own theology or at least the common interpretations of it.

Your sacred Theologians actually do believe this.

 

I am not sure what sacred theologians to whom you are referring. All theologians are human. I am guesssing that there are those who even will teach that Christianity teaches that there are four gods. But the main teachings of Christianity actually teach that there is one God with three Persons.

 

Satan is a fallen angel. He is called the god of this world, but that does not mean that Christianity teaches that he is a god in the same sense that he has "equal powers" to the One True God. Moai's description of Satan is not far off the mark, but his conclusion is. By that definition, Christianity teaches that there are many, many gods (and they do) worshipped by man. Christianity also teaches that these are false gods. Moai gives the impression (to me at least) that we teach that it is a smorgasboard of gods, and all you have to do is pick the one who fits your life best.

 

Thanks for "helping" Moai, but I am guessing that he will still respond. He can never resist.

[Moai]

Thanks for your opinion. This explanation has also been around for a long time as well. And atheists have been trying for hundreds and thousands of years to explain away God. Check out the philosophy section...as I know you have.

 

Yep. And they are correct. While atheists have even come up with new arguments, and show every position of theists to be flawed, they won't go away for some reason.

 

Ok, this is unlike you. This is not even relevant. You are comparing years of inbreeding that started with more than two people. You are talking of years and years of inbreeding that started with thousands of years of genetic mutations. This cannot be compared to the explanation that Cain married a sister who was from the same parents who had no genetic mutations (since according to the Bible story they were the first humans).

 

Humans that are exactly like we are, no? Their mutation rates would be the same as ours. Homo Sapiens sapiens has not changed taxonomically for 100,000 years or so--AT LEAST.

 

They had no genetic mutations? Are you saying that they are human, but carry no dominant or recessive traits? You know that by suggesting this you postulate mutation rates far in excess of what we see today.

 

According to your evolutionism theory, when that first group or few humans evolved, one of two things must have happened.

 

First, these humans would have had to reproduce with members of the tribe which did not have the "genetic defect" which caused the macro evolutionary event responsible for the evolution of man. This would have meant that at least half of their offspring would not have had the same genetic defect and only half would have had the defect.

 

 

 

Since you mentioned it, today this is true with dwarfism. If a dwarf has children with a non dwarf, then they only have a 50% probability of having a dwarf child. This means that is quite likely that the new genes causing the macro evolutionary event would not have continued.

 

That all depends on the type of dwarfism involved. Not only that, the dwarves in question today aren't marrying their own sisters and brothers, mostly.

 

Second, if other mutated offspring were produced at the same time, then they would have had to have mated in either a brother/sister relationship or a cousin relationship. These evolved tribes would not have had a big enough population for any other possibility.

 

Sure they would. Consider how humans move, and their propensity for capturing the women of other tribes.

 

Even with that, only 75% of their children would have had the genetic mutation causing the macro evolutionary event. Again, this happens with genetic mutations such as dwarfism. If two dwarf's mate, then 25% of their offspring will be perfectly normal humans without even the gene for dwarfism.

 

Uh-huh. It's great that you can make all this stuff up in your head and think its true, but you would be better served by going to a library and reading about human evolution. There are lots of really good books about it. Or you could take a human anthropology class at your local community college. We both know you won't because that would challenge the "answers" you have developed in your living room, or that you got fro AIG or somesuch.

 

Beyond that, please address my point and tell me what mechanism prevented the first family from having horribly mutated and unviable offspring.

 

With the imperfect gene pool required by evolution, this incest would have made it incredibly difficult...if not impossible... for humans to have evolved to this day.

 

There is no such thing as a "perfect" gene pool. If you suggest that all the variation we see in humans today happened in 6,000 years--well, good for you, but that is impossible.

 

Evolution does not require an "imperfect" gene pool. Gene are subject to mutation because they do not copy themselves perfectly in every instance.

 

No, I am suggesting that there were no genetic mutations yet.

 

Super. Do you have evidence for this? What caused the mutations to start? You know you are just making wacky stuff up to justify a fairy tale, right? Read ONE BOOK about human evolution. Just one.

 

Yes, and since these two people were recently created, then there would be no genetic mutations/defects yet. So, it does speak to the issue that Adam and Eve had more than just three sons.

 

I don't have any genetic defects per se, but I still have a 1 in 1500 chance of having a child with Down's Syndrome.

 

It doesn't matter how many children Adam and Eve had. They all would have had the genetic material of just two people.

 

This means that only those who change beliefs from how they were "indoctrinated" from birth have reasoned out their beliefs. This means that only they chose their beliefs/religions. This does not mean that anyone who stays with the beliefs that they were raised under is just following these beliefs blindly with no intellectual reasoning.

 

That's true, but they are certainly biased. How much time did you devote to Hinduism in your personal religious quest? Or Islam?

 

Many people who were raised as Christians continue based on actual research into their religion. And many people who were raised as atheists continue based on an examination of their upbringing. But yes, it does go both ways. Unfortunately, many Christians and atheists and Muslims, etc., accept their upbringing without discovering why they believe as they believe. Then when they encounter opposition to their beliefs, they flounder and show their ignorance.

 

My fiance was raised an atheist, and while she isn't as well versed in the arguments against religion as I, she does know more than a little about the Bible, and why she thinks as she does. Most of the atheists I know 9myself included) were raised theists.

 

Ironic that you mention foundering in ignorance, given your above posts about mutations.

 

Did Mohammad rise up to Heaven on a winged horse? Why or why not?

 

So, based on this logic, those who are born atheists are no smarter than those who are born Christians.

 

Being an atheist or not has nothing to do with how smart someone is. While it is true that the more education one has, the greater chance someone has to become an atheist, and that atheists are usually the upper-third of the population in intelligence, that doesn't make it axiomatic.

 

Only those who change beliefs from how they were taught from childhood can be respected.

 

No. Nobody suggests this. The point is, that most people are the same religion as their parents, or the religion dominant in their culture, regardless of how much they study their religion. or even other religions.

 

The famous or rather infamous atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hare raised her children as atheists. Yet one son, John, chose Christianity. And many people like you, who were raised in a at least nominally Christian home, choose to become atheistic. Yet both beliefs by definition cannot be correct. Someone's reasoning was wrong. (I know...you believe those who chose Christianity.)

 

Yes. And the same goes for every other religion. They cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.

 

You know this is a fallacy. Just because one is raised a particular way does not mean that if he or she retains those beliefs into adulthood, he or she has not reasoned out those beliefs. Many of us have questioned our upbringing and do see it as the truth.

 

Yes, a small percentage of people do. Most people don't. It isn't a fallacy--go outside and look around. How many people you went to Sunday school with are Muslims now? How many people in the US in general become Musim--just for an example? Not many.

 

This is incorrect. The definition of science is (according to Biology-Online.org)

 

Nothing says that God is excluded. What I think you mean to argue (if I can help you a minute) is that the scientific method rules out God. The scientific method is defined as (again by Biology-Online.org)....

 

Yes, it does. The very description you posted rules out god. Show me one scientific website or book that says "God did it" is a scientific explanation. It isn't.

 

There are some who say that science does not address the question as to whether god exists or not, and I disagree. Some scientists do, some don't. Big whoop.

 

But not one scientist uses god for an explanation of anything. When they do, they aren't doing science anymore.

 

Again, you have to assume that only naturalistic mechanisms are allowed in order to rule out God.

 

No, since only naturalistic explanations are allowed that rules out god by definition. Duh.

 

You are correct. Yet when one rules out design, then one must begin looking for a naturalistic origin. This actually restricts scientific investigations. Then when one rules out design and intelligence, one must accept that everything had to have happened by random and without a plan.

 

You're kidding. There is design in Nature, it just isn't INTELLIGENT design. Moreover, you must first provide evidence of a designer before you can suggest that what we see is designed.

 

Since you can't provide evidence for a designer, one need not postulate one. Not only that, since we can explain what we see without needing an intelligent agent, why postulate one?

 

Evolution isn't random, either.

 

And the belief that chaos can become ordered must be believed.

 

Read up on chaos theory and the origins of the Universe. Sheesh. Your argument from incredulity is noted.

 

Great, too, that you--with your demonstrably limited knowledge of science and biology--reject the work of men far smarter and more dedicated than you WITHOUT EVEN UNDERSTANDING IT.

 

But let's not turn this around about your problems with science. Post positive evidence for your lack of mutation hypothesis above, or admit that you are just making it up. Or that you read it somewhere and they made it up.

 

Saying God did it does not mean that investigations in how He did it have been ruled out.

 

Sure it does. It has every single time it has been invoked.

 

Look at Behe in the recent Dover trial. "The bacterial flagellum cannot have evolved. It is irreducibly complex." When confronted with evidence as to how the bacterial flagellum evolved, he responded, "Oh, I haven't read that." See? He got his a priori answer that supports his superstition and looked no further.

 

Saying that evolution happens does not mean that investigations no longer are done to see how evolution happened. Accepting that we came from some primordial soup does not mean that scientists are furtively trying to explain how that happened.

 

Evolution is happening, all around you, right now. It didn't "happen" and then stop. Beyond that, how life arose is not addressed by evolution. Evolution is the process that occurs once life arises.

 

And the men looking into how life arose are not using "God did it" as a basis for their investigations.

 

Interesting logic...or rather illogic. Check out the definition of hybridization again...I think you are confused. Cloning does not happen without design or intelligence either.

 

I'm confused? That's rich. Yes, cloning is the result of our intelligence, and we do design (maybe someday) the organisms that result. However, the same thing is happening in Nature--albeit much less efficiently.

 

How come we can do things better than god can? God used natural selection and genetic drift, which are obviously inferior to the cloning process. If you postulate god, why can't he do those things which we can?

 

Nor does genetic engineering. (Darwinism proposes that all of this life on earth happened without a goal and in a random fashion and with nobody behind it.)

 

No, it doesn't. Evolution is not random. Read some basic biology.

 

Conception takes an egg and a sperm (in humans) and creates a new being. Scientists have experimented with animal cloning, but have never been able to stimulate a specialized cell to produce a new organism directly. Instead, they rely on transplanting the genetic information from a specialized cell into an unfertilized egg cell whose genetic information has been destroyed or physically removed.

 

Among other things. Cloning is in its infancy, but we are already way ahead of how things happen in Nature. We can code for eye color in fruit flies, for example. Pretty cool.

 

How is cloning better?

 

Cloning results in an exact copy of the organism, not an amalgam of two. It is better if efficiency is the criterion. It isn't if you enjoy sex, or if you don't want exact copies of people running around. But that is beside the point.

 

Puhleeez....your interpretation. But as you well know, this is not what Christianity teaches. Go back to a basic Christian doctrine book for a good definition. Hey, since you don't think this is possible, then it cannot be possible. And any being that is more powerful than a human is not automatically not defined as a god. You are stretching it.

 

No, I'm not. And Christianity doesn't teach what I wrote, true, but if you boil it down that is the deal. Hence Jews claiming that Christianity is not monotheistic. Look it up.

 

Interesting arguments and some challenging ideas. It is good to hear from you again, Moai.

 

Thanks.

[Yosef]

But not one scientist uses god for an explanation of anything. When they do, they aren't doing science anymore.

 

And therefore they don't get paid.

[JamesM]

Humans that are exactly like we are, no? Their mutation rates would be the same as ours.

 

They had no genetic mutations?

 

There is no such thing as a "perfect" gene pool.

 

If we go back to the Bible (which you hold in such high esteem ) since that is where the history of Adam and Eve is written, then we find in Gen 1:26 and 27 that man was made in the image of God. And when we get to verse 31, we read that "And God saw everything that He had made and it was very good." While I don't usually quote the Bible to you, in this case, it is appropriate.

 

From this we can easily see that yes, at the beginning there was a perfect gene pool. These humans were not exactly as we are. According to the Biblical story, sin had not entered into the world.

 

Evolution does not require an "imperfect" gene pool. Gene are subject to mutation because they do not copy themselves perfectly in every instance.

 

Here is a question for you. I ask out of curiosity and have not intention of saying "Aha, gotcha." This is not the time for you to say as you have in the past that even if evolution were proven wrong, creationism and God would still not be valid. This is a serious question which may get a serious response from you.

 

If evolutionism is true, then should we not expect a decrease in genetic mutations as time goes on? Wouldn't genetic disorders be a biological disadvantage? And even if we keep seeing new genetic disorders, then shouldn't the older ones "disappear" through natural selection? Has the amount of genetic disorders increased or decreased?

 

I read this question on a website (no, not AIG or somesuch place. BTW, I rarely visit that site...not that I care one way or another. I simply google a subject and visit as many sites that relate as I can. It is far better to search many different ideas than sticking to one opinion IMO). I was wondering what your thoughts would be.

 

You know you are just making wacky stuff up to justify a fairy tale, right?

 

Yep, strictly for yours and my entertainment. Thanks for that intelligent insight.

 

That's true, but they are certainly biased. How much time did you devote to Hinduism in your personal religious quest? Or Islam?

 

So now in order for someone to have developed their beliefs completely and intellectually by your standards, they must have studied all of the world's religions before they have reached their conclusions. Then you are right...incredibly few have ever been there....

 

My fiance was raised an atheist, and while she isn't as well versed in the arguments against religion as I, she does know more than a little about the Bible, and why she thinks as she does.

 

...including her. I am sure that you have helped "indoctrinate" her into the wise belief of no God. That was a joke. Seriously, I imagine that you do have some good discussions.

 

Ironic that you mention foundering in ignorance, given your above posts about mutations.

 

No, it is ironic how you like to turn every comment into a jab. Here you take a comment that agrees with you to jab at the areas where I disagree with you. Well done.

 

There are some who say that science does not address the question as to whether god exists or not, and I disagree.

 

And many believe that science is not all that is needed to explain all of reality, and I agree. Just because science cannot explain God does not mean that there is no God.

 

God's omnipotent, complete nature makes Him impossible to pin down and analyze with flawed human reason. If God could be definitely demonstrated, then he would be limited. If we could fully reason our way to God, then faith would not be required. While I am sure that this sort of statement will be met with sneers and derision, I am willing to say it.

 

Scientists focus on the question of how things that they observe happen or happened. They make little comment on the reason behind why those things occur. The Bible focuses on the question of why the things that we observe happen or happened. It deals also with personal and spiritual matters beyond the material world. For many scientists their "how" has led them to the Christian "why."

 

But not one scientist uses god for an explanation of anything.

 

Because if they did....by your definition and presumption...they would no longer be defined as a scientist, correct? Wouldn't this be a Tautology?

 

No, since only naturalistic explanations are allowed that rules out god by definition. Duh.

 

Yes, I said that wrong. Duh. You are right. I think I agreed earlier that the scientific method only observed what could be seen. God cannot be proved by the scientific method.

 

There is design in Nature, it just isn't INTELLIGENT design.

 

Really....

 

Definition of design from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

 

1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive

 

2 a: to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect crime>

b: to have as a purpose : intend <she designed to excel in her studies>

c: to devise for a specific function or end <a book designed primarily as a college textbook>

 

 

Not only that, since we can explain what we see without needing an intelligent agent, why postulate one?

 

Good point. If the glove fits, why assume that the explanation is wrong? Or maybe we can explain what we see without an intelligent agent so we don't need to worship an Intelligent Agent?

 

You know you are just making wacky stuff up to justify a fairy tale, right?

 

Sheesh. Your argument from incredulity is noted.

 

Great, too, that you--with your demonstrably limited knowledge of science and biology--reject the work of men far smarter and more dedicated than you WITHOUT EVEN UNDERSTANDING IT.

 

But let's not turn this around about your problems with science.

 

Oh, ouch...oh, the pain of your barbs. Wow, they contribute greatly to our discussions. Actually, no, they don't. Try to refrain from such obvious remarks of disdain. It does get a little frustrating that each time I get a response from you, I have to wade through such obvious digs at my intelligence and those who believe in a God, Creation or Intelligent Design. And I could say the same to you...as I have thought...that you dismiss all of the men who far smarter and more dedicated than you simply because they believe in a God. I think our discussions could be more beneficial without the revelation of disdain and arrogance.

 

But as I have told you numerous times, I learn from you in many ways. That is probably why I engage in such endeavors. It is never to win or convert you. And I respect you for your obviously high level of reasoning and intelligence...even if I disagree with you. Your explanations are well thought out and do help me understand where I have learned or reasoned wrong. While I doubt that our discussions will lead me to be an atheist, they certainly will help me understand atheism from someone who has reached this conclusion intellectually and not simply by his upbringing.

 

But you are right. I have no degrees in science or biology. I am not ashamed to say so. I (hopefully) have not reached the limits of my "education." I hope that a year from now I can look back and realize that I had much to learn. However, I am never going to stop learning or investigating into things that are not my field. I have a short time on this earth and so much to learn.

 

I'm confused? That's rich.

 

My apologies for questioning your intelligence.

 

I guess that had better end this discussion.

[Yosef]

 

But as I have told you numerous times, I learn from you in many ways. That is probably why I engage in such endeavors. It is never to win or convert you. And I respect you for your obviously high level of reasoning and intelligence...even if I disagree with you. Your explanations are well thought out and do help me understand where I have learned or reasoned wrong. While I doubt that our discussions will lead me to be an atheist, they certainly will help me understand atheism from someone who has reached this conclusion intellectually and not simply by his upbringing.

 

But you are right. I have no degrees in science or biology. I am not ashamed to say so. I (hopefully) have not reached the limits of my "education." I hope that a year from now I can look back and realize that I had much to learn. However, I am never going to stop learning or investigating into things that are not my field. I have a short time on this earth and so much to learn.

 

I totally agree;) These kind of discussions only improve my faith.

 

Isn't that ironic!? The atheist brings me closer to God! I hope im not just speaking for myself. Either way, it's still ironic, in a very funny way.

[Moai]

And therefore they don't get paid.

 

Yep. I wouldn't pay a waiter who preached to me instead of bringing me food, either.

[Moai]

If we go back to the Bible (which you hold in such high esteem ) since that is where the history of Adam and Eve is written, then we find in Gen 1:26 and 27 that man was made in the image of God. And when we get to verse 31, we read that "And God saw everything that He had made and it was very good." While I don't usually quote the Bible to you, in this case, it is appropriate.

 

From this we can easily see that yes, at the beginning there was a perfect gene pool. These humans were not exactly as we are. According to the Biblical story, sin had not entered into the world.

 

And the only evidence you have for this is the book itself. The fossil record and your very own DNA show the book to be wrong.

 

Here is a question for you. I ask out of curiosity and have not intention of saying "Aha, gotcha." This is not the time for you to say as you have in the past that even if evolution were proven wrong, creationism and God would still not be valid. This is a serious question which may get a serious response from you.

 

Evolution cannot be wrong, as it is an observable fact, like gravity. Gravity cannot "be wrong." But, in the outside chance that our theory that explains evolution is completely wrong, I would abandon it in a second if there were evidence supporting a contrary theory. So far, there isn't any. And it has held up wuite well for about 150 years now.

 

Beyond that, there is no evidence for Biblical Creationism. Not one, single solitary shred. Look at their own websites. They post no evidence for thier own "science"; rather, they misrepresent the actual science and then claim that since "x is false, y must be true". This is a false dilemma, and fallacious reasoning. Not only that, but their lying about what the theory of evolution really means is borderline criminal.

 

In the improbably case that a designer could actually be determined, one would still have to prove that it was Jehovah/Jesus/Holy Spirit and not Vishnu, Odin, Zeus, or any of the other thousands of gods.

 

If evolutionism is true, then should we not expect a decrease in genetic mutations as time goes on?

 

First, it isn't "evolutionism". Evolution is a fact, and we have a theory that explains that fact. That is it. And, evolution is this (very simply): Species change over time." There are newer better definitions, but that will suffice for our discussion.

 

Why would we expect the mutation rate of genetic material to slow?

 

Wouldn't genetic disorders be a biological disadvantage?

 

Yep. And they are. Most mutations are harmful, but not all of them are. And the beneficial ones are selected for.

 

And even if we keep seeing new genetic disorders, then shouldn't the older ones "disappear" through natural selection? Has the amount of genetic disorders increased or decreased?

 

Genes mutate at a constant rate. Some mutations are inherited, like cystic fibrosis, others occur randomly, like Down's Syndrome. But none of them occur in a vacuum. For example, if you have a propensity for sickle cell anemia, you can't get malaria. But, you have a one in ten chance of getting sickle cell anemia. Such is a mutation that is harmful, but actually beneficial in the larger, species oriented sense. It is even more complex than that, but that is the idea.

 

I read this question on a website (no, not AIG or somesuch place. BTW, I rarely visit that site...not that I care one way or another. I simply google a subject and visit as many sites that relate as I can. It is far better to search many different ideas than sticking to one opinion IMO). I was wondering what your thoughts would be.

 

As I am sure you are aware, the web is not edited. Why waste your time? Why not go to the source and read the data and conclusions from the people actually doing the work?

 

What you suggest is the equivalent of me wondering what Mein Kampf is all about, but instead of reading it for myself I just read Billy-Bob's website about it--and consider all opinions as equal. They aren't. The people actually working on the human genome have an opinion that counts more than Billy-Bob's, or Ken Ham's, or Duane Gish's or what have you. Or a lawyer, an accountant, or a cleric living in Washington.

 

Consider: Why do universities go through the accreditation process? Why are scientific papers peer-reviewed?

 

Yep, strictly for yours and my entertainment. Thanks for that intelligent insight.

 

You're welcome.

 

So now in order for someone to have developed their beliefs completely and intellectually by your standards, they must have studied all of the world's religions before they have reached their conclusions. Then you are right...incredibly few have ever been there....

 

Now you are arguing against yourself. I never said anything like this. I never said anything about intellectual standards.

 

Most people are the same religion aas their parents, or at the very least the religion that is dominant in their culture. That's it. And it is true. It doesn't mean people who do so are stupid, or aren't intellectuals, or are living a full life, or whatever paranoid idea you have in your head about it.

 

If we were in Yemen, you'd probably be a Muslim, and we'd still be having this same discussion. If you were born in Utah, you might be Mormon. If you were born in Mexico about 300 years ago, you'd worship Qetzquatl. Big whoop.

 

This speaks to the claim that believers somehow "know"that their religion is true, or that it "just makes sense" or that they have "reasons to believe." Every religious person everywhere, regardless of belief system, says the exact same thing--and their beliefs conflict. Each thinks the other is comically misguided. This fact seems to be more about geography than the belief system itself.

 

...including her. I am sure that you have helped "indoctrinate" her into the wise belief of no God. That was a joke. Seriously, I imagine that you do have some good discussions.

 

We don't talk about it that much at all, actually.

 

No, it is ironic how you like to turn every comment into a jab. Here you take a comment that agrees with you to jab at the areas where I disagree with you. Well done.

 

Don't call me confused, then.

 

And many believe that science is not all that is needed to explain all of reality, and I agree. Just because science cannot explain God does not mean that there is no God.

 

It isn't that science can't explain god, it is that there is no evidence for a god. If there was a god, science would be about the only thing that COULD explain it.

 

There is no evidence for a Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. Do you believe that, too? How about the Celestial Teapot?

 

God's omnipotent, complete nature makes Him impossible to pin down and analyze with flawed human reason. If God could be definitely demonstrated, then he would be limited. If we could fully reason our way to God, then faith would not be required. While I am sure that this sort of statement will be met with sneers and derision, I am willing to say it.

 

Yep. And has since it was advanced, say three hundred years ago.

 

But you raise a problem for yourself here. If our "flawed" human reasoning cannot conceive of god, how is it that using this same reasoning you know one exists, and that you know what he/she/it wants? Not only that, if there was a god, wouldn't that be the simplest thing to grasp ever?

 

Not only that, but if the idea of god cannot even pass our logical muster, what about a real one?

 

And, right here it seems that you suggest that accepting things based on no evidence is a good thing, and god rewards it. Super-duper.

 

Scientists focus on the question of how things that they observe happen or happened. They make little comment on the reason behind why those things occur. The Bible focuses on the question of why the things that we observe happen or happened. It deals also with personal and spiritual matters beyond the material world. For many scientists their "how" has led them to the Christian "why."

 

And many, many more "not". And some Islam. And some Buddhism.

 

Show evidence of a spiritual world at all, show that the reasons the Bible says things happen is remotely logical or rational, and you'll get somewhere. Until then, you are engaging in superstition.

 

Because if they did....by your definition and presumption...they would no longer be defined as a scientist, correct? Wouldn't this be a Tautology?

 

No. If a scientist is at church, he is not doing science at that time. There is nothing preventing him from showing up Monday and doing science, just like a waiter may not be waiting tables at church on Sunday, either.

 

Yes, I said that wrong. Duh. You are right. I think I agreed earlier that the scientific method only observed what could be seen. God cannot be proved by the scientific method.

 

Good for you. SO you have abandoned the idea of Intelligent Design, then?

 

Really....

 

Really.

 

Definition of design from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

 

1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive

 

2 a: to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect crime>

b: to have as a purpose : intend <she designed to excel in her studies>

c: to devise for a specific function or end <a book designed primarily as a college textbook>

 

So?

 

Good point. If the glove fits, why assume that the explanation is wrong? Or maybe we can explain what we see without an intelligent agent so we don't need to worship an Intelligent Agent?

 

No, since we don't need an intelligent agent to explain anything we have no need to postulate one.

 

Also, if there was an intelligent agent, why would it need to be worshiped? How do you know?

 

If we find life on Europa or Mars, will you abandon the Christian faith? Why or why not?

 

Oh, ouch...oh, the pain of your barbs. Wow, they contribute greatly to our discussions. Actually, no, they don't. Try to refrain from such obvious remarks of disdain.

 

Try not to call me names.

 

It does get a little frustrating that each time I get a response from you, I have to wade through such obvious digs at my intelligence and those who believe in a God, Creation or Intelligent Design.

 

No, but you repeat the same mistakes about biology 9for one thing) again and again as if we haven't discussed it. That is frustrating. You also have not addressed one substantive point I made previously. So I will reiterate;

 

Why did god confuse human language when doing so works against his plan of the "Good News" being spread over the whole Earth, and results in endless etymological arguments--even amongst believers?

 

And I could say the same to you...as I have thought...that you dismiss all of the men who far smarter and more dedicated than you simply because they believe in a God. I think our discussions could be more beneficial without the revelation of disdain and arrogance.

 

When you can show me that they haven't wasted their lives analyzing nothing, sure, I'll give them all the respect in the world. But the men you would hope to doubt have evidence for what they assert (which you could look up for yourself) and gives us things like vaccines and safer corn and fresh water. All of which you use happily everyday.

 

Why is it that it is mainly biologists who have little yap-dogs at their heels saying "no no no no no" without the slightest idea of what is really going on--especially considering that modern biological theory fits perfectly with all of the others? Why are all the others right on track but somehow biology is misguided?

 

But as I have told you numerous times, I learn from you in many ways.

 

Thank you, but you would learn more from a book from the library. that is where I learned it.

 

That is probably why I engage in such endeavors. It is never to win or convert you. And I respect you for your obviously high level of reasoning and intelligence...even if I disagree with you.

 

Thank you. I am frankly flumoxed by the fact that someone of your intelligence doesn't take the time to read the actual books written on a subject in which you have interest.

 

I am not talking about books on atheism, I am talking about basic evolutionary biology.

Your explanations are well thought out and do help me understand where I have learned or reasoned wrong. While I doubt that our discussions will lead me to be an atheist, they certainly will help me understand atheism from someone who has reached this conclusion intellectually and not simply by his upbringing.

 

But you are right. I have no degrees in science or biology. I am not ashamed to say so. I (hopefully) have not reached the limits of my "education." I hope that a year from now I can look back and realize that I had much to learn. However, I am never going to stop learning or investigating into things that are not my field. I have a short time on this earth and so much to learn.

 

And you can sae a greatr deal of time by going to the library and reading the books there, written by actual scientists working in the field. I am not being flippant at you, I mean it. With so short a time we have, why waste your time on the edges and with misinformation? Why not go to the source?

 

My apologies for questioning your intelligence.

 

I guess that had better end this discussion.

 

Accepted.

[NocturnalRaids]

Its just that God has held a grudge, cause we are original sinners because of Adam and Eve. He punishes every human being and those not concieved yet. That is where the discipline goes out the window.

 

If they had stayed in Eden, then wouldn't mandkind eventually get kicked out? Or he would be throwing people out by the catapult loads..........lol.

 

See what I mean, cause now we are all born with orginal sin. How is that even possible. Is Eden the same thing as heaven? I just dont see how the argument for Gods actions holds up. What is the big deal? He did supposively create man, and when it does the opposite of what he says, he banishes them? I don't think he could have created free will. Free will is an illusion anyway. Our brain does hardcore stuff before we can physically move. It is already going through our mind before it happens.

 

I dunno, just don't see the point of this garden of eden story.

[FleshNBones]

Its just that God has held a grudge, cause we are original sinners because of Adam and Eve. He punishes every human being and those not concieved yet. That is where the discipline goes out the window.

 

If they had stayed in Eden, then wouldn't mandkind eventually get kicked out? Or he would be throwing people out by the catapult loads..........lol.

 

See what I mean, cause now we are all born with orginal sin. How is that even possible. Is Eden the same thing as heaven? I just dont see how the argument for Gods actions holds up. What is the big deal? He did supposively create man, and when it does the opposite of what he says, he banishes them? I don't think he could have created free will. Free will is an illusion anyway. Our brain does hardcore stuff before we can physically move. It is already going through our mind before it happens.

 

I dunno, just don't see the point of this garden of eden story.

Before this thread went off topic, there were several issues you had here.

 

What exactly is the Old Testament? You complained about the inconsistencies.

The Old Testament in the bible is composed of several literary traditions held by the Jews. We know there were several Jewish tribes they maintained their own traditions. Someone way back when collected those stories, and formed them into the Old Testament. Instead of omitting parts of it, he wove it into one. That would explain why there are two creation stories instead of one. That also applies to the word usage because different tribes used some words more often than others. The literary form also changes from place to place.

 

How exactly do you read the Old Testament? Do you really think it was meant to be a historical record? Would the people of that time read it as an accurate historical record? Some argue that it was meant to describe the relationship between God and man.

In the begining, God created everything.

He created man from the earth to do as he would do.

They had a close relationship where they could walk together.

Man disobeyed God, and that destroyed the relationship.

 

There is also the issue of God kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden. What makes you think God had to keep them in the garden? It is his garden, and he makes the rules. The two of them were there at his discression.

 

What is punishment in the old testament? There is nothing unusual about people being punished through their children. God punished the Jewish people often and sometimes, severly.

 

How would you punish a god?

[shadowofman]

I will attempt to pick this apart.

No, it is no more scary or amusing than imagining that the computer I am typing on was developed with no ultimate design or plan as its end.

Not scary, this would be insane for you to assume. Computer factories are very real and can be observed. You may know someone that works in one.

{quote] It is no more scary or amusing than to believe that the car I am driving was developed by some guy (which would still be intelligence) who started putting a pile of parts together for the fun of it with no goal, plan or even idea of what he wanted....and ended up with a car.

Yet if we are not from a level of randomness as I described, then evolution had a plan.

It only appears to have a plan, if you assume that there is a goal. Like people are the end all be all of life forms. Or if you assume that evolution works like a ladder. It's a tree, where species are only adapting to environment. There is no jockey for position of "most evolved". You can believe that ebola is a plan of some intellegence, but it reeks of natural selection.

 

You are giving intelligence to the "decisions" that were made. You say that it was not as random as throwing dice...yet who or what decided that this is the next step towards developing (fill in the blank)?

You are assuming that "decisions" were made. Noone "decided" who or what is the next step in anything. The next step in anything is not "destined" to even exist. If any decisions were made in the process, it was in the form of sexual selection. The peacocks had to "decide" that more plumage was sexually appealing. Other than that, environment shapes. No intellegence nessessary.

 

A simple adaptational response to a cvurrent need cannot deveop into such organs as we now have. We could go on and on about how an eye or an ear developed with no idea of the end result, but there have been books done about this already. Hey, if you have enough time ....even monkeys can type Shakespeare. And I guess I had bettter go back and be indoctrinated into the Darwin theory again.

Sure it can. Eyes didn't need to have a plan for an end result in order to be useful at every stage of developement. An eye spot is better than no eye. Cones, rods, each an improvement. Each valueable at every level of complexity. Tons of reals science books have been written on the topic of the eye. You should read one. Hell, here's a model.

Evolution only appears to have a plan or an intellegence behind it, because the environment is so complex and vast. So many different climates. So many different food sources to exploit. So much room for mutations to grab hold and move forward. Then more environmental change, more mutation, and more adaptation. Evolution is a force to be sure, but it needs no intellegence.

[Rooster_DAR]

This is an awesome thread, lot's of good debating here.

 

 

It's funny after reading through nearly the entire thread again, you seem to notice a pattern emerging. The religious posters seem to be fishing for anything to counter scientific explanations, something I have noticed that has been carrying on for years all over the world. But what's really noticeable is that the scientific explanations carry so much more weight, while religious counterparts seem to be failing to provide any viable evidence as to the belief in god and intelligent design.

 

I'm no genius by any means, many people here exceed my intelligence by far, however I do posses a natural affinity to deduce, and think critically by analysis. I was raised in a very religious household (although my father studied Darwin's theory to an extent) I quickly started seeing contradictions and big holes in religion. Everyone seems to dive into the semantics of our existence, but sometimes just stepping back and looking objectively at the whole picture can be more enlightening.

 

On another topic,

I watched a 2 hour documentary on the Dover (ID) court case which I had no previous knowledge of, and continue to see religious believers continuing to fight a cornered battle with science. It was interesting to see the behavior of some of the so called Christians lie, cheat, and deceive to defend their positions in the community. Don't they see that every time they demonstrate these behaviors they are only driving many people to question their core beliefs and religion in general?

 

Cheers!

[Moose]

It's funny after reading through nearly the entire thread again, you seem to notice a pattern emerging. The religious posters seem to be fishing for anything to counter scientific explanations, something I have noticed that has been carrying on for years all over the world. But what's really noticeable is that the scientific explanations carry so much more weight, while religious counterparts seem to be failing to provide any viable evidence as to the belief in god and intelligent design.

I, for one, beg to differ. I happen to believe that science will ultimately point directly to intelligent design. I encourage, and welcome it.

I quickly started seeing contradictions and big holes in religion.

Just as you should've. BUT, you dismissed them all on account of that didn't you? That would be unfortunate if you did IMO.

Don't they see that every time they demonstrate these behaviors they are only driving many people to question their core beliefs and religion in general?

Sure. Which in turn only strengthens and re-affirms mine.....

[shadowofman]

I, for one, beg to differ. I happen to believe that science will ultimately point directly to intelligent design. I encourage, and welcome it.

This is a good attitude to have for someone with preconceived notions. Nothing wrong with having a hypothesis, and that is exactly what theism is. The problem that science has with ID and theists, is that they tend to use a book, one book, a flawed record, translated hundreds of times, copied by hand millions of times, with obvious biased reports, contested by many other scources, undemonstratable, untestable, driven by faith (not scientific at all).

It's best not to corrupt science to fit your hypothesis, especially when 99% of all hypothesis' are wrong. Especially ones that are conceived in an ancient time.

[NocturnalRaids]

In a long time ago people used to use ontological or philosophical arguments to prove gods existence. Those fell out and still do so I've heard.

 

 

Kant was a christian, but decided to destroy rational proofs of god, to leave room for faith. He thought it made christians seem foolish. So it is on faith, not on reasoning.

 

Some other guy/theologin argued that by saying "I believe because it is absurd." Obviously no one really stand behind that.

 

Anyway, everyone thinks that there will be proof some day, But I'll bet there will still be this bickering in 100 years and it will continue forever.

[Moose]

The problem that science has with ID and theists, is that they tend to use a book, one book, a flawed record, translated hundreds of times, copied by hand millions of times, with obvious biased reports, contested by many other scources, undemonstratable, untestable, driven by faith (not scientific at all).

Are you, "science"? How do you know science has a, "problem"? This one book you speak of, how do you know it's flawed? Ever read it in it's context? Taking the genre into account? How about the age in which it was written? Are you Hebrew? Greek? Did you live during that age?

 

Lastley, are you saved? Do you have the Holy Spirit within you?

 

Then of course you'd use the above arguement.....and that's fine......everyone has their own opinion.

 

Mine happens to be that science is an everchanging concept. God and His word isn't. No matter what happens in this world, or when, His word still rings true.

[JamesM]

 

Anyway, everyone thinks that there will be proof some day, But I'll bet there will still be this bickering in 100 years and it will continue forever.

 

There will be proof for all of us one day.

 

And this bickering will not continue forever.

[NoIDidn't]

I hear about how people should forgive, and God forgives good poeple.

 

But why did he throw Adam and Eve out of Eden? He should have forgiven them right? I argue that the christian god is a hyprocrit. Fricken clown.

 

This is funny.

 

As a parent, I make the rules of my home. If my children repeatedly choose not to adhere to those rules, there are consequences.

 

Adam and Eve got off easy if you ask me. They were told the penalty for what they did was death, but all they got was evicted. LOL.