You're right here. Parties should stop flaming each other in this discussion, and even more start flaming the other side when they're for doing what they've done exactly the same.As for the "typical atheist" thing, I find it strange that this should be subject to such strong universal disapproval when only a few posts earlier some of these same people were talking about how priests are more likely to be pedophiles and how religion should be banned from schools,
You disagree because... ?I disagree about there being no way to prove God,
I agree with Hunchman801 partly. There is no way we can prove God. The only one who could prove God is God him-/herself. For example, he/she could appear before all humans.
Who are you to say what the future may hold. After all, before Charles Darwin came up with the theory of Evolution nobody thought there was an alternate solution for the question of what the origin of the universe is.I've outlined all possible ways the Universe could have come about by classifying them into three main groups. I doubt anyone could think of some way it could have come about that doesn't come under one of these catagories- although if someone thinks they can they're more than welcome to. If no one can, we can only presume that these are the only possibilities, and one must proceed to follow this reasoning logically through. So let's see: *are* you going to follow this reasoning through, or move on to something else?
I would be neutral on this assumption though, since we're getting quite close to proving one of our theory's on the origin of the universe.
It's not absurd. There is nothing as " the laws of science ". There is the laws of a scientific direction. And this is perfectly right, as we see that all the laws of quantum physics do not conflict with other sciences. So the one that an atom can pop into existence randomly also is valid. It has even been proven with experiments.Something "popping into existence" is absurd. All effects must have logical causes- that's how science works. Random phenomena do not "pop into existence" and then disappear again. It's one of the most basic laws of science that no atom is ever newly created (and generally not destroyed, either). that means that ten thousand years from now there will *still* be the same amount of matter existing in the universe.
You should really take your time to read the article from Paul Davies about what happened before the big bang. It is enjoyable to read and explains everything at a good to follow speed.
You have to know : in the world as we know it, the law of cause effect is valid, there's nothing in this universe that we can see as a random event. So you're reasoning is understandable. But mind you, we can't see what happens at quantum level. And we can also not notice it, because an atom is really tiny.
You're reasoning is faulty here. The problem is that you would be filling gaps of knowledge with God, however, you can't come up with arguments why it is indeed God. So atheists have a good point, don't just randomly pick a solution. Research the gap of knowledge, think about it, who knows, we might discover amazingly interesting information.Atheists (again, no offence to anyone) will often say that God is merely used to explain something we don't know. But from this it's revealed quite clearly that you don't actually have *anything* to explain "what we don't know",
Again, you reason faulty, what caused God then ? And, no, God couldn't have existed forever, since he must have had an cause too, and what caused that cause...yet you still accuse the idea of First Cause, something that agrees with the principles of Cause and Effect seen EVERY DAY, as "stupid" and "sickening" as you so eloquently put it before.
First, why are you saying " Christian God ". Both Christians, Moslims and Jews pray to the same god. The only difference is the name. And to be honest with you, God is just a translation, a more nice name is " Jahwe " or " Allah " if you think about the meaning of these words.But I digress. I'm sure the Christian God is the true God because of prayers answered, miracles done, witnesses testifying to these facts with no hint of unstable minds or deceit in their words, and then also because much of what the Bible says has come true today or been proven true before the people in Biblical times could have possibly had such scientific knowledge as to have known them.
Secondly, why does it have to mean that because of those ancient predictions God is true. True, some predictions we're really clever, but the men who came up with them we're also, in biblical times and now, great thinkers.
They might be from classes we never knew about. Does that disapprove the theory of evolution, no, it would only prove that there are/have been many species or even maybe classes we don't know about.And many *have* been found, which boggled the minds of evolutionists time and time again. How could this be, when "evolution must be true"!?
Negativity comes from both sides. Creationists don't consider Evolution logical to.In my experience, most atheists have a prejudice against the religious; before any arguments or logical points have even been raised, the religious must automatically be irrational, illogical, turning a blind eye to so-called evidence, having no beliefs other than those based on a blind faith, and so on. (Also priests are of course evil pedophiles, despite the fact pedophilia is condemned by God and adult/child sex doesn't fit within the scheme of our intelligent design). So, when you said "I have no problem with you believing in religion SO LONG as you can admit that your beliefs are based on [blind] faith not logic" and spoke about a "god of the gaps", I basically replied by saying "take a look at the log in your own eye". That's what "evolution of the gaps" means. Then there's also the fact that it's true. Moving on.
And, personally, i think that anyone who had a free choice to become a priest aren't pedophiles, because if you would choose to become a priest, you should have gotten over the fact that you will never have sexual contact. And, yes, there might be a couple of exceptions, but why look at the exceptions ? Look at he majority of priests to make a conclusion.
We can prove it. We already have a very good collection of fossils to back up the theory of evolution. And where does it have been disapproved that the assumption of a creature becoming something contradictory to it's own kind throughout millions of generations is false ? Source, please.Oh, I don't doubt fossils support anscestry "after their own kind" as the Bible itself said before evolution was ever dreamed up. I'm simply saying that a creature becoming something contradictory to its own kind throughout generations cannot be proven, (on the contrary it's been downright disproven) and is ridiculous.
We don't determine what species we belong to according to what we know. I don't know how it is been determined ( i think the skeleton, mainly the skull of the organism ) though.Here we have yet another example of evolutionary nonsense. Humans have minds capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, a thing which sets them apart from mere animals, who, although they can demonstrate degrees of intelligence according to their nature and design, do not have the knowledge of right and wrong, or good and evil. Can evolution demonstrate that an animal species, any animal species, is capable of developing a brain of such a nature as to learn the important difference between good and evil?
Secondly, if an creature can evaluate it's skeleton, i don't think developing a conscious would be a problem either.
Firstly, we are talking about modern biology. And then again, biology has always been an universal science, it was researched in many different societies with many different religions.The science of biology is far older than evolution, and it has always been a solid proof of an intelligent design. Yet, as I said, throughout all schools and universities that teach evolution, there is nothing that handles the subject directly, instead, evolution is an idea that plagues the sciences. “Do you see the wonders of the human body? It is the work of random mutations and *evolution*.”.
Secondly, that is because evolution is a part of biology. And mutation is not random, organisms change to fit their habitats.
You also try to prove that God created the world from the view that God created the world.This video is typical of all the other “evidence” posited for evolution. They make assumptions that “evolution is the cause of this fossil” based on nothing but a similarity to another fossil. For an example: If a Designer created some creatures to live on land, and some to live in the sea, it’s only natural that, as coastlands are essentially a type of ecosystem, He would create creatures that can mingle in a little of both, due to the coastlands being their habitat. Examples of this are crabs, crocodiles and so forth. Yet the platapus, something perfectly designed for its natural habitat, is taken as evidence for evolution because it has similarities in its design to other species.
Although, you have made a valid comparison.
All right, but did God also pop out of nowhere ? So you're argument doesn't count.And why is that? Because you simply can’t face the truth; that your philosophy is grounded in things popping into existence out of nothing, on the vague hope that perhaps there are other ways the Universe could have come about that *don’t* point towards God
Well, i hope we can continue with this interesting discussion tomorrow. But for now, i'm hittin' the hay
