Christian Science..... (no, not "that" christian science)

[littlegohan]

As most of you know, we are estmating the age of the earth base on dadioactive dating.

Yet, one must realize that is not "the" best method. In fact , a 15 year old rock made in the Mount St Helen Eruption was
found to be 4 millions years old.


and I do notice many atheist threads

why do atheists like to bash and insult people that have a religion?

 

[Nemesis77]

<< why do atheists like to bash and insult people that have a religion? >>



Because religious people like to condemn, judge and harass people who do not share their religion? Not all of them, but enough do to make it in to a nuisance.

 

[Nocturnal]

i dont understand why you guys want to sit around arguing about if god is real, or if there was someone who created the earth. what fun is that? if YOU dont believe that god or anyone for that matter created the earth, then thats cool. i dont think anyone has forced their opinion on you, or forced you to believe in their opinion. i believe in god, but i honestly cant tell you if hes real or not. i have 0 proof whether or not hes real. right now im living on faith, thats about it. a thin line of faith too.

but to sit here arguing about if hes real, or who created the world its bullshit.

just get on with life, and post something else in ATOT for the day.

well i hope i wont be too flamed for this.

just remember, nobody ever forced their opinion down your throat. if they did, i suggest you call the police for harrassment or something.

peace.

 

[Elledan]

What I find funny is that theists reject the possibility of the spontaneous generation of life, while gods, who (provided that they exist) would be mere lifeforms as well.

In other words: the only way the first lifeform could have come into existance is through spontaneous generation.

Ah, but then the deadly rebuttal of the theists: 'gods always existed'.

Uh uh.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I've read 1984 and your point is well-taken.

As far as evidence is concerned, I see very little in direct support of either side. I do see a *lot* of evidence, and both sides just kind of twist it together to fit into their little framework so they can try to justify themselves as superior intellectually to the other side.

IMHO you really don't want to believe evolution is true (or at least in the the ballpark). I consider none of our science truth. But the Bible professes implicit if not explicit Truth. There is an extreme paucity of support for young-earth dating and essentially everything published is in the same journal Creation. Radiometrics, paleography, tree rings, ice cores, et al all have their shortcomings but in total they give a definitive trend towards dating human activity in the tens of thousands of years. I won't presume to know your age or background but there's plenty of shyte science and almost anything can get published. But good science does not twist evidence to fit into a little framework you twist the theory to fit your evidence and if need be whole theories will be discarded in the face of incontrovertable evidence (although scientists hate to do it). Creation makes no claim to science it claims Truth, it is no wonder creation science is hard pressed to mate current observation/experimentation AND historical record to Creationism.

'Truth emerges more readily from error than confusion.' Francis Bacon via Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
A clever albeit borderline mean-spirited means of debunking creation science using creation science.

And what does ICR really think about evolution . . .

Actually, the Biblical model regarding the origin of physical characteristics is easily the best historical and scientific explanation. Starting with Noah's family, the creation model postulates a "racially mixed" population, with much biological potential for variation. As family groups were isolated by language barriers, environmental factors allowed particular traits already present to be expressed more frequently, while genes coded for other characteristics were not favored and were eventually suppressed.

Although the author doesn't know Jack about genetics they're definitely cooking with Crisco. All they need is a dash of competitive pressure and tincture of time to produce a passable iteration of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's pretty much the nub of it Elledan. Do we just accept that the universe is a mystery, or do we further complicate the issue by removing the mystery one step. What we choose to do gets down to some basic questions about human nature. What do we take for truth, the simple or the convoluted, or which way round do we order our choices. To me, I think it is more honest to say that the universe is a mystery than to assume a mysterious creator. I conclude that way because I recognize a wish within me to be important and find myself to be meaningful. To complicate an unknowable so as to make it favor my self importance is, I think dishonest. The simpler explanation must be prefered because it is the simpler explanation. No matter how impossible it may seem that we got here by purely material means, it is less irrational to assume material unknowns that then it is to invent an irrational unknown to explain unknowns. It seems more likely to me that one of the artifacts of consciousness which we arrived at purely by chance evolution, is that once it occurrs, it instantly invents God in its own image. There aren't, of course, many people around who know what it means to be conscious.

"The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which He sees me." Meister Echart

 

[Elledan]

<< The simpler explanation must be prefered because it is the simpler explanation. No matter how impossible it may seem that we got here by purely material means, it is less irrational to assume material unknowns that then it is to invent an irrational unknown to explain unknowns. >>


Very well said. I completely agree

 

[xirtam]

<< A clever albeit borderline mean-spirited means of debunking creation science using creation science. >>



That doesn't debunk creation science. It debunks creation scientists. What makes something true -- because Stephen Hawking says it's true or because it's just true?



<< The simpler explanation must be prefered because it is the simpler explanation. No matter how impossible it may seem that we got here by purely material means, it is less irrational to assume material unknowns that then it is to invent an irrational unknown to explain unknowns. >>



What if material unknowns are irrational? I think it's a simpler explanation to say that God created everything. That doesn't make it more or less true than it already is, and something shouldn't be excepted just because it's simple. It should be accepted because it's true. Both evolution and creation are irrational to me. I just pick creation because it makes more sense to believe it, given what I observe and experience in everyday life. If evolution made more sense to me than creation and it seemed to me to be true, I'd snatch it up. It doesn't. It has just as many failings as that "creation science" article brought up earlier. Both positions require assumptions of faith. Ultimately it comes down to believing what is most logical, rational, and scientific to believe -- that the universe is a product of blind and random chance that just "happened out of the blue," or that the universe has a designer and thereby a purpose. I pick the latter. And if I'm wrong, it ultimately doesn't matter whether or not I'm wrong. In fact, nothing really matters if I'm wrong. That doesn't make me right, but it takes the significance out of being wrong. If I'm right, it's because it happens to be true. If I'm wrong, life here is pointless anyway. I'm just a collection of random particles, and my thoughts are products of randomness.

 

[Elledan]

<< Both evolution and creation are irrational to me. I just pick creation because it makes more sense to believe it, given what I observe and experience in everyday life. >>


Uhm, how often have you seen an organism being created out of thin air?

You're acting irrational again. You still don't see that it doesn't matter whether you choose biogenesis or a god as the reason for the formation of life on this planet, since a god would be a lifeform as well and therefore have to be formed at some point in time, out of some substance.

Spontaneous generation is the only way life can form.

Creationism makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[ProviaFan]

<<

<< Both evolution and creation are irrational to me. I just pick creation because it makes more sense to believe it, given what I observe and experience in everyday life. >>


Uhm, how often have you seen an organism being created out of thin air? >>


Uhm, then, where did the "stuff" for the big bang come from? You don't want to admit it, but both sides have unanswerable questions like this.


<< You're acting irrational again. You still don't see that it doesn't matter whether you choose biogenesis or a god as the reason for the formation of life on this planet, since a god would be a lifeform as well and therefore have to be formed at some point in time, out of some substance. >>


You seem to have no understanding of the account of creation according to Genesis. It says God has always existed, and he is spirit, not matter. You say that matter has always existed. Both views require lots of faith.


<< Creationism makes absolutely no sense to me. >>


Fine then, believe in evolution. I'm not forcing you to believe in creation. Just realize that because it makes no sense to you, that doesn't make it false. Notice what the other guy said...


<< I just pick creation because it makes more sense to believe it, given what I observe and experience in everyday life. >>

 

[xirtam]

<< Uhm, how often have you seen an organism being created out of thin air? >>



I haven't. I also haven't seen organisms evolving. I just see systematic order and irreducible complexity that I can't find an explanation for in the random, blind, unintelligent processes of spontaneous generation and macroevolution. So based on what I observe now, creation makes more sense to believe. I also don't see the factories that make computers.



<< You're acting irrational again. You still don't see that it doesn't matter whether you choose biogenesis or a god as the reason for the formation of life on this planet, since a god would be a lifeform as well and therefore have to be formed at some point in time, out of some substance. >>



You're limiting God to having to be formed. Assuming that God is finite. I make no such assumptions. God, by nature, must be infinite. If He is not infinite or if He is a created being, He would not be God. Again, I don't expect a materialist to understand this, and since you have rejected metaphysics and human intuition in a previous thread, I can't expect anything else from you. If you are firmly grounded in the belief that the material, physical world is all there is, there's no room for God and you're right -- spontaneous generation is the only way life can form. I still think both are ridiculous. If I were God, I wouldn't create a world. But then, I'm not God. He's beyond my understanding. But just because He's beyond my understanding doesn't mean I can flatly reject Him. Right now, there's a calculus problem that's beyond my understanding, and I'm going to go work on it.

If God truly exists as a "necessary being," he necessarily must exist apart from time and space. These very entities would depend on His existence, if you can even consider time to be an entity. I think it's more of a description of human inadequacy. I understand where you're coming from, Elledan, but I know intuitively that there's got to be something more than the chemical consituents of matter. Hormonal imbalance and adrenaline only go so far to explain some of the bizarre things humans are capable of.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<<

<< Both evolution and creation are irrational to me. I just pick creation because it makes more sense to believe it, given what I observe and experience in everyday life. >>


Uhm, how often have you seen an organism being created out of thin air? >>


Uhm, then, where did the "stuff" for the big bang come from? You don't want to admit it, but both sides have unanswerable questions like this. >>

Sure, but that was what Moonbeam's post was about: choosing the simply solution, without creating a fantastic theory, based on mere superstition.


<<

<< You're acting irrational again. You still don't see that it doesn't matter whether you choose biogenesis or a god as the reason for the formation of life on this planet, since a god would be a lifeform as well and therefore have to be formed at some point in time, out of some substance. >>


You seem to have no understanding of the account of creation according to Genesis. It says God has always existed, >>

How?


<< and he is spirit, not matter. >>

What kind of matter or energy does a spirit consist out of?

A spirit can't be 'something' unless it has matter and/or energy. A spirit can't be 'alive' unless it consists out of a collection of (chemical) processes, which must have formed in some way.

Try to refute this, if you want, but you will fail.


<< You say that matter has always existed. Both views require lots of faith. >>

Again, refer to Moonbeam's post.


<<

<< Creationism makes absolutely no sense to me. >>


Fine then, believe in evolution. I'm not forcing you to believe in creation. Just realize that because it makes no sense to you, that doesn't make it false. Notice what the other guy said... >>

Doh... you're another one of those idiots, eh? Evolution and genesis are unrelated. Genesis and biogenesis are the two conflicting 'theories' (biogenesis is a theory, genesis isn't even a thesis).

And BTW, I'm not forcing you to believe in biogenesis. Just realize that because it makes no sense to you, that doesn't make it false.

And again: show me how this god of yours came into existance. No lifeform can exist forever. Matter might.


<< I just pick creation because it makes more sense to believe it, given what I observe and experience in everyday life. >>

[/i] >>

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< Uhm, how often have you seen an organism being created out of thin air? >>



I haven't. I also haven't seen organisms evolving. >>

Then how do you explain wisdom teeth, the coccyx and various other signs of evolution in Humans? Evolution is a fact.


<< I just see systematic order and irreducible complexity that I can't find an explanation for in the random, blind, unintelligent processes of spontaneous generation and macroevolution. >>

A lack of answers doesn't make creationism any more valid.


<< So based on what I observe now, creation makes more sense to believe. >>

But why a god? Why not aliens from another universe?


<< I also don't see the factories that make computers.



<< You're acting irrational again. You still don't see that it doesn't matter whether you choose biogenesis or a god as the reason for the formation of life on this planet, since a god would be a lifeform as well and therefore have to be formed at some point in time, out of some substance. >>



You're limiting God to having to be formed. >>

Uhm, every lifeform is formed out of many substances. Why should a lifeform like a 'god' be any different?


<< Assuming that God is finite. I make no such assumptions. God, by nature, must be infinite. If He is not infinite or if He is a created being, He would not be God. >>

Nice circular reasoning.

There are just two logical choices here:

- gods don't exist.
- gods were formed after the creation of the universe.

gods are not 'perfect', 'all-knowing' or 'all-powerful', because they would be mere lifeforms, limited to a number of perceptions and sensory inputs, 'trapped' in linear time.


<< Again, I don't expect a materialist to understand this, and since you have rejected metaphysics and human intuition in a previous thread, I can't expect anything else from you. >>

If you object against the scientific method and logic, please state why you disagree with these things.


<< If you are firmly grounded in the belief that the material, physical world is all there is, there's no room for God >>

We have no reason to assume that anything beyond what we can observe and detect exists. Everyting else is mere superstition until proven otherwise.


<< and you're right -- spontaneous generation is the only way life can form. I still think both are ridiculous. If I were God, I wouldn't create a world. But then, I'm not God. He's beyond my understanding. >>

No, gods are inferior to Humans, don't you see? Everyone knows it, why do you keep saying that gods are somehow superior to Humans? Do you have proof?


<< But just because He's beyond my understanding doesn't mean I can flatly reject Him. Right now, there's a calculus problem that's beyond my understanding, and I'm going to go work on it. >>

Mathematics is reality. 'gods' are but a figment of the imagination.



<< If God truly exists as a "necessary being," he necessarily must exist apart from time and space. >>

How?


<< These very entities would depend on His existence, if you can even consider time to be an entity. >>

How?


<< I think it's more of a description of human inadequacy. I understand where you're coming from, Elledan, but I know intuitively that there's got to be something more than the chemical consituents of matter. >>

You're suffering from superstition, you mean. You've no reason to make those assumptions, nothing to base them on.


<< Hormonal imbalance and adrenaline only go so far to explain some of the bizarre things humans are capable of. >>

For example? What's your proof? Your reasoning?

 

[ProviaFan]

I assume, if you believe in evolution, you believe in the "big bang" theory, right? Ok, then, before I answer all of your questions, answer this... Where did the matter come from that exploded?

BTW, when I say "Genesis" I mean the book in the Bible. Sorry I wasn't clear enough for your analytical and logical mind.

 

[xirtam]

<<
Then how do you explain wisdom teeth, the coccyx and various other signs of evolution in Humans? Evolution is a fact.
>>



How the heck are those "signs of evolution"? Correlation != Causality.



<< A lack of answers doesn't make creationism any more valid. >>



Agreed. What validates creationism is the truth or untruth -- neither of which we can observe scientifically. Same with evolution. It's either one or the other -- since we can't use science to determine for sure which one to believe, we must resort to believe that which makes the most sense given what we have.



<< But why a god? Why not aliens from another universe? >>



You keep bringing this up. Aliens from another universe would have to be created, unless you somehow conjoined them together into a single necessary being that you might as well call God. After all, God is an alien. He is separate and distinct from this universe. That makes him not scientifically observable -- sorry. It's not something I just "resort to" out of a lack of answers. My intuition confirms it. I have no better rational explanation for all of the other components that compose me -- my soul, my will, my mind... evolution just tries to explain how my physical being comes into existence.



<< Uhm, every lifeform is formed out of many substances. Why should a lifeform like a 'god' be any different? >>


It doesn't make sense to believe in a material God. If you're going to accept the idea of a God, you must accept the idea that He transcends this universe, or you just wind up with the idea that they are mere lifeforms as we know life, limited to perceptions and sensory inputs, "trapped" in linear time. If God created the universe, He transcends it. If God did not create the universe, but rather was a product of the universe, there's no difference between God and anybody else. You're trying to force my claim into the latter category. That's not what I'm claiming.



<< - gods were formed after the creation of the universe. >>


And who caused the creation of the universe? Or did that just sorta "happen"?



<< If you object against the scientific method and logic, please state why you disagree with these things. >>


I don't limit logic to the natural world. I think that by intuition, we can observe a lot of things that are uncharacteristic of a purely materialistic world. Things like guilt. Evil. Recognizing moral wrong. Science offers no explanation for these things. Am I rejecting science or the scientific method? No. But I'm recognizing its limitations. Science limits itself to a small subset of the explainable.



<<
We have no reason to assume that anything beyond what we can observe and detect exists. Everyting else is mere superstition until proven otherwise.
>>


Emphasis on detect. Detect God in what way? Spiritually -- yeah. I can detect God. Science would reject that, though, because science isn't concerned with the spiritual side of humans. I can't prove to you scientifically that which science has already excluded from its realm.



<< No, gods are inferior to Humans, don't you see? Everyone knows it, why do you keep saying that gods are somehow superior to Humans? Do you have proof? >>


I already explained it. From your perspective, with the universe being your God and "gods" somehow being created under them, there's no difference between gods and humans. In fact, humans become gods. We define our own existence. This seems to be the true goal of evolution -- to give man the right to do whatever he wants without remorse or need for moral repercussions. My conscience doesn't allow it.



<< Mathematics is reality. 'gods' are but a figment of the imagination. >>



Can you offer a scientific explanation for why humans have imagination?

<< If God truly exists as a "necessary being," he necessarily must exist apart from time and space. >>

If He created the universe, He cannot be a cause of it. Logically.

<< These very entities would depend on His existence, if you can even consider time to be an entity. >>

How can God's existence be dependent upon that which He created?



<< You're suffering from superstition, you mean. You've no reason to make those assumptions, nothing to base them on. >>



Intuition. Not superstition. You cannot explain logic scientifically. This is something humans must fundamentally grasp on an intuitive level. And if they don't, science falls. Both science and the statements I'm making "suffer" from the same foundation -- human intuition. What we perceive at the core to be true. From this, all else is built.

<< Hormonal imbalance and adrenaline only go so far to explain some of the bizarre things humans are capable of. >>
Can you offer a scientific explanation for why religions have even formed? Can you offer a scientific explanation for either the infiniteness of the universe or the ability for the universe to have somehow produced itself? Can you offer a reason why I can observe "evil" in the world? Why do I have a conscience? Why can I feel guilt? What purpose does pain serve -- or is that just a random byproduct of the way I was formed?

Ultimately, who am I, and where did I come from? These are the questions that everyone must ask in order to derive their identity. Humans are emotional beings just as much as they are physical beings. Where did these emotions come from? Are they genetic? What is thought, and when did "thought" evolve in the evolutionary spectrum? Furthermore, can you name one species that evolved into another? What evidence do you have to support that change? How can you assume that microevolution -- the variation of degrees of change within a species -- extrapolates through billions of years to produce *every* species? Science, unlike what you are saying, doesn't have all the answers. That's what makes it science. I don't have all the answers either. That's why I'm arguing that we just don't know. The evidence doesn't clearly indicate either position -- at least, not to me. Here's my logic:

1. I see order in the universe.
2. I don't see things becoming ordered on their own. They require effort. Random processes just increase randomness and chaos.
3. The order must have started at some point in time. I can observe its degeneration.
4. The order must have been initiated by some kind of intelligence.

I think that's a rational progression of thought. I don't see any kind of superstition in there. That, ultimately, is what causes me to accept Creation over Evolution. It's not "because the Bible says so" or "because that's what I want to believe" or because "I'll go to hell if I don't." It's because to me it makes more sense to believe that this universe that clearly has a design, balance, and order, couldn't logically have happened on its own. As time passes, conditions for life just seem to degenerate, in my opinion. I don't know. Why don't we have any ape-men today? Why don't we have apes who are learning to speak and do math? Why don't we see any of the transitional forms today? Surely there must be some in existence... even if they aren't fossilized.

What science claims as fact today, it dismisses tomorrow. That's why I hesitate before "jumping on the bandwagon." Evidence? Piltdown man. Once widely claimed as one of the most significant finds in anthropological evolutionary development, now exposed as an enormous hoax. Archaeoraptor -- once claimed as the missing link between reptiles and birds, the best transitional fossil found, dating back to Archaeopterix. National Geographic proclaimed its greatness, then was forced to write a retraction. Why does science feel the need to jump the gun on "finds" like these? Because it has something to prove. Which means... duh!... it hasn't been proven yet. Evolution -- is not a fact.

 

[Elledan]

<< I assume, if you believe in evolution, you believe in the "big bang" theory, right? >>

Believe? Nope, not at all. There's insufficient evidence to prove that there was such a thing as a 'big bang'. The only things we know for certain are that all matter in the universe is currenlty moving away from a 'central' point and that the universe is 'cooling down', i.e., the universe was filled with much more (background) radiation many billions of years ago. Something definitely happened. Big Bang? Perhaps.


<< Ok, then, before I answer all of your questions, answer this... Where did the matter come from that exploded? >>


There's only one possible answer: we don't know. We don't know how the universe formed, our universe might even be part of another universe, which would be part of another universe etc. The so-called 'multiverse'.



<< BTW, when I say "Genesis" I mean the book in the Bible. Sorry I wasn't clear enough for your analytical and logical mind. >>

I've read the whole bible, yet found it to be a rather dull collection of myths and religious propaganda.

 

[ProviaFan]

<< There's only one possible answer: we don't know. We don't know how the universe formed, our universe might even be part of another universe, which would be part of another universe etc. The so-called 'multiverse'. >>


Again, I'm not forcing you to believe as I do; but when I examine the evidence, it appears to me that my belief makes more sense. Also, I understand that when you examine the evidence, your belief makes more sense to you than my belief. But since you just said that we don't know how the universe formed, then how can you so certainly say that I'm wrong?

 

[Elledan]

xirtam,

No more.

Everything you say is based on one assumption: that this mysterious being you call 'god' exists.

You can not prove its existance.

No one can disprove its existance.

No one can prove or disprove the existance of purple, man-eating demons, which cause many disasters and wars, either.

Only one word can describe your belief:

Superstition.

Prove the existance of 'god' and I believe you. If you can't prove it, you'll lose every honor you still carry.

You, and everyone like you, will live on as mere beasts, without the ability to reason. Honorless.

Dare you take this responsibility?

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< There's only one possible answer: we don't know. We don't know how the universe formed, our universe might even be part of another universe, which would be part of another universe etc. The so-called 'multiverse'. >>


Again, I'm not forcing you to believe as I do; but when I examine the evidence, it appears to me that my belief makes more sense. Also, I understand that when you examine the evidence, your belief makes more sense to you than my belief. But since you just said that we don't know how the universe formed, then how can you so certainly say that I'm wrong? >>


- I don't have a 'belief'. I've formed a construction using the available evidence, and which is constantly changing.

- I say that you're wrong because there are no gods. Just unknown factors and gaps in our knowledge.

 

[ProviaFan]

<< Prove the existance of 'god' and I believe you. >>


Since, if I understand correctly, you think everything must have a beginning, I will believe you when you can prove how the matter that we all supposedly came from originally came into being.


<< You, and everyone like you, will live on as mere beasts, without the ability to reason. Honorless. >>


Why do we need to start engaging in threats like this? Even if we are wrong, that does not make us mere beasts, without the ability to reason. We are only irrational in your opinion because we do not agree with you.

 

[xirtam]

<< Everything you say is based on one assumption: that this mysterious being you call 'god' exists. >>



Not really. God is the explanation I offer for why humans are more complex than their biological components. Do you have a better theory?



<< Prove the existance of 'god' and I believe you. If you can't prove it, you'll lose every honor you still carry. >>


Prove on your terms? Nope. Can't do that. You've limited your scope to that which you can empirically observe. If I state that there is more to it than that, nothing will convince you if your intuition denies it. God's kind of like your big bang. Does He exist? Probably. "Ability to reason" has not explained all those things I brought up before. Reason and emotion are forever at conflict within me. Why? What makes one more significant or credible than the other? Why should I adhere to the one component of my psyche and reject the other?



<< You, and everyone like you, will live on as mere beasts, without the ability to reason. Honorless. >>


You're arguing that I live on as a mere beast anyway. If humans came from these beasts, then what good is reason? What good is honor? It's just a function of time, according to your theory.



<< Dare you take this responsibility? >>



Responsibility? In a godless system, I have no responsibility. I am free to do whatever I want. State whatever I want. Live however I want. Why, then are you trying to convince me of something?

 

[JupiterJones]

We don't know much about what was going on prior to the events of Genesis 1:2. We do know that the universe was here prior to this account, being created "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), whenever that was. At the beginning of the "first" day the heavens and the Earth were already here. It would seem that the Earth was subject to a great catastrophe.

In Genesis 1:2 the Hebrew word for "Without Form" is "tohu". The Hebrew for "void" is "bohu". In Isaiah 45:18 the Bible says that God did NOT create the world "tohu" (the state of the world in Genesis 1:2). Isaiah is making it clear that God did not create the Earth "tohu va bohu", but it became "tohu va bohu". The state of the world in Genesis 1:2 is due to changes after the original creation.

In the Genesis account there are only three instances of the word "bara", i.e. creation from nothing. The first is in Genesis 1:1. The second is in 1:21 concerning animals, and the third is in 1:27 concerning man. Every other act in the Genesis account concerns the rearrangement of material that is present from the earlier creation from nothing back "in the beginning". Even with plants, God said for the Earth to "bring forth" rather than creation from nothing. Plant life would seem to have survived the catastrophe.

Scripture is silent as to what existed prior to this catastrophe, but certainly allows for all the geologic ages.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< Prove the existance of 'god' and I believe you. >>


Since, if I understand correctly, you think everything must have a beginning, I will believe you when you can prove how the matter that we all supposedly came from originally came into being. >>

Moron. I never said that I 'believed' in the big bang. Verify your 'facts'.


<<

<< You, and everyone like you, will live on as mere beasts, without the ability to reason. Honorless. >>


Why do we need to start engaging in threats like this? Even if we are wrong, that does not make us mere beasts, without the ability to reason. We are only irrational in your opinion because we do not agree with you.

>>


It's not a matter of agreeing/disagreeing, but one of mere logic.

I have followed the reasoning behind the belief you have and have found it to be invalid. I do exactly the same thing with my own reasoning.

I said 'without the ability to reason' because that would be the case if there are no gods, since it's highly illogical to even consider the existance of something for which exists no evidence.

 

[JupiterJones]

since a god would be a lifeform as well and therefore have to be formed at some point in time

Elledan,
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the physics of time. Time is a product of Creation. Your contention that whoever/whatever existed prior to Creation/Big Bang being formed as some point in TIME is senseless. TIME didn't exist prior to Creation/Big Bang. Any questions about "before" or "beginning" are references to Time. As I have said before, to ask about anything before Creation/Big Bang is equivalent to asking what is north of the North Pole. It is nonsensical.

Don

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< Everything you say is based on one assumption: that this mysterious being you call 'god' exists. >>



Not really. God is the explanation I offer for why humans are more complex than their biological components. Do you have a better theory? >>

Yup, evolution.

Want to know the exact mechanisms behind evolution? Just wait and you'll see.

Besides, how do you think that you'll 'prove' creation?



<<

<<

<< Prove the existance of 'god' and I believe you. If you can't prove it, you'll lose every honor you still carry. >>


Prove on your terms? Nope. Can't do that. You've limited your scope to that which you can empirically observe. >>

You want to say that one can gather evidence other than through observations, experiments and mathematics? Wow...


<< If I state that there is more to it than that, nothing will convince you if your intuition denies it. >>

My 'intuition' is quite clear about this issue.


<< God's kind of like your big bang. Does He exist? Probably. >>

Then what about the other gods of other religions? You want to say that they don't exist? Based on what evidence?


<< "Ability to reason" has not explained all those things I brought up before. Reason and emotion are forever at conflict within me. Why? What makes one more significant or credible than the other? Why should I adhere to the one component of my psyche and reject the other? >>

Your point is?!



<<

<< You, and everyone like you, will live on as mere beasts, without the ability to reason. Honorless. >>


You're arguing that I live on as a mere beast anyway. If humans came from these beasts, then what good is reason? What good is honor? It's just a function of time, according to your theory. >>

You are unfamiliar with poetry? That's a real shame.



<<

<< Dare you take this responsibility? >>



Responsibility? In a godless system, I have no responsibility. I am free to do whatever I want. >>

Lie #1


<< State whatever I want. >>

Lie #2


<< Live however I want. >>

Lie #3


<< Why, then are you trying to convince me of something? >>


I'm not trying to convince you, I'm trying to understand you and those like you. Why else do you think that I'm asking all of these questions? Not to convince you.