What would you think?

Not much. Would you also reason why god exist or would you only state it like you did in the title?

Yeah, I would say that because I had reasoned it out in my head.

Then, I suppose that I would say:
Good for you, but I don´t care. See ya.

If I said God really does exist...
What would you think?
which god?
how do you know?
what does god look like?
etc...

If you have an appropriately high level of intelligence and you give it enough thought then you will eventually figure out that you are wrong.

Kat

What would you think?

It's OK, you'll get better, just relax.... :p

Seriously, I'd ask for details and proof.

I don't see where this is going as a discussion... but I'd agree.

Whenever I hear someone say that they think there is a god I feel a little sorry for them, because I know they were victims of something I consider abuse. Its a sort of mild abuse in most cases, but then there are the rather vocal number of folks who think god exists who have been done obvious damage by it. Folks who murder doctors, or shun other people based on the belief and whatnot. These people are the proof of how harmful it can be.

SouthStar,

I don't see where this is going as a discussion... but I'd agree. Thanks.

Kat

I would ask you lots of questions and if you still believe then good for you i'd hope it makes you happy, it wouldnt change my beliefs though.

If I said God really does exist...

which god?
how do you know?
what does god look like?
etc...


1 ONe god
2 His creations the unverse animals tht didnt come by it self
3 god has no shape no size no soul (he is not human)
Imam Ali as has said(i know u dont care but think): what ever u think abt god will be your knowledge which god has created with limits.

tht means whatever we think of god we will be thinking with our limited brains

In other words, it's silly, vain, and fruitless for us to pretend we have even a shallow understanding of "God."
Ergo, religion and all theistic thought should be abandoned.


By the way, Hussein, you really need to work on your typing... or your English.

Al Hussein,

1 ONe godWhy?

2 His creations the unverse animals tht didnt come by it selfWe know – it’s called evolution. No gods are needed.

3 god has no shape no size no soul (he is not human)And if you were to describe something that didn’t exist you would also say it has no size, no shape, no soul, no substance, and is invisible. Do you see the rather strong and overwhelming correlation between things that do not exist and gods?

tht means whatever we think of god we will be thinking with our limited brainsWell almost right. To be more accurate – how we define a god is only limited by the power of our imagination since there are no facts to say otherwise.

Kat

Al Hussein,

We know – it’s called evolution. No gods are needed.

Kat
:eek:

Oh come on. Are there still people tha believe in the evolution theory?? :confused:

Bruce,

Oh come on. Are there still people tha believe in the evolution theory?? Which theory do you mean? There are many theories that try to explain evolutionary processes.

But evolution itself is fact, it has occurred, there can be no doubt.

Kat

Oh come on. Are there still people tha believe in the evolution theory??

Yeah, Kat! Everybody knows it was a talking snake in a tree. Grow up.

Josh :D

Yup, you're right I totally forgot.
:rolleyes:

If I said God really does exist...
which god?
how do you know?
what does god look like?
etc...

I think the following story is a good illustration. (No abuse to Buddism here)

************************************************** ********
Buddha was seated among his disciples one morning when a man approached the gathering. "Does God exist," he asked. "Yes, God exists," Buddha answered. After lunch, another man appeared. "Does God exist?" he asked. "No, God does not exist," Buddha answered. Late in the day, a third man asked Buddha the same question, and Buddha's response was: "You must decide for yourself." "Master, this is absurd," said one of the disciples. "How can you give three different answers to the same question?" "Because they were different persons," answered the Enlightened One. "And each person approaches God in his own way: some with certainty, some with denial and some with doubt."
************************************************** ********

Thus, the answer depends on personal experience I guess.. For me, I would say yes

Yeah, Kat! Everybody knows it was a talking snake in a tree. Grow up.

Josh :D

Funny guy... :p

Evolution is a myth, not because it "contradicts" creation. Because it doesn't have to. It is a myth because all the efforts that have been made to substantiate it failed to. I have remarked though that some atheist friends of mine still cling to it. But since they are reasonable (and Brilliant) they never say it is a fact. They just say consider the possibility. I think it would be more logical to suppose Devolution, Because of the diseases and failures that crept into the gene pool over the many years.

Oh come on. Are there still people tha believe in the evolution theory??

It's always a shock when I come across someone who feels this way. How can evolution be denied. It's happening right now. It's such an obvious idea that I think it takes a true dedication to not accepting the truth to continue to deny it.

And why do you deny this truth? Religion? Can it not be that God works through physical processes? That the religious works that speak of creation in a matter of days are mere simplifications of a grander process?

Why do you deny all the marvels of modern science? If you feel this way, why are you even using a computer? The religious scriptures don't mention electricity or bits or circuits. So they can't be real either can they?

I think it would be more logical to suppose Devolution,

News flash, there's no such thing as devolution. What you think of as devolution is evolution as well. Sorry to break it to you.

It's always a shock when I come across someone who feels this way. How can evolution be denied. It's happening right now. It's such an obvious idea that I think it takes a true dedication to not accepting the truth to continue to deny it.

Mon ami, If you had read my post you would not have say what you just said. First of all I takes no true dedication because I doesn't negate my beliefs. It could very well be from a religion perspective (IMPO). It may be obvious to you but I need arguments not what someone else sees as abvious.

And why do you deny this truth? Religion? Can it not be that God works through physical processes? That the religious works that speak of creation in a matter of days are mere simplifications of a grander process?

Here, you disappoint me...I clearly said that is is not in contradiction with religion. So I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that I denied it on tha basis.

Why do you deny all the marvels of modern science? If you feel this way, why are you even using a computer? The religious scriptures don't mention electricity or bits or circuits. So they can't be real either can they?

See? Again you think that religion is impeding my mind, which is not true at all. At least in my religion, it is our duty to gather knowledge. As for you accusation that I deny the marvels of modern science. First I see the wonders in both 'modern' and 'older' science, because the men that achieved that ought to be respected (arguably except those that made the A-bomb and their kind) And I am inspired by that. And then how did you come up with that conclusion???

Evolution is not a fact. There are few facts in life and Evolution is not one of them.

News flash, there's no such thing as devolution. What you think of as devolution is evolution as well. Sorry to break it to you.

devolution is an evolution in language, only it is not THE evolution you have in mind.

Mon ami, If you had read my post you would not have say what you just said.

Ahh, I didn't know you cared so much about me. :p Actually, I posted that before you edited your last post. So perhaps you will forgive me for some assumptions I made? :)

And as to arguments, this is not the thread to make these arguments. But, there are many examples of evolution in progress. The most obvious, of course, being animal husbandry and pet breeding. All those animals were fast evolved by excessive selection. I also read a link in another thread recently about the drosophila fruit fly is evolving into a new species or something of the like. Certain species that could once interbreed are now starting to diverge and produce sterile young. Evolution in action.

I'm sorry, but as I said earlier, I'm always shocked by those who don't believe in evolution. And 9 times out of 10 it is for religious reasons. And, this is also a religious thread, so when evolution is brought up in a religious thread, what is one to think?

devolution is an evolution only not THE evolution you have in mind.

Ahh, that was easy. I've made you a believer already? ;)

Seriously, it is entirely possible that the future of our and other species might very well be a process that might be seen as devolution. The brain is an expensive organ and may become too expensive to maintain at some point. The future might just find us as bestial brutes, if it finds us at all. Who knows?

I did edit my post because of a clumsy sentece. But I said the same thing.

Anyways I have discussed evloution many times over before and I don't care to repeat that here. My experince is that all such discussions proof fruitless.

One last thing, Devolution is an evolution as it is change. And not the principle as advanced by darwin and co.

I did edit my post because of a clumsy sentece. But I said the same thing.

Hmm, coulda sworn that you just had the "ha ha funny guy" thing, then maybe another short phrase after that, not a whole paragraph. Maybe it's just getting late. I did notice you edited it again. The first edit was at 3:01 (my time) which was a minute before my post, but I hadn't seen the edit at that time. You sure you didn't add a significant amount to the post?

Anyway devolution, in my view, is a misconception that people have of evolution going backwards. Of devolving into ancestral or more primitive forms. It comes from a misconception that evolution has a purpose. Evolution has no goals. All ends are the same. And yeah, Darwin's evolution has evolved itself since it's inception. :p

No it was the same. I had written something like:

Evolution is a myth, not because it "contradicts" creation. Because it doesn't have to, but because it all the efforts that have been made to substantiate it failed to.

then I made it into

Evolution is a myth, not because it "contradicts" creation. Because it doesn't have to. It is a myth because all the efforts that have been made to substantiate it failed to.

To be honest I may have rewritten the second paragraph in an earlier edit. But I assure you it was it was not on your account.

.....

Devolution as far as I conceive it, and that is not something I read or that is committed to a formal paper is, is not going back to earlier forms since that would presuppose evolution. The way I think of it is that we originated in a 'perfect' state or at least in a better state and then started catching defects.

And no. darwin's evolution has -and may- evolved but not in a way as to cover all meanings of the English word evolution. That would simply make it less receptive to critisism. Any change whatsoever would be attributed to this theory.

Bruce,

You cannot have seriously read much on evolution and still believe it is a myth, despite your assertion, it is inconceivable, it is like denying that the sun is in the sky. I suspect you are not open to studying the issue seriously so I suspect you will ignore this link but I'll post it for you anyway just in case.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Please start with that as a beginning to your education into evolution.

Kat

How can evolution be a fact, if no one has been presant as an outside obsever to wacth the changes. The same is true of creation. If you say that it is a fact, then you are taking that belief on through faith. Facts must be obseved, otherwise they are only infrences.

Bruce,

You cannot have seriously read much on evolution and still believe it is a myth, despite your assertion, it is inconceivable, it is like denying that the sun is in the sky. I suspect you are not open to studying the issue seriously so I suspect you will ignore this link but I'll post it for you anyway just in case.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Please start with that as a beginning to your education into evolution.

Kat

I promise you, Bruce, you will have a lot more "enlightenment" with the ICR, the DEFINITIVE AUTHORITY on anthropology.

//Waits for Kat's retort.. :D

That's funny!

How can evolution be a fact, if no one has been presant as an outside obsever to wacth the changes.
So there can be no facts "if no one has been presant as an outside obsever to wacth the changes"? That you pove capable of such clearly stupid utterances may be the best argument against intelligent design.

So there can be no facts "if no one has been presant as an outside obsever to wacth the changes"? That you pove capable of such clearly stupid utterances may be the best argument against intelligent design.


Don't be so harsh.


You are being equally ignorant by taking his statement out of context.

Read this:

So there can be no facts "if no one has been presant as an outside obsever to wacth the changes"

And read this:

How can evolution be a fact, if no one has been presant as an outside obsever to wacth the changes. The same is true of creation.

----------------

Obviously NOT the same argument, you only did that to attack and discredit him. Shame on you.

Before you attack someone with an inane argument, I urge you to THINK.

:eek:

Oh come on. Are there still people tha believe in the evolution theory?? :confused:

Haha, I just thought this was cute.

The three foundational assumptions for evolution (cosmological and
biological)
are:

1. Matter from non-matter (where did the matter from the big bang
come from
in the first place? Was it always there?)

2. Life from non-life (abiogenesis)

3. Random genetic mutation resulting in an INCREASE in genetic
information


We have zero empirical evidence to make these assumptions. The laws of
thermodynamics state the matter is neither created nor destroyed. We
have
never seen abiogenesis take place and cannot feasibly predict a
mechanism
where is would/could occure, and in the case of assumption three our
observations are the opposite that random genetic mutation results in a
loss
of genetic information.

Without empirical evidence, evolution must be accepted by faith taking
it out
of the realm of science and into the realm of religion.