Scientific Reasons for God

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by ghost7584, Jan 27, 2005.

  1. ghost7584 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    374
    water
    The God of Israel is God. The Word of God is the King James version Bible. What God wants you to do is in the King James version New Testament.

    Those are not "scientific reasons to believe in God". What you are trying to argue for is God by inference.

    THAT is not arguing anything. I am simply preaching to you the truth.

    1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
    1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
    1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
    1 Corinthians 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
    1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
    1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
    1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
    1 Corinthians 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
    1 Corinthians 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

    On the judgement day you will not be able to say that no one told you. I did.

    This was your life! tract
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ghost7584 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    374
    spidergoat
    It's kind of fascinating that some creationists will acknowledge microevolution, yet are unable to comprehend that an accumulation of micro changes over millions of years will result in macroevolution.

    That macroevolution that you are referring to did not happen. The reason that it is known that it did not happen, is because of all of the missing links in the fossils as they are found. The intermediate stages between the different species would have been found in the fossils if such macroevolution did happen. Those intermediate stages are not found anywhere in the fossils, so that macroevolution did not happen.
    The evidence as it is found shows evolution for the origin of the species to be false.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Wrong, in fact. If a new species of fossil were discovered that was intermediate, that's a new species and then you'd be claiming that there were no intermediates between that one and its predecessor. As I explained Eldredge and Gould advanced a theory as to why we don't see evolution "in action" in the fossil evidence. But apart from anything else, the fossil record is always going to be very spotty because the chances are against any individual organism becoming fossilised. The absence of every individual change from one form to another does not, in fact, disprove evolution, which in any case is a known fact. I believe Darwinism or Natural Selection is the underlying root cause for evolved complexity, but it's possible there is some other reason it happens. That evolution occurred is not doubted by any reputable biologist, geologist, palaeontologist, geneticist or any other scientist for whom the facts of evolution impinge on how they do their work and increase the knowledge of the human race.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    ghost7584: But, something so astonishingly vast and complex could not possibly have occurred by chance – therefore God must have been the result of an intelligent designer.
    *************
    M*W: Please provide proof of your statements.
    *************
    ghost7584: Exodus 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

    Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

    Well, how would you interpret that? Maybe - I exist that I exist
    Is that the answer to your question?
    *************
    M*W: Well, I interpret that as Moses was most likely a fictional character. The story goes that Moses was the leader of the Habiru in the desert (nomads, you know), and he was having a hard time controlling those nasty Habiru. So, he goes upon the mountain as people did in those days to talk to "god," and he comes down with some rules (that god wrote, yeah, right) to make those nasty Habiru behave. The "god" that Moses knew was the sun, Aten, Ra, Sol Invictus, etc. That's why they went upon the mountain, to get closer to "god."

    Moses started the worship of one monotheistic god, but you should know by now that Moses's god was Aten, the sun.

    Bottom line, there is no monotheistic god. There is no "sun" of God, and there is no "salvation." The only thing you have is the dying demigod sun followed by the resurrected sun every 12 hours.
     
  8. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    ghost7584:
    The God of Israel is God. The Word of God is the King James version Bible. What God wants you to do is in the King James version New Testament.

    I am simply preaching to you the truth.

    On the judgement day you will not be able to say that no one told you. I did.
    *************
    M*W: Man! Did you come to the wrong place! Preaching is NOT ALLOWED here! Get lost!
     
  9. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    ghost7584: But, something so astonishingly vast and complex could not possibly have occurred by chance – therefore God must have been the result of an intelligent designer.
    *************
    M*W: Please provide proof of your statements.
    *************
    Silas: ghost's position is based upon his ignorance of thermodynamics, of chemistry, of molecular biology, of genetics and of the laws of probability. He can't provide proof of something which is simply predicated on stuff he doesn't know anything about.
     
  10. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: I figured as much!
     
  11. matnay Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    189
    I think the idea that our entire universe was created by a "creator" is very reasonable. It's unfortunate that this idea is usually only interpreted by religion. Religion is silly. But belief in a higher power is not.
     
  12. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    i am wondering why you put creator in commas? in other words how do you define creaor? thi is how i see the different ideas about creation simply:

    that A CREATOR, 'God' created it and us, and 'HE' is our creaTOR

    Then you have the idea of evolution, whereby by sheer 'fluke' intelligent life happens

    But i am interested about Intelligence being actualy IMMANENT. ie., that 'matter' Is active intelligence. are you with me? that there is no 'outside' 'creator', but that inherent IN manifest reality Is Intelligence. or better put, all you can see and not see Is Intelligence, which is natrually creative and prolific
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Creatures are undergoing constant change, that is what microevolution means. But, it is rare for any creature to get fossilized. So, there will always be gaps in the fossil record. But, there are enough fossils to show macroevolution. Early fossils and later fossils are distinctly different. If what you are saying is true, then there should be recognizable representatives of all modern creatures at all levels of the fossil record, and there aren't. There was a time (meaning the older layers) when there were no apes, no horses, no bats, etc... How do you explain that?

    My second question would be what would stop microevolution before a species branches off from its ancestor? Look at the horse and zebra, they are different species, but recognizably similar in structure. Before a certain time, there were neither, but there was a small hoofed creature resembling both.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2005
  14. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    What if the entire universe IS the creator. More accurately, because it doesn't have foresight, the universe is a seed.
     
  15. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    spidergoat: What if the entire universe IS the creator. More accurately, because it doesn't have foresight, the universe is a seed.
    *************
    M*W: What if the entire universe was created by humanity? What if? Just what if?
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    There is evidence of a universe before humanity.
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  18. Prester John The voice of Reason! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    125
    I'm curious as to why ghost thinks quoting the bible at what would appear to be a predominantly athiest audience would have any effect. I might as well quote the Silmarillion as prove that middle earth exists.
     
  19. matnay Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    189
    I put creator in commas to disassociate the idea of a creator from it's usual religious context. Religion does not have exclusive rights to the creator concept. It's possible that a team of advanced beings from a higher dimension created our universe. It's possible that an advanced species from a higher dimension designed a computer program capable of creating universe senerios and we are just part of one of those senerios. It's possible that we are alien/ape hybrids. It's possible that we were designed by an alien species far from being God-like. It's possible that our entire universe was created by an "allpowerful" and "allknowing" God who believes He is all that there is, but in fact he is only a test subject himself(perhaps because He was designed to believe exactly that). So many things are possible(including the idea that we were not created at all).

    Religion is stupid. People have been believing stupid things for all of human history and continue believing and doing stupid things everyday(just watch the news). My point is that it is easy to see why religion still exists today and why it was ever believed in the first place(people are generally stupid). Religion is like a "wise" old man in a nursing home. He believes what he believes and there's no way to change his mind. His mind is set. Yet we are expected to respect him and trust him since he's so old. He couldn't possibly be wrong....or could he?
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    An extract from a wonderful talk / lecture given by the late great Douglas Adams:

    Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let’s try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he’s begun to take a little charge of; he’s begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he’s made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we’ll come and we’ll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who’s a tool maker, doesn’t have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert—he even manages to live in New York for heaven’s sake—and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn’t have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says “I’ll have it off him”. Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day’s tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in—mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can’t get you; in front of him there’s the forest—it’s got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water—water’s delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here’s cousin Ug and he’s caught a mammoth—mammoth’s are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it’s fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, ‘well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in’ and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says ‘So who made this then?’ Who made this? — you can see why it’s a treacherous question. Early man thinks, ‘Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male’. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , ‘If he made it, what did he make it for?’ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

    For the full transcript: click here


    Ghost, you quote from a book that undoubtedly has some historical benefit.
    But where is the evidence?
    You have postulated that God must exist through nothing more than incredulity that he doesn't (a logical fallacy that has been pointed out to you again and again). If only it was that easy - 'cos I can't believe I don't have $millions$

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    "Scientific Reasons to believe in God:"

    LOL.

    "Superstition based reasons to believe in science:"

    You're either kidding, stupid, dishonest or naive. Note that the probability of something happening in the past is 100%, so calculations regarding the remote chances of the development of life are moot. Perhaps it's indicative of lacking physics. Of course the first place despots arrive when failing to accept that certain knowledge is beyond our grasp is god. LOL. "God did it!"

    Lamest. Answer. EVER.
     
  22. Wrinkledlight Registered Member

    Messages:
    1

    Not hip, eh? Well, I guess that is a good qualifier for rejecting the traditional idea of God. Damn! I'm not hip! I really need to catch up with the times. It sounds like to me that you are saying you don't believe in God because it is not hip. Very interesting way to determine what to believe.

    There are two arguments I see:
    1. Out of nothing came the universe (atheism/evolution) and
    2. A Creator created the universe (creationism)

    It seems to me that proving the universe came out of nothing is just as difficult to prove. Prove God does not exist.

    Personally, I am in love with God. He has proven His existence and faithfulness to me. Everyday He shows me His blessings and no matter how silly it seems to others I will remain in love with my Creator.
     
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Hehe.. it's little different than "how about a 'one size fits all'" answer.

    Then you simply haven't been looking. Plus your second answer is fundamentally flawed. Who created the creator? Perhaps you've failed to consider the possibility that "perhaps the inception of the universe is the result of processes that cannot be concluded from evidence within the universe" - or something that effect. Oh wait, how about his one: "I don't know how the universe came to be, but if we investigate it long enough... we may figure it out". Oh wait: "Out of something came the universe, but I don't know what." Can't accept anything but a definitive answer eh? It's your perogative, however mislead. Seems to me there is no definitive answer, yet SO many folks spew their opinion as if IT is the one and only. It's ridiculous, but practical. It keeps them happy - which is IMO, one of the more important aspects of being so long as it's not at the expense of someone else's, well... unless they're a bastard. Hehe.

    Obviously it came from something, and it wouldn't be interesting if it weren't difficult to prove.

    You can't prove negatives. How about proving it does? What is proof?

    Well, we adopt delusions all the time to get through the day. If that's the one that suits you, I wish you the best with it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2005

Share This Page