Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/includes/common.inc.php on line 360 Atheism and Theism - Minitokyo

Atheism and Theism

page 2 of 4 « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next » 87 total items

Shinsengumi89

Shinsengumi89

The Watcher of Movies

Plunkies already posted your original post here, and disproved your thought process, behind the " so called problem with Atheisim ". So you should delete that post and respond to plunkies( not that i encourage that).

Again an Atheist dosen't need to not belive in god because of their is no science proving in god, they can just choose to not belive, thats what you would call free will.

Shinsengumi89

Interesting Quotes....

"If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion. " - Edmond de Goncourt

"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. " - Isaac Asimov

http://mt-environmentalists.minitokyo.net/ -Protect the Environment
http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/ - Philosophy is disscused here.
http://true-colors.minitokyo.net/ - Human Rights Group
http://mt-gay-straight-club.minitokyo.net/ - We help bridge the gaps between the different sexual orientations.

Theism, with the miraculous ability to make an entire country look like idiots...

DarkIngram

DarkIngram

Urzu 7

In my thread, How We Can Know There Is a God? I have answers about the authenticity of the Bible...

Quote by OmikamiHow do you know it is the word of God and truth when it was written by human hands?

To illustrate: A businessman might have a secretary write a letter. That letter contains the businessman's thoughts and instructions. Hence, it is really his letter, not the secretary's. In a similar way, the Bible contains God's message, not that of the men who wrote it down. Thus, the entire Bible truthfully is "the word of God." (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

"For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit."--1 Peter 1:20-21

The writers themselves testified that what they wrote originated with Jehovah, the almighty God himself. This is the underlying reason for the Bible's beauty of expression and, more important, its surpassing value as the book of life-giving knowledge and wisdom. Jesus, the Son of God, testified that the words he spoke "are spirit and are life," and he quoted copiously from the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. "All Scripture is inspired of God," said the apostle Paul, who spoke of the Hebrew Scriptures as "the sacred pronouncements of God." (John 6:63; 2 Timothy 3:16; Romans 3:1, 2)

Perhaps you have noticed that many books offering advice become outdated in just a few years. What about the Bible? It is very old, and almost 2,000 years have passed since its last words were penned. Some therefore feel that it is not applicable to our modern age. But if the Bible is inspired of God, its advice should always be up-to-date despite its great age. The Scriptures should still be "beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."--2 Timothy 3:16, 17.

Close examination reveals that Bible principles apply just as much today as they did when they were first put down in writing. When it comes to human nature, for instance, the Bible reflects keen understanding that applies to every generation of mankind. We can easily see this in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, found in the book of Matthew, chapters 5 to 7. This sermon so impressed the late Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi that he reportedly told a British official: "When your country and mine shall get together on the teachings laid down by Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems not only of our countries but those of the whole world."

No wonder people are impressed by Jesus' teachings! In the Sermon on the Mount, he showed us the way to true happiness. He explained how to settle disputes. Jesus provided instruction on how to pray. He pointed out the wisest attitude to have toward material needs and gave the Golden Rule for proper relationships with others. How to detect religious frauds and how to have a secure future were also among the points covered in this sermon...

In the Sermon on the Mount and throughout the rest of its pages, the Bible clearly tells us what to do and what to avoid in order to improve our lot in life. So practical is its counsel that one educator was moved to say: "Although being a high-school counselor with bachelor's and master's degrees and having read a large number of books on mental health and psychology, I discovered that the Bible's counsel on such things as having a successful marriage, preventing juvenile delinquency and how to gain and keep friends is far superior to anything I had read or studied in college." In addition to being practical and up-to-date, the Bible is dependable...

ACCURATE AND RELIABLE
Though the Bible is not a science textbook, it is scientifically accurate. For example, at a time when most people believed that the earth was flat, the prophet Isaiah referred to it as a "circle" (Hebrew, chugh, which here carries the idea of "sphere"). (Isaiah 40:22) The idea of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until thousands of years after Isaiah's day. Furthermore, Job 26:7--written more than 3,000 years ago--states that God is "hanging the earth upon nothing." Says one Bible scholar: "How Job knew the truth, demonstrated by astronomy, that the earth hangs self-poised in empty space, is a question not easily solved by those who deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture."

The style of reporting found in the Bible also strengthens our confidence in this age-old book. Unlike myths, the events covered in the Bible are linked to specific people and dates. (1 Kings 14:25; Isaiah 36:1; Luke 3:1, 2) And whereas ancient historians nearly always exaggerated the victories of their rulers and hid their defeats and mistakes, the Bible writers were candid and honest--even about their own serious sins. (Numbers 20:7-13; 2 Samuel 12:7-14; 24:10)

A BOOK OF PROPHECY
Fulfilled prophecy gives conclusive evidence that the Bible is inspired of God. The Bible contains many prophecies that have been fulfilled in detail. Obviously, mere humans could not be responsible for this. What, then, is behind these prophecies? The Bible itself says that "prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit," or God's active force. (2 Peter 1:21) Consider some examples...

The fall of Babylon. Isaiah and Jeremiah both foretold Babylon's fall to the Medes and the Persians. Remarkably, Isaiah's prophecy about this event was recorded some 200 years before Babylon was conquered! The following aspects of prophecy are now matters of historical record: the drying up of the Euphrates River by diverting its waters to an artificial lake (Isaiah 44:27; Jeremiah 50:38); a careless lack of security at Babylon's river gates (Isaiah 45:1); and the conquest by a ruler named Cyrus. (Isaiah 44:28)

The rise and fall of "the king of Greece." In a vision, Daniel saw a male goat strike down a ram, breaking its two horns. Then, the goat's great horn was broken, and four horns came up in its place. (Daniel 8:1-8) To Daniel it was explained: "The ram that you saw possessing the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia. And the hairy he-goat stands for the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it stands for the first king. And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power." (Daniel 8:20-22) True to this prophecy, some two centuries later, "the king of Greece," Alexander the Great, overthrew the two-horned Medo-Persian Empire. Alexander died in 323 B.C.E. and was eventually replaced by four of his generals. However, none of these subsequent kingdoms matched the power of Alexander's empire...

The life of Jesus Christ. The Hebrew Scriptures contain scores of prophecies fulfilled in the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. For example, more than 700 years in advance, Micah foretold that the Messiah, or Christ, would be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4-7) Micah's contemporary Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would be struck and spit upon. (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 26:67) Five hundred years in advance, Zechariah prophesied that the Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:15) More than a thousand years beforehand, David foretold circumstances associated with the death of Jesus the Messiah. (Psalm 22:7, 8, 18; Matthew 27:35, 39-43) And some five centuries in advance, Daniel's prophecy revealed when the Messiah would appear as well as the length of his ministry and the time of his death. (Daniel 9:24-27) This is just a sampling of the prophecies fulfilled in Jesus Christ. You will find it rewarding to read much more about him later...

Many other long-range Bible prophecies have already been fulfilled. 'But,' you may ask, 'how does this affect my life?' Well, if someone told you the truth for many years, would you suddenly doubt him when he said something new? No! God has told the truth throughout the Bible. Should this not build your trust in what the Bible promises, such as its prophecies regarding a coming earthly paradise? Indeed, we can have the same confidence as did Paul, one of Jesus' first-century disciples, who wrote that 'God cannot lie.' (Titus 1:2) Furthermore, when we read the Scriptures and apply their counsel, we are exercising wisdom that humans cannot achieve on their own, for the Bible is the book that reveals the knowledge of God that leads to everlasting life... :D

Quote by OmikamiHow did you come up with Christ dying on a stake?

Most Bible translations say Christ was "crucified" rather than "impaled." This is because of the common belief that the torture instrument upon which he was hung was a "cross" made of two pieces of wood instead of a single pale, or stake. Tradition, not the Scriptures, also says that the condemned man carried only the crossbeam of the cross, called the patibulum, or antenna, instead of both parts. In this way some try to avoid the predicament of having too much weight for one man to drag or carry to Golgotha...

Yet, what did the Bible writers themselves say about these matters? They used the Greek noun stauros 27 times and the verbs stauroo 46 times, synstauroo (the prefix syn, meaning "with") 5 times, and anastauroo (ana, meaning "again") once. They also used the Greek word xylon, meaning "wood," 5 times to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed...

Stauros in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a "cross" made of two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile, or pole, as might be used for a fence, stockade, or palisade. Says Douglas' New Bible Dictionary of 1985 under "Cross," page 253: "The Gk. word for 'cross' (stauros; verb stauroo . . . ) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution."

The fact that Luke, Peter, and Paul also used xylon as a synonym for stauros gives added evidence that Jesus was impaled on an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xylon in this special sense means. (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24) Xylon also occurs in the Greek Septuagint at Ezra 6:11, where it speaks of a single beam or timber on which a lawbreaker was to be impaled...

"Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: "Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake."--Galatians 3:13

The New World Translation, therefore, faithfully conveys to the reader this basic idea of the Greek text by rendering stauros as "torture stake," and the verb stauroo as "impale," that is, to fasten on a stake, or pole. In this way there is no confusion of stauros with the traditional ecclesiastical crosses. The matter of one man like Simon of Cyrene bearing a torture stake, as the Scriptures say, is perfectly reasonable, for if it was 15 cm (6 in.) in diameter and 3.5 m (11 ft) long, it probably weighed little more than 45 kg (100 lb). (Mark 15:21)

Note what W. E. Vine says on this subject: "STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross." Greek scholar Vine then mentions the Chaldean origin of the two-piece cross and how it was adopted from the pagans by Christendom in the third century C.E. as a symbol of Christ's impalement.--Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 1, p. 256.

Quote by OmikamiHow do you know that only 144,000 are going to Heaven?

The Scriptures make clear that it was a happy earthly home that God gave humankind to start with, and purposed that they should enjoy it. There is no indication in the Bible that God ever promised the first human pair, Adam and Eve, that they would be transported to heaven to become angels if they continued faithful to God for a time on earth. In fact, in all the inspired Scriptures from Genesis to Malachi, no promises of heaven were held out to humans; nor did any person go to heaven...

We have the word of Jesus Christ for this. He said: "No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man." (John 3:13) Jesus' apostle Peter thus said about the faithful servant of God, David: "He both deceased and was buried and his tomb is among us to this day. Actually David did not ascend to the heavens."--Acts 2:29, 34

A heavenly hope was not held out to those persons who lived before the death of Jesus Christ. That is why Jesus said that "there has not been raised up a greater than John the Baptist; but a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is." (Matthew 11:11) Yet if a heavenly hope was not held out to faithful servants of God before Christ came to earth, why does God promise to take certain Christians to heaven? The reason is connected with God's original purpose to have an earth-wide paradise populated with happy, healthy humans... :)

To carry out this original purpose, God introduced a new thing--a new government to rule over the earth. God designated his Son, Jesus Christ, to be the king of this government, which is called in the Bible the "kingdom of God" or "the kingdom of the heavens." (Luke 8:1; Matthew 4:17) And since the days of John the Baptist, who baptized Jesus, God has been selecting from humankind persons to be corulers with his Son in that heavenly government. The Bible says: "They are to rule as kings over the earth." (Revelation 5:9, 10) One prospective ruler, the apostle Paul, wrote to another, the man Timothy: "If we go on enduring, we shall also rule together as kings."--2 Timothy 2:12; Luke 22:28-30.

So the reason God takes people to heaven is to form a heavenly government to rule this earth. It is not to populate heaven, to pick children--"beautiful flowers"--for himself. No, for those that God selects for heavenly life are tried and tested persons who qualify to be corulers with Christ. (Revelation 20:6; 2:10) Only a limited number will be taken to heaven to make up this heavenly government, the Bible giving the number as "a hundred and forty-four thousand."--Revelation 14:1, 3.

How grand it will be in the future when Christ and his 144,000 Kingdom associates rule the earth! Among their earthly subjects will be billions of resurrected dead, including such faithful men of pre-Christian times as David and John the Baptist. The sure promise is that then "death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away."--Revelation 21:4 (John 5:28, 29)
_____________________________

Prophecies That Came True
Humans cannot foretell the future with any certainty. Time and again their efforts at prediction fail miserably. So a book of prophecies that did come true has to attract our attention. The Bible is such a book...

Many Bible prophecies have come true in such detail that critics claim they were written after the fulfillment. But such claims are untrue. God, being almighty, is fully capable of prophesying. (Isaiah 41:21-26; 42:8, 9; 46:8-10) Biblical prophecies that came true are evidence of divine inspiration, not of late authorship. We will look now at some outstanding prophecies that came true--providing additional proof that the Bible is God's word, not just man's...

The Exile in Babylon
Hezekiah was king in Jerusalem for about 30 years. In 740 B.C.E. he witnessed the destruction of his northern neighbor Israel at the hands of Assyria. In 732 B.C.E. he experienced God's saving power, when the Assyrian attempt to conquer Jerusalem had failed, with catastrophic results to the invader. (Isaiah 37:33-38)

Now, Hezekiah is receiving a delegation from Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon. On the surface, the ambassadors are there to congratulate Hezekiah on his recovery from a severe illness. Likely, though, Merodach-baladan sees Hezekiah as a possible ally against the world power of Assyria. Hezekiah does nothing to dispel such an idea when he shows the visiting Babylonians all the wealth of his house and dominion. Perhaps he, too, wants allies against a possible return of the Assyrians. (Isaiah 39:1, 2)

Isaiah is the outstanding prophet of that time, and he quickly discerns Hezekiah's indiscretion. He knows that Hezekiah's surest defense is Jehovah, not Babylon, and tells him that his act of showing the Babylonians his wealth will lead to tragedy. "Days are coming," says Isaiah, "and all that is in your own house and that your forefathers have stored up down to this day will actually be carried to Babylon." Jehovah decreed: "Nothing will be left." (Isaiah 39:5, 6)

Back in the eighth century B.C.E., it may have seemed unlikely for that prophecy to be fulfilled. One hundred years later, however, the situation changed. Babylon replaced Assyria as the dominant world power, while Judah became so degraded, religiously speaking, that God withdrew his blessing. Now, another prophet, Jeremiah, was inspired to repeat Isaiah's warning. Jeremiah proclaimed: "I will bring [the Babylonians] against this land and against its inhabitants . . . And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."--Jeremiah 25:9, 11

About four years after Jeremiah uttered that prophecy, the Babylonians made Judah part of their empire. Three years after that, they took some Jewish captives, along with some of the wealth of the temple at Jerusalem, to Babylon. Eight years later, Judah revolted and was again invaded by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. This time, the city and its temple were destroyed. All its wealth, and the Jews themselves, were carried off to distant Babylon, just as Isaiah and Jeremiah had foretold. (2 Chronicles 36:6, 7, 12, 13, 17-21)

The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land notes that when the Babylonian onslaught was over, "the destruction of the city [Jerusalem] was a total one." Archaeologist W. F. Albright states: "Excavation and surface exploration in Judah have proved that the towns of Judah were not only completely destroyed by the Chaldeans in their two invasions, but were not reoccupied for generations--often never again in history." Thus, archaeology confirms the shocking fulfillment of this prophecy...

The Fate of Tyre
Ezekiel was another ancient writer who recorded divinely inspired prophecies. He prophesied from the end of the seventh century B.C.E. on into the sixth--that is, during the years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and then during the first decades of the Jews' exile in Babylon. Even some modern critics agree that the book was written at approximately this time...

Ezekiel recorded a striking prophecy about the destruction of Israel's northern neighbor Tyre, which had gone from a position of friendship with God's people to one of enmity. (1 Kings 5:1-9; Psalm 83:2-8) He wrote: "This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, 'Here I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up against you many nations, just as the sea brings up its waves. And they will certainly bring the walls of Tyre to ruin and tear down her towers, and I will scrape her dust away from her and make her a shining, bare surface of a crag. . . . And your stones and your woodwork and your dust they will place in the very midst of the water.'"--Ezekiel 26:3, 4, 12

Did this really happen? Well, a few years after Ezekiel uttered the prophecy, the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, laid siege to Tyre. (Ezekiel 29:17, 18) It was not, however, an easy siege. Tyre was partially situated on the mainland (the part called Old Tyre). But part of the city was on an island about half a mile [800 m] offshore. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the island for 13 years before it finally submitted to him...

It was, however, in 332 B.C.E. that Ezekiel's prophecy was finally fulfilled in all its details. At that time, Alexander the Great, the conqueror from Macedonia, was invading Asia. Tyre, secure on its island location, held out against him. Alexander did not want to leave a potential enemy at his rear, but he did not want to spend years in a siege of Tyre, as Nebuchadnezzar had done...

How did he solve this military problem? He built a land bridge, or mole, across to the island, so that his soldiers could march across and attack the island city. Notice, though, what he used to build the mole. The Encyclopedia Americana reports: "With the debris of the mainland portion of the city, which he had demolished, he built a huge mole in 332 to join the island to the mainland." After a relatively short siege, the island city was destroyed. Moreover, Ezekiel's prophecy was fulfilled in all its details. Even the 'stones and woodwork and dust' of Old Tyre were 'placed in the very midst of the water.'

A 19th-century traveler commented on what was left of ancient Tyre in his day, saying: "Of the original Tyre known to Solomon and the prophets of Israel, not a vestige remains except in its rock-cut sepulchres on the mountain sides, and in foundation walls . . . Even the island, which Alexander the Great, in his siege of the city, converted into a cape by filling up the water between it and the mainland, contains no distinguishable relics of an earlier period than that of the Crusades. The modern town, all of which is comparatively new, occupies the northern half of what was once the island, while nearly all the remainder of the surface is covered with undistinguishable ruins."

Babylon's Turn
Back in the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah, the prophet who warned the Jews of their coming subjugation by Babylon, also foretold something astounding: the total annihilation of Babylon itself. He foretold this in graphic detail: "Here I am arousing against them the Medes . . . And Babylon, the decoration of kingdoms, the beauty of the pride of the Chaldeans, must become as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation."--Isaiah 13:17-20

The prophet Jeremiah also foretold the fall of Babylon, which would take place many years later. And he included an interesting detail: "There is a devastation upon her waters, and they must be dried up. . . . The mighty men of Babylon have ceased to fight. They have kept sitting in the strong places. Their mightiness has run dry."--Jeremiah 50:38; 51:30

In 539 B.C.E., the time of Babylon's rule as the preeminent world power came to an end when the vigorous Persian ruler Cyrus, accompanied by the army of Media, marched against the city. What Cyrus found, however, was formidable. Babylon was surrounded by huge walls and seemed impregnable. The great river Euphrates, too, ran through the city and made an important contribution to its defenses...

The Greek historian Herodotus describes how Cyrus handled the problem: "He placed a portion of his army at the point where the river enters the city, and another body at the back of the place where it issues forth, with orders to march into the town by the bed of the stream, as soon as the water became shallow enough . . . He turned the Euphrates by a canal into the basin [an artificial lake dug by a previous ruler of Babylon], which was then a marsh, on which the river sank to such an extent that the natural bed of the stream became fordable. Hereupon the Persians who had been left for the purpose at Babylon by the river-side, entered the stream, which had now sunk so as to reach about midway up a man's thigh, and thus got into the town."

In this way the city fell, as Jeremiah and Isaiah had warned. But notice the detailed fulfillment of prophecy. There was literally 'a devastation upon her waters, and they were dried up.' It was the lowering of the waters of the Euphrates that enabled Cyrus to gain access to the city. Did 'the mighty men of Babylon cease to fight,' as Jeremiah had warned? The Bible--as well as the Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon--records that the Babylonians were actually feasting when the Persian assault occurred. The Nabonidus Chronicle, an official cuneiform inscription, says that Cyrus' troops entered Babylon "without battle," likely meaning without a major pitched battle. Evidently, Babylon's mighty men did not do much to protect her...

What about the forecast that Babylon would "never be inhabited" again? That was not fulfilled immediately in 539 B.C.E. But unerringly the prophecy came true. After her fall, Babylon was the center of a number of rebellions, until 478 B.C.E. when she was destroyed by Xerxes. At the end of the fourth century, Alexander the Great planned to restore her, but he died before the work had progressed very far. From then on, the city just declined. There were still people living there in the first century of our Common Era, but today all that is left of ancient Babylon is a heap of ruins in Iraq. Even if her ruins should be partially restored, Babylon would be just a tourist showpiece, not a living, vibrant city. Her desolate site bears witness to the final fulfillment of the inspired prophecies against her...

The March of World Powers
In the sixth century B.C.E., during the Jewish exile in Babylon, another prophet, Daniel, was inspired to record some remarkable visions foretelling the future course of world events. In one, Daniel describes a number of symbolic animals that displace one another on the world scene. An angel explains that these animals foreshadow the march of world powers from that time onward. Speaking of the final two beasts, he says: "The ram that you saw possessing the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia. And the hairy he-goat stands for the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it stands for the first king. And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power."--Daniel 8:20-22

This prophetic foreview was fulfilled exactly. The Babylonian Empire was overthrown by Medo-Persia, which, 200 years later, gave way to the Greek world power. The Greek Empire was spearheaded by Alexander the Great, "the great horn." However, after Alexander's death, his generals fought among themselves for power, and eventually the far-flung empire broke into four smaller empires, "four kingdoms."

In Daniel chapter 7, a somewhat similar vision also looked far into the future. The Babylonian world power was pictured by a lion, the Persian by a bear, and the Greek by a leopard with four wings on its back and four heads. Then, Daniel sees another wild beast, "fearsome and terrible and unusually strong . . . , and it had ten horns." (Daniel 7:2-7) This fourth wild beast prefigured the powerful Roman Empire, which began to develop about three centuries after Daniel recorded this prophecy...

The angel prophesied regarding Rome: "As for the fourth beast, there is a fourth kingdom that will come to be on the earth, that will be different from all the other kingdoms; and it will devour all the earth and will trample it down and crush it." (Daniel 7:23) H. G. Wells, in his book A Pocket History of the World, says: "This new Roman power which arose to dominate the western world in the second and first centuries B.C. was in several respects a different thing from any of the great empires that had hitherto prevailed in the civilised world." It started as a republic and continued as a monarchy. Unlike previous empires, it was not the creation of any one conqueror but grew relentlessly over the centuries. It lasted much, much longer and controlled far more territory than any previous empire...

What, though, about the ten horns of this huge beast? The angel said: "And as for the ten horns, out of that kingdom there are ten kings that will rise up; and still another one will rise up after them, and he himself will be different from the first ones, and three kings he will humiliate." (Daniel 7:24) How did this work out?

Well, when the Roman Empire started to deteriorate in the fifth century C.E., it was not immediately replaced by another world power. Rather, it disintegrated into a number of kingdoms, "ten kings." Finally, the British Empire defeated the three rival empires of Spain, France, and the Netherlands to become the major world power. Thus did the newcomer 'horn' humiliate "three kings."

Daniel's Prophecies--After the Fact?
The Bible indicates that the book of Daniel was written during the sixth century B.C.E. However, the fulfillments of its prophecies are so exact that critics claim it must have been written about 165 B.C.E., when a number of the prophecies had already been fulfilled. Despite the fact that the only real reason for making this claim is that Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled, this late date for the writing of Daniel is presented as an established fact in many reference works...

Against such a theory, though, we must weigh the following facts. First, the book was alluded to in Jewish works produced during the second century B.C.E., such as the first book of Maccabees. Also, it was included in the Greek Septuagint version, the translation of which began in the third century B.C.E. Third, fragments of copies of Daniel were among the more frequently found works in the Dead Sea Scrolls--and these fragments are believed to date to about 100 B.C.E. Clearly, soon after Daniel was supposedly written, it was already widely known and respected: strong evidence that it was produced long before critics say it was.

Further, Daniel contains historical details that would have been unknown to a second-century writer. Outstanding is the case of Belshazzar, the ruler of Babylon who was killed when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E. The major non-Biblical sources of our knowledge of the fall of Babylon are Herodotus (fifth century), Xenophon (fifth and fourth centuries), and Berossus (third century). None of these knew about Belshazzar. How unlikely that a second-century writer would have had information that had been unavailable to these earlier authors! The record concerning Belshazzar in Daniel chapter 5 is a strong argument that Daniel wrote his book before these other writers wrote theirs...

Finally, there are a number of prophecies in Daniel that were fulfilled long after 165 B.C.E. One of these was the prophecy about the Roman Empire, mentioned earlier. Another is a remarkable prophecy foretelling the arrival of Jesus, the Messiah...

The Coming of the Anointed One
This prophecy is recorded in Daniel, chapter 9, and reads as follows: "Seventy weeks [of years, or four hundred and ninety years] are decreed upon your people and upon your holy city." (Daniel 9:24, The Amplified Bible) What was to happen during these 490 years? We read: "From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until [the coming of] the anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks [of years], and sixty-two weeks [of years]." (Daniel 9:25, AB) So this is a prophecy about the time of the coming of "the anointed one," the Messiah. How was it fulfilled?

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1931/jesusbc0.jpg

The command to restore and to build Jerusalem 'went forth' in "the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king" of Persia, that is, in 455 B.C.E. (Nehemiah 2:1-9) By the end of 49 years (7 weeks of years), much of Jerusalem's glory had been restored. And then, counting the full 483 years (7 plus 62 weeks of years) from 455 B.C.E., we arrive at 29 C.E. This was, in fact, "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar," the year when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptizer. (Luke 3:1) At that time, Jesus was publicly identified as God's Son and began his ministry of preaching the good news to the Jewish nation. (Matthew 3:13-17; 4:23) He became the "anointed one," or Messiah...

The prophecy adds: "And after the sixty-two weeks [of years] shall the anointed one be cut off." It also says: "And he shall enter into a strong and firm covenant with the many for one week [seven years]; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease." (Daniel 9:26, 27, AB) In harmony with this, Jesus went exclusively to "the many," the fleshly Jews. On occasion, he also preached to the Samaritans, who believed some of the Scriptures but had formed a sect separate from mainstream Judaism. Then, "in the midst of the week," after three and a half years of preaching, he gave up his life as a sacrifice and was thus "cut off." This spelled the end of the Mosaic Law with its sacrifices and gift offerings. (Galatians 3:13, 24, 25) Hence, by his death, Jesus caused "the sacrifice and offering to cease."

Nevertheless, for another three and a half years the newborn Christian congregation witnessed solely to Jews and, later, to the related Samaritans. In 36 C.E., however, at the end of the 70 weeks of years, the apostle Peter was guided to preach to a Gentile, Cornelius. (Acts 10:1-48) Now, the "covenant with the many" was no longer limited to the Jews. Salvation was preached also to the uncircumcised Gentiles...

Because the Jewish nation rejected Jesus and conspired to have him executed, Jehovah did not protect them when the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Thus, Daniel's further words were fulfilled: "And the people of the other prince who shall come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and even to the end there shall be war." (Daniel 9:26b, AB) This second "prince" was Titus, the Roman general who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E...

Prophecy That Was Inspired
In this way, Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks was fulfilled in a remarkably exact manner. Indeed, many of the prophecies recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures were fulfilled during the first century, and a number of these had to do with Jesus. The place of Jesus' birth, his zeal for God's house, his preaching activity, his betrayal for 30 pieces of silver, the manner of his death, the fact that lots were cast for his garments--all these details were prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures. Their fulfillment proved without a doubt that Jesus was the Messiah, and it demonstrated again that the prophecies were inspired. (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:1-7; Zechariah 11:12; 12:10; Matthew 26:15; 27:35; Psalm 22:18; 34:20; John 19:33-37)

In fact, all the Bible's prophecies that were due to be fulfilled have come true. Things have happened exactly in the way the Bible said they would. This is strong evidence that the Bible is God's Word. There must have been more than human wisdom behind those prophetic utterances for them to have been so accurate...

But there are other predictions in the Bible that were not fulfilled in those times. Why? Because they were due to be fulfilled in our own day, and even in our future. The reliability of those ancient prophecies makes us confident that these other predictions will without fail come true... :D

CyberDragoon

The Prince of Nothing

That last post was so insanely long that I didn't read it.

Persocom01

Persocom01

Seeker of the Truth

DarkIngram's interpretation of the Bible is that of the Jehovah's Witnesses and not all are harmonised with mainstream Christianity.

Quote by Shinsengumi89Plunkies already posted your original post here, and disproved your thought process, behind the " so called problem with Atheisim ". So you should delete that post and respond to plunkies( not that i encourage that).

If you've ever examined any of the so called evidence for abiogenesis you'll find... more wishful speculation. Critical thinking rather than sheepish swallowing of his assertions is required when reviewing his argument. The reason I don't delete my post is simple: You can give an answer to every argument, but not every answer answers the argument. When faced with an argument, you can answer, "It's wrong because it's stupid!" But does that answer any of the issues in the argument?

Imo Atheism is a failure of a philosophy, that produces the same kind of fundamentalists, radicals, bigots, tryants, and even evangelicals as the religions it claims to be superior to. While claiming to promote reason and logic, it commits the same logical fallacies and results in the same irrationality as organised religon.

Quote by Yu-huang

Quote by Plunkies"Why do my prayers go unanswered?" Answer: God is imaginary
"Why do bad things happen to good people?" Answer: God is imaginary
"Why does god put worshiping him above all other moral obligations?" Answer: God is imaginary
"Why are there millions of horrible diseases and deadly animals?" Answer: God is imaginary
"Why do all muslims think christians are wrong and all christians think muslims are wrong?" Answer: God is imaginary


All of your question you have fallacies of reasoning. Mainly post hoc ergo propter hoc and second non sequitar.

While claiming to promote tolerance, it results in bigotry, of which Plunkies is a prime example. ...for the believers! Quoting an article from infidels.org:

"Both the highest and purest love and the basest and cruelest fanaticism are legacies of Christianity." - Keith M. Parsons

Yet while I can clearly see examples of Atheistic fanaticism here http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god1.htm , I have yet to see an Atheist example of the purest love! I think cynic's dictionary rightly defines Atheism as:

"A godless religion that retains all the dogmatic posturing of the faiths it so confidently denies, with few of the consolations." - Rick Bayan

I think that there are only 2 ways to be a true Atheist:

1. To be ignorant. As a dog or cat is Atheistic, if you are ignorant enough, you automatically qualify to be one.

2. To commit the logical fallacy of invincible ignorance. Otherwise known as to be in denial. An example would be Arch-Atheist Richard Dawkins:

"Cumulative selection is the key to all our modern explanations of life. It strings a series of acceptably lucky events [random mutations] together in a nonrandom sequence so that, at the end of the sequence, the finished product carries the illusion of being very very lucky indeed," - Richard Dawkins

Although evidence of design is overwhelmingly apparent, he thinks that it is all an illusion! People who fall into other categories are, to me actually Agnostics incorrectly classified as Atheists.

Quote by CyberDragoonThat last post was so insanely long that I didn't read it.

You don't have to read it to know it's a waste of space. The whole point of the post was just to make page 2 take 10 times as long to load.

Quote by Persocom01If you've ever examined any of the so called evidence for abiogenesis you'll find... more wishful speculation. Critical thinking rather than sheepish swallowing of his assertions is required when reviewing his argument.

Well there's really only three options....God, aliens, or abiogenesis. I pick the one that isn't retarded. You were saying something about critical thinking?

Let's play a game. First I give you a proof for abiogenesis, and then you give me a proof* for god's existence.

I'll go first...."Miller-Urey experiments produce amino acids among other chemical compounds (Kawamoto and Akaboshi 1982; Schlesinger and Miller 1983)."

We'll just go back and forth till someone gives up. Although I'm guessing you won't last a single round legit. With reality on my side it feels like I'm cheating. :(

*Note: I mean a scientifically acceptable proof, not a bible quote or a a miracle you heard from your cousin that happened to your uncle when a jesus face appeared on some toast.

Quote: Imo Athesism is a failure of a philosophy, that produces the same kind of fundamentalists, radicals, bigots, tryants, and even evangelicals as the religions it claims to be superior to.

Yeah every time I turn on the news it's always those fanatical atheists going crazy, shooting AKs into the air, preaching death to the people who disagree with them....bunch of bastards. They think they're so smart with their "scientific advancements" and "logical thinking"....they should all burn in hell!

Quote: While claiming to promote reason and logic, it commits the same logical fallacies and results in the same irrationality as organised religon. While claiming to promote tolerance, it results in bigotry, of which Plunkies is a prime example. ...for the believers!

Haha, yeah don't point out any of my "logical fallacies"...Just call me a bigot. Well done.

Feel free to respond to my post, or even the posts in that link you pasted. You come off looking like a fool in that thread too.

Quote: "Both the highest and purest love and the basest and cruelest fanaticism are legacies of Christianity." - Keith M. Parsons

Yet while I can clearly see examples of Atheistic fanaticism, I have yet to see an Atheist example of the purest love! I think cynic's dictionary rightly defines Atheism as:

Atheists don't love ANYONE. Good point.

And please point out the cruelest fanatical atheism. And please don't compare my insulting you on a message board with things like the Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, or the Holocaust.

Quote: I think cynic's dictionary rightly defines Atheism as:

"A godless religion that retains all the dogmatic posturing of the faiths it so confidently denies, with few of the consolations." - Rick Bayan

A cliche taken from a hacky joke book? Is this what you're down to? I'm insulted....but only because it's so unfunny.

A random quote form the same book....

"POSITIVE THINKING: Self-improvement through self-deception"

HAHAHA OMG SO FUNNY. MY SIDES ARE SPLITTING IN AGONY. EL O EL.

Leave the humor to people whose personalities arent drained by sanctimonious brainwashing.

Quote: I think that there are only 2 ways to be a true Atheist:

1. To be ignorant. As a dog or cat is Atheistic, if you are ignorant enough, you automatically qualify to be one.

Yeah those atheists are known for their ignorance....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Thudpics/more-creationism-comics-big-1.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Thudpics/creationists.jpg

Quote: 2. To commit the logical fallacy of invincible ignorance. Otherwise known as to be in denial. An example would be Richard Dawkins:

What am I denying? Your overwhelming evidence? Care to share a scrap of it? Arguing against other beliefs doesn't count. Present me a single bit of evidence for YOUR belief. Infact I'll make it even easier, finish this sentence....

"God and heaven exist because......"

Quote: "Cumulative selection is the key to all our modern explanations of life. It strings a series of acceptably lucky events [random mutations] together in a nonrandom sequence so that, at the end of the sequence, the finished product carries the illusion of being very very lucky indeed,"

Since you're the genius please explain the fallacy behind this scientist's quote, I'm not sure what the point of it was other than to make you look silly even further.

Quote: People who fall into other categories are, to me actually Agnostics incorrectly classified as Atheists.

Are they? That's so interesting. Please go on...

Persocom01

Persocom01

Seeker of the Truth

I've revealed the fact that Naturalistic Evolution contains a great deal of fantasy previously.

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations." - Evolutionist Franklin Harold

Now if you like cartoons you can take a look at this comparison of evolution with alchemy: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.06.Evolution_as_Alchemy.mht

Quote by Persocom01
After some research into the facinating phenomenon of Atheism, I have come to an interesting conclusion. Firstly, I have found that one of the main reasons why people choose to be Atheist is the desire to believe only in evidence rather than faith.

"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell

This is an interesting intellectual position that I have examined, especially as it deals with the question of origins. Why is it interesting?

1. Just because there is no examinable evidence of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. For example, I leave a can of beer in the fridge, and leave home. When I return an hour later, I find that the can of beer is missing. I automatically infer that someone must have taken my can of beer. Now how did I do that? I come to that conclusion despite the lack of evidence because no natural explanation is adequate for explaining my missing beer. Could it have been wind? No. Bird? Nope. Earthquake? Ridiculous. Therefore it must have been a person! Of course, this is not to say that we should believe in everything but instead as Sherlock Holmes observed, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

2a. The most interesting part comes when an Atheist is asked about origins. By definition, an Atheist cannot believe that a supernatural existance was involved in creating anything in this world. (because there is no examinable evidence) Now the way an Atheist fills this interllectual vacuum is to ground his beliefs in scientific theory. The most common of which is Natualistic Evolution, (nothing supernatural) however as science progresses it has become increasingly apparent that Naturalistic Evolution cannot account for the incredible complexies of life. Take for example, the biomolecular processes that occur every day in one of the cells in your body. IBM spent 5 years building a petaflop supercomputer under the project name "Blue Gene" just to study them. http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/402/allen.html The single process of protein folding alone takes anything up to a year for this computer to simulate. Yet in reality how long does a biological cell take to perform this incredible feat? lLess than 1 second. The absurdity of the notion that natural processes can result in the complexity we see in all life is expressed by evolutionist Franklin Harold:

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

Note this he is obviously an evolutionist, however my point is adequate expressed. An Atheist who bases his belief in Naturalistic Evolution bases it on a large amount of mere speculation. (the destestable notion of faith rears it's ugly head here)

b. Now that doesn't deter most Atheists. So what if there aren't any good explanations now? It does not rule out the possibility that one will be found in the future. While this is true, it contradicts the common Atheistic stand that he only believes in things that have evidence. An even more interesting thing is what often happens when asked the question of the origins of life or the universe. An Atheist might respond in 2 ways:

i. Why does it have to be God who creates the universe? Can't the universe have always existed?

ii. I don't HAVE to believe anything. You can say you have no idea how life started and still be an atheist. You don't even have to know what abiogenesis is.

The problem with i. is that scientists agree that the universe has had a beginning 13 billion years ago, so it didn't always exist. The belief that the universe has always existed is not based on any observed evidence. Now everything that has a beginning must have a cause. To say that the universe began by itself is a statement of faith in itself.

The problem with ii. is that this stand can only exist in an interllectual vacuum. Once one agrees with the idea that life has had a beginning 3.5 billion years ago, there remains only 2 options: life began naturally (abiogenesis) or supernaturally. (God created) However an Atheist, by definition, rejects the idea that life began supernatually. Thus taking the stand of ii. is only possible even with this knowledge by commiting the logical fallacy of invincible ignorance. http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/invincible_ignorance.asp

Thus I conclude that the common Atheist stand of wanting only to believe only in evidence is an ultimately indefensible position. The only logical position for an Atheist to assume is to admit that he does require a certain amount of faith.

I'm at a friends house and I'm really busy, but I'll point out the most obvious errors.

1. Atheists don't necessarily think God does not exist.

2a. Atheists, by definition, can hold a belief in the supernatural. Atheist = No belief in the existence of one or more gods. Those who don't hold a belief in God tend to be naturalists, but not all of them are. Example: Buddhists.

Atheism isn't a belief...

2b. To say that the Universe could have always existed--that is there is a possibility of its existing forever--is in no way a "statement of faith". If the Universe never had a beginning it may have never had a cause. Read about the "Big Crunch" if you want.

3. Simply not knowing or being sure of how the Universe began or how life originated doesn't mean that one is using a logical fallacy. Even considering the rest of your post, this is kind of pathetic...

Persocom01

Persocom01

Seeker of the Truth

Quote by alexjohnc3I'm at a friends house and I'm really busy, but I'll point out the most obvious errors.

1. Atheists don't necessarily think God does not exist.

2a. Atheists, by definition, can hold a belief in the supernatural. Atheist = No belief in the existence of one or more gods. Those who don't hold a belief in God tend to be naturalists, but not all of them are. Example: Buddhists.

Atheism isn't a belief...

2b. To say that the Universe could have always existed--that is there is a possibility of its existing forever--is in no way a "statement of faith". If the Universe never had a beginning it may have never had a cause. Read about the "Big Crunch" if you want.

3. Simply not knowing or being sure of how the Universe began or how life originated doesn't mean that one is using a logical fallacy. Even considering the rest of your post, this is kind of pathetic...

1. As I have pointed out, the stand "I don't have a stand" can only exist in an intellectual vacuum. It is only possible for the ignorant (those who don't know) or the invincibly ignorant. (those who know but deny that they have a stand, which contradicts their declaration of Atheism)

2a. As I have already pointed out at the start of my essay, I am only dealing with a common Atheistic stand of believing in evidence and not faith. I did not say that I am dealing with all Atheistic stands. If you want to be a faith-based Atheist, (Buddhist) then so be it.

2b. Yes, but it is also faith based to assert that the universe has always existed. Reasonable but completely unfalsifiable.

3. I find that people who are truly open-minded about the 2 possiblities (God or no God) are actually Agnostics. If you don't know, then you are ignorant. If you are unsure, you are Agnostic. If you are Atheist (no God) and say that you are unsure, you're in denial.

Rue-chan

Rue-chan

symphonie du coeur bris

Quote: However, I don't ponder the existence of God and such all that much; I'm of the strong opinion that we can never know whether there's a God or whatever or not. There is no actual, solid proof for or against the existence of such a God, and there never will be. So no one has the right to say "There's a God because I know there is," because you don't, but nor do they have the right to say "There's no God because that's obvious and you're stupid" for the same reason.

an interesting topic of conversation, if i may say so.
as for the topic itself, i have nothing more to add to this useless and endless debate.

further...

Quote by yu-huangFurthermore, keep it civil ladies, personal insults are not tolerated and will be reported.

only ladies are uncivil? maybe someone should reprt That.

Signature
	Image

:Shitsuren no shinfon? :

Yu-huang

Yu-huang

The Jade Emperor

Quote by Rue-chanonly ladies are uncivil? maybe someone should reprt That.

For all of you who may or may not know, that was sarcasm and it refers to everyone.

When Darkness Falls, All is quiet in the Mist of the Night.

Quote by Persocom011. As I have pointed out, the stand "I don't have a stand" can only exist in an intellectual vacuum.

3. I find that people who are truly open-minded about the 2 possiblities (God or no God) are actually Agnostics.

Huh? You contradict yourself.

Oh and feel free to answer any of my posts. And stop spouting "invincible ignorance", you sound like an idiot. Also, stop claiming atheists are "in denial" about god, ffs, if anything you're "in denial" about reality. You can't come up with a single proof for god yet I'm supposedly in denial? Try coming up with a real argument.

Yu-huang

Yu-huang

The Jade Emperor

Quote by DarkIngramACCURATE AND RELIABLE
Though the Bible is not a science textbook, it is scientifically accurate. For example, at a time when most people believed that the earth was flat, the prophet Isaiah referred to it as a "circle" (Hebrew, chugh, which here carries the idea of "sphere"). (Isaiah 40:22) The idea of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until thousands of years after Isaiah's day. Furthermore, Job 26:7--written more than 3,000 years ago--states that God is "hanging the earth upon nothing." Says one Bible scholar: "How Job knew the truth, demonstrated by astronomy, that the earth hangs self-poised in empty space, is a question not easily solved by those who deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture."

The Bible may be many thing but accurate and reliable. It contradicts itself in many occasion.
Here are a few of the contradictions using your version of the Bible:

Should we kill?
Ex. 20:13 You must not murder.
Ex. 32:27 He now said to them: This is what Jehovah the God of Israel has said, Put each one of YOU his sword on his side. Pass through and return from gate to gate in the camp and kill each one his brother and each one his fellow and each one his intimate acquaintance. (See also 1 Sam. 6:19; 15:2,3; Num. 15:36)

Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 I have seen God face to face and yet my soul was delivered. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)

Are we all sinners?
Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:10; Psa.14;3)
Job 1:1 There happened to be a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man proved to be blameless and upright, and fearing God and turning aside from bad.

Lets say I'm a prophet and I prophecies and write it in a holy book that there will be a man with a cloak that will turn himself invisible in front of many. After some time, men with their intellect manage to create an invisibility cloak and show it to the world. Does this make me a prophet or a person who made a lucky guess?

Quote by Persocom01DarkIngram's interpretation of the Bible is that of the Jehovah's Witnesses and not all are harmonised with mainstream Christianity.

I agree. How is it possible to have such difference from the mainstream of Christianity?

Quote by Rue-chanan interesting topic of conversation, if i may say so.as for the topic itself, i have nothing more to add to this useless and endless debate.

You're making too broad of generalizations, equating everyone who debates as mindless fanatics for their sides.
Forums that just have one liners and flaming will never see change. Civilized debate with constructive criticism is where true exploration and the opening of mind starts, which is what this forum is all about.

Rue-chan, if you don't have anything to say then don't.

When Darkness Falls, All is quiet in the Mist of the Night.

Shinsengumi89

Shinsengumi89

The Watcher of Movies

I find it interesting that whenever we point out something in the bible that seems to be incorrect, or illogical, the topic is changed to athiesim, bait and switch right?

I'm not saying there aren't flaws in my arrguments i'm just saying, things seemed to get changed around.

http://mt-environmentalists.minitokyo.net/ -Protect the Environment
http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/ - Philosophy is disscused here.
http://true-colors.minitokyo.net/ - Human Rights Group
http://mt-gay-straight-club.minitokyo.net/ - We help bridge the gaps between the different sexual orientations.

Persocom01

Persocom01

Seeker of the Truth

Quote by alexjohnc32b. To say that the Universe could have always existed--that is there is a possibility of its existing forever--is in no way a "statement of faith". If the Universe never had a beginning it may have never had a cause. Read about the "Big Crunch" if you want.

With a little research I'll like to add the the Big Crunch Theory is not supported by any evidence and is merely a (faith-based) possiblity.

For those who don't know what the Big Crunch is, it's opposite of the Big Bang. If matter originated from a single point (Big Bang) then there is a net gravitational pull towards the center, which, in theory, will cause matter in the universe to decelerate and possibly eventually stop, and even return to that single point. This is known as the Big Crunch.

However, scientists have found conclusive evidence that the expansion of the universe is not only not decelerating, it is in fact accelerating, a phenomenon that runs completely contrary to what the Big Crunch theory predicts. This does not completely rule out the possiblity of a Big Crunch, but belief in it is ultimately faith-based. Scientists in general agree that evidence suggests that the universe has a beginning and did not always exist.

Referances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_crunch

Quote by Yu-huangI agree. How is it possible to have such difference from the mainstream of Christianity?

You have pointed out in another tread that if there are 1 million people in the world, then there are 1 million different religions. I agree with your statement. Everyone looks at the world from a different perspective, and Christians likewise are united by basic tenets of our faith but do not agree on all issues.

Quote by Yu-huangHas anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 I have seen God face to face and yet my soul was delivered. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)

I do not have time to deal with all accusations of Biblical contradictions, most of which can be found on http://www.carm.org/diff/Exod6_3.htm . However I must say that the verse from Gen. 32:30 was taken out of context. Reading the full passage:

"And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What [is] thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked [him], and said, Tell [me], I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore [is] it [that] thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." - Gen 32:24-30

Most curious. Did Jacob see God or did he see a man? Note also from the underlined portion of text that this man refered to God in the third person. So why did Jacob refer to him as God? Because the man is God's representative!

"Very early in the morning, a great while before day. Jacob had helped his wives and children over the river, and he desired to be private, and was left alone, that he might again spread his cares and fears before God in prayer. While Jacob was earnest in prayer, stirring up himself to take hold on God, an angel takes hold on him. Some think this was a created angel, one of those that always behold the face of our Father. Rather it was the angel of the covenant, who often appeared in a human shape, before he assumed the human nature. We are told by the prophet, Hos_12:4, how Jacob wrestled, he wept and made supplication; prayers and tears were his weapons. It was not only a corporal, but a spiritual wrestling by vigorous faith and holy desire." - John Wesley's Explanatory notes on Gen 32:24

Most Biblical contradictions are due to alternative interpretations. The English Bible is a translated piece of text, so the full meaning of many of the words is sometimes not preserved due to the differences in languages.

Quote by Persocom01With a little research I'll like to add the the Big Crunch Theory is not supported by any evidence and is merely a (faith-based) possiblity.

It's called a "hypothesis" you fool. No one puts faith in the big crunch. You spend far too much time trying to make science look as stupid as your mythologies. Try defending your own beliefs with evidence and watch how little you're left with.

Quote: However, scientists have found conclusive evidence that the expansion of the universe is not only not decelerating, it is in fact accelerating, a phenomenon that runs completely contrary to what the Big Crunch theory predicts. This does not completely rule out the possiblity of a Big Crunch, but belief in it is ultimately faith-based. Scientists in general agree that evidence suggests that the universe has a beginning and did not always exist.

I love how biased you are in which scientific findings you deem credible. Am I to take this paragraph to mean that you believe the big bang occured?

You're correct in saying that the acceleration of the universe does not eliminate the possiblity of a big crunch, but then you go on to say that belief in it is faith-based? Does anyone really "believe" in the big crunch...that is, accept it as truth? Is it not an option to simply accept the big crunch as one of many possiblities? Does your warped brain see absolutely no middle ground between proven and faith?

You then go on to say that "Scientists in general agree that evidence suggests that the universe has a beginning and did not always exist.". And? Is this not common knowledge? The big bang is considered the start of our universe, is it not? It expanded from a singularity. Do you have a link that states that scientists in general have evidence that suggests the singularity did not always exist up until the big bang? Or did you take that out of context in a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation like usual? You may not be entirely lying but it's still dishonest. I find this is where most religious apologists live, somewhere between not quite telling the truth and outright lying.

Shinsengumi89

Shinsengumi89

The Watcher of Movies

Lets calm down now okay. But look let us redirect the talk to the point, where is proof of God?

I want clear evidence that prooves God is real. So thats my challenge.... And i don't want any talks on whats wrong with Science, and Atheisim( we all know Science has its imperfections) . I want direct, clear, logical proof that God Exists.

So where is it?

Shinsengumi89


More Interesting quotes....

" No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs." - Bill Maher

http://mt-environmentalists.minitokyo.net/ -Protect the Environment
http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/ - Philosophy is disscused here.
http://true-colors.minitokyo.net/ - Human Rights Group
http://mt-gay-straight-club.minitokyo.net/ - We help bridge the gaps between the different sexual orientations.

DarkIngram

DarkIngram

Urzu 7

Quote by Persocom01DarkIngram's interpretation of the Bible is that of the Jehovah's Witnesses and not all are harmonised with mainstream Christianity.

Are you sure that my religion are not harmonised with Christianity?

Anyone who is serious about his religion should think that it is the right one. Otherwise, why would he or she be involved in it? Christians are admonished: "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) A person should make sure that his beliefs can be supported by the Scriptures, for there is only one true faith. Ephesians 4:5 confirms this, mentioning "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Jesus did not agree with the modern, relaxed view that there are many roads, many religions, all leading to salvation. Instead, he said: "Narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it." Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they have found it. Otherwise, they would look for another religion. (Matthew 7:14)

Are all religions acceptable to God?
Mark 7:6, 7: "He [Jesus] said to them [the Jewish Pharisees and scribes]: 'Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men."'" (Regardless of whom a group profess to worship, if they hold to doctrines of men instead of the inspired Word of God, their worship is in vain.)

Romans 10:2, 3: "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge; for, because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." (People may have God's written Word but lack accurate knowledge of what it contains, because they have not been taught properly. They may feel that they are zealous for God, but they may not be doing what he requires. Their worship is not going to please God, is it?)

2 Corinthians 11:14, 15: "Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness." (Here we are cautioned that not everything that originates with Satan may appear hideous. One of his chief methods of deceiving mankind has been false religion of all kinds, to some of which he gives a righteous appearance.)

2 Timothy 3:2, 5: "Men will be . . . having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away." (Regardless of their outward professions of love for God, if those with whom you worship do not sincerely apply his Word in their own lives, the Bible urges you to break off such association.)

True worship is not tainted by involvement in politics and worldly conflicts. (James 1:27) Why not? Because Jesus said regarding his followers: "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world." (John 17:16) Jesus did not meddle in politics, and he restrained his followers from resorting to carnal weapons. (Matthew 26:52) Those who take to heart what God's Word says 'do not learn war anymore.' (Isaiah 2:2-4) If any religion with which you have even a nominal affiliation does not fit that description, it is time to break off ties with it. (James 4:4; Revelation 18:4, 5)

Quote by Yu-huang I agree. How is it possible to have such difference from the mainstream of Christianity?

I'm sure about the teachings of my religion... I've examined it already before I joined it... I'm sure that Jehovah's Witnesses are the true Christians...

All the Protestant teachings, some of the very doctrines that Catholicism has been teaching for centuries, such as the Trinity, immortal soul, and hellfire. Such unscriptural teachings gave the people a distorted picture of God and his purpose. Rather than aid them in their search for the true God, the numerous sects and denominations that came into existence as a result of the free spirit of the Protestant Reformation have only steered people in many diverse directions. In fact, the diversity and confusion have caused many to question the very existence of God. The result? In the 19th century there came a rising tide of atheism and agnosticism...

I'l explain it to why "false christians" are part of the Babylon the Great....

Babylon the Great
Definition: The world empire of false religion, embracing all religions whose teachings and practices do not conform to the true worship of Jehovah, the only true God. Following the Flood of Noah's day, false religion had its beginning at Babel (later known as Babylon). (Genesis 10:8-10; 11:4-9) In time, Babylonish religious beliefs and practices spread to many lands. So Babylon the Great became a fitting name for false religion as a whole.

In the symbolism of Revelation, Babylon the Great is referred to as a "great city," a "kingdom" that rules other kings. (Revelation 17:18) Like a city, it would have many organizations within it; and like a kingdom that includes other kings in its domain, it would be international in scope. It is described as having relations with political rulers and contributing much to the wealth of men in commerce, while itself being a third element that "has become a dwelling place of demons" and a persecutor of "prophets and of holy ones." (Revelation 18:2, 9-17, 24)

Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide
"Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian."--The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

Their gods: There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40) "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato's] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."--Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachatre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

Use of images: "[In Mesopotamian religion] the role of the image was central in the cult as well as in private worship, as the wide distribution of cheap replicas of such images shows. Fundamentally, the deity was considered present in its image if it showed certain specific features and paraphernalia and was cared for in the appropriate manner."--Ancient Mesopotamia--Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago, 1964), A. L. Oppenheim, p. 184.

Belief regarding death: "Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought [in Babylon] ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life."--The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 556.

Position of the priesthood: "The distinction between priest and layman is characteristic of this [Babylonian] religion."--Encyclopaedia Britannica (1948), Vol. 2, p. 861.

Practice of astrology, divination, magic, and sorcery: Historian A. H. Sayce writes: "[In] the religion of ancient Babylonia . . . every object and force of nature was supposed to have its zi or spirit, who could be controlled by the magical exorcisms of the Shaman, or sorcerer-priest." (The History of Nations, New York, 1928, Vol. I, p. 96) "The Chaldeans [Babylonians] made great progress in the study of astronomy through an effort to discover the future in the stars. This art we call 'astrology.'"--The Dawn of Civilization and Life in the Ancient East (Chicago, 1938), R. M. Engberg, p. 230.

Babylon the Great is like an immoral harlot, one living in shameless luxury
Revelation 17:1-5 says: "'Come, I will show you the judgment upon the great harlot who sits on many waters [peoples], with whom the kings [political rulers] of the earth committed fornication, whereas those who inhabit the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.' . . . And upon her forehead was written a name, a mystery: 'Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.'" Revelation 18:7 adds that "she glorified herself and lived in shameless luxury."

Is it not true that the dominant religious organizations have made it a practice to consort with political rulers for power and material gain, though this has resulted in suffering for the common people? Is it not also true that their higher clergy live in luxury, even though many of the people to whom they should minister may be impoverished?

Why can religions that profess to be Christian properly be viewed as a part of Babylon the Great, along with those who know nothing of the God of the Bible?

James 4:4: "Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God." (So, though they know what the Bible says about God, they make themselves his enemies if they choose friendship with the world by imitating its ways.)

2 Corinthians 4:4; 11:14, 15: "The god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through." "Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness. But their end shall be according to their works." (Thus Jehovah's chief adversary, Satan the Devil himself, is really being honored by all who do not worship the true God in the manner that He has appointed, even though they may claim to be Christians. See also 1 Corinthians 10:20.)

Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone saying to me [Jesus Christ], 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness."

Quote by Shinsengumi89 Lets calm down now okay. But look let us redirect the talk to the point, where is proof of God?

I want clear evidence that prooves God is real. So thats my challenge.... And i don't want any talks on whats wrong with Science, and Atheisim( we all know Science has its imperfections) . I want direct, clear, logical proof that God Exists.

So where is it?

I'll ask those atheists & evolutionists...

If there was no Creator, then life must have started spontaneously by chance. For life to have come about, somehow the right chemicals would have had to come together in the right quantities, under the right temperature and pressure and other controlling factors, and all would have had to be maintained for the correct length of time. Furthermore, for life to have begun and been sustained on earth, these chance events would have had to be repeated thousands of times. But how likely is it for even one such event to take place?

First of all, if the universe is governed by laws, then there must be an intelligent lawmaker who formulated or established the laws. Furthermore, since the laws governing the operation of the universe appear to be made in anticipation of life and conditions favorable to its sustenance, purpose is clearly involved. Design and purpose--these are not characteristics of blind chance; they are precisely what an intelligent Creator would manifest. And that is just what the Bible indicates when it declares: "What may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship."--Romans 1:19, 20

"For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the [true] God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited: "I am Jehovah, and there is no one else."--Isaiah 45:18

"He is the Maker of the earth by his power, the One firmly establishing the productive land by his wisdom, and the One who by his understanding stretched out the heavens."--Jeremiah 10:12

Of course, design and purpose are seen not only in the orderly workings of the universe but also in the way living creatures, simple and complex, carry on their daily activities, as well as in the way they interact with one another and with the environment. For example, almost every part of our human body--the brain, the eye, the ear, the hand--shows design so intricate that modern science cannot fully explain it. Then there are the animal and plant worlds. The annual migration of certain birds over thousands of miles of land and sea, the process of photosynthesis in plants, the development of one fertilized egg into a complex organism with millions of differentiated cells with specialized functions--just to give a few examples--are all outstanding evidence of intelligent design...

Some argue, however, that increased knowledge of science has provided explanations for many of these feats. True, science has explained, to a certain extent, many things that were once a mystery. But a child's discovery of how a watch works does not prove that the watch was not designed and made by someone. Likewise, our understanding the marvelous ways in which many of the things in the physical world function does not prove that there is no intelligent designer behind them. On the contrary, the more we know about the world around us, the more evidence we have for the existence of an intelligent Creator, God. Thus, with an open mind, we can agree with the psalmist as he acknowledged: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."--Psalm 104:24.

Quote by DarkIngramI'll ask those atheists & evolutionists...

Ok. But first I'd like you to notice that I don't dodge any of your arguments or questions like you have done so many times to me.

Quote: If there was no Creator, then life must have started spontaneously by chance. For life to have come about, somehow the right chemicals would have had to come together in the right quantities, under the right temperature and pressure and other controlling factors, and all would have had to be maintained for the correct length of time. Furthermore, for life to have begun and been sustained on earth, these chance events would have had to be repeated thousands of times. But how likely is it for even one such event to take place?

At this time we have no idea how probable life is, and you certainly have no idea. Creationist calculations of the probability of abiogenesis are wrong, usually arguing against an entirely incorrect premise and/or filled with biological fallacies.

What chance events are you talking about? Biochemistry is not chance, which makes calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways.

There are innumerable proteins combinations that promote biological activity. You assume there is only one. Calculations would need to include all possible molecules, not just proteins, that promote life.

The right temperature? Pressure? Other factors? Again you assume there is only one single possible combination and that they need specific temperature and pressure, you have no clue whether that's true or not. And what event would have to take place thousands of times? Life could have originated from a single replicator.

Your argument is vague and dishonest. Infact the only absolute certainty you have is that the chance of life forming on Earth is 100%. Don't you believe everything was created a few thousand years ago in its current form anyway? Why are you even bothering to argue abiogenesis? Doesn't it defeat your purpose. To argue that the most simplest of life forming over millions of years is an impossibility would make the chance of an absolutely perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent creator infinitely more unlikely.

Quote: First of all, if the universe is governed by laws, then there must be an intelligent lawmaker who formulated or established the laws.

No. WE create laws to explain how things work. Laws are predictions of how things will happen based on what has happened previously. The fact that certain things are predictable does not mean "there must be an intelligent lawmaker". The universe doesn't bend to laws, the laws bend to the universe.

Quote: Furthermore, since the laws governing the operation of the universe appear to be made in anticipation of life and conditions favorable to its sustenance, purpose is clearly involved.

You have things backwards. The cosmos isn't tuned for life, life is tuned for the cosmos.

"We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.

Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes. "

If the universe was created in anticipation of life, why is life so rare? Maybe if there were little animals running around on all the other planets in our solar system I could agree with you.

So far the chance of the universe supporting life is 100%. Our mere existence is not evidence of design because if we were in an alternate universe where life isn't possible we wouldn't be here to argue about it. We can't be anywhere where it's impossible for life to exist can we?

You argument is actually against god. If god can do anything then he could make life in a universe where conditions don't allow for it.

Quote: Design and purpose--these are not characteristics of blind chance; they are precisely what an intelligent Creator would manifest.

Is it really? If life was the purpose of the creation of the universe then why did it take billions of years for it to form? Why is life so sparce? Why is there so much empty space? You see design because you want to see design. You arbitarily label everything design even when all logic is against it.

Quote: And that is just what the Bible indicates when it declares: "What may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship."--Romans 1:19, 20

Stuff exists so god must exist? I can't even begin to explain how illogical that is.

And again we're left with poor planning, design, and management. You're left reading from a centuries old book that is supposed to be your message from god. God is omnipotent and omnipresent, why doesn't he just come on down and tell us what he wants to say? Why not update his ancient and obsolete book? It looks like reality doesn't surrender to god, god simply adjusts to fit reality, religated to meneal tasks of filling in gaps in human understanding of the universe. From moving the sun across the sky to creating life, he's always stuck as a placeholder until we figure out how things really work.

Quote: "For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the [true] God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited: "I am Jehovah, and there is no one else."--Isaiah 45:18

"He is the Maker of the earth by his power, the One firmly establishing the productive land by his wisdom, and the One who by his understanding stretched out the heavens."--Jeremiah 10:12

Again you insist on arguing science with bible quotes. How do you constantly fail to realize that jabbering bible verses only bores people and lowers your credibility. Is your ultimate goal to drive people away from your faith? To outsiders you appear to belong to a cult with no ability to reason outside of their safe little bubble.

Quote: Of course, design and purpose are seen not only in the orderly workings of the universe but also in the way living creatures, simple and complex, carry on their daily activities, as well as in the way they interact with one another and with the environment.

All explained by evolution far better than "goddidit" ever can.

Quote: For example, almost every part of our human body--the brain, the eye, the ear, the hand--shows design so intricate that modern science cannot fully explain it.

Modern science has indeed explained it. Complex biological systems evolve from less complex biological systems. The gathering of tiny individual enhancements during the natural selection process accumulate to form large enhancements, giving the illusion of design. In reality it's simply eliminating that which doesn't work.

Quote: Then there are the animal and plant worlds. The annual migration of certain birds over thousands of miles of land and sea, the process of photosynthesis in plants, the development of one fertilized egg into a complex organism with millions of differentiated cells with specialized functions--just to give a few examples--are all outstanding evidence of intelligent design...

Again you argue the same exact thing. Things are too complicated for you to grasp - Therofore goddidit. Even if you could somehow get me to admit that everything is designed you are still FAR from the finish line. You then have to explain WHO designed it, none of these "designs" point to YOUR specific god nor any specific god. Then you have to explain who designed the designer, etc etc.

You say things are designed but how do you see that? Humans are the goal right? The purpose? Yet why do cheetahs run faster? Why do eagles see better? Why do dogs smell better? Why can birds fly? Why do lizards grow back limbs? Why can fish breathe underwater? I can go on and on with things that make humans bad design, or at least obviously not as good as it could be. Our brain is the only thing that sets us apart.

If you were making the perfect car with an infinite amount of money and the most brilliant engineers to create it, you wouldn't purposefully make it with inferior parts would you? The car is your crowning achievement, why would you install a sluggish motor and low quality brakes and then put in the greatest gps system? It doesn't make sense.

Quote: Some argue, however, that increased knowledge of science has provided explanations for many of these feats. True, science has explained, to a certain extent, many things that were once a mystery.

Yes, and science will continue to explain things. You can stick god in the gaps of whatever you can't grasp, let him fill whatever mysteries you need him to, but science will continue to logically explain those gaps until god is left with nothing more than total impotence. And science will do so while improving the quality of life, rather than making people ignorant and superstitious.

Quote: But a child's discovery of how a watch works does not prove that the watch was not designed and made by someone.

Please...That argument didn't even hold up in court.

Quote: Likewise, our understanding the marvelous ways in which many of the things in the physical world function does not prove that there is no intelligent designer behind them. On the contrary, the more we know about the world around us, the more evidence we have for the existence of an intelligent Creator, God.

WHERE?! WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? Do you have any idea what evidence is? You make connections where there are none.

Complicated = God

How? Explain! You have gigantic gaps in your reasoning. It's like saying breaking a mirror causes bad things to happen to you. Why do bad things happen? How does the act of breaking the mirror lead to crappy stuff happening? Hrm, using a superstition metaphor seems strangly appropriate doesn't it?

Quote: Thus, with an open mind, we can agree with the psalmist as he acknowledged: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."--Psalm 104:24.

Hrm. I'm not entirely sure you understand the meaning of an "open mind". It certainly isn't "accepting whatever you say as truth with no critical thinking whatsoever" so I'm left wondering why you would follow that phrase with that bible quote.....

"With an open mind we can all agree god created everything, the end"

Uh....No. Having an open mind doesn't mean agreeing with what you say unconditionally.

Boy, religeous debate really is a hot topic among anime fans.
I am a Christian who associates with the Southern Baptist denomination. I believe in what the Bible says and believe in the trinity.
Now I know (this board has made it all the more apparent) that there are a good number of people who don't believe what I believe. Heck, the Bible itself says there will always be those who reject Christ, no matter how hard we try to reach them (does't mean we should stop trying though).
I'm not as well versed in the scripture as some of the people on this board (sad to say) but I read the Bible every day and retain the general sum of it. The interesting thing is that the same people who claim that the Bible has been misinterpreted throughout the years are the same people who raise sand about it supposedly "contradicting itself".
Still, I can agree with those who say that the biggest problem with Christianity is the Christians. We've, unfortunatly, had a long history of hippocritical practices, from the witch hunts all the way back to Christ's crusifiction. Not to say that all Christians are this way; it's just that those who are seem to demand more attention. I encourage any Christian reading this to strive away from the path of hippocracy and remember that God wants use to love everyone regardless if they're a Christian or not. You can't reach someone with the Bible if you beat them over the head with it.
In conclusion I'll just say this: I wish that all people (or as many as possible) can and will find peace with God and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

Yu-huang

Yu-huang

The Jade Emperor

Quote by Persocom01Quote by Yu-huangI agree. How is it possible to have such difference from the mainstream of Christianity?

You have pointed out in another tread that if there are 1 million people in the world, then there are 1 million different religions. I agree with your statement. Everyone looks at the world from a different perspective, and Christians likewise are united by basic tenets of our faith but do not agree on all issues.

Though, I remember saying there should instead of there is I'm still glad to know that there is at least one person that agrees with what I meant.

Quote by Persocom01I do not have time to deal with all accusations of Biblical contradictions

I'm not accusing anything.
I'm just posting text that is written from your Holy Book. (Ok, DarkIgrams' book)
My point was that it can't be accurate and Reliable if it contradicts its previous statement.

Quote by Persocom01Most Biblical contradictions are due to alternative interpretations. The English Bible is a translated piece of text, so the full meaning of many of the words is sometimes not preserved due to the differences in languages.

Which proves my point that it isn't accurate nor reliable.
Even if the translation and the version is different it keeps the core intact.
I compare about three different version of the Bible and true the words did change but the core remains the same.

Quote by Plunkiesyou sound like an idiot
It's called a "hypothesis" you fool.
not quite telling the truth and outright lying.

Please do not use personal insult and be curtious to other members.

Quote by DarkIngram"Narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it." Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they have found it. Otherwise, they would look for another religion.

I have a question DarkIngram, what about those who are Christian but are not Jehovah's Witnesses? What happen to them if you're correct?

-

I think religion can be both harmful and benificial.

If you look at muslim terrorists and how they bomb places all over the world for their religion then yes it is harmful.

But religion helps people deal with death, and things we don't understand (for now).

I think it is a way for people to deal with their existence. They don't understand something so they decided a long time ago to attribute it to something amazing (God). This way they don't have to deal with the fact that they don't understand how the universe works.
I mostly think it is for people who are afraid of death.
They don't like the idea of their existence being erase forever. They want to believe that there is an afterlife and that to live righteously will give them the live they want.

When Darkness Falls, All is quiet in the Mist of the Night.

Quote by Persocom011. As I have pointed out, the stand "I don't have a stand" can only exist in an intellectual vacuum. It is only possible for the ignorant (those who don't know) or the invincibly ignorant. (those who know but deny that they have a stand, which contradicts their declaration of Atheism)

2a. As I have already pointed out at the start of my essay, I am only dealing with a common Atheistic stand of believing in evidence and not faith. I did not say that I am dealing with all Atheistic stands. If you want to be a faith-based Atheist, (Buddhist) then so be it.

2b. Yes, but it is also faith based to assert that the universe has always existed. Reasonable but completely unfalsifiable.

3. I find that people who are truly open-minded about the 2 possiblities (God or no God) are actually Agnostics. If you don't know, then you are ignorant. If you are unsure, you are Agnostic. If you are Atheist (no God) and say that you are unsure, you're in denial.


1. Invincible ignorance applies when someone directly ignores knowledge. It's like if I go up to you and point to a tree and say, "because I'm observing that this tree is there it is extremely likely trees exist." Then if you said, "Trees don't exist!" then no matter how much empirical evidence I use to support the existence of the tree you will deny that it is extremely likely that the tree exists.

According to your logic, I would be unjustified in lacking a stand on a certain subject if I didn't know enough to make a decision. Just because I haven't been presented with anything that shows God exists doesn't mean I'm "invincibly ignorant."

2a. You said "However an Atheist [sic], by definition, rejects the idea that life began supernatually." I was merely stating that in no way defines the term atheism.

2b. I'm not saying that. Seriously, read my post. Do I have to bold the key words for you?
"To say that the Universe could have always existed--that is there is a possibility of its existing forever--is in no way a 'statement of faith'."
I thought that was fairly obvious. Please read my post or at least don't pretend that you have if you're not willing to.

3. Agnosticism emphasizes the "not knowing". You can hold a belief in God or lack a belief in God and be an agnostic. Hence "agnostic atheist" (an atheist who specifically lacks a belief in God, no strong/gnostic atheists included) and "agnostic theist" (a theist who is unsure of God's existence, used much less). I don't see how you not understanding simple terminology that I've probably explained to you before makes me and almost everyone else who identifies as an atheist in denial.

DarkIngram

DarkIngram

Urzu 7

Quote by Yu-Huang I have a question DarkIngram, what about those who are Christian but are not Jehovah's Witnesses? What happen to them if you're correct?

I'm not in the position to judge people whether they'll be annhilated or not...

Billions that have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah's Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before the "great tribulation," and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. We look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. He has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours. (Matthew24:21; 25:31)

"Stop judging that you may not be judged; for with what judgment you are judging, you will be judged; and with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you."--Matthew 7:1-2
________________________________

Quote by Plunkies At this time we have no idea how probable life is, and you certainly have no idea. Creationist calculations of the probability of abiogenesis are wrong, usually arguing against an entirely incorrect premise and/or filled with biological fallacies.

If you have no idea how probable life is, what are your beliefs & what makes you an atheist?

Quote: What chance events are you talking about? Biochemistry is not chance, which makes calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways.

Science has limits, & those scientist are not perfect at all... they have limitations...

Quote: There are innumerable proteins combinations that promote biological activity. You assume there is only one. Calculations would need to include all possible molecules, not just proteins, that promote life.

The right temperature? Pressure? Other factors? Again you assume there is only one single possible combination and that they need specific temperature and pressure, you have no clue whether that's true or not. And what event would have to take place thousands of times? Life could have originated from a single replicator.

Your argument is vague and dishonest. Infact the only absolute certainty you have is that the chance of life forming on Earth is 100%. Don't you believe everything was created a few thousand years ago in its current form anyway? Why are you even bothering to argue abiogenesis? Doesn't it defeat your purpose. To argue that the most simplest of life forming over millions of years is an impossibility would make the chance of an absolutely perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent creator infinitely more unlikely.

The apostle Paul developed a powerful argument that has led many realists to believe in God. He said: "[God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." (Romans 1:20) Paul could see the beauties of creation, the wondrous variety of life and the awesome starry heavens, and in them discern some of the qualities of the one who created them. Modern science helps us to see how intricately designed natural things are, what power and wisdom were necessary to bring them into existence. Hence, in some ways the natural world today gives an even more powerful witness to the existence of God...

True, there are some who reject this reasoning. (like you) But what alternative explanation do they have for the order that exists in the natural world? Regarding just one small aspect of that order, the protein molecules, science author Rutherford Platt wrote: "The chance of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen atoms, as well as phosphorus and a constellation of metallic elements, coming together in the right proportions, under the right conditions, can be likened to the chance that a pack of cards, flung in the air, will fall to the table with all the suits in sequence--virtually impossible, even though the cards were tossed in the air every second without pause through history."

The author goes on to say that he, nevertheless, believes that proteins came about like that--by chance. But, surely, a realistic person, on finding a deck of cards all harmoniously laid out on a table in their proper suits, would realize that someone had carefully put them there. Is it unrealistic to come to the same conclusion when observing the beautiful harmony in nature?

Intellectuals, such as Rutherford Platt, doubtless feel compelled to accept a naturalistic, or non-divine, explanation for things--in spite of the evidence--because that is the kind of reasoning that is acceptable today. Even scientists who believe in God would find it difficult to credit him as the direct cause of things in their scientific writings...

Quote: No. WE create laws to explain how things work. Laws are predictions of how things will happen based on what has happened previously. The fact that certain things are predictable does not mean "there must be an intelligent lawmaker". The universe doesn't bend to laws, the laws bend to the universe.

NO! God create the laws... When we think of laws, we acknowledge that they came from a lawgiver. A sign "Keep Off the Grass" implies an agency that originated the law. Scientists speak of "Newton's Law of Inertia," associating it with its discoverer. But he did not make that physical law; he only discovered it. Who then did make it? Who made all such laws governing the material universe? Do such superior laws not demand a superior lawgiver?

A professor of mathematics from the University of Cambridge, P. Dirac, wrote in Scientific American: "It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. . . . One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe."

Quote: You have things backwards. The cosmos isn't tuned for life, life is tuned for the cosmos.

"We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.

Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes. "

If the universe was created in anticipation of life, why is life so rare? Maybe if there were little animals running around on all the other planets in our solar system I could agree with you.

So far the chance of the universe supporting life is 100%. Our mere existence is not evidence of design because if we were in an alternate universe where life isn't possible we wouldn't be here to argue about it. We can't be anywhere where it's impossible for life to exist can we?

You argument is actually against god. If god can do anything then he could make life in a universe where conditions don't allow for it.

The size of the universe is truly awesome. So is its marvelous arrangement. From the infinitely large to the infinitesimally small, from galactic clusters to atoms, the universe is characterized by superb organization. Discover magazine stated: "We perceived the order in surprise, and our cosmologists and physicists continue to find new and astonishing aspects of the order. . . . We used to say it was a miracle, and we still permit ourselves to refer to the whole universe as a marvel." This orderly structure is acknowledged even in the word commonly used in astronomy to describe the universe--"cosmos." It is defined in one dictionary as "an orderly harmonious systematic universe."

Life was only made on Earth, I'm sure with that... even scientist haven't discovered any life in outer space... If you want a little animals flying in space, well the the universe is not in order... could you imagine a bird or even you flying in the space? Can they survive without oxygen?

While human affairs are so disorderly, the material universe is so orderly. All fields of science, such as astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry and others, disclose a marvelous harmony of design throughout the universe...

If we concentrate on the scientific data available and do not deliberately ignore the facts, universal order cannot be explained logically without referring to an intelligent, all-powerful First Cause, a Creator...

Quote: Is it really? If life was the purpose of the creation of the universe then why did it take billions of years for it to form? Why is life so sparce? Why is there so much empty space? You see design because you want to see design. You arbitarily label everything design even when all logic is against it.

Well, humans also design and make things. They make jet airplanes. They make oil refineries. They make electric power plants. And they make a myriad of other things of greater or lesser complexity. But humans do not design and build such complicated things without a reason. Everything is made with a purpose in mind. :D

Quote: Again you argue the same exact thing. Things are too complicated for you to grasp - Therofore goddidit. Even if you could somehow get me to admit that everything is designed you are still FAR from the finish line. You then have to explain WHO designed it, none of these "designs" point to YOUR specific god nor any specific god. Then you have to explain who designed the designer, etc etc.

You say things are designed but how do you see that? Humans are the goal right? The purpose? Yet why do cheetahs run faster? Why do eagles see better? Why do dogs smell better? Why can birds fly? Why do lizards grow back limbs? Why can fish breathe underwater? I can go on and on with things that make humans bad design, or at least obviously not as good as it could be. Our brain is the only thing that sets us apart.

If you were making the perfect car with an infinite amount of money and the most brilliant engineers to create it, you wouldn't purposefully make it with inferior parts would you? The car is your crowning achievement, why would you install a sluggish motor and low quality brakes and then put in the greatest gps system? It doesn't make sense.

Man is "in God's image" in that he was created with moral qualities like those of God, namely, love and justice. (Compare Colossians 3:10) He also has powers and wisdom above those of animals, so that he can appreciate the things that God enjoys and appreciates, such as beauty and the arts, speaking, reasoning, and similar processes of the mind and heart of which the animals are not capable. Moreover, man is capable of spirituality, of knowing and having communication with God. (1 Corinthians 2:11-16; Hebrews 12:9) For such reasons man was qualified to be God's representative and to have in subjection the forms of creature life in the skies, on the earth, and in the sea...

A Free Moral Agent. Being made in God's image, according to His likeness, man was a free moral agent. He had the freedom of choice to do good or bad. By his willing, loving obedience to his Creator, he was in a position to bring honor and glory to God far beyond that which the animal creation could bring. He could intelligently praise God for His wonderful qualities and could support His sovereignty...

Sad to say that man are abusing their freedom, knowledge & and their authority...if a man has a ability like cheetah, birds or other animals... they'll also abuse it & use it in their own interests... Plunkies, you've the same opinion with tobiast88, why are you questioning those creations of God?

"How great your works are, O Jehovah! Very deep your thoughts are. No unreasoning man himself can know [them], And no one stupid can understand this."--Psalm 92:5-6
___________________________

Why God Created Humans?
The Bible shows that God prepared the earth especially with humans in mind. Isaiah 45:18 says regarding the earth that God "did not create it simply for nothing [but] formed it even to be inhabited." And he provided the earth with everything that people would need, not just to exist, but to enjoy life to the full. (Genesis, chapters 1 and 2)

In his Word, God tells of creating the first humans, Adam and Eve, and reveals what he had in mind for the human family. He said: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26) Humans were to have oversight of "all the earth" and its animal creation...

God made a large, parklike garden in an area called Eden, located in the Middle East. Then he "proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to take care of it." It was a paradise that contained all that the first humans would need to eat. And it included "every tree desirable to one's sight and good for food," as well as other vegetation and the many interesting kinds of animal life. (Genesis 2:7-9, 15)

The bodies of the first humans were created perfect, so they would not get sick, grow old, or die. They were also endowed with other qualities, such as that of free choice. The way they were made is explained at Genesis 1:27: "God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him; male and female he created them." Since we are created in God's image, we were given not only physical and mental attributes but also moral and spiritual aspects, and these must be satisfied if we are to be truly happy. God would provide the means for filling those needs as well as the need for food, water, and air. As Jesus Christ said, "man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah's mouth." (Matthew 4:4)

Moreover, God gave a wonderful mandate to the first pair while they were in Eden: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth." (Genesis 1:28) So they would be able to reproduce and bring forth perfect children. And as the human population increased, they would have the delightful work of expanding the boundaries of the original parklike, paradise area of Eden. Ultimately, the entire earth would be developed into a paradise, inhabited by perfect, happy people who could live forever. The Bible informs us that after setting all of this in motion, "God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good." (Genesis 1:31; see also Psalm 118:17)

These are God's original purpose of His creations.... :D

It is evident that humans were to use the subdued earth for their benefit. But this was to be done in a responsible way. Humans were to be respectful stewards of the earth, not the despoilers of it. The destruction of the earth that we witness today is against God's will, and those who share in it are going contrary to the purpose of life on earth. They will have to pay the penalty for that, for the Bible says that God will "bring to ruin those ruining the earth." (Revelation 11:18)

Once again you dodge most of my post and rarely answer any questions posed to you ingram. You must realize how weak your argument is just by the sheer number of times you're forced to do this.

Quote by DarkIngramIf you have no idea how probable life is, what are your beliefs & what makes you an atheist?

What? I don't have to know the exact probability of life forming from every possible outcome of every possible universe. The chance of life existing on Earth is 100%. Probability arguments are irrelevent and not enough information is available to make an accurate assessment anyway.

All about faulty abiogenesis probability statistics...

Quote: Science has limits, & those scientist are not perfect at all... they have limitations...

Yeah. And fiction has no limit. What's your point? Making up stories is better than the limited truth we have?

Quote: The apostle Paul developed a powerful argument that has led many realists to believe in God. He said: "[God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." (Romans 1:20) Paul could see the beauties of creation, the wondrous variety of life and the awesome starry heavens, and in them discern some of the qualities of the one who created them. Modern science helps us to see how intricately designed natural things are, what power and wisdom were necessary to bring them into existence. Hence, in some ways the natural world today gives an even more powerful witness to the existence of God...

Again you puke back the same illogical argument with no support. Go look up "non sequitur" and then get back to me.

Complicated = Designer is not a logical point.
Complicated = God is even farther from logic.

No matter what life looked like or how it was put together you'd still be regurgitating the same argument at me over and over again.

Look how intricate everything is, only god could make something so complicated.
Look how simple everything is, like an AK-47, simplicity is a tenet of design. God must have did it.
Look how pretty everything is, god gives us this gift of beauty.
Look how ugly everything is, god must make everything hideous so we can appreciate true beauty.
Look how peaceful everything is, only god could make such a perfect world.
Look how horrible and crappy the world is, god is clearly punishing us for our sins.
Look at the variety of life around us, only god would give us such diverse life.
Look how all the animals are identical, god wishes us to see how unique we truely are.
Look at the music the birds make, he wants us to be happy with bird songs
Look at how silent the birds are, god likes us to enjoy peace and quiet.
Look how neutral the world is, only god could create such balance.
Look how intelligent we humans are, god has certainly blessed us.
Look at how stupid we humans are, god humbles us with his own great wisdom.
God loves us and if you love him too you'll go to heaven and be happy forever.
God is just and if you don't worship him you'll burn in hell for all eternity.
Yay we won the superbowl! I wanna thank god for letting us win this game!
Oh noes we lost the superbowl, but it's god's will and he has a plan for us all.

DO YOU GET THE POINT YET?!?!?!?

Quote: True, there are some who reject this reasoning. (like you) But what alternative explanation do they have for the order that exists in the natural world? Regarding just one small aspect of that order, the protein molecules, science author Rutherford Platt wrote: "The chance of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen atoms, as well as phosphorus and a constellation of metallic elements, coming together in the right proportions, under the right conditions, can be likened to the chance that a pack of cards, flung in the air, will fall to the table with all the suits in sequence--virtually impossible, even though the cards were tossed in the air every second without pause through history."

Yay more faulty logic. This is called an "a priori" fallacy, you feel free to look that up too if need be.

And how many times do I have to tell you that it's impossible to know how probable abiogenesis is? I could pick apart all his biological fallacies but I'm guessing it would once again fall on deaf ears so I won't bother.

Past that you're left with another huge problem. Notice he says "virtually impossible" for the pack of cards to land in the right order. Well if they land in the wrong order we don't exist and can't argue this. Again, the chance of it happening was apparently 100%, we're here aren't we?

Quote: The author goes on to say that he, nevertheless, believes that proteins came about like that--by chance. But, surely, a realistic person, on finding a deck of cards all harmoniously laid out on a table in their proper suits, would realize that someone had carefully put them there. Is it unrealistic to come to the same conclusion when observing the beautiful harmony in nature?

Unfortunately a deck of cards isn't organic and doesn't reproduce. Yet another argument that didn't hold up in court.

Quote: Intellectuals, such as Rutherford Platt, doubtless feel compelled to accept a naturalistic, or non-divine, explanation for things--in spite of the evidence--because that is the kind of reasoning that is acceptable today. Even scientists who believe in God would find it difficult to credit him as the direct cause of things in their scientific writings...

Intellectuals? Ok now you're just blatently lying. Platt was a creationist and christian author. You make it sound as though he was a scientist or something.

Quote: NO! God create the laws... When we think of laws, we acknowledge that they came from a lawgiver. A sign "Keep Off the Grass" implies an agency that originated the law. Scientists speak of "Newton's Law of Inertia," associating it with its discoverer. But he did not make that physical law; he only discovered it. Who then did make it? Who made all such laws governing the material universe? Do such superior laws not demand a superior lawgiver?

You confuse the meaning of the word "law".

"However, the laws of physics, at least in their formal expressions, are no less human inventions than the laws by which we govern ourselves. They represent our imperfect attempts at economical and useful descriptions of the observations we make with our senses and instruments. This is not to say we subjectively determine how the universe behaves, or that it has no orderly behavior. Few scientists deny that an objective, ordered reality exists that is independent of human life and experience. We simply have to recognize that the concept of "natural law" carries with it certain metaphysical baggage that is tied to our traditional, pre-scientific modes of thought....

By an equally simple but somewhat different argument, the second law of thermodynamics is found not to be some underlying principle of the universe, but rather an arbitrary convention we humans make in defining the direction of time. Nothing in known fundamental physics forbids the violation of the second law. No mechanical principle prevents the air emptying from a room when you open the door, killing everyone inside. Physics does not forbid a human from growing younger or the dead rising! All that has to happen for these "miraculous" events is that the molecules involved are accidentally moving in the right direction at the right instant. Of course these miracles are not observed to happen except in fantasies, but only because they are so highly unlikely."

Law: a statement of order or relation holding for certain phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions

Newton DID make that law. He created that law to explain what consistently happens.

Go look up the word "homonym". Boy, today that dictionary must be busier than your bible huh?

Quote: A professor of mathematics from the University of Cambridge, P. Dirac, wrote in Scientific American: "It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. . . . One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe."

ANOTHER argument to authority? Don't you have ANYTHING substantial? "wow math is so hard it must be godly math". Ugh. There was probably a time when calculating 30*30 required you to get 900 apples, doesn't make 30 times 30 some kind of advanced god math.

Quote: The size of the universe is truly awesome. So is its marvelous arrangement. From the infinitely large to the infinitesimally small, from galactic clusters to atoms, the universe is characterized by superb organization. Discover magazine stated: "We perceived the order in surprise, and our cosmologists and physicists continue to find new and astonishing aspects of the order. . . . We used to say it was a miracle, and we still permit ourselves to refer to the whole universe as a marvel." This orderly structure is acknowledged even in the word commonly used in astronomy to describe the universe--"cosmos." It is defined in one dictionary as "an orderly harmonious systematic universe."

SO WHAT? Where is your proof that any kind of order equals god? Where? Stop blathering this same argument reworded a dozen different times. I get the point. "wow fancy = goddidit". A child could come up with a better argument.

And what marvelous arrengement in the universe are you talking about? The asteroids hurdling dangerously close to our planet? The fact that our sun will eventually engulf us? The thousands of useless planets that serve absolutely no purpose to us and that contain no life whatsoever? Maybe you mean Earth itself and the constant torrent of natural disasters that continously plague us? Or the fact that Earth was supposedly made for humans yet 70% of it is virtually uninhabitable. For every bit of order I can name disorder and imperfections that a perfect creator would never succumb to.

Quote: Life was only made on Earth, I'm sure with that... even scientist haven't discovered any life in outer space... If you want a little animals flying in space, well the the universe is not in order... could you imagine a bird or even you flying in the space? Can they survive without oxygen?

UGH. You were stating before that the universe was tuned for life. If so then where is all of it? If you look at the big picture there seems to be almost no life in the universe, so which is it? Did god think we'd never get to mars and the moon so he made them hideous barren rocks floating in nothingness? Where's the godly beauty? Where's the creations made for humans?

Quote: While human affairs are so disorderly, the material universe is so orderly. All fields of science, such as astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry and others, disclose a marvelous harmony of design throughout the universe...

Again you blather on with the same ridiculous argument. This is getting repetitive. It was a crappy argument that didn't even need mentioning, let alone repeating ad nauseam.

Quote: If we concentrate on the scientific data available and do not deliberately ignore the facts, universal order cannot be explained logically without referring to an intelligent, all-powerful First Cause, a Creator...

And yet all scientists reject it as unscientific. Must be a conspiracy huh?

Quote: Well, humans also design and make things. They make jet airplanes. They make oil refineries. They make electric power plants. And they make a myriad of other things of greater or lesser complexity. But humans do not design and build such complicated things without a reason. Everything is made with a purpose in mind. :D

"Candiru Catfish (Vandellia cirrhosa). This is a tiny catfish, often less than one inch long, that lives in the Amazon and Oranoco rivers of South America. Voraciously bloodthirsty, they often crawl up the anus or urethra of unsuspecting human bathers. They deploy specially built spines, located around their head, to draw blood and anchor themselves. Unfortunately, they then tend to swell and get stuck inside. The spines are designed so well that only surgery (usually amputation of the genital area) can get rid of them!"

Truly the hand of a loving god with a specific purpose in mind. Thanks god!

Quote: Sad to say that man are abusing their freedom, knowledge & and their authority...if a man has a ability like cheetah, birds or other animals... they'll also abuse it & use it in their own interests... Plunkies, you've the same opinion with tobiast88, why are you questioning those creations of God?

God made us perfect with awesome abilities because he loves us and we're made in his image.
God restricts us and gave us a crappy spine and weak knees because we're jerks who would abuse our powers.

Blegh. Truly one of the most pathetic arguments I've ever witnessed. And trust me you'd be amazed by the stupid stuff that comes out of the mouths of the religious.

Quote: "How great your works are, O Jehovah! Very deep your thoughts are. No unreasoning man himself can know [them], And no one stupid can understand this."--Psalm 92:5-6

Yeah you just keep repeating that same argument in different ways. Your stance doesn't look weak at all.

Quote: These are God's original purpose of His creations.... :D

"Kissing Bugs (Triatoma protracta and others). These insects, many of which can be readily identified by a distinctive "X" on their back, have such a fine biting mouthpart that the sleeping victim never even feels it piercing their lip, eyelids or ears to feed! Of course, as Dr. William Dembski has shown, there are "no free lunches"; the pain comes later, and some experience deadly anaphylactic shock from the insect's saliva.

A finely-designed parasite which causes Chagas' disease, an incurable form of African sleeping sickness, is also sometimes transmitted by the bug. If you live in a Central or Southern American country, where some estimates place 25% of the population at risk, you may want to pray that God protects you from His creations."

Quote: It is evident that humans were to use the subdued earth for their benefit. But this was to be done in a responsible way. Humans were to be respectful stewards of the earth, not the despoilers of it. The destruction of the earth that we witness today is against God's will, and those who share in it are going contrary to the purpose of life on earth. They will have to pay the penalty for that, for the Bible says that God will "bring to ruin those ruining the earth." (Revelation 11:18)

'What is man, that you think of him; mere man, that you care for him? Yet you made him inferior only to the angels; you crowned him with glory and honour. You appointed him ruler over everything you made; you placed him over all creation: sheep and cattle, and the wild animals too; the birds and the fish and the creatures in the seas. O Lord, our Lord, your greatness is seen in all the world!' [Psalm 8]

And also, man made only inferior to angels? Go wrestle with a bear and see who wins. Go outrun a cheetah. Jump off a cliff and flap your arms as fast as you can and fly like the birds. (I have no point here, these are actual suggestions that I'd really like you to try)

page 2 of 4 « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next » 87 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

Warning: Undefined array key "cookienotice" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/html2/footer.html on line 73
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.