Questions and Statements about God...

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

LMAO@ God creating energy and the Universe.

So let me get this straight, a computer has a designer but the one who designed the computer doesn't? ROFLMAO. Yeah that makes sense.

 

[Mackandal1804]

@ t/s

I can tell you've recently red dawking's work, it is natural your position would be affected by it. To be clear, I believe in God, not religion, and I believe in science as well. My problem is that, atheistic materialistic people nowadays do not realise that they display more traits of faith than religious folk. From the big bang theory to the cambrian explosion, so many instances show the need for outside forces to have played a role, and still they choose to believe that there is another explanation that is always just beyond our reach.... Isn't science supposed to explain a problem with the simplest solution possible? How can one believe that we are merely the product of random chance and evolution when considering all the necessary factors required for life to have appeared and flourished on this beautiful planet? From our positioning within the galaxy to the perfect distance to our sun and so much more, how much faith do you need to believe that anything but God created this ?

One of the flaws I mentionned is in the theory of evolution and natural selection. From what I understand, useful traits would be carried on to the next generation while useless traits and attributes would be lost. If we take a look at our inner machinery, from our DNA to the way our cells work, so many of those intricate systems have dozens of moving parts that would be useless on their own but that come together perfectly to execute the task. What is easier to believe, that a greater intelligence designed us or that evolution somehow allowed some traits that were idle and useless to live on until they were completed by other traits? The book I was talking about in my first post '' The case for a Creator'' was written by Lee Strobel and I think alot of people in this thread could benefit from reading it. This guy was an atheist from a very young age and placed complete belief in science, and it is thru that science that he found the undeniable evidence for God.

[video=youtube;LhQwEOTRGLk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhQwEOTRGLk&NR=1[/video]

Until you understand that God and science are not at odds, they are not opposite forces, you will remain stuck in your narrow minded points of view ; and that goes as much for the religious freaks as the atheist extremists. It's time we stop relying on old world views and re-examine our positions and convictions with the knowledge and understanding that we have today. Science, to me, is a way God has of making us discover his creation and get closer to him. Why is our planet perfectly positioned to observe the cosmos ? Why is the universe so vast ? Why does mankind have the ability to dream and has always been fascinated with these things ? We were ment to be explorers and discoverers, as much wonder awaits us within our souls and bodies as it does out there in nature.

Peace to the truth seekers

 

[And Step]

@ t/s

Until you understand that God and science are not at odds, they are not opposite forces, you will remain stuck in your narrow minded points of view ; and that goes as much for the religious freaks as the atheist extremists. It's time we stop relying on old world views and re-examine our positions and convictions with the knowledge and understanding that we have today. Science, to me, is a way God has of making us discover his creation and get closer to him. Why is our planet perfectly positioned to observe the cosmos ? Why is the universe so vast ? Why does mankind have the ability to dream and has always been fascinated with these things ? We were ment to be explorers and discoverers, as much wonder awaits us within our souls and bodies as it does out there in nature.

Peace to the truth seekers

This right here, except for the no religion and God part. True Science is True religion.

 

[fiat_money]

@ t/s

I can tell you've recently red dawking's work, it is natural your position would be affected by it. To be clear, I believe in God, not religion, and I believe in science as well. My problem is that, atheistic materialistic people nowadays do not realise that they display more traits of faith than religious folk. From the big bang theory to the cambrian explosion, so many instances show the need for outside forces to have played a role, and still they choose to believe that there is another explanation that is always just beyond our reach.... Isn't science supposed to explain a problem with the simplest solution possible? How can one believe that we are merely the product of random chance and evolution when considering all the necessary factors required for life to have appeared and flourished on this beautiful planet? From our positioning within the galaxy to the perfect distance to our sun and so much more, how much faith do you need to believe that anything but God created this ?

One of the flaws I mentionned is in the theory of evolution and natural selection. From what I understand, useful traits would be carried on to the next generation while useless traits and attributes would be lost. If we take a look at our inner machinery,from our DNA to the way our cells work, so many of those intricate systems have dozens of moving parts that would be useless on their own but that come together perfectly to execute the task. What is easier to believe, that a greater intelligence designed us or that evolution somehow allowed some traits that were idle and useless to live on until they were completed by other traits?...

Replies to the bolded statements/questions, in the order they appear:

There's a difference in saying a natural force that is not yet known caused something and saying a supernatural force that can neither be objectively observed or measured caused something. Similar to how in the past people may have said various mental disorders were the work of something supernatural; while others may have said that the cause was likely something biological. They may not have known what the biological cause was at the time, but their hypothesis was a testable one; unlike the assumption that something "supernatural" was the cause.

No, it isn't.

Since there are billions of celestial bodies in the Universe, and humans barely have the technology to properly observe the celestial bodies within our Solar System, making the "The Earth is uniquely perfect for life." argument presumes you've somehow observed the environments of every planet in the Universe. To assume to know the environments of billions of celestial bodies requires significant faith, blind faith at that.

Not necessarily, both "useful" and "useless" traits can be lost or carried on with evolution. There is merely a higher chance that the more useful traits will give an organism an edge over competitors that will lead to their offspring flourishing, where organisms with comparitively lesser useful traits may have a greater chance losing out to other competing organisms.

This complexity/intricacy is an example of evolution, since "simpler" organisms or organisms which have been around longer, often have less complex internal make-up (eg: the biological change of the heart within organisms over time). Additionally, the "useless traits" you referenced would contradict this "perfection" you speak of.

I find it easier not assume that whenever I don't presently know the answer to something, the reason must be some objectively unobservable/unmeasurable happening.

Besides, evolution isn't a theory, it's an observable biological phenomenon. The theories are the explanations of the causes/methods of evolution that may have occurred within various organisms.

 

[fiat_money]

Pics :

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

@ t/s

I can tell you've recently red dawking's work, it is natural your position would be affected by it. To be clear, I believe in God, not religion, and I believe in science as well. My problem is that, atheistic materialistic people nowadays do not realise that they display more traits of faith than religious folk. From the big bang theory to the cambrian explosion, so many instances show the need for outside forces to have played a role, and still they choose to believe that there is another explanation that is always just beyond our reach.... Isn't science supposed to explain a problem with the simplest solution possible? How can one believe that we are merely the product of random chance and evolution when considering all the necessary factors required for life to have appeared and flourished on this beautiful planet? From our positioning within the galaxy to the perfect distance to our sun and so much more, how much faith do you need to believe that anything but God created this ?

One of the flaws I mentionned is in the theory of evolution and natural selection. From what I understand, useful traits would be carried on to the next generation while useless traits and attributes would be lost. If we take a look at our inner machinery, from our DNA to the way our cells work, so many of those intricate systems have dozens of moving parts that would be useless on their own but that come together perfectly to execute the task. What is easier to believe, that a greater intelligence designed us or that evolution somehow allowed some traits that were idle and useless to live on until they were completed by other traits? The book I was talking about in my first post '' The case for a Creator'' was written by Lee Strobel and I think alot of people in this thread could benefit from reading it. This guy was an atheist from a very young age and placed complete belief in science, and it is thru that science that he found the undeniable evidence for God.

[video=youtube;LhQwEOTRGLk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhQwEOTRGLk&NR=1[/video]

Until you understand that God and science are not at odds, they are not opposite forces, you will remain stuck in your narrow minded points of view ; and that goes as much for the religious freaks as the atheist extremists. It's time we stop relying on old world views and re-examine our positions and convictions with the knowledge and understanding that we have today. Science, to me, is a way God has of making us discover his creation and get closer to him. Why is our planet perfectly positioned to observe the cosmos ? Why is the universe so vast ? Why does mankind have the ability to dream and has always been fascinated with these things ? We were ment to be explorers and discoverers, as much wonder awaits us within our souls and bodies as it does out there in nature.

Peace to the truth seekers

Excellent presentation. God bless you.

 

[VIBE]

Excellent presentation. God bless you.

wtf? you don't even believe in science, you try to debunk it all with bible verses and stupid logic, how is it a good presentation when he says science and god go hand in hand and you don't believe that?

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

wtf? you don't even believe in science, you try to debunk it all with bible verses and stupid logic, how is it a good presentation when he says science and god go hand in hand and you don't believe that?

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" 1 Timothy 6:20

I don't believe in junk science. I.E. evolution, big bang, and the like.

True science yes. Not man made science that tries to deny the existence of God.

Yes, there is a difference.

 

[Mackandal1804]

@ fiat_money

taken from wiki

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor)[1] often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects;[2] for instance, if all the hypotheses can sufficiently explain the observed data.

The God hypothesis answers all questions and has been answering all questions since before we even knew we had questions to ask. I am not the biggest fan of the bible, but the fact that it gives a closer depiction of the origins of life than darwin's theory of evolution based on today's information is quite a feat. Darwin himself recognized that his theory was weak, and the fossil record since his death has only been disproving it more and more. I think I see your problem with this, you seem to equate the acceptance of the existence of God as the end of science and a sort of ''giving up'' on explaining how the world works. I disagree completely, I think that God has been the biggest supporter of our scientific advances and wishes us to keep discovering more things, and I think we would discover alot more alot faster if we didn't waste so much brain power on trying to discredit HIM.

What caused the original movement that allowed those 2 celestial bodies to come in contact and create the big bang ? If nothing is ever created and nothing is ever fully lost, and if we admit that the universe has a beginning, who started it ? The God hypothesis answers all these questions and even let's us know that God simply IS. Now from our current point of view, it might be hard for a scientist to accept that fact , but if you are able to have faith in the idea that you would find another explanation alltogether, why can't you have faith that we will reach a level of understanding that would allow us to understand the meaning of that fact ?

I think that at the end of the day, the driving force behind most hardcore atheist is a fear of accountability and judgement commonly associated with the concept of God. I think alot of people just don't want to accept that there might be something so much greater than themselves that we are unable to ''put it in a box'' and explain it fully, and that is a sign of oversized ego ; If I can't explain it it can't be real. We must learn to accept our flaws and shortcomings, if anything that's what we should take away from science's numerous revisions and false statements ; we are never as smart as we think we are. accept it.

I believe that science will keep on leading us closer and closer to God and once the fact of intelligent design is universally accepted, we will go about investigating our world in a whole different manner ; it is easier to find clues when you are aware that someone has left em for you rather than believing that everything is simply coincidence and chance.

 

[fiat_money]

@ fiat_money

taken from wiki

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor)[1] often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects;[2] for instance, if all the hypotheses can sufficiently explain the observed data.

The God hypothesis answers all questions and has been answering all questions since before we even knew we had questions to ask. I am not the biggest fan of the bible, but the fact that it gives a closer depiction of the origins of life than darwin's theory of evolution based on today's information is quite a feat. Darwin himself recognized that his theory was weak, and the fossil record since his death has only been disproving it more and more...

What caused the original movement that allowed those 2 celestial bodies to come in contact and create the big bang ? If nothing is ever created and nothing is ever fully lost, and if we admit that the universe has a beginning, who started it ?...

If Occam's razor were a required method of validating a hypothesis/claim, it would serve to invalidate the theistic claim. For the assumption that an extremely powerful/knowledgeable yet objectively unobservable/unmeasurable entity exists is one of the biggest assumptions someone can make. Not to mention, the "God hypothesis" you speak of doesn't even fit the criteria to be considered a scientific hypothesis to begin with.

It seems you're still denying that evolution is an observable biological phenomenon. Even if every single theory that Darwin had on evolution were completely wrong, that would do nothing to "disprove" the observable biological phenomenon that is evolution. Theories serve to explain observable phenomena, therefore they can be incorrect; however, an observable phenomena can not be "incorrect". If someone sees an apple fall from a tree, and theorizes that it fell because the apple has a magnetic attraction to dirt, they'd be wrong; but, that would not mean that the apple did not in fact fall from the tree in the first place. Speaking of dirt, you're free to believe that it's more plausible for a full fledged human being to be "created" directly from dirt as opposed to speciating from an older, very genotypically/phenotypically similar organism.

Who said the "Big Bang" was caused by a "contact" between celestial bodies? Such a thought completely contradicts the "Big Bang" theory and similar theories for the continuing observable expansion of the Universe. Whether it be the "Big Bang" or the "Big Bounce" theory, neither says celestial bodies were the cause of the sudden expansion, or even that celestial bodies could exist at the time of singularity/maximum contraction.

And who said someone had to "start" the Universe? That's merely another one of your assumptions; which the rest of your post is rife with.

 

[@My_nameaintearl]

dawking

Hawking and Dawkins are two entirely separate people, people.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

I think that at the end of the day, the driving force behind most hardcore atheist is a fear of accountability and judgement commonly associated with the concept of God. I think alot of people just don't want to accept that there might be something so much greater than themselves that we are unable to ''put it in a box'' and explain it fully, and that is a sign of oversized ego ; If I can't explain it it can't be real. We must learn to accept our flaws and shortcomings, if anything that's what we should take away from science's numerous revisions and false statements ; we are never as smart as we think we are. accept it.

..................

 

[VIBE]

DoU, god is against homosexuality, stop riding Mac's nuts.

I think that at the end of the day, the driving force behind most hardcore atheist is a fear of accountability and judgement commonly associated with the concept of God. I think alot of people just don't want to accept that there might be something so much greater than themselves that we are unable to ''put it in a box'' and explain it fully, and that is a sign of oversized ego ; If I can't explain it it can't be real. We must learn to accept our flaws and shortcomings, if anything that's what we should take away from science's numerous revisions and false statements ; we are never as smart as we think we are. accept it

You think, you do not know. I do not care if there is a god in the end, if I must pay for my dues then I will. There is no if's and's or but's about it, right? I'm not scare of a concept of god and others aren't either. If there is a greater being, so be it. It doesn't make me feel small, shit we look at our universe and it's greater than us and our minds, yet it doesn't make us feel small. We still challenge it and figure out it's secrets. If it can't be explained, then it must be god. We all do accept our flaws and shortcomings. Also, we are as smart as we think we are, mankind has accomplished a lot of shit never thought possible. If we do let our ego's get in the way, so be it, we deserve to bask in the intelligence and wonders we've accomplished....

 

[Hyde Parke]

I never understood why people feel the need to believe in anything

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

And their languages were confounded. So that none could understand each other, and no one could agree. One said science, another said no it's faith! and the next said it was psychology.

 

[toktaylor]

Excellent presentation. God bless you.

"Until you understand that God and science are not at odds, they are not opposite forces, you will remain stuck in your narrow minded points of view ; and that goes as much for the religious freaks as the atheist extremists. It's time we stop relying on old world views and re-examine our positions and convictions with the knowledge and understanding that we have today. Science, to me, is a way God has of making us discover his creation and get closer to him. Why is our planet perfectly positioned to observe the cosmos ? Why is the universe so vast ? Why does mankind have the ability to dream and has always been fascinated with these things ? We were ment to be explorers and discoverers, as much wonder awaits us within our souls and bodies as it does out there in nature.

Peace to the truth seekers"

DOU?????

 

[toktaylor]

If you apply god to nature in the following...you can see the mainfestation of the creator/designer...

The "Laws of Nature" are neither matter nor energy - they are the phenomena that control the action and interaction of all matter and energy in the universe. They are universally invariant, conditions may change but the "Laws" never vary. When the "Laws of Nature" came into existence the universe came into existence, they created the universe and determined its size - where the "Laws" end, the universe ends.

The concept of the "Laws of Nature" and "Universal Space" are the same. Nothing can exist beyond their domain, not even space. They are the framework of the universe that give the universe its personality. What would the universe be like without inertia or gravity, etc.. They create the personality of the universe.

Universal space has no structure, it is all one, there is no unique part of space. Space (the "laws of nature") may or may not be expanding. If they are expanding this could account for the "red shift" of the galaxies. If space is not expanding, the galaxies are simply falling toward the outer boundary of a finite universe, this would also explain the "red shift" of the galaxies.

Nothing moves - relative to space itself. The planet Earth (and everything else in the universe) is stationary - relative to universal space itself. (This should soon be borne out when the results of "Gravity Probe B" are fully analyzed.) The "energy level" of matter - relative to space - determines a body's inertial mass.

• Inertia for example is the law that requires a force be exerted on matter for it to accelerate or rise to a higher space energy level. Galileo discovered this phenomena and Newton wrote down the mathematical formula F=MA that best explains how a body of matter, acts under this law, relative to other bodies,. If there was no 'Law of Inertia' the universe would have a much different personality. (Perhaps we would not have to wear inertial seat belts in our cars, etc.)

• Newton mathematically explained why an apple falls to the ground instead of falling upward - and called this phenomena 'Gravity' - in doing so he helped explain how the heavens work.

• Maxwell explained mathematically how light travels in space.

• Einstein discovered the mathematical relationship of inertial mass of a body and energy, represented by the equation E=MC2. Inertial mass is the energy level (space energy level) of a body of matter relative to space.

• Max Plank discovered the mysterious phenomena of Quantum Mechanics which scientists don't fully understand but use anyway.

• Then there is the phenomena of life itself - another group of laws of nature that govern every aspect of life, (biology, evolution, etc.,) that scientists are just beginning to understand and explain.

These are just a few of the phenomena that run the universe - there are many others - some yet to be discovered and explained. They are universal - conditions may vary but the Laws of Nature are invariant and unbreakable. The Laws of Nature do not exist apart from the universe - they together with matter and energy - Created and govern the Universe.

Donald Hamilton, author of "The "MIND of Mankind"

 

[psychobone]

Science and religion cannot coexist in the same intellectual space. Religion requires faith, which is a process of non-thinking, followers must believe without any evidence. Whereas, science is a process of analysis, theories are challenged, disproved and improved all the time, this leads to knowledge gaps being filled. They can never mix, the most embarrassing case of an attempt to try and mix science and religion is in the Qur'an. There are theories of the formation of embryos, mountains and the ocean to name a few. The main problem with this is, Muslims claim that the prophet Muhammad got these words "directly from God" but they were clearly all plagiarized.

Having said that, the stories in religious books are good life lessons that should not be taken at face value. They should be read in a similar fashion to Aesop's fables. A good example is the book that Thomas Jefferson wrote "The life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" which is basically the bible without the imaginary magical powers and pageantry.

 

[DRO]

people explain the exact same shit to pupuizdro every time and he never, ever picks it up

i think dude is retarded, for real

why i gotta be retarted cause i dont agree with what folks say...

When u r talking bout God, you have to shut your mind down and operate through spirit... Thats the only way u gone get answers....

Worship God in spirit an in truth... Not with ur mind... Ur mind cant phatom the possibilities of God..

You cant

 

[fiat_money]

If you apply god to nature in the following...you can see the mainfestation of the creator/designer...

The "Laws of Nature" are neither matter nor energy - they are the phenomena that control the action and interaction of all matter and energy in the universe. They are universally invariant, conditions may change but the "Laws" never vary. When the "Laws of Nature" came into existence the universe came into existence, they created the universe and determined its size - where the "Laws" end, the universe ends.
The concept of the "Laws of Nature" and "Universal Space" are the same. Nothing can exist beyond their domain, not even space. They are the framework of the universe that give the universe its personality. What would the universe be like without inertia or gravity, etc.. They create the personality of the universe.
Universal space has no structure, it is all one, there is no unique part of space. Space (the "laws of nature") may or may not be expanding. If they are expanding this could account for the "red shift" of the galaxies. If space is not expanding, the galaxies are simply falling toward the outer boundary of a finite universe, this would also explain the "red shift" of the galaxies.
Nothing moves - relative to space itself. The planet Earth (and everything else in the universe) is stationary - relative to universal space itself. (This should soon be borne out when the results of "Gravity Probe B" are fully analyzed.) The "energy level" of matter - relative to space - determines a body's inertial mass.
• Inertia for example is the law that requires a force be exerted on matter for it to accelerate or rise to a higher space energy level. Galileo discovered this phenomena and Newton wrote down the mathematical formula F=MA that best explains how a body of matter, acts under this law, relative to other bodies,. If there was no 'Law of Inertia' the universe would have a much different personality. (Perhaps we would not have to wear inertial seat belts in our cars, etc.)
• Newton mathematically explained why an apple falls to the ground instead of falling upward - and called this phenomena 'Gravity' - in doing so he helped explain how the heavens work.
• Maxwell explained mathematically how light travels in space.
• Einstein discovered the mathematical relationship of inertial mass of a body and energy, represented by the equation E=MC2. Inertial mass is the energy level (space energy level) of a body of matter relative to space.
• Max Plank discovered the mysterious phenomena of Quantum Mechanics which scientists don't fully understand but use anyway.
• Then there is the phenomena of life itself - another group of laws of nature that govern every aspect of life, (biology, evolution, etc.,) that scientists are just beginning to understand and explain.
These are just a few of the phenomena that run the universe - there are many others - some yet to be discovered and explained. They are universal - conditions may vary but the Laws of Nature are invariant and unbreakable. The Laws of Nature do not exist apart from the universe - they together with matter and energy - Created and govern the Universe.
Donald Hamilton, author of "The "MIND of Mankind"

Although I wouldn't say with absolute certainty that the laws of physics and that the physical constants don't vary within the Universe, how does any of what you posted show "the mainfestation of the creator/designer"?