To Believe or Not To Believe? (SHOW RESPECT, OR RISK A BAN) - Part 2

[Infinight888]

For as cool as scientific discoveries are, to me it just doesn't explain things enough. Like I mentioned a few times, when I look at the earth and nature, wildlife, and people, I find it hard pressed that this all happened randomly. I definitely see a higher power at play. Yes, I accept the big bang theory and even evolution but I do believe God orchestrated all of it. To me people that believe all this just happened just because and spew out random theories or articles that support their view are no more validated in their beliefs than a religious person is.

So, just to be clear, you accept that the theory of evolution, but think natural selection is too complex to have happened at random... So you instead believe that there was an omnipotent being, which randomly formed from nothingness with full consciousness and emotions, which used its vast power to create the world.

Look, I know the whole "Who Created God" thing is a tired argument by this point, but you can't just state that life is to complex to exist on its own, and attempt to explain it with an even more complex being that exists on its own without having to have been created.

 

[Human Torch]

Also, if there was only two of each animal, then how did they repopulate without inbreeding? The same question goes for Noah and his family. A viable gene pool for any type of reproduction has to be more than two members of the same species.

The genetic imperfections weren't a problem yet. That's why God didn't make the command against incest until much later,after the world had been populated.

So, again, which archaeologists?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ev...t-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533


Anyway,I doubt one side is ever going to convince the other. But the fact is, things aren't as cut and dried as evolutionists want to claim it is.

I find it amusingly ironic how centuries ago you had the church trying to suppress things like the earth revolving around the sun because of the panic it would cause. "People will lose faith in the church!"

But here we are now,where the opposite is true. Creationist theorists are not given a decent platform for their discoveries/theories because it doesn't jibe with the "No room for God" mindset in the modern scientific community. What goes around, comes around.

 

[Greens]

The genetic imperfections weren't a problem yet. That's why God didn't make the command against incest until much later,after the world had been populated.

I'm sorry, but this is a blatant cop-out. Incest was fine, and then it wasn't? Was God drunk when he thought of this or just indecisive?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ev...t-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533


Anyway,I doubt one side is ever going to convince the other. But the fact is, things aren't as cut and dried as evolutionists want to claim it is.

I find it amusingly ironic how centuries ago you had the church trying to suppress things like the earth revolving around the sun because of the panic it would cause. "People will lose faith in the church!"

But here we are now,where the opposite is true. Creationist theorists are not given a decent platform for their discoveries/theories because it doesn't jibe with the "No room for God" mindset in the modern scientific community. What goes around, comes around.

You might want to check the previous iteration of this thread because we've already discussed that article and why it's not evidence for Noah's flood at all.

Creationist theories aren't given a "platform" because they're not good theories. I mean, you might as well be arguing that theories about reptilian governments should be given a platform. This is just a way to turn Christians into a marginalized group in the scientific community, as if there's some conspiracy against God. You know why God isn't part of scientific knowledge? Because there is no proof. The ball is in your court. Prove God beyond a reasonable doubt and scientists will look into it.

 

[moviedoors]

I think if removing the element of an existence extending beyond death, religion wouldn't even work.

Now that is an interesting idea. I'd love to read more about it.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

What the hell does that mean? You do know that science is ongoing? We don't have perfect knowledge, and we never will. Science is a "work-in-progress" all the time, so of course you're not going to have ALL the answers.

Yes, someone who supports their views with peer-reviewed, legitimate scientific studies is more validated in their beliefs than someone who uses biblical rhetoric.

So if a scientist says something and spews out a theory if should be considered fact and legitimate. But if a religious person uses their own knowledge and life experiences and cross examines it with science, and gives legitimate reasons on why they become religious, their view point is invalid because they aren't a scientist? Also find it ironic that you mention science is on going and we don't have perfect knowledge. But on multiple occasions in their topic several non believers in this topic have ask the religious in these topic, why God did this? Or What did God allow this to happen? Humans understanding of God is like science an on going thing. He reveals stuff over time or not at all. But y'all are quick to say since their is not current explanation to such questions, God's existence must be false. Since science doesn't have or will ever have the answers to every occurrence in the universe should we all just stop believing in Scientific theories as well?

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Prove God beyond a reasonable doubt and scientists will look into it.

Prove that God/ a higher being and Heaven and Hell don't exist without an ounce of doubt and maybe religious folk will change their views.

 

[Greens]

So if a scientist says something and spews out a theory if should be considered fact and legitimate.

No, the scientist has to thoroughly explain their methodology so other scientists can replicate the study/experiment. Something does not become fact the minute a scientist cooks up a hypothesis.

But if a religious person uses their own knowledge and life experiences and cross examines it with science, and gives legitimate reasons on why they become religious, their view point is invalid because they aren't a scientist?

Their view point is less valid than a scientific view point because for something to become fact, it has to objectively observable and repeatable. Personal experience is useless. Anyone can experience anything.

Also find it ironic that you mention science is on going and we don't have perfect knowledge. But on multiple occasions in their topic several non believers in this topic have ask the religious in these topic, why God did this? Or What did God allow this to happen? Humans understanding of God is like science an on going thing. He reveals stuff over time or not at all. But y'all are quick to say since their is not current explanation to such questions, God's existence must be false. Since science doesn't have or will ever have the answers to every occurrence in the universe should we all just stop believing in Scientific theories as well?

The reason I point out that science is incomplete is because most religious people fall back on the god of the gaps. Science can't explain this yet, so God must be behind it. In that sense, your parallel doesn't work.

 

[Human Torch]

I'm sorry, but this is a blatant cop-out. Incest was fine, and then it wasn't? Was God drunk when he thought of this or just indecisive?

God didn't make 15 Adams & Eves. There was a reason for the need of marrying within the bloodlines. When that need no longer existed,the situation changed.

You might want to check the previous iteration of this thread because we've already discussed that article and why it's not evidence for Noah's flood at all.

Creationist theories aren't given a "platform" because they're not good theories. I mean, you might as well be arguing that theories about reptilian governments should be given a platform. This is just a way to turn Christians into a marginalized group in the scientific community, as if there's some conspiracy against God. You know why God isn't part of scientific knowledge? Because there is no proof. The ball is in your court. Prove God beyond a reasonable doubt and scientists will look into it.

The scientific community doesn't want any competition with religious theorists because it'll make them lose credibility if they have to admit "Well, yes,this is possibly from a higher power". People are never able to hear the other side of the argument. Because the strong atheistic presence in the scientific community suppresses it. And there are plenty of researchers who have admitted to being shut out for not marching in lockstep with them.

 

[Greens]

Prove that God/ a higher being and Heaven and Hell don't exist without an ounce of doubt and maybe religious folk will change their views.

Why do you always fall back on this? How many times do people have to tell you that it doesn't work that way. The one who makes the claim proves their claim. You can't disprove that I am an Orc from Middle-earth, so there has to be some validity to it, right?

 

[Greens]

The scientific community doesn't want any competition with religious theorists because it'll make them lose credibility if they have to admit "Well, yes,this is possibly from a higher power". People are never able to hear the other side of the argument. Because the strong atheistic presence in the scientific community suppresses it. And there are plenty of researchers who have admitted to being shut out for not marching in lockstep with them.

You know what would make scientists lose credibility? Ignoring a valid theory that changes the world. You know what would get somebody a Nobel prize? That same theory. If there was a valid theory out there today that proved God's existence, trust me, we would know about it. Science is not one big blob. Every country, every university has their own subset of scientists. What, do you think assassins will kill the scientist that proves God? Their legs and arms are broken so they can't type on a keyboard?

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Some of my religious friends are brilliant, like the kinds of people that got straight A's in college and all sorts of academic accolades but like I said, they still very much believe in what the bible teaches. Does this mean they should abandon what they believe because a scientist told them their views are scientific enough?

 

[Greens]

Some of my religious friends are brilliant, like the kinds of people that got straight A's in college and all sorts of academic accolades but like I said, they still very much believe in what the bible teaches. Does this mean they should abandon what they believe because a scientist told them their views are scientific enough?

They should do whatever they want.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

I was just saying that the non religious say that there needs to be proof/evidence of God's existence for it to be valid. But if you say God doesn't exist, the afterlife doesn't exist like its a fact, your somehow exempt from providing any evidence to support your claim?

I can't prove for a fact that God exists in the natural sense, but I can give you my reasons as to why I believe he exists. If someone came up and told me God and the afterlife aren't real as a fact, I would want them to give me some explanations/ hard evidence that supports their claims.

 

[moviedoors]

No. Suppose there are 10 options: no God, God 1, God 2, God 3 etc. through God 9

Someone who believes in no God has an equal chance of being right as someone who believes in God 3 or God 4.

Obviously, real life doesn't work that way because not every claim is verifiable, but in essence you're not bettering your odds in any way.

Exactly. They're equally weighted options.

 

[Kelly]

But you are looking at is as....

Choose no God, you are right...therefore you die, you die.
There is a God 1...
There is a God 2...
There is a God 3... and so one...those people are wrong therefore you die, you die.

 

[moviedoors]

I don't follow.

 

[Kelly]

You don't believe in a God, therefore to you all of them are going to be equally weighted as far as possibility. Because you do not believe in the possibility of a heaven at all.

Whereas someone who believes in God, does believe in Heaven, and therefore following that God and believing they will make it into heaven, Nirvana, where ever, is very much far more weighted than your belief in no God. At least to them it is...

To you they are all equally weighted because you do not believe in heaven in any of the scenarios. So, no matter what people believe, once they die....they die and that is it.

 

[Apollo]

Anyone going to watch the next episode of A.D tonight?

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Anyone going to watch the next episode of A.D tonight?

Yea I plan to watch it!

 

[moviedoors]

You don't believe in a God, therefore to you all of them are going to be equally weighted as far as possibility. Because you do not believe in the possibility of a heaven at all.

Whereas someone who believes in God, does believe in Heaven, and therefore following that God and believing they will make it into heaven, Nirvana, where ever, is very much far more weighted than your belief in no God. At least to them it is...

To you they are all equally weighted because you do not believe in heaven in any of the scenarios. So, no matter what people believe, once they die....they die and that is it.

I don't think we're on the same page here.

 

[KevanG]

The genetic imperfections weren't a problem yet. That's why God didn't make the command against incest until much later,after the world had been populated.

As opposed to people writing a story and they didn't understand the implications of what they were talking about when considered fully? Instead of a magic incest good/bad switch which gets flipped because 'reasons'.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Since the non religious here seem keen on picking apart religious views, I like to remind them that even the scientific theories the say totally discredits the exist of God have FLAWS in them whether they acknowledge them or not.

Evolution has a few flaws. First the theory declines to state that such random mutations cannot possibly increase an organism’s capabilities. It fails to say how such complexities of life forms could have occurred by random chance or blind luck. It doesn't reveal the impossibility of life developing on its own. It ignores the fact that spontaneous generation has never been proven.The theory of evolution doesn’t have any real idea on how life arose. Evolutionists readily admit that the theory of evolution doesn’t address the question of how life arose but only how it evolved once it did arise. Yet with these flaws, people readily accept it as fact. But the prospect of God/ a higher power is laughable?

Flaw with the Big Bang Theory

It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Also, the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it.

If you don't believe me on these flaws your free to google them. Like I said, I am not against science and like most marvel at scientific discoveries but I DO NOT accept these theories as absolute fact. I definitely believe that God had a had in the creation of earth and all the living beings on it. Until a day comes when some scientist can provide REAL evidence (not just opinions) that God or the afterlife doesn't exist (which I am sure will NEVER come), I am comfortable in my faith in God and what the bible teaches.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Creationism is just one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of. The article I posted on the last page goes into just one of the myriad of reasons it is so stupid. There is absolutely no evidence to support whereas there is metric tons of evidence that is BS. I say this as a Christian. The OT is not historical fact and to believe so is to bury your head in the sand

 

[moviedoors]

the scientific theories they say totally discredits the exist of God.

NO ONE has said that. You seem to be laboring under the notion that science is "aiming" for God. Think of it more that science has simply not even needed to invoke God. None of the various fields necessitate including God, yet. They explain themselves fine without it.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Since the non religious here seem keen on picking apart religious views, I like to remind them that even the scientific theories the say totally discredits the exist of God have FLAWS in them whether they acknowledge them or not.

Evolution has a few flaws. First the theory declines to state that such random mutations cannot possibly increase an organism’s capabilities. It fails to say how such complexities of life forms could have occurred by random chance or blind luck. It doesn't reveal the impossibility of life developing on its own. It ignores the fact that spontaneous generation has never been proven.The theory of evolution doesn’t have any real idea on how life arose. Evolutionists readily admit that the theory of evolution doesn’t address the question of how life arose but only how it evolved once it did arise. Yet with these flaws, people readily accept it as fact. But the prospect of God/ a higher power is laughable?

Flaw with the Big Bang Theory

It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Also, the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it.

If you don't believe me on these flaws your free to google them. Like I said, I am not against science and like most marvel at scientific discoveries but I DO NOT accept these theories as absolute fact. I definitely believe that God had a had in the creation of earth and all the living beings on it. Until a day comes when some scientist can provide REAL evidence (not just opinions) that God or the afterlife doesn't exist (which I am sure will NEVER come), I am comfortable in my faith in God and what the bible teaches.

As a Christian I have no problem accepting evolution and BBT. But you have a fundamentally flawed mindset. First off, a theory is not an educated guess (that is a hypothesis). A theory defined in scientific terms is something that has been heavily tested and it's conclusions have the ability to be reproduced consistently. Evolution is a fact on all scales. No evolution does not answer where life came from but nobody ever made the claim that it did. The two leading hypothesis on that front are either microbes aboard meteors that landed along with the water they brought or that the conditions on early Earth started with single cell organisms due to liquid water and oxygen that evolved into more complex life forms. I personally believe that they came down with the building blocks in the meteors and grew from there.

As far as the BBT goes the leading thoughts on the matter are that of the multi-verse and that is what I prescribe to. That would mean that no matter came from nothing since it came from the multi-verse. When you get down into sub-atomic particles and the like the normal laws of physics breakdown. I am of the mindset that what we call and think of as God is the multi-verse and is and always has been. What we think of as heaven and hell are really alternate dimensions.