Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

From my beliefs as you know God created the universe in 6 days, and its taken us 6 billion years to figure it out and we just broke it a few years ago with mapping human Genome and other break throughs.

Why can't/don't want scientists want to show/prove that a higher power does not exist?

Look at our brain and optical nerve's and how they work. Light is shown and our eyes see based off how much light actually is available to see then our brain interprets what our optic nerve inputs and it forms our surrounding environment.

This is quantified by the trillions of creatures that have been created and born throughout the years and the unborn that still have not been.

How is this not divine or created supernaturally?

I don't see why science to some people does not point to God/Yahweh/TOAA/Allah, whatever name your are comfortable using.

Science points to nature.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Science points to nature.

But how was nature created? Big Bang?

Originally posted by Supra
But how was nature created? Big Bang?

Just about anything is a possibility. For all we know, our universe could have been created by a flying spaghetti monster. Science reveals facts, many of which have already dis-proven religious claims.

I'm not sure why the Big Bang Theory is impossible to accept, but Bearded Man makes all of earthCreation in six days is totally legit.

Because of an old book which says so.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Just about anything is a possibility. For all we know, our universe could have been created by a flying spaghetti monster. Science reveals facts, many of which have already dis-proven religious claims.

I have a problem with organized religion or any religion of any kind. So lets not talk about religion. I just wanna talk about science which much of it can be explained by God or a Big Bang.

Why can't the big bang be created by a God or Supernatural being?

Originally posted by Supra

Why can't/don't want scientists want to show/prove that a higher power does not exist?


I don't see why science to some people does not point to God/Yahweh/TOAA/Allah, whatever name your are comfortable using.


Because the Bible is the only "proof" that God exists & that on its own is not substantial proof enough.

It's that simple.

Blind Faith is an opinion not a scientific fact.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Because the Bible is the only "proof" that God exists & that on its own is not substantial proof enough.

It's that simple.

Blind Faith is an opinion not a scientific fact.

But many scientist also believe that God created the universe.

Say you have to geneticists who are professors at a respected university. One's scientific research points to God, one's points to the Big Bang. What if they are both right but just "religion" says they cannot be?

What if God was the Big Bang or created the Big Bang?

Then the real question IMO is why doesn't God just show himself now to humanity? Instead He "sent down his son" all those thousands of years ago when humanity wasn't "intellectually smart enough" to understand the existence of a higher being.

It's not 'what if'; it's 'what can you prove'. And the answer is 'nothing'.

Originally posted by Supra
But how was nature created? Big Bang?

Why does it matter?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Then the real question IMO is why doesn't God just show himself now to humanity? Instead He "sent down his son" all those thousands of years ago when humanity wasn't "intellectually smart enough" to understand the existence of a higher being.

Well to answer that question I have to relate to you my understanding of the scriptures I have read and tell you my opinion, I can if you wish.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I'm not sure why the Big Bang Theory is impossible to accept, but Bearded Man makes all of earthCreation in six days is totally legit.

Because of an old book which says so.

mmm

Would a new book be trustworthy by sheer virtue of its newness?

Originally posted by Supra
From my beliefs as you know God created the universe in 6 days, and its taken us 6 billion years to figure it out ...

Supra, I'm not quite getting your point of view because of this statement.

Are you an Old Earth Creationist or a New Earth one?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
mmm

Would a new book be trustworthy by sheer virtue of its newness?

Books are written by people. The fact that it's old simply reinforces how out of touch with reality it is, much less ignoring the problem of verifying its 'truth'. This is like asking why the ancient Norse thought the world was made from a giant, and then being disappointed when science fails to conform to that ideal.

Originally posted by Supra
Well to answer that question I have to relate to you my understanding of the scriptures I have read and tell you my opinion, I can if you wish.

Once again, why quote from a book written thousands of years ago only to dismiss today's technology & scientific proof???

If you or a family member is physically sick, are you going to pray or seek medical/scientific help?

If it's a mental condition, are you going to blame possession of evil demons or seek out specialists in mental health?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Once again, why quote from a book written thousands of years ago only to dismiss today's technology & scientific proof???

If you or a family member is physically sick, are you going to pray or seek medical/scientific help?

If it's a mental condition, are you going to blame possession of evil demons or seek out specialists in mental health?

Well God created us in his image, means we all have the mind of God. I believe that he created us with the same yearning for perfection that we can be.

God created us to better ourselves and to use our minds to help ourselves.

I don't define myself to anyone one religion as I am not religious however christian scientists believe in science and God.

So I know its possible.

I don't dismiss any medical doctor's help.

Originally posted by Supra
Well God created us in his image, means we all have the mind of God. I believe that he created us with the same yearning for perfection that we can be.

God created us to better ourselves and to use our minds to help ourselves.

I don't define myself to anyone one religion as I am not religious however christian scientists believe in science and God.

So I know its possible.

I don't dismiss any medical doctor's help.

edit: we can be in the pursuit of perfection

Maybe asking it a different way might help:

How old, in your view, is the world, Supra?

Originally posted by Supra
Well God created us in his image...

yet...

Originally posted by Supra
I am not religious...

...

Originally posted by Supra
I just wanna talk about science which much of it can be explained by God...

...

Originally posted by Supra
So lets not talk about religion.

yet...

Originally posted by Supra
From my beliefs as you know God created the universe in 6 days...

...

Take us home OP:

Originally posted by Supra
Why can't/don't want scientists want to show/prove that a higher power does not exist?

Originally posted by Supra
Look at our brain and optical nerve's

Originally posted by Supra
the unborn that still have not been.

Originally posted by Supra
I don't see why science to some people does not point to God/Yahweh/TOAA/Allah

...

I'm convinced you're playing religious madlibs and posting it here for fun. You have the beginnings of a question, not a thesis, but a coherent question. But lord do you jump around a lot.

Sorry if this is harsh, but if your views aren't consistent, you shouldn't expect forgiving responses.

So if I can take a stab at your central premise here, I might summarize it as: "Does science point to the existence of a God?" Am I in range?

The answer is no. No evidence, no evidence, no evidence. Bible? Baseless ignorance from scientifically illiterate cultures (plural). Your intuitive beliefs or thoughts? Backed by nothing, and no more plausible than the next guy's theory. The universe? Pretty solidly supported by empirical research and plausible explanations for not just life on earth, but existence in the universe as well. So you're looking at God of the Gaps at best, and the subversion of logic and reason at worst.

It's possible vs. plausible. We can't discredit the former on intellectual rigor, but saying your ideas are plausible is laughable.

Your arguments sound half-formed. Your Big Bang stuff? Sounds like a poor man's version of the cosmological argument (which itself is long since debunked). The optic nerve stuff? Sounds like the beginnings of an old creationist trope. But you don't even match the stereotypical arguments in terms of depth, let alone add anything to them.

Now...convince me you're not playing madlibs and we can chat. If not, best of luck with your theory.

Originally posted by Digi
So if I can take a stab at your central premise here, I might summarize it as: "Does science point to the existence of a God?" Am I in range?

The answer is no. No evidence, no evidence, no evidence. Bible? Baseless ignorance from scientifically illiterate cultures (plural). Your intuitive beliefs or thoughts? Backed by nothing, and no more plausible than the next guy's theory. The universe? Pretty solidly supported by empirical research and plausible explanations for not just life on earth, but existence in the universe as well. So you're looking at God of the Gaps at best, and the subversion of logic and reason at worst.

It's possible vs. plausible. We can't discredit the former on intellectual rigor, but saying your ideas are plausible is laughable.

Your arguments sound half-formed. Your Big Bang stuff? Sounds like a poor man's version of the cosmological argument (which itself is long since debunked). The optic nerve stuff? Sounds like the beginnings of an old creationist trope. But you don't even match the stereotypical arguments in terms of depth, let alone add anything to them.

Now...convince me you're not playing madlibs and we can chat. If not, best of luck with your theory.



I am in no way advocating religious fanaticism, but there are many things science doesn't know. The universe is still very much a mystery and the Big Bang is still a theory.

Despite lack of evidence, the possibility of an unknown entity, existing beyond the realm of our knowledge and physics, is plausible to consider.

I believe there is evidence out there, we just haven't uncovered it yet.

Originally posted by Digi
So if I can take a stab at your central premise here, I might summarize it as: "Does science point to the existence of a God?" Am I in range?

The answer is no. No evidence, no evidence, no evidence. Bible? Baseless ignorance from scientifically illiterate cultures (plural). Your intuitive beliefs or thoughts? Backed by nothing, and no more plausible than the next guy's theory. The universe? Pretty solidly supported by empirical research and plausible explanations for not just life on earth, but existence in the universe as well. So you're looking at God of the Gaps at best, and the subversion of logic and reason at worst.

It's possible vs. plausible. We can't discredit the former on intellectual rigor, but saying your ideas are plausible is laughable.

Your arguments sound half-formed. Your Big Bang stuff? Sounds like a poor man's version of the cosmological argument (which itself is long since debunked). The optic nerve stuff? Sounds like the beginnings of an old creationist trope. But you don't even match the stereotypical arguments in terms of depth, let alone add anything to them.

Now...convince me you're not playing madlibs and we can chat. If not, best of luck with your theory.

Since when is it a crime to post thoughts here and them be different then someone else's and talk to others about their beliefs? If its not a crime or a rule violation. I will continue to do so.

Originally posted by Firefly218


I am in no way advocating religious fanaticism, but there are many things science doesn't know. The universe is still very much a mystery and the Big Bang is still a theory.

Despite lack of evidence, the possibility of an unknown entity, existing beyond the realm of our knowledge and physics, is plausible to consider.

I believe there is evidence out there, we just haven't uncovered it yet.

If we cannot convincingly prove we are from the Big Bang from science and science cannot prove God.

Why can't the Big Bang be from God? It is a plausible theory in my opinion.

Originally posted by Supra
It is a plausible theory in my opinion.

A theory without evidence. Once again, its not impossible that you're right.

Originally posted by Supra
Since when is it a crime to post thoughts here and them be different then someone else's and talk to others about their beliefs? If its not a crime or a rule violation. I will continue to do so.

Did I say it was a crime? Address my points if you want to engage me, don't imagine slights that don't exist. I think your ideas lack substance, for reasons stated. I'm happy to be dissuaded, but forced indignation won't do it.

Originally posted by Digi
So if I can take a stab at your central premise here, I might summarize it as: "Does science point to the existence of a God?" Am I in range?

The answer is no. No evidence, no evidence, no evidence.

I disagree. I think science points towards a Supreme Being. I think at every turn, the universe screams a Supreme Being as an architect.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. I think science points towards a Supreme Being. I think at every turn, the universe screams a Supreme Being as an architect.



It also screams unicorns dancing in the spring time. Just look around you for the evidence!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. I think science points towards a Supreme Being. I think at every turn, the universe screams a Supreme Being as an architect.

What you're talking about still isn't evidence. It's a (supposed) implication. Two different things entirely. Because I think at every turn, it screams no grand architect. But if that's my argument, we're both working with the same subjective bias and lack of evidence, so then we go to things like burden of proof, which still leaves the theistic argument out in the cold.

It's ok if you think this. I can't disprove it, per se, and your personal belief structure is more rational than many. Just know where it stands and how it lacks explanatory power.

I also wasn't addressing you in my earlier posts. Supra doesn't have a grasp on the scientific principles he's trying to invoke to prove his God. Or if he does, he's terrible at showing it. So my arguments were catered to his OP. They remain true in any context, imo, but again, you're welcome to present the evidence that would turn a belief in God from possible to plausible in the minds of the skeptical.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. I think science points towards a Supreme Being. I think at every turn, the universe screams a Supreme Being as an architect.



Funny how all comics point to a Supreme Being as well, all the comics have Yahweh and TOAA as well.

Originally posted by Supra
Funny how all comics point to a Supreme Being as well, all the comics have Yahweh and TOAA as well.

Well, that really doesn't say much. Just that the concept of a supreme being is fun to write about. Until someone comes up with the supreme supreme being.

Originally posted by Supra
Funny how all comics point to a Supreme Being as well, all the comics have Yahweh and TOAA as well.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


You have hit the nail squarely on the head.

Originally posted by Digi
What you're talking about still isn't evidence. It's a (supposed) implication. Two different things entirely. Because I think at every turn, it screams no grand architect. But if that's my argument, we're both working with the same subjective bias and lack of evidence, so then we go to things like burden of proof, which still leaves the theistic argument out in the cold.

It's ok if you think this. I can't disprove it, per se, and your personal belief structure is more rational than many. Just know where it stands and how it lacks explanatory power.

I also wasn't addressing you in my earlier posts. Supra doesn't have a grasp on the scientific principles he's trying to invoke to prove his God. Or if he does, he's terrible at showing it. So my arguments were catered to his OP. They remain true in any context, imo, but again, you're welcome to present the evidence that would turn a belief in God from possible to plausible in the minds of the skeptical.

My point on the optic nerves and the brain and how we see things is so complex I don't see nature on its own making that possible

The human brain is so entirely complex I can't give credit to nature for that.

Originally posted by Supra
My point on the optic nerves and the brain and how we see things is so complex I don't see nature on its own making that possible

The human brain is so entirely complex I can't give credit to nature for that.

This would be true if only humans had eyes, but we can look at all the animals with eyes and see have they developed naturally.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This would be true if only humans had eyes, but we can look at all the animals with eyes and see have they developed naturally.

Humans don't have eyes?

Originally posted by Supra
Humans don't have eyes?


If humans were the only animal to have eyes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If humans were the only animal to have eyes.

I mean all of creation that has eyes Sight is a miracle. To be blind, I could not bare it. Jesus went around healing the blind giving back what had been taken away.

How else could sight have been created if not from a being that has sight?

Originally posted by Supra
My point on the optic nerves and the brain and how we see things is so complex I don't see nature on its own making that possible

The human brain is so entirely complex I can't give credit to nature for that.

We have a lot of evidence and differently far developed eyes in nature (some only really seeing light "on and off" and others much further developed than ours) to pretty much know how eyes evolve.


Nwew5gHoh3E

Like this young version of odd, atheist Dawkins shows...

Dude, that guys a kook, cmon now.

I demand to see the missing link in evolution.

Originally posted by Supra
I mean all of creation that has eyes Sight is a miracle. To be blind, I could not bare it. Jesus went around healing the blind giving back what had been taken away.

How else could sight have been created if not from a being that has sight?

Then why does sight, only cover a very small band of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why does sight, only cover a very small band of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Out of 100% of light, we can only see what 10%, and can only use 10% of our brain. That could be why.

Originally posted by Supra
Out of 100% of light, we can only see what 10%, and can only use 10% of our brain. That could be why.

Only using 10% of our brain is a urban legend, and is not true.

It is scientifically impossible for someone to spit into a blind man's eye and cure his blindness.

That is what the Bible proclaims to have happened.

If Jesus was real, he was heavily overrated in the Bible

Originally posted by Supra
and can only use 10% of our brain. That could be why.

Wrong

Originally posted by Firefly218
It is scientifically impossible for someone to spit into a blind man's eye and cure his blindness.

That is what the Bible proclaims to have happened.

If Jesus was real, he was heavily overrated in the Bible

Or things were added to his life long after he was dead.

Originally posted by Supra
Dude, that guys a kook, cmon now.

I demand to see the missing link in evolution.

The missing link argument is flawed. Cause you can always ask for another missing link in between the new discovered one and the one further.

This has a couple of stages of eye development as examples however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#Early_eyes

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Only using 10% of our brain is a urban legend, and is not true.

OK most people, not everyone. But how much light do we see? 10% of the spectrum?

Originally posted by Supra
OK most people, not everyone. But how much light do we see? 10% of the spectrum?

Our eyes can see the visible spectrum - color waves

Our eyes cannot see Gamma waves, Radio waves, Ultraviolet waves or any other type of wave.

Originally posted by Supra
OK most people, not everyone. But how much light do we see? 10% of the spectrum?

I think that's pretty hard to state, because you'd have to define how you count what we can and can't see.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Electromagnetic-Spectrum.svg

Originally posted by Supra
OK most people, not everyone. But how much light do we see? 10% of the spectrum?

Bardock42's link shows you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think that's pretty hard to state, because you'd have to define how you count what we can and can't see.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Electromagnetic-Spectrum.svg

Originally posted by Supra
My point on the optic nerves and the brain and how we see things is so complex I don't see nature on its own making that possible

The human brain is so entirely complex I can't give credit to nature for that.

Like I said, the beginnings of a creationist trope. Educate yourself.

Originally posted by Supra
I demand to see the missing link in evolution.

There are hundreds (or it's a false premise). I'd recommend the works of Donald Prothero, whose work with fossils is unparalleled. Educate yourself.

Originally posted by Supra
Out of 100% of light, we can only see what 10%, and can only use 10% of our brain. That could be why.

This is false, and in this case only requires a Google search...barely any reading at all. Educate yourself.

Originally posted by Supra
Dude, that guys a kook, cmon now.

Ad hominem. Do you have a rebuttal to his points?

Originally posted by Supra
Dude, that guys a kook, cmon now.

I demand to see the missing link in evolution.

There is no missing link.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bardock42's link shows you.



How would you know that? Bardock's link is to a 14 minute YouTube video.

You've claimed you don't watch those.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How would you know that? Bardock's link is to a 14 minute YouTube video.

You've claimed you don't watch those.

No its not

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How would you know that? Bardock's link is to a 14 minute YouTube video.

You've claimed you don't watch those.

I think, and I derive this from the context, that he meant the electromagnetic spectrum that I posted. Which is a picture, not a youtube video.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think, and I derive this from the context, that he meant the electromagnetic spectrum that I posted. Which is a picture, not a youtube video.

mmm



Originally posted by Bardock42
We have a lot of evidence and differently far developed eyes in nature (some only really seeing light "on and off" and others much further developed than ours) to pretty much know how eyes evolve.


Nwew5gHoh3E

Like this young version of odd, atheist Dawkins shows...

I am aware that I also posted a video. But that's not what Shakya was referring to.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think that's pretty hard to state, because you'd have to define how you count what we can and can't see.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Electromagnetic-Spectrum.svg

Originally posted by Supra
Dude, that guys a kook, cmon now.

I demand to see the missing link in evolution.

I demand to see God.

Wait, evidence only works one way?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How would you know that? Bardock's link is to a 14 minute YouTube video.

You've claimed you don't watch those.

Did Shaky shag your wife or something? You seem to have it out for him whenever you see him.

By the way, still awaiting your definition of 'natural principles', that in turn provide us with moral laws and belief systems. Good thing I didn't hold my breath.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I demand to see God.

Wait, evidence only works one way?



Did Shaky shag your wife or something? You seem to have it out for him whenever you see him.

By the way, still awaiting your definition of 'natural principles', that in turn provide us with moral laws and belief systems. Good thing I didn't hold my breath.

He LOVES me. I have told him that i am hetero, but it doesn't matter to him.

Oh the irony...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am aware that I also posted a video. But that's not what Shakya was referring to.

Bardock you have to agree that guy is a complete nut job, I actually learned something from the wiki link, but the video of him is flat out nuts.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Our eyes can see the visible spectrum - color waves

Our eyes cannot see Gamma waves, Radio waves, Ultraviolet waves or any other type of wave.

Well the supernatural is not seen because we cannot see those other forms of light.

Originally posted by Supra
Well the supernatural is not seen because we cannot see those other forms of light.



CAN'T...STOP...LAUGHING

Edit:

Originally posted by Supra
Well the supernatural is not seen because we cannot see those other forms of light.

No, supernatural is not found in radio waves or gamma rays. By definition, the supernatural cannot be found in nature, and electromagnetic radiation is natural.

So.... microwaves operate using supernatural means? Is this the stance we are now taking?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So.... microwaves operate using supernatural means? Is this the stance we are now taking?

That's where the dancing unicorns live.

Sounds legit.

Originally posted by Digi
What you're talking about still isn't evidence. It's a (supposed) implication. Two different things entirely. Because I think at every turn, it screams no grand architect. But if that's my argument, we're both working with the same subjective bias and lack of evidence, so then we go to things like burden of proof, which still leaves the theistic argument out in the cold.

It's ok if you think this. I can't disprove it, per se, and your personal belief structure is more rational than many. Just know where it stands and how it lacks explanatory power.

I also wasn't addressing you in my earlier posts. Supra doesn't have a grasp on the scientific principles he's trying to invoke to prove his God. Or if he does, he's terrible at showing it. So my arguments were catered to his OP. They remain true in any context, imo, but again, you're welcome to present the evidence that would turn a belief in God from possible to plausible in the minds of the skeptical.


I disagree: I think the evidence I see is evidence, not implications, because of the way I am using the word "evidence."

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

You look at the same set of evidence I do and it reaffirms your own idea or proposition as true and valid. For me, it is the opposite.


Edit - I know you were not addressing me. But, your statements are painted broadly enough that I can quote 1 of them and take it for what it is (in context) and not misconstrue your intended interpretation.

Originally posted by Supra
I mean all of creation that has eyes Sight is a miracle. To be blind, I could not bare it. Jesus went around healing the blind giving back what had been taken away.

How else could sight have been created if not from a being that has sight?

Can't you see the flaw here???

So back in "Jesus Times", people were BORN blind, handicapped & mentally retarded...

THEN Jesus comes around & cures them???!!!?

Why were they created/born deformed in the 1st place????

As you earlier stated, we were all created in the image of God.

Your ideals are flawed.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Can't you see the flaw here???

So back in "Jesus Times", people were BORN blind, handicapped & mentally retarded...

THEN Jesus comes around & cures them???!!!?

Why were they created/born deformed in the 1st place????

As you earlier stated, we were all created in the image of God.

Your ideals are flawed.

Sin creates imperfections and causes all flaws. Jesus healed the sick and said go and sin no more whenever he healed people.

Science itself doesn't point towards a God. Rather, its what science doesn't know that points toward a God - for people like Supra.

The universe is mysterious and people tend to fabricate supernatural explanations for its existence.

Originally posted by Supra
Sin creates imperfections and causes all flaws. Jesus healed the sick and said go and sin no more whenever he healed people.

Why did god create sin?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why did god create sin?

And why are innocent helpless babies recipients of the punishment of sin?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why did god create sin?

So we were not slaves and we had a free will to choose; perfection or non perfection.

"I GIVE YOU FREE WILL"

"ETERNAL PUNISHMENT BTW IF YOU CHOOSE WRONG".

#trollgod

Originally posted by Supra
So we were not slaves and we had a free will to choose; perfection or non perfection.

So, do you believe that god can create evil?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And why are innocent helpless babies recipients of the punishment of sin?

I haven't a clue.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, do you believe that god can create evil?

I do not know the answer to that.

Originally posted by Supra
Sin creates imperfections and causes all flaws. Jesus healed the sick and said go and sin no more whenever he healed people.

So people are born WITH SIN & IN THE IMAGE OF GOD AS WELL?

So Jesus died for our sins that God implanted upon birth????

Originally posted by Supra
I do not know the answer to that.

Well, you just told me that god made sin to give us a choice. So that would mean that god made sin, and sin is evil. God made evil is what I am hearing from you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, you just told me that god made sin to give us a choice. So that would mean that god made sin, and sin is evil. God made evil is what I am hearing from you.

God created everything. But evil. He made free will so we could sink ourselves and then he could punish us.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, you just told me that god made sin to give us a choice. So that would mean that god made sin, and sin is evil. God made evil is what I am hearing from you.


And I thought we were innocent until proven guilty?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, you just told me that god made sin to give us a choice. So that would mean that god made sin, and sin is evil. God made evil is what I am hearing from you.

Dude, I don't have all the answers..Lucifer and Satan rebelled against God and he threw them out for it.

They came and tempted man based off what I know, man fell to temptation

I know that God cannot be associated with sin directly because that is why he sent his son, to take on the worlds sin and redeem us.

Faith is a gift, some have it, some don't.

Somethings are beyond even the most devout believers.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
"I GIVE YOU FREE WILL"

"ETERNAL PUNISHMENT BTW IF YOU CHOOSE WRONG".

#trollgod

This is why I think the Mormons got it right:


"We want to leave Your presence for a while because we have progressed as far as we can and need to grow on our own. Your presence prevents us from choosing right on our own so our progression as thinking entities has stopped."

"Okay. I'll create a universe (multiverse) and give you agency. You'll be tempted and some won't want to be in my plane after existing in this creation for a while. Still sound good?"

*A third of everyone disagrees and rebel because they don't want to remain with God but they don't want agency*

"Okay, the rest of us, let us go!"




So, really, every single person born on earth is either a masochist or a philosopher, according to Mormonism.

I don't believe in any religion and I don't go to any church.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
And I thought we were innocent until proven guilty?

That is what Christianity believes. They say that Adam made the first sin, but Adam and Eve is just a story. That means there is no original sin. So, how do we account for what we see in the world?

The Ten Worlds of Buddhism is a better philosophy.

Originally posted by Supra
Somethings are beyond even the most devout believers.


I agree with this.


Some things will never make sense to me. Like, ever.


For instance, reincarnation HAS to be real, right? Surely a person isn't dammed fer eternity because they were born into the wrong family, with the wrong genetics, at the wrong location?

Better to believe in yet another supernatural event than reconcile the potential failings of the existing one?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree with this.


Some things will never make sense to me. Like, ever.


For instance, reincarnation HAS to be real, right? Surely a person isn't dammed fer eternity because they were born into the wrong family, with the wrong genetics, at the wrong location?

Where does the belief of re incarnation come from?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
...When I hear hoofbeats, I think horses, not unicorns.

I remember the first time I read about quantum entanglement. It might of as well been unicorn hoof.

Originally posted by Supra
Do you believe in re incarnation?

Yes, in a way. I think there is some truth to reincarnation, but it is too egocentric for me. I believe in simultaneous incarnation.

There's some high-level science stuff that might as well be magic to me. I don't have the foundation to understand it, but I don't dismiss it out of hand. Hell, even Pi doesn't quite make sense to me.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I think when you start using supernatural explanations to cover the unexplainable, you run the risk of forgetting that just about anything can be your answer. So if not knowing about Christ and thusly being condemned to hell for unwitting ignorance is a bad thing, reincarnation MUST make this better. Or you know, if Big Bang just doesn't make sense, GOD/ALIENS/GODALIENS did it.

Etc.

When I hear hoofbeats, I think horses, not unicorns.

For the record, my question was satire. Mormons don't believe in that (being dammed for not knowing). Any Christian that has a halfway decent understanding of the canon New Testament shouldn't believe that, either.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, in a way. I think there is some truth to reincarnation, but it is too egocentric for me. I believe in simultaneous incarnation.

To believe in re incarnation then you must believe in the super natural or the un explained. Because to a normal person that sounds pretty far out as believing in a Supreme Being right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
For the record, my question was satire. Mormons don't believe in that (being dammed for not knowing). Any Christian that has a halfway decent understanding of the canon New Testament shouldn't believe that, either.

99% of Christians go to church, pay their tithe because someone tells them too taking a bible verse out of context, gets in the car and forgets the whole message he just paid to here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
For the record, my question was satire. Mormons don't believe in that (being dammed for not knowing). Any Christian that has a halfway decent understanding of the canon New Testament shouldn't believe that, either.

You'd be surprised.

Originally posted by Supra
99% of Christians go to church, pay their tithe because someone tells them too taking a bible verse out of context, gets in the car and forgets the whole message he just paid to here.

SOME HIGH STATS THERE BRO.

Originally posted by Supra
To believe in re incarnation then you must believe in the super natural or the un explained. Because to a normal person that sounds pretty far out as believing in a Supreme Being right?

It is a belief. It is a way to think. I never claimed it to be fact. It is not supernatural. It is real in the same way an idea is real.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is a belief. It is a way to think. I never claimed it to be fact. It is not supernatural. It is real in the same way an idea is real.

Ok but to be re incarnated means you have a spirit which cannot be destroyed by death correct?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
SOME HIGH STATS THERE BRO.

But he's probably right +- 0.01%


Edit - and p = .01

Originally posted by dadudemon
But he's probably right +- 0.01%


Edit - and p = .01

Sadly this is the case with organized religion. If it was not, I would prolly be a conformist, however since it is not, I choose to trust in God over men.

Originally posted by Supra
Ok but to be re incarnated means you have a spirit which cannot be destroyed by death correct?

There is no spirit or soul, and they are not needed. I never experience being dead. All I experience is this life. All of the other lives that we might call past lives are being lived in their own time. These lives are not my lives, but instead I am just one of many. I am the flower on the tree. When it is my time to go, the tree will live on. Each past or future life is like a flower on a tree. They come and they go, but the tree remains.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no spirit or soul, and they are not needed. I never experience being dead. All I experience is this life. All of the other lives that we might call past lives are being lived in their own time. These lives are not my lives, but instead I am just one of many. I am the flower on the tree. When it is my time to go, the tree will live on. Each past or future life is like a flower on a tree. They come and they go, but the tree remains.

How very deep. Except trees don't generally have flowers gunsmilie

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no spirit or soul, and they are not needed. I never experience being dead. All I experience is this life. All of the other lives that we might call past lives are being lived in their own time. These lives are not my lives, but instead I am just one of many. I am the flower on the tree. When it is my time to go, the tree will live on. Each past or future life is like a flower on a tree. They come and they go, but the tree remains.

How can your conscious be transfered and you live another life without a soul or sprit?

Originally posted by Supra
How can your conscious be transfered and you live another life without a soul or sprit?

There is no transfer, and they are not my lives. I am connecter to other lives over time. My Entity (this connection) experiences all of its lives (including mine) all at once.

Originally posted by Firefly218
How very deep. Except trees don't generally have flowers gunsmilie

Don't get distracted by the metaphor. Trees would have their own Entities.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no transfer, and they are not my lives. I am connecter to other lives over time. My Entity (this connection) experiences all of its lives (including mine) all at once.

Can I ask why you would rather live a short life then live a forever one?

What is their is a transfer?

Originally posted by Supra
Can I ask why you would rather live a short life then live a forever one?

I would rather live the life I have.

Originally posted by Supra
What is their is a transfer?

Please rephrase this question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would rather live the life I have.



Please rephrase this question.

What if consensus does transfer after death. What if everything you lived for you take with you on to the next life, your experiences, your relationships, your knowledge of the past and your character goes to the next life to build a better one then before based on your past life.

Like a learning curve.

Originally posted by Supra
What if consensus does transfer after death.

I don't know. Where do instincts come from?

In the way that I believe, transfer is not needed. I am part of my Entity, and my Entity is all of the lives that we could call past and future lives.

If you are in the water, you don't have to go far to get wet.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But he's probably right +- 0.01%


Edit - and p = .01

Eh, maybe if you're talking "ONCE" or "AT XMAS", but certainly not on a regular basis.

Originally posted by Supra
What if consensus does transfer after death. What if everything you lived for you take with you on to the next life, your experiences, your relationships, your knowledge of the past and your character goes to the next life to build a better one then before based on your past life.

Like a learning curve.

Sorry, I missed the second half.

Everything that I am now, or have been, or will be is stored in my Entity. In this way my Entity will grow.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know. Where do instincts come from?

If you are in the water, you don't have to go far to get wet.

Well if instincts come from re incarnation then a conseous transfer has to take place right, or is that evolution.

I believe in both God and evolution on smaller scale then a hard core evolutionist.

As for the water part I don't get the reference.

Originally posted by Supra
Well if instincts come from re incarnation then a conseous transfer has to take place right, or is that evolution.

I believe in both God and evolution on smaller scale then a hard core evolutionist.

As for the water part I don't get the reference.

Imagine you are like a bucket of water, and you need to transfer this water from one bucket (you) to another one (your next life). Well, what I am telling you is that you are in the ocean. Step out of the box.

OK I get it

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Eh, maybe if you're talking "ONCE" or "AT XMAS", but certainly not on a regular basis.

He was referring to the regs, man. Not the average Catholic. The regs!

Originally posted by dadudemon
He was referring to the regs, man. Not the average Catholic. The regs!

Internet warriors have trouble man, they never went to real war so they have to fight with words on the internet. And when they have been ignored the capitalize everything as shown from you quoting the child.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He was referring to the regs, man. Not the average Catholic. The regs!

Still, 99% of people can't agree that the sky is blue. The jarringly high statistic begs the burden of proof.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree: I think the evidence I see is evidence, not implications, because of the way I am using the word "evidence."

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

You look at the same set of evidence I do and it reaffirms your own idea or proposition as true and valid. For me, it is the opposite.

But I'm not the one making the proposition. A lack of belief is a default position, not a claim. So...What evidence exists that points to the existence of God?

Originally posted by Digi
But I'm not the one making the proposition. A lack of belief is a default position, not a claim. So...What evidence exists that points to the existence of God?

God hides in between the planck length.

Originally posted by Digi
A lack of belief is a default position, not a claim.

This is not true. This is a philosophical tenet introduced by modern atheists specifically to argue about religion. The default position would be a lack of knowledge, indifference, ignorance, etc.

Originally posted by Digi
So...What evidence exists that points to the existence of God?


Literally everything.

Have you met my friend?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is not true. This is a philosophical tenet introduced by modern atheists specifically to argue about religion. The default position would be a lack of knowledge, indifference, ignorance, etc.

Literally everything.

Have you met my friend?

I disagree. Think of default as what you're born as. You're born lacking belief in pretty much anything...that's a "default" state by any definition of the word. You might be able to call it ignorance, but it's a semantic difference only. The belief state is the same. Do you have a belief about the gnome living under my fingernail? No, of course not. You've never thought about it until now. Lack of a belief. Default state.

And even if it isn't a default state (it is), it doesn't change burden of proof.

"Literally everything" isn't something I can work with. Nor is it a rational argument. It's an appeal to emotion and/or ignorance. i.e. "Look around you! How could God NOT exist?" Do we really need to get into how the universe can plausibly exist via causal, non-divine mechanisms? You're a smart guy; you know the arguments.

So. Back to square one. You're still the claimant, so the burden rests with you. Otherwise you're saying your belief is evidence, which is what "literally everything" sounds like to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...Literally everything. ...

That is a problem. Everything leads to every possible conclusion.

You say it points to God, and I could say it points to unicorns dancing in the spring time. Both cannot be proved. You believe or you don't.

BTW unicorns dancing in the spring time is just one possibility for illustration purposes only. I really don't believe in unicorns dancing in the spring time.

Originally posted by Digi
I disagree. Think of default as what you're born as. You're born lacking belief in pretty much anything...that's a "default" state by any definition of the word. You might be able to call it ignorance, but it's a semantic difference only.

It sounds like you agree, 100%, actually.

But I would note that it is definitely not a semantic difference; that is one of the best and often used examples of "ignorance": newborns.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is a problem. Everything leads to every possible conclusion.

You say it points to God, and I could say it points to unicorns dancing in the spring time. Both cannot be proved. You believe or you don't.

BTW unicorns dancing in the spring time is just one possibility for illustration purposes only. I really don't believe in unicorns dancing in the spring time.

I believe in those unicorns, man.

And they are pissing all over the butterflies in the spring time. And their shit is actually brownies. Magic brownies laced with assid (because it's pooooop, get it? GET IT?)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe in those unicorns, man.

And they are pissing all over the butterflies in the spring time. And their shit is actually brownies. Magic brownies laced with assid (because it's pooooop, get it? GET IT?)

I got it! And so did you. The idea that we have to prove everything we believe is silly. However, going around and declaring things that are meant to be based on faith as fact is equally silly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It sounds like you agree, 100%, actually.

But I would note that it is definitely not a semantic difference; that is one of the best and often used examples of "ignorance": newborns.

Like I said, the belief state is the same. But if you're done with your pyrrhic victory here:


Originally posted by Digi
Back to square one. You're still the claimant, so the burden rests with you. Evidence?

Originally posted by Digi
But if you're done with your pyrrhic victory here:

Since you've stated my exact position as your own, there was no need for me to continue the discussion; there is no victory and there is no concession: we agree.



And I answered the question you quoted, already:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Literally everything.

I don't understand this sophistry angle about dodging the burden of proof. Please explain.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...And I answered the question you quoted, already:

Do you really think everything is a good answer? Saying everything point to God is not falsifiable. You have now left the world of science and have entered the world of belief. You are free to believe what you want, but you just can't say that anyone else is wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you really think everything is a good answer? Saying everything point to God is not falsifiable. You have now left the world of science and have entered the world of belief. You are free to believe what you want, but you just can't say that anyone else is wrong.

Good point. You can't test or falsify this claim.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Literally everything.


Hmm...it's not convincing me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Literally everything. This is actually a more succinct version of what JIA would say whenever we challenged the existence of God. We'd ask for proof of Him, he would point to the Bible as proof. We'd ask how the Bible proves God, he'd say because it's God's word. We'd ask how he knew it was God's word, he'd say because it's in the Bible. a=a because a=a. He exists because existence exists, therefore He exists.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
This is actually a more succinct version of what JIA would say whenever we challenged the existence of God. We'd ask for proof of Him, he would point to the Bible as proof. We'd ask how the Bible proves God, he'd say because it's God's word. We'd ask how he knew it was God's word, he'd say because it's in the Bible. a=a because a=a. He exists because existence exists, therefore He exists.

Circular logic at work. However, it is not JIA's fault, he learned this for other people, who learned it from others. This is ultimately a way to control people. In other words, they live in a cage with no lock on the door, and they are told that if they leave the cage, they will go to hell for eternity. They then are fed more information using circular logic, and even told that logic itself if evil.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm...it's not convincing me.

Nor is any of the "evidence" that should convince me a Creator does not exist.

It would appear we are at an impasse.


Edit - My favorite is when the atheists say, "Derp, testable qualities, derp, proof that version of God doesn't exist." As thought that was an original though that had not long since been addressed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nor is any of the "evidence" that should convince me a Creator does not exist.

It would appear we are at an impasse.


Edit - My favorite is when the atheists say, "Derp, testable qualities, derp, proof that version of God doesn't exist." As thought that was an original though that had not long since been addressed.

You can't prove a negative, and you can't use that fact as evidence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can't prove a negative, and you can't use that fact as evidence.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/9199/handwmotiv.jpg

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nor is any of the "evidence" that should convince me a Creator does not exist.

It would appear we are at an impasse.


Edit - My favorite is when the atheists say, "Derp, testable qualities, derp, proof that version of God doesn't exist." As thought that was an original though that had not long since been addressed.

Hm. I think when I invoke such arguments, it's to establish what we can test, prove, or know, before moving on to other matters. I doubt many are saying it as though they're the first to arrive at it. But if something remains a strong rebuttal to arguments, it bears repeating. As it is, your words don't exactly debunk the use of falsifiability and the proven falsehood of many earthly gods. They don't even question them...you just poke fun at them in a mocking tone. This is not sufficient rebuttal to arguments that undermine your views. If you think your beliefs don't need to be falsifiable, we're indeed at an impasse. But you're retreating to blind faith. The position is unassailable, but you also have no explanatory power nor ability to claim that anyone else is wrong.

You can't prove a negative though, as Shakya said, while we're using philosophical cliches. Your first sentence in this post is asking for a logical impossibility.

Because that's the point. It's oxymoronic to ask for "evidence that God doesn't exist." It tautologically can't exist. The lack of evidence - any at all - means that our default position should be lack of belief, or non-belief if you like.

I'm sorry to be a broken record, but I need to ask for some evidence of your claim. Because as long as we're stooping to near-insults of the others' worldview, the only "derp" I see here is your response to the challenge to produce evidence. "Derp everything lol!" I find it hard to believe you truly find that sufficient logical backing, or that we should simply understand and accept your justification for belief when you don't elaborate on a comically vague premise.

Originally posted by Digi
Hm. I think when I invoke such arguments, it's to establish what we can test, prove, or know, before moving on to other matters. I doubt many are saying it as though they're the first to arrive at it. But if something remains a strong rebuttal to arguments, it bears repeating. As it is, your words don't exactly debunk the use of falsifiability and the proven falsehood of many earthly gods. They don't even question them...you just poke fun at them in a mocking tone. This is not sufficient rebuttal to arguments that undermine your views. If you think your beliefs don't need to be falsifiable, you're retreating to blind faith. The position is unassailable, but you also have no explanatory power nor ability to claim that anyone else is wrong.

You can't prove a negative though, as Shakya said, while we're using philosophical cliches. Your first sentence in this post is asking for a logical impossibility.

Because that's the point. It's oxymoronic to ask for "evidence that God doesn't exist." It tautologically can't exist. The lack of evidence - any at all - means that our default position should be lack of belief, or non-belief if you like.

I'm sorry to be a broken record, but I need to ask for some evidence of your claim. Because as long as we're stooping to near-insults of the others' worldview, the only "derp" I see here is your response to the challenge to produce evidence. "Derp everything lol!" I find it hard to believe you truly find that sufficient logical backing, or that we should simply understand and accept your justification for belief when you don't elaborate on a comically vague premise.

See, this is why it gets muddy. You want an argument but none exists.

Look: "The universe will produce life if there is a God: check. Damn, god is real. That was a testable theory for my postulated God."


And so forth.


Remember when King Kandy left the forums? It was because he was stuck in an infinite argument loop with me because he was/is a staunch "fallibility" person.

The problem with getting antsy or pedantic with philosophy as the same arguments or the same forms of arguments can be used against you turning your position on its head.

"You can't know that because it is not testable."

"Yes it is."

"Prove it."

*Proves it*

"That doesn't count as evidence."

"Why not? It is the same thing you use for x."

"It doesn't fit my definition which I just created specifically to exclude your evidence."

"My dad can beat up your dad."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can't prove a negative, and you can't use that fact as evidence.


That's an old and outdated argument. The "can't prove a negative" is not universal truth.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...That's an old and outdated argument. The "can't prove a negative" is not universal truth.

That is an extraordinary claim, and it requires an extraordinary proof. Please provide that extraordinary proof for me.

There's a circular nature to a lot of this, true. Repeated use of something doesn't mak it wrong, though. A couple times (and one more time that I point out below) you seem to dismiss something simply because it's a common argument. But you don't meet it intellectually to actually rebut it.

So I'm sorry if you're frustrated...I'm not sure why else you'd bring up Kandy. But there's not much else I can say.

Originally posted by dadudemon
See, this is why it gets muddy. You want an argument but none exists.

Look: "The universe will produce life if there is a God: check. Damn, god is real. That was a testable theory for my postulated God."

"The universe will produce life if there is a God" isn't the only option though. Even if it meets the "testable" requirement (dubious), part of coming to a conclusion is accounting for other possible explanations, which this does not. Your statement supposes that it is the only possible explanation.

Socratically: How does this prove other theories for life aren't true? How do you know the universe will produce life if there is a God? Why is this the only valid explanation for life, especially when we know so much about how the universe came to be via causal mechanisms?

In summary: this is faith masquerading as logic. Or at the very least, a flawed hypothesis that doesn't take into account all possible explanations, discarding them in favor of the most desired.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's an old and outdated argument. The "can't prove a negative" is not universal truth.

Maybe not in every instance. But in this case, yes, it holds true. We can't prove that God doesn't exist. You're asking for an impossibility, (and thus making your belief unassailable regardless of the utter lack of evidence). So...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm...it's not convincing me.

Phew. I thought I was the only one that wasn't being convinced.

Originally posted by Digi
Maybe not in every instance. But in this case, yes, it holds true. We can't prove that God doesn't exist. You're asking for an impossibility, (and thus making your belief unassailable regardless of the utter lack of evidence). So... There are a lot of people who don't seem to be bothered or put off by their position's unfalsifiability. For some, it seems to make that position more tenable.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
There are a lot of people who don't seem to be bothered or put off by their position's unfalsifiability. For some, it seems to make that position more tenable.

For faith-based beliefs, not evidence-based ones, yes, I can see how this might actually be considered a good thing.

Originally posted by Digi
There's a circular nature to a lot of this, true. Repeated use of something doesn't mak it wrong, though. A couple times (and one more time that I point out below) you seem to dismiss something simply because it's a common argument. But you don't meet it intellectually to actually rebut it.

So I'm sorry if you're frustrated...I'm not sure why else you'd bring up Kandy. But there's not much else I can say.



"The universe will produce life if there is a God" isn't the only option though. Even if it meets the "testable" requirement (dubious), part of coming to a conclusion is accounting for other possible explanations, which this does not. Your statement supposes that it is the only possible explanation.

Socratically: How does this prove other theories for life aren't true? How do you know the universe will produce life if there is a God? Why is this the only valid explanation for life, especially when we know so much about how the universe came to be via causal mechanisms?

In summary: this is faith masquerading as logic. Or at the very least, a flawed hypothesis that doesn't take into account all possible explanations, discarding them in favor of the most desired.



Maybe not in every instance. But in this case, yes, it holds true. We can't prove that God doesn't exist. You're asking for an impossibility, (and thus making your belief unassailable regardless of the utter lack of evidence). So...

You choose an arbitrary argument and I choose another. We find evidence that's supports each of our positions which are both arbitrary.


No matter what I say, you'll move the goal posts. God exists. God created the universe. God created the laws of physics which created the universe. God created the system that governs the multiverse.


See, goal post pushing.

Originally posted by Digi
For faith-based beliefs, not evidence-based ones, yes, I can see how this might actually be considered a good thing.


My beliefs are evidence-based with pretty much no faith.

Your beliefs are almost entirely faith based.


It is in the way I choose to define things that I can claim that.

Originally posted by Digi
You're asking for an impossibility, (and thus making your belief unassailable regardless of the utter lack of evidence). So...

This is not true: you definitely can prove God doesn't exist.

This is part of why the ol' "can't prove a negative" is such amateurish argumentation style.

Pick a god and genuinely disprove that god does not exist. You can do it with many of them.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is an extraordinary claim, and it requires an extraordinary proof. Please provide that extraordinary proof for me.


I don't consider it an extraordinary claim, in the slightest.

I find the claim that God does not exist to be the extraordinary claim.