Does God Exist? (1 Viewer)

[Jiga]

God doesnt exist, the universe and everything wasnt created by him. Is scientific evidence lying or something!? God and heaven etc was created by humans to deal with death, when the fact of the matter is we are like every other animal (which we came from) on earth, we come from the earth, and we eventually go back to it. Heaven and hell is for those (alot of people) who have trouble dealing with loss, and it also was an attempt to get people to act in a civivlised manner or you would 'go to hell'. As is the purpose of the ten commandments also - primitive law, dont kill etc.

 

[GirlGoneMad]

God Exisists.

Are there sound reasons for believing in God?
New Scientist magazine said: "The lay view persists-of scientists having 'disproved' religion. It is a view that commonly expects scientists to be nonbelievers; that Darwin put the last nails in God's coffin; and that a succession of scientific and technological innovations since have ruled out the possibility of any resurrection. It is a view that is wildly wrong."-May 26, 1977, p. 478.

A member of the French Academy of Sciences stated: "Natural order was not invented by the human mind or set up by certain perceptive powers. . . . The existence of order presupposes the existence of organizing intelligence. Such intelligence can be none other than God's."-Dieu existe? Oui (Paris, 1979), Christian Chabanis, quoting Pierre-Paul Grassé, p. 94.

Scientists have identified over 100 chemical elements. Their atomic structure displays an intricate mathematical interrelationship of the elements. The periodic table points to obvious design. Such amazing design could not possibly be accidental, a product of chance.

Illustration: When we see a camera, a radio, or a computer, we readily acknowledge that it must have been produced by an intelligent designer. Would it be reasonable, then, to say that far more complex things-the eye, the ear, and the human brain-did not originate with an intelligent Designer?

Does the existence of wickedness and of suffering prove that there is no God?

Consider examples: Does the fact that knives have been used to murder prove that no one designed them? Is the use of jet aircraft to drop bombs in time of war evidence that they had no designer? Or is it rather the use to which these are being put that is causing grief to mankind?

Is it not true that much disease is a result of man's own poor living habits and his spoiling of the environment for himself and others? Are not the wars fought by humans a major cause of human suffering? Is it not also true that, while millions suffer from lack of food, there is more than enough in other lands, so that one of the underlying problems is human greed? All these things give evidence, not that there is no God, but that humans are sadly misusing their God-given abilities and the earth itself.

Did God have a beginning?

Ps. 90:2: "Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God."

Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it. (2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God.

Other examples: (1) Astronomers tell us that the heat of the sun at its core is 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit (15,000,000° C.). Do we reject that idea because we cannot fully comprehend such intense heat? (2) They tell us that the size of our Milky Way is so great that a beam of light traveling at over 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/sec) would require 100,000 years to cross it. Do our minds really comprehend such a distance? Yet we accept it because scientific evidence supports it.

Which is more reasonable-that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction? Some persons adopt the latter viewpoint because to believe otherwise would mean that they would have to acknowledge the existence of a Creator whose qualities they cannot fully comprehend. But it is well known that scientists do not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and that determine how these cells will grow. Nor do they fully understand the functioning of the human brain. Yet, who would deny that these exist? Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?

In this modern, scientific world, is it reasonable to believe in creation?

"The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody." -Quoted from Wernher von Braun, who had much to do with sending American astronauts to the moon.

Physical universe: If you found a precision timepiece, would you conclude that it was formed by a chance blowing together of some dust particles? Obviously, someone with intelligence made it. There is an even more magnificent "clock." The planets in our solar system, also the stars in the entire universe, move at a rate that is more precise than most clocks designed and manufactured by man. The galaxy in which our solar system is located includes over 100 billion stars, and astronomers estimate that there are 100 billion of such galaxies in the universe. If a clock is evidence of intelligent design, how much more so is the far more vast and complicated universe!

Planet Earth: When crossing a barren desert, if you came to a beautiful house, well equipped in every way and stocked with food, would you believe that it got there by some chance explosion? No; you would realize that someone with considerable wisdom built it. Well, scientists have not yet found life on any of the planets of our solar system except the earth; available evidence indicates that the others are barren. This planet is, as the book The Earth says, "the wonder of the universe, a unique sphere." (New York, 1963, Arthur Beiser, p. 10) It is at just the right distance from the sun for human life, and it moves at just the right speed to be held in orbit. The atmosphere, of a kind found only around the earth, is made up of just the right proportion of gases to sustain life. Marvelously, light from the sun, carbon dioxide from the air, and water and minerals from fertile soil combine to produce food for earth's inhabitants. Did it all come about as a result of some uncontrolled explosion in space? Science News admits: "It seems as if such particular and precise conditions could hardly have arisen at random." (August 24 and 31, 1974, p. 124) The Bible's conclusion is reasonable when it states: "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God."-Heb. 3:4.

Human brain: Modern computers are a product of intensive research and careful engineering. They did not "just happen." What about the human brain? Unlike the brain of any animal, the brain of a human infant triples in size during its first year. How it functions is still largely a mystery to scientists. In humans, there is the built-in capacity to learn complex languages, to appreciate beauty, to compose music, to contemplate the origin and meaning of life. Said brain surgeon Robert White: "I am left with no choice but to acknowledge the existence of a Superior Intellect, responsible for the design and development of the incredible brain-mind relationship-something far beyond man's capacity to understand."

Living cell: A single living cell is sometimes referred to as being a "simple" form of life. But a one-celled animal can catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, build a house for itself and engage in sexual activity. Each cell of the human body has been likened to a walled city, with a central government to maintain order, a power plant to generate energy, factories to produce proteins, a complex transportation system, and guards to regulate what is permitted to enter. And a single human body is made up of as many as 100 trillion cells.

Did God create all the millions of varieties of organisms that exist on earth today?
Genesis chapter 1 says simply that God created each "according to its kind." (Gen. 1:12, 21, 24, 25) In preparation for the global Flood in Noah's day, God directed that representative members of each "kind" of land animal and flying creature be taken into the ark. (Gen. 7:2, 3, 14) Each "kind" has the genetic potential for great variety. Thus there are reportedly more than 400 different breeds of dogs and upwards of 250 breeds and types of horses. All interfertile varieties of any animal are just one Genesis "kind." Similarly, all varieties of humans-Oriental, African, Caucasian, those as tall as the seven-foot Dinka in the Sudan and as short as the four-foot-four-inch Pygmies-stem from the one original pair, Adam and Eve

 

[katie_tully]

*cries at the continuation*

 

[somechick]

God doesnt exist, the universe and everything wasnt created by him. Is scientific evidence lying or something!? God and heaven etc was created by humans to deal with death, when the fact of the matter is we are like every other animal (which we came from) on earth, we come from the earth, and we eventually go back to it. Heaven and hell is for those (alot of people) who have trouble dealing with loss, and it also was an attempt to get people to act in a civivlised manner or you would 'go to hell'. As is the purpose of the ten commandments also - primitive law, dont kill etc.

But you're assuming that we are like the animals and plants we live with on earth. We're not. Can you possibly accept that one day you, whatever your real name is, will die just like a plant in your garden and thats it? All the things you've felt in your lifetime mean nothing? Your family means nothing? All the people who boast about doing philosophy courses, your time wasted on thinking means nothing? Your time spent right now, right here on your computer has no purpose except for......well.....nothing?

Moonlight, Keirkegaard, and Noel Gallagher, if you people (i dont know your sex to call you guys/girls, so dont take "people" offensive) can offer another meaning/purpose etc please go ahead, since according to your philosophy, there is nothing, no god, and since there is nothing well, we are the supreme are we not?

There is a verse (or surah) made in the Quran which says to try producing one statement (or a verse) like those in the Quran to rival it. Try it. You wont be able to.
Try it. After all, for those of you who are doing philosophy, you're better than the rest of us, right?

 

[somechick]

Fuck, if you believe in Santa, then no wonder you believe in God.

Ah,
but santa did exist.
He was made into a fictional character for culture's sake and the creation of tradition through time. Wasn't he some saint? St. Nicholas?

Gotcha!

And I'm not even Christian. And I bet you still accepted your christmas gifts? Well, just to be fair i think you should give it back, because christmas is based on the existence of God is it not? And you don't believe in God. lol (Im just, in mimic of your posts, having a joke, lol)

 

[somechick]

P.S. Nice post. They'll learn that in Philosophy 101 (let's hope that they take Phil101). Are you a philosophy major, or have you just picked up some electives?

Okay, we'll all take philosophy classes.
YOU have to read the Quran.
If you are serious about your beliefs in your posts.
That way YOU won't remain ignorant, NOR will we.

 

[Jiga]

"Girlgonemad", thats all nice, but the fact is there is no god. It doesnt really matter for example what Wernher von Braun says.

But you're assuming that we are like the animals and plants we live with on earth. We're not. Can you possibly accept that one day you, whatever your real name is, will die just like a plant in your garden and thats it? All the things you've felt in your lifetime mean nothing? Your family means nothing? All the people who boast about doing philosophy courses, your time wasted on thinking means nothing? Your time spent right now, right here on your computer has no purpose except for......well.....nothing?

Moonlight, Keirkegaard, and Noel Gallagher, if you people (i dont know your sex to call you guys/girls, so dont take "people" offensive) can offer another meaning/purpose etc please go ahead, since according to your philosophy, there is nothing, no god, and since there is nothing well, we are the supreme are we not?

There is a verse (or surah) made in the Quran which says to try producing one statement (or a verse) like those in the Quran to rival it. Try it. You wont be able to.
Try it. After all, for those of you who are doing philosophy, you're better than the rest of us, right?

Im not assuming we are like animals, we are. Alot of people struggle to come to grips with this, everyone thinks that we are a superior being. That FACT is we evolved from apes. There wasnt an Adam and Eve. Not that it matters, science tells us incest creats mutant children, well Adam and Eves children had to have conducted this deed in order to expand - unfortunately when these "stories"a bout creation were created hundreds of years ago they didnt know this fact, Im sure if they did we would hear that the world started with more people or something

I can accept that one day I will die, and that after this occurence it will be the end. However, what you say about all things meaning nothing is not true, whilst you live they mean alot, once you die, why does it matter what they mean, the lights are out and nobody is home! The entire concept of why religion was created is shown in your very statement - people struggle to live if they dont think there is any meaning or direction to their lives. People boast about alot of things, so those who are into astrologoy etc and all that crap about the stars, they are also right?

The time I spend on this earth, has the purpose that it does for every other living organism. To survive, and to reproduce so that the human race continues. Intertwined into this is our life. For example, surviving these days means getting a job etc.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Are you a philosophy major, or have you just picked up some electives?

Yes I am a philosophy major

I did the introductory core subjects (Society, Reason & Knowledge and Reality, Ethics & Beauty) at USyd, then senior subjects UNSW. My focus has mainly been on ethics the past year, having studied first Theories in Moral Philosophy, then looking at real world issues in Ethical Issues. 2005 will be my final year for the Arts portion of my degree and I've chosen:

- Contemporary Metaphysics
- Biopolitics and Biotechnology
- Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

quite a mix

MoonlightSonata, let's say we give this one a miss. It's not worth the trouble.

Yes... it's like beating my head on a brick wall. I will just ignore extremely silly posts from now on. But let's deal with this:


GirlGoneMad

Are there sound reasons for believing in God?
Scientists have identified over 100 chemical elements. Their atomic structure displays an intricate mathematical interrelationship of the elements. The periodic table points to obvious design. Such amazing design could not possibly be accidental, a product of chance.

Illustration: When we see a camera, a radio, or a computer, we readily acknowledge that it must have been produced by an intelligent designer. Would it be reasonable, then, to say that far more complex things-the eye, the ear, and the human brain-did not originate with an intelligent Designer?

I love this site: talkorigins.org. It provides fast, effective relief for poorly constructed arguments:

"1. This is a quintessential argument from incredulity. Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design, or anything else.

2. Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity.

3. In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very different from what we see in life.

4. Complexity arises from natural causes, for example in weather patterns and cave formations."

Does the existence of wickedness and of suffering prove that there is no God? Consider examples: Does the fact that knives have been used to murder prove that no one designed them? Is the use of jet aircraft to drop bombs in time of war evidence that they had no designer? Or is it rather the use to which these are being put that is causing grief to mankind?

The point, as I understand it, was that God could easily prevent any evil from occuring, yet he/she/it does not. Indeed if we are capable of evil, then we are not a perfect design. In other words, our flaws are the product of the designer, directly or indirectly.

Is it not true that much disease is a result of man's own poor living habits and his spoiling of the environment for himself and others? Are not the wars fought by humans a major cause of human suffering?

Firstly, with improvements in technology and science, we are inhibiting the spread of disease. Secondly, and this is more of an entertaining point, but how many wars have been fought over religion?

Is it not also true that, while millions suffer from lack of food, there is more than enough in other lands, so that one of the underlying problems is human greed? All these things give evidence, not that there is no God, but that humans are sadly misusing their God-given abilities and the earth itself.

Yet God forsaw this right? But he/she/it made these creations which he/she/it KNEW would defile the place anyway?

Did God have a beginning?
Ps. 90:2: "Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God."

Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it. (2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God.

No the same principle does not apply because we have no evidence whatsoever as to God's existence.

Other examples: (1) Astronomers tell us that the heat of the sun at its core is 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit (15,000,000° C.). Do we reject that idea because we cannot fully comprehend such intense heat? (2) They tell us that the size of our Milky Way is so great that a beam of light traveling at over 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/sec) would require 100,000 years to cross it. Do our minds really comprehend such a distance? Yet we accept it because scientific evidence supports it.

Those are very rational and justfiable propositions. "God" on the other hand does not have explanatory power. It is just a mysterious super-cause which is being used to explain away many things which we do not understand. Additionally, there is no scientific evidence to significantly support the existence of God.

Which is more reasonable-that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction? Some persons adopt the latter viewpoint because to believe otherwise would mean that they would have to acknowledge the existence of a Creator whose qualities they cannot fully comprehend. But it is well known that scientists do not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and that determine how these cells will grow. Nor do they fully understand the functioning of the human brain. Yet, who would deny that these exist? Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?

This is an argument from incredulity, as mentioned in the source earlier. It amounts to "I cannot conceive that X happened naturally, therefore it must have been a supernatural creator that caused it." Here is a nice quote for you:

Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning; for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses; for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we don't know about, and that keeps shrinking.

In this modern, scientific world, is it reasonable to believe in creation?
"The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody." -Quoted from Wernher von Braun, who had much to do with sending American astronauts to the moon.

We can do without the argument from authority please. Spurious quotes like that don't go towards demonstrating anything.

Physical universe: If you found a precision timepiece, would you conclude that it was formed by a chance blowing together of some dust particles? Obviously, someone with intelligence made it. There is an even more magnificent "clock." The planets in our solar system, also the stars in the entire universe, move at a rate that is more precise than most clocks designed and manufactured by man. The galaxy in which our solar system is located includes over 100 billion stars, and astronomers estimate that there are 100 billion of such galaxies in the universe. If a clock is evidence of intelligent design, how much more so is the far more vast and complicated universe!

Again with this stupid argument, why do theists insist on bringing it up over and over again? The Paley's watch analogy was obliterated by Hume a few hundred years ago! Check the post above on Paley's watch to see how absurd the analogy is.

Planet Earth: When crossing a barren desert, if you came to a beautiful house, well equipped in every way and stocked with food, would you believe that it got there by some chance explosion? No; you would realize that someone with considerable wisdom built it. Well, scientists have not yet found life on any of the planets of our solar system except the earth; available evidence indicates that the others are barren. This planet is, as the book The Earth says, "the wonder of the universe, a unique sphere." (New York, 1963, Arthur Beiser, p. 10) It is at just the right distance from the sun for human life, and it moves at just the right speed to be held in orbit. The atmosphere, of a kind found only around the earth, is made up of just the right proportion of gases to sustain life. Marvelously, light from the sun, carbon dioxide from the air, and water and minerals from fertile soil combine to produce food for earth's inhabitants. Did it all come about as a result of some uncontrolled explosion in space? Science News admits: "It seems as if such particular and precise conditions could hardly have arisen at random." (August 24 and 31, 1974, p. 124) The Bible's conclusion is reasonable when it states: "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God."-Heb. 3:4.

This is known as the weak anthropic principle. "Water is so easy to swim through that it was designed with swimming in mind". A tiny bit circular. You add probability as support, so I will pass the torch to this nice piece:

There are billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, any of which might have planets capable of supporting life. Even an impossibly improbable event is almost a certainty - and we already know of one planet that supports life.

This also falls into the same trap as the Design Argument and Anthropic Principle: there are no other Universes to compare it with. It is impossible to see how the probability of existence can be measured, with or without a deity, given the lack of comparative material. It could be said that the Universe in any form is impossible by this standard, given the innumerable possible permutations; its actual form is no more improbable than any of the other possibilities. It is only the fact that humans are around to look at it, combined with small-minded humanocentrism, that makes the Universe seem so special.

This argument also ignores an important fact: if something has a probability, no matter how small, it can happen. Impossibility comes when there is no degree of probability.

Human brain: Modern computers are a product of intensive research and careful engineering. They did not "just happen." What about the human brain? Unlike the brain of any animal, the brain of a human infant triples in size during its first year. How it functions is still largely a mystery to scientists. In humans, there is the built-in capacity to learn complex languages, to appreciate beauty, to compose music, to contemplate the origin and meaning of life. Said brain surgeon Robert White: "I am left with no choice but to acknowledge the existence of a Superior Intellect, responsible for the design and development of the incredible brain-mind relationship-something far beyond man's capacity to understand."

AGAIN, this is an argument from incredulity. Saying that there is a God is NOT explanatory. Haven't you ever heard of Occam's razor?

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

cries at the continuation

There there. Education will prevail one day.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

But you're assuming that we are like the animals and plants we live with on earth. We're not. Can you possibly accept that one day you, whatever your real name is, will die just like a plant in your garden and thats it? All the things you've felt in your lifetime mean nothing? Your family means nothing? All the people who boast about doing philosophy courses, your time wasted on thinking means nothing? Your time spent right now, right here on your computer has no purpose except for......well.....nothing?

Moonlight, Keirkegaard, and Noel Gallagher, if you people (i dont know your sex to call you guys/girls, so dont take "people" offensive) can offer another meaning/purpose etc please go ahead, since according to your philosophy, there is nothing, no god, and since there is nothing well, we are the supreme are we not?

I am agnostic, and I believe Keirkegaard was influenced by modern deism. So don't go around asserting that we say there is no God please. If there is a God, I wouldn't want him/her/it to get the wrong idea.

Try it. After all, for those of you who are doing philosophy, you're better than the rest of us, right?

Please do not argue ad hominem, since we have the reasonableness to attack what you say, and not your person.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Slightly off-topic, but funny: An extract from Betrand Russell's little speech Why I Am A Rationalist --

I have here a book recently published which I commend to your attention. You may or may not know that some little time ago, under the auspices of the National Secular Society, I delivered a lecture on "Why I am Not a Christian." Now, It appears that I did not know why it is that I am not a Christian; and here is a book which will tell you why I am not -- by Mr. H. G. Wood, who is a somewhat eminent member of the Society of Friends, a body for which I have the greatest respect. His book is called Why Mr. Bertrand Russell is Not a Christian. It seems that the reasons are not those which I thought they were. He says in one sentence: "The main reason why he is not a Christian is that he simply does not know what religion is." One might say that Mr. Wood is not an Agnostic because he does not know what Agnosticism is. After all, I had all the benefits of a Christian education, and he did not have the benefits of an Agnostic education; so that possibly the argument might be considered two-edged. Nevertheless, I commend the book to your attention, and you will then know why it is that I am not a Christian.

Reminds me of a few claims on this board

 

[waterfowl]

There wasnt an Adam and Eve. Not that it matters, science tells us incest creats mutant children, well Adam and Eves children had to have conducted this deed in order to expand - unfortunately when these "stories"a bout creation were created hundreds of years ago they didnt know this fact, Im sure if they did we would hear that the world started with more people or something

Thats a very common argument, however you are looking at this issue from a modern day perspective.
It is plainly obvious you do not believe in the Bible, but just bear with me:

Adam was created from the dust of the earth, in the image of God, and Eve was created from Adam's rib. They were created perfect, they had no genetic deformities, hereditary sicknesses; they were for lack of a better word perfect. However after the "fall" they were doomed to death, but this does not mean they suddenly contracted diseases.

Adam lived for 930 years, in which time he could have had an enormous amount of children.
It is true that incest would have been practised in order to birth the human race; but there didn't exist any of the abnormalities, or bad blood that there does today. Adam and Eve's blood was pure, and therefore so would their children's have been. It would have been safe for brothers and sisters to procreate.
It would have taken many years before incest became a dangerous activity. Even Abraham married his half sister.
It wasn't until the time of Moses that God outlawed incest.

So although today incest is an extremely taboo subect that carries with it many dangers, in the beginning it would have been rather safe.

 

[Kierkegaard]

The very fact that MoonlightSonata is countering all these arguments shows that he really does care about your spiritual well-being. Just look at that post and think of the time he put in, to help you realise your true intellectual potential.

 

[Jiga]

Or maybe because moonlightsontata feels strongly that there is no god and wants to help you believers realise this......

I didnt think incest created problems because of abnormalities in peoples genes, I was of the belief in any circumstance no matter how 'perfect' you are it wouldnt work out. Maybe I just have no idea. But if I was right, that would realistically counter your argument.....

 

[noel_gallagher]

Ah,
but santa did exist.
He was made into a fictional character for culture's sake and the creation of tradition through time. Wasn't he some saint? St. Nicholas?

Gotcha!

And I'm not even Christian. And I bet you still accepted your christmas gifts? Well, just to be fair i think you should give it back, because christmas is based on the existence of God is it not? And you don't believe in God. lol (Im just, in mimic of your posts, having a joke, lol)

my birthday is xmas day - so here's a spoon, eat my arse.

 

[Kierkegaard]

Schoolies, as much as I'd like your argument to be valid, one is taught in Biology 101 that incest doesn't work because relatives have the same 'errors', but the original humans (if such people did exist) did not have these now present 'errors'.

 

[noel_gallagher]

But you're assuming that we are like the animals and plants we live with on earth. We're not. Can you possibly accept that one day you, whatever your real name is, will die just like a plant in your garden and thats it? All the things you've felt in your lifetime mean nothing? Your family means nothing? All the people who boast about doing philosophy courses, your time wasted on thinking means nothing? Your time spent right now, right here on your computer has no purpose except for......well.....nothing?

Moonlight, Keirkegaard, and Noel Gallagher, if you people (i dont know your sex to call you guys/girls, so dont take "people" offensive) can offer another meaning/purpose etc please go ahead, since according to your philosophy, there is nothing, no god, and since there is nothing well, we are the supreme are we not?

There is a verse (or surah) made in the Quran which says to try producing one statement (or a verse) like those in the Quran to rival it. Try it. You wont be able to.
Try it. After all, for those of you who are doing philosophy, you're better than the rest of us, right?

I did not for one second assume that shit you said.

*we are like the animals and plants we live with on earth. We're not.

WE ARE ANIMALS! The human race derives from primitive apes and shit, from 10s of thousands of years ago. So don't give me that shit.

*Can you possibly accept that one day you, whatever your real name is, will die just like a plant in your garden and thats it?

Yes I can accept that one day I will die and my body will be put in a coffin, I'll have makeup put on and some nice clothes put on and lowered into a grave, and rot, and have bugs eat me away. And that will be it.

However, my name will live on, everybody's name lives on, even your dear old Jebus. My name will live on for years, my memory will last as long as my family and friends last.

*All the things you've felt in your lifetime mean nothing? Your family means nothing?

That, to me, is complete and utter crap. All the things I've felt in my lifetime DOES and WILL MEAN SOMETHING. When I have kids, when my kids have kids, everything I feel and think will be reflected in them. I will be reflected in them, it's called genes. I don't need a god or religion to have meaning. My family means a fuckload to me, we have traditions, birthdays, anniversaries etc, we spend them together under the happiness of our family, not under God, and it means something to us. my family doesn't need a God or bogus religious beliefs to feel good about ourselves, or to feel safe, or whatever believing in a God does for you.

I can get thru life without believing that something is working on this world. I can love my family and friends without a God. I can firmly believe that when I die, people will remember me and I won't just die like some plant in the garden, my memory will live on, my family will go on meaning something because my family will keep growing because of me, and my role in my family.

 

[GirlGoneMad]

"1. This is a quintessential argument from incredulity. Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design, or anything else.

2. Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity.

3. In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very different from what we see in life.

4. Complexity arises from natural causes, for example in weather patterns and cave formations."

But you cannot conclude that everything came about by chance? Look at the scientific laws in the universe for example. They are so precise. The earth is in the perfect spot to sustain life. If it was moved even a degree, earth would not have life on it.

The point, as I understand it, was that God could easily prevent any evil from occuring, yet he/she/it does not. Indeed if we are capable of evil, then we are not a perfect design. In other words, our flaws are the product of the designer, directly or indirectly.

Humans are to blame for much of the suffering. They fight wars, commit crimes, pollute the environment, often carry on business in a manner motivated by greed rather than concern for their fellowman, and sometimes indulge in habits that they know can be harmful to their health. When they do these things, they hurt others and themselves. Should it be expected that humans would be immune to the consequences of what they do? (Gal. 6:7; Prov. 1:30-33) Is it reasonable to blame God for these things that humans themselves do?

Satan and his demons also share responsibility. The Bible discloses that much suffering is because of the influence of wicked spirits. The suffering for which so many people blame God does not come from him at all.-Rev. 12:12; Acts 10:38

How did suffering get started? Examination of the causes focuses attention on our first human parents, Adam and Eve. God created them perfect and put them in paradise surroundings. If they had obeyed God, they would never have got sick or died. They could have enjoyed perfect human life forever. Suffering was not part of God's purpose for mankind. But God clearly told Adam that continued enjoyment of what He had given them depended on obedience. Obviously, they had to breathe, eat, drink, and sleep in order to continue living. And they had to keep God's moral requirements in order to enjoy life fully and to be favored with such life forever. But they chose to go their own way, to set their own standards of good and bad, and thus they turned away from God, the Life-Giver. (Gen. 2:16, 17; 3:1-6) Sin led to death. It was as sinners that Adam and Eve produced children, and they could not pass on to their children what they no longer had. All were born in sin, with inclinations toward wrongdoing, weaknesses that could lead to illness, a sinful inheritance that would eventually result in death. Because everyone on earth today was born in sin, all of us experience suffering in various ways.-Gen. 8:21; Rom. 5:12. Ecclesiastes 9:11 says that "time and unforeseen occurrence" also have a bearing on what happens to us. We may get hurt, not because the Devil directly causes it or because any human does it, but because by chance we are in a place at the wrong moment.

There would be no wickedness if God had not endowed intelligent creatures with free will. But God has given us the capacity to choose to obey him because we love him or to disobey. (Deut. 30:19, 20; Josh. 24:15) Do we wish it were otherwise? If we are parents, which makes us happier-when our children obey us because they love us or when we make them do it? Should God have forced Adam to be obedient? Would we really be happier if we lived in a world where we were forced to obey God? Before destroying this wicked system, God is allowing opportunity for people to demonstrate whether they really want to live in harmony with his righteous laws or not. At his appointed time, he will without fail destroy the wicked.-2 Thess. 1:9, 10.

Wisely he is allowing time for the settling of vital issues: (1) The righteousness and rightfulness of God's rule was challenged in Eden. (Gen. 2:16, 17; 3:1-5) (2) The integrity of all of God's servants in heaven and on earth was called into question. (Job 1:6-11; 2:1-5; Luke 22:31) God could have destroyed the rebels (Satan, Adam, and Eve) immediately, but that would not have settled matters. Might does not prove that one's cause is right. The issues raised were moral ones. God's allowing of time was, not to prove any point to himself, but to permit all creatures with free will to see for themselves the bad fruitage produced by rebellion against his rulership, also to afford them opportunity to demonstrate where they personally stand on these vital matters. With these issues settled, never again would anyone be permitted to disrupt the peace.

Does God's ability to foreknow and foreordain events prove that he does this regarding all the actions of all his creatures?

Rev. 22:17: "Let anyone hearing say: 'Come!' And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life's water free." (The choice is not foreordained; it is left to the individual.)

Rom. 2:4, 5: "Do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and long-suffering, because you do not know that the kindly quality of God is trying to lead you to repentance? But according to your hardness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and of the revealing of God's righteous judgment." (There is no forcing of individuals to pursue a prescribed course. But there is accountability for what one does.)

Here is what God set before Adam and Eve: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth." "And God also laid this command upon the man: 'From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.'" Why would God encourage Adam and Eve to undertake a project with a marvelous future, knowing from the start that it was doomed to failure?
If God foreordained and foreknew Adam's sin and all that would result from this, it would mean that by creating Adam, God deliberately set in motion all the wickedness committed in human history. He would be the Source of all the wars, the crime, the immorality, the oppression, the lying, the hypocrisy, the disease. But the Bible clearly says: "You are not a God taking delight in wickedness." (Ps. 5:4) "Anyone loving violence His soul certainly hates." (Ps. 11:5) "God . . . cannot lie." (Titus 1:2) "From oppression and from violence he [the One designated by God as Messianic King] will redeem their soul, and their blood will be precious in his eyes." (Ps. 72:14) "God is love." (1 John 4:8) "He is a lover of righteousness and justice."-Ps. 33:5.

Firstly, with improvements in technology and science, we are inhibiting the spread of disease. Secondly, and this is more of an entertaining point, but how many wars have been fought over religion?

Medical advances have been made at a breathtaking rate-insulin for diabetes, chemotherapy for cancer, hormone treatment for glandular disorders, antibiotics for tuberculosis, chloroquine for certain types of malaria, and dialysis for kidney complaints, as well as open-heart surgery and organ transplants, to name a few.
But how near is medicine to the goal of guaranteeing an acceptable level of health for all the people of the world? So many people are dying every day of diseases with no cure. New deadly diseases also seem to be arising that cannot be cured. Despite the best efforts of medical science, the elimination of death is thus still beyond medicine's reach.

Ok. War and Religion.

I agree with you. Religion has been a supporter and, at times, even a promoter of wars. In time of war, religious leaders have piously blessed weapons and armies on both sides in the name of God, while often professing the same religion. This blasphemy has turned many people away from religion and God. In keeping with Christ's command to love one another, true Christians refuse to hate or kill their brothers, even though these may be members of another race or nationality. Christ directed his followers to lay down the sword. (Matt. 26:52) Luke 6:27, 28: "I [Jesus Christ] say to you who are listening, Continue to love your enemies, to do good to those hating you, to bless those cursing you, to pray for those who are insulting you." John 17:16: "They are no part of the world, just as I [Jesus] am no part of the world." So true Christians do not take part in the world's political affairs including war.

Yet God forsaw this right? But he/she/it made these creations which he/she/it KNEW would defile the place anyway?

Does God's ability to foreknow and foreordain events prove that he does this regarding all the actions of all his creatures?

Rev. 22:17: "Let anyone hearing say: 'Come!' And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life's water free." (The choice is not foreordained; it is left to the individual.)

Rom. 2:4, 5: "Do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and long-suffering, because you do not know that the kindly quality of God is trying to lead you to repentance? But according to your hardness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and of the revealing of God's righteous judgment." (There is no forcing of individuals to pursue a prescribed course. But there is accountability for what one does.)

When God created Adam, did he know that Adam would sin?

Here is what God set before Adam and Eve: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth." "And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: 'From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.'" (Gen. 1:28; 2:16, 17) Would God encourage Adam and Eve to undertake a project with a marvelous future, knowing from the start that it was doomed to failure? If God foreordained and foreknew Adam's sin and all that would result from this, it would mean that by creating Adam, God deliberately set in motion all the wickedness committed in human history. He would be the Source of all the wars, the crime, the immorality, the oppression, the lying, the hypocrisy, the disease. But the Bible clearly says: "You are not a God taking delight in wickedness." (Ps. 5:4) "Anyone loving violence His soul certainly hates." (Ps. 11:5) "God . . . cannot lie." (Titus 1:2) "From oppression and from violence he [the One designated by God as Messianic King] will redeem their soul, and their blood will be precious in his eyes." (Ps. 72:14) "God is love." (1 John 4:8) "He is a lover of righteousness and justice."-Ps. 33:5.

There is no scientific evidence to significantly support the existence of God.

Apart from the other evidence given (which i know you don't see as evidence), the bible also has scientific evidence showing that it was written by God and proving his existence.

The quote you gave me: As explained above, although many believe God as responsible for suffering, he is not.

There there. Education will prevail one day.

Yes. One day, all will know the truth about God.

 

[Arvin Sloane]

Well it's just one big circle jerk here isn't it?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But you cannot conclude that everything came about by chance? Look at the scientific laws in the universe for example. They are so precise. The earth is in the perfect spot to sustain life. If it was moved even a degree, earth would not have life on it.

Yes it would. In fact you're only thinking about life as we know it.

Humans are to blame for much of the suffering. They fight wars, commit crimes, pollute the environment, often carry on business in a manner motivated by greed rather than concern for their fellowman, and sometimes indulge in habits that they know can be harmful to their health. When they do these things, they hurt others and themselves. Should it be expected that humans would be immune to the consequences of what they do? (Gal. 6:7; Prov. 1:30-33) Is it reasonable to blame God for these things that humans themselves do?

When an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God comes into play, yes. God created humans, he's always known we would do these things.

Satan and his demons also share responsibility. The Bible discloses that much suffering is because of the influence of wicked spirits. The suffering for which so many people blame God does not come from him at all.-Rev. 12:12; Acts 10:38

Again, couldn't an omnipotent God simply destroy these spirits?

How did suffering get started? Examination of the causes focuses attention on our first human parents, Adam and Eve. God created them perfect and put them in paradise surroundings. If they had obeyed God, they would never have got sick or died. They could have enjoyed perfect human life forever. Suffering was not part of God's purpose for mankind. But God clearly told Adam that continued enjoyment of what He had given them depended on obedience. Obviously, they had to breathe, eat, drink, and sleep in order to continue living. And they had to keep God's moral requirements in order to enjoy life fully and to be favored with such life forever. But they chose to go their own way, to set their own standards of good and bad, and thus they turned away from God, the Life-Giver. (Gen. 2:16, 17; 3:1-6) Sin led to death. It was as sinners that Adam and Eve produced children, and they could not pass on to their children what they no longer had. All were born in sin, with inclinations toward wrongdoing, weaknesses that could lead to illness, a sinful inheritance that would eventually result in death. Because everyone on earth today was born in sin, all of us experience suffering in various ways.-Gen. 8:21; Rom. 5:12. Ecclesiastes 9:11 says that "time and unforeseen occurrence" also have a bearing on what happens to us. We may get hurt, not because the Devil directly causes it or because any human does it, but because by chance we are in a place at the wrong moment.

God had power over this situation, he knew that there was going to be suffering, he knew they were going to 'eat the fruit'.
Isn't it interesting that god places a guard at the tree of immortality AFTER they eat from the tree of knowledge? does that show that he isn't omniscient, omnipresent? or does it simply show that he wanted them to eat from the tree of knowledge... It is impossible for us to disobey the wish of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God unless he wants us to. Obviously what happened he wanted to happen.

There would be no wickedness if God had not endowed intelligent creatures with free will. But God has given us the capacity to choose to obey him because we love him or to disobey. (Deut. 30:19, 20; Josh. 24:15) Do we wish it were otherwise? If we are parents, which makes us happier-when our children obey us because they love us or when we make them do it? Should God have forced Adam to be obedient? Would we really be happier if we lived in a world where we were forced to obey God? Before destroying this wicked system, God is allowing opportunity for people to demonstrate whether they really want to live in harmony with his righteous laws or not. At his appointed time, he will without fail destroy the wicked.-2 Thess. 1:9, 10.

What is free will? If God knew what we would do, and is allowing us to do it.. It's not like we can do something that will surprise God.


Anyway, i feel people should be forced to read the posts of me and sonata from the beginning before they can say the same arguments over and over again.

 

[GirlGoneMad]

As explained, just because God has the capability of forseeing the future, it doesn't mean that he does it all the time. Eg. If there was a super strong person who could lift really heavy things, does it mean that he would go around lifting everything up, just because he could. God has control. He can control what he forsees and what he doesn't.

Humans have the capability to make decisions. Not everything is predetermined. It would be boring if God had created robot humans.