If God created everything, why does religion contradicts so many things??

originally posted by: ausername
God created you. No "if".... Mankind created religions and all contradictions therein.
There is no simpler explanation.

I am riding that bandwagon as well; the westernized idea of God missed all marks for 'brilliant' understanding here; the eastern Hindus and Buddhists seem to have a secret understanding and know better than to write the end all be all missive. Personally, I would go with the 'Gnostic Texts' as a western idea form but they were (as a potential "real deal" threat) were successfully quashed in 300AD. OOPS, The Nag Hammati scrolls were discovered and Gnosticism lives again.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Aaaah the power of the mind over body, yes is works, but when they body is put under incredible stress for a period of time, the body tends over takes the mind.

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

Like I said before. There is no proving anything to a person that doesn't want to be proven wrong. I feel I gave you what you asked for yet you have not even attempted to answer the ANY of the questions I posed to you. I will rephrase my statement from earlier so you will have no choice but to respond to it as a presentation of proof. I will also ask you a straight forward question that I expect you to answer, but only if you expect me to take you seriously.

1. God created Humans and tells us how he did it with DNA.

2. Something cannot come from nothing. Your words. "You cannot prove a negative." Therefore, going by your assessment, the universe does not exist. Nothing exists.

My question to you: How do expect believers to stop believing in a creator that they can not prove to your acceptance, yet you cannot prove to our acceptance the theories put in place by science (and changed constantly) are right? I am not asking you to prove God doesn't exist, I am asking you to prove that the popular scientific standards of the origins of the universe are correct. Or at least pick one of those working theories and tell me why you BELIEVE it is the right one.

You made two statements. Do you know the difference between a statement and a question?

Apparently, you are wholly unfamiliar with science. Scientific theorums (that which you call theories0 are based on testable evidence. In other words, they have been proven. Until you understand what the scientific method is, you will never understand how science works.

Science has never claimed that something came from nothing. Before you say it, scientists never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys.

a reply to: Tangerine

However, theories are not the end result of the scientific method, they can still be affirmed or rejected based on more experiments.

Before you say it, scientists never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys.

No, that's pretty much a straw man. Science did in fact say humans and primates had a common ancestor.

a reply to: Tangerine

Apparently you are unable and unwilling to acknowledge point 1 or 2 with a comeback of your own, rather than an accusation. Which proves my point. You feel you are right and I am wrong and won't hear otherwise.
Also you are unwilling to respond to the question I posed directly to you. Which proves you are unable and unwilling to have a true discussion or debate on the subject.

Science HAS claimed that something has come from nothing.

www.big-bang-theory.com...

"Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. "

That is the first paragraph in that link. It took me all of 2 seconds to find it.
In the last paragraph of the article they admit they don't want to answer or address, but only to ASK the question "Does God exist?" Kinda like you. They then link to a page that turns the subject from a scientific one to a philosophical one. I think if our top scientists KNEW more science, they would know how to PROVE God. Until then, it will remain theory and the debate will continue. God Bless.

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

Apparently you are unable and unwilling to acknowledge point 1 or 2 with a comeback of your own, rather than an accusation. Which proves my point. You feel you are right and I am wrong and won't hear otherwise.
Also you are unwilling to respond to the question I posed directly to you. Which proves you are unable and unwilling to have a true discussion or debate on the subject.

Science HAS claimed that something has come from nothing.

www.big-bang-theory.com...

"Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. "

That is the first paragraph in that link. It took me all of 2 seconds to find it.
In the last paragraph of the article they admit they don't want to answer or address, but only to ASK the question "Does God exist?" Kinda like you. They then link to a page that turns the subject from a scientific one to a philosophical one. I think if our top scientists KNEW more science, they would know how to PROVE God. Until then, it will remain theory and the debate will continue. God Bless.

Your so-called scientific website is a product of AboutGod.com. Hardly scientific. The Big Bang model is not based on the notion that the universe sprang into existence from literally nothing. Perhaps if you read actual scientific websites rather than religious websites fronting as pseudo-science, you would have learned that. I suggest that you give it a second try.

a reply to: Tangerine

No. I suggest you do. I am done with your inability to contribute to debate you want nothing to do with. You have been manipulative throughout this conversation and this is my last reply to you. Have a good day!

Since this is my last reply, I will edit it as my REAL last reply lol

Look you haven't contributed and only ask that others contribute. That link I posted was the first thing that popped up. So I did as you suggested at looked up something more biased to the scientific community and it says the same thing. So whatever, I'm not going to go in circles with you. I will pick up my toys and go play somewhere else. Unless you want to have an ACTUAL 2 sided discussion. I respect your views and opinions but so far the only view and opinion you have given is "I don't believe you." So if you want to contribute, I will be more than happy to continue the debate with you. If not, then don't bother commenting to me.

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

No. I suggest you do. I am done with your inability to contribute to debate you want nothing to do with. You have been manipulative throughout this conversation and this is my last reply to you. Have a good day!

Don't let the door.... LOL. You're taking your toys and going home. I haven't manipulated anything. I simply looked at the link you provided, noticed that it was scientifically inaccurate and clicked on the home page. Up came the information that the site was run by AboutGod.com. Busted!!

You attempted to use deception and got caught. Want to try again?

a reply to: Tangerine

I simply looked at the link you provided, noticed that it was scientifically inaccurate and clicked on the home page. Up came the information that the site was run by AboutGod.com. Busted!!

Circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.

Here

a reply to: Kusinjo

Science HAS claimed that something has come from nothing.

That's not true.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't assert there was, at any time, nothing. It asserts that, before the Big Bang, "everything" was singular.

Only religion asserts that the universe was created from nothing.

a reply to: windword

Correct.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

Aaaah the power of the mind over body, yes is works, but when they body is put under incredible stress for a period of time, the body tends over takes the mind.

Not if you realize the body is immaterial to your mind/soul/spirits eternity. The body is a vessel to house is all; If your body gives way *its time* for your spirit to leave and regain the reality world (not here). Anything personal for you trying to express (not the idea form cancer that manifested); that other that could body wise conquer the mind? Thank you for your response marg6043.

a reply to: windword

Exactly, thank you windword, I appreciate your response and I respect it. It makes me want to address it. You rock!

That is exactly correct. But Science absolutely refuses to address how that singularity came into being. Because if they did. They would have to admit that something super natural had occurred. That is to say that something, unknown and untestable to science, has happened. I listened to an interview of an atheist lead scientist of a well known company, whom I won't bother to name nor the company because it is irrelevant, say that at some point in his career he was forced to change they way he went about his research due to the fact that he kept running into answers that didn't fit the theory. These answers were unprovable and untestable with the current knowledge and processes so were subsequently kicked under the rug, so to speak. He eventually became aware of the problem and was able to correct his research paths by rebuilding the theories around the conclusions that he came to until they did make sense and was then able produce the experiments that would prove to be suitable processes for testing the new theories. This scientist never did turn to Christ or religion, I am not insinuating he did. Just that he admitted being guilty of what all scientists are guilty of at times. And that is: Ignoring the answer in front of them if it doesn't make sense.
In short, what I am saying, is if science would agree to stop kicking the GOD question under the rug, I'm sure they would be able to find a way to prove that their WAS and IS a sentient consciousness that created that singularity from before the beginning. And after that we can prove that Jesus Christ was sent to us from Him as well.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Kusinjo

Science HAS claimed that something has come from nothing.

That's not true.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't assert there was, at any time, nothing. It asserts that, before the Big Bang, "everything" was singular.

Only religion asserts that the universe was created from nothing.

Thank you. This will, however, be disregarded by the believers just as they will continue to say that scientists claim that humans evolved from monkeys.

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: windword

Exactly, thank you windword, I appreciate your response and I respect it. It makes me want to address it. You rock!

That is exactly correct. But Science absolutely refuses to address how that singularity came into being. Because if they did. They would have to admit that something super natural had occurred. That is to say that something, unknown and untestable to science, has happened. I listened to an interview of an atheist lead scientist of a well known company, whom I won't bother to name nor the company because it is irrelevant, say that at some point in his career he was forced to change they way he went about his research due to the fact that he kept running into answers that didn't fit the theory. These answers were unprovable and untestable with the current knowledge and processes so were subsequently kicked under the rug, so to speak. He eventually became aware of the problem and was able to correct his research paths by rebuilding the theories around the conclusions that he came to until they did make sense and was then able produce the experiments that would prove to be suitable processes for testing the new theories. This scientist never did turn to Christ or religion, I am not insinuating he did. Just that he admitted being guilty of what all scientists are guilty of at times. And that is: Ignoring the answer in front of them if it doesn't make sense.
In short, what I am saying, is if science would agree to stop kicking the GOD question under the rug, I'm sure they would be able to find a way to prove that their WAS and IS a sentient consciousness that created that singularity from before the beginning. And after that we can prove that Jesus Christ was sent to us from Him as well.

Science is eager to examine any testable evidence you might produce proving that God exists. Got it? Cite it.

a reply to: Tangerine

Ugh, you again Fine.

1st law of thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. In other words no beginning, no end.
In order for it to exist at all, there had to be a divine creator who knew what he was doing.

2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the entropies of the participating systems. The second law is an empirical finding that has been accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory.

en·tro·py
ˈentrəpē/
noun
noun: entropy; plural noun: entropies; symbol: S

1.
Physics
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
2.
lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

Thermodynamics and Evolution are completely in compatible as Evolution describes life as evolving and improving on biological systems exponentially. This has never actually been observed. Actually the opposite is true. No new and better features have been observed on any species. The closest that has been seen have actually been observed as chromosomes in existing genes being switched on from the off position. These discoveries were made by atheists.
In fact, it has been proven that over time DNA loses code rather than gains. It is slowly and systematically degrading.

I will stop with this, because I am afraid of spending too much time on deaf ears. You will have to do your own research and experimentation. However, there is one experiment you can do now and you don't even have to be a physicist.
Hypothesis: John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall never perish but have everlasting life.
Test: Believe in Him
Expected Result:Everlasting life
Test: Do not believe in Him
Expected result: Perish

The choice is truly yours. However, I don't think you will be able to report your finding for awhile.

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

Ugh, you again

Fine.

1st law of thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. In other words no beginning, no end.
In order for it to exist at all, there had to be a divine creator who knew what he was doing.

2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the entropies of the participating systems. The second law is an empirical finding that has been accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory.

en·tro·py
ˈentrəpē/
noun
noun: entropy; plural noun: entropies; symbol: S

1.
Physics
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
2.
lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

Thermodynamics and Evolution are completely in compatible as Evolution describes life as evolving and improving on biological symptoms exponentially. This has never actually been observed. Actually the opposite is true. No new and better features have been observed on any species. The closest that has been seen have actually been observed as chromosomes in existing genes being switched on from the off position. These discoveries were made by atheists.
In fact, it has been proven that over time DNA loses code rather than gains. It is slowly and systematically degrading.

I will stop with this, because I am afraid of spending too much time on deaf ears. You will have to do your own research and experimentation. However, there is one experiment you can do now and you don't even have to be a physicist.
Hypothesis: John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall never perish but have everlasting life.
Test: Believe in Him
Expected Result:Everlasting life
Test: Do not believe in Him
Expected result: Perish

The choice is truly yours. However, I don't think you will be able to report your finding for awhile.

I've heard every silly argument you Bible thumpers can come up with. You're going to have to find a more "creative" source than the Institute for Creation Research if you want to impress me. Your threat isn't impressive either. It's a sure sign of impotence.

a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

dictionary.reference.com...

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

You state:

If you believe in God then you are by the definition religious.

Not so. I dont adhere to a particular set of beliefs, I dont belong to a group of persons or sects. I believe in a Creator. I refuse to play your game limiting possibilities and defining my reality.

a reply to: rukia

OP, even if you don't understand it, God does. That's why you're not God.

The bible explains all of this. There's no contradiction. Evil is allowed because everything happens for a reason, and that's where faith comes in

Go read an ethics book or study some philosophy. The definitions are there too. Which supports the bible and disproves what you're saying entirely.

Wow is this the best you can do?

"thats why you're not god" Is this soundbyte what you learnt from ethics or philophy or "supported bible"

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Everything has to contradict God....You just don't understand it, God wants you to find him ON YOUR OWN!

Of course you find god on your own, in the quite stillness of the night away from the written words or the cacophony of the religious zealots. There is no contradiction. All souls eventually find their way home