It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How can you honestly believe in God.

page: 25
17
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)


It tells a man how to go about selling his own DAUGHTER.

The Bible is full of evils like this, and it seems like only the unbelievers are able to find these passages. The believers either aren't aware that they exist, or are in denial, or say that these passages "don't count" because they're in the OT.



Do you know that there were twelve tribes of Israel who fought with one another? Not God's fault, but, what God did was lay down the laws of war.




posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


wow!
thank-you!!
that really is the blunt cold hard truth
I was so relieved to read what my heart really wanted to scream
out as i was writing my "nice"
answers
.....Amen !


renee



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
Do you know that there were twelve tribes of Israel who fought with one another? Not God's fault, but, what God did was lay down the laws of war.


sell? sell isn't a thing of war... sell is a thing that one does out of profit
now, why didn't god lay down the law of "no war"? god clearly tells "his people" to fight wars
ever hear of middia? god ordered the jews to kill everyone except for the women that hadn't "known" men, which were to be saved for their own "uses"
god condones the genocide and mass rape of middianites...


Originally posted by lenisey
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


wow!
thank-you!!
that really is the blunt cold hard truth
I was so relieved to read what my heart really wanted to scream
out as i was writing my "nice"
answers
.....Amen !


renee


you're thinking that a post that implies EINSTEIN (the atheist) BELIEVED IN GOD is a good post?

that's just sheer ignorance

[edit on 8/26/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I wish i wasn't off to work .......i have so much to say
but.....before i go
i just want to point out that
"

JUST BECAUSE YOU MAY NOT LIKE WHAT GOD IS OR SAYS , OR DOES,
OR EVEN HOW HE IS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT PROVES HE DOES NOT EXIST
I BELIEVE IN GOD BECAUSE HE IS

HE IS

AND WE ARE HIS CREATIONS AND HE WILL DO AS HE WISHES
NOT AS YOU WISH

SO YOU ARE WILLING TO SUFFER MUCH MUCH WORSE A FATE
STAYING HERE AFTER GOD TAKES THE SOULS HE WANTS WITH HIM TO HEAVEN AT THE HANDS OF PURE EVIL?
GEE ....WELL THATS INTELLIGENT
YEAH , THAT WILL SURE TEACH GOD THAT HE CAN'T GO AROUND
MAKING HIS CREATIONS DO THINGS THAT THEY DOIN'T WANT TO DO



WELL, ALRIGHTY THEN ,
YOU JUST GO ON DENYING HIM AND WE WILL WISH YOU ALL A MUCH HAPPIER EXISTENCE,
WITHOU T GOD IN YOUR LIFE
BUT I FAIL TO SEE HOW DENYING THE TRUTH
(HOWEVER DISTURBING OR WRONG YOU FEEL THAT IT IS)
MAKES THE TRUTH NOT EXIST
..........................HEY ,BUT MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT AND I AM THE STUPID ONEFOR ACCEPTING REALITY AND MAKING THE BEST OF IT,
HOPING FOR HEAVEN AS MY REWARD FOR SURVIVING HELL

AT THE WORST- I AM AN IDIOT FOR DENYING THAT I AM NOT GOING TO HEAVEN
AT YOUR WORST-YOU ARE DENYING YOUR CREATOR
WELL, YEA--------I WILL STAND BY MY BELIEF WITH MORE DETERMINATION THAN EVER
I AM OFF 2 WORK MY ASS OFF NOW UNLOADING A TRUCK FDOR MINIMUM WAGE FOR 10 HOURS....BUT I WILL DO IT WITH A SMILE



iamrenee



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   


And you said the universe was perfect?


you are missing the point, there are a lot of things that have to exist and have to occur in order for life to exist on just this planet. there are so many things that depend on each other for life to exist.
examples: distance from the sun, size of the sun, size of the earth, size of earths magnetic field, size of our moon, distance from our moon, gravitational pull from other planets, having bigger planets in outer orbits taking on meteors and asteroids, comets etc, placement of our solar system within our galaxy.
and then you have the things that occur here on earth that depend on each other for life to exist, plate tectonic activity, plants providing O2 for living creatures and living creatures providing CO2 or plants. and how all the insects play a role in the 'circle of life' if you would...
there are way too many things that have to be specific in value in order for life to exist on this planet and they are. no the universe is not perfect from your point of view, but its perfect in a way that allows us to exist.



I'm no scientist and i'm sure if your statement is true, scientist are trying to figure it out. The amazing thing about life and science is it is not written in a book and you never know what to expect. You should use the same question on god. But i doubt anyone know the answer...


I provided a link and everything. google the big bang theory and just about all of them say the same thing.... 'nothing exploded and now here we are after 20 billion years'... thats basically what its saying.
and scientists are working on figuring out how nothing can make something? they are going to be working on that for a long time.

ask the same question about God eh? ok. I dont know where God came from... but just so we get this straight.

I believe in the beginning God....
and you believe
In the beginning 'nothing'...

dont tell me that mine is religious and yours is science.... they are both religious.

science is not in a book eh? George Washington died because they kept taking blood out of his body thinking he was sick because of bad blood. The bible says that the life of the flesh is in the blood. tell me thats not scientific.



but if god is omnipotent then he knew that lucifer would fall.he knew eve would be corrupted etc etc.and we suffer because of the things god knew!! which makes me ask,if he knew,why let it happen.to angels as well as mankind? if he knew but did nothing is that because he didn't have the power to stop it? surely he could of stopped satan getting into the garden of eden!!


thats called Gods love and thats how he keeps it true, by not controlling everything that goes on in everyones life. Im sure that no matter when and no matter how he created everything, he knew it would fall. there is no getting around it. I dont fully understand why God didnt just destroy the devil in the first place but I believe that when we chose to love him instead of the things of this world, I think it brings him more joy and glory.

creating us without free will would be like cheating, love and fellowship wouldnt be real, it would be forced and untrue. and actually you dont even need the devil to know what evil is... they had the tree that would tell them that.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by lenisey
JUST BECAUSE YOU MAY NOT LIKE WHAT GOD IS OR SAYS , OR DOES,OR EVEN HOW HE IS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT PROVES HE DOES NOT EXIST
I BELIEVE IN GOD BECAUSE HE IS


actually, it would. said being is supposed to be PERFECT in every way, a perfect being would appeal to all.
and some of the reasons i don't like god are the main reasons people don't like hitler... just replace jews with other groups of people.



HE IS

AND WE ARE HIS CREATIONS AND HE WILL DO AS HE WISHES
NOT AS YOU WISH


yeah, that's another thing. for such a wise being he doesn't seem to accept democracy...
it's not for the ruler, it's supposed to be for the people



SO YOU ARE WILLING TO SUFFER MUCH MUCH WORSE A FATE
STAYING HERE AFTER GOD TAKES THE SOULS HE WANTS WITH HIM TO HEAVEN AT THE HANDS OF PURE EVIL?
GEE ....WELL THATS INTELLIGENT


pascal's wager is flawed...
see, you're telling me that i'm making a bad choice... you're making the same choice with regards to every other religion that exists or has existed. all of them hold punishment for those that don't believe, you're actually taking a bigger risk that you may have offended baal or ra by believing in yahweh, a rival deity.



YEAH , THAT WILL SURE TEACH GOD THAT HE CAN'T GO AROUND
MAKING HIS CREATIONS DO THINGS THAT THEY DOIN'T WANT TO DO


...i'm not trying to "teach god"
my entire point is that i don't believe in said being. i'm not rebelling, for i see nothing to rebel against.



WELL, ALRIGHTY THEN ,
YOU JUST GO ON DENYING HIM AND WE WILL WISH YOU ALL A MUCH HAPPIER EXISTENCE,
WITHOU T GOD IN YOUR LIFE
BUT I FAIL TO SEE HOW DENYING THE TRUTH
(HOWEVER DISTURBING OR WRONG YOU FEEL THAT IT IS)
MAKES THE TRUTH NOT EXIST


it's not that i deny it, it's actually that i don't see evidence for it. where you to show me proper evidence that your patron creator deity existed, i'd be the first to admit i was wrong.



..........................HEY ,BUT MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT AND I AM THE STUPID ONEFOR ACCEPTING REALITY AND MAKING THE BEST OF IT,
HOPING FOR HEAVEN AS MY REWARD FOR SURVIVING HELL


for one i'm not calling you stupid, i'm saying you're irrational. there is no reality for you to accept here, only faith. reality is based on the facts, facts aren't based on what you believe.



AT THE WORST- I AM AN IDIOT FOR DENYING THAT I AM NOT GOING TO HEAVEN


no, at the worst you're believing in something that is pure folly and is not-so-slowly eroding human progress as we speak.



AT YOUR WORST-YOU ARE DENYING YOUR CREATOR


i cannot deny what does no have evidence to support it. to deny something would mean that said thing exists, i see no evidence to support its existence.

i'm not just "denying" your god, i "deny" all the other ones, the same ones you deny.



WELL, YEA--------I WILL STAND BY MY BELIEF WITH MORE DETERMINATION THAN EVER


and that's all it is, YOUR BELIEF. not something that is real, something that is real TO YOU. stop trying to impose your unsubstantiated views on the universe upon me


Originally posted by Methuselah


And you said the universe was perfect?


you are missing the point, there are a lot of things that have to exist and have to occur in order for life to exist on just this planet. there are so many things that depend on each other for life to exist.
examples: distance from the sun, size of the sun, size of the earth, size of earths magnetic field, size of our moon, distance from our moon, gravitational pull from other planets, having bigger planets in outer orbits taking on meteors and asteroids, comets etc, placement of our solar system within our galaxy.


yes, and we are in one of the planets in the crapshoot that managed the proper things. it's an odds game



and then you have the things that occur here on earth that depend on each other for life to exist, plate tectonic activity, plants providing O2 for living creatures and living creatures providing CO2 or plants. and how all the insects play a role in the 'circle of life' if you would...


natural processees account for all of this




there are way too many things that have to be specific in value in order for life to exist on this planet and they are.


they aren't that specific...



no the universe is not perfect from your point of view, but its perfect in a way that allows us to exist.


that's quite possibly the most arrogant statement i've ever heard. the universe is BILLIONS of lightyears in span... to compare, the average person is 1.7 meters... and the earth is only 12,742 km



I provided a link and everything. google the big bang theory and just about all of them say the same thing.... 'nothing exploded and now here we are after 20 billion years'... thats basically what its saying.


no, SOMETHING EXPANDED.


I believe in the beginning God....
and you believe
In the beginning 'nothing'...


no, in the beginning there was the eternal matter and energy.



dont tell me that mine is religious and yours is science.... they are both religious.


that's straight up bull. science is evidence based, religion is faith based



science is not in a book eh? George Washington died because they kept taking blood out of his body thinking he was sick because of bad blood.


yes, medical science wasn't really very advanced at that point, it still didn't understand immunology or germ theory and was mainly based on superstition.



The bible says that the life of the flesh is in the blood. tell me thats not scientific.


...no, it's casual observation... it's actually what led to the bleedings... bad life = bad blood... crap for reality, but perfectly logical. look into the medical books of the time and you'll actually see that part of the bible as reference for why they bled people...



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
“I believe God exists because the Bible says so.”

Atheist: “ I don't believe in GOD so GOD doesn't exist.”

Believer: I don't believe in atheists so they don't exist

Atheist: YOU CAN'T PROVE GOD EXISTS

BELIEVER: TRUTH NEEDS NO DEFENSE. It is hard coded on the heart of all man the existence of GOD. Deny it all you want but you ain't foolin me and least of all GOD.

You prove he exists merely by your presence here. You make GOD in your own image then question his methods as if you could do it better and at the same time you ignore the existence of that which you critisize. How one does that, how one can disapprove of the GOD that doesn't exist I can only speculate.

Blah Blah Blah. None of your disbelief seems to stop you from asking questions. Remember the Believer gets his answers from a higher authority then science which by the way GOD MADE.

When you prove Gravity with science you prove GOD
When you prove the temperature at which water boils, you prove GOD.

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” - Romans 1:19-20 (ESV)

the universe is beyond the grasp of science and always will be out of reach of human comprehension. It is something we will never truly understand.

Some claim that living things came from non living things how ever the idea of that violates the law of life itself or ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life.


We marvel at man's intelligent designs for so many of our greatest inventions and creations. Our computers the High Tech Military weapons we have even something as common as the IPOD if taken back in time and shown to them they would be astounded. We humans are pretty damn impressed with our self.

Yet the technology whether in nuclear medicine or Nanotechnology can't even compare to the workings of life forms existing in protozoa. It is irrational to suggest that natural selection brought this about without the benefit of intelligent design or Master Creator.

Nothing functions in an evolutionary state it simply does not happen.
I am not talking about tadpole to frog which is metamorphosis I am talking about Darwin's theory that a slow process of evolution and his assertion that it is how we came into being.

Plant life and Photosynthesis is a complicated process indeed and integral for the life of not just it's own survival but the survival of many other life forms. How could this complex process have "evolved" when the plant itself can not survive unless it had the capabilities from the start.
If evolution's impetus brought about such plants and animals it would be possible to prove as solid as you can prove gravity.

Yet over decades of research in scientific efforts to coax an evolutionary process where there is the physical biochemical improvement of a species has eluded us. We have tried radiation, hybrid mutations and they are changes that take place NOW or never.

We use radiation on the common fruit fly with only mutation and deformity. Science in it's attempt to disprove a divine creator has failed to duplicate evolution on even the most simple life forms.


Complex life forms require intelligent design. It Just does NOT happen any other way.

Human beings are intelligent and we have never created nor will we ever create a technologically designed humanoid robot which could invent new machines, have ideas, reason etc.

Just for the sake of argument, lets say we CAN

Even if it could do everything we can even discovering it's own renewable energy source of fuel or electricity to continue, then from there it created batteries and discoverd textiles, metals and other components to begin duplicating it self,,,

EVEN IF,,,,,,

All that was in the realm of possibility and was techinically feasible.

THE FACT STILL REMAINS.

Such a cyborg or technoman could have NEVER come into existence by happenstance.

It could not have created itself from nothing because matter is not self creating.

It is the law of thermodynamics and is a fact. NOT EVEN THE BIG BANG COUILD HAVE HAPPENED. The idea that we came from nothingness and gases mixed with some matter that ignited a BIG BANG is as silly as it sounds. Matter has to exist to create matter for matter to come into existence would require someone to introduce it to a place where once nothing was. Like the stealth jet I talked about in the previous post. Even if we helped it along by giving it a chance to work IE; we have all the components software and hardware were laying all around.

something had to assemble it and it has to have each of its parts and components all in the right places. Life did not occur without a living intelligence to design and guide it. Life has always come from life and life isn't something we came up with.

We have merely used living components to spin-off life from life.

God Created the heavens and the earth their is simply NO OTHER SCIENTIFIC explanation

NONE.

Any other idea is absurd and you will live to feel the need of God in your life time.

You may be on your death bed considering that ,, when you're dead,, You're dead for a long time. That will be when you consider that your critical thinking when compared to GOD,,


is thinking in critical condition.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
“I believe God exists because the Bible says so.”

Atheist: “ I don't believe in GOD so GOD doesn't exist.”

Believer: I don't believe in atheists so they don't exist

Atheist: YOU CAN'T PROVE GOD EXISTS

BELIEVER: TRUTH NEEDS NO DEFENSE. It is hard coded on the heart of all man the existence of GOD. Deny it all you want but you ain't foolin me and least of all GOD.


logical fallacy of false premise



You prove he exists merely by your presence here. You make GOD in your own image then question his methods as if you could do it better and at the same time you ignore the existence of that which you critisize. How one does that, how one can disapprove of the GOD that doesn't exist I can only speculate.


i can disapprove of all fictional characters, why can i not extend it to ones that you consider real?



Blah Blah Blah. None of your disbelief seems to stop you from asking questions.


i do quite enjoy the philosophical masturbation sometimes... and again, as i've said many times before, i see clear evidence that religion is a corossive force in the world



Remember the Believer gets his answers from a higher authority


...yet they can't prove the existence of the thing that they claim they get their answers from? seems awfully backwards to me



then science which by the way GOD MADE.


god didn't make the system... i believe it was aristotle that created the scientific method (i may be wrong)
that's like saying "god invented the toaster"



When you prove Gravity with science you prove GOD
When you prove the temperature at which water boils, you prove GOD.


no, i just prove the crap that science proved.

pquote]
the universe is beyond the grasp of science and always will be out of reach of human comprehension. It is something we will never truly understand.


really? because we sure as hell know a lot about it



Some claim that living things came from non living things how ever the idea of that violates the law of life itself or ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life.


biogenesis isn't actually a law of life . abiogenesis used to mean life coming out of things that are strictly inanimate.. such as the belief that maggots spontaneously formed from exposed meat

on the other hand chemical abiogenesis deals with protein structures coming to form rudimentary life.



We marvel at man's intelligent designs for so many of our greatest inventions and creations. Our computers the High Tech Military weapons we have even something as common as the IPOD if taken back in time and shown to them they would be astounded. We humans are pretty damn impressed with our self.


as we should be, we've cured disease, in a span of 50 years we doubled the average life expectancy, we've split the atom, harnessed electricity etc



Yet the technology whether in nuclear medicine or Nanotechnology can't even compare to the workings of life forms existing in protozoa. It is irrational to suggest that natural selection brought this about without the benefit of intelligent design or Master Creator.


no, it isn't irrational. your suggestion is irrational and is basically saying "magic"
i'm no biologist, i'd rather have someone with actualy knowledge on the subject to talk about it...



Nothing functions in an evolutionary state it simply does not happen.


sorry, we've seen it happen, try again



I am not talking about tadpole to frog which is metamorphosis I am talking about Darwin's theory that a slow process of evolution and his assertion that it is how we came into being.


no, it's the assertion that it's how higher forms came from lower ones over the course of a few hundred million years...




Plant life and Photosynthesis is a complicated process indeed and integral for the life of not just it's own survival but the survival of many other life forms. How could this complex process have "evolved" when the plant itself can not survive unless it had the capabilities from the start.


it evolved in things that didn't solely depend on it for their survival... think outside the god box for a second and the answers unfold.



If evolution's impetus brought about such plants and animals it would be possible to prove as solid as you can prove gravity.


it is quite possible to support the evolutionary arguements. go to the O&C forums and challenge people to counter your arguements against evolution and you'll see them torn asunder.



Yet over decades of research in scientific efforts to coax an evolutionary process where there is the physical biochemical improvement of a species has eluded us. We have tried radiation, hybrid mutations and they are changes that take place NOW or never.


this isn't my area of expertise... but we've seen evolution with drug resistent disease.



We use radiation on the common fruit fly with only mutation and deformity.


do you know what radiation does to dna? it shreds it.



Science in it's attempt to disprove a divine creator has failed to duplicate evolution on even the most simple life forms.


DUH. we can't replicate the process in the time we've know about it because it's a LONG PROCESS.



Complex life forms require intelligent design. It Just does NOT happen any other way.


and an intelligent designer simply begs the question of WHO CREATED THE DESIGNER. it's not an answer, it pushes stuff back.



Human beings are intelligent and we have never created nor will we ever create a technologically designed humanoid robot which could invent new machines, have ideas, reason etc.


never say never... they said we'd never land on the moon, they said we'd never make a succesful clone either



Just for the sake of argument, lets say we CAN

Even if it could do everything we can even discovering it's own renewable energy source of fuel or electricity to continue, then from there it created batteries and discoverd textiles, metals and other components to begin duplicating it self,,,

EVEN IF,,,,,,

All that was in the realm of possibility and was techinically feasible.

THE FACT STILL REMAINS.

Such a cyborg or technoman could have NEVER come into existence by happenstance.


obviously, because metals don't behave like carbon. carbon is a fairly unique atom in how it forms compounds, there's even an entire section of ORGANIC CHEMISTRY which deals with all carbon compounds save CO1 and 2 (don't ask me why they exclude them)



It could not have created itself from nothing because matter is not self creating.


indeed, but you're creating a strawman, another logical fallacy.



It is the law of thermodynamics and is a fact.


indeed, the first law of thermodynamics proves that matter and energy have always existed in some form or another.



NOT EVEN THE BIG BANG COUILD HAVE HAPPENED. The idea that we came from nothingness and gases mixed with some matter that ignited a BIG BANG is as silly as it sounds.


well, what you stated is both silly and not the big bang.
the big bang has nothing to do with "nothingness and gases mixed with some matter that ignited a BIG BANG"
you show a clear misunderstanding of the theory.... gas can't be present in a singualarity........................



Matter has to exist to create matter for matter to come into existence would require someone to introduce it to a place where once nothing was.


no no no no no no no no no
you're limiting yourself here and failing to recognize the first law of thermodynamics. law states that both matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed... it means they always existed.



Like the stealth jet I talked about in the previous post. Even if we helped it along by giving it a chance to work IE; we have all the components software and hardware were laying all around.

something had to assemble it and it has to have each of its parts and components all in the right places. Life did not occur without a living intelligence to design and guide it. Life has always come from life and life isn't something we came up with.

We have merely used living components to spin-off life from life.


the old "747 in a junkyard" arguement with different phrasing...
read the god delusion, dawkins tackles your arguement and shreds it



God Created the heavens and the earth their is simply NO OTHER SCIENTIFIC explanation


god isn't a scientific explaination. come to O&C and discuss it to have your delusions and ignorance shattered



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Complex life forms require intelligent design. It Just does NOT happen any other way.


Welcome to the concept of infinite regress.

I assume an intelligent designer is complex lifeform, therefore, as madness suggests, who designed your designer, and who designed the designers designer etc etc ad infinitum? It doesn't happen any other way apparently...

Of course, you'll just use a case of special pleading and create a supercomplex god-dude by fiat. So, complexity in your eyes can just poof out of nowhere. Furthermore, your supercomplex dude can create stuff by think n' poof. The big complex poofter theory.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


you're thinking that a post that implies EINSTEIN (the atheist) BELIEVED IN GOD is a good post?

that's just sheer ignorance

[edit on 8/26/07 by madnessinmysoul]


Einstein was no more an atheist then you are. You are a denyer simple as that. Einstien in a videotaped interview that aired on PBS in the Biography of Atomic Physicist Lise Mietner. Einstien saw intelligent design as a self evident phenomena moreover he he was humbled by earths existence in the universe. Lise Mietner a Jewish Scientist who was the one that took e=mc2 and applied it to Fission bringing about the Manhattan Project she had her discovery stolen By the Germans and there top chemist claimed it as his discovery alone.

Later as the CT's discovered more of the truth, history corrected the error and later named the radioactive isotope Mietnerium-53 after her.


[edit on 26-8-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Sorry, man, but Einstein WAS an atheist. Religious types like to use him as an example of a scientist that believed in god, but he wasn't. He used the word "god" as shorthand for natural law, like many scientists did and still do -- which, IMO, muddies the water and gives theists more of the same useless ammunition.

Even IF Einstein believed in god, so what? It doesn't mean god existed because some scientist believes so. The argument from authority is, like all other arguments for the existence of god, so much fallacy and wishful thinking.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Of course, you'll just use a case of special pleading and create a supercomplex god-dude by fiat.


Naturally.

The concept of an all knowing omnipresent omnipotent GOD being, having anything before him is answered in the biblical account where his answer is " I am the "Alpha and Omega " That to suggest anyone before is to assume that such omnipresence is limited in the quantum theory of time and space. God isn't governed by time which is why he can be everywhere at the same time because it doesn't take him any time to get anywhere. Your suggestion albeit sophomoric, that I would deny such creators before him is a timeline with a begining and an end.

GOD is eternal, infinite

You on the otherhand

are finite.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Lively debate for sure, just a friendly reminder for everybody to please stay on topic, watch those big quotes, and no threats of eternal damnation on anybody please


Cheers
FredT



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Sorry, man, but Einstein WAS an atheist. Religious types like to use him as an example of a scientist that believed in god, but he wasn't. He used the word "god" as shorthand for natural law, like many scientists did and still do -- which, IMO, muddies the water and gives theists more of the same useless ammunition.

Even IF Einstein believed in god, so what? It doesn't mean god existed because some scientist believes so. The argument from authority is, like all other arguments for the existence of god, so much fallacy and wishful thinking.


He was NOT an atheist and as i said before, Einstien was not one to push the quality of humilty over the cliff into humorous humiliation by making arrogant assumptions that he knew unequivocally that ther IS NO GOD.

If he did he would have proven it long before relativity. I posted the PBS movie to substantiate his agnosticism. YOu can download it at your leisure or believe he was as ignorant as you. I think it has been established his place in history regarding his Genious.


That is to say he believed in a higher intelligence or GOD. He may have not known him but he NEVER DENIED he was there.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Naturally.


Aye, the words of a bunch of uneducated goat-herders who believed in magic, witches, demonic possession, and talking bushes.

They write 'I AM' and things just exist because they say so.

ABE:


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Yet over decades of research in scientific efforts to coax an evolutionary process where there is the physical biochemical improvement of a species has eluded us.


What are you trying to say here. That we have never seen a mutation that has increased fitness?


Single DNA change causes mosquito resistance
19:00 07 May 2003

A single DNA change is responsible for making mosquitoes harbouring the deadly West Nile virus and malaria resistant to insecticides, reveals new research.

The discovery of the mutation in a vital enzyme targeted by the most commonly used insecticides could help scientists design new effective compounds to kill mosquitoes carrying these diseases.

www.newscientist.com...

I'm sure the mosquito's appreciated this mutation. Mutation is a biochemical change, and this change improved the survival of this species.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Human beings are intelligent and we have never created nor will we ever create a technologically designed humanoid robot which could invent new machines.


We can do even better. We can use a computer running evolutionary algorithms to design electronic circuits for us:


Radio emerges from the electronic soup
16:00 31 August 2002

A self-organising electronic circuit has stunned engineers by turning itself into a radio receiver.

This accidental reinvention of the radio followed an experiment to see if an automated design process, that uses an evolutionary computer program, could be used to "breed" an electronic circuit called an oscillator. An oscillator produces a repetitive electronic signal, usually in the form of a sine wave.

Paul Layzell and Jon Bird at the University of Sussex in Brighton applied the program to a simple arrangement of transistors and found that an oscillating output did indeed evolve.

But when they looked more closely they found that, despite producing an oscillating signal, the circuit itself was not actually an oscillator. Instead, it was behaving more like a radio receiver, picking up a signal from a nearby computer and delivering it as an output

www.newscientist.com...

[edit on 26-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Name calling isn't going to do anything but convince people that you aren't worth listening to. It's one thing to say someone's statement is ignorant, it is a totally other thing to call someone ignorant for a statement.

All you've succeeded in doing by being so personal and making a nasty attack is convince me that your statements are not worth reading.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

no, i just prove the crap that science proved.


Why ?? Science didn't do it right the first time?

Ill toss ya one bone, I agree,,your science is crap.


really? because we sure as hell know a lot about it


Really,, compared to what? the infinite universe we no nothing about ?
You have any idea how foolish you sounds any? Buehler? Buehler?



biogenesis isn't actually a law of life . abiogenesis used to mean life coming out of things that are strictly inanimate.. such as the belief that maggots spontaneously formed from exposed meat


Yeah,, thats the law of life. Tell me poindexter,, those maggots you are talking about,,they come from a dead thing or a living fly laying eggs in a dead thing? LIFE CAN ONLY COME FROM LIFE. to think that it can come from dead meat break that law. So your point is moot .

Try reading my post with a little more concentration. I don't mean to sound condescending but so far you have nothing substantive and for some reason an aire of hostility.

I know all the rest of that "stuff" you googled and posted only proves my point. That would be the point that apparently went right over your head as you are too busy disecting my post looking for diffrences in symantics that you claim are errors in the scientific vernacular. Then you post the meaning of my original post as if they are diametrically opposing ideologies. Another words,,

READ MY POST,, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.
Instead of looking for angles to attack my post and missing the central message entirely.

Now in the final analysis tempertantruminyoursoul,,


If I'm wrong, I am guilty of being wrong.

If you are wrong,, Id say GOD help you and I am sure you will be saying that too. tsk tsk I can just imagine when he plays back that tape of your life on this forum and says hey I tried and you spent your time denying me pushing me away and all I wanted to do was save you from this.


What floor please?
He is going down peter

Peter: Yes lord.
Wha! where my going?? NoooOOOOOOOOOOO
Madismysoul:Who is that!
Red: Thats your soulmate.
Madismysoul: Hi im mad, and you are
Sheol: It puts the lotion on it's skin.

LOL I'm just joshin ya ,, I'm pretty certain the lord ain't near done with you yet. BUT I CAN TELL YA THIS MUCH. IF HE DIDN'T WANT YA ,, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS umm chat.

Warm Regards

God Bless

-=[conspiriology]=-



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Naturally.


Aye, the words of a bunch of uneducated goat-herders who believed in magic, witches, demonic possession, and talking bushes.

They write 'I AM' and things just exist because they say so.

ABE:


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Yet over decades of research in scientific efforts to coax an evolutionary process where there is the physical biochemical improvement of a species has eluded us.


What are you trying to say here. That we have never seen a mutation that has increased fitness?


Single DNA change causes mosquito resistance
19:00 07 May 2003

A single DNA change is responsible for making mosquitoes harbouring the deadly West Nile virus and malaria resistant to insecticides, reveals new research.

The discovery of the mutation in a vital enzyme targeted by the most commonly used insecticides could help scientists design new effective compounds to kill mosquitoes carrying these diseases.

www.newscientist.com...

I'm sure the mosquito's appreciated this mutation. Mutation is a biochemical change, and this change improved the survival of this species.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Human beings are intelligent and we have never created nor will we ever create a technologically designed humanoid robot which could invent new machines.


We can do even better. We can use a computer running evolutionary algorithms to design electronic circuits for us:


Radio emerges from the electronic soup
16:00 31 August 2002

A self-organising electronic circuit has stunned engineers by turning itself into a radio receiver.

This accidental reinvention of the radio followed an experiment to see if an automated design process, that uses an evolutionary computer program, could be used to "breed" an electronic circuit called an oscillator. An oscillator produces a repetitive electronic signal, usually in the form of a sine wave.

Paul Layzell and Jon Bird at the University of Sussex in Brighton applied the program to a simple arrangement of transistors and found that an oscillating output did indeed evolve.

But when they looked more closely they found that, despite producing an oscillating signal, the circuit itself was not actually an oscillator. Instead, it was behaving more like a radio receiver, picking up a signal from a nearby computer and delivering it as an output

www.newscientist.com...

[edit on 26-8-2007 by melatonin]


You are just repeating the same erroneous bunk. That radio analogy was made of matter and albeit they overlooked another attribute of it's capability, it is more likely an oversight that was always there just hadn't been exploited. My point stands the radio analogy is matter which means it already existed. When you tell me the radio experiment and its electronics diodes cathodes capacitors all of it just invented itself then created the matter to make its physical form, and assembled itself BY ITSELF from absolutley nothing in a vacuum of nothingness

Then you may have proven the big bang theory.

All you have done is prove my point like the other guy.

It took intelligent design to make the radio and man made the radio thus man required intelligent design ie GOD's Creation



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
You are just repeating the same erroneous bunk.
...
and assembled itself BY ITSELF from absolutley nothing in a vacuum of nothingness


Why are you moving goalposts?

You said we have never seen biochemical improvements by evolutionary mechanisms.

I show you a mutation that improved the fitness of of mosquito species.

You say that we could never produce a robot that could design a machine.

I show you a computer using evolutionary mechanisms that designed one.



[edit on 26-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Name calling isn't going to do anything but convince people that you aren't worth listening to. It's one thing to say someone's statement is ignorant, it is a totally other thing to call someone ignorant for a statement.
.




All you've succeeded in doing by being so personal and making a nasty attack is convince me that your statements are not worth reading


Ignorant isn't name calling , it implies just what the word means defined. You can try to imply I was calling someone a dumb ass or stupid and then you would have not looked as ignorant to me as you do. The fact that you think I am not worth lisenting didn't stop you from making a post.

I think if you take a good look at the posts where I am described,, you may find THEY aren't worth listening to if calling other people names is the basis for your argument. Also keep in mind my posts were responding to . they posted arguments to me I not to them. This thread asks why believe it doesn't offer reasons not to. Just the same angry atheistic conclusion when they get owned ( too rough for ya ?)


I suggest you have a self concept one molecule away from being an eggshell. if you care to show me the nasty mean names and all you are alleging please do and Ill show you how fast I can put a whole shoe store in your mouth.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join