but this goes back to what we were saying before. either god is without beginning or the universe is. your actually acknowledging that the universe has a beginning. whatever started the universe HAD to have certain traits.

- it had to have existed before.
- it had to have had infinite power. to cause the rapid expansion and to have matter form from pure light would require more energy then i think we could imagine.
- the force would have to be ordered or intelligent enough to establish laws and boundaries within which the universe governs itself. even physicists acknowledge that as to get closer and closer to the actually bang, the laws of physics break down. it implies that these laws didnt exist before.

yet, the bible gives points to god having all these attributes, so either the bible writers were really smart and drew upon information that we wouldnt discover for years (like you said, astrophysics is just now figuring out the age of the universe), or maybe god actually was communicating something to them.

i dont see how this inevitably points us away from god. if anything, id say its more possible god has something to do with this.

yet we never see specification (sp?)

i dont like talking about evolution because i find that people take evidence in a very relative way. ive cited before about fruit fly experiments. they zap it with x-rays to speed up mutation yet all the mutations turn out bad. after the accelerated evolution of these flies, they are still flys, inferior flys, but still flys.

then there is abio genesis which evolutionist tend not to want to talk about.

im not saying that evolution is completely debunked, however i dont belief it has reached the point where you can disprove god. most people present evolution as ¨fact¨. however they ignore alot of the holes still present in the theory



ive never heard of any such proving. there is very strong evidence for a global flood. and there is documentation of supernatural activities. what about the chariot parts found at the bottom of the red sea?

www.discoverynews.us...

what about the fal of babylong being prophecied hundreds of years before?

www.livius.org...

what about assyria. until the 1800´s most thought the bible just made it up.

en.wikipedia.org...

it takes more than miracles to to prove something. some thinkers even try to give some sort of scientific explanation for the ten plagues of egypt, but they are still acknowledging that they happened.

i still dont think any of this points away from god.



i disagree. again, this is more difficult not being able to quote scripture but oh well.

This brings on several really good points. First off, since most "Christians" attempt to sell the Bible writings as literal, most Atheists use this same literal translation to debunk it as well. Which is fair enough for arguement, but not accurate. Without quoting, I must mention some of these "literal" texts point to the fact the Bible is loosely written, and should be left open to learning & interpretation, a tool to use in life if you will. I personally believe this true; when I read at face value, I get nothing; but when I look deeper for a meaning, I become enlightened through the same text.
The most obvious example is of time. His time and man's time is of no comparison, if you use Genesis as a reference.

There is no agruing the age of the Earth, and it is NOT 6000yrs. old. Can't be. So its easy to attempt to debunk the Bible with this information.
BUT, as mentioned by several non-believers, was the Bible not written by man? So does it not stand to reason that man would have attempted to write in a way by which he could understand? Or rather, would this God explain something so complex, in way way a simpler creature could relate?
I do this everyday with my own children.....

When I apply the evidence from the strata of the Earth, or from observation in multiple species, to a non-literal translation, I find a compelling arguement for a Creator. Even the scientists who proposed the Big Bang Theory years ago, now today agree with that as well. After years of expanding the theory due to more advanced means of observation, they have found the precision reguired for such an event is so substantial, that something, or someone, had a play in how it happened, or it could not have happened at all. These very scientists had initially set out to disprove there being any such Creator, and now by thier own admission, believe its almost impossible for there not to be.

At one point being Agnostic myself, I was faced with how to percieve all the information and mis-information. Once I accepted there being a Creator, I set out to find him. And I found in him in Christianity. That revelation was quite personal, and I am not here to minister to you. But I will say that ANYTHING that has managed to survive for over 2000 yrs, must have some truth in it, albeit somewhat corrupted by man at times.

Sorry I rambled. Just my thoughts.

Yes, I do believe that stuff still happens doesn't it. It's a book which contains both good and evil.

The funny thing is people like to quote the old testament. What you fail to realize is that the old testament is a testament of the wrong way, and the ways without understanding. Thus the reason Jesus of the bible came to fulfill and bring understanding to the correct way.

So meh, you don't look for the truth, you look for ways to disprove and pretend you are being honest and intellectual. In reality, you just plain out don't understand the whole story, and base your impression on it based on those who do things in it's name.

It'd be about like dismissing the Star wars movie as retarded because of the fans without ever having seen or understood the story line.

managed to double post sorry real post below cant delete.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by gYvMessanger]

reply to post by gYvMessanger

---

So ATS why do you believe in god / don't believe in god, and tell us what bought you to that conclusion.


Most people that believe in G-d in the manner that you hear may believe, but that makes no difference.

I KNOW there is a G-d. My knowing and the "faith/belief" are two different things completely.

There has been a major misconception (even by me) concerning the Bible and what Jesus was about. Jesus came ONLY to save a certain people.
This is evident by the way he spoke to the different ppl that came along his path.

When he spoke to the Jews who were of a pure bloodline, he said things such as "you are the light of the world".. THIS WAS NOT REFERRING TO JUST ANYONE who claims him as the messiah. This was not referring to the group that consider themselves "christians." This WAS only being said to the Jews who were pure in their bloodline and had not turned away from G-d.

He specifically says that he did not come for anyone but the house of Israel as is evidenced in Matthew 15 when the canaanite woman would not leave him alone.

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

verse 24 shows who his mission was directed at. He came for the SOLE purpose of being a light to those lost children of Israel. The way he spoke of the samaritans and spoke to them, this because even MORE evident.

The samaritans were part of the Israel blood line, but they had been tainted with the blood of the gentiles and thus, the wheat needed to be seperated fromm the chaffe. THis is why he one of the few times he said yes to being the messiah, he was speaking to the samaritan woman at the well. He tells HER (not a pure gentile) to worship in spirit and in truth. Her redemption had come. She had the spirit of G-d ALREADY in her but was bonded to the yoke of man.

Jesus came to seperate those of His house, the lost sheep, some of whom haven't even been aware of their lineage, from those who are NOT part of Israel.

Jesus was the "porch light" left on to call out the children of G-d out from among the nations. Not everyone is a part of this. This is why the Word had to be put out into the world among the nations. Those who are His are waking up to the truth of who they are and they are not settling for the conventional teachings of christianity that others are settling for (others settle for it becaues they DON'T understand.... the message is NOT for them).

I know this seems harsh, but it is the truth. If you don't see it as the truth, then this is fine. There is nothing that you will lose or gain by believing it or not believing it. You don't have to be convinced either way because, again, the message is not for you unless you are of the house of Israel. If you don't know whether you are or not, then chances are, you are not.



[edit on 16-12-2008 by justamomma]

reply to post by justamomma

---

I'm sorry but that is not the topic at hand, did you read this thread?

I specifically asked in the first post that people not quote from scripture, I would be happy to discuss scripture with you but please set up another thread to do it in and do not derail this one.

double post

[edit on 16-12-2008 by gYvMessanger]

I apologize for missing that. I did read and did not see it, but trust that is what you said. I guess I see things through a different perspective. I KNOW there is a G-d. Those who say they have faith and/or belief don't KNOW and lack of knowledge leads to death. You won't understand what I said, no doubt and thus, I will respect your empty pursuit and not "derail" your thread any further. Peace

You would be surprised at what I would know, I offered to engage you in discourse on your subject on a separate thread if you wish to pursue it, the point of this thread is not the one you bought up, nor is the conversation intended to engage your mindset, I hope you understand, though if you would wish to share your experiences with us in relation to the divine outside of scripture that would be grand.

reply to post by gYvMessanger

---

Unbelief is a form of faith....only negative.You dont have to believe in water in order to get wet or drown!One day we will all see.....my friend.

reply to post by Bnmssnit

---

You are very correct. If you believe, your faith is in God. If you do not, your faith lies in the fact of whether you made the right choice in not believing. In my own experiences, I do not trust my judgement enough to make that decision, so my faith is in the Lord. Salvation and destiny are to valuable to take a chance my friend.

what interesting is that scientists have been able to determine human creation on less.

i know some ancient structures are only left with the outline of the walls with nothing really left of the structure itself. and still they are able to recognize that it was designed and constructed.

it hurts my head when people say complex structures like DNA are accidental

reply to post by miriam0566

---

Hi Miriam, thank you for your comprehensive response, I am sorry I haven't replied sooner.

I wanted to say that your arguments are very compelling for a 'Deist' God, however, I still feel that there is no reason to believe in a God which emotion. (one described in human scripture).

To clarify my point about the story of Noah's Ark, it has beem proven that genetically, it is impossible for us to have decended from 6 individuals within only a few thousand years. I think most would agree that there was a flood, however it was localised and not as 'world encompassing' as written in the Bible. I would also like to point out that there are no Polar Bears on or around the area of Mount Ararat, nor Orang Utangs. Why?

I have already stated that there is possibly of a God, something which is completely abstracted from our 'Human' perspective. I could believe in a God which was mathematical, an equation of all things. I find it hard to swallow that there is a God who actually 'cares' about us and 'loves' us (shows human emotions).

I will agree that the Bible is a fantastic resource for historical events. But that is a far as my logic will take me.

You stated in your last post.

Well I would agree with you, but evolutionists who know what they are talking about would never say that. Evolution is not accidental, it is a process of slow improvement over long periods of time, through survival of the fittest. It is no accident that Giraffes have long necks - the environment has guided the generations to provide better chance of survival to those with long necks. The mutations themselves might be random, but the process is not.

In terms of DNA, this is something which also evolved to become it's current form. It started as RNA, which is a much more simplified version. Nothing in evolution demands a huge leap of 'random' change, it is always very small, likely steps, which in turn lead to a larger change, which combined with others, makes a larger change.

But I go back to my original statement. The least complex is the most likely. God is the most complex, therefore the least likely.

Just to add, there is no need for evolution to negate the existence of a God, just the existence of our interpretations of a God.

its ok, im in bed at the moment, im not going anywhere



the thing about noah's ark is that you cant take god out of the picture. without god's guidance and direction, noah would not have been able to complete his task. i know that sounds like a copout but think about it for a moment.

did noah really comb the earth looking for each kind of animal? how did could noah have been 100% sure the ark would not spring a leak? how did the ark happen to arrive at the peak of a mountain when its probable that noah didnt design it to navigate?

its likely that if god did cause a flood, and gave noah enough time to build the ark (which is something that even local flood theories dont address), then it is likely that god would help with the survival right?

one point you bring up about the animals.... micro-evolution is observable. most if not all the "evidence" for evolution is micro. white moth turns brown because the browns are the only ones that survive, beaks of a bird get longer because because only the longer ones can reach the food in the nooks of rocks. these are all gradual changes. we simply do see the giant fantastic changes that evolutionist present. even the fossil record is not gradual.

the account of noah says that noah got them "according to their kind" not that he got every kind. its possible that he got one or two types of bear, and that after the flood the bears changed as they migrated (much like they do today). thats just a theory, i could be completely wrong. but its not unfeasible.



well thats where we disagree. the bible is what convinced me that god does have emotions. i wouldnt call them "human" emotions. the bible says we were created in his image, not the other way around.

but there are certain things that the bible is amazingly right on.

i posted in another thread about the accuracy of the genesis account of creation. moses couldnt have just guessed it correctly. its impossible.

the isrealites couldnt have just guessed how do deal with infectious disease correctly thousands of years before the medical world discovered germs.

isaiah couldnt have just guessed that cyrus would destroy babylon and that it would remain desolated forever on.

jesus couldnt have just guess what living in out time would be like.

im just putting out a few examples for you, i could right a book on the subject. but to me at least, the bible is evidence of god's interaction with humans.



actually thats abit outdated. even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record does not show a gradual change. it why theories like mutation and super mutation were formulated, and the theories almost completely rely on accident.



even just the protiens, the "simple" building blocks are a complexity of their own. scientist cant figure out how these proteins even managed to form since water breaks down complex mixtures, and if they formed in the air then stellar radiation would have killed them. then even if they form, how did only "left handed" proteins know to get together to form RNA or DNA.

fact is, there is nothing to show us that RNA is a basic form of DNA. even our bodies have both.

and there is no evidence of a more rudimentary form of either. all of its components are put together with a specific task that is lost if the combination is not there.

its like a saying someone invented a paintbrush before inventing the paint.



i would say the opposite.

if you have a house and you are wondering how it got there, the simplest answer would be "someone build it or put it there".

trying to explain with theories and supposition how the house could form naturally is the complex option



it doesnt even do that. i hear the catholic church uses evolution now and that god uses it as a tool of creation.

i just dont see how that conclusion is reached

I go back in forth believing on God. Things will happen that are very spiritual and I'll think to myself, well if that is possible then there has to be some kind of higher being or "God." Then I see on the news that a young child was killed or something along those lines and I think to myself, what kind of a God would let that happen? I go back and forth which means my faith either way is not very strong. I don't know what the heck to believe. I guess one day I will find out though.

reply to post by miriam0566

---

Wow, big post...

OK, I understand your cases, but please read these responses:


Yes, it is. So you agree that species can change 'within their kind' (what is a 'kind' anyway?) but you think this change can happen in less than 6000 years? This period of time is no where near enough time for the type of changes you are talking about.



You hit the nail on the head with this paragraph. I agree with it completely. The next stage is to extend the process out over a long timeframe. What happens? A big series of changes, right? The end result is a big difference from the starting point, but it only took small steps to get there. Macro evolution IS micro evolution but over a long period of time. following on from this is the fossil record:

[Quote]
even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record does not show a gradual change. it why theories like mutation and super mutation were formulated, and the theories almost completely rely on accident.

Hang on surely the Creator would be outside the Creation itself, even if we accept that our Creator had a Creator itself your right at a certain point the concept will collapse as you go backwards.

Again though I think people are talking about two different things, the idea of the man on the cloud.

What I personally propose is that at some point there was most likely nothing and the essence of the thing I would recognize as god, that essence in one way over time, and one way instantly because there was no time, evolved its own consciousness and through that evolution began the act of creating.

If the Creator is outside of creation, the place where we live, than what we experience may well only be a portion of the godforce, the big bang may well have been the awaking of that consciousness amongst the void for the first time.

For me its not that I can't accept spontaneous bio genesis, but on such a massive level, in such perfect balance with so many complex rules governing how such things work, what I don't accept is that its truly random.

We have laws we dont even begin to comprehend which governs he way our universe works, and scientists in the last century have seemingly come leaps and bounds in finding quite a few of them, but don't you have to ask yourself how these rules came into play in the first place ?

I used to believe in God, then I realized I never had a choice. I was born to a catholic family, then I realized had I been born to a Muslim family, I would subscribe to their beliefs.

This is a subject I've given much thought to. When I believed in God I would be appauled at someone who said something that opposed God in a way. I was so brainwashed that I didn't know a world without God actually existed. I didn't know what an atheist was. If someone did not believe in God, then I automatically thought they believed in the devil. I became no different than a racist in the way I viewed homosexuality, and homosexuals. I saw them as being "against God", and destined to an afterlife of eternal suffering in hell.

But the more I thought about it, the more my views began to change. The more my views changed, the more I resented religion and belief in God for what they have caused, can cause, and will cause.

Belief in God has caused war, murder, bigotry, hatred, ostracism, and the stunting of human advancement.

However, it isn't only that that has caused me to reject such beliefs, because the more I thought about the subject and learned, the more things didn't make sense.

1. God granted us freewill, yet he is omniscient. The two are not compatible.

2. What makes one certain God from today any different than the thousands of others that humans have believed in?

3. There is no evidence whatsover of any kind that any God exists.

There are many others, but I won't go on any further, I think I've made my point lol.

reply to post by Unsane

---

It seems you are still subscribing to the literal text. In the flood, and not in as many words, I believe it talks about the gathering of all the animals in the land. And it states the world was subject to the Flood. If we take the evidence we see today, and put the non-literal into context, could we not assume the story refers to the world as they knew it? At that point, the world was flat, and surely every animal in the actual world could have not been known to man. After all, we all agree that man wrote the bible, God-inspired. What kind of deflection for Noah would have happened, if at this point God not only told him to ready for a flood, but took the same moment to alter his entire perception of the world as he knew it? Its my thought that God inspired Noah only to the level of his' current world would be able to understand. I'm sure Noah sounded crazy enough trying to convince people they need to board his ship to survive, just imagine he also tried to convince them the world was larger than they knew.