It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by John Matrix

Can you show observational data for evolution taking place millions of years ago?

How does anyone test and observe the evolution processes that is said to have happened millions of years ago? Forget adaptive responses and variations in species.....which does not prove evolution one bit.

We don't have to, we can show it happening now. We can look at newly emerging genetic mutations that improve health. We can look for recently emerged species in bacteria, Viruses and insects - anything that has many generations in only a few human generations. We can sequence DNA and look at the picture it paints us of how closely an organism is related to individuals and species around it, tracing lineages (Most of the evidence of the Out-of-Africa Theory is based on genetic sequencing). We can look at Artificial Selection in human domesticated Animals and plants and see how different they are from the individuals of the original species now (Cats, dogs, sheep, cattle, horses, pigs, any agricultural food etc.)

Then there is the fossil record which shows these similar lineages.

Evolution predicts slow change over time and we see it where ever we look. We even have medicine and industries based on it, not to mention the fact that people have utilised these principles for thousands of years; choosing the individuals to reproduce with the most favourable traits.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:42 AM

Originally posted by sirnex
Neither the religious nor the scientists have shown that the universe requires a beginning in order to exist, both parties only claim it had a beginning, but both parties also ignore for whatever reasons the observed evidences that point to a universe without a beginning.

What evidence? Thermodynamics seems to contradict that view. If the universe is destined to die a slow "heat death", and we imagine the law of thermodynamics running in reverse, there had to be a beginning. No?

Cause and effect may be supportive of the god theory, but it is equally supportive of the big bang theory.

Which makes both theories intellectually plausible.

Yet the god theory lacks one critical important piece of evidence, and that is god. Not only that, but which god out of the thousands worshiped through out mankind's history is that god?

That would be a good area for you to explore and seek Spiritual knowledge and Spiritual wisdom to balance out your materialism/naturalism/intellectualism.

The god theory has a lot of work ahead of it if it is to be taken seriously by freethinkers.

I'm a free thinker. That I believe the creation model makes more sense after reviewing the evidences does not make me any less a free thinker than you.

Show the work that lead to the conclusion that it was god or that a god is needed or that the universe even had a beginning.

The work is creation itself!
God is needed for you to exists.
God is needed for you to contemplate whether He exists or not.
You cannot take your next breath without God.
God set the laws in motion that holds everything together, without God everything would cease to exists.

No one can prove this to you but God.
You must seek that knowledge for yourself.

In the movie 'Contact', you have the hard line scientist(Jodie Foster) demanding prof of God's existence from Mathew McConaughey.

In the end of the movie she is faced with having to admit she cannot prove to her peers that her experience really happened.

It was an epiphany moment for the scientist....who was caught in the same dilemma that she presented to Mathew McConaughey

Belief in God involves personal experience.

I can tell anyone why I believe in God,
but that will not prove God exists.

You cannot prove God does not exist.

[edit on 24/9/09 by John Matrix]

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by John Matrix

Sorry but I have to ask, what is your background in biology? You CANNOT equate adaptive responses of individuals (like for example suntan or muscle growing), which are based on different gene expression but the genome doesnt change and, most importantly, they dont get passed on to offspring, with genetic adaptation through mutation and natural selection which requires more generations and by definition gets passed on (microevolution). Antibiotic resistance (or for example human races) is clearly the second case and equating the two and claiming that all diversity can be explained by simple individual adaptation is wrong.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by atlasastro

Via the time reversal of isotropic expansion(observed) we can considered that there was a beginning. By considering causality we can also show a requirement for a creator or cause for a beginning of the observed isotropic expansion of the universe.

I disagree that any such effect is actually observed on a large cosmic scale of universal proportions.

For example, take a look at a map of the universe LINK

The interesting thing is, there is no actual measured distance between objects over time. We have some galaxies moving towards us, others moving away and the same applies to our own galaxy, it's moving towards and away from others. There is no observed effect of space expanding going on to conclude the universe is expanding in any form. We measure the motions of galaxies moving away and somehow feel that is a valid enough proof of expansion while disregarding other paths of movement?

In an isotropic expansion type universe, I don't understand how these different things can occur. Where are we observing the space as expanding by measuring the rate of galaxies movement? Doesn't add up to me. Great, a galaxy moves by being gravitationally tugged by others around it, but is that really expansion of space itself or just movement by gravitational forces?

Who said there was an "orderly start" to the universe.

It wasn't my idea, I actually argued against an orderly universe if you reread correctly. John mentions an orderly universe.

I have been party to many discussion on an Eternal Universe here on ATS. How do you explain an eternal universe. If the universe is indeed eternal, any ordered system(i.e. our existence) tends into disorder and chaos. We observe this on all levels in the universe. If this process is indeed eternal, then disorder and chaos would be infinite.

If matter exist as it exists, which we have no indication that it doesn't exist else we wouldn't be here and this is held infinitely so, then I don't really see the problem. We now know that virtual particles, or whatever process is going on there, can have one particle ejected from a black hole. Maybe this can account for the continuous influx of matter back into the system.

That, and when a black hole evaporates, it doesn't just evaporate into nothingness, the matter still exists but back in it's basic constituents. So matter/energy is never completely lost and according to the laws of physics, it can never be created or destroyed. Perhaps matter just exists in a finite amount throughout an infinite universe, I don't know why it would but obviously there isn't an infinite amount of matter present.

What evidence is there that shows the universe is eternal.

Honestly none since we can't visibly see an infinite distance. Yet if we go by observationally visible evidences we don't see a beginning to the universe either, certainly not as depicted by religious teachings nor by the big bang theory. We can't invent invisible unobserved forces and call them fact. We need to look at what we see. As far as I'm concerned there are only two possibilities. Either there was a beginning to the universe or there wasn't, I can not conceive of any other possibility.

Can you show me a universe that is eternal, how do you do that. How do you show an infinite universe or an infinite being? Your argument is as valid as a God hypothesis in that it is just as impossible to show or prove.

One couldn't except through deductive reasoning on observational evidences. True, it's as valid of the god theory, but also equally true of the big bang theory. The only difference I see is that with my belief I don't need to invent invisible outside forces that have never been observed in order to make the theory workable. Big bang and god both require invisible unobservable forces to work. Logically one would assume that if one needs to bring in imaginary sources to make an idea stick, then that idea is most certainly invalid.

How do you explain a form of logic that is apparent in the universe as just being, and eternal?

Easy. We exist because we exist. We don't know nor have we ever seen non-existence. A finite life doesn't necessarily have to equal a finite universe. Just because a human lives for so long with a beginning and an end and this being all he/she knows doesn't require the same from existence that has no feelings towards one species out of potentially unimaginable numbers of species with intelligence.

Logically speaking, I consider these valid considerations when contemplating a "god" or superior creative consciousness.

Are you trying to argue that human consciousness is due to quantum physics? I personally don't subscribe to that belief as it sounds utterly ridiculous, it's nothing more than an attempt to make man look special to the universe in my opinion. It's egotistical and arrogant, we're not special, yes that sucks, we need to get over it and move on.

Now, let's consider an eternal universe with a finite state of matter following the laws of physics as they exist. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Light from distant sources gets harder and harder to 'see' the more distance there is between the source and the observer, so even in an infinite universe, light still would obey that same rule or law. We can never see no further than what we are capable of detecting. So one can't "prove" an eternal universe, but if observed from the local observable space we don't see a universe born from a beginning either. We see clumps of galaxies old and young mixed together going in whichever directions following no discernible pattern consistent with expansion of any form, we see large inexplicable voids in space the require invisible unobserved forces in order to become explainable and then we see huge groupings of galaxies be drawn towards one point in space as if tugged from something "outside" the known universe.

Two possibilities exist. If there was a big bang, then the universe is much larger and much much older than we think or, the universe just exists as it exists because it exist, without reason and we're not special to it just because we exist too.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

Belief in God involves personal experience.

Trouble is that billions of people around the world all have "personal experience" with what they claim to be a deity or deities. Thousands of gods across thousands of years.

What makes you think that your believed god is the right one? You experience cannot be seen as anything more than any other personal experience.

God seems to be exactly what people who claim to know god expect it to be, and I find that suspicious.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by Welfhard

Thank you for bringing up genetics!!

In June 2007, a international team of scientists, named ENCODE, published a study that indicates the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. This "complex interwoven network" throughout the entire DNA code makes the human genome severely poly-constrained to random mutations (Sanford; Genetic Entropy, 2005; page 141). This means the DNA code is now much more severely limited in its chance of ever having a hypothetical beneficial mutation since almost the entire DNA code is now proven to be intimately connected to many other parts of the DNA code. Thus even though a random mutation to DNA may be able to change one part of an organism for the better, it is now proven much more likely to harm many other parts of the organism that depend on that one particular part being as it originally was. Since evolution was forced, by the established proof of Mendelian genetics, to no longer view the whole organism as to what natural selection works upon, but to view the whole organism as a multiple independent collection of genes that can be selected or discarded as natural selection sees fit, this 'complex interwoven network' finding is extremely bad news, if not absolutely crushing, for the population genetics scenario of evolution (modern neo-Darwinian synthesis) developed by Haldane, Fisher and Wright (page 52 and 53: Genetic Entropy: Sanford 2005)!

Read more from the Source here:

"The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA "letters" folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined." As well the similarity between genomes that is often bantered about by evolutionists as conclusive proof of evolution is far from conclusive as far as the practice of hard science is concerned. naturalists say that evolution is proven true when we look at the 98.8% similarity between certain segments of the DNA in a Chimpanzee and compare them with the same segments of DNA of a Human. Yet that similarity is not nearly good enough to be considered "conclusive" scientific proof. For starters, recent preliminary comparisons of the complete genome of chimps and the complete genome of man yield a similarity of only 96%. As well, the December 2006 issue of PLoS ONE reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4% (Hahn). Whereas, Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity may in actually be closer to 85% to 90%. Secondarily, at the protein level only 29% of genes code for the exact same amino acid sequences in chimps and humans (Nature, 2005)(Why is the 29% fact never mentioned by evolutionists?). As well, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish? Our DNA is 70% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 70% fruit fly? Our DNA is 75% similar to a worm; So are we 75% worm? Our DNA is 50% similar to a banana; so are we 50% banana? No, of course not!! Decoding the dogma of DNA similarity

Read More from Source here:

IMHO: Similarities in DNA are evidence for a Supernatural Intelligent Designer, and NOT evidence for Evolution.

The Evolution theory is imploding on itself.

Within a few years it will be an embarassing chapter in human history.

Want more?

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:13 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

If the universe is destined to die a slow "heat death", and we imagine the law of thermodynamics running in reverse, there had to be a beginning. No?

Correct, in an expanding universe with all matter moving away from each other into infinite space. Then again, there are also theories stating that matter will eventually collapse and form a new big bang.

I haven't seen anyone point to a patch of space and show that space itself is expanding. Instead we invent unobservable invisible forces that can't be tested for. Nothing is moving away from anything at a consistent rate of expansion.

Which makes both theories intellectually plausible.

Intellectually? Nothing. I mean, it's fine if you want to believe in things you can't see, but it's just down right annoying when you stomp your feet declaring your love for it.

That would be a good area for you to explore and seek Spiritual knowledge and Spiritual wisdom to balance out your materialism/naturalism/intellectualism.

OK, which god out of the thousands worshiped is the right one?

I'm a free thinker. That I believe the creation model makes more sense after reviewing the evidences does not make me any less a free thinker than you.

Your a lazy thinker at most, and certainly not a freethinker. There is no real tangible evidence for a creator. You said you reviewed the evidence, I hope it's been peer reviewed and studied to death because such an evidence would change a lot of thing's on this planet.

Belief in God involves personal experience.

Again we're left asking which god? What of gods worshiped on other planets, perhaps their gods are the right gods?

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

You're thinking too small. I say genetics and you immediately jump on Chimp-Human genetic similarity discussion as if that's the only genetic sequencing we have that shows common descent.

You humble opinion doesn't match the opinion of actual scientists whom work are studied and experts in this field - not such a humble opinion if you completely disregard what the experts say.

IMHO: Similarities in DNA are evidence for a Supernatural Intelligent Designer, and NOT evidence for Evolution.

That's foolish. You're effectively saying that the designer is setting us up to be deceived by the evidence.

Human DNA is becoming degraded because natural selection doesn't work on us as much as it used to. Bad mutations are more survivable now because we have medicine (and help the poor and deathly) and inturn these things get passed on to future generations effectively polluting the gene pool. You don't see this in other animals which are much more subject to NS.

The Evolution theory is imploding on itself.

Within a few years it will be an embarassing chapter in human history.

I find this delusion particularly astonishing. There is very few theories in science that string together all aspects of the field of study like evolution does, as such it's considered the backbone of biology. There is no contender theories to rival it and there is no dispute in the scientific community. How can you possibly think it's going to fall from favour?

There is no proof quite like genetics. It's not just how similar we all are to one another genetically, it's the specific mutations that tag family lineages that we can track that paints a common ancestor picture.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:22 PM
Just to clear up definitions, we wont get anywhere without them:

Adaptation - change in gene expression, does not change genetic code and does not get passed on. (growing muscles, suntan...)
Is empirically proven!

Microevolution - small changes in genetic code that do not cause speciation, a.k.a. reproduction barrier (human races)
Is empirically proven!

Speciation - changes in gen. code that cause reproduction barrier (look up countless examples on wiki or somewhere)
Is empirically proven!

Macroevolution - big additive changes in gen. code in millions of years.
Evidence includes morphologic and genetic similarities, thousands of fossils, explains all complexity of life, and is logical effect of microevolution+lots of time.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:52 PM
Similarity is not that simple. If you include only genes that both species have, you get other number than if you include all genes or protein sequences or other data. Do not let different numbers floating around confuse you.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:18 PM

Originally posted by sirnex
OK, which god out of the thousands worshiped is the right one?

The God that possesses those divine characteristics that people recognize as universally good and which we all accept as having moral value: Humility, Patience, Love, Compassion, Kindness, Empathy, Forgiveness Grace, etc..

Contrast those Divine virtues with that of our human propensity to covetousness, envy, pride, and wrath.

We covet because we want what others have. We envy because we don't have what others have, we self arrogant for want of exaltation and when one or any number of these three desires are contradicted we find ourselves thrown into a fourth state of wrath(anger).

Our nature consists of a feed back loop of wanting continually desiring, and desiring contunually wanting.

Everything we do while under the power of our nature, from the time we are born, is for Want of something.

But, by turning to those Divine virtues of God, which were made manifest in the flesh by His son Jesus Christ, we deny our nature and begin to take on the Supernatural Nature and Characteristics of God, and against such there is no law.

I see no other way of denying one's self, picking up one's cross, following after Jesus, being like Him, immitating Him, or showing faith in Him except through desiring those Divine virtues which constitute the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The correct God to follow is the God of: Humility, Patience, Love, Compassion, Kindness, Empathy, Forgiveness Grace, etc..


posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by sirnex

Hey guys, thank you for your effort here...very impressive!

Out of my meetings so I have some time?

sirnex, is the universe expanding?


posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by John Matrix
....... Humility, Patience, Love, Compassion, Kindness, Empathy, Forgiveness Grace, etc.. .....

All, can we agree these are good things?

And the earth is the only place where they are shown...caveat, that we have the ability to look into?


posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by Maslo

Hey friend, how are you?

Thanks for joining again...

What you up to?


posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

What evidence do you have supporting a god of that nature? What if a race on another planet worships a war like god and there race finds honor in dying in war with others and a place in the afterlife for doing so?

Perhaps your god is different from another defined concept of god. What makes you right and them wrong? Come to think of it, such a form of a god existed on our very own planet back in ancient days with such a belief structure as well! Amazing!

So, your right and they are wrong ...

Sure, that god is no longer worshiped now a days, but interestingly it was because the "good" god allow the "good" people to wipe out all those other gods through force and war. Such a good god!

Your also forgetting that these so called "divine virtues" are not thought of as virtuous through out the entire human species. What is right for you is wrong for someone else. There is no inherent knowledge of right and wrong as it is nothing more than a societal agreement on moral conduct. Other countries have laws that we laugh at as ridiculous and those same countries find it unthinkable that we allow our women to been seen, let alone to talk!

The god of the old testament said his word could never be changed, and yet Jesus waltz's in and says he is god and he was basically just kidding, here are the new rules. Your definition of god is a contradiction god. Do you believe in the god of the old testament or the new testament?


Why don't you believe in Zues instead? He's a much cooler god.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by sirnex]

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by OldThinker

I don't believe the universe is expanding, we can't point to any empty point in space and see expansion occurring. Instead we look at a few galaxies moving away from us and each other as 'proof' of expansion while ignoring galaxies doing the opposite. It's like trying to prove time by measuring the rate of change in a numerical sequential manner without showing time.


Put it this way, is the big bang theory were developed at the same time the first telescopes that could see nearby galaxies was developed, back then the universes age would only be a few hundred million years old at most. The bigger the telescope, the further we can see and the older our universe get's. Right now telescope technology can only see so far out and there's no indication that it couldn't see further out with more advances made to it.

So either it's bigger and older than we currently think or it's infinite. Either possibility is valid enough to be taken in seriousness. The god equation less so because it assumes no other life out there and thus no other concepts and definitions of gods, making our god the most special god of all.

We have to observational evidences that are easily seen as true to humanity.

One, we exist indicating that there is no non-existence.
Two, life exists as indicative that we exist and we are life.

So, we know a universe is possible because we live in one and that life is possible because we are here. What we don't know is if life is not possible and if a universe is possible as we've never seen anything that show's it's not. So logically, we exist because we exist and if we didn't then we wouldn't and as we don't not exist then we must be.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by sirnex]

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:51 PM

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix

What evidence do you have supporting a god ...

Thought the following discourse might spark some discussion from your question...

Characteristics of General (Naturalistic) Revelation
As Ryrie points out, General Revelation, as the title suggests, is simply general and broad in the following ways:10

(1) It is general in its scope in that it witnesses to all people as the following passages suggest:

Matthew 5:45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Acts 14:17 and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.

It is general geographically in that it encompasses the entire globe.

Psalm 19:1-4 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. 2 Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard. 4 Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world. In them He has placed a tent for the sun. (Emphasis mine.)

(3) It is general in its methodology since it uses a universal means, the varied elements of God’s creation like the heat of the sun and the human conscience, to declare the reality and glory of God (Ps. 19:1-6; Rom. 2:14-15).

Simply because it is a revelation that thus affects all people wherever they are and whenever they have lived it can bring light and truth to all, or, if rejected, brings condemnation.11

General or Naturalistic Arguments
The following arguments are drawn from natural revelation, from the world around us, in contrast to the revealed or supernatural revelation of the Scripture. This is bonafide evidence for God-consciousness as the Apostle Paul shows in Romans 1:19-20. The basic idea of these arguments is that as we study the world in which we live one can reasonably conclude that there must be a God. In the final analysis, however, one only comes to this conclusion by the perception of faith. Why? Because in spite of the evidence, one does not see God; one sees only the evidence of God, but not God Himself.

Illustration: When a man walking through the woods finds the tracks of a deer that has passed there only hours before, he knows that a deer was there because of the evidence of the tracks even though he does not see the deer. So (as with the tracks of the deer) we may know that God exists by the tracks He has left everywhere in the world.

The Moral Argument
Man has an intellectual and moral nature which demands God as his Creator. Man’s conscience, which is a law to man, necessitates a Law-Giver. Man’s free will implies a Great Will. Without God as the basis for right and wrong, no government would be possible except on the principle, “might makes right.”

Though it becomes defiled and seared by sin (1 Tim. 4:2; Tit. 1:15), to some degree all men have that faculty called conscience with its constant impulse to choose the right and leave the wrong. Society and government are based on this recognition of virtue and truth, but where does that come from? The only logical explanation is the existence of a God whose ways are holy, just, and good. A material universe without God as Supreme Governor would of necessity lack moral values and distinctions.

The Argument From Design (Teleological, telos, “end”)
The universe is a cosmos not a chaos. “Adaptation of means to an end imply a Designer.” Paley, the philosopher, used the illustration of a man finding a watch in the woods. If you found a watch and then found it also kept good time, you are forced to conclude that it had a designer (Isa. 45:18). How much more is this not true with the universe and its infinite complexity.

The earth itself is evidence of design. “If it were much smaller an atmosphere would be impossible (e.g. Mercury and the moon); if much larger the atmosphere would contain free hydrogen (e.g. Jupiter and Saturn). Its distance from the sun is correct—even a small change would make it too hot or too cold. Our moon, probably responsible for the continents and ocean basins, is unique in our solar system and seems to have originated in a way quite different from the other relatively much smaller moons. The tilt of the [earth’s] axis insures the seasons, and so on.”12

Another illustration is a stone wall. Rocks falling in a landslide never form a properly placed, neat, uniform stone wall. Rather, such a stone wall proves design and a designer. So the world, in all its perfection and design, must have had a Designer. Stated in the form of syllogism the argument is as follows:

Major Premise: Design presupposes an intelligent architect.
Minor Premise: The world shows evidence of design in every part.
Therefore: The world has a designer or intelligent architect, who is God.
The Cosmological Argument
The Greek word cosmos means “an orderly arrangement.” Every effect must have its adequate cause. The universe is an adequate cause, and the only sufficient cause is God. Where did the universe come from if not from God the Creator? Reason and probability are on the side of creation, not chance or mere force (Rom. 1:20; Acts 17:28-29). Stated in the form of syllogism the argument is as follows:

Major Premise: Every effect has an adequate cause.
Minor Premise: The world is an effect.
Therefore: The world has an adequate cause outside itself which produced it, namely God.
The Esthetic Argument
There is beauty in the universe and human beings have a unique ability to appreciate it. From whence comes this correspondence between the beauty in creation and the ability of man to appreciate it? This indicates design, intelligence, personality, and so, God.

The Ontological Argument (The idea of a supreme being)
Man not only has an idea of a God, but he pictures that God is a supreme being, one who is perfect, independent, and infinite. Where does this idea come from if there is no such being?

This argument is generally considered the most profound and Keyser in his book, A System of Christian Evidences, has an excellent statement:

We can not think of the relative without also thinking of an absolute. We can not think of the derived without also thinking of the underived. We can not think of the dependent without also thinking of the independent. We can not think of the imperfect without also thinking of the perfect. We can not think of the finite without also thinking of the infinite.

Now, if these concepts are not true, and there is no perfect, absolute, infinite Being, then man’s thinking, in its deepest constitution is null and void. If that were true, all our thinking would be insane and futile. Can we believe that?13

Sometimes this argument is called, The Religious or General Argument with the argument going something like this: Since the belief in God and supernatural beings is universal even among the most backward tribes, it must therefore come from within man, it is something innate. The question is, could it have come from civilization or even from education when people all over the world possess it whether they are civilized and educated or not? The logical answer is no.

Then, where could such an idea come from if there is no God? There is always something to satisfy the desires which are common to the whole human race. There is food for the hungry, water for the thirsty, and a God for the thirsty soul. Stated in the form of a syllogism the argument is as follows:

Major Premise: An intuitive and universal belief among men must be true.
Minor Premise: The belief that there is a God is universal and intuitive among men.
Therefore: The belief that there is a God is true.
There are some very interesting facts regarding the universal belief in God.

(1) More than 90 percent of the religions of the world acknowledge the existence of one supreme being and some even anticipate God’s redeeming concern.

(2) In every case, this monotheistic belief predated other forms of worship or beliefs and heathenistic practices. This is true the world over on every continent.

(3) These other forms of heathenistic and polytheistic practices were invariably the result of failing to pursue the knowledge of God. Failure to pursue belief in the one Supreme Being created a vacuum into which false and demonic beliefs quickly rushed. As an illustration, ancient Chinese and Koreans had believed in a Supreme God who created all things. In China his name was Shang Ti and in Korea it was Hananim, The Great One. This belief predated Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. It goes back 2600 years before Christ and worshippers throughout China and Korea seem to have understood from the beginning that Shang Ti/Hananim must never be represented by idols.14

Little writes:

It is very significant that recent anthropological research has indicated that among the farthest and most remote primitive peoples, today, there is a universal belief in God. And in the earliest histories and legends of peoples all around the world the original concept was of one God, who was the Creator. An original high God seems once to have been in their consciousness even in those societies which are today polytheistic. This research, in the last fifty years, has challenged the evolutionary concept of the development of religion, which had suggested that monotheism—the concept of one God—was the apex of a gradual development that began with polytheistic concepts. It is increasingly clear that the oldest traditions everywhere were of one supreme God.15

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:53 PM

Originally posted by sirnex
.....[EDIT TO ASK]

Why don't you believe in Zues instead? He's a much cooler god.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by sirnex]

I believe in him, too...really.


posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:07 PM

Originally posted by sirnex
.....So, we know a universe is possible because we live in one and that life is possible because we are here. What we don't know is if life is not possible and if a universe is possible as we've never seen anything that show's it's not. So logically, we exist because we exist and if we didn't then we wouldn't and as we don't not exist then we must be......

The RUM is kickin in, huh?
Just kidding!

See you when you get back...


posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:10 PM

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by sirnex
.....[EDIT TO ASK]

Why don't you believe in Zues instead? He's a much cooler god.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by sirnex]

I believe in him, too...really.


Here's why...

Zeus was real....

Genesis Chapter 6, verses 1 through 4 mentions Nephilim:

"Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.[5]
They are mentioned again in Numbers chapter 13, verses 32–33, in a description of the inhabitants of Hebron:

"So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, "The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight. [6]
There are five common views regarding the identity of the Nephilim.

They were the hybrid offspring of fallen angels and human women.
They were the offspring of descendants of Seth with those of Cain.Template
"De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini"; "Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat," 10)
Webster's 1913 Dictionary defines the word simply as "Giant." Thus, any especially tall, powerful, large, or mighty man would be described in ancient times as Nephilim. Nephilim may simply mean "giant," champion, or strong man.
The term might not refer to any specific race or group of people but is a label similar to "hero," a legendary figure, or "great man." The Bible itself describes the Nephilim as "Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown." In this view, the Bible tells us that Nephilim is a legendary or heroic figure, a mighty warrior, already renowned in legend by the time Moses wrote down Genesis. Using the Bible to define itself, Nephilim means a man of legend, one recounted in legendary tales.
They are not historical figures and are ancient imagery with questionable meaning.[7]
[edit] Offspring of fallen angels
The Targum Jonathan states that the Nephilim were given this name because they were descended from fallen angels.[8]

The New American Bible commentary draws a parallel to the Epistle of Jude and the statements set forth in Genesis, suggesting that the Epistle refers implicitly to the paternity of Nephilim as heavenly beings who came to earth and had sexual intercourse with women.[9] The footnotes of the Jerusalem Bible suggest that the Biblical author intended the Nephilim to be an "anecdote of a superhuman race".[10] Genesis 6:4 implies that the Nephilim have inhabited the earth in at least two different time periods—in antediluvian times "and afterward." If the Nephilim were supernatural beings themselves, or at least the progeny of supernatural beings, it is possible that the "giants of Canaan" in Book of Numbers 13:33 were the direct descendants of the antediluvian Nephilim, or were fathered by the same supernatural parents.

In Aramaic culture, the term Nephila specifically referred to the constellation of Orion, and thus Nephilim to Orion's semi-divine descendants (cf. Anakim from Anak);[11] the implication being that this also is the origin of the Biblical Nephilim.

Some Christian commentators have argued against this view[12], citing Jesus' statement that angels do not marry.[13] Others believe that Jesus was only referring to angels in heaven.[14]

[edit] Offspring of human men
Many Jewish commentaries and translations describe the Nephilim as being from the offspring of "sons of nobles" rather than from "sons of God" or "sons of angels".[15] This is also the rendering suggested in the Targum Onkelos.

Likewise, a long-held view among some Christians is that the sons of God did not birth the Nephilim spoken of in the text, but the formerly righteous descendants of Seth who rebelled, while the daughters of men were the unrighteous descendants of Cain, and the Nephilim the offspring of their union.[16] This view dates to at least the 3rd century AD, with references in Sextus Julius Africanus,[17] as well as throughout the Clementine literature.[18] Holders of this view[19] have looked for support in Jesus' statement that "in the days before the flood they (humans) were marrying and giving in marriage"[20]

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in