God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[admiralsnackbar]

I didn't make many friends there either.

Who really cares, though? Them flame wars was epic... got me through many a dull work day

[MannyIsGod]

Ho. Lee. .

What do some of y'all do all day? 18-19 pages? Seriously? Some of y'all *cough*redzero*cough have gone around in circles enough times to complete the Daytona 500.

I will boil this thread down once and for all:

Christians/believers/whatever the you wanna call 'em are GOING to adhere to their faith regardless of whatever drivel gets posted on a message board.

Agnostics/nonbelievers/whatever the you wanna call 'em are GOING to continue to question/deny the existence of God/a higher power REGARDLESS of what is posted in this thread, or a similar thread when it pops up again in a few weeks/months.

The mistake that's being made here (and I'm including myself in this since I've obviously done my part to perpetuate this preposterous thread), is either side attempting to convince the other of their views. News flash: no one is going to become a Christian or renounce their beliefs because of what's posted here, sorry to burst some of y'all's bubbles. The agnostics (i'm using the term loosely) are primarily attempting to antagonize the religious posters for entertainment value (as has been admitted by a few posters already), NOT because they're interested in a non-judgmental exchange of ideas. Much of this q/a bull could be easily hashed out over PM, but where's the fun in that (again, looking @ you, redzero).

In short, this has become nothing more than a gigantic two-way troll thread--from the OP's sharing of a hot button topic, to the predictable responses of the religious posters, to the equally predictable postings of the agnostic crowd, with mind-boggling stupidity at the center of it all, mocking both sides.

To anyone who wants to have a serious conversation over these issues (and not sling message board-isms back and forth), I'll once again offer you to PM me. I don't promise to have all the answers (who does?), but I can promise a more professional discourse than this thread could possibly allow.

Y'all have fun on this offseason train of madness--this is my stop. Gig 'Em and Godbless.

You think this is about convincing anyone anything? You have a lot to learn.

[SAScrub]

All I know, with 100% certainty, is that if they truly believe, then they are all hypocrites on a range of issues.

I was gonna stay out of this one...but I'm interested in knowing how you can say that with 100% certainty?

[Blake]

god's gonna you all soon!

[Blake]

I'm scared of heaven. I bet they only have 3.5% beers and no-touch lap dances.

sounds like to me.

[Blake]

I was gonna stay out of this one...but I'm interested in knowing how you can say that with 100% certainty?

huh....

+1

[Phenomanul]

First off, yelling (overuse of the largest oversized fonts) does little to bolster your assertion that you're not trolling...

Okay, I'm tired of this bull .

Then leave... or do what you do best.... plug up your mind, tune everyone else out, and proclaim to have intellectual superiority over everyone here...

It is written in the ing New Testament to never disregard the laws of the Old Testament, and yet you haven't given a single explanation why that's untrue.

I never said it was untrue... I stated that the New Covenant that Jesus established supercedes the Old Covenant under the Law... Believers no longer are judged based on the merit of their works but by their faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross. (Read Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Hebrews and Revelations).

But obviously people have (and continue to) reject GOD's gift of grace. Regardless of their belief structure, and whether or not they realize it the Old Covenant still envelops everyone else. Since no one can keep the Law, they are ultimately cursed by it... Hence Jesus' quote was perfectly valid when he said it and completely true; the law will endure because it's still binding...

Those who reject Jesus Christ will be judged according to the Law (forever enduring by that passage you quoted). Ultimately, they will face eternal death and have to pay for their sins with their own blood.

On the other hand, Jesus Himself already paid the ransom for those who placed their faith in His finished work. We are covered by His blood.

BTW, you never did answer who Jesus' audience was... He was talking to the Jewish mul ude... one which held the Law in high regard. Jesus was talking about the Law because he was in the process of fullfilling it... but again, by doing so he raised the bar so high we couldn't possibly match it. That is why belief in Him is the only conduit that can satisfy the reconcilement of our 'filthy' works with GOD's Holiness... an attribute which demands that perfect Justice be enacted... By covering us with His blood, we no longer have to die for our own actions.... Jesus is the only way... a fact He stated in the Gospel of John,

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father, except through me"

- John 14:6

Now, I'm not invoking lawlessness... one of the passages you quoted from the New Testament is used to convey that GOD's law ultimately guides us to righteousness... I'm simply referencing law the way it is referenced in the Epistle to the Galatians and the book of Hebrews... but of course, you don't even read the Bible regularly, you just cut and paste arguments from atheistic boards and expect us to give you the type of answers which would somehow prove the incongruency you wish to expose. You made that supposition a priori. Of course, when given a legitimate counter you've simply refused to accept the explanation... hurling insults in the process... and it follows that since you've yet to concede on anything that this trend will likely continue....

Frankly these explanations are beyond your level of comprehension (disbelief automatically disallows the Holy Spirit from enlightening you on the meaning of the Scriptures - of course when you tell people that, they go on a hissy rant about being perceived as 'inferior')....

All you have said is that The Old Testament doesn't count, which is makes no sense because (1) God is supposed to be perfect and therefore should make perfect laws, and (2) it's written in the New Testament that it does count.

You are in denial. Really.

Denial no... I just keep laughing at the fact that somehow you've purported to try and lecture me on the meaning of Scriptures...

So let's try this again...

Yes, the Old Testament "counts" because it is a "shadow and type" that is ultimately fullfilled by Jesus.

and Yes, the law is perfect... too perfect... so perfect that only GOD Himself managed to fullfill it (in human form)... that means that the law is imperfect for us, because we will always fall short from keeping it fully. You err by assuming that we are the reference point for the perfection of the Law.... JESUS was.

Until you provide me with proof that what's in the Old Testament only applies to non-believers (which doesn't even make sense, because a non-believer would not follow laws from somebody he/she thinks does not exist), you need to shut up.

and you need to simmer down...

[Blake]

First off, yelling (overuse of the largest oversized fonts) does little to bolster your assertion that you're not trolling...

What do you believe the use of yellow font does for your assertion?

Then leave... or do what you do best.... plug up your mind, tune everyone else out, and proclaim to have intellectual superiority over everyone here...

you mean like the time(s) you bragged about your college education right before putting me on ignore in one of those evolution threads?

Those who reject Jesus Christ will be judged according to the Law (forever enduring by that passage you quoted). Ultimately, they will face eternal death and have to pay for their sins with their own blood.

I can't figure out though why Satan knows this, but yet would rather be eternally damned.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father, except through me"

- John 14:6

Is this from the King James?

Of course, when given a legitimate counter you've simply refused to accept the explanation... hurling insults in the process... and it follows that since you've yet to concede on anything that this trend will likely continue....

Oh, so does this mean you are ready to answer real questions pertaining to the thread instead of hurling insults at me?

Is the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes or no?

Frankly these explanations are beyond your level of comprehension (disbelief automatically disallows the Holy Spirit from enlightening you on the meaning of the Scriptures - of course when you tell people that, they go on a hissy rant about being perceived as 'inferior')....

Which translation has the Holy Spirit told you is the correct one?

Be specific. Please.

and Yes, the law is perfect... too perfect... so perfect that only GOD Himself managed to fullfill it (in human form)... that means that the law is imperfect for us, because we will always fall short from keeping it fully. You err by assuming that we are the reference point for the perfection of the Law.... JESUS was...

so why bother with the Old Testament laws?

Jesus should have been born to Eve instead of Mary, then.

[redzero]

First off, yelling (overuse of the largest oversized fonts) does little to bolster your assertion that you're not trolling...

I don't know any other way to get to point through to you, because you obviously keep ignoring it.

Then leave... or do what you do best.... plug up your mind, tune everyone else out, and proclaim to have intellectual superiority over everyone here...

I'll keep claiming intellectual superiority if you keep lying about what the New Testament means.

I never said it was untrue... I stated that the New Covenant that Jesus established supercedes the Old Covenant under the Law...

How? Jesus SAYS THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT LAWS WILL BE FOREVER BINDING.

Believers no longer are judged based on the merit of their works but by their faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross.

Then why does it say that every single law in the Old Testament is still binding? And should the ten commandments not count, too?

Regardless of their belief structure, and whether or not they realize it the Old Covenant still envelops everyone else. Since no one can keep the Law, they are ultimately cursed by it... Hence Jesus' quote was perfectly valid when he said it and completely true; the law will endure because it's still binding...

Then how come you keep saying that it isn't? And even if the laws don't matter anymore, God at one point in time was fine with slavery and killing unruly children, correct? It's in the Bible.

Those who reject Jesus Christ will be judged according to the Law (forever enduring by that passage you quoted).

What does that mean? Which law? Will they be damned if they don't kill sexuals? Will they be damned if they don't kill non-believers?

Ultimately, they will face eternal death and have to pay for their sins with their own blood.

Just like an all-loving God would have it.

On the other hand, Jesus Himself already paid the ransom for those who placed their faith in His finished work. We are covered by His blood.

Stop preaching; I already know what you believe in regards to the crucifixion.

BTW, you never did answer who Jesus' audience was...

Actually, you are the one who brought it up in the first place.

He was talking to the Jewish mul ude...

What does it matter if he was talking to Jewish people? Is the law universal or not? Does God want one group of people to keep slaves and one group not to?

one which held the Law in high regard.

Does it matter?

Jesus was talking about the Law because he was in the process of fullfilling it...

Jesus said to never disregard the Old Testament. If he was in the process of invalidating that which was in the Old Testament, why would he say to always follow it?

but again, by doing so he raised the bar so high we couldn't possibly match it. That is why belief in Him is the only conduit that can satisfy the reconcilement of our 'filthy' works with GOD's Holiness... an attribute which demands that perfect Justice be enacted... By covering us with His blood, we no longer have to die for our own actions.... Jesus is the only way... a fact He stated in the Gospel of John,

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father, except through me"

- John 14:6

Please stop preaching. God chose for his only son to be executed for the world's sins, so it's not like Jesus was sacrificed against his will. God could have forgiven our sins any way he wanted, but he chose to do it the hard way.

Now, I'm not invoking lawlessness...

Yet, you say the law doesn't matter anymore.

one of the passages you quoted from the New Testament is used to convey that GOD's law ultimately guides us to righteousness...

So killing sexuals guides us to righteousness? Yes or no?

but of course, you don't even read the Bible regularly, you just cut and paste arguments from atheistic boards

I copied and pasted passages from the Bible.

and expect us to give you the type of answers which would somehow prove the incongruency you wish to expose.

I expect you to explain how a moral being condones slavery and several other immoral acts, and you keep failing to do so.

You made that supposition a priori. Of course, when given a legitimate counter you've simply refused to accept the explanation... hurling insults in the process... and it follows that since you've yet to concede on anything that this trend will likely continue....

You have yet to answer my questions and you keep bringing up irrelevant information.

Frankly these explanations are beyond your level of comprehension

No, they aren't. You just suck at making explanations.

(disbelief automatically disallows the Holy Spirit from enlightening you on the meaning of the Scriptures - of course when you tell people that, they go on a hissy rant about being perceived as 'inferior')....

I get it! You just don't want to have to back up your assertions using logic and reasoning, so you claim that I don't get it when I post passages from the Bible that clearly contradict you claims.

Denial no... I just keep laughing at the fact that somehow you've purported to try and lecture me on the meaning of Scriptures...

Somebody has to do it. You clearly can't understand simple sentences.

Yes, the Old Testament "counts" because it is a "shadow and type" that is ultimately fullfilled by Jesus.

Including the ten commandments?

and Yes, the law is perfect...

Really? So is it okay for humans to stone unruly children to death? That's a part of the law.

too perfect...

That's God's problem, not mine.

so perfect that only GOD Himself managed to fullfill it (in human form)...

If God knew that his own laws could not be fulfilled, why did he make them in the first place?

that means that the law is imperfect for us, because we will always fall short from keeping it fully.

Actually, no, that just means that we are imperfect.

You err by assuming that we are the reference point for the perfection of the Law.... JESUS was.

Explain.

and you need to simmer down...

You need to answer my ing questions and stop preaching.

[redzero]

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

What can this possibly mean other than that God wants the laws of the Old Testament to be adhered to until the end of times?

Really.

And to say that the Old Testament laws have been fulfilled and therefore don't matter anymore still doesn't take into account that God was perfectly fine with a master beating their slave to death at one point. How is that moral?

[TE]

What's sad is all these hardcore believers who are not open to the idea of their God not existing is the fact that they consume and take in the statistics they need, regardless if it falls under theoretical or practical use. The same field with which they abide to in life (statistics), predicts that a million other countless galaxies containing millions of other stars containing millions of other life-habitable planets like earth exist and may harbor life as it is, or in another form.



If you are one who continues to defend your religion, how do you answer such statistical question?


Be it that not one religion mentions life on other planets (I'm sure of this because no alpha God would talk about space, unless they referred to that as 'heaven'...)
How can you answer the fact that there is GREAT possibility that life is out there? Is it God's plan to have things of this nature unmentioned? Please don't give that as a reason. Find something logical and new to counter that dead end question.

[Blake]

How can you answer the fact that there is GREAT possibility that life is out there?

Intelligent life? Debatable as far as it being a great possibility.

Even so, I'd have no problem with the concept that Jesus has died on other countless planets as well.....

or that there are actually planets where the 'Adam' never took the bite...

[TE]

Intelligent life? Debatable as far as it being a great possibility.

Even so, I'd have no problem with the concept that Jesus has died on other countless planets as well.....

or that there are actually planets where the 'Adam' never took the bite...

It is quite debatable, but statistics, more specifically, the drake equation coupled with statistical interpretation of this possibility points to the idea of other life existing out there within the acceptable range. In other words, it is HIGHLY possible statistically, and you know what they say about statistics. They don't lie.

And about you not having a problem with the concept of Jesus dying on other planets for other civilizations, that's as bogus as something I've ever heard. Using that faulty logic, wouldn't you begin to disprove of the fact that God kept, perhaps maybe, the most controversial knowledge from us human beings? If other life exists out there, I would begin to think twice about leaving my certainty up to a deity...


If you answer my question like I think you will, then you are a fool intellectually. No wise being who has enough curiosity about the universe around him should answer with a bout of faith, but logic.

[admiralsnackbar]

And about you not having a problem with the concept of Jesus dying on other planets for other civilizations, that's as bogus as something I've ever heard. Using that faulty logic, wouldn't you begin to disprove of the fact that God kept, perhaps maybe, the most controversial knowledge from us human beings? If other life exists out there, I would begin to think twice about leaving my certainty up to a deity...

You gotta at least concede that the monadologist multiverse-thing gives a whole new meaning to infinite wisdom.

[TE]

You gotta at least concede that the monadologist multiverse-thing gives a whole new meaning to infinite wisdom.

Yeah, by that you are suggesting I concede to the notion that if multiverses exist, God must be in all of them?


I reject that. Simply put, if what we perceive the physical universe to be flawed and there is an underlying and overlying universe coupled with other underlying/overlying universes (hence, multiverse), wouldn't we want a scientific reasoning behind this flawed perception? The problem I have with religion, is that it is so readily plungered into the knowledge of gaps. Phenomenon that cannot be explained is credited to have "god's" hand in that. As someone who is as speculative as can be about certainty, I find leaving my most curious, unanswered questions to the hands of God's knowledge pot to be foolish. Why would I want that?

[admiralsnackbar]

Yeah, by that you are suggesting I concede to the notion that if multiverses exist, God must be in all of them?


I reject that. Simply put, if what we perceive the physical universe to be flawed and there is an underlying and overlying universe coupled with other underlying/overlying universes (hence, multiverse), wouldn't we want a scientific reasoning behind this flawed perception? The problem I have with religion, is that it is so readily plungered into the knowledge of gaps. Phenomenon that cannot be explained is credited to have "god's" hand in that. As someone who is as speculative as can be about certainty, I find leaving my most curious, unanswered questions to the hands of God's knowledge pot to be foolish. Why would I want that?

I wasn't suggesting any such thing, actually... just casually (and nonsequitorially) (assuming that's a word ) remarking that the notion of infinite wisdom would take on a whole new meaning were the multiverse concept adopted by fundamentalists like the ones from whose site cool cat got his Godly multiverse article from. I've just been thinking of what the political end-game of such an abrupt acceptance of a somewhat kooky theory would be since it came up earlier today. Anyway, carry on...

[SAScrub]

Just a couple of thoughts from filtering my way through 20 pages of this.

First, I think it's unfair to assume that any person of faith is incapable of rational thought, or a rational explanation for why they believe what they believe. That immediate assumption by most non-faithers in this debate leads you to not even bother to attempt to understand any point the other side is making, since you have arbitrarily decided that what your hearing (or reading) is void of rational thought. You're convinced that your simple dismissal is enough to halt the conversation. Not true by rule of ANY debate.

Second, the introduction of scripture to debate is interesting and very important, but I think it's hypocritical at best to not allow the faith side to respond within the context of the scripture itself. For the sake of argument, if you want to introduce scripture (about slavery, for example) then you have to allow the response to be given within the context of that very same book you are referencing. You can't dismiss the response simply because it is scriptural and you don't believe the Bible. Well, if you don't believe the Bible, why introduce it into the discussion?

Third, this whole discussion of proof is almost silly. You're asking for empirical, first-hand observation as proof that something exists, as if that is the only method of obtaining proof. The problem is, there are many theories in science (origin theories, most notably) that cannot provide first-hand observation, and cannot recreate empirical evidence. A bunch of science is just reasoning to the best possible explanation from the evidence that is available. That's what makes the evidence of design (which is arguably available), a plausible theory. There is evidence of design in our universe, and logically we know that designed things usually have a designer.

Finally, on the issue of faith itself...specifically why the atheist's faith is somehow more grounded or rational than a faith in God. To assert that there is no God, you have to assert the following:

* Something came from nothing
* Life came from non-life
* Order came from chaos
* Natural law came from randomness

Seems to me that to blindly believe all of those things without evidence, takes a tremendous leap of faith. Why is that leap so much more rational than the belief in God as the designer?

[Phenomanul]

I don't know any other way to get to point through to you, because you obviously keep ignoring it.

I'll keep claiming intellectual superiority if you keep lying about what the New Testament means.

How? Jesus SAYS THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT LAWS WILL BE FOREVER BINDING.

Then why does it say that every single law in the Old Testament is still binding? And should the ten commandments not count, too?

Then how come you keep saying that it isn't? And even if the laws don't matter anymore, God at one point in time was fine with slavery and killing unruly children, correct? It's in the Bible.

What does that mean? Which law? Will they be damned if they don't kill sexuals? Will they be damned if they don't kill non-believers?

Just like an all-loving God would have it.

Stop preaching; I already know what you believe in regards to the crucifixion.

Actually, you are the one who brought it up in the first place.

What does it matter if he was talking to Jewish people? Is the law universal or not? Does God want one group of people to keep slaves and one group not to?

Does it matter?

Jesus said to never disregard the Old Testament. If he was in the process of invalidating that which was in the Old Testament, why would he say to always follow it?
Please stop preaching. God chose for his only son to be executed for the world's sins, so it's not like Jesus was sacrificed against his will. God could have forgiven our sins any way he wanted, but he chose to do it the hard way.

Yet, you say the law doesn't matter anymore.

So killing sexuals guides us to righteousness? Yes or no?

I copied and pasted passages from the Bible.

I expect you to explain how a moral being condones slavery and several other immoral acts, and you keep failing to do so.
You have yet to answer my questions and you keep bringing up irrelevant information.

No, they aren't. You just suck at making explanations.
I get it! You just don't want to have to back up your assertions using logic and reasoning, so you claim that I don't get it when I post passages from the Bible that clearly contradict you claims.

Somebody has to do it. You clearly can't understand simple sentences.

Including the ten commandments?

Really? So is it okay for humans to stone unruly children to death? That's a part of the law.

That's God's problem, not mine.

If God knew that his own laws could not be fulfilled, why did he make them in the first place?

Actually, no, that just means that we are imperfect.
Explain.

You need to answer my ing questions and stop preaching.

Preaching?

I'm giving you the explanation you asked for but conveniently don't want to hear. How else am I supposed to support the Scriptures you are quoted if not with other Scripture.

But ultimately I get it... no matter what I say you will choose to interpret Scriptures the way you and only you see fit...

You don't realize you are blind to their meaning because you've not been enlightened by the Holy Spirit (an en y you don't even believe in). You've not yet been convicted of your need for GOD since again, you don't believe in Him.

What follows is that you're not able to understand the duality system in the realm of law... (I mean, you're still whining about what exactly the law is ) The law is forever binding to those who don't believe but is superceded by GOD's grace to those that do... Since you're stuck believing that only one judgment realm can apply at any given moment (one or the other), you've purposely decided that my explanation doesn't suffice... your alleged intellectual superiority is stuck in first gear buddy... You been stuck on an "OR" when an "AND" is clearly at play.

[Phenomanul]

Finally, on the issue of faith itself...specifically why the atheist's faith is somehow more grounded or rational than a faith in God. To assert that there is no God, you have to assert the following:

* Something came from nothing
* Life came from non-life
* Order came from chaos
* Natural law came from randomness

Seems to me that to blindly believe all of those things without evidence, takes a tremendous leap of faith. Why is that leap so much more rational than the belief in God as the designer?

According to them faith isn't involved at all... that argument has fallen on deaf ears for years...

[Phenomanul]

What's sad is all these hardcore believers who are not open to the idea of their God not existing is the fact that they consume and take in the statistics they need, regardless if it falls under theoretical or practical use. The same field with which they abide to in life (statistics), predicts that a million other countless galaxies containing millions of other stars containing millions of other life-habitable planets like earth exist and may harbor life as it is, or in another form.



If you are one who continues to defend your religion, how do you answer such statistical question?


Be it that not one religion mentions life on other planets (I'm sure of this because no alpha God would talk about space, unless they referred to that as 'heaven'...)
How can you answer the fact that there is GREAT possibility that life is out there? Is it God's plan to have things of this nature unmentioned? Please don't give that as a reason. Find something logical and new to counter that dead end question.

With such a great possibility... and yet here we are... seemingly alone...

Drake's equation is flawed in the supposition that he has actually factored in all the variables which make life viable on this planet into account... It's too simplistic in it's approach... especially considering that the vastness of our Universe is actually quite finite.

[Phenomanul]

What do you believe the use of yellow font does for your assertion?

Oh that's rich... the yellow font bothers you..

Even though I'm sure you know why it was being used.

you mean like the time(s) you bragged about your college education right before putting me on ignore in one of those evolution threads?

I bragged about it??? Revisionism at it's finest Blake... Bravo, bravo! Funny too, because I remember being asked to state what my educational background was... seeing how everyone here was so eager to dismiss everything I was saying at the time. If not mistaken it was Extra Stout who asked. Lest you forget I've been posting in this forum since 2004 and every new face that pops up in here bashing my belief structure does so without said knowledge... If I were bragging... that information would be in my sig... and everyone would know...

Oddly enough it's OK for someone like redzero to dangle his degrees in front of everyone, in attempts to validate his understanding of the topic at hand... but somehow if my educational background comes up, it automatically carries a negative connotation... That's a double standard if I ever saw one... of course, people like MannyIsGod don't believe such 'persecutionist' agendas are even at play...

I can't figure out though why Satan knows this, but yet would rather be eternally damned.

He had his chance... Guess he picked wrong.

Is this from the King James?

Oh, so does this mean you are ready to answer real questions pertaining to the thread instead of hurling insults at me?

Oh have I hurt your feelings?

Frankly, all you care about is stroking your ego... you've no desire to actually enter meaningful discourse... all of your beliefs are deeply entrenched and nothing I say or do will change that. The worse part is that you cry foul, when all you do is purposefully find new and idiotic ways to piss people off... unfortunately for you... I simply don't care what you think of me.

Is the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes or no?

Yes... best available translation at the time. Other translations have surged which try to incorporate all of the available resources to solidify the meaning of the manuscripts from which the Biblical canon was derived.

Which translation has the Holy Spirit told you is the correct one?

Be specific. Please.

The one that happens to enrage you the most.

so why bother with the Old Testament laws?

You go ahead and break them... from your unbelieving perspective it's all the same.

Jesus should have been born to Eve instead of Mary, then.

Perhaps... but that's not what happenned...

[Phenomanul]

Ever hear impossibly-large numbers quoted as the odds against a cell or a particular DNA molecule having formed “by accident” to create the first living thing? It’s an example of the propensity of creationists to entirely miss the point and set up a specious straw man, ripe for destruction.

Ronald Stearns suggests the following to help them see where they are missing the point:
One demonstration that has worked well for me in illustrating the difference between a priori and a posteriori calculations just uses a deck of cards. Give someone a deck of cards, ask him to shuffle it, and then read off the first 26 cards. After your subject does that, jump at him and question his veracity. “You don’t really expect me to believe that sequence is what you pulled up, is it? The odds against getting exactly that sequence is 2 x 10 41-to-1 against!” Then, of course, explain that what the odds were before the exercise is irrelevant, because what is important is that SOME sequence occurred, and that the idea is to understand what that sequence actually was, not what the chances were of obtaining that sequence. If your subject has kept the stack of cards intact, then you can show that you have the evidence. It also looks a lot like a set of geological strata, and you can show that it remains valid even if you take the stack and slide it around, twist it, and fold it a bit, [to provide an analogy for how] geologists really can still unlock the story of geological history, with a lot of work.

http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=499#cards

This argument is pure bunk. Apparently Ronald Stearns doesn't understand the implication of information...

It's actually quite funny how he is dismissive of the real issue at play... the random order in a deck of cards doesn't matter (unless you're in Vegas). Whatever the order of 26 pulled cards may be... ultimately, that sequence doesn't convey the information to do anything. It is meaningless in the context of information... replete full of data... but it contains no information of worth.

Genetic sequences are comprised of more than the physical molecules which define their structures, they convey information. Hence when we question the odds of forming sequences that actually carry genetic worth it's because everyone is being led to believe that random haphazard processes were at play and that the sequences created just happened to make genetic sense. That the information itself is a byproduct of chance as well.

Another assumption is that the genetic precursor molecules existed in large enough quan ies that, given enough time, eventually something meaningful would agglomerate and form (by chance). The conditions required for that to be true, however are not attainable. In plain english... the chemical environment required to sustain all three essential genetic monomers - amino acids, simple sugars (glucose), and free phosphate ions doesn't exist. It is biologically created by the very enzymes that are encoded within the DNA itself... but if the code didn't yet exist... how then did the environment exist long enough to create that particular code instantaneously? It's the classic chicken before the egg conundrum... In other words there was no 'broth' that could exist long enough to generate the chance process game.

[Blake]

It is quite debatable, but statistics, more specifically, the drake equation coupled with statistical interpretation of this possibility points to the idea of other life existing out there within the acceptable range. In other words, it is HIGHLY possible statistically, and you know what they say about statistics. They don't lie.

"The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless..."

Then there's also the Fermi Paradox.

And about you not having a problem with the concept of Jesus dying on other planets for other civilizations, that's as bogus as something I've ever heard. Using that faulty logic, wouldn't you begin to disprove of the fact that God kept, perhaps maybe, the most controversial knowledge from us human beings? If other life exists out there, I would begin to think twice about leaving my certainty up to a deity...

Eh. Other than a few streets of gold and many mansions, God doesn't really talk much about Heaven either.

Honestly, other than the Apostle Paul, I don't know any Christians that are just so excited about getting to Heaven that they can't wait because so little is really known about it.

God left a bunch of things out of the Bible. It was a pretty big deal when people found out that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

If I took the time, I am very confident religious honks like phenomanul will be able to make life on other planets fit into God's ultimate plan.

If you answer my question like I think you will, then you are a fool intellectually. No wise being who has enough curiosity about the universe around him should answer with a bout of faith, but logic.

You making assumptions about other posters based on just a few posts makes you a monumental fool and jackass.

[Blake]

Just a couple of thoughts from filtering my way through 20 pages of this.

First, I think it's unfair to assume that any person of faith is incapable of rational thought, or a rational explanation for why they believe what they believe. That immediate assumption by most non-faithers in this debate leads you to not even bother to attempt to understand any point the other side is making, since you have arbitrarily decided that what your hearing (or reading) is void of rational thought. You're convinced that your simple dismissal is enough to halt the conversation. Not true by rule of ANY debate.

Absolutely.

There are clearly people on both sides, however, incapable of a rational debate.

Second, the introduction of scripture to debate is interesting and very important, but I think it's hypocritical at best to not allow the faith side to respond within the context of the scripture itself. For the sake of argument, if you want to introduce scripture (about slavery, for example) then you have to allow the response to be given within the context of that very same book you are referencing. You can't dismiss the response simply because it is scriptural and you don't believe the Bible. Well, if you don't believe the Bible, why introduce it into the discussion?

Historically speaking, many aspects of the Bible have been shown to be accurate.

I think we can all agree that the Israelites did in fact exist and did in fact employ the use of slaves.

The question is why did God condone slavery?

Third, this whole discussion of proof is almost silly. You're asking for empirical, first-hand observation as proof that something exists, as if that is the only method of obtaining proof. The problem is, there are many theories in science (origin theories, most notably) that cannot provide first-hand observation, and cannot recreate empirical evidence. A bunch of science is just reasoning to the best possible explanation from the evidence that is available. That's what makes the evidence of design (which is arguably available), a plausible theory. There is evidence of design in our universe, and logically we know that designed things usually have a designer.

There have been posters in this thread that claim proof to God's existence, but I agree, the discussion of proof is silly.

[Blake]

Oh that's rich... the yellow font bothers you..

Even though I'm sure you know why it was being used.

Assumption fail.

I just think it's funny when you whine about others while simultaneously engaging in the same act you are whining about.

I bragged about it??? Revisionism at it's finest Blake... Bravo, bravo! Funny too, because I remember being asked to state what my educational background was... seeing how everyone here was so eager to dismiss everything I was saying at the time. If not mistaken it was Extra Stout who asked. Lest you forget I've been posting in this forum since 2004 and every new face that pops up in here bashing my belief structure does so without said knowledge... If I were bragging... that information would be in my sig... and everyone would know...

You are clearly boasting intellectual superiority in that thread, just as in this and every other thread.

Oddly enough it's OK for someone like redzero to dangle his degrees in front of everyone, in attempts to validate his understanding of the topic at hand... but somehow if my educational background comes up, it automatically carries a negative connotation... That's a double standard if I ever saw one... of course, people like MannyIsGod don't believe such 'persecutionist' agendas are even at play...

Assumption fail.

I never validate anyone throwing around their educational background.

Bring the arguments, not the diplomas to the table.

He had his chance... Guess he picked wrong.

So you are saying Satan currently lacks free will.

Oh have I hurt your feelings?

No. Clearly though I have caused your butt to hurt and you get scared when I post a reply to you.

Frankly, all you care about is stroking your ego... you've no desire to actually enter meaningful discourse... all of your beliefs are deeply entrenched and nothing I say or do will change that. The worse part is that you cry foul, when all you do is purposefully find new and idiotic ways to piss people off... unfortunately for you... I simply don't care what you think of me.

Absolutely not.

I would honestly like to know if you think the King James is the ordained word of God.

Stop talking about me and answer the question.

Yes... best available translation at the time. Other translations have surged which try to incorporate all of the available resources to solidify the meaning of the manuscripts from which the Biblical canon was derived.

But when I use the King James, it doesn't count for you.

You are a proven hypocrite.

The one that happens to enrage you the most.

Biblical translations do not anger me.

Is the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes or no.

You go ahead and break them... from your unbelieving perspective it's all the same.

Stop making this about your butthurt and answer the questions.

Perhaps... but that's not what happenned...

exactly.

Which shows yet another facet of the Bible that makes no logistical sense.