Reply With Quote
Well when you get down to it, the existence of God can't be proven or disproven deductively. Each person just has to look at the evidence and inductively make a decision for themselves.
That's like saying you don't believe in gravity, it's just GOD guiding things towards the ground as he sees fit. You wouldn't be able to prove that one way or the other either...
Well when you get down to it, the existence of God can't be proven or disproven deductively. Each person just has to look at the evidence and inductively make a decision for themselves.
First and last post in this thread.
I've browsed plenty of times here and read what you all have to say.
Extra Stout hit the nail on the head with this post.
And it makes me wonder: If everyone is making this decision for themselves, why do they feel the need to argue their side and try and sway others to believe what they believe?
Why to you feel the need to sway us into believing that Stout has hit the nail on the head? Why not let us look at the evidence and inductively come to a conclusion for ourselves?
Believing in the Bible means something differently to many of us and that doesn't make differing opinions wrong. Some believe it literally, some believe it's the inspired Word of God, other believe that it's the inspired Word of God but also believe that taking it literally in it's entirety may be taking some things out of context.
In most threads in this forum you'll find an exchange of information in order that we might compel others to believe something is true or at times to reinforce what we believe to be true. That evidence is not a hinderance to believing what Stout stated in his last post it's something he himself has asked us to entertain before coming to what is a personal decision regarding this matter.
Whatever the case may be in order for us to come to an intelligent conclusion for ourselves about something it's imperative that we are given the opportunity to throughly examine evidence.
Mark 15: 15 He said to them, "Go into all the world, and preach the Good News to the whole creation.
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who disbelieves will be condemned.
This attempt to sway is referred to as "The Great Commission" oli. This Commission has eternal ramifications and believers are compelled and required to provide information clearly and evidentially in the hope that others might receive and believe the gift of life that God intend for all to partake in.
And yes, Stout hit the nail on the head.
I don't know what it is but this is the same immature idiot who spam the forum with gay porn a couple of months ago.
Stick to posting in the club.
Now, that ain't Christ-like.
Ahh, who am I to talk?
Continue....
And God Bless america
There are mathematical expressions for the 'Law of Gravity'... that yield empirical answers... why would I even question that? Oddly enough the smallest forces are the ones least understood; they also are some of the strongest forces in the quantum universe... appropriately named the 'Strong' and 'Weak' forces respectively... And I believe those two forces exist despite the fact that they can't be quantified to the same extent as gravity.
I also don't question true evolutionary evidence... fossils found here or there, or the existence of very similar animals who we have chosen to classify as distinct species when perhaps by a 'better' definition of the term they are the same 'kind' of animal... I question the fact that most people believe evolution to be an 'unguided' and 'random' process when the data doesn't show that. I also question the fact that the incipient point of said model never gets the scrutiny it deserves... In essence my definition for 'evolution' is not the mainstream definition... Which is why when entering discussions about the subject I'll come out and say I don't believe in evolution.... I will instead say that the data proves adaptive speciation... but not evolution in it's mainstream form.
Youre awesome.
Maybe because at base level mathematics only exists in the human minds and has no effect or consequence to anything other than humans? Why does your belief in the christian god allow you to submit to mathematics?
That's a pretty bold belief right there. Talk about stepping into the unknown.Oddly enough the smallest forces are the ones least understood; they also are some of the strongest forces in the quantum universe... appropriately named the 'Strong' and 'Weak' forces respectively... And I believe those two forces exist despite the fact that they can't be quantified to the same extent as gravity.
It's funny because drift is only one evolutionary driver. (Oddly enough, the others are supported by--gasp--mathematics!)I also don't question true evolutionary evidence... fossils found here or there, or the existence of very similar animals who we have chosen to classify as distinct species when perhaps by a 'better' definition of the term they are the same 'kind' of animal... I question the fact that most people believe evolution to be an 'unguided' and 'random' process when the data doesn't show that.
So where is the equation defining your christian god?
GOD said,
"
"
AND THERE WAS LIGHT!!!
BTW you are mistaken that math only has consequence to humans... Dolphins, and some primates can add and subtract... Most octopus species can count... shoot, even my dog can count.
I believe in those forces, cause without them, atoms of every element not named hydrogen could not exist. The repelling forces between the protons in the nucleus of said atoms would split the atom apart. Instead they are bound by a 'strong force' which allows said nucleus to even exist. 'Gluons' or 'pions' whatever the latest term may be for the force particles are about as hard to quantify as the 'gravitons'...
And yet I believe.
The driver is natural selection... the problem with sole focus on said concept is that it doesn't allow for changes to have come from within the species' own genotype. That is, if I have a blond-haired baby... maybe just, maybe that gene was always dormant in my generational history... but nevertheless there... I didn't have mutate to allow that gene to be expressed...
The same can be true of any change we observe today... no one can prove it however without hundreds of generational samples to compare the FULL and complete genomes of the species in question. Just some outside the box thinking... which has stumped many evolutionary proponents....
Changes from within, from a vast wealth of genetic content instead of relying on externally applied mutations -- to drift.
BTW weren't you the one willing to accept infintessimal odds for the fabrication of a simple 200-part system representing a single stranded DNA molecule? There is your math...
Look around you.
Last edited by hegamboa; 06-21-2006 at 09:02 AM.
We have a sense of right and wrong because it is taught to us. I don't know that we are born knowing "right and wrong." Our only inherent system of morality is probably rooted in protecting ourselves and our family.
Maybe it's our way of coping with the unfortunate reality that some people do get away with murder. And again, we are taught that people will be punished in the afterlife, it is not innate in us.
So if someone has been isolated from the world and they murder someone is that enough reason to set that person free? Do we still expect that person to know that murder is wrong even though no one has ever told them?
maybe it's because we are created in the image of God and we innately know that there's eternal punishment.Maybe it's our way of coping with the unfortunate reality that some people do get away with murder. And again, we are taught that people will be punished in the afterlife, it is not innate in us.
When you are delt a hand in bridge, do you accept that it was given to you by an unguided process, or do you assume there was some intelligent cause for that specific bridge hand to make it's way to you (which would be cheating)?BTW weren't you the one willing to accept infintessimal odds for the fabrication of a simple 200-part system representing a single stranded DNA molecule? There is your math...
There are 635 billion possible bridge hands, and that's just one tiny deck of cards.
Whatever your odds are (I'll defer to yours to avoid that arguement) another critical flaw of yours is that its a 1:X chance of evolution being "unguided" and a X - 1:X chance in it being "guided" - or so that appears to be your arguement.
hegamboa the bottom line is you depend on science when it suits your argument and refute science when it goes against your argument.
You can fill your posts with overly long winded explanations of fundamental quantum physics, but most of us can see right through it.
LAME
This coming from the guy who doesn't know the difference between the factorial operand (!) and the power operand (^)....
Your last post accused me of multiplying with a power sign... which was laughable, but I wasn't going to bicker about it considering you had just stated that you would concede on that point.
The ^ sign was never used as an operand, it was only present in the answer.... as in; "the odds of creating a 200 part system is 10^-287 or whatever that infintessimally small number was...." After suggesting that numbers smaller than 10^-50 were considered 'zero' by all intents and purposes in any scientific field, CBF nevertheless maintained that those were odds he was willing to accept...
I then suggested that if only 1 person in all of mankind's history had seen GOD and had direct evidence for His existence that those odds would be far greater than the number he was holding on to.
So much for his logic.
But to answer your analogy.... whoever* dealt me the hand that's WHO is responsible.
It never boils down to that math; I have a spiritual relationship with GOD that can not be defined by any scientific set of equations. In fact, I've never had to rely on the answer to your 'X-1:X' expression as the sole determinant of my faith. But since my faith itself cannot be quantified on any grounds, much less scientific grounds, why even bring that up?
In anycase the point is simple, you may see it as a flaw, but I ask again, "what concept is erred??" The one where evolution hinges its existence on materials and substances that have no known mechanism for their abiotic creation? Or the one that assumes that no one will care, if said model tries to extrapolate an origin it can't even define -- especially when one considers that the core of the theory's model IS entirely based on random mutations to the genetic code. When did the first mutation occur?? It had to be after DNA was around.... but how did DNA arrive? Few care enough to try and answer this question. The more we study it however, the more and more we are forced to take the Creator for his Word... instead of a liar. It took an act of GOD to kick-start life. And yet people would rather hold on to miserable odds than embrace the Truth.
I'll keep this short then, since then I know you will read it.
It's not a matter of suiting the argument or not... it is what it is. You just have to try and think outside the box for a sec. Try it.
And the only thing I can see is that you lack the capacity to even question what you are fed. I do. If you did, maybe you would actually 'SEE' the severity of the odds you are willing to live by. Failure to do so?... Now that there would be lame.
Last edited by hegamboa; 06-22-2006 at 04:50 PM.
Link?This coming from the guy who doesn't know the difference between the factorial operand (!) and the power operand (^)....
Your last post accused me of multiplying with a power sign... which was laughable, but I wasn't going to bicker about it considering you had just stated that you would concede on that point.
True, the hands don't "deal themselves" - but the "dealer" of the hand didn't guide the hand to come out the way it did - otherwise that would be cheating. Your holding the dealer responsible is the same as saying some "Intelligent Agent" threw a bunch of stuff out in the universe that randomly came together - which you've already decided for yourself is "impossible".But to answer your analogy.... whoever* dealt me the hand that's WHO is responsible.
Why bring it up... um... because you are the one talking about the improbability of "whatever" being evidence that "opposite of whatever" is true.It never boils down to that math; I have a spiritual relationship with GOD that can not be defined by any scientific set of equations. In fact, I've never had to rely on the answer to your 'X-1:X' expression as the sole determinant of my faith. But since my faith itself cannot be quantified on any grounds, much less scientific grounds, why even bring that up?
I've taken a rather ambivalent approach to the topic, if you've been paying attention. My only position has been not to present religion in schools - which you have a huge problem with (fortunately the Cons ution is on my side on this one).In anycase the point is simple, you may see it as a flaw, but I ask again, "what concept is erred??" The one where evolution hinges its existence on materials and substances that have no known mechanism for their abiotic creation? Or the one that assumes that no one will care, if said model tries to extrapolate an origin it can't even define -- especially when one considers that the core of the theory's model IS entirely based on random mutations to the genetic code. When did the first mutation occur?? It had to be after DNA was around.... but how did DNA arrive? Few care enough to try and answer this question.
Whoever "we" is, good for them.The more we study it however, the more and more we are forced to take the Creator for his Word... instead of a liar. It took an act of GOD to kick-start life. And yet people would rather hold on to miserable odds than embrace the Truth.
It seems that for you to feel like a good Christian, you need an enemy, someone to take the opposite position so you can beat your chest and show off your Evangelism. When people don't take opposite positions, but rather positions that are open to both your side and an opposing side, you just assume they are your enemy anyway. Good job.
Here it is from post #513
It's truly sad that this is the only way you can see it. Again, you seek proof of GOD's existence and I can't give you that.
You're the one assuming the dealer doesn't exist... not me.
And I won't even touch the rest of your last post... just a bunch of opinions.
Last edited by hegamboa; 06-22-2006 at 04:48 PM.
Don't see where I accused you of multiplying with a power sign.Here it is from post #513
Best wishes to you.
So saying the christian god intelligently designed our seemingly complex universe is "thinking outside the box"?ERRORRRR ERRORRRRR
Last edited by Cant_Be_Faded; 06-22-2006 at 08:54 PM. Reason: thinking outside of box = 3000 year old train of thought ERRORRRRR
At what point do we say god is dead? When that evil science finally yields "proof" (such a nebulous word) of how DNA molecules were formed?
You know, I know, every christian and anti christian knows what will happen. That "proof" will not be conclusive enough, and you'll just stick to your stupid argument further. Well that isn't as concrete as my christian god designing this universe!!!
Its a never ending struggle against progress and regress and throwing god into any logical discussion is something that has lead our collective intelligence in circles for what, how many millenia now?
Does Intelligent Design attempt to address the afterlife?
hmmm...
My calculation was never based off of that operation.
Likewise
Last edited by hegamboa; 06-23-2006 at 09:15 AM.
No, that is purely a spir ual belief... or what science would like to term as pertaining to the metaphysical realm...
Actually, I think the problem is that a huge majority of people who use "God" and "religion" are actually not "true" Christians.
People who get angry and hurt over that comment can steam all they want, but they may know this to be true deep inside even though they would not admit it out loud, or maybe they would notice it if they took a moment and analyzed who they really are..
So, the majority use "God" and "religion" in the wrong way, and it gives the small minority of "true" Christians a bad name and thrown into the group that many people hate and criticize.
Kind of like Bush lying that he is Christian, but yet lives an ani-Christian like life, completely. But people will look at Bush and think he really represents Christians and what Christians believe. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Not to throw Politics in this, but honestly, that's one of the big reasons people hate so called, "Christians" or "religion", because of liars like the Republican party who would like you to believe that they are the Christian party. And "religions" across the world that claim they worship God, but yet terrorize.
It sends the wrong message and confusion, and of course, that's what the Satan would want.
Believe me, I know you have your beliefs, but I only ask that you not think that this is what "true" Christians really are. They are not like that in any way, shape, or form and they do not support war. In fact, I believe it is very rare for you to have known a "true" Christian. "True" Christians are no part of this world.
That is all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
