Legion's Official Religion Debate Thread

[James Davis]

Lenin pointed out a few days ago that we don't have one of these, so I'll just start one.

I will say right now that I have seen these discussions get extremely ugly. When that happens, the discussion tends to lose both it's appeal and it's coherency.

I would like to ask that everyone remain respectful, as it helps the credibility of your argument and preserves relationships and the sanity of everyone involved. I am putting trust in the character of Legionnaires and our friends by posting this. Thank you! :)

It's late here, so I'll jump in roughly 8 hours from now.

I guess the first question to ask: Does God (or a similar entity) exist?

[asacavanagh]

well, being athiest and all i think the big bang thery is true but alot of people have the opinion that it does, i say it bcause 'apparently' god is neither a boy or girl.

[Penguin Man]

The religion of islam says that there is a greater being known as allah. Allah is the one and only god and the creator of the universe. With that beign said....I say god does exist.

[The Arbiter]

A higher divinity, whatever it is, whichever religion is correct, exists.

[Hymenbreach]

The universe from beginning to end is a pattern. It is impossible to tell if a pattern is chaotic or ordered by looking at a small portion of it. Since we weren't at the beginning and, hopefully, won't be at the end of the universe we have no way of knowing whether the universe was created or spontaneous.

Hence my agnosticism. Don't be afraid to say you just don't know.

[James Davis]

Ok, I'm going to throw some philosophy in with some science.

The overwhelming opinion in the scientific community is that the universe had a beginning. That beginning was the Big Bang. What many have forgotten is that before the Big Bang Theory was formulated in 1968, atheists relied on The Static Universe Theory to deny the existance of God.

Let me explain. The Static Universe Theory basically stated that the Universe is eternal; it always was and always will be. That theory has been proven false, and it has been replaced by the Big Bang Theory which is supported strongly by 5 different lines of science (I'll only go into these if someone asks).

Now here is my point. If the Big Bang Theory is true, which scientists say that it is beyond a reasonable doubt, the Universe had a beginning. It is an entity that became something, a lot of something, out of nothing. No matter, no time, no nothing existed before the Big Bang.

So, I ask you, which seems more probable? The Universe came into being out of nothing on its own, with no outside influences, or did the Universe come into being as a result of an outside force, eternal, immaterial, and unbelievably powerful to create something so massive?

Both sides have to have faith. Atheists have faith that nothing created the Universe, it just kinda happened, a position that I find unfathomable. Theists believe that an all powerful God was responsible for the creation of this tremendous place that we are trying to understand.

[The Arbiter]

Exactly.

[ShadowPhoenix]

Something had to create everything. You can argue that the big bang did, but let me ask two questions. What caused the bang? And what created the matter that exploded in the bang? You cannot expect me to believe that it was always there, and just randomly exploded one day. That argues that it had to be created, and went off not long after. Scientific evidence points to the fact that our universe is still expanding, at a faster rate than ever. So the whole big bang/big crunch theory's out the window. So, how did this material come into existance?

I can believe that such a bang took place, but only if it were at the discretion of a deity of whatever form rather than as a random act.

[Hubb]

I hope this thread doesn't start trouble. However, I'm a Christian, and I do believe in God.

[Imperial]

That's a very good explanation JD. Space-time had a beginning, but since no one was there at the exact moment when the universe came into being through the Big Bang, we may never be able to nail down the theory into law. According to philosophy, we know that something existed before the Big Bang occurred, non-space time. The Big Bang created space-time, so before space time existed, there was an absence of it giving us at least two separate "dimensions" if you will.

[heilesabre]

A higher divinity, whatever it is, whichever religion is correct, exists.

I'm not sure if that's your own view, or if it is your claim that all religions have the same view on God. The latter is not true: Hinduism and Shintoism have multiple gods/spirits, Jainism is atheist, while Buddhism is neutral on the existence/non-existence of deities.

And here is an interesting explanation of the beginning of the universe, taken from The Infinite Book by John D. Barrow. I don't support this opinion, but thought it interesting to point out. I also hope it doesn't start trouble, since this is controversial, to say the least. Anyways:

Suppose there was an advanced civilization in some universe, that was advanced enough to create simulated realities of new universes (they would obviously have much more computer power than we do now). Having mastered the rules of biochemistry and astronomy, they would be able to create a universe with just the right physical constants for life to develop. They could watch the Big Bang and the formation of stars/planets, the evolution of new species, new civilizations, and even watch as the intelligent beings debate whether "a Great Programmer in the Sky" existed that created their world, and could intervene at will in their world.

Now, suppose the simulated civilizations mature to a point where they are also sophisticated enough to simulate their own realities. They would now be able to create their own, simulated universes. The people in that universe would grow to be able to create their own universe, and so on. Note that this suggests an infinite chain of universes, and one of them could be our own.

The haunting prospect is whether we are living in one of these simulated universes. In that case "God" would exist, in a sense: he/she/it would be one of those sentient beings that created our reality. But then would they have a twinge of conscious if they deleted/mutated us? To them, we aren't real, right?

Even more controversial would then be the idea that we could, eventually, create our own universes. We would then take on both the role of the created and The Creator. This would come in conflict with all the preachings of the major monotheistic religions, and would bring upon us a dilemma: should we be responsible to the "simulated" beings, or should we do our experiments without any concern for them, because they are "fake"?

*End of theory*
This theory does seem coherent enough to provide an explanation, but something in it doesn't seem right to me...

[leninrocks244]

Lenin pointed out a few days ago that we don't have one of these, so I'll just start one.

I will say right now that I have seen these discussions get extremely ugly. When that happens, the discussion tends to lose both it's appeal and it's coherency.

I would like to ask that everyone remain respectful, as it helps the credibility of your argument and preserves relationships and the sanity of everyone involved. I am putting trust in the character of Legionnaires and our friends by posting this. Thank you! :)

It's late here, so I'll jump in roughly 8 hours from now.

I guess the first question to ask: Does God (or a similar entity) exist?

I did? I don't think I did... I remember somebody else saying it, though.

[leninrocks244]

To be honest, I don't know. All I know is that every religion on Earth is just a philosophy that makes absolutely no sense. Come on. How can anybody expect to believe that what a group of people in the desert said was true?

[leninrocks244]

I hope this thread doesn't start trouble.

I think it might. Religion always starts flame wars.

[James Davis]

It was on Family Guy? I stopped watching it after everything just got too random then started sucking ass. All religious beliefs deserved to be laughed at. Worship in any way you want, I'm cool with that, I'm just going to be there to laugh at it. And yeah, I'm pretty sure I can prove it wrong, but that's another debate for another time.

I just got my computer back from repair and was reading through some of the more recent stuff, and that kind of caused me to think of this.

Also, as the OP, I would like to ask the mods to do whatever is necessary to maintain civility in this thread, including a lock if it comes to that.

[IronsightSniper]

I'm Skeptical.
I don't believe there's a God, nor there isn't.
That way, I can still do whatever the hell I want, but I won't go to hell(maybe).

[Hubb]

The Big Bang created space-time, so before space time existed, there was an absence of it giving us at least two separate "dimensions" if you will.

I like "The Fifth Dimension," personally.

...
...
Sorry. :shutup:

[tom the pit leader]

Personally, I like the idea of Steven Hawkings Multivers and that black holes prove that the other universes exist due to the destruction of mass/energy in a black hole which otherwise creates a paradox and destroys physics as we know it. *entering the Twilight ZONE* This proves that that our universe did have a starting point but only because other universes need us to persever their mass/energy information. *leaving the Twilight ZONE*

Now with my views out of the way on to real religion. I have to say, I don't see a need for religion. If you are only doing the right thing to get a reward or not get punished, you are not a good person. Lisiting to the voice that says "that isn't a good idea" or " that isn't a nice thing" and "you know you shouldn't do this" is usually all the guidance you really need. If you look at most relgions in history, they are either to make money (scintology), consolidate power (Hinduism), or personal advancement (Islam). The rest are just mythologies that a group of people still happen to believe (Judiasm/Chritianity).

With this in mind, I think that if there was a god who wanted to be worshiped and did everyday things, there would only be one religion. If god doesn't want to be worshiped, religion is irrelevent.

[Emperor Slazir]

Most religions I know of offer an explanation of what happens when we die. No one wants to die. Religions give us hope for something else. We have to believe that something comes next, otherwise there is no point other than to fulfill our every desire with no thought to the consequences of our actions. The mindset would be 'If there's nothing to look forward to after this life, then might as well party it up in this one.

I'm not devoutly religious myself, though I believe I was when I was very young, and I remember everything just seemed better, and I seemed happier. My faith is weak now because of doubts. But I still have to hold on to the belief that when I die it is not the end. I just hope I wouldn't burn.

[leninrocks244]

I just got my computer back from repair and was reading through some of the more recent stuff, and that kind of caused me to think of this.

Also, as the OP, I would like to ask the mods to do whatever is necessary to maintain civility in this thread, including a lock if it comes to that.

Where in that whole statement does it say "Hey guys, we need an official religion thread!"?

[FreeMason]

I'm ignostic. I don't see how any religion could possibly be proved wrong or right. I also don't feel that there is any cognitive meaning in the word "God" or any other religious speak, as it is all based on the interpretation of humans, who, as we all know, have limited perception. So before we go on can we possibly agree on a general definition of "God", so I can have some idea of what I'm talking about?

[Scrawney]

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religion.

[FreeMason]

But is a "God" always perfect? Or omnipotent or omniscient? I seem to remember that the ancient deities (Greco-Roman, Norse, etc.) having human flaws to them, and those religions were as real as any now. And does a "God" necessarily have to be worshipped in a monotheistic style? Hinduism is polytheistic and is still alive and well, do you intend to exclude that and other such religions from the discussion?

[tom the pit leader]

Freemason you make a good point, as monothiesm is a "new" idea in a religious sense. If I recall my history correctly, Atens was the first "monotheistic" deity as he was called the only true deity by a Pharo who I am too lazy to look up. Atens didn't last long, and then Yahwe (Ya-way) of the Isrialites and the Tora which had stories which resembled most other stories in other poly theistic socities. Given that Islam and Cristianity also worship Yahwe, or the god of Aberham, I can't think of any other society that had only one deity. Others had gods and goddess for most aspects of daily life and other natural phenomenon.

If I had to choose between the two, I would hope for a polytheistic pantheon as group think and discussion usually end up being supererior to any one person. It also allows debate and new ideas to surface in a way that one god does not simply because of the nature of montheism.

Yes, I know I mangled the names.

[James Davis]

Where in that whole statement does it say "Hey guys, we need an official religion thread!"?

I apologize if I misrepresented what you said in my opening post, I certainly didn't mean to. That was the quote that made me think of this, though.

[FreeMason]

Freemason you make a good point, as monothiesm is a "new" idea in a religious sense. If I recall my history correctly, Atens was the first "monotheistic" deity as he was called the only true deity by a Pharo who I am too lazy to look up. Atens didn't last long, and then Yahwe (Ya-way) of the Isrialites and the Tora which had stories which resembled most other stories in other poly theistic socities. Given that Islam and Cristianity also worship Yahwe, or the god of Aberham, I can't think of any other society that had only one deity. Others had gods and goddess for most aspects of daily life and other natural phenomenon.

If I had to choose between the two, I would hope for a polytheistic pantheon as group think and discussion usually end up being supererior to any one person. It also allows debate and new ideas to surface in a way that one god does not simply because of the nature of montheism.

Yes, I know I mangled the names.

I wasn't asking what style is better, though that is definately an interesting question. I simply want a general definition of the word "God" that can be applied to all religions so that I can more easily understand the basic ideas that will be displayed in this thread. We can be more religion-specific later by refering to specific gods by their names, or as "the Christian God", "the Muslim God", etc.

[leninrocks244]

I'm ignostic. I don't see how any religion could possibly be proved wrong or right. I also don't feel that there is any cognitive meaning in the word "God" or any other religious speak, as it is all based on the interpretation of humans, who, as we all know, have limited perception. So before we go on can we possibly agree on a general definition of "God", so I can have some idea of what I'm talking about?

You spelled Agnostic wrong.

[leninrocks244]

I apologize if I misrepresented what you said in my opening post, I certainly didn't mean to. That was the quote that made me think of this, though.

Ah, well no worries. I'm not angry or anything.

[tom the pit leader]

I wasn't asking what style is better, though that is definately an interesting question. I simply want a general definition of the word "God" that can be applied to all religions so that I can more easily understand the basic ideas that will be displayed in this thread. We can be more religion-specific later by refering to specific gods by their names, or as "the Christian God", "the Muslim God", etc.

Well, the thing about the monotheisitc god and a polythesic pantheon is that god for a monotheistic system has to be perfect, where as a god in a pantheon does not. In many Mesopotamien stories, gods can make mistakes, and be challanged. A good story to read about the topic of religion and technology is "By the Waters of Babalon". Also good is the last line of "Clash of the Titans" about greek myth. The basic idea is that anchient civilizations needed gods to explain life and morality, but that there will be a day in which we as a civilization will no longer need gods and religion.

[FreeMason]

You spelled Agnostic wrong.

Thats because I'm not agnostic, I'm ignostic.

[FreeMason]

Well, the thing about the monotheisitc god and a polythesic pantheon is that god for a monotheistic system has to be perfect, where as a god in a pantheon does not. In many Mesopotamien stories, gods can make mistakes, and be challanged. A good story to read about the topic of religion and technology is "By the Waters of Babalon". Also good is the last line of "Clash of the Titans" about greek myth. The basic idea is that anchient civilizations needed gods to explain life and morality, but that there will be a day in which we as a civilization will no longer need gods and religion.

So can we define "god" as "an immortal, super-human type of being with extraordinary powers, which is a major part of religious belief systems"? Or is there an issue with that?

[bigdaddychacha]

Oh boy, JD, you've opened the mother of all powderkegs this time!

Ok, I'm going to throw some philosophy in with some science.

The overwhelming opinion in the scientific community is that the universe had a beginning. That beginning was the Big Bang. What many have forgotten is that before the Big Bang Theory was formulated in 1968, atheists relied on The Static Universe Theory to deny the existance of God.

Let me explain. The Static Universe Theory basically stated that the Universe is eternal; it always was and always will be. That theory has been proven false, and it has been replaced by the Big Bang Theory which is supported strongly by 5 different lines of science (I'll only go into these if someone asks).

Now here is my point. If the Big Bang Theory is true, which scientists say that it is beyond a reasonable doubt, the Universe had a beginning. It is an entity that became something, a lot of something, out of nothing. No matter, no time, no nothing existed before the Big Bang.

So, I ask you, which seems more probable? The Universe came into being out of nothing on its own, with no outside influences, or did the Universe come into being as a result of an outside force, eternal, immaterial, and unbelievably powerful to create something so massive?

Both sides have to have faith. Atheists have faith that nothing created the Universe, it just kinda happened, a position that I find unfathomable. Theists believe that an all powerful God was responsible for the creation of this tremendous place that we are trying to understand.
I think you've done a nice job of stating some facts and historical opinions of the scientific community about the formation of the universe, but I start to disagree with you at the end...

Disbelieving in god does not take any "faith;" in my opinion, in the absence of evidence, disbelief should be the starting point for ANY question, let alone choosing a deity! Atheists don't have to say exactly how the universe was created, we don't have enough evidence (nobody does.) Instead, most Atheists are happy to suspend the question until we find better ways of gathering evidence; we don't feel the need to ascribe to a patriarchal bearded white man who is sometimes benevolent the creation of everything just because we haven't found the rational explanation *yet.* In other words, it doesn't take any faith to say that we don't have enough evidence of anything to say anything definitively at this point in human development, it's just the way things are.

I think the problem here is the completely unrealistic expectation that everyone has to have an explanation for the formation of the universe when there isn't enough evidence for anyone to prove anything to anybody else. That doesn't make me a nail-biting agnostic who is afraid to take a stand this way or that, that makes me an Atheist who believes that, until someone brings me scientific evidence that the universe was created, I'm going to disbelieve theories that us being here was in any way the intentional goal of any process except for slow and steady evolution.

Not everything that happens, even big things, happens because of some unseen actor pulling strings behind the veils of our perception. When the wind blows my hat off, it is caused by nature and science understands the process for that. When a tsunami kills hundreds of thousands of people, it is by exactly the same principle, although some delusional people continue to believe that some god is punishing humans for allowing homosexuality, the Iraq War, or any other number of ridiculous superstitious notions. Why does the formation of the universe have to have a cause so different from a tsunami, other than due to the fact that we have no way of studying the formation of the universe, but we can study tsunamies several times a year?

[Arcadian Empire]

If there is a religion...we'll find out when we die.
If there is a God...we'll find out when we die.

If we didn't follow the God, we're dead again. We'll burn.

I for one think that there is a God. Something had to create us, and I find it unintelligble that a big bang can create astronomical objects millions and billions of light years away from us, billions of times bigger than the Earth. And don't even get me started about the freakin' monkeys!

And, there is a God as well...just check all those sexy (brunette) wimminz. God did something very right.

[leninrocks244]

God was created by man, therefore there's no solid proof that God exists. I now take my leave.

[Megamind]

Scientific evidence points to the fact that our universe is still expanding, at a faster rate than ever. So the whole big bang/big crunch theory's out the window. So, how did this material come into existance?


Replace the big crunch with the big bore and you're good to go :)


Now, suppose the simulated civilizations mature to a point where they are also sophisticated enough to simulate their own realities. They would now be able to create their own, simulated universes. The people in that universe would grow to be able to create their own universe, and so on. Note that this suggests an infinite chain of universes, and one of them could be our own.


Someone had had to create the first universe?
BTW I remember seeing a movie that might, could, possibly have been built on this book...anyone have any idea what it's called? (the movie not the book)


So can we define "god" as "an immortal, super-human type of being with extraordinary powers, which is a major part of religious belief systems"? Or is there an issue with that?

No we can't...one of the Norse gods died...and in their end of the world most of them are supposed to die...


BTW if I remember the story of Adam and Eve correctly (which I probably doesn't) then one of their punishments for the whole apple thing was that they would know sin...but if they didn't know sin before then how can they be blamed for doing something wrong if they didn't know the concept? In my opinion that would make their sin Gods fault thus making God not flawless :P
There is probably some logical explanation for this...I just haven't heard it yet :awesome:

[tom the pit leader]

Replace the big crunch with the big bore and you're good to go :)



No we can't...one of the Norse gods died...and in their end of the world most of them are supposed to die...


BTW if I remember the story of Adam and Eve correctly (which I probably doesn't) then one of their punishments for the whole apple thing was that they would know sin...but if they didn't know sin before then how can they be blamed for doing something wrong if they didn't know the concept? In my opinion that would make their sin Gods fault thus making God not flawless :P
There is probably some logical explanation for this...I just haven't heard it yet :awesome:

Yes, most of the Norse gods die in Ragnorock. Its a shame really.

If I recall correctly, god says something like don't eat of the tree of knowledge or you shall surely die. To me, that sounds like it was a choice. God probably didn't think that they would choose to eat of it, and you are right, they didn't know that it was wrong at all to eat of it.

The more interesting question I think is that if god was all knowing, what didn't he realize that they were going to eat of the tree? If he knew that they would be seduced, it seems illogical to put the tree in there. And when did serpents learn how to talk? It says that they had to crawl on their bellies, but doesn't say anything about taking away talking rights.

[Arcadian Empire]

Err, reading from the Arcadian Version of the Bible (AE Version)

Genisis

ONE
1 - In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.

Now to skip a few pages...not sure the verse and chapter, but anyways...

God said to Adam and to Eve, "You are to have free roam over all the Garden of Eden. But I give you one rule, you shalt not eat from the tree in the center of the garden."

One day, a serpent named 'The Devil' talked to Eve. Serpent said, "Eat from the tree!"
"No," said Eve, "God told me not to"
"God just doesn't want you to be like him - knowing Good and Evil," said the Serpent.
After much convincing, Eve took some fruit from the tree and ate it. Adam was waiting for Eve, and Eve gave Adam some of the fruit to eat.

Suddenly, they realised they had no clothes on. Adam and Eve cut branches from nearby foliage and hid themselves.

God, who used to walk with Adam and Eve around His Garden, called out to Adam and Eve. "Adam and Eve!", said God, "Where are you?"

"We're here, behind the tree," Adam replied from behind the tree. "We hid because we were naked..."
God, who was stunned said, "How do you know you were naked? Did you eat from the tree I didn't tell you to eat from?"
"It was Eve's fault! The woman took some fruit and gave it to me!", Adam said.

And after this, Adam was sentenced to hard work and toil on the land and Eve to have pain in childbirth among other things for both of them. And they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

And God put an angel to guard the Garden, in case Adam and Eve wanted to come back.

And from this text, we know that God did not know that Adam and Eve would break His rules.

It's like Lord of the Flies, the idea that people will ultimately turn evil...or disobey authority.

---

Here is the actual text...

The Fall of Man
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."

16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

20 Adam [c] named his wife Eve, [d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life

I am pretty sure God did not know they would sin...

[FreeMason]

No we can't...one of the Norse gods died...and in their end of the world most of them are supposed to die...

Then how about super-human beings around which most religions are centered?

[FreeMason]

I am pretty sure God did not know they would sin...

Well then that would mean that the Christian God is not all-knowing which would then be an example of contradiction in Christianity.

[ShadowPhoenix]

It was a test. He asked our obedience. Any parent can tell you that they'll ask their kid to behave, and expect that they won't. Why allow sin? We are proving that we cannot rule ourselves, that we cannot live Godless lives. One day, hopefully soon, the apocolypse will occur, and that'll be that.

[tom the pit leader]

It was a test. He asked our obedience. Any parent can tell you that they'll ask their id to behave, and expect that they won't. Why allow sin? We are proving that we cannot rule ourselves, that we cannot live Godless lives. One day, hopefully soon, the apocolypse will occur, and that'll be that.

I have to disagree there. Sin is something that god doesn't like, but that alone does not mean that it is independently a bad thing. He did not ask for obediance, he said the equivelent of "don't run out in the street, you will die". Without easting of the tree of knowledge, there would be no need for god after creating the world, because humans would be like childern only worse from an intecltual level. They might not sin per-say, but they would never be more than just animals. Life in the garden would have gotten fairly boring after a while with no thoughts to think, or jobs to do.

On a side note, humans don't die "just" because they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or (TOK). They die because god says to the angles or whoever that man should not be like them knowing both good and evil and also also able to eat of the tree of life (TOL).

On the apocolypse, I sure hope not, because no offence, most people who ask for it (even retoricly) would find a VERY unpleasent supprise. I'm not judging you, I'm just saying it usually holds true.

[James Davis]

I'm ignostic. I don't see how any religion could possibly be proved wrong or right. I also don't feel that there is any cognitive meaning in the word "God" or any other religious speak, as it is all based on the interpretation of humans, who, as we all know, have limited perception. So before we go on can we possibly agree on a general definition of "God", so I can have some idea of what I'm talking about?

I think it can be proven with reasonable certainty what kind of god we're talking about here.

I could be wrong, but I basically see one infinite God vs multiple finite gods.

Fortunately for us, the monotheistic and polytheistic religions give us mutually exclusive claims so we know that they can't both be true, or even partially true. Monotheists acknowledge one all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, ect, God. Polytheists acknowledge many less powerful gods and specifically deny one all-powerful "God."

Who wins? Let's look back at the Universe-origin arguement. The universe is very nearly infinite. It comprises all of what we would call the "the natural world." It would logically follow, therefore, that it's creator would be greater than the universe, meaning that it's creator must be infinite. There is no room for finite beings in the creation of something so vast.

Therefore, monotheism, by simple logic, wins out over polytheism.

Oh boy, JD, you've opened the mother of all powderkegs this time!


I think you've done a nice job of stating some facts and historical opinions of the scientific community about the formation of the universe, but I start to disagree with you at the end...

Disbelieving in god does not take any "faith;" in my opinion, in the absence of evidence, disbelief should be the starting point for ANY question, let alone choosing a deity! Atheists don't have to say exactly how the universe was created, we don't have enough evidence (nobody does.) Instead, most Atheists are happy to suspend the question until we find better ways of gathering evidence; we don't feel the need to ascribe to a patriarchal bearded white man who is sometimes benevolent the creation of everything just because we haven't found the rational explanation *yet.* In other words, it doesn't take any faith to say that we don't have enough evidence of anything to say anything definitively at this point in human development, it's just the way things are.

I think the problem here is the completely unrealistic expectation that everyone has to have an explanation for the formation of the universe when there isn't enough evidence for anyone to prove anything to anybody else. That doesn't make me a nail-biting agnostic who is afraid to take a stand this way or that, that makes me an Atheist who believes that, until someone brings me scientific evidence that the universe was created, I'm going to disbelieve theories that us being here was in any way the intentional goal of any process except for slow and steady evolution.

Not everything that happens, even big things, happens because of some unseen actor pulling strings behind the veils of our perception. When the wind blows my hat off, it is caused by nature and science understands the process for that. When a tsunami kills hundreds of thousands of people, it is by exactly the same principle, although some delusional people continue to believe that some god is punishing humans for allowing homosexuality, the Iraq War, or any other number of ridiculous superstitious notions. Why does the formation of the universe have to have a cause so different from a tsunami, other than due to the fact that we have no way of studying the formation of the universe, but we can study tsunamies several times a year?

I'm going to assume that you don't disagree with the facts I stated, merely my conclusion. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

One definition of faith is that it is what bridges the gap between evidence and belief in something. Neither theists nor atheists have any empirical scientific evidence for or against God creating the Universe. Why is it considered faith when theists believe someone created something out of nothing and not considered faith when atheists believe nothing created something out of nothing?

I'll let the evolution thing slide for now, as we aren't quite to that stage of the argument yet.

Why does the formation of the universe have to have a cause so different from a tsunami

The beginning of the universe completely and utterly blows science out of the water. It violates a number of scientific laws, which are supposed to be immutable, the Law of Conservation of Matter being one of my favorite examples.

You may argue that if we give science enough time, it will find an explanation. It's not going to happen. I know we have made astounding discoveries in the field of science, however, we cannot go back into time, and even if we could, it could only be to the moment of the Big Bang, the moment time began. Science is stuck in a hopeless circle on this issue that they will never get out of.

[Arcadian Empire]

I think we're just discussing if there is a God or not...so I'm guessing the Legion's Official Religion is mixed?

[bigdaddychacha]

I think it can be proven with reasonable certainty what kind of god we're talking about here.
I agree; to say that you don't know which god(s) we're talking about is to delay the discussion from beginning. Everyone is familiar, in one way or another, with Yahway, the Holy Spirit, Zeus, Allah, Shiva, Rah, and the rest of them to varying degrees. We're not having a discussion merely about Christianity here, so there is no need to narrow it down so much.

Monotheists acknowledge one all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, ect, God. Polytheists acknowledge many less powerful gods and specifically deny one all-powerful "God."

Who wins? Let's look back at the Universe-origin arguement. The universe is very nearly infinite.
All we can realistically say about the universe is that it is larger than the human mind can comprehend at this point. To a single amoeba of small multi-celled-animal, the Earth itself might as well be infinite. It is completely beyond the capability of an animal of that size to fathom; Humans are much more advanced, but why do we assume that we can comprehend everything?

It comprises all of what we would call the "the natural world." It would logically follow, therefore, that it's creator would be greater than the universe, meaning that it's creator must be infinite.
You're assuming that what would logically follow is that there must have been some creator...isn't that skipping a step or two?

There is no room for finite beings in the creation of something so vast.
Therefore, monotheism, by simple logic, wins out over polytheism.
Polytheism predates Monotheism. Some people have aptly noted that today, the trend is towards Atheism, and that this is the natural evolution of human thought, from least advanced, towards less advanced, and into realistic and advanced. I'm more inclined to agree with that because I happen to be the one it is calling the most realistic and advanced, but if you're going to say that Monotheism is better than Polytheism, surely there is another reason than "an infinite god is more realistic than multiple fallible entities who might have created our environment."

One definition of faith is that it is what bridges the gap between evidence and belief in something.
As humans discover more and more things, the areas where faith holds sway grow smaller and smaller...isn't that really the reason that religions will tolerate each other, but so often have no respect or patience for Atheists, whose increasingly vindicated worldview is the only true threat to all religious thought?

Neither theists nor atheists have any empirical scientific evidence for or against God creating the Universe. Why is it considered faith when theists believe someone created something out of nothing and not considered faith when atheists believe nothing created something out of nothing?
If you say that you believe in Unicorns and I say that I don't, do I really have to provide empirical evidence that Unicorns don't exist, or can we just agree that the burden of proof lies with the people who are arguing for something that has never been seen? It doesn't take faith to believe in Unicorns, it takes a suspension of disbelief; because I'm not willing to suspend my belief does not mean that I'm also taking a leap of faith.

The beginning of the universe completely and utterly blows science out of the water. It violates a number of scientific laws, which are supposed to be immutable, the Law of Conservation of Matter being one of my favorite examples.

You may argue that if we give science enough time, it will find an explanation. It's not going to happen.
Why the hurry, what's the rush? :aiwebs_011:

I know we have made astounding discoveries in the field of science, however, we cannot go back into time, and even if we could, it could only be to the moment of the Big Bang, the moment time began. Science is stuck in a hopeless circle on this issue that they will never get out of.
History is harder and harder to study the farther back you go, as sources dry up. Doesn't mean things can't be learned/known. We're still working on the origins of the universe, but you'd better believe that we know more now than we did 100 years ago (or fifty years ago...or 1 year ago!)

If science could prove religion right, the religious would embrace it; when it continues to disprove and/or be problematic for religion, they decry it. At some point, you have to realize that rejecting opinions you don't like from a source that you'd very much like to have in your corner may have more to do with protecting your own unrealistic beliefs than having an honest disagreement with the problematic source.

I'll write more later, somebodie's waiting on me...

I love these deep talks, we don't have these as much at ODN that I've seen!

[NeonChaos]

Is there a God? I don't know. I sure hope there is. But I don't know.

I just hope that if there's nothing after death, that I die in peace. Perhaps in my sleep.

Worst way to die would probably be to drown.

[Aporime]

I guess 'god' to me is just shorthand for the universe itself.

But as for the theories of some force tending the light at the end of the tunnel or however you want to put it, I don't have any reason to believe that.

[Hymenbreach]

It is technically conceit to believe that a theory must be wrong if you do not fully understand it. Take a detailed look at the science behind the BBT and see if you still have doubts.

[FreeMason]

It was a test. He asked our obedience. Any parent can tell you that they'll ask their kid to behave, and expect that they won't. Why allow sin? We are proving that we cannot rule ourselves, that we cannot live Godless lives. One day, hopefully soon, the apocolypse will occur, and that'll be that.

If your God is all-knowing, then he already would have known that Adam and Eve would fail the test. So, therefore, he knew that he would subject humanity to the evils of disease, war, and death. Thus, if your God exists, he is either an evil tyrant or he just doesn't care about humanity.

[ShadowPhoenix]

If your God is all-knowing, then he already would have known that Adam and Eve would fail the test. So, therefore, he knew that he would subject humanity to the evils of disease, war, and death. Thus, if your God exists, he is either an evil tyrant or he just doesn't care about humanity.
If he was an evil tyrant, it would be nothing but death and destruction for us. If he didn't care, we would never exist. Both those are invalid.

Perhaps there is a greater plan for us beyond this, and suffering is a necessary part of it. Just like cancer, you have to harm some of the healthy cells to eliminate the deadly ones.

[leninrocks244]

It was a test. He asked our obedience. Any parent can tell you that they'll ask their kid to behave, and expect that they won't. Why allow sin? We are proving that we cannot rule ourselves, that we cannot live Godless lives. One day, hopefully soon, the apocolypse will occur, and that'll be that.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t120/evil_guaxinim/12173851381.jpg

[James Davis]

I agree; to say that you don't know which god(s) we're talking about is to delay the discussion from beginning. Everyone is familiar, in one way or another, with Yahway, the Holy Spirit, Zeus, Allah, Shiva, Rah, and the rest of them to varying degrees. We're not having a discussion merely about Christianity here, so there is no need to narrow it down so much.

As a Christian, I think that it is natural that I would want to gear my arguement towards the defense of the Christian God, or at least a monotheistic one for now.

All we can realistically say about the universe is that it is larger than the human mind can comprehend at this point. To a single amoeba of small multi-celled-animal, the Earth itself might as well be infinite. It is completely beyond the capability of an animal of that size to fathom; Humans are much more advanced, but why do we assume that we can comprehend everything?

That is actually a repackaged arguement that I have seen evangelists use. Their version goes something like this: "Is a catapillar on a branch aware of the human presence on this planet? Of course not. Their "world" is far too small, and their minds too simplistic to comprehend our presence, despite our vast superiority to them in every way."

You're assuming that what would logically follow is that there must have been some creator...isn't that skipping a step or two?

You're assuming that there must have been no creator. I have stated the first part of the case for a Creator (aka the Cosmological Argument), and the only real protest you had was that science needed more time to figure out the cause of the Big Bang. Again you have faith :P that science will prevail, faith that I do not share with you.

Polytheism predates Monotheism. Some people have aptly noted that today, the trend is towards Atheism, and that this is the natural evolution of human thought, from least advanced, towards less advanced, and into realistic and advanced. I'm more inclined to agree with that because I happen to be the one it is calling the most realistic and advanced, but if you're going to say that Monotheism is better than Polytheism, surely there is another reason than "an infinite god is more realistic than multiple fallible entities who might have created our environment."

The gap between poly and monotheism has more to do with culture differences than time differences. There are other reasons as to why Monotheism beats Polytheism, to use the Atheist protest, "if Christianity is true, why isn't everyone a Christian?" Obviously that is refuted by simply stating, "free will," however, there must be a certain appeal with Monotheism, as 2/3 of the world now subscribes to a Monotheistic religion. There's also the question as to why the United States, one of the most Christian nations in the world, is also easily the strongest nation, and also why it appears that our decline runs parallel with our faltering religious faith. I am fully aware that this paragraph doesn't really prove anything, but it is interesting to think about.

Also, the Bible essentially predicts the fall of religion toward the end times, as everything has to go to hell (pun totally intended) before everything is decided.

Again, I will leave the evolution thing for a bit later.

As humans discover more and more things, the areas where faith holds sway grow smaller and smaller...isn't that really the reason that religions will tolerate each other, but so often have no respect or patience for Atheists, whose increasingly vindicated worldview is the only true threat to all religious thought?

I completely disagree with pretty much everything in that paragraph. As I said before, the Bible prophesied the fall of religion on earth thousands of years ago, and religion's decline (although it still has hundreds of years of being a significant force remaining) doesn't surprise me in the least.

Additionally, I would hardly say that religions tolerate each other tremendously well. I don't think the Israelis and Palestinians are overwhelmingly worried about what Atheists have to say about them. The only real conflict involving Atheism I see is secularism's war on Biblical Christianity.

I totally disagree with your assertion that the Atheistic worldview is being increasingly vindicated, but I could be wrong. Could you kindly name one or two events or discoveries, whatever, that in your opinion, vindicates the idea that there is no god, or at least does considerable damage to the ideas that I have put forward.

If you say that you believe in Unicorns and I say that I don't, do I really have to provide empirical evidence that Unicorns don't exist, or can we just agree that the burden of proof lies with the people who are arguing for something that has never been seen? It doesn't take faith to believe in Unicorns, it takes a suspension of disbelief; because I'm not willing to suspend my belief does not mean that I'm also taking a leap of faith.

We all have to have some faith (not much) that unicorns do not exist. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that they do not exist, but we have no way to definitively proving that they don't.

Unicorns and God are different, however, in the fact that there is evidence that God exists, not empirical evidence, but evidence that strongly suggests some of the things we have witnessed could not have happened naturally. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that unicorns exist, therefore we have no reason to believe in them.

History is harder and harder to study the farther back you go, as sources dry up. Doesn't mean things can't be learned/known. We're still working on the origins of the universe, but you'd better believe that we know more now than we did 100 years ago (or fifty years ago...or 1 year ago!)

To even suggest that science could ever discover what caused the Big Bang is absolutely crazy. There is no way to re-observe the Big Bang, so we will just have to be satisfied that it happened.

If science could prove religion right, the religious would embrace it; when it continues to disprove and/or be problematic for religion, they decry it. At some point, you have to realize that rejecting opinions you don't like from a source that you'd very much like to have in your corner may have more to do with protecting your own unrealistic beliefs than having an honest disagreement with the problematic source.

I believe science already has (and will continue to) provide evidence supporting, not refuting the existance of God. You accuse religious people of rejecting science that is problematic, and yet you seem to forget that atheists hated (but in the end had no choice but to accept) that the Big Bang Theory is almost certainly true. They fought it because they could see its implications:
The Big Bang occurred.
The Big Bang is clearly an effect.
All effects must have causes.
Therefore, The Big Bang must have had a cause.

I don't view my belief that "a cause=God," especially considering other characteristics of our Universe, planet, and selves that are simply to remarkable to have happened by chance. Once again, I challenge you to provide some science that clearly contradicts what I am saying.

And you're right, this is the most stimulating conversation I've been involved with in a while. :)

[leninrocks244]

If he was an evil tyrant, it would be nothing but death and destruction for us. If he didn't care, we would never exist. Both those are invalid.



He can't care because he doesn't exist.

[Arcadian Empire]

Then how are we here then, lenin?

[heilesabre]

There's also the question as to why the United States, one of the most Christian nations in the world, is also easily the strongest nation, and also why it appears that our decline runs parallel with our faltering religious faith. I am fully aware that this paragraph doesn't really prove anything, but it is interesting to think about.


This is probably an overgeneralization. The oldest surviving Christian nation in the world is Ethiopia, which isn't exactly strong right now.

I don't view my belief that "a cause=God," especially considering other characteristics of our Universe, planet, and selves that are simply to remarkable to have happened by chance. Once again, I challenge you to provide some science that clearly contradicts what I am saying.


Not necessarily by chance. I challenge you to refute the Anthropic Principle, partially stated as follows.

Consider the possibility of multiple universes (perhaps from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics). Some of them are complex enough to support stars, planets, life, etc. Most of them probably aren't. However, the fact that we are observers means that we are most definitely in a universe that is complex enough to support us. Hence the complexity of what we see. (This is similar to the observation that the chances of you winning the lottery is extremely low, but someone has to win it.)

Now this does not prove there is no creator (which is not my intention anyways), but it refutes your claim that all this cannot have happened "by chance."

[leninrocks244]

Then how are we here then, lenin?

Evolution. How the universe got here? I'm sort of leaning on the theory that there was a universe before this one, it imploded on itself and then exploded. But to put that aside, I really wouldn't point fingers at "God" because "God" is simply a storybook character created by early philosophers to tell the world how they think we got here. Basically, if you're looking for answers, don't look towards religion.

[bigdaddychacha]

As a Christian, I think that it is natural that I would want to gear my arguement towards the defense of the Christian God, or at least a monotheistic one for now.
I was really more disagreeing with the guy you were replying to; starting a religious debate by asking for a definition of god is just postponing the debate: We all know that most people here will be talking about the Christian god. If they say Allah instead, we all know who he is, too. If they are Hindu, we may not know everything about them, but we will know they are polytheistic and have thousands of gods. I don't need a definition of god to arrive at the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that he/she/they exist(s) and that it is infinitely more likely that it is all a figment of collective human imagination.

That is actually a repackaged arguement that I have seen evangelists use. Their version goes something like this: "Is a catapillar on a branch aware of the human presence on this planet? Of course not. Their "world" is far too small, and their minds too simplistic to comprehend our presence, despite our vast superiority to them in every way."
There is nothing wrong with that argument, but it doesn't prove anything the way that Evangelicals use it: Just because caterpillers don't *seem* to be aware that humans exist DOES NOT mean that there necessarily must be a sentient, perfectly moral, omnipotent presence beyond the range of humanitie's ability to perceive. All that it does prove is what I was saying, that all living creatures are limited by their own perceptions. Doesn't mean that something invisible exists somewhere, it just means that we are not capable of knowing EVERYTHING, but that we shouldn't just make stuff up when we cannot explain something big.

You're assuming that there must have been no creator. I have stated the first part of the case for a Creator (aka the Cosmological Argument), and the only real protest you had was that science needed more time to figure out the cause of the Big Bang. Again you have faith :P that science will prevail, faith that I do not share with you.
I don't have faiith that science will prevail, I've just observed the inexorable, occasionally misguided, but nonetheless forward-moving and successful march of science ever since ancient times. I don't have faith that science will prevail, but I also don't think that we absolutely MUST have an explanation for everything in the universe until science does. Religion is used to dispel mysteries about complicated things (where does life come from, what is morality, what happens to us when we die, etc) but it doesn't completely resolve any of those mysteries to the degree that can be proven and at the same time, it leaves one more, larger mystery unresolved: What is the nature of god(s)? Most Christians I know will readily admit that god himself is the ultimate mystery...if his purpose is to resolve other mysteries, it doesn't do us any good if he remains a mystery.

Who made my iPod? A machine somewhere. Why did the machine choose to make my iPod? That's a nonsense question, but the answer, as with religions in my opinion, is because human beings somewhere designed the machine to make my iPod. Why does relgion attempt to answer my doubts without any shred of proof? Becuase some humans a long time ago whent to a lot of trouble to ensure that it would do exactly that. Science back then wasn't what it is today, so religion was a lot easier to swallow back then (in fact, it almost universally was) but today people know a lot more about the universe and life and death, have fewer questions, and feel a decreased reliance on religion, per capita. It doesn't signal the coming of the apocalypse, it just means that people are getting solid answers about life, the universe, and everything else in places (science) where religion could never before provide an answer aside from based on "faith." Evidence consistantly trumps faith when the two come in conflict. It's how we know that Earth, and the moral battles of humanity, are not the center of the entire universe anymore. And if god exists in the sky somewhere as previously believed (still believed in some circles), then we know that we have astronauts who have flown right past him. Now, the popular thing to say is that god exists everywhere, in everything, so that nobody can transcend him, but that has been an evolved attitude in response to the fact that "the heavens" aren't so far off and hard to study anymore.

The gap between poly and monotheism has more to do with culture differences than time differences. There are other reasons as to why Monotheism beats Polytheism, to use the Atheist protest, "if Christianity is true, why isn't everyone a Christian?" Obviously that is refuted by simply stating, "free will," however, there must be a certain appeal with Monotheism, as 2/3 of the world now subscribes to a Monotheistic religion. There's also the question as to why the United States, one of the most Christian nations in the world, is also easily the strongest nation, and also why it appears that our decline runs parallel with our faltering religious faith. I am fully aware that this paragraph doesn't really prove anything, but it is interesting to think about.
2/3 of the world is rapidly turning towards monotheism because many monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, etc) have a missionary goal that is carried out, sometimes "politely," sometimes at the edge of a sword, and because monotheistic religions often insist on exclusivity whereas many polytheistic religions, by their very nature, are accomodating to different beliefs or to accepting a new god into the existing pantheon. Many people argue that Catholocism is not monotheistic because of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not to mention the semi-deification of Mother Mary, and the entire, ever-expanding pantheon of Saints. Also, Catholicism has had exceptional success in proselytizing polytheistic cultures (South America, etc) because the many Saints don't feel so different from the pantheon of gods previously worshiped by the natives and so the adaptation is less jarring.

Also, I never said, "If Christianity is true, then why doesn't everyone believe it?" That's a stupid argument. 98% of people may have thought that Schindler's List was a masterpiece, but you'll always have that 2% or so who have some reason to give it thumbs down. Everyone will never agree on any one thing, and it's stupid to say that that is the barometer for the legitimacy of a religion.

Also, the Bible essentially predicts the fall of religion toward the end times, as everything has to go to hell (pun totally intended) before everything is decided.

I completely disagree with pretty much everything in that paragraph. As I said before, the Bible prophesied the fall of religion on earth thousands of years ago, and religion's decline (although it still has hundreds of years of being a significant force remaining) doesn't surprise me in the least.
Religion incorrectly predicted the apocalypse happening in the late '90s, Y2K, the early 2000s, and pretty much any time at all, depending on which group of religious zealots you ask. So far, they've all been wrong. While the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons does increase the chances of humans wiping ourselves off the Earth eventually, that is a secular development that may or may not be actualized and has nothing to do with prophecy unless you're searching for a corelation.

Additionally, I would hardly say that religions tolerate each other tremendously well. I don't think the Israelis and Palestinians are overwhelmingly worried about what Atheists have to say about them. The only real conflict involving Atheism I see is secularism's war on Biblical Christianity.
Israel/Palestine has as much to do with race, territory, economic opportunity, land titles, and modern Western culture clashing with Middle-Eastern traditional reality as it does with the conflict of religions. Actually, I've heard that it is encouraged that all American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan be listed as "Christian" on their dog-tags because the Jihadis are more likely to execute an Atheist than a person-of-faith...I cannot verify if that is true or not, but I've heard it from multiple places since 2003. Think about it, Islam recognizes Jesus as a saint, if not the son of god, so Christians can't be as far off base (in a radical Muslim's eyes) as Atheists.

I totally disagree with your assertion that the Atheistic worldview is being increasingly vindicated, but I could be wrong. Could you kindly name one or two events or discoveries, whatever, that in your opinion, vindicates the idea that there is no god, or at least does considerable damage to the ideas that I have put forward.
I've heard that by some estimates, there are more Atheists in America then there are Jews. I doubt that was ever the case before. I mentioned several instances of old religious thought being proven incorrect above in this post. God is in the sky, everything in the universe revolves around the moral battles that take place right here on Earth, and not the sun, etc. Also, by virtue of being a Christian, I would assume that you think that for some reason, all other religions in the world have been proven false in one way or another. Nobody is asking me to point out how Zeus could have been a figment of ancient imaginations, but in the past a lot of people genuinely worshiped him. Aside from the fact that Zeus is not "in vogue" right now, he has as much claim to legitimacy as Allah or the Holy Spirit right now.

We all have to have some faith (not much) that unicorns do not exist. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that they do not exist, but we have no way to definitively proving that they don't.
http://images.google.co.kr/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3105/2573626597_7f3141699f.jpg%3Fv%3D0&imgrefurl=http://flickr.com/photos/nottelling/2573626597/&h=240&w=320&sz=49&hl=ko&start=1&tbnid=AGCn9-Zee8o7EM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3DDeer%2B%2522single%2Bhorn%2522%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Dko%26newwindow%3D1 :aiwebs_011:

Unicorns and God are different, however, in the fact that there is evidence that God exists, not empirical evidence, but evidence that strongly suggests some of the things we have witnessed could not have happened naturally. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that unicorns exist, therefore we have no reason to believe in them.
The only reasons that some observable things have not been explained naturally is that we lack the scientific progress and ability to do so. In the 1700s, do you think anybody could have fathomed that we would one day unlock unknowable power by splitting the indivisible atom? Of course not. But come 1945, we were wrecking nations with it; it's just that it used to be so impossibly beyond the means and even vocabulary or understanding of the scientists of the day, that to suggest that it could occur would have seemed insane and impossible. At different points in history, it could have probably gotten you burned at the stake for being heresy because it wasn't mentioned in the Christian Bible, just like a lot of other, smaller things could have for hundreds of years.

To even suggest that science could ever discover what caused the Big Bang is absolutely crazy. There is no way to re-observe the Big Bang, so we will just have to be satisfied that it happened.
If it is impossible to observe, why do the religious have such "fait" in our scientists that it ever even occured? What happened to "God created Earth in 6 days and on the 7th, he rested?" That doesn't sound like the Big Bang, but there are plenty of Christians who accept that the Big Bang happened, but they then amend that by saying that god must have caused it.

I believe science already has (and will continue to) provide evidence supporting, not refuting the existance of God. You accuse religious people of rejecting science that is problematic, and yet you seem to forget that atheists hated (but in the end had no choice but to accept) that the Big Bang Theory is almost certainly true. They fought it because they could see its implications:
The Big Bang occurred.
The Big Bang is clearly an effect.
All effects must have causes.
Therefore, The Big Bang must have had a cause.
I'm an Athiest and I have never "hated" the Big Bang Theory...Just because something has a cause =/= that it had to have had a sentient cause, so there is still no conflict between subscribing to the BBT and believing that there is(are) no god(s.) A leaf fell out of a tree today and grazed me on the nose on the way to the ground...that was the effect of something, I assume that there was a cause, althugh I didn't look up in time to see what that cause was, so it was (and will forever be) unobservable to me...but I do NOT then make the leap to assume that the leaf just materialized out of nothingness because god willed it to happen. So many other things make more sense.

I don't view my belief that "a cause=God," especially considering other characteristics of our Universe, planet, and selves that are simply to remarkable to have happened by chance.
Then once again, it is finally time to pull out Evolution. Evolution, despite what it's detractors say, has nothing to do with "chance." It is a pattern, like a virus adapting to antibiotics, that ensures the survival of humanity (or monkeys, or birds, or any other observable organism whereby over millions of years, the most advantageous attributes of a species are given more opportunity to reproduce themselves, to the eventual exclusion of the less advantageous traits. It has nothing to do with mere chance, as so many of the religious are fond of saying. Why did god see fit to give humans a vestigial tailbone?!? Why do men need nipples? Why do women still need to shave their armpits/legs/etc? Are those things just there because he created us "in his image," or because they used to serve some now-obsolete purpse and have not yet disappeared from the gene pool?

And you're right, this is the most stimulating conversation I've been involved with in a while. :)
I wouldn't have written a wall of text this massive if I didn't still agree with you on this point. :wub:
Once again, no hard feelings, it's just civilized debate. :D

[Arcadian Empire]

Remember people - let's keep it civil.

-----------

Evolution? Meaning we grew from monkeys? I always thought (and my opinion still is) that is a really dumb theory that we're from monkeys. Surely in thousands of years of recorded history we would have evolved...I don't see Julius Caesar having 3 fingers now we have 4 (if that were true...then I'll be damned)

[leninrocks244]

Remember people - let's keep it civil.

-----------

Evolution? Meaning we grew from monkeys? I always thought (and my opinion still is) that is a really dumb theory that we're from monkeys. Surely in thousands of years of recorded history we would have evolved...I don't see Julius Caesar having 3 fingers now we have 4 (if that were true...then I'll be damned)

Yeah, pretty much. It's more logical than being born out of clay. Monkeys, not so much. Now when you talk about apes like gorillas and chimps , then yeah we evolved from Apes. And actually, monkeys and apes have 5 fingers (including the thumb). And Caesar wasn't an ape. I have no clue what gave you that idea.

[bigdaddychacha]

Remember people - let's keep it civil.

-----------

Evolution? Meaning we grew from monkeys? I always thought (and my opinion still is) that is a really dumb theory that we're from monkeys. Surely in thousands of years of recorded history we would have evolved...I don't see Julius Caesar having 3 fingers now we have 4 (if that were true...then I'll be damned)
We're not "from monkeys," monkeys were just a stage on the evolutionary scale (one of the higher ones, as it so happens.)

People have grown taller in the thousands of years of recorded history, that is well known...there are probably other things that have changed that I'm not thinking of now, but on the evolutionary scale, thousands of years, even 2000, 3000, 4000, or 100,000 is a mere dot on a line that extends for miles in each direction. Of course Julius Ceaser didn't have fewer digits 2000 years ago, it doesn't work like that; nobody ever said that it did!

[FreeMason]

Evolution. How the universe got here? I'm sort of leaning on the theory that there was a universe before this one, it imploded on itself and then exploded. But to put that aside, I really wouldn't point fingers at "God" because "God" is simply a storybook character created by early philosophers to tell the world how they think we got here. Basically, if you're looking for answers, don't look towards religion.

Well, how did the universe before ours come into being? I'm not necessarily supporting the idea of a "god" here, because honestly I have no hard evidence to prove or disprove any kind of "god". I'm just trying to point out that the "previous universe" idea isn't really valid because infinite regression is impossible. This all had to start somewhere. Not necessicarily from a "god", though. To anyone who may try to use this argument for "god", the "something can't come from nothing" argument doesn't prove a "god" exists because something had to come from nothing at some point, whether that something was our universe or the "god" that may have created our universe.

[leninrocks244]

Well, how did the universe before ours come into being? I'm not necessarily supporting the idea of a "god" here, because honestly I have no hard evidence to prove or disprove any kind of "god". I'm just trying to point out that the "previous universe" idea isn't really valid because infinite regression is impossible. This all had to start somewhere. Not necessicarily from a "god", though. To anyone who may try to use this argument for "god", the "something can't come from nothing" argument doesn't prove a "god" exists because something had to come from nothing at some point, whether that something was our universe or the "god" that may have created our universe.

Who knows, dude. All I know is that every religion is wrong.

[Arcadian Empire]

Remember everyone...

We'll find out who God really is (if there even is one, I think there is) when we die

So, lenin - since you don't believe in a God, when you die and you meet Him, you're screwed.
And I - since I do believe in a God, when I die...not sure what happens, but I'll sure have wasted tons of my life worshipping something that doesn't exists :P

[NeonChaos]

It would be so cool if this life was just the beginning of a long journey... and another one would be the next step. :)

[leninrocks244]

Remember everyone...

We'll find out who God really is (if there even is one, I think there is) when we die

So, lenin - since you don't believe in a God, when you die and you meet Him, you're screwed.
And I - since I do believe in a God, when I die...not sure what happens, but I'll sure have wasted tons of my life worshipping something that doesn't exists :P

Nobody can truly meet "him" because "he" was created by man to try and answer how we were created by barbarians in the desert thousands of years ago, so there you have it.

[tom the pit leader]

Remember people - let's keep it civil.

-----------

Evolution? Meaning we grew from monkeys? I always thought (and my opinion still is) that is a really dumb theory that we're from monkeys. Surely in thousands of years of recorded history we would have evolved...I don't see Julius Caesar having 3 fingers now we have 4 (if that were true...then I'll be damned)

HAve you seen the Lucy bones, and the other Homo erectus and the other sub humans? That was 40,000 years ago, we have recorded history going back only about 12,000 years. And of those 12,000 years, how long have people acctually been scintificly looking at changes in the human physique? However, people are taller today than they were in times past. They are also on the whole smarter.

There is one stumbling block to human evolution, thought that will slow any noticable changes. When people in the old days had birth defects, or chronic illnesses, they died. They didn't live to reproduce, they left the gene pool before they had childeren. Also, inhenetntly weaker members of society died or did not produce as often and so that bread out traits. When more members of society live who in a normal evolutionay state would not, evolution is stalled.

[Arcadian Empire]

Good point, tom.

Yes, lenin - but if there is - you will meet him and it'll be a fun conversation between you and God on why you didn't think there was a God...

[leninrocks244]

Good point, tom.

Yes, lenin - but if there is - you will meet him and it'll be a fun conversation between you and God on why you didn't think there was a God...

I can't have a conversation with God because he doesn't exist.

[Arcadian Empire]

But if he did exist, if, theoretically - you're basically stuffed.

We have to accept that - when you die and you meet God (if he exists) you have to admit, you're gonna have a fun time explaining why you weren't worshipping him.

[leninrocks244]

But if he did exist, if, theoretically - you're basically stuffed.

We have to accept that - when you die and you meet God (if he exists) you have to admit, you're gonna have a fun time explaining why you weren't worshipping him.

Not to be mean or anything, but do you live in a world void of logic?

[FreeMason]

Not to be mean or anything, but do you live in a world void of logic?

I think logic actually leads to the conclusion that no one can possibly know. The denial of "god" is just as faith-based as the belief in "god".

[leninrocks244]

I think logic actually leads to the conclusion that no one can possibly know. The denial of "god" is just as faith-based as the belief in "god".

Not really, because we don't put faith in God not existing. Anyways, you can't be a true Christian and be rational.

[Arcadian Empire]

I am just saying in "theory", logic - well if you were a God, you would defy logic anyway.

Just putting a theory forward on what might happen if some atheists met God.

[leninrocks244]

I am just saying in "theory", logic - well if you were a God, you would defy logic anyway.

Just putting a theory forward on what might happen if some atheists met God.

Eventhough it'll never happen.... just saying.

[The Arbiter]

Not really, because we don't put faith in God not existing. Anyways, you can't be a true Christian and be rational.
Why not?

[leninrocks244]

Why not?

Christianity just throws rationality out the window. It's obvious.

[The Arbiter]

Christianity just throws rationality out the window. It's obvious.
That is a very bad answer. If you can't think of something to back up your point, don't say it.

[James Davis]

Excellent question/point, Arbiter.

Ok, I've got a little time this weekend, so I guess it's time to go to war on evolution. :bat:

To begin, a couple of things should be clarified about evolution. First, it was not designed to explain where original life came from. I'm not trying to say that Darwinists are trying to claim this, but merely that the Theory of Evolution supposedly kicks into action after the first living cell comes into existance, so this is really a tiny part of the "God Debate."

Second, we need to remove the shroud of ambiguity that surrounds the nature of evolution. When most people hear the term "evolution," they think of apes turning into humans, maybe even the famous "Family Tree of Evolution." Most people, however, are unaware that there are two classifications of evolution, micro and macroevolution.

First we'll deal with microevolution, or evolution (meaning change over time) within a species. This type of evolution has been observed hundreds, if not thousands of times. I have no problem with microevolution, because there is a ton of evidence to support it. There have been a couple of examples supposedly supporting evolution brought up in this thread. Shockingly, every single one of them falls into the microevolution category. Let's break them down:

-Bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics. This is micoevolution. I don't deny that the bacteria have changed, but they are still bacteria.

-Humans are taller and more intelligent now. Sure, I won't challenge that. We've changed. Humans then, humans now.

-I'll throw out another: Darwin's Finches. Some had big beaks, others little, and the population fluctuated based on the weather. They were (and still are), finches.

Ok, now it's time to address macro-evolution. This is the lynchpin of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. If it falls, evolution falls with it. This concept has a number of problems, namely, there's no evidence for it. Not in the fossil record, not in natural observation, nowhere. However, I will go a step further and show four other problems with it:

-Genetic Limits. There have been a number of attempts to create an instance of macroevolution in the laboratory. The best example of this is the fruitflies experiment. Scientists bred certain fruitflies with each other to get certain mutations and then bred the mutants together in an attempt to create a new species. They used fruitflies because of their short lifespan (two weeks, I think) in order to go through a large number of generations of these fruitflies. What did they end up with? A bunch of crippled fruitflies. They intelligently directed the course of the experiment--they preserved the mutants, whilst nature kills off roughly 99% of them-- and still failed to produce the desired result. This study is very problematic for Darwinists who claim that thousands of cases of macroevolution took place with no intelligent direction.

-Cyclical Change. I touched on this a bit in the paragraph above, but I'll expound here. A common misconception of evolution is that mutations of species constantly progess the viability of the species. This is completely false. 99% of mutations are lethal to the individual creature that carries it. Additionally, most of the helpful mutations are related to the climate at that time (see Darwin's Finches). In other words, the vast majority of all mutations that are helpful to a species are rendered obsolete within a relatively short period of time. Darwinists have to take a leap of faith in a lot of areas to believe that evolution got us where we are today.

-Irreducible Complexity. An irreducibly complex system is a system that has a number of complementary working parts that will cease to work of one of those parts is removed or changed. Darwin himself admitted that his theory fails if such a system could be found in the nature world. Guess what we found?
-The cell
-Cilia
-Blood clotting
-Our visual system
-Others, but I think I've made my point
All of these things would cease to work properly (and doom whoever carried the flaw to almost certain death) if one part of any of them was even slightly changed. In other words, it is a logical and medical impossibility that these qualities of many living creatures evolved into existance. This is a HUGE stumbling block for evolutionists, and I haven't seen someone satisfactorily explain this problem away.

-Nonviability of transitional forms. Scientists state that birds evolved from reptiles. No one has explained to me how a half-bird half-reptile, (something that would no longer have scales but not quite have feathers could survive. No protection from the scales, and no ability to fly. How could it possibly survive?

All of this evidence against virtually no evidence supporting macroevolution. How could anyone believe in macroevolution? Most of them are tricked by the evidence for microevolution, and believe that it is actually evidence for macroevolution. Darwin's Theory is hopelessly flawed. Anyone who sees this evidence and rejects it as a product of irrational faith is in denial.

[The Arbiter]

I believe in God AND in evolution. I believe that God created the natural order to promote evolution. I believe God put evolution and natural selection in place.

[leninrocks244]

That is a very bad answer. If you can't think of something to back up your point, don't say it.

It's a very good answer to say the least. What do I need to back my statement up? It's obvious. Come on, you can't really be rational if you believe what somebody in the desert wrote thousands of years ago.

[leninrocks244]

Excellent question/point, Arbiter.

Ok, I've got a little time this weekend, so I guess it's time to go to war on evolution. :bat:

To begin, a couple of things should be clarified about evolution. First, it was not designed to explain where original life came from. I'm not trying to say that Darwinists are trying to claim this, but merely that the Theory of Evolution supposedly kicks into action after the first living cell comes into existance, so this is really a tiny part of the "God Debate."

Second, we need to remove the shroud of ambiguity that surrounds the nature of evolution. When most people hear the term "evolution," they think of apes turning into humans, maybe even the famous "Family Tree of Evolution." Most people, however, are unaware that there are two classifications of evolution, micro and macroevolution.

First we'll deal with microevolution, or evolution (meaning change over time) within a species. This type of evolution has been observed hundreds, if not thousands of times. I have no problem with microevolution, because there is a ton of evidence to support it. There have been a couple of examples supposedly supporting evolution brought up in this thread. Shockingly, every single one of them falls into the microevolution category. Let's break them down:

-Bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics. This is micoevolution. I don't deny that the bacteria have changed, but they are still bacteria.

-Humans are taller and more intelligent now. Sure, I won't challenge that. We've changed. Humans then, humans now.

-I'll throw out another: Darwin's Finches. Some had big beaks, others little, and the population fluctuated based on the weather. They were (and still are), finches.

Ok, now it's time to address macro-evolution. This is the lynchpin of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. If it falls, evolution falls with it. This concept has a number of problems, namely, there's no evidence for it. Not in the fossil record, not in natural observation, nowhere. However, I will go a step further and show four other problems with it:

-Genetic Limits. There have been a number of attempts to create an instance of macroevolution in the laboratory. The best example of this is the fruitflies experiment. Scientists bred certain fruitflies with each other to get certain mutations and then bred the mutants together in an attempt to create a new species. They used fruitflies because of their short lifespan (two weeks, I think) in order to go through a large number of generations of these fruitflies. What did they end up with? A bunch of crippled fruitflies. They intelligently directed the course of the experiment--they preserved the mutants, whilst nature kills off roughly 99% of them-- and still failed to produce the desired result. This study is very problematic for Darwinists who claim that thousands of cases of macroevolution took place with no intelligent direction.

-Cyclical Change. I touched on this a bit in the paragraph above, but I'll expound here. A common misconception of evolution is that mutations of species constantly progess the viability of the species. This is completely false. 99% of mutations are lethal to the individual creature that carries it. Additionally, most of the helpful mutations are related to the climate at that time (see Darwin's Finches). In other words, the vast majority of all mutations that are helpful to a species are rendered obsolete within a relatively short period of time. Darwinists have to take a leap of faith in a lot of areas to believe that evolution got us where we are today.

-Irreducible Complexity. An irreducibly complex system is a system that has a number of complementary working parts that will cease to work of one of those parts is removed or changed. Darwin himself admitted that his theory fails if such a system could be found in the nature world. Guess what we found?
-The cell
-Cilia
-Blood clotting
-Our visual system
-Others, but I think I've made my point
All of these things would cease to work properly (and doom whoever carried the flaw to almost certain death) if one part of any of them was even slightly changed. In other words, it is a logical and medical impossibility that these qualities of many living creatures evolved into existance. This is a HUGE stumbling block for evolutionists, and I haven't seen someone satisfactorily explain this problem away.

-Nonviability of transitional forms. Scientists state that birds evolved from reptiles. No one has explained to me how a half-bird half-reptile, (something that would no longer have scales but not quite have feathers could survive. No protection from the scales, and no ability to fly. How could it possibly survive?

All of this evidence against virtually no evidence supporting macroevolution. How could anyone believe in macroevolution? Most of them are tricked by the evidence for microevolution, and believe that it is actually evidence for macroevolution. Darwin's Theory is hopelessly flawed. Anyone who sees this evidence and rejects it as a product of irrational faith is in denial.

Darwin's Theory is flawed but when an all powerful being creates people out of clay isn't flawed?

[The Arbiter]

It's a very good answer to say the least. What do I need to back my statement up? It's obvious. Come on, you can't really be rational if you believe what somebody in the desert wrote thousands of years ago.
And I think you can't be rational that you want to pay for somebody else's healthcare.

[leninrocks244]

I believe in God AND in evolution. I believe that God created the natural order to promote evolution. I believe God put evolution and natural selection in place.

Human nature put natural selection in it's place. Evolution is a scientific process. Nobody can put it in place.

[leninrocks244]

And I think you can't be rational that you want to pay for somebody else's healthcare.

It's not only for somebody else, it's for my own as well.

[The Arbiter]

Human nature put natural selection in it's place. Evolution is a scientific process. Nobody can put it in place.
That made no sense at all.

[leninrocks244]

That made no sense at all.

But if "God" did it, it makes perfect sense? Yeah, right. See what I said when you can't be Christian and rational?

[The Arbiter]

But if "God" did it, it makes perfect sense? Yeah, right. See what I said when you can't be Christian and rational?
Absolutely it makes sense. Something had to do it. "Human nature" OBVIOUSLY didn't do it because we were bacteria before we were humans. We weren't even humans so that makes no sense at all.

[leninrocks244]

Absolutely it makes sense. Something had to do it. "Human nature" OBVIOUSLY didn't do it because we were bacteria before we were humans. We weren't even humans so that makes no sense at all.

It makes absolutely no sense. God was created by man. Ah, I was talking about around the time of the cavemen. But yeah, the earlier geological eras completely slipped my mind.

[The Arbiter]

It makes absolutely no sense. God was created by man. Ah, I was talking about around the time of the cavemen. But yeah, the earlier geological eras completely slipped my mind.
And how do you think we became cavemen?

[James Davis]

Darwin's Theory is flawed but when an all powerful being creates people out of clay isn't flawed?

Not if there is an "all-powerful being," as you put it. An all-powerful being would be able to do anything, because he is all powerful. You obviously think that the idea that such a being could exist is preposterous. Tell us why.

[leninrocks244]

Not if there is an "all-powerful being," as you put it. An all-powerful being would be able to do anything, because he is all powerful. You obviously think that the idea that such a being could exist is preposterous. Tell us why.

Because the idea of a God in the sky who talked to a senior citizen who built an arc the size of Manhattan and carried every animal on board two by two, didn't run out of supplies nor did the animals rip each other apart. And let's not forget Jonah, the guy who got swallowed by a whale and lived. But not only is everything in it bullshit, but the way it explains everything is illogical as well. The oceans came from God's tears? What the hell is that? That's not science, it's just a guess made by ancient peoples.

[leninrocks244]

And how do you think we became cavemen?

How we became humans? We evolved.

[The Arbiter]

How we became humans? We evolved.
I think we can both agree that the most basic form of life is a cell. How do you think we became that cell to evolve?

[James Davis]

Because the idea of a God in the sky who talked to a senior citizen who built an arc the size of Manhattan and carried every animal on board two by two, didn't run out of supplies nor did the animals rip each other apart. And let's not forget Jonah, the guy who got swallowed by a whale and lived. But not only is everything in it bullshit, but the way it explains everything is illogical as well. The oceans came from God's tears? What the hell is that? That's not science, it's just a guess made by ancient peoples.

The first two events that you stated could not have possibly happened on human terms. Miracles are a rather wonderful thing, and both examples you just gave are results of a couple rather dramatic ones.

I can honestly say I don't remember ever reading anything in the Bible that talked about the ocean's coming from God's tears. If it is in the Bible, I can guarantee one of two things: Either the verse was meant to be taken in metaphorical terms only, or the verse is taken out of context. For instance, Genesis does not say, "In the beginning, God cried and made the oceans."

It is very obvious that you do not put much stock in what the Bible says. I find that to be a mistake on your part, because you clearly haven't seen the evidence supporting it.

Also, have either of you even bothered to read my previous post on evolution? Comments? Critiques? Anyone???

[leninrocks244]

I think we can both agree that the most basic form of life is a cell. How do you think we became that cell to evolve?

Not by God, that's for sure. There's other life out there, whom most defiantly worship other deitys.

[The Arbiter]

Not by God, that's for sure. There's other life out there, whom most defiantly worship other deitys.
You're not answering the question.

[leninrocks244]

The first two events that you stated could not have possibly happened on human terms. Miracles are a rather wonderful thing, and both examples you just gave are results of a couple rather dramatic ones.

I can honestly say I don't remember ever reading anything in the Bible that talked about the ocean's coming from God's tears. If it is in the Bible, I can guarantee one of two things: Either the verse was meant to be taken in metaphorical terms only, or the verse is taken out of context. For instance, Genesis does not say, "In the beginning, God cried and made the oceans."

It is very obvious that you do not put much stock in what the Bible says. I find that to be a mistake on your part, because you clearly haven't seen the evidence supporting it.

They couldn't have happened period. An old man built an arc the size of Manhattan without God's help and then rounded up billions of species and put them on a boat. How in the hell could you possibly believe that's real? The people who wrote these stories lived in a time where science was considered sorcery. And if the Bible doesn't say that, then the douchebag who ran my church when I was 5 should read his Bible more.

[leninrocks244]

You're not answering the question.

Ever hear of Abiogenesis? It's alot more explanatory than the creation myth.

[leninrocks244]

You're not answering the question.

Ever hear of Abiogenesis? It's alot more explanatory than the creation myth.

[James Davis]

They couldn't have happened period. An old man built an arc the size of Manhattan without God's help and then rounded up billions of species and put them on a boat. How in the hell could you possibly believe that's real? The people who wrote these stories lived in a time where science was considered sorcery. And if the Bible doesn't say that, then the douchebag who ran my church when I was 5 should read his Bible more.

Ok, first you have the size of the Ark greatly exaggerated. Most scholars estimate the Ark to be roughly 100,000 square feet in size, hardly the 23 square miles that Manhattan Island represents. Second, Noah was not alone, he had his three grown sons helping him. Third, you seem to think that this Ark sprung up overnight. They were working on the ark for years.

Additionally, they did not do all of this without God's help. I have already said such a task is impossible. Certainly God helped them (probably with the cooperation of the animals more than anything).

Finally, I never said that the verse wasn't in the Bible, I just said I had never heard of it before, and it certainly was not intended to be taken in the manner you presented it.

[leninrocks244]

Ok, first you have the size of the Ark greatly exaggerated. Most scholars estimate the Ark to be roughly 100,000 square feet in size, hardly the 23 square miles that Manhattan Island represents. Second, Noah was not alone, he had his three grown sons helping him. Third, you seem to think that this Ark sprung up overnight. They were working on the ark for years.

Additionally, they did not do all of this without God's help. I have already said such a task is impossible. Certainly God helped them (probably with the cooperation of the animals more than anything).

Finally, I never said that the verse wasn't in the Bible, I just said I had never heard of it before, and it certainly was not intended to be taken in the manner you presented it.

Ok, so the riddle of the arc is solved. But you're forgetting the little necessity called water. If they're supposed to carry two of every animal on board, where are they going to store enough water and supplies for the passengers and animals for 40 days and nights? I'm sorry to crush your childhood storyland, but it's just a little too far fetched for me, especially if it happened thousands of years ago. Not to be mean, but for the love of God open up your eyes and be rational instead of reading something from a book written by people who had no scientific knowledge at all.

[James Davis]

Ok, so the riddle of the arc is solved. But you're forgetting the little necessity called water. If they're supposed to carry two of every animal on board, where are they going to store enough water and supplies for the passengers and animals for 40 days and nights? I'm sorry to crush your childhood storyland, but it's just a little too far fetched for me, especially if it happened thousands of years ago. Not to be mean, but for the love of God open up your eyes and be rational instead of reading something from a book written by people who had no scientific knowledge at all.

If you haven't noticed, I have used scientific, not Biblical evidence for the vast majority of this debate.

Now, for your objections to supplies. It is not inconceivable for them to pack a significant amout of food on a ship. Food is very space efficient. I have enough food in my pantry to last for 40 days. Water is a little bit more problematic....oh wait, it was raining.

I know this event was spectacular, and impossible by human means, but it clearly is not as far-fetched as you made it seem.

Now as for who is close-minded, why don't you take a look at my case against evolution, and tell me what you think, and more importantly, why?

I'll be back in roughly 4 hours.

[leninrocks244]

If you haven't noticed, I have used scientific, not Biblical evidence for the vast majority of this debate.

Now, for your objections to supplies. It is not inconceivable for them to pack a significant amout of food on a ship. Food is very space efficient. I have enough food in my pantry to last for 40 days. Water is a little bit more problematic....oh wait, it was raining.

I know this event was spectacular, and impossible by human means, but it clearly is not as far-fetched as you made it seem.

Now as for who is close-minded, why don't you take a look at my case against evolution, and tell me what you think, and more importantly, why?

I'll be back in roughly 4 hours.

But what about medicine? Nobody died of diseases? Oh wait, did God cast a magic barrier over them making them immune to all diseases? You made it seem like evolution is a process where an animal becomes something else overnight, like when you talk about Darwin's finches. Animals take millions of years to evolve, not in thousands or hundreds. Humans have gotten taller over the year because of our diets. We consume more calcium than back in the Roman Era.

[tom the pit leader]

Ok, first you have the size of the Ark greatly exaggerated. Most scholars estimate the Ark to be roughly 100,000 square feet in size, hardly the 23 square miles that Manhattan Island represents. Second, Noah was not alone, he had his three grown sons helping him. Third, you seem to think that this Ark sprung up overnight. They were working on the ark for years.

Additionally, they did not do all of this without God's help. I have already said such a task is impossible. Certainly God helped them (probably with the cooperation of the animals more than anything).

Finally, I never said that the verse wasn't in the Bible, I just said I had never heard of it before, and it certainly was not intended to be taken in the manner you presented it.

Ok, I am not on the bible's side, but I will give you a helpful hint, "Never EVER try to debate the flood, under ANY circumstances. PERIOD, end of discussion" .

Now as to why
1)the volume of water simply does not exist to flood the world. The amount of water is in the QUADRILLIONs of gallons. Given that the Earth is full of molten rock and isn't hollow, there isn't anywhere for that water to have gone.

2)The real flood was the creation of the black sea when the natural dam at presnt day Istanbul. When that broke, the whole region which had been dry was flooded. The people who lived there would have thought the whole world was flooding when in fact it was not.

3)Other civilizations in the region have the same story at the same time, but not with the same gods/names/boat size/ or animals.

4)If the story was correct, then all animal life on the Earth comes from one set of parents for each speicies. As any basic biology student can tell you, species with 2 sets of DNA don't last long due to genetic decay.

5)Hive insects which are animals would have died. If they had the one male and female, then they would have a queen and a drone, neither of which can gather food or build hives.

6)Plant life. If the whole world was under a Mount Everest of water, they would have died. One way would be that that depth of water is opaque and would thus strave the plants of the light nessary for photosyntesis. Or, they would have drownd for lack of CO2. Either way, with a vast majority of the plant life killed, the remaining animals would have smothered.

7)food. Not only would they need food for the thousands of animals on the ark for the 190 days they were floating, but also for the next sevral months as there would be no food for the carnivores and the plant life would have been decimated and so there would not be enough wild food for them to forage. Also, the flood waters would have contaminated all the freash water sources with salt and pollution from the decaying corpes and thus they would not have enough water to drink.

8)The story proves the god either lacks forsight or is a fool or is just insane . When god made Adam and Eve, they had no sin. They then developed sin and then they got to the point that god had to kill all the sinful people. However, he saved some people who were rightous. BUt then their childern start the cycle over. Now, one common definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Using the same humans in the same enviornment and expecting them not to sin this time seems to fit the bill of that. What did he think he had changed other than just killing a bunch of sinners and restarting the cycle?

These are some of the big reasons why you should never try to defend the flood story in the bible. Although, I'm sure I could show you more.

[leninrocks244]

Ok, I am not on the bible's side, but I will give you a helpful hint, "Never EVER try to debate the flood, under ANY circumstances. PERIOD, end of discussion" .

Now as to why
1)the volume of water simply does not exist to flood the world. The amount of water is in the QUADRILLIONs of gallons. Given that the Earth is full of molten rock and isn't hollow, there isn't anywhere for that water to have gone.

2)The real flood was the creation of the black sea when the natural dam at presnt day Istanbul. When that broke, the whole region which had been dry was flooded. The people who lived there would have thought the whole world was flooding when in fact it was not.

3)Other civilizations in the region have the same story at the same time, but not with the same gods/names/boat size/ or animals.

4)If the story was correct, then all animal life on the Earth comes from one set of parents for each speicies. As any basic biology student can tell you, species with 2 sets of DNA don't last long due to genetic decay.

5)Hive insects which are animals would have died. If they had the one male and female, then they would have a queen and a drone, neither of which can gather food or build hives.

6)Plant life. If the whole world was under a Mount Everest of water, they would have died. One way would be that that depth of water is opaque and would thus strave the plants of the light nessary for photosyntesis. Or, they would have drownd for lack of CO2. Either way, with a vast majority of the plant life killed, the remaining animals would have smothered.

7)food. Not only would they need food for the thousands of animals on the ark for the 190 days they were floating, but also for the next sevral months as there would be no food for the carnivores and the plant life would have been decimated and so there would not be enough wild food for them to forage. Also, the flood waters would have contaminated all the freash water sources with salt and pollution from the decaying corpes and thus they would not have enough water to drink.

8)The story proves the god either lacks forsight or is a fool or is just insane . When god made Adam and Eve, they had no sin. They then developed sin and then they got to the point that god had to kill all the sinful people. However, he saved some people who were rightous. BUt then their childern start the cycle over. Now, one common definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Using the same humans in the same enviornment and expecting them not to sin this time seems to fit the bill of that. What did he think he had changed other than just killing a bunch of sinners and restarting the cycle?

These are some of the big reasons why you should never try to defend the flood story in the bible. Although, I'm sure I could show you more.

Epic win.

[The Arbiter]

He argued what you could not. However, I don't believe anything not in the Old Testament, that said, I don't believe everything in the Old Testament either. I already explained my stance on this. God created evolution.

[leninrocks244]

He argued what you could not. However, I don't believe anything not in the Old Testament, that said, I don't believe everything in the Old Testament either. I already explained my stance on this. God created evolution.

No, what he said is pretty much my argument in a nutshell. God was created by man.

[tom the pit leader]

Epic win.

Thank you, I don't get to argue this enough at school. And it shows why you need to practice your arguments, not that that's what I do in my free time, mind you.

[James Davis]

But what about medicine? Nobody died of diseases? Oh wait, did God cast a magic barrier over them making them immune to all diseases? You made it seem like evolution is a process where an animal becomes something else overnight, like when you talk about Darwin's finches. Animals take millions of years to evolve, not in thousands or hundreds. Humans have gotten taller over the year because of our diets. We consume more calcium than back in the Roman Era.

The Bible never says there was no disease, actually quite the opposite. There are hundreds of verses referring to disease in Biblical times, which can be found in virtually every book.

I never said animals evolved overnight (I've had biology classes, too). I am simply saying, when looking at the facts, evolution fails utterly. You, like all evolutionists try to extrapolate the changes that take place in microevolution and somehow force a new species into existance. That's like me saying, "I ran a 5 second forty meter dash yesterday, I ran a 4.9 today, therefore, 10 days from now, I will be running a 3.9. This is a ridiculous assumption to make, because I have human limits and no matter how hard I work, I will not be able to overcome them.

As someone who supports something that has never been observed to happen (macroevolution), the burden of proof is on you, and yet you continue to ignore the damning evidence that exists to counter it. Who is really being irrational?

I'm going to address the global flood thing tomorrow, (there is an answer, but it is rather complex and it's getting late here). One thing I will point out though. Even if you could absolutely prove that the "global flood" was actually a local flood, which you can't, it wouldn't actually prove anything. All it would show is that either:
-The author isn't omnicsient, which we know already, he's human.
-The author was merely referring to the known world, which would still be accurate.

Therefore, the global flood is simply a stickman, an argument designed to distract the discussion away from the current topic, evolution, where your position is incredibly weak.

[leninrocks244]

The Bible never says there was no disease, actually quite the opposite. There are hundreds of verses referring to disease in Biblical times, which can be found in virtually every book.

I never said animals evolved overnight (I've had biology classes, too). I am simply saying, when looking at the facts, evolution fails utterly. You, like all evolutionists try to extrapolate the changes that take place in microevolution and somehow force a new species into existance. That's like me saying, "I ran a 5 second forty meter dash yesterday, I ran a 4.9 today, therefore, 10 days from now, I will be running a 3.9. This is a ridiculous assumption to make, because I have human limits and no matter how hard I work, I will not be able to overcome them.

As someone who supports something that has never been observed to happen (macroevolution), the burden of proof is on you, and yet you continue to ignore the damning evidence that exists to counter it. Who is really being irrational?

I'm going to address the global flood thing tomorrow, (there is an answer, but it is rather complex and it's getting late here). One thing I will point out though. Even if you could absolutely prove that the "global flood" was actually a local flood, which you can't, it wouldn't actually prove anything. All it would show is that either:
-The author isn't omnicsient, which we know already, he's human.
-The author was merely referring to the known world, which would still be accurate.

Therefore, the global flood is simply a stickman, an argument designed to distract the discussion away from the current topic, evolution, where your position is incredibly weak.

Ok but it never said if anybody died from disease. My position isn't very weak. It's alot better than anybody elses where it's mostly "EVOLUTION IS BULLSHIT! GOD MADE EVERYTHING!!"

[James Davis]

Ok but it never said if anybody died from disease. My position isn't very weak. It's alot better than anybody elses where it's mostly "EVOLUTION IS BULLSHIT! GOD MADE EVERYTHING!!"

It says plenty of people died of disease:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2016:46-49;&version=31;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=16&verse=4&version=31&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011:1,14;&version=31;

Let's see, who's on stronger ground:

We have your ground...

Christianity just throws rationality out the window. It's obvious.

and mine...

Excellent question/point, Arbiter.

Ok, I've got a little time this weekend, so I guess it's time to go to war on evolution. :bat:

To begin, a couple of things should be clarified about evolution. First, it was not designed to explain where original life came from. I'm not trying to say that Darwinists are trying to claim this, but merely that the Theory of Evolution supposedly kicks into action after the first living cell comes into existance, so this is really a tiny part of the "God Debate."

Second, we need to remove the shroud of ambiguity that surrounds the nature of evolution. When most people hear the term "evolution," they think of apes turning into humans, maybe even the famous "Family Tree of Evolution." Most people, however, are unaware that there are two classifications of evolution, micro and macroevolution.

First we'll deal with microevolution, or evolution (meaning change over time) within a species. This type of evolution has been observed hundreds, if not thousands of times. I have no problem with microevolution, because there is a ton of evidence to support it. There have been a couple of examples supposedly supporting evolution brought up in this thread. Shockingly, every single one of them falls into the microevolution category. Let's break them down:

-Bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics. This is micoevolution. I don't deny that the bacteria have changed, but they are still bacteria.

-Humans are taller and more intelligent now. Sure, I won't challenge that. We've changed. Humans then, humans now.

-I'll throw out another: Darwin's Finches. Some had big beaks, others little, and the population fluctuated based on the weather. They were (and still are), finches.

Ok, now it's time to address macro-evolution. This is the lynchpin of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. If it falls, evolution falls with it. This concept has a number of problems, namely, there's no evidence for it. Not in the fossil record, not in natural observation, nowhere. However, I will go a step further and show four other problems with it:

-Genetic Limits. There have been a number of attempts to create an instance of macroevolution in the laboratory. The best example of this is the fruitflies experiment. Scientists bred certain fruitflies with each other to get certain mutations and then bred the mutants together in an attempt to create a new species. They used fruitflies because of their short lifespan (two weeks, I think) in order to go through a large number of generations of these fruitflies. What did they end up with? A bunch of crippled fruitflies. They intelligently directed the course of the experiment--they preserved the mutants, whilst nature kills off roughly 99% of them-- and still failed to produce the desired result. This study is very problematic for Darwinists who claim that thousands of cases of macroevolution took place with no intelligent direction.

-Cyclical Change. I touched on this a bit in the paragraph above, but I'll expound here. A common misconception of evolution is that mutations of species constantly progess the viability of the species. This is completely false. 99% of mutations are lethal to the individual creature that carries it. Additionally, most of the helpful mutations are related to the climate at that time (see Darwin's Finches). In other words, the vast majority of all mutations that are helpful to a species are rendered obsolete within a relatively short period of time. Darwinists have to take a leap of faith in a lot of areas to believe that evolution got us where we are today.

-Irreducible Complexity. An irreducibly complex system is a system that has a number of complementary working parts that will cease to work of one of those parts is removed or changed. Darwin himself admitted that his theory fails if such a system could be found in the nature world. Guess what we found?
-The cell
-Cilia
-Blood clotting
-Our visual system
-Others, but I think I've made my point
All of these things would cease to work properly (and doom whoever carried the flaw to almost certain death) if one part of any of them was even slightly changed. In other words, it is a logical and medical impossibility that these qualities of many living creatures evolved into existance. This is a HUGE stumbling block for evolutionists, and I haven't seen someone satisfactorily explain this problem away.

-Nonviability of transitional forms. Scientists state that birds evolved from reptiles. No one has explained to me how a half-bird half-reptile, (something that would no longer have scales but not quite have feathers could survive. No protection from the scales, and no ability to fly. How could it possibly survive?

All of this evidence against virtually no evidence supporting macroevolution. How could anyone believe in macroevolution? Most of them are tricked by the evidence for microevolution, and believe that it is actually evidence for macroevolution. Darwin's Theory is hopelessly flawed. Anyone who sees this evidence and rejects it as a product of irrational faith is in denial.

I think I'll take my ground.

[The Arbiter]

JD has said a lot of intelligent statements and has backed up all of them. You, on the other hand, are just calling Christians irrational. I'm not a Christian, I'm Jewish, but I am a religious person and I respect all religions (except Islam).

[Aporime]

As someone who supports something that has never been observed to happen (macroevolution), the burden of proof is on you, and yet you continue to ignore the damning evidence that exists to counter it.

As someone who supports something that has never been observed (god), the burden of proof is on you.

[James Davis]

As someone who supports something that has never been observed (god), the burden of proof is on you.

Indeed it is, on that particular question. Evolution, while being a part of this debate, is a subcategory and the atheists in this thread cannot continue to ignore the issues I have raised with it.

[FreeMason]

Of course the theory of evolution is flawed. It was developed almost 160 years ago by a geologist. Nevertheless it is the most scientifically defensable theory in existance at this time. And of course no one has observed evolution, it happens over many thousands of years. Evolution is not something that just happens, a sudden transfer from one species to another. Evolution is a series of natural adaptations to specific environments which eventually distance one group from another, thus becoming two seperate species. So at one point, for example, let's say humans and monkeys were a part of one species. One group of that species moved to a hot, humid rainforest in Africa where they lived on the ground, eating ground-dwelling creatures. The other group went after food in the trees and ended up living in the canopy, where sulight could hit them. The ground-dwelling group, in the shaded, humid lower levels of the forest, had no need for fur. It actually hindered them because it added to the heat and was damaging to their health. As an adaptation to this, the ground group began to shed their fur, not completely, but as generations passed, the group's members grew less and less hair. The group in the canopy, however, needed the fur. It was cooler in the canopy. The fact that the sun was shining on them also meant that, without a protective layer of fur, the group's members could get sunburned and develop skin cancer, among other things. Thus two seperate species form. Other adaptations would include: There are more predators on the ground. Thus, the ground inhabitants must be able to outwit tigers and the like. So, mental capacity increases. There aren't many predators in the canopy. The canopy group simply develops the skills it needs to evade snakes and such (more agility, speed, etc.). The ground group is not swinging through the trees. Thus it has no need for prehensile toes or tail. The tail just gets in the way anyway when hunting for food. The canopy group, however, needs to be able to live in the trees and swing quickly from branch to branch, so it needs those adaptations.

Evolution is a series of little changes, not a few giant ones.

Now, lenin, you do need reasoning behind why Christians are irrational. Otherwise you yourself are being irrational. Point out one of the many contradictions in the bible. Point out the fact that all religions were created with a purpose, and explain what that religion's original purpose was. But you can't just say "Christians are irrational" without reasoning behind it. It just hurts your argument.

[James Davis]

Of course the theory of evolution is flawed. It was developed almost 160 years ago by a geologist. Nevertheless it is the most scientifically defensable theory in existance at this time. And of course no one has observed evolution, it happens over many thousands of years. Evolution is not something that just happens, a sudden transfer from one species to another. Evolution is a series of natural adaptations to specific environments which eventually distance one group from another, thus becoming two seperate species. So at one point, for example, let's say humans and monkeys were a part of one species. One group of that species moved to a hot, humid rainforest in Africa where they lived on the ground, eating ground-dwelling creatures. The other group went after food in the trees and ended up living in the canopy, where sulight could hit them. The ground-dwelling group, in the shaded, humid lower levels of the forest, had no need for fur. It actually hindered them because it added to the heat and was damaging to their health. As an adaptation to this, the ground group began to shed their fur, not completely, but as generations passed, the group's members grew less and less hair. The group in the canopy, however, needed the fur. It was cooler in the canopy. The fact that the sun was shining on them also meant that, without a protective layer of fur, the group's members could get sunburned and develop skin cancer, among other things. Thus two seperate species form. Other adaptations would include: There are more predators on the ground. Thus, the ground inhabitants must be able to outwit tigers and the like. So, mental capacity increases. There aren't many predators in the canopy. The canopy group simply develops the skills it needs to evade snakes and such (more agility, speed, etc.). The ground group is not swinging through the trees. Thus it has no need for prehensile toes or tail. The tail just gets in the way anyway when hunting for food. The canopy group, however, needs to be able to live in the trees and swing quickly from branch to branch, so it needs those adaptations.

Evolution is a series of little changes, not a few giant ones.

Now, lenin, you do need reasoning behind why Christians are irrational. Otherwise you yourself are being irrational. Point out one of the many contradictions in the bible. Point out the fact that all religions were created with a purpose, and explain what that religion's original purpose was. But you can't just say "Christians are irrational" without reasoning behind it. It just hurts your argument.

I am completely aware of how evolution is supposed to work, it's not that I am ignorant on this issue. I am stating that evolution cannot work on the grandiose scale trumpeted by Darwinists.

[FreeMason]

There are issues with all theories. Even the religious ideas have issues with them, largely because they cannot be observed, at least not at this moment. As far as observational evidence goes, evolution is far more defensable than creationism.

[heilesabre]

Since no one seems to be able to post an effective reply to James's argument against evolution, I'll take a shot.

-Genetic Limits. There have been a number of attempts to create an instance of macroevolution in the laboratory. The best example of this is the fruitflies experiment. Scientists bred certain fruitflies with each other to get certain mutations and then bred the mutants together in an attempt to create a new species. They used fruitflies because of their short lifespan (two weeks, I think) in order to go through a large number of generations of these fruitflies. What did they end up with? A bunch of crippled fruitflies. They intelligently directed the course of the experiment--they preserved the mutants, whilst nature kills off roughly 99% of them-- and still failed to produce the desired result. This study is very problematic for Darwinists who claim that thousands of cases of macroevolution took place with no intelligent direction.

In my mind, it's not surprising that the experiment you mentioned failed, for two reasons:
(1) Attempting to model a period of a few million years in a few months is simply impossible, especially if you look at the methods used. James stated that the scientists preserved the mutants, even the harmful ones (I infer this from the quote "whilst nature kills off roughly 99% of them"). When you mix harmful genes with harmful genes, you get dead flies.
(2) The experiment works in a static environment. The main biological advantage of macroevolution is to ensure that descendants of a species can adapt to further changes in the environment. There is no reason to expect evolution if it is not needed.

-Cyclical Change. I touched on this a bit in the paragraph above, but I'll expound here. A common misconception of evolution is that mutations of species constantly progess the viability of the species. This is completely false. 99% of mutations are lethal to the individual creature that carries it. Additionally, most of the helpful mutations are related to the climate at that time (see Darwin's Finches). In other words, the vast majority of all mutations that are helpful to a species are rendered obsolete within a relatively short period of time. Darwinists have to take a leap of faith in a lot of areas to believe that evolution got us where we are today.

The second-to-last (not to mention the last) sentence is false. If you have studied biology before, you will know of the existence of recessive genes. Simply put, you can have the genes for a harmful disease even if you don't have the disease itself. Further supporting this point is the fact that most genes for inherited diseases are recessive.

In contrary to your claim, a significant part of harmful (but recessive) mutations will survive ages. These mutations could well be helpful in a future change of the environment.

-Irreducible Complexity. An irreducibly complex system is a system that has a number of complementary working parts that will cease to work of one of those parts is removed or changed. Darwin himself admitted that his theory fails if such a system could be found in the nature world. Guess what we found?
-The cell
-Cilia
-Blood clotting
-Our visual system
-Others, but I think I've made my point
All of these things would cease to work properly (and doom whoever carried the flaw to almost certain death) if one part of any of them was even slightly changed. In other words, it is a logical and medical impossibility that these qualities of many living creatures evolved into existance. This is a HUGE stumbling block for evolutionists, and I haven't seen someone satisfactorily explain this problem away.


I think you're missing something here, or else I totally misunderstood this paragraph. I agree with your claim that it would be difficult (if not impossible) for, say, an organism to survive a change that resulted in the loss of its mitochondria (or something like that). However, this is a claim that evolution does not proceed from high complexity to low complexity. It does not prohibit evolution that increases the complexity of organisms.

For example, what could have happened was that a cell received a mutation that gave it a new component, then gradually evolved over the ages to have increased complexity, at the cost of being completely dependent on the new component. Just because we cannot survive without mitochondria does not mean no organisms can (look at all the bacteria).

-Nonviability of transitional forms. Scientists state that birds evolved from reptiles. No one has explained to me how a half-bird half-reptile, (something that would no longer have scales but not quite have feathers could survive. No protection from the scales, and no ability to fly. How could it possibly survive?

Have you heard of a pterodactyl? It is a reptile with the protection of scales, and with the ability to fly.


EDIT: On the sidelines, I'd like James to give a counterarugment to the Anthropic Principle (post #54). See
http://www.avelegio.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3772&page=6

[heilesabre]

And now for some evidence in favor of evidence, which I would welcome James Davis to respond to. I'll just post two of the easiest ones to understand, to keep the post (and my time spent) short.

(1) Ring species: Direct evidence of the evolution of new species. Think of a species breeding around a mountain range, but picking up genetic differences as it goes. By the time the species comes around, the two ends of the "ring" have too many genetic differences that can no longer interbreed with each other -- they are now two different species. (A headache for taxonomists to decide how to classify the organisms between the two ends.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

(2) Vestigial organs: Probably one of the best known evidence. As you probably know, humans and apes have a tailbone that serves no purpose. The tailbone is highly similar to those in monkeys, where the tail is vital for their balance. If humans did not evolve from monkeys, why would God give us a tailbone?

By the way, I agree that lenin has not done a good job in this thread. Blatant denial of the opposite side's argument is no substitute for a good counterargument.

[DmitriArson]

heilesabre raises an excellent point. Why WOULD 'God' give us a tailbone that serves no purpose? My understanding of your 'God' is that He does not give which has no purpose. While I cannot deny that it is not wholly ridiculous to believe that there is a higher power (I myself have no belief in one - I am a Soto Zen Buddhist), it IS ludicrous to completely and utterly refuse to believe that evolution does not exist in light of that proof. Another example relating to tailbones - appendixes. While they serve no purpose now, what if, hypothetically, they are either a organ used by us in the past or the next step in evolution?

[The Arbiter]

God created the cell and God created evolution and nature to evolve the cell.

[bigdaddychacha]

God created the cell and God created evolution and nature to evolve the cell.

Is that in the Bible/Torah/Qoran somewhere that you can point to, or are you just doing revisionist religious explanations because the scientific evidence is too strong to deny without looking crazy?

Also, if god created us "in his image," then doesn't that conflict with evolution, where we are in a constant but extremely slow state of flux as we adapt to new environment after new environment? Either we look like the guy or else god is a constantly changing and evolving sort of creature, starting as an amoeba or small multi-celled organism...or else, he just one day decided to place Adam and Eve in the middle of a garden somewhere; no evolution, just BOOM!--Humans!

You can't have it both ways, they are mutually exclusive explanations of the origins of homo sapiens.

Also,
JD has said a lot of intelligent statements and has backed up all of them. You, on the other hand, are just calling Christians irrational. I'm not a Christian, I'm Jewish, but I am a religious person and I respect all religions (except Islam).
Racism and religious discrimination FTL. If someone said that they respected all religions except Judaism, how quickly would you be screaming "anti-semite!!!!1"?

The OP said to keep it civil and saying that you disrespect a certain religion is hardly following that request, and should probably earn you a warn, imho.

[The Arbiter]

Is that in the Bible/Torah/Qoran somewhere that you can point to, or are you just doing revisionist religious explanations because the scientific evidence is too strong to deny without looking crazy?

Also, if god created us "in his image," then doesn't that conflict with evolution, where we are in a constant but extremely slow state of flux as we adapt to new environment after new environment? Either we look like the guy or else god is a constantly changing and evolving sort of creature, starting as an amoeba or small multi-celled organism...or else, he just one day decided to place Adam and Eve in the middle of a garden somewhere; no evolution, just BOOM!--Humans!
I told you what I believe. I never said I believed that God created Adam and Eve.

[heilesabre]

Personally, I would think that a lot of the Bible should not be taken literally. Remember that the Church once maintained the earth was flat because of a Biblical reference to "the world's four corners."

I do not see any conflict with believing in both God and evolution, unless you take literally every word of the Bible.

[The Arbiter]

I do not see any conflict with believing in both God and evolution, unless you take literally every word of the Bible.Neither do I, and I do. I do not believe every word in the Bible, but I do believe in God, and I do believe in evolution.

[bigdaddychacha]

Personally, I would think that a lot of the Bible should not be taken literally. Remember that the Church once maintained the earth was flat because of a Biblical reference to "the world's four corners."

I do not see any conflict with believing in both God and evolution, unless you take literally every word of the Bible.

Your assertion then begs the question: how much of a book do you have to "not take literally" before you start putting that book into the fiction instead of non-fiction section at Borders?

If incredibly vast swaths of a book can't be believed, then why cling to the other parts just because they still haven't been (or can't be) disproven?

What percentage of the Bible can be taken literally? 50%? 75%? 30%? Who draws that line?

[tom the pit leader]

I agree, you can't have just the parts you like. If you only take parts of something, then you can make it say anything you like.

[The Arbiter]

Your assertion then begs the question: how much of a book do you have to "not take literally" before you start putting that book into the fiction instead of non-fiction section at Borders?

If incredibly vast swaths of a book can't be believed, then why cling to the other parts just because they still haven't been (or can't be) disproven?

What percentage of the Bible can be taken literally? 50%? 75%? 30%? Who draws that line?
I draw the line. I believe what I believe.

[bigdaddychacha]

I draw the line. I believe what I believe.
The point of my rhettorical question about "who draws the line?" was that no one person can choose where the line is for anybody else.

You don't draw the line for anyone but "The Arbiter." And of course you believe what you believe, everyone in this thread believes whatever it is that they believe. We're posting here to make logical arguments in favor of what we believe, not put our heads in the sand and say, "Well, this is what I believe and nothing you ever say will ever change my mind, so there!" without ever addressing what it is that someone else says...

How do you reconcile the fact that large parts of any religious book are necessarily and verifiably untrue with the fact that you still regard some of those books as "the gospel truth?"

[heilesabre]

I do not speak for The Arbiter, but I do not regard the Bible as "the gospel truth." The Bible is the work of men. If it is true that these men have experienced visions/miracles from God, it will still be unavoidable that they make mistakes when recording them.

That being said, I reiterate my point that I do not take every word of the Bible literally. I choose what I believe. And I agree with bigdaddychacha's point that no one can draw the line for anyone but himself.

[leninrocks244]

JD has said a lot of intelligent statements and has backed up all of them. You, on the other hand, are just calling Christians irrational. I'm not a Christian, I'm Jewish, but I am a religious person and I respect all religions (except Islam).

Hypocracy strikes again!

[leninrocks244]

It says plenty of people died of disease:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2016:46-49;&version=31;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=16&verse=4&version=31&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011:1,14;&version=31;

Let's see, who's on stronger ground:

We have your ground...



and mine...



I think I'll take my ground.
Funny. None of those passages have anything to do with Noah. Passage 1 says Moses. Moses wasn't in the Arc. Passage 2. says those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. That obviously has nothing to do with the flood. And passage 3 says something else that obviously isn't relevant to the flood. People died, but there was no medicine back in those days. And if there was no medicine, how come when the flooding ended the arc wasn't a floating coffin? Secondly, if there really was a great flood, how in the hell are we all here? The flood would've wiped humanity from the face of the Earth and all that would've been left was a bunch of animals and Noah. That proves the story of the arc wrong.

Ok, so you obviously don't beleive in evolution. So you'll throw out a scientific explanation for one that takes absolutely no thought process at all. "God created everything". Christ, that sure does explain alot. And I'm pretty sure you believe that we were created in God's image. So that means God must've been a tranny who was white/black/asian/arabian and jewish? Not only that, but he was skinny and obese at the same time? You used up all of your logic and rationality by trashing the theory of evolution but you can't back up what it says in the Bible because rationality and logic completely destroyed that in no contest.

[Scott the Honorable]

Religion is irrational, hence the thinking of very religious peoples are irrational, its no use lenin

[leninrocks244]

Religion is irrational, hence the thinking of very religious peoples are irrational, its no use lenin

Yeah, but I need something to do to eat up time.

[James Davis]

Oh boy, this is going to take a while. Miss one night for war manuevering and the whole world comes down lol.

Since no one seems to be able to post an effective reply to James's argument against evolution, I'll take a shot.

Thank you. Intelligent discussion is what this thread is all about, and I'm happy to see us back on track.


In my mind, it's not surprising that the experiment you mentioned failed, for two reasons:
(1) Attempting to model a period of a few million years in a few months is simply impossible, especially if you look at the methods used. James stated that the scientists preserved the mutants, even the harmful ones (I infer this from the quote "whilst nature kills off roughly 99% of them"). When you mix harmful genes with harmful genes, you get dead flies.
(2) The experiment works in a static environment. The main biological advantage of macroevolution is to ensure that descendants of a species can adapt to further changes in the environment. There is no reason to expect evolution if it is not needed.

What I was trying to show is that when they tried to combine the genes of particular flies, (that I would assume are least-flylike), they got nothing more than more flies. They went through hundreds of generations of these flies without a meaningful result.

That isn't the only experiment in which scientists have tried to duplicate evolution. The point is that even when they skew the process to favor a particular outcome, they only succeed in screwing up the genetic lines. I have a feeling this wasn't a mistake, after all, most scientists are incredibly intelligent.

The second-to-last (not to mention the last) sentence is false. If you have studied biology before, you will know of the existence of recessive genes. Simply put, you can have the genes for a harmful disease even if you don't have the disease itself. Further supporting this point is the fact that most genes for inherited diseases are recessive.

In contrary to your claim, a significant part of harmful (but recessive) mutations will survive ages. These mutations could well be helpful in a future change of the environment.

I will yield you that critique, but it kind of misses the central theme of the argument. What I was trying to say is that due to their environment, changes within a species tend to vacillate back and forth based on the environment, never really getting anywhere. Like I said before, Darwin's finches are an outstanding example of this.

I think you're missing something here, or else I totally misunderstood this paragraph. I agree with your claim that it would be difficult (if not impossible) for, say, an organism to survive a change that resulted in the loss of its mitochondria (or something like that). However, this is a claim that evolution does not proceed from high complexity to low complexity. It does not prohibit evolution that increases the complexity of organisms.

For example, what could have happened was that a cell received a mutation that gave it a new component, then gradually evolved over the ages to have increased complexity, at the cost of being completely dependent on the new component. Just because we cannot survive without mitochondria does not mean no organisms can (look at all the bacteria).

I think what you missed was the title of the argument. :P Irreducibly complex means that if a particular function was any simpler than it is right now, it wouldn't work.

I will take the example of vision. If you are right, our visual system had to have evolved (unless the very first single-celled organism had a set of eyeballs I didn't know about). My point is that if our visual system evolved, it had to be less complex than it is now, and because it is an irreducibly complex system, it therefore, could not have worked properly.

Have you heard of a pterodactyl? It is a reptile with the protection of scales, and with the ability to fly.

I was under the impression that the pterodactyl had hair, and relied on flaps of skin to fly, and not on feathers.

EDIT: On the sidelines, I'd like James to give a counterarugment to the Anthropic Principle (post #54). See
http://www.avelegio.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3772&page=6[/QUOTE]

Ok. * James Davis runs back to take a look.

Not necessarily by chance. I challenge you to refute the Anthropic Principle, partially stated as follows.

Consider the possibility of multiple universes (perhaps from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics). Some of them are complex enough to support stars, planets, life, etc. Most of them probably aren't. However, the fact that we are observers means that we are most definitely in a universe that is complex enough to support us. Hence the complexity of what we see. (This is similar to the observation that the chances of you winning the lottery is extremely low, but someone has to win it.)

Now this does not prove there is no creator (which is not my intention anyways), but it refutes your claim that all this cannot have happened "by chance."

That isn't the Anthropic Principle. That is actually the Multiple Universe Theory.

The Anthropic Principle simply states that we have to take into account the restraints that our existance puts on this universe. In other words, what characteristics does our universe need to have to support life.

Even scientists acknowledge that our universe is a very special place (I'm going to launch into that in a bit). Determined to find a "scientific" explanation, scientists came up with the Multiple or Infinite Universe Theory. Basically the idea is that since our Universe seems like such a long shot, maybe there are actually an infinite number of universes. If true, this Theory would correctly explain how our universe defied all odds and supports life, as every possible sequence of events would have taken place in the other universes.

This theory has a number of problems:
-No evidence
-It is impossible to have an infinite number of anything material.
-It doesn't answer the question of where all of those universes came from, much less our own!
-It tends to be overly broad and could (in theory) be used to explain almost anything.

This theory has problems, so why does science even take it seriously? Because of the odds of all of this happening randomly:

-Earth's oxygen level stands at 21%. 3% higher we spontaneously combust. 3% lower we suffocate.
-Earth's atmosphere is perfectly designed to keep life on this planet. If it was significantly more protective, plant life could not survive, less protective, and we all get fried.
-The precise gravitational relationship with the moon sustains life on this planet. A stronger gravitational relationship with the Moon would cause tides to go out of control and thwart life as we know it. A weaker gravitational relationship would disrupt Earth's orbit and rotation.
-CO2 levels. Basically the same as oxygen. Too much, and the Earth gets very, very hot. Too little, photosynthesis stops and we die.
-If the expansion of the Universe was altered by 1 millionth, it would have either collapsed on itself, or expanded too quickly to form stars and galaxies.
-If Jupiter were not in its present orbit, Earth would be pummeled by space material.
-If the Earth's crust was thicker than it is, excessive oxygen transfer to the atmosphere would kill us. If it were thinner, extreme volcanic and tectonic activity would ravage the planet.
-If the Earth's rotation was longer than 24 hours, the differences in temperature would be too great. If it was shorter, atmospheric winds would wreak havoc on the planet.

Am I getting through? That is a fraction of examples I have. How could this have happened randomly/naturally? It is ironic that the Anthropic Priniciple was brought up, as evangelists regard it as one of their greatest Philosophical/scientific allies.

[James Davis]

Funny. None of those passages have anything to do with Noah. Passage 1 says Moses. Moses wasn't in the Arc. Passage 2. says those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. That obviously has nothing to do with the flood. And passage 3 says something else that obviously isn't relevant to the flood. People died, but there was no medicine back in those days. And if there was no medicine, how come when the flooding ended the arc wasn't a floating coffin? Secondly, if there really was a great flood, how in the hell are we all here? The flood would've wiped humanity from the face of the Earth and all that would've been left was a bunch of animals and Noah. That proves the story of the arc wrong.

Ok, so you obviously don't beleive in evolution. So you'll throw out a scientific explanation for one that takes absolutely no thought process at all. "God created everything". Christ, that sure does explain alot. And I'm pretty sure you believe that we were created in God's image. So that means God must've been a tranny who was white/black/asian/arabian and jewish? Not only that, but he was skinny and obese at the same time? You used up all of your logic and rationality by trashing the theory of evolution but you can't back up what it says in the Bible because rationality and logic completely destroyed that in no contest.

You were stating that the Bible never mentioned people dying of disease. People in those verses died of disease. I know that they have nothing to do with Noah.

On the Noah story, there is no way I can satisfy you because you are begging the question. With no God, no, the Noah story could not have happened. If there is a God, the story could have most certainly happened, even YOU have to admit that.

There are certain scenarios involving the melting of glaciers, the expusion of water from underwater caverns and other possible ways in which flooding on that scale could happen.

Again, I'm sure you won't hear any of this because you are arguing in a circle, therefore anything I say won't be good enough.

[heilesabre]

What I was trying to show is that when they tried to combine the genes of particular flies, (that I would assume are least-flylike), they got nothing more than more flies. They went through hundreds of generations of these flies without a meaningful result.

That isn't the only experiment in which scientists have tried to duplicate evolution. The point is that even when they skew the process to favor a particular outcome, they only succeed in screwing up the genetic lines. I have a feeling this wasn't a mistake, after all, most scientists are incredibly intelligent.

Again, I reiterate my point that hundreds of generations is not nearly enough. Changes in the real environment happen extremely gradually, and trying to skew this in a few months is quite impossible, I believe. However in this case the scientists have failed, and I yield you this point.

I think what you missed was the title of the argument. Irreducibly complex means that if a particular function was any simpler than it is right now, it wouldn't work.

I will take the example of vision. If you are right, our visual system had to have evolved (unless the very first single-celled organism had a set of eyeballs I didn't know about). My point is that if our visual system evolved, it had to be less complex than it is now, and because it is an irreducibly complex system, it therefore, could not have worked properly.


An unfortunate example here. The problem with trying to handle the evolution of vision is that it is unlikely we will have fossil evidence, and hence I can't really tell you how vision has worked for past organisms. Let us look at your set of examples:
-The cell
-Cilia
-Blood clotting
-Our visual system

All of these are "soft" parts, so fossil evidence seems unlikely. I would have been surprised if paleontologists could actually tell us something about the cilia in dinosaurs.

I was under the impression that the pterodactyl had hair, and relied on flaps of skin to fly, and not on feathers.

True. But what makes you think that there could not have existed animals with the protection of scales and with the ability to fly?
Besides, I'm not sure what you mean by the "protection of scales." The main purpose of scales is to prevent water from leaving the body. Feathers could well serve the same purpose.

The Anthropic Principle simply states that we have to take into account the restraints that our existance puts on this universe. In other words, what characteristics does our universe need to have to support life.

Even scientists acknowledge that our universe is a very special place (I'm going to launch into that in a bit). Determined to find a "scientific" explanation, scientists came up with the Multiple or Infinite Universe Theory. Basically the idea is that since our Universe seems like such a long shot, maybe there are actually an infinite number of universes. If true, this Theory would correctly explain how our universe defied all odds and supports life, as every possible sequence of events would have taken place in the other universes.

This theory has a number of problems:
-No evidence
-It is impossible to have an infinite number of anything material.
-It doesn't answer the question of where all of those universes came from, much less our own!
-It tends to be overly broad and could (in theory) be used to explain almost anything.

I'm not going to bother quoting the other half, since it is a repitition of what you said before. The many-worlds interpretation fits very well into the context of quantum mechanics. I agree that the burden of proof lies on its supporters, but in my mind this is as plausible as the notion that God created a single universe for us to live in. (Remember in the latter scenario, the burden of proof is on the believers.)

An alternative theory that *is* supported by some evidence is the inflationary theory of cosmology. I don't think I want to explain all the scientific details, but see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_theory

Two notable things about this theory:
(1) This theory answers many of the open unanswered questions in cosmology satisfiably, and also offers many observable predictions that have been confirmed. (I.e. this theory is supported by current scientific evidence.)
(2) This theory predicts that the universe is highly inhomogenous. Different patches of the universe could well have different physical constants, different compositions of matter/antimatter, and possibly even different physical laws.

Now here is where we invoke the Anthropic Principle. The universe is so large that some of those patches will be able to support life. We must live in one of those patches because, well, we live. Therefore it is no surprise that the physical constants and laws are so skewed to allow the existence of life around us.

I repeat that this did not happen randomly. It is improbable that you win the lottery, but it is certain that someone will win it.

EDIT: James Davis, there is another post you should answer. See http://www.avelegio.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3772&page=12
Post #118.

EDIT: And here's another one, although not by me: http://www.avelegio.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3772&page=11
Post #103.

I hope you're getting enjoyment debating all this stuff, because I do. Takes swathes of time, though.

[James Davis]

Thanks for pointing these out for me. I try to get to everything, but sometimes I miss things.
And now for some evidence in favor of evidence, which I would welcome James Davis to respond to. I'll just post two of the easiest ones to understand, to keep the post (and my time spent) short.

(1) Ring species: Direct evidence of the evolution of new species. Think of a species breeding around a mountain range, but picking up genetic differences as it goes. By the time the species comes around, the two ends of the "ring" have too many genetic differences that can no longer interbreed with each other -- they are now two different species. (A headache for taxonomists to decide how to classify the organisms between the two ends.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Ok, this one is pretty easy. It's microevolution. They're still gulls (referring to Wikipedia's example). Even if their differences are significant enough that they don't breed with each other, that doesn't change the fact that they are still gulls, and more broadly, still birds. When I argue against evolution, I argue against it's more grandiose claim, that all species evolved from a single-celled organism.

(2) Vestigial organs: Probably one of the best known evidence. As you probably know, humans and apes have a tailbone that serves no purpose. The tailbone is highly similar to those in monkeys, where the tail is vital for their balance. If humans did not evolve from monkeys, why would God give us a tailbone?

This argument carries a few problems. One is that the tailbone actually serves as an anchor point for muscles in that area. People with an injured tailbone often have a hard time walking as a result.

Second is that there aren't any definitive transitional forms that show a more pronounced tailbone in humans.

The final problem with this argument (and many others I have seen in this thread) is that it assumes we appear exactly as the Creator orginally designed our species. Even the Bible says we will physically mutate over time. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:18-25&version=31

And yes, I enjoy doing this point-counterpoint, it certainly sharpens the mind for school this fall. :P

[heilesabre]

This argument carries a few problems. One is that the tailbone actually serves as an anchor point for muscles in that area. People with an injured tailbone often have a hard time walking as a result.

My bad. I accept your point. However, it is surprising to me that an anchor point for muscles would look very much like the tailbone in monkeys. If not for evolution, surely there would have been major differences?

Second is that there aren't any definitive transitional forms that show a more pronounced tailbone in humans.
Probably because apes also don't have a pronounced tailbone.

Anyways, the tailbone is only an example. Try explaining away all other vestigial organs.

The final problem with this argument (and many others I have seen in this thread) is that it assumes we appear exactly as the Creator orginally designed our species. Even the Bible says we will physically mutate over time. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-25&version=31

Can this not be interpreted as that the Bible does not exclude evolution (even macroevolution)?

Also, I don't see how the above passage relates to vestigial organs.

[James Davis]

My bad. I accept your point. However, it is surprising to me that an anchor point for muscles would look very much like the tailbone in monkeys. If not for evolution, surely there would have been major differences?

An interesting thing about similiarities between monkeys and humans here. Evolutionists see them as evidence for evolution. Theists see them as evidence for a common Creator. After all, don't most artists have some common elements in their creations?


Probably because apes also don't have a pronounced tailbone.Sorry, I kind of misstated what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say is that we don't see fossils of humans with little stub tails and so on.

Anyways, the tailbone is only an example. Try explaining away all other vestigial organs.
I have to eat, but give me a couple of hours to compile a list and explain some of the major ones.

Can this not be interpreted as that the Bible does not exclude evolution (even macroevolution)? It certainly does not rule out microevolution. I wouldn't say that it is supportive of macroevolution, but that is my interpretation.

Also, I don't see how the above passage relates to vestigial organs.The argument that I was sensing from you was the question, "Why would an intelligent God create us with stuff we don't need?" That verse kind of disarms the specific vestigial organ argument (and that's assuming you are correct) as well as many of its relatives.

[heilesabre]

An interesting thing about similiarities between monkeys and humans here. Evolutionists see them as evidence for evolution. Theists see them as evidence for a common Creator. After all, don't most artists have some common elements in their creations?


Why, then, would whales be more similar structurally to (say) cows then to fish? Evolutionists can satisfatically explain this using evolution (what else)? Do non-evolutionists believe that God had some personal bias, i.e. He wanted whales to be more like cows even though they live in the sea?

(BTW, I prefer to use "non-evolutionists" to refer to the opposing camp, since I see no conflict between theism and evolution. That, I suppose, is not your view.)

Sorry, I kind of misstated what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say is that we don't see fossils of humans with little stub tails and so on.

My lack of knowledge of monkey anatomy prevents me from answering this question. I lose on this one (oh well).

Oh, and even if evolution is true we probably won't see humans with little stub tails. We'll probably see half-monkeys, half-apes (gibbons?) with stub tails instead.

EDIT: Just found something interesting. In very rare cases, humans DO grow short tails. This could (in my speculation) suggest that the trait for tails has not completely died out yet.

The argument that I was sensing from you was the question, "Why would an intelligent God create us with stuff we don't need?" That verse kind of disarms the specific vestigial organ argument (and that's assuming you are correct) as well as many of its relatives.

I assume your answer is "God didn't create us with stuff we don't need. We evolved them ourselves gradually."
That does not make sense to me at all. Why would we evolve them if we don't need them?

[bigdaddychacha]

I will yield you that critique, but it kind of misses the central theme of the argument. What I was trying to say is that due to their environment, changes within a species tend to vacillate back and forth based on the environment, never really getting anywhere. Like I said before, Darwin's finches are an outstanding example of this.
Somebody said it before, but recessive genes explain that pretty well.

I think what you missed was the title of the argument. :P Irreducibly complex means that if a particular function was any simpler than it is right now, it wouldn't work.

I will take the example of vision. If you are right, our visual system had to have evolved (unless the very first single-celled organism had a set of eyeballs I didn't know about). My point is that if our visual system evolved, it had to be less complex than it is now, and because it is an irreducibly complex system, it therefore, could not have worked properly.
Our vision system can absolutely get a lot less complex and still serve a function. Even if your vision is not 20/20, you can still see moving blurs and things like that, which, for some animals, might be all that is needed to avoid being eaten. Falcons and hawks have much better vision than humans do because it serves a function for them in their high-altitude hunting practices. Cats have night vision pretty much because it helps them with their hunting practices. Some snakes can detect things by infrared at night, although during the day they generally rely merely on movement. Blind albino cave fish have eyes, but they are still completely blind because they do not need eyes where they live...and yet -wait for it!- they still have them! Why in the world would that be?

Irreducible Complexity doesn't work because there is obviously more differentation in types of vision than just, "either you can see, or you can't."

The Anthropic Principle simply states that we have to take into account the restraints that our existance puts on this universe. In other words, what characteristics does our universe need to have to support life.

Even scientists acknowledge that our universe is a very special place
It can be a very special place without somebody having had to design it that way, that's neither here nor there.

This theory has problems, so why does science even take it seriously? Because of the odds of all of this happening randomly:

-Earth's oxygen level stands at 21%. 3% higher we spontaneously combust. 3% lower we suffocate.
-Earth's atmosphere is perfectly designed to keep life on this planet. If it was significantly more protective, plant life could not survive, less protective, and we all get fried.
-The precise gravitational relationship with the moon sustains life on this planet. A stronger gravitational relationship with the Moon would cause tides to go out of control and thwart life as we know it. A weaker gravitational relationship would disrupt Earth's orbit and rotation.
-CO2 levels. Basically the same as oxygen. Too much, and the Earth gets very, very hot. Too little, photosynthesis stops and we die.
-If the expansion of the Universe was altered by 1 millionth, it would have either collapsed on itself, or expanded too quickly to form stars and galaxies.
-If Jupiter were not in its present orbit, Earth would be pummeled by space material.
-If the Earth's crust was thicker than it is, excessive oxygen transfer to the atmosphere would kill us. If it were thinner, extreme volcanic and tectonic activity would ravage the planet.
-If the Earth's rotation was longer than 24 hours, the differences in temperature would be too great. If it was shorter, atmospheric winds would wreak havoc on the planet.

Am I getting through? That is a fraction of examples I have. How could this have happened randomly/naturally?
You state all of this as though humans were just dropped into the middle of this universe one day and, lo and behold, it could support us! That would suggest that it was designed for us, you're right. But we weren't dropped into existance here, we developed according to the factors in our environment; that's why it shouldn't be amazing to anybody that this environment is perfect for us: We are perfect for it!

There could be a planet somewhere with different oxygen levels or something somewhere that would not support us, but that does not mean that given millions or billions of years, some other types of life wouldn't spring up there. It's just that we couldn't live on their planet and they couldn't live on ours. Earth is probably not the only planet capable of supporting life, but it is entirely possible that it is the only one capable of supporting HUMAN life (and terrestrial animal life, as we know it.)

[leninrocks244]

You were stating that the Bible never mentioned people dying of disease. People in those verses died of disease. I know that they have nothing to do with Noah.

On the Noah story, there is no way I can satisfy you because you are begging the question. With no God, no, the Noah story could not have happened. If there is a God, the story could have most certainly happened, even YOU have to admit that.

There are certain scenarios involving the melting of glaciers, the expusion of water from underwater caverns and other possible ways in which flooding on that scale could happen.

Again, I'm sure you won't hear any of this because you are arguing in a circle, therefore anything I say won't be good enough.

I was talking about the people that were on the arc with Noah. Not in the Bible in general. Obviously people died in the Bible *cough* Jesus *cough*.

I doubt that even if there was a God the story couldn't happen. How come God only appeared in ancient times and not during the Medieval or the Industrial era?

If the flood actually happened, mankind as we know it would cease to exist. Not only that, but how in the hell would the water levels go all the way back down from covering the entire surface of the Earth to normal levels?

Of course I'm going to argue in a circle because it goes against science not to argue on my part.

[Arcadian Empire]

Remember, keep it civil guys!

[leninrocks244]

Remember, keep it civil guys!

I haven't made one bad insult. I'm on a roll, here.

[tom the pit leader]

It is rather remarkable that we have 15 pages and apprx. 0 direct insults. There have been some less than kind comments, but other than that, I thinkwe may set an internet record for longest civil discussion on a message board about religion.

[Arcadian Empire]

So, let's start a fresh round of debate:

Well today, I had to perform that aerobics thing I did with my friends that was mentioned here about a month ago. I felt sick and didn't want to do it. Then, I found out that the person who was supposed to organise it wasn't there! I was so happy because I got some free time...

There is a God. Why? He struck down that organiser to stop me from embarrassing myself!

[Xineoph]

Dun worry Pika, I have faith you'll embarrass yourself with or without G-d! =D

[leninrocks244]

Dun worry Pika, I have faith you'll embarrass yourself with or without G-d! =D

I have to agree, lmao.

[tom the pit leader]

You know how I know that there is no god, brown hair and eyes are dominate traits to red hair and blue/green eyes. I think that says it all right there.

[heilesabre]

You know how I know that there is no god, brown hair and eyes are dominate traits to red hair and blue/green eyes. I think that says it all right there.

Uh... what?

[Arcadian Empire]

Xin, the point is to embarrass ourselves.

I was sick on that day and didn't want to embarrass myself then...

[Plutarch]

Bump from oblivion! (Or 11 days of no posts, whatever.)

If we are still on the first question (I really don't want to go through the entire thing) of whether or not there is a God, or, if you fancy, a divine being or Creator, or what have you, let me show you two approaches.

Let me preface this by saying that I am somewhat of a novice student of medieval philosophy (insofar as, I went to a Catholic high school and read several books on the subject).

Now, in my view, there were two main schools of thought that were in contention for a while in Medieval Church; the one, older, of Augustine and Anselm, which greatly influenced by Platonic thought, and the other, later one of Aquinas and the later scholastic monks, who were greatly influenced by Aristotle (in fact, Aquinas has one of the best collections of commentaries on Aristotle).

Anyway, both schools had their proofs for the existence of God. Anselm developed what would later be called the "Ontological Proof", and follows basically this outline (from Proslogion):

1. One can imagine a being than which none greater can be conceived.
2. We know that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone.
3. If the being we imagine exists only in our mind, then it is not a "being than which none greater can be conceived".
4. A being than which none greater can be conceived must also exist in reality.
5. Failure to exist in reality would be failure to be a being than which none greater can be conceived.
6. Thus a being than which none greater can be conceived must exist, and we call this being God.

Aquinas differed in his approach. This is an outline of his five proofs (synthesizd from the Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica)

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu):
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.
2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa):
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.
3. The argument from contingency (ex contingentia):
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
* This being is whom we call God.
4. The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu):
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
* The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.
5. The teleological argument or argument of "design" (ex fine):
* All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
* This being is whom we call God.

Now, I find Anselm's argument to be a bit flawed because in it, there is an assumption that one cannot rationally think that there isn't a God; Aquinas states that

Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition [of His existence] is not self-evident to us Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2, Article 1

I am with Aquinas on this one. I do think that there is a God. Note that this is merely a philosophical justification for the Faith and the Divine doctrine, of which Aquinas speaks of also (in the very first question of the Summa, in fact. Now, you can find all sorts of problems with both of these proofs, especially if you reject teleology (the study of ends or purposes); you can reject part 5 of Aquinas's thesis out of hand on that count alone. The other thing about Aquinas (and Aristotle, for that matter) is that their philosophical god has no gender and no physical presence, and thus has no gender. God, according to both, is perfect because he is not subject to change. Mortal beings and all things in the world which we experience are not perfect because they did not always exist, and because they did not always exist, they are capable of ceasing to exist. But God, on the other hand, is perfect because He has existed forever; He exists out of time. The other thing about God is that he can only be talked about metaphorically because we exist on a fundamentally different plane than He does (even calling God He is a metaphor) But this is getting quite far a field; perhaps a discussion of classical metaphysics would be better?

If anyone is interested, the entirety of Aquinas's proof is written out in Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2, Articles 2 and 3.

Whew. Big o' wall of text.

[bigdaddychacha]

I've read all these arguments back in a college class and, while I don't remember them as crisply as I might have a few years ago, I still find them completely unconvincing and out of date in the modern religious discussion.

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu):
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.
2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa):
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.
3. The argument from contingency (ex contingentia):
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
* This being is whom we call God.
4. The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu):
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
* The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.
5. The teleological argument or argument of "design" (ex fine):
* All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
* This being is whom we call God.

They all seem to have at least two conflicting premises, for exaple:
"-Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
-...Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds."

These two completely contradict each other and reveal that this argument for god does not answer a question, but merely pushes the answer back one stage: What is the difference between saying that god is not moved by any other conscious being and saying that many things that happen in nature are not moved by any conscious being? You've just pushed the impossible causation back one more step, that's not any kind of an explanation!

Also,
"-Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
-...This causer is what we call God."
This assumes that everything that is caused is caused because someone consciously causes it to happen, and precludes the possibility of natural causation, which most people must realize exists.

Third,
"-Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
-...Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
-This being is whom we call God."
Some nonbelievers would plausibly argue that god's existence is completely contingent upon his creation by human minds. The argument from contingency completely hinges on whether you happen to believe in god or not before you hear the argument.

Fourth,
"-Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
-These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
-The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God"
I actually think that true perfection does not exist, and that most barometers of perfection are derived from the comparative imperfection of other things we see and experience. Grey Goose may be just another vodka to drink for some people, but if you've been drinking Kamchatka Vodka (US$10 per 1/2gallon) for a few years, then Grey Goose will seem like perfection by comparison.

Finally,
"-All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
-These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
-Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
-Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
-This being is whom we call God."
Most natural bodies act towards ends, but a tree growing towards light is hardly indicative of any intelligence, it's just the natural process. Also, almost all conscious bodies that act towards some end will often find themselves in conflict with other conscious bodies who are acting towards their own ends. If god really designed all creatures to be able to act for a purpose, why did he make things so that everyone/thing would be in violent conflict with each other over limited resources, predators/prey, etc? Yes, everyone acts towards an end, but it's possible to imagine so many more perfect, harmonious methods of this that it seems unlikely that an all-knowing and perfect being created things as they are and have been.
-------------------
Plutarch, while we disagree on some of these arguments, I appreciate and am glad that you brought this thread back on topic, thanks for that! I thought it was abandoned!

[Plutarch]

Plutarch, while we disagree on some of these arguments, I appreciate and am glad that you brought this thread back on topic, thanks for that! I thought it was abandoned!

Some of these arguments? I should say all of them!

But this is to be expected; Aristotle is no longer the pinnacle of philosophy any more. Nor has he been for, oh, five hundred years.

On another note, what exactly is modern religious discussion? The discussion of religious pluralism and such? I'm not attempting to be provocative- I just don't know what direction to continue this argument. Because now that the arguments for the existence of God are dismissed, what else can be said?

They all seem to have at least two conflicting premises, for example:
"-Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
-...Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds."

These two completely contradict each other and reveal that this argument for god does not answer a question, but merely pushes the answer back one stage: What is the difference between saying that god is not moved by any other conscious being and saying that many things that happen in nature are not moved by any conscious being? You've just pushed the impossible causation back one more step, that's not any kind of an explanation!


The whole point of this proof is that the causes cannot go back to infinity. The very existence of a cause in the mind of the theologian means that there is God. But as I said, if you reject teleology, then this explanation is completely unacceptable.

Also,
"-Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
-...This causer is what we call God."
This assumes that everything that is caused is caused because someone consciously causes it to happen, and precludes the possibility of natural causation, which most people must realize exists.

Now, I don't actually think that God sends lightning storms, hurricanes and earthquakes upon the Earth (and other places, for that matter) directly. He can be said to be the cause for these things because he is the cause for the system that allows these things to happen, not because he is responsible directly for sending storms and such. One can compare this to the sun: The sun is responsible (after a fashion) for all life on Earth because plants use sunlight to generate food, and plants are food for animals, etc, etc. Much in the same way is God. His will caused the universe to begin at the Big Bang (or whatever cause is the most popular these days), which put into place everything else that exists. Now, this argument of mine is heavily theistic, a la the Enlightenment and is also quite old. I see it as an extension of the old Aristotelian argument above.

Third,
"-Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
-...Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
-This being is whom we call God."
Some nonbelievers would plausibly argue that god's existence is completely contingent upon his creation by human minds. The argument from contingency completely hinges on whether you happen to believe in god or not before you hear the argument.

Yes. That is a problem with the argument.

Fourth,
"-Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
-These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
-The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God"
I actually think that true perfection does not exist, and that most barometers of perfection are derived from the comparative imperfection of other things we see and experience. Grey Goose may be just another vodka to drink for some people, but if you've been drinking Kamchatka Vodka (US$10 per 1/2gallon) for a few years, then Grey Goose will seem like perfection by comparison.

Did I not say that perfection doesn't exist in any way we can tangibly experience? (I probably phrased it differently). Anyway, we cannot experience perfection here insofar as we are created beings. Now, our perception of God may be created, but the reality of God is in itself not created by us, I think.

Finally,
"-All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
-These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
-Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
-Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
-This being is whom we call God."
Most natural bodies act towards ends, but a tree growing towards light is hardly indicative of any intelligence, it's just the natural process. Also, almost all conscious bodies that act towards some end will often find themselves in conflict with other conscious bodies who are acting towards their own ends. If god really designed all creatures to be able to act for a purpose, why did he make things so that everyone/thing would be in violent conflict with each other over limited resources, predators/prey, etc? Yes, everyone acts towards an end, but it's possible to imagine so many more perfect, harmonious methods of this that it seems unlikely that an all-knowing and perfect being created things as they are and have been.

I agree. Biological functions operate largely on the basis of vicious competition. However, I cannot answer this question adequately in a philosophical manner. I will break off my discussion of the matter here, as I cannot continue without straying very far into the Doctrine.