There is a god

a small village believed that on the birthday of his 15th birthday, a man must kill the first person he sees.

Logically, everyone in the village would bugger off when someone's 15th birthday came round.

how come the girl wasnt killed?

Some places she might be. Where she is, it's ****ing psychotic.

 

another thing, i have read the 10 comandments.

Interestingly enough, various religions and sects within religions don't agree about what consitutes the 10 commandments, or where the lines are between them. Oh, they agree that the "10 Commandments" (commitments, words, whatever) are in Exodus 20:1-17, but they don't agree where one ends and the next begins, nor where they start.

Loso, it sounds to me like you're assuming that everyone is Christian. Why should we assume that the boy even believes in hell? If he does believe in Hell, most likely his village practices a cultural variation in which this ritual does not count as murder and he will not be condemned to hell. To some Christians, the murder will condemn him to hell. To some, if he believes in Jesus, he'll go to heaven anyway. To some, even if he hadn't killed anyone, if he didn't submit to Jesus he's condemned no matter what. There's no one set of standards determining who goes to Hell, or for what, or even exactly what Hell is.

Also, the Commandments are not laws. They are part of the covenant with God: to demonstrate our faithfulness to God, we will follow this. They are a legal policy, a philosophical set of principles, values, etc. Very different from any kind of juridicial or judicial sociel enforcement mechanism. The man was killed because, presumably, murder was a capital crime in his society. The girl was not because either a) lying to her mother is not a capital crime, or if it was b) her mother never found out that it was a lie.

I'm far too tired to get into predestination vs free will and that whole theological and mathematical absurdity right now.

 

I'm not sure I see the logic in that: it's like suggesting that the amount of disagreement in politics somehow proves that anarchy is the way to go.

Well, no, it's nothing like that. People here are aguing an interpretation of the Bible/God, apparently the word of a 'perfect' being. Trying to compare it to political figures saying something people disagree with is illogical.

 

Loso, it sounds to me like you're assuming that everyone is Christian.


i reread it and you're absolutly right. i will try to post another section later without that view.

 

More thorough reply coming later, but I just want to point out something yet again.

Force of Nature: Yet we believe that there is right and wrong. As you said, the majority feels that there is one set of laws/morals for everyone. I ask why do we feel that way? What made us feel that way?


My point with morals is not that there is one set of right morals for everyone, just that many people believe there is a right set of morals for everyone (they all could be wrong). Many disagree on what right and wrong is, but many do believe that there is some sort of right and wrong. I want to know why many of us believe that there are some sort of morals that apply to everyone?

EDIT: yes, some people have given answers, and I will get to you soon...

 

Enforcer:

Yet we believe that there is right and wrong. As you said, the majority feels that there is one set of laws/morals for everyone. I ask why do we feel that way? What made us feel that way?

Hmm, maybe I should be more careful what I say. IMO, it?s only common sense to accept one set of laws/morals for all within any given social group. The majority are simply not going to accept that it?s wrong for them to steal but just fine for me to do so! However, that?s simply in-with the group to which I belong: we may (nearly) all agree that it?s quite acceptable to steal from members of another group, however illegal they think that is.

I think that social conditioning has a lot to do with this, but I?m guessing that it got started because it was beneficial to the members of the group. Maybe it?s just because of my conditioning; but it does seem likely to me that a group who co-operated with one another and mostly obeyed the rules of their society would be more likely to prosper than a group whose members were constantly fighting amongst themselves. If that enabled them to raise more young and the tendency to be ?moral? was heritable, their descendants could well become an increasingly large proportion of the overall population ? and batter any ?immoral? individuals/groups who differed from them!

?I want to know why many of us believe that there are some sort of morals that apply to everyone??

Sorry, the moment we get away from the very broadest generalisations, I don?t think morals do apply to everyone. I don?t know why people believe that but, from a practical point of view, I?d guess it could be because it would make life so much simpler if no-one disagreed.


Oops, edited for coding.

 

Yet we believe that there is right and wrong. As you said, the majority feels that there is one set of laws/morals for everyone. I ask why do we feel that way? What made us feel that way?

Yes, each of us believes the some things are right, and some things are wrong. There are three main reasons at the top of my head why so many people think that there is some objective standard of what's right and what's wrong:

1) A great many people do believe in God. If there is a God, and if God is the source of morality, then there is indeed a moral standard common to all people. However, since there are a lot of different views of God, and of what God has decreed Right and Wrong, how are we to assume that our particular religion's moral views are the True ones?

2) Some people simply don't want to think otherwise. I got into a HUGE debate with a guy about morality, the thing went on for months, and I finally cut it off when I realized that it was going nowhere because his position wasn't a position at all. It was whining. In essence, he was saying, "There has to be an absolute moral standard because I couldn't stand the idea of there not being one."

3) Everybody sees the world through the filter of his or her own life. So everybody has a moral code that's slightly different. But we're also all, to some extent (and this is a debate for a different thread) self-centered, and tend to apply what we know of the world based on our experiences to everyone else as well. If we've determined that a thing is Right for us, then we simply assume that it should be Right for everyone else as well, because right is right. Right?

My point with morals is not that there is one set of right morals for everyone, just that many people believe there is a right set of morals for everyone (they all could be wrong). Many disagree on what right and wrong is, but many do believe that there is some sort of right and wrong. I want to know why many of us believe that there are some sort of morals that apply to everyone?

Why were there many people who believed the earth to be flat? Why were there many people who believed that the earth was the center of the universe? Why were there many people who believed in all the gods and systems now relegated to the realm of mythology?

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." -- Anatole France

edit: I'm not calling anyone here foolish, BTW. It's just a good illustrative quote, I think. Just because many people believe something doesn't necessarily make it so. Doesn't necessarily make it not so, either.

 

In a nut shell.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: ?He catches the wise in their own cunning"

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish?

Romans 1:20
For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world?s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;

Proverbs 19:3
It is the foolishness of an earthling man that distorts his way, and so his heart becomes enraged against God himself

1 Corinthians 2:14
But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know [them], because they are examined spiritually

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to prove with those quotes, but I do find it one of the most annoying forms of sophistry to use a thing to prove itself. "The Bible is right because it says so in the Bible" is hardly a convincing argument.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to prove with those quotes, but I do find it one of the most annoying forms of sophistry to use a thing to prove itself. "The Bible is right because it says so in the Bible" is hardly a convincing argument

really?



Well then how do you justify/expalin the big bang, by observing the universe itself?

Observation?

How is this any different than reading a book supposedly authored by the creator?

How can you prove the bing bang/creation of the universe without using what is observed in that universe?

You cannot!

So the universe itself becomes an enigma!

You cannot use observation of it to prove how it was created!

Hypocritical if you ask me!
Sophistry indeed! Double-edged sword

 

Well then how do you justify/expalin the big bang, by observing the universe itself?

First, I didn't attempt to justify or explain the big bang, any more than I attempted to justify or explain God. I said that any idea of the origin of the universe depended on faith.

Observation?

Yes, observation. If I look at the universe, and study it, and come to the conclusion that it started with a Big Bang, because that's what makes sense, then that's that.

How is this any different than reading a book supposedly authored by the creator?

First, God is not the author in the Judeo-Christian tradition. If you're a Muslim, then God is.

How can you prove the bing bang/creation of the universe without using what is observed in that universe?

What are you talking about? Living in a system, I can observe the system and speculate about how it came to be. That's very different from reading a book in which God is postulated, and then saying that the fact God is postulated therein is proof of God's existence.

You cannot!

So the universe itself becomes an enigma!

The universe is not an enigma. How it started is the question. Did God create it? If so, where did God come from? Did it just pop into existence? If so, how?

You cannot use observation of it to prove how it was created!

I haven't tried to prove anything. Read my posts. I was just pointing out the fallacy of your own arguments.

 

What are you talking about? Living in a system, I can observe the system and speculate about how it came to be. That's very different from reading a book in which God is postulated, and then saying that the fact God is postulated therein is proof of God's existence.

Ahh but I do not assume anything. I also observe. I look at the same universe and say wow whoever created that sure has a lot of power under his control! (not discounting the big bang theory at all) Look at the order, look at all of the mathmatical rules that exist in the universe follows. 20 some constanst that make the universe what it is, by observation.

So I come to the conclusion that someone wrote those rules into its creation.

Big bang - theory how universe was created. Science is still not sure how. So this still remains a theory.


Through observation I have found it highly unlikely that man evolved from a slime pool to become so good at discussing things like we are discussing right here!

After the moment of conception and the fertilized egg begins to divide, science still is not sure why/how certain parts become the brain and others become a heart.

You say evolution I say creation.

Look at our brain.

If we have evolved why do we only use a small fraction of our brain?

Room for expansion?

rediculous!

You mean evolution planned for future mankind brain capacity?

Doesn't the word planned imply some sort of intelligence?

Science cannot expalin these things God can!

Until theory becomes a fact your beliefs still can be wrong.
Will those who believe in a creator be wrong when science discovers something new?

Of course not.

To have atheistic views requires too much faith if you ask me! More so than if you believe in God!

 

Big bang - theory how universe was created. Science is still not sure how. So this still remains a theory.

This is a major annoyance of mine. You know what else is a theory? Gravity.

Gravity- theory why humans don't fly off into space. Science is still not sure how. So this still remains a theory.

Nope, doesn't check out.

 

You are 100% correct stackpole

 

1) A great many people do believe in God. If there is a God, and if God is the source of morality, then there is indeed a moral standard common to all people.

While this is true, I don't think it properly addresses Enforcer's point. He was addressing the idea that ALL people believe in objective morality, wheither they admit it or not. I'm gonna borrow from C.S. Lewis here. Two hypothetical situations. A man accidentaly trips me, I fall, and I'm hurt. A man intentionally tries to trip me, he fails, I am unhurt. Who am I angry at? The man who hurt me without meaning to, or the man who tried to hurt me but failed? I believe most people would understandably say that I'm justified in being angry at the man who tried to hurt me, but that I am not justified in being angry at the man who accidentally hurt me. You might say that this is just common sense, but I think there is more to it. If there is no objective morality, I cannot justify my anger at the second man because to do so I must assume that there is some moral code that we both know of and that he broke. You dont need to believe in a god to see that the first man did not do anything wrong, but that the second man did.

As for the second reason, I don't see why being stubborn makes him wrong.

Why, then, dose there appear to be differences in moral codes on earth? I imagine that it is because there really IS an objective morality and that as fallen people we don't quite get it. We are off by varying degrees from the real morality. I'm gonna borrow from Lewis again. The differences between moralities are not nearly as dramatic as they are made out to be. Moral codes disagree on things like how many wives one should take, and who one should be kind towards, but the vast majority of them agree that you shouldn't sleep with whoever you like and that you shouldn't be selfish.

As for the Big Bang thing. Yes, it is a theory, and yes, so is Gravity, but that doesn't make it is as valid as the theory of gravity. The evidence for Big Bang theory is more academic and obscure than that of gravity. It's very reasonable to trust the theory of gravity more than the Big Bang theory

 

More debunking of evolution comes from Darwin himself.

When Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been ?originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.? But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form.

Belief in a form of spontaneous generation can be traced back for centuries. In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory. However, by the 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.

 

Ahh but I do not assume anything. I also observe. I look at the same universe and say wow whoever created that sure has a lot of power under his control! (not discounting the big bang theory at all) Look at the order, look at all of the mathmatical rules that exist in the universe follows. 20 some constanst that make the universe what it is, by observation.

And that's fine. All I was saying was that your quotes from the Bible didn't really seem to have any point.

Big bang - theory how universe was created. Science is still not sure how. So this still remains a theory.

The Big Bang is not the issue. What came before it is the issue. We're still not sure how consciousness works, either, but that doesn't mean consciousness doesn't exist.

Through observation I have found it highly unlikely that man evolved from a slime pool to become so good at discussing things like we are discussing right here!

What does that have to do with observation? It's not like a slime pool coalesced into a man. It was a process that took hundreds of millions of years at least.

After the moment of conception and the fertilized egg begins to divide, science still is not sure why/how certain parts become the brain and others become a heart.

Nope, but it happens.

You say evolution I say creation.

I say God created the universe. I say that people evolved in that Universe. You'll note that this is the first time in this thread that I have mentioned whether or not I believe in God, or what I believe about the origin of things.

Look at our brain.

Looks pretty interesting, doesn't it?

If we have evolved why do we only use a small fraction of our brain?

Room for expansion?

rediculous!

You mean evolution planned for future mankind brain capacity?

Doesn't the word planned imply some sort of intelligence?

Science cannot expalin these things God can!

I know very little about the brain, about how it works. I don't know how much is used, or how it's used, or how it works. I'm not really qualified to speculate. I will say that evolution doesn't plan anything. You said that, not I, so please don't put words in my mouth. Further:

1) Are you saying that we are going to evolve in such a way that we'll use more of our brain? So you do believe in evolution? I thought you didn't. . .

2) The way I think of creation, it's more an unfolding than a plan. God set up an intricate unfolding with which God cannot or will not tamper.

3) Just because we have not scientifically explained a thing does not mean it cannot be scientifically explained, and where or when has God EVER explained anything to do with human brain capacity or usage?

Until theory becomes a fact your beliefs still can be wrong.
Will those who believe in a creator be wrong when science discovers something new?

Of course not.

What in God's name are you blathering about?

To have atheistic views requires too much faith if you ask me! More so than if you believe in God!

Of course. As I have repeated OVER AND OVER AGAIN, it takes faith either way.

 

1) Are you saying that we are going to evolve in such a way that we'll use more of our brain? So you do believe in evolution? I thought you didn't. . .

I do not, nor did I ever say anywhere that we are going to evolve to use more of our brain.

Not sure even how you came to that conclusion but it is utterly rediculous! Talk about twisting words!

2) The way I think of creation, it's more an unfolding than a plan. God set up an intricate unfolding with which God cannot or will not tamper.

How is it you believe in a god that created the universe but cannot tamper with it? And if he has the ability will not. Well, not according to what the bible says which plainly states he will interfere.

3) Just because we have not scientifically explained a thing does not mean it cannot be scientifically explained, and where or when has God EVER explained anything to do with human brain capacity or usage

Simple deduction from the truths in the bible! Something you refuse to even accept, so why should I try and show you?

 

Simple deduction from the truths in the bible!

You do realize that the bible is just parable, don't you? "You're going to realize that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
Sorry, I HAD to type that...

 

parable?

You mean like the parable of the goats and sheep?

I've heard that but I've found it to be much more than simple stories.

 

I do not, nor did I ever say anywhere that we are going to evolve to use more of our brain.

"planned for future mankind brain capacity?" You seem to be saying that you think in the future we will use more of our brain.

How is it you believe in a god that created the universe but cannot tamper with it? And if he has the ability will not. Well, not according to what the bible says which plainly states he will interfere.

I believe that God cannot undo what God's done, or go against God's word. That's why, when almost everyone was wicked, God didn't just uncreate the universe and start from scratch. He affected a re-creation with the flood, but that was using elements already there. God gave us free will, and gave us stewardship over the earth, and so cannot go and tamper in those things. God's work cannot be broken, and God cannot go against God's own word. At least, that's how I see it. I wish I had more time to articulate this, but I've got midterms to study for. After my exams if the point is still relevant I'll come back to it.

Simple deduction from the truths in the bible! Something you refuse to even accept, so why should I try and show you?

Look, I've read and studied and at times actually gotten quite a bit out of the Bible, but nowhere in there have I scene God referring implicity or explicitly to human brain capacity.

You do realize that the bible is just parable, don't you?

No it's not. There are parables within the bible, but the bible is a huge anthology comprising all sorts of documents: stories, histories, census and other statistical information, law and covenential contracts, genealogies, songs and poems and far more. The bible is NOT "just parable."

 

When Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been ?originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.? But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form.

How does this debunk evolution at all? (aside: I still think it's a tootin' shame that Darwin and Mendel never got in touch, because their experiments would've complemented each other wonderfully!) Theories change over time. I don't know about Darwin's religious beliefs, but if he "conceded" that life "may have been" breathed by the Creator, it could be he was just saying that so he wouldn't be ostracized by the religious community. Or it may have been his belief. I don't know. I believe God created the universe, and I believe in evolution. There's no contradiction.

Belief in a form of spontaneous generation can be traced back for centuries. In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory. However, by the 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.

I already discussed evolution, and how life arose from non-life. It does make sense, and it's been duplicated in laboratories. Whether you want to attribute that to God breathing life into a molecule or it being just a physical reaction is entirely up to you.

I believe most people would understandably say that I'm justified in being angry at the man who tried to hurt me, but that I am not justified in being angry at the man who accidentally hurt me.

I'm not sure most people would say that. And if there were some Absolute morality coming into play, why would justification come into it? Why would you be angry with the guy at all?

Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with morals. It has to do with an emotional reaction to an unfortunate event. Morality might come into it if you *killed* the guy who'd tripped you or something. Besides, suppose you lived in a culture where attempting to trip someone was a sign of respect: you'd try to trip someone, knowing that you'd fail because that person has the ability to get around it and not fall. The whole thing is not an act of aggression but an remark on the person's own agility. Then you'd not only not be angry that a person had tried to trip you -- you'd be pleased.

As for the second reason, I don't see why being stubborn makes him wrong.

I didn't say it made him wrong. I said we were getting nowhere because he didn't actually have any reason other than that he needed it to be so.

Why, then, dose there appear to be differences in moral codes on earth?

There are differences in moral codes because people, cultures and situations are different.

but the vast majority of them agree that you shouldn't sleep with whoever you like and that you shouldn't be selfish.

I hate to use inane internet jargon, but: PPOR.

The evidence for Big Bang theory is more academic and obscure than that of gravity. It's very reasonable to trust the theory of gravity more than the Big Bang theory

Is it? Gravity hasn't failed us yet, so we assume it won't. I believe that Gravity will still be around always, too. I agree with that. I don't agree with your assertions of obscure and academic evidence. With what we know of physics and so forth, and from what we observe of the movement of stars, galaxies and so forth, why should we not believe the evidence that, since everything's drifting apart as it is, a long time ago it all originated from some central point? And still I wonder: what does the Big Bang have to do with God at all?

 

I'm not sure most people would say that. And if there were some Absolute morality coming into play, why would justification come into it? Why would you be angry with the guy at all?

Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with morals. It has to do with an emotional reaction to an unfortunate event. Morality might come into it if you *killed* the guy who'd tripped you or something. Besides, suppose you lived in a culture where attempting to trip someone was a sign of respect: you'd try to trip someone, knowing that you'd fail because that person has the ability to get around it and not fall. The whole thing is not an act of aggression but an remark on the person's own agility. Then you'd not only not be angry that a person had tried to trip you -- you'd be pleased.


It only has to do with emotions in that anger is classified as an emotion. Beside that, though, anger in the case of my example represents a feeling that you've been done wrong to. The purpose of the hypothetical examples is to try to put yourself in the possition of the person getting triped. Dispite your greatest efforts, when you get tripped, or almost get tripped, you almost inevitably get annoyed or mad. But in the case of the first example, the individual would usually suppress their anger or annoyance because it was unintentional. In the second case, the person that was almost tripped will almost always be annoyed or angry at the would-be tripper because it was intentional. The examples were made with the assumption that getting tripped usually isn't a good thing or a cultural activity. The point was that one person hurt someone else without meaning to, and someone else meant to hurt someone but failed. I don't understand why you're dissecting the idea of getting tripped. It was just the launching platform for the argument. If you examine your own reactions to situations like the above example, you'll find that you usually expect certain behaviors from people. You expect them to treat you as they'd like to be treated. You expect them to understand this as well, and when they do something that they wouldn't have liked done to them, you do not suppress your feeling of dissapoiintment or anger or annoyance towards them(unless you are a forgiving person...but in forgiving, you're obviously assuming that a wrong has been done). This, to me, seems to defend the argument that people believe in objective morality.

The evidence for Big Bang theory is more academic and obscure than that of gravity. It's very reasonable to trust the theory of gravity more than the Big Bang theory

Is it? Gravity hasn't failed us yet, so we assume it won't. I believe that Gravity will still be around always, too. I agree with that. I don't agree with your assertions of obscure and academic evidence. With what we know of physics and so forth, and from what we observe of the movement of stars, galaxies and so forth, why should we not believe the evidence that, since everything's drifting apart as it is, a long time ago it all originated from some central point? And still I wonder: what does the Big Bang have to do with God at all?

Ok. I still think my point stands. Big bang theory is more academic and obscure than evidence for the theory of gravity. It takes a great deal of education and research to understand and apply the science necessary to really understand Big Bang theory. And, to be honest, not everyone CAN understant it. Yeah, most of us know it has something to do with stars and larger order systems moving about and such, but thats kinda like the snapple bottle cap version of it. The real theories are much more academic and obscure than the obvious fact that when we jump, we come back down. So that is why I say its resonable to trust the theory of gravity more than Big Bang theory. And what does it have to do with God? Nothing, in my opinion. I think God can be real and so can the big bang theory. I just don't think that the arguments against Big Bang are as unreasonable as some supporters of it try to make them sound

 

Good evening/morning/afternoon/whenever the heck it is in your time. Welcome to SG's mammoth post replying to a ton of what was said and even more that has yet to be heard (read)...

It is strange how odd my mind works. I hear an almost convincing argument for a god and I forget all my old (and maybe even effective) arguments against god or even God.

First off, several have asked for me to define god. When I say 'God' with a capital G, I mean the God that is described in the Bible as literally stated. When I say 'god' with lower g, I just mean some sort of intelligent living creator of human life. Again, without getting into a linguistics debate, that god may define some sort of morality, but that morality could be wrong.

With the moral question, I feel I am using the wrong answers for the question. If I am asking, which is the simpler explanation for why many of us believe morals, because we developed to believe them, or because a god made us naturally believe them, then what do those two things really answer. Explanation and why are two different things, explanation is more of a step by step process whereas why is intent (more or less the how vs. why debate). So, which is the simpler answer to why, that we just did, or that god made us? Maybe god in that case and THAT IS VERY MUCH WORTH DEBATING. But which is a better explanation? The many ideas proposed by non-believers here, or what ever process god did? Clearly saying 'god did it' is not an explanation (it does not explain how god did it) and until there is one, natural ones win by default (someone who is religious, tell me if, how, and why I am wrong ).

The question about the creator of god/God. I feel that science is being much nicer and open than religion by saying this one thing, they don?t know! What created the cosmic egg that was the universe at the big bang? Who knows? We have educated guesses, but that is it. Nor does it really matter to my point. My point is that science admits that it does not know what created the universe, but the fact is that religion does not either. To say that god/God is supernatural and therefore does not need to be created is I feel is not logically sound. It is like the dragon in my garage debate. Everything has a beginning. Where did the universe come from? God/god made it. Where did god/God come from? He/she always was. How can that be? He/she is supernatural. Explain the supernatural. Explain how it works, how it affects the world around us, how the processes work, how it exists outside the natural, how you understand that things in the supernatural need not have a beginning yet how you know so little else about it?

I also want to say that the guy I debated with eventually had to say that God arranged the universe in such a way that yes it is bigger than 6000 light years, but also He made light already on the way here. I can easily argue that tomorrow

Rock_Sock I wonder who you are?

There is a god


No....there is not.

and then Mastadge

Well, there's a convincing argument. That's it, folks. We're clearly done here. Nothing more need be said.

Although you are right, that is just as convincing a reply

sithgoblin3 (you are right, partials to just pop in and out of space, it is called... darn, i forget what it is called, but it is a big deal in quantum mechanics and it is the reason why black holes evaporate)

You hit on what I just figured out is my biggest problem with religion. To anyone who may have been watching my messages, I have said that there is something with religion bugging me, Christianity especially that I just could not put my finger on. Well I finally did! And sithgoblin's Douglass Adams quote comes close to what that problem is.

For a while, the fact that god/God can just make up what ever morals she/He wants (based on however god/God made the world, or just whatever she/He says even). In a debate, it got to the point where god makes morals because some actions are harmful, and since w

 

Look, I've read and studied and at times actually gotten quite a bit out of the Bible, but nowhere in there have I scene God referring implicity or explicitly to human brain capacity

Give me a break! obviously it doesn't come out and say it. Read between the lines man!

Nor does it say we cannot throw trash in our neighbors lawns. So I guess this means its ok to?

If you have studied the bible so much then you shouldn't have any problems figuring out that what man is today is a mere shadow of what he was when first created.

I already discussed evolution, and how life arose from non-life. It does make sense, and it's been duplicated in laboratories. Whether you want to attribute that to God breathing life into a molecule or it being just a physical reaction is entirely up to you.

You obviously believe everthing you have been told
Do you actually research any of this stuff?

Really no need to answer, I already know.

In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an ?atmosphere? of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible.

Miller assumed that earth?s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: ?The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.? Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: ?With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.?
The fact is, any attempt to establish the nature of earth?s primitive atmosphere can only be based on guesswork or assumption. No one knows for sure what it was like.

There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life?s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes:

Some of the molecules are ?right-handed? and others are ?left-handed.? Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things.
Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life?s proteins, all are left-handed!

So, how is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? Physicist J. D. Bernal acknowledges: ?It must be admitted that the explanation . . . still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain.? He concluded: ?We may never be able to explain it.?

Now lets examine the probability of these spontaneous proteins.

What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule?
It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans.
Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones?no white ones at all!
Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop.
In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly.
Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No.
Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

The proteins needed for life h