Whether or not there is God(s)

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I have to give Altai credit for asking the question whether or not there is a God(s).   This is a good question and the belief in a God or gods goes time in time as long as man inhabited the earth.  Atheists like to claim it is irrational to believe in a God.   I disagree based on the evidence of creation which is all around us.  Atheists dismiss the evidence of the complexity of human life for example as if it were nothing worth considering.  To those who believe in a Creator God, it is obvious everything in creation would have required an infinitely intelligent and powerful designer / Creator.  Those who ridicule the belief in God show their own blindness because the evidence is all around us.  Even the laws of physics which governs the movement of the Sun, stars, planets, etc. is an amazing result of God's design.  

Life is an accident. I don't regard anything in existence as proof, or even indicative, of a God 

[blackbird]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Life is an accident. I don't regard anything in existence as proof, or even indicative, of a God 

An accident cannot produce something as complex and intricate as the created universe.  Even the complexity of the conditions to enable life to exist on earth had to have had a designer. 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, blackbird said:

An accident cannot produce something as complex and intricate as the created universe.  Even the complexity of the conditions to enable life to exist on earth had to have had a designer. 

Sure it can. It did.  A lot can happen in fourteen or so billion years.

[Altai]

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

You make stuff up to suit yourself.  You must have known I wasn't serious up the point I said there was no God, and that doesn't need proof, if God doesn't. 

Look I will make you understand better.

There is a room and we are waiting in front of the door. I am saying that there is something in the room. Then I have to open the door and prove there is something in the room. 

The same way you claim that there is nothing in the room. Then you have to open the door and prove us there is nothing in the room. But you are not able to open the door and show us the room and still you insistenlly claiming there is nothing in the room. So you are a believer and a fanatic-extremist believer.

 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Altai said:

Look I will make you understand better.

There is a room and we are waiting in front of the door. I am saying that there is something in the room. Then I have to open the door and prove there is something in the room. 

The same way you claim that there is nothing in the room. Then you have to open the door and prove us there is nothing in the room. But you are not able to open the door and show us the room and still you insistenlly claiming there is nothing in the room. So you are a believer and a fanatic-extremist believer.

 

I would argue the fanatical point, but I did say to you that I was a believer.  I believe there is no God.  Or Santa.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I would argue the fanatical point, but I did say to you that I was a believer.  I believe there is no God.  Or Santa.

You would be better off to at least admit you can't prove there is no God and take a neutral view.  I think that's Altai's point.  You can't prove your assertion so why not just say you don't know or there could be a God but you can't prove it either way.   At least my point about the complexity of life and everything else and orderly physical laws of the universe lends weight to the argument there had to have been a designer.  Your argument it was an accident has nothing to support it.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

You would be better off to at least admit you can't prove there is no God and take a neutral view.  I think that's Altai's point.  You can't prove your assertion so why not just say you don't know or there could be a God but you can't prove it either way.   At least my point about the complexity of life and everything else and orderly physical laws of the universe lends weight to the argument there had to have been a designer.  Your argument it was an accident has nothing to support it.

 

Well...other than the science.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You would be better off to at least admit you can't prove there is no God and take a neutral view.  I think that's Altai's point.  You can't prove your assertion so why not just say you don't know or there could be a God but you can't prove it either way.   At least my point about the complexity of life and everything else and orderly physical laws of the universe lends weight to the argument there had to have been a designer.  Your argument it was an accident has nothing to support it.

Would you say you do not know there's a God?  You still believe there is.  I believe there is not.  Let's be perfectly clear on one thing.  The state of the Universe, complex as it is, is no argument at all in favour of a designer.  None whatsoever.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Would you say you do not know there's a God?  You still believe there is.  I believe there is not.  Let's be perfectly clear on one thing.  The state of the Universe, complex as it is, is no argument at all in favour of a designer.  None whatsoever.

 

Our star wasn't created in the beginning. This I know. Good thing, too, as there'd be no life. Just H, He and a bit o' Li in the mix at that point....

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I would argue the fanatical point, but I did say to you that I was a believer.  I believe there is no God.  Or Santa.

 

I have seen the odd rabbit on Easter...

[OftenWrong]

40 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I have seen the odd rabbit on Easter...

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Well...other than the science.

 

3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Well...other than the science.

The claim that science proves there is no God doesn't stand up.  The Bible says God is a spirit.   Science does not deal with matters to do with the spirit.  I am sure you would agree science only deals with the material universe and with what can be observed or measured.  The fact the Bible teaches God created the universe out of nothing answers the question of where the universe came from.  Nobody has come up with any other sensible explanation.  Something does not come from nothing without some external force or power.  The answer that God created everything might be a difficult concept for some people to get their heads around, but if you accept the premise that there is a God who is infinitely powerful, then it is easy to accept that the creating the universe out of nothing was a supernatural event which God is capable of.

Having said God is a spirit, his creation is measurable and observable.  Science does deal with the created universe.  However, it does not answer the question of how the universe came into existence and whether there is a Creator God or not, at least not in clear terms that you would want to see. 

So what evidence do you have which proves God does not exist?

Edited September 23, 2017 by blackbird

[DogOnPorch]

Didn't say it proves there is no magic creature watching your every move.

Science shows that atoms can fuse into other elements besides Hydrogen and Helium and create the conditions for life to occur. All Iron...for example...was synthesized in the final stages of dead stars' nucleosynthesis. Or do you not "believe" that? 

Can we naked apes 'make life' yet? No...but it's only a matter of time. And when that day comes...what then?

Edited September 23, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Didn't say it proves there is no magic creature watching your every move.

Science shows that atoms can fuse into other elements besides Hydrogen and Helium and create the conditions for life to occur. All Iron...for example...was synthesized in the final stages of dead stars' nucleosynthesis. Or do you not "believe" that? 

Can we naked apes 'make life' yet? No...but it's only a matter of time. And when that day comes...what then?

The reasoning is faulty to begin with.  Your argument is based on the premise that the correct elements to create the conditions for life just appeared out of nowhere.  Hydrogen and Helium are very special atoms, each with a very unique structure.  All these atoms had to have been created by a Creator.  They just didn't just accidentally appear.  So the basic premise that life evolved is built on faulty assumptions.  There had to have been a Creator to design all the atoms, laws of physics to govern how all the atoms, molecules, and heavenly bodies were going to behave.  Just to say it happened by itself doesn't make sense.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The reasoning is faulty to begin with.  Your argument is based on the premise that the correct elements to create the conditions for life just appeared out of nowhere.  Hydrogen and Helium are very special atoms, each with a very unique structure.  All these atoms had to have been created by a Creator.  They just didn't just accidentally appear.  So the basic premise that life evolved is built on faulty assumptions.  There had to have been a Creator to design all the atoms, laws of physics to govern how all the atoms, molecules, and heavenly bodies were going to behave.  Just to say it happened by itself doesn't make sense.

 

Not to the religious...no...it wouldn't make sense as it contradicts your holy Bronze Age book.

But, string theories and such are for real...quantum physics...etc. All discovered by science...not religion.

Now...don't misunderstand me...I admire Christianity as a very civilizing influence on Earth during some very dark times. But Galileo was merely the first whack at the pinata that is the real Universe. Don't stand in the way. 

Edited September 23, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Not to the religious...no...it wouldn't make sense as it contradicts your holy Bronze Age book.

But, string theories and such are for real...quantum physics...etc. All discovered by science...not religion.

Now...don't misunderstand me...I admire Christianity as a very civilizing influence on Earth during some very dark times. But Galileo was merely the first whack at the pinata that is the real Universe. Don't stand in the way. 

ab absurdo

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

ab absurdo

 

I agree that religion in general is absurd.

Why aren't you a Hindu?

You weren't born in India.

[blackbird]

20 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I agree that religion in general is absurd.

Why aren't you a Hindu?

You weren't born in India.

Now you are grasping at straws. 

Theologian Charles Hodge said in his Systematic Theology books all men have some knowledge of God.  (all meaning in general, not counting those claiming to be atheist, which is probably a very small percentage of mankind)

He gives three reasons:

1.  Knowledge of God is innate "which is due to our constitution, as sentient, rational, and moral beings"

2.  The knowledge of God is not due to a process of reasoning.

3.  Knowledge of God not due exclusively to Tradition.  The knowledge of God was passed through our first parents, Adam and Eve, and later God chose to reveal himself to Abraham and gave this truth by means of Holy Scripture to Abraham's posterity.   "Knowledge of God being intuitive, cannot be subject to scientific proof."  The existence of God has been believed by the wisest men down through the ages, is validated by the creation, and taught in the inspired Holy Scripture.   If there is no God, then man is reduced to a mere animal and came about by accident or chance, which is an untenable and illogical argument.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, blackbird said:

Now you are grasping at straws. 

Theologian Charles Hodge said in his Systematic Theology books all men have some knowledge of God.  (all meaning in general, not counting those claiming to be atheist, which is probably a very small percentage of mankind)

He gives three reasons:

1.  Knowledge of God is innate "which is due to our constitution, as sentient, rational, and moral beings"

2.  The knowledge of God is not due to a process of reasoning.

3.  Knowledge of God not due exclusively to Tradition.  The knowledge of God was passed through our first parents, Adam and Eve, and later God chose to reveal himself to Abraham and gave this truth by means of Holy Scripture to Abraham's posterity.   "Knowledge of God being intuitive, cannot be subject to scientific proof."  The existence of God has been believed by the wisest men down through the ages, is validated by the creation, and taught in the inspired Holy Scripture.   If there is no God, then man is reduced to a mere animal and came about by accident or chance, which is an untenable and illogical argument.

 

Grasping at straws? 

Says the fellow with the invisible friend...

[dialamah]

19 hours ago, blackbird said:

  At least my point about the complexity of life and everything else and orderly physical laws of the universe lends weight to the argument there had to have been a designer.  Your argument it was an accident has nothing to support it.

So why is there so much variety in the natural world?     Life is amazing, imo, whether it's a one-celled organism, a tree, a bat, or a human.  The only characteristic shared by all living things is 'life' which seems to be essentially taking in and releasing energy, everything else seems to be optional whether it's the outside shell, the manner of locomotion, the type of energy it takes in and releases.  To me, that much variety suggests accident and randomness,  not design.   

But if there is a God and he created all this variety in nature, perhaps people are supposed to learn to accept and rejoice in variety, rather than reject others based on what they believe or where they are from, or what their skin color happens to be.

 

[blackbird]

40 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So why is there so much variety in the natural world?     Life is amazing, imo, whether it's a one-celled organism, a tree, a bat, or a human.  The only characteristic shared by all living things is 'life' which seems to be essentially taking in and releasing energy, everything else seems to be optional whether it's the outside shell, the manner of locomotion, the type of energy it takes in and releases.  To me, that much variety suggests accident and randomness,  not design.   

But if there is a God and he created all this variety in nature, perhaps people are supposed to learn to accept and rejoice in variety, rather than reject others based on what they believe or where they are from, or what their skin color happens to be.

 

Accepting variety in nature, where people are from or skin colour should not be a problem.   That's not the same as different beliefs.  Some beliefs should not be accepted or agreed with obviously because they are not good beliefs or may be harmful to others.

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by blackbird

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Accepting variety in nature, where people are from or skin colour should not be a problem.   That's not the same as different beliefs.  Some beliefs should not be accepted or agreed with obviously because they are not good beliefs or may be harmful to others.

 

Good point, there are some beliefs that should not be accepted, but that should not include rejecting the 'person', in my opinion.  Glad you agree with me about accepting people from different cultures or places, though.    

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Accepting variety in nature, where people are from or skin colour should not be a problem.   That's not the same as different beliefs.  Some beliefs should not be accepted or agreed with obviously because they are not good beliefs or may be harmful to others.

 

The problem being, of course, that beliefs ratings are in the eye of the beholder.

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The problem being, of course, that beliefs ratings are in the eye of the beholder.

I believe that everyone in the world who is not a millionaire should get $1 Million.  What do you think?   

[Altai]

According to atheist mindset we have hands because our hands are adapted to our needs in long long time. 

The same atheist mindset rejects the fact that our feets are not adapted to our needs in long long time and we wear shoes. 


Atheists are dishonest persons. They are abusing science in many issues and they simply reject science when it does not fit with their personal interest.