Whether or not there is God(s)

[?Impact]

You said that we sleep because we have been adapted to sleep when sun goes down and I asked you why the people who live in Poles didnt adapted to stay awake for 6 months and sleep 6 months. You said that they live there since several thousand years (this claim also need proofs but I didnt ask and accepted it) and they need several thousands more to adapt environment. Then I have asked, should not they at least sleep longer and stay awake longer when compared to other people who live in regions closer to the equator, because adaptation does not happen suddenly, it happen in time, slowly. And you failed to answer this question.

That question has been answered, again and again and again. There is a difference between adapting (through evolution) to fit the environment and adapting the environment (through technology) to fit your needs.

[Altai]

That question has been answered, again and again and again. There is a difference between adapting (through evolution) to fit the environment and adapting the environment (through technology) to fit your needs.

You didnt give a valid answer. I am not even sure what you mean. So what kind of a relation there are between tecnology and adapting to live in Poles ?

[Benz]

I am not caught red handed, it is what you hope from the beginning but its not. If I would think that milk is the only source for calcium, I would not talk about alternative ways to development of kids in post 62. It was my mistake while using English to explain what I think. Read what I said to WestCoastRunner in pre-post.

Ok, I will take that as an admission. English is not my main language as well, so, I have no problem to accept that explanation.

You said that we sleep because we have been adapted to sleep when sun goes down and I asked you why the people who live in Poles didnt adapted to stay awake for 6 months and sleep 6 months. You said that they live there since several thousand years (this claim also need proofs but I didnt ask and accepted it) and they need several thousands more to adapt environment. Then I have asked, should not they at least sleep longer and stay awake longer when compared to other people who live in regions closer to the equator, because adaptation does not happen suddenly, it happen in time, slowly. And you failed to answer this question.

Or... you failed to ask the right question... maybe because your level of english. Anyway, what matter is to understand each others, no matter how many attempts it takes.

A human being can sleep during the day and be awake during the night time. It will survive. However, because of the melatonine production I have explained you before, the humans are more adapted to live during the day and sleep at night. It's the behavior that humans had before they were humans. Back in the time when we were homo erectus. The humans are not adapted to live a normal life in the poles. Lucky for them, they have the technology to overcome the obstacles. The humans using artificial lights and other technologies can live in the poles like if they were not in the poles. This is why they will never adapt to the environment, because they don't need to. Well at least for that part. Their body is very adapted to the temperature. They tolerate the cold much better than you and they would struggle to stand the warmth in your country as you do. This is again an answer to your question. Unless I do not understand your question again.

This is the same with milk issue. You may have the same nutrients from different products but meat is the best one. We can easily have our daily needs from 100-200 gram of red meat or other animal products. By the way, are there any vegetable foods which includes Vitamin B12 ?

Look, first you say you cannot be healthy without meat, now you say you can. I know there are some vegetables having B12 but, I know it's kind of complicated to find. I am not an expert in that matter. I think you can get it from some nuts and cereals. It's way more easy to get it from meat, or animal products (milk, cheese, etc..). The human body is adapted to eat meat and vegetables. If we decided to stop using meat right now, in a couple of thousands of years, our metabolism would change and we would not longer be adapted to eat meat. We are actually eating more meat than our body is supposed to. Well, it the case of people here in north america.

We can explain something in scientific way, we can explain why milk includes calcium, we can explain why we need calcium, we are also doing it. You think about it until this point and you stop thinking for rest of it. You are not interested whether or not there is God (you said). You dont think that "we need calcium and there are products in nature includes calcium", you say its by chance and turning off your brain. What if we didnt have them by chance ?

My brain is pretty much open thank you. I am not saying that it's a chance that we have calcium. I say there is calcium and our body found an utility for it. The principle of evolution is that life is adapting to its environment. I will give you a clear example.

Seals need salty water, they cannot survive in non-salty water. In the lake Ladoga or Onega, you can find seals living in non-salty water. Those same seals would not survive in a salty water. How is that possible? Long time ago, the lake was connected to the ocean. The level of water was reducing throughout the years and that area became isolated. Then is amount of salt started to slowly reduce in that new lake, until the day it had none. The change was very slow and the seals were able to adapt themselves in that new environment. If the change would have been too fast, they would not survive. The same explanation can be found for all species in the world. Including us.

You take for granted that we are the point zero. We came out of nowhere and the environment is brought to us to serve our need. It's the other way around. All the elements were there and we adapted to it and use them for our own benefits.

You want other examples?

Millions of years ago, the level of oxygen on earth was much higher than today. All small insects we have today were much bigger back then. The level of oxygen was higher at the time of the dinosaures. If we were able to go in the past, pick one and bring it here in our time, it would struggle to survive due to the weak amount of oxygen.

Homo floresiensis. A small race of human living on an isolated island. the resources of that island were limited. So the humans over there were smaller. As well as other species on the same island.

The color of the skin. The reason why some people are black, white, yellow, red... is because of the exposure to the sun. When you have a short and weak exposure to the sun, your skin need to grab as much vitamin D as possible. When your skin is constantly exposed to the sun, your skin rather needs to protect itself from the UV rays. The human race started in Africa and a branch of it left that area to spread everywhere else. Those living up north for a long time, eventually had a white skin.

The reason why neither the Bible, nor the Quran or anything else is not talking about it, is because the people at that time totally ignored this when they wrote those books. They were doing like you do. They were looking for a "why" that would only please their wish to prove that their god is true.

Everything I am saying is not proving that god exists or not. It's destroying the arguments of those trying to prove the existence of god though. The only THEORY explanation that could hold the line regarding god is, that a god would have created the universe and the first lifeforms (cells) and everything had evolved to the current situation we have now and will continue to evolve.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Benz

[Altai]

Benz, again your theory failed in many points but currently I dont have time to reply, I will reply.

[carepov]

Well...we can see why it is important to indoctrinate supernatural beliefs at a young age. Critical thinking and knowledge are the enemy of religion.

I do not disagree that there are plenty of religious people that are stupid. However you should realize that there are there are also plenty of religious people that rank amongst the top percentiles in practically every field of study and profession. Is this not proof that religion can at least co-exist peacefully with critical thinking and knowledge?

[Guest]

I do not disagree that there are plenty of religious people that are stupid. However you should realize that there are there are also plenty of religious people that rank amongst the top percentiles in practically every field of study and profession. Is this not proof that religion can at least co-exist peacefully with critical thinking and knowledge?

It can if people are willing to suspend the critical thinking and skepticism they apply to every other area of their lives.

[carepov]

It can if people are willing to suspend the critical thinking and skepticism they apply to every other area of their lives.

It is good that you agree that religion can and does co-exist peacefully with critical thinking and knowledge.

Taking it a step further, given that it is true that some very accomplished religious professionals claim that they gain personal strength through their religious beliefs and customs, could it not be true that: in some people religion enhances their critical thinking and knowledge?

p.s. IMO, to lead a balanced life one should suspend critical thinking and scepticism once in a while....

[Benz]

But the prerequisite is to remove anything false from the religion and keep up only what is not demolished by scientific discoveries.

The religion has this bad habit to step off its spiritual range and stuck its nose where it does not belong.

One individual can find a way to manage a good balance between its spirituality and its critical thinking. The churches and other religious institutions can't. It's against their nature. Their purpose is to vanish the critical thinking or format it to suit their agenda.

[Guest]

Taking it a step further, given that it is true that some very accomplished religious professionals claim that they gain personal strength through their religious beliefs and customs, could it not be true that: in some people religion enhances their critical thinking and knowledge?

p.s. IMO, to lead a balanced life one should suspend critical thinking and scepticism once in a while....

I doubt that people would claim religion as a positive crutch, if they were not indoctrinated into the belief in the first place.

We differ on the need to suspend critical thinking, personal strength and inner peace are just as achievable without the self delusion. Some believe they feel better by keeping certain rock and mineral types nearby. Others believe their balance and moods are enhanced by wearing a magnetic bracelet. Are these things actually real? No, but the self delusion can be comforting for some. Unfortunately, avoidance of reality and evidence isn't good for society.

[carepov]

I doubt that people would claim religion as a positive crutch, if they were not indoctrinated into the belief in the first place.

"Crutch" is a bad analogy, we are talking about some of the most accomplished and gifted people - they are not handicapped. Also, I doubt that these people would susceptible to indoctrination.

We differ on the need to suspend critical thinking, personal strength and inner peace are just as achievable without the self delusion. Some believe they feel better by keeping certain rock and mineral types nearby. Others believe their balance and moods are enhanced by wearing a magnetic bracelet.

I think that it is you that is avoiding the reality that many people seek answers to questions that cannot be answered scientifically. Some look for guides in forming a purpose for life.

More generally, if people did not "suspend critical thinking" once in while what would the world be like? No alcohol, no extreme sports, no falling in love?, far fewer business start-ups...

Unfortunately, avoidance of reality and evidence isn't good for society.

In extreme no, but in moderation it is good and for some people needed.

What isn't good for society is to stereotype and prejudge people as you seem to be doing.

Edited September 26, 2016 by carepov

[carepov]

But the prerequisite is to remove anything false from the religion and keep up only what is not demolished by scientific discoveries.

The religion has this bad habit to step off its spiritual range and stuck its nose where it does not belong.

One individual can find a way to manage a good balance between its spirituality and its critical thinking. The churches and other religious institutions can't. It's against their nature. Their purpose is to vanish the critical thinking or format it to suit their agenda.

You are stereotyping all religious institutions. Have you heard about the United Church with an atheist minister? There are plenty of examples of critical thinking and healthy debates flourishing at religious institutions.

Also, guess what, there are plenty of secular groups that want to format critical thinking to suit their agenda.

[Guest]

"Crutch" is a bad analogy, we are talking about some of the most accomplished and gifted people - they are not handicapped. Also, I doubt that these people would susceptible to indoctrination.

It is interesting that in a field of primarily unbelievers that a few cling to religious belief in the absence of evidence. I wonder how they could work in field with such high standards of evidence and yet give one religious story a pass? Odd. I expect the indoctrination happened when they were young and carried the magical baggage with them.

Though, I know some former Christians who explain their odd beliefs by saying that when you believe a god can do anything and make miracles happen, talking snakes and burning bushes aren't crazy. When ever they had doubts, they simply went to their go to thought of "I am just a man, he is an omnipotent god, I am incapable of understanding completely. Thus, I am wrong, God is right.

I think that it is you that is avoiding the reality that many people seek answers to questions that cannot be answered scientifically. Some look for guides in forming a purpose for life.

Would these people turn to magical men for the answer if these silly ideas werent planted when they were children?

More generally, if people did not "suspend critical thinking" once in while what would the world be like? No alcohol, no extreme sports, no falling in love?, far fewer business start-ups...

Now you are trying to equate common risk/reward calculations with belief in magical, supernatural beings in the absence of evidence.

What isn't good for society is to stereotype and prejudge people as you seem to be doing.

What prejudice are you referring to?

[carepov]

It is interesting that in a field of primarily unbelievers that a few cling to religious belief in the absence of evidence. I wonder how they could work in field with such high standards of evidence and yet give one religious story a pass? Odd. I expect the indoctrination happened when they were young and carried the magical baggage with them.

It is becoming clear that that your mis-understanding is based on false assumptions of what religious people actually believe.

Though, I know some former Christians who explain their odd beliefs by saying that when you believe a god can do anything and make miracles happen, talking snakes and burning bushes aren't crazy. When ever they had doubts, they simply went to their go to thought of "I am just a man, he is an omnipotent god, I am incapable of understanding completely. Thus, I am wrong, God is right.

Would these people turn to magical men for the answer if these silly ideas werent planted when they were children?

Are you sure that no intelligent/accomplished/gifted people were raised by secular parents and then chose to become part of a religious organization? Also, surely some of these people would have been raised in a religious background in their early years, then would completely reject and even harshly criticize religion in their teens and 20's and beyond, and perhaps change later in life.

Now you are trying to equate common risk/reward calculations with belief in magical, supernatural beings in the absence of evidence.

My original point was that many of our decisions, even life's most significant ones, are made strictly based on emotion/intuition/gut feel - not based on evidence, and in fact counter to existing evidence. For example, how many people actually perform risk/reward calculations when choosing a mate or starting a business?

Perhaps we are actually (mis)weighing the risk/rewards of all our decisions, most at a sub-concious level?

Either way yes, religious issues/decisions are decisions as emotional or as logical as the other decisions we make. Some people decide that their greatest rewards will result from spending 20 hours a week in a drunken stupor and using their remaining brain capacity to memorize sporting trivia. Some people enjoy stamp collecting or watching cat videos. Some people choose to become part part of a religious organization in order to increase their business revenue. Some people choose to be told what to believe and some people make up their own beliefs.

What prejudice are you referring to?

Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be stereotyping religious people as intellectually inferior.

[Altai]

On 22.09.2016 at 6:08 PM, Benz said:

Or... you failed to ask the right question... maybe because your level of english. Anyway, what matter is to understand each others, no matter how many attempts it takes.

A human being can sleep during the day and be awake during the night time. It will survive. However, because of the melatonine production I have explained you before, the humans are more adapted to live during the day and sleep at night. It's the behavior that humans had before they were humans. Back in the time when we were homo erectus. The humans are not adapted to live a normal life in the poles. Lucky for them, they have the technology to overcome the obstacles. The humans using artificial lights and other technologies can live in the poles like if they were not in the poles. This is why they will never adapt to the environment, because they don't need to. Well at least for that part. Their body is very adapted to the temperature. They tolerate the cold much better than you and they would struggle to stand the warmth in your country as you do. This is again an answer to your question. Unless I do not understand your question again.

So they had fire and therefore they didnt have to adapt the environment. Is it such simple to explain ? They cant light up around such as sun light. People would have to adapt sleep much longer in the poles. if your claim was true, the same way we would have to adapt not to sleep at nights too because we have artificial lighting since quite long time and we dont have to sleep. 

FAIL

 

Quote

 

Look, first you say you cannot be healthy without meat, now you say you can. I know there are some vegetables having B12 but, I know it's kind of complicated to find. I am not an expert in that matter. I think you can get it from some nuts and cereals. It's way more easy to get it from meat, or animal products (milk, cheese, etc..). The human body is adapted to eat meat and vegetables. If we decided to stop using meat right now, in a couple of thousands of years, our metabolism would change and we would not longer be adapted to eat meat. We are actually eating more meat than our body is supposed to. Well, it the case of people here in north america.

And this would be a stupid move, because meat is the best source. For example vegetables also includes proteins but meat protein is much better quality. All of these foods have their own useful side for human health. You should consume enough each one to live much healthier. 


I didnt read the rest of your post. I will read it next week.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Altai

[Benz]

9 hours ago, Altai said:

So they had fire and therefore they didnt have to adapt the environment. Is it such simple to explain ? They cant light up around such as sun light. People would have to adapt sleep much longer in the poles. if your claim was true, the same way we would have to adapt not to sleep at nights too because we have artificial lighting since quite long time and we dont have to sleep. 

FAIL

 

And this would be a stupid move, because meat is the best source. For example vegetables also includes proteins but meat protein is much better quality. All of these foods have their own useful side for human health. You should consume enough each one to live much healthier. 


I didnt read the rest of your post. I will read it next week.

Fail? What fail? You fail to demonstrate any fail my friend. I wans only explaining you why you reasonning is failing. Alot of animals living in the poles are adapted by sleeping the whole winter. It is called hybernation. That adaptation took several thousands of years. Alot of living individual of their spieces perrished before one could adapt. But the point is, if those animals do not hybernate, THEY DIE. Plain and simple. It is a matter of survival. Us? We can live in the poles without hybernating because we do not need it to survive. One of the tool that help us with it, is artificial light. Some how, you find a way to not understand that simple obvious fact.

Also, you obviously fail to understand how evolution works. We do not have artificial light for a long time as you say. Evolution takes a long time to operate. It is a matter of thousand years. Not just one hundred. If you take a group of 1000 white humans, isolate them in the tropical environment with alot of sun, eventually, their skin will change. It can take 10 000 years and they will become black. Maybe more but, it will happen. Same thing if you take a group of 100 black humans and isolate them in the poles. They will eventually become white after a while. Maybe 10000 years as well. I do not the exact amount of time it takes, but it will happen for sure.

Regarding meat, I do not advocate for the vegans. I think it is not good to get rid of meat. I just know that we eat too much meat. Which is not the same thing at all.

Is it possible for you to stop accusing of stupidy while in the same time you have such a weak scientific knowledge? You are not in a position to lower anyone here. I suggest you a more respectful approach.

[Altai]

10 hours ago, Benz said:

Fail? What fail? You fail to demonstrate any fail my friend. I wans only explaining you why you reasonning is failing. Alot of animals living in the poles are adapted by sleeping the whole winter. It is called hybernation. That adaptation took several thousands of years. Alot of living individual of their spieces perrished before one could adapt. But the point is, if those animals do not hybernate, THEY DIE. Plain and simple. It is a matter of survival. Us? We can live in the poles without hybernating because we do not need it to survive. One of the tool that help us with it, is artificial light. Some how, you find a way to not understand that simple obvious fact.

Also, you obviously fail to understand how evolution works. We do not have artificial light for a long time as you say. Evolution takes a long time to operate. It is a matter of thousand years. Not just one hundred. If you take a group of 1000 white humans, isolate them in the tropical environment with alot of sun, eventually, their skin will change. It can take 10 000 years and they will become black. Maybe more but, it will happen. Same thing if you take a group of 100 black humans and isolate them in the poles. They will eventually become white after a while. Maybe 10000 years as well. I do not the exact amount of time it takes, but it will happen for sure.

Regarding meat, I do not advocate for the vegans. I think it is not good to get rid of meat. I just know that we eat too much meat. Which is not the same thing at all.

Is it possible for you to stop accusing of stupidy while in the same time you have such a weak scientific knowledge? You are not in a position to lower anyone here. I suggest you a more respectful approach.

The history of artificial light starts with the use of fire consciously and it starts 500.000 years ago. So according to your claim, we didnt have to sleep at nights since 500.000 years, because we had fire and we could light our shelters. Then we could start to secrete less melatonin hormones at nights and we could adapt to sleep less or not to sleep in  last 500.000 years but appearently we didnt "adapt" for both. This is a "FAIL" and you reject your mistake. You are fitting stories and abusing science by using its name to back up your baseless "BELIEF". I am asking you logical questions but you are not able to give valid answers. Be sure, I will accept your answer when you give a valid one and I wont insist on my mistake as you do. Even if you would be able to give valid answers, this wont change the fact that we are created such perfectly to "adapt" environment. I am not against any theory as long as I see its logical sides.

The starting point of this discuss was a claim of mine that we have "day" and "night" because its given by God for us to rest. You said that we rest at nights because we are adapted to sleep when the sun goes down. Your claim is soo weak at even the starting point of discuss. We would be adapted to live a night life. We didnt have to adapt to sleep. We would adapt to dance all night long, for example : ) Let me guess, now you are going to say "excuse me, dance is not really such old to be adapted" LoL 

Polar bears dont hibernate, your theory "FAILED" one more time. Okay I ignore polar bears, you said arctic animals hibernates because they dont have artificial lights, then why other animals who live in other parts of the World also hibernates ? Another "FAIL". Okay I ignore this one too, you meant arctic animals hibernates because they dont have artificial lights during 6 months of nights, then according to your claim they would also stay awake during 6 months of day. Another "FAIL".

Yes this is a good example and I will think about it. So people who live closer to the equator have darker skin and the ones who live away have lighter skins. Would not it be just the opposite according to "adaptation" ? Because dark colors absorbs more sunlight and this would be the last thing a person who live under average 40 degrees of temperature. 

You said that people who live closer to the poles are more fatty when compared to others because they are adapted to their environment. So why they are adapted their environment despite they didnt have to do it ? Beucase they have artificial heat sources since long, they are also able to produce clothings to protect themselves from the cold. Your theory "FAILS" again.


PLEASE STOP ABUSING SCIENCE

Edited October 9, 2016 by Altai

[Benz]

10 hours ago, Altai said:

The history of artificial light starts with the use of fire consciously and it starts 500.000 years ago. So according to your claim, we didnt have to sleep at nights since 500.000 years, because we had fire and we could light our shelters. Then we could start to secrete less melatonin hormones at nights and we could adapt to sleep less or not to sleep in  last 500.000 years but appearently we didnt "adapt" for both. This is a "FAIL" and you reject your mistake. You are fitting stories and abusing science by using its name to back up your baseless "BELIEF". I am asking you logical questions but you are not able to give valid answers. Be sure, I will accept your answer when you give a valid one and I wont insist on my mistake as you do. Even if you would be able to give valid answers, this wont change the fact that we are created such perfectly to "adapt" environment. I am not against any theory as long as I see its logical sides.

The starting point of this discuss was a claim of mine that we have "day" and "night" because its given by God for us to rest. You said that we rest at nights because we are adapted to sleep when the sun goes down. Your claim is soo weak at even the starting point of discuss. We would be adapted to live a night life. We didnt have to adapt to sleep. We would adapt to dance all night long, for example : ) Let me guess, now you are going to say "excuse me, dance is not really such old to be adapted" LoL 

Polar bears dont hibernate, your theory "FAILED" one more time. Okay I ignore polar bears, you said arctic animals hibernates because they dont have artificial lights, then why other animals who live in other parts of the World also hibernates ? Another "FAIL". Okay I ignore this one too, you meant arctic animals hibernates because they dont have artificial lights during 6 months of nights, then according to your claim they would also stay awake during 6 months of day. Another "FAIL".

Yes this is a good example and I will think about it. So people who live closer to the equator have darker skin and the ones who live away have lighter skins. Would not it be just the opposite according to "adaptation" ? Because dark colors absorbs more sunlight and this would be the last thing a person who live under average 40 degrees of temperature. 

You said that people who live closer to the poles are more fatty when compared to others because they are adapted to their environment. So why they are adapted their environment despite they didnt have to do it ? Beucase they have artificial heat sources since long, they are also able to produce clothings to protect themselves from the cold. Your theory "FAILS" again.


PLEASE STOP ABUSING SCIENCE

WTF? I never said that artificial light is a substitution to sleep. Where did you get that? You are making this up yourself. I dare you to prove that I said such stupid things. You are constantly interpreting and creating your own shit and you claim that I am the one who fails. It does not work that way Altaï. Keep up with what I say please. I am not the owner of your imagination.

 

You say that god create night and day to fit out need to rest. I tell you that you are wrong and here are the explanations why.

Days and nights are the result of the exposure of the light from the sun. When our side of earth faces the sun, we have the light, when our side of earth is having the sun to its back, we have the night. That situation is occuring since the beginning of earth, few billions of years ago. The human life form as it is today (homo sapiens), exist since 200 000 years. Our body needs to rest and we choosed the night to do so because it is more conveniant. Not all life form choosed to do the same. The bats live at night and sleep during daylight. So many others as well.

We are capable to dance during the night because it is possible to break the circle. It is even possible to live at night and sleep during the day. But the human body is not very well adapted for that. People doing that have a bigger potential to have illness problems. It is demonstrated that women working during night shift have alot more chances to get breast cancer than the ones working during the day. Because one of the best tool to fight cancer is the melatonin. People not using daylight have more chances to fall into depression. Truckers that drive during the night time are now using a blue light in the cabin to help them stay awake.

I was wrong regarding the hibernation of polar bears indeed. My mystake. I mixed up with other spieces that hibernate. But there is a time where the bears are saving their accumulated fat that gives them energy. It's not a real hibernation like other species. It was not a good example, pick up any other animal that hibernate and then the same logic still applies anyway.

Hibernation IS NOT a sleep. It is a state of hypothermia. They do NOT do that to rest. They do that because they know they cannot find enough food to survive during the coldest time of the year. It is not the same thing. I am very sorry for you if you lack so much in the science knowledge at your age. What do they teach you at school besides the Quran?

Regarding the skin color, you are mixing up the color reflection and the absorption of the sun light. A too dark skin at the poles can lead to rickets because of the lack of vitamin D contained in the sunrays. The natives in the poles are compensing that with the local food they have, rich in fat. A too light skin can cause cancer because of the UV rays. This is why the skin of the humans is adapted like this. It's a process that takes time. One individual does not live long enough to see the evolution itself.

I am impressed by the lack of knowledge you have and your weak capacity to find information by yourself. It's like if you are not even trying. The information is there, available for you, very easy to find with internet. Instead of searching, you make up your own shortcuts and you think you can call a FAIL on topics that you are no clue what you are talking about.

Well, let's see the positive side of it. At least you take the time to discuss about it. So it gives you an opportunity to learn something.

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by Benz

[Altai]

Here is another evidence for the existence of God.

This person have never seen colors before because he is genetically a color blind.

You can see how he reacts when he is able to distinguish colors. Adaptation story fails, according to adaptation story, he must have to be adapted to see colors grey, black and white and he must be happy with these colors but he is not, he is much more happy when he see the colors properly, because God designed us so.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Altai

[Guest]

Yeah, I remember when a friend of mine went blind, and could no longer see anything at all.  There's proof, I said to myself.

Actually I didn't, because it was due to a degenerative disease, and there is no God.

Edited September 21, 2017 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, I remember when a friend of mine went blind, and could no longer see anything at all.  There's proof, I said to myself.

Actually I didn't, because it was due to a degenerative disease, and there is no God.

More specious reasoning: diseases, cures don't prove or disprove God.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Michael Hardner

[Altai]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, I remember when a friend of mine went blind, and could no longer see anything at all.  There's proof, I said to myself.

Actually I didn't, because it was due to a degenerative disease, and there is no God.

LoL atheists always claim they just have lack of belief and they say there is no God  they cant even realize the hypocrisy in the same sentence. 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

More specious reasoning: diseases, cures don't prove or disprove God.

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. 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Altai said:

LoL atheists always claim they just have lack of belief and they say there is no God  they cant even realize the hypocrisy in the same sentence. 

I don't. I believe there is no God

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes 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. 

No, I didn't know that.  The sarcasm was lost on me, sorry.

[blackbird]

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 back 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.  

Edited September 22, 2017 by blackbird