Evolution and Creation

[emprworm]

I'll say it yet again:

only 3 possibilities for the origin of the natural world

1. it was caused by something outside the natural world (i.e. supernaturally)

2. it caused itself

3. it always existed infinitely in the past

only three possibilities...thats all there is,....thats all there ever will be.

all 3 of them take FAITH

the one that is most consistent with rational logic is option 1.

Atheists reject option 1 and instead go for option 2. (no reputable atheist I know has gone for option 3).

Option 2 is BLIND faith. call it a flame if you want, but it is by no means scientific.

yet they still believe it.

[Acriku]

Oh my god Empr you are very amusing. Using logic to prove religion? Bwahaha, logic WE created to prove something that created us. I think you and Edric need to sort things out or something because Edric said God is outside of logic, and you say God is logical. You're beliefs are so close-minded it's unbelieveable, I'm not even going to go through all that crap you just spewed out, since it speaks for itself in how much you really know. I feel sorry for thiests if they have you to represent them. One thing though that I think should be mentioned:

You cannot and should not depict what God is like due to his creation. You use this method because in the Bible it says God made man in the image of him bla bla bla, etc, etc. God created morality, therefore he is outside of morality, so if he is outside of morality, how can we say what is good or bad based on what God says? Perhaps we have it all wrong.

A load of poppycock is all I have to say for your reply. Waste of my reading time apparently seeing as you did nothing to prove your position, only spew out what you were taught.

[emprworm]

Acriku

[Edric O]

Acriku, where does it say that me and Emp have to have the same opinion on religion?

[Acriku]

Edric: I've never heard you guys say anything about it, would you not argue your beliefs if a person with the seemingly same position says something totally opposite? Just an assumption that you would, and a suggestion that you should. I'd like to see you guys back both sides up, you know, ante up!

Empr: What about the Catholic Church that molested it with it's own books and changings of the other books? And who the hell gives you the right to say what I believe? Not once did I suggest that I do not question Plato. Although his works are very convincing, anything better I'll take. That is the difference between you and me, you don't question your beliefs, no way no how. I question everything and everyone, I do not leave a fact unquestioned. Call it my "finding out period". I admit and find it obvious that I do not know a lot of things. Hell, I'm only in the third grade of my highschool. But with what I have I can only judge with. And argue against with. That's why I go to these forums, to test by beliefs and see if I find anything better. I was once close-minded thinking that there could be no such possibility of a God. Yet now, I find it is possible. Not necessarily that there is a God, but possible. *Note: when I say molest it is in the terms of making it worse*

P.S. this never-ending argument is finally getting tiring. Stating the same thing over and over again. Bleh :P And this is also from the loooong religion thread before.

[emprworm]

Empr: What about the Catholic Church that molested it with it's own books and changings of the other books?

what did they do? what did they change? You are just pulling stuff out of the air. Again, there are nearly 30,000 manuscripts of the new testament. They are all archaeological artifacts. Please tell me how many of those have been "molested". And just how can someone "molest" an archaeological artifact without historians and scientists being able to tell that someone tampered with the evidence? With only 7 manuscripts from Plato, it is much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more likely that those manuscripts have been molested than the NEw Testament. In fact, since the next nearest historical document is Homers Illiad with only 665 manuscripts, it is far more likely they have been molested than the 30,000 manuscript new testament.

Lets face it Aikiru. The new testament that we have today is an exact replica of the original. Period. YOu may not believe the original- but what we have today is exactly what was originally written. Plain and simple.

[Acriku]

The Roman Catholic Church placed the Bible on a list of forbidden books to read in the 1200s AD. The church added the Apocryphal Books to the Bible in the 1500s. (The Apocrypha was not part of the Hebrew Bible Old Testament.) This was to try to defend the false doctrines of Purgatory, indulgences and prayers for the dead. In addition to the Apocryphal Books, the church also added traditions to promote their false doctrines. To this day, the Roman Catholic Church states that they must interpret the Bible for it's members.

The Roman Catholic Church formed it's changes in the Vulgate:

Genesis 3:15 "He will crush your head" was changed to "She will......" This was to get the RC members to believe that Mary was our Savior as opposed to Christ.

Genesis 14:18 Melchizedek was said to have "sacrificed" bread and wine. The church changed this to bring in the transubstantiation concept.

John 14:26 said the Holy Spirit "will reveal whatever (Jesus) will say" to His church, rather than "did say." This was to support tradition.

"Christians are wrong"-cult members believe that God has given their group the job of pointing out "heretical and evil" teachings of Christianity.

[Digital Guerrilla]

Mankind will always question that is what thinking beings do. Mankind is a thinking being because the enity that created man or 'helped mankind' along is a thinking being. What is life without the challenge's to mankind's state of being on the ladder of evolution. We believe in what we want to be and could not a higher being be an extened self?

[Caid Ivik]

This is like Nietzsche. But Christian don't want to be great or perfect like God, only as good as God. He wants us to be good. Christianity is based on it. Science is irelevant if people are bad. Hiroshima 1945 is a show of science without christianity. Question "how we've become human?" too. Bible's version of creation is just a detail. We must live with morale laws written in it, not study every word.

[Acriku]

Hiroshima 1945 is a show of science with morals. Protecting millions of its own and millions of others, a few hundred thousand were sacrificed. It's similar to the Crusades, with different methods. You don't seem to realize the good things that come out of bad things.

[Anathema]

How is nuking Hiroshima unchristianic? The majority of the US was (and is) christianic.

[pointybum]

pointybum, have faith in whatever you want. Just make sure you call it for what it is: faith. Don't confuse faith with science. Too many atheists do that.

I have faith, I admit it. Belief in God is logical and rational. I see it as more rational than belief in the 2 alternatives: either an eternal cyclical universe (which no one believes- not even atheistic scientists), or the universe just "popped" into existence. Lol that is so absurd, I honestly don't know how anyone could claim to be rational and hold a view like that. But to each man - including the atheist - his religion.

I take it then you dont believe our ancestry roots back to hairy men with sticks then. Whatever glasses you wear on your brain, get them checked cos alot of things you are seeing are seriously out of focus.

[Anathema]

Faith sounds so religious- I prefer to call it assumption.

Let's see- you say that a God inside a supernatural universe (of wich you have no way to prove it exists), in wich time is non applicant, decides to create a universe in wich time is applicant.

Many scientists support the theory that a large gravitational force slows down time- like in black holes. If you press all matter into an infinitely small point, time will become non applicant. So it didn't just pop into existance, it was "always" there, but there was no actual "time" before it exploded.

[TMA_1]

time is irrelavent. Where did the energy come from?

[Anathema]

It was there- plain and simple. The universe did not start- the universe is all covering, nothing exists outside of it.

Now, answer your question yourself- where did God get the energy to create our universe?

[Acriku]

Earth they will argue nothing can come from out of nowhere or always be here, but they will argue God was always here.

[TMA_1]

It is pointless to argue this discussion. Nobody will agree. So why not try to have fun with debate in stead of acting immature earthnuker.

[Anathema]

Immature? Lol. You flame and ly in any serious discussion and think you are to good to answer another ones points.

[Inoculator9]

The only way to explain the infinite existence of God is that there are other forms of temporal existence. Our universe, atleast what we know of it, exist linearly. We have a past, a present, and a future. God could potentially be a very powerful, omnipotent being that exists differently from us. The only alternative to a linear existence is a non-linear one. All time exists at the same time. And as a result of all time existing at the same time, God could have always been at the pinnacle of his power.

[emprworm]

The Roman Catholic Church formed it's changes in the Vulgate:

Genesis 3:15 "He will crush your head" was changed to "She will......" This was to get the RC members to believe that Mary was our Savior as opposed to Christ.

lol. And you think they changed the MANUSCRIPTS? Noo, they changed the Vulgate. The manuscripts still read "HE". Cmon Acriku

[Acriku]

So you follow the Hebrew original version? Yeah right, whatever you follow, was molested. Plain and simple. I do know a bit of hebrew, almost did my Bar Mitzvah, although that doesn't leave any desire to read the Bible ::) Truth is, what the people follow was molested. Whether it be my cat's translation or whatever, they follow it's word to the truth.

[emprworm]

Earth they will argue nothing can come from out of nowhere or always be here, but they will argue God was always here.

well, duh! Its plainly obvious that the natural things in this natural world obey natural laws It takes a serious man of blind faith to think that the natural things in this universe just popped into existence on their own. In fact, such faith from just one single atheist is more faith than the entire subcontinent of India. Things just do not pop into existence on their own. Ever hear of laws of science?

But in reference to a being that is not natural to our natural universe, those natural laws no longer apply. Lets put it simple- here is 10 year old science (you learn this in grade school)

Brick = finite, limited, natural existence = bound to natural laws

Acriku

[TMA_1]

its simple faith that we believe what we do. Nothing is proven. Dont argue with that. you wont ever win. God does destroy the wisdom of the wise.

[emprworm]

So you follow the Hebrew original version? Yeah right, whatever you follow, was molested.

you have not shown this. all you have shown is that people who translate the unmolested manuscripts interpret things differently. Besides, I learn from the old testament, but follow the new testament.

[Sneakgab]

''Quote:

Where did all that compressed matter and energy come from?

We don't know, and unlike people like you, that won't deter us to try find out the answer.''

I don't see how im detering from finding the awnser, I'm just saying that you haven't found it yet and neither has anyone else and thus there isn't much factual evidence to back up or disprove any theory on the universes beggining... for example, you don't know where that compressed matter and energy originally came from and since that is the beggining of the universe and you don't know where that beggining came from, you can't really prove or disprove many theories...

I'm not attempting to deter any attempts to find the great awnser... so good luck with this debate