Alrighty then. ^_^

This one is common knowledge, but also a fulfilled prophecy.

Isaiah 41:12-14
Though you search for your enemies, you will not find them. Those who wage war against you will be as nothing at all. For I am the Lord, your God, who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you. Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob, O little Israel, for I myself will help you," declares the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.


These verses show the prophet proclaiming that the tiny nation of Israel would ultimately prevail over all its enemies, and even though its enemies will cease to exist one day, Israel will survive. This prophecy relates to several different historical events. The country of Israel was conquered and destroyed at different times by many powerful nations and empires, such as Babylon, Assyria, and even the Roman Empire. These conquests led to the exile and worldwide dispersing of the people of Israel, and to the desolation of Israel's land. Even so, Israel is again a sovereign nation today, and the empires of Assyria, Babylon, and ancient Rome have long since vanished.
You however asked for a more recent event, well by know you can already guess. During the 1940s the Nazis tried to destroy the people of Israel. Thankfully, that decade saw the rebirth of the county of Israel and the destruction of the Nazi empire. From the views of several Christian scholars, this prophecy has been fulfilled several times, but as of this moment, it is only partially fulfilled, and will be again completely fulfilled in the future when all enemies of Israel are destroyed (currently: Palestinians).


I mentioned that the early conquests led to the dispersion of the Israelites from their homeland, that in itself leads to another prophecy with some specifics. Not very far from the last set of verses is Isaiah 43:5-6

"Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, `Give them up!' and to the south, `Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth…"

Pay close attention to the areas mentioned my the prophet Isaiah. This prophet, to put it simply, said that the people of Israel would return to their homeland from the east, the west, the north and the south. The prophet, Isaiah lived 2700 years ago. Beginning at that time, a succession of several empires conquered the land of Israel and forced many of them into exile. This led to a worldwide scattering of Jews. But, during the past century, millions of Israel's people have returned to their homeland.

First off, in the East: Many Jews that were living in Middle East's countries moved to Israel during the 1900s. After Israel reclaimed independence in 1948, more Jews moved to back to their homeland after being forced out of various Arab countries in which they had been living in for many centuries.

Now in the West: There were hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West (Europe and the US), but during the mid-1900s they began moving to Israel to escape various persecutions, most commonly, the Holocaust occuring in Nazi Germany.

In the North: Hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the former Soviet Union (North) have moved to Israel since the 1980s. This isn't all the Scripture claimed would happen in the north. The words used in reference to both the north and south seem to point out some resistence or persuasion necessary before these nations would release the Jewish people, and all signs pointed to another fulfilled prophecy. Several countries had pressured Russia for years before it finally began to allow its Jews to leave.

As for the South: During the 1980s and 1990s, Israel struck a deal with Ethiopia's communist government to allow Jews of Ethiopia to move to Israel. Thus the prophecy is fulfilled as Ethiopia required a ransom before it allowed its Jews to leave.

<One last detail I have to mention regarding these passages>
"from the ends of the earth": Yes, every word in this section is important, each one contains a prophecy, and these words are no different. All of these words were written before the Jews had been scattered to the ends of the earth and during the past 100 years, Jews that were living as far east as China, as far west as the West Coast of the US, as far north as Scandinavia, and as far south as Australia, South Africa, and South America have moved to Israel. Yay for the Bible! ^_^

Hey, don't give me credit for the laugh. The "remember that nothing is impossible with God" quote is not mine, it comes from at least one of the believers on this board...but you're right, it is a silly quote
I believe I used it at least once. I don't find it silly, and if you are willing to accept that God is omnipotent, then you will accept God, and from that you will accept the fact that the Bible was written by many different people.

Wow, Messenger Truth, you are great.

Originally posted by Messenger Truth
The country of Israel was conquered and destroyed at different times by many powerful nations and empires, such as Babylon, Assyria, and even the Roman Empire.
Then obviously this contradicts Isaiah 41:12-14, which says that God will look after and protect Israel. He rather failed to do that three times, didn't he?

Take just about any fictional book, wait 2000 years and many of the things that happen it that book will have happened over the course of that 2000 years.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Then obviously this contradicts Isaiah 41:12-14, which says that God will look after and protect Israel. He rather failed to do that three times, didn't he?

Well said my good man

I think this one about Israel is the kind of prophecy that can not be completely verified. One reason is that it does not predict the happening of a specific event. Prophecy of this kind is very tricky. If Israel stands now, you can say that the prophecy stands. If Israel falls now or has fallen for no matter how long, you can say that the prophecy will be fulfilled when Israel comes back. This is the kind of prophecy that works both ways. This is also the kind of prophecy that doesn't expire.

It's the same thing with the Egypt become weak prophecy. It doesn't expire, or rather it can be disqualified by event that may yet happen in the future. Egypt has been weak and is weak and is likely always going to be weak, but it might not someday.

I think a more non-Christian-friendly prophecy must not involve such logical "tricks." Something that cannot be interpreted many ways or always "could still happen just not yet." Something that is about specific event at a specific time.

Borg Hunter

Misinterpreting much? God gives us an entire book (Judges) of the Bible to answer your question (cute cat), as it's probably of great importance. =D

You see in the book of Judges, starting with chapter 3, you can see in detail, how many times the Israelites sinned and did many wicked things forgetting God himself. He made the other nations hindrances in their sides, and until they repented they were subjected to several rulers. But as you can see God never left them, He kept His promise and fulfilled this prophecy by appointing a judge each and every time they came to repentance.

As you can see throughout the OT God has made Israel's enemies seem like nothing and in some instances removed them completely.

Look at the book of Exodus. It depicts the Israelites in slavery; did God not deliver them from pharaoh's tyranny?

Also in the book of Samuel, Chapter 5, Verse 11, "So they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go again to his own place, that it slay us not, and our people: for there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city..."

Here we see the Philistines after defeating the Israelites having trouble deciding what to due with the plague of the ill-gotten rewards. In the very next chapter they return it to the Israelites
with all sorts of gold objects out of fear of Israel's God.

1 Samuel 6: 4,7-8
Then said they, What shall be the trespass offering which we shall return to him? They answered, Five golden emerods, and five golden mice... Now therefore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and bring their calves home from them: And take the ark of the LORD, and lay it upon the cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return him for a trespass offering, in a coffer by the side thereof; and send it away, that it may go.

Continue reading on the next chapter and you see the people of Israel being told by Samuel to remove all their idols to be delivered out of the hands of the Philistines. Then the children of Israel did put away Baalim and Ashtaroth, and served the LORD only.

1 Samuel 7: 3a,3c,10

"And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you...and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines..... And as Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to battle against Israel: but the LORD thundered with a great thunder on that day upon the Philistines, and discomfited them; and they were smitten before Israel."

God has always come through for them in the end.
Unfailing and mighty is He who gives us strength! ^_^

Originally posted by Messenger Truth
Borg Hunter

Misinterpreting much? God gives us an entire book (Judges) of the Bible to answer your question (cute cat), as it's probably of great importance. =D

You see in the book of Judges, starting with chapter 3, you can see in detail, how many times the Israelites sinned and did many wicked things forgetting God himself. He made the other nations hindrances in their sides, and until they repented they were subjected to several rulers. But as you can see God never left them, He kept His promise and fulfilled this prophecy by appointing a judge each and every time they came to repentance.

As you can see throughout the OT God has made Israel's enemies seem like nothing and in some instances removed them completely.

Look at the book of Exodus. It depicts the Israelites in slavery; did God not deliver them from pharaoh's tyranny?

Also in the book of Samuel, Chapter 5, Verse 11, "So they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go again to his own place, that it slay us not, and our people: for there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city..."

Here we see the Philistines after defeating the Israelites having trouble deciding what to due with the plague of the ill-gotten rewards. In the very next chapter they return it to the Israelites
with all sorts of gold objects out of fear of Israel's God.

1 Samuel 6: 4,7-8
Then said they, What shall be the trespass offering which we shall return to him? They answered, Five golden emerods, and five golden mice... Now therefore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and bring their calves home from them: And take the ark of the LORD, and lay it upon the cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return him for a trespass offering, in a coffer by the side thereof; and send it away, that it may go.

Continue reading on the next chapter and you see the people of Israel being told by Samuel to remove all their idols to be delivered out of the hands of the Philistines. Then the children of Israel did put away Baalim and Ashtaroth, and served the LORD only.

1 Samuel 7: 3a,3c,10

"And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you...and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines..... And as Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to battle against Israel: but the LORD thundered with a great thunder on that day upon the Philistines, and discomfited them; and they were smitten before Israel."

God has always come through for them in the end.
Unfailing and mighty is He who gives us strength! ^_^
Now you're not using history and at least some semblance of logic to prove the Bible...now you're using the Bible to prove the Bible. Please tell me I don't need to explain to you why this is wrong...

I was just using those Scriptures as examples. :(

I could've simply showed you the verse like so:

Though you search for your enemies, you will not find them. Those who wage war against you will be as nothing at all. For I am the Lord, your God, who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you. Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob, O little Israel, for I myself will help you," declares the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.
Isaiah 41:12-14

Then stated the obvious contradictions you yourself made with a statement that would go something along these lines:

How in the world does it contradict the Scriptures? God said he'd "help" Israel and make its enemies as if they were "nothing at all." You said that God will look after and protect Israel. That he failed to do that three times! Your changing the words(MISINTERPRETATION was the word I believe was my previous definition)! If I said I was going to "help" you move your furniture it does not mean I'm going to look after it every day and protect it from criminals hoping to steal it for its soft fluffiness. XD

God says he is going to help them, and He has helped them. I don't see many Nazis persecuting Jewish people today, do you? Once again, " Those who wage war against you will be as nothing at all."


Thats probably what I could've said, I just wanted to mention some of the other times God has helped Israel to point out that God didn't help them at times for their extreme idolatry and the fact that they forgot Him, but once they cried out to Him, He sent them a judge and helped them overcome their enemies.

Once again, Yay God's Bible! ^_^

Originally posted by Messenger Truth
Your changing the words(MISINTERPRETATION was the word I believe was my previous definition)!
"Do not fear; I will help you. Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob, O little Israel, for I myself will help you."

What great good God's help has been! Israel got taken over, by your admission, three times! And that with God's help! Is God not omnipotent? Or did he lie? It's one or the other. He either couldn't help Israel enough when it got taken over, or he deliberately didn't, thus making him a liar.
I don't see many Nazis persecuting Jewish people today, do you? Once again, " Those who wage war against you will be as nothing at all."
Funny you should mention that. Where was God during the Holocaust?
Thats probably what I could've said, I just wanted to mention some of the other times God has helped Israel to point out that God didn't help them at times for their extreme idolatry and the fact that they forgot Him, but once they cried out to Him, He sent them a judge and helped them overcome their enemies.
So God's cool if you worship him, but if you try to go do your own thing, he gets pissed and sends the Assyrians after you? What an egomaniac...
Once again, Yay God's Bible! ^_^
Yay, man's imperfect Bible with references to the so-called "good" God who really is an egomaniac who enjoys lying and long walks on the beach...or, should I say, concentration camps.

if you ... simply wish to argue with me, then BY ALL MEANS GO FORTH AND DO SO.
You got it.


As for evolution itself, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, one of science's own observed laws, denies its posibility:
Nothing can't create something
If you must misinterpet the 2nd law at least try to be internally consistent. Evolution is not something from nothing - I think you are getting confused with cosmological origins of the universe (aka the big bang). If you are interested in what the 2nd law actually is I would be delighted to provide some science links, though it would be helpful to know your age and educational level so I can select appropriately. Otherwise, if you really are more interested in learning how to more deftly misinterpret the 2nd law in the way many creationists do in order to bambleboozle non scientists I can show you that too.

neither can something become nothing.
You may have a point there. Even god needed clay to spontaneously generate life from non life.

Look at a common wristwatch, tell me what you see.
I see something that obviously didn't create itself, something unique. I see something that shows that there was a designer who made that watch for a specific purpose.
Presumable the watch is the universe and the watch maker god. So let's follow the analogy through. I'll use the words "watch" and "the watch maker" though I ask you read it through substituting the words "universe" and "god" in their place:
The watch maker is born of similar beings and learns skills such as watch making by observing and interacting with existing watch makers. The watch maker then takes pre-existing materials which have been collected and prepared by other similar beings and uses his learnt skills to make a watch. The first few attempts, probably under the guidance of a more experienced watch maker, may be poor but over time he becomes an expert. The watch maker may have passion for watches, but not necessarily, and either way it is highly likely he makes watches out of the necessity to eat. Also, the watch maker has nothing further to do with watches once they are made and distributed, except perhaps if they are distrubted only locally and he is also a watch repairer.

How unique is the Bible itself?
The problem I have with the bible is it bores me and my eyes droop and I start to fall asle....... zzzzzzzzzz *oops, there I go*

Evolution is known for its natural selection, so why is it that some of the most powerful creatures are no longer in existence?
Evolution cannot see the future and therefore cannot naturally select for long term. Agains should you wish to know about evolution, or even how to misrepresent it more skillfully, let me know.

Why is it we are the ones who experience emotions, and have personality? Why are we so unique? Each of us is different in so many ways surely this did not all happen by chance.
What "chance" do you refer to? Do you wish to misinterpet natural selection as a "random process" or the existance of cosmological constants as "finely tuned for our benefit"? Please clarify.

I ask you did/do your parents discipline you or do you as parents discipline your children? Parents discipline their children for their benefit, out of love, that they may grow up to be wonderful people.
I don't recalling them throwing me in an eternal lake of fire. Hell is not discipline, it has no purpose of rehabilitation, and is therfore simple malicious torture.

MOT:
I don't see many Nazis persecuting Jewish people today, do you?

Borg:
Funny you should mention that. Where was God during the Holocaust?

That one's easy. If christian or muslim fundamentalists are right then Hitler's terrible actions weren't a patch on what god had in store for the Jews.

God spent WWII chucking those 6 million murdered Jews in the lake of fire.

Blob:
Presumable the watch is the universe and the watch maker god. So let's follow the analogy through.
I think you took it too far. This analogy is simply made to show that when we look at the world and the order in it and all this stuff, it's hard to say that this came from a complete chaos. A purpose seems to be the king of our world, and where there is a purpose, there is someone who gave it--God.
The problem I have with the bible is it bores me and my eyes droop and I start to fall asle....... zzzzzzzzzz *oops, there I go*
Well, what are you reading? I would suggest NT, the four gospels. They are fun. Read a chapter a day and you should be fine. If it becomes boring skip a few parts, find something interesting.

I'll get to the other things mentioned here, but the most important right now is the holocaust!

Has anyone here read Daniel 7:25?
"He will defy the Most High God... and try to change all laws, morals, and customs. God's people will be helpless in his hands for 3 1/2 years"

Lets throw some dates in here:
December 1941: extermination camps operational
May 1945: extermination camp prisoners liberated

God knew ahead of time that diabolical enemies would seek to wipe out his Chosen People, and he inspired Bible writers to record in advance what would happen, and why, and how he would put a stop to it, so that the Jews would survive as a people to fulfill further prophecies.

God knew ahead of time that diabolical enemies would seek to wipe out his Chosen People, and he inspired Bible writers to record in advance what would happen, and why, and how he would put a stop to it, so that the Jews would survive as a people to fulfill further prophecies.

Those that were killed, were killed for a single reason claimed by that tyrant: They were Jewish, but do you think the Jews asked themselves where God was during this time? No! They were strong in faith! They sang Ani Maamin and Shema when they were trapped in the gas chambers, some of the executioners admitted to have learned it by heart themselves. God was with those survivors who, however badly hurt they were, clung to life and believed in God to control their future.



Thank you Stop and Think, that was the exact meaning behind my metaphor. ^_^

Originally posted by Messenger Truth

Has anyone here read Daniel 7:25?
"He will defy the Most High God... and try to change all laws, morals, and customs. God's people will be helpless in his hands for 3 1/2 years"

Lets throw some dates in here:
December 1941: extermination camps operational
May 1945: extermination camp prisoners liberated

Your timeline is off by a few years there.

Holocaust chronology (http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/holokron.html)

That's one. And, also, you don't claim that he was the fourth beast, do you? Did he persecute the saints? Were they given into his hands? Also, how was that fourth kingdom (Germany) different from all others? And it didn't devour the whole earth. Who were the ten kings? The one king and the three kings? You have a lot to explain, Messenger.
The holocaust simply cannot be what the passage is referring to.

Hrm? Is it really off by a few years? *Checks* Actually I was off by a month, but that's no excuse! I was however not specific enough apparently, my most humblest apologies. I was speaking of the camp at Chelmno, the first extermination camp to become operational, for the extermination activities at Chelmno started on December 8 1941, and lasted until April* 9 1943. You see, the majority of the 6 million Jews who were killed between 1941 and 1945 were of Polish and Russian origin. The aim of the Chelmno camp was the extermination of the Jews from the Warthegau, the part of Poland which was made up of the 1939 province of Poznania, almost the whole province of Lodz (the second largest city of Poland, which in 1939 had a Jewish population of 202,000), and a part of the province of Warsaw, inhabited altogether by 4,546,000 people (among them were 450,000 Jews).

Approximately 2.7 million (90%) of the Polish Jews, and 2.1 million Russian Jews fell victim to the Nazi persecution.



Though all this seems to match very well, the verse which I took my reference from has contradicted me and I'm in error. The verse I took, Daniel 7:25, is actually a part of another prophecy, I jumped to conclusions without extensively checking the entire chapter. I perversed the Truth, which is terribly wrong. After reading through the chapter I discovered it was the very same chapter that related to Revelation's prophecy. Once again I broke the biggest and most common rule of Biblical prophecy, to find the prophecies in the Bible itself by chapter theme, not so much on specifics, as they become misleading. If I simply say that I think it means this, or I think it means that, I will eventually contradict myself on guesswork, I didn't look over enough sources to prove it thoroughly. I just used my Bible's concordance and didn't look over the entire chapter out of eagerness to post. I guess I'm the one who isn't reading enough of the Bible. :(

STOp
I think you took it too far.
How so? I simply followed it through. I did not distort or misrepresent the analogy in any way. All I did was think.

MT
Thank you Stop and Think, that was the exact meaning behind my metaphor. ^_^
lol. The old "my metaphor doesn't actually work but I'm still right" line, eh? Might be best if you drop preaching that goes: "the existance of watches proves the existance of a big invisible magic person".

Also, don't forget to address my other points Messenger Truth.

If you must misinterpet the 2nd law at least try to be internally consistent. Evolution is not something from nothing - I think you are getting confused with cosmological origins of the universe (aka the big bang). If you are interested in what the 2nd law actually is I would be delighted to provide some science links, though it would be helpful to know your age and educational level so I can select appropriately. Otherwise, if you really are more interested in learning how to more deftly misinterpret the 2nd law in the way many creationists do in order to bambleboozle non scientists I can show you that too.


If you had bothered to continue reading you'll see that someone already corrected that error, it was the 1st law to which I was refering to. Second, since atheists don't believe in any god, I can only expect them to claim evolution to be the cause of the origin of the universe, less they believe in some form of god, or are simply agnostic. The Big Bang Theory as you mentioned, is one explaination for the universe's origin. It, the Stead-State Theory, theistic evolutionist's creation with evolution, and creation by an almighty deity are all explainations for the creation of the universe. The 2nd law was explained, again continue reading the entire thread to see if something has already been mentioned. The first law basically states that nothing can create itself, because it wasn't there in the first place to do so (matter energy). My age, I believe is under the nice little box below my username. As for my education, currently that of a High School Student. Evolution can only go as far back as the Big Bang theory, they still don't know how it all began from what I see. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.



You may have a point there. Even god needed clay to spontaneously generate life from non life.


God didn't use clay. :@@:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:7


If you must misinterpet the 2nd law at least try to be internally consistent. Evolution is not something from nothing - I think you are getting confused with cosmological origins of the universe (aka the big bang). If you are interested in what the 2nd law actually is I would be delighted to provide some science links, though it would be helpful to know your age and educational level so I can select appropriately. Otherwise, if you really are more interested in learning how to more deftly misinterpret the 2nd law in the way many creationists do in order to bambleboozle non scientists I can show you that too.


If you had bothered to continue reading you'll see that someone already corrected that error, it was the 1st law to which I was refering to. Second, since atheists don't believe in any god, I can only expect them to claim evolution to be the cause of the origin of the universe, less they believe in some form of god, or are simply agnostic. The Big Bang Theory as you mentioned, is one explaination for the universe's origin. It, the Stead-State Theory, theistic evolutionist's creation with evolution, and creation by an almighty deity are all explainations for the creation of the universe. The 2nd law was explained, again continue reading the entire thread to see if something has already been mentioned. The first law basically states that nothing can't* create itself, because it wasn't there in the first place to do so (matter energy). My age, I believe is under the nice little box below my username. As for my education, currently that of a High School Student. Evolution can only go as far back as the Big Bang theory, they still don't know how it all began from what I see. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.



Presumable the watch is the universe and the watch maker god. So let's follow the analogy through. I'll use the words "watch" and "the watch maker" though I ask you read it through substituting the words "universe" and "god" in their place:
The watch maker is born of similar beings and learns skills such as watch making by observing and interacting with existing watch makers. The watch maker then takes pre-existing materials which have been collected and prepared by other similar beings and uses his learnt skills to make a watch. The first few attempts, probably under the guidance of a more experienced watch maker, may be poor but over time he becomes an expert. The watch maker may have passion for watches, but not necessarily, and either way it is highly likely he makes watches out of the necessity to eat. Also, the watch maker has nothing further to do with watches once they are made and distributed, except perhaps if they are distrubted only locally and he is also a watch repairer.


Like Stop And Think said, your just thinking beyond my concept and making it far too complex. The earth is just far too unique as are its creatures for one to claim anything besides some divine hand, some creator, as a design calls for a designer, so must a creation call a creator.


Evolution cannot see the future and therefore cannot naturally select for long term. Agains should you wish to know about evolution, or even how to misrepresent it more skillfully, let me know.


Evolution, you speak of it as if its some sort of blind child, at least that's what I see. And I'd like to pass on your offer to know how to mirepresent evolution, instead could you share exactly how the universe was created without some divine power? Explain all the diversity between species as well as our uniqueness?

According Natural Selection, every creature must be strong enough to overcome others, if its species is to survive. In such an environment, there is no room for self-sacrifice, altruism, or cooperation because these could prove disadvantageous. Accordingly, every creature must be entirely selfish, concerned only for its own personal food, security, and well-being. This is true isn't it?



What "chance" do you refer to? Do you wish to misinterpet natural selection as a "random process" or the existance of cosmological constants as "finely tuned for our benefit"? Please clarify.


I was speaking of evolution's big bang. A random explosion which created the world. It's one of the more popular atheist beliefs isn't it? Once again, this is a question, I have no polls or anything of the sort to back this up.


don't recalling them throwing me in an eternal lake of fire. Hell is not discipline, it has no purpose of rehabilitation, and is therfore simple malicious torture.


It isn't necessary to say that God forces hell as punishment. It may be the unavoidable consequence (logic-wise) of rejecting God. It is not clear that God makes it intentionally unpleasant. It may be the nature of the people who are there, and the fact that they are finally given what they want: freedom from God. It may not necessarily be eternal suffering and punishment as I hope it isn't. The Bible doesn't give us precise information as to who will end up in heaven or hell. We are simply warned not to judge other people. Adolf himself could probably be in heaven. He could've have been insane to some extent or he could also have repented some time before he died. Anything is possible with God.

All points addressed and accounted for! ^_^
*yawn* ((sleeeepy.....))

Corection: Actually some were answered more than once

I'd never noticed you are only 13 and so will go easy.

If you had bothered to continue reading you'll see that someone already corrected that error, it was the 1st law to which I was refering to.
The specific laws you misunderstand do not interest me. The point is you confuse evolution with the big bang and continute to do so in your new post e.g:
Second, since atheists don't believe in any god, I can only expect them to claim evolution to be the cause of the origin of the universe

Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.
Ok - it's like this:
BIG BANG THEORY - replaced the steady state theory and is about the origin of the universe. It comes from physics.
ABIOGENESIS - this a a recent hypothesis to explain how "life arose from non-life" as theists love to phrase it. It's a new, speculative science and the jury is still out. It's all about how carbon atoms come to be arranged as complex replicating molecules. I find it fascinating but it is a science in its infant stage.
EVOLUTION - this is the study of variation of gene frequency. It explains the origins of the species but not the origin of life itself.

I hope that's clear. What I have said is not controversial and most informed atheists and believers would agree with my (admittedly simplistic) summary.

So MT - my advice is for you to be clear on the three phases of "origins": 1 PHYSICS - big bang (very well evidenced so that we can call it "fact" in the scientific sense of the word fact); 2 CHEMISTRY - abiogenesis (highly speculative but some promising results emerging); 3 BIOLOGY - evolution (very well evidenced and so a fact in the scientific sense of the word; has many applications e.g. genetic modification).

God didn't use clay
Man is made from dust not clay then. Thank you. I really shouldn't comment on the contents of the bible as I never stay awake... zzzzzzzz.

Like Stop And Think said, your just thinking beyond my concept and making it far too complex.
May be "Stop And Think" should change his name to "continue and don't think". lol.

The earth is just far too unique as are its creatures for one to claim anything besides some divine hand, some creator, as a design calls for a designer, so must a creation call a creator.
The existence of a unique planet does not prove the existence of a bimp (big invisible magic person).

Evolution, you speak of it as if its some sort of blind child, at least that's what I see.
Good. It is blind. That's thinking that brought you to that conclusion - a process you would be advised to cherish. Though I would not call it a child because it is not conscious.

According Natural Selection, every creature must be strong enough to overcome others, if its species is to survive. In such an environment, there is no room for self-sacrifice, altruism, or cooperation because these could prove disadvantageous. Accordingly, every creature must be entirely selfish, concerned only for its own personal food, security, and well-being. This is true isn't it?
No. Really you need to read up on evolution if you want to understand it or be able to debate against it. The "fittest" are merely defined as those that survive. Being strong can be a disadvantage because it takes a lot of time and energy to be strong, biologically speaking, so there are times it is better to be small and efficient than big and powerful. Also, evolution occurs at the genetic level and saying every creature is selfish is not true. Indeed, did you know that a lot of evidence for evolution is based on the widely observed altruism in nature? If you read Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" you'll see the irony of the title. It's a theory of genetic co-operation.

I was speaking of evolution's big bang.
You're making the same muddle as I explained at the start of this post. And BTW - your muddles do not mean I have not bothered to read the thread so dont say that again please.

It isn't necessary to say that God forces hell as punishment.
You seem to redefine hell to fit your assertion that god loves everyone. Not convincing.

All points addressed and accounted for! ^_^
You are young so probably don't know this: it is a sign of defensiveness to judge oneself victorious in a philosophical or theological exchange. Simply make your points and allow others to respond.

Messemger truth said

It isn't necessary to say that God forces hell as punishment. It may be the unavoidable consequence (logic-wise) of rejecting God. It is not clear that God makes it intentionally unpleasant. It may be the nature of the people who are there, and the fact that they are finally given what they want: freedom from God. It may not necessarily be eternal suffering and punishment as I hope it isn't. The Bible doesn't give us precise information as to who will end up in heaven or hell. We are simply warned not to judge other people. Adolf himself could probably be in heaven. He could've have been insane to some extent or he could also have repented some time before he died. Anything is possible with God.

I like it!!!

Possibly hell is merely "furthest away from the Light".

Originally posted by ~Sal~ Possibly hell is merely "furthest away from the Light". [/B]
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, man does tend to over complicate things.

I'd never noticed you are only 13 and so will go easy.


Simple mistake, a little too early in the morning isn't it? XD
13 was my number of posts.



Man is made from dust not clay then. Thank you. I really shouldn't comment on the contents of the bible as I never stay awake... zzzzzzzz.


It can't be that bad can it? S&T seemed to give you some interesting books to read, did you look them over?


ABIOGENESIS - this a a recent hypothesis to explain how "life arose from non-life" as theists love to phrase it. It's a new, speculative science and the jury is still out. It's all about how carbon atoms come to be arranged as complex replicating molecules. I find it fascinating but it is a science in its infant stage.


At first I was under the impression that this was some kind of joke, but I see that your not laughing. It merely explains what atom evolution may have started with, if it is ever proven to be true. Abigenesis, is defined as, the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter. So basically it's spontaneous generation, right? This term is new to me, but it doesn't seem to prove the creation of something from nothing, but from lifeless matter, which is still something.

It also seems to bring up the question throughout many sources: How many different parts would it take for a self-sufficient (autotroph) free living creature to live, and could these parts be assembled by natural means? The lowest level is claimed to be in the multimillions, this produces an unchangable level of complexity that cannot be bridged alone, by any known natural means. It's like trying to make a squirrel in chem class. Macguiver himself would claim it impossible. If you have any information contradictory to this, I would love to hear about it.



May be "Stop And Think" should change his name to "continue and don't think". lol.


Hrm? Well, for starters you didn't even explain anything here, besides the fact that you had the desire to throw in a rude comment. You simply overlooked my theory in its simplicity and turned it into dribble through your deductions. I'm sure you saw my method anyway.


The existence of a unique planet does not prove the existence of a bimp (big invisible magic person).


Well, it seems to tilt creation in favor of some divine power doesn't it? Abiogenesis, is proven by the uniqueness of our planet. Listen to how bad that sounded, though it isn't your point. Atually if this all occured by chance, we sure are lucky aren't we? Wow, and look at how unique our planet is! Look how unique WE are. I'm sorry, but I simply don't see what sense there is in this concept, nor how anyone can prove it.

The following questions I believe, is one of the most difficult questions an atheist can be confronted with: Tell me, why there is something, and not nothing? Why do we have these certain laws of nature governing our world? You'd think the laws have always existed, but wouldn't they need to be created as well as the universe itself? The way the laws fit so perfectly, is amazing, to me anyway.


Good. It is blind. That's thinking that brought you to that conclusion - a process you would be advised to cherish. Though I would not call it a child because it is not conscious.


Then what can be blind but the living? It seems rather awkward to call my computer blind, as well as my closet, my bed, lamp, the sky, and the earth. Just mentioning how odd it sounds...

A)
Anyway, my actual point being this, I believe in a divine power, God, who created the universe, the laws of nature that govern it, the earth and its wonderful position in our solar system, the land, the seas, the creatures, the plants, the firmaments, as well as us, and our free will (very important).

B)
You believe that all this happened by some luck, that molecules that, may I remind you, can't exist without being created first, eventually became life, led to a chain of evolution, which supposedly died somewhere and restarted, if all the dinosaurs died, then surely mostly everything else must've too., All this over billions upon billions of years, from cells, to animals, to man, and you claim that all this occured because of some blind system?

Hmm... lets see.... I think I'll go with answer A, Bob.



You are young so probably don't know this: it is a sign of defensiveness to judge oneself victorious in a philosophical or theological exchange. Simply make your points and allow others to respond.


Its not victory nor self-gratification, among my many reasons for being here, one of them is to use all of my experiences I've had in these arguements and bring each and everyone of the unanswered or difficult ones, with me when I move foreward on my studies, think of this as my archive, or a journal of arguement. Anyone can see that after each and every single one of my posts I've been given many contradictions, questions, comments, and theories and such for me to go up against and work out. This I see is the best method for establishing evidence for or against the many religious topics and arguements common to man. The comment your refering to however, was my answer to your impatience. And I'll throw some personalizing comment somewhere in each and every one of my messages, I always have and always will.

Now, why don't you show this young whipper snapper each and everyone of your points. ^_^

Messenger, I am truly amazed by you. If you are truly 16, then my signature belongs to you. Although you made a lot of valid comments, I could contradict most of them, though, I will not. Let's those who call themselves atheists do that. I will observe and do my best to counter.
Also, excellent comment on hell. I think you've got it nailed.

I've neglected kitty person (may I call you kitty person?). My appologies for the delay Borg Hunter. I'll go over your comments now...


Do not fear; I will help you. Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob, O little Israel, for I myself will help you."

What great good God's help has been! Israel got taken over, by your admission, three times! And that with God's help! Is God not omnipotent? Or did he lie? It's one or the other. He either couldn't help Israel enough when it got taken over, or he deliberately didn't, thus making him a liar.



Funny you should mention that. Where was God during the Holocaust?


YAY! You quoted the Bible! :)

Do you know why the jewish people were attacked? Ask yourself this question: If I were God, what would the perfect world be?
You see, free will, is what we all have isn't it? It causes us to choose to do good, or bad. Imagine the perfect world you'd think God would make, but in order to have this world, you'd have to remove free will, thus your in nothing more than a small prison and God, is the jailer. That is why we have free will. The enemies of Israel chose to be their enemies, God couldn't just go and force them all to surrender, this eliminates free will. God said he'd help them, and are they defeated? Have they all been wiped out? Nature, its dangerous at times, yet beautiful. Would it be ok to supernaturally suspend nature when its laws would cause harm to others? Nature would simply be reduced simply a horrific self-contradiction.



So God's cool if you worship him, but if you try to go do your own thing, he gets pissed and sends the Assyrians after you? What an egomaniac...



Yay, man's imperfect Bible with references to the so-called "good" God who really is an egomaniac who enjoys lying and long walks on the beach...or, should I say, concentration camps.


Concentration camps were an invention by man's wickedness. >.>

God was very critical of His people back then, because as portrayed, they were not as sinful as we are today. The NT describes people who didn't believe in God, they simply had to believe in Him, and His Son's sacrifice for the world's sins. Nothing more. God doesn't expect anything more from us.

Yay indeed for God's infallible book. =D

"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge."
-- Mikhail A. Bakunin

Originally posted by Messenger Truth
God couldn't just go and force them all to surrender, this eliminates free will.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't God rather kill everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah?

Also...
Exodus 22:23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

He sure seems to be able to kill people! Why not Israel's enemies?
Yay indeed for God's infallible book. =D
What gives you the ability to call the Bible "infalliable"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't God rather kill everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah?

He sure did. They were that wicked. He is a just God, you can see it.
Also...
Exodus 22:23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.
And you point is....God is simply setting up Moral and Ceremonial Principles. Don't have sex with animals, don't mistreat a stranger, don't afflict widows, don't revile God...and so on.
He sure seems to be able to kill people! Why not Israel's enemies?
Oh, Sodom and Gomorra were a once-in-a-life time thing. God reserves His special powers for special occasions and special wickidness.
Also they probably symbolized Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Falling fire=atom bombs.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
He sure did. They were that wicked. He is a just God, you can see it.
Just? Just? Killing people is never just, unless one is threatening you and you're acting in self-defense. Obviously not the case here.
Oh, Sodom and Gomorra were a once-in-a-life time thing. God reserves His special powers for special occasions and special wickidness.
So because of this, he'll break a promise with Israel?
Also they probably symbolized Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Falling fire=atom bombs.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was written a number of millenia before World War II. I don't see how it could symbolize that.

To MT:

You said:
"you had the desire to throw in a rude comment."

I don't have time to respond to your post right now but just quickly:

my joke about STop's screen name was not throwing in a rude comment. STop and I get on well in these forums. We both use humour in our posts and I seriously don't think he'll take offence.

You are not 13 and the bimp did not make man from clay. On those two points I stand corrected.

Your thinking is very muddled. But that's a complement. A muddled grasp of science is essential to creationists. You'd make them proud.

Rather than go though your tangled post point by point it will be more productive to state the kind of fallacies you are making, and then show you examples from your posts.


1. PICK AND MIX SCIENCE
Most theists do this. As an atheist it is frustrating to watch bible believers cheer in a heated rush for any science they find palatable, such as the big bang, but when it comes to anything awkward, like evolution, they thunder “scientists are wrong!”.

You will never catch an atheist picking and mixing his science to match his beliefs. Less than 100 years ago many physicists thought the universe had no beginning (e.g. Hubble’s Steady State theory). But then came big bang theory. It would be much more convenient for atheists like me if the “no beginning” theory still stood. But do we whine “scientists lie”? Do we study it only to pick holes and rage against it? No. The truth is always welcome with atheists.

SO what about your case MT? You have no grasp of thermodynamics or the big bang or cosmological constants but celebrate them as scientific evidence for your position; you have also have no grasp of evolution but deride it without finding out; and you had never even heard of abiogenesis but attack it without even knowing what it is (you said abiogenesis "It merely explains what atom evolution may have started with" !!!!)

Here are some links for you to learn from.
Thermodynamics: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html (BTW you did mean the 2nd law - this is the one creationists use - not the 1st law. You just used it so badly I can see exactly while Vilpagan said it sounds like the 1st)

Abiogenesis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Your "squirrel in chem class" comes from the specious mathematics of Michael Behe's irriducible complexity theory: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Evolution (a huge topic but just in case): http://www.pandasthumb.org/


There's really no point discussing science any more with you unless you get some facts. Of course even though I've provided links you'll no doubt still just continue to "PICK AND MIX" those scientific ideas you think sound ok; and reject those you don't; without actually knowing what you are talking about.


2. YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR IDEAS
This relates to my debunking of your watch maker analogy. All you have said is I should think less ("your just thinking beyond my concept and making it far too complex"), I'm being rude (!) and I talked dribble. But you do not address the actual points I made. You analogy is silly and I demonstrated this. It's no good requesting I think less! If I was talking dribble then demonstrate why, sentence by sentence.


3. YOU ARE PEDANTIC WITH SEMANTICS, RATHER THAN MAKING A POINT
A good example of this is you saying "what can be blind but the living?".

Now let's rewind. YOU first used the word 'blind', not ME, to describe something non-living!!! Being a reasonable person who believes it is always productive to try and make bridges of agreement with others I generally disagree with, I said yes, blind is a good word. Blind can mean lacking reason or purpose as in "blind fate" and (not being a difficult, pedantic person) I assumed this was the meaning you refered to. But, being a theist, you just throw it back in my face. Next time I wish to reach out a hand to you and say "yes, that's a reasonable way of putting it MT" I shall think twice.



4. YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH
Notably: "You believe that all this happened by some luck, that molecules that, may I remind you, can't exist without being created first, eventually became life, led to a chain of evolution, which supposedly died somewhere and restarted, if all the dinosaurs died, then surely mostly everything else must've too., All this over billions upon billions of years, from cells, to animals, to man, and you claim that all this occured because of some blind system?"

Quite who has been telling you that is what I believe I don't know. It is a misrepresentation; a straw man; a grotesque effigy of modern scientific ideas. You will not find a place where I have put words in your mouth anywhere. Anyway, hopefully those links will help you see what a poor grasp you have of the issues.

(specifically I don't say it was "luck"; I don't say molecules were created in the bimpy way you mean it; I don't say evolution happened twice; I don't say there is a "chain" of evolution; I don't say there is a linear flow of evolution from cells to animals to man; i don't call evolution a system. If you read those links you will see WHY)


5. YOU USE FALSE DICHOTOMIES
For example you give two scenarios A and B, and then tell me you'll go with A. Quite how you made up these options I don't know. B is an utter misrepresentation of science anyway, and biblical creationism is not the only origins myth. There is also the budhhists', hindus', Raellians' and nihilists' creation stories for example. Now if you tell me these creation myths are too silly to worry about then I agree. But lets remind ourselves how silly the bible is with Gen 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Have I got this right? God, who has no hands, took dust (quite why god needs dust if he's so powerful he could make a universe from nothing I don't know) and formed life by breathing (despite god having no respiratory system) and an adult man who never grew up was made. MT, you have got to be kidding me! I am not a 3 year old in need of a bed time story.

Now, if you say something new and productive without committing the above (or other) fallacies we can continue. If, however, you wish to continue to pick and mix science you don't understand; fail to defend ideas I have demonstrated to be silly; play pedantic semantics by jumping on and twisting my choice of vocabulary; put words in my mouth I did not say and do not think; set up false A or B choices; well in that case I invite you to try your luck converting the godless haethens at www.infidelguy.com. You should join and post your arguments there, it will be a great learning experience for you MT.

Originally posted by Blob
(BTW you did mean the 2nd law - this is the one creationists use - not the 1st law. You just used it so badly I can see exactly while Vilpagan said it sounds like the 1st)

Nice post Blob. I am aware that creationists use the 2nd law in a misguided attempt to "prove" creationism, I was just trying to get MT to do a little checking for himself, and possibly learn a little physics in the process.

Originally posted by Messenger Truth
Wow, and look at how unique our planet is! Look how unique WE are.

First MT, I would like to compliment you on your intelligence and communication skills.

That being said, the above statement is just silly. This is the same argument that men have used since at least the Middle Ages, and we've learned a lot since then.

Tell me, how unique are we?

How unique is this planet?

How many other planets in the universe contain intelligent life?

Obviously we don't know the answers to these questions since we have just begun to look at the universe in a very rudimentary way. For you to assume that we, and this planet, are unique simply because we haven't discovered life elsewhere is foolish.

Imagine a man who is shipwrecked alone on an uninhabited island, and in the process suffers amnesia so he forgets his origins. He looks about and convinces himself that he is alone and unique on this planet. That's us.

Will we find life other than us in the universe? Entirely likely. Until we do though, it would be imprudent to say that there definitely is other life out there. It is equally imprudent to suggest that we are unique.

Nice post Blob. I am aware that creationists use the 2nd law in a misguided attempt to "prove" creationism, I was just trying to get MT to do a little checking for himself, and possibly learn a little physics in the process.

Thanks VP.

MT's confusion in thermodynamics seems to stem from his muddling of evolution with the big bang. As we both know, cretinists use the 2nd law in an attempt to counter the former, but not the latter.

That said, I have actually come across one or two cretinists using the principle of the conservation of energy to denounce the begining of the universe. Of course most stop this line of argument when they realise they are using the 1st law to try and disprove the big bang! (though note MT keeps harping on about "something from nothing" and is falling into this trap). Only someone trying to put a case for an eternal universe - such as some Buddhists for example - should seriously be interested in this line of misrepresenting the 1st law of thermodynamics.

BorgHunter:
Just? Just? Killing people is never just, unless one is threatening you and you're acting in self-defense. Obviously not the case here.
What is just? Where do you get justice from? Our mere human concepts? Christians define God as just, what He does is just by default. He knows more than we, I think it's only fair we go by His standards.
Also, if a man1 is about to kill another man2, would you save man2 and shoot man1. (let's say that you don't know how to shoot a gun. If you miss--man2 dies, otherwise you kill man1)
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was written a number of millenia before World War II. I don't see how it could symbolize that.
My point exactly. How could the people know what will happen? Makes you think.

Vilepagan:
It is equally imprudent to suggest that we are unique.
Is it? We know a lot of things, our telescopes can look pretty far, our receptors can pick up signals from light-years away. I think the chances are there isn't another life out there. Do you even realize how lucky we are to be here? So many (1000s) things had to go just right for us (or any life-form) to exist. The chances are so low, it would take thousands of universes to have a probability of another life close to be 1.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
Is it? We know a lot of things, our telescopes can look pretty far, our receptors can pick up signals from light-years away. I think the chances are there isn't another life out there. Do you even realize how lucky we are to be here? So many (1000s) things had to go just right for us (or any life-form) to exist. The chances are so low, it would take thousands of universes to have a probability of another life close to be 1.
Where did you get these statistics?

Let me give you some REAL statistics. Our Milky Way galaxy has some 200-400 billion stars in it. The observable universe contains about 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. (7e22, or 70 billion billion) And remember, that's only what we can see. Now, what were those probabilities you were talking about, again?

That's right--stars. As I think we all know, there is no life-forms on stars, only on planets that are in perfect condition to nurture life. The actual possibilities for a "second Earth" are significantly smaller than the number you presented. Combined with the probability for the perfect conditions, I think you can take that e22 and make it a probability of e-22.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
That's right--stars. As I think we all know, there is no life-forms on stars, only on planets that are in perfect condition to nurture life. The actual possibilities for a "second Earth" are significantly smaller than the number you presented. Combined with the probability for the perfect conditions, I think you can take that e22 and make it a probability of e-22.
Let's do a bit of statistics here. The conditions on Earth that are required are merely: presence of water, presence of an atmosphere, and temperatures somewhere on the planet greater than freezing. Even though both Earth and Mars have water on them (as do many other planets), let's say that 1 out of every 1000 planets have water on them. Let's also say that 1 out of every 1000 planets are in an appropriate temperature range. Let us further say that 1 out of every 1000 planets are sufficient in seismic activity, asteroid collisions, and so on to theoretically support life. Assuming a very very conservative guess of one planet per thousand stars, and a "Probability of life" constant at one in a million we still have 70,000 planets with life on them in the universe. And keep in mind...I was extremely conservative on EVERY probability.

What gives you the ability to call the Bible "infalliable"?


Borg Hunter:

or one, faith.

second, I've found some interesting Scientific Scriptures all true, some of which can be seen as prophecies fulfilled.

1) Moisture in the atmosphere goes through a cycle of evaporation and condensation.
"He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lighnings for the rain." Psalms 135:7

2) The earth is spherical in shape.
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Isa. 40:22

3)The earth rotates upon its axis.
"the earth... is turned as clay to the seal." Job 38:13-14

4)The earth is suspended in space.
"He... hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7

5)Tides vary in the late evening and the early morning hours.
"He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." Job 26:10

6)The stars cannot be numbered.
"The host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured. Jer. 33:22
In 130 B.C. Hipparchus counted the stars and #ered them 1022, and in A.D. 200 Ptolemy counted 1026 stars. Even today the number of stars we know may as well be limitless.

7)The atmosphere has weight.
"to make the weight for the winds" Job 28:25
This wasn't even known until the 17th century by scientists.

8)The stars travel in certain paths.
"the stars in their courses" Judges 5:20

9)The blood sustains life.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood." Lev. 17:11

If only the doctors of washington's time knew this. :(
On December 12 1799, Washingon rode for about 5 hours to several of his farms in sub-freezing cold. Despite his severe cold. The next day he went out again to check his farms. That night he awoke and complained to having much difficulty swallowing. Mr. Rawlins, one of the president's overseers came in soon after sunrise and prepared to bleed him. This was the practice that was accepted by medical doctors at the time. Either through a leech which would suck the patient's blood freely or through a small incision on the patients arm where a portion of his blood would be allowed to drain into a basin. This continued to be the procedure throughout the day. He died that night.
Sixty years later, it was still in use, and no one can doubt it deprived G.W.of his chance of living.

10) The stars are a great distance from the earth.
"And behold the height of the stars, how high they are!" Ps. 102:25-26

11)The stars differ in magnitude.
"One star differeth from another star in glory." 1 Cor. 15:41

12) The chemical composition of man and the earth is identical.
"He remembereth that we are dust." Ps. 103:14

Hm, most of these were discovered by man much later weren't they? :)
Christipher Columbus claimed the earth was round, and he was doubted until he returned. :D












1. PICK AND MIX SCIENCE
Most theists do this. As an atheist it is frustrating to watch bible believers cheer in a heated rush for any science they find palatable, such as the big bang, but when it comes to anything awkward, like evolution, they thunder “scientists are wrong!”.

You will never catch an atheist picking and mixing his science to match his beliefs. Less than 100 years ago many physicists thought the universe had no beginning (e.g. Hubble’s Steady State theory). But then came big bang theory. It would be much more convenient for atheists like me if the “no beginning” theory still stood. But do we whine “scientists lie”? Do we study it only to pick holes and rage against it? No. The truth is always welcome with atheists.

So what about your case MT? You have no grasp of thermodynamics or the big bang or cosmological constants but celebrate them as scientific evidence for your position; you have also have no grasp of evolution but deride it without finding out; and you had never even heard of abiogenesis but attack it without even knowing what it is (you said abiogenesis "It merely explains what atom evolution may have started with" !!!!)

Here are some links for you to learn from.
Thermodynamics: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.ed...rmo/seclaw.html (BTW you did mean the 2nd law - this is the one creationists use - not the 1st law. You just used it so badly I can see exactly while Vilpagan said it sounds like the 1st)

Abiogenesis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Your "squirrel in chem class" comes from the specious mathematics of Michael Behe's irriducible complexity theory: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Evolution (a huge topic but just in case): http://www.pandasthumb.org/

There's really no point discussing science any more with you unless you get some facts. Of course even though I've provided links you'll no doubt still just continue to "PICK AND MIX" those scientific ideas you think sound ok; and reject those you don't; without actually knowing what you are talking about.


Blob,

True, I didn't know much about Abiogenesis, but I gathered what I could, and from what I gathered from your Abiogenesis link, I'm guessing that abiogenesis explains only how life came about from non-living matter, though possible, I still don't see how planets came into formation, nor have I seen how from nothing, the non-living matter came into existence. Nothing, is indeed nothing, I've stressed this, and I haven't been given an answer relating to this yet.

As for those links on thermodynamics, I actually learned that my sources were all probably based on each other, but none the less, I don't recall ever seeing nothing become something, and when I say nothing, I mean nothing, not non-living somethings.




2. YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR IDEAS
This relates to my debunking of your watch maker analogy. All you have said is I should think less ("your just thinking beyond my concept and making it far too complex"), I'm being rude (!) and I talked dribble. But you do not address the actual points I made. You analogy is silly and I demonstrated this. It's no good requesting I think less! If I was talking dribble then demonstrate why, sentence by sentence.


1) Ok, but I'd like to count my sentences, no logical reason for my doing this, but I'd like to on this point, if it's all the same to you.
2) First of all, your translation was the only thing that debunked my analogy, if you had really seen it the way it was meant to be portrayed, there wouldn't be an arguement involving its significance, as I myself wrote it, establishing a purpose for it!
3) The original point behind it was that the earth seems far too unique as are all its creatures for one to claim anything besides some divine power, some creator, as a design calls for a designer, so must a creation call a creator.
4) I did not only tell you to think less, as not only do I think you understood my concept, but even if you didn't; S&T explained it beautifully.
5) Your translation removed all meaning from the analogy, thus not making it an analogy by your perspective, and since I told you what it was, I hoped you'd be able to figure it out as you probably did, but still you chose to rephrase it in a sense where it had no meaning at all.
6) This rambling on of complexity with no meaning behind it does not correspond with the meaning that has been shown to you on more than one occasion.
7) Though that was a wonderful way of looking at it, it had no significance with the original concept I had in mind.




3. YOU ARE PEDANTIC WITH SEMANTICS, RATHER THAN MAKING A POINT
A good example of this is you saying "what can be blind but the living?".

Now let's rewind. YOU first used the word 'blind', not ME, to describe something non-living!!! Being a reasonable person who believes it is always productive to try and make bridges of agreement with others I generally disagree with, I said yes, blind is a good word. Blind can mean lacking reason or purpose as in "blind fate" and (not being a difficult, pedantic person) I assumed this was the meaning you refered to. But, being a theist, you just throw it back in my face. Next time I wish to reach out a hand to you and say "yes, that's a reasonable way of putting it MT" I shall think twice.


After going over my previous posts, I'd have to agree with you. I've formed some attrocious forum habits if you've noticed from my past posts. I've made several mistakes more than once, as I've re-answered my own questions more than once, and on more than one occasion I didn't give a point enough attention and made it completely contradictory to my original message. My mistakes can and have led to many rash statements, and that one, was never supposed to have gotten into my original message. I'm at fault for the way I choose to try to answer these different points through pile of notes along with statements, both yours and mine. And that system could and did, lead to a completely contradictory statement, I myself made. If I had paid more attention proofreading it, I would've noticed it, and I'm extremely sorry for that ignorant remark produced by my carelessness.
:(


4. YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH
Notably: "You believe that all this happened by some luck, that molecules that, may I remind you, can't exist without being created first, eventually became life, led to a chain of evolution, which supposedly died somewhere and restarted, if all the dinosaurs died, then surely mostly everything else must've too., All this over billions upon billions of years, from cells, to animals, to man, and you claim that all this occured because of some blind system?"

Quite who has been telling you that is what I believe I don't know. It is a misrepresentation; a straw man; a grotesque effigy of modern scientific ideas. You will not find a place where I have put words in your mouth anywhere. Anyway, hopefully those links will help you see what a poor grasp you have of the issues.

(specifically I don't say it was "luck"; I don't say molecules were created in the bimpy way you mean it; I don't say evolution happened twice; I don't say there is a "chain" of evolution; I don't say there is a linear flow of evolution from cells to animals to man; i don't call evolution a system. If you read those links you will see WHY)


If your going to tell me I'm putting words in your mouth, it's not very wise to do the same, though I do see your point after reviewing some of those links. The Panda's Thumb site being very interesting.
Below is your statement.
|
|
V

you'll no doubt still just continue to "PICK AND MIX" those scientific ideas you think sound ok; and reject those you don't; without actually knowing what you are talking about.






5. YOU USE FALSE DICHOTOMIES
For example you give two scenarios A and B, and then tell me you'll go with A. Quite how you made up these options I don't know. B is an utter misrepresentation of science anyway, and biblical creationism is not the only origins myth. There is also the budhhists', hindus', Raellians' and nihilists' creation stories for example. Now if you tell me these creation myths are too silly to worry about then I agree. But lets remind ourselves how silly the bible is with Gen 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Have I got this right? God, who has no hands, took dust (quite why god needs dust if he's so powerful he could make a universe from nothing I don't know) and formed life by breathing (despite god having no respiratory system) and an adult man who never grew up was made. MT, you have got to be kidding me! I am not a 3 year old in need of a bed time story.

Now, if you say something new and productive without committing the above (or other) fallacies we can continue. If, however, you wish to continue to pick and mix science you don't understand; fail to defend ideas I have demonstrated to be silly; play pedantic semantics by jumping on and twisting my choice of vocabulary; put words in my mouth I did not say and do not think; set up false A or B choices; well in that case I invite you to try your luck converting the godless haethens at www.infidelguy.com. You should join and post your arguments there, it will be a great learning experience for you MT.

First MT, I would like to compliment you on your intelligence and communication skills.

That being said, the above statement is just silly. This is the same argument that men have used since at least the Middle Ages, and we've learned a lot since then.

Tell me, how unique are we?

How unique is this planet?

How many other planets in the universe contain intelligent life?

Obviously we don't know the answers to these questions since we have just begun to look at the universe in a very rudimentary way. For you to assume that we, and this planet, are unique simply because we haven't discovered life elsewhere is foolish.

Imagine a man who is shipwrecked alone on an uninhabited island, and in the process suffers amnesia so he forgets his origins. He looks about and convinces himself that he is alone and unique on this planet. That's us.

Will we find life other than us in the universe? Entirely likely. Until we do though, it would be imprudent to say that there definitely is other life out there. It is equally imprudent to suggest that we are unique.




Those scenerios are the two that I see, though after seeing your links, my second scenerio is needing some corrections, I still don't see much of a difference. If you could answer my question above, then I'll seriously consider your point valid, as I can't seem to grasp the thought, that our world originated from nothing by no one, please explain this if possible, or if this has nothing to do with what you believe, then please specify that instead.
As for the comment on other religions, unless you happen to believe in any of them, I see no point in disproving any of them.
The Bible is a book unlike any other from my point of view, if you'd like to further disprove it, go right ahead, I have some free time.

As for that verse, most of the words used are euphamisms, if you'd like one phrase that is prophetic: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground," this shows that non-living matter, can indeed form life, thus this proves one of your previous statements. :D
The hands are another reference that we are made in God's image, the breathing of life I'll explain through our uniqueness to all other life. For we all have a body, a mind, memory, reasoning, a conscience, and a will of our own. Each of us has our own personality.
I myself believe God breathed into Adam to show man's uniqueness from the other creatures, from here, life began to flow from God through the complex network of Adam's nervous system. His muscles began to expand and contract, his heart & lungs then moved in rhythm. The combination of the body and the breath of life from God made man a living being, a living soul which man will continue to be, just as long as we continue to breathe. As for the comment on an adult male being formed from a rib, how hard is it to believe this, once one believes He created the universe "Ex Nihilo," out of nothing.

I'll take up your advice and when given enough time, post both on the forum at pandasthumb as well as infidelguy.

As for this planet, in comparison to all the others we've been able to explore (not much, but its a start), I thinks it is unique. As we continue to explore, more information will come to light, so this part of the point I've brought up seems to be at a standstill.

Actually even though he may claim to be unique, there is something very unique about what he goes and does while trying to survive.
He may have not been able to tell you how unique he was in this state with proof, but if I was some man who knew nothing of his origins, I would eventually come to believe in some divine power which led to my creation. That was the original thought of most people. There are many tribes and cultures out there even today, some of which we haven't discovered, but most share a common tradition, the worship of some type of god or gods. They have both things which are necessary to perceive such: Nature (visible) and their own conscience which

Life other than us in the universe, is possible, but Until we find it, I'll leave it at that.

Hello MT.

Thanks for the response.

In this post I am going to try and find points of agreement between us.

ABIOGENESIS: I hope you agree that this is very interesting. PLease be clear I'm not suggesting it is true (though personally my money is on it). It is a new speculative science. But science is speculative - we then devise experiments to find if it has any merit or not. At the moment anyone who says "abiogensis explains the origin of life" is making it up.

WATCHMAKER: Let's agree to disagree. I stand by my following through of the analogy because it is true for a watchmaker IMO. But let's say this: it's just an analogy. If it is 'bad' that does not prove there is no god; if it is 'good' that does not prove there is a god. It's just an analogy. I hope you can agree to that compromise.

THE WORD 'BLIND': Okay thanks. Let's just forget it.

PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH: I made that statement in a clumsy attempt to cover the odds. I should not have speculated on you responding that way. I take it back.

FALSE DICHOTOMY: Thanks for reconsidering. Regarding how the universe came into existance I'll discuss that below.

BIBLICAL CREATION: Again we have to agree to disagree. I consider the bible to be a made up story.

BTW I am not at all familiar with the pandasthumb forums so cannot tell you what to expect there. I am very familiar with infidelguy. You will be welcomed there as long as you are respectful and don't just preach. But it's only fair I warn you of something. The atheists there are a lot more knowledgable than me. Many many are ex-christians who know the bible inside out (try clicking my 'bible' link in my signature to see what I mean). So it's no good saying to them "read the bible" or throwing quotes (not that you do this but some believers come to infidelguy and do that and it's better you know). Also, many are highly educated with phd's in science and philosophy. Many of the atheists there are the very scientists I often hear theists say are "lying" or "wrong" etc. These are people working in universities, for the military, for pharmaceutical companies and so on. They really really know their stuff. You have been warned!

Regarding the origin of the universe.

The debate is very controversial amongst scientists. This is real frontier knowledge and the mathematics is very advanced. If you wish only a simple, bite-sized answer equivilent to "god did it" then you won't find it. However, for us atheists the fact that something is difficult, or not yet understood, or full of complications and contreversy does not make us throw our hands in the air and say "god did it!" or "it was just luck!" or "we give up".

That said, here are some thoughts.

There is a phenomenon called quantum vacuum fluctuations. It happens all the time. In empty space particles and energy simply comes into existance - and then dissapears again. This phenomenon is not controversial - it is well observed and the mathematics is well understood. So there is an example of something from nothing.

Strange eh? lol. Well the universe is damned strange. But it can be understood to some extent.

Have you heard of anti-matter? Well anti-matter has negative energy. So what happens in quantum vacuum fluctuations is that a particle and an anti-particle come into existance together. The energy of the particle is equal and opposite to the energy of the anti-particle. So the total energy is... nothing! Two things exist but they cancel one another in terms of energy.

The universe is the same. It consists of things and anti-things. The total is zero. And this - though it is an extreme simplification of what would really take a lifetime of study to understand - is more or less how "something" came to exist. The universe is it's own first cause and adds up - quite literally - to nothing.

Do you still feel the need to throw god into the equation? Then go ahead. Personally I don't feel it adds any understanding whatsoever but that's your choice.

Finally - all those laws of physics and chemistry and biology that gave rise to life. Hopefully I can explain why atheists do not say anything is luck. The universe is based on laws - not chance - and that is why it is so ordered. I would ask you not to say "so you believe it is all chance". That is not what I believe (and for god's sake don't say that on infidelguy!!! They will know instantly you know little about science!)

To say the laws are perfectly tuned to give rise to life is putting the cart before the horse. The universe has no goals, no aims. Rather, life has arisen within the confines of those laws. Life has emerged as a consequence of those laws. Not the other way around - i.e. those laws did not arise with the purpose of producing life as theists often assert.

Are their holes in my understanding? Yes! Do I know everything? No! Will the science of the future disagree with the science of the present? I hope so or science is dead! Is science full of complexity, contradiction and contreversy? Yes!

Give up trying and say "god did it" if you must. I chose not to.

There was a time people knew that the sun was a god. How else could they explain it! But with time none of us beleive the sun is a god (at least you and I don't). Just because something cannot be explained fully, without difficulty, does not mean it is a god. That includes the universe.

The fallacy you commit (IMO) when you say "it is god" is called "god of the gaps". It means using the word god because you don't have an answer. Atheists consider it an unhelpful barrier to developing human knowledge and understanding.

Great post blob!

Originally posted by Messenger Truth
1) Moisture in the atmosphere goes through a cycle of evaporation and condensation.
"He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lighnings for the rain." Psalms 135:7
Well-known for millenia.
2) The earth is spherical in shape.
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Isa. 40:22
But the Earth is spherical, not circular...that Bible quote says "circle"...besides which, I've seen the phrase "ends of the Earth" numerous times. If they know the Earth to be spherical, they would have known that it HAS no ends...
3)The earth rotates upon its axis.
"the earth... is turned as clay to the seal." Job 38:13-14
Let's see the quote in its entirety.

38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
38:14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

That quote sounds nothing like a statement that the Earth rotates on an axis. It sounds like God is shaking the Earth to rid it of evil.
4)The earth is suspended in space.
"He... hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;" Job 38:4-6

Seems to say there that the Earth has foundations.
5)Tides vary in the late evening and the early morning hours.
"He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." Job 26:10
Very well-known for ages upon ages.
6)The stars cannot be numbered.
"The host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured. Jer. 33:22
33:22
As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.

It's a metaphor, not a statement that the universe is infinite.
7)The atmosphere has weight.
"to make the weight for the winds" Job 28:25
This wasn't even known until the 17th century by scientists.
Looks like another metaphor to me.
8)The stars travel in certain paths.
"the stars in their courses" Judges 5:20
Well-known for millenia.
9)The blood sustains life.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood." Lev. 17:11
Well-known for millenia.
If only the doctors of washington's time knew this. :(
On December 12 1799, Washingon rode for about 5 hours to several of his farms in sub-freezing cold. Despite his severe cold. The next day he went out again to check his farms. That night he awoke and complained to having much difficulty swallowing. Mr. Rawlins, one of the president's overseers came in soon after sunrise and prepared to bleed him. This was the practice that was accepted by medical doctors at the time. Either through a leech which would suck the patient's blood freely or through a small incision on the patients arm where a portion of his blood would be allowed to drain into a basin. This continued to be the procedure throughout the day. He died that night.
Sixty years later, it was still in use, and no one can doubt it deprived G.W.of his chance of living.
They knew that blood was necessary back then. In fact, they drained Washington of blood because they knew it was necessary. They were trying to get the "bad blood" out of him. Stupid, of course, but hey, medicine sucked until the 1900's.
10) The stars are a great distance from the earth.
"And behold the height of the stars, how high they are!" Ps. 102:25-26
Well duh. We've known that one for millenia as well.
11)The stars differ in magnitude.
"One star differeth from another star in glory." 1 Cor. 15:41
DUH! That one's so fucking obvious, it's not even worthy of a response...
12) The chemical composition of man and the earth is identical.
"He remembereth that we are dust." Ps. 103:14
Uh, WTF? First off, that quote is referring to God creating Adam from dust. Secondly, the chemical composition of humans and dirt is entirely different...
Christipher Columbus claimed the earth was round, and he was doubted until he returned. :D
Uh, everyone knew the Earth was round then. Try reading a history book.

Originally posted by BorgHunter

Bugger!:D
I'd just spent 30 mins crafting a reply to MT and you go and post a great response.

I'd like to say Messenger, you’ve got selective quoting of to a fine art. Can I add that in this context, the 'weight of the winds' does not imply biblical knowledge of meteorology, 'weight' is an obsolete term for strength/force.

At the moment anyone who says "abiogensis explains the origin of life" is making it up.

The attached jpg might interest you.

A de novo, self replicating organism created from synthetic chemicals:

[C332,652 H492,388 N98,245 O131,196 P7501 S2340]

First described in Science.
Cello, J; Paul, A; Wimmer, E, C,
[Science 297: 1016-1018 2002]

Secondly, the chemical composition of humans and dirt is entirely different...
Is it? Get it to the atom level? Is it different? Oxygen, hydrogen....CARBON.
BorgHunter:
Let's do a bit of statistics here.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html

Is it? Get it to the atom level? Is it different? Oxygen, hydrogen....CARBON.

Are you sure you are not confusing the carbon based life on this planet with the planet itself?

The planet earth is largely made up of a metallic core (mainly oxides of pyrolite/ nickel-iron alloy), a silicate mantle, and crust.

I'll get to your teleological argument after some sleep!

Originally posted by STOpandthink

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html [/B]

I'm afraid Craigs argument from design, and the arguments of others who choose to use the 'Fine Tuning' approach to proving the existence of a creator doesn't stack up.
There are numerous rebutals to this argument, here are some of them:

Fine Tuning (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html)

Originally posted by STOpandthink
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html

TSK! TSK! Stopandthink. Naughty, naughty boy!

(I still like you but am annoyed you did this)

Do you think these forums will be interesting if they consisted of posts like yours, not saying anything just providing a link? There are a billion urls arguing for theism and a billion others arguing for atheism. Would you like this thread to deterieote into a series of hyperlinks, and counter-hyperlinks, and counter-counter-hyperlinks?

If you have a point make it. If you wish to back yourself up with a link, or provide one for further reading, do so. However, in a thread where I have been pouring out my time and creative energy I don't appreciate someone coming along and just putting a url to a very long web page. Especially to a web page making an argument I have already addressed (though I did not use the word teleological).

Here's where I made an argument that undermines teleological arguments:

"Finally - all those laws of physics and chemistry and biology that gave rise to life. Hopefully I can explain why atheists do not say anything is luck. The universe is based on laws - not chance - and that is why it is so ordered. I would ask you not to say "so you believe it is all chance". That is not what I believe (and for god's sake don't say that on infidelguy!!! They will know instantly you know little about science!)

To say the laws are perfectly tuned to give rise to life is putting the cart before the horse. The universe has no goals, no aims. Rather, life has arisen within the confines of those laws. Life has emerged as a consequence of those laws. Not the other way around - i.e. those laws did not arise with the purpose of producing life as theists often assert."

And a couple more reasons the teleological argument is flawed:

Dr Craig argues the universe is finely balanced, teetering on a tight rope of possible existance. But he only does this by arguing all the way through that he can conceive different constants that would not work. But as he says these constants would not be possible. Yet we can all conceive of impossible things! It is a fallacious argument to say "I can conceive the impossible therefore the bimp exists!".

Another error is he only addresses each constant at a time saying basically that if all the constants were as they are, but such and such a single constant was different, life would be impossible. However, if many and all the constants were different in such a way that they still harmonised then other stable universes are possible (consider the multi-verse hypothesis). By focussing narrowly on one at a time he creates a false argument.

Finally, let's recall that the bimp is above logic and reason. If god existed we should equally expect to see a universe in which the constants do not allow existence and yet existence occurs - because that kind of absurdity is entirely possible if an above-logic entity created everything. Indeed, the existance of laws and constants that can be emperically and logically comprehended strongly suggests the absence of a literally all-powerful bimp above our reason.

Originally posted by crossova
The attached jpg might interest you.

A de novo, self replicating organism created from synthetic chemicals:

[C332,652 H492,388 N98,245 O131,196 P7501 S2340]

First described in Science.
Cello, J; Paul, A; Wimmer, E, C,
[Science 297: 1016-1018 2002]

Yes crossova there is evidence for abiogenesis. But in science we are always cautious. Atheists always patiently wait for OVERWHELMING evidence before tentatively making a conclusion and calling something a fact*. We exercise this discipline (unlike theists!) no matter how tempted we are to throw caution to the wind and celebrate something as supporting our viewpoint.

I personally fully expect abiogensis to provide overwhelming evidence in my lifetime - but it hasn't yet and maybe it won't. Until that time we are stuck with saying "atheists don't know how life arose"; despite it being annoying when thesits jump in and say "aha! you don't know! so it must have been the bimp!"

*I use "fact" in the emperical sense of the word, not the logical sense

"atheists don't know how life arose"; despite it being annoying when thesits jump in and say "aha! you don't know! so it must have been the bimp!"

As long as we can keep producing evidence, even if it is on a slow, incremental basis, the wriggle room will keep getting smaller for theists. The god of gaps is running out of gaps! :)

Oh, you can produce all the evidence you want, but you will never be able to actually disprove God's existence.
Sorry, Blob, I will try not to use links unless I really have to. You have a good point there.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
Oh, you can produce all the evidence you want, but you will never be able to actually disprove God's existence.
Sorry, Blob, I will try not to use links unless I really have to. You have a good point there.

Yeh see this is what annoys me, and its only when say your brother, sister,daughter or son etc get murdered, raped and left somewhere do you think... Well hang on, why did GOD allow this to happen to them? They worshipped him, spread his word and did their upmost to spread happiness and yet he allows this to happen. God having forseen this happining could have changed it, could have stopped such a thing happening but he hasnt? Now either God doesnt care or God doesnt exist. and its in those moments you have to make that choice, annoyingly thats only put forward when something horrific like that happens.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
Is it? Get it to the atom level? Is it different? Oxygen, hydrogen....CARBON.
You are really confused. Chemically, we and dirt are not at ALL the same. We are made up of the same elements, sure...but that doesn't not mean we're the SAME. To go from dead flesh to dirt requires numerous chemical processes involving decomposition.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
Oh, you can produce all the evidence you want, but you will never be able to actually disprove God's existence.
Sorry, Blob, I will try not to use links unless I really have to. You have a good point there.

Depends where you think the burden of proof lies, STOpandthink.
From an atheists viewpoint, I don't feel I have to disprove the existence of god, no more than I feel the need to disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny.
It is theists who claim a supernatural deity(s) exists, so by all normal rules of logical debate the burden of proof falls upon them. It's up to those making the claim to produce some evidence that shows their belief in an invisible god is based on more than faith and hope.

Loki
Now either God doesnt care or God doesnt exist. and its in those moments you have to make that choice, annoyingly thats only put forward when something horrific like that happens
Or (there is a third option) we just don't know why God let that happen. We know so little, it's silly to say: "Oh, this was bad. God should not have done that." Sure it's sad to see righteous people get raped or killed, but they will be in Heaven, and that is all that matters. "Set your eyes on things eternal."
BorgHunter:
You are really confused. Chemically, we and dirt are not at ALL the same. We are made up of the same elements, sure...but that doesn't not mean we're the SAME. To go from dead flesh to dirt requires numerous chemical processes involving decomposition
I am not saying we are the same. I am just trying to make a point that God making man out of dust is not that crazy once you think about it. The basic components are the same.
Also, if that Aboginesis....whatever, thing is true, then dust turned into cells, cells into organisms,...evolution, and Bam--human being.
crossova:
From an atheists viewpoint, I don't feel I have to disprove the existence of god, no more than I feel the need to disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny.
Absolutely! I know exactly what you are saying. Like I said many-a-times before: atheists start with a blank slate and add things only when enough evidence is produced. The problem is, there aren't enough evidence to believe in God, not scientific ones anyways. You just have to realize that He is there. It's called faith.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
Or (there is a third option) we just don't know why God let that happen. We know so little, it's silly to say: "Oh, this was bad. God should not have done that." Sure it's sad to see righteous people get raped or killed, but they will be in Heaven, and that is all that matters. "Set your eyes on things eternal."


Once again Stop, you and I have strangely similar views on god.

In a sense I don't have a problem with suffering.

If god was merely all-loving and all-powerful then the existance of suffering would be an absurdity. But if god is also above logic and reason then absurdities should be expected to occur.

The problem is that logic is required for such basic concepts as identity and without it we should expect such nonsense as things being not what they are. The danger for you theists in all of this is that heaven might just as easily be hell.

I think you just confused yourself...and me too.
God is sooooooo infinite, we can't really tell anything about Him, except what He said Himself. We can't even imagine what it's like being God, or what His "thoughts" are, or His "feelings". Also He is unchangeable, so that by itself is like...wow...
He is above logic, but as I said before, for our sakes, He makes it logical. The problem is, we don't have the same data/knowledge He has, so some of His choices seem illogical to us.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
I think you just confused yourself...and me too.
God is sooooooo infinite, we can't really tell anything about Him, except what He said Himself. We can't even imagine what it's like being God, or what His "thoughts" are, or His "feelings". Also He is unchangeable, so that by itself is like...wow...
He is above logic, but as I said before, for our sakes, He makes it logical. The problem is, we don't have the same data/knowledge He has, so some of His choices seem illogical to us.

That basically just explained why the bible is a waste of time.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
I think you just confused yourself...and me too.

At the risk of blowing my own trumpet, I felt my post made a simple point in plain English.

No, Loki, I don't see why the Bible is a waste of time. It tells us the history and the things we need to know. Can you, perhaps, enlighten me as to why you think that way?

Its not History, thats 1.

It causes War, Hate, Pain & Suffering.. thats 2

Its an unproved fiction book that teaches people to shed themselves of the very things that makes them human.. thats 3

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Yeh see this is what annoys me, and its only when say your brother, sister,daughter or son etc get murdered, raped and left somewhere do you think... Well hang on, why did GOD allow this to happen to them? They worshipped him, spread his word and did their upmost to spread happiness and yet he allows this to happen. God having forseen this happining could have changed it, could have stopped such a thing happening but he hasnt? Now either God doesnt care or God doesnt exist. and its in those moments you have to make that choice, annoyingly thats only put forward when something horrific like that happens.

Hey Loki, I was just browsing through and saw this post. Yes I agree with you somewhat, but for a christian this is where we lean on our faith the most. In the difficult times that we cannot explain. Myself being a christian just figure its all part of Gods plan, its bigger then me to try to figure out. You see I believe God has a plan for each of us, so when we have fufilled that plan, maybe it just time to go. I am not even sure if I have explained this well, but I can tell you its, easy to say but harder to practice when push comes to shove.

Its not History, thats 1.

It causes War, Hate, Pain & Suffering.. thats 2

Its an unproved fiction book that teaches people to shed themselves of the very things that makes them human.. thats 3
1. Sure is.
2. People cause it, a book is passive.
3. I wasn't proved fiction either. All it teaches is for people to love God and other people. I guess you are not familiar with brother love, Loki.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
1. Sure is.
If a history book contained talking donkeys, talking bushes on fire, and people turning water into wine, it would be laughed into oblivion...
2. People cause it, a book is passive.
It seems (according to the Bible) that God has caused a whole hell of a lot of suffering.
All it teaches is for people to love God and other people.
It is unfortunate that the Bible's version of "love" involves condemning people left and right to hell, and calling people "wicked"...