Evidence for God

[Simon Woodstock]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Simon, how old to you believe the Earth is?

From reading you, I know you're into apologetics, but I'm trying to figure out what flavor.

[close]

I am brushing up on my Physics these days and I am re-confirmed on a young universe/earth. Although, I do believe that the time continuum as we know it was not established until the third day of creation, so therefore that needs to be taken into account when studying the historical development of the cosmos.

How about you? are you into a specific branch of philosophy and/or do you have a certain influence as far as physics goes?

[close]

I don't subscribe to any particular philosophy outside of humanism, but even then I'm not academic about it. As for physics, too many names to list.

Having said, my question was "how old do you believe the Earth is?"

[close]

Well, we have to get into the physics a bit here, as I do believe, after day 3 in the the Genesis creation account anyways, that the earth is under 100,000 years old. But, I do think that the theory of General Relativity has to be taken into consideration, especially in the first three days of the Gen. account. It is then that 'time dilation' needs to be factored in to explain certain characteristics of the cosmos.

Another question, though. As a humanist, are you also a materialist? That is, do you believe that everything that has existence in the cosmos is comprised solely of matter?

[close]

1. It doesn't really take a a lot of physics to understand that if the earth were under 100,000 years old, we wouldn't be able to see objects in space that are millions(+) light years away from us. The light wouldn't have made it here yet. Hell, that's simply basic astronomy, that's not even considering other scientific disciplines like geology and archaeology, among others.

2. Humanism is a personal philosophy... as far as a being a materialist, I tend to lean towards all observable things being based on particles directly (like matter), or fields (like gravity, as the existence of gravitons {a proposed particle responsible for gravity} still has yet to graduate into a full on scientific theory). Also, if we're talking about *everything* in the cosmos, the issue of dark matter and dark energy (which really needs a new label) come into play... we can observe the effects of both. I tend to lean towards dark matter being particle based, and dark energy being similar, though the particles may not have mass, but to that, it's strictly conjecture.

I wouldn't classify my understanding as "materialist" so much as I would better identify as a naturalist.

Fair enough, but you missed my points on General Relativity and time dilation. There are two ways that the travel of starlight can be explained according to Genesis. One is that they are simply age dating factors, that is, put in place with the appearance of age (much like how Adam and Eve were created as grown humans, trees were created as fully matured rather than seeds, etc.).

Nevertheless, I don't think creationists are necessarily locked into this box at all. According to General Relativity and in further accordance with the attending time dilation, before day 3 in Genesis 1, the heavens were being 'stretched out' by God, and, just as we see different gravitational pulls in the Universe today, these pulls would have a direct effect on how time was being meaded out in the earliest stages of the universe.

In short, 100,000 years or less passed here on earth during the Genesis creation week, but the time out in the early Universe as it was being stretched out and formed was (and still is) relative to the local gravitational pulls of the cosmos and came forth in much longer stretches of time based on Relativity.

There is obviously a lot more to explain here (and I can spell out my further understanding of the model, if you are interested).

But, what is problematic is the Big Bang model of origins (especially outside of the context of Genesis as a guide). The two problems that come to mind are the impossibility of a valid naturalistic explanation for a cosmic singularity that would bring all time, matter, and space into existence out of nothing. And how, since there is much inhomogeneous clumping of galaxies together this counters the uniformity of distribution that would be present if the Big Bang were true. That is, if the Big Bang model were correct, the galaxies would not be in clumps but would rather have homogenous distribution throughout the universe. This Galaxy clustering (and many other factors) are evidence against the purported uniformed 'cosmological principle' that the Big Bang model relies on. If these cannot be answered, then folks are simply assuming the Big Bang model to be true without supporting its claims.

I am open to hear any explanations you may have for these (and other problems) with Big Bang cosmology. And, conversely, I am hoping that you would be willing to look further into the Relativity/Time-dilation Genesis model put forth by noted particle physicists, D. Russel Humphries:

Here is the briefest summarization of this cosmology that i am aware of:

The bottom line (in my understanding)m is that the Bible is true as far as origins are concerned, and Humphries' model not only coincides with Einstein's' theories of Relativity, but also coincides and affirms the Bible that says:

"He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." Job 9:8

(PS: Thank you for cracking the door open further on this aspect of discussion, I would love to continue as time permits. Have a good weekend, BTW)

[Simon Woodstock]

Woodstock, what do you have to say about the discipline of paleoanthropology which deals with archaic human fossils from neanderthals, denisovans, erectus, sediba, australopithecus, ardipithecus and others? According to scientists in that field, our species has been around at least 250,000 years. Anyone who studies evolution would say the earth has been supporting life for far longer than creationists believe.

In short, much of this purported paleontological evidence is suspect. and there has been a book authored called "Bones of Contention" that refutes the work done in this field that has been used to try to support evolution. If you would be willing to read the book, I would buy you a copy and send it to your house (PM me if interested and/or please do continue to put forth purported evidences in this regard).

Bottom line, evolutionary paleontologists go into their research with the presupposition that humans evolved from apes over millions of years, so they simply crunch their data to support their presuppositions (Note: presuppositions are unavoidable when doing research, but the evolutionary presuppositions continue to go unsupported, but rather 'shouted' by evolutionary scientists in spite of the evidence)

[Simon Woodstock]

^
I want to believe in that more than, "God."

If God exists (which I believe evidence and faith support His existence) then, practically speaking, you cannot believe in more than God. He is infinite, there is no being or thing is existence larger than Him.

[Simon Woodstock]

one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.

Christianity is actually the solution to self centeredness (or, it can and ought to be applied this way). If evolution were true, why not get all that you can while on this earth? But, since God exists and sent His son to die for the sins of the world, once you trust in Him you can then, out of sheer thankfulness for that loving sacrifice, serve others rather than ourselves in humility. Also knowing that man is not the highest intellect, but God is, and He ought to be worshiped in humility because of this.

This is the essence of John 3:16

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Are we good enough on our own? ...

[Simon Woodstock]

please answer my heaven questions.

Heaven is pretty amazing and is one of the truly awesome aspects of the Christian faith. Heaven is a place of no death, no sorrow, no pain, no grief, etc. Christians can sleep well at night knowing they are going there for eternity.

Here is a brief article/explanation of what Heaven is like from gotquestions.org

Question: "What is Heaven like?"

Answer: Heaven is a real place described in the Bible. The word ?heaven? is found 276 times in the New Testament alone. Scripture refers to three heavens. The apostle Paul was ?caught up to the third heaven,? but he was prohibited from revealing what he experienced there (2 Corinthians 12:1-9).

If a third heaven exists, there must also be two other heavens. The first is most frequently referred to in the Old Testament as the ?sky? or the ?firmament.? This is the heaven that contains clouds, the area that birds fly through. The second heaven is interstellar/outer space, which is the abode of the stars, planets, and other celestial objects (Genesis 1:14-18).

The third heaven, the location of which is not revealed, is the dwelling place of God. Jesus promised to prepare a place for true Christians in heaven (John 14:2). Heaven is also the destination of Old Testament saints who died trusting God's promise of the Redeemer (Ephesians 4:. Whoever believes in Christ shall never perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).

The apostle John was privileged to see and report on the heavenly city (Revelation 21:10-27). John witnessed that heaven (the new earth) possesses the ?glory of God? (Revelation 21:11), the very presence of God. Because heaven has no night and the Lord Himself is the light, the sun and moon are no longer needed (Revelation 22:5).

The city is filled with the brilliance of costly stones and crystal clear jasper. Heaven has twelve gates (Revelation 21:12) and twelve foundations (Revelation 21:14). The paradise of the Garden of Eden is restored: the river of the water of life flows freely and the tree of life is available once again, yielding fruit monthly with leaves that ?heal the nations? (Revelation 22:1-2). However eloquent John was in his description of heaven, the reality of heaven is beyond the ability of finite man to describe (1 Corinthians 2:9).

Heaven is a place of ?no mores.? There will be no more tears, no more pain, and no more sorrow (Revelation 21:4). There will be no more separation, because death will be conquered (Revelation 20:6). The best thing about heaven is the presence of our Lord and Savior (1 John 3:2). We will be face to face with the Lamb of God who loved us and sacrificed Himself so that we can enjoy His presence in heaven for eternity.

https://www.gotquestions.org/heaven-like.html

[Simon Woodstock]

Then once you've convinced me of the existence of the Christian God, we can start talking about if the Christian God is good or moral for any reason other than declaring himself to be so. (Spoiler: he is not.)

By what standard would you be basing/determining the Christian God to be either moral (i.e., good) or not moral (i.e., evil)?

[Simon Woodstock]

Well shit I guess I believe in god now...

Cool, man. See you at Church on Sunday?

[Simon Woodstock]

stop trying to prove faith based beliefs. the whole point is that you have faith and don't have to burden yourself with logic and rational thought.

It's a faith founded on fact. And, it's beneficial to others, so I share.

[Simon Woodstock]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

guess computers have souls and also prove the existence of god

disabled comments because that guys a pussy

[close]

Computers are programmed, which proves they have a programer.  This has illustrative purposes in that just as the complex information in computers has been programmed, so has the complex DNA in biological life been programmed by an intelligent programmer.

Also, minds (such as in humans) would necessarily come to be (that is, have been caused to exist) by an uncaused Mind, that is God.

[close]

By your own logic, why don't you just believe that the whole universe (that is everything you believe to exist) isn't just a complex simulation/program? Wouldn't that make more logical sense than some fairy tale/santa claus ...

Well, who programmed the program/simulation, then? There would have to be a programmer (i.e., God). that is the point of the illustration, and, it is valid.

[Simon Woodstock]

In 4th grade, some kid found a potato chip that kind of looked like Jesus, so I ate it. Sorry for eating the only evidence of God.

Any of those "evidences" that you see are obviously fake/folklore (Jesus appearing in toast and said toast being sold on ebay, etc.)

[Simon Woodstock]

Pretty good evidence for God.



Are you a good person?

Here is the original post I made. Somewhere back in the thread, I thought I had seen someone post that a lot of this religious discussion is riddled with jargon, etc, etc, and seems pretty futile.

Every discipline has it's terms, but I think sometimes the main point can get lost in the discussion.

Friends, towards the end of the 90s, I was out of my mind, miserable, depressed, addicted, anxious, and the like. All the perks of skateboarding had become seemingly futile. There was no joy in it at all. I had committed sin after sin, and was burdened down by those sins. With no where to put them, I tried bearing the burden myself to no avail. Also, I knew I was going to hell.

But, people had reached out to me about Jesus over the years. I went up to Lance Mountain after I had had a hard night out on the town in Vancouver at the Slam City Jam, and he laid it out for me. He basically said that living for Satan and the world leads to despair; the implication being that living for God and Jesus Christ would lead to everlasting life.

I trusted Christ for salvation over 17 years ago, and the only thing I regret about that is that I didn't do it sooner (I borrowed this last line from Jamie Thomas, but it rings true in my life as well).

All I ask is that you consider it. And, please know I do appreciate the time you are spending in discussion.

What is more, anyone who desires to can message me at [email protected]

If you need prayer or anything.

Shalom.

[ChuckRamone]

Expand Quote

one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.

[close]

Christianity is actually the solution to self centeredness (or, it can and ought to be applied this way). If evolution were true, why not get all that you can while on this earth? But, since God exists and sent His son to die for the sins of the world, once you trust in Him you can then, out of sheer thankfulness for that loving sacrifice, serve others rather than ourselves in humility. Also knowing that man is not the highest intellect, but God is, and He ought to be worshiped in humility because of this.

This is the essence of John 3:16

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Are we good enough on our own? ...

no matter what, our view of the world is human centric. but the religious view of the world is human centric on steroids, rife with delusion, denial, fantasy, subjectivity, arbitrariness, fallacies, bias, etc. and has no qualms about it and is absolutely unwilling to account for it.

[grimcity]

1. It doesn't really take a a lot of physics to understand that if the earth were under 100,000 years old, we wouldn't be able to see objects in space that are millions(+) light years away from us. The light wouldn't have made it here yet. Hell, that's simply basic astronomy, that's not even considering other scientific disciplines like geology and archaeology, among others.

2. Humanism is a personal philosophy... as far as a being a materialist, I tend to lean towards all observable things being based on particles directly (like matter), or fields (like gravity, as the existence of gravitons {a proposed particle responsible for gravity} still has yet to graduate into a full on scientific theory). Also, if we're talking about *everything* in the cosmos, the issue of dark matter and dark energy (which really needs a new label) come into play... we can observe the effects of both. I tend to lean towards dark matter being particle based, and dark energy being similar, though the particles may not have mass, but to that, it's strictly conjecture.

I wouldn't classify my understanding as "materialist" so much as I would better identify as a naturalist.

Fair enough, but you missed my points on General Relativity and time dilation. There are two ways that the travel of starlight can be explained according to Genesis. One is that they are simply age dating factors, that is, put in place with the appearance of age (much like how Adam and Eve were created as grown humans, trees were created as fully matured rather than seeds, etc.).

Nevertheless, I don't think creationists are necessarily locked into this box at all. According to General Relativity and in further accordance with the attending time dilation, before day 3 in Genesis 1, the heavens were being 'stretched out' by God, and, just as we see different gravitational pulls in the Universe today, these pulls would have a direct effect on how time was being meaded out in the earliest stages of the universe.

In short, 100,000 years or less passed here on earth during the Genesis creation week, but the time out in the early Universe as it was being stretched out and formed was (and still is) relative to the local gravitational pulls of the cosmos and came forth in much longer stretches of time based on Relativity.

There is obviously a lot more to explain here (and I can spell out my further understanding of the model, if you are interested).

But, what is problematic is the Big Bang model of origins (especially outside of the context of Genesis as a guide). The two problems that come to mind are the impossibility of a valid naturalistic explanation for a cosmic singularity that would bring all time, matter, and space into existence out of nothing. And how, since there is much inhomogeneous clumping of galaxies together this counters the uniformity of distribution that would be present if the Big Bang were true. That is, if the Big Bang model were correct, the galaxies would not be in clumps but would rather have homogenous distribution throughout the universe. This Galaxy clustering (and many other factors) are evidence against the purported uniformed 'cosmological principle' that the Big Bang model relies on. If these cannot be answered, then folks are simply assuming the Big Bang model to be true without supporting its claims.

I am open to hear any explanations you may have for these (and other problems) with Big Bang cosmology. And, conversely, I am hoping that you would be willing to look further into the Relativity/Time-dilation Genesis model put forth by noted particle physicists, D. Russel Humphries:

Here is the briefest summarization of this cosmology that i am aware of:

The bottom line (in my understanding)m is that the Bible is true as far as origins are concerned, and Humphries' model not only coincides with Einstein's' theories of Relativity, but also coincides and affirms the Bible that says:

"He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." Job 9:8

(PS: Thank you for cracking the door open further on this aspect of discussion, I would love to continue as time permits. Have a good weekend, BTW)

Billionths of a second after the "big bang," the universe as it was at the time was pretty homogenous. Galaxies and most elements came millions of years later, as stars started from the beginning of the periodic table and eventually gave rise to more elemental/chemically complex nuclear reactors. With that, we saw the development of various localized gravitational fields that account for everything from solar systems to galaxy clusters (completely consistent with thermodynamics).

To think that the universe poofed into existence with the various types of stars fully formed (close to Earth), then stretched out, pulling stars away from the Earth, just doesn't make any sense (as Humphreys goes into). While there is cosmic expansion, what you and he are actually proposing is that everything was stretched way from this planet at a speed faster than light, and we're essentially looking at things in space the way we predict we'd see things on a black hole's event horizon (the holographic principle). It doesn't make sense that everything would be pulled away from everything else so quickly from this planet, then slowed down into the current rate of cosmic expansion (an expansion that does go faster than the speed of light outside of the observable universe, coinciding with relativity). If the supernatural "stretching" had occurred (using time dilation), our daytime and nighttime sky would be blindingly flooded with light.

His "timeless zone" hypothesis is frankly insane. He's twisting logic like a pretzel... he's saying that the stars moved away at the speed of light (which would have taken billions of years), but also claiming that there was no time, ignoring the fact that space and time are intertwined. I'd also add that his idea that the universe being geocentric is utter rubbish. Space expands at every point, not just away from our planet. If we were at any other location in space, we'd see the same relative expansion, and we'd see it expand exponentially until that space (beyond the visible universe) reached a relative speed faster than light.

The problem with pseudo-academic creationists is that hypotheses have to be force-fit into a presupposition, up to the point that the respective hypothesis becomes so convoluted and absurd that it invalidates itself. If you ignore the scientific method, it's not science at all.

[grimcity]

Expand Quote

Woodstock, what do you have to say about the discipline of paleoanthropology which deals with archaic human fossils from neanderthals, denisovans, erectus, sediba, australopithecus, ardipithecus and others? According to scientists in that field, our species has been around at least 250,000 years. Anyone who studies evolution would say the earth has been supporting life for far longer than creationists believe.

[close]

In short, much of this purported paleontological evidence is suspect. and there has been a book authored called "Bones of Contention" that refutes the work done in this field that has been used to try to support evolution. If you would be willing to read the book, I would buy you a copy and send it to your house (PM me if interested and/or please do continue to put forth purported evidences in this regard).

Bottom line, evolutionary paleontologists go into their research with the presupposition that humans evolved from apes over millions of years, so they simply crunch their data to support their presuppositions (Note: presuppositions are unavoidable when doing research, but the evolutionary presuppositions continue to go unsupported, but rather 'shouted' by evolutionary scientists in spite of the evidence)

This is a maddening misrepresentation of the the study of evolution. Presuppositions in the studies of paleo researchers, geologists, and biologists are based on data, and when data is revealed to be false or incorrect, the scientific method and peer review addresses it and updates that data accordingly.

There's no debate in science that we evolved from a common ancestor. Not because of presuppositions, but because of overwhelming evidence in several fields of study.

[oyolar]

Expand Quote

Then once you've convinced me of the existence of the Christian God, we can start talking about if the Christian God is good or moral for any reason other than declaring himself to be so. (Spoiler: he is not.)

[close]

By what standard would you be basing/determining the Christian God to be either moral (i.e., good) or not moral (i.e., evil)?

The standard is the Bible in which he commands his followers to slaughter other people and covilzations merelt  they don't follow or believe in the Juseo-Christian god. That's not what I think a moral or just person would do because I don't think that bigotry is a moral standing.

Regarding your anti-abortion/pro-SLED argument, it's a gross simplification that shows an inability to deal with any level of nuance.

And it's hilarious that you accuse people that disagree with you of arguing from a position of disbelief when all you're doing is arguing from a position of belief. And funny that you ignored the rest of my comment critiquing your logic and pointing out the inherent flaws in your arguments - along with calling you out for your inability to show objective support for all of your "obvious" solutions.

Basically man, if you believe this, fine. But don't come here to preach it. We all appreciate you as a skater and your history and perspective on that world and we're happy to hear it but this is not a place to evangelize.

[brycickle]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I simply think it is inconsistent to be vegan/vegetarian and also be pro-abortion. You have indicated that you also see the inconsistency there.

Pro-choice isn't the same thing as pro-abortion.

[fulltechnicalskizzy]

I'm pro-choice but only if the choice is to get an abortion and then eat the fetus. Fair is fair.

[FrenchFriedClownFingers]

this is prolly gonna sound dumb, do bare in mind i am two 40z deep but i always thought if there were a god that we exist inside of it, kind of like how all the cells in our bodies make us. maybe we're the good and bad voices inside it's head and maybe it's a great awareness we live in.

[ungzilla]

goddamn this guy is a fucking idiot

[Gray Imp Sausage Metal]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I simply think it is inconsistent to be vegan/vegetarian and also be pro-abortion. You have indicated that you also see the inconsistency there.

Nevertheless, the handful of arguments that you have put forth that would support abortion are, in my understanding, mostly suspect.

Well if you look at my own personal actions and behaviors then you'll see that I actually AM consistent. Case in point: when I found out my wife had fallen pregnant I certainly wasn't ready for parenthood (for a plethora of reasons) and neither was she, we talked about the issue at great length though and seeing as that we are both vegan/ pro-animal rights, we decided not to abort because it would be an unnecessary death that neither of us needed to cause (it was also ended up being the best thing that ever happened to us). In this case, we didn't terminate and in our daily lives we choose not to consume animal products and thus are consistent in our actions no?
Now, do I believe the world should be forced to go vegan? Absolutely not, the same way I don't believe every fertilized human ovary needs to be forced into the world. I brought up rape, incest and a few other valid exceptions to the rule in my initial post, do you honestly believe that women who are raped should be forced to give birth to that child? If so, I'd love to hear your justifications on that one...

The 'woman's body' argument fails because from the time of conception, a fertilized ovum is its own 46 chromosomal entity, and it therefore its very own person (i.e., it is not the woman/mother, and, in about 50% of the cases its actually a male).
And, the judicial laws and rules of societal behavior in general also apply to women, so authorities and other citizens tell women (and men) what to do all the time, such as obey traffic laws, or pay your bill at a restaurant, etc. So people tell women what to do with their 'bodies' and lives every day without any controversy. The point being that it is unfounded to just pull that argument out of the hat and try to apply it to so-called abortion rights.
Even more to this point, it was a bunch of men on the supreme court that ruled in favor of abortion in the Roe v. Wade decision, thus it was men telling women that they could subject their bodies (as well as the bodies of the unborn) to abortion procedures. Where is the cry of injustice of men telling women what they can do via Roe v. Wade? There obviously isn't any cry against this. Which is just another example of the inconsistency of the line of argument you are referencing.

ok great, I actually learnt something + I think your argument is pretty solid here (do note though that paying bills, obeying traffic laws etc. AREN'T gender specific whereas the ability to decide what to do with your womb is), but again, what are you going to do in the case of rape/ incest/ possible death of the mother due to child birth? In your personal opinion why do you think Roe v. Wade case ended up ruling in favor of abortion? I don't think you can 100% blanket this issue hence why I'm pro-choice or TLDR:

Pro-choice isn't the same thing as pro-abortion.

basically this x1000! Personally I wouldn't choose to abort in (99% of) cases that involved my family, like I wouldn't personally choose to eat meat, but I understand that not every situation is that black/ white.

Another thing, to attempt to dismiss (although I do realize and appreciate that you are being respectful in this dialogue) my arguments as being outdated because they are Christian (and thus have a tether to ancient times) is actually a logical fallacy. It is called a 'chronological fallacy' and presumes that old truth claims cannot be true because they are old. And, it presumes that all new (or newer) truth claims are by default true (or truer) than the old. This is simply not the cause, a statement can be old or new and be either true or false, based on whether or not the claim accurately expresses the facts of the world.

Again, fine, I wasn't claiming that ALL of your beliefs are not true because they are old, but you specifically made a call out on user: GAY saying he, or other homosexuals, could be "cured" or some shit. That is an outdated mode of thinking and I'm going to call you on your shit when you say things like this!

What is more, to claim that I am not an 'out of the box thinker' is aimed more at me than my arguments, and doesn't really directly address the logic (or purported ill-logic) of what I am saying.  

It was more just some advice to you mate, I know this is your fight now but if you stay too locked in your confirmation bias bubble I think you're going to find it that much harder to convince people of your actual "message". Of course overly emotional vegans also suffer the same fate, funny that...

Notwithstanding, I personally think you are in a decent spot as far as the consistency of your views on diet/abortion go. But, I would say that it would be good to consider the pro-life argument further.

Just about every argument in favor of abortion can be refuted by the means of establishing the human personhood of the unborn from the time of conception.

Okay let's pretend for a second I am 100% on board with you as a pro-lifer (and I've actually demonstrated this through my actions), you still haven't outlined why you think it's justifiable for humans to needlessly slaughter 60 billion sentient creatures every year when one your god's most famous teachings is "thou shall not kill". thou is killing no?
Please indicate the trait that unborn fetuses possess, and that animals lack, that make you so adamant about protecting the life of one and not the other!
Just about every argument in favor of eating meat can be refuted with a simple discussion of ethics

[Pigeon]

goddamn this guy is a fucking idiot

Yup. Why is anyone even arguing with him?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

who would have thought that a guy that skated a aquarium would be a total nutcase?

cool if religion works for you, but keep those beliefs to yourself.

[GAY]

Does anybody else but me ever wonder about the fact that the bible says gold has value in heaven?

[CRAILFISH TO REVERT]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

guess computers have souls and also prove the existence of god

disabled comments because that guys a pussy

[close]

Computers are programmed, which proves they have a programer.  This has illustrative purposes in that just as the complex information in computers has been programmed, so has the complex DNA in biological life been programmed by an intelligent programmer.

Also, minds (such as in humans) would necessarily come to be (that is, have been caused to exist) by an uncaused Mind, that is God.

[close]

By your own logic, why don't you just believe that the whole universe (that is everything you believe to exist) isn't just a complex simulation/program? Wouldn't that make more logical sense than some fairy tale/santa claus ...

[close]

Well, who programmed the program/simulation, then? There would have to be a programmer (i.e., God). that is the point of the illustration, and, it is valid.

I get the illustration, but it doesn't make sense because we know in the bible that it says the earth, heavens and man, were created by God in a very specific manner..and at this point, knowing what we know about how the world around us works, it just doesn't seem logical or believable at all.

A more believable 'creator' scenario .. The cosmos was created ie:simulated, by a team of programmers. They based the simulation on the world around them (which is also a simulation, previously created). And so.. we live inside one of a seemingly infinite number of embedded simulations.  Your God is simply a story told inside that simulation. Eventually perhaps we will have the knowledge and technology to create yet another expanding, evolving universe simulation, very similar to the one we live in.

I am not saying that this is what i believe, I am saying it's more believable than the Christian God explanation.

[4LOM]

A more believable 'creator' scenario .. The cosmos was created ie:simulated, by a team of programmers. They based the simulation on the world around them (which is also a simulation, previously created). And so.. we live inside one of a seemingly infinite number of embedded simulations.  Your God is simply a story told inside that simulation. Eventually perhaps we will have the knowledge and technology to create yet another expanding, evolving universe simulation, very similar to the one we live in.

I am not saying that this is what i believe, I am saying it's more believable than the Christian God explanation.

Since inhabitants of simulated worlds are massively deceived and some suffer horrendously, wouldn't moral concerns outweigh any goods that come from the simulations?

Simulation projects are going to have a hard time passing IRB reviews.

[Pigeon]

Does anybody else but me ever wonder about the fact that the bible says gold has value in heaven?

What are the exchange rates?

[QueeferMadness]

see what god did to us man?

[GAY]

Expand Quote

Does anybody else but me ever wonder about the fact that the bible says gold has value in heaven?

[close]

What are the exchange rates?

1 dubloon = eternal salvation

[Simon Woodstock]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Woodstock, what do you have to say about the discipline of paleoanthropology which deals with archaic human fossils from neanderthals, denisovans, erectus, sediba, australopithecus, ardipithecus and others? According to scientists in that field, our species has been around at least 250,000 years. Anyone who studies evolution would say the earth has been supporting life for far longer than creationists believe.

[close]

There's no debate in science that we evolved from a common ancestor. Not because of presuppositions, but because of overwhelming evidence in several fields of study.

[close]

There is quite a debate, its just a matter of if you are willing to listen to it. And, everyone has presuppositions in research. It's just a matter of if the presuppositions are correct. The "evidence" for evolution is far from overwhelming, it is actually quite suspect but Atheists hang on to the theory for dear life as it is the only other (somewhat) viable option to Creation.

[Simon Woodstock]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.

[close]

Christianity is actually the solution to self centeredness (or, it can and ought to be applied this way). If evolution were true, why not get all that you can while on this earth? But, since God exists and sent His son to die for the sins of the world, once you trust in Him you can then, out of sheer thankfulness for that loving sacrifice, serve others rather than ourselves in humility. Also knowing that man is not the highest intellect, but God is, and He ought to be worshiped in humility because of this.

This is the essence of John 3:16

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Are we good enough on our own? ...

[close]

no matter what, our view of the world is human centric. but the religious view of the world is human centric on steroids, rife with delusion, denial, fantasy, subjectivity, arbitrariness, fallacies, bias, etc. and has no qualms about it and is absolutely unwilling to account for it.

I respectfully disagree with you on the matter.