I thought it was the atheists who were trying to prove God doesn't exist. :)

It's impossible to disprove God fully in the same way that we can not disprove Santa Clause but we can apply logic and reason by looking at the evidence and be 99.999999% certain.

I thought it was the atheists who were trying to prove God doesn't exist. :)

Au contraire, Grahame - we have nothing to prove. The burden of proof is with the believers, as has been said many, many times now.

Good luck!

It's impossible to disprove God fully in the same way that we can not disprove Santa Clause but we can apply logic and reason by looking at the evidence and be 99.999999% certain.

Great signature BTW Mercenary :thumbsup:

It's impossible to disprove God fully in the same way that we can not disprove Santa Clause but we can apply logic and reason by looking at the evidence and be 99.999999% certain.

What do you mean Santa Clause does not exist, he is alive and well and going by another name.

What do you mean Santa Clause does not exist, he is alive and well and going by another name.

Is he the guy selling cheese? I'm confused...

Still, to remain on topic, I'm with the others who insist that the burden of proof is with the believers as they are the ones claiming something exists. Bear in mind, however, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations.

Is he the guy selling cheese? I'm confused...

Still, to remain on topic, I'm with the others who insist that the burden of proof is with the believers as they are the ones claiming something exists. Bear in mind, however, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations.

Although our origins can be traced back billions of years we DO exist and in monotheism the single God is the "Creator God".

Because the cosmos exist, the 'Creator' exists.

Although our origins can be traced back billions of years we DO exist and in monotheism the single God is the "Creator God".

Because the cosmos exist, the 'Creator' exists.







Hail the free thinkers. England is free from the chains of religion, and we will stay free:hihi:


God/Allah was a very lucrative sales gimmick. It also produced some of the worlds best salesmen. Their blind faith philosophy kept the money rolling in .The side effects of blind faith were psychosis and dodoism.
Seemingly, millions are coming out of that psychosis and the blind faith
'business' is beginning to wilt in Europe

http://com4.runboard.com/bcoventryalternativeforums.f6

Is he the guy selling cheese? I'm confused...

Still, to remain on topic, I'm with the others who insist that the burden of proof is with the believers as they are the ones claiming something exists. Bear in mind, however, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations.

Hi Little Buzz- but would that also not mean that athiests/evolutionists need to prove of macro evolution - that man evolved (and if he did, why are we not witnessing anymore)?? Why has it stopped? Or fossil records appearing all complete, suddenly, no signs of gradual changes (from what has been discovered I understand). Where is the proof WE evolved?? Unless i have missed something, there is no proof (?)

This whole thread has been blown wide open- but at least it has been kept in reasonably good manner.

What do you mean Santa Clause does not exist, he is alive and well and going by another name.

Exactly right I am glad you understand, you can not prove that something exists I think that's the first thing you have ever backed down on during this thread!

Because the cosmos exist, the 'Creator' exists.

That thought comes to your mind first because you come from the pre-set of thinking that there is a creator. Your argument can only stand if you accept the premise that "existence was created by a conscious being", but there is no reason to make that assumption. Here's a quote from an acqutance of mine.

Has any one witnessed the creation of a planet.
Has any one witnessed the creation of an animal, plant or person.

No, no-one has ever observed such a thing. So what is obvious for manufactured objects can't be imeadiatly transferred to the natural world.

Astronomers feel that they ARE witnessing the birth of stars. Biologists have evidence pertaining to the origin of moder species, and there is the beginnings of understanding of how life arouse. None of these things required a maker to understand them.

So natural things happen differentely than man made things. Why is this surprising?

Exactly right I am glad you understand, you can not prove that something exists I think that's the first thing you have ever backed down on during this thread!



That thought comes to your mind first because you come from the pre-set of thinking that there is a creator. Your argument can only stand if you accept the premise that "existence was created by a conscious being", but there is no reason to make that assumption. Here's a quote from an acqutance of mine.

Quote:
Has any one witnessed the creation of a planet.
Has any one witnessed the creation of an animal, plant or person.

No, no-one has ever observed such a thing. So what is obvious for manufactured objects can't be imeadiatly transferred to the natural world.

Astronomers feel that they ARE witnessing the birth of stars. Biologists have evidence pertaining to the origin of moder species, and there is the beginnings of understanding of how life arouse. None of these things required a maker to understand them.

Has anyone witnessed evolution? I think when you say no one has witnessed the creation of a person/animal/plant- but we have and do. The human/animal foetus that can be seen developing and eventually we see it come out in front of our very eyes- that is creation IMO.

Great signature BTW Mercenary :thumbsup:

Thanks! Its by Dan Barker a former evangelist and now an author & critic. I recommened his book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist.

Has anyone witnessed evolution? I think when you say no one has witnessed the creation of a person/animal/plant- but we have and do. The human/animal foetus that can be seen developing and eventually we see it come out in front of our very eyes- that is creation IMO.

Its certainly creating life but I would call that reproduction. As for evolution, unless a person can live for millions of years you wouldn't be able to witness it. But given the amazing range of species on earth and the fossils being discovered, DNA mapping and other research logically this seems to be more likely than a god creating everything in an instance (as this has no evidence).

Has anyone witnessed evolution? I think when you say no one has witnessed the creation of a person/animal/plant- but we have and do. The human/animal foetus that can be seen developing and eventually we see it come out in front of our very eyes- that is creation IMO.

Do you understand the time scales involved with evolution?

Exactly right I am glad you understand, you can not prove that something exists I think that's the first thing you have ever backed down on during this thread!

How do you make "Santa Clause exists" (my earthly father by another name) to mean he does not exist?

Its certainly creating life but I would call that reproduction. As for evolution, unless a person can live for millions of years you wouldn't be able to witness it. But given the amazing range of species on earth and the fossils being discovered, DNA mapping and other research logically this seems to be more likely than a god creating everything in an instance (as this has no evidence).

I agree that there are fossils of course, but what I was saying is that there is no proof to show a mechanism of evolution, as far as I know anyway. That these fossils discovered do not prove evolution as it is fact that the ones I talk about were discovered intact/whole. I accept micro evolution, that God created things in stages, from water etc... but cannot accept MAN was in the same form- ie. the Darwinism thought. A single DNA molecule stores information equivalent to almost a million encyclopedia pages. This wondrous molecule is one of the evident signs of planned creation
Charles Darwin, in his “The Origin of Species” 1859) and “The Descent of Man” 1871), presented his theory of evolution. He presented the theory of the Mechanism of Natural Selection or survival of the fittest. Darwinism maintains that living things were not created but came into being by chance. This is one thing I can not accept- that this whole universe and living matter is here because of 'chance' or natural laws. It is illogical. Its like saying that a huge meteorite hit a scrap yard and once the dust settled, there were a number of cars all brand new and ready to go..

Here's another analogy I read:
Isaac Newton, had invited a scientist-friend of his, a man who professed atheism to dine with him. Seeking to corner his friend with his own arguments, Newton placed a model of the solar system on his table and invited his friend to view it. Upon examining it, Newton’s friend exclaimed, “what a marvellous craftsmanship!” Who fashioned this exquisite model?” Newton replied casually, “This model has no maker, it materialised from nothing.” Disbelief written large on his face, the friend asked, “What do you mean?” To this, Newton smiled and replied, “How can you my friend, insist that this model has to have a maker, while vehemently denying the existence of a divine Creator?”

Moral: If a model of the solar system must have a creator then what about the gigantic solar system itself?

How do you make "Santa Clause exists" (my earthly father by another name) to mean he does not exist?

It's sarcasm on my part. Here's how it plays out-

Me: Santa exists.
You: No he doesn't.
Me: Prove it.
You: It's just a story for children, plus if he was real then the world would know, someone would have seen him!
Me: He's invisible.
You: What!?
Me: Yep, and he can stop time.
You: No he can't!!
Me: Prove it.

Etc etc. That is how you can not prove that something doesn't exist. Just change Santa for God.

It's sarcasm on my part. Here's how it plays out-

Etc etc. That is how you can not prove that something doesn't exist. Just change Santa for God.

You mean change Santa for my Father. If you are trying to say Santa was God then that is plain stupid.

Atheists! I tell you.

I agree that there are fossils of course, but what I was saying is that there is no proof to show a mechanism of evolution, as far as I know anyway. That these fossils discovered do not prove evolution as it is fact that the ones I talk about were discovered intact/whole.
Charles Darwin, in his “The Origin of Species” 1859) and “The Descent of Man” 1871), presented his theory of evolution. He presented the theory of the Mechanism of Natural Selection or survival of the fittest. Darwinism maintains that living things were not created but came into being by chance. This is one thing I can not accept- that this whole universe and living matter is here because of 'chance' or natural laws. It is illogical. Its like saying that a huge meteorite hit a scrap yard and once the dust settled, there were a number of cars all brand new and ready to go..

I agree, but as a theory evolution takes place across millions of years so its impossible to see it first hand. Your final point is the Boeing 474 argument which Dawkins deals with extensivly in his books but here are his main points:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.

3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane" not a "skyhook," for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.

4. The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion.

5. We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.

6. We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer.

You mean change Santa for my Father. If you are trying to say Santa was God then that is plain stupid.

Atheists! I tell you.

Trolling will get you nowhere.

I agree, but as a theory evolution takes place across millions of years so its impossible to see it first hand. Your final point is the Boeing 474 argument which Dawkins deals with extensivly in his books but here are his main points:

3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane" not a "skyhook," for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.


So who does Dawkins say designed the cosmos?

Trolling will get you nowhere.

I'm not trolling. I'm deadly serious. Comparing Father Christmas to God is stupid.

So who does Dawkins say designed the cosmos?

What makes you think it was designed?

What makes you think it was designed?

Well, it can't just have "happened" can it?

Well, it can't just have "happened" can it?

Why not? Message too short

I agree, but as a theory evolution takes place across millions of years so its impossible to see it first hand. Your final point is the Boeing 474 argument which Dawkins deals with extensivly in his books but here are his main points:




Dawkins also says: "Evolution is extremely complex, which is very improbable, believe Evolution.
God is extremely complex, which is very improbable, then reject it."
(from God is Complex, Reject him)

That to me makes no sense.

Why not? Message too short

If the earth just "happened along" by chance then it doesn't need a designer. So why is he asking who designed God?

He has just admitted that things "happen".

So who does Dawkins say designed the cosmos?

Swing and a miss. Once again you fail to understand subtlety, irony or sarcasm. He is saying that to show how the idea of God is redundant.

I'm not trolling. I'm deadly serious. Comparing Father Christmas to God is stupid.

To people who aren't deluded it is. You can't prove either of them don't exist.

Dawkins also says: "Evolution is extremely complex, which is very improbable, believe Evolution.
God is extremely complex, which is very improbable, then reject it."
(from God is Complex, Reject him)

That to me makes no sense.

Yes but as I have said before, evidence for evolution is out there, evidence for God is not. It is logical to believe in the argument that has evidence.

Swing and a miss. Once again you fail to understand subtlety, irony or sarcasm. He is saying that to show how the idea of God is redundant.



To people who aren't deluded it is. You can't prove either of them don't exist.



Yes but as I have said before, evidence for evolution is out there, evidence for God is not. It is logical to believe in the argument that has evidence.

Depends on what type of evolution we are speaking of first- and as for the Universe, everything has a effect and cause ruling doesnt it? There was the big bang- but WHAT caused it? Science (which I support ) helps to explain the 'how' but not the 'Why'.

Swing and a miss. Once again you fail to understand subtlety, irony or sarcasm.


Then he needs to say something that makes sense!

If the earth just "happened along" by chance then it doesn't need a designer. So why is he asking who designed God?

He has just admitted that things "happen".

You misunderstand. If you buy into the universe is designed, the question must also arise of who designed the designer? If you think that the universe just happened the question is not relevant.

You misunderstand. If you buy into the universe is designed, the question must also arise of who designed the designer? If you think that the universe just happened the question is not relevant.

If the Universe is designed. Who for crying out loud designed it?

If the Universe is designed. Who for crying out loud designed it?

It is generally accepted that creationists feel that the universe was designed by one God or another.

I'm not trolling. I'm deadly serious. Comparing Father Christmas to God is stupid.

it's a similar concept:-

"be a good boy and father christmas will reward you!"

"be a good boy and Jesus will reward you!"

It is generally accepted that creationists feel that the universe was designed by one God or another.

I'm talking about scientists and Dawkins in particular. Does he say the universe was designed or did it happen by chance?

Or an even worse possibility for atheists is that he doesn't know and he is talking out of the top of his hat.

it's a similar concept:-

"be a good boy and father christmas will reward you!"

"be a good boy and Jesus will reward you!"

Firstly, as a child I was never threatened in that way, in fact I was never threatened in any way, for which I am very thankful.

As for Jesus, he is there for the vilest person, that is what is so wonderful about Him.

I'm talking about scientists and Dawkins in particular. Does he say the universe was designed or did it happen by chance?

Or an even worse possibility for atheists is that he doesn't know and he is talking out of the top of his hat.

Perhaps for you a more relevant translation of what Darwin had said would be "if God made the universe, what or who made God?" When Darwin talks about a designer he is alluding to God.

I'm talking about scientists and Dawkins in particular. Does he say the universe was designed or did it happen by chance?

Or an even worse possibility for atheists is that he doesn't know and he is talking out of the top of his hat.

Therein lies the difference between believers in some sort of designer and non-believers. The non-believers will accept that there is no proof of the origin of everything whilst the believers need a god myth to hang on to in order to avoid saying "I don't know". Scientists are quite happy to postulate and, when pressed, will admit that they don't have any proof yet. That's the biggy, yet, which believers of some goddy thing cannot subscribe to, they need answers now so rather than wait for empirical proof will offer up a designer to explain what they can't explain.

Who designed god? Man, in order to explain the inexplicable.

You misunderstand. If you buy into the universe is designed, the question must also arise of who designed the designer? If you think that the universe just happened the question is not relevant.

If this hypothesis is applied to existence as a whole, we cannot find a creator of it because each creator must have a creator before that creator, in a never-ending chain. This type of question does not apply logic. And also, if there was more than one creator- this world would be in chaos IMO. Each one fighting the another for supreme control.

It is self-evident that the Creator must be Self-Subsistent and One, without like or equal. If any created being can be said to ‘cause’ anything, that capacity to ‘cause’ was itself created within that being. It is self-evident that things that begin have a cause. Indeed, no science is possible without the law of cause and effect, and the study of history would not make sense if causes do not lead to effects. What is more is that we cannot hold the absurd logical position that the universe created itself, because nothing comes out of nothing!

If this hypothesis is applied to existence as a whole, we cannot find a creator of it because each creator must have a creator before that creator, in a never-ending chain. This type of question does not apply logic. And also, if there was more than one creator- this world would be in chaos IMO. Each one fighting the another for supreme control.

It is self-evident that the Creator must be Self-Subsistent and One, without like or equal. If any created being can be said to ‘cause’ anything, that capacity to ‘cause’ was itself created within that being.

But it is also logic that something can not be created from nothing, so God must have come from somewhere; unless you can just accept him on faith alone.

This also leads to another question, what was God doing before he created the universe?

But it is also logic that something can not be created from nothing, so God must have come from somewhere; unless you can just accept him on faith alone.

This also leads to another question, what was God doing before he created the universe?

Like I said JFKvsNixon, it can become an endless chain. Your first sentance is right that (as I said earlier) nothing can be caused/made from nothing. Everthing we have today has a designer- a PC/mobile/TV etc.. list is endless! The Law of cause and effect must apply. But at the sametime, from my perspective I cannot believe in more than one god, but ONE God based on my own logic -not purely faith.(though this is a fundamental belief of muslims). Take an example of a company, run by two brothers, it will never be perfect and there will always be different of opinions etc and maybe finally one will somehow buy out the other. Likewise, I think if there was more than one god, it would be chaos, not the order we have- which in itself shows me that there is a creator because everthing is running smoothly- just how it needs to be: not by blind forces or 'natural law'; that is illogical. A designer who designs something knows best how that product is to operate- those who use that product have to rely on its instructions- why? Because someone designed it and knows it better than everyone else.
As for the second point, that is not for me to ask or probe- my faith is based on science(that which has been proved) too which does not contradict my beliefs. Quite simple and I prefer it that way. I and no other muslim I know would ask 'what God was doing' before He created the universe. Its absurd.

Therein lies the difference between believers in some sort of designer and non-believers. The non-believers will accept that there is no proof of the origin of everything whilst the believers need a god myth to hang on to in order to avoid saying "I don't know". Scientists are quite happy to postulate and, when pressed, will admit that they don't have any proof yet. That's the biggy, yet, which believers of some goddy thing cannot subscribe to, they need answers now so rather than wait for empirical proof will offer up a designer to explain what they can't explain.

Who designed god? Man, in order to explain the inexplicable.

Who says Christians need proof? Christianity is a faith not a science.

It is scientists who need proof and you have just admitted they don't have any and regardless of their scientific training they jump to conclusions.

As you say scientists are quite happy to postulate, and that is all it is. The trouble is the atheists swallow it hook line and sinker, apparently unquestionably, like babes to the slaughter or lemmings over a cliff, unable to think for themselves.

Perhaps for you a more relevant translation of what Darwin had said would be "if God made the universe, what or who made God?" When Darwin talks about a designer he is alluding to God.

I know that.

Answer my question please. Does Dawkins say the cosmos just happened or does he say it was designed?

Like I said JFKvsNixon, it can become an endless chain. Your first sentance is right that (as I said earlier) nothing can be caused/made from nothing. Everthing we have today has a designer- a PC/mobile/TV etc.. list is endless! The Law of cause and effect must apply. But at the sametime, from my perspective I cannot believe in more than one god, but ONE God based on my own logic -not purely faith.(though this is a fundamental belief of muslims). Take an example of a company, run by two brothers, it will never be perfect and there will always be different of opinions etc and maybe finally one will somehow buy out the other. Likewise, I think if there was more than one god, it would be chaos, not the order we have- which in itself shows me that there is a creator because everthing is running smoothly- just how it needs to be: not by blind forces or 'natural law'; that is illogical. A designer who designs something knows best how that product is to operate- those who use that product have to rely on its instructions- why? Because someone designed it and knows it better than everyone else.
As for the second point, that is not for me to ask or probe- my faith is based on science too which does not contradict my beliefs. Quite simple and I prefer it that way.

I think that the belief that everything has a designer is a man made concept, it is very similar to the notion that everything happens for a reason. I believe that the universe did just happen.

I know that.

Answer my question please. Does Dawkins say the cosmos just happened or does he say it was designed?

I think that Darwin was very much agnostic when it came to God.

Depends on what type of evolution we are speaking of first- and as for the Universe, everything has a effect and cause ruling doesnt it? There was the big bang- but WHAT caused it? Science (which I support ) helps to explain the 'how' but not the 'Why'.

There doesn't have to be a 'why' at least not in the philosophical sense.

I think that Darwin was very much agnostic when it came to God.

I think Dawkins was more than agnostic, but it still doesn't answer my question. :)

Depends on what type of evolution we are speaking of first- and as for the Universe, everything has a effect and cause ruling doesnt it? There was the big bang- but WHAT caused it? Science (which I support ) helps to explain the 'how' but not the 'Why'.

Sub atomic particles pop in to and out of existence without any cause. Cause and effect in quantum physics doesn't work the same way that it appears to at higher levels.

I think that the belief that everything has a designer is a man made concept, it is very similar to the notion that everything happens for a reason. I believe that the universe did just happen.

So is this what you believe JFK?

http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml

And this, there are lots more

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp

.

I think Dawkins was more than agnostic, but it still doesn't answer my question..... :)

Darwin is quoted as saying that agnostic does describe his religious beliefs best.

.......it still doesn't answer my question. :)

So being agnostic I believe that he was undecided if the cosmos was designed.

So is this what you believe JFK?

http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml

Not really, I don't really accept what the site suggests.

Mr Goose breaths in and Honks...

Bazooka - I have been through every creationist anti evolution claim you make, and I am worried that you do not seem to want to move forward.. in brief to recap

- there is now PLENTY of evidence - in the lab and in the environment of HOW evolution works - and we can see it happening NOW. When some of the atheists on the SF post that it "takes millions of years" they are actual not quite correct. I could post you details of evidence, references, studies etc etc - but would you accept this ? Or would you just repost from other creationist web sites again and again.

As I have said before - if you want to post some anti evlution arguements - one at at time, we can go through ever single one - but we both have to agree to listen to the other and accept proof for what it is.. not just ignore what we dont like!

A starter - For one thing, the DNA evidence absolutely proves common descent - ie you are descended from microbes and fish - NOT Adam and Eve made by god.

That this is a problem for faith, does not mean it is wrong science.

As for your "first cause" arguement and belief that "something needs to start something" you need to read up on physics as well as evolution!

Have a good weekend!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp

.

ANYBODY who cuts from "answers in genesis" is "bearing false witness"

I dont think you will accept the reason why tho...

(and linking to ultra ring wing US creationists)

ANYBODY who cuts from "answers in genesis" is "bearing false witness"

I dont think you will accept the reason why tho...

(and linking to ultra ring wing US creationists)

Just answer the question with a proper answer, what are the odds of the cosmos being created by chance?

Just answer the question with a proper answer, what are the odds of the cosmos being created by chance?

I am afraid that the question is impossible to answer.

I am afraid that the question is impossible to answer.

Yes, and you believe in something where the odds are so slim as to be none existent and you call me silly for believing in a creator which provides all the answers. And you think I am silly.

.

Just answer the question with a proper answer, what are the odds of the cosmos being created by chance?

Grahame - I will answer every single you are prepared to make -

But first, as I said to Bazooka, can we reach an gentleman's agreement that you will not just throw the rattle out/call me an idiot or threaten to put me on your ignore list again - if you don't like the answers I give you.

Yes, and you believe in something where the odds are so slim as to be none existent and you call me silly for believing in a creator which provides all the answers. And you think I am silly.

.

If you believe that there is an infinite amount of universes and and infinite amount of time, the chances of life evolving like it has is 100%.

Grahame - I will answer every single you are prepared to make -

But first, as I said to Bazooka, can we reach an gentleman's agreement that you will not just throw the rattle out/call me an idiot or threaten to put me on your ignore list again - if you don't like the answers I give you.

I honestly wouldn't bother. I'm not going to have my faith attacked.

I honestly wouldn't bother. I'm not going to have my faith attacked.

This sums your attitude to "truth" (as in sig line), you make the most foolish claims, post links to fundamentalist web sites and invite debate, then when there is a risk of somebody actually saying something of substance, you just wave a hand and say "I wouldn't bother"

My, my!

I'm not going to have my faith attacked.

Yet you feel it's OK to attack other faiths/atheists.
Hypocrisy at it's finest. Who'd have thought it, from a "christian" too:rolleyes:

If you believe that there is an infinite amount of universes and and infinite amount of time, the chances of life evolving like it has is 100%.

Hi JFKvsNixon,

Dont fall for creationist arguements - scroll down to my post to Bazooka about "retrofitting probabilities to existing events"

If you believe that there is an infinite amount of universes and and infinite amount of time, the chances of life evolving like it has is 100%.

It doesn't compute. If you have an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters you are never going to get the works of Shakespeare, not even one sentence. Sorry.

It doesn't compute. If you have an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters you are never going to get the works of Shakespeare, not even one sentence. Sorry.

errrrrrrrrrrrr even tho you consistently dare not debate with me head on, I must ask you - did you do O Level maths?

Yes, and you believe in something where the odds are so slim as to be none existent and you call me silly for believing in a creator which provides all the answers. And you think I am silly.

.

Grahame...there really is no point in arguing what Christians believe in, from reason. I have to tell you this because, well...from what I can see, we always come to to the same endless and eternally ongoing sticky points in this argument/debate...whatever.

I believe that people only come to faith when reasonable answers are not enough, so if you are aggressive/rude/dismissive of other people's veiws...just ask yourself-is my response fom me, or is this a close reflection of what Jesus was?

And anyways, there's some pretty alright people of other faiths, or atheist.

Whatever we are brought up to believe in, maybe it's taken into account, and maybe God knows when to cut some slack, eh?

Grahame, my applogies. My dyslexia got the better of me, when you were typing Dawkins I was reading Darwin. Doh.

It doesn't compute. If you have an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters you are never going to get the works of Shakespeare, not even one sentence. Sorry.

In an infinite amount of time and universes, everything that can happen will happen. So in this model, the probability of life evolving like it has is 100%.

But Grahame...I give you 10 out of 10 for effort. :hihi:

Yet you feel it's OK to attack other faiths/atheists.
Hypocrisy at it's finest. Who'd have thought it, from a "christian" too:rolleyes:

All Christians want is the truth and that is right and proper. And bear in mind I'm not happy with Christians who say the cosmos was created literally in six (24 hour) days because I think it makes a laughing sock of Christians. As I say all I want is the truth and if necessary I am happy to change when new things come to light and there is nothing wrong in seeking the truth, I only wish others were as adaptable. :)

In an infinite amount of time and universes, everything that can happen will happen. So in this model, the probability of life evolving like it has is 100%.

Hi JFKvsNixon

It does not need infinate anything - neither universe, evolution or amino acid molecules ARE RANDOM

Being sucked into this arguement is what debaters call "a strawman arguement"
The creationist web sites grahame links to do this

They say something false like "evolution of even single celled creatures is wholly random" - this is the "strawman" in the argument - ie an artifice created so they can knock it down by asking "if it random what is the chance it happened?"

Grahame, my applogies. My dyslexia got the better of me, when you were typing Dawkins I was reading Darwin. Doh.

Oh, I thought it was strange. Thank you, mystery solved. :thumbsup:

Grahame...there really is no point in arguing what Christians believe in, from reason. I have to tell you this because, well...from what I can see, we always come to to the same endless and eternally ongoing sticky points in this argument/debate...whatever.

I believe that people only come to faith when reasonable answers are not enough, so if you are aggressive/rude/dismissive of other people's veiws...just ask yourself-is my response fom me, or is this a close reflection of what Jesus was?

And anyways, there's some pretty alright people of other faiths, or atheist.

Whatever we are brought up to believe in, maybe it's taken into account, and maybe God knows when to cut some slack, eh?

I think you ought to address your words to the others who are all attacking me and the more they do the more determined I become, you ought to be able to see that.

Hi JFKvsNixon

It does not need infinate anything - neither universe, evolution or amino acid molecules ARE RANDOM

Being sucked into this arguement is what debaters call "a strawman arguement"
The creationist web sites grahame links to do this

They say something false like "evolution of even single celled creatures is wholly random" - this is the "strawman" in the argument - ie an artifice created so they can knock it down by asking "if it random what is the chance it happened?"

I must admit that my knowledge on subject tends to be a general 'how the universe came to be' from pop-science books, rather than specifically 'how biological life came to be' .

I think you ought to address your words to the others who are all attacking me and the more they do the more determined I become, you ought to be able to see that.

Why would I want to do that? The fact they post opinions, is enough to suggest that they already are looking for answers on this.

The reason I don't is because I think people will find their own answers anyway.

Mr Goose breaths in and Honks...

Bazooka - I have been through every creationist anti evolution claim you make, and I am worried that you do not seem to want to move forward.. in brief to recap

It is not that Mr Goose- I still am finding too much evidence that talks of design and not 'chance'.

there is now PLENTY of evidence - in the lab and in the environment of HOW evolution works - and we can see it happening NOW. When some of the atheists on the SF post that it "takes millions of years" they are actual not quite correct. I could post you details of evidence, references, studies etc etc - but would you accept this ? Or would you just repost from other creationist web sites again and again

I do not deny there isn't. But there is not one iota of evidence to suggest that one species of hominid evolved into another via Natural Selection. The existence (of some hominid species) has been determined, one species disappears and the other SUCCEEDS it. There is however no scientific evidence to defend the theory that man [Homo Sapiens] are descended from the lineage of the great apes, via blind Natural Selection. There are many modern-day biologists who do not accept Evolution by Natural Selection as a fact because they recognize that empirical evidence is missing and that there are too many flaws and "missing links," and bad reasoning. Frustrated by the evidence, Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA envisioned life arriving on earth from a different planet [as the origin of life on earth cannot be explained by leaving God out of the picture].


A starter - For one thing, the DNA evidence absolutely proves common descent - ie you are descended from microbes and fish - NOT Adam and Eve made by god. That this is a problem for faith, does not mean it is wrong science.


I know for certain God made every living thing from water (initially) and accept that-(as does science, that all living matter is composed of water) but that is where I stop- to think I came from anything else is not logic for me. To think that these fish came out of water and then became animals is just illogical. It is not faith v science Mr Goose; its having 100% proof we humans DECENDED from apes/fish and that this DNA 'evidence' is infallible.
Here's what Richard Lewontin, a prominent Darwinist, says:

"We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door

So that to me shows that atheism/evolutionist are just as committed to make their point even if in some areas their argument can be weak or not have the foundings. They simply wish to ignore any concept of 'god' being involved.
According to P. P. Grasse in 1971 who held the Chair of Evolutionary Studies in Paris, in Sojerion University. He said… ‘It is absurd - We cannot say who were our ancestors based on fossils’. We can get a list of hundreds of scientists and Noble Prize winners who speak against Darwin’s theory… Hundreds. If you know of Sir Albert George who got the Noble prize for inventing the Vitamin ‘C’ - He wrote the book ‘They Can’t Ape and Man’, against Darwin’s Theory. Again if you read, Sir Fred Hoyle’s work - he wrote several works against Darwin’s Theory. If you know about Ruperts Albert, this person wrote a new theory of evolution against Darwin’s Theory. Its unthinkable… you cannot think that we are created from the Apes. If you know of Sir Frank Salosbury… he was a biologist. He said… ‘It is illogical to believe in Darwin’s theory’. If you know about Whitmeat… Sir Whitemeat, he wrote a book against Darwin’s Theory - He was also a Biologist. You can give a list of hundreds.
So how can creationists accept macro evolution when it is in itself an argument from biologists/evolutionists??




As for your "first cause" arguement and belief that "something needs to start something" you need to read up on physics as well as evolution!


Evolutionary theory ignores the fundamental law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged. According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organised structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural conditions. The law of entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.

Have a good weekend!

I will. And you too.:)

Why would I want to do that? The fact they post opinions, is enough to suggest that they already are looking for answers on this.

The reason I don't is because I think people will find their own answers anyway.

Does posting an opinion mean someone is looking for an answer?

If people are looking for answers then why don't they ask?

Does posting an opinion mean someone is looking for an answer?

If people are looking for answers then why don't they ask?

Good question and I'm not entirely sure, but I'd guess there's a lot of hidden questions beneath cynicism.

If people are truly realistic, why would they argue with someone of faith?

Good question and I'm not entirely sure, but I'd guess there's a lot of hidden questions beneath cynicism.

If people are truely realistic, why would they argue with someone of faith?

When I debate with other people, I find it leads me to a greater understand of how and why I feel the way I do. It is also a good way to expand your own point of view by listening to and understanding other peoples views as well.

Good question and I'm not entirely sure, but I'd guess there's a lot of hidden questions beneath cynicism.

If people are truely realistic, why would they argue with someone of faith?

No no reason at all, I think people are really interested otherwise I don't think they would come on, but this is my personal view, people have had years of believing one thing and it isn't easy to shake off those long held beliefs is it? :)

When I debate with other people, I find it leads me to a greater understand of how and why I feel the way I do. It is also a good way to expand your own point of view by listening to and understanding other peoples views as well.

So I don't know how to ask the question, but how would you say you have changed, if indeed you have?

When I debate with other people, I find it leads me to a greater understand of how and why I feel the way I do. It is also a good way to expand your own point of view by listening to and understanding other peoples views as well.

Yes debate is a good thing, but when fact-based argument verses faith, I just can't see how anything can be resolved. At best, you can understand why someone may possibly believe in what they do.

I'm not against, but for debate...and yes if it leads to a greater understanding of how you feel, and how other people see things, then that can only be a good thing in my opinion. What I am saying is, there is fact, and there is faith. And I don't see how the two can ever be reconcilled.

You see, if faith could be proven, what worth has a faith?

So I don't know how to ask the question, but how would you say you have changed, if indeed you have?

Isn't life a big journey of self discovery?

No no reason at all, I think people are really interested otherwise I don't think they would come on, but this is my personal view, people have had years of believing one thing and it isn't easy to shake off those long held beliefs is it? :)

No, I agree. And I think even belief can change. Even mine and yours.

Isn't life a big journey of self discovery?

Yes it is, but my emotions go out to other people and I think of them before I think of myself and I think other people are more important than I am.

No, I agree. And I think even belief can change. Even mine and yours.

Yes, I have changed in as much as I think I have a deeper understanding, also I am more happy to accept the notion of evolution as part of the creators tool whereas I would have rejected evolution out of hand a couple of years ago. :)

Yes, I have changed in as much as I think I have a deeper understanding, also I am more happy to accept the notion of evolution as part of the creators tool whereas I would have rejected evolution out of hand a couple of years ago. :)

The creator's tool (?) :hihi:

Ermmm... well I dunno, evolution and things-I suppose either you discount science and evolution as modern-day thinking blindly for faith's sake, or you accept it and it destroys faith. Or you see it as just another of God's mysteries explained in scientific terms.

Who knows?

As I see it there'll always be scientists who reveal truths that disgruntle the believer, as there will always be unanswered mysteries that keep the scientist awake at night.

The creator's tool (?) :hihi:

Ermmm... well I dunno, evolution and things-I suppose either you discount science and evolution as modern-day thinking blindly for faith's sake, or you accept it and it destroys faith. Or you see it as just another of God's mysteries explained in scientific terms.

Who knows?

As I see it there'll always be scientists who reveal truths that disgruntle the believer, as there will always be unanswered mysteries that keep the scientist awake at night.

Well so far science and archaeology have only served to confirm my beliefs. Anyway I'm off the bed. Bye.

Well so far science and archaeology have only served to confirm my beliefs. Anyway I'm off the bed. Bye.

OK........

Just answer the question with a proper answer, what are the odds of the cosmos being created by chance?

Grahame, the odds are 100%. It is in the past and has happened. It would be impossible to conceive of anyone asking that question and not being in a cosmos at the time.... therefore the answer has to be 100%

Hi JFKvsNixon

It does not need infinate anything - neither universe, evolution or amino acid molecules ARE RANDOM

Being sucked into this arguement is what debaters call "a strawman arguement"
The creationist web sites grahame links to do this

They say something false like "evolution of even single celled creatures is wholly random" - this is the "strawman" in the argument - ie an artifice created so they can knock it down by asking "if it random what is the chance it happened?"

I think the distinction is that things are chaotic, not random. They appear random on an individual level, but like radioactive decay on a larger scale the randomness can be predicted.

I still think the answer to Grahame's question what is the chance of the universe occuring without a first cause is 100%. It is the only answer that makes sense, because it has happened.

Well, we are still waiting for Christian fundamentalists to crash planes into skyscrapers and start making beheading DVDs.

Well, we are still waiting for Christian fundamentalists to crash planes into skyscrapers and start making beheading DVDs.

They consult with God and then go off on wars looking for WMDs instead.

Hello jfish, we can prove its not a 'caring' God/Allah. What is the point of praying to anything that does not care.:confused:

Now I said nothing about praying in my post.
However:
To obtain something through an earthly bureaucratic system, you need to set out why you need it, and to conform with the system's rules in formulating your request. Sometimes, this leads you to think there's a better objective, or that it's not really a priority.
Prayer can help in this way:
"Were there a God, what do I really want? Do I deserve it? How will this change the world? Do I REALLY want this?"
You don't make God do something, but you do clarify issues in your own head.

Similarly, I can do anything I want to.
Some things I would not do if an all-seeing, all-wise entity was watching.
So I don't do them. There's probably no such entity, but there is ME.

Now I said nothing about praying in my post.
However:
To obtain something through an earthly bureaucratic system, you need to set out why you need it, and to conform with the system's rules in formulating your request. Sometimes, this leads you to think there's a better objective, or that it's not really a priority.
Prayer can help in this way:
"Were there a God, what do I really want? Do I deserve it? How will this change the world? Do I REALLY want this?"
You don't make God do something, but you do clarify issues in your own head.

Similarly, I can do anything I want to.
Some things I would not do if an all-seeing, all-wise entity was watching.
So I don't do them. There's probably no such entity, but there is ME.

Wise post my friend.... like I say myself, I don't want an all seeing and all wise entity watch me misturbate.... some things are private. ;) :D Let God do his/her thing and I'll stick to mine. :thumbsup:

Now I said nothing about praying in my post.
However:
To obtain something through an earthly bureaucratic system, you need to set out why you need it, and to conform with the system's rules in formulating your request. Sometimes, this leads you to think there's a better objective, or that it's not really a priority.
Prayer can help in this way:
"Were there a God, what do I really want? Do I deserve it? How will this change the world? Do I REALLY want this?"
You don't make God do something, but you do clarify issues in your own head.

Similarly, I can do anything I want to.
Some things I would not do if an all-seeing, all-wise entity was watching.
So I don't do them. There's probably no such entity, but there is ME.



It works for you, but hundreds of thousands have killed in the name of God/Allah, and are still doing it today. In no way did these 'things in the sky'
improve homo sapiens.:confused:

Grahame, the odds are 100%. It is in the past and has happened. It would be impossible to conceive of anyone asking that question and not being in a cosmos at the time.... therefore the answer has to be 100%

You mean the fact we are here is 100% certain, but that doesn't tell us how we got here.

The likelihood of it happing by chance are infinitesimal but with a designer then the odds would be much improved. :)

It works for you, but hundreds of thousands have killed in the name of God/Allah, and are still doing it today. In no way did these 'things in the sky'
improve homo sapiens.:confused:

Prayer does focus the mind jobee, perhaps you ought to do more praying. :)

Prayer does focus the mind jobee, perhaps you ought to do more praying. :)


I play golf and read, both these hobbies focus the mind.
I also 'dabble' in poetry. Praying to uncaring things in the sky is just old fashioned. Nice to see your out of the sulks with me.:roll:

I play golf and read, both these hobbies focus the mind.
I also 'dabble' in poetry. Praying to uncaring things in the sky is just old fashioned. Nice to see your out of the sulks with me.:roll:

Practise makes perfect so they say and I am sure that your golf will get better with practise and so will your poetry writing.

The golf ball and clubs do not care about you jobee, neither does a pen and paper yet you spend much of your time with things that have no love for you. You have yet to find out about the love of Jesus. :)

You mean the fact we are here is 100% certain, but that doesn't tell us how we got here.

The likelihood of it happing by chance are infinitesimal but with a designer then the odds would be much improved. :)

Except there is no reason to suppose a designer. The probabilty of a designer just appearing out of nowhere is infinitessimal. We are where we are and the chances of the past happening will always be 100%

Except there is no reason to suppose a designer. The probabilty of a designer just appearing out of nowhere is infinitessimal. We are where we are and the chances of the past happening will always be 100%

The same thing can be said about a living protein cell appearing from 'no where' and forming life as we know it today. Evolutionists are unable to explain even the formation of a single protein. Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous formation of life.

Practise makes perfect so they say and I am sure that your golf will get better with practise and so will your poetry writing.

The golf ball and clubs do not care about you jobee, neither does a pen and paper yet you spend much of your time with things that have no love for you. You have yet to find out about the love of Jesus. :)

Grahame, all this love talk for a man, sounds like latent homosexuality to me.
You didn't know the guy did you. Its all book talk.

Stop advertising his 'alleged' words and get some self confidence.

Let him rest in peace.:confused:

The same thing can be said about a living protein cell appearing from 'no where' and forming life as we know it today. Evolutionists are unable to explain even the formation of a single protein. Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous formation of life.

I thought that was explained in terms of the formation of amino acids in volcanic areas, something that has been observed or reproduced.

There is also the second law of thermodynamics that says "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy".... basically over time chaos increases. And that furthermore the mathematics of emergence shows the way that complexity arises out of chaotic systems.

Grahame, all this love talk for a man, sounds like latent homosexuality to me.
You didn't know the guy did you. Its all book talk.

Stop advertising his 'alleged' words and get some self confidence.

Let him rest in peace.:confused:

I don't want to bring it down to this level because the love of God surpasses all, but by way of example people have love affairs with fictional characters on TV and Harry Potter is another example, while other people have a love affair with the game of golf.

The thing is Jesus wasn't a fictional character.

I thought that was explained in terms of the formation of amino acids in volcanic areas, something that has been observed or reproduced.

There is also the second law of thermodynamics that says "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy".... basically over time chaos increases. And that furthermore the mathematics of emergence shows the way that complexity arises out of chaotic systems.

But it does not prove the origin of life. The accidental formation of life is impossible. Let us suppose that millions of years ago a cell was formed which had acquired everything necessary for life, and that it duly "came to life". The theory of evolution again collapses at this point. For even if this cell had existed for a while, it would eventually have died and after its death, nothing would have remained, and everything would have reverted to where it had started. This is because this first living cell, lacking any genetic information, would not have been able to reproduce and start a new generation. Life would have ended with its death.

ANyway- this topic is neverending and I think both (creationism and evolution) will eventually find a common denominator. Sciene will explain more how the world runs and discoveries will also be made to disprove that we humans originated by 'chance'. There is NO proof for it that we did.

*signs off*

Yes, I have changed in as much as I think I have a deeper understanding, also I am more happy to accept the notion of evolution as part of the creators tool whereas I would have rejected evolution out of hand a couple of years ago. :)

Ermm-I think we view things a bit differently-and I'm not so certain of things as you, but on second thought, I know what you are saying here and I regret seeing the funny side of this post-if it caused offence.

Sorry.

I don't want to bring it down to this level because the love of God surpasses all, but by way of example people have love affairs with fictional characters on TV and Harry Potter is another example, while other people have a love affair with the game of golf.

People do not have "love affairs" with TV/movie characters/sports, unless they are seriously deluded. They may enjoy watching/playing, but "love affair" is a completely wrong way to explain the process!

The thing is Jesus wasn't a fictional character.

As Jesus was a popular(ish) name for the time, maybe he wasn't fictional. However, the bit about "him" being the "son of god" are totally false and fictitious:thumbsup:

But it does not prove the origin of life. The accidental formation of life is impossible. Let us suppose that millions of years ago a cell was formed which had acquired everything necessary for life, and that it duly "came to life". The theory of evolution again collapses at this point. For even if this cell had existed for a while, it would eventually have died and after its death, nothing would have remained, and everything would have reverted to where it had started. This is because this first living cell, lacking any genetic information, would not have been able to reproduce and start a new generation. Life would have ended with its death.

ANyway- this topic is neverending and I think both (creationism and evolution) will eventually find a common denominator. Sciene will explain more how the world runs and discoveries will also be made to disprove that we humans originated by 'chance'. There is NO proof for it that we did.

*signs off*

The amino acids form, dna, which self replicates. It is these that form cells.

Ermm-I think we view things a bit differently-and I'm not so certain of things as you, but on second thought, I know what you are saying here and I regret seeing the funny side of this post-if it caused offence.

Sorry.

Thank you and I can assure you I didn't take offence and thanks.

Best regards, Grahame.

People do not have "love affairs" with TV/movie characters/sports, unless they are seriously] deluded. They may enjoy watching/playng, but "love affair" is a completelky wrong way to exlaine the process!

As Jesus was a popular(ish) name for the time, maybe he wasn't fictional. However, the bit about "him" being the "son of god" are totally false and ficticious:thumbsup:

Whatever your view I just wish people followed the teaching of Jesus as He taught it rather than the selfish and aggressive philosophies of today's societies. :)

I don't want to bring it down to this level because the love of God surpasses all, but by way of example people have love affairs with fictional characters on TV and Harry Potter is another example, while other people have a love affair with the game of golf.

The thing is Jesus wasn't a fictional character.

We were on about Jesus. I'm not having an 'affair' with golf, It's just a bit of exercise. Your waffle and verbal gynastics sound like a church preacher trying to get a square peg into a round hole.

We were on about Jesus. I'm not having an 'affair' with golf, It's just a bit of exercise. Your waffle and verbal gynastics sound like a church preacher trying to get a square peg into a round hole.

There are plenty of people who are passionate about football and seem to love the game more than their wife. As I said in the previous post I only wish people could be as passionate about their love of life and their love for others instead of only thinking of themselves and destroying other people in the process and you seen like a pretty caring person in your own way.

Whatever your view I just wish people followed the teaching of Jesus as He taught it rather than the selfish and aggressive philosophies of today's societies. :)

I don't mean to be rude, this is offered as an observation and whilst it is critical, it is not meant to undermine you.

But if you want to argue for a less selfish and aggressive society, why don't you spend less time trying to prove your God and in turn attacking atheists and every other religion trying to show they are wrong, rather than devoting your time on the forum to pointing out for example the good works that organisations like Christian aid do.

I think that positive approach would be a better way to promote the ideals you want to, rather than getting involved in these debates that inevitably end in you feeling offended and offending everyoner elses beliefs it always ends up as ultimatately self defeating and negative.

That said, I understand that atheists beliefs are a challenge to your own, and I acknowledge that many of those attacks are unreasonable and go beyond what they should. But there is a time for turning the other cheek and for looking to positives in order to sell a message that you will find you have more support on, will win you more friends and would be more productive. I am not suggesting you give up on defending your beliefs, I just think you would do better to sell them by way of the good works that Christian charities do.

I don't mean to be rude, this is offered as an observation and whilst it is critical, it is not meant to undermine you.

But if you want to argue for a less selfish and aggressive society, why don't you spend less time trying to prove your God and in turn attacking atheists and every other religion trying to show they are wrong, rather than devoting your time on the forum to pointing out for example the good works that organisations like Christian aid do.

I think that positive approach would be a better way to promote the ideals you want to, rather than getting involved in these debates that inevitably end in you feeling offended and offending everyoner elses beliefs it always ends up as ultimatately self defeating and negative.

That said, I understand that atheists beliefs are a challenge to your own, and I acknowledge that many of those attacks are unreasonable and go beyond what they should. But there is a time for turning the other cheek and for looking to positives in order to sell a message that you will find you have more support on, will win you more friends and would be more productive. I am not suggesting you give up on defending your beliefs, I just think you would do better to sell them by way of the good works that Christian charities do.

You are right Wildcat. For me Christianity and other belief systems are about how we are with people and family, about morality in this life and questions about spirituality and I can never understand how a debate on religion or Christianity always has to revolve around the origin of the cosmos although I do admit there is a common interest when it come to a debate on the existence or otherwise of God, who for me is nature itself and is just there in whatever form he may happen to be. One is science and in a way is irrelevant to our everyday lives while what we are and who we are, and what makes us tick is far more important in my view.

So for me a debate on religion is about us as people and has little to do with science and I can never understand why contributors insist on talking about science on a religious thread. Perhaps you can explain what the origins of the earth have to do with how we are as people, because I really do not understand, I don't even think our ancestors have much influence on my day to day thinking, never mind primeval mud, I think we are influenced far more by our environment and my suggestion would be to keep the religious threads and the scientific threads separate, I don't know what you and others think?

You are right Wildcat. For me Christianity and other belief systems are about how we are with people and family, about morality in this life and questions about spirituality and I can never understand how a debate on religion or Christianity always has to revolve around the origin of the cosmos although I do admit there is a common interest when it come to a debate on the existence or otherwise of God, who for me is nature itself and is just there in whatever form he may happen to be. One is science and in a way is irrelevant to our everyday lives while what we are and who we are, and what makes us tick is far more important in my view.

So for me a debate on religion is about us as people and has little to do with science and I can never understand why contributors insist on talking about science on a religious thread. Perhaps you can explain what the origins of the earth have to do with how we are as people, because I really do not understand, I don't even think our ancestors have much influence on my day to day thinking, never mind primeval mud, I think we are influenced far more by our environment and my suggestion would be to keep the religious threads and the scientific threads separate, I don't know what you and others think?

The reason for the evolution and cosmos debates are the attempts by Creationists to 'scientifically' prove their beliefs. An argument that I and others take exception to, because it has been shown to be false time and time again, as anyone who has done foundation year of a philosophy course will happily tell you. But I emphasise before you take this as a challenge. It does not prevent the lesser argument, that as a religious person you see evidence of god in the world. That is a matter of perception, a revealed and mystical understanding of religion that is consistent with religious teaching and not a direct challenge to anyone else.

The reason for the evolution and cosmos debates are the attempts by Creationists to 'scientifically' prove their beliefs. An argument that I and others take exception to, because it has been shown to be false time and time again, as anyone who has done foundation year of a philosophy course will happily tell you. But I emphasise before you take this as a challenge. It does not prevent the lesser argument, that as a religious person you see evidence of god in the world. That is a matter of perception, a revealed and mystical understanding of religion that is consistent with religious teaching and not a direct challenge to anyone else.

So unless there is a creationist on the forum, are these debates really necessary?

(I say the evidence of his presence is all around us and leave it there. You say it is down to nature, DNA, cosmic dust etc. and I don't disagree.)

.

So unless there is a creationist on the forum, are these debates really necessary?

(I say the evidence of his presence is all around us and leave it there. You say it is down to nature, DNA, cosmic dust etc. and I don't disagree.).

It is not out of context with respect to the thread title, and Bazooka at least has been arguing creationism (I haven't read the whole thread).

It is a shame because I am sure there is an interesting debate to be had between liberal and conservative (with their tendency to be fundamentalist) views of Christianity. But perhaps this forum doesn't have the contributers to make that debate worthhile, and perhaps the topic framed in such a general way would be impossible to debate properly anyay.

So unless there is a creationist on the forum, are these debates really necessary?

(I say the evidence of his presence is all around us and leave it there. You say it is down to nature, DNA, cosmic dust etc. and I don't disagree.)

.

I don't know all the ins and outs of creationism Vs evolution.

What I do believe is, that something so massive, so complex, it cannot have just happened by chance. I do believe there was some power behind the universe/ mankind etc coming into being.

Whether one calls this power "the big bang", "evolution", or "God" or even "flying spaghetti monster", and how one interprets that power, is entirely up to the individual.

(I find conception amazing enough, so creation /evolution just boggles my mind!)

I recall somebody on these forums tediously cut'n pasting a load of nonsense trying to prove that The Koran had made a number of scientific predictions. So certain was the authors of some of this rubbish that the The Koran provided positive predictive "proof" of the big bang theory, therfore must be the word of Allah or whatever, that I wonder what mental gymnastics they must go through if, as is quite possible if you read your science news, the big bang thoery turns out to be a dead end?

Of course science can take us wherever the evidence takes us, but theists must try to manipilate the evidence to fit with their conclusions.

Why aren't these Muslim "scholars" even now taking issue with the scientists who are now questioning the big bang? After all they have made definite statements that The Koran proves the big bang.

I don't know all the ins and outs of creationism Vs evolution.

What I do believe is, that something so massive, so complex, it cannot have just happened by chance. I do believe there was some power behind the universe/ mankind etc coming into being.

Whether one calls this power "the big bang", "evolution", or "God" or even "flying spaghetti monster", and how one interprets that power, is entirely up to the individual.

(I find conception amazing enough, so creation /evolution just boggles my mind!)

I agree PT. :)

So unless there is a creationist on the forum, are these debates really necessary?
.

To try and be polite about this - there are people who cut and paste from creationist websites (you and Bazooka for instance)

My problem, and I apologise for coming across as tetchy on this - is that all the arguements have been answered by science over the last 20-30 years, but the people who write the websites still put up there rubbish

I wish I could get it across (I have even tried recommending some good quality, modern textbooks to Bazooka via PM)

The key issue is that the people behind these websites pray on the ill informed - they actual know that what is on their websites is wrong, but their fundamentalist take on religion (ie evry word of bible must be fact) corrupts them.

So each time people post about random chance, the gap in the fossil record, the 2nd law of thermodynamics or what ever - it winds me up!!

There are plenty of people who are passionate about football and seem to love the game more than their wife. As I said in the previous post I only wish people could be as passionate about their love of life and their love for others instead of only thinking of themselves and destroying other people in the process and you seen like a pretty caring person in your own way.

Would you care to answer this please now we are on talking terms.

As all thinking people have figured out, the God of Christianity is a reflection of human mind at different points in evolution.
God is filled with wrath, revenge, vanity, hatred, jealousy... all human characteristics. He either instills desires of all sorts in us or, as if he were playing some sick game, allows a Satan to be created who instills in us these desires, then this God forbids us to satisfy them.
We are asked to believe this completely criminally insane fellow stands by while hell is being created; (If it was he who created it, he becomes even more of a sicko) as a place in which his anger and revenge can be satisfied.
To the above unpleasant human traits attributed to our man-made Caligula look-a-like has been added prayer. We can curry favor from this psychotic by prayer, a form of begging. God will let children be brutally tortured, raped and murdered unless he is sufficiently begged.
Is God perfect? God won't become perfect until the quality of mind creating God becomes perfected.

http://com4.runboard.com/bcoventryalternativeforums.f6

Not perhaps a full answer to jobee (#1021), but I believe:
1/. There is something "behind" the universe and its wonders;
2/.Let's give it a name: submissions invited, maybe "God" is acceptable;
3/.There are laws in the universe; "disobeying" them can harm your health : gravity is fairly obvious, just jump off a cliff;
4/. Jesus (or Yeshu ben Yakov or however you transliterate what his parents spoke) lived on Earth about 2,000 years ago;
5/. He taught principles of living, some of which conflicted with the rituals of established religion of his times;
6/. His teachings form a good basis for my conduct today;
7/.Other "teachings" have been piled on top, such as "women aren't worthy to become priests", celibacy, transubstantiation and so on.
8/. Humans being what they are, "priests" have added ideas that promote their power; if another "priest" disagrees with you, you have a duty to God to exterminate him and his followers; this, of course, interferes with our chances of putting all earthly ideas together and discovering how to live in peace and get the best out of the universe.

To try and be polite about this - there are people who cut and paste from creationist websites (you and Bazooka for instance)

My problem, and I apologise for coming across as tetchy on this - is that all the arguements have been answered by science over the last 20-30 years, but the people who write the websites still put up there rubbish

I wish I could get it across (I have even tried recommending some good quality, modern textbooks to Bazooka via PM)

The key issue is that the people behind these websites pray on the ill informed - they actual know that what is on their websites is wrong, but their fundamentalist take on religion (ie evry word of bible must be fact) corrupts them.

So each time people post about random chance, the gap in the fossil record, the 2nd law of thermodynamics or what ever - it winds me up!!

The reason for my pointing to this site (http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml) was that someone had gone to the trouble of working out that the odds of life occurring by chance are infinitesimal.

What gets to me is that you take an imperfect science that does not have the answers about the origin of the cosmos and you say in effect, “There that proves there is no God.” And you my friend are as biased as the sites you accuse.

Please remember I accept evolution as the tool of the creator who was there right at the beginning. Life and evolution came later.

.

Would you care to answer this please now we are on talking terms.[/url]

You talk about the mind of man and you list the unpleasant human traits that man has attributed to God.

This is what you say: -
“the God of Christianity is a reflection of human mind at different points in evolution.”

This is what the Bible says: -
1. God is everywhere (omnipresent): Mk 5:10; Jude 6; Rev 20:1-3; 1 Ki 8:27; 2 Chron 2:6; 6:18; Isa 66:1; Acts 7:49; 17:27-28; Ps 139:7-13

2. God is all knowing (omniscient): Ps 139:1-6; Job 42:2; Acts 2:23; 1 Tim 1:17

3. God is all powerful (omnipotent): Gen 17:1; 35:11; Rom 13:1; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 19:6

4. God is a Spirit, without flesh and bones: Luke 24:39; John 4:24; Matthew 16:17

5. God is invisible: Ex 33:20; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; 1 Tim 6:16; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 11:27

6. God is immutable (unchangeable) in his nature: Mal 3:6; But God can change his mind: Jonah 3:10; Gen 6:6

7. God is love: 1 Jn 4:8,16

8. God is Light (truth): 1 Jn 1:5; John 17:17

9. God is holy: 1 Pet 1:16

10. God is merciful: Ps 103:8

11. God is gentle: Ps 18:35

12. God is righteous: Ps 129:4

13. God is good: Rom 2:4

14. God is perfect: Matthew 5:48

15. God is just: Isaiah 45:21

16. God is faithful: 1 Corinthians 10:13

17. God is graciousness: Psalm 103:8

Who rules the world today? Well it isn't God I only wish it was, at the moment as you very well know it is humankind and man made governments, and among the world's leaders are some real despots.

This is where you need to focus your misplaced anger.

.

You talk about the mind of man and you list the unpleasant human traits that man has attributed to God.

This is what you say: -
“the God of Christianity is a reflection of human mind at different points in evolution.”

This is what the Bible says: -
1. God is everywhere (omnipresent): Mk 5:10; Jude 6; Rev 20:1-3; 1 Ki 8:27; 2 Chron 2:6; 6:18; Isa 66:1; Acts 7:49; 17:27-28; Ps 139:7-13

2. God is all knowing (omniscient): Ps 139:1-6; Job 42:2; Acts 2:23; 1 Tim 1:17

3. God is all powerful (omnipotent): Gen 17:1; 35:11; Rom 13:1; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 19:6

4. God is a Spirit, without flesh and bones: Luke 24:39; John 4:24; Matthew 16:17

5. God is invisible: Ex 33:20; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; 1 Tim 6:16; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 11:27

6. God is immutable (unchangeable) in his nature: Mal 3:6; But God can change his mind: Jonah 3:10; Gen 6:6

7. God is love: 1 Jn 4:8,16

8. God is Light (truth): 1 Jn 1:5; John 17:17

9. God is holy: 1 Pet 1:16

10. God is merciful: Ps 103:8

11. God is gentle: Ps 18:35

12. God is righteous: Ps 129:4

13. God is good: Rom 2:4

14. God is perfect: Matthew 5:48

15. God is just: Isaiah 45:21

16. God is faithful: 1 Corinthians 10:13

17. God is graciousness: Psalm 103:8

Who rules the world today? Well it isn't God I only wish it was, at the moment as you very well know it is humankind and man made governments, and among the world's leaders are some real despots.

This is where you need to focus your misplaced anger.

.

YES Grahame, bible talk has failed, so have the sayings of Jesus.
After 2000 years of yak, yak, yak, and building huge buildings to yak in. We've just had the worst century in living memory for violence.'Organised'
religion took us nowhere. Why? probably because its to cryptic and sophist.

YES Grahame, bible talk has failed, so have the sayings of Jesus.
After 2000 years of yak, yak, yak, and building huge buildings to yak in. We've just had the worst century in living memory for violence.'Organised'
religion took us nowhere. Why? probably because its to cryptic and sophist.

I should campaign for the abolition of the Houses of Parliament, the United Nations, the American and all other governments if I were you, then there will be far less yak, yak, yak, with all those huge buildings to yak in. :D

You say, "We've just had the worst century in living memory for violence."

Yes you are right, we are living in an increasingly Godless society.

.

I have just been looking at the age of the earth and would appreciate peoples constructive comments, for which I thank you in advance.

DAY 1 (Between 4 billion and 5 billion years ago. The Sun is dated at 4.5 billion years old, satisfyingly close to the 4.56 billion year age of the Solar System as found from the study of meteorites.)

The Bible says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."


DAY 2 (Precambrian Era, ended about 542 million years ago. Formation of oceans, atmosphere, and continents)

The Bible says: "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. and God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."


DAY 3 (Paleozoic Era, ended about 251 million years ago. From the Greek meaning "Old Animals." Numerous fishes, other sea life; many plants, first trees; wingless insects, swampy forests. Most species become extinct but the tree and plant life remained.)

The Bible says: "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day."


DAY 4 (The extinction of animal life in the Paleozoic Era may indicate a catastrophic occurrence blotting out the sun which re-appeared on the fourth day?)

The Bible says: "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."


DAY 5 (Mesozoic Era, ended about 66 million years ago. Popular name: Age of Reptiles, they evolved from whales and sea life.)

The Bible says: "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day."


DAY 6 Cenozoic Era. This era began about 66 million years ago and includes the geological present including humankind. Popular name: Age of Mammals.

The Bible says: "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

.

I should campaign for the abolition of the Houses of Parliament, the United Nations, the American and all other governments if I were you, then there will be far less yak, yak, yak, with all those huge buildings to yak in. :D

You say, "We've just had the worst century in living memory for violence."

Yes you are right, we are living in an increasingly Godless society.


.At least the American and UK governments are elected.
Although I would remove the House of Lords in our setup.

If you mean by Godless/Allah, these things ever cared. I never noticed anything. We've just had the worst century ever. A lot of that violence
was caused because people thought these Gods existed.

At least the American and UK governments are elected.
Although I would remove the House of Lords in our setup.

If you mean by Godless/Allah, these things ever cared. I never noticed anything. We've just had the worst century ever. A lot of that violence
was caused because people thought these Gods existed.

When was the last time a church near you declared war on another nation?

Yes you are right, we are living in an increasingly Godless society.

Yet you state that "god" is everywhere:confused:.

Yet you state that "god" is everywhere:confused:.

Yes, as for example the air we breath, water vapour, radio waves, the effect of the sun even at night when it reflects off the moon. These are very powerful and effective in their own right but none of them interfere with human activity and like radio waves they cannot be seen and we only know they are there because firstly we put them there and secondly we have the equipment to detect them, but our ancestors would be unaware of radio activity, or sunspot activity, or other galaxies, but because we are unable to detect these things is no reason to deny their existence.

.

When was the last time a church near you declared war on another nation?

"God" allegedly told Bush to wage war on "Eye-raq"...

If it were us mere mortals spouting ideas like that, rather than the president of the USA, we'd have been locked up in a psychiatric ward.

"God" allegedly told Bush to wage war on "Eye-raq"...

If it were us mere mortals spouting ideas like that, rather than the president of the USA, we'd have been locked up in a psychiatric ward.

Thank you PT, I am glad you said "allegedly" by the way. This is the one thing Jobee is right about, people make up their own Gods in their own mind they have done for thousands of years, the Israelites turned God into a God of war, and the prophets constantly warned the people about the consequences of their actions and they were right, and because of that and other man-made gods look at the reputation he has gained because of it.

When was the last time a church near you declared war on another nation?

Did you watch "Undercover Mosque?" Some british citizens there seemed to be declaring war on their own country.

Of course a church is just a building, or a group of people that might hold differing views about things. It doesn't constitute a nation in itself, but they do preach hatred against other churches, or groups of people. Athiests, homosexuals, doctors that perform abortions etc come in for a bit of stick. I've seen plenty of banners that proclaim "War on lesbians" or whatever. I have no doubt that if a nation was comprised totally of people from one of these groupings, some church somewhere would have declared war on it.

Did you watch "Undercover Mosque?" Some british citizens there seemed to be declaring war on their own country.

Of course a church is just a building, or a group of people that might hold differing views about things. It doesn't constitute a nation in itself, but they do preach hatred against other churches, or groups of people. Athiests, homosexuals, doctors that perform abortions etc come in for a bit of stick. I've seen plenty of banners that proclaim "War on lesbians" or whatever. I have no doubt that if a nation was comprised totally of people from one of these groupings, some church somewhere would have declared war on it.


I seem to remember catching some of it. :)

Those things though are either illegal, or public order offences, or infringements of personal freedom and I know we are not our brothers keeper but Christian teaching is that we obey the law of the land and if people are doing these things then they shouldn't be. The only war I would be happy to be part of would be the "War on want."

This is what the Bible says: -

2. God is all knowing (omniscient): Ps 139:1-6; Job 42:2; Acts 2:23; 1 Tim 1:17

3. God is all powerful (omnipotent): Gen 17:1; 35:11; Rom 13:1; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 19:6

In discussions we've had before, Grahame, you have always discounted the entire Old Testament. Strange to see you quoting from it in your list, but as it is seemingly part of the bible again I'm sure you won't mind me quoting from it in future.

As ever I feel duty bound to point out that omnipotence and omniscience are logically incompatible - you can't be both. Omnipotence itself is logically impossible - it's the old question of can god make a rock he can't lift? If he can, he isn't omnipotent because he can't lift it, and if he can't he isn't because he can't make it.

When you combine the two you get into even more of a logical mess. TO quote Dawkins (to save me re-writing it)

it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent


6. God is immutable (unchangeable) in his nature: Mal 3:6

7. God is love: 1 Jn 4:8,16

10. God is merciful: Ps 103:8

11. God is gentle: Ps 18:35

13. God is good: Rom 2:4

14. God is perfect: Matthew 5:48

15. God is just: Isaiah 45:21

So we have an unchanging, loving, merciful, gentle god? So why did he spend much of the Old Testament slaughtering people, or commanding others to slaughter them, sending terrible plagues, flooding the earth, destroying cities and taunting poor old Job? And then in the New Testament he's quite nice, if you skip the bit about requiring his son to be slaughtered in order to forgive our wickedness, when presumably as an omnipotent being he could have forgiven us without anyone being nailed to anything.

Seems fairly changeable to me - and not especially loving, good or just.

Read my reply to PT in post 1033 regarding man-made gods which is something Old Testament people did regularly.

And for the first part of your question, imagine someone has infinite knowledge and unlimited power, what’s the problem?

When was the last time a church near you declared war on another nation?

Dont come that Grahame, one of the churches members , Tony Blair,
declared illegal war on Iraq. Again religious men were up to their necks in war.:confused:

Dont come that Grahame, one of the churches members , Tony Blair,
declared illegal war on Iraq. Again religious men were up to their necks in war.:confused:

What is the definition of "Christian" Jobee, see my signature and tell me if Blair fits the job description.

I will add a further definition of my own,

ALL the time do,
ALL the good you can to,
ALL the people you can.

.

Anyway I'm getting tired of listening to nonsense.



well put a sock in it then

What is the definition of "Christian" Jobee, see my signature and tell me if Blair fits the job description.

I will add a further definition of my own,

ALL the time do,
ALL the good you can to,
ALL the people you can.

.

Yes Grahame, more YAK,YAK, YAK. in 1618 -1648, the thirty years war in Northern Europe. Protestant and Catholic battered each other ceaslessly
untill there was nothing else to murder. That is the only reason the war stopped. Religious homo sapiens are just as violent as the other kind.:confused:

I really don't get this bit, Grahame! Sorry.... PT established for us that it was the Romans who crucified Jesus. Since the Fall of the Roman Empire, I don't think they're in charge of much these days. However, two biggies who are inndeed in charge of quite a lot (and are making a right mess of things) are Bush and Brown - both of whom are Christians, I believe.

So, who/what did you mean?? :huh:


the roman empire never fell

it took over the original christian church and transformed into the the roman catholic church

, do not assume I don't have a mind of my own. I have always done my own thing as people who know me will testify. No one tells me anything, do you hear. All I can say is you don't know me very well.


lol yeah right

noone tells you anything

except the authors of the bible, eh?

dear me

And for the first part of your question, imagine someone has infinite knowledge and unlimited power, what’s the problem?

A lot of thinkers would argue that it is impossible to have any real concept of infinity - the best we can manage is 'pretty impressively big'.

However, if I try and imagine someone with infinite knowledge and infinite power it raises the issue I highlighted in my last post.

Infinite knowledge implies that god knows everything that will ever happen.
Infinite power implies he can do anything he wants.

The two combines mean that he cannot change his mind about what he wants to do, or intervene in the world - which means he isn't omnipotent - because if he changes his mind he wouldn't have been omniscient.

On a more mundane level, and if we can ignore the whole 'logically impossible' angle - I have a problem with god using his omni-everything so irresponsibly - the flood and all subsequent natural disasters are just show-boating, and not intervening to stop us all massacring each other (and asking us to do it if the bible, Al quaeda and Dubya Bush are to be believed)
is not a great use of his powers in my opinion. Even stereotypically dumb models want world peace!

Can you explain how a god can be omnipotent, omniscient, or even both - and comment on how well you think the god you believe in is using his powers?

Yes Grahame, more YAK,YAK, YAK. in 1618 -1648, the thirty years war in Northern Europe. Protestant and Catholic battered each other ceaslessly
untill there was nothing else to murder. That is the only reason the war stopped. Religious homo sapiens are just as violent as the other kind.:confused:

It's not Christian to fight, I agree with you Jobee.

Read my reply to PT in post 1033 regarding man-made gods which is something Old Testament people did regularly.

post 1033:

Thank you PT, I am glad you said "allegedly" by the way. This is the one thing Jobee is right about, people make up their own Gods in their own mind they have done for thousands of years, the Israelites turned God into a God of war, and the prophets constantly warned the people about the consequences of their actions and they were right, and because of that and other man-made gods look at the reputation he has gained because of it.



So was it one of these false, made-up gods that sent the flood? Was it a false, made-up god that sent the plagues on the Egyptians? Was it a false, made-up god that made the Israelites wander the wilderness for 40 years because they were naughty?

Sound pretty powerful, these made up gods. What was your god doing all this time? Surely he should have stopped the made-up gods from wreaking havoc on his creation?

It is interesting to note, however, that you think it possible for people to truly believe in a god that doesn't exist outside their own mind.

Infinite knowledge implies that god knows everything that will ever happen.
Infinite power implies he can do anything he wants.

The two combines mean that he cannot change his mind about what he wants to do, or intervene in the world - which means he isn't omnipotent - because if he changes his mind he wouldn't have been omniscient.

I do not accept that at all. Please explain how having all knowledge and power limits someone.

Who says he cannot change his mind?
Who says he would want to change his mind?
Who says God intervenes?

I do not accept that at all. Please explain how having all knowledge and power limits someone.

Who says he cannot change his mind?
Who says he would want to change his mind?
Who says God intervenes?

Explain again?

You cannot have all power because:
All power implies you can create anything
This means you can create a thing so heavy you cannot lift it

If you could create such a thing, you would not be able to lift it - ergo, you are not all powerful
If you cannot create such a thing you are not all powerful because you cannot create something.

That aside (and I'm not sure how one would overcome the problem above, so logically the next proof is suspect as it relies on something illogical being the case)

Omniscience means you know everything
Omnipotence means you are all powerful

If you know everything, you know what you are going to do at exactly 1pm next Thursday - for example.

If you know what you are going to do at 1pm next Thursday, you have no free will - what you are going to do is predefined. You cannot change your mind a millisecond before 1pm because that would mean you weren't omniscient.

If you have no free will you cannot be omnipotent (but on the other hand you can't be morally culpable, so it's ok to destroy whole cities).

The bible is full of tales of god's intervention - from floods to plagues to massacres to sending his son. It's Christians that say he intervenes. Do you say otherwise?

Explain again?

You cannot have all power because:
All power implies you can create anything
This means you can create a thing so heavy you cannot lift it

He isn't doing a bad job so far, he is still building the cosmos which is still expanding and it is still suspended in space. Got anymore trick questions?

Omniscience means you know everything
Omnipotence means you are all powerful

If you know everything, you know what you are going to do at exactly 1pm next Thursday - for example.

If I am all powerful and all knowledgeable I will do what the heck I want next Thursday.

Is this supposed to be an example of Dawkins intelligence?