Korskin

Well, according to the Bible... ...intelligence is overrated.

All I know is that I would have done a lot of things differently if I had known the outcome of my life in advance. Then again I try not to focus on what my life could've been. Though I can't escape the feeling that I'm not actually living the life I wanted but rather the life I ended up with. The problem with regretting and redoing your life is that you'll never know if you're life would've been better or worse if you did things differently. If I put thing into perspective I'll end up with a different view. As I believe I will have eternal life in heaven, my life on earth is a short span of time and not as significant. Therefore the important thing or what actually defines my life as good or bad would be whether I believe in God or not. And if a more successful or ideal life would mean less need of God, I would definitely choose my current life over it.

Yeah, I get that. If you don't believe in God he must have been created by humans. What I don't get is how us being the image of God means that God was created by man. You can never really be 100% sure of anything. I would say that there are many things pointing toward the existence of a God. The Bible, Jesus, the earth and humans and all religious people just to name a few. However, these so called proofs or evidence doesn't mean much if you don't believe. From my experience God is 100% reliable and is always there when I need him. As sin entered this world it has been an unfair and evil world. Many people might not get the life they deserve here on earth. But that's because earth is broken and ruined. What's important is not how comfortable our life has been on earth. It's whether we end up in heaven or hell that really matters. I'm thinking that if we're supposed to have free will God can't interfere with every wrong decision we make. I can see why you find it hard to combine the world we live in with an all loving God. But look at what God did. He sent his son to die for our sins. We didn't deserve it but he did it anyway because of his love for us.

I don't see the connection between we look like God and therefore we created God. To me it's the other way around. The only thing that's complete and utterly reliable is God. Dawkins and many other atheists tend to rely on science. I choose to rely on something unchanging (God) instead of something changing (science). I also think that non-believers are sometimes guilty of not bothering to find out which religion holds the truth. Instead they'll say: "How am I supposed to know which religion is the right one when there is no evidence?" I'd advice to really know what you're rejecting before you reject it. Sometimes it feels like people are hiding under some quotes or things like: "Religion is illogical", "There is no evidence of God". Most likely you haven't successfully proven religion wrong just because you found a nifty quote. We have free will, so that we can do either good or bad. But God doesn't allow evil, so he will punish evil as a good God would do. That's the downside with quotes. They are often taken out of context and you won't have the whole picture. Quotes are often more witty than substantial.

It didn't have any point other than me thinking the quotes were lacking substance. If your best religious quotes include some from Richard Dawkins you really need to learn more about religion. In my book he's about as competent as the average off-topicer in philosophy and theology. Circular logic or not, faith does not necessarily depend on empirical evidence. You can't attack faith because it's by definition not relying on evidence. To me it's not a slightly higher level of rejection. If I remove God from my life, I remove the most important thing in my life. It was merely a play with words. But sure, it has some flaws.

Hey? I don't quite understand, would you mind rephrasing that? You seem to be saying that atheists are theists and they believe in every god but yours while you believe in every god, including the Judeo-Christian one. I'll rephrase: The initial quote is nonsense and so is my quote.

Christianity is not about being a nice guy in order to escape from hell. Though I pretty much agree with what you're saying here: However, the Bible says that we'll be rewarded in heaven for our deeds on earth. I don't really like that concept as I think heaven alone is a sufficient reward. But what's important to realize is that we won't get to heaven because we have been good since we've all been bad. It's only due to God's grace and because Jesus died for our sins that we're able to enter heaven. The problem with heaven is that it must be completely free from sin in order to be perfect. Regardless of how many good deeds you've done, you'll still be guilty of doing some bad deed. Basically we're all sinners and therefore we can't go to heaven. God punishes evil because he's good, an evil God would accept evil. We can't earn our righteousness by living a good life, the only way to be righteous is through Jesus. You should do good because it's God's will. He knows what kind of life would be best for us. Therefore he has laws and commands so that we know his will and how to enjoy life at its fullest.

Yeah that's correct. But I wouldn't say that they indistinguishable. The most vital difference is probably the doctrine of trinity which Muslims reject. Jesus performed a lot of miracles. Those mentioned in the Bible are only selected parts of what he actually did. So I would rephrase it like this: "Probably everything is false, except for the parts where he doesn't perform any miracles." If we strip down the stories of Jesus and exclude all miracles we're going to end up with a guy saying some controversial things such as: "Love your enemies" etc. Yes, the supernatural parts require faith but not accepting them means that you're undermining of the Bible. I fail to see how a Bible where you reject all things supernatural has any significance or authority today. You're also correct about Sweden. The church of Sweden is a joke these days. It worries more about being politically correct than to tell the truth.

Eastern religions are somewhat overlooked on these forums. Most often we end up with an atheism vs Christianity debate. It's probably because most people here are either atheists or Christian. I guess the question "Is God real?" doesn't stop with a yes or no answer. If your answer is yes, you won't necessarily know which God is the right one. Instead you'll have a bunch of religions to choose from. And if your answer is no, you could still be religious since there are religions such as Buddhism which are non-theistic. A thing that kind of bugs me is that other religions seem to have similar effects on people as Christianity does. Muslims seemingly find comfort in Allah and they are as devoted (if not more) as any Christian. However, I think the key is Jesus. Almost everyone would agree that he really existed. The task is to find out who he was and what he actually did.

The question: "Is God real?" is a rather interesting one. To me it's almost a ridiculous question since my life is devoted to God. I only really have one main goal in my life and that's to remain faithful to God. Whether I succeed with my studies, get a good job or find true love is not as important. To sum it up I'll refer to the Bible and this verse: "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:26 Then again, the initial question might be just as ridiculous for an atheist or at least a strong atheist. You might think that religion is complete and utter rubbish. However, if you're not sure, it's probably the most important question in life. It's sort of a combination of classic questions such as: "Who are we?", "What's the meaning of life?" and "We're do we come from?". So basically my advice is to really think about the question and spend time to find the answer that you believe is the truth.

It's not God's fault that there are people suffering in the world. The path of suffering and evil was chosen long ago by Adam and Eve. We should be thankful that God is merciful and wants to restore the world.

I'd be very surprised and disappointed if they would break up.

I don't see any reason to decide what kind of wedding I want to have before I even have a girlfriend. I'd probably surrender to her will if she has a fixed idea of what her marriage sould look like. The only thing I want is for the people I love and care about to be there. That's probably all that's necessary in order to make the wedding special. During the last six months I've been to two weddings. The first wedding was rather extravagant with great food, live music and dancing. The second wedding was held in a barn and was very basic. To be honest I preferred the first wedding (mostly because the food was delicious) but they were equally special for the wedding couples. From their point of view it was probably the perfect wedding and that's what's important.

I got a little distracted by the TV even though it was muted.

"The most powerful handgun in the world." - .44 Magnum. If you've watched Dirty Harry, you'll like this weapon.

So your saying that science doesn't know how life became conscious. Instead it was actually God who did it. That's not very satisfying if you're an atheist. So evolution has stopped? I'm asking from an evolutionary perspective. What says that the "strong" shouldn't rule over the weak among our own race as well as other weaker animals? The only thing you seem to prove is that you should listen to the Bible. So basically we need the Bible since the theory of evolution offers no distinction between animals and humans. I don't think I've done that. You make it sound like personal bias is just rubbish. As long as the Bible doesn't say "God didn't use evolution" or "God used evolution" we will have an interpretation issue. Bias now comes down to favoring one of many interpretations. What I like about theistic evolution is that it allows us to move past the whole evolution-christianity controversy and focus on what's actually important. My problem with it is my interpretation of genesis and that I think evolution is not entirely correct. Theistic evolution is the most diplomatic answer but I'm not sure it's the truth. I agree to some extent but sometimes science can't explain how and you might need God as an explanation. Example would be miracles and things that science won't be able to explain. Similar would also be the concept of irreducible complexity. Of course I'm aware that it's not proven yet. Yes, but it's not wise to work under the premises that nothing is designed. I think you're wrong. Just a quick google search resulted in: "intelligent design is wrong science" - 0 results "intelligent design is bad science" - 1700 results "intelligent design is not science" - 27,300 results

Fine, you have explained how science works. However, I'm not trying to redefine science, I'm questioning the authority and the validity of science. I suppose it's reasonable to search for the easiest scientific explanation but sometimes science can't explain things. Of course science knows its boundaries and it doesn't claim to be able to explain everything. What I don't like is that people who rely heavily on science seem to disregard everything that isn't science. Perhaps they could consider the concept of a God but that's a stretch and God probably just triggered the creation and nothing more. How is natural selection the antithesis of undirected? Who's the director? The most frequent criticism of ID is that it's not science. It's basically just a mantra. In my world view right and wrong is not equal to science and not science. Saying that it's not science is perhaps sufficient for you but it's not for me. I haven't shut the door for theistic evolution but at the moment I have problems with the compatibility of evolution and the Bible. It also just seems like the easy way out to try and keep your credibility on the scientific field.

You didn't, you just said it was irrelevant. It started with this: To Einstein versus Newton. I don't understand why it's necessary to be bound by science all the time. So basically if a theory is extremely weak and improbable we should cling on to it just because it uses scientific method. If there is no issue then let's stop the nonsense. I'll start with wikipedias definition of intelligent design: Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. I think that "unintelligent science" (evolution/abiogenesis) offers no convincing theory of how life began and how life by natural selection suddenly became conscious. Have we always been the most dominant species? Will we always be? Also would that justify that white people had black slaves because they were able to dominate them? Do you think humans are worth more than animals? If we're all just animals more or less evolved shouldn't we and other animals be treated equally? I have a difficult time to see the clear distinction. I agree.

Evolution and abiogenesis are separate theories, I'm not denying that. I also don't think that you undermine evolution just by saying that abiogenesis is improbable. The issue is whether you should always talk about theories as if they were isolated from the rest of science. If you don't mind lining them up, then I'm not sure what we're debating anymore. I just don't see the point to prohibit all talk about evolution just because it's an alien thread. That wasn't really my point. I'm saying that sometimes we discover that theories aren't true just because we look at the big picture. I'd say that it's important to consider it as long as it's still rather uncertain how life began. I never said that I wanted to say something about evolution, I just didn't want to be denied the possibility. It was PaperClipsYaaaar who first mentioned evolution on this thread. I know what you were addressing, I just didn't think it made too much sense. If all books had common decent and were just more or less evolved, I would say that there is a contradiction when I claim that a specific book is supposed to rule all other books. Yes, that's true but that's not what I was saying. The point was that we should make sure that theories are compatible with each other. Evolution tells us how life evolved and abiogenesis tells us how life began. They complete each other. If there is an intelligence behind the origin of life, perhaps we need to reconsider the theory of evolution as well.

We met when his family moved to a row house one house from my row house. I think he and I were both 1 year old. Then we went to the same school for 13 years (3 different schools). Fortunately he also became a Christian and we're in the same church. I still live rather close to him (about 500 meters) but we're not neighbors anymore. Although he and I have many common friends so we still see each other a lot. Hopefully we'll extend our current "best friend" streak of 20 years.

I think that science should try to deliver a more extensive model of the world. Instead it seems as if you want to separate theories so that they become independent of each other. Theories should be like pieces of a puzzle so that they fit in with the whole picture. It's like Newton versus Einstein. Newton's physics is correct if we're under normal scenarios. But it's not correct if we look at the big picture and different scenarios. If there is no scientific consensus on how life began, then how do we decide which theories are the better ones? I'd say that the authority of certain highly acclaimed scientists must be significant when there is no general consensus.

All I'm saying is that it's not necessary to separate abiogenesis and evolution so that we can't talk about evolution (which is the next step after abiogenesis) on this thread. The problem with abiogenesis is that it's highly improbable and we don't really know much about it. Abiogenesis and alien life almost falls under the category of faith, with the exception that it's natural theories and not supernatural. To me abiogenesis seems like an assumption based on the theory of evolution and that life obviously exists today. I also find it strange that a guy like Francis Crick would consider directed panspermia as a better alternative than abiogenesis. If there's anything that doesn't belong on this thread it's this question:

So are you saying that evolution is irrelevant in an abiogenesis debate? Sure, abiogenesis is not the same thing as evolution but they kind of go hand in hand. I don't see why we need or even should exclude evolution from the debate.