Is God real post your thoughts!

[NoMoreDead]

Despite the fact that Darwinian evolution and the big bang are both considered theories, they are the most comprehensive explanations for life and the growth of life. They have been through the scruteny of thousands of scientists, and are now both the most widely accepted theories in their respective catagories. I see no such explanations in the bible/NT/OT. Neither of the three can deny the observed instances of speciation, or the fossil records showing intermediate species.

 

 

 

The fact that you say that we know hardly anthing about the age of the Earth makes me laugh beyond control, and I seriously question your knowledge of scientific facts.

 

 

 

Why isn't carbon dating an effective dating method?

 

 

 

 

-God created man From an evolutionary standpoint, who says God didn't create whatever we developed from? Or the Big Bang?

 

 

Why would god create things which completely contradict everything the bible/OT/NT describe about the creation of man?

 

 

 

 

-The was a massive worldwide flood You can't say there wasn't. At one time, the majority of the planet was covered in ice. All that melting ice had to go somewhere.

 

 

 

 

The Earth is covered 3/4ths in water. I CAN say that there was no worldwide flood. Look some of this stuff up for a change.

 

 

 

 

Can science control hurricanes?

 

Can science control planets being made?

 

Can science control the universe's expansion?

 

 

 

 

 

What would it prove if we could? We have a comprehensive knowledge as to how all of those things occour(ed). There are naturalisitic explanations for all three of those things.

[Zierro]

So your best argument is that the bible is selectivly false so metaphors can exist?

 

 

 

Yep. That sounds like the purpose of religion to me. Make up stories to make the world a better place. I don't know if they are real or fake, I just find that point irrelevant when it comes to the fact that if we went by the same moralities portrayed, the world would be a better place.

 

 

 

Why would all the moral stories in the bible be false, and all the spiritual stories be true? What sense would that make? Why not have a true moral story in there? Why not have a false spiritual story in there?

 

 

 

To provide us with more clear scenarios and so the message can be flexible since it was meant for multiple people and not just one guy. Making up a story can give you the chance to apply the message to everybody.

 

 

 

Why is it that you don't question these things? Why is it that people openly believe that an invisible man in the sky is watching over us at all times, and is all powerful and all knowing? The answer: It provides us with comfort. It helps take away our biggest fear: Dying. To think that we will live again, forever, is a way to comfort us. In biblical times, it kept people in control. Believe this and act this way, and you will move on to a better place.

 

 

 

I don't believe the man in the sky. I believe in Mother Nature. It seems your definition of God is different than mine.

 

 

 

And about the comfort - so what? Is it better to be right and miserable than wrong and happy?

 

 

 

To be honest, I'd rather live in a better place than move on to one.

 

 

 

And by using the morality of Jesus, that will be achieved, whether heaven exists or not. Like I said, if we were all like Jesus then our current world (the present - not heaven) would be a better place.

 

 

 

No, but your parents/science sure as hell can. Age: Determined by the time your parents created you. White: Determined by your parents skin color. Tall: Genetic. Male: Genetic. Born in the USA: Where your parents have chosen to live.

 

 

 

I have freewill. I can control my own fate, only within my freewill. I can't control my age or other characteristics about me. I have no freewill when it comes to that. Blame it on genetics, that's exactly what I consider Mother Nature to be.

 

 

 

Maybe you don't understand the concept of Mother Nature. She's not real. She's just the idea of the way things are. You can call her "fate" instead, if that fits better for you.

[NoMoreDead]

 

 

 

 

I cannot control the fact that I'm 17, white, tall, a male, born in the USA, etc. etc.

 

 

 

No, but your parents/science sure as hell can. Age: Determined by the time your parents created you. White: Determined by your parents skin color. Tall: Genetic. Male: Genetic. Born in the USA: Where your parents have chosen to live.

 

 

 

Anything else that "cannot be controlled"?

 

 

 

So who controlled this child's destiny on who his parents would be. I bet science can't do that.

 

 

 

Also, wasn't there a study on the history channel where a famous man (found the sunken Titanic) discovered that the black sea had life in it at one point, proving that a major flood had happened?

 

 

 

Science is often wrong, don't blindly accept what some "expert" writes.

 

 

 

Yet again, you display a complete lack of scientific knowledge.

 

 

 

The parents created the child, therefore they controlled his existance. Why are you searching for a supernatural explanation when there is a logically sound one in front of you?

 

 

 

As for your flood story:

 

"We agree that they indeed have found evidence for a huge flood in the Black Sea area. But we do not support their claim that this was Noahs Flood. You see, in order to justify their assertion, they declare that the record of Noahs Flood in the Bible is legendary and just a myth. They say the myth originated from a real event (their Black Sea flood), but that it has been grossly distorted and exaggerated as it was relayed by word of mouth before eventually being written down. By using the term myth they can disregard all the details of the biblical account that do not fit their Black Sea claim."

 

 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp%20

[NoMoreDead]

 

I don't believe the man in the sky. I believe in Mother Nature. It seems your definition of God is different than mine.

 

 

 

And about the comfort - so what? Is it better to be right and miserable than wrong and happy?

 

 

 

 

I can only speak for myself on this one, but I am 100% happy with my life as it is, and actually consider myself better of for not believeing in the supernatural.

 

 

 

 

And by using the morality of Jesus, that will be achieved, whether heaven exists or not. Like I said, if we were all like Jesus then our current world (the present - not heaven) would be a better place.

 

 

 

Agreed. If only the supernatural part could be left out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have freewill. I can control my own fate, only within my freewill. I can't control my age or other characteristics about me. I have no freewill when it comes to that. Blame it on genetics, that's exactly what I consider Mother Nature to be.

 

 

 

Maybe you don't understand the concept of Mother Nature. She's not real. She's just the idea of the way things are. You can call her "fate" instead, if that fits better for you.

 

 

 

The entire idea of fate is nonsense to me, but that's just me speaking. That's just a difference of opinion, I suppose.

[Zierro]

Wait, so I have control over everything that happens to me in life? There are two factors that can control what happens.

 

 

 

1. My freewill - What I personally choose to do.

 

2. Fate - What I can't control. (My parents giving birth to me, genetics causing me to be tall and white)

 

 

 

When I use the term "God", I am implying the second factor - Fate.

[warri0r45]

Science is often wrong, don't blindly accept what some "expert" writes.

 

 

 

And it's often right, too. It's a huge stretch to go from the fact that science is a trial and error process to reject well established sciences. The whole basis of your computer and the medicine you take is testament to how science works and how many of it's key aspects have always coincided with empirical observation and testing. Much of it is proven, including the principles that concepts like evolution and phylogenetics are based on.

[NoMoreDead]

Wait, so I have control over everything that happens to me in life? There are two factors that can control what happens.

 

 

 

1. My freewill - What I personally choose to do.

 

2. Fate - What I can't control. (My parents giving birth to me, genetics causing me to be tall and white)

 

 

 

When I use the term "God", I am implying the second factor - Fate.

 

 

 

You are absolutely right. You cannot control how/when/where you are born, but someone else can. Call that fate if you will. When I think fate, I think more along the lines of "Everything happens for a purpose", and perhaps that is a little naive.

 

 

 

I just don't think that anything is put into motion. I believe that I am a result of chance.

 

 

 

However, as I said, you are correct. You cannot control those things. I just believe that those things are controlled by science and chance.

[deathdrow]

-God created man From an evolutionary standpoint, who says God didn't create whatever we developed from? Or the Big Bang?

 

 

 

 

creationism clearly states that god created man, not that he created or induced evolution, although evolution is only a theory it makes more sense than saying some big thing up in the sky made us.

[x1992x]

My answers are in bold.

 

 

 

I'd like to meet the man who says he can change a person's genetics so that their children get to choose how they are.

 

 

 

Can science control hurricanes? working on it. should be ready in 10 years.

 

Can science control planets being made?maybe possibel in the future. scientics are working hard on it(with global warming and such we need a new place)

 

Can science control the universe's expansion?may be out of our lague

 

 

 

some my answers are also in bold.

 

 

 

if you would like to i know a person who can change gender on you're kid before it's born ;) and meny other things(haircoler, skin color, eye color, and soon how high)

 

 

 

and carbon dating is VERY accurate way of dating, right down the + - 10 years now. and we're only getting better at it :)

[Julius47108]

The real question is what came first the chicken or the egg? Now one person may say the egg or the other may say the chicken but why can't we say both. Same goes as god, science and god intertwine since there are some things that science can't explain like some of the acts people did in the ancient times like turning water into wine. However some acts of science can't be explained by religion such as Nuclear Fusion and other random things. So how can we say there is only one since where did it come from. The most theoretical solution is the science created god and god created science. However the Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be explained.

[Lenticular_J]

Science is often wrong, don't blindly accept what some "expert" writes.

 

 

 

And it's often right, too. It's a huge stretch to go from the fact that science is a trial and error process to reject well established sciences. The whole basis of your computer and the medicine you take is testament to how science works and how many of it's key aspects have always coincided with empirical observation and testing. Much of it is proven, including the principles that concepts like evolution and phylogenetics are based on.

 

The thing is, we can only prove it here on our tiny rock. We hardly know anything about our solar system, let alone the universe in general. After all, the idea of an Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt surfaced, what, 60 years ago? Who knows what else is out there.

 

 

 

Beyond recorded history, we know little about our planet. We can make generalizations of a time period and what lived then, or what kind of planet it was, but the margin of error has been said to be huge.

 

 

 

That's a good point, Julius. But your rationality will never work here. :P

[deathdrow]

The real question is what came first the chicken or the egg? Now one person may say the egg or the other may say the chicken but why can't we say both. Same goes as god, science and god intertwine since there are some things that science can't explain like some of the acts people did in the ancient times like turning water into wine. However some acts of science can't be explained by religion such as Nuclear Fusion and other random things. So how can we say there is only one since where did it come from. The most theoretical solution is the science created god and god created science. However the Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be explained.

 

 

 

The flaw in what you're saying is that your believing a two thousand year old book that says some guy who said he was "god's" kid, turned water into wine. for all you know he could have just had a jug of water told everyone to turn around then switched it into a jug of wine. There's nothing proving this happened, however with science we have solid proof of most of what's involved with science. whereas with the bible, you are saying that we should believe this two thousand year old book that we don't even have an original copy of, and it's been translated and rewritten so many times that we can't be sure of anything in it. who knows what the bible really was. it could've just been a popular novel at the time, it also could have just been some stuff people made up. the thing is there is NO proof for it or god at all.

[Lenticular_J]

The flaw in what you're saying is that you believe science to be so flawless.

[x1992x]

The flaw in what you're saying is that you believe science to be so flawless.

 

 

 

you're right, science is not flawless, but comparing "science" and the bible in terms of flaws, the bible wins hands down. because there is something you can't argue. that there is ZERO proof that god exists ;) but if there is proof that god exist then please post it, because that's what this tread is about "is god real" but so far i havent seen any proof.(but if there already is posted some then please show, i might be forgetting some)

[Lenticular_J]

There had to be a massive, massive, massive source of energy to create the Big Bang. Thus the universe. Scientists at CERN have actually based this as a fact, and it was exaggerated in the book Angels & Demons by Dan Brown. Who says that can't be God?

[Lateralus]

There had to be a massive, massive, massive source of energy to create the Big Bang. Thus the universe. Scientists at CERN have actually based this as a fact, and it was exaggerated in the book Angels & Demons by Dan Brown. Who says that can't be God?

 

 

 

I don't think anyone would be as bold as to say that, there's just not much basis for the assumption either. That kind of argument would be better suited to Einstein or Spinoza's god than it would be to Christianity's.

[Lenticular_J]

That's true, but I personally believe God created a Big Bang sort of thing.

[x1992x]

There had to be a massive, massive, massive source of energy to create the Big Bang. Thus the universe. Scientists at CERN have actually based this as a fact, and it was exaggerated in the book Angels & Demons by Dan Brown. Who says that can't be God?

 

 

 

call that an arguement? using something that you got no proof for. come on you need proof something there is 95% safe. you can do better then that -.- and using a thing bacause you think it is not and arguement.

 

 

 

now where is nomoredead when you need him #-o

[monkeyboo2]

There had to be a massive, massive, massive source of energy to create the Big Bang. Thus the universe. Scientists at CERN have actually based this as a fact, and it was exaggerated in the book Angels & Demons by Dan Brown. Who says that can't be God?

 

 

 

now where is nomoredead when you need him #-o

 

 

 

I'll step in instead for Nomoredead (but not quite as harsh).

 

 

 

Well, who says that it can't be the energy leprechaun or any other ficitonal explanation I care to come up with?

 

The unknown is not proof of God, or any other magical being or anything for that matter?

 

 

 

I don't know the origin of that Energy; but nor do I take the easy way out to answer the question by using my favourite answer (which for you is 'God').

 

I will accept that I do not know the answer until I have compelling evidence that strongly suggests/proves how the event and process of the Big Bang came into existance.

 

 

 

In this respect, your argumentative skills are dire... And you've been doing so well aswell.

[x1992x]

There had to be a massive, massive, massive source of energy to create the Big Bang. Thus the universe. Scientists at CERN have actually based this as a fact, and it was exaggerated in the book Angels & Demons by Dan Brown. Who says that can't be God?

 

 

 

now where is nomoredead when you need him #-o

 

 

 

I'll step in instead for Nomoredead (but not quite as harsh).

 

 

 

Well, who says that it can't be the energy leprechaun or any other ficitonal explanation I care to come up with?

 

The unknown is not proof of God, or any other magical being or anything for that matter?

 

 

 

I don't know the origin of that Energy; but nor do I take the easy way out to answer the question by using my favourite answer (which for you is 'God').

 

I will accept that I do not know the answer until I have compelling evidence that strongly suggests/proves how the event and process of the Big Bang came into existance.

 

 

 

In this respect, your argumentative skills are dire... And you've been doing so well aswell.

 

 

 

Thank you, oh' boy how crazy i am looking forward to day day where "god" is proven not to exist :D (Or proven to exist, which seems unlickly, because with every year that passes science comes clooser to explaining and dissproving "god" existence)

 

 

 

But i agree, Lenticular you are good at making arguements, but our side are good aswell :D

[Lenticular_J]

All I'm trying to say is NoMoreDead's arrogance in the infallibility of science is stupid. Bad example, like monkeyboo said, but there's not a whole lot to do. I do like that you're respectful enough to my faith to capitalize God's name, monkey. Just a little note of thanks.

 

 

 

x1992x, I don't mean to seem rude, but you're not doing too much for "your side". It could simply be the language barrier, though, and that it'sdifficult to understand what you mean.

 

 

 

The only problem for this is that you guys want a logical, error-proof explanation of God, as if He's some sort of computer program or something you see in the sky. However, the entire concept of God is based on faith, which it seems you have no concept of. Logic and faith are two different camps in this case, and near completely unable to be combined.

[x1992x]

All I'm trying to say is NoMoreDead's arrogance in the infallibility of science is stupid. Bad example, like monkeyboo said, but there's not a whole lot to do. I do like that you're respectful enough to my faith to capitalize God's name, monkey. Just a little note of thanks.

 

 

 

x1992x, I don't mean to seem rude, but you're not doing too much for "your side". It could simply be the language barrier, though, and that it'sdifficult to understand what you mean.

 

 

 

The only problem for this is that you guys want a logical, error-proof explanation of God, as if He's some sort of computer program or something you see in the sky. However, the entire concept of God is based on faith, which it seems you have no concept of. Logic and faith are two different camps in this case, and near completely unable to be combined.

 

 

 

Well i know my language is not that good ;) i don't capatilize "god" because i don't believe he is real. and you have yet to present a solid proof to me that he is real -.- and nomoredead make very good arguements, and i don't think he is arrogant ;) and if he is real and made it all. why the [bleep] did he make cancor and aids, why the [bleep] did he get the roof to fall down on a church and kill alot of people. if "god" is real, he would't want to destroy what he made.

 

 

 

br1ng m3 3vid3nc3 pl0x

[x1992x]

http://beta.vreel.net/watch_8304.html

 

 

 

watch that. i mean really watch it, and then talk to me about the bible :ugeek: ;) and if you can kill those arguements then gods is real, but you can't. i am going to count the time from my masage to reply on it ;)

[insane]

It is the absolute or only truth about God's character.

 

That statement requires proof. Proof which is currently unavaliable.

 

 

 

According to your standards of truth, proof is currently unavailable. But your standards of proof are astronomically high; those that I have never encountered in another person before.

 

 

 

 

 

The bible is god's autobiography? HAH! I think a lot of people in your religion would take offense to that, and deem you "insane".

 

 

 

Why is that offensive? If we believe the Bible is a source of truth about God and his character, and if we believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it is indeed truth about God revealed by God, which fits perfectly the definition for an autobiography. And thanks for the oh so clever pun directed at my username.

 

 

 

 

 

My standard of proof is something which is undeniable, unquestionable, and without any other plausable explanation.

 

 

 

So you don't believe in anything, then?

[x1992x]

It is the absolute or only truth about God's character.

 

That statement requires proof. Proof which is currently unavaliable.

 

 

 

According to your standards of truth, proof is currently unavailable. But your standards of proof are astronomically high; those that I have never encountered in another person before.his standard of proof is not high at all. but you cant even give him little proof or even a glance of proof -.-

 

 

 

 

 

The bible is god's autobiography? HAH! I think a lot of people in your religion would take offense to that, and deem you "insane".

 

 

 

Why is that offensive? If we believe the Bible is a source of truth about God and his character, and if we believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it is indeed truth about God revealed by God, which fits perfectly the definition for an autobiography. And thanks for the oh so clever pun directed at my username.

 

the bible. http://beta.vreel.net/watch_8304.html thats my comment on the bible ;)

 

 

 

My standard of proof is something which is undeniable, unquestionable, and without any other plausable explanation.

 

 

 

So you don't believe in anything, then?

 

 

 

he can feel his skin, he can see and touch it, that is real. and nearly all things fits in his standard, it sad that any of you're proof dont fit any of it

 

 

 

 

my response is in bold :D (i dont know you post just made me angry :wall: )