Do YOU believe in God?

[Guest GhostRanger]

Ghost, the only sermon I see is the one from Memorial Day. Could you show me how to listen to the others? By the way, I'm impressed with this church so far. It's much like mine.

 

 

 

Oh, and just one last thing: How do you solve the "yom" argument? You can blame misinterpretation on East-West dichotomy of thinking, but your view of "yom's meaning" changes even though the exact same word is used?

 

 

 

I'm sorry. I really hope I'm not being too harsh. I'm not trying to totally bash what you've placed some of your theology upon, but that foundation seems to be completely unfounded now.

 

 

 

I'm still eager to hear what the church you listed has to say on the topic.

 

 

 

I'll see if I can get the audio files to you another way. Just another note - the snior minister there Jon Weece believes in a literal 6 day creation. These sermons aren't about creation at all - it's about Eastern thinking in the Bible.

[pianofrieak2]

logic, can you give me an example of your view? One civilization doing something totally unacceptable to another civilization to show your point?

 

 

 

And Ghost:

 

 

 

I was thinking about eastern thinking in the Bible and here's what I've come up with:

 

 

 

Yes, there is much of it. Numbers mean something, there are many symbols and double-meanings...even through prophecy and such. So I can definately see your point there.

 

 

 

But it's not entirely eastern. Israel, and the whole Middle East world for that matter, is situated between the east and the west. Thus, a lot of their beliefs are a mix: western with a little bit of eastern in there, such as the whole numbers and symbols thing.

 

 

 

But even if you believe in the eastern way, why would the Bible use the same word to mean something totally contrary to other uses of that word, especially if the Bible never even insinuates that happening?

[Guest GhostRanger]

logic, can you give me an example of your view? One civilization doing something totally unacceptable to another civilization to show your point?

 

 

 

And Ghost:

 

 

 

I was thinking about eastern thinking in the Bible and here's what I've come up with:

 

 

 

Yes, there is much of it. Numbers mean something, there are many symbols and double-meanings...even through prophecy and such. So I can definately see your point there.

 

 

 

But it's not entirely eastern. Israel, and the whole Middle East world for that matter, is situated between the east and the west. Thus, a lot of their beliefs are a mix: western with a little bit of eastern in there, such as the whole numbers and symbols thing.

 

 

 

But even if you believe in the eastern way, why would the Bible use the same word to mean something totally contrary to other uses of that word, especially if the Bible never even insinuates that happening?

 

 

 

I'm not going to comment until you listen to the sermons. Not only is it Eastern thought I'm talking about - I'm talking about Hebrew thought, and the Hebrew style of thinking. Your point about it being mixed with Western and Eastern is irrelevant because you don't know anything about the ancient (and semi-current) Hebrew culture.

 

 

 

My point about the word is that the word could mean a 24-hour day. That's the point of symbols - you are using something else. You are literally saying one thing, and implying something else by using it as a symbol. If yom in context meant "age" or "era" then it wouldn't be a symbol, it would literally mean "age" or "era." If it translated to literally mean a 24-hour day - it CAN be a symbol.

[gingo_100]

i believe in GOD but i also believe that scientists aren't just making up a story about the big bang but i think it was GOD who caused that to happen i also believe we did not evole from monkeys or any type of primates

[Satenza]

Well, i can't contest saying that God definatly does not exist. If youwish to think of the cause of the big bang as God then i think that is a good thing to beleive in. Even tho it is a God Of The Gaps still.

 

 

 

It's the religious God's like the God of christianity i do not find to be believable for me under any circumstance.

[logic-is-overrated]

logic, can you give me an example of your view? One civilization doing something totally unacceptable to another civilization to show your point?

 

Biblical: the various genocides in the old testament where God commanded various nations to be wiped out by the Israelites: Jebusites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, etc.

 

 

 

Historical: From Wikipedia:

 

Pederasty

 

Main article: Pederasty in ancient Greece

 

The most common form of same-sex love between males in Greece was ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅpaiderastiaÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[the49ronin]

I believe in God. I mean, there is really no scientific evidence to go either way. Until man creates man from nothing (not cloning) or proves evolution (which has NEVER, EVER, been done), I will continue to put my full faith in God. It makes much more sense than a freak occurance creating all this.

 

 

 

barihawk, forgive me for saying this to an OoC member, but there was an experiment with little catapillars. The little critters were originally a white/cream color at normal tempurature (70 degree F) but when exposed to dramatic heat changes, whould turn black. They bred half of the catapillars in a hot environment and half in cold environments for several generations so that they were either black or white. When exposed to opposite climates though, only some could adapt but the others died from the changes. After a few more breedings of the little guys they were put back in the original environment and could not survive in it. When they were disected :cry: and their DeoxyriboNucleic Acid, they found there were mutations in the strands to help either cool down or warm up the homeostasis of the catapillar.

[the_blob23]

I believe in God. I mean, there is really no scientific evidence to go either way. Until man creates man from nothing (not cloning) or proves evolution (which has NEVER, EVER, been done), I will continue to put my full faith in God. It makes much more sense than a freak occurance creating all this.

 

 

 

Emphasis Added...

 

 

 

The word 'Theory' has a completely different meaning in scientific terminology. It doesn't mean (as many people tend to think) something that is purely conjectural, lacking evidence. A theory is something that results from available scientific data.

 

 

 

Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that scientists will ever "prove" anything. The Theory of Gravity isn't proof that gravity exists, but it follows natural observation. If we drop an object 1.2 billion times, and we measure the speed of the falling object at 9.8 m/s in every instance, we can be reasonably sure that the Theory of Gravity explains a phenomenon. Likewise with the Theory of Evolution--it is one of science's most tested theories, and so far, its observations have stood up to rigorous scrutiny. Things in nature have been proven many times over to adapt to circumstances. Remeber, also, that macroevolution occurs over vast time scales (we're talking millions of years here). It's not like man just woke up out of the blue one day.

 

 

 

Last of all, evolution and God don't have to be opposed to each other. It's certainly possible for a higher being to have had a hand in evolution and the formation of the universe, but no scientific evidence regarding this exists. I base my decisions on logic and evidence, and therefore, I do not accept that there is a God.

[zerosouls]

Personally i don't really know which i believe, i just don't care so i tend to ever think about it.

 

 

 

Well it works.

[Mercifull]

i believe in GOD but i also believe that scientists aren't just making up a story about the big bang but i think it was GOD who caused that to happen i also believe we did not evole from monkeys or any type of primates

No evolutionist of zoo-ologist has ever claimed humans evolved from monkeys.

[cooljavi]

It's certainly possible for a higher being to have had a hand in evolution and the formation of the universe, but no scientific evidence regarding this exists. I base my decisions on logic and evidence, and therefore, I do not accept that there is a God.

 

 

 

Well since God wrote the laws of nature and scinece i guess you agree with him.

[bull912000]

Hmm, here is something to ponder over. If god is everywhere and everything, how can there be an absence of god in hell? :-k I think that hell is just plain nothing.... but he created nothing...... grr, paradox! :x

[bull912000]

You're missing the point. You feel that god is a fact. But, to really be a fact it must be universally proven and recognizable by the majority. That is the definition of a fact. God is not a fact by definition so by claiming that he is you are only impacting your own credibility because you are claiming something that is easily proven not to be true. Whether or not god actually exists he is not a fact.

 

 

 

Sorry, been out for a while.

 

 

 

No? Give me something that disproves god. Give me a list. And in return, I'll give you proof of a supream creator.

 

 

 

My proof? Look around you. Look on your desk, in your room..... do you think that all of this was created by accident? That two bodies of mass collided and created the universe? I'm not disproving the big bang theory, but those two bodies of mass had to exist before the universe was created, or it would be in the universe. I think that scientist are just too scared to try and disprove creationism because there is no way around it. *If anyone finds something in the encyclopedia that says otherewise, than please tell me*

 

 

 

As for recognized by the majority- the majority of me says god exist. Most of the crew on the Titanic said that the ship would not sink... and it sunk, so simple human majority is irrelevant.

 

And the definition of a fact is something that can be proven or disproven.

[the_blob23]

I think that scientist are just too scared to try and disprove creationism because there is no way around it. *If anyone finds something in the encyclopedia that says otherewise, than please tell me*

 

 

 

I have to disagree with you. Scientists aren't "scared" of creationism in any way (in fact it seems to me like it is often the other way around). However, many creationists have made statements that contradict the available scientific evidence. The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is about 15 billion years of age. To claim that the entire Earth was created in a week (which many, but not all, creationists do) is patently absurd.

 

 

 

But, far more importantly, we have to consider your challenge to science to "disprove" God. This will never happen. It is impossible to disprove the existence of God, but it is also impossible to prove the existence of a deity. I must remind you that the burden of proof rests upon the believers and not the athiests. We don't have to prove anything. You do. I'll use the example of the now-famous Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can certainly say that Flying Spaghetti Monsters are floating around, but if I have no evidence to prove my statement, than it is perfectly acceptable and logical to say that these creatures do not exist. The same goes with God.

[insane]

It's certainly possible for a higher being to have had a hand in evolution and the formation of the universe, but no scientific evidence regarding this exists. I base my decisions on logic and evidence, and therefore, I do not accept that there is a God.

 

 

 

OF course no scientific evidence for God exists. Science deals with natural phenomena. That's like saying no biological evidence exists for the existence of airplanes, therefore I do not accept that airplanes exist. Just because some unrelated field doesn't have evidence for an unrelated object doesn't mean the object does not exist. It's simply not logical.

[bull912000]

The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is about 15 billion years of age. To claim that the entire Earth was created in a week (which many, but not all, creationists do) is patently absurd.

 

 

 

The bible says the earth was created in a week, but the bible also says:

 

 

 

To God, 10,000 is like a second, and a second is like 10,000 years.

 

 

 

I don't thing that the bible was refering to earth days.

[Guest GhostRanger]

But, far more importantly, we have to consider your challenge to science to "disprove" God. This will never happen. It is impossible to disprove the existence of God, but it is also impossible to prove the existence of a deity. I must remind you that the burden of proof rests upon the believers and not the athiests. We don't have to prove anything. You do. I'll use the example of the now-famous Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can certainly say that Flying Spaghetti Monsters are floating around, but if I have no evidence to prove my statement, than it is perfectly acceptable and logical to say that these creatures do not exist. The same goes with God.

 

 

 

THe burden of proof doesn't rely on the believers because proof has to do with science, not theology. They aren't the same thing and it's fallacious to treat them as such.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

OF course no scientific evidence for God exists. Science deals with natural phenomena. That's like saying no biological evidence exists for the existence of airplanes, therefore I do not accept that airplanes exist. Just because some unrelated field doesn't have evidence for an unrelated object doesn't mean the object does not exist. It's simply not logical.

 

 

 

But a lot of people do make religious claims in the natural realm such as, God communicating moral guidelines/bible, Jesus being the son of God AND God himself (incarnation), miracles, physical creation and so forth. If God is a purely supernatural concept, how would God impact us in any meaningful way? Any impact we receive, is from the natural realm by definition. Without God using some type of natural phenomena to communicate to us, we have no ability to comprehend God from nothingness.

[Godzira]

I could make the same claims about an invisible spoon that most make about god and it would be equally disprovable. If god has actively interacted with us and our world we should be able to find evidence of this interaction, and then from the evidence, draw a god conclusion.

 

 

 

You cannot draw a conclusion and then search for evidence. Proof of lack of existence is not proof of existence.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I could make the same claims about an invisible spoon that most make about god and it would be equally disprovable. If god has actively interacted with us and our world we should be able to find evidence of this interaction, and then from the evidence, draw a god conclusion.

 

 

 

You cannot draw a conclusion and then search for evidence. Proof of lack of existence is not proof of existence.

 

 

 

I'd recommend that you pick up a copy of Adler's How to think about the Great Ideas and read the sections about science, religion, and philosophy. Maybe after you do that you'll quit trying to lump science and theology into the same category and make the same requirements of proof for them. Clearly anything we say isn't going to affect you, so just go ahead and pick up that book from a library and give it a read.

 

 

 

EDIT: But let me ask you this question. What kind of interaction are you thinking of, and what kind of evidence do you think it should produce?

[Godzira]

ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s amazing to me the way religion attacks science saying there is not enough proof for scientific theories and then immediately tries to put itself in a class outside of the same type of proof. I actually transferred out of a collage class when I was younger because the professor was teaching that ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åevery piece of classical writing must be analyzed from the point of view of the people who wrote it, with the only exception being the bibleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Guest GhostRanger]

ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s amazing to me the way religion attacks science saying there is not enough proof for scientific theories and then immediately tries to put itself in a class outside of the same type of proof. I actually transferred out of a collage class when I was younger because the professor was teaching that ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åevery piece of classical writing must be analyzed from the point of view of the people who wrote it, with the only exception being the bibleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Godzira]

I was editing my post to answer your question as you were posting back. As for your comments

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Å1) I've never attacked science for not having enough proof.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Guest GhostRanger]

I was editing my post to answer your question as you were posting back. As for your comments

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Å1) I've never attacked science for not having enough proof.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Godzira]

You are absolutely right. I am actually Buddhist which most classify as a religion. So let me be more specific, Christians are threatened by science and Christians have seen fit to attack it over and over again throughout centuries and into modern day.