Do YOU believe in God?

[pianofrieak2]

Im going to quote the bible becuse it is not false. Meaning it is not contrary to fact or truth.

 

Didn't you look at the links I posted? Between the OT and NT the Bible contracts nearly everything it says.

 

 

 

 

 

BTW, NO MORE HUGE BLOCKS OF TEXT!!!! Just link to the sites and post your opinion please. My finger is sore from using the scroll key on my mouse too much.

 

 

 

I agree about the huge blocks of text. But, remember, that's on BOTH sides of the argument. I like it when you quote something to prove your point but when you quote THE ENTIRE THING it gets kind of annoying.

 

 

 

By the way, bjbj, I saw some of your links but they can be reconciled. If you actually care, that is.

 

 

 

Also, did you read my post. Tell me what you think. :P

[Random]

My points were perfectly valid, you continue to point out what you perceive as shortcommings of science and yet have failed to link how science is worthless without a god.

 

 

 

All you made so far is a whole lot of assumptions.

 

 

 

 

 

This is where I believe you are incorrect. It is your train of thought that one cannot support or even take into account as halfway true or "logical, whatever that term means, if your thoughts are merely chemicals and electrical impulses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

uh huh, and yet these so called chemicals and electical impulses is able to record our past experiences(memories) which our thoughts are derive from. So our thoughts are not merely chemicals and eclectrical impulses but based on the experience and knowledge we have attained.

 

 

 

e.g. When you touch a heated stove, you get burnt, so you would think, touch hot stove=pain=bad.

 

So I see that these chemicals and impulses are very much vital to our survival, making new connections from our past experiences and allowing us to learn and adapt to our enviornment by referencing new experiences to those in our memories.

 

But according to you, our thoughts and these chemicals and what not are obviously not reliable and this new thought process should be discarded.

 

 

 

We use REASONING to determine what we believe. Science gives us facts and we DEDUCT the conclusion and hypothesize reasons behind those facts. Those are the things that are based upon our chemicals and brain cells; those cannot be trusted. Which I have already proven so please see above.

 

 

 

You've proven nothing, all you've done so far is stated that our thoughts and how our brain functions can not be trusted. As you yourself have said, our reasonings are deverived from facts gathered, not merely what we think is right, this links our thoughts to the environment and allowed us to function effectively in it. Our brain is great at making patterns, and new experiences are recalled against those patterns allowing us to act according to the situation.

 

 

 

 

I know I sound harsh but I'm really annoyed by people who quote 1 sentence and argue that sentence even though they did not even comprehend HALF of what I talked about. So don't hate me for saying this:

 

 

 

Your inability to comprehend my view does in no way validate your comments.

 

 

 

Why don't you take your own advice? That sentence was part of my whole post and sums up my whole responsive.

 

 

 

I comprehend you views fine, you're saying that because our thoughts are based on chemicals and electrical impulses it can not be relied upon without some higher being guiding this process.

 

 

 

Just because I comprehend your views doesn't mean I agree with it.

 

 

 

And all you've provided so far is unsubstantiated claims of the uselessness of science without a supernatural being, and provided nothing reliable to back this up.

[bjbj1991]

I know I broke my own rule.

 

 

 

A pre-flood canopy would shield them from cosmic radiation. Scientists have studied what types and how much radiation would be filtered through 40 feet of water. Radiation affects the longevity of life. One of the main aging factors on people are the rays of the sun.

 

We are told that people lived to be very, very old before the flood of Noah. The Bible says they lived to be 800 and 900 years old. This sounds like fantasy when compared to life expectancy in our own experience. But we don't have a vapor canopy up there protecting us from the harmful radiation of the sun like they must have had.

 

Did you quote a skin care artical for that :lol: ? Radiation has very little affect on life, it we are outside too much we will get canncer but its not a significant decrease to acount for 800 years

 

 

 

 

 

We know that the waters below the firmament are oceans and other bodies of water. But what is the water that is above the firmament? It is unlikely that this refers to the clouds we see in today's environment (the second heaven and earth system). In the first heaven and earth system, God may not have caused it to rain (see Genesis 2:5). Some believe that the first rain was at the flood of Noah. If so, there would have been no clouds.

 

A cloud is a concentration of evaporated water, maby this was what the many writers of the OT were refering to.

 

 

 

 

 

The Vapor Canopy THEROY

 

Not a theory because it did not follow the scientific method.

 

 

 

 

 

The sun hits the vapor canopy. It's hot. This would warm the earth up all the way around. They would have a tropical, or sub-tropical earth -- everywhere! North pole. South pole. No ice caps. Hot!

 

It would be like a giant terrarium. It wouldn't rain. That could be the significance of the rainbow. After the flood, God told Noah, that the rainbow "shall be a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth... that never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh" (Genesis 9:13, 15 NASB). If Noah had seen rainbows all of his life, would the rainbow be significant?

 

The Earth would have an envronment like Venus, it wont be as hot but just to keep the water abouve the people it would be still thousands of degrees along with a huge amount of pressure. The anchent people did not understand rainbows, they thought it was made by god(s).

 

 

 

"There went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground" (Genesis 2:6). That's exactly what we would expect if God put water up there and surrounded the earth with it. We will say it is water vapor because you would be able to see through it. The sun would have had to come through. It may have been 33% less bright. They would have been able to see some of the stars.

 

Look at a Titanic movie (even if its fiction just aslong as it shows the ship underwater) you will see that it is very dark down there. Light can not pass even a thousand feet a freash water how is it going to pass 30,000 of it!

 

 

 

Palm tree fossils have been found in Alaska. How did palm trees get to Alaska? Some textbooks say that they traveled there. It is called tectonic plate movement. How long would it take a palm tree to travel from southern California to Alaska? About 20 million years. However, the oldest palm trees they have found in Alaska, according to current dating techniques, is only 10,000 years old. You can't have a 10,000 year old tree making a 20 million year trip.

 

But, a vapor canopy around the earth during the first heaven and earth system would explain this. The sun could heat the water vapor to 212 degrees hot. That would warm the entire earth, including Alaska. Palm trees could live there.

 

Source? That area along with a large portion of North America was coverd with glacers only a few thouand years ago, this was called an Ice Age.

 

 

 

 

 

Another evidence for the vapor canopy is broad leaf ferns in the Arctic. They have also found a tropical forest (frozen) in the Antarctica. They could thaw the trees out and burn the wood. It wasn't even fossilized.

 

Coal deposits provide another bit of evidence. How is coal made? Plant material buried under time and pressure and heat becomes coal. They've found coal deposits in the Antarctica. It must have been warm enough for trees to grow there sometime in the past.

 

Source? Antartica used to be a tropical environment from core samples and magnetic datting(wrong word but they used the magnetic field from the rocks). And why would they burn such a find :? .

 

 

 

 

 

A vapor canopy also would have filtered out the radiation that causes Carbon 14 to be formed. Therefore, in such things as deep coal deposits you would not expect to find Carbon 14. There would be no Carbon 14 formed in plants that grew before the flood of Noah, before that canopy came down. Guess what. Scientists say that they don't find any Carbon 14 in some of the deep coal deposits.

 

Source? These coal deposis are millions of years old, C14 dating only works up to around 60,000 years.

 

 

 

Ninety-foot plum trees, quick-frozen with fruit and green leaves have been discovered in the New Siberian Islands. By contrast, today just little tiny one-inch willows grow there. It is said that these ninety-foot trees have been frozen for 5,000 to 10,000 years. There was a sudden permanent change in temperature from greenhouse warm to totally frozen cold. And it stayed that way because they are still frozen. More about this later.

 

Source?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We would expect greater atmosphere pressure. Some scientists have made a study and determined that if there was about 40 feet of water spread out as water vapor, it would have increased atmospheric pressure to about twice what it is today.

 

 

 

Healing would be quicker. For example, surgeons and physicians have discovered that burn patients heal up much more efficiently and quickly in a pressurized room with lots of oxygen in it.

 

Makes since so I will not ask for a source, but their is a huge diffrence between a few pounds and a few tones of presure.

 

 

 

 

 

Giant reptiles could have lived easier. Scientists tell us we have a great dinosaur mystery. Where did dinosaurs come from? How did they get so big? Evolutionists say the fittest survive. They were the biggest and the meanest. Why don't they rule the earth? Why did they go extinct? Where are they?

 

Dinos came from other dinos, and their ancestors used to be a lot smaller. Evolution. They became extenct. Most people believe a big rock fell, killed a few off, coverd the Earth and killed many plants, and when the survivors could nolonger find mates they died. Underground.

 

 

 

Reptiles continue to grow as long as they live. If you can keep a reptile for a long, long time, let's say a thousand years, it is going to be very, very big. Let's say we're before the flood of Noah, and the canopy is up there. God said, "To all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground -- everything that has the breath of life in it -- I give every green plant for food" (Genesis 1:30, NIV, emphasis mine).

 

Their would be a peak where they could nolonger grow, also how are they gona live this long again?

 

 

 

 

 

The only thing animals could eat was plants. They wouldn't have anybody eating dinosaurs and dinosaurs would not be eating dinosaurs. Today you may see artists' paintings and movie special effects showing dinosaurs with a lizard hanging out of their mouths, eating meat, but the Bible says they didn't eat meat.

 

The teath tell a diffrent story about the dinos.

 

 

 

We are told that Tyrannosauruswere huge, swift, aggressive meat eaters (Editors of Life, Evolution, (New York: Life Nature Library, 1962), 122). Has a scientist ever found a Tyrannosaurus rex's stomach with undigested lizards in it? Not to my knowledge. But they have recently removed some teeth from some of the skulls of Tyrannosaurus rex and made an amazing discovery. The teeth have little tiny roots. They are too small for a bone-crushing, meat-tearing animal. More likely, they ate leaves. They used those sharp teeth and the spaces between them to strip the leaves from branches.

 

Source?

 

 

 

Scientists have discovered that in our atmosphere, dinosaurs could not have pumped the blood up their long skinny necks unless their hearts were almost as big as their whole body. But, if the atmostphere had been heavier and greenhouse warm, they probably could have done it with the extra pressure.

 

Source? I dont see the connection between the two and I have never heard that dinos could have become brain dead.

 

 

 

The Bible says before the flood of Noah, everything ate green plants. Giant reptiles could have lived easier. Dinosaurs could have grown very, very big, because they continue to grow as long as they live. Fossil dragonflies with a 32-inch wing span have been found. Before the flood of Noah, things got very big.

 

If life was intended to be herbivors, why are their carnavores? Wouldn't eating meat be bad for them because their bodies arnt built for it?

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible tells of a global flood. "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. And the rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights" (Genesis 7:11-12, NASB).

 

 

 

Scientists have gone to both polar regions. They have done core samples down into the oldest glacial ice. They have discovered that all deep Arctic and Antarctica ice is saturated with volcanic ash. Why is that?

 

 

 

Could those ice caps have been formed during the year of the flood of Noah, when the water that formed those ice caps was full of volcanic ash? Why is all this volcanic ash down there?

 

 

You said that the Earth was tropical :lol: . Antartica would turn into a big giant iceburg and break up if their was water covering the world. Also if these vocanoes were to detonate even a year before the flood, their would only be a few inches of snow protecting it from the storm.

 

 

 

The God who spoke the heavens and the earth into existence could have said the word and a flood would have occurred, with or without rain. But He could have used some sort of naturalistic method as well.

 

The bible says it RAINED 40 days, not magicaly apeared. And no naturalistic method exists.

 

 

 

Scientists say that hundreds and hundreds of volcanoes went off simultaneously all over the earth somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago. They call it the "Ring of Fire." The fountains of the deep burst open the day the flood began (Genesis 7:11). How is water formed on earth? Scientists tell us that it occurs through volcanic activity. So we have water coming up from under the earth through volcanic activity. We have volcanoes shooting their dust up into the water vapor canopy, causing the nuclei of condensation. Down comes the rain. That could be an explanation for what caused the canopy to come down.

I live about 100 miles from the ring of fire. Its the pacific plate. Source? Also there is no great supply of water underground. You would need atleast 5 miles of water to flood the earth, 5 miles underground the earth is above the boiling point of water so that water would be very hot. Noah would need a freaser not an ark.

 

 

 

We know the flooding today that takes place when we get six inches of rain. What about forty days and forty nights of two inches of rain per hour? The fountains of the deep were also bursting forth. Water was coming up from underneath while it was coming down from above, according to the Bible.

 

Their is no significan suply of water under ground! 90% would need to be coming from the sky. A simple formula can be provided to prove the flood if it did happen, would be hydrolic drilling. 28,000/40=700 feet of rain per day/24 hours=29 feet of water an hour/60= About half an inch of water every minute.

 

 

 

We have volcanoes shooting their dust up, we have the rain coming down. We have the canopy being broken. We have heat being released out into the universe. We have the clouding from the dust that remains after the water comes down. We have a rapid, rapid cooling of parts of the earth. This could explain some things.

 

You have solved the source of the Ice Age, but condemed all the life on Earth to extenction and also changed the physical laws that goven the Universe, congradulations.

 

 

 

The quick-frozen mammoths in Siberia is another evidence for the flood. (See "Riddle of the Frozen Giants," by Ivan T. Sanderson, The Saturday Evening Post, Jan. 16, 1960, p. 39.) Usually you see pictures of them in blizzards with "an ice age" creeping slowly upon them. Some of these mammoths had undigested buttercups in their mouths and in their stomachs. Undigested! They have examined many of these mammoths and have found up to 1,500 species of plants in their stomachs. They can still tell the color of the buttercups.

 

 

 

Some scientists went to the Birds-Eye Frozen Food Company and asked what it would take to quick freeze a happy, grazing giant 9-ton mammoth so that the buttercups in its stomach did not digest. How quickly must that animal be frozen? These experts on quick-frozen meat said, as far as they could determine, it would take a chill of wind moving at 200 to 400 miles per hour constantly over a four to eight hour period with a temperature of minus 175 degrees Fahrenheit. We don't have anything like that on earth today.

 

How about a nice little bath in 40 degree water?

 

 

 

When the scientists dissected the skin on some of these mammoths, they discovered that they did not have oil glands in their skin. Seals, polar bears, and wolves have much oil in their fur, which keeps water away from their skin and keeps them from freezing in cold climates. The mammoths had no oil glands, which means they were a warm temperature animal. Why were they found in Siberia?

 

Humans have oil glands I dont consider us living in a cold environment also.I thought all mamals have them. Source?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

If there is no supernatural realm. then our thoughts are merely brain cells and chemicals in our ever-evolving brain. Thus, our thoughts cannot be used as proof for anything since they may be wrong. Every single thought we have on any subject must be subject to its tendencies, one's past, one's genetics, and one's innate desires.

 

 

 

When everyone else can come to consensus on a subject it either means we are correct, or that we are all wrong. In most cases itâââ‰â¢s the former; however the latter is not too uncommon. Thatâââ‰â¢s the lovely thing about science, instead of hating the person who proved your idea wrong, you embrace them with open arms.

 

 

 

 

 

This is where I believe you are incorrect. It is your train of thought that one cannot support or even take into account as halfway true or "logical, whatever that term means, if your thoughts are merely chemicals and electrical impulses.

 

 

 

Its not merely anything, they are chemicals and impulses are formed into a structure capable of logical thought. A computer is merely chemicals and impulses, so how are they all capable of logical thought and drawing the same conclusion independent of one another?

 

 

 

Thus, to disbelieve in the supernatural is to deny everything that science can come up with. It denies even our reality, for our reality is based on our logical, absolute thoughts. And if our thoughts are not absolute and have no reason to be logical, then we have no basis for even reality.

 

 

 

But reality is not based on absolute thoughts, there is no truth. Everything is based in relative terms, even science. However we have a reason to be logical, itâââ‰â¢s the way brains are formed. Even if what you say is true, there still is reality; it just isnâââ‰â¢t homogenous from person to person.

 

 

 

Your inability to comprehend my view does in no way validate your comments.

 

 

 

Funny, the same thing can be said to many ignorant people here (including you). Just because you canâââ‰â¢t comprehend how nature works doesnâââ‰â¢t mean you can go off and invent something in your mind that does.

 

 

 

My argument is logical from my viewpoint because my viewpoint, specifically the believing in a Creator, a higher power, is the ONLY viewpoint that actually trusts my thoughts as valid and being able to deduct and use inductive reasoning.

 

 

 

Without God, science, the study of how things interact and the underlying reasons for why we see what we see, is illogical and cannot be trusted. It is only WITH God that we see everything actually come together and be trusted.

 

 

 

So you see, science without God is not really science at all. It is a series of viewed facts but nothing more. Science with God is the foundation of our world, our ability to use reasoning and debate and argue and discover.

 

 

 

And your viewpoint is inconsistent with consensus. In order to make it consensus, you need to make a compelling argument for it over the current consensus. What you have so far is faulty reasoning; you can trust other people so long as their experiences match your own. If you canâââ‰â¢t trust someone else, prove why your view is right. Either your right or you were ignorant of your own observation, its called science.

 

 

 

The one thing that you can never doubt is your doubt. This scepticism has been held since the dawn of modern science (by my definition), Bacon proposed that we get rid of our idols (external influences) and see things for what they are. Science is a kind of consensus, we all take turns at seeing the world and then we collaborate to formulate what we saw. You canâââ‰â¢t have these kinds of experiences with religion, since religion is an idol; an influence of other peopleâââ‰â¢s opinion, there is no world to see in religion.

 

 

 

By the way, your logic is horrible. You have an idea that you want to prove and you bend the little understand of logic you have to accommodate your ideas. You chain a lot of facts and implications together that are not well founded outside of your brain.

 

 

 

 

I agree about the huge blocks of text. But, remember, that's on BOTH sides of the argument. I like it when you quote something to prove your point but when you quote THE ENTIRE THING it gets kind of annoying.

 

 

 

 

Thatâââ‰â¢s true, however a large proportion of what one side is saying is pure trash. Not everything on the internet can be taken as truth; some people here seem to think otherwise. The internet is a giant echo chamber; you only need a few dozen people who share the same idea to validate each other. Itâââ‰â¢s the reason why we see so many faulty arguments repeated over and over (even when people from the same side disproved the argument, like the vapour canopy http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ33.html), the material comes from a few select places and to some, see it as a means of validating there faulty premises.

[Phil]

Sorry for the temp lock. We just had to sort some things out in the rules about these topics

 

 

 

Carry on.

[zmaniaman]

im a beliver too

[pianofrieak2]

Well, I thought my post would generate quote some responses. :)

 

 

 

Let's see. For those who missed my point, let me rephrase it.

 

 

 

1. If you don't believe in a supernatural realm, there is no reason to believe that you mind is logical.

 

2. How can you trust your mind to be logical if you have no reason to believe it to be logical in the first place?

 

3. If your mind has no reason to be logical, then you cannot assume it to be logical.

 

4. If you can't assume your mind to be logical, then you can't trust your thoughts about disproving God.

 

5. Thus, you need God, specifically a creator, to disprove God's existence.

 

 

 

 

If there is no supernatural realm. then our thoughts are merely brain cells and chemicals in our ever-evolving brain. Thus, our thoughts cannot be used as proof for anything since they may be wrong. Every single thought we have on any subject must be subject to its tendencies, one's past, one's genetics, and one's innate desires.

 

 

 

When everyone else can come to consensus on a subject it either means we are correct, or that we are all wrong. In most cases itâââ‰â¢s the former; however the latter is not too uncommon. Thatâââ‰â¢s the lovely thing about science, instead of hating the person who proved your idea wrong, you embrace them with open arms.

 

 

 

Sorry, but I have no idea why you just said that.

 

 

 

1. Who cares about a concensus? That's like saying a democracy is the best government, which it's not even close. Just ask one in politics.

 

2. It'd be nice if you didn't hate me when I prove your idea wrong and instead embrace me with open arms.

 

 

 

:wink:

 

 

 

This is where I believe you are incorrect. It is your train of thought that one cannot support or even take into account as halfway true or "logical, whatever that term means, if your thoughts are merely chemicals and electrical impulses.

 

 

 

Its not merely anything, they are chemicals and impulses are formed into a structure capable of logical thought. A computer is merely chemicals and impulses, so how are they all capable of logical thought and drawing the same conclusion independent of one another?

 

 

 

A train of thought is "chemicals and impulses formed into a structure of capable thought." Well, I was right on the first half. And you never proved that the mind is a structure of capable thought.

 

 

 

Elaborating, specifically proving your point instead of making baseless statements, would be nice.

 

 

 

Thus, to disbelieve in the supernatural is to deny everything that science can come up with. It denies even our reality, for our reality is based on our logical, absolute thoughts. And if our thoughts are not absolute and have no reason to be logical, then we have no basis for even reality.

 

 

 

But reality is not based on absolute thoughts, there is no truth. Everything is based in relative terms, even science. However we have a reason to be logical, itâââ‰â¢s the way brains are formed. Even if what you say is true, there still is reality; it just isnâââ‰â¢t homogenous from person to person.

 

 

 

Is that an absolute statement?

 

 

 

Your inability to comprehend my view does in no way validate your comments.

 

 

 

Funny, the same thing can be said to many ignorant people here (including you). Just because you canâââ‰â¢t comprehend how nature works doesnâââ‰â¢t mean you can go off and invent something in your mind that does.

 

 

 

Boy, you really get into this ad-hominem logical fallacy in which you attack me as a person instead of my views. Nice job. :roll:

 

 

 

My argument is logical from my viewpoint because my viewpoint, specifically the believing in a Creator, a higher power, is the ONLY viewpoint that actually trusts my thoughts as valid and being able to deduct and use inductive reasoning.

 

 

 

Without God, science, the study of how things interact and the underlying reasons for why we see what we see, is illogical and cannot be trusted. It is only WITH God that we see everything actually come together and be trusted.

 

 

 

So you see, science without God is not really science at all. It is a series of viewed facts but nothing more. Science with God is the foundation of our world, our ability to use reasoning and debate and argue and discover.

 

 

 

And your viewpoint is inconsistent with consensus. In order to make it consensus, you need to make a compelling argument for it over the current consensus. What you have so far is faulty reasoning; you can trust other people so long as their experiences match your own. If you canâââ‰â¢t trust someone else, prove why your view is right. Either your right or you were ignorant of your own observation, its called science.

 

 

 

Let me ask you again: WHO THE HECK CARES ABOUT THE CONCENSUS?

 

 

 

I have faulty reasoning? Funny, I'm the one who backs up my views instead of calling the other person ignorant and making baseless statements.

 

 

 

The one thing that you can never doubt is your doubt. This scepticism has been held since the dawn of modern science (by my definition), Bacon proposed that we get rid of our idols (external influences) and see things for what they are. Science is a kind of consensus, we all take turns at seeing the world and then we collaborate to formulate what we saw. You canâââ‰â¢t have these kinds of experiences with religion, since religion is an idol; an influence of other peopleâââ‰â¢s opinion, there is no world to see in religion.

 

 

 

Science is a concensus, but that concensus can be wrong. Thus, truth cannot be based on the leading concensus...you can't really even call science truth since nothing is really true. We "know" 2 plus 2 to equal 4 simply because it works so far with our theories.

 

 

 

Besides, who wouldn't want God, the source of truth and creator of all things, as our "idol," our external influences. I'd rather have a good God as my influence than myself. That's for sure.

 

 

 

By the way, your logic is horrible. You have an idea that you want to prove and you bend the little understand of logic you have to accommodate your ideas. You chain a lot of facts and implications together that are not well founded outside of your brain.

 

 

 

Back at you?

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, random, your turn.

 

 

 

 

This is where I believe you are incorrect. It is your train of thought that one cannot support or even take into account as halfway true or "logical, whatever that term means, if your thoughts are merely chemicals and electrical impulses.

 

 

 

uh huh, and yet these so called chemicals and electical impulses is able to record our past experiences(memories) which our thoughts are derive from. So our thoughts are not merely chemicals and eclectrical impulses but based on the experience and knowledge we have attained.

 

 

 

e.g. When you touch a heated stove, you get burnt, so you would think, touch hot stove=pain=bad.

 

So I see that these chemicals and impulses are very much vital to our survival, making new connections from our past experiences and allowing us to learn and adapt to our enviornment by referencing new experiences to those in our memories.

 

But according to you, our thoughts and these chemicals and what not are obviously not reliable and this new thought process should be discarded.

 

 

 

Your stove example works, but your whole idea is wrong. Really, your example just proves how animals work. But humans are above animals in that we can think about things. We can decide to do the thing that makes the least sense (i.e. running into a burning building to save your dog).

 

 

 

My TRAIN OF THOUGHT, as I said before, cannot be trusted if the mind was not created to be "logical." It just evolves. No one made it logical, if you are atheistic. And yet you are trusting your thoughts to disprove God to be logical.

 

 

 

Hmm...

 

 

 

Atheism has no basis for logical thoughts and yet uses logical thoughts to prove itself.

 

 

 

 

We use REASONING to determine what we believe. Science gives us facts and we DEDUCT the conclusion and hypothesize reasons behind those facts. Those are the things that are based upon our chemicals and brain cells; those cannot be trusted. Which I have already proven so please see above.

 

 

 

You've proven nothing, all you've done so far is stated that our thoughts and how our brain functions can not be trusted. As you yourself have said, our reasonings are deverived from facts gathered, not merely what we think is right, this links our thoughts to the environment and allowed us to function effectively in it. Our brain is great at making patterns, and new experiences are recalled against those patterns allowing us to act according to the situation.

 

 

 

Patterns are different from thinking critically and logically. You're still stuck in the old argument of IMPULSES!

 

 

 

I comprehend you views fine, you're saying that because our thoughts are based on chemicals and electrical impulses it can not be relied upon without some higher being guiding this process.

 

 

 

Precisely.

 

 

 

Just because I comprehend your views doesn't mean I agree with it.

 

 

 

That's fine. But then again, if I'm right, why wouldn't you? You're just arguing against impulses...something far different.

 

 

 

And all you've provided so far is unsubstantiated claims of the uselessness of science without a supernatural being, and provided nothing reliable to back this up.

 

 

 

Yep! You're so smart. :) Nothing reliable? How about the past 4 posts.

[Random]

Atheism has no basis for logical thoughts and yet uses logical thoughts to prove itself.

 

 

 

Why don't you acutally point out why atheism has no basis for logical thought instead of just making a baseless statement?

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing reliable? How about the past 4 posts.

 

 

 

All you've done so far is made assumptions and then based your arguments on those asumption and nothing factual to back it up.

 

 

 

 

 

1. If you don't believe in a supernatural realm, there is no reason to believe that you mind is logical.

 

2. How can you trust your mind to be logical if you have no reason to believe it to be logical in the first place?

 

3. If your mind has no reason to be logical, then you cannot assume it to be logical.

 

4. If you can't assume your mind to be logical, then you can't trust your thoughts about disproving God.

 

5. Thus, you need God, specifically a creator, to disprove God's existence.

 

 

 

Why don't you actually point out the connection between belief in the supernatural and a logical mind instead of just making assumptions and trying to prove your argument with those asumptions.

[Death_By_Pod]

Well, I thought my post would generate quote some responses. :)

 

 

 

Let's see. For those who missed my point, let me rephrase it.

 

 

 

1. If you don't believe in a supernatural realm, there is no reason to believe that you mind is logical.

 

2. How can you trust your mind to be logical if you have no reason to believe it to be logical in the first place?

 

3. If your mind has no reason to be logical, then you cannot assume it to be logical.

 

4. If you can't assume your mind to be logical, then you can't trust your thoughts about disproving God.

 

5. Thus, you need God, specifically a creator, to disprove God's existence.

 

 

 

 

The problem I had was that you just rambled on about an idea and provided nothing solid to talk about. So if there was something that didnâââ‰â¢t sound right in your argument, I couldnâââ‰â¢t respond to it adequately because you didnâââ‰â¢t describe your idea adequately. This is much better and in a form where I can responsed to.

 

 

 

Where is your evidence for number 1, this premise is unfounded. Why should belief in a supernatural realm make you mind logical? Your brain is natural so wouldnâââ‰â¢t it be fair to say that anything the brain does is also natural? By claiming thatâââ‰â¢s your brains logicalness is a result of the supernatural, breaks the dichotomy between supernatural and natural. Why would we call something supernatural if it affects the natural, by definition if it affects the natural it must be natural itself.

 

 

 

Furthermore what does believing in a supernatural realm have to do with the existence of God? I believe in a supernatural realm but that belief doesnâââ‰â¢t mean anything to my rational thought since they are separate compartments. I donâââ‰â¢t think you can draw conclusions from supernatural realm because you canâââ‰â¢t inquire about it and making life changing decisions based on the supernatural is irrational.

 

 

 

From 5, can you believe in a creator but still be sceptical Godâââ‰â¢s existence? Iâââ‰â¢m asking because Iâââ‰â¢m in such a situation.

 

 

 

1. Who cares about a concensus? That's like saying a democracy is the best government, which it's not even close. Just ask one in politics.

 

2. It'd be nice if you didn't hate me when I prove your idea wrong and instead embrace me with open arms.

 

 

 

Your whole life is one that revolves around censuses with others and the community. You abide by the laws of the region, you follow social custom, and you do your job according to its description and so forth. If you canâââ‰â¢t come to a consensus on the bigger picture then it is impossible to do day to day activities.

 

 

 

Someone trespassing on your house because they donâââ‰â¢t like the fact that you own it, someone crashing into your car because they thought a red light meant go, being fired because you didnâââ‰â¢t clean the kitchen even though its not in your job description, being taxed more because someone at the tax office doesnâââ‰â¢t like the sound of your name, tough. If you canâââ‰â¢t see that what we do every day is a consensus between people, then I donâââ‰â¢t know what else I could say. I thought such a thing was obvious. If you donâââ‰â¢t want to play by the rules of consensus, thatâââ‰â¢s fine but donâââ‰â¢t expect everyone else to play by yours.

 

 

 

A train of thought is "chemicals and impulses formed into a structure of capable thought." Well, I was right on the first half. And you never proved that the mind is a structure of capable thought.

 

 

 

Brain is made of chemicals and impulses, no way! If the mind isnâââ‰â¢t capable of thought then how can we diagnose neurological illness (using things like MRI's). Are you serious? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain do a little research, maybe you can answer your own question. I don't ask you to define words or what logical thought is (which would be a pretty good question actually).

 

 

 

Is that an absolute statement?

 

 

 

Yes, you can still make absolute statements in a relative environment. How much weight they have is dependent on how much everyone else agrees with it.

 

 

 

Science is a concensus, but that concensus can be wrong. Thus, truth cannot be based on the leading concensus...you can't really even call science truth since nothing is really true. We "know" 2 plus 2 to equal 4 simply because it works so far with our theories.

 

Besides, who wouldn't want God, the source of truth and creator of all things, as our "idol," our external influences. I'd rather have a good God as my influence than myself. That's for sure.

 

 

 

You can never get truth. Itâââ‰â¢s the nature of this universe, what we know is a representation of truth based on the sum total of our knowledge; after all it is truth because we havenâââ‰â¢t seen knowledge to the contrary. Why is this a bad idea, after all if we canâââ‰â¢t find the truth, the next best thing is to find the truth based on what we know. If you donâââ‰â¢t think something is true then your welcome to put up a more accurate explanation, which works at least as well as what was previously thought to be true. What good is blindly accepting the truth on the advice of someone else, look at politics for a start.

 

 

 

My history and philosophy of science teacher was advertising next semesters course and on the slide is remarked âââ¬Ãâwhat is truth?âââ¬Ã

[gatorboy428]

I am a believer in God and that he sent his only Son to come to earth and give us eternal life. I often think about how in the world can anyone prove that Christianity is true and that Jesus really existed. Then I think about the thousands of prophecies that have been fufilled concerning Christ and other Christian beliefs. Then I thought about what other religion even comes close to making any sense... First of all theres evolution, I know its not really a religion but it is probably the biggest Christianity bashing beliefs out there, anyways the thought of two lifeless meteors (or whatever they were) crashing together and creating this universe, this universe with millions and billions of stars and planets and galaxies and then only having this one single planet in one single galaxy in one single solar system having life, it is truly un - believable. Then there is other beliefs like Budhism and Hinduism and Islam and all the other thousands of wacky religions out there. Almost every single one has the same base belief as Christianity: that there is a god of some sort and that there is a place you go after you die. But in the other religions you can usually only get into those places by doing good works or by killing people or other crazy things. Christianity is really the only religion out there that is about having a relationship with your God and living a good life without having to always do good works. I mean if I were someone that wasn't a believer and I looked at Christianity and then at other religions I would become a Christian in a heartbeat. Christians don't live in fear they live in hope and faith. They live in anticipation and in joy. No other religion has that. As a Christian you feel fufilled and happy like you've done something with your life. I read this somewhere the other day : I would rather live my life believing there was a God and having there not be one, than to live my life not believing there was a God and then having to face one when I die. So if you took the time to read this good for you and maybe you'll get a little bit out of it.

 

 

 

And anybody that is not a Christian if they would please post either something that proves Christianity is false or that another religion is true that would be great.

 

 

 

I mean they never find anything that makes Christianity false, even though they are constantly trying to, its always something that helps prove its true... :wink:

 

 

 

WOW - That's the longest post I've ever made...

[pianofrieak2]

OK, we're going to start over. There's some major miscommunication.

 

 

 

The supernatural realm is something that is above the natural realm. That's the definition. You can only define the supernatural realm with natural terms, making descriptions merely symbolic at best. C.S. Lewis called it "sacramental," but basically the best you can do is describe it with symbols. Sometimes they work great and sometimes they don't just capture the true essence.

 

 

 

The supernatural realm MUST be able to interact with the natural because...voila...it created it. Evolution describes the change from the beginning but never described the beginning. That's why creationism and evolution can be combined but why evolution can never describe everything.

 

 

 

The supernatural realm is not confined to its "space." By definition, it is ABOVE the natural realm, so, really, it can do whatever it wants to. It just has a different basis for reality. That's the only difference.

 

 

 

Now to define logic: Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner. (taken from the dictionary)

 

 

 

Should I give my point again? Well, since the first guy missed it, yes.

 

 

 

1. Atheism says 1 thing: No God (no creator, no higher being, no higher power, etc.)

 

2. If there is no Creator, then the mind was not created to be logical.

 

3. If your mind was not created logical, why assume it is?

 

4. Most assume it to be logical because it makes sense, but, then again, they never answer the why. Or the how for that matter.

 

5. Some try to argue for impulses, but, then again, that's a far cry from logical trains of thought.

 

6. Thus, no one has any reason to even assume the mind is logical, which unfortunately dictates that any train of thought from their mind to not be trusted to be logical...not really illogical but just not logical.

 

 

 

That's my point. Read it carefully please.

 

 

 

Absolute statements, like the ones we are all making here, only make sense in an absolute environment. The very presence of an absolute destroys the entire relativistic environment. Law of non-contradiction, anyone? For instance, you can't say this is an absolute statement with varying degrees of merit, but you can say your relativistic statement has much merit. That's the best you can do.

 

 

 

Science is not absolute, as we have all seen. Effects are seen but reasons why (what we call science) cannot be absolute since we don't "know" anything. Our theories just make sense to us.

 

 

 

Now you can post your thoughts.

[gatorboy428]

GO JESUS!!!!

[specialcharacter]

im not sure what i belive about a god, however i dont understand the ten commandments,noahs ark and the fact that christ died for all our souls, i mean these sections of christian faith contradict each other surely?

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

1. Atheism says 1 thing: No God (no creator, no higher being, no higher power, etc.)

 

2. If there is no Creator, then the mind was not created to be logical.

 

3. If your mind was not created logical, why assume it is?

 

4. Most assume it to be logical because it makes sense, but, then again, they never answer the why. Or the how for that matter.

 

5. Some try to argue for impulses, but, then again, that's a far cry from logical trains of thought.

 

6. Thus, no one has any reason to even assume the mind is logical, which unfortunately dictates that any train of thought from their mind to not be trusted to be logical...not really illogical but just not logical.

 

 

 

That's my point. Read it carefully please.

 

 

 

Okay, I read it carefully, but it still doesn't make sense. You're making this whole argument out of a word play with the word "created." There is absolutely no reason why logic can only exist if a supernatural being created us. As death_by_pod said earlier - the premise of your argument, that a logical mind can only be created by the supernatural, has no basis. You've just assumed that point and that point is the premise of your argument.

[insane]

 

1. Atheism says 1 thing: No God (no creator, no higher being, no higher power, etc.)

 

2. If there is no Creator, then the mind was not created to be logical.

 

3. If your mind was not created logical, why assume it is?

 

4. Most assume it to be logical because it makes sense, but, then again, they never answer the why. Or the how for that matter.

 

5. Some try to argue for impulses, but, then again, that's a far cry from logical trains of thought.

 

6. Thus, no one has any reason to even assume the mind is logical, which unfortunately dictates that any train of thought from their mind to not be trusted to be logical...not really illogical but just not logical.

 

 

 

That's my point. Read it carefully please.

 

 

 

Okay, I read it carefully, but it still doesn't make sense. You're making this whole argument out of a word play with the word "created." There is absolutely no reason why logic can only exist if a supernatural being created us. As death_by_pod said earlier - the premise of your argument, that a logical mind can only be created by the supernatural, has no basis. You've just assumed that point and that point is the premise of your argument.

 

 

 

Okay, I'll try and refragment his argument using one of my own, that may not be correct, but is interesting to think about.

 

 

 

Reductionism (or the general scientific community) has reduced all things to a bunch of atoms and electrons. Thus, a tree is a bunch of atoms, and so is thought - a bunch of atoms, or electrons. Why are we able to call thought logical, or true, and not a tree? Both are mere electron/atom patterns - according to science, the only difference is in their electronic makeup. But of course, it would be absurd to assign truth values to a tree, and it would be absurd to not assign truth values to a thought.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

1. Atheism says 1 thing: No God (no creator, no higher being, no higher power, etc.)

 

2. If there is no Creator, then the mind was not created to be logical.

 

3. If your mind was not created logical, why assume it is?

 

4. Most assume it to be logical because it makes sense, but, then again, they never answer the why. Or the how for that matter.

 

5. Some try to argue for impulses, but, then again, that's a far cry from logical trains of thought.

 

6. Thus, no one has any reason to even assume the mind is logical, which unfortunately dictates that any train of thought from their mind to not be trusted to be logical...not really illogical but just not logical.

 

 

 

That's my point. Read it carefully please.

 

 

 

Okay, I read it carefully, but it still doesn't make sense. You're making this whole argument out of a word play with the word "created." There is

 

absolutely no reason why logic can only exist if a supernatural being created us. As death_by_pod said earlier - the premise of your argument, that a logical mind can only be created by the supernatural, has no basis. You've just assumed that point and that point is the premise of your argument.

 

 

 

Okay, I'll try and refragment his argument using one of my own, that may not be correct, but is interesting to think about.

 

 

 

Reductionism (or the general scientific community) has reduced all things to a bunch of atoms and electrons. Thus, a tree is a bunch of atoms, and so is thought - a bunch of atoms, or electrons. Why are we able to call thought logical, or true, and not a tree? Both are mere electron/atom patterns - according to science, the only difference is in their electronic makeup. But of course, it would be absurd to assign truth values to a tree, and it would be absurd to not assign truth values to a thought.

 

 

 

Ah, now I'm starting to follow.

 

 

 

So basically, we can't reduce thought to anything of this world. It's not like a tree where we can see what it's made of - it can't be reduced, so is it of another realm? Is that where you are going?

[FuBai]

I dont beleive in the all powerful, creator and overseer god. To me that seems a very odd and unattractive concept. Allthough i do preceive the "divine" in nature and beauty - the feeling of awe and being a part of something so beautiful and huge. This has nothing to do with religion, and i don't in any shape or form worship it - i just recognise that blissful, invigorating expereince as something worthy of the title "holy", "divine" or "numenos".

[imhomer]

I myself am an agnostic. If it hasn't been stated before, which it probably has, it's a kind of scientific approach that there is little proof for or against a god (or gods) so you're basically sitting on the fence.

 

 

 

Though I am agnostic, I have little tolerance for thouse trying to convince me either way. Fancy wordplay and questions about the complexities of eyes and such do nothing to further the religious case and there is little possible that can further the scientific case.

 

 

 

Personally, the only way I can envision a god is through Deism or the 'watchmaker' idea. It's basically Intelligent Design in that a god (or gods) made the universe and set down universal rules but has left the creation to its own preset devices. I don't believe that INtelligent design should be taught in schools though because, at its base, it is religion.

 

 

 

Here are just a few things to think about in this discussion:

 

1. If God made everything, what made God? Either religious or scientific, something had to spontaneously occur.

 

 

 

2. If God interferes with humanity to perform miracles, why doesn't he give irrefutable proof that he exists so all follow one true religion?

 

 

 

3. If everything bad is god's punishment, is everything good god's benevolence?

 

 

 

4. If god is all knowing, do we really have free will? He already knows if we're going to heaven or hell.

[specialcharacter]

I am not sure what i believe about god and life after death but here are a few things i have been thinking about

 

 

 

Have you taken into account some of the contradictions in the christian history?I mean compare the ten commandments with the fact that Christ died on the cross for every man. This portrays forgiveness but then talks about rules that must be followed. Then look at being able to repent sins and then the story of "Noahs Ark" a flood killing all the sinners? this is not repenting sins.

 

 

 

But on the other hand something must be beyond our world.In the 1800's indian americans done a sundance praying for a vision from their gods.Billions of people show their faith and believe in a god in todays world.Many artists have based their lifes work on religion and god as they see him,or her

 

 

 

I do not agree or disgree with either of these ideas i would like to see what people think about this though

[FuBai]

 

1. Atheism says 1 thing: No God (no creator, no higher being, no higher power, etc.)

 

2. If there is no Creator, then the mind was not created to be logical.

 

3. If your mind was not created logical, why assume it is?

 

4. Most assume it to be logical because it makes sense, but, then again, they never answer the why. Or the how for that matter.

 

5. Some try to argue for impulses, but, then again, that's a far cry from logical trains of thought.

 

6. Thus, no one has any reason to even assume the mind is logical, which unfortunately dictates that any train of thought from their mind to not be trusted to be logical...not really illogical but just not logical.

 

 

 

That's my point. Read it carefully please.

 

 

 

Okay, I read it carefully, but it still doesn't make sense. You're making this whole argument out of a word play with the word "created." There is

 

absolutely no reason why logic can only exist if a supernatural being created us. As death_by_pod said earlier - the premise of your argument, that a logical mind can only be created by the supernatural, has no basis. You've just assumed that point and that point is the premise of your argument.

 

 

 

Okay, I'll try and refragment his argument using one of my own, that may not be correct, but is interesting to think about.

 

 

 

Reductionism (or the general scientific community) has reduced all things to a bunch of atoms and electrons. Thus, a tree is a bunch of atoms, and so is thought - a bunch of atoms, or electrons. Why are we able to call thought logical, or true, and not a tree? Both are mere electron/atom patterns - according to science, the only difference is in their electronic makeup. But of course, it would be absurd to assign truth values to a tree, and it would be absurd to not assign truth values to a thought.

 

 

 

Ah, now I'm starting to follow.

 

 

 

So basically, we can't reduce thought to anything of this world. It's not like a tree where we can see what it's made of - it can't be reduced, so is it of another realm? Is that where you are going?

 

 

 

There are two processes I would like to state here - logical removal of doubt and the theory of evolution applied to the argument presented.

 

 

 

logival removal of all that can be doubted (devised by DesCartes)

 

 

 

1: I will say that I will not believe in anything that cannot be proven conclusivley to be true

 

2: Apart from the obvious things (God and faith etc.) I will also question the objects i persieve

 

3: I cannot conclusivley prove the objects i percieve are real - the sensations that they are could be generated by something else, or I may indeed be genereating these images myself (an easy metaphore to understand is that of a demon feeding you false sensations)

 

4: therefore i cannot prove the existance of anything other thgan my self and my thoughts, or else what is thinking these thoughts (cogito ergo sum)

 

5: However, to say that is to imply that thoughts need origin, and this cannot be conclusivley proven. (Bertrand Russel's final reduction) Now all that can be thought for sure to be true is that there are thoughts. (notice how at this point we must remove both the personal pro-noun and the verb "say")

 

6: therefore to believe (o even to think of beliving) everything else is a leap of faith.

 

 

 

Why is that important - it shows how almost everything that may be percieved is a matter of faith, and therefore nothing can be conclusivley proven, even by the scientific method. I chose to believe in reality beacuse its a hell of a lot easier than not beiliving in it.

 

 

 

darwinism applied to the above argument

 

 

 

1: the creature mutates into a form that provides a logical brain (infact i will dispute the idea of logic later, so let us say a "more intelegent brain")

 

2: conditions change

 

3: those who do not have the more intelegnt brain die out, as they are unable to cope with the new enviroment (for example being able to think how to survive an ice age)

 

4: those who have the more intelegent brain reproduce, and so the mutation is passed on.

 

 

 

There is no need for the involvment of God here, to create a mind to be logical. Random mutation can just as easily explain it. You must chose which you belive - or just dont bother and go through life not realy caring - all three options work for me.

 

 

 

The idea of a logical brain -

 

 

 

We do not have one. Everyday we act illogicaly, in many different ways. Emotions are illogical. I do not think that i should pity a beggar because not to do so would place me without society, I pity a beggar because he has much less than I do. There are a thousand illogical thoughts and actions that each one of us performs everyday. For instance writing this - why bother? How does it serve me? It is illogical.

 

 

 

The most convincing explanation for me is the ID argument - look around you. The scientific chances of any of this happening are so impossibly minute, the complexity of our surroundings is so great that we have studied it for thousands of years and the great proportion of it still remains un known. Its a realy good argument. But usualy i just say - the odds say its gunna happen somewhere. Sure its a million to one chance, but there are billions of worlds out there.

 

 

 

Another argument is the Big Bang argument - Where the hell did this singularity come from? In response I usualy say "we don't know a lot of things, give us time and we may find that out"

 

 

 

the ontological argument is intresting - and i'm rubbish at explaining it so I'll copy and paste somethign in:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being âââ‰â¬

[Satenza]

I do not beleive in God. His definitions are limited and contradictory. As the old saying goes

 

 

 

'Can God create a rock so heavy he himself can not lift it?'

 

 

 

If God can, then it limits his powers, if he can't it limits his powers.

 

 

 

The idea of God is very unclear, and through time contless philosphers have attempted to prove his existance. Descartes said that the word God entails perfection and to exist is better than not existing therefore God exists. These arguments and such do not work.

 

 

 

Religion is also the biggest killer in the world. I talk of organised religion. I beleive that religion is the worst part of life, as it can lead to killing, tourtures, sacrifices ect in the word of God. For example look at the iraq situation at the moment. Through out history killing have been done in the name of God.

 

 

 

Something not proven at all, and it's not true to say that we can'tjust have come from nothing. Scientifical evidence tells us that some particles appear from nowhere! God is i beleive an escape goat.

 

 

 

However i can say i do not beleive in him, but i fear him.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I do not beleive in God. His definitions are limited and contradictory. As the old saying goes

 

 

 

'Can God create a rock so heavy he himself can not lift it?'

 

 

 

If God can, then it limits his powers, if he can't it limits his powers.

 

 

 

The idea of God is very unclear, and through time contless philosphers have attempted to prove his existance. Descartes said that the word God entails perfection and to exist is better than not existing therefore God exists. These arguments and such do not work.

 

 

 

Religion is also the biggest killer in the world. I talk of organised religion. I beleive that religion is the worst part of life, as it can lead to killing, tourtures, sacrifices ect in the word of God. For example look at the iraq situation at the moment. Through out history killing have been done in the name of God.

 

 

 

Something not proven at all, and it's not true to say that we can'tjust have come from nothing. Scientifical evidence tells us that some particles appear from nowhere! God is i beleive an escape goat.

 

 

 

However i can say i do not beleive in him, but i fear him.

 

 

 

Since when does God lift things? You're thinking in the physical/Earthly world...

[masterdez]

Say there was a god, why would he create us?

 

 

 

I think God was invented by humans, as something "higher" and something to follow and to give a point in life. Cavemen living 10000's of years ago, seeing the sky, stars and sun worshipped them, because they depended on them.

 

 

 

People do find happiness in worshipping a "God", whatever "he" may be, and thats fair enough; we probably wouldn't be here if a "God" hadn't been invented, not because he may have created us, but the thought of a "God" gave us the will to carry on (If that makes any sence).

 

 

 

Anyway, thats just my opinion.

[Satenza]

I do not beleive in God. His definitions are limited and contradictory. As the old saying goes

 

 

 

'Can God create a rock so heavy he himself can not lift it?'

 

 

 

If God can, then it limits his powers, if he can't it limits his powers.

 

 

 

The idea of God is very unclear, and through time contless philosphers have attempted to prove his existance. Descartes said that the word God entails perfection and to exist is better than not existing therefore God exists. These arguments and such do not work.

 

 

 

Religion is also the biggest killer in the world. I talk of organised religion. I beleive that religion is the worst part of life, as it can lead to killing, tourtures, sacrifices ect in the word of God. For example look at the iraq situation at the moment. Through out history killing have been done in the name of God.

 

 

 

Something not proven at all, and it's not true to say that we can'tjust have come from nothing. Scientifical evidence tells us that some particles appear from nowhere! God is i beleive an escape goat.

 

 

 

However i can say i do not beleive in him, but i fear him.

 

 

 

Since when does God lift things? You're thinking in the physical/Earthly world...

 

 

 

Move it then take your pick.

[logic-is-overrated]

I have a couple questions. Why do the four gospels repeat a lot of the same events? And how come a lot of the events are described differently in the gospels (like Jesus saying something different after a particular event or something like that)?