I got a headache reading another thread about whether there is a God or not. Full disclosure; I am a Christian. You people who worship "science" answer a few questions for me. You believe in the laws of physics? Who wrote those laws? We know that oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water. Why? Who decided that? What exactly is gravity? Why does it work? I see no logical reason why two homogeneous masses like the earth and the moon should be attracted to each other? But we know they are-why? Who wrote that rule? Why is one group of molecules a golf ball and another a human being?
Another question. We know of no other sentient being in the universe. Right? Based on that man is the highest life form in the universe. Right? Isn't that a little arrogant?
The science you adore has posited that there may be alternate universes occupying the same space as ours. Could these be heaven, hell or puratory?
I don't know these things and neither do you. We never will. I submit the things above (and millions more)come closer to proving the existence of a supreme being than any "proof" science can provide. I suggest you not be so cocksure of your theories.

quote Originally posted by larryemory: We never will.

I disagree.

quote Originally posted by larryemory: I got a headache reading another thread about whether there is a God or not. Full disclosure; I am a Christian. You people who worship "science" answer a few questions for me. You believe in the laws of physics? Who wrote those laws? We know that oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water. Why? Who decided that? What exactly is gravity? Why does it work? I see no logical reason why two homogeneous masses like the earth and the moon should be attracted to each other? But we know they are-why? Who wrote that rule? Why is one group of molecules a golf ball and another a human being? Another question. We know of no other sentient being in the universe. Right? Based on that man is the highest life form in the universe. Right? Isn't that a little arrogant? The science you adore has posited that there may be alternate universes occupying the same space as ours. Could these be heaven, hell or puratory? I don't know these things and neither do you. We never will. I submit the things above (and millions more)come closer to proving the existence of a supreme being than any "proof" science can provide. I suggest you not be so cocksure of your theories.

You're premise is flawed from the get-go, Larry. Nobody "worships" science. You attempt to imply that science is a religion when it clearly isn't. Science is not a philosophy, it is a search for physical truth. That's why science doesn't concern itself with matters of philosophy, of religion, of faith, of all the things you imagine are under attack.

Anyone and everyone is free to challenge any finding in the field of science. However, you must challenge that with truth, facts, evidence, repeatable tests, etc. Unlike religion, in the reality of science you can't just say it's wrong and be done with it, you have to prove it wrong. Or, prove it right. It works both ways. There is no room for magic handwaves and decrees from mystical leaders, only room for facts and evidence, for solid, tangible proof.

Science doesn't care who "wrote those laws" as you so eloquently put it, it only cares about discovering and understanding the laws themselves. And, it's the process of that fact-based, evidence-based process of discovery that has lifted us up out of the dark ages, out of witchcraft trials, out of ritual sacrifice, etc.

It's ok if you want to backtrack out of the age of reason, Larry, but you are dead wrong if you think you and your ilk can drag the rest of the rational human species with you without a fight.

JazzMan

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Science is not a philosophy, it is a search for physical truth. Anyone and everyone is free to challenge any finding in the field of science. JazzMan

PURE science is not a philosophy. How it is practiced in some areas of science is.

And there is certainly not freedom to challenge any findings or conclusions about some fields of science in 2006, without fear of reprisal.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: PURE science is not a philosophy. How it is practiced in some areas of science is. And there is certainly not freedom to challenge any findings or conclusions about some fields of science in 2006, without fear of reprisal.

The only reprisals happening the field of science now are the Whitehouse's shenanigans in the CDC and WRT global warming.

There is all the freedom in the world to challenge any finding, frontal lobe, but there is no freedom to use lies and deceit in any challenge. If your findings don't stand up to peer-review scrutiny then you need to either get better evidence or move on.

Just because you want something to be wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. Evidence, facts, repeatable tests, peer review, that's what counts. That's what truth is.

JazzMan

If it wasn't for the winking smiley face that Larry used, I'd say he was simply trolling for an argument. The winking smiley face is there to obviously inform us that even Larry believes his own post is a joke.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: There is all the freedom in the world to challenge any finding, frontal lobe, but there is no freedom to use lies and deceit in any challenge. If your findings don't stand up to peer-review scrutiny then you need to either get better evidence or move on. Just because you want something to be wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. Evidence, facts, repeatable tests, peer review, that's what counts. That's what truth is. JazzMan

It isn't the evidence, facts, repeatable tests that is the problem with science. It is the CONCLUSIONS drawn from the science that is presented in the form of scientific fact that is philosophy and not science.

And I'm not taking sides on which philosophy of science is right or wrong in this discussion. The problem is that evidence, facts, and repeatable tests SHOULD BE what counts, but often in 2006 if those don't fit your pre-existing bias and agenda, then objectivity is thrown out.

I guess you could focus on "Whitehouse shenanigans". I could focus on Kyoto shenanigans. You could focus on "big business" shenanigans. I could focus on "environmentalist wacko" shenanigans with the scientific facts.

Regardless, what we wind up with is PURE science being a search for physical truth, but "science" as presented in the world of 2006 truly being scientific theory with its biases, philosophy and faith.

Just to be clear, I don't fault you personally at all for it being that way. You didn't choose it. But that is the way it is.

quote Originally posted by larryemory: You believe in the laws of physics? No. To believe something is real you don't need proof. Science is about knowing some thing is real. Who wrote those laws? Who ever discovers them. Newton, Hawkings, Darwin ect. We know that oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water. Why? I'm not a molecular scientist so I can't rightly say Who decided that? No one. Thats just how things work. Why does some one need to decide that? What exactly is gravity? Why does it work? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity I see no logical reason why two homogeneous masses like the earth and the moon should be attracted to each other? Thats because you would rather spend your time and brain power in believing dogmas then studying the truth. But we know they are-why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity Who wrote that rule? Who ever discovers them. Newton. Why is one group of molecules a golf ball and another a human being? Because thats how they were arranged We know of no other sentient being in the universe. Right? right Based on that man is the highest life form in the universe. Right? Wrong. It means we havent discovered another intelligent life form Isn't that a little arrogant? Isn't it arrogent to think that the word is the center of the univers and it was created by a god who then made people in his image? The science you adore has posited that there may be alternate universes occupying the same space as ours. Could these be heaven, hell or puratory? They could be anything they could not exsist at all. In the pursuit of truth by way of science there are many false starts and theories that go no where. I don't know these things and neither do you. We never will. Yet I submit the things above (and millions more)come closer to proving the existence of a supreme being than any "proof" science can provide. I'm sure you do. Now prove it with testing that can be repeted and varified by a nother person useing the same tests. I suggest you not be so cocksure of your theories. You are right theories are not hard and fast law Theories in science are on thier way to being proven or disproven. But your god is a rather weak theory based on absolutly no testable paramiters so don't be so cocksure of your theories.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: If it wasn't for the winking smiley face that Larry used, I'd say he was simply trolling for an argument.

I would have to agree.

quote Originally posted by larryemory: I got a headache reading another thread about whether there is a God or not.

So you start another one? What kind of cyber-masochism is that? Seems a little unhealthy.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: You're premise is flawed from the get-go, Larry. Nobody "worships" science. You attempt to imply that science is a religion when it clearly isn't. Science is not a philosophy, it is a search for physical truth. That's why science doesn't concern itself with matters of philosophy, of religion, of faith, of all the things you imagine are under attack. Anyone and everyone is free to challenge any finding in the field of science. However, you must challenge that with truth, facts, evidence, repeatable tests, etc. Unlike religion, in the reality of science you can't just say it's wrong and be done with it, you have to prove it wrong. Or, prove it right. It works both ways. There is no room for magic handwaves and decrees from mystical leaders, only room for facts and evidence, for solid, tangible proof. Science doesn't care who "wrote those laws" as you so eloquently put it, it only cares about discovering and understanding the laws themselves. And, it's the process of that fact-based, evidence-based process of discovery that has lifted us up out of the dark ages, out of witchcraft trials, out of ritual sacrifice, etc. It's ok if you want to backtrack out of the age of reason, Larry, but you are dead wrong if you think you and your ilk can drag the rest of the rational human species with you without a fight. JazzMan

I was in full agreement with you until your last sentence. I see no reason to suggest that people with religious values are unreasonalbe or irrational. Science and religion can co-exist. Religious people just need to stop trying to use religion to explain science. Someday science may explain religion, but I see no reason belief in a supreme being is mutually exclusive of believing in Newton's Laws of Motion.

Even if you accept the Big Bang as scientifically proven, who was there to flick their Bic to start it up?
Science can explain what the big bang was and how it happened.
Religion may try to explain "why" it happened.

quote Originally posted by Telegram Sam: So you start another one? What kind of cyber-masochism is that? Seems a little unhealthy.

^^^^ Yup.

quote Originally posted by larryemory: I got a headache reading another thread about whether there is a God or not. Full disclosure; I am a Christian. You people who worship "science" answer a few questions for me.

Problem #1- science does not require worship. It requires examination and proof.

quote Originally posted by larryemory:You believe in the laws of physics?

Within the confines of the dataset they cover, yes.

quote Originally posted by larryemory:Who wrote those laws?

Scientists, and lots of them with lots and lots of peer revue.

quote Originally posted by larryemory:We know that oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water. Why? Who decided that?

People that observed and tested, I've done this one myself... water is a byproduct of combustion. So stars burning created most of the water in existance. I can prove the method with my gas analyser I use to test and repair vehicle emissions. I can measure the difference between what goes into a vehicle and the components that come out the tailpipe. My gas analyser has software and hardware that can tell me how much carbon monoxide, carbon, oxygen, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, hydrogen, and water are present in the exhaust. I can also determine what went in from what came out... nothing is really created or destroyed, is just changes form and gives off energy during that process. For most people, the observation of the readings on my gas analyser are enough proof... but if you want deeper proof, you can start by reading one of my bibles... the Bosch Automotive Handbook. If that isn't in depth enough for you, I can supply more, but most people glaze over at the true definition of a second.

If the above question was actually "Who decided that two hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen atom makes a water molecule instead of making something entirely else" as in who created water, that's not science. You can find out who created things nature didn't like buckyballs and nanotubes or older things like super heavy elements. The universe created hydrogen, the rest descends from that, stars created everything on the table of elements up to about iron (and structures like water by combining elements they created, supernovas and the like created the heavier elements. If the question is who or what created the universe... science hasn't got an answer, it's debunked thousands of possible answers in the last decade or so through research and narrowed the strong possibilities down to about 5 last I heard, strongest theory to date wasn't even a contender 20 years ago, String Theory.

quote Originally posted by larryemory:What exactly is gravity? Why does it work?

Now your getting into real questions that the answers aren't so clear on.

quote Originally posted by larryemory: I see no logical reason why two homogeneous masses like the earth and the moon should be attracted to each other? But we know they are-why? Who wrote that rule?

At this level it's answerable... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Oh, and homogeneous has nothing to do with it, objects with mass attract, taken to a far enough extreme objects with enormous mass act measureably on objects that don't have measureable mass like light.

Read all that and the links... if anymore questions ask. From there you should be able to find out what has been answered and what questions are left. Having questions doesn't make it god's work... especially a christian god's work considering that the teachings of that religon keep getting debunked by reality checks.

quote Originally posted by larryemory: Why is one group of molecules a golf ball and another a human being?

That's a bit silly to me in that I think you can determine why one group makes up a golf ball. A human being is quite a bit more complicated but how the molecules that make you up from moment to moment (and your always changing molecules) is pretty well understood. The process of how humans and other lifeforms evolved into such is even more complicated but also pretty well understood. Why? Loaded question, I suspect because it was inevitable based on chaos theory, and the fact that we are governed by chemical and electrical impulses. Others believe it's divine will and we are the purpose of the universe... I think that's pretty egotistical especially if a god created all of this just to make us and test us and judge us. Maybe something created the process that started everything, was this all the anticipated result if that was so? Could be that someone in another universe bumped into the wrong thing, could be that at some point science expands to the point where someone tries something and collapses the entire existance in on itself or creates a new universe displacing their own. Did the Judeo-Christian God do it as described literally in the bible? That is so far off the realm of possibilities it's laughable. I was in a meeting yesterday dealing with the watershed I live in and we had a timeline of how the watershed had developed and first item was 12,000 years ago... the gentleman giving the presentation was showing how the strata had formed through glacial scouring, with the aquafiers at different levels, end result being what impact we are having on it today, but without understanding how it started and continues to evolve, you can't solve any of our present day issues with flooding, water quality, quantity etc. A creationist would have to sit there moping over something effecting their existance that can be shown to have happened before they believe the universe even existed.

Considering the universe if estimated to be 11.5-20 billion years old, what happened to start it off has little importance in the timeframe of my lifetime or the ltimeframe I expect for the human species as we know it. None of us was there, it's history and can help gain an understanding if we explore the possibilities, but we can't change it, can't change what may happen say 20 billions years from now on a cosmic scale. It falls into the 'nice to know' category, not 'essential to my existance'. Further understanding may lead to significant improvements effecting humanity or the total destruction... who knows.

quote Originally posted by larryemory:Another question. We know of no other sentient being in the universe. Right?

Right! Yet...

quote Originally posted by larryemory: Based on that man is the highest life form in the universe. Right?

Wrong! False arguement

quote Originally posted by larryemory: Isn't that a little arrogant?

I completely agree... we have a pretty good understanding of how much is out there. We don't have the technology yet to look at the resolution needed to see other planets outside our solar system, we have a hard time seeing some of those. We have figured out a couple of methods of detecting them, but can't 'see' them with a telescope.

If you want to place odds on life like ours (could be something very very different somewhere) existing somewhere or sometime else in the universe, give a number. One in a million? Billion? Quadrillion? Lower?

Read this... I think it's inevitable that there is life elsewhere. I suspect there are or have been millions of life bearing planets out there and will be millions more as stars form and die, galaxies do the same.

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/drake.html

Arrogant is also believing it was all created for us.

quote Originally posted by larryemory:The science you adore has posited that there may be alternate universes occupying the same space as ours. Could these be heaven, hell or puratory?

Maybe for those who believe that. Anything is possible, this idea is less likely than winning every lottery ever... but hey, it's possible. Adoration has nothing to do with it.

quote Originally posted by larryemory:I don't know these things and neither do you. We never will.

I disagree and have shown why, we as humans have gained an enormous level of understanding in a microscopic amount of time. Strangely enough, although humans have only been around 50K years or so and only have had language for about 6K, writing for a few thousand at best, and answered more scientific questions about our universe in the last 100 years than in the last 10,000 years... heck I can say we've answered more in the last 20 years than in all the time proceeding, defenders of god and faith still use the fact that we don't know everything as the proof that god did it even though there is nothing pointing in that direction besides "I believe that".

quote Originally posted by larryemory: I submit the things above (and millions more)come closer to proving the existence of a supreme being than any "proof" science can provide. I suggest you not be so cocksure of your theories.

Are we supposed to burn the heretics now? Our theories are why you have electricity, radio, broadcast and cable tv, satellite communications, cellphones, cars, planes, trains, heated homes, medicine, the internet, movies, nuclear bombs, roads, wells, water treatment and sewage plants. It was people willing to ask the questions and search for answers that did all that, not people saying God did it, now give me money and pray for salvation. I suggest your wasting your miniscule existance if your spending it worrying about what comes after instead of enjoying it, questioning it, making it a better one for yourself and those around you.

Scientists aren't cocksure of anything, there are things you can demonstrate to be true every time under conditions. If you are standing on earth and jump up, you will come back down. Without outside interference that is true every time. Demonstrate one time someone jumps up and doesn't come back down without something wisking them away and Newton's Law of Gravity is broken... hasn't happened yet. Considering it hasn't happened in the thousands of years people have been around I don't expect to see that change. Yet science also allows us to interupt that test with rockets, magnetic levitation etc... where you apply an outside force to offset a law.

As someone that finds science fasinating and depends on it to make my living I can't see basing my life around a fantasy which played out has caused untold suffering throughout history. I research it, read into it more than most of the believers because root causes interest me. I want to understand what makes the world and people tick. The ability to blow off everything bad related to your belief system fasinates me, the self deception involved in self righteousness, the demands that others investigate your beliefs by those unwilling to investigate others beliefs. How many Christians here have read the Jewish Torah, the Islamic Koran, Buddhist Tipitaka, Hindu Gita, the Book of the Dead... etc? How many know that the Buddist precepts predate the Ten Commandments and leaving out the first five commandments match up?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism1.htm This religon makes more sense to an outsider than christianity, judiasm or islam. I've heard that a large number of astronomers, cosmologists are buddist, it matches a lot better as a spiritual belief system when meshed with science.

[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 05-11-2006).]

I was gonna reply to this, but I did something bad today, and my thesis advisor told me to say 20 "Hail Albert's", 4 "Hail Guy-Lussac's", and to light 12 luminous masses at the Temple of the Eldest Quark. Also, I have to sacrifice 4 of my best gluons.
Not only is that gonna cost, but I always screw up on where to splash the gluon essence on the Temple door, so I usually have to do it twice to get it right. I hate the smell of burning gluon!

Besides, after reading the initial post in this thread, I feel like I'm already in purgatory.

Gotta run. You don't want the wrath of the Eldest Quark brought down on your head.

quote Originally posted by larryemory: I We know of no other sentient being in the universe. Right?

Awareness of another sentient being does NOT denote that they dont exist. Just because you are not aware of your neighbors forks does not necissarily mean that he doesnt have one.

As for other life in the universe, there is an equation, i am not sure what it is called but basically think of the milky way... Think of the total number of stars in our galaxy.. thats a hell of a lot. think of the total number of solar systems... the total number of planets... the total number of planets capable of life. and multiply that by the number of other similar planets in other galaxies billions of light years away. That is a GIGANTIC number of planets capable of supporting life.

Also, you may regard SETI as a horrible failure.. it isn't. Wouldn't it be logical to think that other civilizations out there evolved similarly to ours, that is they broadcast television transmissions/radio transmissions, for only a portion of their total history at full power because they found they could get better quality from digital means/cable/fiber optic technologies?

If you are proposing that everything is dependent on a higher being, then answer me why Jews, Christians, and Musilims all worship the SAME god, they just have a differing line of prophets, and they cannot seem to come to a consensus? Or how the church denounced the findings of many great scientists because it was heresy?

Or how about the "most pious" princes of the vatican can molest young men, when your most sacred documents claim that homosexual actions are a sin punishable by death?

Or how about the fact that the Bible was commissioned by Emperor Constantine in 900 A.D? or how the accounts are written by MAN long after the deeds occured? doesnt that make your teachings similar to the ancient greeks... yet you consider them to be "creation myths," or better yet, how there are certain books such as the book of Judas, and The book of Mary Magdalene which were NOT included in the scripture. or how about the dead sea scrolls that arent included either?

isn't that like reading a story with every other line edited out with a black marker?

Or how about the concept of original sin, i'm sorry but i am pretty sure that an infant can commit no sin?

quote Originally posted by larryemory: Another question. We know of no other sentient being in the universe. Right? Based on that man is the highest life form in the universe. Right? Isn't that a little arrogant?

You can't say that. Thats not a logical argument..

However, what happens when we find something, and it doesn't look like man.. what happened to 'his image'?

quote
Originally posted by larryemory:

I We know of no other sentient being in the universe. Right?

what about the GREYs???

yes there are some science people who think current knowlage is state of the art
and anyother ideas are crackpot
but most real science people know that our current world view will be seen as ,
as odd , as the greek idea of a world on a turtle's back in a few hundred years
and are willing to embrace new ideas as soon as they are proven true

your god cannot be subject to any tests
nor can you know your are worshiping correctly
and following the right sub-cults rules
the only sure thing is they can't all be right
even IF there realy is a god and he wants rules followed

my basic thought is if there was a god there would be a religion
not thousands of different ones all thought up by men

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

gravity is just proof that the earth sucks

"Alford E Newman"

------------------------------------------------------------------
The voices in my head may not be real......
But they have some good ideas !!!!!

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I was in full agreement with you until your last sentence. I see no reason to suggest that people with religious values are unreasonalbe or irrational. Science and religion can co-exist. Religious people just need to stop trying to use religion to explain science. Someday science may explain religion, but I see no reason belief in a supreme being is mutually exclusive of believing in Newton's Laws of Motion. Even if you accept the Big Bang as scientifically proven, who was there to flick their Bic to start it up? Science can explain what the big bang was and how it happened. Religion may try to explain "why" it happened.

Finally someone who gets it.

I tend to think that nano-technology is going to open entirely new doors between science and religion. We are only beginning to scratch the surface of nano-tech, when we start exploring it's connection to time, space, and creation, I think we'll find that science and religion aren't seperated by all that wide of a chasm.

Ah yes, the ever popular, "lets argue about God" posting. Let me go make some popcorn.

Worship science?........Naawwww, I worship myself.

This sums it up for me.

quote I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is."

I do believe in God by the way.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: You're premise is flawed from the get-go, Larry. Nobody "worships" science. You attempt to imply that science is a religion when it clearly isn't. Science is not a philosophy, it is a search for physical truth. That's why science doesn't concern itself with matters of philosophy, of religion, of faith, of all the things you imagine are under attack. Anyone and everyone is free to challenge any finding in the field of science. However, you must challenge that with truth, facts, evidence, repeatable tests, etc. Unlike religion, in the reality of science you can't just say it's wrong and be done with it, you have to prove it wrong. Or, prove it right. It works both ways. There is no room for magic handwaves and decrees from mystical leaders, only room for facts and evidence, for solid, tangible proof. Science doesn't care who "wrote those laws" as you so eloquently put it, it only cares about discovering and understanding the laws themselves. And, it's the process of that fact-based, evidence-based process of discovery that has lifted us up out of the dark ages, out of witchcraft trials, out of ritual sacrifice, etc. It's ok if you want to backtrack out of the age of reason, Larry, but you are dead wrong if you think you and your ilk can drag the rest of the rational human species with you without a fight. JazzMan

And now folks, under the heading of "Word I never thought I would ever say":

I.......agree 100% with you Jazz. VERY well stated.

Larry, I'm a man of faith too. But I understand that science and religion are not in competition with each other as so many religious people believe. I can believe in God AND believe in the scientific evidence that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. There is NO contradiction.

The contradicition is with the LITERAL interpretation of the gospels. Well, you can't do that. The Bible is a collection of allegorical stories, some BASED in truth and others not. The story of Adam and Eve, for example, was neither written by Adam nor Eve, so how can we be sure of the accuracy of the details? We can't. That is why we must be OPEN to the idea that our assumptions about the Bible might be wrong in the face of scientific proofs. That does not dilute the MEANING of the Bible, only our interpretation of it.

Hence, if scientific evidence shows us that our understanding of the Earth's age, based on an interpretation of the gospel, is wrong then it is our interpretation that must be flawed, not the gospel. Science, as Jazz stated, does not care about the result. When you add 2+2 you will get 4 and the math does not care. 4 is the answer. That is simply a fact. The mathemetician didn't try to manipulate the result to become 4, he didn't care whether the right answer was 4 or 12 or 11.89. He simply found the answer that was already there. It is now up to us humans to add the dimension of philosophy.

quote Originally posted by Toddster I.......agree 100% with you Jazz. VERY well stated.

Where's that comet? Are we dead?

quote I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is."

lets take a look at this

IF there is a God, and he/she/it is a Omnipotent, Omnipresent being that created man with free will, then I intern use that free will to decide there is no God. Then wen I die I am punished for using the free will your so called god gave me then your god can go fuk its hypocritical and fallible self in the a$$ becous I dont want enything to do with it

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: I disagree.

quote Originally posted by jstntlvr: IF there is a God, and he/she/it is a Omnipotent, Omnipresent being that created man with free will, then I intern use that free will to decide there is no God. Then wen I die I am punished for using the free will your so called god gave me then your god can go fuk its hypocritical and fallible self in the a$$ becous I dont want enything to do with it

Wow... Such logic! Hard to disagree with either one of these!

Let's see... The state issues me a drivers license. There are certain laws that I must obey while using that license or the license can be revoked. If I misuse the license that was given me and end up killing someone the state will send me to prison.

I can't see why people, in a neverending quest to try to disprove God, will take a situation that we accept easily in every day life but when they try to apply it to God, they act like it is something unthinkable.

The difference in God and the state in this example is that God gives you the choice. Plus, you can act like a dumbass and use language on the internet that would make most sailors cringe (as shown in the last post) just to think it helps you prove a point, and you can do this every day of your life. God doesn't punish you for it. He just doesn't give you the reward at the end. God is not so terrible and hypocritical after all. How is God being a hypocrite when you know the rules? If you choose not to follow them then you are the one using your free will to damn yourself in the afterlife.

Sheesh. it is so simple! But I guess it is just not as cool to act like a Christian on an internet forum, huh? Oh well, I'm not here for a popularity contest. I know the rules and I will live by them, just like I know the laws of the land that I live by.

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 05-12-2006).]

quote Larry, I'm a man of faith too. But I understand that science and religion are not in competition with each other as so many religious people believe. I can believe in God AND believe in the scientific evidence that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. There is NO contradiction. The contradicition is with the LITERAL interpretation of the gospels. Well, you can't do that. The Bible is a collection of allegorical stories, some BASED in truth and others not. The story of Adam and Eve, for example, was neither written by Adam nor Eve, so how can we be sure of the accuracy of the details? We can't. That is why we must be OPEN to the idea that our assumptions about the Bible might be wrong in the face of scientific proofs. That does not dilute the MEANING of the Bible, only our interpretation of it.

first thing I must correct is science does not concern itself with proofs to quote a friend of mine who put it well

quote Also, I feel the need to repeat that technically speaking, science doesn't deal in "proofs." Proofs are derived from deductive reasoning methods, but the conclusions of science -- theories -- are derived from inductive reasoning. It's very important to appreciate this difference: Science never "proves" things; in fact, one of the defining characteristics of a scientific conclusion is falsifiability, something you can't have with a proof.

yes science and scientist can be wrong wen this happens the theories get changed to take into consideration the new evidence

now on to your statement you said "I can believe in God AND believe in the scientific evidence that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. There is NO contradiction."

in that case you are denying the creation story (good that's the fist step to living a fuller better life) so

* there was no Adam and Eve
* there was no original sin
* no reason for your God to sacrifice his son to himself in order to forgive us

christian logic or rather the lack of it never ceases to amaze me

quote Originally posted by Songman: Let's see... The state issues me a drivers license. There are certain laws that I must obey while using that license or the license can be revoked. If I misuse the license that was given me and end up killing someone the state will send me to prison.

ummm, Songman.. yeah you WILL be sent to prison for the example you gave above, it's a fact. But if you use that logic for God that God will send you to Hell, you can't prove that. You obey modern laws my friend and if you obey ancient laws from 'God' where is the concrete consequences?

Language only has as much power as you give it if your offended by mine then I'm not sorry and I don't think it helps make a better point I'm just a very passionate Atheist

and I'm sorry I left one word out of my argument that completes it omniscient if you don't know how that completes my logic then I smuggest you look the definition up


also the government is not Omnipresent, Omniscient, or Omnipotent

do you think a government that new you were going to kill would give you the license

[This message has been edited by jstntlvr (edited 05-12-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: And now folks, under the heading of "Word I never thought I would ever say": I.......agree 100% with you Jazz. VERY well stated.

Off in the distance, the thundering horror that was the pounding hoofbeats of The Four Horsemen of the Apocholypse could be heard above the screams & wails from lost souls that swore it could never happen. Having never touched a prayer to their lips, they now fell to their knees, babbling pleas to a God they knew not, in a last-ditch effort to be spared from a reconning they swore could never be. In the distance, shrouded in the smoke & dust and towering high above the destruction that The Horsemen left in their wake, Satan stood triumphant, greedily rubbing his charred, bloodstained hands, his eyes filled with orgasmic delite.
Above it all, stood the One True God, a tear running down his cheek. In his caring hands, he held the last of the scrolls, it's clay seal broken. Within it held the horror that Toddster had agreed with JazzMan.
The Seventh Sign had come to pass.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 05-12-2006).]

quote Originally posted by fierogtowner: ummm, Songman.. yeah you WILL be sent to prison for the example you gave above, it's a fact. But if you use that logic for God that God will send you to Hell, you can't prove that. You obey modern laws my friend and if you obey ancient laws from 'God' where is the concrete consequences?

huh?

You are agreeing with me in the first part of your post.. But then for the next line, you apparently didn't read my post in it's entirety because I plainly said that the difference in God and the state in this example is that God let's you act a fool your entire life and then you get your consequence... It is there if you had bothered to read it...

And then you ask me about concrete consequences? Yeah, I know you don't believe.... That is not the point. I was responding to your buddy over there who said he would be sent to Hell. He brought it up, not me. Yuo can't use Hell as a reason to think God is a hypocrite and turn around and then say there is no proof of Hell...

And jstntlvr, you have every right to be an Atheist, just like I have every right to be a Christian. The difference is that I won't sit around bothering you about it and try to get being an Atheist outlawed. That is the point I keep trying to make. People who don't believe in God try their best to get any idea or mention of God out of the world. Those of us who do believe are satisfied just to be left alone with our beliefs... Who is the hypocrite?

And I was always taught that people who had to resort to that kind of language did so because of lack of grammar skills, and also because they feel that is the only way to make a point. I didn't say it. That is just what I was always taught... And guess who taught me that? Not God... Grammar teachers. The belief is more of a scientific thing than a religious....

And trust me, I know you are not sorry if you offend anyone. Without getting into the whole thing of non-Christians not being moral just because they don't believe in God... This has nothing to do with non-Christians.. But by and large, Christians will worry about whether or not they offended anyone. I'm not going to let some faceless entity on an internet forum offend me. There is no way to know if you are what/who you say you are anyway so why would I care? But it is the total illogic of statements like yours that make the people who say that 'reason' tells them that there is no God look bad. Just look at your last post for all the illogic.

quote Originally posted by jstntlvr: first thing I must correct is science does not concern itself with proofs to quote a friend of mine who put it well

Not according to most of the people on this forum who try to use science to disprove God.

quote Originally posted by jstntlvr: yes science and scientist can be wrong wen this happens the theories get changed to take into consideration the new evidence

What? Science can be wrong and then change it's mind later? I can accept that. But what about all of you guys who spout 'science' even though there is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist OR that the Earth was created in any other way? Are you going to change your beliefs when one day science can prove that God created everything? Nah.. you'll think of some other reason to be an Atheist then. What about the rest of the people that 'science' told wrong? Of course, this is hypothetical but it is one of the possibilities that you must allow.

quote Originally posted by jstntlvr: now on to your statement you said "I can believe in God AND believe in the scientific evidence that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. There is NO contradiction." in that case you are denying the creation story (good that's the fist step to living a fuller better life) so * there was no Adam and Eve * there was no original sin * no reason for your God to sacrifice his son to himself in order to forgive us christian logic or rather the lack of it never ceases to amaze me

Sorry. You opinions do not make truth.. But oh yeah, you just said that science does not concern itself with proofs, so basically, you are just talking so you'll have something to say.

And I will say that I partly agree with Larry. I can also believe in God and science as I have said many times. And I also believe in evolution after the Creation... But as for the age of the Earth... well, even scientist realize that carbon dating is terribly flawed after a few thousand years... Even though, according to you, science doesn't need proof.. that fact has been proven. But that doesn't matter to those whose only goal is to try to extinguish God.

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 05-12-2006).]

quote Originally posted by jstntlvr: lets take a look at this IF there is a God, and he/she/it is a Omnipotent, Omnipresent being that created man with free will, then I intern use that free will to decide there is no God. Then wen I die I am punished for using the free will your so called god gave me then your god can go fuk its hypocritical and fallible self in the a$$ becous I dont want enything to do with it

IF, through inheritance, your mom and dad gave you a free will when you were born, then you in turn use that free will THAT THEY GAVE YOU to decide to disobey your parents, and then they punish you for using the free will that they gave you,

then by the above criteria that you have established, what course of action would you have your mom or dad take?

OKAY! All of you Atheist and other assorted non-Christians who make it a full time job to get rid of God win! I am renouncing my faith and will join the ranks of the faithless! Are you happy now? We can all be in Hell together.. No wait, you don't believe in Hell. So we will just die and that will be the end of it.. together...

Nah... just kidding. I'm just tired of having to type the same things over and over into different threads about the same thing when I know that people will respond to only one line of it and misquote it anyway and then ignore the rest...

No more religious threads for me.. Now if only the non-Christians would agree to do the same...

Have fun guys. I really doubt that anyone is going to change anyone's mind so why argue about it day in and day out? I'm just going to be sorry for the faithless ones come Judgement Day if we are right. If we are wrong, well.. then everyone will just be dead so they won't be able to gloat... I think I like my side better.

Good day all. I'll pray for all of you (whether you want me to or not!).

quote Originally posted by larryemory: You people who worship "science" answer a few questions for me. You believe in the laws of physics? Who wrote those laws? We know that oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water. Why? Who decided that? What exactly is gravity? Why does it work?

Ahhh, these threads are sooo silly, but "oh well"...


I don't "worship" science.

And why would ya think SOMEONE had to write up these laws?

quote I see no logical reason why two homogeneous masses like the earth and the moon should be attracted to each other? But we know they are-why? Who wrote that rule? Why is one group of molecules a golf ball and another a human being?

And there was a time, when we looked up, and didn't undertand the rain, the movement of the sun, the stars...

If there are "truths" out there, I'd rather hang with a group that tries to figure them out then to belong to a group that shuns the exploration of these truths. (not that YOU shun this, but there are groups that think that we shouldn't try to figure out the universe) *shrugs*

quote Another question. We know of no other sentient being in the universe. Right? Based on that man is the highest life form in the universe. Right? Isn't that a little arrogant?

And what if we find little grey men out there one day? Will you go and tell them that they are not "God's chosen people"?


Looking at the universe, and contemplating if there is some sort of supreme diety out there (sentinent or not) I would hafta say it is a bit goofy to think for ONE second that "it" is male. If anything, it would be genderless.

If it's a male, then gosh darn it, you are tellin' me that God has a weenie? That makes me think about the imaculate conception in an ALL new light!

If God is "male", wouldn;t that mean there should be a female?

Poor guy. No wonder why he got bored one day, and created everything.

I would do the same thing. But I'd make Eve FIRST!

[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 05-12-2006).]

quote And jstntlvr, you have every right to be an Atheist, just like I have every right to be a Christian. The difference is that I won't sit around bothering you about it and try to get being an Atheist outlawed. That is the point I keep trying to make. People who don't believe in God try their best to get any idea or mention of God out of the world. Those of us who do believe are satisfied just to be left alone with our beliefs... Who is the hypocrite?[/quore] question at what point did I say you or any one else didn't have a rite to you belief I very much respect that this is just a debate I have no delusion of changing eny ones point of view. [quote] "The difference is that I won't sit around bothering you about it and try to get being an Atheist outlawed."

you might not but there are those in the US and all over the world who would

quote "That is the point I keep trying to make. People who don't believe in God try their best to get any idea or mention of God out of the world."

Huh you must be leading up to the whole prair in school thing let me inform you of something I and most Atheist have no problem with prair in school we have a problem with being forced to pray in school trust me this happens every day as a HS football player I was forced to pray before every game if I refused I got punished this is just one of many examples

how about the pledge Christians are the ones forcing god in it "under god" was a line added in the Mccarthy era forcing non believers to pledge an othe to a god they don't believe in (once again refusing to recite the pledge is a punishable offence in most schools)

IN GOD WE TRUST this too was added to our currency if i'm not mistaken about the same time as the pledge was changed ill haft to check

quote And I was always taught that people who had to resort to that kind of language did so because of lack of grammar skills, and also because they feel that is the only way to make a point. I didn't say it. That is just what I was always taught... And guess who taught me that? Not God... Grammar teachers. The belief is more of a scientific thing than a religious....[\quote] I freely admit to a lack of skill with written language and I realise it makes me seam less intelligent in text form but my use of so called foul language has more to do with a personal crusade than anything El's I wont go into it here but if your that curios feel free to PM me and ill explain [QUOTE]And trust me, I know you are not sorry if you offend anyone. Without getting into the whole thing of non-Christians not being moral just because they don't believe in God... This has nothing to do with non-Christians.. But by and large, Christians will worry about whether or not they offended anyone. I'm not going to let some faceless entity on an internet forum offend me. There is no way to know if you are what/who you say you are anyway so why would I care? But it is the total illogic of statements like yours that make the people who say that 'reason' tells them that there is no God look bad.

once again I must say logic and reason do make my point if god made us already knowing everything we are going to do but still put serial killers on the planet then god is a very sick puppy I'm thinking sociopath with very heavy sadistic leaning that is my point that is y I encouraged you to look up the meanings of Omni.... etc etc

EDIT I cant get all the quotes to work the way id like them to sorry for the confusing post

[This message has been edited by jstntlvr (edited 05-12-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Songman: I really doubt that anyone is going to change anyone's mind so why argue about it day in and day out?.

Becouse you plant seeds of thought.
No one has ever been satisfied with, "That's just how it is.".
If people are nothing else, they are, "But why?"!

We are all not as far away from each other as we think we are.

I think the fact that EVERY conversation around here always ends up debating Religion proves that!
If it was truely cut & dried, one way or the other, people would not only NOT spend time defending their respective beliefs, the subject would never even come up!
Fact would be fact, and that would be that.

The sky is blue, water's wet, people wonder.

"Into the journey of the great unknown, I go first Indy!"

quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: And what if we find little grey men out there one day? Will you go and tell them that they are not "God's chosen people"? Looking at the universe, and contemplating if there is some sort of supreme diety out there (sentinent or not) I would hafta say it is a bit goofy to think for ONE second that "it" is male. If anything, it would be genderless.

I don't know what will hurt more... their feelings, knowing that they cannot be saved... or us, being vaporized.

What is God made of?

Where does he exist? Does he live in this universe? Outside of it?

No, He is suppossidly all around us. Of course right? He made every single piece of matter--and I don't believe this either.