666...the Devils Moving Average

I was typing up a response, but decided I didn't need to start another debate thread. I'm low on time :D

I'll just say it's not fair to imply that logic and science does not deal with WHY questions. Think a little on this.... it's quite common.

Questions of WHY also imply there is a reason. This is not always the case.


peace

axeman



Quote from marketsurfer:

science and logic provide answers for the HOW. do you ever ask yourselves WHY ?? why are you alive, et al. HOW is of no consequence to me ( or you if you analyse it)--- i seek to know WHY . i am wired to want to know WHY, apparently axe, gg, etc. are simply wired to ask HOW. different brains, different wiring---one cannot fully comprehend the other.

best,

surfer
More...
 
Fallacy: Circular reasoning.

You are using attributes of this "higher creator" to prove/imply that he does not need to be created.

But you haven't proven he exists in the first place.

In other words....You are using the unproven to prove the unproven.

Try again.



peace

axeman
___________________________________________

No. I don't claim any understanding above the first level.

The circle stops above the "computer". That level I understand to some degree. The creation of life or start of it I do not understand and believe that it is not known or our famous scientists would be claiming it. The opposite is that a computer should evolve from plastic, silicon, metal, electricity, and whatever else they require. Do you believe computers evloved spontaneously?
 
Quote from axeman:


Anything complex MUST have a creator
Man is complex
--------------------------------------------
Therefore: There must be a creator, for man

Anything complex MUST have a creator
The creator is EXTREMELY complex
--------------------------------------------
Therefore: There must be a creator, for the creator
More...

Again, if you read my threads I've said that it only means there is the possibility of a creator. But you guys will not even admit this - that's what is so exasperating. The typical comment I get is "Yeah, and I might be the reincarnation of King Tut."

I have repeatedly said I am not trying to prove anything and have conceded that point.
 
I have already admitted the POSSIBILITY of a creator.

I think most honest atheists do.


peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:



Again, if you read my threads I've said that it only means there is the possibility of a creator. But you guys will not even admit this - that's what is so exasperating. The typical comment I get is "Yeah, and I might be the reincarnation of King Tut."

I have repeatedly said I am not trying to prove anything and have conceded that point.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

I will skip many points of contention in your post and jump to the meat of it.

"Now, here's my question for you? Do you really believe that tens and tens of thousands of mutations could have occurred in the right sequence to create this sort of Super Cray computer housed in our craniums in just a 100 million years or less? I'm not trying to be combative, but I can't believe that anyone who knows probabiility and stats at even a base level could believe that. "

This is just another version of finding a watch on the beach.
We have been through this before. You have NO idea what the probability is period. You are CLAIMING that it is very low, but have zero evidence to support this notion.

More...
You may not believe me, but I really was just asking w/o ulterior motives. I was not planning on pouncing on you if you said, "Yes, this is problematic for me."

I seriously just wonder how people can think that tens of thousands of unlikely events (each taking a 100 or more years on average) can fire in the correct sequence. I cannot even conceive that someone would believe this to be true.

I can understand a lot of biologists and educators believing this who do not always delve into the mathematical side of the world. But it's unimaginable to me that highly trained mathematical types could believe this.

And so I've always wondered if there's some kind of model out there or proposed hypothesis for it. I know Gould wrestled with this issue and was just wondering if you'd heard anything else.
 
Quote from axeman:

I have already admitted the POSSIBILITY of a creator.

I think most honest atheists do.
More...
This is the first time is a semi-serious manner. If you are saying that you think it is a low probability likelihood, I can accept that. I just hate all the derogatory post-comments like, "And I might have written War and Peace onto a postage stamp."
 
You cannot argue your way to God through complicated arguments on creationism, intelligent design, and theism.

While we have good reason to believe in God based on these arguments, there are enough uncertainties and unknowns in science that one cannot conclusively say "therefore God exists."

The basis for my faith is: EXPERIENCE. When I read the bible, I could relate to what many of those people went through. And everyday I experience God and what the bible talks about: love, hate, envy, desire for signifiance, sacrifice. The bible is so applicable to my life even though it was written over 2000 years ago.

I have already experienced the atheist way of life for 20 years before turning Christian so I have been on both sides of the fence. Shouldn't atheists or non-believers give Christianity a chance then? Even if you join a group and read the bible with the sole intention of debunking and proving Christianity wrong, I encourage that too. Initially, I went to bible study with the sole purpose of finding some contradiction, haha. If after experiencing Christainity and after an HONEST evaluation of it, you still don't believe, I still respect you because you took the initiative to try and make a well-informed decision.

But many of you will object: "My parents took me to church when I was young so I already know Christianity is BS."

I think we can all agree that as children or teenagers, we have a rather narrow perspective of life. I urge all of you to revisit Christianity since now you are all free thinking, educated, experienced, and mature adults who have a deeper understanding of life.

Bottom line: Please take the time to look into Christianity. If you want to reject Christianity, fine, but at least give it a try. Fair enough? =)
 
Quote from Epiphany:

The basis for my faith is: EXPERIENCE. When I read the bible, I could relate to what many of those people went through. And everyday I experience God and what the bible talks about: love, hate, envy, desire for signifiance, sacrifice. The bible is so applicable to my life even though it was written over 2000 years ago.
More...
hmm maybe because pretty much every human being on earth experiences those emotions every day? it's pretty much unavoidable...

i EXPERIENCE emotions, too, and i have ZERO faith in any religion.
 
I have said many times before it is a very personal thing to have a relationship with God. It is so personal that I personally reject the regilious lablel. I do not have a religion but a relationship. Every religion I know of is man's reaching up to a god for approval or acceptance and this I believe is useless and futile. I am as disdainful of religions as anyone but that does not mean that I do not have the utmost respect and love for God. My very personal faith in Him is based on three legs:

1. The bible. (authentic enough for me and millions others but certainly not for all.)

2. The natural world. (having spent nearly all of my life outdoors and away from people I have a very different take on what goes on in the natural world.)

3. Personal experience. (This is the very private side of your belief system and worldview. It is very much affected by how close to death you consider yourself to be. Trust me on this last point.)

When I see the statements of the bible played out in the natural world and also in my personal life and the lives of those around me then it helps to raise my confidence in the reliability of the scriptures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top