hate all this prayer crap

If God brought the POWs out of captivity in answer to prayer, then, why didn't anyone pray not to be captured in the first place? Seems to me that if I were a believer, and I was fighting in a war, that's the first thing I'd pray about every night. In fact, I'd forgo my usual "bless this meal, Oh Lord" grace prayer at dinner and instead pray, "Oh God please don't let me get captured or killed!" before every meal.

I mean, getting captured and then praying for help... isn't that a little late in the cycle? You know, pray ahead about not getting captured in the first place, and see how that pans out for you. That's like having your request in. You already prayed not to get captured, so God knows how you feel about it. Then, if you do get captured, you'll know how God feels about it. And if you're captured, then you know that the answer is "No", and you can concentrate your time and effort on escaping because you'll that you don't have spend time praying about it.

Besides, it's got to be inconsiderate to pray for help after you've been captured rather than pray before you get captured. Think about it. After you're captured, you're locked in a room, no windows, blindfolded, twenty armed guards patrolling outside the door, no one knows your exact whereabouts. It takes the marines a couple of helicopters, a team of armed soldiers, grenades, guns, effort to find you, risking their own lives to get you out. It's obviously harder to get you out rather than just preventing you from getting captured in the first place. Before, all God would've had to do is make you change your mind about patrolling down that hillside. Or maybe make your shoelace untie so that when you bent down to tie it, the enemy passed by and didn't see you. That's easy stuff. Even if you're God you've got to appreciate it if your subject makes it easier for you to help him. If you got a subject that waits until they're in a big mess before they contact you, I say you have a problem subject. That's probably why God said, "Hey, why didn't you pray not to get captured in the first place, it would've been a simple fix," and sent the marines in.
 
Jem, sorry to have missed your little...gem...but I see it now and hope this helps. And by the way, I am getting more serious than I ever intended, so stop it already.

[QUOTE's]Quote from jem:

Dudes I love it when people try to use their brains to determine whether there is a God or not. All I can say is you are not going to reason him away until you make an attempt to see what the best arguments are for his existence.

To start, I would use my feet to determine God's existence but my brain has a superiority complex and refuses to let my other body parts do the determining, well there is an exception - but he's not at all interested in God anyway.
Second, no one wants to "reason away" God. Atheists are as crazy as the religious, how else would you explain taking a strong stance on...NOTHING?! The burden of proof lies in your hands by claiming God's existence. You make the assertion, I merely question: "really, how do you know." You say self-evident, I say BULLSHIT. That's a circular argument my friend, something the church has grown very good at, but it's only real effect is to dizzy the weak. Alright, enough let's move on.

Now in short answer. If the God did not exist and the universe was not designed how the heck do you think you would even live in this super hostile universe. Man you want to talk about screwed up--- study a little biology and see how unbelievable small the odds of life are.

Just because you can ponder a world without life does not preclude a supreme being. Alright, so you mix up some ribonucliotides and poof!, bye bye life. The fact is it did not happen that way, order does not preclude design because WE made the order. Life, the universe, anything outside our own minds has no idea what does and does not work, it has no idea, it just is (call it the Big Electron, if you will).
And one other thing, give life some credit for resilience she's made it this far. (Note: Agree with me on this last point - nudge, nudge)

Imagine if John Lennon's utopia was here. How evil would the world be.

Not a big John Lennon fan - too idealistic. But seems a little harsh, maybe you need to talk with the Walrus.

Now most people think that the Jewish Testament or the New testament is a book about being a good person and some wishy washy crap about who knows what crap is poured on top some other crap.
If you were to study the bible, and realize what God was saying in the old testament and about why there are Jews, and why there is suffering and why 100s of promises and 1000s of predictions were made and kept you might have something to argue with religious people about. Until you study the books and meet the challenge head on your rationalizations are seen as the contrived arguments of people yearning for the truth but without the balls to confront it.
Now if you already have dug in and really studiedthe bible and still take your stance I respect your postion and wish you nothing but the best. [/QUOTE]

Totally agree. Well, one contention. Nostradamus (sp?) has made some predictions too, very vague like most fortune tellers. The problem is we are a pattern species. We like the things, go figure. Anyway, when we want to find patterns - we do. Some have it worse than others; the rigors of Hippocrates are supposed to help overcome this fact. Don't always work.

Alright, this is probably my last post. I am definitely running out of material. Your a good man jemmy brown,

keep the faith,
rlb
 
dgabriel

My statement was only meant to show that while George Carlin was attempting to reason why God does not exist, I was asking people to reason how could life exist. It almost seems to me to be beyond reasoning abilities. (You know Kant stuff) I was not attempting to argue for creationism because I still think it is missing proofs, consequently I do not believe it is science I do believe it is faith.

However, since we are on the subject I would like to see scientific standards applied to Darwinism and evolution. You sort of argued to me that creationism is a sham and Darwinism is fact. Yet you realize Darwin reasoned evolution into being. He looked at a few things and made some conclusions. Now how do you think scientific conclusions from his era have withstood the test of time?

How is evolution defined what does it stand for, it is very hard to pin down because noone wants to admit it cant be proven. Did we evolve from slightly smaller people- or did we evolve from monkeys. Did we have quantum leaps from species or have we just refined the sperate species. Why do we need a missing link?

If you say we evolved from monkeys then you sort have to take the argument all the way back to the big bang. So therefore you are letting the observations of turtles on an island stand for the view that the universe came from the big bang and some lucky accidental combination of things. To say it was lucky takes just as much faith if not more than to say it was God

The only real difference between what scientists believe and what some God believers believe is--- who put the matter together for the big bang. Either way it is a guess based on faith.

However, I am a little more skeptical of Darwin's powers of observation and his theory. I think the onus should be on Believers in evolution to read his book and see if the fossil evidence that he said must be found has been found. I think there must be some more scrutiny of these carbon dating procedures. I know Carbon Dating to be fallible and I know some of the times that it fails. I think Darwins theory should be just as scrutinized as say Keynesian economics. Why should it be taught as gospel.

I do not think Darwinism is fact. I think it is a belief. And as peopel struggle to actually give definitions and proofs to it they realize it is just a theory that can not be proven. By the way evolution. if it were true would have little effect on my faith in fact I believed in it growing up. I just recognize a flawed theory when I see it.
 
Jem, I just read your post, i admire it, but I'm a little tired now to answer fully, so I will touch upon only a few points.

The mechanism of heredity is well understood. Reproduction, genetic combination, molecular genetics have a wealth of data supporting a directive cellular code that is hereditary by its nature.

The possibility and probability for change in this code is well established. Science has witnessed genetic change over generations in simple organism, has documented this change, known as mutations.

Directly observing this type of change in more complex organisms is prohibitive if not impossible due to the time required for generational cycles.

Fossil records are abundant. Carbon dating is relatively accurate.

There is a mechanism of evolution, DNA and reproduction.

Darwin identified changing environments and conceived of selective pressures. Natural selection. The fossil record supports this. SOme people of faith are troubled by the conclusion that natural selection occurs outside the commands of a creator.

The concept of biological evolution preceded the discovery of Classical genetics and molecular genetics, the understanding of of DNA as a repository of life information and a molecule with the ability to change.

The pace of evolution has been disputed, and other theories as have been offered in this regard, but the central tenets established by Darwin have been supported by science to this day.

Evolution implies to some of faith that the passage of time and life in this world is not moderated by an omniscient, omnipotent god, but I don't see Darwinian evolution as inherently incompatible with the existence of a creator or higher power, or the acceptance of Darwin as irreconciable with Judeo Christian beliefs.

I am under the impression that those who oppose Evolution are doing so almost strictly from the angle of religion and faith, and perhaps sometimes under the guise of science, but rarely under the guise of science apart from faith.
 
dagrbriel -I am tired also. But I have read quotes from scientists, particular geneticists and DNA researchers who while claiming to be non-believers state that evolution is very suspect. In fact although I have not read it I think there is a book that dozens of academics on this subject. If I have the time I will find the citations for this information over the weekend.


"Directly observing this type of change in more complex organisms is prohibitive if not impossible due to the time required for generational cycles." by dgabriel Considering what I was taught in school I was blindsided by this information when I learned it say about 5 years ago. I really thought we must have had some sort of proof.

When I was in school that we evolved from lower species was bandied about by science teachers as if there was proof. Like I said at least now I know why Darwin said for his theory to be correct the evidence of this leap would be found in the fossil records. Now to my knowledge we still have not found the missing link and directly observing this type of behavior is prohibitive if not impossible. Sure sounds like a theory to me.

But I really do not need to win this argument. Lets just arrive at a minimal provable definition of evolution. At least I will not be as confused as to what evolution claims. I will take citations to web sites or anything else.
 
Jem,
I see what you are saying, and I can stop clowning enough to respond to you in a manner befitting your post.

Quote from jem:
My statement was only meant to show that while George Carlin was attempting to reason why God does not exist, I was asking people to reason how could life exist. It almost seems to me to be beyond reasoning abilities.
My interpretation of Carlin is this: God is an idea, not good or bad, right or wrong, just an idea. It is however, an idea not based on any observable reality, and yet one that has been used in a negative way by certain individuals for many years. His problem, his reason for attacking religion, is mostly based on the actions of a few zealots who often disturb the lives of others in the name of righteousness. These of course are my interpretations and GC may very well disagree.
However, since we are on the subject I would like to see scientific standards applied to Darwinism and evolution. You sort of argued to me that creationism is a sham and Darwinism is fact. Yet you realize Darwin reasoned evolution into being. He looked at a few things and made some conclusions. Now how do you think scientific conclusions from his era have withstood the test of time?
If you say we evolved from monkeys then you sort have to take the argument all the way back to the big bang. So therefore you are letting the observations of turtles on an island stand for the view that the universe came from the big bang and some lucky accidental combination of things. To say it was lucky takes just as much faith if not more than to say it was God.
The only real difference between what scientists believe and what some God believers believe is--- who put the matter together for the big bang. Either way it is a guess based on faith.

You've got two ideas going on at once here, (1) the verity of Darwin's proposition (and all other scientific propositions) and the verity of the proposition that God does/does not exist are analogous, and (2) because the universe operates within limits it could have not operated under these limits and therefor not existed.

(1) The fundamental difference between theories of science and theories on God is the ability for man to test these theories. While no scientific theory can ever be accepted as "fact," cold, hard and unchanging, it can be proven to be more or less true based on observation. Theories on God, by their very nature cannot be observed to be more or less true. God itself is an entirely intangible item, an idea which, though beautiful at times, is inherently untestable.

(2) You have used the terms "lucky" and "accidental" in describing the existing of life/the universe. I can understand why one would make this application of reasoning. On earth, if you plan to drop a piano form a window, carry it to the second floor, open the window, and let go of the piano, it falls. It was not chance, nor luck; you knew what would happen because you planned the course of events and structured your actions in accordance with what you had already known (eg: when you let go of something, it falls). On the contrary, if you are walking down the street and turn around to go home for a pack of gum moments before a piano falls on your head, you proclaim yourself lucky for having not been under the falling piano. "Lucky": because you had not known about the piano and had been fortunate anyhow. The same line of reasoning can be applied, in reverse, to the idea of accidental.
Now, for the meaty part. The universe need not be planned. The universe and the life it contains does not require a creator or a planner, it simply is, and it is because there is nothing else it could be. In this way, scientists are observing what occurs and creating a sytem(s) to explain these occurrences. In doing so they must quantify - mathematics - and thus relegate what is inherently analog into a manageable, digital form.
You mentioned Kant. One of his assertions, and it's been a while so excuse the vagueness, was that human perception is as a filter or screen which allows some things to pass and others not. One of our essential "filters" is time. We must experience the universe within a certain, fairly fixed period of time. We have a clock running on our existence because it has begun and one day will end. The universe has no such clock. The big bang is not generally considered the beginning by scientists but rather the beginning of what can be observed. (Note: There is debate on this issue.) The big bang is a mathematical singularity - like a blackhole - something which can be approached but not surpassed. It is the point at which the "rules" of science as we now know them break down, but not the 'beginning' in the classic sense. If you are interested, Hawkings has elaborated on this matter. Theoretical physicists do not bother with the notion of what occurred before the big bang just like they do not toy with the notion of God - because, no matter what happened or what it is, it is forever untestable.

Well, that's it. I've come full circle and to be honest, likely made some errors myself. I hope I have shown the essential difference between science and religion. Such matters are difficult for even the greatest minds, and I, being a feeble hobby theorist can do little more than ponder.
More...
 
Quote from rlb21079:

The universe and the life it contains does not require a creator or a planner, it simply is, and it is because there is nothing else it could be.
More...

1) Why?
2) You can't think about 'something else' b/c everything you know is 'what is'
3) I like the idea of infinite ( in all terms ) universe. This rejects the hypothesis of extremely low odds for life.

I recommend to read "The Creation Myth" by Alan Watts: http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/belgium/1029/creation.html
 
jem, I have read your posts, apologies if I have the wrong slant on what you say but You seem to conclude that because you can find fault with science/evolution theory then it makes creationists side of things true.Therefore finding fault in one side makes the other side correct by default.
Quote from jem
Lets just arrive at a minimal provable definition of evolution
More...
If the creationist side of the argument is your stance, why do you choose to test science and not to test the very thing proposed by creationists.... Why Not...."Lets just arrive at a minimal provable definition of God"??
Why do you seek to show science can fail in attempt to show creationism is therefore true?

We all know by now atheists are simply non theists, and by definition as such are not required, and do not set out, to prove a negative. Religion is seen as something where all available evidence changes, contradicts and is unsubstantiated.To then be told that such lack of evidence proves the proposition to be true, is asking for nothing less than a rejection of reason and a blind leap of faith for those who insist at least on applying the human faculty to question as a precursor to acceptance.
The Universe appears to have come into existence and evolved to where it is now, by ever increasingly understandable and generally overwhelmingly accepted events. There are still gaps, some say big ones - religions especially, but in the reality which enables the understanding of such things there is huge knowledge of testable and observable evidence to explain what was not long ago insisted on being the will of God. Yet still creationists/religious believers persist to find fault in the systems used to attain such knowledge as a means to somehow prove their philosophies must be and are true. In a way it is at least consistent with the interminable refusal to clearly define their own standpoint and the repeating imperativeness to show the yet incomplete search for knowledge is a proof of God.

Quote from ElCubano
Go to your local Jail house....you will see 1000's of new believers in God..Ones that never gave him a second thought are now praying and giving their life to Him...peace....
More...
Faced with extreme emotional turmoil it is obvious humans are quite capable of extreme emotional response. By creating a fictitious comfort blanket it is hardly surprising some are going to snuggle up to it at moments of personal desperate crises. This determines the argument for creationism/existence of “Him” - not a jot.
 
Quote from DT-waw:
1) Why?
2) You can't think about 'something else' b/c everything you know is 'what is'
3) I like the idea of infinite ( in all terms ) universe. This rejects the hypothesis of extremely low odds for life.

I recommend to read "The Creation Myth" by Alan Watts: http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/belgium/1029/creation.html
More...
Thanks for the link, whatever that Alan Watts is on it's doing him no good.
I thought this guy is doing a candletrader here and trying some kind of sardonic humor to make (or should it be mess-up) a point. He isn't serious is he?
He states "God also likes to play hide-and-seek". I could use your words to ask...

1) Why?
2) You can't think about 'something else' b/c everything you know is 'GOD'
3) I dig infinity

I wonder do they understand the meaning of the word trite in Belgium
 
Jem, Evolution is a theory on the emergence of the species.

Not fact, as such, but thoery with a wealth and a rich web of supporting data.

And this theory holds vast implications.

I never said it was fact, but in science its place in the pantheon of world views is firm.

Please get the references for the materials you mentioned where scientists opposed evolution on scientific grounds. I would be interest to know.

thx

dg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top