Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by aphexcoil


That site is a load of shit. I know about local entropy systems and how the sun adds energy to the earth, thus creating a system which is partially closed.

However, lets take a look at the big picture and examine how the universe started out with a huge explosion and now we have nice neat little structures consisting of cars, airplanes, people, twinkies, Intel Inside, etc ....

So, when was the last time you saw a tornado rip through a junk-yard and create a perfectly flyable 747?

You atheists are all shot up and filled with holes, and your poor arguements are leaking out and going down into the sewers.

Nice try, but come again.

so with a swift wave of his hand aphex, the eternal idiot, dismisses a an informational website as complete bs simply because it entirely discredits his position. great going buddy!

of course, if aphie really had something, wouldn't you think he'd have answered at least a few of the questions i put to him about his alleged creator? seems reasonable, but no, aphie just returns to his tired old, completely discredited, cut and paste, creationist rhetoric. (and then has the audacity to say the atheists arguments are full of holes. ahh, he's such a character our little aphie)

 

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by MUChris
I have no idea. But then again you have no idea either. Rene DeCartes thought of God as the ultimate hedge. He believed but only because if he believed, he benefitted most. He figured if he didn't believe and God turned out to be real, he'd get screwed in the end, so he believed because basically it was in his best interest. Now i'm sure that is the SOLE reason many people still believe in God. They don't want to be punished in the end.

I personally find it interesting that people place their beliefs in books written well over 2 thousand years ago. The world was a very different place then, and there was little in the way of actual knowledge. When someone didn't know something back then, they asked their religious leader (some still do today), and when HE didn't know, what do you think happened, God told him if little Susie should be traded to the Joneses in the next town for 3 calf? You guessed it, he made it up. Now, when they asked him why we are all here, do you think he said we are here to reproduce and follow our primal instincts in a socially responsible way in a complex societal system? Or was his answer, the mysterious GOD that no one has ever seen or heard loves us and wants us to enjoy our everlasting soul? Thats right, when the priest of an ancient tribe/city didn't know something, his answer was GOD. I know that God was a substitute for knowledge in the ancient world.

I also know that the only reason Cristians did not lose their religion sooner was for the imperialistic practices of the Roman Catholic Religion from the twelfth to sixteenth century. After the Church stopped killing everyone that didn't believe, some people started not believing. I also know Darwinism indirectly fueled atheism. I also know Darwin was a devout Cristian.

I thing I do know though, is the more answers I get to the questions I used to have, the more questions I seem to have, because we currently can not explain EVERYTHING, and that little grain of sand I don't know weighs a ton in my mind.

MUChris

That last paragraph is exactly where I do and always will stand. With regard to people using God as an excuse for doing what they want, are you suggesting that God did not really tell Reggie White to play in Green Bay (as White claimed)????????

 

[stu]

Here's is a little more "POOF" for Aphex

Why not try this idea

In the first instance, like the nothing you were going through before you were born, the same was the case for the Universe. There was in fact Nothing. (Even the most devout christian would say "in the beginning was nothing".) We only get a conceptual view of what nothing is like by existing in the here and now and imagining what nothing was to us before we were born

Not hard to get your head around that Aphex?

Quantum principles show that the "existence" of nothing, that is no time, no matter of any kind, no space (there has to be no space if there is nothing), is unstable and such a state decays.

These boffins of the Quantum world are looking at the very something from nothing theory.
Positive energy found in matter is balanced against the negative energy of gravity, so the total energy is zero. (Einstein ... sooooo cool) It would take no net energy to create a universe under such principles.

Now I for one want to know a lot more but these weirdo scientists once said it was possible to first understand the concept of and then demonstrate the creation of electricty. Crazy eh? Clergy didn't like the sound of that, declared it to be unnecessary and "UnGodly".
How many religious god followers think they should denounce science now for discovering electricty? Oh but they would do just that very thing Once they saw it was a fact they call it a gift from god. That kind of hypocrisy is their speciality.

Quantum science could soon be demonstrating the very priciple of the free lunch.. The something from nothing start to the universe. And instead of just talking about it they will want to demonstrate it.

I get a lot more satisfaction for my need to know doubts and questions from science, than the crazy world of the "jesus please us" gang.

Your god is going to find no place to sit down in soon.

Just denying everything you see in the meantime to defend a weak argument is a futile unimaginative way to spend an existence.

Just think of it, if you're lucky, someone may be able to really answer the big one before you start trading . You can bet it will be a scientist that does it though. You already have the only answer the god brigade can offer you. But then again some folks still don't admit the electricity theory works

 

[daniel_m]

I thing I do know though, is the more answers I get to the questions I used to have, the more questions I seem to have, because we currently can not explain EVERYTHING, and that little grain of sand I don't know weighs a ton in my mind.

Originally posted by I Missed Boat

That last paragraph is exactly where I do and always will stand. [/B]

The thing is 'Boat, you either believe in god or you don't. You might not like having the "stigma" of atheism attached to you, but if you don't hold a positive belief in "god", you are an atheist. Atheism is simply the absence of a positive belief in theism (ie, "god"). You either hold such a positive belief, or you don't. There's really no middle ground.

 

[thunderbolt]

Originally posted by axeman
I wouldn't simply use my "impressions," but if it is one component of what someone else uses for their view, I wouldn't dictate to said person what he or she shouldn't believe spiritually.

Strawman fallacy. We are NOT debating what people should
or should not believe spiritually.

This is not a touchy feel good discussion on what people
should believe spirtually.

We are debating the existence of god here.
A binary thing. There is no room for "impressions" in
a debate. "Impressions" carry no weight.

Proving to someone they have no rational reason to believe
in a myth is core to this debate. It is not overboard.

What is this? PC-ism on crack or something?

You have theists making outrageous claims.
The atheists are doing a great job of destroying all their
old and weak arugments.

The atheists still believe they have a right to their
bogus beliefs.

However, if they catch the theists trying to offer their
faith based beliefs as fact, they are going to get shot down.

Again and again and again...

peace

axeman

Exactly! There's no proof of evolution--so it's a belief which has no room in this debate.

 

[thunderbolt]

Originally posted by daniel_m


Buddy, ever heard of the skeleton "Lucy", or, in scientific terms, Australopithecus afarensis? If you don't accept THAT as transitional evidence, then WHAT WOULD you accept?


Anyway, there is no point bringing up evolution. Whether or not you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory has nothing to do with whether or not man should accept christianity, and very little do with whether man should believe in a generic "god" (since a definition, even a loose one, of this "god" seems unable to be produced.)

PROVE IT! Show the transition. Secondly, scientists have bones of mankind dating back 6000 years--and there is no difference between those remains and our bodies today. If evolution is to betaken seriously, then don't you think there might be SOME change in 6000 years? And don't give me that billion year crap. The bible dates back about 6000 years and so do the remains of man--end of discussion.

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by thunderbolt


Exactly! There's no proof of evolution--so it's a belief which has no room in this debate.

ok, you're obviously too caught up in trying to prove your religion to be true (what a hopeless task that is!) to see what is pretty obvious to everyone else, BUT

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO INTRODUCED EVOLUTION TO THIS THREAD YOU JERK!

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by thunderbolt


PROVE IT! Show the transition. Secondly, scientists have bones of mankind dating back 6000 years--and there is no difference between those remains and our bodies today. If evolution is to betaken seriously, then don't you think there might be SOME change in 6000 years? And don't give me that billion year crap. The bible dates back about 6000 years and so do the remains of man--end of discussion.

what do you mean "show the transition"????? the skeleton has features common to man and features that would be described as "ape-like". BOTH. what more could you want in a transitional fossil???

and if you really think that man only dates back 6k years...well, buddy, i really think the last remnants of hope for you in this life have just vanished. anyone believing that 'young earth' crap seriously needs their head examined.

 

[thunderbolt]

Originally posted by daniel_m


what do you mean "show the transition"????? the skeleton has features common to man and features that would be described as "ape-like". BOTH. what more could you want in a transitional fossil???

and if you really think that man only dates back 6k years...well, buddy, i really think the last remnants of hope for you in this life have just vanished. anyone believing that 'young earth' crap seriously needs their head examined.

Prove it. Those bones show NO transition at all. It's a diversion. My previous posts have already pointed that out. Also, give me a link to a site that states there are bones over 6000 years.

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by thunderbolt


Prove it. Those bones show NO transition at all. It's a diversion. My previous posts have already pointed that out. Also, give me a link to a site that states there are bones over 6000 years.

how exactly would you like me to prove it to you? you want me to come to your house and bring you the skeleton so you yourself can examine it?

i'm asking you a very simple question. what would you accept as proof of a transitional fossil IF NOT the common attributes of two different "species" (i'm using a layman's defintion of species here)?