I was looking about today for DISC behavioral tests online, when somehow I stumbled across this article. Intrigued, I read through it.
Now, my beliefs are already defined and steadfast. I was simply intrigued that someone thought they could change people's minds with a set of 6 reasons. I read it, and believe that maybe some people here might be able to read it and give me their opinions on it and the subject it covers. It's nowhere near a complete list, like the author states, but it does have several valid reasons.
READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE ANSWERING.
Anyways, my main question to you is:
Do you believe in a higher being?
If so: Why do you believe this? Who is this higher being (if you have a name for them)? And what evidence have they shown you that they exist?
If not: How can you say with certainty that there is no higher being? What evidence have you that everything has happened the way it has with no outside intervention?
I shall answer later, I'm just curious as to your answers for now.
There will be a ZERO TOLERANCE rule in effect in this thread. Any flaming, bashing people for their beliefs, or generally tasteless behavior will get your post deleted and a warn.
This is a philosophical discussion, not a soapbox for you to stand on and belittle others.
Keep things nice, and everything will go smooth. Start problems, and you'll wish you never hit that enter button.
A true Philosophical Question.
last edited by
I believe 'no, there isn't'.
As to the evidence bit? There is none!!! One can say that they've experienced a miracle, but another can just as easily say that it was a coincidence with equally important evidence as the miracle-experience-ee has. Frankly, I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism, with no proof for either side except my own caustic mannerisms and cynical attitudes.
Either way you look at it, you're wrong. XD
Wait 'til you die. Then worry about it.
As to the evidence bit? There is none!!! One can say that they've experienced a miracle, but another can just as easily say that it was a coincidence with equally important evidence as the miracle-experience-ee has. Frankly, I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism, with no proof for either side except my own caustic mannerisms and cynical attitudes.
Either way you look at it, you're wrong. XD
Wait 'til you die. Then worry about it.
last edited by
You didn't even read the article, did you >_>;
*Adds requirement of reading article to main post*
*Adds requirement of reading article to main post*
last edited by
Uh, no. XD
No time mate.
I'm just adding my opinion here....
>>
<<
There is no certainty. >: o
No time mate.
I'm just adding my opinion here....
>>
<<
There is no certainty. >: o
last edited by
Watching Disney Channel.
Can't answer question at teh moment.
More detailed and intelligent post to come.
Can't answer question at teh moment.
More detailed and intelligent post to come.
last edited by
I believe there are gods, yes. The gods that care over those who accept them as their only gods.I do not have a specific worshiping plan, so I dont have any support from those divine.
Also, I'm not flaming or bashing anything, but this looks alot like one of those one-sided chirstian sites. Just me >_>
Also, I'm not flaming or bashing anything, but this looks alot like one of those one-sided chirstian sites. Just me >_>
last edited by
The problem with these six reasons is that they hang on one central argument.
Namely, that life is too complicated for "sheer chance" to have created. I do not agree with the nature of the argument. It simply argues that since today's scientific theory may not be able to aptly explain increasing complexity of life, then therefore life must be too complicated to have been created from natural, unaided processes.
In short, it claims lack of explanation on science's side as "proof" for its intelligent creator side.
In my opinion, absolutely disgusting. Using lack of foundation for one explanation as proof that the other side is correct is logically negligent, and I am annoyed at the amount of creationism campaigns that endorse such arguments.
I mean, 3 centuries ago, we weren't able to explain how genetics worked. Do we contest genetics now? I'm not saying that there is no higher being. But, to declare that it exists with that kind of 6-point argument should be reprehensible to even true believers.
And me? I believe that it makes little to no difference whether you believe in such a presence or not. As limited as we human, mortal folk are, we lack the proper capacity to comprehend/ascertain them, and pondering about them is an utter waste of time. If you believe, believe. If you don't, don't. There's no point in forcing your beliefs on the other side.
Namely, that life is too complicated for "sheer chance" to have created. I do not agree with the nature of the argument. It simply argues that since today's scientific theory may not be able to aptly explain increasing complexity of life, then therefore life must be too complicated to have been created from natural, unaided processes.
In short, it claims lack of explanation on science's side as "proof" for its intelligent creator side.
In my opinion, absolutely disgusting. Using lack of foundation for one explanation as proof that the other side is correct is logically negligent, and I am annoyed at the amount of creationism campaigns that endorse such arguments.
I mean, 3 centuries ago, we weren't able to explain how genetics worked. Do we contest genetics now? I'm not saying that there is no higher being. But, to declare that it exists with that kind of 6-point argument should be reprehensible to even true believers.
And me? I believe that it makes little to no difference whether you believe in such a presence or not. As limited as we human, mortal folk are, we lack the proper capacity to comprehend/ascertain them, and pondering about them is an utter waste of time. If you believe, believe. If you don't, don't. There's no point in forcing your beliefs on the other side.
last edited by
The website was unexciting. Demon covered everything quite nicely, and quite frankly, my buddy Leon, I'd respect you more for sticking to good old-fashioned creationism.
Creationism typically doesn't pretend to have evidence; there is none. Most scientific evidence for creationism can be quite formally debunked with the right copypasta and infodumping. Most of the logical/scientific arguments you will find for creationism are simply the outpouring of an angry creationist.
Barring people who simply cannot abide by people claiming that science goes against their beliefs, Creationists believe that God made the world based on their faith.
Intelligent design is a concession to the theory evolution, and it ends up sounding stupid. I don't care how unlikely it is for things to have happened like they are now, the point is that they did. End of story. Even the site you linked had no logical argument stating that it is completely impossible for the world to be as it is without a creator, therefore there is no evidence against the world becoming this way by random chance, therefore intelligent design is at best equally likely to be true as non-God driven evolution.
As a side point: One thing I don't know how to argue for is abiogenesis, that is, life forming on earth where there was formerly no life. To my knowledge, this is because not much evidence actually exists.
And... Reason #6 on that website?
Yeah, it's ridiculous. I ignored it.
Creationism typically doesn't pretend to have evidence; there is none. Most scientific evidence for creationism can be quite formally debunked with the right copypasta and infodumping. Most of the logical/scientific arguments you will find for creationism are simply the outpouring of an angry creationist.
Barring people who simply cannot abide by people claiming that science goes against their beliefs, Creationists believe that God made the world based on their faith.
Intelligent design is a concession to the theory evolution, and it ends up sounding stupid. I don't care how unlikely it is for things to have happened like they are now, the point is that they did. End of story. Even the site you linked had no logical argument stating that it is completely impossible for the world to be as it is without a creator, therefore there is no evidence against the world becoming this way by random chance, therefore intelligent design is at best equally likely to be true as non-God driven evolution.
As a side point: One thing I don't know how to argue for is abiogenesis, that is, life forming on earth where there was formerly no life. To my knowledge, this is because not much evidence actually exists.
And... Reason #6 on that website?
Yeah, it's ridiculous. I ignored it.
last edited by
I do not believe in any higher being. I do not know it, but it is my educated guess.
I must say, this article isn't very well thought through. I'll comment on the arguments it makes.
Argument: The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Drakim's Answer:
*How do we see if something is created?
*What does "created" look like?
*And how do we know that when something supernatural creates, it looks created?
People seem to think that as long as something is beautiful, it is created by something, which simply does not need to be true. Have you ever seen ice crystals? They arise from water by nothing more than cold, yet they are breathtaking in structure and buildup.
Argument: The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it.
Drakim's Answer:
*How do we know that complexity is linked with design?
*If complexity needs a higher intelligence, does not the higher intelligence also need an even higher intelligence?
This argument bases itself mostly on ignorance. Evolution is well capable of creating a very complex brain.
Argument: "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
Drakim's Answer:
*How do we know that "chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient? What do we base this claim on?
*How come God exists? By chance?
A very logical flaw. Just because X isn't correct doesn't make Y automatically correct. Even if evolution and all of science was dis-proven, you would still need to prove God. He doesn't get a "free ride".
Argument: To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God.
Drakim's Answer:
*Does believing really hard alter reality?
*Most people believed the earth was flat before. Does that make it true then?
This argument is really low. I mean, does really the number of people involved in a cause make it more true? If I gathered support for belief in Goblins, could I make Goblins exist by simply getting lots of support?
Argument: We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
*How do we know this? Where is the evidence?
*Why are there so many non-believers if there is such clear proof?
*Why does studying the world and how it works (being a scientist) most often lead you away from God? Shouldn't it be opposite?
The arguments are really getting thin now. No religion holds over 30% of the world's population. If God was truly so easy to find out about, then we would expect the one true religion to have at least 90% or something.
Argument: Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.
*Have you studied all other revelations of God? Thor? Odin? Zeus? Allah? <inset a million other gods>
This argument is just biased. It's for all it is worth just a Christian saying that Christianity is the best. The fact remains that the Bible makes some pretty bold claims that crash with reality (such as a global flood), and is NOT a very clear picture of the world.
-----
I'd love to have debates Leon, but you are going to have to provide something better than this. Debates are good because you seek truth instead of just hoping you are right. However, these are age old arguments that has been refuted so long ago, in some many thousand ways.
I'll post my own arguments later when I have more time. <<
I must say, this article isn't very well thought through. I'll comment on the arguments it makes.
Argument: The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Drakim's Answer:
*How do we see if something is created?
*What does "created" look like?
*And how do we know that when something supernatural creates, it looks created?
People seem to think that as long as something is beautiful, it is created by something, which simply does not need to be true. Have you ever seen ice crystals? They arise from water by nothing more than cold, yet they are breathtaking in structure and buildup.
Argument: The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it.
Drakim's Answer:
*How do we know that complexity is linked with design?
*If complexity needs a higher intelligence, does not the higher intelligence also need an even higher intelligence?
This argument bases itself mostly on ignorance. Evolution is well capable of creating a very complex brain.
Argument: "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
Drakim's Answer:
*How do we know that "chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient? What do we base this claim on?
*How come God exists? By chance?
A very logical flaw. Just because X isn't correct doesn't make Y automatically correct. Even if evolution and all of science was dis-proven, you would still need to prove God. He doesn't get a "free ride".
Argument: To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God.
Drakim's Answer:
*Does believing really hard alter reality?
*Most people believed the earth was flat before. Does that make it true then?
This argument is really low. I mean, does really the number of people involved in a cause make it more true? If I gathered support for belief in Goblins, could I make Goblins exist by simply getting lots of support?
Argument: We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
*How do we know this? Where is the evidence?
*Why are there so many non-believers if there is such clear proof?
*Why does studying the world and how it works (being a scientist) most often lead you away from God? Shouldn't it be opposite?
The arguments are really getting thin now. No religion holds over 30% of the world's population. If God was truly so easy to find out about, then we would expect the one true religion to have at least 90% or something.
Argument: Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.
*Have you studied all other revelations of God? Thor? Odin? Zeus? Allah? <inset a million other gods>
This argument is just biased. It's for all it is worth just a Christian saying that Christianity is the best. The fact remains that the Bible makes some pretty bold claims that crash with reality (such as a global flood), and is NOT a very clear picture of the world.
-----
I'd love to have debates Leon, but you are going to have to provide something better than this. Debates are good because you seek truth instead of just hoping you are right. However, these are age old arguments that has been refuted so long ago, in some many thousand ways.
I'll post my own arguments later when I have more time. <<
last edited by
Okay, here are some points.
To assume that unproven things exist is madness
Can you disprove that blue goblins on the moon exists? What about black whales on Jupiter? What about red dogs inside the sun?
Since you cannot disprove them, do you assume that they exist?
It's pretty easy to see that you cannot sanely assume that something exist simply by the lack of proof against it's existence. If you did, you would have to believe in an infinitive number of stupid things, such as the blue goblins on the moon. Your contact with reality would be completely disappear.
What you need is some kind of evidence. If you saw some blue goblin-like creatures in a telescope, it wouldn't be all wrong to think that they exist. You have seen them, and therefore have a perfectly valid reason to believe there are blue goblins on the moon.
If you believe in God simply because you don't have any evidence against the existence of God, you are not acting sanely. Why believe in God and not believe in blue goblins? Are you simply picking that which seems nicest?
If you however do have evidence or proof of God, then do show it to us. From the years I've debated with believers, I've yet to encounter anybody that has been able to provide such evidence. I can only assume there is none.
There is no direct proof for God
We cannot see, feel, touch, talk to, smell, sense, or in any way know that God exist. If we did, things would be very easy, and everybody would believe. If you could just point to God's face in the sky, or just talk to God by jumping very high, then we wouldn't be debating this at all.
Indirect proof of God is not enough
If a friend of you told you that he had seen a miracle, what would that mean? Let's say he had seen a person heal a sick child by nothing but touch. That would be pretty convincing, wouldn't it?
The reasoning behind this goes something like this:
Healing powers contradict reality, therefore God must have caused it, and God must exist in order to be able to interact with the world. Therefore God must exist.
However, it is not proof of God's existence. You have no way of proving that such a healing power actually comes from God. For all you know, the person might have gotten the powers from blue goblins on the moon. They might have singled him out from a telescope on the moon and decided to experiment by giving him healing powers.
Let's take other examples:
"The universe looks designed, therefore it needs a designer (which is God)"
But yet again, there is a big jump. How do you know this? Perhaps the world originally did NOT look designed, but blue goblins from the moon traveled around, messing with the world, making it look designed?
Or perhaps everything looks designed no matter what? We are only humans, perhaps our eyes makes us think that everything looks designed no matter what?
The point is, you have something, such as a miracle, but you are unable to link it to God. Therefore, it won't hold water. It doesn't prove God exists anymore than it proves that black whales on Jupiter exists.
God contradicts what we know about reality
God does not follow the rules of reality as we know them. However, I'm not saying that this is proof that God doesn't exist.
What I want to point out is that the claim of God's existence is a pretty heavy one. If your friend claimed that you had a "kick me" note on your back, you wouldn't be so critical of it. You would probably check your back for notes before you demanded proof from your friend for his claim.
However, should your friend claim that he can run faster than a speeding train, you wouldn't take his word as easily. This is because the claim is less fitting with what you would think of as normal. It would contradict more of your knowledge about reality than the claim of the "kick me" note. As it is a more unreal claim, you would automatically demand more evidence for it. You would probably ask him to prove it.
The existence of God is one heck of a claim. To say that there is a super being that created the entire universe, and manipulates it at will, you are making one of the biggest claims there is. You are trying to answer the ultimate question.
Do you see now, that such a claim would require a big load of evidence? Unlike the "kick me" note, this claim (if true) would shape much of how we see reality. It would shape how we live our lives. It would shape how society works at a whole.
Therefore, God's existence is not something you should simply believe in because it sounds possible. Such a reality shaping possibility needs to be thought carefully about, and examined closely.
For example, would you ever accept that everybody but you were mindless robots build in human flesh without any evidence?
Incorrect claims by religion
If a friend of yours is a liar, and keeps lying about everything, would you believe him when he claims that he is secretly rich?
Obviously, you would probably not believe his claim, as you by experience know that he is a liar.
Mark 16:15-18
We call know that should a believer drink deadly poison, he will die. We also know that believes in Christianity cannot generally heal people, despite what this verse said.
Leviticus 11:6
The simple fact is that, hares do not eat their cud.
No comment.
---
Now, I could continue posting these, but it is no need. I can agree that holy scripture can have a message of love and such, but, as anybody can see, they do contain contradictions, and direct lies.
For example, we know there was no global flood. Such a flood would not only be impossible, but it would leave thousands of trails for us to see. Today, we find absolutely non. We can with good backing say that there was never a global flood.
Why are we to trust scripture if it keeps telling lies and contradictions? How can we be so sure about the resurrection of Jesus if other things in the Bible are randomly lies? What can we verify what is true and what is not?
Sadly, there is non. The Bible never speaks of taking things symbolically, or that some parts of the Bible is jokes and stories.
Can you reasonable take the Bible's word in matters with this being said?
To assume that unproven things exist is madness
Can you disprove that blue goblins on the moon exists? What about black whales on Jupiter? What about red dogs inside the sun?
Since you cannot disprove them, do you assume that they exist?
It's pretty easy to see that you cannot sanely assume that something exist simply by the lack of proof against it's existence. If you did, you would have to believe in an infinitive number of stupid things, such as the blue goblins on the moon. Your contact with reality would be completely disappear.
What you need is some kind of evidence. If you saw some blue goblin-like creatures in a telescope, it wouldn't be all wrong to think that they exist. You have seen them, and therefore have a perfectly valid reason to believe there are blue goblins on the moon.
If you believe in God simply because you don't have any evidence against the existence of God, you are not acting sanely. Why believe in God and not believe in blue goblins? Are you simply picking that which seems nicest?
If you however do have evidence or proof of God, then do show it to us. From the years I've debated with believers, I've yet to encounter anybody that has been able to provide such evidence. I can only assume there is none.
There is no direct proof for God
We cannot see, feel, touch, talk to, smell, sense, or in any way know that God exist. If we did, things would be very easy, and everybody would believe. If you could just point to God's face in the sky, or just talk to God by jumping very high, then we wouldn't be debating this at all.
Indirect proof of God is not enough
If a friend of you told you that he had seen a miracle, what would that mean? Let's say he had seen a person heal a sick child by nothing but touch. That would be pretty convincing, wouldn't it?
The reasoning behind this goes something like this:
Healing powers contradict reality, therefore God must have caused it, and God must exist in order to be able to interact with the world. Therefore God must exist.
However, it is not proof of God's existence. You have no way of proving that such a healing power actually comes from God. For all you know, the person might have gotten the powers from blue goblins on the moon. They might have singled him out from a telescope on the moon and decided to experiment by giving him healing powers.
Let's take other examples:
"The universe looks designed, therefore it needs a designer (which is God)"
But yet again, there is a big jump. How do you know this? Perhaps the world originally did NOT look designed, but blue goblins from the moon traveled around, messing with the world, making it look designed?
Or perhaps everything looks designed no matter what? We are only humans, perhaps our eyes makes us think that everything looks designed no matter what?
The point is, you have something, such as a miracle, but you are unable to link it to God. Therefore, it won't hold water. It doesn't prove God exists anymore than it proves that black whales on Jupiter exists.
God contradicts what we know about reality
God does not follow the rules of reality as we know them. However, I'm not saying that this is proof that God doesn't exist.
What I want to point out is that the claim of God's existence is a pretty heavy one. If your friend claimed that you had a "kick me" note on your back, you wouldn't be so critical of it. You would probably check your back for notes before you demanded proof from your friend for his claim.
However, should your friend claim that he can run faster than a speeding train, you wouldn't take his word as easily. This is because the claim is less fitting with what you would think of as normal. It would contradict more of your knowledge about reality than the claim of the "kick me" note. As it is a more unreal claim, you would automatically demand more evidence for it. You would probably ask him to prove it.
The existence of God is one heck of a claim. To say that there is a super being that created the entire universe, and manipulates it at will, you are making one of the biggest claims there is. You are trying to answer the ultimate question.
Do you see now, that such a claim would require a big load of evidence? Unlike the "kick me" note, this claim (if true) would shape much of how we see reality. It would shape how we live our lives. It would shape how society works at a whole.
Therefore, God's existence is not something you should simply believe in because it sounds possible. Such a reality shaping possibility needs to be thought carefully about, and examined closely.
For example, would you ever accept that everybody but you were mindless robots build in human flesh without any evidence?
Incorrect claims by religion
If a friend of yours is a liar, and keeps lying about everything, would you believe him when he claims that he is secretly rich?
Obviously, you would probably not believe his claim, as you by experience know that he is a liar.
Mark 16:15-18
Quote ()
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
We call know that should a believer drink deadly poison, he will die. We also know that believes in Christianity cannot generally heal people, despite what this verse said.
Leviticus 11:6
Quote ()
And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
The simple fact is that, hares do not eat their cud.
Quote ()
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
No comment.
---
Now, I could continue posting these, but it is no need. I can agree that holy scripture can have a message of love and such, but, as anybody can see, they do contain contradictions, and direct lies.
For example, we know there was no global flood. Such a flood would not only be impossible, but it would leave thousands of trails for us to see. Today, we find absolutely non. We can with good backing say that there was never a global flood.
Why are we to trust scripture if it keeps telling lies and contradictions? How can we be so sure about the resurrection of Jesus if other things in the Bible are randomly lies? What can we verify what is true and what is not?
Sadly, there is non. The Bible never speaks of taking things symbolically, or that some parts of the Bible is jokes and stories.
Can you reasonable take the Bible's word in matters with this being said?
last edited by
Quote (Drakim)
Okay, here are some points.
For example, we know there was no global flood...
WRONG! There is actual geological proof of a giant flood, that while not world wide, resultind in the creation of several seas that usede to be fertile farm land. Essentially, their entire ways of life were destroyed by humungous floods, which is why Great Flood stories are found world wide, since it was a devestating flood to their distant ancestors and survived in their stories.
last edited by
Quote (Zolem)
Quote (Drakim)
Okay, here are some points.
For example, we know there was no global flood...
WRONG! There is actual geological proof of a giant flood, that while not world wide, resultind in the creation of several seas that usede to be fertile farm land. Essentially, their entire ways of life were destroyed by humungous floods, which is why Great Flood stories are found world wide, since it was a devestating flood to their distant ancestors and survived in their stories.
Actualy wrong for you Zolem.
I did say global flood, which yourself said that there wasn't. I wasn't simply speaking of a giant flood like you imply, but a global one. It would be quite stupid of me to say that there has never been a large flood in the history of earth.
And, the Bible's description of the flood does not allow a local flood.
Quote (Genesis 7:19-20)
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.
You can't have a local flood over twenty feet over the mountains.
last edited by
Quote (Drakim)
[Actualy wrong for you Zolem. [img]http://z6.ifrm.com/static/emo/18.png[/img]
I did say global flood, which yourself said that there wasn't. I wasn't simply speaking of a giant flood like you imply, but a global one. It would be quite stupid of me to say that there has never been a large flood in the history of earth.
And, the Bible's description of the flood does not allow a local flood.Quote (Genesis 7:19-20)
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.
You can't have a local flood over twenty feet over the mountains.
It created the freaking Red Sea, how high do you think the water rose?
last edited by
Quote (Zolem)
Quote (Drakim)
[Actualy wrong for you Zolem. [img]http://z6.ifrm.com/static/emo/18.png[/img]
I did say global flood, which yourself said that there wasn't. I wasn't simply speaking of a giant flood like you imply, but a global one. It would be quite stupid of me to say that there has never been a large flood in the history of earth.
And, the Bible's description of the flood does not allow a local flood.Quote (Genesis 7:19-20)
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.
You can't have a local flood over twenty feet over the mountains.
It created the freaking Red Sea, how high do you think the water rose?
At least not twenty feet over the highest mountain. That would cover the entire earth.
last edited by
As Drakim said--while there is evidence of flood (destruction) and repopulation myths across the world, the flood itself needed not be global, simply globally remembered.
But that's a minor point. Please bring something relevant to the discussion at hand, Zolem?
Oh, and kudos Drakim. Just pwned my post, you did. XD
But that's a minor point. Please bring something relevant to the discussion at hand, Zolem?
Oh, and kudos Drakim. Just pwned my post, you did. XD
last edited by
Quote (Drakim)
To assume that unproven things exist is madness
Indirect proof of God is not enough
Isn't this basically what the evolutionary theory is? Trying to prove that we evolved from monkeys with no concrete proof? They haven't found the mysterious missing link yet, although people claim to see a 'bigfoot' that many believe is real. This isn't to say that there isn't direct proof of evolution, since there obviously is, but there isn't and hard evidence of us coming from monkeys.
Also, the way you described the blue moon goblins would basically make them a higher power. So, even if that guy who touched someone and healed them got his powers from the BMG, he still got it from a higher power.
The way you discount all the so called 'miracles' basically counts out the chances for pretty much everything and anything that a higher power would be able to do. "Oh, that guy said there would be an earthquake and there was, but it's probably just a coincidence," "that guy told me not to get on that plane because something bad would happen, and it crashed on takeoff, must've been a lucky guess," "that man touched my terribly ill grandfather and he got better. I'm sure it just the repetition of the same meds and daily routine he had for the past two years that made him well all of a sudden though." etc etc.
This isn't necessarily a 'is Christianity correct' discussion so much as 'is there a higher power' discussion. While the article is 100% biased towards Christianity, simply used it as an intro for the conversation since I was too lazy to look up a different one. I never said I supported the article, I simply said I found it interesting and wanted people's feedback on it. I'm well aware of a number of fallacies and biased statements it makes.
Quote ()
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
Bad translation. The King James version is full of grammatical and translation errors. This is because it was written to be a more poetic sounding Bible, and so in the process many things were translated incorrectly.
Quote ()
James 1:13
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
Gen 22:1
Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
Big difference as soon as you get out of the crappy translation. Of course, you could contest that testing and tempting are the same thing with different connotations, much like leading and manipulating. Clearly though, they are different.
That's all for now, I have homework I have to get done. Stupid classes >_>
last edited by
Thanks for the reply. There are more "meaty" things to talk about now. ^^
Actually, no.
Evolution is just the theory that species change over time though natural selection.
The notion that we evolved from monkeys is a conclusion that we have drawn from evolution. It is not part of the "evolution theory".
Let me put it in another context. We think planets are shaped by gravity, having a small ball of mass, that becomes larger and larger because it's gravity pulls dust to it (very simplified). However, we do not say that planets forming is part of the "theory of gravity". If somebody proved that planets formed by some other means than gravity, it wouldn't disprove gravity. It would only show that gravity didn't do the work in this particular case.
The theory of evolution would still work if I said that we evolved from cats. Or if I said we evolved directly from viruses. Man evolving from monkeys are more of a "suggestion" than part of the evolution theory.
The theory of evolution doesn't necessary contain the history on how species arose. You could for example say that God created everything as it is, and THEN started evolution. That would completely toss the man from monkey idea away, but still retain evolution as a happening concept.
They most likely never will. Fossilisation is super rare. Most species on this earth has never left any bones for us to find. It is just the sheer amount of animals that has lived that makes up so that we can find lots of fossils anyway.
It's like, let's say 1 out of 100 000 species leaves a fossil, and all the others are forgotten. But, there have been 100 000 000 000 species. Even with the rare rate for a species leaving a fossil, you will still end up with a lot of them. But very spread out, and almost impossible to draw a line telling what went to what. We can at the very best only draw a evolutionary map based on educated guess.
Correct. There is no hard evidence for us coming from monkeys, but there are plenty hard evidence for evolution in general (such as drug resistant bacteria these days).
However, since we have observed that evolution happens for life forms in general, wouldn't the most reasonable guess be that we, also being life forms, also evolves? What would mysteriously keep us from evolving?
Ah, you misunderstood me a little. I didn't discount it completely. I called it "indirect evidence", since it isn't, well, direct proof. It's only an indicator, so to speak.
But, exactly, how do you link healing somebody with a higher power? Which steps do you make from "I can put my hands upon somebody and heal them", to "I got these healing powers from a higher power"? People seem to jump from one to the other directly, but I've never heard a direct reason as to why they would suspect a higher power, and perhaps not a random power, or unknown "magic gravity", or just sheer luck getting the powers. etc.
Quote ()
Isn't this basically what the evolutionary theory is? Trying to prove that we evolved from monkeys with no concrete proof?
Actually, no.
Evolution is just the theory that species change over time though natural selection.
The notion that we evolved from monkeys is a conclusion that we have drawn from evolution. It is not part of the "evolution theory".
Let me put it in another context. We think planets are shaped by gravity, having a small ball of mass, that becomes larger and larger because it's gravity pulls dust to it (very simplified). However, we do not say that planets forming is part of the "theory of gravity". If somebody proved that planets formed by some other means than gravity, it wouldn't disprove gravity. It would only show that gravity didn't do the work in this particular case.
The theory of evolution would still work if I said that we evolved from cats. Or if I said we evolved directly from viruses. Man evolving from monkeys are more of a "suggestion" than part of the evolution theory.
The theory of evolution doesn't necessary contain the history on how species arose. You could for example say that God created everything as it is, and THEN started evolution. That would completely toss the man from monkey idea away, but still retain evolution as a happening concept.
Quote ()
They haven't found the mysterious missing link yet, although people claim to see a 'bigfoot' that many believe is real.
They most likely never will. Fossilisation is super rare. Most species on this earth has never left any bones for us to find. It is just the sheer amount of animals that has lived that makes up so that we can find lots of fossils anyway.
It's like, let's say 1 out of 100 000 species leaves a fossil, and all the others are forgotten. But, there have been 100 000 000 000 species. Even with the rare rate for a species leaving a fossil, you will still end up with a lot of them. But very spread out, and almost impossible to draw a line telling what went to what. We can at the very best only draw a evolutionary map based on educated guess.
Quote ()
This isn't to say that there isn't direct proof of evolution, since there obviously is, but there isn't and hard evidence of us coming from monkeys.
Correct. There is no hard evidence for us coming from monkeys, but there are plenty hard evidence for evolution in general (such as drug resistant bacteria these days).
However, since we have observed that evolution happens for life forms in general, wouldn't the most reasonable guess be that we, also being life forms, also evolves? What would mysteriously keep us from evolving?
Quote ()
The way you discount all the so called 'miracles' basically counts out the chances for pretty much everything and anything that a higher power would be able to do.
Ah, you misunderstood me a little. I didn't discount it completely. I called it "indirect evidence", since it isn't, well, direct proof. It's only an indicator, so to speak.
But, exactly, how do you link healing somebody with a higher power? Which steps do you make from "I can put my hands upon somebody and heal them", to "I got these healing powers from a higher power"? People seem to jump from one to the other directly, but I've never heard a direct reason as to why they would suspect a higher power, and perhaps not a random power, or unknown "magic gravity", or just sheer luck getting the powers. etc.
last edited by
Quote (Drakim)
But, exactly, how do you link healing somebody with a higher power? Which steps do you make from "I can put my hands upon somebody and heal them", to "I got these healing powers from a higher power"? People seem to jump from one to the other directly, but I've never heard a direct reason as to why they would suspect a higher power, and perhaps not a random power, or unknown "magic gravity", or just sheer luck getting the powers. etc.
Well, I imagine it's because of the 'supernatural' aspect of such an occurrence. Sure, amazingly good luck can have some profound results, but I've never personally heard of healing or prophecing. As for random power and 'magic gravity', it would still fall under supernatural since it's not something found in nature. Also, the time frame of the 'miraculous healings' would be another thing, since your body can only repair itself so fast naturally.
Unless it's simply some uber rare naturally occuring mutation, in which case I wish I was a mutant.
Quote ()
The theory of evolution doesn't necessary contain the history on how species arose. You could for example say that God created everything as it is, and THEN started evolution. That would completely toss the man from monkey idea away, but still retain evolution as a happening concept.
That's actually what I believe. There's solid evidence of evolution like you said, and ignoring it completely is just retarded. As for your question about people, we have evolved somewhat. No one really knows what exactly people looked like in Bible times, so for all we know they could have been drastically different looking beings.
Also, the ancient great white sharks to the current great white sharks is a good example. They did indeed evolve, but it really only resulted in a changed in size. Of course they did change other ways, but thats just a simple idea.