|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:23 pm
Kain1334 Umbral Epoch Kain1334 Umbral Epoch Personally, I'm agnostic. I believe that if humans were capable of knowing if there was a god/pantheon, then the majority of people would believe in that god/pantheon. Why do you feel this is the reason? I'm sorry, I don't quite know what you're asking. Could you rephrase, please? Ok, how about this, How did you get to the conclusion that "if there was a god/pantheon, then the majority of people would believe in that god/pantheon.?" I don't believe that humans are capable of knowing if there is one. If we were capable of knowing if there is one, then the majority of people would agree on it.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:29 pm
Kain1334 Deppfan Teague Kain1334 Deppfan Teague Kain1334 Your right on that fact, but the most proper answer is to separate the two before hand. Now it could also be speciation at work, which is part of evolution. Same with Natural Selection(it bothers me when people say natural selection is evolution, when it is merely the removal of genetic info rather then the addition which is need for evolution to work). To explain speciation(which I'm sure I'm spelling wrong) take two different types of dogs, one long haired, and one short. Then put them both into a cold environment. Obviously the long haired dogs are going to survive because their genetics are more suitable to survive the conditioning of the environment. This is speciation. Which could explain the Galapagos. Ok, I will give you that.... speciation (yes, you did spell it right biggrin ) and natural selection are not themselves evolution, but they are the means of the process. Now I must go back and cover a very important one, what is the difference between an atheists luck, and a (in this case) Christians faith? Edit: Meant to thank you for easing my worry over the spelling of speciation. The Christian's belief in the omnipotent being that set everything into action. No, thats what a Christians faith is being put in. Not the faith itself. So my question still stands. Well, with science, we athiests tend to go with what the evidence points to, whereas (as far as Christians I've encountered, anyway) Christians tend to put utter blind faith into their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:37 pm
Deppfan Teague Kain1334 Deppfan Teague Kain1334 Deppfan Teague Kain1334 Your right on that fact, but the most proper answer is to separate the two before hand. Now it could also be speciation at work, which is part of evolution. Same with Natural Selection(it bothers me when people say natural selection is evolution, when it is merely the removal of genetic info rather then the addition which is need for evolution to work). To explain speciation(which I'm sure I'm spelling wrong) take two different types of dogs, one long haired, and one short. Then put them both into a cold environment. Obviously the long haired dogs are going to survive because their genetics are more suitable to survive the conditioning of the environment. This is speciation. Which could explain the Galapagos. Ok, I will give you that.... speciation (yes, you did spell it right biggrin ) and natural selection are not themselves evolution, but they are the means of the process. Now I must go back and cover a very important one, what is the difference between an atheists luck, and a (in this case) Christians faith? Edit: Meant to thank you for easing my worry over the spelling of speciation. The Christian's belief in the omnipotent being that set everything into action. No, thats what a Christians faith is being put in. Not the faith itself. So my question still stands. Well, with science, we athiests tend to go with what the evidence points to, whereas (as far as Christians I've encountered, anyway) Christians tend to put utter blind faith into their beliefs. Which in a sense is contradictory to what the Bible actually teaches. There are many places throughout the Bible that tells us to learn so that we may defend the faith, and as it says in Timothy, fight the good fight. But thats an avoidance of the question, one is of luck, without actual evidence(I would like to call out that the 'fossil' evidence like the Neanderthal and so on only prove the existence of a certain being not the evolutionary process of that being. The rest is only speculation on what might have happened.) And the other is of the same faith. I'm looking for an answer still.(this last part is not intended to seem rude so I must apologize if it seems that way.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:44 pm
Kain1334 Deppfan Teague Kain1334 Deppfan Teague Kain1334 Now I must go back and cover a very important one, what is the difference between an atheists luck, and a (in this case) Christians faith? Edit: Meant to thank you for easing my worry over the spelling of speciation. The Christian's belief in the omnipotent being that set everything into action. No, thats what a Christians faith is being put in. Not the faith itself. So my question still stands. Well, with science, we athiests tend to go with what the evidence points to, whereas (as far as Christians I've encountered, anyway) Christians tend to put utter blind faith into their beliefs. Which in a sense is contradictory to what the Bible actually teaches. There are many places throughout the Bible that tells us to learn so that we may defend the faith, and as it says in Timothy, fight the good fight. But thats an avoidance of the question, one is of luck, without actual evidence(I would like to call out that the 'fossil' evidence like the Neanderthal and so on only prove the existence of a certain being not the evolutionary process of that being. The rest is only speculation on what might have happened.) And the other is of the same faith. I'm looking for an answer still.(this last part is not intended to seem rude so I must apologize if it seems that way.) Well, I guess in your eyes, then, there will never be full proof of evolution. I don't know what to say to prove it to you. I've given my evidence. As far as the difference between this luck, and faith.... I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:50 pm
@ Kain: Do you know what plinko from the price is right is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:59 pm
Deppfan Teague Kain1334 Deppfan Teague Kain1334 Deppfan Teague Kain1334 Now I must go back and cover a very important one, what is the difference between an atheists luck, and a (in this case) Christians faith? Edit: Meant to thank you for easing my worry over the spelling of speciation. The Christian's belief in the omnipotent being that set everything into action. No, thats what a Christians faith is being put in. Not the faith itself. So my question still stands. Well, with science, we athiests tend to go with what the evidence points to, whereas (as far as Christians I've encountered, anyway) Christians tend to put utter blind faith into their beliefs. Which in a sense is contradictory to what the Bible actually teaches. There are many places throughout the Bible that tells us to learn so that we may defend the faith, and as it says in Timothy, fight the good fight. But thats an avoidance of the question, one is of luck, without actual evidence(I would like to call out that the 'fossil' evidence like the Neanderthal and so on only prove the existence of a certain being not the evolutionary process of that being. The rest is only speculation on what might have happened.) And the other is of the same faith. I'm looking for an answer still.(this last part is not intended to seem rude so I must apologize if it seems that way.) Well, I guess in your eyes, then, there will never be full proof of evolution. I don't know what to say to prove it to you. I've given my evidence. As far as the difference between this luck, and faith.... I don't know. I'ts not just in my eyes, you say it as if I'm blinded to something. But this is just a side note to the true point I'm trying to make. There is none, Atheists like Christians live by a certain amount of faith in what they believe. Would you deny this? @ Umbral Epoch: no I can't say that I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:20 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuMir11YFPsYou just have to watch the last three minutes of that to get the point of plinko. If you think of the game as the way the universe developed, then there's two ways of believing how it got that way. An atheist believes that the world got the way that it is because it was just the way everything unfolded. A caused B caused C etc. for billions of years. After a long enough time, you have the universe today. In terms of plinko: the chip bounced off the pegs just right to land in the 10k slot. A christian believes that the world is too complex for it to have happened by any chain of events and therefore a god had to have created it. In terms of plinko: God influenced the chip to bounce off the right pegs to get in the 10k slot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:22 pm
Kain1334 Deppfan Teague Kain1334 Deppfan Teague Kain1334 No, thats what a Christians faith is being put in. Not the faith itself. So my question still stands. Well, with science, we athiests tend to go with what the evidence points to, whereas (as far as Christians I've encountered, anyway) Christians tend to put utter blind faith into their beliefs. Which in a sense is contradictory to what the Bible actually teaches. There are many places throughout the Bible that tells us to learn so that we may defend the faith, and as it says in Timothy, fight the good fight. But thats an avoidance of the question, one is of luck, without actual evidence(I would like to call out that the 'fossil' evidence like the Neanderthal and so on only prove the existence of a certain being not the evolutionary process of that being. The rest is only speculation on what might have happened.) And the other is of the same faith. I'm looking for an answer still.(this last part is not intended to seem rude so I must apologize if it seems that way.) Well, I guess in your eyes, then, there will never be full proof of evolution. I don't know what to say to prove it to you. I've given my evidence. As far as the difference between this luck, and faith.... I don't know. I'ts not just in my eyes, you say it as if I'm blinded to something. But this is just a side note to the true point I'm trying to make. There is none, Atheists like Christians live by a certain amount of faith in what they believe. Would you deny this? @ Umbral Epoch: no I can't say that I do. I don't like the word faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:25 pm
Umbral Epoch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuMir11YFPsYou just have to watch the last three minutes of that to get the point of plinko. If you think of the game as the way the universe developed, then there's two ways of believing how it got that way. An atheist believes that the world got the way that it is because it was just the way everything unfolded. A caused B caused C etc. for billions of years. After a long enough time, you have the universe today. In terms of plinko: the chip bounced off the pegs just right to land in the 10k slot. A christian believes that the world is too complex for it to have happened by any chain of events and therefore a god had to have created it. In terms of plinko: God influenced the chip to bounce off the right pegs to get in the 10k slot. Your quite right, accept the atheist has no reason for the cause, whereas the Christians have a reason for the cause. What started the universe, how did it come to be? Atheists say nothing, but can nothing really make something? As for we Christians say God created it. For we know something can't explain its own existence. Its like C.S. Lewis said in 'The Weight of Glory' "we often times forget the perfect oak the Acorn came from" to get a better idea what he was talking about in this quote he mentioned the old riddle 'which came first, the chicken or the egg.' @ Deppfan: I don't like spinach, yet it is still spinach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:31 pm
Kain1334 Umbral Epoch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuMir11YFPsYou just have to watch the last three minutes of that to get the point of plinko. If you think of the game as the way the universe developed, then there's two ways of believing how it got that way. An atheist believes that the world got the way that it is because it was just the way everything unfolded. A caused B caused C etc. for billions of years. After a long enough time, you have the universe today. In terms of plinko: the chip bounced off the pegs just right to land in the 10k slot. A christian believes that the world is too complex for it to have happened by any chain of events and therefore a god had to have created it. In terms of plinko: God influenced the chip to bounce off the right pegs to get in the 10k slot. Your quite right, accept the atheist has no reason for the cause, whereas the Christians have a reason for the cause. What started the universe, how did it come to be? Atheists say nothing, but can nothing really make something? As for we Christians say God created it. For we know something can't explain its own existence. Its like C.S. Lewis said in 'The Weight of Glory' "we often times forget the perfect oak the Acorn came from" to get a better idea what he was talking about in this quote he mentioned the old riddle 'which came first, the chicken or the egg.' You're right about christians having a reason for a cause. However, so can atheists. An atheist can believe that the world is the way it is because it is the best way for the world to be. An atheist could also believe that world is the way that it is because certain qualities of it influenced it's development. If you want a more formal argument then I think you should read "Why Anything? Why This?" by Derek Parfit. David Hume also has a lot of good atheistic arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:34 pm
Kain1334 Umbral Epoch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuMir11YFPsYou just have to watch the last three minutes of that to get the point of plinko. If you think of the game as the way the universe developed, then there's two ways of believing how it got that way. An atheist believes that the world got the way that it is because it was just the way everything unfolded. A caused B caused C etc. for billions of years. After a long enough time, you have the universe today. In terms of plinko: the chip bounced off the pegs just right to land in the 10k slot. A christian believes that the world is too complex for it to have happened by any chain of events and therefore a god had to have created it. In terms of plinko: God influenced the chip to bounce off the right pegs to get in the 10k slot. Your quite right, accept the atheist has no reason for the cause, whereas the Christians have a reason for the cause. What started the universe, how did it come to be? Atheists say nothing, but can nothing really make something? As for we Christians say God created it. For we know something can't explain its own existence. Its like C.S. Lewis said in 'The Weight of Glory' "we often times forget the perfect oak the Acorn came from" to get a better idea what he was talking about in this quote he mentioned the old riddle 'which came first, the chicken or the egg.' @ Deppfan: I don't like spinach, yet it is still spinach. The chicken and the egg debate can also point to evolution. It doesn't say that it has to be a chicken egg. whee Here is what the MiriamWebster Dictionary defines faith as: 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs Seeing as, for me, evolution is proven, what I believe to be true does not count as faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:56 pm
Umbral Epoch Kain1334 Umbral Epoch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuMir11YFPsYou just have to watch the last three minutes of that to get the point of plinko. If you think of the game as the way the universe developed, then there's two ways of believing how it got that way. An atheist believes that the world got the way that it is because it was just the way everything unfolded. A caused B caused C etc. for billions of years. After a long enough time, you have the universe today. In terms of plinko: the chip bounced off the pegs just right to land in the 10k slot. A christian believes that the world is too complex for it to have happened by any chain of events and therefore a god had to have created it. In terms of plinko: God influenced the chip to bounce off the right pegs to get in the 10k slot. Your quite right, accept the atheist has no reason for the cause, whereas the Christians have a reason for the cause. What started the universe, how did it come to be? Atheists say nothing, but can nothing really make something? As for we Christians say God created it. For we know something can't explain its own existence. Its like C.S. Lewis said in 'The Weight of Glory' "we often times forget the perfect oak the Acorn came from" to get a better idea what he was talking about in this quote he mentioned the old riddle 'which came first, the chicken or the egg.' You're right about christians having a reason for a cause. However, so can atheists. An atheist can believe that the world is the way it is because it is the best way for the world to be. An atheist could also believe that world is the way that it is because certain qualities of it influenced it's development. If you want a more formal argument then I think you should read "Why Anything? Why This?" by Derek Parfit. David Hume also has a lot of good atheistic arguments. To Umbral: Yes...but they point entirely to an idea that the world is randomly formed, so to put any idea behind it would change it from being atheistic to something entirely different. To Deppfan: Yes but we are talking about Christian faith not just faith, and the Bible defines so differently, as in trusting in something that cannot be fully proven. (as in something that can have proof, but not neciseriously proven, you have to remember it was defined in a different time and era.) And evolution is unprovable, for it to be able to be proven it would have to be able to be retested(or is the case in science) But Macro Evolution cannot be proven in that sense, for it would take longer than what our life span gives, it can only be pure speculation. Which is all the evolutionary theory is and ever can be. It is something unprovable. (aka something to be taken by a certain amount of faith. To Both: Since you both are requesting me to read certain literature (that once I get the money to be able to buy I shall) I will request some things for you all to read: I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Frank Turek, and Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig. (Here in a bit I'm going to read a book by Christopher Hitchens.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:58 pm
Atheist believe things come from an infinite series of events. it's not a cause of nothing. We say we don't know where it started, we just don't believe the blank part to be a omnipresent being.
doesn't mean we can't have morals or an idea of right and wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:04 pm
cool4 Atheist believe things come from an infinite series of events. it's not a cause of nothing. We say we don't know where it started, we just don't believe the blank part to be a omnipresent being. doesn't mean we can't have morals or an idea of right and wrong. The universe is expanding, so we know there was a starting point, and an event. Not only that but every explanation given to try and explain an infinite universe has failed, its like the story I told, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Even in the theory of evolution one needs a starting point. Now to the morals and ideas of right and wrong. The argument isn't you can't have them, its that you can't have universal right and wrong, only subjective right and wrong, right and wrong that differs between people. Which means you can't really say Hitler was evil, because he believed he was in the right, because there is nothing other than other peoples opinions to tell him he was wrong. Ravi Zacharias explains it Like this : if there is a wrong, theres a right, if theres a right, then there is a moral basis in which you can put wrong and right, and if there is a moral basis, there must be a moral giver. If there is no moral giver, there is no moral basis, if there is no moral basis there is no right, and if there is no right, there is no wrong..(wrong and right being: Good and Evil)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:04 pm
Kain1334 cool4 Atheist believe things come from an infinite series of events. it's not a cause of nothing. We say we don't know where it started, we just don't believe the blank part to be a omnipresent being. doesn't mean we can't have morals or an idea of right and wrong. The universe is expanding, so we know there was a starting point, and an event. Not only that but every explanation given to try and explain an infinite universe has failed, its like the story I told, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Even in the theory of evolution one needs a starting point. Now to the morals and ideas of right and wrong. The argument isn't you can't have them, its that you can't have universal right and wrong, only subjective right and wrong, right and wrong that differs between people. Which means you can't really say Hitler was evil, because he believed he was in the right, because there is nothing other than other peoples opinions to tell him he was wrong. Ravi Zacharias explains it Like this : if there is a wrong, theres a right, if theres a right, then there is a moral basis in which you can put wrong and right, and if there is a moral basis, there must be a moral giver. If there is no moral giver, there is no moral basis, if there is no moral basis there is no right, and if there is no right, there is no wrong..(wrong and right being: Good and Evil) I believe Morals Aren't Built into the fabric of time. It's more they are a result of Nurture. The way one was raised. I'm assuming you were raised to Follow the rules layed down by Religion. I learned not to touch the hot stove by experience and what my parents taught me to be right and wrong. So Morals can come from something other then The Bible. So what's the starting point in creationism. There's nothing solid with just god. You end up having to go back to faith. And Blind Faith will never work for me. How old do you think the world is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
