Interesting debate on existance of god, worth a read
- Thread starter sk8bloke22
- Start date
- Status
RPGlover12
New member
ok am going to tell u a site about allah and islam http://www.thewaytotruth.org/godsexistenceandunity/whataretheessence.html go this site i found out it was a great usefull site
medical_guy
New member
"umm the human brain did not create civilisation, in a clever way you just contradicted yourself... humans like ants slow contributed and built society through hard work. It is still nowhere near the level it could potentially reach. The human brain aided in civilisations arision to its currentl levels but it did NOT create it directly such as an omnipitant being would. As such your example is good proof for my point. theres nothing to say there is no driving force or higher power out there... but personally i think the driving force is life's will to survive. Where this came from i dont know. "
i never meant by this a human CREATED IT. It is ment to be an example, but i meant by it the speed of arrangement and the possibility of trial and error.
Secondly, "life's will to survive"...... this sound to me much worse than believing in GOD,
thirdly, why did u not reply to me about the creation of the universe, did u read my last post to the end?
i never meant by this a human CREATED IT. It is ment to be an example, but i meant by it the speed of arrangement and the possibility of trial and error.
Secondly, "life's will to survive"...... this sound to me much worse than believing in GOD,
thirdly, why did u not reply to me about the creation of the universe, did u read my last post to the end?
Josep
eyerun4phun
jeeeeez i really can't keep up with this forum, and i keep coming up with excuses, yet i have some things to post later today, some good poems that are interesting, trust me, totally relate to some of the people talking in this thread, just check later today, i don't have time to type 'em out
AND NO i don't mean poems i wrote, something from some philisophical poet writer Gibran
AND NO i don't mean poems i wrote, something from some philisophical poet writer Gibran
DrGoggle
New member
Wowee!
Man! I thought I'd be able to read through the thread to get caught up on what the current issue was, but after page 14 I had enough =).
Since this is a debate, and I'm a big fan of talking, and everyone's throwin' in their 2 cents, maybe I could toss in a penny or two. I can't prove anyhting by just talk, right? I don't think that any amount of arguing I do would be able to convince anyone of anything. I will, however, share my opinion. You can take it or leave it. I'm cool with either.
My opinion as of right now is that God is real. I don't know a whole lot of science, or physics, and I definately don't know enough mathematically to prove my belief. I'm working my way through the Bible, and it looks good to me so far. Some things that have help bolster my faith in God personally were the beauty of nature (We live a little out in the country with some really nice fields and lots of deer) and the very concept of mathematics (how all these number tricks and things work out is amazing). I just feel like such things were too big of a magnitude to have perchance worked out by themselves.
I do call myself a Christian. I believe God wants to have a personal relationship with his peeps. Now, you may or may not have already found 100's of ways to argue for or against my beliefs. And that's all good. If I didn't question why I believe what I believe, what good would I be?
Man! I thought I'd be able to read through the thread to get caught up on what the current issue was, but after page 14 I had enough =).
Since this is a debate, and I'm a big fan of talking, and everyone's throwin' in their 2 cents, maybe I could toss in a penny or two. I can't prove anyhting by just talk, right? I don't think that any amount of arguing I do would be able to convince anyone of anything. I will, however, share my opinion. You can take it or leave it. I'm cool with either.
My opinion as of right now is that God is real. I don't know a whole lot of science, or physics, and I definately don't know enough mathematically to prove my belief. I'm working my way through the Bible, and it looks good to me so far. Some things that have help bolster my faith in God personally were the beauty of nature (We live a little out in the country with some really nice fields and lots of deer) and the very concept of mathematics (how all these number tricks and things work out is amazing). I just feel like such things were too big of a magnitude to have perchance worked out by themselves.
I do call myself a Christian. I believe God wants to have a personal relationship with his peeps. Now, you may or may not have already found 100's of ways to argue for or against my beliefs. And that's all good. If I didn't question why I believe what I believe, what good would I be?
medical_guy
New member
DrGoggle, U SAID A significant word, "the beauty of nature", i love a simple argument, i wonder how many aprriciate the beauty of nature as a clue to GODs presence, could all of this be made by itself??? i won't add a single word to this post to make it simple as DrGoggle
OP
sk8bloke22
roll for life
- Thread Starter
- #327
ok medical guy seems u r getting things a bit mixed. firstly ur using one of the main misconceptions with thermodynamics concerning energy.
from talk.origins:
"There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics. "
thermodynamics is mathamatics. u cannot disprove mathmatics....thats a fact. u say that u find that the sun's energy being an influenece in our origins as more ludicrious that god creating the universe. well i dont see how. most of our existance and survival derrives from the sun's energy. photosynthesis keeps the plants alive, which in turn provide us the air we breathe. sun's energy is used in natural gases and fossil fuels, which provide us with the needs for our daily lives. it doesnt answer everything, but it gives us an indication of our origins. u r actually further missing the point by assuming that evolutionists believe that evolution answers entirely how the world began. evolution is an observation, and thus scientific. yet thermodynamics is fact as its based on maths......thermodynamics shows that evolution is a capable process. observation of evolution on a small scale shows that it works. it doesnt suggest how the entire universe was created, as the universe, or the layer surrounding the universe is a closed system. u ask how a closed system can be created...well theres no definite answer, just as how can god come into existance. well infinity must be considered as it is a reality in maths. maths proves infinity. a number line has no boundries...u can count from 1,2,3...for ever. furthermore, there are various equations that lack boundries. if infinity is fact, then so is the possibility of a closed system existing. seems more reliable than the metaphysical idea of a creator. so that means ur saying that god brought us here in a whole form, i.e as Adam, or where we cells or wat. this is neva answered by religion.
theres so much on the net about why thermodynamics isnt a violation. heres something from a forum
"Even a creationist should be able to agree that the process of reproduction and growth of any particular organism does not violate thermodynamics...the fact is, it's observed, so it can't. All the "organization", "complexity", what have you, of that organism has been constructed out of organic raw material. If 90% of all life was destroyed by some catastrophic event, but favorable conditions returned afterward, the biosphere would be able to regenerate itself without violating any physical principles.
Now, the only thing that evolution adds to this is that, sometimes, reproduction is not perfect. A copying error in DNA occurs that results in an individual having an allele of some gene that did not exist in the parent(s). This has also been observed, so it also can not violate thermodynamics. That individual goes through the very same process of growth that all other life does.
Where, then, is the violation?"
and rpglover, u ask why debate science if the debate is on the existance of god. well the answer is that science is the best way to prove something. maths even better. if u can scientifically prove that god exists - then its pretty convincing, if u can mathmatically, without any flaws, prove god......then god must exist. but using a book full of metaphysicall ideas shows nothing. u can argue wat eva u want with the book, which is its one fundalmental flaw. as the quaran says there is a god/allah, then we know how we were made and he must exist....thats the problem with faith, u must except something as fact to make it true.
from talk.origins:
"There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics. "
thermodynamics is mathamatics. u cannot disprove mathmatics....thats a fact. u say that u find that the sun's energy being an influenece in our origins as more ludicrious that god creating the universe. well i dont see how. most of our existance and survival derrives from the sun's energy. photosynthesis keeps the plants alive, which in turn provide us the air we breathe. sun's energy is used in natural gases and fossil fuels, which provide us with the needs for our daily lives. it doesnt answer everything, but it gives us an indication of our origins. u r actually further missing the point by assuming that evolutionists believe that evolution answers entirely how the world began. evolution is an observation, and thus scientific. yet thermodynamics is fact as its based on maths......thermodynamics shows that evolution is a capable process. observation of evolution on a small scale shows that it works. it doesnt suggest how the entire universe was created, as the universe, or the layer surrounding the universe is a closed system. u ask how a closed system can be created...well theres no definite answer, just as how can god come into existance. well infinity must be considered as it is a reality in maths. maths proves infinity. a number line has no boundries...u can count from 1,2,3...for ever. furthermore, there are various equations that lack boundries. if infinity is fact, then so is the possibility of a closed system existing. seems more reliable than the metaphysical idea of a creator. so that means ur saying that god brought us here in a whole form, i.e as Adam, or where we cells or wat. this is neva answered by religion.
theres so much on the net about why thermodynamics isnt a violation. heres something from a forum
"Even a creationist should be able to agree that the process of reproduction and growth of any particular organism does not violate thermodynamics...the fact is, it's observed, so it can't. All the "organization", "complexity", what have you, of that organism has been constructed out of organic raw material. If 90% of all life was destroyed by some catastrophic event, but favorable conditions returned afterward, the biosphere would be able to regenerate itself without violating any physical principles.
Now, the only thing that evolution adds to this is that, sometimes, reproduction is not perfect. A copying error in DNA occurs that results in an individual having an allele of some gene that did not exist in the parent(s). This has also been observed, so it also can not violate thermodynamics. That individual goes through the very same process of growth that all other life does.
Where, then, is the violation?"
and rpglover, u ask why debate science if the debate is on the existance of god. well the answer is that science is the best way to prove something. maths even better. if u can scientifically prove that god exists - then its pretty convincing, if u can mathmatically, without any flaws, prove god......then god must exist. but using a book full of metaphysicall ideas shows nothing. u can argue wat eva u want with the book, which is its one fundalmental flaw. as the quaran says there is a god/allah, then we know how we were made and he must exist....thats the problem with faith, u must except something as fact to make it true.
Last edited:
OP
sk8bloke22
roll for life
- Thread Starter
- #328
Re: Wowee!
u r 100% correct. but i dont think any of us r really gonna listen to that, including me, so this is gonna go on for ever.......until martin's shiny new server crashes with overload.
DrGoggle said:
u r 100% correct. but i dont think any of us r really gonna listen to that, including me, so this is gonna go on for ever.......until martin's shiny new server crashes with overload.
RPGlover12
New member
even if the new server installed i will continue this thread i added the two sites to the fav.
sytaylor
Sy
medical_guy said:
the beauty of nature is a sign of our appreciation for our surroundings, why does it proove god? it prooves that we like some of our surroundings... just beacuse it doesnt make sense to you that anything else could have happened besides a dinvine creation doesnt mean that is the answer
sytaylor
Sy
sk8bloke22 said:
bingo, systematically prooving something is far less open to interpritation than metaphysicall ideas (eg suggestions by a book), however the disadvantage is that it doesnt give people wonderous stories of power and love, which to be hoenst... i think there are people that need to hear those. prooving god doesnt exist mathematically would still be doubted by a very LARGE number of people, simply because of how society revolves around it so much and that people refuse to let go of the idea there is a god simply because it makes sense to them.
RPGlover12
New member
so u want sytaylor a scientific proof
OP
sk8bloke22
roll for life
- Thread Starter
- #336
DrGoggle said:
its all about skating....none of u would understand that....???
StonedConker
New member
i was thinking....and thinking.....so many stuff to post here about this subject but after all i realized that i can't speak English so well to describe those the right way so i just laugh loud about the thouht i've made
RPGlover12
New member
ok now i understand the jewish a little better than before
ok here is what i understood
in ur torah it said that there will be a another prophet after called messiah believe in him and when jesus came to this earth u didn't believe in him am i right tell now so u think that there is another messiah that will show up well ur wrong sk8bloke or whoever jewish in here will this is what is true the messiah is jesus and there is no prophet after muhammed and u think he is coming at the end of time well ur still wrong about it cause whoever comes after muhammed is a fake prophet and u'll believe in the antichrist claiming to be allah and the messiah so all the jewish will believe in him and say that ur allah and he will do miracles that nobody had like kill somebody and makehim reunite again and became alive and revive his father and mother and its not really his mother or father its the demons who are his mother and father anyway go back to our talking u'll believe in him cause it was written in ur book thats why u dont believe in muhammed ? am i right ???
ok here is what i understood
in ur torah it said that there will be a another prophet after called messiah believe in him and when jesus came to this earth u didn't believe in him am i right tell now so u think that there is another messiah that will show up well ur wrong sk8bloke or whoever jewish in here will this is what is true the messiah is jesus and there is no prophet after muhammed and u think he is coming at the end of time well ur still wrong about it cause whoever comes after muhammed is a fake prophet and u'll believe in the antichrist claiming to be allah and the messiah so all the jewish will believe in him and say that ur allah and he will do miracles that nobody had like kill somebody and makehim reunite again and became alive and revive his father and mother and its not really his mother or father its the demons who are his mother and father anyway go back to our talking u'll believe in him cause it was written in ur book thats why u dont believe in muhammed ? am i right ???
OP
sk8bloke22
roll for life
- Thread Starter
- #339
nope. i dont believe in judasim, pretty much made it clear that i dont believe in god, which means i cant really believe in my religion and all the bullshit it comes with. i understand that i am jewish, thats my identity...as in the holocaust even the most unreligious jews got persecuted, so i cant run away from the fact that i am jewish. i just dont believe in it as a truth. and wats to stop me saying that, ur book RPGlover is totally wrong and the torah is right. obviously i wouldnt say that as it is a pointless arguement. the way something is truly concrete evidence is if it can be proved with concrete maths. otherwise, its just unreliable in proving it as fact. Nazi's saw Hitler's Mein Kampf as the truth...it clearly wasnt, but its the same idea. Hitler presented some metaphysical ideas that made sense to those in Germany ( i study Germany History so i know quite a lot about this). Now we would argue completely against it...now evolutionists do the same with creationalist theory. (and visa-versa).
but yeh, im meant to believe that the messiah will come and restore the temple that was destroyed (the temple did exist, the Western Wall that still stands is the only main part that still remains since its destruction).
but yeh, im meant to believe that the messiah will come and restore the temple that was destroyed (the temple did exist, the Western Wall that still stands is the only main part that still remains since its destruction).
2fast4u
New member
sk8bloke22 said:
i think this point is very alike with religion. very few nazis actually believed in the occult and "race supremacy" ideas that hitler made up. the thing is all this was pure propaganda to justify the idea of a master race.
however most nazi followers didn't believe in these things they simply followed hitler because he promised them a better life.
i am german (thu i am in the us right now), so i heard about this all my life.
in religion however i believe - according to people i know - don't actually believe in everything in their religion but mostly the principles of it. it's like with u, that u only believe in few parts of ur religion (if i got that right with the messia and so on - if not correct me) in opposition to what fundamentalists advocate.
as for me i don't believe in god, or anything at all besides the principles of socialism according to karl marx.
religion can bring people together but often times it divides them.
- Status