The ancient lands.
 |  |  |  |
3
2
6
2Roterblitz wrote:The existence of God is, by definition, impossible to disprove, but the same can be said about vampires.
9Um...why?karkooshy wrote:It is not impossible to prove the existence of god. It's just so easy to deny it :faic:
Ahaha, aha. No.
Look around you. Every creation has a creator.
I fail to see how that's even relevant.
Even when a child breaks something, the child doesn't say it broke by itself, he blames someone else :mrgreen:
Some children are stupid enough to try that, actually. Digressions aside, though, even if that were true, it would prove nothing.
This universe, it's so diverse, so complex, so organized... it's hard to believe that all of this happened by accident.
6If there was concrete scientific evidence that proved the existence of God, we would not be having this discussion.karkooshy wrote:It is not impossible to prove the existence of god. It's just so easy to deny it :faic:
Who is the creator of Hawaii?karkooshy wrote:Look around you. Every creation has a creator.
Centuries ago, we used to believe the sun rising was an act of divinity.karkooshy wrote:Even when a child breaks something, the child doesn't say it broke by itself, he blames someone else :mrgreen:
Just because something was not specifically planned out by an intelligent creator does not mean it was an accident, there is a very good reason why water falls from the sky even though no one is making it happen.karkooshy wrote:This universe, it's so diverse, so complex, so organized... it's hard to believe that all of this happened by accident.
9Roterblitz wrote:
If there was concrete scientific evidence that proved the existence of God, we would not be having this discussion.
Who is the creator of Hawaii?
Centuries ago, we used to believe the sun rising was an act of divinity.
Just because something was not specifically planned out by an intelligent creator does not mean it was an accident, there is a very good reason why water falls from the sky even though no one is making it happen.
2Even when a child breaks something, the child doesn't say it broke by itself, he blames someone else
Look around you. Every creation has a creator.
This universe, it's so diverse, so complex, so organized... it's hard to believe that all of this happened by accident.
Maybe you should google "physics of nothing" and see the other side's perfectly reasonable explanation instead of automatically assuming yours is true. As for your second question, I can answer that myself: We only see this universe of "perfect and diverse life" because we are conscious beings which can observe it. If we didn't come about, we wouldn't be conscious beings which can observe it, so the unthinking atoms would be none the wiser to the fact that they aren't in a universe full of "perfect and diverse life." We can only observe the odd chain of lucky events that allow us to observe.karkooshy wrote:The sun rising is due to the rotation of earth. According to my religion, the rotation of planets was designed by god. So yes, I do believe that the sun rising (or rain falling for that matter) involves an act of divinity. God has created this world, this universe, and all the rules and laws of physics. :)
But why? Why do you involve in the equation a being whose existence you have no concrete evidence of and is entirely unneeded given our understanding of the universe around us? This would be logically acceptable a few thousand years ago, when the human race hardly understood anything major about the universe, but now it's basically saying there are invisible penguins whose existence can not be proven. Even assuming there are invisible penguins, they aren't causing any events, situations or the like which can not be explained in a far more logical manner.
God sends prophets aided with miracles to proof his existence.
The last documented case of such a thing happening was over two thousand years ago, and there's this little thing called "adaptation decay," which basically means that, for all we know, the modern bible is nothing like what it once was and therefore can't be trusted to relay such high-importance information as what we should believe and why. Tell me: Have you ever even read any part at all of the original copy of the bible?
On the other hand, if I asked you to go back in time, you'd eventually get to hydrogen- which according to the big bang theory, was the first element to be spawned by this explosion. What came before that? Nothing. How can "nothing" suddenly cause an explosion of matter and become "everything". More than that, how could this original nothing bring such perfect and diverse life?
9Fatum Cruelis wrote:
But why? Why do you involve in the equation a being whose existence you have no concrete evidence of and is entirely unneeded given our understanding of the universe around us? This would be logically acceptable a few thousand years ago, when the human race hardly understood anything major about the universe, but now it's basically saying there are invisible penguins whose existence can not be proven. Even assuming there are invisible penguins, they aren't causing any events, situations or the like which can not be explained in a far more logical manner.
The last documented case of such a thing happening was over two thousand years ago, and there's this little thing called "adaptation decay," which basically means that, for all we know, the modern bible is nothing like what it once was and therefore can't be trusted to relay such high-importance information as what we should believe and why. Tell me: Have you ever even read any part at all of the original copy of the bible?
Maybe you should google "physics of nothing" and see the other side's perfectly reasonable explanation instead of automatically assuming yours is true. As for your second question, I can answer that myself: We only see this universe of "perfect and diverse life" because we are conscious beings which can observe it. If we didn't come about, we wouldn't be conscious beings which can observe it, so the unthinking atoms would be none the wiser to the fact that they aren't in a universe full of "perfect and diverse life." We can only observe the odd chain of lucky events that allow us to observe.
2
16karkooshy wrote:Fatum Cruelis wrote:
But why? Why do you involve in the equation a being whose existence you have no concrete evidence of and is entirely unneeded given our understanding of the universe around us? This would be logically acceptable a few thousand years ago, when the human race hardly understood anything major about the universe, but now it's basically saying there are invisible penguins whose existence can not be proven. Even assuming there are invisible penguins, they aren't causing any events, situations or the like which can not be explained in a far more logical manner.
The last documented case of such a thing happening was over two thousand years ago, and there's this little thing called "adaptation decay," which basically means that, for all we know, the modern bible is nothing like what it once was and therefore can't be trusted to relay such high-importance information as what we should believe and why. Tell me: Have you ever even read any part at all of the original copy of the bible?
Maybe you should google "physics of nothing" and see the other side's perfectly reasonable explanation instead of automatically assuming yours is true. As for your second question, I can answer that myself: We only see this universe of "perfect and diverse life" because we are conscious beings which can observe it. If we didn't come about, we wouldn't be conscious beings which can observe it, so the unthinking atoms would be none the wiser to the fact that they aren't in a universe full of "perfect and diverse life." We can only observe the odd chain of lucky events that allow us to observe.
You can explain how the universe works, but you can't explain how it was originated using facts. God created this universe, and maintains it's balance. That is my belief :)
At your second comment, I hate to say this, and I mean no offense to any of the christian members, but Christianity doesn't define religion. I'm not a Christian. So no, I haven't read the original bible, and I know it has been changed.
You've already asked me to google "The Physics of nothing". Quite frankly I don't understand it. Do you understand it?
If you do, please clarify. If you don't, you should understand things before asking other to research them ^^
9Super Racer Z wrote:
Also, regarding your first comment, if God created the origins of this universe and the "physics of nothing" theories are completely wrong, then what created this God, and what came before him? If you try to say that God has always existed to completely bypass the question, then why can't the universe have existed forever and the big bang exist as something that has always happened periodically?
2karkooshy wrote:Super Racer Z wrote:
Also, regarding your first comment, if God created the origins of this universe and the "physics of nothing" theories are completely wrong, then what created this God, and what came before him? If you try to say that God has always existed to completely bypass the question, then why can't the universe have existed forever and the big bang exist as something that has always happened periodically?
Beginnings and endings are all part of the "time" concept. Due to time, there is a beginning and an end to everything. God created time, so he is not affected by it's flow. In short, there is no beginning or end to god's existence. :)
9Sweet Mercy wrote:
Fair point. But is there any concrete proof that God exists?
2karkooshy wrote:Sweet Mercy wrote:
Fair point. But is there any concrete proof that God exists?
To some people, yes. To others no. It all depends on if the person is willing to believe. I am 100% sure god exists. Many others may disagree.
I believe that every creation has a creator, I believe in the holy books, I believe in the prophets and their miracles. That is enough proof for me.
It's just that some people need more to convince. :)
16karkooshy wrote:Super Racer Z wrote:
Also, regarding your first comment, if God created the origins of this universe and the "physics of nothing" theories are completely wrong, then what created this God, and what came before him? If you try to say that God has always existed to completely bypass the question, then why can't the universe have existed forever and the big bang exist as something that has always happened periodically?
Beginnings and endings are all part of the "time" concept. Due to time, there is a beginning and an end to everything. God created time, so he is not affected by it's flow. In short, there is no beginning or end to god's existence. :)
karkooshy wrote:
I believe that every creation has a creator...
It's best abridged by Stephen Hawking: "The universe goes through all the trouble of existing because nonexistence is unstable." Or something roughly to that effect. As I was saying before, I can, in fact, explain how the universe originated using facts. In fact, I just did.karkooshy wrote:You can explain how the universe works, but you can't explain how it was originated using facts.
Actually, I can. More on that later on in this rebuttal.
God created this universe, and maintains it's balance. That is my belief :)
Error 404: Proof not found.
At your second comment, I hate to say this, and I mean no offense to any of the christian members, but christianity doesn't define religion. I'm not a christian. So no, I haven't read the original bible, and I know it has been changed.
Thank you for flawlessly proving my point.
You've already asked me to google "The Physics of nothing". Quite frankly I don't understand it. Do you understand it?
If you do, please clarify. If you don't, you should understand things before asking other to research them ^^
9Super Racer Z wrote:
But why is he not affected by the same rules as everything in the universe and in short, cause and effect? What your reason sounded like to me was, "There is no beginning of God's existence or something that came before him because he is God."
Fatum Cruelis wrote:
It's best abridged by Stephen Hawking: "The universe goes through all the trouble of existing because nonexistence is unstable." Or something roughly to that effect. As I was saying before, I can, in fact, explain how the universe originated using facts. In fact, I just did.
16karkooshy wrote:Super Racer Z wrote:
But why is he not affected by the same rules as everything in the universe and in short, cause and effect? What your reason sounded like to me was, "There is no beginning of God's existence or something that came before him because he is God."
You misunderstand my point :)
God is not part of this universe. He is not contained by space nor controlled by time. That is why the "universal rules" don't apply to him.
2Given the definition of theory...karkooshy wrote:Fatum Cruelis wrote:It's best abridged by Stephen Hawking: "The universe goes through all the trouble of existing because nonexistence is unstable." Or something roughly to that effect. As I was saying before, I can, in fact, explain how the universe originated using facts. In fact, I just did.
That is no fact. It's a theory.
...I agree completely. Seriously, if you're going to try and knock some aspect of science for being poorly supported, at least use the right term: hypothesis. Additionally, I'd like to note that this bit of science is, in fact, not poorly supported, as you should have gathered from looking at the large amounts of evidence supporting it presented to you by Google.Proper definition of theory wrote:a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Basically, except without the choosing part.karkooshy wrote:And it still doesn't make sense to me...
Sounds like a personal problem.
You make it sound like if the universe has the choice to exist or not to exist. And it choses to, because not existing is unstable? xD
Ahaha, aha, ah. No proof of evolution. Allow me to rid you of your inanity the quick and easy way: with a quote of a copy-paste.Sketch Style wrote:The fact of religion, is based on faith. Its impossible to both prove, or disprove god. For many people, like myself, we believe; same applies for Evolution, we can't prove it happened, we can just gain clues that lead to it. Its a matter of belief, not proof.
Aeolus wrote:Claim [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html]CA612[/url] wrote:Because evolution has never been observed, the theory of evolution requires as much faith as creationism does.
Copy-pasted Response:
1. The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.
2. The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.
A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay. Such faith is not compatible with most creationism. Creationism usually demands that God acts according to peoples' set beliefs, and anything else is simply wrong (e.g., ICR 2000). It cannot accept that whatever God has done is okay.
2Sketch Style wrote: same applies for Evolution, we can't prove it happened
