goat37

It is easy to put something outside the realm of reality and claim it as true... If I wrote a book talking about leprechauns trying to steal my lucky chars, but only existed outside of the universe, could you in fact refute it? Well, you could, because you have a subjective view on the matter...

I am under the impression that the God that most people claim to know is a man made myth that only exists because we claim he lives in a world that we cannot explain nor comprehend, and therefore cannot classify as false.

If you can understand the metaphysical better than I can, please enlighten me. But a 2000 year old book with scientific inconsistencies tend to cast a shadow of doubt into my eyes.... You say God is infallable, how can we know that for sure unless we can test him? We can't, because he exists in a place where we cannot go, a place we cannot see, a place that we cannot touch or smell... but in a place that exists only in our minds.... a dream.

Magus55

God's nature is spiritual, and doesn't fall under the category of "natural" or universal law.



That was an ignorant response. Religion is full of depth and meaning. Science wouldn't exist without religion.

Stephen Hawking:


"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it."[2]

Albert Einstein:


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."



Its a faulty judgement based on your opinion, instead of your knowledge.



God gave us the ability to make a choice. One in cooperation with Him, and one against. He warned us of what happens by going against Him, so how is it His fault if we choose to do so, despite being warned?

And I know that the sun is eventually gonna be destroyed and run out of energy - does that mean i'm responsible for it when it happens?

And I guess you could say, God didn't take responsibility for humanities destruction - Hence why He took it upon Himself to offer a way to save it. So now, its completely your fault for 1) disobeying God, and 2) rejecting His offer to be redeemed despite that disobeyal. Either way, responsibility is now in your hands, not God's.

Magus55

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_quest...B7809EC588F2D7

When researchers examined the appendix microscopically, they found that it contains a significant amount of lymphoid tissue. Similar aggregates of lymphoid tissue occur in other areas of the gastrointestinal and are known as gut-associated lymphoid tissues (GALT). The functions of GALT are poorly understood, but it is clear that they are involved in the body’s ability to recognize foreign antigens in ingested material.

Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system. The appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its greatest development shortly after birth and then regresses with age, eventually coming to resemble such other regions of GALT as the Peyer’s patches in the small intestine.

Magus55

What evidence against it? You have no evidence against it, only assumptions and faulty observations. Science doesn't have all the answers. You only assume that what science has found to be incompatible with the Bible, is in fact correct.

Godless Wonder

One big problem non-theists have with this, as I'm sure you well know, is that your god explains nothing. Yes, there are certainly questions about the beginnings of the universe, about the beginnings of life, for which non-theists, scientists, do not have completely satisfactory answers. Nobody says that scientists have all the answers, least of all the scientists. It is religious people who claim to have all the answers, or at least more answers than they can be expected to possess by dint of reason alone.

The big answer they tout is: "God did it." Who made god? "He was always there". . I see, you require the universe to have a cause, but excuse God from having a cause. I would say that one has no reason to suppose the the universe requires a cause. You may think it absurd that the universe could pop into existence at the Big Bang, but why should you? How exactly is that absurd? I fail to see how this is at all absurd. Probably the most defensible position to take with regards to the beginnings of the universe is "I don't know." But even if "I don't know", I can feel safe ruling out the possibility that the universe was created by, say, a being that looks and talks just like Bugs Bunny, except much bigger, and outside our universe. Likewise I feel pretty safe ruling out and god as described in any religions I've encountered, current or historical. Likewise I feel pretty safe ruling out the idea of a creator god altogether.

But the existence of a creator god is not all that the religious folks claim to know. Almost always, they will then proceed to claim this god or gods possess all sorts of various and wonderfully detailed attributes and qualtiies. He likes "goodness", he hates sin, he punishes the wicked, etc. He built the universe and everything in it for humans, he sent himself (or his son, or 1/3 of himself) down to the earth from "heaven", etc. And how do we know all that? Well, see we have this book, see, that tells all about it, along with a lot of other crazy unbelievable sounding stuff that contradicts our everyday experience, fails experimental verification (or is unverifiable).

This is all far far too weak to be taken seriously. A position of simple Deism as described by say Thomas Paine, would be far more defensible and believable than the gods of the most popular religions. Your argument for theism seems to be the argument of poverty of imagination. If one can't imagine how the world could be as it is without a god, then there must be a god? This is a time-tested technique of argument, and the testing has revealed that the technique is notoriously unreliable.

Magus55

By what basis do you determine that the Bible is in error or scientifically inaccurate? Just because you read a verse in the Bible without seeking the deeper meaning or understanding behind it, and automatically assume its a contradiction? Theologists, scientists, linguists, archaeologists etc have been studying scripture for thousands of years and still have never been able to find anything that can't be explained. If the Bible was so easily refuted just by picking it up, reading a verse and say - Ha! a contradiction, God can't be real, then Christianity would have been dead before it started. Do atheists think they are the first ones to ever open the Bible, see an apparent contradiction and claim the Bible is wrong? Its not like all the verses in the Bible you claim are errors haven't been studied endlessly. They have, very very extensively - and there is always an explanation, and there is always an understandable meaning.

Magus55

Science is based on observation. Ever observed something coming from nothing? A cause without an effect? So why the assumption that the universe could, but nothing else can? If the universe was able to come about from nothing, then we should see other instances of that happening. But we don't. This right here is a double standard. You claim you can study the world and the universe, and make strong claims against the existence of God and the validity of the Bible based on observation, yet when that observation conflicts with your views on the formation of the universe, you create a loop hole because its the only way you can possibly come to the conclusion that the universe could exist without God.

So now, where is the validity in observing the stars to "look" back into history and see the universe from the beginning? Or looking at the rocks and fossils in the Earth, and claiming to have scientific evidence for the age of the universe/earth? When is scientific observation valid and acceptable as evidence - when it fits into the scientific communities agenda and ideals? Why should i believe anything science claims is evidence, based on observation - when the only evidence you accept, is that which fits into your assumption of the universe?



You just contradicted yourself. Cause without effect is contradictory to our everyday experience and fails experimental verification. Yet you claim the universe is the exception? Again, as long as the observations and evidence fit into your assumption and basis for the universe, its ok to use, but if it goes against it, you come up with a loop hole or exception.

Hedwig

Okay, this still confuses me. Why would god create in man the power to choose evil? Especially, since he was god, he knew that we would choose to disobey him and wind up in hell. It's like he's stacking the cards against all of humanity. There are many physical laws in this world that limit what we can and cannot do that you claim god set in place. Why was limiting our ability to do the wrong thing not one of them?

Magus55

God wanted you to be able to make a choice to love Him or not. God doesn't want people to love and worship Him if they don't really want to. So He gave you the ability to go against Him. But by that same token, He has to punish sinners who choose to not be redeemed. Sure you say that leaves no choice because you are punished for choosing to go against God, but we don't choose to love and worship God just to escape punishment. We want to escape punishment because we love God, and don't like disobeying Him. We can't imagine being separated from Him for eternity. We used our free will to have a relationship with Him, and those who reject Him, use their free will to do that. The only difference is, there is a consequence for not being freed from sin, and God warned you of that. Its not like God said, love me or don't, with no warning of what happens if you remain in sin and reject Him. God gave you the ability to reject Him, but it comes with a heavy price.

And as you can see, even that heavy price isn't enough to keep people from rejecting God - which shows right there that you do have the choice to obey or not.

Hedwig

Well, why is the price so heavy? I mean, you're always going on about how we cannot understand god. Why would he make the punishment so heavy if he knew that we were incapable of making a fully informed decision with our limited knowledge? Even a parent stops spanking the kid at some point.