John Page

So, one day, just before time began, god being bereft of jam jars, he looked around and saw some human bodies that he'd been sticking pins in the day before and cried "Eureka!", perfect little soul containers.....

Cheers, John

Ryanfire

In science, we do not use partial theories to prove truth.

A = Existence + Universe + Life + (unknown variables)
therefore, A = god

That's not only retarded, but science would be illogical.

Science is out to find those unknown variables. Not just use a partial theory and put a bandage over the missing data. (Better known as faith, a hypothesis, or concept.)


Ryan

Odemus

It requires faith to believe in whatever explanation for the existence of life, matter and the laws which govern them that you ascribe to.

It ultimately comes down to where you feel it is most reasonable to put your faith.

I didn't one day approach the dilemma of the origin of the universe, or life on earth and decide that I had to insert God into the picture. I simply believe in God and the truths revealed to me about Him and my self through His Word first. How ignorant and backwards of me no?

I don't have a problem with the scientific method. If the universe started at the size of a golf ball and expanded to what we know it today that's fantastic. Similarly, all that we can learn about the world around us is equally fascinating to me and simply confirms the the majesty of God. I have never once encountered a theory that conflicts with my faith with the exception of those that try to account for the origin of matter, life, and mankind by leaving God out of the picture.

Here's what I believe is a much more interesting question. I think if we are all honest with ourselves we will say that each of us ascribes to some code of ethics to get through life civily i.e. "Do unto others" etc. etc. You can argue that morality is a human construct (not some sort of universal standard) and is conditioned by family and society and all sorts of moral reletavistic notions and that's fine, I'm not interested in arguing that point.

What I want to know is why is every human being totally incapable of conforming to these standards of "right" and "wrong"? You can give an explanation in terms of this inability being a function of evolution but that still doesn't address the human condition of 'helpless depravity'. The fact is we all lie, we all cheat, we all steal and we all do things which our conscience convicts us of.


So to clarify my question. Why is it that no matter what effort we put toward living a guilt free life are we totally incapable of doing so?

I know I probably did a poor job of getting that across, but if you get the gist of my query then understand it is those kinds of questions that lead me to a faith in Christ, because those are the kinds of questions the Bible answers.

Ryanfire

It requires faith for belief, it requires proof for truth. Religion is based on a whole system of belief, and the base motivator for most religions is fear. I don't know how you can ascribe the feeling of fear to the truth of existence. You believe in a god not because you know the truth, but because you aren't willing to embrace the unknown, or discover it.

It is most reasonable not to fear the truth.
There are no pixel fairies or unicorns up in the sky. Sorry.

Well then I ask you to read my bible entitled, "Ryanfire is god". It's full of my word. Devout followers of me will be required to pay me money, make me happy, worship me, and there will be consequences if you do not obey those rules. I'm all bullshitting, full of contradictions, and white.


We've never used god to account for anything we know about the universe currently. Why start now?

Because we've learned many ways to get what we want. If it doesn't work one way, try another.
Why do babies cry? They want attention or want to be picked up. They use logic and intelligence to know it works. It is clearly the work of evolution, a simple dichotomy. No supernatural
understanding required here. Will everybody conform to these standards? not if it doesn't benefit their life, or change it for the better.
Try asking starving kids in africa not to steal for the greater good of mankind.

I would tend not to think so. We are all unique and live different lives. We have different genetics and upbringing. Where we live, society, government, and *yawn* religion, also changes our perception of existence and life. Just common sense, nothing supernatural here...

Why not faith in yourself to become a "good" person? You're not a god, you are not perfect. Don't ever expect to be perfect. Be a good person for your own accord, don't expect god to do it for you.

I never needed the bible to learn to be a good person, or learn to be righteous. Once again, quit trying to be so perfect. Accept the fact you are human with faults, imperfections, and uniqueness. No god would punish me for not being perfect, that which his design is.

It's really the questioning of truth and the unknown.. as einstein said, the "mystery" of it all that makes life worth anything.

You continue having faith, and I will continue to use truth.

Have a good one,
Ryan.

Odemus

You cannot verify or offer proof in any capacity whether using science or personal belief how the universe came into existence, how life originated, or how you are conscious and aware of your self. You may assume this all happened by chance but you cannot prove it, period, end of story. Therefore you are at as much of an empirical disadvantage for explaining these questions as a theist. Guess what? You require faith in your system of belief as do I.


I do not fear the truth, I happily embrace it. Your assumptions about the motive for my faith are incorrect.

More false assumptions about the Bible I read and the God I worship. Rather than sarcasm and vague hints, let's at least discuss some of your problems with Christian doctrine in no less than explicit terms. That kind of language is unproductive and accomplishes nothing for you or me.

Again you presume to know that which you can not empirically verify. This is where faith comes in again.

You still dodge the question. You know as well as I do that you are incapable of living a life free of guilt. It is a condition found in every culture throughout history.

Einstein believed in God.

HRG

Proof, as they say, is for alcohol and mathematics. However, we can propose very plausible mechanisms for your questions, and those mechanisms are fully consistent with our knowledge about how nature works.

In contrast, the "God did it" hypothesis is pulled out of thin air, since it is not coherent with the rest of our knowledge and lacks any plausible mechanisms how he did it. We have never observed a disembodied mind, nor that a mind by simple volition brings anything into existence.

While abiogenesis and pre-Big Bang cosmology are at the "reasonable scenario" stage, post-BB cosmology and post-abiogenesis evolution have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, everyone is free to harbor unreasonable doubts.

No, naturalists have confidence in their evidence. Theists need faith, since they lack evidence.

Your "you can't prove it" argument becomes rather meaningless as soon as one realizes that we cannot prove either that my cat did not create the universe last Thursday.

<snip>
No, he didn't. He explicitely denied any belief in a personal creator.

Regards,
HRG.

Odemus

I was misinformed on that.Thanks for pointing it out.

Life from the inanimate. This is for me the biggest one of all. You can downplay the significance of not being able to know the circumstances under which something like this could happen all you want. The fact is it requires a tremendous leap of faith to believe. Take the 'either or' out of it. I accept that it is beyond your ability to acknowledge the slightest possibility that there is a great designer who holds the keys to life and death as I am sure you acknowledge I can't live without the thought of that very same designer. That certainly is your pierogative. No matter how much 'logic' or 'truth' you wish to throw at the dilemma you will remain thoroughly unable to answer it.

It always comes back to faith. You can't explain all the mysteries of our sentience, our capacity for love, hate, compassion, empathy etc. etc. within the framework evolution. No one is able to.

At some point both sides of the argument must agree that they have reached an empirical impass.

Steven Carr

What is the second scenario? How did God create life? There is no second scenario, unless somebody comes up with a few details.

BTW, few people believe the first replicating organism was a single cell. Even today, the simplest organisms are not cellular.

Steven Carr

But you have *exactly* the same empirical impass as we do, *plus* an infinite being.

That is *two* problems, not one.

Why is a position with one problem, just as complicated as a position with two problems (assuming you can't tell us how God created life from inanimate matter)?

And that is being very generous to your position, when such things as empathy, love, hate etc. do have evolutionary explanations. They might need work on them, but people have started work on these problems.

As far as I can see, your position seems to be.

1) We are ignorant of how these things happened
2) Ignorant people should believe in God.

This is why arguments from ignorance don't work.

scumble

Odemus - your problem, as I see it, is describing wehre you get your idea of God from. Were you brought up as a Christian? If so, how do you know your parents know what they're talking about. How do you know priests or ministers know what they are talking about. If it comes to the Bible, how do you know that is communicating the truth?

The genuine non-theist should not really indulge in faith. From my point of view, when it comes to the origin of life, we only have a best explanation for evidence we have at any one time. Anything could change in the future, and cause problems for the prevailing view. I don't have faith in science. I know things can go wrong if you start to have faith in science. The word has such a large scope as well.
Theists always like to call it a religion, but it always moves on. Theoretical beliefs are continually shattered with new discoveries or ideas. In religions there are no new discoveries.