No clue how Harry Potter spawned an evolution discussion...

[da_OKUM?]

Originally posted by JerryLove

[quote]
There are two problems. The first is that the pluralization is inconsistant. God refers to himself in the singular when talking with the Jews ("I am your God") (notice also the use of "your" in many of his sentances, or "the God of Abraham"; if there is only one God, why not just say "I am God"?)

He didn't say "I am God," rather, He said "I am."

The second problem is that he seems to talk to himself, never a good sign from a mental health standpoint.

First of all, I'm not sure God has to talk to Himself. How many times do you "think" to yourself? I'm positive that He does use words when communicating to us, but He most likely does not need to use oral communication in Heaven. I'm not sure about this exactly, just my thought.

And second, if Jesus is God, and he came to earth how come at age 12, how do you explain the religious leader's response to the words that He spoke? and how do you explain the immense wisdom in His words?


Our sources are (I'm sure) equally valid. I am just more selective in making sure they fit the conversation at hand (q.v. the "Organic" discussion)

With the Organic discussion, you defined Organic Chemistry, while I defined Organic. I was simply asking how something living came from something non-living, and I just happened to use the words "Organic" and "Inorganic."

And I'd still like to know the source of the Definitions that you are using.


"deity n. God, the Supreme Being, a pagan god or goddess" when compared with his statment "that Satan isn't a diety" I think is taking the letter of the definition rather than the spirit of the definition. My point was the Satan is treated like a diety in Christianity. An evil, less powerful one admittedly, but a diety none-the-less. Look at a pagan God or Godess (say Loki) and tell me the major difference.

Okay, Loki was messed up. But that's a completely different scale. Loki was still a god, and so was Odin, but Odin did not create Loki. Odin had about as much power (mythologically and relatively speaking) as Michael, and Loki, as Lucifer.


You treat them both as supernatural biengs with power over the world and you. One you embrace, the other you despise. That is not very different from most polytheistic religions.

Satan has as much power over me as I let him. If I resist the devil, he must flee. And then, he has no power over me.



Sure he did, for several thousand years or more. Also, Adam didn't "turn his back", he gave in to temptation, like a kid eating the cookie out of the jar. In return God kicked him (and his decendants) out of the house.

He gave into the temptation of becoming like God. Not like the kid eating the cookie, like the kid telling his parents that he waned them out of the house, and that he was boss.


So you feel that God is not omnipresent?

There are restrictions, such as sin. God can do all things, and yet he can't sin. By all things, I think good is implied.


And God knew with absolute knowledge what Adam would do from before Adam was born. If there is a difference in the analogy, it's that there is a *chance* that you would not come to the harm I expect.

Yes, but you did not create those convicts with the capability to sin, but not the sin nature. Adam had the capability of sinning, but not the nature until he ate the fruit.

Remeber what you said made me responsable with the convicts; the fact that I had knowledge of what was likely to happen. God knew for an absolute fact. If I am partially responsable, than so is God.

Not particularly. Again, see above. And also, you did not give those convicts a paradise and tell them that they could have all they wanted in that paradise, as long as they didn't touch me. And they would have to be lacking a sin-nature, so they couldn't be convicts.


Regardless of how getting a good result is accomplished, by ignoring (for example) viking mythology, you risk condeming yourself to hell for failing to die in battle; just as you claim I risk hell for failing to accept Jesus (which if I did manage, would prevent me from seeking the battle I need to enter valhala). So you see, either way, there is a risk.

Yes, but Hel in Norse Mythology is paradise compared to the hell created for the punishment of sins.


From your perspective? Emperical evidence is the most I can offer. From my own? If I didn't exist, then logically I could not think that I did. There is no such logic validating that God (or you, or this computer) exist (except from your perspective, wherein you can prove that you exist, but not that I do).

Scientific proof, probably not. But there is evidence. And lots of it.


This is true. I am reminded of an event in the late 70s. There was a guy (I forget his name, I was young at the time) who went though every university and lab to prove his paranormal abilities and was certified by several major universities as having them (universities were big into this stuff at the time). One day, at a press conference (attended by the deans and professors of several of these universities, and on national TV) a reporter asked "how do you do it?". "I fake it" he replied. He was an ameture magician, that a skeptic society had talked into going in a establishing his legitemate credentials to show that the "research" going on into the paranormal was flawed and could be faked. Interest waned after that.

One such example. Among many. But just because one is a fake, doesn't mean they all are. You offered this argument when I brought up the "Piltdown Man" story.


My friend (Denise) got rid of hers about 4 years ago and has not had a problem since. I seem rather immune to even noticing such things.

Somehow, I doubt that. Inquire further. Ask her if she really found the healing that she was looking for.


Why not? All proof of a Devil would do is establish the likelyhood of a God. Certainly a good thing.

Not necessarily. You do not (and I repeat do not) want that to happen to you. The Demon will torment you for the rest of your living days. The only Antidote is God Himself.


ps. Adam was not born.

[JerryLove]

He didn't say "I am God," rather, He said "I am." ""I am going to put an end to all people" (Gen 6:13), "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you" (Gen 9:12), ""I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless." (Gen 17:1). I have already given you examples from the same book where god says "us" (Gen 11:7, 1:26, 3:22, 5:29, etc).

First of all, I'm not sure God has to talk to Himself. How many times do you "think" to yourself? The Bible never says "and the Lord thought", it says "and the lord said" and often when no people are around.

And second, if Jesus is God, and he came to earth how come at age 12, how do you explain the religious leader's response to the words that He spoke? and how do you explain the immense wisdom in His words? They are unproven. The Jews didn't see fit to record this event, not even the apsotles were there.

With the Organic discussion, you defined Organic Chemistry, while I defined Organic. As I mentioned then. You wanted to know about first life, but asked with the word "organic" where the definition you used would have rendered fist like "inorganic". I don't think any of us here really use a derfinition of "organic" that makes bacteria "inorganic life". Like the Bible, the dictonary was written by people.

And I'd still like to know the source of the Definitions that you are using. Mirriam Webster's online dictionary.

Okay, Loki was messed up. But that's a completely different scale. Loki was still a god, and so was Odin, but Odin did not create Loki. Actually, as Loki's father, yes he did. Odin did not create man and the like (that was done by a cow), but was still the most powerful of the human-like gods.

Satan has as much power over me as I let him. If I resist the devil, he must flee. And then, he has no power over me. How much power did Job let him have?

He gave into the temptation of becoming like God. Not like the kid eating the cookie, like the kid telling his parents that he waned them out of the house, and that he was boss. After eating the apple, what negative act did Adam perform before being kicked out? Where did he tell God to get lost?

There are restrictions, such as sin. God can do all things, and yet he can't sin. By all things, I think good is implied. That's omnipotent, I'm askling about omnipresent. Is God "everywhere".

Yes, but you did not create those convicts with the capability to sin, but not the sin nature. Adam had the capability of sinning, but not the nature until he ate the fruit. Adam was going to sin, and that was known. How was it not "in his nature"? As a Christian, you believe that no person has lived their life without sin; if sin is not in our nature, why is this so?

Not particularly. Again, see above. And also, you did not give those convicts a paradise and tell them that they could have all they wanted in that paradise, as long as they didn't touch me. I see, so not sinning because of reward is OK?

One such example. Among many. But just because one is a fake, doesn't mean they all are. No it doesn't. But it does leave open that door. The burdin of proof becomes higher.

Somehow, I doubt that. Inquire further. Ask her if she really found the healing that she was looking for. I did a few months ago when I was doing some energy work on her. Her problems (that she had for several years) are gone.

Not necessarily. You do not (and I repeat do not) want that to happen to you. The Demon will torment you for the rest of your living days. The only Antidote is God Himself. So, if your view of reality is real, and I don't see a demon and get tormented till I turn to God, then I will be tormented for the rest of eternity. I would say the demon would be doing me a favor.

[Blindman]

Is someone here trying to use science to disprove the existence of the supernatural? If so, look out... the NSPCA will be after you. You shouldn't do that to a horse. Especially a dead one.

We've already had this discussion several times here. I stated the basic argument once, but I'll repeat it in case it wasn't clear enough the first time:

Science is a way of learning about the universe. It is based entirely on the analysis of events that are repeatable and that can be observed and quantified. As such, science deals only with the material world; it makes no claims in either direction for the existence of something outside of that world. To put that more concisely, science is based on the assumption that the supernatural does not exist. Therefore, using science to disprove the existence of the supernatural is basically equivalent to the following proof:

Given: The supernatural does not exist.
Prove: The supernatural does not exist.
Proof: The supernatural does not exist, therefore the supernatural does not exist.

You get the point. It's a circular proof because you're trying to prove your assumptions by using your assumptions. A more appropriate proof would be more along the lines of:

Given that miracles exist, and that miracles defy the rules of science and thus are supernatural, the supernatural must exist.

etc, etc. My point is, science does not preclude the existence of things that cannot be explained by science, and neer could be. It simply assumes that those things do not exist, since they could not be figured into the equation. But just because v_f^2 = v_0^2 + a * dx doesn't mean that someone couldn't fall off a 100 story building and, through some miraculous intervention, survive.

[JerryLove]

Is someone here trying to use science to disprove the existence of the supernatural? If so, look out... the NSPCA will be after you. You shouldn't do that to a horse. Especially a dead one. So I know you are not about to bring it up.

Science is the body of knowledge. It deals with testable reality. If it has effect on the universe, it comes under sciene. If it does not affect the universe, what makes you think it exists.

Your "supernatural" and proof issue is reversed. Burden of proof is extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. That something with no evidence at all exists is what must be prooven before there is any burden to disprove it.

Given that miracles exist, and that miracles defy the rules of science and thus are supernatural, the supernatural must exist. If that were given, your support would be logical. However, since miracles defying the rules of science do not exist, there is no support for the supernatural.

But just because v_f^2 = v_0^2 + a * dx doesn't mean that someone couldn't fall off a 100 story building and, through some miraculous intervention, survive. Or though simple physics. Why don't you offer one that would really have to be divine intervention (after all, God is not limited to doing things physically explainable). Instead of the person who survived a fall, tell me about the one that survived a decapitation. Tell me about the person who survived having their heart removed. I hear about the "miraculious cancer remissions" all the time, though those can happen on their own. Again, since God would not be limited, tell me about the person who woke up with a lost limb magically replaced.

You can't show any verafiable instanaces of either can you?

[thrice_denied]

They are unproven. The Jews didn't see fit to record this event, not even the apsotles were there.

Just as you said, they are unproven. Neither proven right NOR WRONG. Yet the bible does speak of it. The bible, like God, is infallable. And you know why the Jews didnt talk of this. Because they believe Jesus wasnt who He said He was. And you know why the apostles werent there? Maybe because they were little kids at that time. Remember, Jesus didnt even come in contact with some of them until 21 years later.

Actually, as Loki's father, yes he did. Odin did not create man and the like (that was done by a cow), but was still the most powerful of the human-like gods.

You know what this argument of yours differes from ours? You are resorting to countless ancient, many no longer existing, beliefs. As yet we continue to stand quite well under ours, and only ours. That amazes me.

How much power did Job let him have?
none, remember, the reason God allowed this to happen was Satan said that if God allowed him to take away all that God had given Job, that Job would curse God's name. That was what Satan wanted. Job never once, even with the pleading with his best friends, cursed God's name.

Adam was going to sin, and that was known. How was it not "in his nature"? As a Christian, you believe that no person has lived their life without sin; if sin is not in our nature, why is this so?
God created Adam to be perfect. Sin was not in Adam's nature, same as Eve's. Yet because of The Fall, we are even born into sin. We are cursed from birth because of The Fall. Yet, through Christ, we are given a way to esxape the flames of Hell.

If it does not affect the universe, what makes you think it exists.
Very good point. But it has nothing to do with this argument. Especially when God has affect on the universe.

However, since miracles defying the rules of science do not exist, there is no support for the supernatural.
I have proof. My smallest sister. Because of the length of the story, i will not post it in this post, possibly later. Lets just say, you never hear of a story like this one. There arent even any statistics on this one.

[/QUOTE]You can't show any verafiable instanaces of either can you?[/QUOTE]
I am awaiting a counterpoint view on many of mine and im sure others posts that have not been replied to yet.

Lets add this analogy. Say, I put you in a room. With buttons. Lots of buttons. I say, you can push all the buttons you want to all day long, except this one. It doesnt even have to look different from the others. But there is one person who coaxes you to push the button, he says that it will make you like the one who put you in the room. Since the one who put you in the room obviously knows everything about the room. He put you there. This would more define it than most any other analogies put here.

[+Donny]

>>Since the Bible says to stay away from all religions except which every one you feel is representative of the Bible, I must ask why you choose Wicca in particular. It's a very nice religion, and creates very socially well behaved (if non-conformist) people.<<

many religions attempt to do so, some of the nicest people are buddhist, or muslim, or wiccan(sad for christians) but they still worship false Gods, the bible says to follow christianity because it is the truth

>>Neither is that he *didn't* exist proven right or wrong. You've chosen the more unlikely belief that something with no support is true.<<

ur right, you can never "prove" God's existence, however, u can prove beyond a logical doubt that there must be a God

>>This is actually proven wrong (look at the "Biblical Creationism vs Emperical Evidence" thread.)<<

hmm, i doubt this, since the biblical creation event, or anything in the bible, none of it has ever FACTUALLY been proven wrong

>>What is your complaint? That I use more than one reference? Well, since we are discussing yours, all the topics would apply to yours, but not neccessairily to any other religion. That your ability to follow the debate is so shallow as to miss the entire issue is rather upsetting.<<

hes right, he can use those beliefs if he likes

>>You - "Satan has as much power over me as I let him. If I resist the devil, he must flee."
Me - "How much power did Job let him have?"
You - "none"

So, how can you support your statement when the Bible evidences Satan getting power over people who gave him none.<<

Satan can have a measure of power, but his power is never absolute, because it is given to him by us through our folly, also, God can always take it away. Power is simply the ability to accomplish a task, well, Satan has a whole lot of ability to make us sin, so he has power, however, this power is not absolute against christians

>>This is an oximoron, sin was in his nature because he did sin. Further, of God created him to not sin (be perfect) you would expcet God to succeed. After all, not only would God not make a mistake, but God would have known from before time what the results would be, and if he wanted and Adam that didn't sin, he would have made one that didn't.<<

no, Adam and Eve never had original sin, Romans 5:12-13-{12}"Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned- {13}for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is not law."
now, by giving the creation free will, it would not be sinless, we would eventually fall, however, it was "very good" then, because sin and death werent there. ANd he didnt make an Adam that would sin, he made humans that have free will



and what does this have to with harry potter, dont get me wrong, this is good, but kinda wierd

[JerryLove]

ur right, you can never "prove" God's existence, however, u can prove beyond a logical doubt that there must be a God This has nothing to do with Harry Potter or Wicca; but no you cannot.

hmm, i doubt this, since the biblical creation event, or anything in the bible, none of it has ever FACTUALLY been proven wrong Yes it has, I showed it wrong in that thread.

Satan can have a measure of power, but his power is never absolute, because it is given to him by us through our folly, also, God can always take it away. What was Job's folly?

Adam and Eve never had original sin Sure they did, they committed it. THey just did not have it at the point they were made (unless you accept that future sins are sins as they are unavoidable).

ANd he didnt make an Adam that would sin, he made humans that have free will He made an Adam that would sin. It was predicted (and therefore unavoidable) from before his creation.

[thrice_denied]

This has nothing to do with Harry Potter or Wicca; but no you cannot.
Sure you can. But lets begin at the fundamentals since fundies is what we are. The size, position, and angle of the earth is a scientific phenomenon. A few degrees closer to the sun, we would disintegrate, a few degrees further away, we would freeze. The axis of the earth is tilted at a perfect 23 degree angle, allowing for equal global distribution to the rays of the sun making it possible for the food chain to exist. Then there is the perfect combination of the nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen mix in the atmosphere we breathe. This just so happens to be the exact mix for life to prosper on earth. This doesnt happen on any other planet that way. The bible says the invisible things of God are clearly seen through His creation. Believing this isnt very difficult. If there is a design, then there must be a designer. If there is a plan, there is a planner. If there is a creation, there is a Creator.

There is another fundie belief. There had to be someone or something to design this that we call existence. It is a scientific fact that if something is there, there has to be something that put it there, badly worded. There must be a reason for everything. Is that not what you believe? Everything has a reason why it is where it is. Now to correct my badly worded sentence. There is a definite beginning for everything natural. That is better worded. Everything we see as reality had to have come from somewhere. Now something had to begin this. Naturally us fundies believe it is God who began this. Since something had to begin this reality, something must have created this something. When you say, you believe that no one created this reality, what you are saying is that nothing created something out of nothing. Since everything has to have a definate beginning (with exception for the Creator of the "something"). It would seem more logical to believe that something created this something out of nothing, rather than nothing created this something out of nothing.

Yes it has, I showed it wrong in that thread.
Show this to me.

He made an Adam that would sin. It was predicted (and therefore unavoidable) from before his creation.
Where before Adam was created does it say that God said "Lets create a creature that will sin.", or anything of the such.

hes right, he can use those beliefs if he likes
Yeah, I know, I was just saying, it looked odd to me.

This is actually proven wrong (look at the "Biblical Creationism vs Emperical Evidence" thread.)
No no, no redirecting. Prove your statement here.

That was my point. What is the source of your evidence that this happened? Books supposedly written by the apostles (who would not have known Greek by and large) but which appear only after their deaths, and which describe events they did not witness (like Jesus at 12).
You do understand that God wrote the bible right? He wrote it, the men simply put it on paper, or the popular sheet they had in their time.

. That your ability to follow the debate is so shallow as to miss the entire issue is rather upsetting.
Ive already told you what the issue is.

Where it the evidence?
Do something for me. Get up from your computer, go to the bathroom. Walk up to a mirror, wherever it may be. Look yourself in the eyes. Exhibit A.

I can put you in a room I have never seen.
How then would you know about the button you dont push?

[JerryLove]

Sure you can. But lets begin at the fundamentals since fundies is what we are. The size, position, and angle of the earth is a scientific phenomenon. A few degrees closer to the sun, we would disintegrate, a few degrees further away, we would freeze. The axis of the earth is tilted at a perfect 23 degree angle, allowing for equal global distribution to the rays of the sun making it possible for the food chain to exist. Then there is the perfect combination of the nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen mix in the atmosphere we breathe. This just so happens to be the exact mix for life to prosper on earth. This doesnt happen on any other planet that way. The bible says the invisible things of God are clearly seen through His creation. Believing this isnt very difficult. If there is a design, then there must be a designer. If there is a plan, there is a planner. If there is a creation, there is a Creator. Sigh.

1. Distance from the sun is not in degrees. So you cannot be a few "degrees" closer. Nor is the distance from the sun a constant. Nor is there something terribly magical about it. There is a "habitable" band that is large enough to encompass two planet orbits. Though in reality, temperature this side of the asteroid belt has more to dowith aptmosphere composition than with distance from the sun (you do know that Venus has a higher surface temperature than Merucury, despite being twice the distance from the sun don't you). So that statement is just a lie.

2. There is nothing terribly magical about the tilt of the Earth. More tilted and you have more severe seasons, less, you have less severe. In fact, the tilt of the Earth has very different effects based on lattitude, so the effect is inconsistant. Again, another ignorant lie.

3. There is nothing magical about the air mix. In fact, under many conditions it is pretty poor. At high altituded, the oxygen numbers are too low and it takes a great deal of adaptation to survive. At high pressures, the nitrogen causes nitrogen narcosis, oxygen becomes corrosive. Guess what would happen if you replaced 20% of the nitrogen in the air with helium? Nothing (well, the pitch of our vioce would go up). Again, it's also worth noting that the composition of that aptnosphere isn't and hasn't been constant. It started pretty oxygen free and carbon-dioxide heavy. Life on Earth has actually terraformed the aptmosphere.

OK, there goes the "miraculious design" argument for failure to offer a "miraculious design". I really wish people posting this would check their conclusions.

It is a scientific fact that if something is there, there has to be something that put it there, badly worded. So if God is there, something must have put him there? Your statement is not only untrue, it's actually impossable.

There must be a reason for everything. Is that not what you believe? No, that is not what I believe.

(sniping the rest as it is prediccated on the untrue premise that the universe *must* be created).

Show this to me. Go look at the thread.

Where before Adam was created does it say that God said "Lets create a creature that will sin.", or anything of the such. The part where he made him. Or is it your opinion that God does not know what will happen in the future?

No no, no redirecting. Prove your statement here. Sure, tell me how it ties to Harry Potter, then convince me why I should repeat myself for your benifit?

You do understand that God wrote the bible right? He wrote it, the men simply put it on paper, or the popular sheet they had in their time. You do understand that God is fictional right? And that the founders of the church (a rather un original bunch) created a mythology that you still follow?

Do something for me. Get up from your computer, go to the bathroom. Walk up to a mirror, wherever it may be. Look yourself in the eyes. Exhibit A. Still waiting (BTW, I've already shown the steps for eye formation on this forum as well, "Irreduceable Complexity" (where I assume you are going) is bunk.

How then would you know about the button you dont push? Tell me you are not serious? Your analogy was horrible, deal with it.

[chelsea_gabriel]

Cool it's all about evoultion and the existance of God
Well last night God told me He existed and He created the world through evolution so sumed that one up (Jerrylove start praying now if i was you).
As for Harry Potter.............

[+Donny]

>>Cool it's all about evoultion and the existance of God
Well last night God told me He existed and He created the world through evolution so sumed that one up (Jerrylove start praying now if i was you).
As for Harry Potter.............<<

God told you this? hmmmm, really? thats interesting..




>>Sigh.

1. Distance from the sun is not in degrees. So you cannot be a few "degrees" closer. Nor is the distance from the sun a constant. Nor is there something terribly magical about it. There is a "habitable" band that is large enough to encompass two planet orbits. Though in reality, temperature this side of the asteroid belt has more to dowith aptmosphere composition than with distance from the sun (you do know that Venus has a higher surface temperature than Merucury, despite being twice the distance from the sun don't you). So that statement is just a lie.

2. There is nothing terribly magical about the tilt of the Earth. More tilted and you have more severe seasons, less, you have less severe. In fact, the tilt of the Earth has very different effects based on lattitude, so the effect is inconsistant. Again, another ignorant lie.

3. There is nothing magical about the air mix. In fact, under many conditions it is pretty poor. At high altituded, the oxygen numbers are too low and it takes a great deal of adaptation to survive. At high pressures, the nitrogen causes nitrogen narcosis, oxygen becomes corrosive. Guess what would happen if you replaced 20% of the nitrogen in the air with helium? Nothing (well, the pitch of our vioce would go up). Again, it's also worth noting that the composition of that aptnosphere isn't and hasn't been constant. It started pretty oxygen free and carbon-dioxide heavy. Life on Earth has actually terraformed the aptmosphere.

OK, there goes the "miraculious design" argument for failure to offer a "miraculious design". I really wish people posting this would check their conclusions.<<

ill give u something from a site I found, here ya go:

The Anthropic Principle points out that there are over one hundred variables to this universe, that would have eliminated the possibility of life, if they were even slightly different. The Universe had to be finely tuned to the conditions that make the evolution of life possible. Could this have happened by chance? Consider the following analogy.

If you went down the street and saw a quarter on the sidewalk, you would think, naturally, "someone dropped a quarter." If you went down the street and saw a handful of quarters on the sidewalk, you would think, "Someone had a big hole in their pockets, or dropped a roll of quarters."

But if you went down the street and saw one hundred quarters on the sidewalk, and they were all carefully balanced precariously on their edges, you would have to think "somebody did this deliberately." The Universe as we know it, is that carefully balanced. The only other possibility other than that the universe was created, is that there are so MANY universes, that the equivalent of one hundred quarters falling out of someone’s pocket and ALL of them ending up balanced on their edges occurred. But if there are that many universes, then the chances of a Being like God evolving would also be equally increased by all that abundance. Ecological niches tend not to stay empty. You could of course, call such a Being something else other than, "God." but if it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it lays eggs that turn into baby ducklings, why not it call it a duck? Paul did say we grow into Christ! ( Ephesians 4:15).

To name just a few of the finely tuned variables that are mentioned in the books, "God The Evidence," by Patrick Glynn, John Leslie, in "Universes," and from George Greenstein's "The Symbiotic Universe." as quoted by the web site at http://userweb.nashville.com/~Al.Schroeder/anthcoi.html.

"Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster." Leslie, page 5

"The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example)." Leslie, page 34. Leslie got this information from P. C. W. Davies 1980 (Other Worlds), pp.176-177.

"A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons-- yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars." Leslie, page 4, quoting Hawking, Physics Bulleting: Cambridge, vol. 32, 1980, pp 9-10.

"The charges of the electron and proton have been measured in the laboratory and have been fond to be precisely equal and opposite. Were it not for this fact, the resulting charge imbalance would force every object in the universe--our bodies, trees, planets, suns--to explode violently. The cosmos would consist solely of a uniform and tenuous mixture not so very different from air." "Greenstein's The Symbiotic Universe as quoted by http://userweb.nashville.com/~Al.Schroeder/anthcoi.html

" If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons are vice versa. Say goodbye, to chemistry as we know it, and to life." Leslie, pp 34-40

"The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery. Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in its solid form than its liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to unique properties of the hydrogen atom." Leslie ,p 30 quoting Barrow and Tipler, 143-144, 524-541. Cf. Denys Wilkinson, Our Universes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp 171-172.

"The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the center of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4,, beryllium-8 and carbon- 12-- allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long." Wilkinson, pp. 181-183; see also John Gribbon and Martin Rees, Cosmic Coincidences (New York: Bantam, 1989 pp.243-247.

"A remarkable feature of the universe is its emptiness. Stars are extraordinarily distant from one another. However, were it not for these vast reaches of empty space, violent collisions between stars would be too frequent as to render the universe uninhabitable. The yet more frequent near-misses would detach planets from orbit about their suns, flinging them off into interstellar space where they would quickly cool to hundreds of degrees below zero."Greenstein's The Symbiotic Universe as quoted by http://userweb.nashville.com/~Al.Schroeder/anthcoi.html

In a finite universe filled with life, some life form has to be the Most High Life Form. If the universe is infinite, than everything that can happen, has happened. That includes,"I Am That I Am.




>>No, that is not what I believe.

(sniping the rest as it is prediccated on the untrue premise that the universe *must* be created).<<

what about cause and effect?

>>Go look at the thread.<<

only thing I saw was about the flood, and that wasnt factual, speculation, and something about the canopy theory that had its rebuttal ignored

>>The part where he made him. Or is it your opinion that God does not know what will happen in the future?<<

God knew very well that he would sin, but without free will, we cant love him with our own choice, therefore, without free will, there cant be love and worshop for God by choice, and apparently Giod valued this more

>>Sure, tell me how it ties to Harry Potter, then convince me why I should repeat myself for your benifit?<<

yeah, im missing how this ties to potter too, and why an atheist is arguing over a doctrinal issue

>>You do understand that God is fictional right? And that the founders of the church (a rather un original bunch) created a mythology that you still follow?<<

lol, God didnt write it, it was inspired by him though, and what makes u think its mythology?

>>Still waiting (BTW, I've already shown the steps for eye formation on this forum as well, "Irreduceable Complexity" (where I assume you are going) is bunk.<<

WOW, really? i need to see this, even Darwin couldnt explain the eye

[chelsea_gabriel]

"WOW, really? i need to see this, even Darwin couldnt explain the eye"

Well you need to read Chapter 4 of Richard Dawkins - "the Blind Watchmaker"
He explains it very simply. So please read it.

[JerryLove]

Apologies for my (continuing) part in this, but Moderator, you may want to slice off the last several pages and move them to an apporpriate thread, they have nothing to do with Harry Potter or witchcraft

ill give u something from a site I found, here ya go: Did you really have to waste the space to quite my entire trist? And why do I care what someone *else* has to say on the matter? If you have contention, *you* being it up. Don't go hide behind a web site.

"Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster." OK Donny, prove that statement and show me that you uderstand your own proof and I will show you why you are wrong. (ditto the rest of your cut'n'paste job). It's also worth pointing out that the statement is untestable, ans gravity and magnatism have very different charicteristics. Like strong nuclear force being stonger than gravity at certain distances but completely ineffectual at others).

what about cause and effect? What about it?

only thing I saw was about the flood, and that wasnt factual, speculation, and something about the canopy theory that had its rebuttal ignored Feel free to resurrect the thread. It's far more appropriate than trying to argue it here.

God knew very well that he would sin, but without free will, we cant love him with our own choice, therefore, without free will, there cant be love and worshop for God by choice, and apparently Giod valued this more So, God made him knowing he would sin. So God mage him to sin.

[Blindman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
It's also worth pointing out that the statement is untestable, ans gravity and magnatism have very different charicteristics. Like strong nuclear force being stonger than gravity at certain distances but completely ineffectual at others).

You seem to be a bit shaky on your particle physics here... The differences occur, not because the forces behave in inconsistent manners, but because, for instance, EM only effects charged particles, and thus has no effect over large distances, whereas the weak nuclear force effects only particles with spin of 1/2, the strong nuclear force effects only hadrons, and gravity is so weak comparatively that it only as an effect in situations where the other forces are cancelled out. Not that that really matters for the discussion at hand... And yes, I do know what I'm talkin about, I just don't find it important enough to go into any more detail.

You seem to want to approach this from a scientific standpoint, but I must warn you once again that science itself makes no claims to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science deals only with the material world, and the laws that that world _usually_ follows. It makes no claim at being able to acertain what exists outside of that material world. There is no way to scientifically disprove the existence of God, or to prove it, since if God exists He certainly doesn't obey the whims of human beings, and wouldn't necessarily comply with the experiments.

So if you want this discussion to blast off into the cosmos or zoom in on the intricacies of the atom or get tangled up in a 10-dimensional Calabi-Yau space, go ahead, but I can tell you ahead of time that it won't get you anywhere.

But the fact is, if countless people claim God, the supernatural, and the miraculous as an experiential reality, the burden of proof is on you to show other wise, just as it would be if you had attempted to prove that grass is normally red. You're tryin to dispute something that for many people is a _fact_, not just an opinion or unfounded belief.

[JerryLove]

You seem to be a bit shaky on your particle physics here... Neither gravity nor magnatism are particle physics. They are not particles.

The differences occur, not because the forces behave in inconsistent manners, Straw Man! Did I say inconsistant? No, I said different.

but because, for instance, EM only effects charged particles, and thus has no effect over large distances, whereas the weak nuclear force effects only particles with spin of 1/2, the strong nuclear force effects only hadrons, and gravity is so weak comparatively that it only as an effect in situations where the other forces are cancelled out. So EM radiation (say ultraviolet light) wouldn't effect a non-charged particle (say my retina)? And strong nuclear only effects every atom in the universe, therefore is inapplicalbe?

The point (and what I said) is that the forces are different. Nuclear binding forces are stronger than gravity at certain distances, but weaker than gravity at others. The comparison in force strengths is, therefore, prefacia devalidated, as the measured distances are not cited.

Not that that really matters for the discussion at hand... And yes, I do know what I'm talkin about, I just don't find it important enough to go into any more detail. Well, I'm glad you can tell me you know what you are talking about. Because with a simple logical application of what you are *saying* I find both a misquoting of my post and very basic logical errors.

You seem to want to approach this from a scientific standpoint, but I must warn you once again that science itself makes no claims to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. Then I guess the poster shouldn't have cut'n'paste what he felt was scientific proof of God huh?

Science deals only with the material world, and the laws that that world _usually_ follows. It makes no claim at being able to acertain what exists outside of that material world. Right science only addresses real things, not fiction.

There is no way to scientifically disprove the existence of God, or to prove it, since if God exists He certainly doesn't obey the whims of human beings, and wouldn't necessarily comply with the experiments. No, I can just disproove what you claim God has done.

So if you want this discussion to blast off into the cosmos or zoom in on the intricacies of the atom or get tangled up in a 10-dimensional Calabi-Yau space, go ahead, but I can tell you ahead of time that it won't get you anywhere. Is that the "I'll kick your ass if you mess with me" pre-fight posturing? It sure sounds like it.

But the fact is, if countless people claim God, the supernatural, and the miraculous as an experiential reality, the burden of proof is on you to show other wise No, claims against reason require proof. Positive claims (God exists) require proof, not negative claims. Also, they are not "countless", just over 2,000,000,000 people believe in your God; and just over 4,000,000,000 do not.

just as it would be if you had attempted to prove that grass is normally red. You're tryin to dispute something that for many people is a _fact_, not just an opinion or unfounded belief. No, that would be a positive assertion "grass is red". If I said "grass isn't green" then you would be required to offer some proof it was. Since getting an observable and repeatable result is relatively sime, this would be simple to prove. Now, were I to say "the sky isn't blue", and you prove it, and I wanted at that point to disprove a proven statement. Then I would have to bring up light refraction and the burden of proof would be on me.

[Novan_Leon]

Clicks on Harry Potter

Sees people talking about evolution and the laws of physics

Scratches head

[Blindman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
Neither gravity nor magnatism are particle physics. They are not particles.

The graviton and the photon, respectively. But you're right, I'm talking about quantum mechanics now, not particle physics. My mistake.

Originally posted by JerryLove
Nuclear binding forces are stronger than gravity at certain distances, but weaker than gravity at others. The comparison in force strengths is, therefore, prefacia devalidated, as the measured distances are not cited.

Did you pay attention to what I was saying? The differences in forces are caused only because they cancel out in some situations. The strong nuclear force, for example, between two hadrons, would always be proportional to the square of the distance between them _provided there were no other particles interfering_. So the strength of the forces is indeed a constant. That's what big G is, for example.

Originally posted by JerryLove
No, I can just disproove what you claim God has done.

Just because you've never seen something happen doesn't make it impossible. Have you ever seen a black hole up close? Have you found a microscope that somehow avoids Heisenberg uncertainty and thus allows you to look at a quark and verify its existence? I think not. Science cannot prove that the laws of science cannot be disproven... as indeed they have time and time again. Before Eratosthenes, the world was flat. Before Copernicus, the Earth was the center of the universe. Before Einstein, conservation of matter was a scientific fact. The scientific fact of today is often shown to be fiction tomorrow... so don't be too eager to label anything that you, without being able to present proof, do not believe, as untrue.

And you still haven't provided any convincing evidence that science makes claims about the existence or nonexistence of God.

Originally posted by JerryLove
Is that the "I'll kick your ass if you mess with me" pre-fight posturing? It sure sounds like it.

Yup. Just trying to make it clear that I can speak the language just as well as you can and that I'm fuly prepared to turn this into a technical scientific argument if I think it would help to prove anything. But it seems to me that any scientific argument will just be fruitless because God is outside the realm of science, as are all things that are not directly observable and do not follow natural laws.

[JerryLove]

Clicks on Harry Potter

Sees people talking about evolution and the laws of physics

Scratches head Despite being involved, I feel your pain :(

Did you pay attention to what I was saying? The differences in forces are caused only because they cancel out in some situations. The strong nuclear force, for example, between two hadrons, would always be proportional to the square of the distance between them _provided there were no other particles interfering_. So the strength of the forces is indeed a constant. That's what big G is, for example. This may indeed fall under the "limits of my understanding" here, but what's the short answer for why when I place a single atom a few miles away from a big mass of them (say the Earth) that the attraction force if combined gravity far outweights the attractive force of combined weak nuclear? What is cancelling the pull of weak nuclear?

Just because you've never seen something happen doesn't make it impossible. Have you ever seen a black hole up close? Have you found a microscope that somehow avoids Heisenberg uncertainty and thus allows you to look at a quark and verify its existence? I think not. Science cannot prove that the laws of science cannot be disproven... I can demonstrate the complete lack of a plane of water above the sun. Most of the rest comes down to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary eveidence", and "no evidence" doesn't fit the bill.

BTW, whay microscope has the resolution to image a quark anyway? And how does the heisenberg uncertainty principle prevent it (last I heard it, briefly, said that you could dertermine the speed or location of certain subatoimic particles, but not both (or that doing so would affect them (the effect of observation on the observed idea from QM))).

And you still haven't provided any convincing evidence that science makes claims about the existence or nonexistence of God. You really need to work on "burden of proof" and who carries it.

[Blindman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
but what's the short answer for why when I place a single atom a few miles away from a big mass of them (say the Earth) that the attraction force if combined gravity far outweights the attractive force of combined weak nuclear?

Because the weak nuclear force is much weaker over long distances than gravity is. As far as I know, we haven't yet figured out why that is the case...

Originally posted by JerryLove
BTW, whay microscope has the resolution to image a quark anyway? And how does the heisenberg uncertainty principle prevent it

We see things by bouncing stuff off them. In the case of human vision, we see photons that bounced off stuff. An electron microscope "sees" electrons that bounced off something. But there's no particle small enough to accurately resolve a quark, especially since a quark cannot exist on its own without being paired with other quarks.

<hr>

Anyways, what does any of this have to do with theology? You seem to be quibbling over details in order to avoid my repeated assertions that your entire standpoint (ie arguing that science can disprove the existence of miracles or of God) is flawed. I'm rather surprised that it's even a question, since I thought the limitations of science were rather well known.

[JerryLove]

Because the weak nuclear force is much weaker over long distances than gravity is. As far as I know, we haven't yet figured out why that is the case... So then you agree with my original statment that they behave differently and therefore you cannot make an absolute quantification of relative strengths; as it's dependant on conditions (like distance)?

We see things by bouncing stuff off them. In the case of human vision, we see photons that bounced off stuff. An electron microscope "sees" electrons that bounced off something. But there's no particle small enough to accurately resolve a quark, especially since a quark cannot exist on its own without being paired with other quarks. Ignoring the non-squiter on how we see, you agree that there are no microscopes with the resolution to see quarks. Therefre the Heisenberg uncertanty principle is not the issue.

Did I miss something, or did you just agree with the two statements I made that you took exception to?

Anyways, what does any of this have to do with theology? You seem to be quibbling over details in order to avoid my repeated assertions that your entire standpoint (ie arguing that science can disprove the existence of miracles or of God) is flawed. I'm rather surprised that it's even a question, since I thought the limitations of science were rather well known. Sigh. I responded to it more than once, but I will do it again for you.

Science came up as someone else (Donny) attempted to show scientific proof of God's existance. Not me. I simply attacked his proof. I have not attempted to scientifically prove that God does not exist, though I have emperically shown that the Bible is unture.

God gets obliterated by Occom's razor. There is no empirical support for God, therefore he is as supported as the idead that phase-shifted pink unicorns run the universe. I think it's absurd to accept something as true on the basis of a lack of disproof; but if that makes you happy...

[+Donny]

>>Did you really have to waste the space to quite my entire trist? And why do I care what someone *else* has to say on the matter? If you have contention, *you* being it up. Don't go hide behind a web site.<<

then dont hide behind chemists, or darwin, or anyone that has ever talked about this, sorry, but you are aloud to use people's quotes, why is this person's quote weaker than mine?

>>OK Donny, prove that statement and show me that you uderstand your own proof and I will show you why you are wrong. (ditto the rest of your cut'n'paste job). It's also worth pointing out that the statement is untestable, ans gravity and magnatism have very different charicteristics. Like strong nuclear force being stonger than gravity at certain distances but completely ineffectual at others).<<

i understand some of it, but my understands does little to remove these facts, and u tell me how u understand how EXACTLY they made mice glow

>>What about it?<<

eevry effect has a cause, right?

>>So, God made him knowing he would sin. So God mage him to sin.<<

nope, he made him knowing sin, not forcing him to sin, he just knew in certain situations what Adam would CHOOSE

[+Donny]

>>Did you really have to waste the space to quite my entire trist? And why do I care what someone *else* has to say on the matter? If you have contention, *you* being it up. Don't go hide behind a web site.<<

then dont hide behind chemists, or darwin, or anyone that has ever talked about this, sorry, but you are aloud to use people's quotes, why is this person's quote weaker than mine?

>>OK Donny, prove that statement and show me that you uderstand your own proof and I will show you why you are wrong. (ditto the rest of your cut'n'paste job). It's also worth pointing out that the statement is untestable, ans gravity and magnatism have very different charicteristics. Like strong nuclear force being stonger than gravity at certain distances but completely ineffectual at others).<<

i understand some of it, but my understands does little to remove these facts, and u tell me how u understand how EXACTLY they made mice glow

>>What about it?<<

eevry effect has a cause, right?

>>So, God made him knowing he would sin. So God mage him to sin.<<

nope, he made him knowing sin, not forcing him to sin, he just knew in certain situations what Adam would CHOOSE




and about the eye thing chelsea_gabriel, Darwin tried, but his first eye had like 4 parts, gradualism is part by part, therefore you need an eye with one part, an eye with one part doesn work, therefore its no beneficial, thereforen doesnt follow gradualism and wouldnt cath on to the species with natural selection

[JerryLove]

Are you trying to tell me that you do not see a difference between a reference or cite, and a "cut'n'paste" of someone else's ideas? I have not copied an argument from a website or book, I have cited support. You put up a huge post that you don't even understand and now expect me to respond to it (which you will also not understand). What end would that serve.

Wanna see how fun it is, refute www.talkorigins.org. In a few weeks (when you are done at least reading the FAQ) you'll start to see how just referencing someone else isn't a discussion.

i understand some of it, but my understands does little to remove these facts, and u tell me how u understand how EXACTLY they made mice glow Sigh. Direct microinjection of DNA into the male pronucleus of a rat zygote has been the method most extensively used.

evry effect has a cause, right? Depeding on definition, but yes; events without cause would not be properly termed effects (as they lack an antecedent)

nope, he made him knowing sin, not forcing him to sin, he just knew in certain situations what Adam would CHOOSE God knew as an aboslute fact from before Adam's creation that the being he was making and the situation he was putting him in would definately lead to sin. That his nature, interacting with his stimulius would produce a sinful act.

and about the eye thing chelsea_gabriel, Darwin tried, but his first eye had like 4 parts, gradualism is part by part, therefore you need an eye with one part, an eye with one part doesn work, therefore its no beneficial, thereforen doesnt follow gradualism and wouldnt cath on to the species with natural selection So if I show you an eye less that four parts removed from a non-eye, you would cede the argument on irreducable complexity?

[guitarman]

Clicks on Harry Potter

Sees people talking about evolution and the laws of physics

Scratches head



Aaron

[Blindman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
I think it's absurd to accept something as true on the basis of a lack of disproof; but if that makes you happy...

Suppose you were walking down the street, and suddenly I shouted "look out, there's an invisible wall in front of you." You would probably laugh. But if a car then went whizzing by, crashed into something invisible, and blew up, you might start to believe me. And then if you noticed that no one was walkin through that particular space, you would have more evidence. And if you yourself then walked up, smashed into that wall, and ended up with a badly bruised nose, you would be even more convinced, although perhaps not completely. So you might then get up and reach out your hands and feel around in front of you until you discovered this wall, found that it had a texture not unlike bricks, was coool to the touch like stone, etc... and yet was invisible. Which is why, when you shout to the next guy, "look out for the invisible wall," he'll probably laugh at you.

Or, since we're talking about something less concrete (no pun intended) than an invisible wall, let's use a different analogy: suppose you were single and your parents called you up and said, "We met this great girl. Do you want to marry here?" what would you say? Unless you were very desperate, you probably wouldn't agree immediately. You wouldn't have blind faith in this girl just because your parents told you about her and were certain that she would be perfect.

But suppose you met this girl, and over the course of a year or two became quite good friends with her, started dating her, etc... Your relationship would grow closer as you became willing to trust each other more and more. And finally, there might come some day where you could say, "I think I know you well enough to know that I want to spend the rest of my life with you." And there would probably be times after that when you would wonder if it was all a good idea or not, but the marriage could still work out just fine.

God is like that invisible wall, whose existence is shown to people even though they can't see Him directly. And faith is like that relationship which grows to the point where you're ready for marriage - ready to give your life over to God. One thing that I have a lot of trouble with is people who assume that Christian faith is all about convincing yourself to believe unbelievable things and then holding contradictory thoughts in your head without ever analyzing that faith to see if it is correct. But that is not, and has never been what Christianity is all about. Any faith where you don't constantly question you beliefs is a dead faith, a static faith.

I'm not a Christian because I assume my faith is "true on the basis of a lack of disproof." I'm a Christian because I walked into that invisible wall, and my nose still aches. So if you insist on arguing this point, try to do so in a way that takes into account that God is as real for many of us on this board as the chair you're sitting on is to you. That, I believe, puts the burden of proof on you, since you, as someone who has not experienced the reality of God, are trying to argue your point against a group of people who have.

And before you go accusing others of interpreting lack of disproof as proof, perhaps you should notice that you yourself are interpreting lack of proof as disproof.

[JerryLove]

Suppose you were walking down the street, and suddenly I shouted "look out, there's an invisible wall in front of you." You would probably laugh. But if a car then went whizzing by, crashed into something invisible, and blew up, you might start to believe me. Yes, that's called "emperical evidence", something that does not exist for God.

I'm a Christian because I walked into that invisible wall, and my nose still aches. So if you insist on arguing this point, try to do so in a way that takes into account that God is as real for many of us on this board as the chair you're sitting on is to you. That, I believe, puts the burden of proof on you, since you, as someone who has not experienced the reality of God, are trying to argue your point against a group of people who have. The wall is testable, demonstrateable, and repeatable. You have no emperical support for God (or if you do, you are keeping it secret). Your "experience" is not something that you can illustrate or offer for testing. It's in your mind. Sorry, that's not enough. There are too many people with too many things their minds know are true, and they are all contradictory. (and typically can be fixed with medication or counciling).

[Blindman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
The wall is testable, demonstrateable, and repeatable. You have no emperical support for God (or if you do, you are keeping it secret). Your "experience" is not something that you can illustrate or offer for testing. It's in your mind. Sorry, that's not enough. There are too many people with too many things their minds know are true, and they are all contradictory. (and typically can be fixed with medication or counciling).

Can you present me with empirical evidence that the Grand Canyon exists? Probably not conclusive evidence, at least without actually bringing me there. And even then I could still dismiss it as an illusion. But the fact is, I've been to the Grand Canyon, I've experienced it, and I will continue to believe that it is a reality even though for me right now it only exists in my mind. Furthermore, there are comparatively few people in the world who have been to the Grand Canyon, yet almost everyone who has been told that it exits believes that it is real.

And furthermore, the existence of God does satisfy the criteria of "testable, demonstrateable, and repeatable." Testable, because anyone who comes to God in sincere faith will find Him; demonstrable, because His effects on the lives of true believers are evidents, and repeatable because He's always there for me.

And just out of interest... I was reading through the website listed in your profile. Are you Clear?

[JerryLove]

Can you present me with empirical evidence that the Grand Canyon exists? Probably not conclusive evidence, at least without actually bringing me there. That's the point. You can go there. Anyone can and all see the same thing. I can take a picture of it. Everyone's description is the same. It shows up on topography radar. It's testable and repeatable.

And even then I could still dismiss it as an illusion. I can dismiss everything but my own existance as an illusion. But let's stay within the normal standard for proof.

Furthermore, there are comparatively few people in the world who have been to the Grand Canyon, yet almost everyone who has been told that it exits believes that it is real. It's a rational claim that fits with real experience. It's got plenty of witnesses and no one has travelled there and claimed otherwise (which would be logically expected did it not exist). There are photos and drawings. There is a wealth of emperical evidence.

And furthermore, the existence of God does satisfy the criteria of "testable, demonstrateable, and repeatable." Testable, because anyone who comes to God in sincere faith will find Him; demonstrable, because His effects on the lives of true believers are evidents, and repeatable because He's always there for me. Believe in God and you will know God exists is circular. And Buddah and Allah have had equally valid effects on *their* believers. Are they now real because science doesn't disprove them? (well, Buddah was real, but that's a different discussion)

And just out of interest... I was reading through the website listed in your profile. Are you Clear? No. Jerry Love is my real name. Richard Clear is the owner of the Silat school I attend, and I run the site.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by JerryLove
It's got plenty of witnesses and no one has travelled there and claimed otherwise (which would be logically expected did it not exist).

Christianity has plenty of witnesses too, and anyone who has actually experienced the reality of God would not claim that He does not exist. The only difference is that the Grand Canyon is, at least physically speaking, more accessible than God. If you were standing in the Grand Canyon, you would have a hard time denying its existence unless you kept your eyes closed... similarly, it is all too easy to deny the existence of God even when his presence is obvious to anyone who does not choose to be spiritually "blind."

But since these analogies tend to break down, let me try a different tack... (which I'm stealing from the movie _Contact_)

Can you prove that you love your (father / mother / spouse / child / whatever)?

Like faith, love is a personal thing. It doesn't exist physically, although the physical effects are obvious. If I buy a birthday present for my girlfriend, that could be used as "empirical evidence" of my love for her, but it could also be explained away. It's not conclusive evidence. Similarly, even if I go to church, Bible studies, etc six times a week, that's not necessarily evidence that I love God. But it could clearly be interpreted as a result of that love that I have.

With faith, as with love, and all other non-material things which we nonetheless believe in because we experience them or at least see the effects of them, there is no definitive empirical evidence that it exists. And the same holds true for God himself.

Originally posted by JerryLove
Believe in God and you will know God exists is circular.

Yes, but "Believe in God and you will experience the reality of God" is not.

[JerryLove]

The only difference is that the Grand Canyon is, at least physically speaking, more accessible than God. If you were standing in the Grand Canyon, you would have a hard time denying its existence unless you kept your eyes closed... Even with your eyes closed, it's emperically testable and consistant. God is not.

Can you prove that you love your (father / mother / spouse / child / whatever)? MRI scans aside, no. I suppose one could if one were really determined and had good reasources.

Like faith, love is a personal thing. It doesn't exist physically, although the physical effects are obvious. The problem is that you are attempting to change the paramters of the discussion. Were I arguing that your faith did not exist, then you could easily make the "love" analogy. I am not arguing about your faith, I am telling you that your diety does ot exist.

If I buy a birthday present for my girlfriend, that could be used as "empirical evidence" of my love for her, but it could also be explained away. It's not conclusive evidence. Similarly, even if I go to church, Bible studies, etc six times a week, that's not necessarily evidence that I love God. But it could clearly be interpreted as a result of that love that I have. Again non-sequiter. I do not doubt your love for God, I doubt God's existance.

Yes, but "Believe in God and you will experience the reality of God" is not. It all depends on what "experience' is in this context. You have no experiences that are empirically supportable (you can't fly, you can't breathe magma, you aren't immune to desease). Heck, if there is one think the borads like this one proove, it's that 50 people with "direct personal knowledge of God and what God wants" can't agree on what God wants. If God is so evident, why is he so inconsistant? Also, why do people with completely incompatable beliefs say the same thing you are?

If your experience proves your god, and their experience proves their god, and both beliefs are true, but both beliefs hold that the other is false, then you have a logical impossability. The only conclusion based on the equality of the evidence presented is that your experience does *not* in fact, prove your diety exists.

[+Donny]

>>Sigh. Direct microinjection of DNA into the male pronucleus of a rat zygote has been the method most extensively used.<<

and a 6 legged chicken,a nd what kinda DNA is injected?

>>Depeding on definition, but yes; events without cause would not be properly termed effects (as they lack an antecedent)<<

then where did the universe come from?

>>God knew as an aboslute fact from before Adam's creation that the being he was making and the situation he was putting him in would definately lead to sin. That his nature, interacting with his stimulius would produce a sinful act.<<

with THAT situation, we dont know how long it would have been if the tree wasn't even there, according to his will, the first human would sin, and this is the way that would most glorify him

>>So if I show you an eye less that four parts removed from a non-eye, you would cede the argument on irreducable complexity?<<

if u show me a working ONE-part eye, then i will, about the eye, then I would move to the cell, and the wing

[JerryLove]

and a 6 legged chicken,a nd what kinda DNA is injected? What are you asking me for? You made up the 6-legged chicken. I'm not sure what donated the DNA (a jellyfish I think). Why don't you go find out?

then where did the universe come from? There's that assumption I knew you would leap to. Tell you what. As soon as you proove to me that the universe is an effect, I'll show you a cause. Till then, try applying it to your own beliefs... "where did God come from?"

with THAT situation, we dont know how long it would have been if the tree wasn't even there, according to his will, the first human would sin, and this is the way that would most glorify him So now you do agree that God made Adam to sin? So the sin is really God's fault? And our ****ation to hell is what best glorifies God? And you wonder why I would find God capricious and maleveolent?

if u show me a working ONE-part eye, then i will, about the eye, then I would move to the cell, and the wing So you are certain that irreducable complexity is real, even though you don't have anything you *know* is irreducably complex? You think that I should site here and to 20 min of research and another 20 of typing so you can type "what about the wing" in response and I can put my hour of effort in all over again to get ignored for another 3 word response? If thise is a stupidity test, count me out.

Now, if you want to offer one thing that you are sure proves you case for you, and are willing to admit that you are wrong if I show you how it does not; then I may be willing to (again) put in the effort. Thought it's worth noting every one of these has been explained in detail to you before. You are just too dense to remember (or, as I concluded long ago, just trolling).

So what will it be? Got one irreduceably complex organ we can hold up as the standard for all time?

[da_OKUM?]

Sorry. I didn't realise this would lead to a huge debate on God existing. Thanx to whoever moved it! :) And I also apologise that this is coming so late. I was gone all weekend.


Originally posted by JerryLove

[quote]""I am going to put an end to all people" (Gen 6:13), "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you" (Gen 9:12), ""I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless." (Gen 17:1). I have already given you examples from the same book where god says "us" (Gen 11:7, 1:26, 3:22, 5:29, etc).

Okay, I worded that badly. But, I forgot, how does that connect to disproving His existance?


The Bible never says "and the Lord thought", it says "and the lord said" and often when no people are around.

Too true, too true. However, when God is seemingly talking to himself, notice that He is not doing this in front of us humans. Whenever He used the pronoun, "I," He was talking to us, and whenever it was "We," or "Us," it was only when He was in Heaven, looking down.


They are unproven. The Jews didn't see fit to record this event, not even the apsotles were there.

By "there," I assume that you mean when He was 12, and you would be correct. However, by "there," I was also talking about His 3-year ministry, starting from age 30, and all the way to His death.


As I mentioned then. You wanted to know about first life, but asked with the word "organic" where the definition you used would have rendered fist like "inorganic". I don't think any of us here really use a derfinition of "organic" that makes bacteria "inorganic life". Like the Bible, the dictonary was written by people.

No, I suppose not. But, while the Bible was physically written by human hands, it was told to them by God. It was like in Switzerland, my great-uncle wanted me to write out postcards to send back home, he would tell me exactly what to write, and the sender wouldn't know it was my handwriting. Were the postcards from me? Absolutely not!


Mirriam Webster's online dictionary.

I had a feeling it was. Though, I'm not sure about it. It probably is reliable, but the definitions are worded differently.




Actually, as Loki's father, yes he did. Odin did not create man and the like (that was done by a cow), but was still the most powerful of the human-like gods.

Hmm... It's been awhile, don't remember the cow. But Odin was, as you said, a Human-like god, whereas, we are God-like humans (don't get me wrong on this, I mean that, the gods of the Norse, Greeks and Romans were all fashioned after man, whereas the man of Christianity was fasioned after God).


How much power did Job let him have?

A little. But I'm not talking about physical, here. Satan can affect the circumstances surrounding you in order to make you stumble, but he cannot make you sin. That is your choice and yours alone.


After eating the apple, what negative act did Adam perform before being kicked out? Where did he tell God to get lost?

He didn't literally tell God to "get lost," but he knew what the apple did. He didn't eat it because it tasted good, all the other trees were good, but he ate it to gain the knowledge of Good and Evil, and hence become, as the serpent had told him, like God, or gods.


That's omnipotent, I'm askling about omnipresent. Is God "everywhere".

Truthfully, I don't know how to answer that, but I will ask my pastor and tell you what he has to say.


Adam was going to sin, and that was known. How was it not "in his nature"? As a Christian, you believe that no person has lived their life without sin; if sin is not in our nature, why is this so?

In all your bible reading, you must've missed that part. I do believe someone answered the question earlier, but to remind you, by Adam's sin was sin brought into the world. We did not have the nature to do sin before the fall, but after the fall, sin had entered.


I see, so not sinning because of reward is OK?

They would not sin, not because of the Reward (they already had this beautiful paradise as their own), but because of the punishment that would follow if they did.


No it doesn't. But it does leave open that door. The burdin of proof becomes higher.

And that was exactly my point in the other thread.

I did a few months ago when I was doing some energy work on her. Her problems (that she had for several years) are gone.

And do you know this for a fact? What if she is just hiding some pain inside? Or what if she found Jesus (That would really make my day bright if she did)?


So, if your view of reality is real, and I don't see a demon and get tormented till I turn to God, then I will be tormented for the rest of eternity. I would say the demon would be doing me a favor.


Wow, wow, WOW!!! You got me way wrong. First of all, I did not say all of eternity. I said for the rest of your living days. Please read my entire posts before criticising them! :( And second, how would that be doing you a favor?

[da_OKUM?]

Originally posted by thrice_denied
I have proof. My smallest sister. Because of the length of the story, i will not post it in this post, possibly later. Lets just say, you never hear of a story like this one. There arent even any statistics on this one.


Aww, C'mon! Post it! PLEEEEEASE!! If not here, than try Here. (http://www.christianguitar.ws/boards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3626) This is one that is specifically meant for long threads! ;)

[Blindman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
Heck, if there is one think the borads like this one proove, it's that 50 people with "direct personal knowledge of God and what God wants" can't agree on what God wants. If God is so evident, why is he so inconsistant?

I said that God's existence is evident, I didn't say that moral laws are equally evident or that experiencing the reality of God would include an immediate moral certainty of everything that is right and wrong.

Just as many people have reasons for not accepting the existence of God, even those who believe that God exists may not be willing to accept some parts of God's moral standard for their lives. You will find few spiritually mature Christians who believe that premarital sex, or getting drunk, or any similar action is morally ok, but you will find many newer Christians who believe these things. Why? Because they still want to hold onto pleasures like that. But as this board has also demonstrated, when a group of Christians get together to try to discern right and wrong based solely on the Bible, whoever among them is willing to question their own views will eventually reach a consensus.

[JerryLove]

Okay, I worded that badly. But, I forgot, how does that connect to disproving His existance? That must have been days ago, you expect me to remember? :) I was probibly pointing out the inconsistancy in terminology, though I may have been supportin the assertation that, in the OT, Jehovia does not claim to be the only God in existance.

Too true, too true. However, when God is seemingly talking to himself, notice that He is not doing this in front of us humans. Whenever He used the pronoun, "I," He was talking to us, and whenever it was "We," or "Us," it was only when He was in Heaven, looking down. This seems like a preamble to a conclusion. I am missing the conclusion.

By "there," I assume that you mean when He was 12, and you would be correct. However, by "there," I was also talking about His 3-year ministry, starting from age 30, and all the way to His death. What you said was "at age 12, how do you explain the religious leader's response to the words that He spoke? and how do you explain the immense wisdom in His words?", so I think your memory of this thread may be fading too.

No, I suppose not. But, while the Bible was physically written by human hands, it was told to them by God. That's debateable, but I think there are enough topics in here as it is.

But Odin was, as you said, a Human-like god, whereas, we are God-like humans (don't get me wrong on this, I mean that, the gods of the Norse, Greeks and Romans were all fashioned after man, whereas the man of Christianity was fasioned after God). No, Greek/Roman and Norse Gods all predate humanity. Therefore, man is fashined after god (often actually decended, depends on which mythology).

A little. But I'm not talking about physical, here. Satan can affect the circumstances surrounding you in order to make you stumble, but he cannot make you sin. That seems a far cry from your earlier "Satan has as much power over me as I let him. If I resist the devil, he must flee. And then, he has no power over me." By "circumstances surrounding" you apparently include "kill" and "maim" which was done to Jobs relatives without them offering up power to Satan.

He didn't literally tell God to "get lost," but he knew what the apple did. Where is he told what id did? Where is he told what the punishment would be? He's just told not to eat from it.

We did not have the nature to do sin before the fall, but after the fall, sin had entered. It wasn't in human nature to sin, until it became human nature, because every human (whose nature it was not in) sinned at the first provocation. Sounds like sin was in both Adam and Eve's nature to me. If God can judge the unborn sodomites for thir future irredeamability, and Adam was unredeamable (was destinied to sin), why not kick him out of the garden before even putting him there? Why did God act suprised when some sins happened but punished others in advance? Could it be because the Bible is not very well thought out?

And that was exactly my point in the other thread. Your point in the other thread was that the preponderance of false religions makes the burden of proof for your religion higher?

And do you know this for a fact? What if she is just hiding some pain inside? Or what if she found Jesus The demons that she felt attacked by and that she couls percieve were gone, she no longer saw them nor felt them. And I doubt she found your god, she is a practicing witch.

Wow, wow, WOW!!! You got me way wrong. First of all, I did not say all of eternity. I said for the rest of your living days. Please read my entire posts before criticising them! And second, how would that be doing you a favor? I fear this is your misinterpretation. I'll rephrase my statement.

If your view of reality is true, and no demons show up to torment me, then I will be doomed to spend an eternity in Hell, where demons can torment me forever. If, however, one showed up at my door tomorrow and started (overtly) tormenting me, then I would have irrevocable proof of demons (and therefore God), would turn to Jesus and spend eternity in paradise (though I may get tortured for the next 50 years or so). So said demon would be doing me the favor od an eeternity of happiness for a half-century of suffering (which would theoretically end when I turned to Jesus anyway).

So, a demon showing up would be a good thing.

[+Donny]

>>What are you asking me for? You made up the 6-legged chicken. I'm not sure what donated the DNA (a jellyfish I think). Why don't you go find out?<<

u said the same for my quotes!!! why dont u go find out about them?

>>There's that assumption I knew you would leap to. Tell you what. As soon as you proove to me that the universe is an effect, I'll show you a cause. Till then, try applying it to your own beliefs... "where did God come from?"<<

its there, thats an effect, if there is a frog in a pond, there must be an effect, maybe he jumped there, well, God didnt come from anywhere, there is no time to him, so he IS, not was there, or will be there, be IS there, God just IS, now from our point of view, since he created time, he was there at the beginning

>>So now you do agree that God made Adam to sin? So the sin is really God's fault? And our ****ation to hell is what best glorifies God? And you wonder why I would find God capricious and maleveolent?<<

actually, both, yes our ****ation does glorify him, his is a God of justice, he made a situation where he KNEW adam would sin, its like putting a child in a room made of chocalate and saying dont eat it, and of course knowing the future would help, but he will eat the candy

>>So you are certain that irreducable complexity is real, even though you don't have anything you *know* is irreducably complex? You think that I should site here and to 20 min of research and another 20 of typing so you can type "what about the wing" in response and I can put my hour of effort in all over again to get ignored for another 3 word response? If thise is a stupidity test, count me out.<<

no, right now i will say that the eye, the wing, and the cell are all irreduceable

>>Now, if you want to offer one thing that you are sure proves you case for you, and are willing to admit that you are wrong if I show you how it does not; then I may be willing to (again) put in the effort. Thought it's worth noting every one of these has been explained in detail to you before. You are just too dense to remember (or, as I concluded long ago, just trolling).<<

never seent he eye one, just seen people cite Darwin

>>So what will it be? Got one irreduceably complex organ we can hold up as the standard for all time?<<

the eye, wing, or cell, i dont know, u choose, all three are

[da_OKUM?]

Originally posted by JerryLove


That must have been days ago, you expect me to remember? I was probibly pointing out the inconsistancy in terminology, though I may have been supportin the assertation that, in the OT, Jehovia does not claim to be the only God in existance.

Oh, that was it. We kind of went on a tangent there.


This seems like a preamble to a conclusion. I am missing the conclusion.

Oh. Sorry. My conclusion was that it might be possible that, since He had no one else to talk to, It might have been that He would talk to Himself (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). Again, this is purely speculation, so don't bet your lunch on it.

What you said was "at age 12, how do you explain the religious leader's response to the words that He spoke? and how do you explain the immense wisdom in His words?", so I think your memory of this thread may be fading too.

I apologise. I missed a phrase there. What I should have said was this; and how do you explain the immense wisdom in His words (not just in this incident, but in His later years as well)?


That's debateable, but I think there are enough topics in here as it is.

Right. That's another subject for another Forum.


No, Greek/Roman and Norse Gods all predate humanity. Therefore, man is fashined after god (often actually decended, depends on which mythology).

I was stating the contrast. In no other Religions have I seen "and man was made in the Image of God."

That seems a far cry from your earlier "Satan has as much power over me as I let him. If I resist the devil, he must flee. And then, he has no power over me." By "circumstances surrounding" you apparently include "kill" and "maim" which was done to Jobs relatives without them offering up power to Satan.

Not quite. You get me wrong again. I stated the word "Physically." He has limited power (physically) over me, he can break my leg (maybe he did when it happened, but maybe I deserved it :) ), and he can even, perhaps, kill me, but he cannot make me do anything. He can't force me to go and rob a bank, or jump off a cliff, or anything. Those are decisions that are mine, and mine alone.

Where is he told what id did? Where is he told what the punishment would be? He's just told not to eat from it.

Again, not quite. You're missing the part about "if you eat this plant, then you will surely die." And the Serpent. It says Eve gave the fruit to Adam, who was with her. Being with her, he would have heard the serpent.

It wasn't in human nature to sin, until it became human nature, because every human (whose nature it was not in) sinned at the first provocation. Sounds like sin was in both Adam and Eve's nature to me. If God can judge the unborn sodomites for thir future irredeamability, and Adam was unredeamable (was destinied to sin), why not kick him out of the garden before even putting him there? Why did God act suprised when some sins happened but punished others in advance? Could it be because the Bible is not very well thought out?

Refresh my memory. I do not remember the part of God punishing the Unborn Sodomites. And when has God been takem by surprise? When is God ever off guard? Also, there is a difference between the "capability" of sinning, and the "Nature" of sinning.

Your point in the other thread was that the preponderance of false religions makes the burden of proof for your religion higher?

Please don't. You know what I meant. I was arguing that the facts that I presented really added to this "burden of proof" required for Evolution.

The demons that she felt attacked by and that she couls percieve were gone, she no longer saw them nor felt them. And I doubt she found your god, she is a practicing witch.

How do you know this? You doubt that she found our God, but how do you know for sure?

I fear this is your misinterpretation. I'll rephrase my statement.

If your view of reality is true, and no demons show up to torment me, then I will be doomed to spend an eternity in Hell, where demons can torment me forever. If, however, one showed up at my door tomorrow and started (overtly) tormenting me, then I would have irrevocable proof of demons (and therefore God), would turn to Jesus and spend eternity in paradise (though I may get tortured for the next 50 years or so). So said demon would be doing me the favor od an eeternity of happiness for a half-century of suffering (which would theoretically end when I turned to Jesus anyway).

So, a demon showing up would be a good thing.

Oh, I get it. But, if you see it that way, then that's okay. I am just saying that you do not want it to get to that point. It would be much better if you would give your life over to Jesus before someone else takes it over, or worse, takes it away period.

[JerryLove]

u said the same for my quotes!!! why dont u go find out about them? That you cannot tell the diffence would be starteling coming from another poster.

its there, thats an effect ... God just IS Is it painful being so hypocritical? You claim the existance of something *proves* it is an effect, then say that God (who you believe exists) is not an effect. My universe came from the same place you think your God came from.

actually, both, yes our ****ation does glorify him I would call that evil.

no, right now i will say that the eye, the wing, and the cell are all irreduceable So if I show you reducing forms of one, you'll fall back on the other two. And if I prove all three, you'll start spouting out other things. I need to invest hours, you need to put up one word responses. And in the end (being as there are an infinate number of parts) we will die of old age because you assume an idea, that most any example can be disproven on, is right anyway?

never seent he eye one, just seen people cite Darwin Then you are blind, because I explained it to you, then again to the guy that opened on WBS is 30 questions a few weeks ago (OK, you may not have seen that one). Also, the only cite from darwin by an evolutionist was to refute your incomplete cite (or was it Daystar's?) from Darwin. You know, the one where you cite the "It's nearly impossable to believe the eye evolved" while leaving out the "but id did and we can see the evidence of it" part?

the eye, wing, or cell, i dont know, u choose, all three are OK. I choose the eye. I think your standard was for an eye with less than 4 uniques parts (less than four parts that would not be useful without an eye). Why don't you take a look at the single celled "Euglena". It's eye consists of less than 1 cell (as the entire creature is single celled). Tell me what parts (other than the eyespot itself) are neccessiary for the creation of the eye? Since the eye itself is a homogenous material, it is only one component.

[JerryLove]

I was stating the contrast. In no other Religions have I seen "and man was made in the Image of God." Well, unless you think God is a flesh-and-bone biped with a bad back, that quote would mean that man was made with qualities of God. I think most religions belive that. Certainly, the Greek, Egyptian, Norse, and Celtic gods (to name a few) shared many features with people. From my perspective, men tend to make god (or gods) in their own image... Though the Chinese believed in divine dragons, and the Aborigines in mystical animals (and the native Americans as well).

Not quite. You get me wrong again. I stated the word "Physically." He has limited power (physically) over me, he can break my leg (maybe he did when it happened, but maybe I deserved it ), and he can even, perhaps, kill me, but he cannot make me do anything. You said he would have to "flee".

Again, not quite. You're missing the part about "if you eat this plant, then you will surely die." And the Serpent. It says Eve gave the fruit to Adam, who was with her. Being with her, he would have heard the serpent. Oh, but who trusts the serpent anyway? Besides, the serpent said they would *not* die.

Refresh my memory. I do not remember the part of God punishing the Unborn Sodomites. When God destroyed Sodom and everyone in it, what do you think happened to them?

And when has God been takem by surprise? When is God ever off guard? Also, there is a difference between the "capability" of sinning, and the "Nature" of sinning. Well, God often asks what he should already know.

How do you know this? You doubt that she found our God, but how do you know for sure? We are good friends, she is still a proclaimed Wiccan, not a Christian. She thinks Christianity is evil. She has proclaimd so in the past month (and before). Shall I put the thumb screws to her to confess?

[+Donny]

>>That you cannot tell the diffence would be starteling coming from another poster.<<

I know enough about most of that, and how do u expect me to learn?

>>Is it painful being so hypocritical? You claim the existance of something *proves* it is an effect, then say that God (who you believe exists) is not an effect. My universe came from the same place you think your God came from.<<

he is an effect, but he has no time, so there is no BEfore God or after God because there is no measure of time

>>I would call that evil.<<

judgement is evil?

>>So if I show you reducing forms of one, you'll fall back on the other two. And if I prove all three, you'll start spouting out other things. I need to invest hours, you need to put up one word responses. And in the end (being as there are an infinate number of parts) we will die of old age because you assume an idea, that most any example can be disproven on, is right anyway?<<

illmake a deal, I will not go beyond these 3 things, kay?

>>Then you are blind, because I explained it to you, then again to the guy that opened on WBS is 30 questions a few weeks ago (OK, you may not have seen that one). Also, the only cite from darwin by an evolutionist was to refute your incomplete cite (or was it Daystar's?) from Darwin. You know, the one where you cite the "It's nearly impossable to believe the eye evolved" while leaving out the "but id did and we can see the evidence of it" part?<<

i saw that part, Darwin's eye has 3 parts I think, maybe 4

>>OK. I choose the eye. I think your standard was for an eye with less than 4 uniques parts (less than four parts that would not be useful without an eye). Why don't you take a look at the single celled "Euglena". It's eye consists of less than 1 cell (as the entire creature is single celled). Tell me what parts (other than the eyespot itself) are neccessiary for the creation of the eye? Since the eye itself is a homogenous material, it is only one component.<<

so there is an "eye" that has less than one part? but is there an eye with 2 parts? or 3 parts? that isnt useless?

[da_OKUM?]

Originally posted by JerryLove

[quote]Well, unless you think God is a flesh-and-bone biped with a bad back, that quote would mean that man was made with qualities of God. I think most religions belive that. Certainly, the Greek, Egyptian, Norse, and Celtic gods (to name a few) shared many features with people. From my perspective, men tend to make god (or gods) in their own image... Though the Chinese believed in divine dragons, and the Aborigines in mystical animals (and the native Americans as well).

But that's what I've been trying to tell you. Men tend to make gods in their own image. And no other Religion claims that their god made them in the image of himself.

You said he would have to "flee".

In the physical sense, I am not sure. But Job's family hardly told him to flee. Also, I think that, even if he has to flee from you spiritually (quit messin wit' my mind, etc.), he can still affect the physical world.

Oh, but who trusts the serpent anyway? Besides, the serpent said they would *not* die.

Let's remember that the Serpent was the Devil, and that the Devil is the Father of Lies and Deception.

When God destroyed Sodom and everyone in it, what do you think happened to them?

But, I thought that was for what they did, not what they were going to do.

Well, God often asks what he should already know.

Such as? When He asked Adam where he was, He knew, and Adam knew, He was just testing Adam to see if he would tell the truth, or better yet, take the responsibility of his actions. One must wonder what the world would be like if Adam had 'fessed up.

We are good friends, she is still a proclaimed Wiccan, not a Christian. She thinks Christianity is evil. She has proclaimd so in the past month (and before). Shall I put the thumb screws to her to confess?


Yeah, well, it will catch up to her. Someday, it will catch up to her.

[JerryLove]

I know enough about most of that, and how do u expect me to learn? Apparently not. I was referring to your inability to tell the difference between telling you to do your own research on the details of a performed experiment, and how that differed from you offering cites with no subsantitive facts and telling me to go research what they mean when you don't even know.

he is an effect, but he has no time, so there is no BEfore God or after God because there is no measure of time So he mush have a cause. What caused God?

judgement is evil? Codeming people to eternal suffering for his own glory is evil.

illmake a deal, I will not go beyond these 3 things, kay? But will you accept that irreduceable complexity is false if reduced complexity versions are shown (like a 1-part eye?)

i saw that part, Darwin's eye has 3 parts I think, maybe 4 Darwin's eye would, I presume, be like evey other persons.

so there is an "eye" that has less than one part? but is there an eye with 2 parts? or 3 parts? that isnt useless? No, it is not even a single *cell*. It is homogenious (therefore "one part"). It is a reduced complexity version of the more complex eyes. It therefore proves that eyes are not irreduceable complex.

[JerryLove]

But that's what I've been trying to tell you. Men tend to make gods in their own image. And no other Religion claims that their god made them in the image of himself. I'll bet every religion with antrapomorphic Gods responsable for creation do. Regardless, so what? Why would a unique aspect of mythology make it real? I bet no other religion than that of the Aztecs (and their kin) claimed that the world was in the fouth of five ages and the coming of the fifth, which would destroy man, could only be forstalled through blood sacrifices.

In the physical sense, I am not sure. But Job's family hardly told him to flee. Also, I think that, even if he has to flee from you spiritually (quit messin wit' my mind, etc.), he can still affect the physical world. You didn't say that you had to tell him to flee. You said that if you didn't give him power over you he would flee.

But, I thought that was for what they did, not what they were going to do. And in a city destroied for sexual depravity, in a time with no birth control, do you think *maybe* there was a pregnant woman somewhere in the city? What do you feel that her unborn child had done? What about a child under one year? What would he / she have done so depraved as to warrent direct intervention and destruction? You think Lot (who offered up his daughters as rape victims to preven the crowd from raping him, what a nice guy) was the only person worthy of saving? Not any of the children of the city?

And were the children being punished for future acts? Before you go down that road, remember what Lot's daughters (also saved by God, from God) would do in the future.

One must wonder what the world would be like if Adam had 'fessed up. What, you mean if he had been honest and said "The woman you put here with me--she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." (Gen 3:12) and she had been honest and said "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."(Gen 3:13). What part of "fessing up" do you feel Adam and Eve did not do? Also, why would God test their honesty when he knew before creation weather they would be honest or not? It's an exercise in futility, like God checking to see if the sun came up or not.

Yeah, well, it will catch up to her. Someday, it will catch up to her. Yea. When people realized that the world was not just, they made up this heaven/hell thing and said "they guy I hate is a jerk and mean, so he will burn in hell and I will bask in heaven and say mean things about him". I hate to point this out, many non-Christians die still very happy, and many Christains die not happy at all. Since Heaven and Hell are still just words on a page, I fear you are falling into that same mentality. It really is better when you just accept that life isn't a person, it isn't "fair" or "unfair".. It just is.

[Blindman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
I hate to point this out, many non-Christians die still very happy, and many Christains die not happy at all.

Define "happy."

[JerryLove]

You know, happy...

glad, joyful, joyous, lighthearted, pleased

enjoying or characterized by well-being and contentment
having or marked by an atmosphere of good fellowship

While I didn't expect you would always be happy, I had presumed you had experienced it at leas on occasion :(

[da_OKUM?]

Originally posted by JerryLove

I'll bet every religion with antrapomorphic Gods responsable for creation do. Regardless, so what? Why would a unique aspect of mythology make it real? I bet no other religion than that of the Aztecs (and their kin) claimed that the world was in the fouth of five ages and the coming of the fifth, which would destroy man, could only be forstalled through blood sacrifices.

I was stating a major difference, not necessarily proof.

You didn't say that you had to tell him to flee. You said that if you didn't give him power over you he would flee.

Agreed. I did not say that we had to tell him to flee. I apologize. However, I did say that if we resist him, then he will flee. I guess it's more than just however much I let him. If I don't give him power over me, then he may torment me still. But if I resist, then he must flee.

And in a city destroied for sexual depravity, in a time with no birth control, do you think *maybe* there was a pregnant woman somewhere in the city? What do you feel that her unborn child had done? What about a child under one year? What would he / she have done so depraved as to warrent direct intervention and destruction? You think Lot (who offered up his daughters as rape victims to preven the crowd from raping him, what a nice guy) was the only person worthy of saving? Not any of the children of the city?

Abraham pleaded with God to spare the city if a certain number were righteous. He finally narrowed it down to about 10 (if I remember correctly), but not one righteous could be found in the city. And Lot was only saved because he was a relative of Abraham.

And were the children being punished for future acts? Before you go down that road, remember what Lot's daughters (also saved by God, from God) would do in the future.

No, they were being punished for their past sins. And the Bible NEVER says that what the two daughters did was right, in fact, it condemns it. But how do you come to the conclusion that God punishes people before they commit a sin?

What, you mean if he had been honest and said "The woman you put here with me--she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." (Gen 3:12) and she had been honest and said "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."(Gen 3:13). What part of "fessing up" do you feel Adam and Eve did not do? Also, why would God test their honesty when he knew before creation weather they would be honest or not? It's an exercise in futility, like God checking to see if the sun came up or not.

The part about "It was my fault. I take the responsibility for my actions." Sometimes, it's not just honesty that is required for confessions, but the right honesty (instead of, "It was her fault, she gave the apple to me," try this; "It was my fault, I took the apple from her, and I even watched her eat it in the first place").

Also, I am what you might consider a moderate Calvanist, I believe in both Free will and Predestination. but don't start a debate about this here. There are probably a lot of them about it.

Yea. When people realized that the world was not just, they made up this heaven/hell thing and said "they guy I hate is a jerk and mean, so he will burn in hell and I will bask in heaven and say mean things about him". I hate to point this out, many non-Christians die still very happy, and many Christains die not happy at all. Since Heaven and Hell are still just words on a page, I fear you are falling into that same mentality. It really is better when you just accept that life isn't a person, it isn't "fair" or "unfair".. It just is.

I apologise if I've said any mean things about you. :( But I am the jerk, and I do not in any way shape or form deserve to go to Heaven, but God wants me to go there, indeed, He is not willing that any should perish, and so, I have accepted His forgiveness. And I still think that Evolution is still just words on pages. ;)

[JerryLove]

Abraham pleaded with God to spare the city if a certain number were righteous. He finally narrowed it down to about 10 (if I remember correctly), but not one righteous could be found in the city. And Lot was only saved because he was a relative of Abraham. So, the babies and little kids were unrightous?

No, they were being punished for their past sins. And the Bible NEVER says that what the two daughters did was right, in fact, it condemns it. But how do you come to the conclusion that God punishes people before they commit a sin? Hmmm, every newborn at the time of Noah's flood? Every good person unfortunate enough to live in Isreal when the Jews came (though if you were an unmarried girl, your punishment was different than everyone else's). If you take original sin, this argument is silly, Adam and Eve should have been struck down. They were not, in fact, people with iriginal sin were spared as righous, so that cannot be cause to strike someone down. So what did the babies killed in Noha's flood do? What did the animals not in the ark do?

The part about "It was my fault. I take the responsibility for my actions." Sometimes, it's not just honesty that is required for confessions, but the right honesty (instead of, "It was her fault, she gave the apple to me," try this; "It was my fault, I took the apple from her, and I even watched her eat it in the first place"). His account was accurate. He *was* talked into it.

I apologise if I've said any mean things about you. But I am the jerk, and I do not in any way shape or form deserve to go to Heaven, but God wants me to go there, indeed, He is not willing that any should perish, and so, I have accepted His forgiveness. And I still think that Evolution is still just words on pages. I was not calling you a jerk, I was pointing out some of the motivation for a belief in punishment reward (there is more motivation, centering around religious rules wishing to maintain socitial order and clerics wishing to keep jobs, but that might be too divergent). The difference between evolution and the bible, one is an idea based on facts and accepted as an ited. The other is a story, presumed true (or you are not a real Christian and going to hell).

[da_OKUM?]

Originally posted by JerryLove

So, the babies and little kids were unrightous?

Right. Everyone is born in sin. However, it is possible that God is sparing the young children. Because we believe that babies do go to heaven if they die, we believe this because of what David said when his child died, that he would see him in glory, or something. Also, with the baby's parent's gone, who would take care of them? Certainly not the neighbors, they were all punished.

Hmmm, every newborn at the time of Noah's flood? Every good person unfortunate enough to live in Isreal when the Jews came (though if you were an unmarried girl, your punishment was different than everyone else's). If you take original sin, this argument is silly, Adam and Eve should have been struck down. They were not, in fact, people with iriginal sin were spared as righous, so that cannot be cause to strike someone down. So what did the babies killed in Noha's flood do? What did the animals not in the ark do?

There was only so much room on the Ark. The animals were to go onto the ark in pairs, one pair of each animal except for the pure animals meant for sacrifices. These would require seven.

His account was accurate. He *was* talked into it.

I think you are missing my point. He should have owned up to his mistake instead of shifting blame. He might have been talked into it, but the serpent did not hold them down as he shoved a piece down their throat. This was their choice. And so, the blame was to all three, but they should have owned up to their sin, and confessed. Anyways, this was just a thought, not meant to start another debate.

I was not calling you a jerk, I was pointing out some of the motivation for a belief in punishment reward (there is more motivation, centering around religious rules wishing to maintain socitial order and clerics wishing to keep jobs, but that might be too divergent). The difference between evolution and the bible, one is an idea based on facts and accepted as an ited. The other is a story, presumed true (or you are not a real Christian and going to hell).]

First of all, I don't quite understand what you are getting at, but I'm guessing that you are saying that people wanted to have an eternal reward, or something. But if this was true, than how come the Bible says (don't remember where, somebody please tell) that we are to gain crowns for our rewards, and then we are to throw them at the feet of Jesus? It seems that we will give full credit to Him when all is said and done.

Second, I am not sure what an Ited is, but from what I have seen, Evolution is somewhat Empiric. And the other may be a story, but in all of my experiences, I cannot help but accept that it is true.

And third, I do not catch your meaning in the Parenthesies. If the story is not true, than I am not a true Christian and I am going to hell????

[JerryLove]

Right. Everyone is born in sin. However, it is possible that God is sparing the young children. Because we believe that babies do go to heaven if they die, we believe this because of what David said when his child died, that he would see him in glory, or something. Also, with the baby's parent's gone, who would take care of them? Certainly not the neighbors, they were all punished. Didn't David do something to cause God turn turn against him and bring trouble to his house (suppose I should look it up). If so, wouldn't David have gone to hell (he certainly had not accepted Jesus). If so, that would put his child in hell as well.

There was only so much room on the Ark. The animals were to go onto the ark in pairs, one pair of each animal except for the pure animals meant for sacrifices. These would require seven. Ignoring the issue of why something so grandiose as a flood (as opposed to just erasing the people he didn't like), your still killing the innocent.

I think you are missing my point. He should have owned up to his mistake instead of shifting blame. He might have been talked into it, but the serpent did not hold them down as he shoved a piece down their throat. And they never claime dhe did. The statement made was factually complete and accurate.

First of all, I don't quite understand what you are getting at I'm getting at the reason that people would invent the idea of heaven and hell.

Second, I am not sure what an Ited is A badly typoed version of "idea". I have *really* got to start proofreading.

And third, I do not catch your meaning in the Parenthesies. To a Christian trying to look at a Biblical entry objectively, they are influenced by the fact that to not believe it, would either devalidate their whole wordview, or make them not a "real christian" and condem them to hell.

[+Donny]

>>Apparently not. I was referring to your