advice is nice

[seeking_truth]

how do you know that god exists?

[Karen M]

Hello Seeking :)

I have asked this before many times. There is no way to logically prove the existance of a God, but the main answer is that he "calls" people to him and they just know he is there. Its mostly a personal experience.

On the other hand, I have never had this "personal faith" everyone else seems to have, so I understand where this question is comming from. :)


Just for note, I am an atheistic agnostic, so you may want to get this from a Christian perspective because they can probably explain why they believe in a God better than I can re-post responses I have gotten before.


Good Luck :D

Karen

[Superman]

How do you know he doesnt?

[Ely]

Originally posted by Karen M
atheistic agnostic

what is and atheistic agnostic?

[Superman]

Agnostics believe there could be a god, but we dont understand him/her/it.

[Karen M]

Hello super and Gordan :)

>>>How do you know he doesnt?<<<

You are making the positive claim that something does exist, therefore the burden of proof is on you.


>>>what is and atheistic agnostic?<<<

Basically, I believe that it is possible God exists and it is possible he doesn't exist, but I am going to hold the stance that he doesn't exist until I get proof to the contrary.

For example, if there are no muddy footprints on the floor, you heard no noise, the door isn't open, and there is absolutly no evidence whatsoever that someone snuck into your house in the last 5 minutes why you were on the phone, the normal assumption is that, indeed, no one did. ;) Now, on the other hand, if the door was open, and there were footprints and you did hear noise, then that might be a good time to assume that someone HAS snuck into your house.


Hope that makes more sense :)

Karen

[guitarman]

how do you know that god exists?
Read that thread on the Ontological proof for the existence of God for some examples of how people attempt to prove the existence of God.

Aaron

[MrCrabby]

I think Karen mostly hit it on the head.
God cannot be proven by science or by any physical laws.
He can only be proven on a personal level.
There are many reasons to believe, i think just about every Christian here can give at least one example of answered prayer.
Along with the thread Aaron suggested, there is also a thread called "who is God?" i listed a bunch of theological arguments there.

[jesus_freak21]

Yes, whether God is real to you or not is completely personal. I would definetely say he is real though. :D

[MrCrabby]

I would definetely say he is real though.
Me too, but from personal experiences.:)

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by jesus_freak21
Yes, whether God is real to you or not is completely personal. I would definetely say he is real though. :D

so things are measured by our perception? wouldn't that require us to be infallible?

but like Aaron said.....refer to the Ontological thread....and read "The Existence and Attributes of God" by Stephen Charnock

[Chrysostom]

There are 12 basic ways people try to prove God exists, that i can think of:

1. Cosmological: everything must have a cause, therefore the universe has a cause, and this cause is God. God is the first uncaused cause.
2. Design/Teleological: The universe exhibits evidence of design\order, requiring a God.
3. It’s impossible for life to have begun without God.
4. The Bible says that God exists, therefore God exists
5. Miracles: the existence of miracles requires God, and miracles exist
6. Ontological: God is by definition perfect. The necessary quality of anything perfect is existence, therefore God exists.
7. Moral: All have moral values, and these values must have been planted by God
8. Wish: It’s useless to live without God, and useless to live a good life without God. People live and people live good lives, therefore God exists.
9. Faith: Existence of God must be proven with faith.
10. Experience: Some people have had experiences with God, therefore He exists.
11. Pascal’s Wager: You have nothing to lose by believing, and nothing to gain by not believing.
12. Transcendental Argument: Knowledge cannot exist without God, therefore God exists.

[SendMe]

The only way to really prove if God exist or not, that I see is to try and disprove him. Look up stories of people that try and prove God is there. They are always blown away by what they find. The thought of God not existing only comes from Satan and he makes you forget of all the times that God has shown you that He does exist.

[calebb]

Agnostic = no knowledge

Its from the root word Gnosis which is greek for knowledge.

A (or an) in front of a word means not, none, no.

So, agnostic = no knowledge.

Atheist = no God

The greek root is theism (I think, I've never actually looked this word up, so thats just an educated guess)

A = no, so no God.

Agnostic atheist = No knowledge of no God - But you say you have no knowledge that there is a God, Karen, so I think you are an Agnostic Theist.

-Caleb

[Karen M]

Hello again All :)


>>>There are 12 basic ways people try to prove God exists, that i can think of:

1. Cosmological: everything must have a cause, therefore the universe has a cause, and this cause is God. God is the first uncaused cause.<<<

The problem is the "who caused God?" question or, if it is okay for God to not have a cause than perhaps something else also has no cause? Or perhaps there is infinite regress. Also, if the universe was caused, how do we know that the cause of that cause was a God?


>>>2. Design/Teleological: The universe exhibits evidence of design\order, requiring a God.<<<

This depends on who you ask. ;)


>>>3. It’s impossible for life to have begun without God.<<<

Not necessarily.


>>>4. The Bible says that God exists, therefore God exists<<<

This only works for people who believe that the Bible is infallible.


>>>5. Miracles: the existence of miracles requires God, and miracles exist<<<

The existance of miricales only requires the supernatural to exist, and many do not believe that mircles do exist.


>>>6. Ontological: God is by definition perfect. The necessary quality of anything perfect is existence, therefore God exists.<<<

Existence is not a quality of perfection. ;)


>>>7. Moral: All have moral values, and these values must have been planted by God<<<

Not necessarily. Some believe they come from social contract, evolutionary instinct, and logic.


>>>8. Wish: It’s useless to live without God, and useless to live a good life without God. People live and people live good lives, therefore God exists.<<<

The first premise is wrong here. Life is not useless just because you arn't living it for an omniscient being.


>>>9. Faith: Existence of God must be proven with faith.<<<

This one is true.


>>>10. Experience: Some people have had experiences with God, therefore He exists.<<<

This one also works for some people.


>>>11. Pascal’s Wager: You have nothing to lose by believing, and nothing to gain by not believing.<<<

The first premise is wrong here. You do lose a large portion of your time by believing, and also, this entire arguement assumes you can change your beliefs at will.


>>>12. Transcendental Argument: Knowledge cannot exist without God, therefore God exists.<<<

Knowledge does not require God to exist.



>>>The only way to really prove if God exist or not, that I see is to try and disprove him.<<<

The people claiming God's existance make the positive claim; therefore, the assumption is that God does not exist until you prove his existance or until you decide to take a leap of faith.


>>>Look up stories of people that try and prove God is there. They are always blown away by what they find. The thought of God not existing only comes from Satan and he makes you forget of all the times that God has shown you that He does exist.<<<

I don't believe in Satan either. ;)



>>>Agnostic = no knowledge

Its from the root word Gnosis which is greek for knowledge.

A (or an) in front of a word means not, none, no.

So, agnostic = no knowledge.<<<

This is the original meaning of agnostic, yes. But it has changed its meaning over time to imply no knowledge about a God.


>>>Atheist = no God

The greek root is theism (I think, I've never actually looked this word up, so thats just an educated guess)

A = no, so no God.<<<

This is correct.


>>>Agnostic atheist = No knowledge of no God - But you say you have no knowledge that there is a God, Karen, so I think you are an Agnostic Theist.<<<

Perhaps this is true, if you want to use the absolute base Greek language used in the wording. What I meant in that statement was that I was an agnostic(one who does not believe one way or the other about God) who leaned more towards atheism that theism. Call me whatever you want. ;)


Always fun to chat :)

Karen

[Chrysostom]

Karen M:
Good to see you again, Karen!
>>1. Cosmological: everything must have a cause, therefore the universe has a cause, and this cause is God. God is the first uncaused cause.

The problem is the "who caused God?" question or, if it is okay for God to not have a cause than perhaps something else also has no cause? Or perhaps there is infinite regress. Also, if the universe was caused, how do we know that the cause of that cause was a God?<<

There are two options:

1. God was caused by something else

* That something else (continuing with non-infinite regress) is actually God, and the proof stands

* That something else (continuning with infinite regress) doesn't matter because the first God is good enough for us. We don't know of the beings creating God, therefore we might as well believe in the God we do know of, Jehovah


2. God was not caused by something else

* The proof stands as originally stated



>>>2. Design/Teleological: The universe exhibits evidence of design\order, requiring a God.

This depends on who you ask. ;)<<

Your explanation of all these things would certainly be evolution, essentially from survival of the fittest. Why else would our eyes be tuned to the sun's lights' wavelengths, for instance? One option is God and the naturalistic option is evolution. Evolution is highly illogical in that you are taking chaos and creating order through naturalistic laws, which doesn't happen. The modern mainstream theory of macroevolutionary theory is not to be confused with the evolution i am referring to here.



>>3. It’s impossible for life to have begun without God.

Not necessarily.<<

Describe the inception of sentience, then.



>>4. The Bible says that God exists, therefore God exists

This only works for people who believe that the Bible is infallible.<<

Yes, and proof of the Bible would generally be based on fulfilled prophecy (or numerous other things like internal consistency or how stupid its writers and participants in the described events would be otherwise). We realize that anything which tells the future (based on the time of its writing) accurately is obviously something on a higher level than us and we should trust it. Its benevolent nature also leads us to belief.



>>5. Miracles: the existence of miracles requires God, and miracles exist

The existance of miricales only requires the supernatural to exist, and many do not believe that mircles do exist.<<

The "supernatural" is some sort of deity, as far as this argument is concerned. Proof of miracles will not stand against a skeptic who wishes to disbelieve no matter the case.



>>6. Ontological: God is by definition perfect. The necessary quality of anything perfect is existence, therefore God exists.

Existence is not a quality of perfection. ;)<<

It is better for something which is perfect to exist than to not exist. I don't really like this argument. Actually, there are few of these arguments which i like. I'm trying to give the general tacts used, though this is the one which makes the least sense to me by far.




>>7. Moral: All have moral values, and these values must have been planted by God

Not necessarily. Some believe they come from social contract, evolutionary instinct, and logic.<<

Social contract:
This will only work if there are absolutes to which the social contract lends itself toward. These are from God.

Evolutionary instinct:
The morals would not be so similar.

Logic:
This appeals to absolutes, which cannot exist under an atheist worldview. Only relative absolutes can.



>>8. Wish: It’s useless to live without God, and useless to live a good life without God. People live and people live good lives, therefore God exists.

The first premise is wrong here. Life is not useless just because you arn't living it for an omniscient being.<<

You're only living it to die the die of a hamster into non-existence :) This isn't a proof, but admittedly it's a lot better to have some ultimate purpose.



>>9. Faith: Existence of God must be proven with faith.

This one is true.<<

:)




>>10. Experience: Some people have had experiences with God, therefore He exists.

This one also works for some people.<<

Yeppurz.



>>11. Pascal’s Wager: You have nothing to lose by believing, and nothing to gain by not believing.

The first premise is wrong here. You do lose a large portion of your time by believing, and also, this entire arguement assumes you can change your beliefs at will.<<

"Your time" isn't really anything lost at all because it has no effect after a century or so.

The ability to change your beliefs at will doesn't matter because it's not saying that you should force yourself to. Instead, this argument appeals again to #8.




>>12. Transcendental Argument: Knowledge cannot exist without God, therefore God exists.

Knowledge does not require God to exist.<<

Yes it does. Through science and such we are attempting to appeal to a reality, knowledge, or science that is greater than ourselves. This is something which exists above and outside of us, and we are trying to understand it. However, this is impossible to the atheistic worldview because under it reality is subject to our own perceptions. There are no absolutes to the atheist except the relative absolutes from person to person. We require God to be the standard for knowledge, as there can be no absolutes (and thus no knowledge) without Him to make it absolute. The "knowledge" of science in an atheistic worldview is relative from person to person and, therefore, cannot be absolute.

[Karen M]

Good Morning Must :D


>>>There are two options:

1. God was caused by something else

* That something else (continuing with non-infinite regress) is actually God, and the proof stands

* That something else (continuning with infinite regress) doesn't matter because the first God is good enough for us. We don't know of the beings creating God, therefore we might as well believe in the God we do know of, Jehovah


2. God was not caused by something else

* The proof stands as originally stated<<<

You forgot the third option: God does not exist and the universe, if it has a first cause, was caused by something else. ;)



>>>Your explanation of all these things would certainly be evolution, essentially from survival of the fittest. Why else would our eyes be tuned to the sun's lights' wavelengths, for instance? One option is God and the naturalistic option is evolution. Evolution is highly illogical in that you are taking chaos and creating order through naturalistic laws, which doesn't happen.<<<

It is not chaos, it is cause and effect. The animals that can see better than other animals are more likely to survive than the other animals they can see better than.


>>>The modern mainstream theory of macroevolutionary theory is not to be confused with the evolution i am referring to here.<<<

? Evolution is evolution. There is no micro or macro evolution; you are creating an artificial barrier. ;)



>>>Describe the inception of sentience, then.<<<

We currently don't know, though the most likely theory to date is Primordial Soup.



>>>Yes, and proof of the Bible would generally be based on fulfilled prophecy (or numerous other things like internal consistency or how stupid its writers and participants in the described events would be otherwise). We realize that anything which tells the future (based on the time of its writing) accurately is obviously something on a higher level than us and we should trust it. Its benevolent nature also leads us to belief.<<<

Perhaps, only there is no evidence any prophecies were actually fullfilled. Its like reading a book that says "elephants are purple," and when I question this statement, you prove it by running through to a later section of the same book which also says "elephants are purple." :(



>>>The "supernatural" is some sort of deity, as far as this argument is concerned.<<<

No it isn't. There are several religions that do not believe in dieties but do make claims of supernatural events.


>>>Proof of miracles will not stand against a skeptic who wishes to disbelieve no matter the case.<<<

This is because there is no solid proof for miracles. ;)



>>>It is better for something which is perfect to exist than to not exist.<<<

Perhaps, but existance is not a requirement of perfection.

>>>I don't really like this argument. Actually, there are few of these arguments which i like. I'm trying to give the general tacts used, though this is the one which makes the least sense to me by far.<<<

Makes little sense to me too. :)




>>>Social contract:
This will only work if there are absolutes to which the social contract lends itself toward. These are from God.<<<

No, Social Contract works with subjective morality. No absolute moral standard is required.


>>>Evolutionary instinct:
The morals would not be so similar.<<<

Yes they would. Societies in which people killed eachother and did not feel bad about it would have been less likely to survive than societies in which people felt bad if they hurt eachother.


>>>Logic:
This appeals to absolutes, which cannot exist under an atheist worldview. Only relative absolutes can.<<<

Logic appeals to no moral absolutes. It appeals to "true" and "false" if you want to make those "absolutes," though they do not require a God to exist.



>>>You're only living it to die the die of a hamster into non-existence This isn't a proof, but admittedly it's a lot better to have some ultimate purpose<<<

I never said it wouldn't be nice if there was an omnicient diety that took you into heaven after you died; I just said that life does not require this diety to be enjoyable.



>>>"Your time" isn't really anything lost at all because it has no effect after a century or so.<<<

huh? If there is no God, then the time during this life becomes much more precious as it is the only time we will ever have.


>>>The ability to change your beliefs at will doesn't matter because it's not saying that you should force yourself to. Instead, this argument appeals again to #8.<<<

The point still stands that you can not force yourself to believe in something; also, #8 is faulty. ;)




>>>Yes it does. Through science and such we are attempting to appeal to a reality, knowledge, or science that is greater than ourselves. This is something which exists above and outside of us, and we are trying to understand it. However, this is impossible to the atheistic worldview because under it reality is subject to our own perceptions. There are no absolutes to the atheist except the relative absolutes from person to person.<<<

Wrong. You are confusing moral absolutes with the "Is the apple red? True or false?" logical anaylises. If you want to call this an "absolute," fine, but it is an abolute that is also consistant in atheism as well as your view then.


>>>We require God to be the standard for knowledge, as there can be no absolutes (and thus no knowledge) without Him to make it absolute. The "knowledge" of science in an atheistic worldview is relative from person to person and, therefore, cannot be absolute.<<<

No it isn't. One requirement for knowledge is that the said thing the person is knowledgable of be true. For example, someone can know that the capitol of New York is New York City, but someone can not know the capitol of New York is Austin because this would be a false belief.


Have a nice day :)

Karen

[Unregistered]

There's no point in asking. All there is to know is that God exists!

[Chrysostom]

Heyas, Karen :)
>>>Me: There are two options:

1. God was caused by something else

* That something else (continuing with non-infinite regress) is actually God, and the proof stands

* That something else (continuning with infinite regress) doesn't matter because the first God is good enough for us. We don't know of the beings creating God, therefore we might as well believe in the God we do know of, Jehovah


2. God was not caused by something else

* The proof stands as originally stated


Karen: You forgot the third option: God does not exist and the universe, if it has a first cause, was caused by something else. ;)<<

That first cause is a deity of some sort. That is what the proof is attempting to establish--that the universe had a cause and that cause's identifier is "god" (or, in the actual scenario, "God").





>>Me: Your explanation of all these things would certainly be evolution, essentially from survival of the fittest. Why else would our eyes be tuned to the sun's lights' wavelengths, for instance? One option is God and the naturalistic option is evolution. Evolution is highly illogical in that you are taking chaos and creating order through naturalistic laws, which doesn't happen.

Karen: It is not chaos, it is cause and effect. The animals that can see better than other animals are more likely to survive than the other animals they can see better than.<<

The philosophically transcendent principle is that order was created from less order through naturalistic processes (original point restated for better wording), which is illogical.

Your example: The problem here is that they had to get very lucky in order to get eyes which match the exact wavelength. There is a massive spectrum, and a large change in the eyes requires much more than one mutation. Getting the appropriate eyes would essentially happen through great luck.



>>Me: The modern mainstream theory of macroevolutionary theory is not to be confused with the evolution i am referring to here.

Karen: ? Evolution is evolution. There is no micro or macro evolution; you are creating an artificial barrier. ;)<<

There is not an artificial barrier. Why do you think we can recreate microevolution in action but not macroevolution? Why are we more than able to turn a white moth into a brown moth, but we cannot turn a fish into a person, even a fish into an amphibian? That is because moving through major kinds of lifeforms (macroevolution) is distinct from moving tiny pieces of lifeforms (microevolution).




>>Me: Describe the inception of sentience, then.

Karen: We currently don't know, though the most likely theory to date is Primordial Soup.<<

Can you elaborate further?




>>Me: Yes, and proof of the Bible would generally be based on fulfilled prophecy (or numerous other things like internal consistency or how stupid its writers and participants in the described events would be otherwise). We realize that anything which tells the future (based on the time of its writing) accurately is obviously something on a higher level than us and we should trust it. Its benevolent nature also leads us to belief.

Karen: Perhaps, only there is no evidence any prophecies were actually fullfilled. Its like reading a book that says "elephants are purple," and when I question this statement, you prove it by running through to a later section of the same book which also says "elephants are purple." :(<<

Read one of the threads in the theology sections with one of these keywords in the title: amillenialism, preterism, eschatology, dispensationalism, rapture, 70 AD




>>Me: The "supernatural" is some sort of deity, as far as this argument is concerned.

Karen: No it isn't. There are several religions that do not believe in dieties but do make claims of supernatural events.<<

A deity is supernatural by definition.




>>Me: Proof of miracles will not stand against a skeptic who wishes to disbelieve no matter the case.

Karen: This is because there is no solid proof for miracles. ;)<<

Just as there is no solid proof for your existence to me or my existence to you. If i were to wave my hand and a tidal wave appears, you could rationalize it as a tricky machine or the weather. If i were to touch a person and their cancer be gone, you could tell me that it was just coincidence that the tumor turned recessive at that moment. If you want to disbelieve in miracles you always can :)




>>It is better for something which is perfect to exist than to not exist.

Perhaps, but existance is not a requirement of perfection.<<

By the previously stated comment it is. Note before that it is better for something perfect to exist than not to exist. By definition, something perfect must have the "better" property, therefore it exists. Again, i don't like this proof.



>>Me: I don't really like this argument. Actually, there are few of these arguments which i like. I'm trying to give the general tacts used, though this is the one which makes the least sense to me by far.

Karen: Makes little sense to me too. :)<<

;)




>>Social contract:
This will only work if there are absolutes to which the social contract lends itself toward. These are from God.

No, Social Contract works with subjective morality. No absolute moral standard is required.<<

Two questions are then to be asked:
1. Why are the systems so similar?
2. You speak of the morals derived from the social contract as essentially discovering what the best option is (for instance, don't steal). If you are _discovering_ the best option, then that means that the best option was already there. Why? Because God created it that way. There must be a moral absolute that they are just learning about and\or being controlled by even through their own attempted scheme for personal sovereignty through a social contract.





>>Me: Evolutionary instinct:
The morals would not be so similar.

Karen: Yes they would. Societies in which people killed eachother and did not feel bad about it would have been less likely to survive than societies in which people felt bad if they hurt eachother.<<

Now you are appealing to a moral absolute which exists. This is the absolute set of morals which is the best and evolution is the mechanism by which people are forced into the morals.




>>Me: Logic:
This appeals to absolutes, which cannot exist under an atheist worldview. Only relative absolutes can.

Karen: Logic appeals to no moral absolutes. It appeals to "true" and "false" if you want to make those "absolutes," though they do not require a God to exist.<<

What, therefore, makes them absolute?





>>Me: You're only living it to die the die of a hamster into non-existence This isn't a proof, but admittedly it's a lot better to have some ultimate purpose

Karen: I never said it wouldn't be nice if there was an omnicient diety that took you into heaven after you died; I just said that life does not require this diety to be enjoyable.<<

Accepted, then.




>>Me: "Your time" isn't really anything lost at all because it has no effect after a century or so.

Karen: huh? If there is no God, then the time during this life becomes much more precious as it is the only time we will ever have.<<

The only thing that matters is the long-term effect, however. If we not longer exist in 200 years then what difference did it make if we "wasted" our time?




>>Me: The ability to change your beliefs at will doesn't matter because it's not saying that you should force yourself to. Instead, this argument appeals again to #8.

Karen: The point still stands that you can not force yourself to believe in something; also, #8 is faulty. ;)<<

It is irrelevant whether or not you can force yourself to believe in something. I never said you can (although i'll say it now that you can make yourself believe something if you want to. I know i've done it about bad things i have done and want to remember them happening another way). Just because you have no power over it doesn't mean it's wrong.

#8 is not faulty for its own purpose. Its conclusion is that disbelieving in God is useless because the Christian doesn't lose anything either way, though the atheist/agnostic does.




>>Me: Yes it does. Through science and such we are attempting to appeal to a reality, knowledge, or science that is greater than ourselves. This is something which exists above and outside of us, and we are trying to understand it. However, this is impossible to the atheistic worldview because under it reality is subject to our own perceptions. There are no absolutes to the atheist except the relative absolutes from person to person.

Karen: Wrong. You are confusing moral absolutes with the "Is the apple red? True or false?" logical anaylises. If you want to call this an "absolute," fine, but it is an abolute that is also consistant in atheism as well as your view then.<<

You have no basis to say that they are absolute. There is no standard with which to prove that an apple is red or that there are any absolutes in an atheistic worldview. The only thing that makes something absolute is if it is true based on a standard. The atheistic standard is relative from person to person, whereas the Christian standard is absolute. Therefore, atheists must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to have absolute facts (and therefore any knowledge).




>>Me: We require God to be the standard for knowledge, as there can be no absolutes (and thus no knowledge) without Him to make it absolute. The "knowledge" of science in an atheistic worldview is relative from person to person and, therefore, cannot be absolute.

KarenNo it isn't. One requirement for knowledge is that the said thing the person is knowledgable of be true. For example, someone can know that the capitol of New York is New York City, but someone can not know the capitol of New York is Austin because this would be a false belief.<<

However, what is the standard that tells us that it is a false belief? Perceptions of reality, and therefore effectively reality itself to any given person, vary from person to person. If there is to be an absolute then there must be a standard. The Christian standard is God, while the atheist's standard can only be themselves. If the atheist's standard is his or herself, i cannot see why someone else could not simply declare themself the standard and then all reality be based upon that person.



Have a nice day, Karen!
john

[Karen M]

Hello again Must :)


>>>That first cause is a deity of some sort. That is what the proof is attempting to establish--that the universe had a cause and that cause's identifier is "god" (or, in the actual scenario, "God").<<<

So now you are claiming that the very cause is a "diety"? No supernaturalism, perfection, or conceiousness required? Very well then, if the universe did have a first cause(which it still might not have had..), I will agree to that "God" as another likely possiblility. :)




>>>The philosophically transcendent principle is that order was created from less order through naturalistic processes (original point restated for better wording), which is illogical.<<<

Good thing I didn't say anything that implied more order came from less order then. :)


>>>Your example: The problem here is that they had to get very lucky in order to get eyes which match the exact wavelength. There is a massive spectrum, and a large change in the eyes requires much more than one mutation. Getting the appropriate eyes would essentially happen through great luck.<<<

No. They mutated a sensory organ. That sensory organ, out of the entire list of things it could sense and, once it went to sight, the entire wavelength, happened to land on the current wavelength. It would still be beneficial if we could see in infared or a different section of the wavelength... It just happened to land on the current setting. :)



>>>There is not an artificial barrier. Why do you think we can recreate microevolution in action but not macroevolution?<<<

Macroevolution IS microevolution. Just microevolve a few hundred times = one macro.


>>>Why are we more than able to turn a white moth into a brown moth, but we cannot turn a fish into a person, even a fish into an amphibian? That is because moving through major kinds of lifeforms (macroevolution) is distinct from moving tiny pieces of lifeforms (microevolution).<<<

We could turn a fish into an amphibian if we had enough time and we had complete control over selection. ;)



>>>Can you elaborate further?<<<

You could look it up on www.google.com if you wish. :) I really don't feel like getting into a Primordial Soup debate here; if you wish to perhaps you could start a new thread though.



>>>A deity is supernatural by definition.<<<

True, but everything supernatural is not necessarily a diety. See the point? :)



>>>Just as there is no solid proof for your existence to me or my existence to you.<<<

Yes there is so long as you do not set the standard for "proof" to the extreme.


>>>If i were to wave my hand and a tidal wave appears, you could rationalize it as a tricky machine or the weather. If i were to touch a person and their cancer be gone, you could tell me that it was just coincidence that the tumor turned recessive at that moment. If you want to disbelieve in miracles you always can<<<

These things have not happened though. ;) Though nothing can pass extreme standards of proof save that "I think therefore I am," miricales do not pass the NORMAL standard of proof.




>>>By the previously stated comment it is. Note before that it is better for something perfect to exist than not to exist. By definition, something perfect must have the "better" property, therefore it exists. Again, i don't like this proof.<<<

So you define "existance" in as part of "perfection," and then claim that perfect things therefore exist? ;) I don't think this proof works either...



>>>Two questions are then to be asked:
1. Why are the systems so similar?<<<

Because what is beneficial for one society is also beneficial for the other one. Notice that in civilizations, the evolutionary beneficial traits are normally the same(don't murder, don't steal, etc.) while the detremental ones are usually different(don't eat such and such on this day, kill people with red hair, etc.)


>>>2. You speak of the morals derived from the social contract as essentially discovering what the best option is (for instance, don't steal). If you are _discovering_ the best option, then that means that the best option was already there.<<<

? Yes, the "best" option is the one which is the most beneficial for individual rights and survivial.


>>>Why? Because God created it that way. There must be a moral absolute that they are just learning about and\or being controlled by even through their own attempted scheme for personal sovereignty through a social contract.<<<

No. These are not based on any absolute moral standard. It is based on people's goal to benefit themselves; I have already been over this several times. If you believe that these standards come from God, then you have the burden of proof to prove this, and you must also disprove my statement about evolutionary instinctive egoism(as it is backed by social contract, human behavior studies, and the U.S government itself ;) )





>>>Now you are appealing to a moral absolute which exists.<<<

No I am not. I am appealing to survival of the fittest.


>>>This is the absolute set of morals which is the best and evolution is the mechanism by which people are forced into the morals.<<<

You are now agreeing that these morals come from evolution but simply saying that evolution is a "mechanism" for an absolute morality now? Please provide proof for this...


>>>What, therefore, makes them absolute?<<<

What makes "true" true and "false" false? These are statements about reality. Existance itself makes them work. I am saying the apple is red(reflecting red light waves). That is all I am saying. If you wish to say that this comes from a God, this is also a burden on you to prove it.



>>>The only thing that matters is the long-term effect, however.<<<

What makes you think that?


>>>If we not longer exist in 200 years then what difference did it make if we "wasted" our time?<<<

So just because we won't be here in 200 years is a reason to not enjoy ourselves now? ;)



>>>It is irrelevant whether or not you can force yourself to believe in something. I never said you can<<<

It is relivant as you brought up pascal's wager.


>>>(although i'll say it now that you can make yourself believe something if you want to. I know i've done it about bad things i have done and want to remember them happening another way). Just because you have no power over it doesn't mean it's wrong.<<<

?? You can not control what you believe(which you yourself have admited by saying "just because you have NO POWER over it..). Also, I never said it was wrong to believe something...


>>>#8 is not faulty for its own purpose. Its conclusion is that disbelieving in God is useless because the Christian doesn't lose anything either way, though the atheist/agnostic does.<<<

Which it is faulty. The Christian loses precious time for their one and only life if they are wrong. This is also where the fact that you can't change your beliefs at will comes in. Also, this problem is faulty as it assumes that the Christian God is the only God possible to exist or not. I could make this same case against you with Islam.



>>>You have no basis to say that they are absolute. There is no standard with which to prove that an apple is red or that there are any absolutes in an atheistic worldview. The only thing that makes something absolute is if it is true based on a standard.<<<

Good thing we have a standard then. :) Its called logic...


>>>The atheistic standard is relative from person to person, whereas the Christian standard is absolute.<<<

You are confusing morality with knowledge. Atheistic opinions(along with Christian opinions) can be relative, but "true" and "false" are not claimed to be relative under the atheistic worldview. They come from logic, which is the study of cause and effect. If you wish to claim that this logic comes from your God, then the burden of proof is again on you to prove that claim.



>>>However, what is the standard that tells us that it is a false belief?<<<

logic.


have a nice day :)

Karen