Thread: God?

75, you argure for Theists better than actual Theists do.

@Mark75

There's no use showing a blind man his reflection.

Originally Posted by Ailos

@Mark75

You obviously can't handle anything but what you're told should be the way things work.

There's no use showing a blind man his reflection.

He's horrible isn't he!

Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot

Morality is relative to the culture that you live in; Buddhists, for example, have ideas about proper moral conduct yet the core tenets of Buddhism do not include the idea of an all knowing God who controls our fates.

So if i walk up and stab you in the gut because i believe it to be morally acceptable or rape you and steal your money it is ok right? since morals are "relative" i can do whatever i want that is right to me and you have no say in it.

Originally Posted by Mark75

I thought we had established that not everything can be explained by science at the mention of the origin of existence.

Says who? It can't be explained at the moment, sure. We don't have enough understanding, and I think we probably never will. But I do believe there is a scientific explanation behind everything, even God if it exists. Science is simply how everything works, nature if you will. We may not understand how something works, but that doesn't mean its not governed by science.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Of course I don't think God came from nothing. God didn't "come from" anything. God, unlike the universe, exists outside of time. God has simply always been and therefore requires no creator.

Ok, then who says the Universe can't be the same? The fabric of the Universe could very well exist outside of time and have no need for a creator. I'm not saying it is, nor am I saying God didn't create the Universe, I'm only saying that it could go either way. But if you think the Universe can't exist from nothing, then I don't see how you could believe that God can.

Originally Posted by Mark75

It seems clever on the surface, but anyone with a watch can see that the universe is dependant on time (hint: your watch is in the universe!)

Just because everything within the Universe is governed by time doesn't mean the Universe itself has to be, its just one of the rules that the Universe enforces. Time is relative anyway, some even believe its only a concept created by man to explain out own entropy.

Originally Posted by Mark75

No proof? Have you read the Bible? I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. Try it sometime. Really think about its significance as you do and after you're finished. Pray about it and God will reveal Himself to you. God doesn't just come down and say "Hi, Hiros, I'm God, how're you?" at the mere request of him to do so. No, God doesn't work like that. He's far more elegant, yet just as approachable. God is revealed in his works, which are undeniable. They are the things you see, hear, taste, smell and think every day!

Yes I have read the bible, most of it anyway. A book written my men. Ordinary, fallible men with a much lower understanding of the Universe in general than we have now.
I was raised a Christian and went to Catholic school. But at some point I decided to make my own decisions of how I think the Universe works based on any information that was available to me.
Nor would I expect God to reveal itself to me. I would expect the opposite. I see us as regular animals, just more advanced than any of the others on our planet. I think God would see us in the same way. I don't expect it to reveal itself to me any more than I'd expect it to reveal itself to a cockroach.

Originally Posted by Stephent91

You obviously are oblivious to sarcasm.

That wasn't in response to your statement.

It was in reference to the illusioned and clouded logic of Mark75.

Originally Posted by M0rp8ix

So if i walk up and stab you in the gut because i believe it to be morally acceptable or rape you and steal your money it is ok right? since morals are "relative" i can do whatever i want that is right to me and you have no say in it.

Now you're touching on Philosophy M0rp8ix, and failing at that. You're turning things totally away from what they're meant to be and moving this to a totally different discussion.

But for the sake of discussion, the fact of the matter is, Morals are relative. Islamic extremists that are blowing themselves up and killing many, many people for their beliefs, believe what they are doing is right. They believe they are doing good. That is their morals. By their moral standards, they are doing what is right. By our moral standards as western culture, we believe what they're doing is wrong. We have different morals than they do, and each and every person has different morals. Just like those who are pro or anti-abortion. Those that are pro or anti-gay marriage. Its the same with anything, everyone has different moral values and views on what is good and what is bad.

Originally Posted by Ailos

That wasn't in response to your statement.

It was in reference to the illusioned and clouded logic of Mark75.

I reiterate Stephen's post.

Originally Posted by Ailos

You are correct in the idea that one small genetic mutation can render an organism useless. This happens all the time. Look at children born with deadly congenital disorders.

Evolution takes this into consideration. It is a process through which the most fit organisms reproduce while the weaker die off. Thus, the organisms with debilitating genetic variations die, while the ones with strong variations reproduce more, and those variations are strengthened.

This is how all the different components of humans have evolved. I fail to see how your point is logical.

Evolution is a science. It is proven. It is not an idea. It is observable in the physical world, and thus can be described as a science. Genetic variations DO occur; it IS observable. It is simple logic to connect the dots that more fit organisms reproduce more than less fit ones.

In order of evolution birds evolved from reptiles. a reptiles eye can not be changed into a birds eye. evolution is small changes and since ANY small change to that eye would render it useless the eye wouldnt be able to evolve because those with the malfunctioning eye would die off. therefore how did the eye of a reptile turn into the eye of a bird? the deformities would cause the reptile carrying the altered eye to be killed off.

Originally Posted by Ailos

That wasn't in response to your statement.

It was in reference to the illusioned and clouded logic of Mark75.

I'm sorry. Please continue.

Originally Posted by M0rp8ix

In order of evolution birds evolved from reptiles. a reptiles eye can not be changed into a birds eye. evolution is small changes and since ANY small change to that eye would render it useless the eye wouldnt be able to evolve because those with the malfunctioning eye would die off. therefore how did the eye of a reptile turn into the eye of a bird? the deformities would cause the reptile carrying the altered eye to be killed off.

You don't understand a thing about evolution...

Originally Posted by M0rp8ix

So if i walk up and stab you in the gut because i believe it to be morally acceptable or rape you and steal your money it is ok right? since morals are "relative" i can do whatever i want that is right to me and you have no say in it.

EDIT: (Removed my response as ExoByte has already addressed this).

Originally Posted by M0rp8ix

In order of evolution birds evolved from reptiles. a reptiles eye can not be changed into a birds eye. evolution is small changes and since ANY small change to that eye would render it useless the eye wouldnt be able to evolve because those with the malfunctioning eye would die off. therefore how did the eye of a reptile turn into the eye of a bird? the deformities would cause the reptile carrying the altered eye to be killed off.

You have an extremely distorted understanding of evolution.

Small genetic changes DON'T always render a system or organ useless. They can sometimes improve them, make them more effective. Thus, the overall performance of the organism is increased and they reproduce more. As a result, their stronger genetic variations are strengthened within the population.

Thus, with that said, the reptilian eye evolved to the avian eye due to environmental pressures which selected more acute vision as more successful than the poorer reptilian vision, as they flew high in the air rather than low to the floor.

And YES, there are far more steps than just reptiles->birds. There was a slow progression which was molded by environmental pressures, such as food sources, temperature, and geographic influences.


PLEASE study evolution before you post in response.

I shall leave the argument as it stands in that I have turned this discussion into an evolutionary discussion rather than a God existence one.

and i have studied evolution, i went through the entire public schooling system and even took a course in college on it.

Originally Posted by M0rp8ix

but when you look at it there is a ton more physical scientific data to back up the bible and Christianity than any other religion.

If you believe in an invisible sky-daddy, why even pretend to give a shit what science says?

It should be all-or-nothing. Reject rationality and believe your comforting fairy tales, or embrace science and admit that there is no way for you to know if the Christian God exists or not.

Originally Posted by Ailos

@Mark75

There's no use showing a blind man his reflection.

You can lead a blind horse to water but you can't make him drink his reflection.

Originally Posted by Hiros

I don't expect it to reveal itself to me any more than I'd expect it to reveal itself to a cockroach.

Are you sure you've read the Bible? Because that's not what it says.

Originally Posted by M0rp8ix

In order of evolution birds evolved from reptiles. a reptiles eye can not be changed into a birds eye. evolution is small changes and since ANY small change to that eye would render it useless the eye wouldnt be able to evolve because those with the malfunctioning eye would die off. therefore how did the eye of a reptile turn into the eye of a bird? the deformities would cause the reptile carrying the altered eye to be killed off.

Not all genetic mutations are bad and would result in a useless eye.
Those that do will not be passed on as the creature would be unable to see and therefor not pass on its genetic material.
But mutations that have benefits will strengthen the creatures ability to survive and pass on its genes to the next generation.

Originally Posted by Mark75

You can lead a blind horse to water but you can't make him drink his reflection.

I fail to see the logic in the analogy you present with respect to the viewpoint your are fruitlessly trying to back.

A blind man is unable to observe the world around him for what it really is, he can only imagine based on what people tell him (which can very well be false). When he is finally presented with the truth, with what he truly looks like, he is unable to see it.

This is much like how you are failing to see the world how it really is as a result of your unwillingness to let go of your fantasy world of mere ideas and step into the real world.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Are you sure you've read the Bible? Because that's not what it says.

The bible was written by men who believed the opposite of what I said, that people were created in gods image and are above the animals. So when I said we are just the same as animals that should tell you that I don't agree with whats written in the bible. It is after all written by men, I don't have to believe it any more than I have to believe something written in a modern book.

I haven't studied the bible, nor read the whole thing. Only large portions of it over a period of 13 years of school.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

If you believe in an invisible sky-daddy, why even pretend to give a shit what science says?

It should be all-or-nothing. Reject rationality and believe your comforting fairy tales, or embrace science and admit that there is no way for you to know if the Christian God exists or not.

There is belief and there is science. the two are separate yes but they can be used to support each other. I am saying that you can not prove God exist, but just because you can not prove it exist doesn't mean you can just write it off as nothing.

and it doesnt matter if any of us here believe God exist or not, There is no way to know for sure other than to die and see what happens. I am just picking one that has more supporting evidence. I cant know for sure if i am right or not but that is my belief, you have yours as well.

Originally Posted by Ailos

I fail to see the logic in the analogy you present with respect to the viewpoint your are fruitlessly trying to back.

A blind man is unable to observe the world around him for what it really is, he can only imagine based on what people tell him (which can very well be false). When he is finally presented with the truth, with what he truly looks like, he is unable to see it.

This is much like how you are failing to see the world how it really is as a result of your unwillingness to let go of your fantasy world of mere ideas and step into the real world.

It was a trick metaphor: the horse was hungry, not thirsty.

Originally Posted by Hiros

The bible was written by men who believed the opposite of what I said

Oh! So, that's why it's wrong. :bravo:

Originally Posted by Hiros

It is after all written by men, I don't have to believe it any more than I have to believe something written in a modern book.

Like your dear science books?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

If you believe in an invisible sky-daddy, why even pretend to give a shit what science says?

It should be all-or-nothing.

Well said.

I try not to get into debates where I am forced to attempt to disprove the idea of God, especially with those who have a heartfelt belief in it. I don't believe in a God, yet I know that it is immoral to stomp on someone's beliefs if they give them the strength and direction to help others.

I will say though that I do not trust nor regard as sincere those people who feel the need to rabidly attempt to convert other people to their ideas of God.

They are operating more from ego ("you must believe what I believe") than anything.

well have fun with this discussion i have a paper and speech due in a few hours so i better finish those.

It seems so pointless to discuss this, in that you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of something that can not be measured by our standards.

but i will check back later to see what happens. have fun.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Oh! So, that's why it's wrong. :bravo:

I didn't say it was wrong, only that I don't agree with it and that is why I didn't factor it into my own beliefs. You said the bible says differently as if that must mean I'm wrong. I was just explaining that it doesn't mean I am wrong.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Like your dear science books?

Precisely. Which is why they can't be used to 100% say for certain that god does or doesn't exist. This is what I've been saying from the start
The bible can't be used as proof anymore than any other book can, including science books.

Originally Posted by M0rp8ix

There is belief and there is science. the two are separate yes but they can be used to support each other. I am saying that you can not prove God exist, but just because you can not prove it exist doesn't mean you can just write it off as nothing.

I wholeheartedly agree
Thats precisely why I don't flat out not believe in god. I only find it unlikely. But there is no way to prove it either way.

Originally Posted by Hiros

Precisely. Which is why they can't be used to 100% say for certain that god does or doesn't exist. This is what I've been saying from the start
The bible can't be used as proof anymore than any other book can, including science books.

Give me a ring when your science books prophecies start proving to be completely and totally accurate.