Is there a god/Allah/Supreme being?
Discussion
rickbrown74 said:
Science does NOT contradict the bible.
I think you'll find the theory of evolution does contradict the bible quite completely actually. Christian teachings say that god created man in his current form, that man was god's masterpiece, and that god created man in his own image. That last point is particularly important because if evolution does exist then by implication we are in a transient state and humans will no longer exist after another million years or so.
rickbrown74 said:
At least I've never heard a conclusive arguement that doesnt have an element of 'faith' involved to believe. (PS Darwin became a believer in God before he died due to the large holes in his evolution theory)
The worldwide flood in Noahs days has been backed-up by the sedimentary layers found in the earth for example.
Therein lies the most critical point in this discussion, an ELEMENT of faith. Science gives us understanding almost entirely by logical fact/implication. 'Faith' is only required to cover the random element, which in many cases is effectively reduced to zero with the passage of time and experience. Religion is based entirely on faith or belief, with no logical, implicating fact ever produced. The Noah one is a perfect example. Those with even the simplest grasp of logic will tell you it is nonsense to say 'there is sediment, hence there was a big sea, hence there was a boat carrying half a million animals'. You can't work it backwards with certainty because there are many plausable possibilities.
As for the holes in Darwins theory, no evidence has been produced of how evolution COULDN'T exist since Darwin's time. The observed occurence of mutations and the fact they are replicated into that persons DNA/genes makes evolution absolutely inevitable.
Jinx said:
Q1 14 Billion years to a being outside of time is less then infintesimal.
Thats not actually true from a mathematical point of view. A being outside of time does not experience a time period so the two are not comparable. If you say he experiences all of 'our' eternity then they're still not comparable because that eternity could be 15 billion years or infinite.
>> Edited by Control on Friday 9th July 15:48
MOD500 said:
Did you know the virgin mary concept has only been about since the 18th century, I think.
The concept of the Virgin Mary is in the bible...in the gospel of Luke where the angel Gabriel visits Mary, commonly known as the 'Annunciation'.
Thanks
MOD.
I think you'll find that the imacculate conception is an idea, that was introduced as an afterthought, in relation to original sin. The virgin mary was a mistake on my part, as I meant immaculate conception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
judas said:
How infalible is your memory? We believe we exist through time and yet history is merely "stories" from a good book supported by falible evidence. How does your memory stand up to scientific tests? For the scientific method to work it has to be repeatable and yet if you cannot trust history how can anything be truely repeated?
And yet you use the same flawed approach here.
Not quite, the Descartian approach is not trusting your senses of the here and now - I was trying to indicate that what has happened before is of no consequence to what happens in the future (basic probability theory) and that being the case would cast doubt on the scientific method.
Oh and sometimes I can be a bit facetious..
andy mac said:
andy mac said:
Did you know the virgin mary concept has only been about since the 18th century, I think.
The concept of the Virgin Mary is in the bible...in the gospel of Luke where the angel Gabriel visits Mary, commonly known as the 'Annunciation'.
Thanks
MOD.
I think you'll find that the imacculate conception is an idea, that was introduced as an afterthought, in relation to original sin. The virgin mary was a mistake on my part, as I meant immaculate conception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
After some more googling, found out the date that the Church decided that Immaculate conception was a 'truth' is 1854...
www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
Surely you can see that the church manipulates these things as it sees fit? removing books, and abridging others?
andy mac said:
Surely you can see that the church manipulates these things as it sees fit? removing books, and abridging others?
I am not sure how using the origins of canonic doctrine negates the existence of God - Just because men in Churches make stuff up doesn't mean everything is all made up.
Jinx said:
Surely you can see that the church manipulates these things as it sees fit? removing books, and abridging others?
I am not sure how using the origins of canonic doctrine negates the existence of God - Just because men in Churches make stuff up doesn't mean everything is all made up.
No it doesn't - science and logic can manage that by themselves. What it does show is the levels of desperation people will stoop to in order to deny the facts and maintain power.
>> Edited by judas on Friday 9th July 15:45
Jinx said:
Surely you can see that the church manipulates these things as it sees fit? removing books, and abridging others?
I am not sure how using the origins of canonic doctrine negates the existence of God - Just because men in Churches make stuff up doesn't mean everything is all made up.
Nope... you are right, but that was in response to a reply about flaws in the bible, and those flaws are there due to the church meddlings with the bible.
Also, if you accept that the people at the head of the church make things up, and have done for a long time, why does it seem illogical that they would not have created a God character for their own ends, primarily the control of the population?
judas said:
No it doesn't - science and logic can manage that by themselves. What it does show is the levels of desperation people will stoop to in order to deny the facts and maintain power.
>> Edited by judas on Friday 9th July 15:45
You certainly have a valid point about power and the desperate means that the "religious" elite have used to maintain and increase it. I have never had any faith in organised religion - too much blood on its hands for my delicate stomach. I will maintain though that logic and science fails to define our existence, it is like using a ruler to measure the beauty of a sunset.
Jinx said:
No it doesn't - science and logic can manage that by themselves. What it does show is the levels of desperation people will stoop to in order to deny the facts and maintain power.
>> Edited by judas on Friday 9th July 15:45
You certainly have a valid point about power and the desperate means that the "religious" elite have used to maintain and increase it. I have never had any faith in organised religion - too much blood on its hands for my delicate stomach. I will maintain though that logic and science fails to define our existence, it is like using a ruler to measure the beauty of a sunset.
Surely that is down to perception? Some may find one thing beautiful, and others may not. This has nothing to do wioth creation, and a supreme being.
Can I change the subject a bit??
Please feel free to lash me if I'm wrong in what I post(I confess to have only the slightest knowledge of religion and religious beliefs), but I've got a question.
Adam & Eve-first people on earth, right?
They had two sons, Kane & Able(didn't they?)
One killed the other-(Kane killed Able I think)
We are all here, right??? HOW?
The only way more humans could have been created is if the remainig son had sex with his mother. I'm sure incest isn't something preached in the bible.(once again enlighten me if I'm wrong...)
That's my take on things, but please tell me where I'm wrong because I no nowt about religion at all. I once asked a vicar this when I was about ten and he went all quiet and looked at his watch and didn't answer me straight. Did the remainig son have sex with his mother or not???
Please feel free to lash me if I'm wrong in what I post(I confess to have only the slightest knowledge of religion and religious beliefs), but I've got a question.
Adam & Eve-first people on earth, right?
They had two sons, Kane & Able(didn't they?)
One killed the other-(Kane killed Able I think)
We are all here, right??? HOW?
The only way more humans could have been created is if the remainig son had sex with his mother. I'm sure incest isn't something preached in the bible.(once again enlighten me if I'm wrong...)
That's my take on things, but please tell me where I'm wrong because I no nowt about religion at all. I once asked a vicar this when I was about ten and he went all quiet and looked at his watch and didn't answer me straight. Did the remainig son have sex with his mother or not???
Jinx said:
I will maintain though that logic and science fails to define our existence, it is like using a ruler to measure the beauty of a sunset.
Whereas I maintain that the notion of a god is unnecessary to define our existence, or appreciate the beauty of a sunset. I would also add that science, if sufficiently advanced, could measure the beauty of a sunset. Whether that would be a worthwhile pursuit is another matter entirely.
Perhaps there is a superior being or beings, and like us humans maybe they create new life forms as a hobby.
We humans invent and perfect things, the first mobile phones were big and cumbersome and then became smaller as technology advanced (this is just an example).
Perhaps the dinosaurs were an early attempt for it/them
and as their technology improved so they created smaller more efficient creatures, perhaps they became extinct because whover created them thought what a cock up i have made here, these dino thingys are too big for their surroundings.
The earth is not old enough for all these lifeforms to have evolved from one so called point of origin, look around you insects, birds, mammals, fish, plants, trees, germs, bacteria, viruses, etc etc etc
Now where did i put my spliff?
We humans invent and perfect things, the first mobile phones were big and cumbersome and then became smaller as technology advanced (this is just an example).
Perhaps the dinosaurs were an early attempt for it/them
and as their technology improved so they created smaller more efficient creatures, perhaps they became extinct because whover created them thought what a cock up i have made here, these dino thingys are too big for their surroundings.
The earth is not old enough for all these lifeforms to have evolved from one so called point of origin, look around you insects, birds, mammals, fish, plants, trees, germs, bacteria, viruses, etc etc etc
Now where did i put my spliff?
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff