The people who believe in God on this thread have been ask to prove there is a God. I would like to challenge the non-believers on this thread with some questions. All this talk about "logic" and "proof" that has been mentioned applies to your answers, as you have expected the same from the believers answers. No theories... as they cannot be proven. Where did matter come from? Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? How did matter get so perfectly organized? Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter? When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?) How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books) Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? ***When, where, why, and how did: Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?) Single-celled animals evolve? Fish change to amphibians? Amphibians change to reptiles? Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live? ***When, where, why, how, and from what did: Whales evolve? Sea horses evolve? Bats evolve? Eyes evolve? Ears evolve? Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve? ***Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)? The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodyâs resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? The immune system or the need for it? There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships? How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design? When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. How did photosynthesis evolve? How did thought evolve? How did flowering plants evolve, and from that? What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds? What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium? Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true? What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human? Could a pile of scrap metal form itself into a Boeing 747? Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
But your not asking any real questions there, at all, as far as an unbeleiver (or even gnostic) is concerned. The real question, is how have religion's stifled enquiry into these things by sheer dogma, forced opinions on populations, and held up non-proof as proof for so long? Were it not for a continuing process of inquiry, at all times stifled and oppressed by "beleivers", you wouldnt even be asking these questions, because nobody would ever have discovered there was more to it than religious doctrine proscribes. Were it left to religion, to dominate mankinds need for answers, or solutions, ironically, nobody would have an answer at all, nor even a glimpse of one.
Very nice ... or another way to put it: Over the course of history, which method has done a better job of answering similar questions ... questioning minds along with the scientific method, or the bible and a prayer? I just love people who use their computer and internet to decry science. Without the scientific method they'd be scratching in the dirt. JB
rcn: >When, where, why, and how did man evolve >feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never >evolve in the theory of evolution. There is a lot of BS in your post, but I couldn't find a bigger pile than that one. You'd have to be an idiot (or at least disingenuous ) not to immediately recognize that the listed feeling have *incredible* value in an evolutionary sense. Still true today, but much more in our "early" theoretical incarnations -- treating those around you with care and respect was vitally important to survival. The clan would have been one of the most amazing survival tools available. Those feelings are key to that very tool. JB
All good questions. And there were a few poignant rebuttles to your post. But the fact that science doesn't yet provide the full and unequivocal answers to these questions doesn't mean we should insert "god" into those gaps of knowledge. The question remains; If we assert god(s), which god(s) do we insert into the gaps of knowledge? (Also try not to confuse scientific theories with general theories.) The beauty of science is that as new information comes in, new understanding is gained. New theories will emerge. New methods and applications will be employed. Though, religion isn't as stagnant as it appears. With each successive generation of adherents comes a more liberal version of the religion. Like everything else in the natural universe, even religion evolves. And some go extinct. For that reason as well as the fact that there are competing religions with divergent and dissimilar gods throughout the ages and currently, the onus is on theists to prove that their god exists. Considering the claims of the various religions, not all of the gods can exist. And they all make claims to being the only one(s). Did you ever consider that? What makes the Judeo-Christian creation story anymore true than say, the Hindu one? Or the Mayan one? Or the African tribal creation myths? Or hey, even the Islamic one? Where as, we see how stars form an die. We see evidence of species evolution. Etc. etc. What's so evil about observing and postulating and testing? BTW, your bible speaks of life from non-life several times. Did you realize that? For example, Adam created from the dust of the earth. Water's bring forth fowl of the air and fish of the sea. Etc.
Seems contradictory, no? The people who are being denied access to the kingdom of God in Matt 7:21-23 clearly confessed Jesus before men. It's evident from the fact that they said that they did all those things in "his" name. So what gives? Just got trickier, hasn't it?
There is a perfectly round, burnt patch of grass in my pasture. I don't know how it got there and i have ruled out all the obvious sources it could have come from such as children playing with matches, a lightening strike, etc. Therefore i am certain it came from a flying saucer.
I suppose that subtlety is lost on the great theist minds here. If we had just attributed everything that stumped us to God and then left it there without feeling the need to pursue the unknown (after all, the answer is "God," so why bother going further?), then I don't even think we'd have the wheel by now.
If you really want to know, then you will take the relatively few hours required to read Richard Hawkins' The God Delusion. That book will give you a mere synopsis of current scientific thinking that will nonetheless fairly blow the God premise out of the water. Unless, of course, you are just asking your questions for rhetorical effect like most of your theist brethren who have no interest in the answers to their questions.
No trick at all. "I never knew you" is because no one chooses God. He chooses his people. People are dead in their sins. It says that the Lord has looked down upon the sons of men to see if there is any who are righteous (do what is right) and there are none, no not one. There was a good illustration of what salvation really is. Many evangelicals/Pentecostals think it is like being in a boat, and tossing life preservers to those who are in the water, drowning. But the much better truth is, all are lying at the bottom of the ocean, dead. And salvation is a dredging operation, bringing up the dead, and restoring life to the bodies. In the Old Testament, Israel were his chosen people. But it constantly refers to a "remnant" or a subset of those who were true believers. In the New Testament, Jesus tells his disciples, "did I not choose you? And yet one of you is a devil." In Acts after the disciples receive the Holy Spirit, 3000 come forward and can only ask "Brethren, what must we do?" And they need to be instructed. God changed their heart, they did not choose him. And it says that God was adding daily, to those who were being saved. Believers in the New Testament are often called "the Elect" which means - chosen. God knew who would be His from before the world existed. But the real joke is, those who laugh from the outside, when they themselves have no idea from where they came or where they are going. Or why they exist. Or why anything exists, for that matter. And the scripture clearly states that this is the way it will be. Another smart answer will likely follow this post, but the truth is, you have no idea what you are doing here.