Originally posted by BroInChrist:
That the universe began to exist and that the universe has a beginning are different ways of saying the same thing.The Bible supplies the premise that the universe has a beginning and more recently science has come to the same conclusion so clearly stated in the first words of Holy Writ.
The Stanley Miller experiment did not prove abiogenesis at all. They did not produce life. Far from it they got a deadly mixture of stuff. But even if they did manage to produce life in the lab it would prove that intelligent design was required, rather than a naturalistic undirected process.
Again I am NOT saying that we know nothing about the past. The Bible tells us a lot about the past that have been vindicated by other historical sources and archaeological findings. What I am saying is that you cannot repeat the past in the lab.
They are not the same. Beginning predicates temporal priority and the concept of "before" and "after". They did produce the amino acids capable of sustaining life over a couple of months - a huge feat and perfectly in line with abiogenesis. Deadly mixture of stuff?! What deadly mixture are you referring to? There is no deadly mixture involved. Are you perhaps referring to the amino acid compunds formed? Also, how does it prove intelligent design? Where did you get that premise from? We certainly cannot repeat the past in the lab, but that doesn't mean we cannot know about the past. Not everything has to be repeated ad infinitum to be known. I don't need to live repeated lives to verify my existence. I don't need to repeat the birth of an animal to verify the animal's parents. We have much better reasons for that, such as our cognitive faculties and the ability to test family relations via DNA sequencing.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Quote you. "... I do not have enough faith to be an atheist." does mean you were an atheist before. You were just saying either you lost faith in atheism or gained faith in being what you are.
"Saying that everyone is born an atheist, even technically speaking, is abusing definition of atheism amd misleading. No one is born declaring that there is no God. It is true to say that everyone is born ignorant since he comes into the world with a clean slate in terms of knowledge."
Before faith, knowledge must be. No knowledge --> no faith --> no believe of God/s--> atheist. Doubtless fact. Atheism is nothing about declaration, just belief or lack of it. Unless you wanna redefine atheism or use your own definition... be my guest, bring it on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtheismStill I'd say, focus on the topic at hand.
An atheist is one who says there is no God. Newborns do not say that. It is only recently that atheists redefine atheism as lack of belief so they can evade the burden of proof that comes with declaring that there is no God. It is an intellectually dishonest cop out. You like dictionaries ya? See http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.sg/2011/07/atheism-is-lack-of-belief.html?m=1
What God?
Hindus have their Gods.
Muslims have their God.
Christians have their God.
Primitive people have their God.
And there are many more.
All claim their God is the true God.
Some will kill if you disagree with them.
But really who is right, when you don't give a damn to their conviction.
Nobody really knows. They all believe, and believing is really feelings.
They feel theirs is the true God, thats why they get worked up or pleased according the direction of the discussion.
It does not matter to the True God, whether you believe in Him or not. Just live the good life. Thats all there is to it. All the affirmation to God is of no use. It is how you live.
Originally posted by White Dust:They are not the same. Beginning predicates temporal priority and the concept of "before" and "after". They did produce the amino acids capable of sustaining life over a couple of months - a huge feat and perfectly in line with abiogenesis. Deadly mixture of stuff?! What deadly mixture are you referring to? There is no deadly mixture involved. Are you perhaps referring to the amino acid compunds formed? Also, how does it prove intelligent design? Where did you get that premise from? We certainly cannot repeat the past in the lab, but that doesn't mean we cannot know about the past. Not everything has to be repeated ad infinitum to be known. I don't need to live repeated lives to verify my existence. I don't need to repeat the birth of an animal to verify the animal's parents. We have much better reasons for that, such as our cognitive faculties and the ability to test family relations via DNA sequencing.
Miller's experiment yielded 85% tar. See http://the_wordbride.tripod.com/origin.html
Why would scientists tinkering with chemicals in the lab to produce life not be deemed as intelligent design in action? Human intelligence and intervention was present at all stages. But evolution is supposed to be undirected. See http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis
Any attempt to verify the past will involve the use of the legal-historical method of proof, not the scientific method.
Originally posted by mancha:What God?
Hindus have their Gods.
Muslims have their God.
Christians have their God.
Primitive people have their God.
And there are many more.
All claim their God is the true God.
Some will kill if you disagree with them.
But really who is right, when you don't give a damn to their conviction.
Nobody really knows. They all believe, and believing is really feelings.
They feel theirs is the true God, thats why they get worked up or pleased according the direction of the discussion.
It does not matter to the True God, whether you believe in Him or not. Just live the good life. Thats all there is to it. All the affirmation to God is of no use. It is how you live.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If you say nobody really knows, then how come you can know that it does not matter to the true God? What do you know about the true God anyway?
I know enough, because He gave me the ability to think.
By thinking I know that God would be pleased with me if I think things out through and through, rightly or wrongly.
Do you honestly believe that the true God would censure me because I am not a Christian, Muslim, or Hindu or Jew or of any another religion. It boils down to how you live, and leave it at that. Whether there is heaven, hell or reincarnation or curtains should not be an issue, just live the good life.
Originally posted by mancha:I know enough, because He gave me the ability to think.
By thinking I know that God would be pleased with me if I think things out through and through, rightly or wrongly.
Do you honestly believe that the true God would censure me because I am not a Christian, Muslim, or Hindu or Jew or of any another religion. It boils down to how you live, and leave it at that. Whether there is heaven, hell or reincarnation or curtains should not be an issue, just live the good life.
I honestly believe that your view of the true God is false because your view is formed from your own reason and not by God's revelation of Himself.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If something began to exists, it means it has a beginning. That seems pretty clear.Miller's experiment yielded 85% tar. See http://the_wordbride.tripod.com/origin.html
Why would scientists tinkering with chemicals in the lab to produce life not be deemed as intelligent design in action? Human intelligence and intervention was present at all stages. But evolution is supposed to be undirected. See http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis
Any attempt to verify the past will involve the use of the legal-historical method of proof, not the scientific method.
So what you're offering is that time can be caused. Okay, so do you have any justification for that? Tar was not formed during the experiment. The article is really, really wrong. LOL. I don't know how to expose the error of the article except via explaining how tar is actually formed so please bear with me. Tar is produced via the distillation or burning of long chain carbon compunds and fossil fuels. Tar is the result of carbon residue being left due to imcomplete combustion (what we call black soot). Tar was not formed during the experiment because short chain amino acids cannot decompose to form tar. They simply denature, and here's why. Ever wondered why your meat doesn't produce tar when cooked? Proteins (amino acids) denature when exposed to heat and the whole connection between amino acids and tar is absurd. I would also like to add that the results are remarkably in line with abiogenesis, 13 amino acids were produced using merely 2 percent of the carbon present. Here's a paper from Duke University.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
No, the tinkering of chemicals would not be considered intelligent design because the tinkering is meant to make it as unintelligent as possible. It is precisely the point to make things happen randomly (whilst stimulating the initial conditions of the Earth) without any interference during the organic synthesis. How one goes from stimulating the initial conditions of the Earth to intelligent design is simply non sequitur.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
But just because you can think it does not mean your conclusion is right. All you have is your own opinion about God. It is special pleading on your part to claim to know what nobody really knows.I honestly believe that your view of the true God is false because your view is formed from your own reason and not by God's revelation of Himself.
Humans are different from all other animals. Why?
God gave humans the ability to think. So think.
Sure my view of the true God is false, so is the view of all others.
How would you know, it is not the God within me who reveal those ideas to me.
You'll never know, because your mindset is set.
Originally posted by mancha:Humans are different from all other animals. Why?
God gave humans the ability to think. So think.
Sure my view of the true God is false, so is the view of all others.
How would you know, it is not the God within me who reveal those ideas to me.
You'll never know, because your mindset is set.
All private opinions about God must be subject to what God has already revealed to us in His Word which is the authority for faith and practice. Judging your views with the Word of God reveals the errors of your beliefs.
Any error on my part is made by you!
You are the one saying it is erroneous, based on your fixed mindset.
dun bother talking any sense to him, because his beliefs are not sane to begin with, hence his replys are not sane. its an insult to your intelligence to even discuss with him on these matters, just to put it mildly.
Noted.
Originally posted by mancha:Any error on my part is made by you!
You are the one saying it is erroneous, based on your fixed mindset.
I certainly rejoice in the wisdom and interesting literature of the Bible. I used to learn and teach from it over the past 12 years after all. However, over the past 3 years, I have come to find certain portions of the text to be insightful whilst others horrifying.
yes the poems and songs are nice, even richard dawkin alluded to it, but thats all that is to it.
the belief system is collapsing like a house of cards in the next 100 years, as science reveals and explains then the dogmatic beliefs, which is obsolete and irrelevant in this day and age.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You failed to get the meaning about not having enough faith to be an atheist.An atheist is one who says there is no God. Newborns do not say that. It is only recently that atheists redefine atheism as lack of belief so they can evade the burden of proof that comes with declaring that there is no God. It is an intellectually dishonest cop out. You like dictionaries ya? See http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.sg/2011/07/atheism-is-lack-of-belief.html?m=1
"You failed to get the meaning about not having enough faith to be an atheist."
Please do elaborate.
"No knowledge --> no faith --> no believe, Also, knowledge --> faith --> believe
" It is only recently that atheists redefine atheism as lack of belief so they can evade the burden of proof that comes with declaring that there is no God. It is an intellectually dishonest cop out. You like dictionaries ya? See http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.sg/2011/07/atheism-is-lack-of-belief.html?m=1"
You were thinking that a link from a blog would be convincing... see below
http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheism-FAQ-Questions/f/Dictionary-Definition-Atheism.htm
You do seemed to choose what you wanna believe... and lacked the initiative to seek beyond own's knowledge...
From the topic, the focus is on believe of God... not the asserted non believing... why the divertion?
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:yes the poems and songs are nice, even richard dawkin alluded to it, but thats all that is to it.
the belief system is collapsing like a house of cards in the next 100 years, as science reveals and explains then the dogmatic beliefs, which is obsolete and irrelevant in this day and age.
That is true. In fact, I think there are actually good reasons to think that God does not exist. The plethora of evils in the world is a good case against the concept of an omnibenevolent/onmipotent God. Even if it doesn't amount to a complete disproof, it is strong evidence against the existence of such a deity.
Originally posted by White Dust:That is true. In fact, I think there are actually good reasons to think that God does not exist. The plethora of evils in the world is a good case against the concept of an omnibenevolent/onmipotent God. Even if it doesn't amount to a complete disproof, it is strong evidence against the existence of such a deity.
That's where the original sin and free will comes in... and I'm not for free will....
Originally posted by Aneslayer:That's where the original sin and free will comes in... and I'm not for free will....
That's cool! So what is your position on this matter?
When there is evil there is good.
There maybe God, but there is definitely no God like a grand old man with a white beard seeing everything and rewarding every good deed carrying a stout wooden walking stick.. There maybe Devil, but definitely no Devil like a red skinned being with two horn and an arrowhead tail carrying a trident.
For want of a better word, God and all its variants is used for good, and Satan or Devil and all the bad spirits for evil.
Both God and Satan should they exist, would be equal. God can create religion and Satan can also create religion in order to win the eternal battle of good and evil. We humans are the pawns.
God would represent life, growth, flourshing, energy, happiness, fairness, compassion, strength, freedom, pleasantness, love etc and Satan represent constriction, degradation, sadness, stiffling, biasness, suppression, revenge, enslavement, hate, etc.
Different ethnic groups have different ideas of God and Satan. No one is wrong or correct. It is just their idea of the champions of good and evil. And they would want their community and others to adopt their belief for their own betterment and safety.
This discourse would go endlessly, and to get to the point I want to make in this topic about God is that God would be omnipotent and not petty, so it matters not to Him what "faith you belong to". Just chose to live the good life. It matters to Satan, for He represents evil and wants your unwavering allegiance to stifle humanity.
God "whatever you conceive Him to be" wants humanity to flourish, to progress, to advance, to be happy. It takes time to build. The reverse, Satan wants the opposite, and has the advantage because to destroy is easy. Thats why evil is rife while good is plodding along.
Nobody knows the truth about heaven, hell, reincarntion and rebirth, or curtains where death means zap! nothing. This is not the time to worry about it.
Human are different from other creatures, because of the ability to think more deeply.
And to decide what is better. Advance in harmony or regress in misery.
Think. Don't be afraid to be wrong.
Sam Harris - Death and the Present Moment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITTxTCz4Ums
Sam Harris make it his mission to debunk the fallacy of a god and bible.
Originally posted by White Dust:I certainly rejoice in the wisdom and interesting literature of the Bible. I used to learn and teach from it over the past 12 years after all. However, over the past 3 years, I have come to find certain portions of the text to be insightful whilst others horrifying.
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:Sam Harris - Death and the Present Moment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITTxTCz4Ums
Sam Harris make it his mission to debunk the fallacy of a god and bible.
Anyway Sam Harris has recently debated William Lane Craig and you can watch it online. I give the debate to Craig. In my view the new atheists lack the philosophical depths to challenge theism while atheism itself lacks a philosophical justification.
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:yes the poems and songs are nice, even richard dawkin alluded to it, but thats all that is to it.
the belief system is collapsing like a house of cards in the next 100 years, as science reveals and explains then the dogmatic beliefs, which is obsolete and irrelevant in this day and age.