This thread is for the discussion of hubbers views on the origins of life and only on that subject. Please, if you wish to participate, pretend you are engaging in a debate. Make your statement, then back it up with evidence. If you cannot back something up with evidence, dont post it. No links to creationist websites please (such as Aig or Discovery institute) only link to credible scientific sources.
Since I am an atheist and I started the thread I will start with a question for the religous. What evidence do you have that supports whatever it is you believe?
Thank you all.
nothing credible about science,book cookers,liers,and delusionist!!!
I believe you will not receive and intellectually honest response with supportive evidence from the religious. My evidence is littered all over this forum.
You do know it is illegal to litter. A fine and possibly some jail time is on order.
SirDent, it may be my evidence in the fact that I'm presenting it, but it is the religious that have littered the forum.
But you admitted to littering.
What do your starving kids have to do with the topic at hand? I am wondering if you have fed them yet?
No I didn't, that would be a reading comprehension issue on your part.
Am still waiting on your god to stop paying so much attention to you and provide a loaf of bread or two.
Doesn't the saying go something like, "Give us this day our daily bread"
wheat, water, sugar,yeast, fire, air all exist.
now go make some bread.
As said before, that argument has run its course.
He has provided everything for you to make the bread.
Of course, humans expect Him to be some kind of waiter -funny, theists do the same thing. One wonders just how identical you both truly are (science-theism).
Why has your god NOT provided everything for THEM to make the bread?
Q, that is called money, which HUMANS invented to enslave other humans for basic necessities. So whatever, hope you enjoy your food.
"wheat, water, sugar,yeast, fire, air all exist.
now go make some bread."
Are you now saying that your god provides money for the religious and not for the starving?
Q, Obviously, you have some issue -especially with reading a post.
Might want to re-read what I wrote, instead of tossing word salad that fits your agenda. Thanks again for adding more 'evidence' to an already dysfunctional ideology of science v theism.
Antecessor, good talking with you, I look forward to further exchanges.
GOD provides for billions all over the world,just as you have no understanding,you are blind as well!!!
Are you saying no one goes hungry on this planet? Or just the ones god is mad at?
Your petty little god only runs around finding your car keys while the innocent children of the world starve.
Have you ever seen the news or read anything except your hate-filled tome? Somehow I doubt it!
ah yes the innocent children of the world starving. A stumbling block to the unsaved. Let me explain that for you. Every human birthed on this planet from day one, does their own thing. Their parents teach them to what? follow gods ways? Nope. To follow the desires of their unsaved hearts and follow their fleshly wants and follow society and believe what television teaches them and on the list goes, but are any of these examples by what we should live according too, godly? holy? Is the god of the bible in any of these homes, so that god can direct them; to leave the land during famine times? or do they submit to the laws of the land and do good in school and make a pile of money to better their starving situation? Or have the boundaries of countries stopped a nomadic lifestyle that assisted its people by them following their food and going to where its rainy for water? Has global warming decreased rains and places that were soaked with rain are now become deserts?
Yet god is to blame for not reversing every situation imaginable and producing a world without sinful repercussions. God is to blame for not cleaning up the mess that unsaved mankind has gotten itself into by following its ungodly ways. And yet in all these situations I do not see christians eating at food banks. I see christians tithing 10% of their money away and still making ends meet. I see christians giving up their condos in america to work overseas in horrible situations, gladly because they serve a risen saviour who is above all things and able to save them and make them happy in whatever situation they find themselves in.
Yknow, god works, but he works in those who believe in him, first, the rest who defame him, blastphemy him, say he doesn't exist they are last on the list for any of gods special blessings but you know what, god makes coincidences too. When i was in the world and i needed 20 bucks for examples sake, and i found 20 bucks on the ground for example sake, i didn't know who to give the thanks too... but now i do, god helps all people in the situations that they create themselves, but to utterly turn the world around, that will happen in the 1000 yrs of peace when god gets something god deserves - a little respect, in the meantime god lets mankind come to the realization that they cannot govern themselves well at all.
Utter nonsense! So the world is full of starving children who die in agony because they don't know about your sky fairy?
They are children and they are starving!
That is not something you brush over as my "misunderstanding" of your invisible inactive unseen non existent sky fairy!
Laughing. I'm a sort of contemplative, liberal Christian. The thing I like about Ernest is that he's genuine. I'd have a beer with him any day! Faith is beyond the realm of reason. It make's no sense whatsoever, I confess it. It makes perfect sense to my 'heart'. Yes, I know how absurd my position is.
Notice how your statements continue to contradict reality?
I believe we are eternal beings with potential unmeasured.
Evidence, aside from scripture:
1) Man genetic design allows their cranium to grow to around thirty years of age. This "intervention" of intelligent design enables man to reason, be artistic, learn, "thumb" a ride when your car breaks down, engineer great wonders and more.
2) We have witnessed some of the most extreme atrocities done to man, by man. Yet, we have seen magnificent examples of heroism, charity and progress for mankind on a scale and magnitude unheard of. The world rallied for tsunami relief, World Trade Center disaster, the sick and hungry in all parts of the Earth and many other examples. This extreme swing on both ends of the pendulum show man's limitless potential for good, as well as for evil.
3) As a child we can dream of touching the stars, and one day grow in stature and knowledge that we may engineer a way to step on the moon.
4) Deception. Man is capable of deception. I've learned of a deception plot in existence for the past hundred years that has now entered the lives of most all of the inhabitants of this planet. We scarcely know the depth the influence of power can have on someone.
5) Liberty. Because of that basic pure design of freedom and liberty engrained into our very being, we are able to raise up men of renown and distinguished persuasion to be inspired to establish a country founded on these principles allowing man to pursue happiness.
Evolution? Not in my estimation. I am content in my belief that there is an eternal application for each one of us. I cannot limit my own perception of life by believing that all these things we have done, are doing and will yet do, is all due simply because of mutations and chemical sparks in our genetic code without the design of the glory of God - or intelligence.
I've learned of a deception plot in existence for the past hundred years that has now entered the lives of most all of the inhabitants of this planet.
Indeed! And what plot might that be?
Many things in science cannot be seen beyond a chalkboard of math, so there is no visible documented evidence to produce on many natural phenomenon, yet it is accepted. Have you ever viewed or measured superstrings or an event horizon or particle entanglement? Nobody has, yet our math tells us they are there. Thats not much different than the bible if you think about it.
Science is out best method to understand the universe we live in, but more and more its moving beyond our day to day visible reality into the realm of something we cannot comprehend.
Yep, it's called the fossil record. But I have to point out that I am an Agnostic.
I seen a great bumper sticker the other day while downtown too.
It read: "Militant Agnostic! I don't know and neither do you!"
I love it!
It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God or whatever you prefer to call the Primordial Being etc....as it is purely subjective. But just because you cannot prove it's existence does not necessarily disprove it's non-existence.
There is a sense feeling of Pure Being which is the same in me as it is in you. This feeling is without attributes, it cannot be defined (making it an untruth) It is pure awareness of being without being anything in particular. In this state, time/space does not exist as it does not depend on past memories or conceptuel knowledge.....I'm not sure I am explaining myself as it is very difficult to try to explain what is ultimately non-describable......anyway this sense is similar to a quantum packet of energy that exists everywhere and always, as energy cannot be destroyed. Could this be God? The essence of all religions without the devisions and superficialities that different terminology and cultures create?
evidence for what?..how life beginning?..well i believe standard big bang theory though i need something before that too..i guess we still don't have all the answers...as far as religion is concerned...my honest view is that it is man made but considering to god...i am not in position to deny intelligent designer since science is yet to answer what happened before big bang...
Hi frined pisean282311
Before the Bing Bang, the Creator -God Allah YHWH commanded the words "Be" and everything started taking shape and getting evolved as per the intelligent design of the Creator:
[21:31] Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=29
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
I dont think I can post something here then, because I dont have scientific basis for GODs existence, but I can feel Him in my heart and I believe HE exist, faith in believing alone is great, makes life easier for me hehe
For thousand of years HE exsited in the minds and hearts of thousands of people, scientific as scientific is what you see is what you get! doesnt work at all, your heart is the center of you, not your eyes!
what is more important are those that are not invisible to the eye, those that are felt--
These 'forums' have a tendency to become wars of words rather than discussion. I am of no religion, else would participate.
Good luck engaging, and again I enjoyed your hubs.
Antecessor, what evidence do you have for what you don't believe?
There is something wrong with your logic here. Anybody asserting something, anybody saying something is true, must provide a reason WHY what they are saying is true. Otherwise I could say anything at all, and if you cant prove me wrong that means I am right, well by your logic. You prove I dont have a fairy in my pocket, when you can do that i'll disprove god.
You do understand the falacy of proving a negative right??
Therefore the burden of proof is on the religous to give evidence for religion. This doesnt mean proving it, it means giving evidence. If you cannot give evidence then there is no reason to consider your claims at all.
And yes I must give evidence of evolution.
And THEN we must each try to disprove the others evidence. By disproving evidence, which can be done, you remove the evidence for the claim, therefore destorying the claim.
If you dont want to participate you dont have to, but please if you do, follow the basic laws of logic.
So returning to my question, if you assert god is real, then you must produce evidence of this else your claims have no meaning. So what is your evidences?
Your logic is making all of those assumptions on my logic from one simple question? You aren't very logical.
Who said anything about me believing in God? What is God?
You are correct, your statement looked like the usual twisted sentance of a creationist which I have seen many times asking me to first disprove their god.
I mistook your post for such. Even though it did not seem to make sense that you would ask me to provide evidence for something in which i did not believe I assumed (based on past experience with similar looking sentances) that you MEANT to say "what evidence do you have that i am not correct"
What I said in my post is not untrue however, those are the rules of logic.
there is no evidence of evolution!!!
The burden of proof lies with which ever party is trying to change the beliefs of another. In this case it is you trying to change the beliefs of the religious that believe in God to that of the religious that don't.
You're setting the playing field up with the rules all slanted in your favor.
But I'll play. I believe God exists.
Taken from my hub Why Mikel believes in God:
1) Proving there is no proof, of the existence of God, does not disprove the existence of God.
2) The inability to prove, that there is a highest number, doesn't prove there isn't one. My logic states it exists, however, that number is ever growing, therefore ever changing. Humanity has come to call that number 'infinity' .
3) If there are more than one forms of life and they are not equal, then one must be the lesser.
4) If there is a lowest form of life, then there has to be a highest form of life. Humanity has come to call that form of life God.
5) God is a Paradox, which is WHY God doesn't make logical sense....
The rest of my evidence lies in the many hubs on religion that I have written (start with Knowing Mikel G. Roberts and continue until the last linked hub.) Without referencing my hubs this post will be some 30 or 40 pages long...
The single sentence answer that your looking for doesn't exist. It comes down to a 50/50 chance either way.
The real debate is can something exist that cannot be proven to exist.
The absolutely overwhelming answer is yes it can. Proof does not bring something into existence. Many things exist that we cannot prove exist. DNA existed millions of years ago, long before humanity could prove it. Or are you stating that DNA came into existence only after science was able to prove it existed?
Proving or disproving an unprovable entity exists, is not possible... yet. The only fallacy involved in believing in an unprovable concept is requiring proof in order to believe. If proof is required in order to believe, show me the proof that God doesn't exist.
Believing that God exists is not the same thing as believing that Christianity, or the Jews and Muslims for that matter, are correct about God and what God is. I cite Evolution as proof/evidence that a Creator used Intelligent Design(DNA) to create life, life and life forms that get better over time.
The only easy answer to the whole Believer vs. Non-Believer debate is that of : They may be right as there is no proof either way.
by what parameters/tools does one define proof, evidence, reason?
all is subjective by human perspective (consciousness).
Logic is simply a collective of information -regarded or disregarded- by one or another- until other information is provided to supersede, negate, justify or discredit the original consideration. Logic is a finite loop.
I think logic is infinite. Something can contradict logic and still be logical. It is logical killing is wrong. It is also logical some must kill to survive.
Actually I dont think logic means killing is wrong. Right and wrong are illusions in our brains, they have no objective existance and so logic would say that morals are actually not real at all.
Is it wrong for an animal to kill another animal?
Humans are animals, therefore logically it is ok to kill them.
Of course the illusions in our brain stops us, usually, these rules allow us to live together as social primates. Of course if we need to break those rules to survive, we do it easily.
Right and wrong are not illusions. Knowing right and wrong allows us to survive dangers along with other animals. No it's not wrong for an animal to kill another animal, some have to kill to eat. It is morally wrong for a human to kill an animal or a human without need for survival. Morals are development of higher consciousness. They are guided consciousness.
Also, morals help to keep nuclear wars from happening. I would say they are pretty damn real.
I believe it is morally wrong to "murder".
Morals are indeed there to allow our survival.
In the same way that pain is produced entirely by our brains, like a warning, morals are also produced by our brains.
Therefore morals are subjective and not objective. Illusions.
What objectives doesn't come from the subjectives?
If you say subjectives are illusions, then you are also saying the objectives are illusions since the objectives come from the subjectives.
Dont you believe in the existance of a real objective universe? Consider if humans, and therefore subjectivity did not exist, yet the universe would still exist. this proves that the universe is objective and that objectiveness does not proceed from subjectiveness. Subjectiveness is just our brains interpretation of objective reality.
This depends. Is the universe conscious or unconscious? How could an unconscious universe produce conscious life and planets? If we were not alive, consciousness would still exist.
How is it that atoms of water, which are NOT a fluid, give rise to the property of water called fluidity only when enough of their fellow atoms are present.
Consciousness is therefore a supraproperty of non concious matter being organised in a certain way. I personally have observed the organisation of information from matter. When I built a mechanical computer from pistons (i used pistons to make logic gates).
You are speaking by faith. You have no way of knowing whether or not matter contains consciousness or if matter builds consciousness. How did you build information to observe from matter if you had no consciousness? The matter you are consisted of enables you to be conscious.
How can you be sure the universe exists without a subject to be aware of it?....The idea of an objective universe is just that, a notion in the mind. Pure imagination if you like. The fact that we seem to witness objects in time and space or birth and death does not mean that they are real. Both events exist within consciousness and need me (the subject) to be there in order to be aware of them.
The objective universe depends on me existing in order to give it apparent reality; but we must not confuse appearances with what is ultimately true. What is true is that which cannot be denied, or rather what is true for all and not only to the particular. Is not the world an apparent objectification of the mind?....Can it exist without an observer?
To say others see it when I am dead is not correct for in order for you to say it I must be there to witness it; otherwise it does not exist for me. We do not live in a common world but in a private mental world in which we are the creators of our own particular bubble.
Nope, the universe will exist and go on without you.
Of course. You exist without an observer.
I think I heard a tree fall...oops, there's no forest, so I guess that must have been the last one. All the folks that believe there is no sound unless a human hears it will cut all the forests down for Micky D's Super Sized Paper Cups.
Okay, Okay, I am advancing time a bit, but I assure you that the Universe does not require humans to exist and trees falling in the forest do not require a person to create sound waves.
Arguing from a cultural or theological centric perspective is not using critical or objective thinking processes.
In short, one can create eloquent prose all day long explaining that one plus one equals eleven, but the simple fact will require less words, seem rude and base by comparison, albeit indisputably true. 1+1=2
humans are not animals,GOD put all the animals before Adam to be named,and there was no other humans there at that time!!!
Adam named the dinosaurs? What did he call them?
As I read that I laffed.... Duh....
then the light bulb lit up... that is actually a good question.
behemoth and tannin are a couple,and leviathan
And the multitude of other dino species? Dinosaurs came in many sizes and forms. What happened to them? There would not have been room on the ark for a pair of each and the rest of the earth's species too! You do believe the Bible's version of Noah choosing a pair of all animals, don't you?
Religion is beyond logic. I think it's something very personal and moreover an iffy subject to ask about. I really can't stand the people that pry into others' religious ways. Not to mention the people who believe that the religion that they've chosen is the "right" or "correct" path. Period. No need to even attempt to converse with these closed minded individuals, no matter what your opinion is - it still will not sway their divination. Therefore, I simply respect all religions, whether I disagree with the beliefs or not. Religion is a very touchy subject though, and people sometimes can't take hearing anything other than what they think is to be true. I don't have a problem with talking of religious matters, but I make a point to steer clear of the subject as to not offend anyone.
For me, i prefer verifiable evidence that can be easily verified even if some part of it gets falsified later. For example, there are experiments that validate existence of electrons. If you perform these experiments you'll get the same results whether you believe in it's existence or not.
This is not the case with religious beliefs. Youtube videos, Personal Blogs, Forums threads, Bible verses, or (INSERT religious books verses quotes etc etc) supports religious belief. if you think jesus or allah talks to you in monday morning before breakfast then chances you'll able to reproduce this evidence are complete void. You'll either show some verses or written content that asks you to read them with open mind then believe in it and then think about producing evidence again and whoa you got it verified.
@James, logic is infinite if we consider vastness of knowledge. If we consider a set of conditions for knowledge then it goes in finite loop.
LOL, sky, don't drag me into this one.
logic (consciousness -knowledge, understanding, etc)is finite.
Within itself it can appear infinite, because of the nature of the possibilities of Q/A parallel. However, since the mind can only store so much information, it would made it finite.
but that is a whole `nutter forum. jeje
I would like both the theist & a-theist to provide absolute proof, or fact of anything. Both are parallels of the Need To Know. Ironically, both justify or say there is no absolute. Which makes them Duality; united: Quality, but certainly not Purity.
How about instead of dealing in the absolutes of philosophy we agree to instead deal in evidence?
Would you admit that evidence exists for evolution?
again, with all due respect, define evidence.
Is evidence absolute? If yes, show me.
Else science is flawed, biased, subjective -as its wife, theism.
Even this, to dilute it: prove any evidence beyond a reasonable consideration. By reason, I mean without preconceived ideas.
It is impossible.
1+1=2 seems pretty absolute.
I believe evidence is something observable or extrapolated from something observable such as observing the fact that where n=1 and adding 1 to n means n=2 therefore we can extrapolate that if we repeat this addition enough times that n will reach 1 million despite the fact we havent actually completed all the steps. So evidence can be observations and extrapolations from those observations. Agreed?
If you dont admit the existance of evidence for anything then why even bother to try and have logical discussion?
If evidence is simply documented observation, then theism has rights to claim proof as well, since it has substantial documents dating 5 or 6 thousand years -from Hebrew, Egyptian, Mayan, even Eskimo cave drawings.
To imply optic perception determines evidentiary fact, is dangerous.
As for mathematics, that too is flawed.
actually 1 plus one equals 3. anyway...
I thought this was a logical discussion.
Perhaps the root desire was banter of theism or better said, subjective proof of its flaw? In that case, a hundred threads before have attempted to prove that and failed. Of course so also have the theistic threads failed.
Gotta appreciate the duality, man. At least philosophy sees both sides of the argument without bias. That, my friend, is truly evidentiary.
Evidence is not documented SUBJECTIVE observation because this is unverifiable.
Evidence is verifiable observation or, like ante said extrapolation from verifiable observation.
Yes exactly right goodsnservice
I can verify that 1+1 =2 and from that i can extrpolate that all numbers can be added together .
That is evidence
Twenty do you want to deal in evidence or just talk rubbish?
I am afraid that 1+1 = 2 is not evidence of anything. Numerical systems are a human construct and are given definition by humans simply as a tool for understanding. They do not have an origin other than inside our own minds and do not inherently exist anywhere in our universe any more than a dream does. They have no physical existence, therefore using them to reference evidence has no meaning.
Now saying that you will use this system that we have created to measure our world and make observations as a result leads to evidence.
this is fun.
observation IS subjective by the participating perspective or lack thereof. All claims are subjective, evidence is futile, because the argument will always precede it. Else the parallel itself must be disregarded, the thought superseded.
the only verification one has is their conclusion of an argument, its parts accepted or dismissed.
Clearly anyone can claim anything.
Obviously some things must be true and some not
How do you decide what is true and what is not
How do you decide that santa does not exist and your car parked in your driveway does?
Therefore evidence exists and to claim that god must exist because there is no such thing as evidence for anything is intelectually dishonest
We are not plato and socrates here, not philosophy. Let us just deal in evidence shall we?
A good point!
For over a year now I have seen non believers produce masses of evidence to support evolution from peer reviewed scientific evidence, backed by scientific method, double blind studies and more.
Nothing convinces someone who believes in the sky fairy! How could it?
They use science yet deny it's validity, just how dumb assed is that?
scientific method !!! dont you mean scientific theory.your such a head case !!!
Don't know about scientific method? Why am I not surprised?
I do not appreciate your insult!
So if you get sick you refuse to use medicines developed using scientific method, right? I'm sure you would just let your god heal you because of your faithfulness to him. Or do you hedge your bets just in case you are wrong about your deity's existence? If so, this indicates doubt on your part.
I certainly hope you don't withhold medicine or medical treatment from your family when they are sick. Were you raised inthe Bible Belt, by chance?
My drug free lifestyle is my own choice ! The U.S.A. has 10% of worlds population and do 90% of pri. drugs, something wrong with that pic.
The highlighted portion of your statement is a fabrication or a best guess.
The U.S.A. population is nowhere near 10% of the World's Population. You apparently didn't research this before posting it.
In fact, the U.S.A.'s population Consensus is about roughly 306 Million and the Population of the Planet is 6.6 Billion.
So, as you can see, you're a tad off.
As for the numbers of American who are being treated for some mental or emotional issue/problem and that statistic is roughly about 75%, which comes from legal drug manufacturers.
However, with that said, there are approximately at any given time, is in use - Cocaine, Heroin, Weed, Meth or Crack. So much so, that the 90% even might be low.
Maybe you place too much importance on science. The realities of yesteryear are the unrealities of today. Science is forever being disproved by succeeding generations. Why place all your hopes on it? Science can explain how things work etc but it cannot know the nature of reality. Science is limited to the senses and can only extend them in time/space but cannot go beyond the mind itself.
Ultimately the proof of the existence of God is a personal matter which is of no help to another unless the other tries to grab hold of it themselves.
That's not correct. Scientific theories get tweaked over the years but usually remain intact if there is supporting evidence.
Why can't it know the nature of reality?
What is that supposed to mean? Where is "beyond the mind itself?"
It's also of no help if the existence of gods hasn't a shred of evidence to support it.
Sun exists and both theist/atheist will agree on this with proof of it. LOL.
Even a blind man can feel the evidence of the sun. He cannot know for sure what it is other to to go along with what others tell him.
The blind cannot see evidence until their eyes are opened to view the evidence. Many think they can see, but are yet blind.
Science is always changing, but God never changes. No amount of evidence can prove that something exists if a person does not want to see the evidence.
A lot of history has been written about Jesus Christ. Many still don;t believe He even existed, while history wrote about George Washington and everyone believes he existed. What is the difference? No one alive right now ever saw George as no one ever saw Jesus in the flesh.
The difference is the overwheming sources of evidence that Washington existed. If there was only one source citing the existence of Washington, and that single source was the George Washington fan club brochure, it would be suspect. Especially if many objective sources cite the opposite of what the G. Washington fan club brochure cites.
Statements like that are made in desparation to discredit as they hold no value and make no sense.
People don't ask for evidence if they don't want to see it, SirDent, so obviously they do want to see it.
No, there wasn't, that's the point. There is NO history of Jesus other than what's been gleaned from the bible.
Another statement from desparation. There is a tremendous amount of evidence to support the existence of Washington, SirDent, and you know that.
Obviously we dont want this to degenerate into philosophy. We are all agreed that evidence is required for any claim to have meaning.
I believe evidence is something observable or extrapolated from something observable such as observing the fact that where n=1 and adding 1 to n means n=2 therefore we can extrapolate that if we repeat this addition enough times that n will reach 1 million despite the fact we havent actually completed all the steps. So evidence can be observations and extrapolations from those observations. Agreed?
Consider if humans, and therefore subjectivity did not exist, yet the universe would still exist. this proves that the universe is objective and that objectiveness does not proceed from subjectiveness. Subjectiveness is just our brains interpretation of objective reality.
How do you know that the earth didn't subjectively develop a protective atmosphere before it became objective? If life can evolve, can a planet not evolve? If a planet can evolve, why couldn't a universe evolve? A lot of evolution is based on the subjective. Many things in evolution evolve objective defenses based on subjective awareness of survival and threats. Our subjectiveness of how we perceive reality defines our objective actions.
Could is the operative word here. I do not know what is possible and what is not. Do you have any verifiable objective evidence that what you are saying is true? If you dont then its a good idea but there is no reason to accept it.
Lets deal in evidence please. Noone say anything more unless you supply evidence to back it up.
thats how you guys work, consider something thats not real to make a case for something not real so as to believe in something not real!!
please when you speak, all gibberish coming out.
And you complain continuously about how low your hubber score is david, well this is why, your mind is useless rot.
thats what I was thinking about all that gibberish you come up with!no evidence just crap!!!
I could care less about scores,your the one spouting theory as though it was fact !!! and you say I got mind rot !!! now thats funny I dont care who you are lol
uhg. all evidence is subjective.
so either way, logic/understanding/wisdom (which is philos). requires something either conclusive of or beyond - project, absorb, reflect- to provide that thing called evident. If it cannot, then the case cannot be sustained for or against.
The argument cannot be settled, unless both A & B agree to accept whatever perspectives are included/dismissed.
So by that measure, they can claim evidence.
True, any claim is invalid and valid to the individual perspective. Who decides what to choose as fact or fiction but the person regarding that perception or perspective.
Antecessor, I don't mean to come off-handed or rude.
But, like I have discussed with both theist & atheist/anti-theist, science has no actual proof of anything, only speculation of artifacts. Granted, they have designed a lot of tools to do, measure, etc. But as theism, who has its share of tools, neither side can prove its case.
Personally, I am enjoying the engagement and hope you will see it as nothing more than that.
So you now claim that theism has evidence, which you call tools to hide the fact that you have been arguing against the existance of evidence. Always the one who have no evidence are the ones to claim that all evidence is invalid, funny that hey. Now however you have claimed something, so what are the "tools" for christianity?
Where did I claim theism has absolute evidence?
If we are -again- within the argument, then the same evidential tools, systems, etc apply to both theist and evolutionist.
Seems fair, yes.
As for singling out one specific group (you and many other atheists, etc singled out Christianity -wonder why that is, since there are some 3,000 varieties of theism, interesting), I do not.
All of them are the same. Any scientist or theist is identical.
Perhaps they appear different, because of method, mode and desired outcome, but nonetheless equal. So again, let's go back to the root:
If science or theism has proof, apart from documented observation, let them produce it -infallibly, absolutely and withholding not a single shred of it- as to once and for all, conclude the 'war' between.
Well I guess that since noone is producing any evidence for their views, they dont have any?
You cannot back any of your claims up with anything?
Sun exists and both theist/atheist will agree on this with proof of it. LOL.
no sh!te, something they agree on.
I gotta write that down.
For anyone with any beliefs of any kinds.
I am willing to present verifiable observed evidence for evolution.
If anyone wants to engage in a discussion based on the fact of an absolute objective universe which we can discover truths about through the process of gathering verifiable and extrapolated evidence then please join in.
It is a fact that the earth has been around for a very long time. No arguement here.
This fact proves that the genesis account has been misinterpreted.
Wish I could join in to the conversation this morning but I have to go make a living.
Will check back in later. Have a great day
I would debate you but I agree with you, the religous just like to waffle about the evidence because they dont have any of their own.
Also the best way to verify evidence despite subjectivity is simply if everyone else can observe it too.
After reading all these posts I am really glad that I am Buddhist It makes sense.
proof of god is found in every dictionary printed . its real my friends its a word. when all the atheists out there get together and get Websters to remove it . then and only then will they have their proof that god does not exist. i don't see that day ever coming. furthermore atheists are the pushiest believers out there . thump your atheist ideas elsewhere. you will find no converter here.
Unicorns and Gargoyles are on Websters as well.
And they don't exist
So they exist ??
Because they're on Websters ???
Yes, atheists also go door-to-door every weekend with their kids in tow peddling the latest atheist magazines and trying to convert others to atheism.
These two videos should explain it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h2dj2a5 … ature=fvwp
Unicorn (from Latin unus 'one' and cornu 'horn') is a mythological creature. Though the modern popular image of the unicorn is sometimes that of a horse differing only in the horn on its forehead, the traditional unicorn also has a billy-goat beard, a lion's tail, and cloven hooves—these distinguish it from a horse. Marianna Mayer has observed (The Unicorn and the Lake), "The unicorn is the only fabulous beast that does not seem to have been conceived out of human fears. In even the earliest references he is fierce yet good, selfless yet solitary, but always mysteriously beautiful. He could be captured only by unfair means, and his single horn was said to neutralize poison."
God is the English name given to a singular omnipotent being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.
God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides, Augustine of Hippo, and Al-Ghazali, respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God. Many notable philosophers and intellectuals have, in contrast, developed arguments against the existence of God.
im pretty sure there was a horned horse like mammal in the past
god is also defined as any deified or worshiped object or thing
anchint and current cultures worship crocodiles as gods. crocs are real
if i worship the sun as my god and the sun is real isnt my god real?
I've read every comment offered.
I respect debate.
In Jr. College I joined a debate team for "credit."
By definition,debate requires argument.
What is required to "win" an argument?..."evidence and proofs."
With all due respect to you, concerning religion, neither side can produce that which is needed to win, so to "debate" religion is an exercise in futility.
One must realize that all religion is defined as "cult"
i.e. "faddish devotion."
The human species is incipient. It is in it's infancy and is, according the laws of SOR (Stimulus, Organism, Response)frightened when it encounters that which it does not understand. It will dash for the safety and security of it's imagined surrogate mother:...god.
To me, those who react thus, represent the primitive, ignorant, lesser evolved of the human species.
Understanding this, I pay little attention to their plight, except that "they." historically are the bane of human progress and survival.
They may, eventually, be the perpetrator of a massive reduction in all extant life on this planet!
I am a Wiccan. I do not have any proof that my religion is true for other people. I only have proof that it is true for me. That's good enough in my eyes.
I am Buddhist and I say that your way of understanding works for you. Mine works for me. I like you Pani!
I just don't understand why certain groups feel they must proselytize so much.
I am not a religious person by any means, but I believe the pure message by someone like Jesus is a good way to live your life. I believe he existed as a man.
So I will offer up my best try for some evidence. You have to ask yourself, what did the 12 apostles witness in this man that everyone of them would devote their lives afterward to spreading his word and eventually everyone of them enduring long periods of imprisonment, torture and ultimately losing their own lives in the process? The bible states that hundreds of people saw him after he had risen, including the Apostles on several occasions. That is a lot of witnesses.
Or is it mass delusion? You might want to read the study who found a native plant to the region that has drug like effects and the locals use to ingest it regularly.
All the witnesses accounts are listed in one and only one source (the Bibles), the book that was written in order to promote the religion of christianity. Since that makes it an absolutely NON-objective source, it must be dismissed and other objective sources researched, of which NONE have been found to date...
What about Krishna then ?
the same story thousand years earlier
I will offer a test for anyone who believes in creation and that humans are special. Lets say that is true for a moment. The universe is very beautiful and wondrous, but its not very convenient for humans. I mean we can't survive in 99.99999% of it. Most of it doesn't appear to have the couple things we need to just exist like water and oxygen.
Even a good chunk of our own planet is not navigable or habitable without some sort of man made technology. I mean with 75% of the planet is water, shouldn't we have gills or something. Another good portion is rocky terrain, or ice or vast deserts - shouldn't we have wings or something to get around.
There is little natural shelter for us other than what we build ourselves and our food is spread out all over the place and either runs away or is destroyed in the weather.
Unless we were just made for struggle and torment, thats a very strange design for "loved" creatures.
Now, go over and play farmville for a few days where you cna be the creator and see what you create for yourself. Look at what other people's farms look like. People tend to create organized and convenient designs with resources nice and close to you, shelter, water, food, etc.
Now I will offer an argument against science, from science itself if that makes any sense at all. Two words - Quantum Physics.
Although its an evolving science, it has been studied since the 1920s and 30s. If you subscribe to that theory, nothing is as it seems. The universe is not solid at all, its all empty space. Two things never interact. Your sense of touch is in your head because your atoms can never come into actual contact with any other. You have never observed anything, only your brain has interpreted the signals for you and recreated it in your head. You have never really ever interacted with this universe on its most fundamental level. The universe may not even exist outside your own brain. Our consciousness may be collective.
And it gets weirder from there.
example: the secret, law of attraction, koan symmetries...
would you expect that a new born baby should be able to figure out complex geometric problems?
If your answer is no, then why would you expect we, incipient, human animals to be able to figure out the complexities of "reality" while still still playing in the "crib?"
There are no epistemological limits to the potential of the human mind.
If "man" can adapt successfully, evolution will expand his understanding of "everything."
Who is to say that somewhere in limitless space, successful intelligent life hasn't already evolved to the point that no vestigial remnants of it prior existence remains. It exists as just intelligent energy?
You see, we humans are just at the point in our evolutionary progress that limits us to just our imaginations.
If we reach "maturity," who can predict what wonders "the natural" may engender?
I totally concur that we are infants in this universe. There could actually be intelligent life that is on par with a God and it may have had a role in our coming to be. But that is not what religion tells us.
On the other hand science is contradicting itself as well which means that there is something more to reality than we are able to understand and we can no longer make the simple statement that I observed it and measured it, therefore it is.
One one hand, there are clear observations, equations and evidence that model our solid world very well, but on the other hand, other measurements are telling us our reality is illusory and that outcomes are being driven by the observers mere existence. We may be living in a huge computer simulation of our own history.
"There is no spoon" - The Matrix
Yes! we have a way of surrounding ourselves with exactly what we believe"If you believe that your house is dirty and that you can clean it up, You will. Look around and you will see what you believe. Because you will not allow what you don't believe to be true in your own world. It's totally up to you"
"What evidence do you have that supports whatever it is you believe?"
Will Benson wrote:
At this time I think logic and science supports the existence of an central organizing force for our universe.
- Mainstream science accepts the "Big Bang" theory.
- Scientifically verified measurements of galaxies moving away from a common starting point and the discovery of ancient background radiation from the original "Big Bang" event support this.
- The cause of this event has never been determined. It obviously could not be caused by some natural phenomena which would need another natural explanation for the origin of itself.
- This unknown cause must then exist outside of our space/time concept of reality...not subject to any natural laws that we are aware of.
The term "God" is in most people's mind, inexorably tied to religion. I personally doubt that the originating factor for our universe bears much resemblance to anyone's concept of "God," but where science gets stalled is where everyone's right to their own beliefs becomes justified.
A natural cause for the big bang may yet be discovered. At that time, I'll become an atheistic believer but till then, deism is my personal preference.
My thoughts, subject to future revision.
Come now, Will, it may be your right to defer to the magical and mysterious when a naturual answer has not yet been found, but isn't that rather intellectually dishonest?
Please reread my post. NO ONE knows the cause of the big bang. You simply cannot get something from nothing. Period
There is a possible theory involving quantum fluctuations which seem to come from nowhere and then disappear. One problem - no one has ever proven that they do in fact exist. If they are real, they may indicate super string theory is correct and these travel within the 11 (or so) universes. Again, theory only, no proof, only "believers."
Is pretending to know what no scientist knows intellectually honest? If you know for a fact that the universe arose naturally, then you are phenom indeed. Please write it up, with equations, experimental evidence and of course the math and publish, so the rest of us can share.
I hope you're not taking this thread down the God vs. No God route -- if so you evidently don't know that deism is not a religion. It was good enough for Einstein and it's good enough for me. (Sung to the tune of "Gimme that Old Time Religion," if you wish).
Have a good day.
While I would agree we don't know the cause of the big bang yet, but it most definitely has been experimentally shown you can borrow energy from spacetime; i.e. get something from nothing.
Yes, they have. Ever hear of particle accelerators?
String theory is primarily a mathematical hypothesis at this point so it isn't plausible evidence.
No problem. The math and equations are encapsulated in the Friedman-Robertson-Walker metrics derived from General Relativity.
Here's a general overview - enjoy!
A belief is an idea you cling to, usually based on the cumulative years of your experience. It is perfectly natural and normal for each person to seek out more evidence to support that which they believe is true. Otherwise they would stop believing it. You will always, without fail, find evidence to support something you desperately WANT to be true. Be careful what you believe and cling to. Make sure it serves you well and makes you happy.
Woah, woah, woah guys.....relax. No need to start throwing insults around. Play nice.
The initial question is absurd. Regardless of the belief system, one is dealing with a spiritual realm. That, by itself, cannot be absolutely proven. There is no hard "evidence" that God exists, for example. Nor Buddha for that matter. Christianity is based on blind faith and nothing more. I have had experiences that have proven to me that spiritual good and evil do exist on this planet. But naysayers could dispute these experiences in a second. (If you want absolute proof that spiritual entities exist then play with the ouija board.) The naturalists can prove their "religion" because they can touch, see, or feel what they worship (earth, wind, water, fire). I understand there are priests that can (privately) turn wine into blood. But whenever "absolute proof" is asked for the forum always turns into a pseudointellectual mockery. This question cannot be answered. So become a nudist and run amongst the trees.
That was very enjoyable to read. Thanks.
You "understand there are priests that can (privately) turn wine into blood. Have you actually observed this happen, or is this just hearsay?
if we all sat back and denied flight. because there was no proof of a plane . we would still be walking. a unicorn seems like fantasy . till recently so were glow in the dark rats . not anymore tho .we've made them real via genetic engineering. its not over yet . this unicorn . this six million dollar man . will have its day in the sun.
(Yes, they have. Ever hear of particle accelerators?)
Proven to exist? Wow. Please send me a box of them. If you're referring to the Hadron (there are others you know) it won't be up to full power till around 2014. We may then have evidence of QFs.
(String theory is primarily a mathematical hypothesis at this point so it isn't plausible evidence).
Wrong again. Super String theory is a branch of Quantum Phys. (I thought we went over this?). No Super String validation = no theory of everything from Quantum Phys.
If you know for a fact that the universe arose naturally, then you are phenom indeed. Please write it up, with equations, experimental evidence and of course the math and publish, so the rest of us can share.
(No problem. The math and equations are encapsulated in the Friedman-Robertson-Walker metrics derived from General Relativity).
A book title? Not much of a write up.
(Here's a general overview - enjoy! smile)
I'm really interested in hearing this from you. Wikipedia must be slow today. ...And I am smiling. see? (Actually I'm LMAO).
Yes, I'll send them right over.
Sorry, but you're confused, no Super String validation does NOT mean 'no theory' from Quantum Phys. - it simply means String Theory is not a viable theory. Others are working on a Quantum Gravity theory.
What would you like to hear?
If you would like to discuss the "Big Bang" Theory and it's relevance to human existence....then maybe it isn't the Theory you should look at.
Just a thought.
I would like to add more, but recently published a Hub about answering some of the more difficult questions people have about life.
The question answered:
What Is The "Meaning" of Life?
What Is The "Purpose" of Life?
Why Human Exist?
Plus, a few others.
<yes, it is self-promotion>
It's not self-promotion since it's relevant to the thread.
Yes, I have personal experience that we are not alone in the universe, but as usual you may not believe me. So why you ask the impossible to be proven, I do not know?
Here is evidence of my belief.
The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great, and he never lets the guilty go unpunished. He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm. The billowing clouds are the dust beneath his feet. At his command the oceans and rivers dry up, the lush pastures of Bashan and Carmel fade, and the green forests of Lebanon wilt. In his presence the mountains quake, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles, and its people are destroyed. Who can stand before his fierce anger? Who can survive his burning fury? His rage blazes forth like fire, and the mountains crumble to dust in his presence. The LORD is good. When trouble comes, he is a strong refuge. And he knows everyone who trusts in him. But he sweeps away his enemies in an overwhelming flood. He pursues his foes into the darkness of night. (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT)
The biblical god is a neurotic sociopath!
What do you conspire against the Lord ?He will make an utter end of it.Affiliction will not rise up a second time.For while tangled like thorns,And while drunken like drunkards,They shall be devoured like stubble fully dried.From you comes forth one who plots evil agsinst the Lord,A wicked counselor.
I wonder if your reply is to me or for the post in general, if it is for me your reply is old as old as it can be, and it is full of hate like the Old Testament Bible, which was abolished by the Lord Jesus Christ, where he replaced hate with love, but we seem to not listen to that message of love that Jesus gave us. Therefore today I am looking for a way that explains the existence of God in a modern way, which I am trying to find the way on how to do that in my religious writings.
Looks pretty crook for the thousands who believe different religions from the same versions of the "good book"
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
I forgot! You have the right version out of those thousands!
A bit like saying you have the winning lotto ticket!
you never tell the whole story,you pick parts and try to make GOD sound like the hater that you are !!!
I don't do hate, as I have said before. Hate is a religious speciality!
It's in your book, why do you deny the only source of your beliefs?
why would you keep insulting a person over and over if you do not hate that person?
Do you feel hated when people don't believe in the crazed god you keep trying to ram down others thoats?
Funny thing that, I have never expressed hate for any individual, or their beliefs. I just recognise it is a crock, so you take that as hate of you or others?
Your stuff, not mine!
why do you dance around the question?you in gov. down there
nobodys craming anything down your throat,you are the one who started debate with me !!!
No, this is untrue also, here is your reply to something I said that was not directed at you personally, and the beginning of your attacks.
"scientific method !!! dont you mean scientific theory.your such a head case !!!"
I was told by a very wise man that in fact the only evidence that anything is real is in you. IE: I can prove to me that I am real and only that I am real. Everything else might very well be a figment of my imagination. That being the case I am one sick individual making up all of you in my head, and no one really exists at all. That said I cannot prove to you that I exist, I might be a figment of your imagination, at which point you keep chasing yourself around to argue with yourself.
Love you Earnestshub, whether you or I exist or not.
Yep! That's all we got!
I may or may not exist, but I still don't like lies told about me.
Ah, but here is the tough part... If no one exists but you, then who is lying about you?
Wow he has been busy, too many places to look now, which hub did you leave the comment on?
this is some of the stuff you said about me this weekend-pathetic-dumbassed-psychotic
I'm pretty sure Earnest wasn't calling you those names, but was calling your belief in "GOD" as those.
Hope I cleared up any misconceptions. I wouldn't want you thinking that Earnest is a bad person, as you claim. He is not.
Yes, why do you do that? Your saying your belief is right and others should believe as you, is an insult to many. Do you hate them? If not, why do you insult them?
A true God has no need of jealousy, only false ones created by evil men in order to control the ignorant do.
A true god does not require worship, only vain ones created by evil men to control the ignorant do.
A true god is not vengeful, what would be the point?
A true god has no need of Gender, it is omnipotent therefore a gender is not relevant.
A true god has no need of weak beings ranting in its defense and destroying "infidels" in its name.
Men are not gods, nor were they created in the image of them. Men are animals that have mastered communication and nothing more.
True, every word. Why in hell would a god need to be worshipped?
I think it is religionists who want to be worshipped by proxy!
My life is the evidence of my beliefs. Most of the things I do are because I believe in God.
That is your choice, but the moment you enforce your will and beliefs on others, you become evil.
Do not mistake your god's will for your culture's, or religion's will. If you wish to plant, do so. If you wish to herd animals, do so. But do not make the natives live by your ways, and do no preach to me, or others that we are evil because we do not believe, act, or look as you do.
Read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. It's a great look at what the cultures of the world do in the name of their gods. Remember, we share this planet, and for the moment, it's the only one we have.
you should read tortured for christ and see how opressive some Athiests can be. The fact is you wish to opress religious beliefs.
Good for you.
And thanks once again for providing guidlines to my personal beliefs and actions, but I have a good concept of what's right and what's wrong.
No but it's always the word they use. Well that and persecution. Meanwhile it seems to me that they're more often the oppressors and the persecutors. Oppressing the rights of others, persecuting us all, and oh yeah I forgot suppressors, for suppressing the truth.
I would kinda compare how god gets jeolious being something like If you have two boys ages about 10 and 14 lets say.
You get divorsed and your boys are now calling someone else DADDY.
I wonder Iif the creator isn't simply manifesting through us to experience reality....But I am unusual in my thinking this way.
I suppose it is a force without any real need for any identity or we could identify it and recognize it. (we cannot)
I wouldn't be suprised if that idea one wasn't right on. And/Or Earth and these bodies are something like a vacation spot for whatever this life within us is.
I do not believe EITHER or THAT and these are the only choice there is. Somebody said ALL things are posible.
Good to see an open mind.
A closed mind is a terrible waste.
That makes absolutely no sense to me. Sorry, but an intelligent being capable of "Creation" and "Infinite Wisdom" would scoff at such a concept as jealousy.
Or as we exist and change moment by moment it does the opposite like just projecting creation into an infinite space.never changing just creating strobes of reality flicker flicker flicker and each frame only slightly different.
But, Jerami, surely you wouldn't punish your children over it?
No I wouldn't, not for calling someone else Daddy.
Doesn't mean that I wouldn't feel jeolous.
But the children might play the game about who loves them the most. And then how far would you let that game go and for how long?
What does a parent do??
by Toni4 weeks ago
I am an atheist surrounded by family and friends who practice Christianity.A lot of atheists say that the world would be a better place without religion.. I can understand why they say that. But, for some people- I feel...
by Claire Evans3 years ago
This topic is old, I know, but I'd like to ask it anyway. Many Christians will ask an atheist, "Why are you here if you don't believe God (should it be a Christian thread)?" Some will answer,...
by Rad Man2 years ago
I read something a while back about how intuition evolved to get us out of dangerous situation and that if you are using it for anything else you are more likely wrong. I then noticed people in these forums say that...
by Stump Parrish6 months ago
A reader of my local paper (The Spartanburg Herald-Journal www.goupstate.com) sent this comment to our opinion section "The Stroller": TAKE MY CHANCES': "A local reader" observes that as Christmas...
by marriedwithdebt4 years ago
So, I generally try to stay away from religious topics, but I just got to thinking after reading an article about people who won't vote for Romney or Huntsman because they are Mormons.Is it really wrong to discriminate...
by thisisoli5 years ago
I have noticed that an increasing number of people seem to have joined this site merely to spam religion on the forum. This would be okay if it was not for the fact that this is a forum for writers, not theists.I am all...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.