Creation vs. Evolution

[Small_Fryz]

Who created God and where did he come from?
If something created God, where did that thing come from?

Now if you answer

"God is the creator and his always existed"

Then why cant we say

"Matter is the building blocks of life and has always existed"

What does Swift has to say about this?

 

[Casio]

I suppose one could argee that God is beyond time. If that makes sense. He is eternal, He doesn't grow old or change in any way over time, and by that logic it makes sense that He always existed.

The universe on the other hand, shows time. There is a future and a past. The universe expanding, shows that it must of expanded from somewhere. Keep taking steps back in time, the universe gets more basic until you reach the point of it's creation. Step back in time in relation to God and nothing changes at all.

 

[Danoff]

Who created God and where did he come from?
If something created God, where did that thing come from?

Now if you answer

"God is the creator and his always existed"

Then why cant we say

"Matter is the building blocks of life and has always existed"

...because science, unlike religion, doesn't require faith. Yes it's hypocritical of a religious person to claim that it's a poor argument. But it would be hypocritical of you to rely on faith and then claim they can't.

 

[Swift]

What does Swift has to say about this?

Well....

Trying to explain God with science is like tying to explain science by scripture. The two don't mix.

Why is it a foreign concept, or an impossible one, that something has always existed?

 

[Danoff]

Why is it a foreign concept, or an impossible one, that something has always existed?

It's not a foreign concept. Each of us is familiar with the concept since each of us can point to things that have existed for the entire time we've been alive. The problem is that it begs the questions. Why does it exist? How did it come to be? Why is it not different? You know, basic cause-and-effect human biological responses.

 

[Swift]

It's not a foreign concept. Each of us is familiar with the concept since each of us can point to things that have existed for the entire time we've been alive. The problem is that it begs the questions. Why does it exist? How did it come to be? Why is it not different? You know, basic cause-and-effect human biological responses.

Right, but that's not what I meant.

I mean why is it so impossible to think that something greater then us has the power to create out of nothing? And is beyond what we call "time".

 

[Danoff]

I mean why is it so impossible to think that something greater then us has the power to create out of nothing? And is beyond what we call "time".

It's not, it's just that we have no reason to think that. It's not impossible to think of a flying spaghetti monster either but we have no reason to think it exists.

 

[Swift]

It's not, it's just that we have no reason to think that. It's not impossible to think of a flying spaghetti monster either but we have no reason to think it exists.

It is though. For some reason the very concept of the existance of a being that exists outside the restraints of what we call time and space is impossible for some to grasp.

Because the question well keep asking itself. Where did nature come from? Matter, where did matter come from? Unique spatial annomolies, where did those annomolies come from?....

 

[TsLeng]

I 've always thought that if we go back 2000 years from now with text of for example the flying spaggetti monster, and try to spread it to everyone, they'll believe.
Heck, if you go into some jungle, meet some 'wild man' and can speak to them, i bet you they'll be convinced.
Even supposedly smart educated city folks with internet connection frequently fall for scam...

So, i guess what if all the major religions are made up by some smart people for whatever reasons...
and going by that flying spagetti moster theory, it is possible.

 

[Danoff]

That's why I think the answer will come in a form like this.


A) Think of nothing existing at all.
B) Ok
A) Not space, not time, not matter, nothing.
B) Got it.
A) What would happen?
B) The universe would happen.

 

[Swift]

That's why I think the answer will come in a form like this.


A) Think of nothing existing at all.
B) Ok
A) Not space, not time, not matter, nothing.
B) Got it.
A) What would happen?
B) The universe would happen.

And we know that just because we're here, right?

 

[Pako]

What would you do if you saw a man performing miracles of healing, multiplying food to feed thousands, raising from the dead and then floats away? Those are some of the things He did, now what if He was also a scholar and a religious teacher as well? Would you believe what he was telling you, even without proof? Would you trust His teachings as a consequence of his actions?

 

[Danoff]

And we know that just because we're here, right?

We don't know that. It's just what I expect the answer will sound like. It could be completely different, I don't know.

What would you do if you saw a man performing miracles of healing, multiplying food to feed thousands, raising from the dead and then floats away? Those are some of the things He did, now what if He was also a scholar and a religious teacher as well? Would you believe what he was telling you, even without proof? Would you trust His teachings as a consequence of his actions?

That's pretty cool. Have you seen someone do that?

 

[Pako]

I was trying to give you some insight into the Christian faith. If you don't want to participate, that's fine. I was distinguishing the difference between the Christian religion and the great spaghetti monster in the sky.

 

[Danoff]

I was merely pointing out that it isn't a distinction because you haven't seen either one.

 

[Pako]

I was merely pointing out that it isn't a distinction because you haven't seen either one.

Do you believe in anything historical or do you have to experience everything first hand or have scientific evidence to prove it's reality?

 

[Danoff]

Do you believe in anything historical or do you have to experience everything first hand or have scientific evidence to prove it's reality?

I need a carefully documented record to buy something historical. Word of mouth doesn't cut it. The bible is not sufficient.

 

[Kylehnat]

What would you do if you saw a man performing miracles of healing, multiplying food to feed thousands, raising from the dead and then floats away?

People see David Blaine all the time. Though they tend not to follow his teachings...oh, wait...

Of course, any written recording of Mr. Blaine's miracles would probably be exaggerated. People tend to recall events inaccurately.

 

[Pako]

If you want to research it, you will find historical evidence that support accounts in the new testament.

 

[Duke]

Historically, maps used to show that dragons lived in the South Atlantic. Historically, it was believed that a continent existed between Europe and Asia where the people were 10 feet tall and had their heads in their chests.

Historically, a lot of things are believed and repeated with no corroborating evidence other than a "first hand witness" account. That's the origin of the whole 'urban legend' idea. Read about the writings of Marco Polo some time - he made outrageous claims of what he had seen during his travels, and they were widely believed...

...until they failed to be independently verified, that is. In fact a continent does exist between Europe and Asia - we're sitting on it - so that has changed from faith to fact. No one has ever found the headless giants, so that has passed from faith to obscurity.

It's just taking religion a much longer time to do that, due to the powerful psychological benefits that it offers to some people, both sophisticated and unsophisticated.

 

[Danoff]

If you want to research it, you will find historical evidence that support accounts in the new testament.

You can find evidence that supports the flying spaghetti monster. Finding some supporting evidence isn't enough. It has to be good solid unshakeable proof. Validated stories from multiple independent eye-witnesses. Physical evidence, etc.

Too bad Jesus didn't wait until we had cam-corders huh? I wonder why he picked such a primative period in our history to show up.

(I can offer you a few suggestions as to why...)

 

[Danoff]

It's just taking religion a much longer time to do that, due to the powerful psychological benefits that it offers to some people, both sophisticated and unsophisticated.

Nail, head, you hit it.

The upside entices people to let go of their rationality.

 

[Pako]

I can't provide the bones of Christ, but what sceptics used to doubt (Nazareth, Pontius Piolet, etc....never existed) has been satisfied through artifacts that have been discovered through archaeological digs.

*shrugs shoulders*

 

[Danoff]

I can't provide the bones of Christ, but what sceptics used to doubt (Nazareth, Pontius Piolet, etc....never existed) has been satisfied through artifacts that have been discovered through archaeological digs.

*shrugs shoulders*

Evidence supporting the claim that Jesus existed is not evidence supporting the claim that Jesus is the son of god.

 

[Kylehnat]

I can't provide the bones of Christ, but what sceptics used to doubt (Nazareth, Pontius Piolet, etc....never existed) has been satisfied through artifacts that have been discovered through archaeological digs.

Though many fundamentalists would argue that fossils found in similar archaeological digs were placed there by the devil. Why not these artifacts, too? Wouldn't Satan be more interested in misleading believers than scientists who like to dig?

 

[Duke]

Evidence supporting the claim that Jesus existed is not evidence supporting the claim that Jesus is the son of god.

This is what I said earlier in a different thread.

I do not doubt that a person named Jesus Christ existed. He's shown up in enough independent historical texts to make it likely. However, he only shows up in one text as the supernatural Son, no matter how much you try to argue that the New Testament is actually composed of different texts.

 

[Swift]

Though many fundamentalists would argue that fossils found in similar archaeological digs were placed there by the devil. Why not these artifacts, too? Wouldn't Satan be more interested in misleading believers than scientists who like to dig?

Did anyone here seriously suggest that fossils were put here by the devil?

 

[Kylehnat]

Did anyone here seriously suggest that fossils were put here by the devil?

No, not here, but I have heard people say as much (including some of my relatives ). It's this kind of mentality (being totally inconsistent, and holding double-standards) that gives many of us extreme doubt of religious teachings.

 

[Swift]

No, not here, but I have heard people say as much (including some of my relatives ). It's this kind of mentality (being totally inconsistent, and holding double-standards) that gives many of us extreme doubt of religious teachings.

Good enough.

But I have extreme doubts in a lot of things that science "says" that then ends up being either not true, an exageration or just something said for money. This is the case the most in the food and drug industry.

 

[Danoff]

It's this kind of mentality (being totally inconsistent, and holding double-standards) that gives many of us extreme doubt of religious teachings.

That and the whole lack of evidence problem... oh and the whole "it sounds made up" problem...