Do you believe in God?

[boomee]

Personally, I don't see how one can look at the complexity of the world around us and not see a designers hand.

agreed fully where there is a building there is a builder. What most people forget is that all evolution is is a theory not fact at all

 

[alfiD]

agreed fully where there is a building there is a builder. What most people forget is that all evolution is is a theory not fact at all

Scientific theory means there is enough evidence to say it is fact. I don't agree with this though. Just letting you know. Search "scientific theory".

 

[CodeRedR51]

What most people forget is that all evolution is is a theory not fact at all

You just proved to everyone right there with that sentence that you don't know the true definition of the word "theory".

 

[boomee]

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

[Tesla]

agreed fully where there is a building there is a builder.

Then who was God's builder? And God's builder's builder? And so on and so forth.

 

[boomee]

Then who was God's builder? And God's builder's builder? And so on and so forth.

Look at the universe do you see how large and infinite it is ....

Gods the even bigger infinite and eternal.

 

[CodeRedR51]

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

But that depends on it's usage, and when talking about scientific theory (I should have added that) it takes on a completely different meaning.

But if you must, then where are the facts that prove god can't be described in the same way you describe evolution? And please don't say in the bible. I've heard enough of that.

 

[Tesla]

Look at the universe do you see how large and infinite it is ....

Gods the even bigger infinite and eternal.

Large, yes. Infinite? Not quite. How can God be eternal? You said it yourself, everything that is built must have a builder.

 

[Zenith]

agreed fully where there is a building there is a builder. What most people forget is that all evolution is is a theory not fact at all

Yeah, like gravity!

When you equate the universe to a building it demonstrates how little of an understanding you have of physics and the universe you have.

 

[niky]

"keep your mind open and question everything".

Sources please for your proofs of objects with differing redshifts. And extra proof that a Civic does not a good race car make, as it is one of the cars of choice for a whole slew of Touring Car series.

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Wrong. It is a logical model which explains the processes behind physical phenomenon based on all available evidence, and which is validated by evidence collected through further study and experimentation.

 

[alfiD]

Sources please for your proofs of objects with differing redshifts. And extra proof that a Civic does not a good race car make, as it is one of the cars of choice for a whole slew of Touring Car

Google it. Plenty of sources pop up.

 

[Tesla]

It's your responsibility to show proof and find links that are based on legitimate science. Don't make the claim if you can't back it up with anything more than "google it".

 

[alfiD]

It's your responsibility to show proof and find links that are based on legitimate science. Don't make the claim if you can't back it up with anything more than "google it".

Fine.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v237/n5352/abs/237227a0.html

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.html

Also I brought up for the sake of bringing it up. Im not saying I agree with it.

 

[homeforsummer]

Fine.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v237/n5352/abs/237227a0.html

Im sleepy I'll add more later mr responsibility

...You do realise that none of that suggests the Big Bang didn't happen right? It's simply suggesting reasons why some red-shift data is anomalous.

I'm not surprised you didn't want to post it. It doesn't back up your argument. Easier to tell people to "google it" and hope they can't be bothered, and hope they drop the counter-arguments, right?

What most people forget is that all evolution is is a theory not fact at all

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[Facepalm.jpg]

I cannot believe you went there again. This must have been covered literally hundreds of times between the God and Evolution threads.

Ugh. That big bang theory show. I find it insulting to real engineers. I don't like how they dumb down engineering. You know how they talk dowm to that one guy with the beatles like haircut. I think his name is Howard.

I know, right? You think they'd put more effort and a bit more seriousness into getting a documentary right.

What's that?

Oh, apparently Big Bang Theory isn't a documentary. I'm told it's a comedy, and that you probably shouldn't take it seriously.

 

[alfiD]

...You do realise that none of that suggests the Big Bang didn't happen right? It's simply suggesting reasons why some red-shift data is anomalous.

I'm not surprised you didn't want to post it. It doesn't back up your argument. Easier to tell people to "google it" and hope they can't be bothered, and hope they drop the counter-arguments, right?

[Facepalm.jpg]

I cannot believe you went there again. This must have been covered literally hundreds of times between the God and Evolution threads.

I know, right? You think they'd put more effort and a bit more seriousness into getting a documentary right.

What's that?

Oh, apparently Big Bang Theory isn't a documentary. I'm told it's a comedy, and that you probably shouldn't take it seriously.

It also doesnt suggest it did happen. Never said that show was a documentary. You just wouldn't understand (about the show, and im not going to bother explaining why it bothers me). Also I was making a simple comment about it? You deciding to insult (idk if insulting is the correct term. To tired to think but you got to me) me over it says a lot about you and your poor character. But it is late here and I was working all day, I can give you all the sources you want during the day time. I might even tell you about a few good books you can check out.

 

[Denur]

... it says a lot about you and your poor character. But it is late here and I was working all day,...

Yes, do get some sleep and rethink the whole thing. You just might discover that HFS doesn't have such a poor character after all. Quite the opposite usually actually.

 

[homeforsummer]

Thanks Denur

It also doesnt suggest it did happen.

It doesn't suggest you should soft boil an egg for seven minutes either, but the absence of information on something doesn't mean it's automatically being denied.

It's fair to say that if the paper isn't actively using anomalies in red-shift as evidence that the Big Bang didn't happen, it's probably not saying that at all. You can't just cherry-pick an element of a scientific paper vaguely related to something and use it as proof of an unrelated theory.

Never said that show was a documentary. You just wouldn't understand (about the show, and im not going to bother explaining why it bothers me).

No, I do understand. It's a comedy. Everything is done for comic effect. You said:

I find it insulting to real engineers. I don't like how they dumb down engineering. You know how they talk dowm to that one guy with the beatles like haircut. I think his name is Howard.

Saying you "don't like how they dumb down engineering" is like complaining that Two And A Half Men dumbs down the deep responsibilities of raising a child.

Also I was making a simple comment about it? You deciding to insult (idk if insulting is the correct term. To tired to think but you got to me) me over it says a lot about you and your poor character.

I wasn't insulting you. I was taking the piss, however. Not of you, you understand, but of a slightly silly comment about being annoyed that a comedy show wasn't taking something seriously.

But it is late here and I was working all day

Then the lesson here is, "don't post when you're too tired to post something that makes sense".

 

[Famine]

agreed fully where there is a building there is a builder.

Where there is a builder there were parents that built them - from where did thet originate?

It's a lovely soundbite, but unfortunately fails to actually explain or understand anything...

What most people forget is that all evolution is is a theory not fact at all

What most people forget is that a scientific theory is an all-encompassing explanation that covers every observed fact, every known law and every piece of evidence in the field ever uncovered - and often proposes new observations before they are observed.

Theories based on limited evidence are always subject to gross change with new information - there can often be several competing theories with mutual exclusivity, which are pared down with new information. In the case of very long-standing theories with huge bodies of evidence, fact and law behind them, they can only be refined.

 

[Flaco13]

Sorry but my own direct experience of Muslim families (and also moaning about kids with colleges) differs significantly from that. They are just as capable of being rude to parents as western kids are, they may not do it publicly but they certainly do it.

I didn't read the initial post but I lived in Kuwait and can confirm this from my personal experience. They would not do it publicly because Islam is in its core a religion that concentrates on public appearence rather than a deep spirituality within one self. Things that happen in private are a whole another story. Stories I'd rather not get into detail about, I heard them so often from former employees (maids) in arab households. We (friend and I) took care of so called 'runaways' there.

So once again when it contradicts itself how do you know which bit to follow and how do you know if it was written by a man on behalf of God or on behalf of himself?

Also how does that leave you in regard to the books that over time have been omitted from the Bible (but were once included).

Its only contradictive if you are looking at the wrong places or don't look any further than two taken verses that, on first sight, seem to be contradictive. Tell me one part that seems contradictive to you.

Show me those 'omitted' books, please.

Your not sure about it? Sorry but this is one of the fundamental parts of the whole of Christianity, its why Jesus was killed by his dad (via inaction) so your sins could be forgiven. If we are not born with sin (which we are not) then the whole of Christianity falls apart.

How do you know we are not born with sin? You just state '... we are not', out of nothing. And I'm still here in my faith, nothing fell apart. And don't think I was just ignorant, I have been asking questions in the creation vs. evolution thread and I appreciated the answers of Niky and Famine, while others just told me I should educate myself, lol, which I am doing that is why I asked my 'uneducated' questions in the first place.

 

[Dennisch]

Sin is a religious thing, so atheists can not sin. Or be born with it.

Yeey for atheism.

 

[Famine]

How do you know we are not born with sin? You just state '... we are not', out of nothing.

Again, on the topic of non-falsifiability, the various Christian religions just state that we are, out of nothing.

"Sin" is the concept of culpability for conscious immoral acts. Leaving aside the mutable definition of morality in religion, the notion of sin requires two things - an act considered immoral (or inaction to prevent immorality) and a conscious decision to perform that act.

An infant has very little by way of consciousness - you'll remember very little before the age of 3, simply because you had a poorly developed consciousness before that. In fact it's rare for a child below the age of 2 to even understand that they can perform an act and it will have a result. No child under 2 can be held culpable for performing an act considered immoral or for failing to perform an act that prevented immorality because they were simply not consciously able to perform that act.

That aside, what act can a 2 year old even perform that is immoral, whether they are conscious of doing so or not?


The idea of "original sin" is even more implausible - and one few Christians should ascribe to, since the whole point of the Christ story is that he wiped clean all law (hence the OT not being the foundation of Christianity, just a story about the lead up to it) and sin, including original sin, with his life, death and resurrection.

Original sin requires that all people, infants and newborns included (presumably foetuses too, with that whole pesky pro-life argument - though not eggs or sperm. Bad eggs. Bad!), are held responsible for a women several thousand years ago and several thousand miles away not doing what she was told. I'm not responsible for a murder in the 1720s in (what's now) Bolivia, am I? I'm not responsible for a spot of larceny in 1240 Hokkaido, am I? I didn't sleep with anyone else's wife in 440BC Alexandria, did I? So why am I responsible for some bint in an undefined (maybe Mesopotamia - fits in with the various myths and progenitor myths of the Bible) location, an undefined time ago deciding it's a great idea to go scrumping because a viper told her to?

 

[Flaco13]

Sin is a religious thing, so atheists can not sin. Or be born with it.

Yeey for atheism.

Sure, I understand that. But if you would, just for a minute, imagine the bible was true (like I believe). You would have no excuses, right?

Again, on the topic of non-falsifiability, the various Christian religions just state that we are, out of nothing.

It's not out of nothing it's out of a book called the bible.

"Sin" is the concept of culpability for conscious immoral acts. Leaving aside the mutable definition of morality in religion, the notion of sin requires two things - an act considered immoral (or inaction to prevent immorality) and a conscious decision to perform that act.

An infant has very little by way of consciousness - you'll remember very little before the age of 3, simply because you had a poorly developed consciousness before that. In fact it's rare for a child below the age of 2 to even understand that they can perform an act and it will have a result. No child under 2 can be held culpable for performing an act considered immoral or for failing to perform an act that prevented immorality because they were simply not consciously able to perform that act.

That aside, what act can a 2 year old even perform that is immoral, whether they are conscious of doing so or not?

No, to us, christians, the bible says ALL humanity is guilty.

The idea of "original sin" is even more implausible - and one few Christians should ascribe to, since the whole point of the Christ story is that he wiped clean all law (hence the OT not being the foundation of Christianity, just a story about the lead up to it) and sin, including original sin, with his life, death and resurrection.

No he didn't just wipe it clean, that would mean we were all saved, which we are not. Well you aren't (I might ). Christianity is about seeking God and confess your sins, those you remember doing (consciously, not when you were 2 yrs old of course, I agree on that part).

OT absolutely IS the foundation btw.

 

[CodeName]

I am muslim, if someone has a question about this religion, I'll answer it

 

[Flaco13]

I am muslim, if someone has a question about this religion, I'll answer it

Hi CodeName,

yes I'd like to know if you can name me one fullfilled prophecy, in the Q'ran, that is clearly connectable to an event in our younger history.

 

[homeforsummer]

No, to us, christians, the bible says ALL humanity is guilty.

Do you not think, irrespective of what the bible says, that labeling all humanity, including those who have not 'sinned' (like very young children) as 'sinners' for an event that may not have happened, is a bit... odd?

I mean, to bring this slightly more in the direction of God, rather than the bible, I can understand if someone wishes to live their life by standards their God has set, but surely any right-thinking individual would still understand that Original Sin is an insane, nonsensical concept.

 

[Scaff]

Its only contradictive if you are looking at the wrong places or don't look any further than two taken verses that, on first sight, seem to be contradictive. Tell me one part that seems contradictive to you.

Well for a start we have the clear contradiction between the OT and its views on capital punishment (which gets a massive thumbs up) and the Ten Commandments.

I don't see how you can be justifiable to killing children for being rude, but that not then count as killing.

Show me those 'omitted' books, please.

The Codex Siniticus contains two books omitted from later Bibles, namly the Apostle Barnabas and The Shepard
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/content.aspx

How do you know we are not born with sin? You just state '... we are not', out of nothing. And I'm still here in my faith, nothing fell apart. And don't think I was just ignorant, I have been asking questions in the creation vs. evolution thread and I appreciated the answers of Niky and Famine, while others just told me I should educate myself, lol, which I am doing that is why I asked my 'uneducated' questions in the first place.

I think this has been covered in exactly the same manner as I would have by Famine.

I am muslim, if someone has a question about this religion, I'll answer it

Please consider you conduct when posting with care as the staff still have your membership under review.

 

[Flaco13]

Do you not think, irrespective of what the bible says, that labeling all humanity, including those who have not 'sinned' (like very young children) as 'sinners' for an event that may not have happened, is a bit... odd?

I mean, to bring this slightly more in the direction of God, rather than the bible, I can understand if someone wishes to live their life by standards their God has set, but surely any right-thinking individual would still understand that Original Sin is an insane, nonsensical concept.

If I would think the event had not happened I would totally agree. But I DO think it happened, so it is a different perspective.

Its not about right thinking, I think we both think right, but out of different foundations that lead to different conclusions.

 

[CodeName]

Hi CodeName,

yes I'd like to know if you can name me one fullfilled prophecy, in the Q'ran, that is clearly connectable to an event in our younger history.

What do you mean by prophecy? A miracle or something described in the quran or in the hadith that happened before?

 

[Famine]

It's not out of nothing it's out of a book called the bible.

Then Scaff's comment is not out of nothing either. It's out of a website called GTPlanet.

No, to us, christians, the bible says ALL humanity is guilty.

I know full well what the Bible says. I was giving a thorough explanation of why ascribing culpability for a given immoral act to people who have no consciousness and/or no direct way of causing it is ludicrous.

No he didn't just wipe it clean, that would mean we were all saved, which we are not.

Christianity doesn't begin with the Jews. It begins with Christ - hence the name of it.

The purpose of the Christ story is that, after laying down rules and letting people get on with it, it all rather went badly - and hey, it'd already gone down that way once, to the point of having to drown just about everyone and everything, so you think there'd be a lesson there. So God sent down his child (who's also him. Yay Trinity!) to teach a new message of love and friendliness. Turned out that some dudes had already made their own rules and weren't too happy with this whole hippy thing and it really kicked off. Luckily the kid was magical, so after they nailed him to a tree for saying how nice it'd be to be nice to people for a change he got right back up again and - bereft of his previous M&M juggling career - did the whole "Told you so" malarky and vanished.

I mean, you folk even recite the phrase "Christ died for all our sins". The point was to wipe out the laws of Leviticus, the Judaic Code, the Ten Commandments and the laughable original sin. Not all future sin - all past sin.

And that's the laugh here. Christianity - by the message of the guy the religion is named for - shouldn't be about control and law and banning this and bombing that. It should be about going through life not hurting people. And when you do, you tell someone about it ("confess") and say sorry. Christianity shouldn't a book you can beat people down with (particularly as a last resort when you've run out of sensible argument), but a message to just don't be a nob to other people.

Which is particularly funny as it means that many atheists are excellent Christians in terms of living the message. Only we don't think that an invisible Skydad makes us do it, which makes us awful, awful people. Apparently.

Well you aren't (I might ). Christianity is about seeking God and confess your sins, those you remember doing (consciously, not when you were 2 yrs old of course, I agree on that part)

And not other people's sins either. Remember, the question was how we know you're born as a sinner and you're already agreeing that kids shouldn't be considered sinners...

OT absolutely IS the foundation btw.

It's just a story-form history of what the world was like before your religion started.

It's important to know, because it's important to know why the religion started, but it should not form a basis for Christianity - Christ does that.

 

[CodeName]

I'll not respond everything every minutes, i don't go often in GTPlanet