The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, but mutation isn't disputed as far as I know. Would you agree the fossil record for human evolution doesn't pass the prediction test?


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even look at the fossil skull pictures Maurile posted?

[Rduke55]

OMG! I must steal "fossil-ology" off of you. It's wonderful.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with believing in a Creator is it means humans are created and there is an AUTHORITY over us. That's the kicker. By nature we don't anyone telling us what to do and we sure don't want someone who has the right to tell us what to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear this a lot from Evangelicals such as yourself. The problem with this assertion, is that even if one were to believe in God, and even the Bible, it's obvious from the # of denominations and beliefs on various issues that this authority would be very subjective and subject to interpretation. Like the Constitution, but with many more caveats and subtleties.

People don't disbelieve in God because they think they'll have to then abide by certain rules. You are deluding yourself if you think so. They disbelieve either because they haven't thought much about it, or they have and come to the conclusion that there's not enough evidence to persuade them of his existence.

[jthegreat]

He also needs to realize that many atheists, like myself, would LOVE to know for a fact that there is some kind of post-death existence and that there is a "bigger picture", so to speak. That's *the* ultimate comfort. I don't disbelieve because belief is unappealing to me. I don't believe because I can't convince myself there's a reason to.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
This centers on the main problem. How is the question whether or not God is involved in biological processes a scientific question? Yet you seem to think the absence of God is taught in public school. Christians agree with you and think that if atheists are allowed to teach atheism ID should be allowed to teach design.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheists should NOT be allowed to "teach atheism" in schools, and for the most part, they don't. There is a difference between atheism and secularism. A teacher doesn't go to the front of the class and say "Today students, we're going to learn why there is no God." They teach material unrelated to God's message: math, literature, history, science, dodgeball, etc. Evolution comes out and says that species mutate and there's a natural selection process, and therefore it's plausible that human beings and monkey evolved from a common ancestor. It cites empirical evidence, and doesn't claim to be perfect. That's it. This DOESN'T disprove God's existence.

I'll have you know also that the person who taught my class about evolution back in high school was a priest [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution comes out and says that species mutate and there's a natural selection process, and therefore it's plausible that human beings and monkey evolved from a common ancestor. It cites empirical evidence, and doesn't claim to be perfect. That's it. This DOESN'T disprove God's existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. Evolution is no more atheistic than is the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravity.

People used to think that disease was caused by spirits, and that angels pushed the sun around the earth. We have since formed new theories about disease and the movement of the planets that don't invoke gods or spirits, just as we have a new (as of 1859) theory about the diversity of biological species that doesn't invoke any gods or spirits, either. Same principle.

Does anybody with an IQ above room temperature consider the germ theory of disease to be pro-atheism? Or gravity?

Just because an explanation doesn't explicitly invoke any gods doesn't mean it promotes atheism. For some reason, people tend to understand this about gravity, but not about biological evolution. I'm not sure exactly why.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution comes out and says that species mutate and there's a natural selection process, and therefore it's plausible that human beings and monkey evolved from a common ancestor. It cites empirical evidence, and doesn't claim to be perfect. That's it. This DOESN'T disprove God's existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. Evolution is no more atheistic than is the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravity.

People used to think that disease was caused by spirits, and that angels pushed the sun around the earth. We have since formed new theories about disease and the movement of the planets that don't invoke gods or spirits, just as we have a new (as of 1859) theory about the diversity of biological species that doesn't invoke any gods or spirits, either. Same principle.

Does anybody with an IQ above room temperature consider the germ theory of disease to be pro-atheism? Or gravity?

Just because an explanation doesn't explicitly invoke any gods doesn't mean it promotes atheism. For some reason, people tend to understand this about gravity, but not about biological evolution. I'm not sure exactly why.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great point. My career is studying the evolution of the brain and yet I'm a practicing catholic.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Something from Nothing
Imagine this scenario:
Billions of years ago, a dark substance began to evolve from nothing. It came out of no where. Then there was a big bang. We don't know what caused the bang or why, but it happened.

As many millions of years passed, this substance developed a fizz to it and became sweet. Millions of years later some aluminum molcules formed from nothing, gathered together, and wrapped themsleves around this liquid in the perfect shape of a cylinder. The aluminum then formed a pop top on the cylinder.

Forty or fifty years ago, some red and white paint molecules fell on to the can, forming the words "Coca-Cola", an expriation date, and a complete ingredients lists. Wow-- that is amazing!

This example, given by a friend of mine, describes an absurd way of thinking. It would be an insult to your intellect if I insisted that the above scenario were true. This universe is infinitely more complex than a can of Coke, yet for some reason people are content to believe that it just came out of no where-- that something came from nothing.

But if a Coke can and its contents coulnd't happen by random chance processes, how could something as orderly and intricately designed as our universe have been assembled merely by chance? Logically, we know that's impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]


Imagine this scenario:

There's this dude. He somehow came to be without any cause. Imagine that! Now he's got infinite powers. So he comes up with an idea...he'll create a place with some finite, though intelligent, beings. This place will be perfect (except for the fact that there's an evil snake in it, and the people are capable of sin). Then when they do, he'll curse all of their offspring forever to burn in hell...unless of course they believe that a dude (who won't come for another 4,000 years...God's lazy) died for them and that because he did, they won't burn in a torturous nightmare for all eternity.

Then he won't say or do anything for another 2,000 years that would make an intelligent person think he exists, except write a book (well...have some people write the book, that is) that is wrought with contradictions. Other people will write books about other fake gods, but God doesn't think that taking the same route to reveal His existence that other people have taken to reveal the existence of other gods will be confusing, or damage his credibility to intelligent people. He'll also structure the universe and humans in such a way to make man, through centuries of scientific development, come to the rational conclusion that they evolved from other animals, by doing things like making us with tailbones, and filling the earth with million year old fossils. And if they get thrown off by this, they burn in hell forever. At least two thirds of these people will end up with this horrible fate.

He'll also pack it full of mosquitos, dung beetles and honey badgers. Why? Shut up.

So God thinks about this plan, understands what it entails, and knows all the consequences. Maybe he considers other plans that don't involve so much suffering, superfluousness, and logical contradictions, but in the end, he likes his plan, and goes through with it.

Good job.

[ QUOTE ]
Does anybody with an IQ above room temperature consider the germ theory of disease to be pro-atheism? Or gravity?


[/ QUOTE ]

I do. I consider all science to be pro-atheism because it will eventually prove there is no God. Of course, it may be thousands of years until humanity is ready to listen to reason. I liked your comments, not coming after you, but yeah science boo religion!

[ QUOTE ]
Good job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good job. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]