05 Feb 07
This thead is for those of you that are familiar with the history of this debate as it has and is being debated within the scientific community for the last 100 years or so. I am not a scientist. But it seems to me that the argument is basically about wether or not life began with a creater or by chance and necessity.
I don't believe that at this point either side has proven their case.
We, that is, you and me, have come to our own conclusions based on the infomation we have.
Personally, I'm not sure where to go with this from here. But, I believe in reason and the power of thought and the conveyance of ideas through a rational and objective discussion.
Maybe I can prove that God exists, but not if he doesn't. So therefore, if God does exist there should be proof, and I should be able to show that proof.
This is where I will start this thread. I am interested in only talking to non christains. Too many chiefs and then it turns into an argument disseminating into too many tangents.
Also, my time is limited and mondays and wednesdays are busy days for me. I don't want to flash through this too quickly either. Besides, I think slow and type even slower.
Wish me luck. I mean, if there is a God, wouldn't you want to know him? 1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
05 Feb 07
Originally posted by josephwIf there was a god, I definitely wouldn't want to know him/her/it. The very notion of a god fills me with dread - that is, the notion that there might be able to exist supernatural aspects to this world, makes no sense to me at all and I would hate to live in such a world.
This thead is for those of you that are familiar with the history of this debate as it has and is being debated within the scientific community for the last 100 years or so. I am not a scientist. But it seems to me that the argument is basically about wether or not life began with a creater or by chance and necessity.
I don't believe that at this point e ...[text shortened]... God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
You mention neither side proving their case in the creation/nature debate. That's a bit disingenuous.
Science attempts to develop workable theories. Creationism aims to refute those theories but aside from some generic 'god did it' does not bother to present their own theories.
So, it's not really a debate is it?
Both sides are coming from entirely incompatible positions.
05 Feb 07
Originally posted by josephwI have to agree with amannion.
This thead is for those of you that are familiar with the history of this debate as it has and is being debated within the scientific community for the last 100 years or so. I am not a scientist. But it seems to me that the argument is basically about wether or not life began with a creater or by chance and necessity.
I don't believe that at this point e ...[text shortened]... God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
The whole world view of scientists and christian creationists is (should be) different. A good scientist should accept nothing without evidence, a good creationist should accept (and does) anything without proof.
The creationist argument is basically "a big god did it and ran away". Well, the question then is, "how do we know this?" How do we know it wasn't Muffy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other construct you care to choose (the celestial teapot?)? The theist's point of view comes down to blind faith in a book. The (good) scientist's point of view should come down to empirical evidence.
And, as ammanion points out, no, I wouldn't want to know such a nasty, vindictive, piece of work as the Christian God if, indeed, he were to exist.
05 Feb 07
1 edit
well if there was a God.
God would probably want us to find him/her right?
If so even before we had this amazing technology the proof would be there. So I dont think you should rely on technology to find him.
Well I have some mp3's that are of a guy names Mark Eastman. He debates this very subject and it is quite interesting. He relies and uses scientific evidence and it is quite amazing the way he does it. Now the guy is Christian I think. But he does not ask you to have Jesus in your heart... hahah. so dont worry.
I think you would really like it.
let me know if you want them or anyone else. Just message me.
I think you would really like it.
let me know if you want them or anyone else. Just message me.
05 Feb 07
Originally posted by josephwWhere does your 'therefore' come from. It is definitely not implied by any previous statements.
Maybe I can prove that God exists, but not if he doesn't. So therefore, if God does exist there should be proof, and I should be able to show that proof.
What do you mean by 'proof' when applied to the real world. In mathematics it has a definite meaning. In the real world it does not. Do you mean convincing evidence? Do you mean a logical proof? A logical proof would require some axioms that we all agree on which is highly unlikely.
05 Feb 07
Originally posted by amannionI totally agree. What infuriates me most about the creationist/scientist issue is that the creationists are working on some point scoring system. They keep a catalogue of ways in which they can demean and undermine the scientific presentation of the debate and rejoice in it. That's no way to present a theory, there's no attempt to refute their own theory so as to justify it further, no null-hypothesis and it's all presupposed by an already decided axiom; that god exists. Creationism is just question begging.
If there was a god, I definitely wouldn't want to know him/her/it. The very notion of a god fills me with dread - that is, the notion that there might be able to exist supernatural aspects to this world, makes no sense to me at all and I would hate to live in such a world.
You mention neither side proving their case in the creation/nature debate. That's ...[text shortened]... t's not really a debate is it?
Both sides are coming from entirely incompatible positions.
05 Feb 07
Originally posted by amannionWhen I first read your first sentence I thought that you may as well have said,' if there was oxygen I wouldn't want to breath it.'
If there was a god, I definitely wouldn't want to know him/her/it. The very notion of a god fills me with dread - that is, the notion that there might be able to exist supernatural aspects to this world, makes no sense to me at all and I would hate to live in such a world.
You mention neither side proving their case in the creation/nature debate. That's ...[text shortened]... t's not really a debate is it?
Both sides are coming from entirely incompatible positions.
It sounds so silly to me. It seems to me that what you should have said was ' there is no God so there is no debate.
I don't know if I was being disingenuous or not, but I was sincere. Yes, science seeks to develop workable theories to explain life. I have nothing againts science. Just look at all the positive discoveries and inventions as a result of scientific research. The list is endless.
I beg to differ with you concerning creationist seeking to refute scientific theories. It is those scientist that use theories to say that life was not created, and there is no intelligent designer, that the ceationist refute. And what's wrong with that. Everybody has a right to believe what they want, and a strong debate is healthy.
I agree with your statement about both sides having incompatible positions. Is'nt that why there's a debate? The issue is devisive by it's very nature.
The one thing I find most interesting about your reply is your statement about being filled with dread over the notion of God. Please explain that in more detail. I'm not sure what you mean or why you have come to that conclussion.
05 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThe bottom line with creationits is they could care less about science and only try to APPEAR to debate as a way to delude those with noticably smaller brains into thinking they have won some 'argument' or other and add more deluded people to the creationist camp. If scientists were proven wrong at any point along the way and the creationist were seen as having 'won' the debate they would drop any pretense of interest in real science and all this 'creation science' and 'intelligent design' would end and they would get back to the job of screwing people's minds and gaining political power which is what it is really all about in the first place.
I totally agree. What infuriates me most about the creationist/scientist issue is that the creationists are working on some point scoring system. They keep a catalogue of ways in which they can demean and undermine the scientific presentation of the debate and rejoice in it. That's no way to present a theory, there's no attempt to refute their own theory ...[text shortened]... supposed by an already decided axiom; that god exists. Creationism is just question begging.
05 Feb 07
Originally posted by josephwI hate to put myself in situations where I feel like I'm not in control. I know we do that all the time of course, but still, I always try to be in control of myself and my life as much as possible.
When I first read your first sentence I thought that you may as well have said,' if there was oxygen I wouldn't want to breath it.'
It sounds so silly to me. It seems to me that what you should have said was ' there is no God so there is no debate.
I don't know if I was being disingenuous or not, but I was sincere. Yes, science seeks to develop workable ...[text shortened]... t in more detail. I'm not sure what you mean or why you have come to that conclussion.
The notion of a god is the ultimate removal of control.
Obviously most people - including many of my friends and family - don't agree, but there you have it.
I'm not an atheist because there's no proof that god exists - I may as well be agnostic in that sense. I'm an atheist because to entertain the notion of the existence of a god would make the world a place I don't want to live in. Were a god to exist it might be the nicest thing in the world - something you'd be happy to take to see your mother for dinner or have a few with down at the local pub. It's not the nature of a god that bothers me - it's the very idea that something might exist that is outside the normal rules and regulations of nature.
I reject that entirely.
You're entirely right, everyone can believe what they want.
But creationists have worked with an agenda to make others believe. The notion of 'equal time' for creationism in school science classes is an insidious and pernicious example of this.
I have no problem with creationism. I'm happy to have you believe it. I'm happy for others to believe it. Although, obviously I believe something else.
But to attempt to have it taught as science is an outrage.
06 Feb 07
Originally posted by amannionYou know the government has somewhat control over you.
I hate to put myself in situations where I feel like I'm not in control. I know we do that all the time of course, but still, I always try to be in control of myself and my life as much as possible.
The notion of a god is the ultimate removal of control.
Obviously most people - including many of my friends and family - don't agree, but there you have it. ...[text shortened]... elieve something else.
But to attempt to have it taught as science is an outrage.
It seems that most athiest hate god... why?
06 Feb 07
Originally posted by MikeBruceI hate the idea of god but as to hating a god - no, not really. I don't think about it to be honest.
You know the government has somewhat control over you.
It seems that most athiest hate god... why?
I don't lie in bed at night dwelling over it.
I don't believe there is a god or gods.
I don't want there to be a god or gods - as I mentioned previously.
I live my life assuming that such is the reality of the world.
06 Feb 07
Originally posted by josephwA strong debate is healthy when both sides are being honest. When one side is willing to take a position that they themselves to not believe to be valid, simply to try and call into doubt the opponents position then there is really no benefit from the debate. Even worse is when one side seeks to ensure that basic science is no longer taught in school as knowledge is a threat to their side of the debate.
I beg to differ with you concerning creationist seeking to refute scientific theories. It is those scientist that use theories to say that life was not created, and there is no intelligent designer, that the ceationist refute. And what's wrong with that. Everybody has a right to believe what they want, and a strong debate is healthy.
For example many creationists quite readily go to the extent of making claims such as "no new species can ever arise from other species". They have no good reason to make such a claim other than as an attempt to weaken their opponents argument.
It is equivalent to someone who opposes ID claiming that "no intelligent beings exist therefore ID is wrong". It is a false unsupportable claim but since it sheds doubt on ID who cares!
I must also point out that creationists often refute more than just the theory of evolution. Young earth creationists also refute any evidence that the earth is older than a certain age. This includes most of geology, astronomy, archeology, physics, chemistry and other scientific disciplines. At no point is a scientific alternative offered. It is always a claim of "they must be wrong because the Bible says...."
06 Feb 07
Originally posted by MikeBruceHow could I hate something I don't believe exists?
You know the government has somewhat control over you.
It seems that most athiest hate god... why?
What I do hate is that humans put their lives in the hands of faith and the supernatural, instead of reason and a common sense view of the world.