God vs. Science

[NAG2I]

The point of my comment wasn't that, though.

It was the circumstances under which he wrote. I said that Tacitus knew that Jesus existed and caused trouble in the same manner that Winston Smith knew about Goldstein and his trouble making.

I'll explain the allusion. Tacitus didn't live in the Holy land. He didn't meet Jesus, see him crucified, meet anyone who met Jesus, etc. He just heard some Jew named Jesus was starting **** and mentioned it in one of his histories. Tacitus was basically writing hearsay, which isn't a big insult for a write of the time considering the way information was disseminated at the time. The point is, Tacitus has no concrete information on Jesus. None.

Winston Smith is the protagonist of 1984 and a citizen of Oceana. This guy called Goldstein is a symbol used by the state, everyone in Oceana knows who he is because the state (an intermediary) tells them about him. However, you find out later on in the book that Goldstein's actions are undoubtedly fabricated by the state and whether or not he even exists is quite ambiguous. Sound familiar?

Its the same situation with all of these sources. All are greatly removed from the event (and man) itself by time and physical remoteness. Some of these sources aren't definitively about Jesus at all. All of these writings that were actually about Jesus were basically written with no evidence in hand at all. There are no first hand accounts.

The conclusion you can draw. Its very likely someone named Jesus existed. Its also very likely all these other equally or better documented Messiahs existed. And that's all the more you can conclude from the archaelogical record.

Honestly, I am not even sure why the faithful are in here trying to refute scientific and historical contradictions to their faith. It is still mind boggling to me today that the faithful actively try to undermine our understanding of the natural world's workings. Why is it that because something can be explained with science (evolution etc) it is a threat to your faith? Just come to the conclusion that just because something can be explained doesn't mean it isn't the work of god. This is a logically sound position to hold. Stop wasting your time, believers. Science and the hypothetical existence of god don't logically contradict one another. That is all.

well there is no threat to my faith. i post the things i post either because someone asked a question or said something that was false about believers and the things they believe. i personally don't need all the scientific facts and archeological facts to prove the things i believe. but i do understand that some people cant wrap there head around it without them. and thats perfectly understandable. I was just trying to answer some questions and shed a little bit of truth. which seems like the same thing you are doing. so no wrong on either sides both just trying to show our opinions and thoughts about the topic.

[The12lber]

well there is no threat to my faith.

Lots of people do consider it threatening. Why do you think the ridiculous creationist museum exists or there is so much fuss about evolution even when the science behind it is sound?

[bu villain]

Basic problem: Where did the space, time, matter, and energy come from that turned into this universe after the Big Bang?

There are several theories on this. For example, the elastic universe theory says there could have been an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches, therefore the matter was always there. That being said, big bang theory starts at the instant after the singularity exploded. It does not attempt to explain how the singularity came to be. Therefore, I will not go into this topic more, we could have a whole other thread on this.

As for the other issues. I think I can find some good answers from my research. I have read about all those topics but I need to refresh myself on the specifics. Be patient please, this is turning into a good discussion.

[cardesignz]

Lots of people do consider it threatening. Why do you think the ridiculous creationist museum exists or there is so much fuss about evolution even when the science behind it is sound?

What science behind it? Since when have scientists seen genetic information being created? All that occurs is genetic mutations (loss of information) which directly corresponds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (going from state of order to disorder). This would suggest that at one time there was a perfect genetic code that has merely been losing parts over time resulting in diseases and mutations - what millions of doctors and scientists are constantly fighting today. Scientists cannot even directly link a human to a monkey (our supposed closest relative). Ever heard of a "missing link"?

Of course there is micro evolution (changes) resulting from mutations and genetic selection, but it does not ever involve new genetic information being created. Take for example a dogs. All of the genetic information needed to create virtually every species of dog can be found in a wolf. A poodle would be an obvious result of breeding and mutations.

[BABY J]

There are approximately 500,000 life scientists in the USA. Of that, approximately 400 of them believe in Young Earth Creationism. You think having two scientists on staff somehow gives credibility to an organization that has anatomically incorrect dinosaurs, and absolutely idiocy like a dinosaur with a saddle on it? Ever seen a domesticated reptile? I didn't think so. That's shear lunacy, not science in ANY form. Your average university, bastions of science and thought, will have hundreds of scientists that think the whole idea of a 6000 year old Earth is hysterical.

John D Morris, head of the Institute for Creation Research, has retracted all claims that the prints were human, saying, "it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution." He goes on to say, in Creationist magazing "Impact" that, "Although the evidence is inconclusive, it must be recognized that a number of fossil tracks formerly regarded as probably mantracks now seem to show features which are best interpreted in terms of some unidentified two-legged reptile or other animal. Further studies are under way, but creationists should not, at least for the present, cite these particular footprints as evidence against evolution."

The co-existence of hominid and saurian prints has been repeatedly and consistently refuted since the 1980s. And just like the bogus science at the Creation Museum, the "scientists" claiming these tracks co-existed couldn't even get the saurian or the geological period correct. Photography of these sites was altered, enhanced, and in some cases even doctored fraudulently with carved footprints - all confessed to by the track makers (the tracks were anatomically incorrect). This isn't new news.

Andrew Snelling, of "Answers in Genesis" tried to keep the debate alive back in the later 80s when all the hoax information was coming out. He has since "admitted that perhaps there will never be found any indisputably genuine pre-flood human fossils or pre-flood human artifacts or evidence of pre-flood dwellings. Instead, Snelling has suggested that perhaps no evidence of pre-Flood human beings may ever be found."

Do you really want to continue this? I fell from the same perch - that the Bible is the word of God, you either believe all of it or none of it - that you're on. I can pick apart theology, science, history, you name it. Seriously, I'd suggest you reconsider your theological position or you will likely be on my side of this argument one day. Become OK with the errors, inaccuracy, and inconsistencies and decide they make no difference to your faith. Clinging to the fundamentalist viewpoint will one day implode for you if you're a thinking person.


Oh, and as for the nose counts, the Discovery Institute actively solicits signatures from bonafide scientists that are opposed to evolution. As of 2007 their list contained just north of 700 members from all over the world, of which about 20% were in biology related fields. That's about 140 Biologists. Feel free to verify this at their web site. AiG and ICR both have similar and overlapping lists.

In comparison, the National Center for Science Education has "Project Steve" where they collect names only from credentialed scientists named Steve in the US (in honor of the late Stephen Gould). About 60% of their list of over 900 "Steves" (which, by the way, contains both of the living Nobel Laureates named "Steve") are in biology-related fields. That's 540 biologists named Steve in the US. You can extrapolate this using census date to being roughly 60,000 biologists of any name in the US. You can continue to extrapolate this to eventually reach a nose count in the high 400,000 people range of scientists in all fields in the US alone.

So Cliff's Notes -

~140 Creationist Biologists solicited world wide vs ~60,000 Evolutionist Biologists unsolicited in the United States.

~700 Creationist scientists of any type solicited world wide vs upper 400,000 scientists unsolicited in the United States.

Feel free to do your own research. I don't know why I bothered writing all of that since I'm sure you guys won't accept it. But feel free to counter with REAL information and not propaganda. I'm all for science and debate for the sake of science and debate.

[BABY J]

Oh yeah...
You can find John Morris' retractions in "The Paluxy Mystery." Impact No. 151, In Acts & Facts, Vol. 15, No. 1

You can find Snelling's comments in "Creation (Ex Nihilo)" March, 1986, Vol. 8, No.2, p. 37

I don't quote "nonsense."

[David88vert]

But feel free to counter with REAL information and not propaganda. I'm all for science and debate for the sake of science and debate.

Counter what? You showed exactly zero evidence for or against anything? What is there to debate with you?

Sorry, but you left yourself open for that one.

[David88vert]

There are several theories on this. For example, the elastic universe theory says there could have been an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches, therefore the matter was always there. That being said, big bang theory starts at the instant after the singularity exploded. It does not attempt to explain how the singularity came to be. Therefore, I will not go into this topic more, we could have a whole other thread on this.

As for the other issues. I think I can find some good answers from my research. I have read about all those topics but I need to refresh myself on the specifics. Be patient please, this is turning into a good discussion.

If matter always existed, so would space, time, and energy. This has already been disproven by many scientists. Time had a beginning, and so does matter. What created the matter? It's a simple concept - without a foundation, you cannot build a house. Without a foundation, you cannot build on the theory. Anything else is science fiction, not science. Your entire argument above relies on exempting the Big Bang from scientific laws.

On the elastic universe theory, it won't work. The reason it's impossible for the universe to be "elastic" and have multiple Big Bangs due to its enormous entropy. It has a entropy of 1,000,000,000, and that is a mechanical efficiency of 1/100,000,000 of a percent - for the entire universe. As you know, anything below 1% mechanical efficiency will not oscillate - thus, it is highly improbable that it can be "elastic".

Take your time. I'm not going anywhere. I am just glad that someone is willing to think for themselves, and not just agree with me, or disagree blindly. Without people examing an issue from all sides, you cannot increase your knowledge fully.

[mad3nch1na]

I argue, that the Religion and Science goes hand in hand.
Keep in mind that the Church and Science were tied together for hundreds of years!
The question of whether God exists is not as important as the question

"Is it more beneficial to have religion than with out it?"

I believe that religion is a powerful tool that is responsible for making us who/what we are today. Religion has had a greater contribution to society than the absence of it.

[The12lber]

What science behind it? Since when have scientists seen genetic information being created? All that occurs is genetic mutations (loss of information) which directly corresponds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (going from state of order to disorder).

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

Epic fail, sir.

[The12lber]

If matter always existed, so would space, time, and energy. This has already been disproven by many scientists. Time had a beginning, and so does matter. What created the matter? It's a simple concept - without a foundation, you cannot build a house.

Arguing that because science offers an incomplete explanation for the origin of the universe and therefore it must have been god is a logic based argument. Unfortunately, it is logically unsound as you must then explain where the supernatural force that created the universe came from and you're back to square one. All you can conclude is you don't have an answer.

This is what you're trying to do here, don't try to deny it. It doesn't work.

[ahabion]

Wow, still going.... this is good reading, i wish i could pick this up at work... (IA.com is blocked)

The irony of the whole 19 pages is that they are all the same. I say this, you pull something from the air to disclaim it. It's an infinite arguement, one of which I guess, will probably always exist.

Good Luck to all who search for your answers. I know mine, and I'm sticking with it.

For the Bible believers, read the Sermon of the Mount... very carefully.

For the evolutionist believers, rest in the assurance that you have your own belief and theories you are right.

Its a win - win situation... don't cha feel the love!!!

Instead of what is God, how bout what is evolution? Is not evolution the same as God... think about it... to me, both are considered religion.

[David88vert]

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

Epic fail, sir.

Actually, it is still closed. You are not creating any new matter, merely converting from one form to another through an expenditure of energy. In your example, you are not decreasing entropy, so you are not violating the 2nd law. That's an important distinction.


Snowflakes, etc, are an example of patterns, not codes. Patterns do not require intelligence to create them, codes and languages do. Can you show me a message that did not come from intelligence?

[David88vert]

Arguing that because science offers an incomplete explanation for the origin of the universe and therefore it must have been god is a logic based argument. Unfortunately, it is logically unsound as you must then explain where the supernatural force that created the universe came from and you're back to square one. All you can conclude is you don't have an answer.

This is what you're trying to do here, don't try to deny it. It doesn't work.

Can you answer where the matter came from? It sounds like you wish to ignore the obvious and choose to build a concept with no basis in foundation. Is this the case?

I have not been mentioning God, only discussing the Big Bang's misconceptions. I have been using science, not religion. You are the one wanting to interject religion into it. Stay on the course, quit trying to take it off on a tangent. If you want to declare that a "higher power" created the matter first, as you foundation, that is up to you - and I can procede in that case to still use science to evaluate the Big Bang after initial expansion. I am simply asking you to establish where the matter that was involved in the Big Bang came from. Or do you deny the existence of the 1st law?

[Maniac1]

I am simply asking you to establish where the matter that was involved in the Big Bang came from. Or do you deny the existence of the 1st law?

Theoretical couldn't the big bang be an ever lasting cycle, repeating over and over again? Since matter is now expanding farther away, it should come to a point where matter starts absorbing each other due to gravity, right? And over trillions and trillions of years start forming into another energy orb gaining energy every second til it's density becomes so dense and gains infinite mass then one day re-explodes. This explosion would be even greater than gamma ray bursts, so could this be how big bangs occur? Would this even be possible, or do any laws prevent this theory from existing?

[David88vert]

Entropy will prevent it. There are entire volumes devoted to why it is not possible. If you need me to go into detail, I can later. I posted a little about it earlier in this thread.

[The12lber]

Can you answer where the matter came from? It sounds like you wish to ignore the obvious and choose to build a concept with no basis in foundation. Is this the case?

Clearly, because it is logically inconsistent and "a concept without foundation" to state that if you propose a supernatural progenitor you have to explain its origin as well.

A better conclusion to come to: our scientific understanding is incomplete. That is all.

[David88vert]

Clearly, because it is logically inconsistent and "a concept without foundation" to state that if you propose a supernatural progenitor you have to explain its origin as well.

A better conclusion to come to: our scientific understanding is incomplete. That is all.

There is a huge difference between an infinite god being outside of his creation, and a finite creation that self-generates.

In order to lay down a foundation for creationism, believers only have to accept their belief in an unprovable infinite creator.

In order to lay down a foundation for the Big Bang, believers need to prove that finite reality can be created within the laws of science.

While it may appear that it is unfair to make science prove it's hypothesis, that is exactly what science is supposed to do - observe, test, and draw accurate conclusions.

Since you obviously are ready to concede that the Big Bang hypothesis is already flawed, and violates the 1st law, would you like for us to ignore that, and move on to singularity, smoothness, horizon, and magnetics - the obvious next issues to discuss before we really get in-depth? We are only glancing the surface right now, and I think you have established that you do not wish to pursue creation of matter any further. We will just assume that it magically came to exist for now (for the sake of this discourse). Am I correct in this assumption?

[01CDMLUDER]

19 pages....WOW!!

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"?
Science is wrong about alot of things! Even the measurable facts Empirical Science claims as validation are opposed by measurements in physical reality. Light, which can be physically measured to diminish out of existence with distance on Earth travels forever in space so that we can see stars at the end of the universe and the beginning of time. Objects, which come to rest with respect to the forces acting upon them on Earth are claimed to move without current force in space. Energy is always consumed on Earth but gravity, which forces objects to come to rest on the surface of the Earth, is not used up when it bends the straight-line motion of the planets into circular motion. Momentum, which is always overcome by gravity on Earth is not affected by gravity in space allowing planets in space to be bent into perpetual circular orbits.
i just don't dont see how people think that the universe just created itself and just got lucky and made an earth thats able to support life. just look at the way are bodies are made! and evolution is just retarded!

Scientists don't say that we came from monkeys. That's a common misconception that people make.They say that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. That means that there was once a creature (lets call it that) that spread into two groups (one on one side of the earth and one on the other side) and one group of them evolved into monkeys or gorillas or chimpanzees etc. and the other group (due to their surroundings) evolved into humans. Nowhere does it say , in any science information source, that we evolved from monkeys. It says that monkeys and humans evolved FROM the same thing, but into DIFFERENT species. I don't believe in the theory of evolution, some of yall had it all mixed up so I explained it to you.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141061,00.html

just take a look at this and tell me that god isn't real! lol

[Maniac1]

and evolution is just retarded!

Sorry, but I don't see how evolution can be retarded. An object changes into something with a more complex design, how would that be retarded when scientists have proven that it existes? Just because we haven't seen it happen, because, it does take thousands of years for the process to even take place? Please explain this opinion of yours. Because the only retarded right now is that statement.

Scientists don't say that we came from monkeys. That's a common misconception that people make.They say that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. That means that there was once a creature (lets call it that) that spread into two groups (one on one side of the earth and one on the other side) and one group of them evolved into monkeys or gorillas or chimpanzees etc. and the other group (due to their surroundings) evolved into humans. Nowhere does it say , in any science information source, that we evolved from monkeys. It says that monkeys and humans evolved FROM the same thing, but into DIFFERENT species. I don't believe in the theory of evolution, some of yall had it all mixed up so I explained it to you.

No one here said that we came from monkeys, but primates. Curious George isn't my cousin, but we did start at the same point as him. We can say that we started as a seed and eventually hit a new root and started forming into what best fit our style of living. Our environment is what caused us to change. Lol so dude, all that up there, we all already knew.

[David88vert]

Sorry, but I don't see how evolution can be retarded. An object changes into something with a more complex design, how would that be retarded when scientists have proven that it existes? Just because we haven't seen it happen, because, it does take thousands of years for the process to even take place? Please explain this opinion of yours. Because the only retarded right now is that statement.

No one here said that we came from monkeys, but primates. Curious George isn't my cousin, but we did start at the same point as him. We can say that we started as a seed and eventually hit a new root and started forming into what best fit our style of living. Our environment is what caused us to change. Lol so dude, all that up there, we all already knew.

Evolution is a separate discussion from the Big Bang. Not the same. But as for evolving from a common link, random mutation is not logical or probable mathematically. We can discuss that in another thread of course.

[01CDMLUDER]

[QUOTE=bu villain]There are several theories on this. For example, the elastic universe theory says there could have been an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches, therefore the matter was always there. That being said, big bang theory starts at the instant after the singularity exploded. It does not attempt to explain how the singularity came to be. Therefore, I will not go into this topic more, we could have a whole other thread on this.

As for the other issues. I think I can find some good answers from my research. I have read about all those topics but I need to refresh myself on the specifics. Be patient please, this is turning into a good discussion.[/QUOTE]

its all theories though. no one can prove for sure that either side is right. scientist have been wrong on alot of things...just look at global warming and what scientist said about it before and now!! i know there's a god and and im not trying to force my religion on anyone. but........

Have you ever seen the wind? no.. but u know its there
First, you can know that the wind is there because you can see it moving things. You can't see the wind, but you know it is there because you can see what the wind is doing.

You can know that the wind is there because you can feel it. You can feel it blowing against your face and you can feel it blowing through your hair. You can't see the wind, but you know it is there because you can feel it.

Finally, you can know the wind is there because you can hear it. I can hear the wind whistling through the trees, down the chimney, and around the windows and doors. I can't see the wind, but I know it is there because I can hear it.

How many of you have ever seen God? The Bible says that no one has seen God. Well if we haven't seen him, how do we know he is there? I think we can know that he is there the same way we know the wind is there.

First, we can see Him moving. The Bible says that the Spirit of God moves men to speak and to do things for him. (2 Peter 1:21) We can't see God, but we can see men doing things that God's Holy Spirit has moved them to do.

We can know that God is there because we can feel His presence. The Bible says, "I will fear no evil for Thou art with me." (Psalm 23:4) The Bible also says that "if we love one another, God lives in us." We can't see God, but we know he is there because we can feel his presence in our life.

Finally, we can know He is there because we can hear him. The Bible says, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock, and if any man hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him." (Revelation 3:20) We can't see God, but we know he is there because he speaks to our hearts.

maybe god just hasn't reached out to u yet. my grandma died and was brought back to life. she told me that she was in heaven but it wasnt here time yet. i read this book called 90 minutes in heaven where this guy gets hit by a semi and was pronounced dead by a few paramedics and then about an hour later he comes back to life.

[Maniac1]

You can know that the wind is there because you can feel it. You can feel it blowing against your face and you can feel it blowing through your hair. You can't see the wind, but you know it is there because you can feel it.

Comparing the wind and god is like comparing wine to water.

Both have some things in common, but the texture and ingredients are totally different.

So we can't see the wind, so what?! It's in a different category than supernatural beings. Does god really have that much of an effect on people, or is it the word? Think about it, words have a strong effect on people's mind...

One can say the same things over and over again, til one day, people start to believe it. God is the high and mighty, at first you think about it and say "yeah right" but after seeing people keep on saying this will happen if you do this, you fall for it and believe. Right? Scientists know how winds are created. Sure we can't see it, but it has all more attributes than god. Sure we can't see small breezes, but what about tornadoes? We can see them.

[DoriDori]

There is NO proof of God, due to the fact that there hasn't been any proof that it exists.

[/color]

This is something ive been struggling with- WHAT IS PROOF? Is it one person, or group who claims to be right about something? So then the next guy in line is like, "Well this is what "the man" said, he just figured it out. He says this is how and why it is. Well call it proof." Man is by no means, proof, truth, just, right so whats "proof" to you??

[Maniac1]

[color=black][color=black]

This is something ive been struggling with- WHAT IS PROOF? Is it one person, or group who claims to be right about something? So then the next guy in line is like, "Well this is what "the man" said, he just figured it out. He says this is how and why it is. Well call it proof." Man is by no means, proof, truth, just, right so whats "proof" to you??

The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

A statement or argument used in such a validation.

There really isn't another way to explain it.

[DoriDori]

My theory is that we are not smart enough, to have a answer. In time we will be able to answer questions. If you look back 100, 200, 300 years ago, the mind set of Christians is not the same as today. Why? Because we got smarter. I guarantee you, in 100, 200, 300 years the Christian population will decrease.

Thats all I have to say about 'God'

Everywhere you go you will find fakes. Car scenes, clicks, gangs, school, clubs, work, sports. People just following tradition or fads. No passion, No love. Christainity is in no way an exception to it. I could only hope that in time if Jesus himself has not come back already, that the "Christain Population" would decrease. Because I will take 100 people on fire for God, people willing to say "IM ALL IN" to battle with me, before I would take 100,000,000 noncommited people with me any day of the week. Hands down.

And as far as "WERE NOT SMART ENOUGH..", PLEASE!!!! People today are still making the same dumb choices as they were 2 thousand years ago. Drunkeness, Debauchery, Adulty, Murder, Hate Crimes, etc, etc. How are we smarter? What is smarter to YOU???

[DoriDori]

The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

A statement or argument used in such a validation.

There really isn't another way to explain it.

Those big words dont mean anything to me lol, put it in a more simple way.

[Crazy Asian]

One reason most Christians believe in God is because there's a definite meaning to them and makes more logical sense then believing in evolution. Atheist too. They dont believe in God created the world in 7 days. They belive that they were somewhat linked to the apes and were evolved from them. I believe it's called genetic drift but that's besides the topic. Yes we have proof for us to believe in and same for you Atheists. You have fossils and other stuff to believe in.

[DoriDori]

So MANIAC, do you believe that God is who he says he is? That God exist?

[Crazy Asian]

For each of us we have the right answers and it's harder for us to understand the concept due to the fact that we're stubborn on what we believe in. Trying to explain Christianity to an Atheist, is like trying to talk to a foreigner. They understand some part which is like heh 10% but the rest is just "what?" Same goes for us Christians. We wont accept anything else due to us having a strong faith in Christianity and God being inbedded in life.

[Maniac1]

So MANIAC, do you believe that God is who he says he is? That God exist?

Personally, no.

I don't believe god is what he is or is portrayed in the bible. I think people like to believe in a higher power to make them feel a sense of being or a sense of someone guarding them. Which is fine, if you were 8 yrs old.

But once you get to a point, you have to put away your fantasies and start really thinking for yourself, making your own decisions in life and not going by what a 2000 year old book says is right and wrong.

[DoriDori]

Trying to explain Christianity to an Atheist, is like trying to talk to a foreigner.

It shouldnt be, and if thats how it comes out maybe that person needs to dig deeper. God is simple. I just like hearing peoples different views and reasons behind them.

[Crazy Asian]

Dude no offense but being a Christian some poeple dont understand the key point of the Bible. Each person has a different interpertation on it and also there's hidden meaning in those verses. That's why it's hard. Honestly Ive read the Bible more then my mind can fill up and Im still not understanding most of it due to the fact that there is more meaning. Even my dad is a pastor and he's still continously looking for more meanings in the Bible. Trust me it's not some easy thing to go breezy by.

[DoriDori]

Personally, no.

I don't believe god is what he is or is portrayed in the bible. I think people like to believe in a higher power to make them feel a sense of being or a sense of someone guarding them. Which is fine, if you were 8 yrs old.

But once you get to a point, you have to put away your fantasies away and start really thinking for yourself, making your own decisions in life and not going by what a 2000 year old book says is right and wrong.

Well lets assume the bible is real, and everything in it and God is real. Would you persue him? I'm being serious, just wondering what you would do.

[Maniac1]

Dude no offense but being a Christian some poeple dont understand the key point of the Bible. Each person has a different interpertation on it and also there's hidden meaning in those verses. That's why it's hard. Honestly Ive read the Bible more then my mind can fill up and Im still not understanding most of it due to the fact that there is more meaning. Even my dad is a pastor and he's still continously looking for more meanings in the Bible. Trust me it's not some easy thing to go breezy by.

Im not sure how much you've read up on. But im trying to understand that, I want to gain more knowledge of the bible, and have already started talking to my sister about it. The other night we talked for a good two hours about verses, and meanings behind them. Im planning on attending church for a bit and try to understand what people see in it, ask questions and hopefully get some questions answered.

[Crazy Asian]

If you ever need answers I can help to a degree. Ive been studying Revelations but ya. Anything you need just let me know.

[Maniac1]

Well lets assume the bible is real, and everything in it and God is real. Would you persue him? I'm being serious, just wondering what you would do.

If God ends up being real. Depending on my situation and life style, I really don't know. Im a stubborn individual, so it's hard for me to answer that.

[Maniac1]

If you ever need answers I can help to a degree. Ive been studying Revelations but ya. Anything you need just let me know.

Cool. I have a bible, but I can't even finish reading the first paragraph without me getting bored. LOL if you're going tomorrow with us, I'll ask you some questions then.

[Crazy Asian]

AHAHAH indeed bible is boring at first, but that was not my style. I read Proverbs and then read all of New Testament. Those are the stuff that caught my attention. New Testament is what a lot of Christians live by. We live by some Old Testmant stuff but to a degree that's the past this is now.

[Maniac1]

AHAHAH indeed bible is boring at first, but that was not my style. I read Proverbs and then read all of New Testament. Those are the stuff that caught my attention. New Testament is what a lot of Christians live by. We live by some Old Testmant stuff but to a degree that's the past this is now.

The only book that interests me, is the book of revelation.