Do you believe in God now? (page 8)

onacruse

larc:

Science has nothing to say about the existence of God, or the nonexistence of God.

That, my friend, is a remarkably poignant point, and one over which many theists and atheists alike "stumble" (oh, how I've come to distaste that WTS cliche ). Theists in particular err when they attempt to marshal "scientific" evidence in support of their cause, when in fact, by definition of the very nature of God, "its" existence cannot be proved by any such materialistic interpretations; theists are, imo, trying to play baseball with a golf-club when it comes to that kind of argumentation.

Atheists, otoh, fall prey to the same error when they extrapolate "scientific" evidence beyond its limits, and infer that such evidence derived from the material universe disproves the existence of an immaterial God.

One thing about which I disagree:

So where does that leave us? Nowhere really.

In fact, I think it leaves us exactly where we should be: believe what we believe for such reasons as seem sufficient for us at the moment. And, keep an open mind.

Craig

Ron1968

Thanks Larc and Craig!!

That is pretty much what I think. Noone can prove anything or else why would there be a huge debate in the first place?

Ron

larc

Craig,

While you and I are polar opposites in our beliefs, I respect you and your gentlemanly response to my comments.

May God be with you. (If he is there.)

larc

Craig,

I agree with your disagreement of my statement. We do have to believe what we believe, but still keep an open mind.

starScream

.

starScream, I will grant that the origin of life remains shrouded in some mystery, although you certainly make a straw-man argument by insinuating that evolutionists say life sprang from mud.

Damnit. Alright folks, Bradley got me. It wasn't mud. It was "soup." Big effing difference with the " " thingies.

Obviously you know extraordinarily little about science.

Not based upon your analysis that is for sure.

It's too bad for someone as young as you. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.. Bradley

Such a child. Fortune cookies are less cliche` than the Bradster.

Oooh. You told me!

No. You told me first rem, I only 'told' you back.

Wow, looks like someone didn't do their homework in grade school.

If you had only gone all the way and said scientists don't manufacture evidence. Because then I could have told you that the person you were referring to was yourself! You are too wiley for me though. You infer ad hom without actually making it. So clever of you rem.

You sure have issues with evolution. Those are usually the most ignorant of the bunch.

Strange how I promoted it as venomously as you did. I guess I am just an apostate to your theology now and this is all you can say.

LOL. Classic. This "former atheist" doesn't even seem to understand what an atheist is.

It seems about 50% of atheists tell me this when I say I was an atheist. Apparently the definition of an atheist to idiots like this is: Person who refuses to accept the possibility a God exists for all time and can never change their mind, but if they do they are too stupid to have ever been an atheist because atheists are smart enough to hate people who leave atheism which means since we hate that person for claiming to have been an atheist they never were an atheist and we just make up this new definition to atheist so they can't subvert our arguments as to how stupid "God people" are and we tell them they were agnostic which is not as smart as atheist. You don't know me. If you want to know me, take a look in the mirror and you see me 3 years ago.

People who claim they are agnostic are usually also atheists. What were you? A gnostic atheist?

You have made no argument at all. You have made a vague assertion and now some type of infference without explaination. I was an atheist. I did not believe that any god existed and actively thought there was evidence that refuted the assertion that the universe or anything in it was created by a supernatural force. Imo nobody on this board has even come minutely close to providing convincing objective and demonstrable evidence that there are no Unicorns.
The universe does not require your hypothetical unicorns for it to exist. It is a completely arbitrary whim of yours to compare the creation to your hypothetical unicorn turd. Mehr elitar Atheist Kuhmist. It stinks in here and it isn't unicorn turd I smell.

Ron1968

A person really has to take Bradley with a grain of salt. I have learned that. By the way Bradley, I will pick out my own books to read. I don't need assistance and would be leary if someone TOLD me what to read.

Ron

freein89

amen,

I understand your being bitter. I was and sometimes I still am. But the worst of it fades with time. Do you remember when you were a kid with a loose tooth? When you wiggle that loose tooth it hurts like hell, but you keep wiggling and after a while the tooth come out and you bleed a little, then you get a brand new tooth. The process of leaving is like that it hurts, but you get a brand new life. hang in there amen.

89 (good thing I didn't leave in 69)

amen

rem,

You have clearly demonstrated with your posts here that you are ignorant of evolutionary theory and science in general.

Well, i do not agree with this statement. Ithink i know very well what science is all about I major in chemistry at university. All my studies in college were in pure sciences.

Reality is Sciences don't have all solutions, they don't know everything. Facts are studying in sciences had shown me how ignorant we are. We are debating in the existence of God we are not all agree about him, well scientist are also debating on curent discovery, formulate theories, but on many instances don't agree with each other as for the final results. Very often their works get published and accepted in a strange way or the connections you have or the money that can be result of this, fame etc..

So just to say there are good sciences out there and bad one as well, often enough it seems like the bad one that people hear about (evolution for instance), the scientists that talk about the silyness of such theories are not welcome to do so, their carreer could take a major set back. The norme is don't go against the popular theory.

amen

freein89

amen,

it isn't that there are good or bad sciences but rather good or bad scientists and I don't mean bad as in evil, I mean bad as in inflating results to get published. I see evolution as a process of adaptation, the environment changes and so must organisms, changes in food supply and climate over the long term require adaptation or death. Human beings are curious creatures, would god create curious creatures and then foil them by making his existance a big mystery, would god design people capable of science and require belief in him/her to be a matter of blind faith?

another question I have had is, can't god and evolution go together? Would not a clever god program the ability to adapt into his creation? I'm not saying that I believe in god or don't believe in god, but I do lean towards not. Here is why:one reason anyway.

When you hear life and death stories, people say they prayed and were saved and I think how arrogant. God took time from a busy schedule of watching people starve to death and succomb to disease to save you-how lovely. What about all those people that prayed mightily and died anyway, say my 13 year old niece who died of leukimia for example.

amen

freein89,

I agree with your correction, not bad sciences but bad scientists.

About praying, this is something i have been thinking also. I really don't know why God does not answer all prayers. When praying a lot and i don't see any results from praying i tend to give up hey how long should it take for God to answer me, hey i am not asking the impossible.

Many things i do not understand. I am still searching but there may be no answer to that.

When i die if i wake up on the other side i may ask the big boss that question.

amen

Do you believe in God now?

Share this