Does God exist?

Does God exist?

Hello Opera Community

The debate portion of this poll is up to you, I just want to know your answer to this question, and why.

Play nice

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I'm saying that if you conclude design based on observations of known designers, then the only conclusion you can draw is that an object showing that same evidence of design had the same designers.

Wrong again. Since we know some evidences of designing activity which happen to be human, if we see those designing evidences in nature, it doesn't mean humans are the designers, only that design is evident.

In case God isn't defined, then no.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Wrong again. Since we know some evidences of designing activity which happen to be human, if we see those designing evidences in nature, it doesn't mean humans are the designers, only that design is evident.

Do you have any evidences of designing activity that is not human?

Didn't think so. Speculation, as ever.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Do you have any evidences of designing activity that is not human?

I dno't have to have evidence of something non-human to be able to make an inference of design. Simple, minimal evidence of design is sufficient. The identity of the designer is not necessary.

Does an investigator need to know the identity of a murderer to know a murder has been committed? Does an archaeologist need to know the name of the African tribesman to know a piece of rock was cut and formed to be a spear tip? Is the identity of the programmer needed to know a computer was programmed?

Originally posted by Bantay:

I dno't have to have evidence of something non-human to be able to make an inference of design. Simple, minimal evidence of design is sufficient. The identity of the designer is not necessary.

So, how do you know that the nature of the designer is that it must be intelligent? Since you cannot separate a human from human intelligence? How can you tell that the designer has to be non-human? Simply because the universe is too vast and complex for a human to design?

Then perhaps the universe has a quality that a human cannot create. In which case, your observations are irrelevant and prove nothing.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Does an investigator need to know the identity of a murderer to know a murder has been committed? Does an archaeologist need to know the name of the African tribesman to know a piece of rock was cut and formed to be a spear tip? Is the identity of the programmer needed to know a computer was programmed?

If it has been a killing, sharpening or programming done in a way that no human has ever done, yes.

Humans are known stab, crush, slice, poison or burn each other. They generally do not turn each other inside out with their mind. If we find a corpse that has been turned inside out, then there's a fair chance it was done by something unlike a human.

Your assessment of design is done solely based on observations of the things that humans do. However, DNA is not like anything a human has done. Therefore your assessment of design is inherently premature.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Your assessment of design is done solely based on observations of the things that humans do.

Then what humans demonstrate as designing activity is a good indicator for a minimum assessment of design.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Then what humans demonstrate as designing activity is a good indicator for a minimum assessment of design.

I have observed humans making smells.
Therefore, what humans demonstrate as smelly activity is a good indicator for a minimum assessment of smell-making.
Humans are intelligent beings.
Therefore, any smell that is detected must have been created by an intelligent being.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Well HERE'S an opportunity to see his (William Lane Craig's) debating style. Let me know what you think.

Interesting debating style indeed. After the first speech by each of them Craig's response is "I'm not going to debate fine points of Christian doctrine". Great debating technique there, I must say. Simply ignore the arguments you can't refute!

As if God sending himself to earth to save his own creation from his own wrath by sacrificing himself is somehow not central to Christianity?

Well actually, he did later try to respond to the other guy's arguments, but only by using God of the Gaps and Appeal to Consequence/Emotion ("if there is no God there are not morals"). He doesn't realize that just because God didn't command that rape is wrong (on the contrary, God in the OT promoted rape) doesn't mean that individuals can think it's wrong.

Typical irrelevant Christian drivel, in other words.

Intellectual honesty is clearly not a common trait among debating Christians.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Bantay:

Then what humans demonstrate as designing activity is a good indicator for a minimum assessment of design.

I have observed humans making smells.
Therefore, what humans demonstrate as smelly activity is a good indicator for a minimum assessment of smell-making.
Humans are intelligent beings.
Therefore, any smell that is detected must have been created by an intelligent being.

And humans also fart. Farts contain methane. We have evidence of methane on mars, therefore intelligent life exists on mars

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I have observed humans making smells. Therefore, what humans demonstrate as smelly activity is a good indicator for a minimum assessment of smell-making.

All smells are not necessarily an artifact of intelligence, but I suppose some smells can only be the result of intelligent activity.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Humans are intelligent beings.Therefore, any smell that is detected must have been created by an intelligent being.

*shakes head sadly*

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

"I'm not going to debate fine points of Christian doctrine". Great debating technique there, I must say. Simply ignore the arguments you can't refute!

No, he's just not engaging in issues that are not relevant to the debate.

Thank you for at least checking it out. Unlike some here, at least you are brave and open-minded enough to expose yourself to varying views....even if your assessment of them is warped.

Originally posted by Macallan:

humans also fart. Farts contain methane. We have evidence of methane on mars, therefore intelligent life exists on mars

That's brilliant!! So we now have evidence of Martians farting.

Originally posted by Bantay:

All smells are not necessarily an artifact of intelligence, but I suppose some smells can only be the result of intelligent activity.

Then, by the same argument, all appearances of design are not necessarily artifacts of intelligence, even though some designs are the result of intelligent activity. QED.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Then, by the same argument, all appearances of design are not necessarily artifacts of intelligence, even though some designs are the result of intelligent activity.

No...a more accurate (and not fallacious) phrasing of it would be

"Then, by the same argument, all appearances of design are not necessarily artifacts of intelligence, even though some appearances of design are actually the result of intelligent activity".

Originally posted by Bantay:

No...a more accurate (and not fallacious) phrasing of it would be

"Then, by the same argument, all appearances of design are not necessarily artifacts of intelligence, even though some appearances of design are actually the result of intelligent activity".

Fine, that's even more damning to ID. Can you have the appearance of design without design? Think carefully before you answer.

Originally posted by Bantay:

No, not necessarily. If the universe initial conditions are designed, some things in it could proceed by some naturalistic processes. That is why the definition of ID is "some features of the universe and of living things"...not "all features of the universe and of living things".

If the universe's initial conditions were designed by an omniscient designer, then it's end conditions were designed as well. No way past that.

Originally posted by Bantay:

I don't believe the use of the term "CSI" has even been used for at least several pages, so I can't reasonably be accused of repeating it. Furthermore, just because he disagrees with CSI (if he does), has no bearing on his conclusion of design that he gets from other means. The fact remains. Bradley Monton is an atheist. He finds design to be the most plausible explanation. Period.

"Repeated" does not imply "repeated recently". You've repeat that claim many times, but utterly fail to justify it via examples.
Monton is an atheist, and does not find design to be the most plausible explanation, he writes multiple rebuttals to the arguments put out by the ID crowd. Monton is simply prepared to engage in discussion with you guys. It's also interesting that he deals with those under the "philosophy of religion" section of his site.

The simple fact is that if he did find it convincing, he wouldn't still be an atheist.

Originally posted by Bantay:

In context, those who were killed were killed under the auspices of a superior moral reason. In other words, they were not innocent. Thus, God had a morally justifiable reason for authorizing the killing of certain societies during the conquest of Canaan.

Bullshit rationalisation, and you know it. There is simply no way to reasonably describe little kids as "guilty", nor their slaughter as due to a "superior moral reason". And there is also no justification for the method, when an omnipotent deity could have painlessly ended their lives.

Originally posted by Bantay:

The Bible is not a science book, in that it does not make scientific predictions. However, it describes, as part of the historical narrative, aspects of the universe that only modern science has recently discovered. Thus, I don't have to show that the Bible has "discovered" anything scientific, but I merely show that the Bible is not inconsistent with what has been discovered by science in recent times. Such modern day discoveries the Bible is consistent with and describes are....creation of the universe from nothing and the continual expansion of the universe.

So basically the bible has nothing in it that reveals scientific truths, it merely has passages you can with hindsight reinterpret to imply things we already know. The Muslims do the same with their texts.
Thanks for making that clear.

Originally posted by Bantay:

On [1], the NT account as a historical narrative indicates in many places that there were eye-witnesses.

All of which are not eye witness accounts. In a court they could call that hearsay.

Originally posted by Bantay:

On [2] There is different information in each gospel account, but no contradictions.

Who opened the tomb? All 4 contradict each other.
What were his last words?
How do we know what they were if no one was there to hear?

There are many contradictions.

Originally posted by Bantay:

[3] The age of the original accounts in some cases are within the generation of the occurence of The Event.

The earliest examples of those "original accounts" is from 300 years after the events.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Those who penned the gospels would have been contemporary to each other, accountable to tell the truthful account lest a lie be exposed.

Then why are there a dozen other gospels not included in the biblical canon? Apparently there was no such fear of exposure.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Well, as long as you believe there is no evidence, then I suppose you will forever be stuck in that conondrum. However, many other people believe there is good evidence, from history, science, logic, philosophy and from personal experience. It's up to you to check out what others consider good evidence, make an honest assessment of it irrespective of your own philosophical preferences and then choose to believe, or not. In my opinion, it would be more difficult to prove that billions upon billions of people who believe the resurrection happened are simply delusional.

What of the billions who believe in Allah? Popularity proves absolutely nothing, especially when all of those billions were not there, but are merely relying on accounts that I have already shown to be unconvincing.

Originally posted by Bantay:

A faith decision has nothing to do with being convinced. You are able to freely choose. Nobody is compelling you to choose atheism, nor to believe in God. I simply find there to be good reasons to believe in God, and I'm willing to share what I consider to be those good reasons with those who evidently do not have any good reason to believe in atheism.

That makes no sense. How could I "choose" to have "faith" in something I am not convinced is true?

Originally posted by Bantay:

In context, those who were killed were killed under the auspices of a superior moral reason. In other words, they were not innocent. Thus, God had a morally justifiable reason for authorizing the killing of certain societies during the conquest of Canaan.

Careful, Bantay. The Nazis believed they were acting on the behalf of a 'superior moral reason' as well.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Can you have the appearance of design without design?

Yes, of course. What determines real design from apparent design is the recognition of complex specified information, as well as the elimination of chance and natural law.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Careful, Bantay. The Nazis believed they were acting on the behalf of a 'superior moral reason' as well.

This is not a theological argument, and I (not being a Darwinist) certainly do not hold to any form of Nazi doctrine, so I don't think your comment applies.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Yes, of course. What determines real design from apparent design is the recognition of complex specified information, as well as the elimination of chance and natural law.

Sadly, your measure of 'CSI' is the appearance of design. It's the quality you claim to be able to observe that shows design.

Originally posted by Bantay:

This is not a theological argument, and I (not being a Darwinist) certainly do not hold to any form of Nazi doctrine, so I don't think your comment applies.

However, it appears that the Nazis held to the same form of doctrine that you do.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Can you have the appearance of design without design?

Yes, of course. What determines real design from apparent design is the recognition of complex specified information, as well as the elimination of chance and natural law.

All things you have demonstrated a complete inability to do. So all you have is guesswork.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Careful, Bantay. The Nazis believed they were acting on the behalf of a 'superior moral reason' as well.

This is not a theological argument, and I (not being a Darwinist) certainly do not hold to any form of Nazi doctrine, so I don't think your comment applies.

Missed the point by a mile again
So what's your evidence that your alleged god had a 'superior moral reason' for all those atrocities described in the old testament ( not that I believe any of them actually occured ). If its just your belief ( which we already know is based on nothing but hearsey ) then what's the difference to the nazis? They believed they hat a 'superior moral reason' as well ( and no, your silly attempt to link Darwin to the nazis is still as ridiculous as it was the first time around ), they had pseudoscience to prove it - hey, who does that remind us of?

If chance is ruled out, and law is ruled out....what other explanation is plausible?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

However, it appears that the Nazis held to the same form of doctrine that you do.

You sure have a way of turning things around....Sadly, and at the expense of tragic suffering and loss of life, it was Nazis who used a Darwninist paradigm to justify their crimes.

Originally posted by Bantay:

If chance is ruled out, and law is ruled out....what other explanation is plausible?

The problems with this claims have been explored in detail by us already. It attempts to set up "design" as the default, when you cannot account for something via "chance" or "law", neither of which are rigorously defined, and neither of which (even jointly) encompass "natural means".
It's also impossible to declare anything impossible via natural means without accounts for every possible natural means by which it could occur. And that is entirely impossible for all but the simplest of examples.

Originally posted by Bantay:

You sure have a way of turning things around....Sadly, and at the expense of tragic suffering and loss of life, it was Nazis who used a Darwninist paradigm to justify their crimes.

They also used the christian paradigm, especially the legacy of Martin Luther's antisemetic writings.

They used some of the terms from evolutionary science to give their religiously motivated ideology a veneer of scientific credibility.

Originally posted by Bantay:

You sure have a way of turning things around....Sadly, and at the expense of tragic suffering and loss of life, it was Nazis who used a Darwninist paradigm to justify their crimes.

Yeah, right.

I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.
- Adolf Hitler, Munich speech of April 12, 1922

This is probably the first time and this is the first country in which people are being taught to realize that, of all the tasks which we have to face, the noblest and most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it. [...] there is one error which cannot be remedied once men have made it, namely the failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God's gift and God's handiwork. It is not for men to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize the fact that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation.
- Adolf Hitler, speech before the Reichstag, 30 January 1937

Providence shows no mercy to weak nations, but recognizes the right of existence-only of sound and strong nations. …

This Jewish bolshevist annihilation of nations and its western European and American procurers can be met only in one way: by using every ounce of strength with the extreme fanaticism and stubborn steadfastness that merciful God gives to men in hard times for the defense of their own lives. …

We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve to hate Our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what they are destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of humanity. Out of this bate a holy will is born to oppose these destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given us and to crush them in the end. During its 2,000-year history our people has survived so many terrible times that we have no doubt that we will also master our present plight.
- Adolf Hitler, recorded radio address, 24 February 1945

Originally posted by Bantay:

If chance is ruled out, and law is ruled out....what other explanation is plausible?

That your assessment is faulty? That your knowledge of 'law' is faulty or incomplete? I'd like to see how you effectively rule out 'law' at all. If by 'law' you mean 'natural processes we understand reasonably well' then your statement above is equivalent to the tired old god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

However, it appears that the Nazis held to the same form of doctrine that you do.

You sure have a way of turning things around....Sadly, and at the expense of tragic suffering and loss of life, it was Nazis who used a Darwninist paradigm to justify their crimes.

Bantay, your silly attempt to link Darwin to the nazis doesn't get any less ridiculous from endless repetition.

Originally posted by Bantay:

If chance is ruled out, and law is ruled out....what other explanation is plausible?

Name one event in the world that is purely determined by chance, and one that is purely determined by law.

Doesn't this hit some understanding
"God created man after His own image,and likeness"
The Uncreated Designer,created us inteligent being,just like Him,we have a portion of traits of His inteligence,but there is a just and righteouss chasm between our inteligence,our holiness,our righteousness,our likeness to Him,that makes God(incomparable) distinct than us.
If us have the ability to question God,with our so called theories,how much is God's intelligence,but i'm using human terms,God cannot be describe in simple denotations
Instead His name "God",is suficient
Yavweh:I'm who I'm,I'm that I'm
why many terms,'cause the Hebrew lenguage fills the gaps,of what you want to express...Yavwey,and when God spoke His Name,He meant the fullness of His Likeness.
God's Words say,"I'm the Alpha and The Omega"
It means,Time interval depends at His command.
He has the Last Words.
Power at work gives time
God Working,is What gives us Time to live,time to exist.

Originally posted by NewTonyIc:

Doesn't this hit some understanding
"God created man after His own image,and likeness"
The Uncreated Designer,created us inteligent being,just like Him,we have a portion of traits of His inteligence,but there is a just and righteouss chasm between our inteligence,our holiness,our righteousness,our likeness to Him,that makes God(incomparable) distinct than us.

Yeah, why not? Or, on the other hand, you could also say that we appeared through natural causes, and created a God in our image, but so much more intelligent, holy, and righteous than we are.

Originally posted by NewTonyIc:

aefields when God spoke to man,and gave us Laws,He meant them,and the generations to come....Even The Bible says that....
He spoke in the Time of His prophets,and told them that His Law is eternal,

So, you agree that he could appear to each of us now. Yes or No?

And you agree that he does not appear to each of us now. Yes or No?

Originally posted by NewTonyIc:

... quotes of the FBI files,researches,scientists,and investigators who touched an "Alien",made outopsies,and have their ships
you will find out,that Aliens embrace Witchcraft,when they act upon a human,that particular human becomes possesed by the Alien,they embrace mind manipulation,other cults,
...
,and worst they have the ability to make a human "fossil" date trillions of years,can create beings,self recreate themselves into something else,can even make bones of dinasours,and make them date a great amount of passed age.
...

Never mind.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Or, on the other hand, you could also say that we appeared through natural causes, and created a God in our image, but so much more intelligent, holy, and righteous than we are.

That wouldn't be consistent with what pagan and non-Judeo-Christian religious texts show. For example, there are things in the Bible that at the time the earliest manuscripts of the Old Testament were penned, would not have been known to human beings. Any text exclusively authored by a man at 1600 BC would not have known anything about how the universe was created from nothing and that the universe is continually expanding. Also, the probability of even some of the specific, detailed prophecies coming true are so amazingly improbable as to rule out chance, that it supports a Divine author of the Old Testament, though penned by man.

So I think that we certainly could not reasonably say that "we appeared through natural causes and created God in our image but so much more intelligent, holy and righteous than we are". Rather, the evidence seems to indicate the opposite...That we are made in the image of the character of a rational, just, moral God who is more intelligent, holy and righteous than we are seems to be the more plausible explanation.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Name one event in the world that is purely determined by chance, and one that is purely determined by law.

I notice the qualifier "in the world"...*chuckles*. An asteroid hitting earth would be considered a "chance' occurence. Obviously there is no physical law that determined that the universe has to exist, and thus, that the asteroid had to exist (it's a contingent object), and no physical law that determined that it had to come into contact with other objects or gravitational forces before hitting earth (it's a contingent event). Additionally, I presume there would be no appearance of design, and no complex, specified information that would prove any appearance of design would be actual design, so I think all that is left is a chance occurence of the asteroid hitting earth. Likewise, a purely determined physical law would be the speed of light in a vacuum.

Originally posted by Bantay:

That wouldn't be consistent with what pagan and non-Judeo-Christian religious texts show. For example, there are things in the Bible that at the time the earliest manuscripts of the Old Testament were penned, would not have been known to human beings. Any text exclusively authored by a man at 1600 BC would not have known anything about how the universe was created from nothing and that the universe is continually expanding.

The bible says neither of those things.

Besides, the idea that the universe was created from nothing is entirely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Also, the probability of even some of the specific, detailed prophecies coming true are so amazingly improbable as to rule out chance, that it supports a Divine author of the Old Testament, though penned by man.

Prophecies that are self-fulfilling, so vague as to be only fulfilled by reinterpreting them in hindsight or trivial are not interesting. Nor are prophecies that are only fulfilled in the same texts that proclaim them to be prophecies.

There are no unambiguous prophecies that are non-trivial and not of the self-fulfilling variety.

Originally posted by Bantay:

That we are made in the image of the character of a rational, just, moral God who is more intelligent, holy and righteous than we are seems to be the more plausible explanation.

Who also things ordering soldiers to commit genocide is a good idea, that drowning the entire world is a good thing ,that seems to enjoy the scent of burning flesh, and feels the need to be born as a man in order to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save the rest of us from a rule he implemented by himself in the first place. Sorry, what was that about rational, just and moral?

Originally posted by Bantay:

An asteroid hitting earth would be considered a "chance' occurence.

No it isn't. Every asteroid has a predetermined path by which it orbits the sun, some of which intercept the earth.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Obviously there is no physical law that determined that the universe has to exist

How do you know this without knowing the state of reality pre-bigbang?

Originally posted by Bantay:

Okay. Well HERE'S an opportunity to see his (William Lane Craig's) debating style. Let me know what you think.

Got another link? This one continually buffers without progress.

Originally posted by Bantay:

For example, there are things in the Bible that at the time the earliest manuscripts of the Old Testament were penned, would not have been known to human beings. Any text exclusively authored by a man at 1600 BC would not have known anything about how the universe was created from nothing and that the universe is continually expanding. Also, the probability of even some of the specific, detailed prophecies coming true are so amazingly improbable as to rule out chance, that it supports a Divine author of the Old Testament, though penned by man.

In the other hand, there are lots of myths in ancient books of almost forgotten religions that you can reinterpreted to fit the empiric evidence in the same way you do with the bible, and in some cases with more success. Also all of them are full with self fulfilled prophecies that at least have the same value as those of bible, but you simply ignore them in your analysis just because you have faith in the bible to be true. And that isn't a bad thing per se, but you either make the same point for all of them in your analysis (and then you come with several opposing points of view that should be true at the same time) or reject the argument for the bible too.

BTW, the huge variety of religions, creation, myths, etc is consistent with the idea of God(s) made to our image in societies with certain degree of culture but from different roots. Even you can trace the raise and fall of the gods as its worshipers status changes over time, thats specially obvious in polytheist societies and is pretty well documented.

And I mentioned certain level of culture, because in primitive societies where the prowess of man is way too inferior to the forces of nature is common to see several forms of animism and other non anthropomorphic worshiping, also inconsistent with the claims of the bible, not to count that several civilizations older than hebrews in the historic record worship different gods and have different myths themselves.

Originally posted by Bantay:

I notice the qualifier "in the world"...*chuckles*.

I thought I would make it simple for you. No matter, the universe will do.

Originally posted by Bantay:

An asteroid hitting earth would be considered a "chance' occurence. Obviously there is no physical law that determined that the universe has to exist, and thus, that the asteroid had to exist (it's a contingent object), and no physical law that determined that it had to come into contact with other objects or gravitational forces before hitting earth (it's a contingent event).

Nope. An asteroid is an accretion of other particles, or more likely a piece of rock split off another body. Those bonds form and break according to precise physical laws. However, the precise result of those physical laws can be affected by random fluctuations and even quantum strangeness. Depending on how you look at it, laws are the result of the interaction of the uncertainty of all particles, or chance is the result of the chaotic interaction of laws.

Either way, there is nothing observed in the universe that is does not involve the interaction of chance, law and perhaps even design, all in one. I can arrange a pile of rocks into a recognisable message, but those rocks wouldn't be there without the law of gravity or the randomness of atomic bond splitting. The faces in Mount Rushmore wouldn't exist without Mount Rushmore being there first.

Your assertion that you can separate them out before assessing for design is nothing but a false trichotomy.

Here's a related example to work with - what happens if someone arranges a pile of rocks into a message in English, and I come along and kick it over so it's unrecognisable? Two deliberately designed acts, no net appearance of design.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Yeah, why not? Or, on the other hand, you could also say that we appeared through natural causes, and created a God in our image, but so much more intelligent, holy, and righteous than we are.

I'm kind of getting the impression that we are not a natural occurance on this planet.. Look at what we have done to it.
we are destroying it.. our lands, our sea, our air,our food, those in the cities do you really know what you consume?

We are all aware of this destruction. Nothing of great importance has been done to even slow it down.
I don't belive we will be able to stop it.

We are not natural to this world and sorely lacking any form of Inteligence to prevent what is happening. Let alone adequate inteligence
to understand this existence as a gift of god. To care for and pass on.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

We are not natural to this world and sorely lacking any form of Inteligence to prevent what is happening. Let alone adequate inteligence
to understand this existence as a gift of god. To care for and pass on.

Oh, we will pass it on - cockroaches shall inherit the earth

Yes God still shows Himself today to few people,through His Son,and His Spirit.But He decides that.
aefields you know the Bible well
and you know what's required to know God personally,and it is just faith in Jesus,and a personal sign from you to show The Lord you believe in Him,it can be public confession through a minister,or a private one,honest...
I talked about what the Knowledge of God means.
And how through Jesus,He reconciled us to God.

How can a infinte-random generator "universe",ever come up with a well balanced-purposely made mind,if those "infinite" variables will never end,new ones will keep poping out.
But We know that Randomness doesn't exist,instead only an interpratation of Randomness according to the value of the seed,and the complex algorithm.
And The Word Of God,is the only book that says that jeduo-christian God stablishes the times,by the Word of His Mouth.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

We are not natural to this world and sorely lacking any form of Inteligence to prevent what is happening. Let alone adequate inteligence to understand this existence as a gift of god. To care for and pass on.

Who knows, perhaps God's plan is make of us a rational step into a intelligent designed silicon-based life form for which destruction of earth ecosystem is a just a logical step sometime in the future, as was prophesied in the holy revelation of Terminator. Purpose is everything my friends, who say that design doesn't have a place in the explanation of the world

In any case is not unheard of populations that overwhelm their ecological niche and eventually got decimated by disease or famine, usually both, so we are not a special case really. The only difference is the scale of our own ecological niche, if anything. Natural enemies or other species competing for the space keep the equilibrium, but there is nothing like that for us except ourselves.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Oh, we will pass it on - cockroaches shall inherit the earth

And Jelyfish the seas
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21922334-5007200,00.html

Originally posted by Macallan:

Oh, we will pass it on - cockroaches shall inherit the earth

You mean meek, right?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Oh, we will pass it on - cockroaches shall inherit the earth

You mean meek, right?

Meek cockroaches?

IWe are the future of technology
we comprise robots,and artificial inteligence to be exactly like us.
For Artificial inteligence(software) to become a soul with motives,feelings,and thoughts.
For Robots(hardware) to be exactly like our bodies.
it's just that we are learning its beginning(technology) according to the sources of our Planet-that provides us with knowledge,with the limits of what we have disvovered.
As for diseases,you are saying that God has no power to change our bodies,and heal us,and make us immortal.
Well God says that He is the healer,and for those who recieved Jesus,He will change their bodies into that of the angels in the twinkle of an eye.
But He has purposes in allowing diseases,and He will heal the sick,wether Satan and his hosts came up with one,or The Lord made one up,but if it's ocurred He has His purposes,and they are good,for those who love Him,and for those He has chosen.
"I know my Redeemer lives...."

Who knows who the Antichrist might be,as in physical form today.
but one thing is for certain the universal Church of Christ will know him well at that time,and will refuse him.

Originally posted by Redem:

The bible says neither of those things.

It does not say those exact words, but it describes creation and the continually expanding universe in other words that are easily understood to mean what good science has only caught up with in the last 100 years.

Originally posted by Redem:

Besides, the idea that the universe was created from nothing is entirely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

What matter was the universe created from then?

Originally posted by Redem:

Prophecies that are self-fulfilling, so vague as to be only fulfilled by reinterpreting them in hindsight or trivial are not interesting.

Prove it.

Originally posted by Redem:

Every asteroid has a predetermined path by which it orbits the sun, some of which intercept the earth.

not if it collides with another asteroid or has an altered trajectory due to coming into close proximity to another, much larger body.

Originally posted by Redem:

How do you know this without knowing the state of reality pre-bigbang?

1. Known physical laws exist after creation. To imply they do or could, is arguing from an unknown.
2. There was no "before" creation, because in the absence of anything, there would have been nothing natural.
3.There is no reason, no physical law or constant that demands that the first molecule existed.....the first matter......for my computer exist. Likewise....for a tall building....Likewise......for a city.......likewise....for a country....likewise.....for a planet......likewise.....for a solar system.....likewise....for a galaxy cluster......likewise.....for a galaxy supercluster......likewise.....for all the galaxy superclusters......likewise.....for the universe. Thus, I don't need to know of any alleged pre-bang conditions to know that all that is natural didn't have to exist, yet it does.

Originally posted by Redem:

Got another link? This one continually buffers without progress.

Hmmmm...I tried it myself. It works, but I think maybe your connection is not broadband, not ultra-fast?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

An asteroid is an accretion of other particles, or more likely a piece of rock split off another body. Those bonds form and break according to precise physical laws.

I agree that the bonds form by precise physical laws, but there is nothing about the matter itself, or about the universe itself that demands, that necessitates that any matter, including the particles that an asteroid consist of, exists.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I can arrange a pile of rocks into a recognisable message, but those rocks wouldn't be there without the law of gravity or the randomness of atomic bond splitting. The faces in Mount Rushmore wouldn't exist without Mount Rushmore being there first.

What about the order or pattern of rocks makes it a message when before it was not? What about Mt. Rushmore clues you in that it was intelligently designed and not the result of wind and erosion?

Originally posted by Bantay:

I agree that the bonds form by precise physical laws, but there is nothing about the matter itself, or about the universe itself that demands, that necessitates that any matter, including the particles that an asteroid consist of, exists.

Excellent. Thank you. So, you admit - through your previous claim that everything in the universe is contingent, i.e. could have not existed - that there is no law that states that anything in the universe has to be in the state it is. Therefore, including the 'law' criteria in the 'explanatory filter' is completely erroneous.

Therefore the design filter comes down to "either it was not designed, or else it was". Trouble is, of course, proving that it wasn't designed is a negative proof, and not going to happen in anybody's lifetime.

Originally posted by Bantay:

What about the order or pattern of rocks makes it a message when before it was not? What about Mt. Rushmore clues you in that it was intelligently designed and not the result of wind and erosion?

Stop playing games, Bantay. I'm taking it as read, for the sake of the argument, that you are correct, and that CSI exists, and it's evidence of design.

The rocks show whatever you claim to be evidence of design. I deliberately, consciously remove that evidence according to a plan. Design happens. No appearance of design exists.

Mount Rushmore must exist before it can be carved by intelligent agents. Mount Rushmore exists due to the known activity of tectonic movement. The design action cannot exist separately from either individual physical laws or chance.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Oh, we will pass it on - cockroaches shall inherit the earth

They already have, and all because of almost perfect design.

There must be a message in there somewhere.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Oh, we will pass it on - cockroaches shall inherit the earth

You mean meek, right?

The cockroaches will inherit the meek? Why would they want to do that?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Oh, we will pass it on - cockroaches shall inherit the earth

They already have, and all because of almost perfect design.

There must be a message in there somewhere.

That Bantay is right about natural selection favoring simplicity?

Originally posted by Bantay:

It does not say those exact words, but it describes creation and the continually expanding universe in other words that are easily understood to mean what good science has only caught up with in the last 100 years.

What you're saying is that you can choose to impose your current understanding on the book. The book contains neither of those things, but you can interpret parts of it to sound like they do.

Something you can do with any sufficiently large text that contains lots of vague poetic nonsense.

Originally posted by Bantay:

What matter was the universe created from then?

I don't know what was before the big bang, and neither do you. That's kinda the point, there's no evidence to base a judgement upon.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Prove it.

That prophecies can be self-fulfilling if people know about them before hand? That's self evidence I would think.

How about you show an example of a prophecy from the bible that you think cannot have any natural explanation.

Originally posted by Bantay:

not if it collides with another asteroid or has an altered trajectory due to coming into close proximity to another, much larger body.

Those interactions are also due to precise physical laws, gravity is certainly not "chance", nor is the mechanics of collisions.

It's path is entirely unpredictable by us, but that's not the same thing as being "chance".

Originally posted by Bantay:

2. There was no "before" creation, because in the absence of anything, there would have been nothing natural.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by Bantay:

3.There is no reason, no physical law or constant that demands that the first molecule existed.

Yes there is, given the conditions baryogenesis and nucleogenesis were predetermined to occur.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Hmmmm...I tried it myself. It works, but I think maybe your connection is not broadband, not ultra-fast?

It is broadband, works just fine.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Yes you do, otherwise you don't know the signs of that designer's designs, and so you cannot detect design.

Yes, and you were saying?

Originally posted by Bantay:

Since we know some evidences of designing activity which happen to be human, if we see those designing evidences in nature, it doesn't mean humans are the designers, only that design is evident.

Do you have any examples of human design in nature?

Originally posted by Bantay:

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

"I'm not going to debate fine points of Christian doctrine". Great debating technique there, I must say. Simply ignore the arguments you can't refute!

No, he's just not engaging in issues that are not relevant to the debate.

False. He was ignoring arguments he knew he could not refute. Are you actually claiming that Jesus was not relevant to the debate??