|
|
Post by iberomaurusian on Jun 20, 2005 18:38:23 GMT -5
State them concisely, ...and clearly!
|
|
|
|
Post by iberomaurusian on Jun 20, 2005 18:39:47 GMT -5
God doesnt exist.
My argument: the diversity of human races. (Its subtle, I know, But think about it).
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 20, 2005 18:43:45 GMT -5
I'am not an athiest...I beleive in a Supreme being(s) and divine destiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Jun 20, 2005 18:50:52 GMT -5
Just a personal experience, but viewing the stars at night and contemplating the size of the Universe had convinced me long ago of the existence of the Creator, God.
Contemplating the nature of good and evil, sin, the stories of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, and the idea of the rebirth of a person spiritually has helped lead me to knowledge of divinity of Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 20, 2005 22:24:07 GMT -5
Can't there be a third option that humanity hasn't thought of just yet? It's strange to imagine God like a large child playing with dolls? And evolution has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. To illustrate this point: Paleontologists love to skewer the concept of God by saying, "99.9% of all creatures that ever lived are now dead. Does that sound like a loving God?" But by saying this, they unwittingly skewer evolution, too. Why? --Darwin's theory was called the tree of life. He predicted that evolution is like a tree, starting out with a trunk and then breaking off into thousands of branches. So he said, "If we look into the past, we should find a few basic forms; and, as we go forward into the present, we should see more diversity." The problem with that? As the paleontologist pointed out: The Jurassic period of the Earth has far more variety than exists today. 99.9 times more creatures existed in the past then exist today. So Darwin was exactly wrong. He said that we should see LESS variety in going back than we see today. But we see more. And not just a little more--much, much more. His "tree" is backward, upside down. There is far less diversity today than, say, 200 million years ago. And THAT'S why I have no faith in the theory of evolution. But that doesn't, ipso facto, make God any more convincing. I opt for a third option. . .. I just haven't come up with it yet.  |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 20, 2005 22:31:39 GMT -5
Just a personal experience, but viewing the stars at night and contemplating the size of the Universe had convinced me long ago of the existence of the Creator, God. Contemplating the nature of good and evil, sin, the stories of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, and the idea of the rebirth of a person spiritually has helped lead me to knowledge of divinity of Christ. Exactly, it's perfectly natural to believe in a creator. |
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Jun 21, 2005 10:50:52 GMT -5
Define god and then argue about his existence or inexistence. Just a personal experience, but viewing the stars at night and contemplating the size of the Universe had convinced me long ago of the existence of the Creator, God. Strange, the same thing convinced me of the opposite! Exactly, it's perfectly natural to believe in a creator. If we believe in a creator then we have to believe in a creator of the creator. Its an endless loop leading nowhere. |
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Jun 21, 2005 11:27:33 GMT -5
That is what is unique about the Creator! |
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Jun 21, 2005 12:16:44 GMT -5
What exactly?
You may mean his 'creativity', but then a thing cannot become by itself, so being 'creative' must be something that was passed on to him by his creator in turn.
But then your creator is not actually a creator but a creation. And so is his creator, in an infinite chain of creators-creations that ultimately negates the fundamental christian definiteness between a creation-universe and a creator separate from and outside of it.
|
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Jun 21, 2005 12:23:36 GMT -5
So, who created the creator, and why shouldn't we better 'believe' in him instead?
If you say the creator was not created, then i say cosmos was not created also.
|
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Jun 21, 2005 12:23:58 GMT -5
What I mean is that the Creator is the only entity that wasn't created by something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Jun 21, 2005 12:25:25 GMT -5
My brain is twisting...I gotta drink more coffee. ;D
|
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Jun 21, 2005 12:49:39 GMT -5
You don't need coffee, just your plain logic.
Look at this: If we assume that a creator-god "is the only entity that wasn't created by something else" then logically we can assume that universe is that too.
The second case not only negates the existence of a creator, but it is likely to be closer to reality, because while we have proof of the universe's existence, we can only hypothesize (the christians say 'believe') about the existence of the creator. Before you raise arguments over the nature of a thing, you must be certain that it exists in the first place!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wadaad on Jun 21, 2005 16:06:16 GMT -5
People should take revelation allegoricaly IMO. Some things are beyond the realm of a man's consciuous understanding and to give some things a sense of infinite value and not just for that era maybe a degree of symbolizatrion could carry a message throughout the ages.
I think the fact that its basic instinct for humans to subconsicosly believe in a deity (even atheists who are just rebelling against their nature actually) points to an exiistence of a God. For the agnostics I once read a bumper sticker and in it said:
'When an agnostic dies, does he go to the "great perhaps"?'
|
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Jun 21, 2005 19:58:23 GMT -5
I agree that faith cannot be explained scientifically; for me it is an intuitive experience.
I could never 'prove' the existence of God, but I believe in Him.
|
|
