Does God exist?

[osama*]

Navarre, you remind me of this other idiot, that just makes up stats
You think it will take 10k years for the world to become athiest? Lololol, that's not made up at all
And I'd like to see earth survive that long.

 

[Napalmbrain]

Navarre, you remind me of this other idiot, that just makes up stats
You think it will take 10k years for the world to become athiest? Lololol, that's not made up at all
And I'd like to see earth survive that long.

To be fair, Earth's been doing pretty well so far for over 4 billion years.

 

[Doomsteady]

At first I was a bit unsure what to think when Shadow and Napalm were making those good points the other day, so I looked up some things about evolution and bible contridictions and heres what I got.

Why I dont believe in evloution:

Is​

evolution really scientific?​

The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.
According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138​

Why I do not view the fact that God Has no beginning as a contradiction:

Did God have a beginning?

Is​

that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it. (2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God.​

Other​

examples: (1) Astronomers tell us that the heat of the sun at its core is 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit (15,000,000° C.). Do we reject that idea because we cannot fully comprehend such intense heat? (2) They tell us that the size of our Milky Way is so great that a beam of light traveling at over 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/sec) would require 100,000 years to cross it. Do our minds really comprehend such a distance? Yet we accept it because scientific evidence supports it.​

Which​

is more reasonable—that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction? Some persons adopt the latter viewpoint because to believe otherwise would mean that they would have to acknowledge the existence of a Creator whose qualities they cannot fully comprehend. But it is well known that scientists do not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and that determine how these cells will grow. Nor do they fully understand the functioning of the human brain. Yet, who would deny that these exist? Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?

I am now an official believer in God.

I also dismiss the :
Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it. (2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God.​

Other​

examples: (1) Astronomers tell us that the heat of the sun at its core is 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit (15,000,000° C.). Do we reject that idea because we cannot fully comprehend such intense heat? (2) They tell us that the size of our Milky Way is so great that a beam of light traveling at over 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/sec) would require 100,000 years to cross it. Do our minds really comprehend such a distance? Yet we accept it because scientific evidence supports it.​

Which​

is more reasonable—that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction? Some persons adopt the latter viewpoint because to believe otherwise would mean that they would have to acknowledge the existence of a Creator whose qualities they cannot fully comprehend. But it is well known that scientists do not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and that determine how these cells will grow. Nor do they fully understand the functioning of the human brain. Yet, who would deny that these exist? Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?

​

 

[Napalmbrain]

Why I dont believe in evloution:

Is​

evolution really scientific?​

The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”

That quote has nothing to do with evolution. He's talking about abiogenesis. Personally I just think he lacks imagination- just because we don't know how life can come about naturally now, doesn't mean we never will.

Creationists have some cheek to accuse evolutionary scientists of not following the scientific method, when they don't themselves. ID offers no method to test whether it is true, nor is it supported by any observational evidence. On the other hand, evolution fulfills predictions, it fits the observations, and it's basically what unites and makes sense of modern biology.

Which is more reasonable—that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction?

Okay, let me say this for the nine hundred trillionth time: "God or chance" is a false dichotomy. The reasonable answer is that the apparent "design" in the Universe can be induced not by chance, but through perfectly natural phenomena. Evolution is a good example of this- you have variation in genes due to random mutations, but natural selection "weeds out" the bad mutations and favours the good mutations ("good mutations" are those which produce some sort of benefit to the organism, for example, a resistance to a particular virus). So on the whole, evolution is not random. By the same token, we could one day figure out a non-random, non-religous process which can account for the origins of life and the Universe.

 

[navarre]

Navarre, you remind me of this other idiot, that just makes up stats
You think it will take 10k years for the world to become athiest? Lololol, that's not made up at all
And I'd like to see earth survive that long.

I haven't made up any statistics, I was simply offering my opinion on how long it will take for atheism to ever dominate, and the Earth will eaily last another ten thousand years.

Always be cautious when it comes to religious statistics.

That's because they're so hard. You've got denominations in Christianity, atheists in Buddhism, you don't know how many people who identify as religious are practising etc.

 

[Napalmbrain]

Now, now, let's not resort to childish name-calling, Navarre.

Always be cautious when it comes to religious statistics.

That's because they're so hard. You've got denominations in Christianity, atheists in Buddhism, you don't know how many people who identify as religious are practising etc.

Every religion has denominations. And of course, there is another complication: the existence of "fringe" denominations (e.g. Mormonism, Druze, etc.) and whether they count as part of the religion.

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

What particular verses was I okay with using to prove claims in the video?

I'm talking about the verses Dr. Naik uses in the video you posted.

And if you want me to, I will explain those verses, but you have to present them in a well...presentable fashion. I'm not 'pleading'.

'Special pleading' is the logical fallacy of applying a double standard to your own argument without explanation. In this case, you were okay with Dr. Naik using single verses to argue his case that the Qur'an is correct, but when I try to point out problematic verses in the Qur'an, then you claim that one verse is not sufficient to prove anything and I'm just looking for errors where they don't exist, but you don't explain that.

And what exactly do you mean by a "presentable fashion"?

Ah okay I get what you're saying now. Dr. Zakir Naik pointed out verses one by one, so why can't you present them to me in the same fashion? Well, Dr. Naik is knowledgeable of the Qur'an altogether, he knows which verses can stand alone, and when the next or one before explains the other, he would use those as well. The single verses he used were understandable in the form they were in--that is, alone. I'll try to eventually look up the verses you presented myself and see what they're trying to say. If I find a contradiction or scientific error, I will turn away from Islam forever (of course, I'm assuming this isn't going to happen but still, in the shocking (to me) event that it does I'm promising leaving Islam altogether.

 

[Napalmbrain]

Ah okay I get what you're saying now. Dr. Zakir Naik pointed out verses one by one, so why can't you present them to me in the same fashion? Well, Dr. Naik is knowledgeable of the Qur'an altogether, he knows which verses can stand alone, and when the next or one before explains the other, he would use those as well. The single verses he used were understandable in the form they were in--that is, alone. I'll try to eventually look up the verses you presented myself and see what they're trying to say. If I find a contradiction or scientific error, I will turn away from Islam forever (of course, I'm assuming this isn't going to happen but still, in the shocking (to me) event that it does I'm promising leaving Islam altogether.

You'd leave your entire religion just because of a few little mistakes by the writers?

See, this is something I don't get about some religious people. Why does it have to be all or nothing when it comes to the Qur'an and or the Bible or whatever? Inspired by God they may have been, but they were still written by normal, fallible humans. They might not be entirely inerrant, but it doesn't necessarily make their core message wrong.

 

[ssbb_lover]

You'd leave your entire religion just because of a few little mistakes by the writers?

See, this is something I don't get about some religious people. Why does it have to be all or nothing when it comes to the Qur'an and or the Bible or whatever? Inspired by God they may have been, but they were still written by normal, fallible humans. They might not be entirely inerrant, but it doesn't necessarily make their core message wrong.

Sounds like you're talking more about one's way of living life, not complete devotion to a religion. Personally, I'd be the same way in terms of believing in a given god and all of its "policies" (i.e. heaven and hell, how to seek forgiveness, what constitutes a sin, etc.)

To my knowledge, the writers of the books for most (if not all?) religions are endowed with the insight of the god or spirit or what have you. So, if there are fallacies within the text, that higher spirit or being is essentially lying, therefore giving the possibility of discrediting everything else (other than, of course, proven scientific facts). Why would God purposely let his followers write incorrect information in the Holy Bible?

That's how I see it, anyway.

 

[navarre]

Ah okay I get what you're saying now. Dr. Zakir Naik pointed out verses one by one, so why can't you present them to me in the same fashion? Well, Dr. Naik is knowledgeable of the Qur'an altogether, he knows which verses can stand alone, and when the next or one before explains the other, he would use those as well. The single verses he used were understandable in the form they were in--that is, alone. I'll try to eventually look up the verses you presented myself and see what they're trying to say. If I find a contradiction or scientific error, I will turn away from Islam forever (of course, I'm assuming this isn't going to happen but still, in the shocking (to me) event that it does I'm promising leaving Islam altogether.

You'd leave your entire religion just because of a few little mistakes by the writers?

See, this is something I don't get about some religious people. Why does it have to be all or nothing when it comes to the Qur'an and or the Bible or whatever? Inspired by God they may have been, but they were still written by normal, fallible humans. They might not be entirely inerrant, but it doesn't necessarily make their core message wrong.

Well I'm a liberal Christian. Some Christians claim that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. The only Word of God is Jesus. The Bible is an imperfect collection of history books, gospels, letters, poems and revelations written by various authors over a long period of time. I believe the whole thing was inspired by the Spirit, however some of the Biblical canon I'd change. For example, I'd include the apocraphyal Gospel of Thomas, and exclude Revelation, which I see as rather irrelevant now. John of Patmos doesn't seem to be unique in his revelation, so why include it?

Every religion has denominations. And of course, there is another complication: the existence of "fringe" denominations (e.g. Mormonism, Druze, etc.) and whether they count as part of the religion.

Oh yes, we have our fair share of fringe movements in Christianity. Non-Christians who pretend to be Christians such as Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses and Catholics.


(The last one's a joke, they're the original Christians.)

 

[Napalmbrain]

Oh yes, we have our fair share of fringe movements in Christianity. Non-Christians who pretend to be Christians such as Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses and Catholics.


(The last one's a joke, they're the original Christians.)

I've always wanted to know, why do so many people not consider Mormons and JWs to be Christians? I mean, they follow Jesus' teachings and believe he was the son of God, don't they?

 

[Skippy]

I believe the whole thing was inspired by the Spirit, however some of the Biblical canon I'd change. For example, I'd include the apocraphyal Gospel of Thomas, and exclude Revelation, which I see as rather irrelevant now. John of Patmos doesn't seem to be unique in his revelation, so why include it?

If you believe the Bible is inspired by holy spirit, why not also believe that it was the working of that same holy spirit that guided what to include and exclude?

 

[navarre]

Oh yes, we have our fair share of fringe movements in Christianity. Non-Christians who pretend to be Christians such as Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses and Catholics.


(The last one's a joke, they're the original Christians.)

I've always wanted to know, why do so many people not consider Mormons and JWs to be Christians? I mean, they follow Jesus' teachings and believe he was the son of God, don't they?

Mormons:

-Think Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
-Revere the Book of Mormon above the Bible
-Think the Biblical events took place in the USA
-Believe that we'll become gods of our own worlds when we die, just like Jesus managed to become God of this world.

Jehovahs Witnesses believe:

-Jesus is the Son of God but that He isn't God Himself. They believe Jesus is a creation of the Father, that the Son and Father are not on equal and identical footing, although they do believe He died for the sins of mankind.
-Believe Jesus is Archangel Gabriel.
-Believe Jesus has been ruling Earth since 1914.

They're both rather unorthodox.

 

[Napalmbrain]

Mormons:

-Think Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
-Revere the Book of Mormon above the Bible
-Think the Biblical events took place in the USA
-Believe that we'll become gods of our own worlds when we die, just like Jesus managed to become God of this world.

Jehovahs Witnesses believe:

-Jesus is the Son of God but that He isn't God Himself. They believe Jesus is a creation of the Father, that the Son and Father are not on equal and identical footing, although they do believe He died for the sins of mankind.
-Believe Jesus is Archangel Gabriel.
-Believe Jesus has been ruling Earth since 1914.

They're both rather unorthodox.

Unorthodox yes, but still followers of Jesus. I guess it depends on what your definition of 'Christian' is (I would define it as someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus, although admittedly I don't know too much about Christian theology).

 

[navarre]

Mormons:

-Think Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
-Revere the Book of Mormon above the Bible
-Think the Biblical events took place in the USA
-Believe that we'll become gods of our own worlds when we die, just like Jesus managed to become God of this world.

Jehovahs Witnesses believe:

-Jesus is the Son of God but that He isn't God Himself. They believe Jesus is a creation of the Father, that the Son and Father are not on equal and identical footing, although they do believe He died for the sins of mankind.
-Believe Jesus is Archangel Gabriel.
-Believe Jesus has been ruling Earth since 1914.

They're both rather unorthodox.

Unorthodox yes, but still followers of Jesus. I guess it depends on what your definition of 'Christian' is (I would define it as someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus, although admittedly I don't know too much about Christian theology).

Well lots of non Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. Muslims do, as do some Hindus and a small section of Jews revere Him as a great teacher.