Does god exist?

[Rammjet]

Probably, but I would think some atheists go to Purgatory.
All atheists feel sorry for something sometime in their life. But are you apologizing to God when you feel sorry (non-Christian)? No.

If I feel sorry for something I apologise to the persons affected. Duh.

It ties with itself? :p

*1 and 5, but yes it does tie with itself actually, because an argument of incomprehensibility is usually just an admission of stupidity.

[PooZy]

If you were truly good and grateful for what you are/have got, you would believe in God. But you don't. I take pity on you for that.

can you actually back this up, because it's very offensive

[Cirmentia]

OK. I want all you atheists to post ten key reasons that, for you, is why it's impossible to have a God. Your top ten reasons of why God doesn't exists.

Red Jackdaw provides scientific evidence as to why parts of the Bible are untrue. Like Noah's Ark, for example -- it's literally impossible for the Great Flood to occur, and Red Jackdaw explains why. Additionally, he backs up his information.
I have so much respect for this guy, I can't even begin to explain.

Go to Harvard, Stanford, Oxford or Cambridge, the top universities in the world. Go to their extensive science departments, where serious professors study their subjects seriously. If you state that there is evidence for creationism - A RELIGIOUS BELIEF, you will be laughed off. There is no respectable university in the world, and no respectable scientific community which recognises creationism as a valid scientific theory, simply due to the amount of research that intellectuals pile onto the various subjects.

A quote from your favourite site, AiG:

"In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”

Even I can tell you that guy has probably ignored everything he has learnt, or specifically gone against an area of cellular biology which requires evolutionary understanding. The underlying backbone of all modern biology is evolution - there is no question about this. Enough with the second rate scientists with PhDs often in subjects unrelated to core evolutionary principles, or whatever they are commenting on. Enough with these people pretending to be respectable, unbiased scientists who follow scientific principle. Enough with people who don't actually do any physical experiments or research, and get get them backed by the scientific community. The vast majority of contributors on AiG are jokes. They don't dare to put their work up to unbiased scientific challenges as every other scientist in the world does. They crawl away from the international scientific community where they know that their work will be quickly debunked by other scientists' research.



Prove it. As the concept of 'genera' did not even exist in biblical times, it seems most likely that you are desperately trying to twist the context in order to get some vaguely semi-plausible story. 'Kind' almost certainly means species. If you asked an ancient man if a zebra and a horse were the same 'kind' of animal, he would almost certainly say no - remember, the concept of genera didn't even exist until the rise of evolutionary biology.



Well that's utter crap, because there are marsupial mice, hedgehogs and shrews completely unrelated to their small, European counterparts yet have almost exactly the same characteristics. By your logic, as these animals would have exactly the same 'characteristics' as their European counterparts, they would have perished in the flood, as they would have been seen as the same 'kind'. Also, we know that Horses, and Zebras cannot evolve simply in 4000 years from the same species without massive amounts of human selection. The gene pool would simply be mixed too much with the very limited number of horses in existence. By the way, yes, Zebra and horses are separate species of animal - they cannot produce fertile offspring.



Answers in genesis is crap – seriously stop using it if you don’t want people to take it as a joke. Not only does it attempt to use literature as scientific evidence (wrong on so many levels), it uses completely unscientific evidence to support its claims. I am not exaggerating when I say that the article you gave was pure and utter crap - not much better than someone with no knowledge at all writing it. If all oceanic plates formed so suddenly (which cannot be caused by a flood anyway), they would have have the same radiometric age - which they do not; they gradate out massively, as you would expect with slow moving plate tectonics. Not only does your claim have no evidence, it has also been thoroughly disproven, and has substantial amounts of evidence against it.

There were several hundred species of sauropod at least, some armoured, some huge, some with long necks, and some with massive heads. Amongst dinosaurs, there are numerous subdivisions, such as theropods, hadrosaurs, ceratopsians etc, each with several hundreds of distinctly different species between them. In case you didn't know 'dinosaur' isn't a species of animal - it was a term which basically covered every large living creature alive at that time.

Also, you seem to forget that juvenile animals (mammals at least) would be almost adult in size. Baby mammals are dependent on their mothers to look after them until they are of a pretty substantial size. By the time a rhino becomes officially 'juvenile', I would not say that it's 'quite small'. It would certainly eat as much as, or similar amounts to an adult rhino - several times the amount a goat needs, again disproving your argument.


Again...you show your biological ignorance. Typical meat eaters won't eat decaying carcasses, they only eat fresh or recent kills. You're just making up facts again - assumptions based on knowledge which you think you have (generally, all creationists do this). You assume that meat eaters could eat this meat, when really, they follow no such habits.

Also, you seemed to have cleverly avoided my point about genetic death - any species with fewer than 12 will certainly be doomed to extinction, simply due to the consequences of inbreeding, and closing down the gene pool. You made no point on this whatsoever. In fact, you completely ignored it, and pretended that even with a limited gene pool; species could suddenly 'superevolve' into millions of different species of animals - completely impossible!



Evolution is adaptation to an organisms surroundings, so yes, it is the underlying concept of evolution. Speciation is evolution - two of the same species become two, distinctly different species that may no longer interbreed with other.



Poor science again - salt water doesn't separate from fresh water. The various salt ions simply diffuse into their surroundings to become homogenous. Once mixed up, you cannot simply separate salt and fresh water by leaving it to settle. Why, if that were possible, you would have solved the drought crisis in Africa! Simply leave a cup of salt water to settle, and it will separate into fresh water! Problem solved.



There are so many things wrong with this point. You still haven't explained where all the water came from. As I have said previously, and shown the calculation for, the amount of water needed to flood the entire Earth to biblical levels would be three times the volume of water on Earth. Also, fish can't simply adapt overnight to changes in salt levels, or pressure levels (pressure levels probably weren't included in your calculations). Salt removing organs don't suddenly appear in the presence of salt. Far less than 2% of living fish could survive such a huge change in the ecosystem - salt, pressure, turbulence, and other toxins stirred up by the flood.

Also, your maths skills are embarrassing. 2% of 40,000 is not 8,000, its 800.



Nope. Sedimentary rocks aren't made from the bones of thousands of fish and dead animals.



Simple, simple stuff that you should really know. As Mars is far less massive than Earth, it cooled down faster, and therefore, stopped producing convection currents. Without convection currents, there is no magnetosphere, and solar wind from the sun simply strips way any loose material on the surface of Mars ie. water. We know that's not what happened to Earth, because as it happens, we still have a magnetosphere, and we still have convection currents in our Earth.



As for your statement that volcanoes could have released huge amounts of steam into the atmosphere - two times the existing volume of water on Earth, it would have been superheated due to the lava, an boiled Noah and his animals to death instantly. Also, there is no evidence that so much water was ever released from volcanoes or fissures in the Earth - the simple fact is, there isn't really that much water under the crust - 98% of the water on Earth is in the oceans. The remaining few percent trapped in glaciers or underground would not have tripled the volume of water on Earth. So still, I ask you, WHERE DID THE WATER COME FROM?



The only difference being that the animals in your diagram wouldn't have been inbreed, and therefore, wouldn't have had genetic deformities and died off. Time after time, you leave things out from your explanations, often because it is simply convenient for you to do so.



You miss the point. For a difference within the same species to become two distinctly different species, you need genetic islands. The two different groups must not be allowed to mix, or any variation would simply be thrown back into the population, and everyone would have those genes, resulting in a homogeneous species. In artificial selection, humans can control the breeding, simply by stopping certain dogs or cats from breeding entirely, but this simply doesn't happen in natural selection.

Also, as it happens, not all species of fish alive today are descended from the same group of fish that would theoretically have survived the flood. All you need to do is look at the genes - some or obviously entirely unrelated to such fish.



Trees can't grow underwater. Where do trees come from then, if they all drowned?



Apart from the obvious fact that external water from outside the natural water cycle would be needed, global toxins, as well as salt all over the ground would have dramatically affected the ability of plants to grow. It simply would have been impossible, after such a long global flood for plant life to recover so quickly (some trees remember, predate the time of the flood, so how would they have survived?).



It's not a presupposition. I have a good enough grasp of geography, chemistry, physics and biology (as well as maths) to understand that a global flood could not have possibly occurred. I hold my view, because I have rationally looked at what the flood paradigm says, and reasoned it to be entirely implausible

[Bug]

1. As PooZy said, religion doesn't benefit anyone.
2. No proof of the bible being true.
3. Bible can be disproved by science
4. Humans come from a common ancestor so Adam and eve is false.
5. No one has ever see heaven or hell, for that matter there's nothing to even prove its existence.
6. There are a ton of other religions so they obviously can't all be true.

I have to go, I'll be back in 2 hours because I have class.
Hopefully 6 is good enough for you.

1. Religion benefits many people as many people worship that religion. :I
2. There doesn't have to be. If you believe in God willingly and for long enough, you'll know that.
3. So what about science? Does love, passion and all things good meet up to science.
4. I suppose a large majority of Adam and Even is a metaphor, and beforehand. For instance, maybe God didn't create the world in seven days, maybe that was a metaphor for something, e.g. one day = 10,000 years. Maybe not that much exactly, but you get the picture. And maybe things started evolving first, then humans eventually evolved and the first was Adam (made so by God).
5. You mean no-one living has ever seen Heaven or Hell. Of course no-one living has ever seen Heaven or Hell. Nobody has ever seen Multiverses, yet there's a good chance they exist.
6. So just because there are plenty of other religions that doesn't mean one of them exists? There are examples to match with that, but at present, I can't think of any. I'll try to throughout the day.

[Bug]

I apologise to the person I wronged.
That is the RIGHT thing to do.




god god god :3
Yahweh is the name of your god, so I'll capitalise that
also you are trying to label me as immoral, claiming that i am not grateful and don't feel sorry for doing bad things etc etc

Of course you feel sorry for things. But you don't apologize to God.

[Artistic77]

Nope, doesn't exist. /sarcasm

[Bug]

Nope, doesn't exist. /sarcasm

So you DO believe in God? Because it was sarcasm, right?

[PooZy]

Of course you feel sorry for things. But you don't apologize to God.

I would if I thought he existed :|

I apologise to the people who were hurt by my actions, but in any case I don't lie much and I don't wrong other people often apart from very petty things that wouldn't demand an apology.

I don't see how that means I should be damned for all eternity. Surely an all-knowing god would recognise that I was sorry without me having to personally say so.

[Cirmentia]

4. I suppose a large majority of Adam and Even is a metaphor,

Everything in the Bible literally happened, according to what I've read from theologians.

[Artistic77]

OMG STOP WASTING YOUR TIME, GOD DOES EXIST, HE HAS JV! HE POSTED ABOVE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! h

[Rammjet]

I posted my 10 points bug, care to respond to them?

[Cirmentia]

OMG STOP WASTING YOUR TIME, GOD DOES EXIST, HE HAS JV! HE POSTED ABOVE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! h

o: You're TOTALLY right!
This discussion should, like, totally be, like, over.

[Bug]

Everything in the Bible literally happened, according to what I've read from theologians.

Oh, then you must believe in God, since you admitted everything in the Bible happened.

[PooZy]

Oh, then you must believe in God, since you admitted everything in the Bible happened.

He said according to theologians, and he is not a theologian.

[Cirmentia]

Do the atheists (This is directed to the atheists of this thread, since they're the logical ones) of this thread think that this should be used for debating, or converting? It seems like some posters aim more towards converting other people, or reinforcing their religion, rather than debating over whether or not God exists.

In my opinion, this thread should be used to debate, as it says here.

Its debating time of if god exists,

I think we all know it's basically impossible for any one of us to actually convert someone.

[legend2579]

Of course you feel sorry for things. But you don't apologize to God.

That doesn't make any sense. If I call someone an asshole in going to apologise to them, I'm not going to apologise to someone that had nothing to do with anything, in this case, god.

[Lonic]

Bug is only here to annoy people.

I doubt that even he believes the things he says.

[Mars]

Bug is only here to annoy people.

I doubt that even he believes the things he says.

"I don't care what you believe, I just want to know, what you know."
-My Latin teacher.

[Wolframium]

Do the atheists (This is directed to the atheists of this thread, since they're the logical ones) of this thread think that this should be used for debating, or converting? It seems like some posters aim more towards converting other people, or reinforcing their religion, rather than debating over whether or not God exists.

In my opinion, this thread should be used to debate, as it says here.



I think we all know it's basically impossible for any one of us to actually convert someone.

Is there really a difference?

[Rammjet]

"I don't care what you believe, I just want to know, what you know."
-My Latin teacher.

How has all human knowledge been accumulated? Because people proposed ideas they believed could be true, and somebody thought of an empirical way of ratifying those assertions or disproving them.

If you want to know what I know, I know atoms exist... ah but 'haben sie einen gesehen?' [have you seen one?] I'm just bringing this to the table because German physicists originaly treated atoms as an unproven belief, it's only after people explained their reasons and found evidence for atoms that we now incorporate them into our knowledge.