maybe im not sure but i guess it could be real
no but if yes this god is a jerk
yes but i do wonder sometimes if its true
But I can't see any pain. The pain is invisible, but it's there.
I can't see any God, but he's there. Go on with your questions.
God is different because you can't prove its existence
Ah we have a problem there too, because I can't feel *supernatural objects...in fact supernatural objects appear completely undetectable with any of my 5 senses or any scientific instrumentation.
As it is I only have the word of religionists saying they 'felt' their god or attribute events to them, and the problem with those guys is that they believe in several thousand different gods, godesses, spirits, chakras and forces, and most of them think only their God is the 'one true' god, so almost all of them have to be wrong. x3
If an instrument is designed that can test for the presence of divinity perhaps I'll find things more persuasive.
* I can feel physical objects or processes, such as those which cause me pain.
My point is that just because you can't use your five senses to detect something, it doesn't mean that it's not there. Let's use the good old example of how the small conversation between an atheist teacher and a god-believing student had.
Can you see your brain?
Can you hear your brain?
Can you taste your brain?
Can you feel your brain?
Can you smell your brain?
No you can't, so the point you're trying to prove is that God doesn't exist because you can't detect him with your five senses. If that's the case, then you don't have a brain according to your own evidence.
Perhaps an instrument may be designed to prove whether there is a divine being or not. But you don't need such a tool when it comes to Islam because there are verses that solely state how God exists and how the universe and all of its contents were formed. I know you've studied Islam and you should know that I'm not making that claim up.
There are plenty of verses in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) that state how God exists and how the Universe formed. Why don't you believe them?
Here in the Universe I find some things that are so hard to understand.
The vastness of space just takes my breath away I see through history. - Stratovarius (Timo Kotipelto)
I believe in the higgs boson eventhough I can't detect it with my senses directly, but because I trust in the machine and foundation, CERN at the LHC who published their hypothesis mechanism and data.
Do that for God and I'll happily belieive in him her or it.
In addition I believe in my brain because I've observed real human brains before at hospitals, and I trust in the medical knowledge of doctors and anatomists who publish their findings and give me proof that we humans generally do have brains in our heads. x3
Oh Goody, islam says their god is true in a book!? It's not like every other religion on the planet does that too, my golly gosh muhammed, peace be upon him, was right!
I probably won’t be active here until sometime in September since I’ll be out of state. After that though I might be able to get on a bit :p
J.N.D. Anderson puts this very well:
Think of the numbers of witnesses, over 500. Think of the character of the witnesses, men and women who gave the world the highest ethical teaching it has ever known, and who even on he testimony of their enemies lived it out on their lives. Think of the psychological absurdity of picturing a little band of defeated cowards cowering in an upper room one day and a few days later transformed into a company that no persecution could silence – and then attempting to attribute this dramatic change to nothing more convincing than a miserable fabrication they were trying to foist upon the world. That simply wouldn’t make sense.
Furthermore, Jesus had the wounds of the cross; even if he did have an identical twin [which is a ludicrous idea at best], the Romans could easily disprove the Apostles by simply going to the tomb and showing the world that Jesus was still dead. Or even cross-examining the ‘twin’—it wouldn’t be hard at all to debunk a fake Jesus--after all, how many people can turn water into wine?
-Faith versus probability
My basic point was that there are varying levels of faith. For instance, you may have faith that you favorite sports team will win their game. Or you could have faith that Unicorns exist on some remote island. Both examples require faith, but they are of varying levels.
The two examples cited above don’t conflict at all with the Bible. After all, the whales are merely producing within their own kind; it’s not like they’re growing legs and turning into humans. The whales are still whales, and the trees are still trees. As I’ve explained numerous times previously, variation within created kinds [ie families] doesn’t prove evolution; it’s actually what the Bible clearly states will happen. (Genesis 1:24)Furthermore evolution has been observed many times while it actually happens, such as the production of new whitebeam species in southern wales, the UK, where biologists actually watched new forms of tree evolve.
Gradually? Are your serious? The Cambrian explosion produced nearly ALL forms of Phyla in a mere 5-10 millions of years from nothing more then simple sponges. Furthermore, nearly every currently living form of animal specie has a fossil counterpart that is millions of years old. For instance, we’ve found fossilized wasps that are identical to modern wasps today that are dated to be millions of years old. We’ve also seen this in numerous plant forms, fish, whales, and pretty much all living animals. I fail to see how a ‘gradual change’ is observed in the fossil record.Since rock strata are arranged chronologically it's EXACTLY like a movie, which is a series of chronologically arranged images. The fossil record is a series of chronologically arranged 3-d fossils, and when you play this movie you see the fossilied creatures gradually change and diversify with respect to time.
In response to the argument against living fossils "that organisms won't change if their environment is friendly"...
These animals have existed in the same form for tens of millions of years; to say that there environment hasn't changed in some 10-100m years is ridiculous--think of the alleged evolution that could happen in that time span. What about the natural mutations that are found in organisms? For instance, the average human baby is born with 100-300 mutations that for the most part do very little or nothing; however, you would expect that in tens of millions of years there would be hundreds of mutations that would affect the organism at some point. When you add temperature, salinity [for sea creatures], air pressure, and other evolving predators, [Global warming anyone?]your argument really falls apart.
Do you realize what the implications of the Cambrian Explosion are? It’s going from single celled organisms to nearly all forms of existing phyla. Saying that it would require a huge amount of new information would be an understatement—it would be literally impossible for that much information to arise within only 5-10 million years. It’s a huge blow to evolution and one that is not explained well at all by evolutionists.-the cambrian explosion happened over millions of years, that's not evidence against evolution silly, since evolution does not specify a specific rate.
Quoting from a previous post of mine in response to a question:
To say that the rate of mutations can vary is correct. To say it can vary in the amount it did during the Cambrian explosion is not right at all. Prior to the Cambrian Explosion, you have simple forms of life such as sponges. At the Cambrian explosion, nearly every form of Phyla that represents the animal kingdom now just popped out of nowhere. To say that mutations could explain this is completely incorrect. This is called Punctuated Equilibrium. IT basically says that mutations can make large leaps—hence, Cambrian Explosion is explained. No, mutations cannot take such mammoth leaps in the exceedingly small period of time of the Cambrian (5-10m years), in fact, if the whole of evolutionary timeline was put into to 24 hours, the Cambrian Explosion would have been equivalent to 1 minute. Furthermore, the fossil record left no transitional fossils in between the Cambrian and the previous deposits, the animals just popped out of literally nowhere. Not only does this imply that a huge amount of new genetic information had to arise in a small time period (almost impossible), it contradicts the theory of slow, and gradual changes in a species over long periods of time. Interestingly enough, out of the many hypotheses raised, there is none that all paleontologists agree on, people are coming up with new ideas all of the time. It seems odd that they cannot explain this if evolution really is a fact. Of course, you could claim that there are “gaps” in the fossil record and we just haven’t found the transitional fossils; however, the fact is Darwin himself basically made the same claim over 150 years ago. No transitional fossil have been found that can stand up against close scrutiny since then. Indeed, more variations of animals we find living today are being found all the time. For instance, there are some fossils in the fossil record that have remained the same shape, body form, etc. that they are today! Yet these fossils of animals or plants are dated millions of years ago. This means that these fossils in millions of years have made no change whatsoever. This doesn’t disprove evolution, but that’s because evolution is a theory and no matter how many contradictions you throw at it, people will just re-format evolution to fit the contradictions.—Simply because they have a pre-supposition that evolution happened.
I will close with this quote from Darwin himself:
If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.
Of course, this is exactly what we see in the Cambrian explosion.
I don’t want to make an overlong post, so I’ll do a separate post on Baraminology later. If you want to read about it however, the National Center for Science Education wrote a review on it which you can find at this link: http://ncse.com/rncse/26/4/baraminology
(Not in favor of it, but it does give general information on how it works albeit some sections misrepresent it. Overall, it’s a good source. I’ll post more on Baraminology later.)
Pr2: Rank 35 Hats:9Pr3: Rank 37 Hats:11
Hell nobody's going to read a wall of text are they?
-Eye witnesses are not a reliable source.
-Suggesting identical twins are less likely than magical ressurection is a joke.
-Baraminology is a load of twaddle which is why it has officially been discredited as psuedoscience.
-The cambrian explosion and existance of archaic species does not disprove evolution only provide more information about its history and mechanism for scientists to discern.
-If you want to prove your god exists attacking mainstream science will not win, you have to show your claim is true, not that all other claims are false because there exist an infinite number of potential claims which can be rationalised [this is why working theories change, rather than dissapear if they are criticised]. It's actually easier to try to prove your own claims, do yourself a favour.
You recently claimed that biologists have a presuppesition that evolution must be true. May I call out psychological projection? I'd like to state you actually have the pressupesition that your God and their creation myth is real, and that you're psychologically projecting this tendency for pressupesition onto those who disagree with you.
This is why we spent so much time arguing about biology and fossils rather than the actual topic, because it guards your pressupesition that you don't want to admit to having.
It's also why you forgive very weak ideas their flaws if they happen to agree with you, such as believing that seeds rode the seas on giant vegetations mats after a 40 day flood that submerged everest, or that drawings by african pigmes [which were obviously western hoaxes] prove that dinosaurs lived alongside man. These ideas agree with your initial assumption so you allowed them despite clear failiure under scrutiny.
Last edited by Rammjet; 8th August 2012 at 08:09 PM.
Well this is a double post but it's a very amusing one.
I recently made a post commenting on psychological projection, referencing anticitizenX's video on the topic. Upon browsing his other videos I found a cracking example of this psychological projection in action.
Video features mature content.
The video explains that men who are classified as homophobic, as a significant portion of fundamentalist religionists here appear to be, are twice as likely to respond to homosexual pornography with arousal in comparrison to men who are not describable as homophobic.
So it appears that individuals who have a homosexual aspect of their own may seek social acceptance by scape-goating or 'projecting' their own trait onto others and criticisng it, simultaneously distancing themselves from the potential risk of others discovering their sexuality.
So, all you homophobes out there, it is okay to express homosexual tendencies you're more likely to have, the social dissaproval associated is actually proponed by many closeted homosexuals themselves, and hell perhaps that's the very reason that such sentiments have been enshrined in holy texts which were afterall written by men who are just as human and liable to secrets shames or projection as any others.
rammjet sorry to break it to you but barely anyone even reads your posts lol