Just a question

[svafree]

I do not believe in god and I’m doing some research out of pure interest for I have never been educated about religion.

If the world is so amazing it can not exist without a creator, then wouldn’t the creator be so amazing it needed a creator as well? And if the creator does not need a creator of its own why should the world?

I do not need fact based arguments but at the same time please answer my question with respect.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

First things first, I believe you posted this in the wrong section. I could be mistaken, but I believe this should be in the C&E forum vice here.

You may not believe in a creator, but that does not negate his existence. Science has given us sound theory's on how humans have come about, but not on the creation of the universe and the earth. Darwin only wanted to establish how humans evolved, not explain the beginning of time per se.

 

[Yekcidmij]

If the world is so amazing it can not exist without a creator, then wouldn’t the creator be so amazing it needed a creator as well? And if the creator does not need a creator of its own why should the world?

The problem with that is that you enter into an infinite chain of events. What caused this....well, what caused this to cause this...what caused this that caused this to cause this...etc.. If you are looking for an explination of an event (ie the universe), you need sufficient cause, not necessarily an explination for the explination. And there is large agreement that our universe began to exist at the big bang. What caused the big bang is where the debate is. Of course, the natural question to follow is, well what caused the cause? I would maintain that somewhere in the past chain of events, there is an Uncaused Being that set everything into motion.

 

[WarEagle]

I do not believe in god and I’m doing some research out of pure interest for I have never been educated about religion.

If the world is so amazing it can not exist without a creator, then wouldn’t the creator be so amazing it needed a creator as well? And if the creator does not need a creator of its own why should the world?

The universe is physical and exists within time and space. God is not and does not.

I do not need fact based arguments

The battle cry of the atheist.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

The universe is physical and exists within time and space. God is not and does not.

God has manifested himself as Christ according to the Bible, therefore he made himself physical and then lived life as a human would. He died also.

The battle cry of the atheist.

Chrisitans tend to refute facts when it contradicts the literal interpretations of the Bible.

 

[WarEagle]

God has manifested himself as Christ according to the Bible, therefore he made himself physical and then lived life as a human would. He died also.

Very good. Sounds like you're on your way to understanding what Christianity teaches.

Chrisitans tend to refute facts when it contradicts the literal interpretations of the Bible.

I've never heard a Christian refute a fact. I've heard Christians refute misinterpretations of facts, but never the facts themselves.

On the other hand, we see atheists and mockers come here every day and post all sorts of wild things about God, the Bible, and Christianity in general, without any concern for facts at all.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Very good. Sounds like you're on your way to understanding what Christianity teaches.

Been there already.

I've never heard a Christian refute a fact. I've heard Christians refute misinterpretations of facts, but never the facts themselves.

When science makes a discovery that refutes the Bible, say certain aspects of evolution, Christians refute by utilizing the Bible. Devout Creationists can't stand the fact that its quite possible, that we evolved instead of being instantly created. That's for another forum though.

 

[WarEagle]

When science makes a discovery that refutes the Bible, say certain aspects of evolution, Christians refute by utilizing the Bible.

I see. So then you believe that science is always correct and the Bible never correct?

Devout Creationists can't stand the fact that its quite possible, that we evolved instead of being instantly created. That's for another forum though.

Devout creationists are smart enough to know that one species doesn't magically turn into another species.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I see. So then you believe that science is always correct and the Bible never correct?

Just like any other human, scientists can be ethically immoral with their studies. So no, I don't take everything that science states as fact. Science is about discovering the truth and then expanding on it.

Devout creationists are smart enough to know that one species doesn't magically turn into another species.

That's limiting the ability of God himself. Then of course, I also believe in re-incarnation.

 

[Rasta]

In disscussions like these, the key terms that are almost never agreed upon is what constitues a fact, and what constitues truth.

Some people do not acknowledge that "truth" is merely a personal translation of facts. Of course they would have to admit their "absolute claims" are merely one man's opinion, which fundamentalists will never do.

Key indications of intellectual dishonesty that follow this dynamic are usually prompted by "God SEZ this" or "Every true Christian KNOWS this".

The problem is that these types of arguments rely on one perspective (or a common collective perspective) as an axiom indicator of truth.

Therefore any meaningful discussion is reduced to: "Nu Uh"
"yu huh."
"No"
"yep."
"I'm right."
"your obviously wrong"

 

[TheOutsider]

Devout creationists are smart enough to know that one species doesn't magically turn into another species.

I don't believe that any scientist has ever said that it was by magic either. It takes geographic separation and lots and lots of mutations.

 

[WarEagle]

E;41693280]That's limiting the ability of God himself.

[/COLOR]

No, it's believing what God said.

 

[WarEagle]

I don't believe that any scientist has ever said that it was by magic either. It takes geographic separation and lots and lots of mutations.

Like P.J. O'Rourke said, "When a frog turns into a prince instantly, it's a fairy tale but when it happens over billions of years, that's the theory of evolution".

 

[TheOutsider]

When did PJ O'Rourke become an expert on biology?

 

[WarEagle]

When did PJ O'Rourke become an expert on biology?

When did you become an expert on the Bible?

 

[TheOutsider]

When did you become an expert on the Bible?

I don't remember ever saying anything about the bible. I do find it weird that you think all living creatures coming from a single common ancestor is a fairy tale, but man being created from clay and woman from a rib is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Abbadon]

wouldn’t the creator be so amazing it needed a creator as well?

If causality is so amazing, wouldn't it need a creator? And wouldn't that creator be outside the bounds of causality?

Chrisitans tend to refute facts when it contradicts the literal interpretations of the Bible.

That'd be literalist Christians, not all Christians. Some of us realize we are not omniscient and know that our individual interpretations of the Bible may need to change in face of certain facts.

Devout creationists are smart enough to know that one species doesn't magically turn into another species.

Faith and intelligence are not related, consider that Christ said "have the faith of a child," but never said anything about intelligence. Those (Christian or otherwise) that have studied biology realize that evolution doesn't rely on one species magically changing into another, but individuals within a species pass on traits to thier descendants, who in turn may come up with new traits because of mutations (mistakes in copying the genetic material from the parents to form a child, if you deny that this happens, you deny that Down syndrome exists). These mutations are often fatal or benign, but the ones that are beneficial are more likely to be passed on, making that trait more common in the population. Enough changes in traits and you end up with two groups in a population that were descended from the same species but can't naturally breed today (consider a mastiff and a toy poodle). That is evolution, not the ridiculous misunderstanding you have shown.

No, it's believing what God said.

The Bible just says God created the world, it doesn't go into exact details. The length of a day is dependant on where one is, on earth its 24 hours, on other planets its longer or smaller. How long would a day for heaven be?

 

[Rasta]

If causality is so amazing, wouldn't it need a creator? And wouldn't that creator be outside the bounds of causality?

No. Why would you assume so? Because it must for you to make the argument?

That'd be literalist Christians, not all Christians.

See WE.

Faith and intelligence are not related, consider that Christ said "have the faith of a child," but never said anything about intelligence. Those (Christian or otherwise) that have studied biology realize that evolution doesn't rely on one species magically changing into another, but individuals within a species pass on traits to thier descendants, who in turn may come up with new traits because of mutations (mistakes in copying the genetic material from the parents to form a child, if you deny that this happens, you deny that Down syndrome exists). These mutations are often fatal or benign, but the ones that are beneficial are more likely to be passed on, making that trait more common in the population. Enough changes in traits and you end up with two groups in a population that were descended from the same species but can't naturally breed today (consider a mastiff and a toy poodle). That is evolution, not the ridiculous misunderstanding you have shown.

I agree with this.

 

[Abbadon]

No. Why would you assume so? Because it must for you to make the argument?

It was a perfectly valid response to the question svafree asked.

If causality can be without cause, then it isn't an absolute and other things can be without cause. Why not ask him why he must assume a first cause would need a cause itself?

See WE.

Eazy E had made the statement "Chrisitans tend to refute facts when it contradicts the literal interpretations of the Bible." That statement applies to literalists, not to all Christians.

 

[Rasta]

It was a perfectly valid response to the question svafree asked.

If causality can be without cause, then it isn't an absolute and other things can be without cause. Why not ask him why he must assume a first cause would need a cause itself?

I disagree with anyone who claims anything is uncaused. Why would we assume this?

Eazy E had made the statement "Chrisitans tend to refute facts when it contradicts the literal interpretations of the Bible." That statement applies to literalists, not to all Christians.

Yes, that is true. I don't think he was saying every Christian is a literalist though.