Order and Design

[Cantuar]

Not now perhaps, but eventually everyone ends up a believer one way or the other.

How on earth do you know that? Sounds like "nyah nyah" wishful thinking to me, right up there on a par with "deep down, atheists know God exists but they're too proud to admit it."

 

[JohnR7]

How on earth do you know that?

There are two judgements. For believers they go before the judgement throne of Christ to see if they receive a reward or suffer loss. Our reward or crowns we will throw at the feet of Christ, because we know that we were forgiven for so very much more than we "earned".

Then there is the judgement throne of God for unbelievers. Where they will find that God has kept a record of all that they did in their life. Somehow I just can not imagine someone standing before God and trying to convince themselves that He does not exist.

Rev. 20:13-15
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. [14] And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. [15] And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Notice that "the lake of fire" is mentioned THREE times here. That means you really need to take notice if something is mentioned three times.

 

[JohnR7]

"deep down, atheists know God exists but they're too proud to admit it."

Is there ever an atheist who goes though their whole life without at some point believing in God?

 

[JohnR7]

Why does this sound like "You better believe or else I'll sic my pet God on you!"?

I don't know, why does it sound that way to you?

 

[ifriit]

Not now perhaps, but eventually everyone ends up a believer one way or the other.

Do you have anything of substance to add?

 

[Arikay]

Yep. Many.

Is there ever an atheist who goes though their whole life without at some point believing in God?

 

[Cantuar]

Is there ever an atheist who goes though their whole life without at some point believing in God?

Yes. Whyever wouldn't there be?

 

[Cantuar]

There are two judgements. For believers they go before the judgement throne of Christ to see if they receive a reward or suffer loss. Our reward or crowns we will throw at the feet of Christ, because we know that we were forgiven for so very much more than we "earned".

Then there is the judgement throne of God for unbelievers. Where they will find that God has kept a record of all that they did in their life. Somehow I just can not imagine someone standing before God and trying to convince themselves that He does not exist.

But you're starting from the assumption that God exists and the Bible is literally accurate. You don't KNOW that; it's just what you believe.

 

[JohnR7]

But you're starting from the assumption that God exists and the Bible is literally accurate. You don't KNOW that; it's just what you believe.

God has proven Himself to be trustworthy in my life. It is more than a assumption. It is something I can rely on and depend on.

 

[Jet Black]

EVEN NOTHING IS SOMETHING:by Jason S.Fessenden

Everything was Nothing before there was something.

this is not strictly true. we don't know enough about the big bang event to say how it happened.

Without an Infinite designer,nothing,could not have ever been.

blatant ad hoc addition

Nothing has no essense or mass or color.

what exactly do you mean when you say "nothing"?

If we would give nothing a color we would compair it to a clear coat paint. The paint is there and yet,theres nothing.

there would definitely be something there, it would simply be invisible to the eye. actually though it wouldn't because you would have a reflection of about 5% at each interface.

If nothing produced something than what does nothing look like?
Blackness is of nothingness yet a mixure of colors.

blackness is absence of light. try not to get pigment and optical primary colours mixed.

A Blackhole is of nothingness yet has form,energy,and a cause.A blackhole is without a doubt-something.

A Black Hole is absolutely definitely something, and also came from the gravitational field being so strong that it can overcome the strong force.
take a look at how black holes are formed, they are clearly something

Is the belief in nothing even a rational concept?

again it depends how you define nothing.

 

[FEZZILLA]

1.)

I find it interesting that the writter cant grasp the concept of nothing.

"Every design implies a designer;
Everydesigner implies a cause;
The designers cause was man!
God created the universe with man in mind."

2.)Interesting assumptions, but thats all there is.

3.)Every design does imply a designer, but it Does Not imply an inteligent designer.

4.)"A Blackhole is of nothingness yet has form,energy,and a cause."

A blackhole is Not nothingness.

1.)I think you've made an assumption you can't prove.I have grasped the concept of nothingness.
2.)ummm? Are my assumptions weaker than evolutions freak accidents caused by nothingness?
3.)?You got the buzzer on that one!?!?
You obviously think that matter created mind,and out of unintelligent nothingness all complicated life forms came about. ummm? i question that.
4.)If you read my post you'll see that i made that same point.
Stop assumming and read the post has they are without distorting what i or other people say.
<Caution>You're in a NO SPIN ZONE!
I don't let people twist my words and pervert them to fit there way of dubious thinking.

 

[FEZZILLA]

1.)

Firstly, this argument does not address the idea that everything we see has always existed in one form or another (eternal universe and all that).

2.)Secondly, it does not address the idea that time began with the rest of the universe and thus there never was nothing - at no time in this history of the universe has nothing existed.

3.)Thirdly, it does not address the problem of where the designer came from. If organisation needs organisation to create it, was there a super God? And a super duper God, ad infinitum?

4.)Fourthly, it does not address the idea that we do not understand exactly what 'nothingness' would entail.

5.) It could be that nothingness is "a potentiality for something".

6.))As soon as you use the word 'nothing' you are suggesting that it is something - if it weren't, you could not use the term.

1.)Were you there,or are you just going off of what evolution assumptions told you? Evolution is a philosophy based on faith just like Christianity is. Christians believe that the universe came from thought-mind created matter.Evolutionist believe the universe came from a stupid nothing-matter producing mind.
2.)I don't think anyone of us can answer that sence we were not there.
We can only speculated with the use of scientific philosophy has to what happened.And i don address the issue concerning time.I state boldly that an intelligent designer created the universe-and time is included with the universe.
3.)I did address the idea of where nothing came from.God is that something that has always been there.The top of the power chain if i my word it that way.Something has to be there for nothing to exist.Nothing simply cannot produce something.
Do you or any other evolutionist have the fix axioms that prove nothing accidently produced something?
I did't think so
4.)Actually i did address that to. If you take philosophy in college you'll clearly see that i've addressed that whole issue very clearly. My cosmopoetry is very philosophical.I question the same thing you do about the state of mind that nothingness came from.Where did nothing come from?Evolution still cannot provide the fixed axioms.
5.)Exactly! Now you're catching on! Nothing was created be something.
We can both have faith to believe to what caused that nothing to become something.
6.)I you read my post carefully you'll see why i use the word "nothing".
I am questioning the evolutionary existence of nothing.

7.)Where did nothing come from? Can you explain the big bang to me?
Can you come up with any logical thoughts that my prove your faith?
And don't say,"It came from gas,adoms,DNA,ect.,ect.,ect..
Tell me what created nothing from the start.I want the infinite recipe.
Or,if you think your really bright and sharp,maybe you can prove the universe is a finite source.....? tough call eh?

 

[FEZZILLA]

1.)

this is not strictly true. we don't know enough about the big bang event to say how it happened.


2.)blatant ad hoc addition


3.)what exactly do you mean when you say "nothing"?


4.)there would definitely be something there, it would simply be invisible to the eye. actually though it wouldn't because you would have a reflection of about 5% at each interface.


5.)blackness is absence of light. try not to get pigment and optical primary colours mixed.


6.)A Black Hole is absolutely definitely something, and also came from the gravitational field being so strong that it can overcome the strong force.
take a look at how black holes are formed, they are clearly something


7.)again it depends how you define nothing.

1.)Evolutionist don't have any proof whatsoever,yet they force young children to learn it in school.
Evolution is a pholosophy.
It is the science of one religion vs. the science of another religion.
But its still a religion that can only go be faith and philosophy.
Evolution and Christianity are both religions. Both religions believe in ultimate truth. The difference between the two is simple. Christians believe in a intelligent designer called God.And Evolutionist believe in a accident of nothingness.
2.)Common sense at best.
3.)Thats a good question.Im still trying to figure that one out myself.
I don't believe that i've ever seen an actually nothing before.I really don't know what a nothing looks like.I only know that it don't exist. If nothing had a form,it what be a state of total non-existance. Yet then ,i don't even know what non-existence looks like.......?!!
Have you ever seen my non-existent nothing lately? I cannot find it anywhere.
4.)a feflection is something,so your logic cancels itself out.
According to evolutionist,Nothing created something.Yet Evolutionist will never explain just how this happened.
5.)You're right and you're wrong.I mean,in all sence of the meaning and word nothing,blackness cannot be found.
Here is an example of what nothing looks like:
A dead person can see nothing.His brain is dead so there is no dreams to bring light to that persons head.A dead person is the only person that can testify what nothing looks like. Living dead people are often hard to find,so that makes it hard to ever get the testimony.
In Layman,Dead people see and hear AND think nothing.And thats what nothing looks like.
6.)I agree with you 100%!! Im not denying that concept. Evolutionist though,try to defend themselves with this BlackHole theory that proves nothing exist. But blackholes as you and i know are a form of something.
So the evolutionist justification of nothingness is proven wrong.
7.)I think by now you have a good concept of what nothing really is.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa, I don't know if we can ever make you feel appreciated enough.

A heartfelt thanks from me for the work that you do, but you do realize that you cause us to evolve into a population of lazy "lucaspa will supply our evidence" maggots, do you?

Btw: Interesting links - I learn more day by day just hanging out here.

Thank you. You know, you could save the data I post and then repost it yourself when you need it.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't understand what you mean.

Those arguments (one god, many gods, active vs. inactive god, which god, etc) are still valid.

Were they not valid, we would know whether there was one god, many gods, etc. But we don't.

Hume looked at the idea that the "designer" could be a mortal being. He refuted that idea because no mortal would have enough foreknowledge to design the complex organisms and the even more complex interactions between them.

Of course, that was all before Darwin's discovery of natural selection did in the Argument from Design as proof of the existence of deity.

 

[lucaspa]

True. But there is no evidence to suggest "god" in the first place. I don't have to falsify god, nor do I have to falsify that god created. Burden of proof, and all that.

If you are using science as part of your argument for atheism, you have to falsify the existence of God and that God created. Science works by falsification.

Now, there are two questions based on the data for which the hypothesis of deity is valid: 1. Why does the universe exist at all? 2. Why does the universe have the order it does and not some other order?

See, data -- the existence of the universe. Now, as to "burden of proof", this is another dogmatic view of atheists and another method by which they harm science. "Burden of proof" is an idea that comes from DEBATE, not science. In science, ALL statements have the same burden of proof. IOW, there is no such thing as burden of proof in science as you use the term. We can go into that in more detail.

Right. And that's all it demonstrates.

So? You asked what it demonstrates. And now you complain when you get an answer. Let's rephrase it this way: the data demonstrates that both John's theism and your atheism are a matter of faith.

Please indicate my dogma. I didn't think I had a "dogma", and so I'm curious as to what you think it is.

" But there is no evidence to suggest "god" in the first place"
"Burden of proof, and all that"

Your idea that you don't have to falsify by science is also atheistic dogma.

All these are repeated time and again by atheists without any critical thought as to whether they are true. And that absence of critical thought is what dogma is all about.

 

[lucaspa]

In the universe the same rules apply:
Every design implies a designer;
Everydesigner implies a cause;
The designers cause was man!
God created the universe with man in mind.

This, in a nutshell, is the Argument from Design. When Darwin discovered Darwinian (natural) selection, he discovered an unintelligent designer. Yes, biologial organisms are designed: designed by natural selection.

As to the requirement for a cause, quantum mechanics threw that one out 80 years ago.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally Posted By: lucaspa

Originally Posted by lucaspa
What you mean when you say "design", John, is that God directly manufactures each organism.

I asked a question, and I was hoping to get some answers and learn something. But I understand no one is getting paid here, so I am not going to be disappointed if people just want to degenerate to the usual status quo of tradeing quips and insults.

John, there is no way I made a quip or insult. Instead, I simply restated what you actually mean and then went on to show the problems with it. IOW, I honestly stated your position accurately.

I do not question it at all, because I can ask God what I am wanting to know and understand and He helps me with it. In a way that makes me feel like a worthwhile human being and not a worthless peice of ****.

And I question it because you don't seem to be getting much understanding by that route. So maybe all you are hearing is you?

 

[lucaspa]

Bagfullofsnakes said "The harm comes in when folks try to press their ideology onto other folks who don't share said ideology. Read: The conservative, republican, religious right."

Now I see double standards in that science pushes it's own ideologies too. Such as theory taken as a must be.

What science says is that, at some point, the evidence supporting a theory becomes so overwhelming that it becomes perverse to withold provisional agreement.

Notice the word "provisional". Science in its positive statements is tentative. Now, you can be perverse if you choose. But unless and until you come with new data, we are under no obligation to take your position seriously.

What we do insist on is that, if you value honesty, you accept when theories are falsified.

 

[lucaspa]

1. There's nothing outside of the writings (first five books of the Bible)that proves that Moses ever existed.

2. It's painfully obvious that the "Moses" who wrote the other four books did not write the "theory" (Genesis)

3. His "theory" is little more than a pretty retelling of the mythology of the time.

First, the creation stories in Genesis are not "theories" in any sense of the word. They are embedded in the cosmological theories of the Babylonians (flat earth covered by dome with caverns underneath).

I know you are trying to put down JohnR7's statements, but Genesis 1 is far, far more than a "pretty retelling of the mythology of the time". Instead, it is a completely revolutionary way of looking at deity and the relationship of humans to deity.