Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

It is the word of GOD in my mind and in my opinion. Written by man from words spoken from GOD.

I would like to believe in a God, but logic and experience teaches me otherwise. I think the concept of a loving all-powerful omnipotent being who looks after us is a nice idea. I like the idea that there's life after death and that potentially there's a better existence awaiting us beyond this world.
#437 by Citizen grayhaze - 9/18/2003 4:41:02 PM

I think logic and experience works both ways when your eyes are looking in "both" directions "openly"

I don't deny spirituality, and some of the things I have experienced in my life lead me to believe that there is more beyond that which I can sense in any conventional manner. However, I'm not about to devote the time I have in this life to the worship or fear of a being which has had no discernable influence on my life, and who makes no effort to advertise his existence to me. I'd much rather use the short time I have in as productive and fulfilling a way as possible and only worry about the afterlife when I am in a position to experience it.
#437 by Citizen grayhaze - 9/18/2003 4:41:02 PM

sounds like you have experienced something more but you still try to deny? whatever it is you experienced, which I believe is why God does not reveal himself too much cuz no matter when he does ppl always tend to look for smoke and mirrors the bigger the reveal he does the harder we look to disprove what we thought we seen or experienced?

very good point doreen.

On a side note i worder what would happen if we started a abortion thread?

It would be no different then this thread Kona

Kona,

An abortion thread? Man, if you think this one is contentious

The discussion is hard when you try to win it. Some people believe that there is no use in that. Religion, atheism and agnotism do even join several other groups. Humanists and the Unitarian Universalist Association are examples of that.

It is also interesting that Darwin was an agnostic.

Charles Darwin, a 19th century British biologist and writer wrote in two places in his book "Life and Letters":

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

"I think an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. The whole subject [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect."

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence). I Don't know if anyone in this thread has said anything along the lines of the following examples, but they highlight some problems with that assumption:

‘Well, I still believe in the “big bang”, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations. Such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Kona,An abortion thread? Man, if you think this one is contentious

this one is getting that way. Way out of hand. >

TheRatedPG,

You are, of course, correct, at least as far as the commonality of evidence and the degree of some presupposition in the particular positions.

However, that does not negate the fact that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and creationism is a religious tenet.

Evolution exists within the body of the scientific method and mechanisms, whether the theory itself is right or wrong, it *is* a scientific theory.

And Kona's argument notwithstanding, a fact is a fact. If I point to a wall (to use a trivial example), the fact of its existence will be disputed by only the most contentious.

There are things that exist where the evidence can be interpreted in different ways, that's why they are theories, rather than facts.

And since it is my contention that the entire universe (and all its mechanisms, events, etc.) were created by God, then any evidence, observations, etc., that we make or discover, are also created by God.

You can't draw a line in the sand and say that something was created by Man and something was created by God. If you believe that God created the universe, then at some level, everything was created by God, including the things that we discover as Man.

For example, Man discovered and learned how to use the electromagnetic force (the basis of just about everything we use in a modern society), but the force itself existed before Man used it.

Believing in the big bang or evolution theory is no option. It is not a belief system. One tries to prove a theory is right or wrong - by using scientific methods and observation - is all what we can tell about it. That is enough for me.

this one is getting that way. Way out of hand

There have been a few points where that's true, but, by and large, this has been much more civil overall than other threads of this type that I have seen.

I think, that to a large degree, everyone on this site seems to have a basic level of respect for each other that isn't always evidenced on other sites I've seen.

I agree with Aleatoric in #461.

TheRatedPG,

(I seem to be responding to you quite a bit Plenty of good points).

It seems that you're of the viewpoint that the creation of the universe and evolution are mutually exclusive concepts.

I have no trouble with a God that can create the universe to form from a big bang, following processes based on physical laws built into the system, and producing life that forms and grows through the process of evolution, producing us.

For me, my faith is in God as creator, father, fundamental force of life, etc. Science is a tool I use to examine and understand what goes on around me in the physical universe.

Aleatoric: Do you view yourself more like an 18th century Rationalist?
---
Rationalism: This was a movement in the 18th century Protestantism that abandoned the idea of Biblical inerrancy and adopted the belief that the Bible can be analyzed as a historical document. Some Rationalists assert that the existence of some form of deity can be proven by reason. Others see Rationalism and Atheism as synonyms.

Or let me put it another way. Do you thing your God's existence can be proven?

I guess to some degree that I could be categorized as a rationalist. I'm certainly not an atheist.

I do have a tendency to believe that anything that truly exists can be demonstrated empirically, and it can be argued that God does indeed fall in the category of being ultimately provable.

Even so, I don't think that even if we could prove His existence, that it would answer all that many questions. Even if we had clear, concrete proof of God, there would still remain many of the ethical questions that we currently face, such as 'why were we created?', and 'if God does care for his creation, why then is there pain and suffering?', among others.

I am most definitely not a biblical literalist. I think the Bible has inestimable value as a source of guidance and history. But I don't want to limit God by trying to hold Him within a book.

Kona, I don't deny the possibility that there is a God. As I've said already a few times, I don't believe there is a God, but I still admit there is a possibility that there is a God, somewhere, somehow.  The thing I am sure about is that all religions are crap, manmade, with the sole purpose of taking advantage of gulable people. Cherish your God, but be independant about it. Don't rely on some other mortal who claims to speak the words of God, cause he's lying to you. Just let it be between you and your God.
Maybe there is a God. But if there is one indeed, I'm sure that it's the very same one for everybody. Buddha, Yaveh, Jehovah, God, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, ... If there is a God, they probably are all the same guy.  Don't rely on a book written by man, just think for yourself and feel for yourself. Develop your own intimate relationship with your God.

I'm not anti-God. I know some very peacefull people whom I love dearly who have a beautifull relationship with their God. I personally don't believe in it. But I don't deny that their belief is beautiful.  But religion is not beautiful. Religion is ugly. Religion is all about power, control and money.

and 'if God does care for his creation, why then is there pain and suffering?',

‘Earthquake Claims 10,000 in India.’ ‘Thousands Perish in Bangladesh’s Flood.’ Tragedy is constantly in the news, including large-scale, ‘senseless’ disasters that snuff out the lives of thousands, such as the terrorist attacks on New York’s World Trade Center. Nor is tragedy confined to today—it wasn’t too long ago that an evil regime wiped out 6 million Jews and many others. In addition to the headline events, each of us suffers pain at one time or another—illness, headaches, accidents and death. It’s not surprising, when the burdens become too great, that people cry out to God in anguish, ‘Why don’t you do anything? Don’t you care?’

How can an all-powerful, loving God allow suffering?
As the shock of each traumatic event subsides, people begin asking why such things occur. Reading about past wars or visiting memorials like the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., inevitably raises the same question, ‘How can there be a loving God controlling the universe in the light of such death and suffering?’How can an all-powerful, loving God allow suffering?

interesting read beware it is long http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/death_suffering.asp?vPrint=1

How can an all-powerful, loving God allow suffering?

population control.

Actually, I have my own thoughts about those questions, and I think that there's a greater purpose than the simple accounting of numbers. I truly believe that those kind of events are necessary for our overall growth as intelligent beings.

My point was that even if God came to earth, waved at us, and said 'Here I am!', and then left, those questions would still remain.

Merely proving the existence of God (assuming it's even possible to do so), wouldn't necessarily solve everything else.

The thing I am sure about is that all religions are crap, manmade, with the sole purpose of taking advantage of gulable people

But religion is not beautiful. Religion is ugly. Religion is all about power, control and money.

It is true that man has used religion for political gain. Hitler had "God with us" engraved on the belts of Nazi soldiers. America said, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." The law may even allow you to start the Christian Nazi Party, if you so desire. You can become a "reverend" for a few dollars through the tabloid classifieds and then further your political agenda with the world's blessing, no matter how much it smears the name of Christ. If Jesus told His followers to love their enemies, and someone puts a knife into someone's back in the name of Christianity, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something isn't quite right. If we human beings can detect it, how much more will God? He will deal with it on Judgment Day.

TheRatedPG,

Your link was interesting. I personally have a problem with the idea that we are made to suffer as punishment for the sin of Adam. A just God isn't going to blame (or punish) the son for the sins of the father.

Here's another religious perspective on that concept:

http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs07.htm

http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/Multiverse_StanfordUniv_March2003.pdf

Many other interesting links by this scientist.

It is possible to get highly intricate order out of chaos under the right conditions - is life the spreme strange attractor?

by the way chris TH. When providing links, it is better to provide a page rather than an instant download. That way people who are not familiar with computers are not confused or possibilities of downloading virus. Thanks though