OldBrownsFan Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 1) you really haven't pointed out actual evidence against evolution or in support of creationism. You're just following the science denier playbook which says "throw a bunch of shit at the wall, if the other side can't completely disprove everything, I win." I invite you to go one at a time.2) Einstein, in those letters, said "call me agnostic". He also said what you believe is childish. So, if you're calling Einstein's opinion the end all be all, you're wrong. About many things.3) what about hawking? He's pretty smart... I will let Einstein speak for himself here as to whether he believed in God as these quotes below are from him. I posted before Einstein did not believe in the God of the bible or a personal God. “This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”[15] “What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”[14] “I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”[13] “My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”[12] “The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”[11] “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”[10] “Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”[9] “Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”[8] http://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einstein-believe-in-god Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Well, I believe it's an irresponsible cheapshot to go after somebody's kids. Liberals went after Bush's kids, but if anybody ever cricitzes obamao's kids...well, they'd better not. And liberals always want "serious" discussion, on a civilized level. Until they decide to go low blow personal vendettas at anybody who doesn't toe the line and stop believing in what they don't believe in. well, if Logic, blowehard, and woodyasswipepeckerhead would take one minute, stfu, and do a little searchie, they could find out why being arrogant ass about evolution isn't all that validated. Science CAN BE WRONG. http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/ http://www.kc-cofc.org/39th/Lectures/2001%20Manuscripts/RichardMasseyMissingLinks.PDF http://www.gotquestions.org/flaws-theory-evolution.html http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution Cal if that is in reference to what Logic said it was such a goofy statement I didn't take offense. I just thought it was a juvenile remark from someone who tries to take the intellectual high ground in these debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 1) you really haven't pointed out actual evidence against evolution or in support of creationism. You're just following the science denier playbook which says "throw a bunch of shit at the wall, if the other side can't completely disprove everything, I win." I invite you to go one at a time. 2) Einstein, in those letters, said "call me agnostic". He also said what you believe is childish. So, if you're calling Einstein's opinion the end all be all, you're wrong. About many things. 3) what about hawking? He's pretty smart... How can you prove creationism? I'm not sure, but is it not implied that creation by God is the creation of something out of nothing? You would have to prove creationism through science, but then it wouldn't be creationism but rather a scientific explanation. The best answer a believer has to explain creationism is to say "look around you". Yeah it sound like a cop out, but watchya gonna do? Its faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 How can you prove creationism? You would have to prove it through science, but then it wouldn't be creationism but rather a scientific explanation. I think that sums it up well Stuart. I got this link I thought was interesting: Is there an argument for the existence of God?Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak. To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.” In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all: 1. Reality is an illusion. 2. Reality is/was self-created. 3. Reality is self-existent (eternal). 4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent. So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated. Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out. Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads: • Something exists. • Nothing cannot create something. • Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists. Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter? To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal. Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated. Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements: • Something exists. • You do not get something from nothing. • Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists. • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator. • Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists. Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.” But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised: • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space). • He must be powerful (exceedingly). • He must be eternal (self-existent). • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it). • He must be timeless and changeless (He created time). • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical. • He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality). • He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. • He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature. • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything. • He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver). • He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given). These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7). One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist. Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html#ixzz3dY2idIHe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 How can you prove creationism? You would have to prove it through science, but then it wouldn't be creationism but rather a scientific explanation. Its actually simple, instead of finding fossils dating back 100's of millions if not billions of years, pre historic humans, understanding plate tetonics and how there used to be one continent Pangaea...etc, you would basically just find an end point where you find predating this point no form of life and following this point massive increase in life that matches the animals\humans\insects that are around today(minus ones that may have gone extinct) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 How can you prove creationism? I'm not sure, but is it not implied that creation by God is the creation of something out of nothing? You would have to prove creationism through science, but then it wouldn't be creationism but rather a scientific explanation. The best answer a believer has to explain creationism is to say "look around you". Yeah it sound like a cop out, but watchya gonna do? Its faith. Well then, I think that settles the question of whether or not it should be taught in school science classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I will let Einstein speak for himself here as to whether he believed in God as these quotes below are from him. I posted before Einstein did not believe in the God of the bible or a personal God. “This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”[15] “What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”[14] “I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”[13] “My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”[12] “The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”[11] “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”[10] “Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”[9] “Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”[8] http://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einstein-believe-in-god He also said "you may call me agnostic" In the end though, it is a real catch-22 for you. Either we just disregard what Einstein said, but then you can't try to use him to "support" creationism, or at the very least, the existence of some god. Or you use his views, but then you have to use ALL of what he said. And if we look at ALL of what he said, he called you're views of a personal god "childish". I'm sure he'd have a few choice words for someone that believed a man lived in a fish too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 He also said "you may call me agnostic" In the end though, it is a real catch-22 for you. Either we just disregard what Einstein said, but then you can't try to use him to "support" creationism, or at the very least, the existence of some god. Or you use his views, but then you have to use ALL of what he said. And if we look at ALL of what he said, he called you're views of a personal god "childish". I'm sure he'd have a few choice words for someone that believed a man lived in a fish too... I already said Einstein did not believe in the God of the bible. It is no catch 22 for me at all. I just take what he said and quote him. He believed in God but not a personal God. Now as to what Einstein would say to someone who believed a man lived in a fish: Here is what Einstein said about Jesus: “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene . . . . No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrase-mongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.” Now we know how he feels about Jesus. So what does Jesus say about the man swallowed by a fish? Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. It looks like the same Jesus whom Einstein praised as to colossal for the pen of phrase-mongers also believed in the story of a man being swallowed by a fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I'll quote Mustaine.. "If I'm right I lose nothing, if you're right I lose it all" Make your call... I'm comfortable with mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I already said Einstein did not believe in the God of the bible. It is no catch 22 for me at all. I just take what he said and quote him. He believed in God but not a personal God. Now as to what Einstein would say to someone who believed a man lived in a fish: Here is what Einstein said about Jesus: “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene . . . . No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrase-mongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.” Now we know how he feels about Jesus. So what does Jesus say about the man swallowed by a fish? Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. It looks like the same Jesus whom Einstein praised as to colossal for the pen of phrase-mongers also believed in the story of a man being swallowed by a fish. Sure, he believes Jesus existed and was important (as do most people). That doesn't mean he thinks Jesus is the son of god, with all of the superpowers that comes with apparently... Again though, you don't get it (a common theme it seems). You're using Einstein to help support your argument. Except, one of the most straightforward quotes we have from Einstein is basically saying he thinks your beliefs are childish. You aren't helping yourself by continuing to trumpet Einstein around like you've won something.... I know in your mind all you see is "Smart science guy that said some things about god... guy living in a fish confirmed!" while blocking out everything else. But hell, maybe you'll get it eventually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I already said Einstein did not believe in the God of the bible. It is no catch 22 for me at all. I just take what he said and quote him. He believed in God but not a personal God. Now as to what Einstein would say to someone who believed a man lived in a fish: Here is what Einstein said about Jesus: “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene . . . . No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrase-mongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.” Now we know how he feels about Jesus. So what does Jesus say about the man swallowed by a fish? Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. It looks like the same Jesus whom Einstein praised as to colossal for the pen of phrase-mongers also believed in the story of a man being swallowed by a fish. Einstein wasn't infallible and Jesus was trying to sucker a bunch of goat herders into joining his team. Anyone who believes in the story of Jonah in the modern era is either willfully ignorant or fond of licking windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Asswipe woodypeckerhead strikes again. Einstein called HIS OWN beliefs "childish". It wasn't a derogatory term. Believers are children of God. Innocent, trusting, in awe of things childlike belief - that's how I read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I'll quote Mustaine.. "If I'm right I lose nothing, if you're right I lose it all" Make your call... I'm comfortable with mine Yeah, I should definitely make my decisions based on fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Sure, he believes Jesus existed and was important (as do most people). That doesn't mean he thinks Jesus is the son of god, with all of the superpowers that comes with apparently... Again though, you don't get it (a common theme it seems). You're using Einstein to help support your argument. Except, one of the most straightforward quotes we have from Einstein is basically saying he thinks your beliefs are childish. You aren't helping yourself by continuing to trumpet Einstein around like you've won something.... I know in your mind all you see is "Smart science guy that said some things about god... guy living in a fish confirmed!" while blocking out everything else. But hell, maybe you'll get it eventually First of all you asked what Einstein would think of a person who believed a man was swallowed by a fish and I showed you Einstein thought very highly of him (Jesus). I know what Einstein said about the bible being childish beliefs. He believed in God but did not believe in a personal God. How many times can I say this. I am only bringing him up as someone smart enough to figure out some of the mysteries of the universe and believing that God had created it. So, what was the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God? Einstein recognized the remarkable design and order of the cosmos, but could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth? Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. Where Einstein erred was in that thinking that there was a god who designed the universe, but designed it in such as way as to allow evil without a purpose. If the universe were designed and it included evil, then there must have been a purpose for that evil. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good ones. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Asswipe woodypeckerhead strikes again. Einstein called HIS OWN beliefs "childish". It wasn't a derogatory term. Believers are children of God. Innocent, trusting, in awe of things childlike belief - that's how I read it. Cal, he also followed his quote about belief in a "personal God" as being childlike with quotes about how he believed that he could not take it seriously. " "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Yes, but he was talking about a "personal God"...not denying the existence of God. Agnostic. And "childlike" directly refers to innocence http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/childlike. Not so much as a skeptical adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Yes, but he was talking about a "personal God"...not denying the existence of God. Agnostic. And "childlike" directly refers to innocence http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/childlike. Not so much as a skeptical adult. His quotes all thrown together definitely does not make it seem like he was using childlike in the "childlike wonder" sense. He was definitely agnostic but did not think highly of the anthropomorphic personal god (i.e. christian God, Buddha, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 here's an interesting study: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/19/studies-shocking-conclusion-about-what-some-atheists-really-believe-about-a-creator/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Yeah, I should definitely make my decisions based on fear. Apparently , you see fear in that half glass where I see freewill... Then again, you know so much more than I.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 First of all you asked what Einstein would think of a person who believed a man was swallowed by a fish and I showed you Einstein thought very highly of him (Jesus). I know what Einstein said about the bible being childish beliefs. He believed in God but did not believe in a personal God. How many times can I say this. I am only bringing him up as someone smart enough to figure out some of the mysteries of the universe and believing that God had created it. So, what was the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God? Einstein recognized the remarkable design and order of the cosmos, but could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth? Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. Where Einstein erred was in that thinking that there was a god who designed the universe, but designed it in such as way as to allow evil without a purpose. If the universe were designed and it included evil, then there must have been a purpose for that evil. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good ones. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle. "Einstein is very smart. Look, he believed in a god. That validates my beliefs" then "Einstein didn't have it all right. My personal god does exist. Einstein just didn't get that" Don't you see? You can't have that both ways. Also: Einstein - "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." How about Steven Hawking? Do his thoughts matter? "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Apparently , you see fear in that half glass where I see freewill... Then again, you know so much more than I.. Believe or the red boogeyman will torture you forever. Seems pretty much a fear motivated decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I just thought of the perfect analogy to this: "But, but, J-Jesus said that man did live inside that fish" "Well boy, Jesus is wrong again" "No! You're wrong!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Einstein wasn't infallible and Jesus was trying to sucker a bunch of goat herders into joining his team. Anyone who believes in the story of Jonah in the modern era is either willfully ignorant or fond of licking windows. Einstein wasn't infallible. When Albert Einstein first proposed his General Theory of Relativity in 1916, he discovered somewhat of an irritating fact. For centuries scientists had viewed the universe as eternal and uncaused, however Einstein’s theory begged to differ. According to his theory, the entire universe – including all space, time, matter, and energy – was not eternal but had an actual beginning in the finite past. This implication flew right in the face of his belief in a static universe and deeply bothered Einstein, so much so that he actually introduced a “fudge factor” (known as the cosmological constant) to his equations so that instead of implying a finite universe, his theory would show a static universe instead. However, his insistence to avoid an absolute beginning would not last for long. Only a few years later, in 1919, it was confirmed by the British cosmologist Arthur Eddington (to much of his dismay as well) that Einstein’s theory was actually true, that the universe did indeed have a beginning. "Einstein is very smart. Look, he believed in a god. That validates my beliefs" then Liberals are great at making straw man arguments and knocking them down. I never said Einstein believing in God validated my beliefs. You said that because you make things up and then argue something that was never said. You and Obama have that in common. I have always liked and admired Einstein and thought he was a brilliant human being. I quote him as an answer to atheism as he was not an atheist. Einstein said this: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."5 "Einstein didn't have it all right. My personal god does exist. Einstein just didn't get that" Just pointing out a reason why Einstein could not believe in a personal God. No more no less. Don't you see? You can't have that both ways. If I was using him as an example to support a personal God then you would be right but I am not. Also: Einstein - "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." How about Steven Hawking? Do his thoughts matter? "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I just thought of the perfect analogy to this: "But, but, J-Jesus said that man did live inside that fish" "Well boy, Jesus is wrong again" "No! You're wrong!" Woody: The mind of a 13 year old at work with a silly youtube video to show he is so smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I am reposting this Woody as you ignored it: Is there an argument for the existence of God? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:1. Reality is an illusion.2. Reality is/was self-created.3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:• Something exists.• Nothing cannot create something.• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated. Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:• Something exists.• You do not get something from nothing.• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.” But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).• He must be powerful (exceedingly).• He must be eternal (self-existent).• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7). One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist. Read more: http://www.gotquesti...l#ixzz3dY2idIHe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Yes, how dare i continue to post my same opinions on this board. It sucks I'm the only one that does it. All of your posts are always fresh and new.... Didn't I just say that repeating my position would be boring? So what are you whining about? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.