Welcome to Gaia! ::

So this is the rout that I thought you'd go and I have to admit that its an "ok" rout but I'll point out a few informational flaws on popular theory and person bias you have put into your work here, not only in your "proof" for the existance of God but also in those theories which are highly accepted by the people who DO believe in devine rule. So here we go:






Fine up to here....accept that matter also exists in quantum "dark" and "anti" forms as well. Some of which do not obey the standard forms of the first law of thermodynamics so then it would seem there is SOME of this reality that already breaks that law thus your theory is already flawed.



Here we have a huge problem as we already have a model for the big bang and how it "happened" and there is outer rim radiation that is postulated to have been a byproduct of the big bang. This "malarky" you seem to pass off as a rediculous theory is actually the most popular theory in the history of the sciences about the creation of the universe and is considered even by intelligent design scientists to be the most logical idea. Not only that but if you map how the big bang would look in order for it to take place it ressembles almost exactly the ressonance of human vocal chords.....thats not really important information but thought provoking......in any case you see, you are showing an emotional and personal bias here that is INCREDIBLY short sighted and seems to me to be quite uninformed.



This is a good thing but isn't it more logical that the matter was condensed into a single point in spacetime and stayed that way. Is it also not all the more plausable, or at LEAST AS plausible that this universe is not the first of it's kind and thus reality works in patterns much like we see every day? That at some point in some distant past there was a universe like this one that condensed into that point and then exploded and recreated itself? How is that much different than believing that God created it from nothing? The probability of the universe having been eternally existant is exactly the same as God himself being eternal. Thats only logical.



I'm pretty sure that this is CS Lewis, first five Chapters of Mere Christianity almost exactly. And I like where your heads at here, unfortunately it's impossible to prove. As you will show below.



Your conclusion here does not support your views....so studies have shown morality is learned? If it is learned then it is not intrinsic and can be skewed if taught incorrectly and thus is not something that exists outside of us....it has to be taught and therefore people are not born with the knowledge of right vs wrong but that it is TAUGHT and therefore is relative.......your second paragraph is proof for the first one so the last sentence you wrote in the first paragraph "There is no proof for this" is defeated by your very next paragraph.



Something cannot come from nothing, accept that quantum behavior doesn't exibit these traits and so you are wrong about at least the majority of reality, which is only explainable by sub particle physics. "Accept by an all powerful occrance" is also ad hoc as there is no reason to believe something can come from nothing at ALL, even BY devine occurance. To me...if you really are logical...then explain to me how even God (who created a reality that obeys rules that are within his own nature) could even make something just "pop" into existance where there was literally nothing before.....to me he must have had something to look foreward too.



Yes this is true....we do not act on intrinsics...which means we have to be taught the difference between right and wrong and we do not inherently know it.....so....how is this a proof for the existance of God?



Flawed, humans do not share a common morality and have no throughout history....we know of quite many cultures where killing and maiming and raping were not considered wrong at all. Rome....to name one in particular.



Sounds to me like your doubts were well founded and you should have went with them. There are a lot better arguements for the existance of God then this. More specifically within quantum physics...which is probably the closest thing to actuality that we have encountered so far.

Don't take this too horribly but what you have written above is naively wrong. The overwhelming insurmountable facts of the matter are that the big bang theory is most probably the closest idea we have ever had to the truth. Not only that but evolution totally lies within the bounds of christian thinking and to think that it does not is again Naive....think about it, simple question, if God wanted to create the world using evolution and describe that process with a short story metaphore, could he not?



Unless of course "morality" is merely a word we ascribe to those attributes that guiding rule preffers. Say....Adam didn't like his sons doing such and such...the reasons he didn't like it were that he was simply annoyed by it or that he loved them or whatever....point is Adam says don't do it because.......Adam doesn't like it. Twenty five thousand years later Adam telling his sons not to steal via rule of law (as in those things Adam worked for are his so they can't have them) has been passed down from son to son to son society to society until even now today it is law. But not because God made it that way, because Adam decided he liked it that way. Show me how this is NOT a possibility?



If you think God can defy nature then tell me how. *shrugs* Give me SOME explanation as to how the universe (which was created within his own nature) could have acted outside of his nature at any point....God cannot act outside of his own nature, lest he would not be God. So if nature can't do something now, God's nature dictates that it cannot...and if God's nature dictates that it cannot now then it also dictates that it could not possible have ever.

No only that but you provide no explanation for why that thing that is eternal could not have been that spec of particles stuffed together into one point in spacetime until its collected energy was so great it exploded in a nuclear energy release on a mass scale....tell me why that can't be. Tell me why it is that it MUST be God that is the eternal thing and created all things...were you there? We cannot go back any further then this because before this we only had a singular point in spacetime thus we can't calculate what all the matter that is currently in the universe was doing before a big bang. You show a blatent missunderstanding of the big bang here. It is not at all the case that the big bang suddenly occured...and things became from nothing. What is suggested is that all matter was condensed on a singular spacetime point and gained energy over who knows how long until that matter exploded and expanded. The matter WAS ALWAYS THERE....it was not that it came out of nowhere, it was that it is was in the form of particles and energy and has been, for all eternity.

Tell me how this is not the case convincingly. Tell me how this is wrong as I doubt that it is true but I also doubt yourside is true as well. Tell me why it HAS to point to God and it cannot simply be explained away by that matter itself is eternal and not God.



I've reviewed the evidence of this as well in serious detail with many professors approaching it from the standpoint that I really didn't know what to think. With that in mind the evidence on both sides was presented and I have to tell you I am not at all convinced in either direction.

Does that make either of them false? Yes....probably....it means that there is not an acurate description to date of how the world as we know it got the way it is, but it is still possible that evolution occured in a form that we have not yet finalized. And if you deny that the evidence COULD point in that direction then you are probably commiting the same mistake as the rest of your points above.

The problem is that you aren't approaching the evidence to see what you find......you know what you WANT to find and are choosing the evidence that you think supports it and leaving the rest out. That is what I see in what you've written above. Sub particle and quantum physics supports the big bang on an overwhelming level, not the opposite. I am willing to say that the big bang may not have happened but your unwillingness to admit that it is at least a possibility (your display of being absolutely convinced that it isn't true) displays your lack of faith *shrugs*.

That is the back to another point I made earlier as well. Faith....is the ability to know what you "think" is true after reviewing the evidence to see what you find...but knowing full well that your findings very well could be false. Faith is uncommital by nature, and it is a mistake to say you "know" anything at all, or that the evidence "suggests overwhelmingly" at all unless you are a Quantum physicist and I am unaware of it......in which case I appologize....or you are an Achiologist/Biologist, which makes no difference to me there, even then your opinion is based off trying to create facts out of things from the past, not knowing what they are in the first place, which makes them not facts...it makes them educated guesses.

Science is not so concrete as you are making it sound. Science shows us things...we interpret them in whatever way we like...the problem with that is you are forced to have an opinion, but being that you have support for it you think your opinion is right but the interpretation of the evidence can certainly be flawed (take flogisten theory or even newtonian physics now) and thus we have progress....you seem theoroughly convinced you are interpreting these things correctly which means also that I could show you an animal evolving right in front of you and your interpretation would be that I manipulated it somehow.

The problem with your arguement as a whole is that you begin with where you want to end. You begin by setting out to prove one thing right and another wrong, but this is not science and it is not even considered admissable evidence.

I'll save the long message and roll my eyes at you actually linking one piece of evidance as though that poorly written article and vague information contained within is actually supposed to be enough to convince me.....I'll assume you respect my objectivity more then that.




That is simple, matter is converted to energy through nuclear reactions, when enough matter is converted to entropic energy it expands and explodes at an enourmous rate. Not a full proof plan but certainly an explanation of how it might occur I should think, don't you? I'm not claiming to be some expert on the Big Bang theory but I am claiming to not be so easily swayed toward any one side by any piece of information.



To answer your question.....yes. I have. And just because there are portions of history that cannot be explained does not dissprove any theory. So the flood happened.....ok I'm willing to accept that.....how does that defy evolution? How does one have anything to do with the other? And some of the information quoted above is absurdly wrong and you'd have to show me more then one article written from an obscure source to get me to believe that a fossil of any kind still had a lingering smell.

I hate to say this but you are begining to sound like a Christian Fanatic taking every tiny piece of evidence that even seems to suggest what you hope it does and claiming its some sort of absolute proof for how the opposing point of view is wrong. Sorry but I'll need enough evidence to be persuaded in either direction. There is certainly not enough evidence for me to say evolution is absolutely true (though on a minor scale it certainly is) but the things you suggest above really don't have any bearing whatsoever on evolution NOT being true. They are just events in history.



See, what you've said above...... This is all the more proof that even if I showed you that animal evolving that you'd call me a fraud and try and figure out how I did the trick. Show you the missing link and you don't see it as the missing link you see it as that thing you WANT to see it as.

I don't blame you for it, but I find it is wiser to have no opinion then to staunchly stand in favor of any one opinion over another based on facts that we have now. Again.....studies of those things that happened in unrecorded history are not studies of facts....they are studies of educated guesses and can never ever be considered "truth".....they are always started with "we think" and if that is the case there will always be varied interpretation of things and there will never be a "truth" to what happened. It seems unwise to pick a side so staunchly.

That the matter was compacted in the first place creating friction and gravitational forces? Name your cause. If matter is eternal as that theory suggests then essentially matter itself moving itself can be considered a cause.

But if you would like to be so staunch an advocate for this unrelenting God of yours.......if everything has to have a cause then what caused God?



I'm sure I could as well...just as I can find material on the internet that claims to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the US government is responsible for 9/11, or that Obama is going to turn us into communists. Sources are important to check out as much as the information they provide.



Thats all wonderful, but your beliefs may not be well founded if you base them on ideas that are equally not well founded and so what is worse? A person who staunchly believes in something....or who begins by believing in nothing and chooses the path that best fits from objectivity?

Your considerations....do not seem careful to me. It seems that to you....careful means....let me go look and see what proof I can find against all these things. Then you latch onto those proofs and say HA! See! I DO have reason to believe what I believe. But in the end those are not good reasons to believe what you do. They are only good reasons to not believe something else.

It is not wrong to have "staunch" belief when something seems perfectly plain to you, but to me it is not wise to protray that belief by stating that it is true because the other side is false. If I told you that I thought there was a chance 2+2=6 but you believed staunchly that 2+2=5 and all your research was simply done to prove that 2+2 does not equal 6 does that mean that because I am more wrong then you that you are right? No. The evidence you gathered doesn't support your side, it merely doesn't support my side.

I'll admit there's enough evidence against evolution for me to think the theory as a whole is inherently flawed but there are enough holes in the creation story, as well as with man and free will and justice and God himself to create just as inherently flawed. Not God himself persay, but certainly in man's ability to even grasp the concept of what God is. I don't think there is much intelligent we can say about Him and the way he "is" that will be right, unless it's by accident. There's certainly conclusions we can draw about him based off reality which is built within his nature which can present us with a little bit of an idea of what his nature is like but I'll be honest, to staunchly believe in something and to be fanatical about it are totally different.

"I'm right and I'll find every evidence to show that every other idea is wrong that way people will know I'm the only one thats right" is fanatical. "Sure I could be wrong. Of course I could be, but it doesn't seem like I am and I don't think I am." Don't sound at all alike. One portrays a fanatic....which is inherently judgemental and wrong, the other a staunch faith....

Faith REQUIRES you to admit to yourself that everything you take to be true could be totally and irreversably wrong. It REQUIRES you to admit that. But it also REQUIRES you...think you are right. Not to know....knowledge about anything would deny that faith is needed. I see in your words...that you don't have much faith. If you did then you'd realize that even if all the evidence pointed toward the big bang or evolution being right.....that even IF they were.....that God's stories about creation....actually still work and fit if they are metaphorical.

So no matter what is actually right about how the world got to be the way it is...you don't need evolution to be false for Christianity to be true....you don't need the Big Bang to be false for Christianity to be true. So don't approach them as though they are so threatening. Approach them like they are science that is supposed to describe the way the world is. The Bible is just a book....written by men....for men....so it is totally possible that their inspiration (God if you believe that) knew that eventually we'd figure out that he created reality a certain way so he made them describe it in such and such a way so that eventually we'd be able to look at reality and compare it to the Bible and say "Huh hey....that fits" rather then look at the Bible and then look at reality and say "Heyyyyy that doesn't fit! Reality must be wrong!"

Which makes more sense? that a book made of paper and written and translated by men Should be the measure of all things before hand? Or that we should measure all things before hand and see what the Bible says about them? *shrugs* to me it doesn't seem like you have much faith in the Bible at all....sounds more like you are affraid that the Bible won't be able to fit "reality"....but if the Bible really is what Christians say it is...then no matter what science discovers about reality, the Bible will be able to account for it. *shrugs*

To me...science does more for uncovering how mirracles that were described in the Bible occur and for how God actually opperates then it does for dissproving anything biblical. Evolution? So? So if that turns out to be true thats cool....the Bible just must be describing evolution to a few primitive minded individuals.....big bang theory? Thats cool. Thats a creative way to fill a void don't you think? Christianity is not in danger from the direction of science....Christianity can explain away science all it wants. God is not a dissprovable thing, he can do things however he chooses...therefore whatever science discovers....is how God made it....and thus it is.

The real trouble of the matter would be how reality itself...free will...justice...love....hate...how those things are defined and how consistent of an account of God the Bible provides and right now I am not satisfied with that. Thus my faith doesn't lie in a book with pretty gold leaf pages. It lies in God. That book, has it's value certainly but do not put so much stalk in that book that you think it IS God, rather then containing some vague truths ABOUT God.

Anyway...this turned into a rant and I didn't intend it so I'll leave it at that.

That is true but God himself must also act within his own nature, to not do so would be to contridict Himself and that would be a flaw, God can have no flaws and thus since the world was created within his nature then God must also act within that nature. I see no reason why the "supernatural" is not also a part of the natural.



Are they different in their Credability? I think you missed my point. It is about the credability of the source not the content of the article.



This is true, I did. And that was not right of me. I appologize but your arguements do make it seem as though that is true. You do not even make mention of any of the evidence supporting the other side at all.



Thats true, it supports the idea that the Bible has some true historical events in it, I would never contend that, but in supporting your idea it strengthens it but does not damage to the other idea.



The two statements bolded are a blatent contridiction of terms. To admit you have no proof for something but believe it is to leave room for doubt. To say you have no doubt is to say that do not have faith...it is to say you have knowledge. But you don't have knowledge, as you said...you have no proof, you have things that are convincing, but they are not undoubtable proof. If you did have them I don't think we'd be having this conversation.



Or is Faith actually trusting that no matter what Science finds that describes the world....the Bible will be able to explain it just fine? It breaks my heart that your Faith lies in a book that is supposed to do the same thing Science is supposed to do...describe reality....rather than in God Himself and a confidence that no matter what science finds it will either fit well within the book, or the theory will die.

Faith that cannot be shaken does not entail that you don't have doubts about the particulars. It only entails that you are sure of what you hope for even though you are quite aware that it could possibly be wrong.

And there is no science in the world that could possibly contredict the Bible. The only way it COULD, if it really is a literal interpretation of the way the physical world really is....is if you are interpreting the Bible incorrectly. The Bible does the same thing science does, describes the world. The difference is that science does it in complicated language designed for a specific target audience and the Bible does it so that the common man can understand what's happening. The two do not, and will never contridict each other. They are in different camps and should not intersect. It is never theologians job to go into a labratory and do science, just as it is never a scientists job to preach on sunday mornings. A person can be both, but they MUST realize that data is data...and scientific findings are nothing but data about the natural world. Once you start intrepreting it into theory the science part is done.

Actually I'm not a Nihilist by any sense of the word and think that to be a Nihilist is actually quite a contridiction as one cannot possibly believe in nothing.....otherwise you're doing exactly the thing you are setting out not to do......BELIEVING.....in nothing.

It must be exhausting *laughs* No no, I am fully aware that having faith of some sort is a neccessary part of existance. If you exist...then you have faith in something, it just is the way of life and unavoidable. I just choose to keep my faith about the world as logical as possible while still understanding and being perfectly fine with the idea that I am most probably wrong.....I take my comfort in knowing my private theology is no more wrong than is any one other person's.

The interesting part about the conversation above is that I never once voiced my own opinion on the matter (save for my opinions on the comparison between theology and science)...and yet I was attacked as though I was on the one holding the belief. I asked her to convince me and she gave me nothing......all the while not realizing that I am already quite convinced of the existance of God, though also quite aware that he is a metaphysical thing, which means by definition that you can say nothing meaningful about him. Thats Wittgenstein.

I take it all back. I can't believe I forgot why science is truer than religion. It has to do with the concept of something being "falsifiable". This means that it can be proven to be false. Science is falsifiable, religion is not.

I think Purete actually proved this concept when she showed the facts of The Picture That Won't Go Away. Unlike religion, science can be shown to be false, which makes it more true. Let me explain:

Science says that since all the stars are red-shifted in a specific manner, then they are moving away from us, which can shown as evidence of the Big Bang theory. If these conditions are not met then the theory can be shown to be false (or at least be this reasoning). Purete showed facts that all the stars are not all red-shifted as predicted and proved it to be false. This is science. Science is not holding on to "facts" just because we want to believe in them; science is about finding a solution, finding that it is wrong, then trying to find a better solution. It happened with Issac Newton's gravity: his equations did not account for Mercury's orbit, it wasn't until better scientists found a better theory and set of equations for gravity that Mercury's orbit now works. So if the Big Bang turns out to be wrong, then so be it, it would not be the first time science has been wrong, and science will just keep on trying to find a better answer.

Sadly, religion can never be proven to be false under any circumstances, and that makes the argument flimsy. Whenever new information is found that contradicts old information, religious people don't drop what they had and try to find a better solution. More often than not, they either try to spin the new information to fit the old ones or disregard the new information altogether.

It is like if a fortune teller said that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt will break up on exactly May 16, 2009 at 2:39pm. You could check that information and see if it was false, and if it was true you could be decently certain that the fortune teller could accurately see into the future. On the other hand, if a fortune teller only said that a celebrity will break up with someone in the next five years, you could not prove that the fortune teller was accurate because his conditions are so vague. Sure the second prediction would probably be true, but you could under no circumstances prove it false, and so how could you trust him to accurately predict the future?

The difference between a scientist and a religious person (religionist?) is that if there was sufficient falsifiable evidence that God existed then they would (or at least should) believe in God's existence. Religious people on the other hand have said (and a handful of religious people have actually said these exact words to me), "there is no amount of evidence that could prove that God does not exist for me."

To me, at least, this makes scientific answers truer than religious ones.