The Case for God (page 7)

FlyingHighNow

You should read Jehovah Unmasked, written by a former JW. Gives you a lot of food for thought.

drwtsn32

When do I think man was created?...um dunno, the time period still wouldn't prove evolution true regardless, even if it was millions of years ago.

While time is a necessary component for evolution to happen, the time period itself does not "prove evolution."

Your last sentence is true but you can't always base your arguments against someone's view that you may have improperly labeled within the norm.

You're right, I did make some assumptions. Most Christians believe the global deluge happened ~4000 years ago (due to biblical chronology). And most think man was created ~6000 years ago. And I figured you were probably a young earth creationist when you called the science dating methods "flawed."

We got on this tangent because of a statement about tectonic activity not existing before the deluge. That's a ridiculous position, IMO...just like the idea that the global deluged carved the grand canyon, and pushed mountains up.

drwtsn32

You guys should let go of the idea that God has to be the one who created this material universe we know or that he is a punisher.

Oh FHN...I let go of that idea a long, long time ago. :)

FlyingHighNow

Fundie thinking isn't traditional to everyone. It's only traditional to fundies.

middleman

"My former belief in God and everyones elses is based on what enviroment you were raised in and what you were told."

Why do y'all write stuff like this? That's often times true yes, but I know plenty of people raised in atheist homes that became Christians and visa versa...as well as other faiths. This way of thought strikes me as a cop out...just my opinion.

donny

"My former belief in God and everyones elses is based on what enviroment you were raised in and what you were told."

Why do y'all write stuff like this? That's often times true yes, but I know plenty of people raised in atheist homes that became Christians and visa versa...as well as other faiths. This way of thought strikes me as a cop out...just my opinion

Yes, they became Christians or whatever religion they chose because of what they were told. It was not due to a long and careful anaysis of facts and data, they did it because they wanted to believe in something.

I am not bashing folks who want to believe if that helps them get through the day, I really do wish the promises of everlasting life/heaven/paradise or whatever future eternal bliss is promised were true. Who would not want this kind of future? But wanting it, however stongly, does not make it true.

Don

middleman

"And I figured you were probably a young earth creationist when you called the science dating methods "flawed."

It's ok, I believe the methods are flawed based off of what I've researched and seen. Scientists are constantly at odds dating things based off of what strata they found them in. When they find a living index fossil that wasn't supposed to be in a certain era/strata (as they often have), then it's back to the drawing board again. I can/will explain that one sometime but it will be a Leolia (spelling?) type post, though maybe not as articulate lol. Dating the rocks from the fossils and the fossils from the rocks is circular reasoning at best. I've even seen this inadvertently admitted in some scientific journals.

We got on this tangent because of a statement about tectonic activity not existing before the deluge. That's a ridiculous position, IMO...just like the idea that the global deluged carved the grand canyon, and pushed mountains up."

I'm not saying I believe this for sure but I was merely throwing out there one of the theories that Christians believe

middleman

"Yes, they became Christians or whatever religion they chose because of what they were told. It was not due to a long and careful anaysis of facts and data, they did it because they wanted to believe in something."

I'm sorry I don't follow your bad ill misplaced generalizations. You're telling only what happens sometimes but not always sir. I have friends that were satanists that weren't told to believe in God or Jesus but did so on their own accord. Also, one of my friend's dad (that is a scientist-not sure the field) actually started to believe in God because of trying to disprove God through science and prove evolution for himself. My girlfriend's grandpa is a deist (though not a Christian) and he's a scientist also that has the "facts and data". In fact, he's helping us look for life on Mars since he's on the Mars rover expedition NASA team, though he works for JPL. It's more than just data...it's how you read it...

Take care now...

UnDisfellowshipped

Wow! I am glad to see that this thread has (hopefully) sparked a good, deep, debate! That's what I was hoping for. That's why I kept my initial post short and concise -- kind of an overview or outline of the arguments for God's existence, and not a long, deep post including every detail of each argument. I will go into the details and logic of each argument in my replies to all of you.

Below I am going to start to reply to everyone in the order that they posted:

JWFacts said:

"Interesting arguments, but each is flawed so not really a proof for God."

Well, I agree that 100% proof does not exist for God (or nearly anything for that matter), and it also depends on what criteria you accept as "evidence" or "proof."

Now, whether or not they are "flawed" is something we can debate here.

JWFacts said:

"[Quoting UnDisfellowshipped: Big Bang - Everything that begins to exist has a cause]. This is not strictly correct, everything did not begin at the big bang, the theory is that there was already a point mass that exploded at the big bang. If you remove the word "begins" it is still falls apart in this theory that states that God exists but without a cause."

Correct me if I am wrong on this, but it is my understanding that the Big Bang Theory says that Time, Space, and Matter all began in an instant, either at the Big Bang Explosion, or right before the Big Bang Explosion. Does science say anything about how or what kind of "point mass" would have existed before Time or Matter or Space existed?

Scientifically speaking, before the instant when Time, Space, and Matter began to exist, wouldn't nothing have existed (at least nothing physical)? If nothing physical existed before the instant when Time, Space, and Matter began, then how is it even possible for Time, Space, and Matter to come into existence, without a cause?

Now, about God not having a beginning: The way I understand it, either Something has always existed, or Some one has always existed . So, it just all boils down to which one makes the most sense logically, and fits into the available evidence best.

Basically, the way I see it, you have three choices as to what to believe about the Origin of the Universe:

1:) The Universe (Time, Space, and Matter) always existed. (But this is shown to be wrong from all of the modern evidence for the Big Bang Theory)

2:) The Universe (Time, Space, and Matter) was caused to exist by some Timeless, Spaceless, Non-Physical Being.

3:) The Universe (Time, Space, and Matter) came into existence on its own, with no cause, from nothing, for no reason.

Option # 2 seems the most reasonable to me out of those three choices.

middleman

"I am not bashing folks who want to believe if that helps them get through the day, I really do wish the promises of everlasting life/heaven/paradise or whatever future eternal bliss is promised were true. Who would not want this kind of future? But wanting it, however stongly, does not make it true."

I can accept your sincerity here and I appreciate that. It's true that mere "wanting" an afterlife doesn't make it fact and I agree, but explaining it away won't make you a partaker of eternal life, if it does exist.

The Case for God

Share this