Explain to me challenge
Offline Now you people must have a good grasp on how our world was created?
I suppose that you would throw Evolution at me, am I wrong?
I speak to you now.. not to try to trick you or decieve you but to "rationally" explain to you why some things are.
I speak facts nothing I say will stray from the absolute truth.
1)-The universe began 14.5 billion or so years ago.
I ask you, how is this possible that time can begin?
-my reasoning: God created an alternate plain of existance to banish the doubters. i know theres no proof.
2)-At the begining of our eath 4.5~billion years ago, there where the nessisary elements to create organic matter... organic matter: The remains, residues, or waste products of any organism... now I know I am not a scientist, but I know for a Fact man can not create life.
So how could nothing create life?
-my reasoning: God must of formed the first single celled organism, and sparked evolution every step of the way. You can not rebute this statement without putting faith in another statement of equal falsehood.
3)- The bible explains 2 stories of the begining, and reason for. Adam and Eve, and The fall of the Morning Star (lucifer)
you may ask how Adam and Eve is totally bogus, but lets combine both stories the way they where ment to be.. 
-my reasoning (inlightened): Adam and Eve does not speak of the homosapian being born, but of "man." Now remember that prophets where men too, and so where the people who they spoke to, they had to explain a begining to them that they could believe. If you lived in a time where there was not proof for evolution, would you take it as the truth? No, of coarse not, that story was saved till.. now. When "man" was created it was in Gods image, not nessisarily the form we are in now, possibly a body made of light or energy in Heaven, or as Adam and Eve refers to it as "the garden of eden." The tree of knowlege refers to the story of "the morning star" when lucifer gained the knowlege that he did not need God to exist, and acted against God, where God punished him, and everyone to Earth. This must of been around 14.5 billion years ago, when the universe was created, its' soul purpose, to test man's faith and belief in God.
Now now, God doesn't hold a grudge, but waits for you to prove yourself in a lifetime that you are worthy to stand in his presance, away from pain an hunger.
I also ask you, why bother not believing in God, when you can believe in him just as easy, thats all he asks, nothing more. Religeon was intened to spread the word of God, not inforce it. I don't know what faith I am, I guess I'm my own. I have much more information to share, but I ask you to take this information for now.
O yea and that whole Jesus thing.. yah he said he was a CHILD of God, not his son, and that we are all his children, blame the Christians for labeling him the "one true son of God."
I'm a fucking prophet.
- Login to post comments
Yes you are. Evolution is biology and has nothing to do with how planets are created.
This is a logical fallacy known as "Ad Ignorantum" You are stating that since we don't know for a fact how time can begin, then it must be because of your god. Your theory is quite interesting, but without any data or evidence to back it up there is really no reason to even entertain it.
Another perfect example of the "Ad Ignorantum" logical fallacy. Even though the abiogenesis problem hasn't been solved yet, scientists have several very promising theories. None of which mind you involve a deity.
I'm confused as to why you even believe in the bible. From what I've read so far you seem to accept that evolution is a fact, and that the earth and universe is older than 6,000 years which is an obvious contradiction of what the bible says. If you realize that this part of the bible is incorrect, then why do you treat the rest as fact?
Evidence for this? I thought you said in the beginning that "I speak facts nothing I say will stray from the absolute truth." well I would love to hear where you got this absolute truth for the above statement.
Man I really thought that someone was going to come in here and not mention pascal's wager for once.
Which god? The above could be said for any deity. It doesn't actually give any good reason to believe in yours over any other.
Most of the people here agree that Jesus most likely never existed and is just the product of several other savior myths that were common of that area and time.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Again with the bassakwards Christian way of thinking.
Christians seem to think that if we cannot prove how the universe was made, that it proves it was made by Gawd Fairy.
That thought is irrational.
I could say that since no one can prove how the universe was made, it proves that it was made by purple love monkeys.
I could say that since no one can prove how the universe was made , it proves that it was made my florescent green flabbergammers.
I could say that since no one can prove how the universe was made it proves that I made it.
Do you see the fundamental flaw in your logic?
Before you believe in something you are supposed to see scientific, verifiable proof that it exists...you are not supposed to believe in something just because nothing else has been proven to be the explanation.
www.myspace.com/therationalrayven
ah.. hopeless, o well. Personally I dont care that you don't believe, but if you can't prove me worng, then we are at a stand still.
I'm a fucking prophet.
What would be proving you wrong? Showing you how a proof you gave us doesn't work?
And if you didn't care about the topic or really thought everything was hopeless you wouldn't be here. That would be like me saying, "I know it won't do any good and I don't care, but...."
No need to lie. You're here because you doubt. It's OK.
Either that or you're just here to preach, and that's just boring.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Well assuming that you believe in Yahweh, we could prove you wrong because he is contradictory by definition.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Here are some examples of where a theory of god/mystic intervention has been used to explain the unknown and then later proven incorrect...
1) Indigenous religions - Many of these religions believe(d) that very large animals and great hunter gods/etc were the reason for the creation and movement of the planets/sun. -- Disproven to a high probablility(who knows maybe the giant turtle god is able to change his form to appear invisible and he perfectly moves in accordance to the laws of planetary motion) due to the invention of the telescope and space exploration.
2) Various medical treatments -- Things like boring holes in the head to let out the evil sprits, blood letting, etc also disproven to a high probability (maybe evil spirits pretend to be bacteria and viriuses when ppl look at them then go back to being spirit-like when we arent looking) by medical science, and the microscope.
3) Gods in charge of crop success/fertililty/etc (use of sacrifice) Again as our scientific knowledge expands, explinations are found that accurately and repetably explain why crops fail or people become pregnant that are not mystical in nature.
Ya see the thing about science is that it makes very specific predictions, and when those predictions stand up to repeated testing then the idea is considered to be scientifically sound, although not infailable. When they don't hold up, science tries to change to reflect the new information(sometimes they even say they don't know the answer at this time (gasp)). The new theory is then put to the test by trying to make new predictions. The fact that there is a scientifc method lends credibility(to logical people) to the notion that science > religion.
What are the odds that your mystical theory of creation is correct this time? Many people have come up with "theories" based on religion (flat earth, non-eccentric orbits, earth central solar system, and on and on and on and on) they are wrong. How about showing me a single god attributed explination that has been shown to be correct to a high probability? Just one? It seems like everytime there is an unknown (or even a known) there is a mystical god explaination for then event that is later(or currently) disproven to a high degree of probablity by science.
So in the (insert large number here) of times that religious/mystical solutions have been theorized to be the solution to an unknown how many times has the mystical solution been correct? In the cases that man has been able to come up with a highly probable solution it has always been a logical, non-mystic science-based solution. Does it mean that its impossible that god created life? No, but it makes it improbable and no more likely that (insert random god here) did it.
When you add the fact that we really have no physical verifiable proof of the existance of a deity (you'd think with him being involved in every aspect of every person's life there might be some proof (assuming you beleive in a personal god)) and that religion comes in so many opposing versions its hard for someone who is logical to think that the religious explaination is the most realistic/probable solution. Back in the day God seemed to be involved in daily life striking ppl down, setting villages on fire, making ppl speak strange languages, destroying idols and idoloters so what happend? Is god hiding now that we have science to explain the shit the ppl didn't know about back in the day
So what evidence do you have that makes you think that your god-solution to this problem is correct?
It couldnt be the bible (pretty much the single source of all information about the christian god)...The book you ppl use to come up with the notion of god was put together piecemeal by a bunch of men...everyone knows this...how is this divine?????????? what would even make you think this was divine to begin with? Was it the accuracy of the information? haha...was it because the editors/letter writers claimed to be inspired by "god"??
Hell, I can walk down the street and find many ppl that claim to be inspired by god(some of them actually claiming to be god) yet for some reason they don't seem to be able to do anything other than what is predicted by science... Why that particular book why not another?
How many times must you try to fit the square peg into the round, triangular, star-shaped, trapezoidal, etc holes before you actually try it in the square hole? I dont understand. Theist are like Charlie Brown trying to kick the damn football with Lucy holding it...
Out of curiosity, what would happen if scientists create a reproducable experiement that shows how materials/chemicals existing in the universe could produce "life"? How would that effect your religious beliefs?
Excellent question. I'd like to see that posted as a thread over on the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
very well done thedude27, I love the Charlie brown comparison.
This is the one part of your post I feel the need to address. Relativity theory has suggested for quite some time that space-time is non-euclidean in nature. As such, the possibility of a finite but unbounded universe seems to me to be the most likely (suggest first, as far as I know, by Stephen Hawking).
Since a finite but unbounded 4-dimentional space-time is something we obviously can't picture, I will separate time out and describe how it might look in isolation. We can imagine time as a line (1-dimensional). Since we are explaining how time can begin, it cannot extend infinitely into the past (let us arbitrarily call left "the past" and right "the future"
. For no real reason, let us also assume that time will have an end, so it does not extend infinitely into the future, either. This leaves us with a horizontal line segment.
Mathematically, this line represents infinitely many individual points, linearly ordered and with finite, universally bounded distances from each other. We can think of them as all the fractions between 0 and 1 (I chose 0 and 1 arbitrarily and what numbers are used doesn't matter at all. I also arbitrarily decided to restrict it to the fractions for the sake of simplicity in example).
Looking at a finite interval such as this, a natural question to ask for anyone familiar with abstract math is whether or not we are including the endpoints in this interval. For this example, we are leaving off the endpoints.
This basically means that whatever time we want to look at can be represented by a fraction more than 0 and less than 1. For no real reason, let us say that the current moment is 1/3. Going back in time, the number gets lower and lower. The further back we go, the lower the number gets. As we approach the beginning of the universe, the number representing our temporal location gets closer and closer to 0, but no matter how close we get, we can never actually reach 0. No matter how small a fraction you can think of in this range, it's still bigger than 0.
Thus, we can see that the universe may have a finite age and yet not have a moment of beginning.
Please, for those of you reading this with no familiarity with calculus or relativistic physics, realize that this is only one potential representation of how the universe may look and it is heavily oversimplified. If you are interested in understanding it better, please look into solutions to Xeno's paradox, calculus and non-euclidean geometry.