Pages: 1 2 [3]
Print
Author Topic: Why do you believe in God?  (Read 4057 times)
melidere
Full Member
***

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 125



Soli Deo Gloria


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 16, 2009, 07:36:54 PM »

Prove to me that we can feel God, and that it isn't just your brain, (which is remarkably good at seeing patterns and assigning things stuff).

Why should I try to prove that we can feel God? Do only things we can feel exist? What about our minds? Do they exist? According to your sieve of physical-evidence-only they do not. Yet how are we having this conversation if there are not two minds involved? Can you explain that in purely empirical terms?
Logged
London_Rain
Jr. Member
**

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


View Profile Email
« Reply #31 on: June 16, 2009, 07:41:06 PM »

I mentioned the physical WORLD. And our minds are nothing more than complex firings of the brain. I believe you are assuming that our minds are something more along the lines of spirits.
Logged
melidere
Full Member
***

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 125



Soli Deo Gloria


View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2009, 12:39:06 PM »

I mentioned the physical WORLD. And our minds are nothing more than complex firings of the brain. I believe you are assuming that our minds are something more along the lines of spirits.
I don't believe that firings of the brain, complex as they may be, can account for life. And since we are made in the image of God and God breathed life into us (breath and spirit are the same word in Hebrew), according to the Bible, then yes, I believe that our minds are something more along the lines of spirits.
Logged
London_Rain
Jr. Member
**

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


View Profile Email
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2009, 11:48:49 AM »

I BELIEVED is God because I was brought up in the culture. I was completely surrounded by it. Everywhere I went, there was God, God, God. At home, in school, everywhere outside, in church. Essentially, I was brainwashed. 
Logged
London_Rain
Jr. Member
**

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


View Profile Email
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2009, 05:41:21 AM »

I don't believe that firings of the brain, complex as they may be, can account for life. And since we are made in the image of God and God breathed life into us (breath and spirit are the same word in Hebrew), according to the Bible, then yes, I believe that our minds are something more along the lines of spirits.

"I don’t believe that firings of the brain, complex as they may be, can account for life."

Who said anything about accounting for life? Our brain is just one of many organs that help us sustain life. Our complex firings happen to be evolution. Many living organisms live without brains. All uni-cellular, small multi-cellular (I mean, just a group of cells, small.) or plants, all live without brains.

Our brain happens to be more complex than other animals who do in fact have brains as well. This is probably your rational that we are somehow special, and that an omnipotent, omniscient God, actually cares about us! Out of all the things he has created and destroyed, out of all the things in the universe for him to play with, and amuse himself with, he actually gives a damn. This all powerful God implants himself into some poor girl, almost gets her stoned, makes her carry a baby and travel all the way to Bethlehem, and give birth in a building full of animal feces, just to have the poor bloke go through torture and ultimately die at a young age so that we can be clear of our sins!

From an inside perspective, this seems like a perfectly legitimate story despite its improbability, it's needlessness to happen, and it's cruelty to every party involved in the shenanigan. And this is supposed to be the NEW testament. The one without all the violence, and the God that hates you because you are descended from a woman who ate a fruit and exposed a LIE that the God of the Old Testament had made. (If you eat this fruit, you will die in 1 day.)

But none of this even matters, because our “complex” firings are much, much simpler than that of a supreme being. The grander, and more complex life is, the more improbable that your God is.

Our brain slowly evolved over millions of years, those who had gained “bad” brains had died off, and those with brains that “worked” continued to reproduce. Eventually, these brain-evolved animals came to land. (Or vice-versa, as in whales.) From there, they split off into many groups, and now we fast forward to primates.

Eventually, a group of primates (or two actually, that I know of.) evolved brains that we ourselves would consider “complex” although, this does not me that the brain of a rat is “simple”.

During this process of millions of years of evolution, our planet faced a barrage of life-ending threats. Comets, climate change, water temperature change, air change, etc. But we are here, and we know this stuff happened. (Or at least a rough outline of how it happened.)

It seems extremely improbable, that all of this happened. So improbable that you wonder why someone would believe in it? Are there any, simpler alternatives?

Yes, on the outside. However, these alternatives are more complex than say, our eye evolving over millions of years. The alternative we are looking at is, creationism. Creationism is very simple on the surface. An omnipotent, omniscient God, created man, and all the animals within a short period of time.

Creationism doesn’t include things like, ice ages, comet impacts, nor fossils of animals found in rocks older than 6000 years old. (Which is how old creationists believe the earth to be.)

Intelligent Design, is simply creationism, but they tried to take a more scientific approach. Instead of “the designer” (They mean God.) creating everything at once, “the designer” created a species of animals, and then as time went on, he created another species of animals, then another, and another, etc.

Besides the fact that Creationism completely rules out an changes in animals (evolution), it is still wrong because humans are at the center of this story. Humans got the special treatment from God, humans were the species that God communicated too. Humans were created in his image!

It is painfully obvious that a story written by humans, about the creation of the world, would be centered around humans. Because we are so special! And our chimpanzee counterparts, who we share 99% of our DNA with, aren’t special at all.

It is most likely, that the humans who wrote Genesis had no idea about other primates, or even other human species, such as Neanderthals, who died out. This is most likely why, they thought that this God, gave such special attention to humans.

Intelligent Design tries to be more scientific. However, besides the fact the it completely ignores evolution, it is more improbable than evolution, although its goal is to be simpler!

Intelligent Design, requires a designer, but where did the designer come from? If we ignore, evolution, then the designer either A) Poofed into existence or B) Was designed.

A designer, so complex as the be able to make the inner workings of DNA, the cell, neurological functions, suns, moons, galaxy’s, etc. is extremely improbable, especially if we add the idea that he just poofed into existence. If we entertain the idea, that although very improbable, it is possible for something to poof into existence, it is even more improbable that the thing that came about from the “poofing” was an omnipotent, omniscient being who went around creating everything in the world, and still cares about a small group of beings. And this hypothesis is supposed to be more probable than the theory of evolution. Ha!

Now, let’s touch on evolution shortly. The simple truth is this: Evolution happens. We have seen it happen, many times, in just the past 15 years. Evolution is not disputed among scientists at all, anymore. Especially after almost every group of science needs evolution to get to where it is today.

The most ironic thing though, is that creationists often say that the gene is so improbable and complex, that evolution couldn’t have created it; however, the gene theory was what solidified evolution.

When the study of genetics first came about, people thought that it would overturn evolution. In fact, it did nothing but support it 100%. One-Hundred percent.

You see, we are unimportant beings in the universe, who happened to have a “smart” brain. We are not special, nor does the fact that we have such “complex” brains make us special.

There is no God that cares about us, out of everything in the universe, there are no spirits that inhabit our body, and there are no heavenly places of existence. We are here, and we are alone. G’day.
Logged
melidere
Full Member
***

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 125



Soli Deo Gloria


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 01, 2009, 01:51:10 PM »


Now, let’s touch on evolution shortly. The simple truth is this: Evolution happens. We have seen it happen, many times, in just the past 15 years. Evolution is not disputed among scientists at all, anymore. Especially after almost every group of science needs evolution to get to where it is today.


I was not aware that macroevolution has occurred in the past 15 years. Please back up your answer.
And the reason evolution is not disputed among scientists anymore is that evolutionists don't allow anyone else to speak up; if they do, they're discredited or worse. It's a closed conversation because open debate has been squashed. My brother is a scientist and he keeps quiet about his beliefs because he knows better than to jeopardize his career. So don't tell me all scientists believe evolution.
Logged
London_Rain
Jr. Member
**

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


View Profile Email
« Reply #36 on: July 01, 2009, 03:37:29 PM »

There it is!

Melidere, I am going to take a guess, and say that you don't understand evolution. You might think you do, but I doubt it.

Firstly, you need to understand evolution.

This video clears up misconceptions, and tells you the basics.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8</a>

Secondly, I love this article. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Lastly, this series is also good.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY</a>


I know that you asked for proof of macroevolution within the past 15 years. However, it seems futile to me to explain the proof with someone who honestly doesn't understand evolution, nor has the desire to find out how it works. I've given you three easy sources, for you to learn about evolution. I actually think that one of them shows some "macro"evolution that has happened within the past 15-20 years.

Also, please tell you believe the whole "microevolution is true, but not macroevolution". They both follow the same exact principles, and believing in one and not the other is not only irrational, but you are just being ignorant. Yes, this post was pointed, and it could have been written with more tact, but asking for proof in something, when you don't even understand it is rude.

--

How do I know that you don't understand it? I'm not 100% sure, but with your use of macroevolution, I am positive that the only thing you know about it is what your pastor, and your religious friends told you.

Lastly, what kind of scientist is your brother. That has a lot to do with it. A cosmetologist for example will never deal with evolution in their line of work.
Logged
melidere
Full Member
***

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 125



Soli Deo Gloria


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 02, 2009, 06:11:04 AM »


Also, please tell you believe the whole "microevolution is true, but not macroevolution". They both follow the same exact principles, and believing in one and not the other is not only irrational, but you are just being ignorant. Yes, this post was pointed, and it could have been written with more tact, but asking for proof in something, when you don't even understand it is rude.


Lastly, what kind of scientist is your brother. That has a lot to do with it. A cosmetologist for example will never deal with evolution in their line of work.


Indeed, I cannot doubt that microevolution is true. But to call me irrational and ignorant is not called for; they do not follow the exact same principles. I will watch your movies when I have time and then respond, so I can more fully understand how you perceive the world. Don't assume you know how I perceive the world; this discussion is for learning more about different vantage points, and you don't seem interested in learning mine because "you know it all already--been there, done that." But I believe one thing and you believe another thing, and to think that the reason for this difference is my lack of education is arrogance.
You will be interested to know that my brother works in the "Evolution and Ecology" department at an ivy-league university.
Logged
London_Rain
Jr. Member
**

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


View Profile Email
« Reply #38 on: July 02, 2009, 07:55:28 AM »

If your brother was really a scientist in the evolution and ecology department in an ivy league school, and he didn't believe in evolution, then he would bring into the academic arena a list of facts that don't coincide with evolution.

For example.

X = List evidence for evolution.

Y = List of evidence against evolution.

Z = Evolution.

If both X and Y were presented in an academic arena, and X won, then Z is true. If Y won, then Z is false.

Your brother, as a scientist should know this, and he should also know that there is no reason for him to keep quiet about his doubt in evolution. He should present facts in a peer reviewed article against evolution, and if enough scientists deem it credible, then there will likely be a debate about it. (That's the academic arena.)

I will be happy to read your brother's evidence against evolution.

--

Concerning the "been there, done that" statement, yes it is true. I have "Been there, done that." I have heard creationist argument all my life. I was brought up with them, and I here them everyday, weather it be through Youtube, radio, t.v., school, books etc.

You are however wrong, that I don't want to learn about your view of the world, as long as your view of the world is different from the arguments that I have heard enough to recite in my sleep.

--

Lastly, concerning arrogance. No it isn't. In your post, you said that you will watch the videos to learn about evolution. Talking about evolution, and not knowing about it, is ignorance. In fact, you don't have to talk about it, simply not know it is ignorance. I am considerably concerned that you believe ignorant to be a derogatory term. Ignorance in one sense, can be bad, but it is also a great tool of learning.

Irrational, might be a bit overstepping things, and I am sorry. I would rather say that after you have learned about evolution, fully understand it, and still believe in creationism, without overwhelming facts, facts that would make scientists change their opinion, then yes, you are irrational.

Scientists have put life-times of effort into studying evolution, finding evidence, and searching for something that would disprove it. Remember, many scientists thought that the gene theory would disprove evolution once and for all. It didn't, it supported evolution.

Scientists aren't conspirators, they don't say, "I want religion to be gone, so I will force a lie called evolution into schools! Muahaha!" They are rational people, in the search for truth. They would be happy if something "disproved" evolution, because they would be one step closer to truth.

But as it is, evolution is about as concrete as gravity.

If you were offended by any of my posts, I apologize.
Logged
melidere
Full Member
***

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 125



Soli Deo Gloria


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 02, 2009, 11:42:18 AM »


Secondly, I love this article. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


I'm still working on getting through all the information you gave me, but I'm seriously confused by one thing that I have to ask about now. I don't mean this as an "Aha, gotcha, this proves evolution is false!"; I'm trying to understand the theory that you subscribe to and put aside misconceptions where I've been taught wrong. In the article above, under the "Potential Falsification" for Prediction 1.4, it states "Any finding of a striking half-mammal, half-bird intermediate would be highly inconsistent with common descent." Right away the duck-billed platypus comes to mind, which I always thought was a poster-boy FOR evolution. Are they really saying here that a platypus is inconsistent with the theory of common descent? What am I missing here? Something doesn't make sense. Help me figure out where I've got it wrong.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Print
Jump to:  

eXTReMe Tracker