[redirected]If God created all things

1849	255264

offline

9,507 posts

Jester

Posted February 26, '10 9:40pm UTC

in order for life to of began a seqence of protiens had to aline is certain order, 200 something times,to me those odds seem pretty skeachy,but also people say that the "theory" that god created the world dosen't make sence because no one has a answer as to what created God in the first place, but couldn't that be applied to any theory as to how the world was created?

Ohhhhhhh:

Well, for most people, we as humans are like paintings, where they are created by a painter, a designer. The only difference is that the painting has chemicals which can't replicate themselves. However, the human body does, AKA DNA. Even if God DID create DNA, he doesn't need to intervene every time an animal mates with another, the DNA does the job of creating the offspring on its own. So what's the question of the...er, night? How did DNA appear is the correct choice. How did living matter get created from non-living matter?

Here, Creationists need to drop the common argument that many seem to use all the time in order to bash the opposite side of the table with the statement which was based totally off ignorance of other Creationists, which was this:

All you monkey believers think that life popped out of nowhere and out of nothingness!

Of course, that's NOT the correct way in which we think. Life popping out of nowhere is no better than popping out of the hand of a deity. So what DO top Evolutionists believe? Why don't I take this step by step for you:

Best way to start is looking at ancient earth 4.7 billion years ago. Many different compounds were around back then, such as hydrogen cyanide and methane gas. DNA is made from only 4 different types of Nucleotides, so where did that come from? How in the world did they come to be in this universe?

Here's this: In 1964 a brilliant researcher called Wan Oro put methane and the cyanide to boil in a solution under the perfect conditions that were in ancient earth back then. Afterwards, the solution produced adenine, one of the four types of nucleotide bases. To make a full nucleotide, it needs to gain a sugar called Ribose and a group of phosphates. How in the world did the ribose and phosphate group get formed and get attached to that nucleotide?

Well, once the nucleotide was formed, they needed to form together in chains called polynucleotides. In the 1980s, researchers found that a clay, called "montmorillonite", a very abundant resource in ancient earth, was a perfect catalyst for this process of "chaining".

Some of these copies of the polynucleotides with ribose inside, or RNA (ribonucleic acid) are able to make copies of themselves...huh. Of course the copies aren't as perfect, but again, some copies are more adapted than the other copies to survive in the hot, dense planet earth used to be. So these molecules that did survive would replicate and pass on their traits, while those that aren't so great at surviving would just break apart into regular compounds of methane and cyanide.

As RNA replicated, they shared their surroundings with other chemicals around them. Some chemicals, called "lipids" like to clump together to form circular bodies called micelles. RNA molecules that attracted the micelles found themselves protected inside them. Because they were protected, they better survived than those that weren't. From there, they replicated successfully, but with the entire protocell with them. There, you have the first primitive cellular structure.

5. Then from the span of hundreds of millions of years later, RNA grew more complex from replicating and passing on better traits. The single strand formed to create a double-strand molecule, and the more successful DNA molecule evolved. One thing however: DNA needs proteins to replicate. Proteins are made from amino acids or the building blocks of life, so how/where in the world did the amino acids get into the picture?

No...there was no need for God....

6. formation of amino acids

A number of experiments with the montmorillonite not only produced amino acids, but long chains of them that are called &quotolypeptides". It turns out that this long-difficult name clay stuff is a natural breeding ground for all these complex chemicals. So there you have it. RNA, DNA, what made it, and what made amino acids, non-living chemicals that in turn made living organisms and the process in which these chemicals came to be.

So as I build this up, I ask you this: if God did create life, when did he come in, using the same kinds of steps that I have provided for you? And if the chemical process needed to create life can happen on its own, why does he need to come in?

Before I end class tonight, I want you guys to look at some old arguments that end nowhere and show complete ignorance of people's views:

"Living things cannot be created from non-living things"

Are you sure? Just because a lot of people pass around this argument doesn't mean it's true. It's not true. Given time and left alone, smaller, simpler chemicals can and will polymerize into complex chemicals.

"2nd law of thermodynamics, genius. FAIL"

This sad argument? Simple chemicals polymerizing into complex chemicals conflicts with NO laws of thermodynamics. I suggest if you use this argument to freely read up on this law, because I believe you haven't and are just ignorantly repeating a myth that's already been shot down many times. Even though that all this can happen, there are still going to be Creationists that say "you still can't prove that this actually happened". We actually can, because one, I showed you, and two, we already have a ton of evidence showing that it COULD'VE happened. And we don't need a book to show you.

Then after the part about proving how life started, there's the part about hypothesizing about how the universe started. There are many theories. No, it's not the Big Bang. It's the series of big bangs in an infinitesimal loop. I probably used this in just about every single popular religion thread so, here's this one again. Everyone who knows about the theory of the Big Bang knows that it's about the sudden rapid expansion of matter throughout the entirety of space. That's the beginning of the universe and life itself. But what about the end? That's the interesting part. Scientists all estimate that the universe has about 20 trillion years to live, give or take a few. The universe is always expanding; science explains that, but I'm not going to (unless you want me to). Around this near unimaginable time period, the universe will be so great, that gravity and the electrons holding matter itself will collapse. Everything bound together by these electrons will simply disintegrate, like what would happen in absolute zero. There will be nothing to hold these atoms in place, so they will just fall apart. The parts of the universe will slowly but surely clump back into place, because once enough of raw matter is together, the free electrons will attach to them. More will combine, and eventually, all of the old matter will all combine into one. Extreme heat is taking place, and the more matter moving at an extremely-fast pace, the greater of the chance of a catastrophic explosion just like a-- HOLY SHI-*SHWOOOOOOM* So suddenly, all these atoms started striking another, trillions smacked into each other, and created a powerful "explosion" of pure, raw, hot, energy. Again. All this matter is shot everywhere, large portions of matter is clumped together. These form celestial bodies soon. The universe started over once again, and soon, life will take place just as it did the last Big Bang. The universe goes through a series of infinite recycling processes, all using the same matter over and over again, because obviously, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It's just re-used.

/walls of text

[quote]in order for life to of began a seqence of protiens had to aline is certain order, 200 something times,to me those odds seem pretty skeachy,but also people say that the "theory" that god created the world dosen't make sence because no one has a answer as to what created God in the first place, but couldn't that be applied to any theory as to how the world was created?[/quote]\r\n\r\n[i][b]Ohhhhhhh:[/b][/i]\r\n\r\n\r\nWell, for most people, we as humans are like paintings, where they are created by a painter, a designer. The only difference is that the painting has chemicals which can't replicate themselves. However, the human body does, AKA DNA. Even if God DID create DNA, he doesn't need to intervene every time an animal mates with another, the DNA does the job of creating the offspring on its own. So what's the question of the...er, night? How did DNA appear is the correct choice. How did living matter get created from non-living matter?\r\n\r\nHere, Creationists need to drop the common argument that many seem to use all the time in order to bash the opposite side of the table with the statement which was based totally off ignorance of other Creationists, which was this:\r\n\r\nAll you monkey believers think that life popped out of nowhere and out of nothingness!\r\n\r\nOf course, that's NOT the correct way in which we think. Life popping out of nowhere is no better than popping out of the hand of a deity. So what DO top Evolutionists believe? Why don't I take this step by step for you:\r\n\r\nBest way to start is looking at ancient earth 4.7 billion years ago. Many different compounds were around back then, such as hydrogen cyanide and methane gas. DNA is made from only 4 different types of Nucleotides, so where did that come from? How in the world did they come to be in this universe?\r\n\r\nHere's this: In 1964 a brilliant researcher called Wan Oro put methane and the cyanide to boil in a solution under the perfect conditions that were in ancient earth back then. Afterwards, the solution produced adenine, one of the four types of nucleotide bases. To make a full nucleotide, it needs to gain a sugar called Ribose and a group of phosphates. How in the world did the ribose and phosphate group get formed and get attached to that nucleotide?\r\n\r\nWell, once the nucleotide was formed, they needed to form together in chains called polynucleotides. In the 1980s, researchers found that a clay, called "montmorillonite", a very abundant resource in ancient earth, was a perfect catalyst for this process of "chaining".\r\n\r\nSome of these copies of the polynucleotides with ribose inside, or RNA (ribonucleic acid) are able to make copies of themselves...huh. Of course the copies aren't as perfect, but again, some copies are more adapted than the other copies to survive in the hot, dense planet earth used to be. So these molecules that did survive would replicate and pass on their traits, while those that aren't so great at surviving would just break apart into regular compounds of methane and cyanide.\r\n\r\nAs RNA replicated, they shared their surroundings with other chemicals around them. Some chemicals, called "lipids" like to clump together to form circular bodies called micelles. RNA molecules that attracted the micelles found themselves protected inside them. Because they were protected, they better survived than those that weren't. From there, they replicated successfully, but with the entire protocell with them. There, you have the first primitive cellular structure.\r\n\r\n5. Then from the span of hundreds of millions of years later, RNA grew more complex from replicating and passing on better traits. The single strand formed to create a double-strand molecule, and the more successful DNA molecule evolved. One thing however: DNA needs proteins to replicate. Proteins are made from amino acids or the building blocks of life, so how/where in the world did the amino acids get into the picture?\r\n\r\n\r\n[img]http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/God.jpg[/img]\r\n\r\n[b]No...there was no need for God....[/b]\r\n\r\n6. formation of amino acids\r\n\r\nA number of experiments with the montmorillonite not only produced amino acids, but long chains of them that are called "polypeptides". It turns out that this long-difficult name clay stuff is a natural breeding ground for all these complex chemicals. So there you have it. RNA, DNA, what made it, and what made amino acids, non-living chemicals that in turn made living organisms and the process in which these chemicals came to be.\r\n\r\nSo as I build this up, I ask you this: if God did create life, when did he come in, using the same kinds of steps that I have provided for you? And if the chemical process needed to create life can happen on its own, why does he need to come in?\r\n\r\nBefore I end class tonight, I want you guys to look at some old arguments that end nowhere and show complete ignorance of people's views:\r\n\r\n"Living things cannot be created from non-living things"\r\n\r\nAre you sure? Just because a lot of people pass around this argument doesn't mean it's true. It's not true. Given time and left alone, smaller, simpler chemicals can and will polymerize into complex chemicals.\r\n\r\n"2nd law of thermodynamics, genius. FAIL"\r\n\r\nThis sad argument? Simple chemicals polymerizing into complex chemicals conflicts with NO laws of thermodynamics. I suggest if you use this argument to freely read up on this law, because I believe you haven't and are just ignorantly repeating a myth that's already been shot down many times. Even though that all this can happen, there are still going to be Creationists that say "you still can't prove that this actually happened". We actually can, because one, I showed you, and two, we already have a ton of evidence showing that it COULD'VE happened. And we don't need a book to show you.\r\n\r\nThen after the part about proving how life started, there's the part about hypothesizing about how the universe started. There are many theories. No, it's not the Big Bang. It's the series of big bangs in an infinitesimal loop. I probably used this in just about every single popular religion thread so, here's this one again. Everyone who knows about the theory of the Big Bang knows that it's about the sudden rapid expansion of matter throughout the entirety of space. That's the beginning of the universe and life itself. But what about the end? That's the interesting part. Scientists all estimate that the universe has about 20 trillion years to live, give or take a few. The universe is always expanding; science explains that, but I'm not going to (unless you want me to). Around this near unimaginable time period, the universe will be so great, that gravity and the electrons holding matter itself will collapse. Everything bound together by these electrons will simply disintegrate, like what would happen in absolute zero. There will be nothing to hold these atoms in place, so they will just fall apart. The parts of the universe will slowly but surely clump back into place, because once enough of raw matter is together, the free electrons will attach to them. More will combine, and eventually, all of the old matter will all combine into one. Extreme heat is taking place, and the more matter moving at an extremely-fast pace, the greater of the chance of a catastrophic explosion just like a-- HOLY SHI-*SHWOOOOOOM* So suddenly, all these atoms started striking another, trillions smacked into each other, and created a powerful "explosion" of pure, raw, hot, energy. Again. All this matter is shot everywhere, large portions of matter is clumped together. These form celestial bodies soon. The universe started over once again, and soon, life will take place just as it did the last Big Bang. The universe goes through a series of infinite recycling processes, all using the same matter over and over again, because obviously, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It's just re-used.\r\n\r\n[b]/walls of text[/b]

offline

BeastMode10

374 posts

Nomad

Posted February 27, '10 2:45am UTC

Another thing I wanted to add to Freakenstein's wall of text...

During DNA replication, which occurs before cell division, proteins in the nucleus create RNA primers on the DNA being replicated in order to commence replication. These RNA primes basically allow other proteins to add more nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA) onto the existing genetic material. Eventually, however, these RNA primes must be removed, as eukaryotic organisms (or organisms with cells with nucleus/organelles, like plants and HUMANS) use DNA as their genetic material. Consequentially, the RNA primers synthesized in the beginning of the process must be removed and replaced with DNA nucleotides.

The contradictory process may raise a few questions when considering creationism. If God really did create eukaryotic organisms, WHY would he design a process in which the RNA primers are constructed and later removed, resulting in the cells wasting precious energy? If God created mankind, wouldn't he prefer designing a more effecient process, one in which DNA primers are used instead of RNA primers?

Evolution is the solution to this ambiguous dilema. RNA was the genetic material employed by the first cells. However, as evolution favored cellular organisms which possessed the stable, double-helical DNA, more and more cells in the following generations began to inherit greater quantities of DNA as their genetic material. These cells implemented DNA into their array of genetic material, along with the previously existing RNA. And consequentially, modern eukaryotic organisms contain DNA and RNA as their genetic material.

Another thing I wanted to add to Freakenstein's wall of text...\r\n\r\nDuring DNA replication, which occurs before cell division, proteins in the nucleus create RNA primers on the DNA being replicated in order to commence replication. These RNA primes basically allow other proteins to add more nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA) onto the existing genetic material. Eventually, however, these RNA primes must be removed, as eukaryotic organisms (or organisms with cells with nucleus/organelles, like plants and HUMANS) use DNA as their genetic material. Consequentially, the RNA primers synthesized in the beginning of the process must be removed and replaced with DNA nucleotides.\r\n\r\nThe contradictory process may raise a few questions when considering creationism. If God really did create eukaryotic organisms, WHY would he design a process in which the RNA primers are constructed and later removed, resulting in the cells wasting precious energy? If God created mankind, wouldn't he prefer designing a more effecient process, one in which DNA primers are used instead of RNA primers? \r\n\r\nEvolution is the solution to this ambiguous dilema. RNA was the genetic material employed by the first cells. However, as evolution favored cellular organisms which possessed the stable, double-helical DNA, more and more cells in the following generations began to inherit greater quantities of DNA as their genetic material. These cells implemented DNA into their array of genetic material, along with the previously existing RNA. And consequentially, modern eukaryotic organisms contain DNA [i]and[/i] RNA as their genetic material.

offline

playaholic

1,098 posts

Farmer

Posted February 27, '10 4:26am UTC

maybe god knew all this knowledge already,he just did not give it to us

offline

Darkroot

2,763 posts

Peasant

Posted February 27, '10 4:59am UTC

@OP nice copy and paste from a long ago argument that you didn't even finish pasting the whole thing.

Freakenstein you are my new favourite person. I agree with most of what you said except the part where you said that the universe will continually expand. I don't believe it so simple. There are two version of how the universe could end with current knowledge. 1. The existence of dark matter eventually what you said. 2. The existence of the void theory and the universe eventually collapsing in the big crunch.

in order for life to of began a sequence of protiens had to aline is certain order, 200 something times,to me those odds seem pretty sketchy,but also people say that the "theory" that god created the world doesn't make sense because no one has a answer as to what created God in the first place, but couldn't that be applied to any theory as to how the world was created?

That doesn't seem ass sketchy as the fact that this universe had an amazingly high chance of being a universe that wasn't even to support the creation of matter.

@OP nice copy and paste from a long ago argument that you didn't even finish pasting the whole thing.\r\n\r\nFreakenstein you are my new favourite person. I agree with most of what you said except the part where you said that the universe will continually expand. I don't believe it so simple. There are two version of how the universe could end with current knowledge. 1. The existence of dark matter eventually what you said. 2. The existence of the void theory and the universe eventually collapsing in the big crunch.\r\n\r\n[quote]in order for life to of began a sequence of protiens had to aline is certain order, 200 something times,to me those odds seem pretty sketchy,but also people say that the "theory" that god created the world doesn't make sense because no one has a answer as to what created God in the first place, but couldn't that be applied to any theory as to how the world was created?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat doesn't seem ass sketchy as the fact that this universe had an amazingly high chance of being a universe that wasn't even to support the creation of matter.

offline

playaholic

1,098 posts

Farmer

Posted February 27, '10 5:20am UTC

no,he did not create evil thing,for the things he created ended up bad,and he send bad people to hell once they die,isnt that a bad move?no its not,because god is not just kind,but just(as in justice)
after all,god have given the bad people a whole lifetime to change,and if they are not punished,it would be unfair to others,also,if he really is bad,whats the rationale for creating purgatory?

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted February 27, '10 6:54am UTC

I agree with most of what you said except the part where you said that the universe will continually expand.

Actually with a flat universe, as I demonstrated to be the most likely continual expansion is the most likely event. So in a way we are in the worse possible universe to live in.

no,he did not create evil thing,for the things he created ended up bad,and he send bad people to hell once they die,isnt that a bad move?

If God really didn't want us touching the fruit then why put it in reach? If your God is all knowing then he would have known in advance this would happen thus making him at least partly responsible. Of course I have heard the argument that he did nothing to preserve free will because he loves us that much, but really this is like saying you wouldn't stop your child from shooting them self in the head because you love them so much. Another problem with this God is that he had to have made us flawed rather then perfect because if we were prefect before then the mistake that brought us out of perfection would not have been made in the first place.

no its not,because god is not just kind,but just(as in justice)
after all,god have given the bad people a whole lifetime to change,and if they are not punished,it would be unfair to others,also,if he really is bad,whats the rationale for creating purgatory?

So you think eternal punishment for a finite transgression is just huh? Or how about Noah's Flood or "Drowning Your Children When They Misbehave" Very just. Of course there are plenty more example of Gods "justice".

As for purgatory this isn't something that is in the Bible. I do remember hearing of some scripture that was left out of the Bible that says everyone can get out of Hell eventually however everyone in hell has to be nice first. So if this is the case then if you went to hell and changed your ways you would end up being punished for others transgressions. Which fits pretty well with Gods "justice" considering the whole original sin thing is basically us being punished for what two people in the past did.

Speaking of that Wasn't Jesus set to abolish all that if so then why would it still be held over our heads? Of course there are those who see genesis as a metaphor in which case raises the question of what Jesus was dying for in the first place. Maybe he was just REALLY into S&M?

[quote]I agree with most of what you said except the part where you said that the universe will continually expand.[/quote]\r\n\r\nActually with a flat universe, as I demonstrated to be the most likely continual expansion is the most likely event. So in a way we are in the worse possible universe to live in.\r\n\r\n[quote]no,he did not create evil thing,for the things he created ended up bad,and he send bad people to hell once they die,isnt that a bad move?[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf God really didn't want us touching the fruit then why put it in reach? If your God is all knowing then he would have known in advance this would happen thus making him at least partly responsible.  Of course I have heard the argument that he did nothing to preserve free will because he loves us that much, but really this is like saying you wouldn't stop your child from shooting them self in the head because you love them so much. Another problem with this God is that he had to have made us flawed rather then perfect because if we were prefect before then the mistake that brought us out of perfection would not have been made in the first place.\r\n\r\n[quote]no its not,because god is not just kind,but just(as in justice)\r\nafter all,god have given the bad people a whole lifetime to change,and if they are not punished,it would be unfair to others,also,if he really is bad,whats the rationale for creating purgatory?[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo you think eternal punishment for a finite transgression is just huh? Or how about Noah's Flood or "Drowning Your Children When They Misbehave" Very just. Of course there are plenty more example of Gods "justice".\r\n\r\nAs for purgatory this isn't something that is in the Bible. I do remember hearing of some scripture that was left out of the Bible that says everyone can get out of Hell eventually however everyone in hell has to be nice first. So if this is the case then if you went to hell and changed your ways you would end up being punished for others transgressions. Which fits pretty well with Gods "justice" considering the whole original sin thing is basically us being punished for what two people in the past did. \r\n\r\nSpeaking of that Wasn't Jesus set to abolish all that if so then why would it still be held over our heads? Of course there are those who see genesis as a metaphor in which case raises the question of what Jesus was dying for in the first place. Maybe he was just REALLY into S&M?

offline

PanzerTank

1,708 posts

Nomad

Posted February 27, '10 7:24am UTC

no,he did not create evil thing,for the things he created ended up bad,and he send bad people to hell once they die,isnt that a bad move

Yes that's a bad move for if someone is bad for 80 years roughly of their lives you'll punish em for pie amount of years? The justice in that is thorough

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted February 27, '10 7:38am UTC

There is no worst scenario. All of them lead to the cyclic recycling of the universe.

Well not really in a flat universe the universe could just keep expanding, as such no big crunch, no recycling. But as I said I'm kind of out of my league with cosmology and quantum mechanics.

That void theory is interesting.

offline

Freakenstein

9,507 posts

Jester

Posted February 28, '10 3:44am UTC

Don't agree, why? Why don't you give your opinion, Random Number Dude? If I can say why to a comment, then it's not contributing to this discussion, aka flagable.

Freakenstein you are my new favourite person. I agree with most of what you said except the part where you said that the universe will continually expand. I don't believe it so simple. There are two version of how the universe could end with current knowledge. 1. The existence of dark matter eventually what you said.

Existence of dark matter? There was no such thing in what I said :P

What happens when you build a giant tower? It's huge, full of awe, and well, huge. What happens when there's no support? It collapses. It will continue to collapse until something will support it. Everything in the universe will collapse until there is enough raw matter to be collected, and will then attract others to combine with them.

offline

justaroundthecorner

78 posts

Nomad

Posted March 6, '10 4:20pm UTC

I understand that many of you have a hard time believing in God. Yeah, me too. But what I don't get is why you're so hateful to the Christians. I mean "shroud yourself in ignorance" (-BeastMode10)? There's nothing ignorant with following what your heart tells you to believe in. Science may have all the solid evidence, but there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, too. That evidence may not be solid, but it is inside of you. I have long since realized that if there was a God then he wouldn't want to destroy the atheists. Have you ever noticed that you keep coming back to the questions, "Is God real?" or "What if God is real?". I asked all my atheist friends, and they all tell me that they wrestle with those questions day and night. And so do I. That's because if there is a God then He's making you wrestle with that question in an attempt to convert your beliefs! I used to be atheist, until the day I stumbled across a website that told the story of a lady who went through the same thing. I mean, that was IT. That's evidence enough, isn't it? I'm not trying to make you believe in something else. Not even God can change what you believe. Only your heart can do that. But what I'm trying to convey is that you should consider the fact that God may exist more. I mean, is a little prayer or two once in a while for good luck gonna do much harm? Besides, if you die and find out God is real, well, then you're gonna be screwed! So better safe then sorry, guys...

offline

grimml

879 posts

Nomad

Posted March 6, '10 4:31pm UTC

I mean, is a little prayer or two once in a while for good luck gonna do much harm? Besides, if you die and find out God is real, well, then you're gonna be screwed! So better safe then sorry, guys...

It's NOT a good reason to believe just because you want to be on the safe side... And if God really existed, why should he care if we believe in Him? Doesn't he rather want us to do the right thing no matter because of what reason? If you just behave good because you don't want to go to hell, wouldn't that be wrong?

offline

justaroundthecorner

78 posts

Nomad

Posted March 6, '10 4:33pm UTC

Ok, put it this way: You wanna die knowing you've been a greedy jerk all you're life, or that you've helped people and brightened up their life?

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted March 6, '10 4:38pm UTC

evidence for the existence of God, too

That gave me a good laugh. Care to share?

That's because if there is a God then He's making you wrestle with that question in an attempt to convert your beliefs!

Pycology sais defferent. People WANT to believe in god. Not only does the riligion itself threaten you, but having protection and an afterlife sound good. Too bad they don't exist. If your thory is true, then why did I wrestle out of Cristianity then was against it ever since?

That's evidence enough, isn't it?

Nope, thats sentimental bias evidence. You whould need phisical proof.

Only your heart can do that

They only say that because in the time the Bible was written they believed the heart had the brains job and vise versa.

Besides, if you die and find out God is real, well, then you're gonna be screwed!

The evedince is against it, and the fact that if he did exist, then he might have existed in one of the other thousands of forms that are just as likly, meaning you whould be just as screwed as us.

So better safe then sorry, guys...

So your saying pretending to know is better then trying to know now? As I have said before your just doing it at the churches treat.

[quote]evidence for the existence of God, too[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat gave me a good laugh. Care to share?\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]That's because if there is a God then He's making you wrestle with that question in an attempt to convert your beliefs![/quote]\r\n\r\nPycology sais defferent. People WANT to believe in god. Not only does the riligion itself threaten you, but having protection and an afterlife sound good. Too bad they don't exist. If your thory is true, then why did I wrestle out of Cristianity then was against it ever since?\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]That's evidence enough, isn't it?[/quote]\r\n\r\nNope, thats sentimental bias evidence. You whould need phisical proof.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Only your heart can do that[/quote]\r\n\r\n\r\nThey only say that because in the time the Bible was written they believed the heart had the brains job and vise versa.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Besides, if you die and find out God is real, well, then you're gonna be screwed![/quote]\r\n\r\nThe evedince is against it, and the fact that if he did exist, then he might have existed in one of the other thousands of forms that are just as likly, meaning you whould be just as screwed as us.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]So better safe then sorry, guys...[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo your saying pretending to know is better then trying to know now? As I have said before your just doing it at the churches treat.

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted March 6, '10 4:42pm UTC

Ok, put it this way: You wanna die knowing you've been a greedy jerk all you're life, or that you've helped people and brightened up their life?

Ive been waiting to use this example since yesterday...

Lets say there is a child riding the bike, and falls over breaking his leg. Normally, he whould cry and go get it fixed, like aithiest. Now lets use the same scinario, but with riligion the child goes "My leg isn't broken. Im fine." and pretends everything is fine. Thats the way riligion makes you feel better...

offline

justaroundthecorner

78 posts

Nomad

Posted March 6, '10 4:44pm UTC

Woah, you're gettin' ahead of youself son...
Did I mention that I am not fully christian?
I don't go to church and I barely read the Bible. I'm still half-and-half. Besides I just wanted to put something out there to protect those poor Christians...

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things