@ anailator (is this a purposeful spelling error?) and mutantonion,
This is the forum. It is meant to debate, show opinions and discuss topics with other members. We rarely get out of order here and generally everyone is respectful of other people when we debate. It is you that is stirring this up in a bad manner. Please try to see that we are having an intelligent debate here and to contribute.
Again, energy doesn't need a cause. It is entirely relative to "ground states" and as such does not make sense to talk about origins or causes. Causality is only a term for large observable phenomena. There is not real causality as we view it at the quantum level.
Why do darwinism and creationism have to debate? Why can one not explain the other? Why can evolution not explain how God created the world? Why can creationism not explain why we are here instead of not here? It doesn't make any sense to say only one can exist - that's just bigotry and a refusal to be open-minded.
Well, evolving from monkeys seems A LOT more logical than creationism, it just sounds so farfetched to me. And I have yet to see any proof on the existence of "God".
God is simply logical - simply stating that everything just popped into being of its own accord makes absoultely no sense whatsoever. At least if God exists, he would be an extranatural entity - he wouldn't be bound by the laws of our universe, and therefore wouldn't be constrained to existing before or after any natural phenomena. I'm a supporter of Darwinism as the reason why God DOES exist - everything coming together as it has to make the world function as it does - perfect for humans to live in and adapt to our needs - only further goes to show that God worked it all with His hand.
To be blunt about it, I absolutely refuse to believe in the existence of any "extranatural entities" until there is incredibly logical proof, or if I see with my own eyes. No one has seen Heaven, nobody has seen Hell, so there is no way in telling of the existence of God. Btw, I am still young and I am also still mixed up by all this.
^What you don't see is, as in many cases, more important than what you do see. I know this isn't a good example, but say your street was closed because they found a gas leak. You don't see the gas, but you know it's there, and if you're not careful, you'll blow up the neighborhood. It hasn't been proven because in order to prove it, you'd have to kill yourself. So do you believe what you're told in order to not die, or do you throw caution to the wind and run up there with your tiki torch, blowing up the neighborhood? Just because they SAY there's a gas leak doesn't prove anything, but you still wouldn't exclaim it can't exist because they can't prove it.
What your saying is, the only way to be sure if there is a God, is to live life as explained in the bible, and everything will be explained in after death?
