Proof-existence of an intelligent Creator+His Purpose for humankind

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by T@T

They shoot them down because there ridiculous, here's 50 for the god believers to explain.

http://godisimaginary.com/

Crazy part about posting a link like this is the believers mostly wont dare read it in fear of having a second thought.

Well first of all, I'm not a christian or a follower of any religion so defending christian beliefs is not my forte, but in the first proof he offers for 1.Try Praying he says " If the Bible is literally true, than something is seriouslly amiss." Of course it is amiss, the only people who take the Bible literally are atheists and some wingnut christians. You won't find many religious scholars who take it literally but that doesn't mean there isn't some good lessons and the odd direction on finding your god in it.

for reference
1. I don't pray

2. ditto

3. I don't have any historical god, mine is in the present.

4. I dont have any conflict between science and god and don't have any particular interest in miracles.

5. I don't read the Bible, although I have read it, as it's part of any good education.

6. God's plan, hmm, I don't think about it as I'm trying to stay in the present.

7. I don't believe in fairy tales or any other stories that try to prove god's existence.

8. I havn't had any near death experiences and so don't base any of my experience on them.

9. Ambiguity, as I said i don't pray.

10. Money is needed for any organization but as I said, I dont' pray.

11. So

12. I don't believe in magic

13, 14, 15 etc. and on and on it goes, mostly attacking christianity and other organized religions mistaken beliefs but it doesn't prove an absence of god.

To be fair my belief in god ( you could also call it peace, love, energy etc.) is based on personal experience and not on any book or teaching. I don't even call it a belief, it's an experience. It's like do I believe I have hands that are typing this out or is it more than that. I do have hands, so it's more than a belief.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

I became an atheist because of the people on this website, and because of Ricky Gervais.

Funny, I've always been unsure about the existence of God (sort of, yeah, probably, but I don't know). Reading these God-no God threads has convinced me that there is a God. It's strengthened my belief in God.

[EDBTZ12]

Every time i think of if there is a god or not i look at my organs like the heart. Such a beautiful and complex creation that could only be created by a higher power

[photon]

Originally Posted by EDBTZ12

Every time i think of if there is a god or not i look at my organs like the heart. Such a beautiful and complex creation that could only be created by a higher power

I try not to base what I think and/or believe based on a lack of understanding of something.

I find understanding something for the first time, or looking at how such amazing things can be derived from such simple things, a much more "religious" experience.

[AC]

Originally Posted by photon

I find understanding something for the first time, or looking at how such amazing things can be derived from such simple things, a much more "religious" experience.

Exactly.

My biggest issue with religion (aside from certain actions by the Catholic church) is that it teaches people not only to be satisfied with an incomplete understanding of life, but to take pride in such a stance.

A stubborn refusal to ask questions and seek answers is detrimental to intellectual development.

[Hack&Lube]

LOL this guy was busy!

Either he went and registered on hundreds of forums around the world and posted this or he had a bot do it. Doesn't CP have those anti-bot protections like those things that make you enter in the random letters, etc. when you register or post?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&so...a=&aq=null&oq=

[Superfraggle]

It really doesn't matter whether or not there is really a god/gods. The function of religion in society is to teach value systems. Religion is about how to live and be a good person. That has been corrupted a great deal over time, but there are some that still do. How you pray or what you call your higher power is not important. It's how you function within society. Organized religion is an attempt to create a common value system for society.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

It really doesn't matter whether or not there is really a god/gods. The function of religion in society is to teach value systems. Religion is about how to live and be a good person. That has been corrupted a great deal over time, but there are some that still do. How you pray or what you call your higher power is not important. It's how you function within society. Organized religion is an attempt to create a common value system for society.

That's a great post, and that's why I really have no problem with religion or those that believe in God...in general. Like you said, it's been corrupted and people use religion for bad things sometimes, but for the most part, it does a good thing for society.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by AC

Exactly.

My biggest issue with religion (aside from certain actions by the Catholic church) is that it teaches people not only to be satisfied with an incomplete understanding of life, but to take pride in such a stance.

A stubborn refusal to ask questions and seek answers is detrimental to intellectual development.

Strangely enough, as someone who believes in God, that is my biggest issue as well.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by EDBTZ12

Such a beautiful and complex creation that could only be created by a higher power

So therefore God must have been created by a higher power then, too? After all, if complexity devolves from above...

[Thor]

Originally Posted by EDBTZ12

Every time i think of if there is a god or not i look at my organs like the heart. Such a beautiful and complex creation that could only be created by a higher power

How about the worm that feeds on the eyeball of 3rd world starving children?

For every 'beautiful and complex' organ, etc.. Theres x10 more scary, gross, shocking things that had to then be created too.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by EDBTZ12

Every time i think of if there is a god or not i look at my organs like the heart. Such a beautiful and complex creation that could only be created by a higher power

And the vast majority of extinct species that have ever lived on this planet argues against the higher power. What is it, more than 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct?

It also needs to be pointed out that the human heart may be a beautiful and complex creation, but that precursors over time were simpler and less 'beautiful'. The eye is a good example of something that seems impossibly complex, but which is well understood through the process of natural selection. Here is a quick video explaining the evolution of the eye. No creator necessary.

In short, we (and our individual components) are so complex as a result of our extinct ancestors being less complex.

[WesternCanadaKing]

In my mind, whether God or not doesn't answer any questions about creation. Sure, it tells us how our world came into being, but where did God come from? What is he made of? How did he get such powers that are completely outside any laws of physics or matter? I don't see how see how religious people can wrap their heads around the fact that God is just 'there'.
I had this conversation with a person handing out leaflets on the street when I was in Sydney:
Me: Our existance isn't what I want explained, can you explain Gods existance?
Person: Well, God operates outside anything we can experierence or comprehend, he has always existed and always will.
Me: So, he's just there?
Person: Yes.
Me: But isn't your main argument against athiesm that its impossible for things to just exist without a creator, therefore God is the only answer?
Person: Well, uh.. He's seperate from our world.
Me: If his world didn't need a creator, why does ours?
Person: Listen, I have to hand out these leaflets...

[Saint Troy]

I thought Clapton was God.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Saint Troy

I thought Clapton was God.

Sutter is. He can do anuything thing he wants

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

And the vast majority of extinct species that have ever lived on this planet argues against the higher power. What is it, more than 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct?

It also needs to be pointed out that the human heart may be a beautiful and complex creation, but that precursors over time were simpler and less 'beautiful'. The eye is a good example of something that seems impossibly complex, but which is well understood through the process of natural selection. Here is a quick video explaining the evolution of the eye. No creator necessary.

In short, we (and our individual components) are so complex as a result of our extinct ancestors being less complex.

1. I don't necessarily agree. In my mind, it is an argument for the "fall of man". Not only did Adam's original sin corrupt humanity's experience of life on Earth forever, I believe it also affected many other parts of the universe, possibly including the physical laws that govern it as well. I believe it most certainly affected animals in their relationship with humans and each other.

2. Simplicity and beauty aren't mutually exclusive.

3. This is not something I will outright argue against. It is an area I find intriguing and perplexing at the same time. I have no problem with the notion that the true power of God's design is in the concept of evolution itself (or adaptation, or natural selection), at least as a theory. [That process, along with every other universal law which governs our existence, is an intense reality that should not be taken for granted. Nor should it's requisite genesis.]

I can't say I'm totally comfortable with the idea that humans evolved from apes, who evolved from lesser mammals, who evolved from amphibians, etc, etc... within the context of my faith, but I am always willing to consider theories and I do try to have an open mind (as open as it can be when you're genuinely convicted of something, I suppose). As nice as a literal understanding of the Bible would be, Vulcan is right: many things in the Bible are obviously written figuratively. If the creation account is one of those things (as most scientific evidence suggests), then that flexibity as well as further disagreements, I'm sure.

It might seem as though my earlier understanding of the events of the Garden of Eden are too literal to coincide with my openness to Genesis' writing being done figuratively. The fact is, I do not know that the events played out exactly as described in the Bible. The crux of the message remains for me.

1. God created the cosmos (including humanity). 2. Man sinned, causing disruption to the harmony of the cosmos and a rift between humanity and God. 3. In addition to the rift and as a result of the disharmony there was significant collateral damage to other areas of the universe. 4. Since then, humanity has strived to reconnect with God and rediscover the harmony of the cosmos in millions (?) of ways, since that's the existence we were designed to live out.

[photon]

I have a problem with #2 though.

The whole idea of punishing every individual throughout humanity based on the actions of of a few individuals is morally corrupt. Not a single person here would agree that a child should go to jail if their parent commits a crime. Or that a race of people should be condemned because of the actions of a few (a black person stole my car therefore all black people are thieves). That every innocent should be condemned to infinite punishment for a finite (and arguably innocent, if people didn't know good from evil, how can they be held responsible in the first place) sin does not come across as moral or just.

EDIT: Oh, and regarding common ancestry of all life on earth, that's one of those things that in another 100 years will be viewed in exactly the same way that people who use the Bible to try and support a flat earth or support slavery are today. Already more Christians than not accept evolution, it will filter down to the evangelicals and such eventually.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by OBCT

1. I don't necessarily agree. In my mind, it is an argument for the "fall of man". Not only did Adam's original sin corrupt humanity's experience of life on Earth forever, I believe it also affected many other parts of the universe, possibly including the physical laws that govern it as well. I believe it most certainly affected animals in their relationship with humans and each other.

Here's the thing - it seems to me the concept of "fall of man" causing mass extinction is incompatible with the concept of evolution. For instance, trilobites have been extinct for roughly 250 million years, much before any human was around to possibly be blamed for everything. Also, the so-called "Champagne Supernova" is from a galaxy roughly 4 billion light years away, meaning that the star exploded roughly 4 billion years before any man was around to fall. To say that extinctions and supernovae were caused by 2 people eating the wrong piece of fruit seems absurd.

3. This is not something I will outright argue against. It is an area I find intriguing and perplexing at the same time. I have no problem with the notion that the true power of God's design is in the concept of evolution itself (or adaptation, or natural selection), at least as a theory. [That process, along with every other universal law which governs our existence, is an intense reality that should not be taken for granted. Nor should it's requisite genesis.]

It is possible that evolution is a demonstration of a designer, but that contradicts the idea of a "fall of man". Theists argue that either God created 2 people (who displeased him), or he set up in motion the rules that eventually ended up with people. And who determines who the first humans were? Were they australopithecines, or neanderthals, or cro-magnon? How did they displease God? Or, did God let evolution create animal and plant diversity, and then created 2 separate beings?

The creation story of the book of Genesis is either literally true, an allegory, or complete fiction. If its literal truth, then God really did not plan things well. He figured out that the animals need to have sex to procreate, but he initially created only one male human. Before creating a woman, God paraded all the animals in front of him looking for a compatible "help meet" (Gen. 2:19-21). Only after Adam rejected all the animals did God think to make a woman for him. The problem with using the bible as an allegorical tool is interpreting what is literal truth, and what is allegory. If we accept that the earth wasn't created in 6 literal days 6000-odd years ago, do we also reject as allegory the story of Jonah and the whale? Noah's ark? The virgin birth? The resurrection? The talking snake? Original sin? Parting of the Red Sea? The 10 Commandments? The burning bush? Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt? The feeding of the 5000? Jesus' miracles? Heaven? Hell? Satan? Angels? Demons?

The fact is, the God as described in the old testament is a jealous, capricious genocidal maniac who supports slavery.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

And the vast majority of extinct species that have ever lived on this planet argues against the higher power. What is it, more than 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct?

That same argument is used to point to a huge climate altering event namely: a flood. The fossil record is a record of extinction. Mass extinction starting right after the flood and then slowing but continuing to this day.

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

It also needs to be pointed out that the human heart may be a beautiful and complex creation, but that precursors over time were simpler and less 'beautiful'. The eye is a good example of something that seems impossibly complex, but which is well understood through the process of natural selection. Here is a quick video explaining the evolution of the eye. No creator necessary.

In short, we (and our individual components) are so complex as a result of our extinct ancestors being less complex.

Embryological evolution was something that was considered a solid proof of evolution when I went to school. They had discovered that in the early stages of human development the embryo has what appears to be a tail. It later disappears. The thought of the day was that they were seeing a glimpse of the tail mankind sported earlier in his development. Turns out they were wrong. What they thought was a tail was part of the spinal column. The developing legs move down the body. The "tail" doesn't disappear at all but rather the body grows around it. Hopefully the powers that be have gotten around to correcting the text books.

The eyes develop in the embryo as part of the brain and move out towards the eye sockets later in the developing baby. They are not part of the spinal cord or the nervous system. The problem with the supposed links to the developing human eye is that none of them originate anywhere near the brain. They can't be part of the development of the human eye. Actually even if they had a direct connection to the brain it would be a huge jump to consider them as links to the development of the eye. The eye works differently. The theory that the eye evolved relatively quickly is being flogged because there is no evidence of said development. One would expect to see evidence of development if millions of years were involved. Also two holes in the skull are hardly a beneficial trait for survival. Anything less than functioning eyes in those holes would be a distinct disadvantage in nature.

Bottom line: Believing science has found plausible evidence of the development of the human eye is akin to believing Christ made an appearance in your cheese grilled sandwich. You've got to use your imagination, look at it from just the right angle, and really want it to be true.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

It really doesn't matter whether or not there is really a god/gods. The function of religion in society is to teach value systems. Religion is about how to live and be a good person. That has been corrupted a great deal over time, but there are some that still do. How you pray or what you call your higher power is not important. It's how you function within society. Organized religion is an attempt to create a common value system for society.

Says who? Religion has nothing to do with being a good person. Religion is used to direct people, often times for good reasons, often times for bad.