• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Floods, Fossils, Science and Faith (Split from Global Warming)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Brewtus;733306; said:
In all honesty, I like the idea of a personal God and eternal life. But what I prefer and what is reality are rarely the same. I'm a skeptic in my business and personal life so why shouldn't I be one in regards to my spirituality? I research and seek evidence before buying a house or car, so why shouldn't I ask for the same when believing in a God? If God were so powerful and influential, why isn't He obvious to every person on the Earth?

And could you imagine living in a universe where there was no God?
Click to expand...

I see God everywhere I look. I can give you the evidence that I base my faith upon. Hence, the problem is not a lack of evidence, but whether or not you would accept it. You have accepted a very narrow definition of what the evidence of God must appear to be, which limits your ability to see what exists.

As Paul wrote almost 2000 years ago:

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator?who is forever praised. Amen. (Romans 1:20-25)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;733521; said:
I should take it then that you also don't accept the numbers I used in my post?
Click to expand...

No.

Looking at where life is and is not as we know doesn't really give us the odds of life generating from non-life.

The number I am looking for is what is the odds of the exact conditions (i.e. amount energy, form of energy, chemicals, external environment, etc) necessary for life to spontaneously generate through natural processes to occur at a random moment in space and time.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;733563; said:
The number I am looking for is what is the odds of the exact conditions (i.e. amount energy, form of energy, chemicals, external environment, etc) necessary for life to spontaneously generate through natural processes to occur at a random moment in space and time.
Click to expand...
Well, since we're not even agreed at what those conditions are (and by us, I mean scientists who study such things) it's impossible to address your question with anything other than the probabilities. Considering your appeal to the Null hypothesis where aliens were concerned, it seemed to me fair to assert that we should expect that the universe behaves in a manner consistent with what we observe in our own solar system - and the onus would be on you to prove that it does not.
 
Upvote 0
Kierkegaard should be required for any argument on the existence of God.

LINK

Kierkegaard has been called a Christian existentialist, a theologian,[15] the Father of Existentialism, a literary critic,[12] a humorist,[16] a psychologist,[17] a poet,[18] and a philosopher. Two of his popular ideas are "subjectivity" and the "leap to faith," popularly referred to as the "leap of faith."[19][2] The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love. It is not so much a rational decision, as it is transcending rationality in favour of something more uncanny, that is, faith. As such he thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt that God exists; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought, without which the faith would have no real substance. Doubt is an essential element of faith, an underpinning. In plain words, to believe or have faith that God exists, without ever having doubted God's existence or goodness, would not be a faith worth having. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God.
Click to expand...

2 Points
1. You cannot "prove" the existence of God.
2. You cannot bring someone to faith through rational thought.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;733563; said:
No.

Looking at where life is and is not as we know doesn't really give us the odds of life generating from non-life.

The number I am looking for is what is the odds of the exact conditions (i.e. amount energy, form of energy, chemicals, external environment, etc) necessary for life to spontaneously generate through natural processes to occur at a random moment in space and time.
Click to expand...

Actually, the odds have been calculated as to the correct elements randomly lining up to form life. I cannot recall the exact odds from my philosophy courses, but they are overwhelmingly against life existing outside of Earth. However, the validity of that statistic is unknown because we cannot verify the exitence/non-exitence of life on other planets. In other words, there may be a factor (God or natural processes) which increases the probability. That x-factor may exist on say 1 or every 100 or 1000 planets. We simply do not have the data necessary to assign odds to the existence of life outside this solar system.
 
Upvote 0
MuckFich06;733593; said:
Actually, the odds have been calculated as to the correct elements randomly lining up to form life. I cannot recall the exact odds from my philosophy courses, but they are overwhelmingly against life existing outside of Earth. However, the validity of that statistic is unknown because we cannot verify the exitence/non-exitence of life on other planets. In other words, there may be a factor (God or natural processes) which increases the probability. That x-factor may exist on say 1 or every 100 or 1000 planets. We simply do not have the data necessary to assign odds to the existence of life outside this solar system.
Click to expand...

I'd also add that the probabilities that a universe exist are extremely low... and yet... here we are...
 
Upvote 0
Brewtus;733306; said:
In all honesty, I like the idea of a personal God and eternal life. But what I prefer and what is reality are rarely the same. I'm a skeptic in my business and personal life so why shouldn't I be one in regards to my spirituality? I research and seek evidence before buying a house or car, so why shouldn't I ask for the same when believing in a God? If God were so powerful and influential, why isn't He obvious to every person on the Earth?

And could you imagine living in a universe where there was no God?
Click to expand...

I really don't think most people like the idea of a personal God. There are a lot of consequences to that. If there is a personal God then we would have someone to answer to besides ourselves. If God demands something of us we have to submit to those demands or bear the consequences. If we deny his existence then we can do whatever we want with nothing to make us stop and think twice. Many people would prefer a reality where they could do whatever they want and get away with it. In fact I think its everyone's general preference: to have fun with no consequences. That's what's appealing about evolution.

God in the future will set up a kingdom here on earth where his glory, ritchousness, and power will be plainly obvious to everyone, however if he had already done that would you really have much of a choice at all? It would be the easiest choice in the world to see God in his full power and glory and choose to worship Him. So easy its not even really a choice. God wants people to choose Him on their own free will. God even came down in human form about 2000 years ago. Jesus made claims to be able to forgive sins, something only God could do. I definately think that Jesus's claims are the only viable claim for Godhood ever. And the way He came wasn't what anyone would have expected. It is so much more orginal than anything humans have drawn up before or since. He was so unique and so great, yet he was hung on a cross for it. On this earth Jesus gained nothing. On this earth he was killed for those things he did. The same thing goes for His followers. Peter was imprisoned numerous times and eventually hung upside down on the cross because he felt he wasn't worthy to die Jesus's death. Paul was imprisoned numerous times and beheaded. John was imprisoned and exiled. Clearly they were sincere. These men weren't crazy and have no evidence that they were. If they were lying they got nothing but death out of it. You may claim they were mistaken but its hard to be mistaken about someone dyeing and coming back to life. Thomas had to touch Jesus's wounds. When Jesus died blood and water flowed. He had died. Trained Roman guards who under penalty of death were guarding a tomb with a 1 & 1/2 ton stone that had the Emporer's mark that if anyone touched would have to die, but couldn't have been moved but by a few dozen men anyway. But Jesus arose after 3 days and lives. That's more than enough evidence for me.

Simon Greenleaf once a staunch angnostic who berated his Christian students at Harvard Law(he was a founder) and who is considered a father of American jurisprudence was challenged by one of his students to prove that the Resurrection didn't happen. Greanleaf set out to Israel and Jerusalem to do just that only to find out the truth of the Resurrection.

I truely believe there are only 2 reasons why people don't find evidence of God: 1.) They are blinded 2.) They don't want to.
 
Upvote 0
JoJaBuckeye;733527; said:
Perchance a definition of science is in order. Here's mine.

Science is effort applied to ignorance.
​
Ergo, where there is science, there must be ____________ ???​
Click to expand...

Well, I think few would argue that the human condition is rife with ignorance. Given that, we might as well apply effort to try to minimize it. Better to apply effort to ignorance than to apply acceptance, indifference, or obedience IMO.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;733752; said:
I really don't think most people like the idea of a personal God. There are a lot of consequences to that. If there is a personal God then we would have someone to answer to besides ourselves. If God demands something of us we have to submit to those demands or bear the consequences. If we deny his existence then we can do whatever we want with nothing to make us stop and think twice. Many people would prefer a reality where they could do whatever they want and get away with it. In fact I think its everyone's general preference: to have fun with no consequences. That's what's appealing about evolution.
Click to expand...

I don't see the tie to evolution. Anyway, this all presumes we have any idea what God wants. That requires faith in the Bible, and frankly, I have never been able to make the leap that that book is more than a book of Man. I'm not "supposed" to think that.... but ..... I do. As I've discussed on other threads... inspired by God I can accept.. the WORD of God? Nope. I just can't believe that.

God in the future will set up a kingdom here on earth where his glory, ritchousness, and power will be plainly obvious to everyone, however if he had already done that would you really have much of a choice at all? It would be the easiest choice in the world to see God in his full power and glory and choose to worship Him. So easy its not even really a choice. God wants people to choose Him on their own free will. God even came down in human form about 2000 years ago. Jesus made claims to be able to forgive sins, something only God could do. I definately think that Jesus's claims are the only viable claim for Godhood ever. And the way He came wasn't what anyone would have expected. It is so much more orginal than anything humans have drawn up before or since. He was so unique and so great, yet he was hung on a cross for it. On this earth Jesus gained nothing. On this earth he was killed for those things he did. The same thing goes for His followers. Peter was imprisoned numerous times and eventually hung upside down on the cross because he felt he wasn't worthy to die Jesus's death. Paul was imprisoned numerous times and beheaded. John was imprisoned and exiled. Clearly they were sincere. These men weren't crazy and have no evidence that they were. If they were lying they got nothing but death out of it. You may claim they were mistaken but its hard to be mistaken about someone dyeing and coming back to life. Thomas had to touch Jesus's wounds. When Jesus died blood and water flowed. He had died. Trained Roman guards who under penalty of death were guarding a tomb with a 1 & 1/2 ton stone that had the Emporer's mark that if anyone touched would have to die, but couldn't have been moved but by a few dozen men anyway. But Jesus arose after 3 days and lives. That's more than enough evidence for me.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that Jesus arose after 3 days? Did you witness these events? Didn't think so. You have FAITH, not evidence.

Why personal suffering is evidence of "truth" I don't understand. Saddam Hussien was hung, does that mean he was sincere? Or even that sincerity is at issue? No.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;733752; said:
I really don't think most people like the idea of a personal God. There are a lot of consequences to that. If there is a personal God then we would have someone to answer to besides ourselves. If God demands something of us we have to submit to those demands or bear the consequences. If we deny his existence then we can do whatever we want with nothing to make us stop and think twice. Many people would prefer a reality where they could do whatever they want and get away with it. In fact I think its everyone's general preference: to have fun with no consequences. That's what's appealing about evolution.
Click to expand...

What this person doesn't much like is the assumption of many believers in God that fear of consequences from God is necessary for any human being to reasonably self-limit his or her behavior given that: (1) There are many other incentives to self-limit behavior (physical danger, fear of disapproval of or desire for approval of other humans, emotional attachments, legal consequences . . .); and (2) Belief in God seems to have limited influence on the range of behavior humans actually engage in.

The French say that a man who thinks there's another man under his bed has been under one himself, and I often think about that when being told that I need fear of God to keep me from becoming a monster.
 
Upvote 0
When a jury convicts someone of murder and sentences him to death how many of the Jurors were there to see the murder happen? I have the same evidence they would. I'm taking it on the authority of the Witnesses that were there which is why I pointed out Greanleaf. Sadam Huessien may have got death, but before that he sure got lots of power and money and almost anything else he could have desired. The Apostles recieved no power or money or anything for anything they did or said. It was constantly the opposite. That is an awful price for a lie. Sadam was gaining for his actions. The Apostles weren't.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;733844; said:
When a jury convicts someone of murder and sentences him to death how many of the Jurors were there to see the murder happen?
Click to expand...
Sufficient due process to convict of a crime does not mean that the individual committed said crime. Try again.

Sadam Huessien may have got death, but before that he sure got lots of power and money and almost anything else he could have desired. The Apostles recieved no power or money or anything for anything they did or said. It was constantly the opposite. That is an awful price for a lie. Sadam was gaining for his actions. The Apostles weren't.
Click to expand...

I see. How about David Koresh then? He seemed to not have very much.. I mean, yeah he had his little compound and all, but it's not like Peter, Paul and company had their sandles and that's all.. I mean, hell, they were educated, pretty rare for men of their day, so we can assume they had some means... But, back to Koresh.... sincere? Yes, he wasn't "hung" but it's easy enough to argue he killed himself because of the punishment from the Gov. that would follow.

Tom Cruise is apparently the savior. Shall I believe that because someone says so? Even if several someones write it down?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top