Yet the term ‘information’ is not defined in this indoctrination video.
Let’s define it now, and see how the claims about information stack up.
Information is anything that reduces uncertainly
In biological systems that reduction in uncertainty is achieved by using tight, highly-localised constraints on possibilities i.e. a process occurs in a certain way because it can do nothing else.
Let’s now examine the implications of that, shall we, Godspeed?
@Aliveshock By the way (asking for a friend), do you hear these different personae as different and distinct voices, or do you hear them as the same voice giving you distinct and different messages?
Science is focused on unearthing facts and it is never bothered about myths. That answers your first question. Yes, we know. You always stand by some myths! This answers your second one !
@GodSpeed63 Just once, it would be so very nice if you could back up your statements with actual evidence. In this case it should be easy for you. Just present your actual evidence then be prepared to defend it. Just once.
If that were true it would be a simple matter for you to provide a link to it or just present it again here now. The fact is you can't because it isn't true.
All my wife wanted to do when she died was to be an organ donor and help as many people as possible with anything the doctors needed.. A few people have said god must have had a plan for her because when she did pass away a few months ago it was thru SEPSIS.... Her last wish was denied her... She could help nobody... Real nice loving caring god....... NOT
@braveheart21 I'm so sorry for your loss. I know that sounds pretty empty to you right now but I mean it. Even though I'm an atheist I do believe we go on to a higher plane of existence.
Since your little friend has decided to block people who don't agree with him, I'll respond to your post here.
I don't play games like you guys do
I'll actually admit to playing games. It's a good way to get people to think about things in a way they may not usually do so. I've played games in the past, I still play games and I will continue to play games in the future.
You, on the other hand, attempt to play games with the intention to divert and avoid discussing things you are either unable or uncomfortable dealing with. You either don't realise that you are doing so, or you are denying it for some reason known only to yourself. But you certainly do play games.
But I'll repeat my offer to you. This is a legitimate offer, no games, no bluffs, not BS. I'm willing to have a mature and legitimate debate with you with only a couple of small conditions. Firstly, if you make a claim, it has to be supported by legitimate evidence. Secondly, you have to be willing to consider material that goes beyond your faith.
It is not up to Speedy to set the terms of proof in the world of Science
I agree but that's not really relevant. He has claimed that our inability to prove his god doesn't live is actually proof that it does. Unless he's a complete hypocrite, he must accept that, by the same argument, his inability to prove The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) doesn't live is proof that It does.
As he has frequently asserted that the FSM doesn't live, he must have proof that he accepts that It doesn't - unless he's lying of course. If he would present that proof, it would be clear what he would accept as proof and I would attempt to prove his god doesn't live to the same standard. For some strange reason however, he's very reluctant to present his proof. Whether we accept his proof is irrelevant of course, it's whether he accepts it that counts. Thus far the only "proof" he's offered is to simply say the FSM doesn't live. I've easily matched that standard of course.
you cannot support your story ...lol it is laughable how you back peddle and grab around for answers that doesn't make sense just to deny an intelligent creator
We have no burden of proof, Yahweh already proved Himself to mankind, over and over and over, again and again. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
The multiverse theory can't be tested (and no, I don't subscribe to that hypothesis), so it can't be real. Ok, show me how you could test your hypothesis that god created it all can be tested. If not, then must also be untrue.
Why does it have to be the christian god? How would you go about testing that hypothesis?
I believe science will prove the existence of God. The CERN Hadron collider already has, and people just aren't talking about it. When science irrefutably proves the existence of God, you can bet that leftist will do everything they can to cover it up and snuff the data. Just like they cook the books on climate change. Greed is their God. Power lust is their Messiah. Misery and spite are their religion and doctrine.
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I am not sure that's actually true. I am somewhat newer here, but I think/believe Puck61 is a Believer in Christ Jesus. I am not seeing a Left/Right disposition.
Science cannot disprove God. All science can do is prove that, for now, it has no way to observe God. But that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
Think of it like the atom. Theorised in 450 BC but not observed properly until AD 1981. For over 2000 years people dismissed the idea of atoms. Some devoted scientists kept at it but most didn't care. It wasn't relevant, it wasn't measurable and it had no impact on their daily lives. God could very much be the same.
People have theorised more implausible and crazy stuff in this universe than just some supreme being.
@TheWildEcho Why would he go out of his way to confuse people by doing that then send them to Hell when the evidence doesn't support his existence? It sounds like he's setting us up to fail.
@RedtheEmerald not at all! Hes setting us up to have a relationship with Him through Jesus. People send themselves to hell by rejecting Him a bit like a man will drown by refusing to get into a lifeboat
I got my degree in biology, my late father(a Baptist minister) was an anthropologist. We both embraced science. We both studied evolution and the origins of humans. We both agreed God had a hand in all of this. Science is science, wonderful and fascinating. Faith is faith, wonderful and fascinating. Nothing can prove my faith to anyone it is my faith and it is real. At the same time, nothing can disprove my faith. My faith is what makes God exist. The Bible teaches us time is irrelevant to God(relativity) The Bible was written by men, for men. With the human concept of time and space, and the world and creation. In reality as a Christian, all of this is irrelevant, what matters is the word the Lord, the word of Christ. Whether or not the universe was created in six days is irrelevant, how ever it happened is God’s business. In the mean time love and forgive and do as Christ said. I’m not a good Christian, I try but I am a human with terrible flaws. But I try
I don't block most people or for very long because I want you to be saved and read the Bible verses and the posts.
So blocking people is your way of punishing them. How very childish and so counter-effective. You don't seem to realise that many here aren't interested in you BS posts about your silly little imaginary friend and only respond to warn others who might otherwise be deceived by them.
And yet you don't dare debate them properly on science and evolution. I wouldn't dare to debate them on those subjects either. The best thing thou can do is to learn from them.
Seriously, he is incapable of debating and of learning.
How should a student with similar beliefs to yours answer questions about the age of the earth or evolution in exams?
They should always tell the truth on their exams whether the teacher or the professor agrees with them or not. In this case the teacher or the professor should grade on a curve being the student told the truth on their exam.
So tell me... what’s your scientific explanation of Fallopian tube defects and sinus problems and slipped discs?
As you've said, science can't explain everything, not even Fallopian tube defects and sinus problems and slipped discs. That doesn't mean that your conclusions are correct.
@GodSpeed63 as I have shown, science does an excellent job of consistently, completely, and coherently, explaining Fallopian tube defects and sinus problems and slipped discs.
Not drawing conclusions and then looking for evidence to support those conclusions.
Science, as in this case, gathers evidence and then seeks to explain that evidence
as I have shown, science does an excellent job of consistently, completely, and coherently, explaining Fallopian tube defects and sinus problems and slipped discs.
Science has also shown that those things didn't take place in the beginning.
Not drawing conclusions and then looking for evidence to support those conclusions.
It looks like you are, Newjaninev. You talk of evidence and facts yet you can't heads or tails of what they're presenting to you.
Science, as in this case, gathers evidence and then seeks to explain that evidence
Science may be gathering the evidence but it's not it that's doing the explaining, it's a group of people, like yourself, who can't tell their butts from their elbows doing the explaining. Your type of science rules out the one true God. In doing so, you rule out the whole of science itself.
You won't be pinned down to explain exactly what you believe. You refuse to discuss anything in a serious and civilised way, to show any understanding of the fundamental natures and purposes of religion and science; to accept being questioned or doubted, or to tolerate any dissent from whatever you decide to believe at the time.
Your question has elicited over 3500 replies so far, most of which have little or no intellectual, philosophical or theological depth. Indeed, many are merely insult-trading between believing and not believing in God (or your version of God), or between appreciating and despising science. The latter stance, ironically, relying on scientific achievements to say so!
Just arguing over a question of no significance at all, round and round and round and round and... down the plughole into the drain.
I believe that was your intention all along. Merely provoking bitter, pointless arguments by posing a wilfully provocative, logically unanswerable question intended to arouse unreasoning emotion and passion rather than reasoned thought and analysis.
WHY?
Are you just as childish and unpleasant in real life? I hope not.
@GodSpeed63 I see that as the Christian perspective, but what of those of other faiths and indeed of none who have no fear in a theological or philosophical sense?
I see that as the Christian perspective, but what of those of other faiths and indeed of none who have no fear in a theological or philosophical sense?
There's only one God who saves and that's Yahweh through Jesus Christ by His Holy. He's the one true God who lives forever. All other gods are man made and cannot save. other faiths do not teach salvation and, even though they may not be afraid in this world, they don't teach love.
One can only prove that the universe and life came into existence by means other than a god or gods.
However, if we are speaking of the Biblical God in the most literal sense (creationist/fundamentalist), there is a logical proof that he could not possibly exist.
A simple proof is the fact that for cell transcription the double helix has to be unzipped. That the only way to unzip the strand is with a protien made from DNA.
That means that both DNA and Protiens had to be present at the same time when life first appeared.
This is not just a chicken and egg puzzle. It's the ultimate proof that the designer had to exist.
We are the proof that God exists. There's no other logical conclusion that one could arrive at if you know this.
And Truth is not truth until you can prove it. So.......... Walk across my pool.. Raise Trumps political career from the dead.... SHOW ME!!!
Yahweh has already shown you but, having eyes, you choose not see, and having ears, you choose not hear. Show me that Yahweh doesn't live or His Word isn't true.
@SW-User The creationist argument is self defeating. If the universe be so complex it needs a creator; the the creator, necessarily more complex, must also need a creator, and so on ad infinitum. Any explanation of the origin of the ultimate creator could, of course, be applied to the universe itself, thus making that creator an unnecessary postulation.
SW-User
@Sharon I prefer a more direct argument: one that better counters the inevitable creationist claim that God always existed. The cosmos always existed!
People believe what they want to believe. It is difficult to deprogram a belief.
Most people grow out of the need for an invisible "friend", if they needed it to begin with, by about 5 years of age.
Science is testable. One can rely on it because almost any person can actually witness the experiment.
Faith is only testable when those who have it are open to other modes of thought.
Religion is crack for those who need it to have meaning in their unhappy lives. I cannot tell you how many religious folks who say if their "god" wasn't real to them they would off themselves. So if religion keeps you from that it might be worth keeping around.
I feel it is better if you focus on the living rather than opining for your death as a magical gateway.
@Bushranger Definitely. I don't know how @Carazaa got the two master's degrees she claims to have. They must have come in a packet of (low budget) breakfast cereal.
If God created everything perfect then why does everything change? That would mean everything is in transition from perfect to "more perfect" or from perfection to imperfection.
@Sharon What kind of narcissist God punishes people forever? Have you ever pruned a plant? Do you save the rotten branches forever? What makes you think God owes you or saves you when you call him names? What kind of narcissist person prunes a tree when the branches are dead? Jesus tells us what he does with rotten branches.
Jesus the True Vine …"Remain in Me, and I will remain in you. Just as no branch can bear fruit by itself unless it remains in the vine, neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in Me. 5I am the vine and you are the branches. The one who remains in Me, and I in him, will bear much fruit. For apart from Me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are gathered up, thrown into the fire, and burned."…John 15; 1-7
@Adogslife Not the god i grew up with...the non-existent god. HE is a vindictive, arrogant narcissist...just like trump..."Love and worship me or be severely punished" invisible sky fairy. That would be male
@fernie2 You have a good point there. OP's god is known to be both infinitely loving but at the same time infinitely kills more people than Satan himself.
God does not have to prove Himself to anyone, but He still does anyway. Through Creation, God has proven over and over again, that He is so great. Each to their own, right?
You're the one playing dumb, Sharon. You keep trying to use your dummy gods as proof that Yahweh doesn't live and they just don't cut the mustard. Yahweh still lives in spite of what you may believe. Since you can't prove that He doesn't live, then get use to the fact that He does live and let it go at that.
Then take up my offer and prove The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't live. Thus far you've repeatedly and spectacularly failed to do so. You keep trying to use your dummy god* as proof that The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't live and it just doesn't cut the mustard. The Flying Spaghetti Monster still lives in spite of what you may believe. Since you can't prove that The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't live, then get use to the fact that It does live and let it go at that. r'Amen.
*That's the thing you call "yahweh" in case you're still having your memory problems and have forgotten again.
@Sharon “must accept” the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I could also apply this burden of proof to you as well, but I’m not going to do that....bc I’m an adult and understand that everyone was raised with a different background and experiences and don’t believe all the things that I believe in.
@GodSpeed63 your Argument from Personal Credulity remains just that - personal.
It carries no weight with anyone except you. It amounts to ‘it’s true because I believe it to be true’, so cannot be characterised as proof of anything except your personal credulity.
Any claim you make based on that is, and remains, a mere unsupported claim
No, because disproof depends upon what one is trying to disprove, i.e., the definition.
Since the God of Abram/Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, of Moses & David, Elijah & Daniel, and Jesus & Simon "Peter" & Saul/Paul is typically defined by the "omni's"--omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent--to disprove the existence of such a being would require disproving all of these.
The easiest to consider is the last, because the typical definition considers God to be beyond the constraints of time & space; while this might make Him inaccessible to scientific investigation, if one considers Him to be able to be any*where* & any*when*, then one would have to observe, simultaneously, all locations at all times in order to disprove this prong of the definition...if He even has an existence which is of the variety with which we are familiar (the obviously-observable variety).
I think the task is so difficult that proof of His non-existence is hard.
I believe personal proof of His existence is much more attainable, as my own experience & that of others through the ages indicates. I also have had corroborating events which directly and indirectly support the existence of this being.
No, they were not voltages, etc., at calculated places and times. They were personal experiences, and I believe these types of experiences are accessible to others, as well.
Do I think that much which has nothing to do with God--even things anathema to Him--has/have been attributed to Him, done in His Name, etc.? YES!
Do I think a lot of people have strained the text of the Bible by trying to make it a perfect historical or scientific record, when it is not, and counter to what is well known to Biblical scholars? YES! (The first 11 Chapters of Genesis--Creation to the Tower of Babel--and the Book of Job are the oldest parts; so if anything has mythic elements, these are the most likely. I don't find my faith undone by science, I don't think God is threatened by an old Universe, evolution, or global warming.)
Do I think a lot of people provide extra-Biblical context when reading the Bible? YES!
God gave birth to himself to kill himself as a sacrifice in order to appease himself, so that he would no longer have to throw us into a fiery pit for all eternity, because he made us in a way that was not up to his own very high standard.
God gave birth to himself to kill himself as a sacrifice in order to appease himself, so that he would no longer have to throw us into a fiery pit for all eternity, because he made us in a way that was not up to his own very high standard.
That's pretty good, incidentally I have an alternate summation of Christianity -
Some con men sell Life Insurance. Christianity sells After Life Insurance. Everyone thinks you might need it, and no one can prove you don't.
No. That's also probably not God's purpose of giving humanity the intellectual capacity to build up a vast catalogue of all the many sciences.
If anything it seems more likely that science is still discovering how little it knows about how many sciences there are.
There was no computer science, genetic science, and many other ones a hundred years ago. No doubt there will be considerably more in the future.
Those few scientists that waste their time engaging in debates about God however, probably won't contribute to that list so that's a fairly easy prediction to make.
So Samsung is your god? I have a Samsung phone and it's in front of my nose in this moment.
All this shows that you can't see past the end of your nose. Plus, you have a very limited intelligence and never graduated from high school; it's also possible you never got past the third grade.
Does science NEED to disprove god? The world of faith and the world of science are different. I am content to let them co exist. It is only when someone makes a claim that the world of faith can physically influence the world of science (like curing cancer, or covid 19 or preventing some natural or man made disaster) That I have problem. Just dont ask me to believe what you believe and I am happy for you to believe in a god, or the great pumpkin or the flying spaghetti monster. Myself, I prefer to trust in "The Force".😷
@spjennifer I gave evidence in my 3rd post how we know without a doubt at all that God in the Bible is God and that his name is Lord, and there is no other. Please read the post. I am very logical and that is evidence!
@GodSpeed63 I disagree. As long as religion deals only with faith and the soul and stays away from replacing science, I believe in rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars and rending unto god what is hers.😷
Since you yourself cannot, nor ever have, proven or deduced the existence of your God, I shall show you an example procedure (within a scientific framework) in which to do so.
First, we postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into Hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in Hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Therefore two options exist:
1) If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until All Hell Breaks Loose.
2) If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell Freezes Over.
So which is it?
If we accept the quote given by many Liberals and celebrities that "it will be a cold night in Hell before Donald Trump is elected President" and take into account the fact that he indeed was elected President, then Option 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is endothermic and has already frozen over.
Therefore, the corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is in fact extinct...leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being. Which explains why the day after the 2016 Presidential election, Liberals and celebrities kept shouting "Oh my God."
So this just goes to show that although I'm not an atheist, I was able to at least provide something. You have never come up with anything. So you must either not be trying very hard, don't care or you're just here to sound off a hypocritical manifesto diatribe and expect common sense, thinking people to just believe your verbal diarrhea out of hand. Betting on the latter.
@Adstar Right at the foundation we see your cherry-picking fault. You're missing the forest for inspecting each tree thus missing the spirit of the story. This is only a humorous example. Try harder, you can do it.
Will science disprove god? Well...no, it won't. Science functions through the scientific method, and the scientific method requires observation. In order to conduct science, you need to be able to collect data on whatever it is you're studying. And the whole point of god is that he's unable to be observed in any way. He is invisible, inaudible, incorporeal, undetectable by all means, he is not made of matter or energy, he does not influence or affect anything made of matter or energy...god doesn't exist in any physical capacity in our universe. So how can science disprove - or prove for that matter - the existence of something that we have absolutely no way of interacting with?
@GodSpeed63 Learn how to present an actual argument before you criticise others' spelling. And perhaps check the spelling to make sure you aren't in error.
@LadyGrace Then we have identified the place where we disagree and underlying reasoning. Maybe others can learn from this civil exchange at least on how to arrive at that point.😷
God is not subject to the scientific method. That's like asking if a car jack can be used to unscrew a nail. You got some realms and their fitting methods where patterns can be detected and rationalized and other realms with particular patterns where rationalization depends on other tools.
Yes, ultimately religion (theists) and science (atheists) are the same. They are both ardent believers. The non-believers are the agnostics. Although they don't believe in a God, like the atheists, they're not going to get caught in a pons asinorum (argument), "The bridge of asses."
Initially it (the bridge of asses) referred to Euclid's Fifth Theorem, the one in which geometry really gets difficult and the sheep are separated from the asses among students, and the asses can't get across the bridge at all. Now it refers to any theorem that the asses can't wrap their heads around.
Science has (admittedly) ripped religion to shreads over the past few thousand years. Polytheism took the pipe in favor of Monotheism. We had to keep one real God, right? Yet the asses are still on the bridge.
Why? Science has disproven with evidence and falsifiable hypothesis almost all that the theists contend. But, they can't prove the creation of something from nothing. Quantum physics, quantum potentiality, none can make that final leap of faith.
You can't make something from nothing. And, even if you could, you don't have the time to do it. Time doesn't exist.
As an agnostic, I'm a firm believer in uncertainty, over certainty. Here, I just happen to love the theist v atheist arguments. Neither can "know" everything, but they're simply unaware of that fact.
@Emosaur reality is the combination of fact and perception. we call the same thing yellow, but do perceive the same thing? we could attribute 570–590 nm to a dandelion, but thats not how we see the world.
please quote me completely: I stated
stating that everything can be explained through science is just as dogmatic as stating that there is a god and only one god.
it is belief that a science can explain everything. it is not yet a fact until its proven under the same scientific method and philosophy. accepting it as a fact before the proof makes is a belief, and there for a dogma. QED.
I respect those who do as long as they respect me that I do not.
I'm the same. I just object to those christians who state their beliefs as proven facts and insult anyone who doesn't accept them without question. They frequently employ double standards, arguing their god must be real because we can't prove it isn't. At the same time they claim other gods are false because believers can't prove they're real.
If they want to believe in their god, that's fine, so long as they don't try to force their beliefs on to others. Their actions are especially reprehensible when they target and attempt to exploit the vulnerable and young children.
Science can't prove god exists either so all of it is a moot point. There's def. some weird phenomenon in the universe but the real question is if this needs a creator to exist or not. Just labeling everything as God is lazy though not saying it can't be.
@DiscreetWriterMike "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it." John 1:1
"And the word became flesh and dwelt among us" John 1:11
We have a just God, and he will not let sin go unpunished. You either have to take your punishment for every single sin yourself, or let God himself who came and visited us to prove that he is God by the miracles, and dying for the world, and rising from the dead, inorder for us to know he loves us.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son so that whosoever believes in him, will not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16
@Carazaa "We have a just God, and he will not let sin go unpunished. You either have to take your punishment for every single sin yourself, or let God himself who came and visited us to prove that he is God by the miracles, and dying for the world, and rising from the dead, inorder for us to know he loves us."
Because he is a just God, if I take all of my punishment, then his son's suffering must be reduced, correct? Because if he suffered for me when I did not / will not accept it, then he punished his son for no reason, which makes him an unjust God. But that's not true, so by accepting my punishment, I can (and will) lessen the suffering of his son. So I realized years ago that I choose to be punished for my sin, if that's what's required, because no one else should have be. If that had the effect of lifting even one lash from that man, then it is/was worth it.
What I never understood was how anyone would accept a truly innocent person suffering and dying for them, when the fault is theirs and theirs alone.
I'm not arguing whether or not your beliefs are true. I'm stating that if they are true, then I choose to accept my sins and punishment, because I will not let someone else suffer for my failings, especially an innocent. And if God is just, then my acceptance of my punishment must have lessened His suffering.
@DiscreetWriterMike The punishment is yours if you reject his hand, and it stands that you are banned from heaven and can't reach God at all or communicate with him. " How can you escape if you neglect such a great salvation" Jesus says. Jesus just asks you to repent your sins and trust in him who proved that he loves you. If you have a son and want to help your son out it is a foolish son who wont accept the help. To repent and follow Jesus is your only hope for redemtion, and help in this life and the next. There is no other.
For those who do not believe in God or whatever, why would they get so bent out of shape over the subject? I mean if someone isn't into something, why even think about it?
It is kind of like how in the middle east they worship something called allah ackbar. I do not believe nor care about THAT but I do not argue with them about the validity of their faith.
This is brilliant. Science is not only not disproving God, but is proving God (or Source Energy, Christ Consciousness, Buddha Nature, whatever term you wish to apply). The place where people get hung up, I think, is in religion, which has NOTHING to do with God, but with how organized religion USES God. Religion uses God in very divisive and limiting ways. It's use of a system of rewards and punishments for the purpose of control and power, sends people in the direction of seeing God in ways only the religion's doctrine ministers, subsequently creating more separateness than oneness, within the individual as well as from each other - excluding those who are in disagreement, rather than including all as the one being we truly are.
I will attack and ridicule them at any given chance.
I do that when they try to ridicule others' beliefs. From a completely impartial viewpoint, there is no difference between a belief in the christian god and belief in The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Therefore, if a christian attempt to ridicule Pastafarianism (for example), his or her beliefs are equally deserving of ridicule.
The missing ingredient in the big bang theory is the power source — a source beyond any natural physical law — a source beyond our imagination. The God of the Bible claims responsibility for the creation of the universe. Could anything other than the Almighty God fulfill the premises upon which the big bang theory is based?
@LadyGrace I respect you too much to argue with you. But I must dispute a couple of your statements. The Garden was not perfect in your story. The Serpent was there. And Eve was not perfect, being subject to temptation. For the Feminists in the audience, by extension, since Even was made from a rib of Adam, that makes Adam imperfect as well. As a religious construct of society your myth has some merit. (Personally I prefer the Buddhist approach) But if you want to present it as science it has to stand up as science, and the theory has to fit the facts.
@whowasthatmaskedman Thank you for your ideas/comment. I'm strictly going by what God's Word reveals. The Garden of Eden was perfect, in that it was made prior to the sin factor. Being that God is sinless, perfect, and cannot make errors, He did not create anything that was evil or make any mistakes. The fact that the serpent was there, is strictly because he was cast out of heaven for trying to take it over. That doesn't make the Garden evil because he was in it. The Serpent, himself was evil. The bible says that sin was found IN him.
Adam and Eve were made perfect before their fall. So Eve didn't make Adam imperfect. We each make our own choices and are responsible only for ourselves. Everything was perfect before the fall. That is, until Genesis 3 when Satan (in the form of a serpent) approached Eve and challenged the one command that God had given them. It would have stayed perfect, had Adam and Eve not chosen to disobey God. However, having free will like the Angel's, they made a choice, though warned, to disobey God, which then ushered in sin. No one forced them to do that.
There was also the expulsion from the perfect conditions in the Garden of Eden. "Therefore the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken (Genesis 3:23)." Humanity was no longer allowed to live in the Garden.The paradise of Eden would soon degenerate as would the rest of the earth. Eden had been lost and humanity had been plunged into the curse of sin.
There was also the expulsion from theperfectconditions in theGardenofEden. "Therefore the Lord God sent him out of theGardenofEdento till the ground from which he was taken (Genesis 3:23)." Humanity was no longer allowed to live in theGarden.Theparadise ofEdenwould soon degenerate as would the rest of the earth. Eden had been lost and humanity had been plunged into the curse of sin.
Amen, sister, amen.
SW-User
In the right hands a proper interpretation of scientific findings could threaten belief in God, for the evidence supports another possibility: that nature/chance (by itself) can provide us with eternal life. In this scenario the idea of God would be ridiculed as selling that which is already assured. Of course, some would still prefer the addition of colorful characters as told in wildly inaccurate story form.
@SW-User Wow such a powerful non argument. When you finish anything of worth in science please let me know so I will waste my time then discussing issues of value. Your vapid comments offends anyone that defends science.
SW-User
@Aliveshock You're not much of a thinker. More of a stinker. Run along now.
@SW-User Yes, there are some religious groups that have provisos on their help, but there are others that do not. As @Carazaa pointed out, the Salvation Army is one such organisation that does not insist on compliance with their program for help. In regard to mental health issues, I perhaps should have been a bit more specific, I was mostly speaking about depression in that context. Being part of a community, whether religious or secular, has been shown to reduce the impact and severity of depression (http://ccare.stanford.edu/uncategorized/connectedness-health-the-science-of-social-connection-infographic/).
@LadyGrace Indeed. A bible quote will never be an acceptable argument to someone who does not believe in God and an attempt to prove there is no God will never mean anything to someone who does. Everyone is just pissing in the wind here.
SW-User
No it will not. Nothing will ever definitely disprove God
