Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove to me God doesn't exist Nah, he's well on his way to becoming a humanist if he's not there already. If he'd said that he despised mankind because we're all inherently sinful and unworthy, THEN he'd be on the merry road to theism.
Someone mentioned this earlier, but i wanted to elaborate a little bit. THe second law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, or something like that it's been awhile since high school... anyway, so when you start out back a few billion years ago, there was stuff floating around and it blew up creating everything in the universe, which is what i believe... however, wehre did that stuff come from, and where did that energy come from, you cannot have something come from nothing, and you cannot break the laws of thermodynamics... whether this means that there is a god today, i do not know, it could have been some sorta metaphysical fart, it could have been God or Allah or Mobutu, the god of some tribe in Africa, whether it still exists or not can be debated... this is why i'm an agnostic not an athiest
Apparently not. I just went there my senior year, because public school was just way too easy to, ummm, not go to.
Look where that got you...now you'll be busy trying to figure out why they fed you all that BS. Should have just stayed home, or not paid attention like me.
Man, how I wish I went to public school instead of having private tutors. Me and my brother were both tutored from the age of 4 to 15 and then sent to a public school the senior year of HS. My parents thought they were doing us a favour, but it turned out to be a big mistake on our part. We're still both dealing with consequences of sheltered upbringing and mostly being around people with same views as us. That's why I cringe every time I hear someone talk about private schools.
Yeah well, in the words of Mr. Krueger: "I'm not too worried about it." In the words of Puddy, regarding eternal life in hell: "It's gonna be rough."
Like I already said, humanism was born of the Christian (and others) tradition. This is made painfully obvious in just about any well-rounded education curriculum.
> Aren't negative theories labeled as negative > because someone scientifically proved they are > indeed negative? No, a negative means there is a "not" or other negative word in it. For example, if you have a theory "there are albino crows" and you asked me to prove the negative (that there are not albino crows), I would have no other recourse but to look at every crow in the the entire universe, throughout all time. And even if I had video tape of the entire lives of all crows that have ever and will ever exist, you can always say something like "when video taped, albino crows look black" or "you didn't really look hard enough" or something. It would be so much easier if the burden of proof was on the person with the claim. Give me an albino crow. That is why a person is innocent until proven guilty - a person is making a claim that someone did a crime, and it should be on the person making the claim to prove it. > I have to believe there is some pompous > professor somewhere that would LOVE to explain > to me, scientifically, why there is no God. Just > wondering if he was lurking here... It is possible to prove a negative if there is a logical contradiction in the original claim, or if the parameters of the claim are so limited that a complete search can be done. Please give us a complete description of God, his nature, and his powers, and I will see if I can do that.
> That's almost comical, because God is a humanist. Yeah, lots of humanists kill the entire world's population except for a drunk and his family when that humanist becomes upset at humanity's behavior.
Funny that you chose to put the word that should've been emphasised in the brackets, thus relegating it to nothing more than a by-the-way. Christianity didn't invent anything. It's nothing more than a mix of various doctrines from various sources, from Judaism to classic Greek philosophy.
Re: Re: Prove to me God doesn't exist Evolution is not a "theory" it is a proven "law" of science, just as much as the "Law of Gravity". If you hear about antibiotic strains of bacteria that is evolution in progress on a time-scale observable by humans. The bacterial strains that are resistant to the antibiotics survive and reproduce. Those that aren't don't. On a longer time scale the fossil record is also quite clear. Humans evolved from monkeys that learned to walk up right in the Rift Valley in Etheopia about 4 million years ago, and dinasours were around until 65 million years ago. Regarding how it all got started (i.e. the first cell), I don't think scientists know that answer yet. Thier are some theories, and when we find out it will be very interest to see. All of this neither proves nor disproves the exsistance of God. Science is about what is knowable.
Everything philosophical system in history comes from "a mix of various doctrines from various sources." That doesn't change the fact that the humanist tradition is inextricably linked with Judeo-Christian principles (yes, with a little Greek philosphy, etal thrown in). Shakespeare, Goethe, Dante, Bach, Rembrandt, Picasso, Balzac, Twain, Thoreau, Faulkner, Sartre, Scorsese: all of their work is a direct response to Judeo-Christian principles
> I wasn't aware that the Noah flood had been > proven by science to have destroyed the entire > human population save Noah and his family. If the Bible was written by God (or at least people that worshiped God), you would think he would get better press.
Re: Re: Re: Prove to me God doesn't exist I thought evolution was a little more complex than "survivial of the fittest"? How far back in time can scientists confidently prove evolution? And aren't there many many questions about the fossil record pertaining to our evolution from monkeys? [Dumb Questions]Why is there such a gap between species now? Why aren't there missing links walking around today, surviving somewhere.[/Dumb Questions] Once again, my intention is not to antagonize...I just want to learn. Enlighten my wayward soul.
> I thought evolution was a little more complex > than "survivial of the fittest"? Of course it is, but you can't expect to get a PhD in biology from a few posts in a soccer forum. > How far back in time can scientists confidently > prove evolution? I don't know that this question is meaningful. All of the fossil and living animal evidence fits within the evolution idea. > And aren't there many many questions about the > fossil record pertaining to our evolution from > monkeys? Actually, this is one of the most well documented patterns of change within the entire animal kingdom (as it should be, as we are most interested in our own history). > [Dumb Questions]Why is there such a gap > between species now? Because when a species seperates into two, the two become further and further apart, like branches in a tree. > Why aren't there missing links walking around > today, surviving somewhere.[/Dumb Questions] Because if they did exist, you would be asking why there are gaps between apes and ape-dude, and ape-dude and people. Besides, it is the nature of genes to have steps in their realization. My mother has brown eyes and I have hazel eyes. There is nothing between us with brownish-hazel eyes. > Once again, my intention is not to antagonize...I > just want to learn. Enlighten my wayward soul. Evolution has nothing to do with whether there is a supernatural being governing our lives. It only serves to contradict a literal understanding of most of the creation myths of human religions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove to me God doesn't exist whereas of course it's impossible to find a single hole in anything in the bible. To be honest religious people amaze me. It doesn't matter what faith you belong to, every single one of you KNOWS (your words, not mine) you are right and there isn't even the slightest possibility that you are wrong. Face it, put a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim and a Hindu in the same room and all 4 will be 100% convinced their way is right and the other three are wrong. On simple odds each person should be able to realise that the odds of them being the one that is correct (if indeed any of them are) are only 1 in 4, but they won't. What also amazes me is that the vast majority of religious people grow up in religious families, possibly going to religious schools and being taught unquestioningly that god exists - yet they all seem to believe that believing in god was some concious choice and their upbringing had nothing to do with it.
> Evolution is not a "theory" it is a proven "law" of > science, just as much as the "Law of Gravity". I think this misunderstands the purpose of science. Science is supposed to create theories, not laws. The idea of "Laws of Nature" was common centries ago when it was thought that nature worked like a clockwork mechanism. We don't think that way anymore, and the "laws" that Newton discovered are really theories, just like Einstien's theories. A theory is an idea that explains facts (that is, observations and other evidence) and is falsifyable (that is, make predictions of the future that can disprove the theory if the prediction does not come to pass). You cannot prove a theory beyond all doubt, but you can increase confidence in the theory through finding new evidence that fits the theory.
On a lighter note: http://www.proofgodexists.org My fav: http://www.proofgodexists.org/why_alcohol.htm
Well...yeah, but doesn't the fact that at least three guys on that list were bitter critics of those principles kind of demolish the point? You could just as easily say the same thing of Karl Marx and Anton LaVey.