Does anyone have a strong argument against God?

[zombie0]

tons of reasons to believe in God.  no specific reason to believe in religions.  somehow God always gets pulled into them...

[Kuu]

Yes, I have tons of reasons to believe in God. Excuse me sir, but this is what we're talking about. I didn't ask "why are you this or that religion", I asked "why are you an atheist or theist".

I believe in Christianity because I believe it is the best explination of all that evidence I have for God.

[QuantumT]

HAHAHA! I loled at “the flying spaghetti monster”. Perhaps he does exist in some place fantasy lovers like myself call “Elfland” but I highly doubt he exists on earth, of course I doubt it, but I can’t prove that he doesn’t because I can’t be in all places at once to look for him. He is also (I think) a physical being and not a spiritual one, so that complicates things even more and takes it from a scientific observation level to a philosophical level.
So, now onto why I believe in God.

It seems rather condescending to dismiss someone else's beliefs just because they differ from yours.

I.   The Moral Law
I will now describe a phenomenon that is not a unique observation to myself, but rather one that others have observed and brought to my attention. There is a kind of unwritten code that all people have, and the disobeying of this code is the cause of quarreling. Here I will quote C.S. Lewis because he, having been an oxford professor and a studier of literature, is a much better writer and explainer than I:
“Every one has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: "How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?"--‘That’s my seat, I was there first"--"Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm"--"Why should you shove in first?"--"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"--"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.
Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed.” (Lewis, Mere Christianity)
There, that should describe it well enough (this is me again, not Lewis). We all have a conscience (though we sometimes ignore it) too that tells us when we are disobeying this moral law. This moral law is not an instinct; in fact, it often has to fight our instincts, especially those of self preservation and the instinct to reproduce. This moral law could not have come by evolution, and as I have said, it is not an instinct. The existence of this moral law suggests to me some sort of intelligent deity, not necessarily the Christian God, but a powerful being who cares about right conduct.

I think that self preservation is a much more powerful force then you give it credit for. Most of the time, when people talk about self preservation, they only apply it on in individual level, i.e. if something is good for me, then I do it, regardless of how it affects others. This however is false. Preservation of the species is also important, because if the species dies out then so do I. I'll demonstrate this with an example.

Let's say that our species finds murder morally acceptable, and therefore we do it whenever it would be beneficial to us. We'd quickly kill ourselves off. Therefore we have a biological imperative for murder being unacceptable.

Let's do the same with lying. On of our species' biggest advantages over other's the complexity of communication we're capable of due to our use of spoken language. If lying were to become completely acceptable, that all goes straight out the window. Therefore we have a biological imperative for murder being unacceptable.

This kind of thing can be done to build up a large number of things in our conscience.

II.   Intelligent design
We live in a very complex world, it is undeniable. Things that seem simple (like a table for example) are actually (apparently) filled with countless little things called atoms. Living organisms are extremely complex. I am not very good at science, but I took a Biology class in high school (last year) and the extraordinary complexity and engineering of things left me astounded.

Yep, the world is pretty cool. That isn't really an argument for god's existence though.

Natural selection allows for complex things to arise from simpler ones.

III.   Experience
I have experienced God, and you cannot deny me that. I have experienced change in myself of the kind one cannot simply will into existence, and I have experienced the blessing of God and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. I have seen miracles, the kind of things the word calls coincidence, and what extraordinary coincidences they are. I know of someone who had been unemployed for a while. One day they were sitting in church when an offering was being taken. They talked to God (prayed) and felt called to write a check for $27 dollars, which happened to be their entire bank account. Next day, they got a job. Boom. Magic. Coincidence. Anything but God you say?! I have heard of and known people who have had miraculous healings (disappearing cancers a couple times).

Now yesterday I had a conversation with my little sister. I experienced her. If you were to walk up to me and give me an argument for why my sister didn’t exist, I don’t think I’d quite trust it no matter how convincing it was or even if you said that you had not experienced her.

One thing that's important here is that the amount of evidence required for a claim is proportional to the size of the claim.

For example, if you were to tell me that you bought a new shirt, that would probably be enough all by itself. If, however, you were to tell me that you bought a space station, then I would require more evidence.

As for faith healing, the biggest study performed on the subject (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm) showed no statistical benefit to prayer.

IV.   The Bible
The Bible is a reliable source of truth. Prophecies such as the ones about Christ’s birth and the prophecies of Daniel predicting the rise and fall of civilizations (Persian empire, Rome, etc.) have all come to be historically true. I trust the Bible. The Bible is also a relevant book that continues to teach me truths and lessons today.

What about the fact that there was never a worldwide flood? Or the evidence that the earth is billions of years old?

Better yet, what about the parts of the bible that contradict the other parts of the bible?

Not that I think it's really something to put into a simple syllogism, but here goes anyway.

All things that are supposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
God has been supposed without evidence.
Therefore God can be dismissed without evidence.

[Kuu]

I don't get how do do quotes properly, so I'll just add quotation marks for th parts I am quoting from Quantum T.

"It seems rather condescending to dismiss someone else's beliefs just because they differ from yours."

What are you talking about?

"I think that self preservation is a much more powerful force then you give it credit for. Most of the time, when people talk about self preservation, they only apply it on in individual level, i.e. if something is good for me, then I do it, regardless of how it affects others. This however is false. Preservation of the species is also important, because if the species dies out then so do I. I'll demonstrate this with an example.

Let's say that our species finds murder morally acceptable, and therefore we do it whenever it would be beneficial to us. We'd quickly kill ourselves off. Therefore we have a biological imperative for murder being unacceptable.

Let's do the same with lying. On of our species' biggest advantages over other's the complexity of communication we're capable of due to our use of spoken language. If lying were to become completely acceptable, that all goes straight out the window. Therefore we have a biological imperative for murder being unacceptable.

This kind of thing can be done to build up a large number of things in our conscience."

I, personally, have never felt the instinct to preserve "the species", have you? That would be very strange I think. Also, what is the point of an instinct that tells us not to take someone's seat or an instinct that tells us we ought to share our toys with them?

"Yep, the world is pretty cool. That isn't really an argument for god's existence though.

Natural selection allows for complex things to arise from simpler ones."


If it's my job to explain why God exists and atheists shouldn't have to explain why he doesn't, then certainly it's your job to explain why natural selection exists and why it's not my job to explain why it doesn't (though I believe I could do it).

"One thing that's important here is that the amount of evidence required for a claim is proportional to the size of the claim.

For example, if you were to tell me that you bought a new shirt, that would probably be enough all by itself. If, however, you were to tell me that you bought a space station, then I would require more evidence.

As for faith healing, the biggest study performed on the subject showed no statistical benefit to prayer."

So in other words, you just refuse to believe me. Fine, that's your choice, there is nothing I can do about that.

About the healing, I'm not concerned with percentages and studies, I'm only saying I've witnessed amazing and impossible healings.

"What about the fact that there was never a worldwide flood? Or the evidence that the earth is billions of years old?

Better yet, what about the parts of the bible that contradict the other parts of the bible?

Not that I think it's really something to put into a simple syllogism, but here goes anyway.

All things that are supposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
God has been supposed without evidence.
Therefore God can be dismissed without evidence."

Actually, every civilization has a flood story apart from the Bible.

What evidence that the earth is Billions of years old? I have seen none. The taske is once again upon you to prove it. Besides the earth being billions of years old does not disprove God in any way. The Bible does not say how old the earth is, it merely says that creation took six days. However, I am not even convinced these days were 24 hour periods because the Bible says "there was evening and there was morning the xth day" before God even created the sun and the moon ("the great lights"), so I think that these days are some sort of metaphorical, poetic, or some other type of day.

What parts of the Bible contradict eachother? Please give examples and explain why they contradict.

I eagerly await your reply.

[BluePriest]

To use quotes Click on the button that looks like this and then put what they said inside it. So it would look like this.

Code: [Select]

[quote]Whatever you are quoting[/quote]
I almost want to join in the discussion, but I want to see what all you have to say.

[Kuu]

Alright, thanks Priest. You're welcome to join in whenever you like of course.

[QuantumT]

I don't get how do do quotes properly, so I'll just add quotation marks for th parts I am quoting from Quantum T.

"It seems rather condescending to dismiss someone else's beliefs just because they differ from yours."

What are you talking about?

You dismiss the Invisible Pink Unicorn as a joke.

I, personally, have never felt the instinct to preserve "the species", have you? That would be very strange I think. Also, what is the point of an instinct that tells us not to take someone's seat or an instinct that tells us we ought to share our toys with them?

My point is that your conscience comes from this instinct to preserve the species. Preservation of the species ingrains these ideas into you, and we call the set of them our conscience.

Sharing can be motivated by the desire to potentially receive rewards later (self motivation) as well as the idea that it will help the species as a whole if we aren't all stingy bastards. For example, I'm starving today, so you share your food with me, and I survive. Later on, you're starving, and I share my food with you. Because we shared, we are now both alive instead of being dead.

If it's my job to explain why God exists and atheists shouldn't have to explain why he doesn't, then certainly it's your job to explain why natural selection exists and why it's not my job to explain why it doesn't (though I believe I could do it).

Here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060224090021.html) is something that talks about proof. Evolution is something that has been observed to occur.

However, the idea that bigger claims require more evidence can also be applied if you'd like something else to help you choose natural selection over intelligent design.

So in other words, you just refuse to believe me. Fine, that's your choice, there is nothing I can do about that.

Sorry, but people are unreliable.

Actually, every civilization has a flood story apart from the Bible.

I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is it doesn't constitute proof. There is no evidence that the flood ever occurred, and plenty against it. For example, where did all of the water come from and where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of the mass extinction that this flood would have caused?

What evidence that the earth is Billions of years old? I have seen none. The taske is once again upon you to prove it.

Radiometric dating can be used to determine the ages of meteorites that have struck the earth. From this, the age of the earth can be determined.

Besides the earth being billions of years old does not disprove God in any way. The Bible does not say how old the earth is, it merely says that creation took six days. However, I am not even convinced these days were 24 hour periods because the Bible says "there was evening and there was morning the xth day" before God even created the sun and the moon ("the great lights"), so I think that these days are some sort of metaphorical, poetic, or some other type of day.

Once you've decided to interpret some part of the bible as metaphor, you can no longer claim the bible to be literally true.

What parts of the Bible contradict eachother? Please give examples and explain why they contradict.

Here (http://www.islamway.com/english/images/library/contradictions.html) is a list. Some examples:

-Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

-Jesus descended from which son of David?
 Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
 Nathan(Luke 3:31)

Why? What do you mean? I am not the one who decided why one God, it just is.

He's asking why you suppose that there is only one god, as opposed to many.

Do you question: "why is the grass green?" or "why the sky blue?"

Yes, and the answers are chlorophyll and refraction respectively.

I don't quite understand what you're saying... I think you're saying that we just learn the moral law by ourselves because it is demanded of us. It is more beneficial for an individual to steal and take for himself, so why would social pressure bother us?

Because I also don't want people to steal from me.

Why is it even more inconceivable that an intelligent creator made this complex world than it is that this world sprang out of nowhere and from nothing? Where did God come from? As you said, he is always there. He is beyond time because he created it. Sorry, but why in the world should we stop researching and studying God's creation (and therefore getting to know him better).

Claiming the universe requires a cause, claiming that cause is god, then saying that god doesn't require a cause is special pleading, pure and simple.

Sorry, but what is less flawed about assuming that because some animals are similar and some appear to have come from one another, that means they started as cells and turned into humans? What evidence have you of evolutions existance? Also, ID seems to use deductive reasoning while evolution seems to use inductive, and detuctive is certainly more certain.

Evolution is something that has been demonstrated to occur.

"Absolutely not.  But I can't irrefutably deny this : "what if you felt something that unexplained was simply something explainable".

Coincidence does not mean God. It doesn't mean that "it wasn't a pleasurable, meaningful,  or a non "provincial event" by no means. I want to point out: 

You give yourself too few credit for the personal experiences you felt."

You write such extraordinary things off as coincidence, and I say it's a miracle. I don't think either one of us can prove one side or the other, but it seems more likely to me to be a miracle than something super extremely coincidential.

Most people don't really have a good understanding of statistics. The thing is, even though some things are unlikely, they are bound to occur to somebody. That one person thinks it's a miracle, and nobody else notices because nothing odd happened to them.

Let's say I give you a coin and tell you to flip 10 heads in a row. You pray to god, and you succeed. You think it's a miracle, but I asked the same question of 1023 other people who all failed and thought nothing of it.

First off, the Torah is part of the Bible. Also, the books you mention are similar, but they are not the same. Also, the Bible is not "truer", it is mearly true. Truth does not come in shades of gray. Either something is true or it is not. If the Koran says that we should be kind to other people, then that part of the Koran is true. If it says that "Allah" is God, then I believe it is not true.

If you are going to claim the bible is completely true, then that means that other holy documents are false everywhere they contradict the bible.

About updating the Bible: what do you mean "they"? The people who wrote it are dead, incase you didn't know, and God did not take out a pen and decide to write the Bible one day, it was written by his followers whom Christians believe where either told somehow what to write or were simply inspired by God to write what they did (there is devide on this in the church). The Bible is not updated because it's writers are dead and it is already published anyways.

Why can't new writers add new books to the bible?

Of course: I would love nothing better than to see all of you in paradise after death, but maybe it is not to be.

Just so you know, this is really a rather condescending remark. There's a smug sense of superiority in these words that I don't think you understand. Let me show you what I mean. Atheists' version of this statement would look something like this.

Of course: I would love nothing better than for you to be intelligent, but maybe it is not to be.

Just letting you know how that statement sounds to us.

[SeddyRocky]

If you could please clean up your post with the proper quotation code (as the quotation signs are not consistent either) I'd happily continue to discuss this. But you seem to make a lot of absolute claims, saying that "you can't deny this" or that we don't question... If you want an open dialog, I'd advice you not to try and build a wall around your arguments. If they are legit, they will stand on their own without you claiming them to be infallible.

[funplay]

Wow, quite some work to put this all down. Thanks for sharing.

Im not sure if my english is still good enough to precisely express what i want to say.
but ill try anyway

First: Its really important for me that i dont want to attack your belief. I think belief can be a very good thing for people and nobody should be told what to believe or attacked for his faith.

... So, now onto why I believe in God...

Afaik, this wasnt the original topic... But anyway:

Imo, the word "believe" already disqualifies for any kind of discussion on a scientific level about the existence of god...

1) Belief is always subjective (as BP pointed out really well in his first post here, imo). Faith does not need any proof, as you cant prove the spiritual.

2) Whereas science values objectiveness above all. Subjective perceptions are not accepted as objective enough.

II.   Intelligent design

We live in a very complex world, it is undeniable. Things that seem simple (like a table for example) are actually (apparently) filled with countless little things called atoms. Living organisms are extremely complex. I am not very good at science, but I took a Biology class in high school (last year) and the extraordinary complexity and engineering of things left me astounded.

Oh, that hit a nerve.   Sorry, if I might become a bit harsh, but the movement of "Intelligent design" is something i find...i cant even find words for it...

Yes, Life is complex...but this not mean at all, that there has been any kind of engeneering. Evolution is simply that complex, that it defies common sense sometimes and you need quite some backround to really understand the mechanisms of Evolution.

The most basic argument i encountered was sth. like "Evolution cant be proven completely. There are gaps. There is some data that doesnt fit. So Evolution is only a theory with faults. Or even: So Evolution is wrong. I must have been God."

Some of the "faults" are (at least sometimes) simply a lack of understanding.

For me, its all again about the scientific method.

It was mentioned before in this thread: a scientific theory (at thats what intelligent design claims to be) needs means to be proven wrong, there has to be the chance to falsify your theory...as God cant be proven to not exist, he cant be part of any scientific theory. Period.

To put this in a syllogism, as you requested:

A scientific theory needs methods to be proven wrong.
ID cant be proven wrong, as it is impossible to prove that God doesnt exist.
ID is not a scientific theory.

Your absolutely free to believe in Intelligent design...but thats a personal thing, a spiritual thing.
But all scientific data point towards Evolution. True,there are some quirks (i dont really happen to recall them)...but Evolution is the most well based theory about the Evolution of Life and there is no candidate to even come close to that.

Furthermore, i experienced, that some people tend to turn towards the spiritual when things are beyond their understandings...in this case:

"Life is just TOO complex. This just cant be the result of a random process."

Again, sure REALLY complex. But there was an almost unimaginable amount of time involved. Who can imagine millions of years? I cant. Beyond my imagination.

But this doesnt mean at all, that the theory is wrong, just because i cant imagine that.

Again trying to put this in a syllogism, thats wrong imo, cause statement A is wrong:

All things i cant imagine cant happen/ be true.
I cant imagine that the complexity of life was the result of a random process/Evolution.
Evolution is not true.

Concerning your syllogism, if dare to disagree to some aspects. But first: I havent studied using syllogism a lot, so this is just my common sense about them...

But imo the essential part about syllogism is, that the first two statements, A and B, must be be beyond any doubt for this method to actually create good results...

All things that are not natural are super natural.
The moral law is not natural.
Therefore, the moral law is supernatural.

I have serious doubt

A) The definition of "natural" is not clear to me. Could you please explain, what defines a "natural thing"?
B) Imo, Moral codes are created by society by common consensus and teached to their children. At least, thats where my sociology class led me to...Thats the reason, why:
a) moral codes/laws have changed in history. Take a look at the value of "freedom" or human rights...
b) moral codes are quite coherent in particular culture. So you would be right to claim, that most cultures influenced by christianity share a commom moral code
c) moral codes can be different in different cultures. It might be an example, thats not politically correct, but its the only one that comes to my mind immediately: You might know that there are regions in the world, where killing a person is not considered morally wrong by some inhabitants, as long as the killed person did sth. wrong.

Ill try again:
Moral laws are a result of society.
The results of society are natural.
Moral laws are natural.

All things that could not have come by natural means must have come by divine means.
The moral law could not have come by natural means.
Therefore, the moral law must have come by divine means.

Again:
A) Whats the meaning of "natural means"? For me not precise enough...
B) See explanation above. Imo, moral codes can develop on their own and they can be changed. If you teach your children early enough that stealing is right, they wont feel any guilt. Take a look at sociological studies...

All things of extreme complexity are things that suggest design (machines, technology, etc.)
The universe is a thing of extreme complexity.
Therefore, the universe is a thing that suggests design.

The word "suggest" disqualifies this one. A syllogism thats "suggests" sth. is completely useless to me.
Furthermore:
A) Implies that everything has to have a purpose...must be done with intention. Thats a common misunderstanding i encounter often with my students when teaching evolution. Ill try to translate the example i commonly use to clear that misunderstanding:

1) I have a car to drive to school.
2) I have a car, so i can drive to school.

3) A giraffe has a long neck to eat the upper leafs of a tree.
4) A giraffe has a long neck, so it can eat the upper leafs of a tree.
5) The giraffe adapts to fit its surroundings to survive.
6) The giraffe is adapted to fit its surroundings to survive.

I hope i did the grammar correctly, so these sentences actually have minor differences in them^^
The thing i want to point out is:

Sentence 1 implies that i actively use my car to achieve stn. (going to school) people most the time do things on purpose, actively. People tend to think in these categories, cause its just the way they are used to.

Sentence 2, on the other hand, simply describes. There is no purpose in there. I have the car. I can drive. No intention. People are not used to this careful logic. It doesnt try to put intention in the act of driving.

The common misconception is, that people often use the logic they are used to, on evolution. Therefore using sentences 3 and 5. Giraffes do something actively. They use their neck on purpose. They actively adapt. We automaticly transfer human behavior on animals.

But sentences 4 and 6 fit much better. These sentences simply describe the state they are in. They have their long necks, so they are just able to reach these upper leafs. But there is no way for them to actively do sth. about it.

These examples also fit to the examples use named: technology, machines...all man created stuff. Please keep in mind, that e.g. do not fit in this. If you want to read more about it, try searching for stuff selfassembly of proteins...cause complex things are proven to be able to selfassemble.

my syllogism again (though the word "can" also disqualifies this one too ,)):

Extreme complexity can be a result of random processes.
The universe is etremely complex.
The universe can be a result of random processes.

All things that are experienced are real.
God is experienced (by me and millions of others).
Therefore, God is real.

  quite dangerous assumptions you make here...just to say this:

All things that are experienced are real.
Hallucinations are experienced (by quite some million people using drugs e.g.)
Hallucinations are real. 

Its, again about, subjective and objective facts. Just because many people experience or claim or believe sth....thats doesnt prove anything...10 million can be wrong and the one can be right (happend quite some time is history, mostly when some major breakthroughs were made)...but of course, its also the other way round (even more often )

You might want reread the posts by BP...i think he had some really well placed arguments in there...

All things that are reliable can be trusted.
The Bible is reliable.
Therefore, the Bible can be trusted.

Im not sure, if I can agree on Statement A, but i definitely disagree on B. I am not really sure if its a good idea to discuss about the truth/the reliability of a holy book...but just to offer my last two syllogisms:

Man make mistakes.
The Bible was written by man.
The Bible contains mistakes.

Things with mistakes cant be trusted absolutely.
The Bible contains mistakes.
The Bible cant be trusted absolutely.

Once again: I didnt write this all down to turn your belief down. I really have respect for spiritual people, as they put their faith into sth., i just cant (and wont)

But I am convinced, that arguing with these syllogism doesnt prove anything at all. Its simply a statement of your beliefs. Which is fine, as long as you dont expect people to share your belief just because its yours.

Wow...this quite took some time^^ I am really curious how this will go on...though i am afraid the two of us wont come close to any kind of agreement. btw: i think BP had some REALLY well placed arguments there, which i can absolutely agree on. You might want to read his posts again, to better understand what i want to point out

LOL...was just taking a look at the whole topic and the following picture came to my mind: Two swines casting sth. at each other, which both believe to be pearls for them...but being only glass beads for the other one 

WOW...i just wanted to post...7 new answers^^ after i have read through them i have to add some stuff^^

but that will be edited^^

[BluePriest]

Imo, the word "believe" already disqualifies for any kind of discussion on a scientific level about the existence of god...

1) Belief is always subjective (as BP pointed out really well in his first post here, imo). Faith does not need any proof, as you cant prove the spiritual.

2) Whereas science values objectiveness above all. Subjective perceptions are not accepted as objective enough.

Just an fyi....
Whenever I see theory from a scientific standpoint, I dont see it as any more than a belief. My beliefs are collections of things I have experienced first hand. Have also looked into, and looked at from many different angles. The Facts are one thing, but I dont buy the bullcrap of a theory being higher than a fact. It is a collection of facts, but an assumption is made from that collection. Assumptions may or may not be true. And they certainly arent higher than a fact.

If I say 1,2,3 what do you think comes next? 4 is what 99% of people will say. What if I told you 5 comes next though? You see 1,2,3 and assume I am counting based on the fact that I said 3 successive numbers, however, in reality, I am adding. 1,2,3,5,8,13 ect I know that is just using 1 fact, and not a collection of facts, but its just meant to illustrate my point.

[Kuu]

Mmmm, having to respond to all these responses is starting to ger rather overwhelming, and the responses keep multiplying. I've really enjoyed discussing with you guys though and I gave a couple of you Karma for your time. At some point this is going to have to end and it is most likely that no one will have changed their minds, but for now I will continue.

Quantum T,

You dismiss the Invisible Pink Unicorn as a joke.

I'm sorry, I honestly thought it was a kind of joke.

My point is that your conscience comes from this instinct to preserve the species. Preservation of the species ingrains these ideas into you, and we call the set of them our conscience.

Sharing can be motivated by the desire to potentially receive rewards later (self motivation) as well as the idea that it will help the species as a whole if we aren't all stingy bastards. For example, I'm starving today, so you share your food with me, and I survive. Later on, you're starving, and I share my food with you. Because we shared, we are now both alive instead of being dead.

Maybe so, but this moral law instinct seems very complex and intelligent for an instinct.

Here is something that talks about proof. Evolution is something that has been observed to occur.

However, the idea that bigger claims require more evidence can also be applied if you'd like something else to help you choose natural selection over intelligent design.

Sorry, the linked page isn't avaliable.

I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is it doesn't constitute proof. There is no evidence that the flood ever occurred, and plenty against it. For example, where did all of the water come from and where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of the mass extinction that this flood would have caused?

According to the Bible, all the water came from rain and the animals survived because they were brought onto Noah's ark.

Radiometric dating can be used to determine the ages of meteorites that have struck the earth. From this, the age of the earth can be determined.

Yes, but from what I understand the process seems rather circular. How do we know this dating method is true?

Once you've decided to interpret some part of the bible as metaphor, you can no longer claim the bible to be literally true.

Sorry, I should have left out the word metaphorical. What I meant was that from the Biblical discription; the days described do not seem to be 24 hour type periods.

Here is a list. Some examples:

-Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

-Jesus descended from which son of David?
 Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
 Nathan(Luke 3:31)

I don't quite see it saying that Jesus descended from Solomon in one passage and Nathan in another. They are just geneologies (excuse my spelling). Also, I don't see a contradiction in the first two verses, partly because I can't understand what they're saying. Could you find a different translation, the different ones I looked at had no contradicions. Also, the link doesn't work.

He's asking why you suppose that there is only one god, as opposed to many.

Oh. Well, as I said before, I find Christianity to have the best expalinations. About the multiple Gods, I can't think of many religions that do have multiple Gods, but my personal belief is such because just as you see no evidecne for any God, I see no evidence for many gods, while at the same time I do see evidence for one God.

Yes, and the answers are chlorophyll and refraction respectively.

I didn't ask if you wonder what made the grass green and the sky blue, I asked if you wonder why it was that way. Do you sit around and think: "why does chlorophyll make grass green instead of purple? I don't think that you do, but my point is that nothing would come of the activity.

Claiming the universe requires a cause, claiming that cause is god, then saying that god doesn't require a cause is special pleading, pure and simple.

Maybe so, but do you think it would make sense if there was just and endless chain of causes and no beginning? I believe God is the beginning.

Most people don't really have a good understanding of statistics. The thing is, even though some things are unlikely, they are bound to occur to somebody. That one person thinks it's a miracle, and nobody else notices because nothing odd happened to them.

Let's say I give you a coin and tell you to flip 10 heads in a row. You pray to god, and you succeed. You think it's a miracle, but I asked the same question of 1023 other people who all failed and thought nothing of it.

I see what you mean, but that still doesn't mean that it was indeed a coincidence and that it could not have been a miracle.

If you are going to claim the bible is completely true, then that means that other holy documents are false everywhere they contradict the bible.

Agreed.

Why can't new writers add new books to the bible?

I'm sure some have, they just haven't been addedd to the... official(?) Bible. Have you ever seen an author write a series of books, publish them, and then seen some other random guy come and write more books to the series that were accepted, published, and endorsed by fans?

Just so you know, this is really a rather condescending remark. There's a smug sense of superiority in these words that I don't think you understand. Let me show you what I mean. Atheists' version of this statement would look something like this.


Quote
Of course: I would love nothing better than for you to be intelligent, but maybe it is not to be.


Just letting you know how that statement sounds to us.

I'm really very sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I definitely didn't mean to be smug, but I could understand how it might come out that way. But you have no idea how much it truly, deeply, honestly pains me to see people reject God. It's quite frankly depression inducing when I try and try again to reach people with God's love and they reject me. I am definitely not superior either because I did nothing to earn heaven or God's love. It is freely given. Only God is superior, and that's what Christianity is about (and probably a large part of the reason people don't like it).

I'll answer you later funplay because I'm really tired and I have a paper I need to write (probably should have done that before I got on here ). I look forward to talking with you guys again!

[BluePriest]

Since Polka Tulk is getting fatigued, I suppose Ill jump in on the responses.

I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is it doesn't constitute proof. There is no evidence that the flood ever occurred, and plenty against it. For example, where did all of the water come from and where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of the mass extinction that this flood would have caused?

*cough* Grand Canyon (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp) *Cough*

Radiometric Dating (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/radiometric-dating)



Thats all I feel like referencing right now. Ill be keeping track though.