We've noticed that you've been inactive for over 10 minute(s). We've stopped running the Shoutbox due to your inactivity. If you are back again, please click the I'm Back button below.
The reason for my name:<br>w00t is an expression of joy, happiness, excitement <br>and I personally believe that God has given me those things amidst all the struggles in my life, and so I can wholeheartedly say, "w00t w00t!"<br>(because I i obviously enjoy games too)
Because you said it was so utterly slim for the universe as it is to have formed because of its complexity. Yet for a being to create that must mean it would be much more complex. So the chance of this 'designer' occurring is smaller still than the universe occurring as it is with no designer.
which is why the designer has to be an omnipotent, omnipresent being aka God or else you would be right, it would not make sense if the designer was someone like you or me
QUOTE
- The gap is filled with acts of God (or intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or intelligent designer).
I guess i will be politically correct and say it does not prove wholly, but points towards the fact and logic dictates its more logical
QUOTE
You failed to respond to me about how there has been no evidence provided to support your ID, including when it was dragged up in court.
I actually have not heard of a court case, can you site one for me so I can look it up?
QUOTE
TBH God to me is almost analogous to the Big Bang hehehe
ah yes that theory, to be honest I cant comment on that because I dont know how God created everything, all the Bible says is that He spoke and it happened so what you say could be a possibility because God can use anything to me though the way God created the universe doesnt matter as much as the simple fact that He did.
guys when you write an educated paper, you quote things cite books, research results, essays written by people with higher education and then you make a statement - which is what ive done
this is called evidence to an educated discussion
you guys have only made statements no citations if you guys had tried to make this argument in an educated setting then people would have just thrown out your arguments because a statement by itself would just be called bias
i know some of my citations have been from the Bible itself which it feels like anytime i mention it, theres an immediate counter because of a solid belief that the Bible isnt true on your side however I am pretty darn sure that it is evident that my way of taking statements from the Bible is a much more educated on that yours
example - you simply look at a passage and say "i dont like what it says, therefore its wrong" where as I have been going - "yeah at a first glance this passage doesnt seem too good, but lets look at the passages before and after and do some research on the historical and cultural context to make sure I dont misunderstand something
I even gave two references to (basically) autobiographies about a men (Lee Strobel and the late Antony Flew) who were athiests, probably had all the same arguments and more than you do, have a much better education than you (i am assuming), Antony Flew was famous for his books on atheism even and yet when you hear that they renounce atheism and then suddenly claim there is a God, none of you even stop to think about it?
sorry its not complete because its a shorted version
QUOTE
we dont even know from your post who or what this passage is talking about. if you look at the passage as a whole the setting is the Israelites moving into the promise land. the people there, if they captured an someone (like an Israelite) who was not from their nation, they would skin them alive, mutilate them, chop them to pieces, gangrape them, put their heads on stakes - which is why they killed all the men and yes God is a vengeful God at times
as for the plunder if you read the later verses in the chapter it goes to state out the regulations for taking captives (particularly women) it first says that they must allow the captives to mourn for their families and then they may marry (not forced) because if she doesnt want to "let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, because you have dishonored her." - Deuteronomy 21:14b
so thats looking at passages before and after to better understand the passage and digging into the historical context of the time period which was that it was a kill or be killed situation and obviously taking plunder was common for wars in that age, however God specifically directed the Israelites to be more humane because looking into previous passages further we see that a peace offering was first offered instead of immediate attack - uncommon for that day but obviously not strategic for potential war situation
as for the not published bit,
QUOTE
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
QUOTE
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
QUOTE
There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew copyright 2007
i can go on too.
in any case this discussion has not gotten anywhere and its pointless to continue since it seems there is no acknowledgement of my evidence or any given evidence against (with the exception of the Bible verses that were misinterpreted, that is evidence of misinterpreting the Bible)
and obviously no conclusion that will be reached by the contributors and it seems we are getting to a point where personal attacks are starting which means its no longer a discussion
so hopefully third parties who are actually listening and thinking about each post will just look at this topic and decide as they see fit
you missed the context people when you actually try to understand something you have to do your homework geez here it goes...ill try to make it shorter so that you guys can read it
edit (btw this all logical and an educated study not a "holier than thou" discussion, I am sorry if you feel that way though, its not my intent)
ok so in between all of the personal attacks you made which is not mature at all
you cited the classic examples of misinterpretation of the Bible, or rather the passages used to try and rationalize one's thinking
and actually for all of these passages, none of them actually say rape; you are just inserting them or making a large assumption which has no evidence which would actually make the unusable as evidence and i know you can keep going on saying stuff but without context the interpretation will be wrong however i will walk through and give you some of the context for one of the passages anyway
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14) As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
we dont even know from your post who or what this passage is talking about. if you look at the passage as a whole the setting is the Israelites moving into the promise land. the people there, if they captured an someone (like an Israelite) who was not from their nation, they would skin them alive, mutilate them, chop them to pieces, gangrape them, put their heads on stakes - which is why they killed all the men and yes God is a vengeful God at times
as for the plunder if you read the later verses in the chapter it goes to state out the regulations for taking captives (particularly women) it first says that they must allow the captives to mourn for their families and then they may marry (not forced) because if she doesnt want to "let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, because you have dishonored her." - Deuteronomy 21:14b
QUOTE
And the chance of having some magnanimous sky fairy who controls and creates it all is equally slim, if not less.
um that argument is for creation and if the argument says that there is an overwhelming chance that it was designed that way, how can the God who is the designer have a slim chance of existence - and what evidence have you presented for that? none. you just simply stated something. as with all your arguments
QUOTE
If you're so sure the bible can only be interpreted one way, then why do you admit that there are ppl who mis-interprete it?
because its true and you guys have provided prime examples of it
But what evidence in the bible is there to validate anything? Sure, some of the people might well have existed, but that's not exactly evidence.
intelligent design? if there is a creator who made the universe, what gives you the right to say He is a liar? because God says He inspired all scriptures
and if He inspired all scriptures what gives you the right to say, "I want to interpret it this way?"
answer - you have none, because He is not a poet or the writer of movie like inception (pretty trippy btw) who created their works like to be interpreted
this next one is within the Bible so you may not like it, but Jesus fulfilled at least one hundred prophecies that were recorded in the Bible hundreds of years before because the chronology of Jesus in Matthew has a ton of generations it lists there a lot of the prophecies are about Jesus' birth, what he would teach, how a lot of people would respond to His teaching, that he would die and rise again, etc so at least the Bible supports itself. any you cant deny a lot of the prophecies because we know historically that jewish rabbis studied them intensely and back in that time it was like a prerequisite to have the first 5 books of the Bible memorized to become a rabbi - so they did exist
and you guys have acknowledge that Jesus did exist at the very least
do you consider that evidence?
well if you believe in the hopelessly small chance that it was random, thats your choice Ill go with logic.
name another theory that has as much 'sound' evidence as you say for the creation of the universe I expect to see citations of said evidence and the education of the researchers
edit*
QUOTE
Uh, no. Really. There are plenty of people who believe in god and live for themselves.
sad truth
and did you know that you just did what my hypothetical situation suggested? and you didnt answer it yourself? or perhaps you did with your lack of a response
I know people dont like double posting, but i think that if i didnt do this, people would not read it because the other post got too long
I could be totally wrong here but if someone else can make a post of venting, then I can post this
i actually have a feeling that the problem you guys have with the Bible is not that a bunch of stuff happened historically and is recorded that way, but the problem you guys have is with the message that it brings itself
So no one gets mixed up, here is the basic message I will refer to later... the basic message is simply that 1. God created everything and God himself does not need to be created, because if He needed to be then He is probably not God 2. Humans are not perfect, aka sinful and therefore we cannot be with God because justice requires a debt to be paid for a sin 3. Since God loves us, He provides a way for us to be with Him by sending Jesus to die for us 4. Since Jesus was perfect, He died unjustly and therefore acts as a payment for our debt 5. "That if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and you believe in your heart that He rose from the dead, you will be saved" 6. and the characteristic of someone who truly accepts Jesus is a changed life, living for something else, not yourself
ok? I didnt say that you have to believe it or anything, this is just so you guys know what I am talking about
so if there was an all powerful God and humans actually in need of redemption then it would make you change the way you live. And I think that you guys like doing what you do and you just want to live for yourself and not for something else
for instance if we say that hypothetically everything stated above is true and people knew it, i think a lot of people would still say that they want to live for themselves at this point in time so sadly, they continue with their life.
But that is the hypothetical situation we face in reality. however, what i stated above still wont sit right with people and so people begin to question the idea of God because they think if they can rationalize that He isnt real, then they can do whatever they want and not feel guilty
I will even play the hypothetical situation in reverse for you guys.
If, hypothetically, God does exist and Jesus didnt do what He said He did (die for us) then we are all screwed anyway because we all die physically and then spiritually too. so actually this hypothetical situation is kinda pointless
If, hypothetically, God doesnt even exist. And as Knight of the Realm says "we exist because we exist" I will still be perfectly content with my life as it is right now. I live morally and I love my family and the people around me and I think ive achieved a lot and I try to do a lot for the poor so yeah. Believing in God called me to do all of those things anyway even if He didnt exist.
So did that strike a chord with anyone? be honest with yourself, what is the real deal here? are you rationalizing? do you just want to live for yourself?