Jump to content

Custom Search





2019 Lincoln Aviator Introduced Here !


Welcome to Blue Oval Forums


Sign In  Log in with Facebook

Create Account
Welcome to Blue Oval Forums.  You must first register to create topics and post replies. Registration is a quick and easy process and only takes a minute.  Be apart of Blue Oval Forums by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members
  • Create a photo album and post images
  • Use the Shout feature and more. . .
Click here to create an account now.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Theology


  • Please log in to reply
709 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Versa-Tech

Versa-Tech

    Cross-Plane Coyote

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 2,304 posts
  • Joined 05-April 08
  • Location:Nirvana
  • Current Vehicle:2011 GR40 Mustang

Posted 09 November 2008 - 03:29 PM

I am sick and tired of listening to all of the crap I read on here between "Blind Faith" Christians and "Blind Excuse" Atheists. I think it's about time that we discuss the most common misconceptions about religion from a scientific point of view.

I think the best place to start is God. Is it proven that a supreme being exists? Yes. Here's the scientific explanation:

In any scientific experiment, you have independent and dependent variables. The independent variable must always be controlled. Why? Because in nature, there are no measurable independent variables. Everything that occurs is dependent upon something else. But the scientific method teaches us that there must be an independent variable from which dependent variables rely on. If science is in fact valid, there must be a single independent variable in nature on which every other variable relies. Furthermore, this independent variable cannot simply be spontaneous, it must be controlled (consciously). This single independent variable on which all other dependent variables rely is in fact the supreme being; whether you call him God, Allah, Iova, etc.

In a nutshell, if all physical laws are dependent upon other laws, then there must be a conscious being who enforces these laws. To dispute this is to dispute the science itself.

Edited by Versa-Tech, 09 November 2008 - 03:31 PM.








Lose this advertisement by becoming a member. Click here to create a free account.


#2 OFFLINE   RangerM

RangerM

    The Voice of Reason

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined 19-July 06
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Raleigh, NC
  • Current Vehicle:2013 F150

Posted 09 November 2008 - 05:07 PM

I understand where you are going, except that there are such things as "Universal Constants". While not "variable" they are independent.

Avagadro's number (6.023e23) would be the first one to mind.

However, I would think in a purely physical world (ie no God), everything would have to be measurable and quantifiable.

Another universal constant, pi, is measurable, but not quantifiable (no last digit in the decimal).

I'll do some more thinking and get back.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master - George Washington

A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato

The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money - Margaret Thatcher


1993 Ranger STX, Cayman Green, 2wd, SuperCab, 4.0L, 5-spd


#3 OFFLINE   stephenhawkings

stephenhawkings

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,333 posts
  • Joined 15-February 08

Posted 09 November 2008 - 07:11 PM

can you prove it?
'Death and taxes'

'Be the change you wish to see in the world'

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." Abe Lincoln

#4 OFFLINE   RangerM

RangerM

    The Voice of Reason

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined 19-July 06
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Raleigh, NC
  • Current Vehicle:2013 F150

Posted 09 November 2008 - 07:33 PM

can you prove it?


If you're going to ask a question, it's helpful to know who you're asking.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master - George Washington

A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato

The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money - Margaret Thatcher


1993 Ranger STX, Cayman Green, 2wd, SuperCab, 4.0L, 5-spd


#5 OFFLINE   BlackHorse

BlackHorse

    Blue Oval Enthusiast

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,638 posts
  • Joined 03-January 07

Posted 09 November 2008 - 07:35 PM

Well I'm not nearly so mathematically inclined as some here but I do know from some things that I've seen and read that we now know the possibility that the evolution could give rise to an organism so complex as a human being is something like 1 in a trillion, trillion, trillon. That's a lot of zero's. Now I am by no means dismissing evolution and I think it is theory that explains a lot of how our world came to be. But it's also a theory with a great many holes and if we really followed it to the letter the theory would dictate that life would denegrate to lesser and lesser degrees of sophistication in accordance with the theory. But it doesn't, instead life has flourished. I know that when pinned down and point blank asked about how life started leading evolutionarly biologist Richard Dawkins said that "aliens did it." I think some of us have probably seen that interview in "Expelled" with Ben Stein. Yes aliens came here and started life on this planet and of course those aliens had to come about and get super advanced by some process of evolution. I remember as I watched that Ben Stein asked him (Dawkins) what he would say if he died and God came to him saying "What have you been doing? Why have you denied me?" and Dawkins responded by saying he would ask God why he went through such great lengths to conceal himself. I couldn't help but wonder if he would ask the aliens the same thing.

Edited by BlackHorse, 09 November 2008 - 07:37 PM.

"You can run me...and you can starve me...and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."


#6 OFFLINE   Len_A

Len_A

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 2,028 posts
  • Joined 31-October 04
  • Location:Metro Detroit

Posted 09 November 2008 - 07:50 PM

Well I'm not nearly so mathematically inclined as some here but I do know from some things that I've seen and read that we now know the possibility that the evolution could give rise to an organism so complex as a human being is something like 1 in a trillion, trillion, trillon. That's a lot of zero's. Now I am by no means dismissing evolution and I think it is theory that explains a lot of how our world came to be. But it's also a theory with a great many holes and if we really followed it to the letter the theory would dictate that life would denegrate to lesser and lesser degrees of sophistication in accordance with the theory. But it doesn't, instead life has flourished. I know that when pinned down and point blank asked about how life started leading evolutionarly biologist Richard Dawkins said that "aliens did it." I think some of us have probably seen that interview in "Expelled" with Ben Stein. Yes aliens came here and started life on this planet and of course those aliens had to come about and get super advanced by some process of evolution. I remember as I watched that Ben Stein asked him (Dawkins) what he would say if he died and God came to him saying "What have you been doing? Why have you denied me?" and Dawkins responded by saying he would ask God why he went through such great lengths to conceal himself. I couldn't help but wonder if he would ask the aliens the same thing.

I believe that evolution is a valid scientific belief that has more than scientific evidence behind it. That said, I've never believed that a belief in God and belief in science were mutually exclusive. Darwin may have had his doubts about God's existence, but Einstein had a belief in God. Einstein's view of God may not have been like mine or yours are today, but he didn't act like God didn't exist.

If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you

I believe...whatever doesn't kill you simply makes you...stranger


#7 OFFLINE   Versa-Tech

Versa-Tech

    Cross-Plane Coyote

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 2,304 posts
  • Joined 05-April 08
  • Location:Nirvana
  • Current Vehicle:2011 GR40 Mustang

Posted 09 November 2008 - 08:05 PM

I understand where you are going, except that there are such things as "Universal Constants". While not "variable" they are independent.

Avagadro's number (6.023e23) would be the first one to mind.

However, I would think in a purely physical world (ie no God), everything would have to be measurable and quantifiable.

Another universal constant, pi, is measurable, but not quantifiable (no last digit in the decimal).

I'll do some more thinking and get back.

Yes, this is true. Mole and Pi are constant. But numbers are entirely virtual. I'm talking about physical variables here.

Edited by Versa-Tech, 09 November 2008 - 08:06 PM.


#8 OFFLINE   Versa-Tech

Versa-Tech

    Cross-Plane Coyote

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 2,304 posts
  • Joined 05-April 08
  • Location:Nirvana
  • Current Vehicle:2011 GR40 Mustang

Posted 09 November 2008 - 08:09 PM

I believe that evolution is a valid scientific belief that has more than scientific evidence behind it. That said, I've never believed that a belief in God and belief in science were mutually exclusive. Darwin may have had his doubts about God's existence, but Einstein had a belief in God. Einstein's view of God may not have been like mine or yours are today, but he didn't act like God didn't exist.

Darwin's theories presented more questions than answers. Darwin also had no concept of what a cell really was. That said, science proves the existence of a supreme being.

Edited by Versa-Tech, 09 November 2008 - 08:10 PM.


#9 OFFLINE   papilgee4evaeva

papilgee4evaeva

    La Voz de Razón

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,530 posts
  • Joined 07-September 07
  • Region:U.S. Southern Atlantic
  • Location:Research Triangle, NC
  • Current Vehicle:2007 Infiniti M35x; 2013 Ford Fusion Titanium; 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT

Posted 09 November 2008 - 09:03 PM

Intriguing topic. :)

I like many of your answers above, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

It's funny how many often try to fall back on science to disprove the existence of God even though, through your fabulous statements above, science keeps pointing that way. I don't understand why more people don't believe that the two can (and do) coexist.

But as far as empirical evidence, I believe it's scientifically irresponsible to say that one can prove God's existence that way because, by nature alone, God would be above our sciences. However, I read somewhere that it's more correct to say that it's impossible to disprove God's existence by science for the same reasons. Beyond that, we have to go to personal evidence...

... and in deference to the OP, I'll pause there. :)

CURRENT VEHICLES

2007 Infiniti M35x, 126k (mine)

2013 Ford Fusion Titanium, 55K (wife's)

2008 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT, 138K (because kids)

PREVIOUS VEHICLES

2005 Buick Rainier CXL V8, 166K (mine; sold)

1999 Nissan Maxima SE Limited, 188K (wife's; donated)

2001 Pontiac Bonneville SLE, 126K (the Cruise Missile; started getting gremlins, plus we outgrew it)

1996 Nissan Pathfinder SE 4WD, 111-160K+ (stupid odometer) (sold to make room for the Bonnie)
1995 Dodge Intrepid (wife's; almost everything that could go wrong did; towed away stealthily)

FUTURE VEHICLES?

Maybe a truck after some time...?


#10 OFFLINE   RangerM

RangerM

    The Voice of Reason

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined 19-July 06
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Raleigh, NC
  • Current Vehicle:2013 F150

Posted 09 November 2008 - 09:12 PM

Yes, this is true. Mole and Pi are constant. But numbers are entirely virtual. I'm talking about physical variables here.


Well it's been pretty well established by the scientific community (including Einstein) that the universe had a definitive beginning.

While this does not conclusively prove the existence of God, it DOES prove that something came before science. Einstein referred to it as "the presence of a superior reasoning power."

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master - George Washington

A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato

The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money - Margaret Thatcher


1993 Ranger STX, Cayman Green, 2wd, SuperCab, 4.0L, 5-spd


#11 OFFLINE   BlackHorse

BlackHorse

    Blue Oval Enthusiast

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,638 posts
  • Joined 03-January 07

Posted 09 November 2008 - 10:10 PM

If you look at the topic from a purely philosophical point of view you begin to understand how arrogant the athiest point of view can be. It's like saying "I don't believe in God becuase he will not submit himself to my scientific observation for study, . . . . which I wouldn't know about, understand or have without Him."

Edited by BlackHorse, 09 November 2008 - 10:11 PM.

"You can run me...and you can starve me...and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."


#12 OFFLINE   Versa-Tech

Versa-Tech

    Cross-Plane Coyote

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 2,304 posts
  • Joined 05-April 08
  • Location:Nirvana
  • Current Vehicle:2011 GR40 Mustang

Posted 10 November 2008 - 02:57 AM

Well it's been pretty well established by the scientific community (including Einstein) that the universe had a definitive beginning.

While this does not conclusively prove the existence of God, it DOES prove that something came before science. Einstein referred to it as "the presence of a superior reasoning power."

Indeed. Einstein understood that while science can explain universal phenomena, the universe is still far more advanced than our scientific understanding of it. To try and believe that our existence came to be by completely unconscious means, when it has taken us thousands of years as conscious beings to begin to understand the true nature of such, is practically an infinitely improbable conclusion.

If you were to randomly find a machine hundreds of years ahead of our technological abilities lying in the middle of the desert, would you be able to conclude that the machine just randomly assembled itself from the elements?

But as far as empirical evidence, I believe it's scientifically irresponsible to say that one can prove God's existence that way because, by nature alone, God would be above our sciences. However, I read somewhere that it's more correct to say that it's impossible to disprove God's existence by science for the same reasons. Beyond that, we have to go to personal evidence...

... and in deference to the OP, I'll pause there. :)

This is a common misconception. God is a greek word. It is actually an incorrect title (slang if you would) that only came into use [as a monotheistic title] in the roman era. The original translation of god is actually "am", as in "I am existence itself, universally". If god is existence entirely, to deny god is to deny the universe. It is only by flawed human nature that we try to imagine god as a greater version of ourselves. If one is to open his mind to the possibility that god is an entirely different type of entity, it all makes a lot more sense. In essence, if god does exist, nature is god.

Edited by Versa-Tech, 10 November 2008 - 03:28 AM.


#13 OFFLINE   papilgee4evaeva

papilgee4evaeva

    La Voz de Razón

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,530 posts
  • Joined 07-September 07
  • Region:U.S. Southern Atlantic
  • Location:Research Triangle, NC
  • Current Vehicle:2007 Infiniti M35x; 2013 Ford Fusion Titanium; 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT

Posted 10 November 2008 - 08:14 AM

This is a common misconception. God is a greek word. It is actually an incorrect title (slang if you would) that only came into use [as a monotheistic title] in the roman era. The original translation of god is actually "am", as in "I am existence itself, universally".


We can use "YHVH Elohim" if you wish. :)

If god is existence entirely, to deny god is to deny the universe. It is only by flawed human nature that we try to imagine god as a greater version of ourselves. If one is to open his mind to the possibility that god is an entirely different type of entity, it all makes a lot more sense. In essence, if god does exist, nature is god.


This is where I subscribe. To try to humanize Him who created all things would be insulting to Him and self-aggrandizing to us.

CURRENT VEHICLES

2007 Infiniti M35x, 126k (mine)

2013 Ford Fusion Titanium, 55K (wife's)

2008 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT, 138K (because kids)

PREVIOUS VEHICLES

2005 Buick Rainier CXL V8, 166K (mine; sold)

1999 Nissan Maxima SE Limited, 188K (wife's; donated)

2001 Pontiac Bonneville SLE, 126K (the Cruise Missile; started getting gremlins, plus we outgrew it)

1996 Nissan Pathfinder SE 4WD, 111-160K+ (stupid odometer) (sold to make room for the Bonnie)
1995 Dodge Intrepid (wife's; almost everything that could go wrong did; towed away stealthily)

FUTURE VEHICLES?

Maybe a truck after some time...?


#14 OFFLINE   NickF1011

NickF1011

    Moderator Shmoderator

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,712 posts
  • Joined 13-September 04
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Annapolis, MD
  • Current Vehicle:2011 Edge Sport, 1997 Mustang Cobra

Posted 10 November 2008 - 10:39 AM

This is where I subscribe. To try to humanize Him who created all things would be insulting to Him and self-aggrandizing to us.


Yeah, you don't want to insult nature after all. It'll wipe you out with a tsunami or hurricane as revenge. :rolleyes:
Current Rides:
2011 Ford Edge Sport AWD
1997 Ford SVT Mustang Cobra

Previous Rides:
2004 Mazda 6s
1995 Saturn SL2
1994 Ford Explorer XLT 4x2
1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 4x4
1993 Ford Taurus LX
1987 Ford Taurus GL
 
Moderator at TeamMustang.net

#15 OFFLINE   papilgee4evaeva

papilgee4evaeva

    La Voz de Razón

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,530 posts
  • Joined 07-September 07
  • Region:U.S. Southern Atlantic
  • Location:Research Triangle, NC
  • Current Vehicle:2007 Infiniti M35x; 2013 Ford Fusion Titanium; 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT

Posted 10 November 2008 - 11:07 AM

Yeah, you don't want to insult nature after all. It'll wipe you out with a tsunami or hurricane as revenge. :rolleyes:


Oh, I'll insult nature, especially the bird who craps on my freshly washed car. Just not the One who created it.

CURRENT VEHICLES

2007 Infiniti M35x, 126k (mine)

2013 Ford Fusion Titanium, 55K (wife's)

2008 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT, 138K (because kids)

PREVIOUS VEHICLES

2005 Buick Rainier CXL V8, 166K (mine; sold)

1999 Nissan Maxima SE Limited, 188K (wife's; donated)

2001 Pontiac Bonneville SLE, 126K (the Cruise Missile; started getting gremlins, plus we outgrew it)

1996 Nissan Pathfinder SE 4WD, 111-160K+ (stupid odometer) (sold to make room for the Bonnie)
1995 Dodge Intrepid (wife's; almost everything that could go wrong did; towed away stealthily)

FUTURE VEHICLES?

Maybe a truck after some time...?


#16 OFFLINE   Imawhosure

Imawhosure

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts
  • Joined 07-February 01
  • Location:cornfields of Indiana
  • Current Vehicle:F-350

Posted 10 November 2008 - 09:22 PM

OK, I'll bite on this one, lolol.

I think that God is not subjective. Where the atheists get ya everytime is by picking a religion; any religion, then picking it apart. You see, religions are created by man, and by what they think. Mans views always end up being flawed as science progresses. The atheists point at the descrepencys and conclude that since there are obvious flaws, therefore the whole premise is faulty. What then ends up happening is ---------->the other person debates the issue from soley their religious factional position, which is absolutely a losing proposition.

The point is this----------->atheists open the debate by stating there is no God, and insist we prove it. That gives them 50% of probabilty that they are correct. If we responded that there is a God, put in the science that is offered here, we would then get 50% of what was left, and put them on the defensive, cause actually we probably got 55% to their 45%. But we don't do that!!!!!!!! We consistently debate from our own religious beliefs, which are created by men/women. By taking what we know as they are our own beliefs, we concede much more than we gain.

Remember, you need not debate the merits of Catholicism, or the Koran, you need only to debate the existance of a Supreme Being, and what His/Her name is ends up being a mute point!!!

Understand that countless wars have been fought in one religious entitys name or the other. In fact, we are in engaged in one now. I don't think that any Supreme Being had that in mind, do you? That should tell all of us that debating from our personal religious perspective is a losing proposition. Rather, we should debate from the existance of one, and not which sect He/She belongs to.
Vladimir Putin decided to show the world how tough he is, so invaded the Crimea. Not to be outdone..... Barack, Hussein, Obysmal, one uped him and invaded Clark County, Nevada showing his ferocity by threatening to kill some cows!

#17 OFFLINE   Versa-Tech

Versa-Tech

    Cross-Plane Coyote

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 2,304 posts
  • Joined 05-April 08
  • Location:Nirvana
  • Current Vehicle:2011 GR40 Mustang

Posted 10 November 2008 - 10:45 PM

The point is this----------->atheists open the debate by stating there is no God, and insist we prove it. That gives them 50% of probabilty that they are correct. If we responded that there is a God, put in the science that is offered here, we would then get 50% of what was left, and put them on the defensive, cause actually we probably got 55% to their 45%.

I agree with this mostly. However I think the balance of proof is closer to 95/5 in favor of the existence of a supreme being.

I have personally seen the incorruptable (sp?) bodies inside the Vatican. In case you are not familiar with these, I'll explain. There are dozens of bodies lying in plain sight (many others below in the catacombs) that haven't changed composition at all since their deaths. Some are hundreds of years old, others thousands. They appear to be asleep. Some even have perspiration on the skin which fails to evaporate. They're not just in the vatican either (sorry catholics), many others with the same phenomena are spread across the world at various centers of religious worship. What do these bodies have in common? They were all once people that devoted their lives to a supreme being. Most of them performed miracles in the name of a supreme being during their lives. All of them are reported to have performed miracles after natural death and before they were dug up and discovered to be incorruptable. The craziest part of this is that these people weren't simply laid to rest for public viewing (as they are today) when they died. They were buried for decades (some for centuries) before they were dug up and discovered to be this way. This rules out any possibility of human interference.

There are no other cases in which any material on this planet has been found to defy oxidation, let alone an organic compound that defies all forms of physical decomposition. I truthfully didn't believe it until I saw it myself.

Edited by Versa-Tech, 10 November 2008 - 10:51 PM.


#18 OFFLINE   mettech

mettech

    Mettech

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,710 posts
  • Joined 11-April 06
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Indiana
  • Current Vehicle:2017 Edge, 2016 F-250

Posted 11 November 2008 - 07:59 AM

I believe in: Quantum Physics.

Energy is not continuous, but comes in small but discrete units.
The elementary particles behave both like particles and like waves.
The movement of these particles is inherently random.
It is physically impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely one is known, the less precise the measurement of the other is.
The atomic world is nothing like the world we live in.

Edited by mettech, 11 November 2008 - 08:00 AM.

Above All, The USAF 1982 - 2012

 

fordspinner.gif2010-10-23_17-34-44_438-1.jpg

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin

 

 '16 F-250, '17 Edge, '17 KIA Niro


#19 OFFLINE   Trimdingman

Trimdingman

    Junior Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,496 posts
  • Joined 11-September 02
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Hamilton, Ontario
  • Current Vehicle:F-150

Posted 11 November 2008 - 09:29 AM

Whether or not there are higher species is not relevent to a discussion of religion. Religion uses the unknown for their own selfish purposes. Every religion is riddled with lies. A religion sets out a list of "truths", many based on moral axioms. Once they get you to believe that they are honest, they veer off to the supernatural. They make up fantastic stories. Science is not like that. In science, things are disproven and discarded. In religion, you either believe or you do not. It is all or nothing. You are discouraged from participating in discussions like this one. Jehova's Witnesses are told to shun anyone who has left the faith. That is because they are afraid that they will convince others. Science is looking for the god particle. It does not demand that you have faith and believe everything that they say. Science is honest. Religion is dis-honest and cunning.

Nobody knows what is out there. Maybe some day we will. Religions claim that they do know. If God wanted us to understand what he is, he would show himself. If he exists, obviously, he wants to remain anonimous. Maybe he planted all of these foolish religions so that science would stop seeking the truth. When you are accustomed to being the king of the hill, it would be a great shock to discover another species which is to you as you are to a cockroach. Maybe that is what is going on. There are an infinite number of possible scenarios. Religions are just guessing. Athiests are just as stupid. Athiesm is just another religion. An athiest "believes" that there is no god. I don't believe anything. Belief is religion. To believe means that no proof will cause you to change your mind. If your mind does change, then you did not really believe.

Edited by Trimdingman, 11 November 2008 - 12:01 PM.

Sprayhitter

#20 OFFLINE   fordxer

fordxer

    New BON Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 134 posts
  • Joined 23-September 06
  • Location:kcap

Posted 11 November 2008 - 09:35 AM

OK, I'll bite on this one, lolol.

I think that God is not subjective. Where the atheists get ya everytime is by picking a religion; any religion, then picking it apart. You see, religions are created by man, and by what they think. Mans views always end up being flawed as science progresses. The atheists point at the descrepencys and conclude that since there are obvious flaws, therefore the whole premise is faulty. What then ends up happening is ---------->the other person debates the issue from soley their religious factional position, which is absolutely a losing proposition.

The point is this----------->atheists open the debate by stating there is no God, and insist we prove it. That gives them 50% of probabilty that they are correct. If we responded that there is a God, put in the science that is offered here, we would then get 50% of what was left, and put them on the defensive, cause actually we probably got 55% to their 45%. But we don't do that!!!!!!!! We consistently debate from our own religious beliefs, which are created by men/women. By taking what we know as they are our own beliefs, we concede much more than we gain.

Remember, you need not debate the merits of Catholicism, or the Koran, you need only to debate the existance of a Supreme Being, and what His/Her name is ends up being a mute point!!!

Understand that countless wars have been fought in one religious entitys name or the other. In fact, we are in engaged in one now. I don't think that any Supreme Being had that in mind, do you? That should tell all of us that debating from our personal religious perspective is a losing proposition. Rather, we should debate from the existance of one, and not which sect He/She belongs to.

I have a question. Why is it that the majority of people say we are fighting a religious war? IMHO, just because we were attacked by religious fanatics doesn't mean we are in a religious war. The idiots attacked us here because of THEIR religious belief that we are infidels. We retaliated to protect our country and to defend the ones who were killed by the idiots.

Yes I am a Christian and No I do not agree with the muslim belief system. But I would not condone this country for attacking another country because of religious beliefs.

Furthermore, I will not debate the existence of a "Supreme Being". I will debate the existence of the "Lord" that is mentioned in the date of the signing of the Constitution and the "God" or "God Almighty" that is mentioned in the preambles of all 50 States.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. --Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the Government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. --Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. --Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. --Thomas Jefferson

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. -- G. Gordon Liddy

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke








Custom Search


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Privacy Policy Terms of Service | DMCA ·