here's something to think about!

That's exactly what I have been trying to tell my friends...but they don't listen. That's another reason why I think that everyone should read "The Book of Revelation", if they are willing to. Some people say that it's your Angel that tries to get you to do the right thing in a given situation...but I don't really know the whole deal about the Angel concept.​

 

I'd just like to point that out. That was the original post. That was what this thread is supposed to be about. Not a debate about religion and general. I've wanted to post a reply here for some time, but you guys are either off-topic and/or biting each others' heads off, so I'm not even sure if I should. Maybe you guys could debate this in a new thread and let this thread get back to the original topic? D:

I mean no offense to anybody, I just wanted to point that out.​

 

Dude has a point. Lol, we did get terribly off topic.. What do you guys think?

 

*sighs* (I'm a girl.)

Anyway, I'd certainly join this discussion if it were on topic. I'm just slightly afraid that if I joined the current one I might end up getting my head ripped off.​

 

So am I...? But anyway it's just a common expression. People call me dude all the time.....didn't know it would offend you. And actually we aren't really debating in a mean way so you are welcome to join.

 

Religion's role in creation is linked and correlated to countless other facets and arguments from either side often overlap. It'd be silly to think you could just take them apart and deal with all of them separately. That's not how it works.

Yet another God thread? :( Bad idea imo.

An argument so invalid is a rarity these days...
* First of all; most people? For your information, Hinduism accounts for more than 80% of the Indian population. That's more than 800,000,000 people which you flatly ignored. And those are the Hindus of India alone.
* Secondly, a lot of people in extremist societies believe in the world's creation by a single deity only because they have never been taught anything else or are registered as religious because they might have to face consequences if they didn't. You encourage an open mind but you didn't even take those factors into account. Naughty naughty. :)
* And last but not least... Over the course of history, Christianity has had its peak popularity since its inception. Relatively speaking, its popularity has declined while the popularity of atheism has increased. The tables have turned quite a bit actually; there are schools that don't even teach the subject of Religion anymore (which was unthinkable a few decades ago).
But thanks for backing up my argument. You're a sweetheart. ;)

"Ended up proving it?" It's common knowledge that The Case for Faith did nothing of the sort. :) *flush*
It's a pile of arguments but nothing concrete. Arguments that are refutable, and I don't doubt that even a man of little intellect such as myself could see through a number of them if it were necessary.

It's not mean until it gets personal. I tackle but I tackle to conquer the ball. No harm done, no foul play. It's true in soccer and it's true in life.

 

Ah, sorry. I'm not offended, I just wasn't sure if you knew.

Also, I've looked back a bit, but for clarification, what religion (or non-religion) are the both of you? I'm not quite sure. o.0 Just wanted to check before I joined.​

 

*I flatly ignored no one. I am merely pointing out that Christianity is the number one ranked religion in terms of followers, seconded by Islam.
*That logic fell flat on its face...They have been taught that therefor they believe it, or profess to believe it because they are unsure if they do or not. I'm not sure what you were trying to say on that one...?
* I disagree with that. I don't think that Atheism has increased so much as the want and need for logic in our society. Atheism provided that illusion that to be Christian was to abandon reason, therefor many people chose logic.

One question pops to mind first: Have you even read this book? Or are you merely reciting what the "scientists" have said over the years since it has been published and circulated throughout the globe?

Very true. It shames me to see some of the worthless nonsense that passes for a debate these days.(when in reality it is just people screaming at each other "YES!!" "NO!!!!") It really irks me but these debates help. Well an imaginary toast then!!! To being able to prove that two intelligent people of opposite views can sit down and calmly reason out the others logic, without having a seizure and it reverting back into an argument.

Now I'd like to ask you a few questions myself if thats all right with you.

1. How did the Universe Originate?

Many atheists believe matter and energy originated from nothing. But the First Law of Thermodynamics states "matter and Energy is neither created nor destroyed," thus they violate this Law of Science.

2. How did Order Originate?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states a system (like the Universe) will go from Order to Disorder over time. But you argue the Universe went from chaos and disorder (a big bang) to an orderly Universe.

3. How did Life Originate?

You believe living organisms first arose from non-living matter. However the Law of Biogenesis and the Cell Theory states: "Life only comes from life." Thus you violate these foundations of Biology.

4. Was there a Cause for People?

The Law of Causality states: "Every effect must have a cause." You would argue there was a cause for a pencil, but you argue there was no cause for people. Thus you violate the Law of Causality.

5. Everyone knows Mount Rushmore was the result of intelligent design. Do you think the human body is the result of intelligent design?

Laws of science show that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God.

 

I love it when theists try to use science against Atheists, more often than not they fall flat on their faces in getting the most basic and fundamental things wrong.

1. We believe no such thing. In the beginning of the universe (or rather, of the universe as we know it, there could quite easily have been many other universes before beginning in a "Big Bang" and ending in a "Big Crunch" but that is just one of many theories) there was a singularity which contained all of the matter and anti-matter that makes up the universe today. Yes, that's right, anti-matter. Matter and its counter-part would have been there in equal amounts. Meaning that over all the net mass of the universe would be zero, as they cancel each other out. However, then there was the Big Bang. Now here is the first major misconception. It was not an explosion. I don't know how many times I have had to explain this but it was in no way an explosion. It was an expansion. The dimensions of length, breadth, height and time did not exist outside the singularity (which itself was a zero-dimensional point). These dimensions then expanded to created the first small volume of universe.
You will ask "Surely the matter and anti-matter would then interact and cancel each other out? Leaving nothing but a sea of energy and no solid particles?" This question is currently plaguing physicists. They believe that the positive matter (i.e. with positive mass, every mass in the universe that we are accustomed to) took dominance and the anti-matter moved away from it (not before some interaction releasing massive amounts of energy).

So no, we do not believe that the universe came from nothing, not in the slightest.

2. Again, as I said before, it was an expansion not an explosion. Also, the first element to come into existence was hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most basic of atoms containing one proton and one electron. I don't see how this is disordered. The hydrogen then combined to form helium. High energy collisions then caused rest of the elements as we know it to eventually form. Scientists have created several elements ourselves using this same method.

3. Biology is seen as the iffy part of science lol Technically life did evolve from non-living matter. But the non-living matter was organic compounds. Organic compounds that then became self-replicating.
An even stranger origin theory has been proposed stating that we have our origin in clays, crystalline structures as opposed to organic molecules. It states that RNA (the precursor to DNA) was produced by these clays in order to make them "survive" better. They then made the RNA self-replicating so that they no longer needed to produce it themselves. But RNA was so good at self-replicating that it took over, and here we are today.

4. Lol just because it is called a law doesn't mean it is infallible. At least in science we admit that we don't know and that our theories are just that, theories (albeit ones that are extremely likely to be true). But anyway, the cause for people was a need in previous species to survive better. Simple as that. The environment created a need to improve and caused a bias towards a human-like being.

5. I do not, not even in the slightest. This is the argument that because something is complicated it requires a designer. This works when you look at watches or monuments, but not with living organisms. Evolution is blind, it has no end goal to reach. The reason that organisms evolve is not because some being called evolution picks a particular trait and puts it in, but because a particular trait helps the organism survive long enough to mate and therefore pass that trait on. Eventually that trait becomes dominant and is seen throughout the species.
Another argument says that a part such as the eye could not have evolved in steps as it would not work without all the parts (lens, cornea, iris etc.). But if you think about it, an eye with 50% functionality is better than no eye at all. Even 1% is better than nothing. This can then rise higher and higher in functionality until the environmental no longer demands a better ability to see.

The answers are out there, you just have to look for them (that whole open mind thing that was mentioned before).

 

And if you put it like that, you flatly ignore everyone who isn't religious, since you only compare religions. But I'll forgive you.
If by "most people" you meant "almost all people" then my argument still stands, as roughly 13% of the world's population is too large a number to overlook. However, these statistics may be of course biased (see below) or you may not have meant that. Then your retort is acceptable.

I meant that extremist societies often don't offer an alternative to their religion, thus leaving generations to come in the dark with little else to believe. The willingness to side with any philosophy depends on the amount of information you have on that philosophy. Is that so hard to understand?
Also, in those extremist societies (such as Islam extremists) questioning your belief can result in punishment. Some are religious out of fear.

The entire point was that the truth will find its way eventually. Therefore, if it provided an illusion that would have been shattered by now.
And that's where my argument comes in.
Whether it is justified or not, atheism has been winning ground over the past decades. Compare the popularity of atheism now to the past if you will. Are you saying that there has been no relative increase in followers?
That's quite ridiculous.

I know the kind of topics that are discussed (problem of evil, problem of hell, science vs miracles, how to deal with doubts of Christianity etc.). I also know the kind of arguments that are used and quoted by other Christians.
I also know that it'd be bigger news if it effectively proved God's existence. And that you'd have used it's arguments a long time ago if that were the case. That question pops to mind first: if it proves the existence of God and you read it, then why aren't you doing a very good job proving anything? :)

Bunterx already answered your questions and he did a great job (much obliged and welcome back by the way).

Yeah, there are probably atheists who think that. And they violate the laws of science indeed. However, like Bunterx said there are those who do not believe that something can be created from nothing.
And no, I don't know what came first. I have admitted that a while ago (making me repeat myself says more about you than it does about me).
However I do not believe that a conscious being has created and guided the universe to its present state. Many Christians believe that God isn't matter, which of course raises the question of how something immaterial can be conscious. If you have indications that such a life form does exist, then by all means don't keep us at the edge of our seats.

We have already explained the hypothesis that complex molecules are derived from simple ones. Which is more disorderly to you: a heterogenous environment or a homogenous one?

Of course they are violated, since the law of biogenesis and the cell theory have never incorporated the origin of life to begin with.
It's true that I believe that organisms first arose from non-living matter. This was triggered by the reduction of the atmosphere which in turn allowed the synthesis of simple monomers (which increased in complexity over time).
That being said it's no suprise that nucleotides could be somewhat abundant in that primordial soup so they could form polymers (RNA). The nucleotide source is of course finite so there would be compounds that are less likely to degenerate than others. Stable molecules remained untouched.
There is proof that self-replicating molecules with catalytical properties exist and have existed (ribozymes come to mind). Sadly, I don't know what it is. The RNA world hypothesis is now deemed unacceptable; prebiotic conditions make that pretty hard.
However, the discovery of urazole and guanazole as acceptable alternatives for uracil and cytosine respectively reduces the problems.
It's another thing I like about science: the possibility to make progress.

Causality merely states that one event is triggered by another. And causality is true until you apply it to the very beginning, in which we are all stuck. Since you're such a big fan of the law of causality I'm sure you can explain which "cause" is at the root of God (God's existence being the effect).

No, I do not. If you look closely, you'll see that the human body is full of deficiencies and inefficiencies. I'll pick one example out of the pack.
As you probably know, sperm production is hindered by body temperature, which is why human testicles lie in a scrotum rather than in a body cavity. However, the vas deferens shows a bizarre "detour" that intelligent design cannot explain. It consists of a long rostrally oriented curve before it bends caudally towards the penis. This upward orientation is not at all necessary.

That's by far the dumbest thing I've read this month, and I've read some dumb things. :D
While it's true that we make claims without proof, there is no telling that we do so more than a Christian.
I can't explain the origin of life or the universe. Nor can you or your God. We're all in the dark. Our amount of "faith" concering the origin of all things results in a stalemate at most unless you can explain exactly how God created the universe and living organisms. It would make my day to see you try. :)

 

Yeah, many Christians, not all of us. The same thing with atheists. You can't judge all of us by looking at a couple of hundred of us. Though, you can divide us into groups.​

 

If atheists believe that the universe came from nothing, then what did nothing come from?

 

I'm not an atheist, but your question really doesn't make sense. Nothing is nothing. Nothing is the lack of something. It just is. You can't create something that's not there.​

 

Did you even read Styx's or my post? I refuse to explain it again.

 

Not even a facepalm can express my thoughts right now.

 

If the other guys won't reiterate, I will: It didn't come from nothing, it was the result of the expansion of a non-dimensional singularity, creating the first matter/energy.

 

Atheists can believe in different things. However, Scientists do not believe we came from nothing. There is a whole process that is attempting to be understood and we've made leaps and bounds in the fields of physics, biology, zoology, botony, chemistry etc. No scientist is claiming that the universe started from nothing.

 

god has always existed, exists now, and always will exist. :)

 

Sorry I was gone so long. Apparently my computer is literally fried so I have to sneak on my dads, I won't be able to be on as much. I'm just gonna jump in soon...^-^