BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Does God exist?, Scientific proof?
Konoko Rikushu
post Jul 08, 2007, 11:55 AM
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Jul 08, 2007
Member No.: 12072



This article tries to explain using proof that God exists and that it takes more than having faith.

Does God Exist?
Millions believe God exists! Few have proof. Have you proven that God exists? Or do you hope—suspect—feel—believe—think—He does? Can His existence be scientifically proven? Can you know with certainty that an all-intelligent Mind created the universe and all life on earth—including you? Must the answers be “accepted on faith”? Let’s squarely face these questions!
BY DAVID C. PACK

People have debated the existence of God for thousands of years. Most conclude that it cannot be proven—one way or the other. It is surmised that the correct answer lies in the area of abstract philosophy and the metaphysical. Others become agnostics, asserting that they “don’t know” if God exists. Those who do accept God’s existence often do so passively, merely because they were taught it from childhood. Some do not even care. Such people probably cannot be moved from their apathy. Atheists have concluded that God does not exist. These people represent a special category that God describes as, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God” (Psa. 14:1). This scripture is repeated in Psalm 53:1. This booklet will explain why God calls atheists “fools.”

Over thirty-seven years ago, I learned of absolute proof that God exists. My studies lasted 2 1/2 years. I came to realize that I did not have to accept His existence “on faith.” Since that time, science has learned much more and the “case” for God’s existence has become far stronger than at any time in history. This booklet presents numerous absolute, immutable proofs that God does exist. After reading it, you will never again doubt the answer to this greatest of questions! Some proofs will amaze you. Others will inspire you. Still others will surprise or even excite you. All of them will fascinate you with their simplicity. We will first examine some traditional proofs and then consider material that rests on the cutting edge of scientific understanding, before returning to established proofs. You will learn from biology, astronomy, chemistry and mathematics.

Creation or Evolution?

There is an all-important question that is inseparable from the question of God’s existence. The question of whether life on earth exists, because of blind, dumb luck and chance, through evolution, or because of special creation by a Supreme Being, cannot be avoided in studying the existence of God.

Did all life on earth evolve over millions of years, as evolutionists assert—or did an all-powerful God author it at creation? Most people assume evolution is true, just as those who believe in God assume His existence. I also studied this question—evolution vs. creation—in depth, during the same period that I sought to prove God’s existence.

I learned that it takes far more “faith” to believe in the intellectually chic and fashionable evolutionary myth, than it does to believe in the existence of God. In fact, I learned that evolution is based entirely on faith, because no facts or proof have ever been found to support it! (We have prepared a thorough and most inspiring, 32-page, magazine-sized brochure, EVOLUTION – Facts, Fallacies and Implications, that complements this booklet. Those who read this powerful publication will never again doubt the scientific case for Creation!)

Faith and Proof

Faith does play a role in the life of a Christian. For the person who truly wants to seek God and learn to please Him, notice:

“But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). Faith is vital to a Christian. In fact, without it, no one can please God. Notice, this verse says that those seeking God “must believe that He is.” A deep belief in God, who “rewards” all who “diligently seek Him,” requires proof of His existence. After proof has been established, then—and only then—can one have faith—absolute confidence—that what he does is being recorded in God’s mind, to be remembered when he receives his reward. If you are uncertain that God exists, because proof of that existence has not been firmly established, then, under fire, your faith will wane or disappear.
But Which God?

The apostle Paul wrote, “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things…howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge” (I Cor. 8:5-7).

The religions of this world have created many gods of wood, stone and other material. Others exist only in the minds of men. The ancient Greeks alone served 30,000 gods and modern Hindus worship 5 million gods! Truly, there are, and have always been, “gods many, and lords many.” Yet, the God of the Bible created all the materials that men use to design their own gods. But, as Paul said, “there is not in every man that knowledge.”

Such unnecessary ignorance and confusion!

The God of the Bible has shown the way to peace, happiness and abundant life for all people willing to study His Instruction Book. Doing this would rid mankind of the confusion and evils that encompass this world. But, it is not our purpose here to prove that the God of the Bible is the one true God of creation. (Read our free booklet BIBLE AUTHORITY...can it be proven?)
What Science Tells Us

Be willing to examine science. As we reason, do not suppose or hope. Stand on indisputable facts. We will see facts from a broad array of different kinds of science. They will demonstrate that an all-powerful Supreme Being, of infinite intelligence, carefully provided more than sufficient proof to remove all doubt that He exists.

The Bible is God’s instruction to mankind. He expects all who are willing to read the Bible, to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thes. 5:21). Surely this God would not then expect us to assume His existence, while instructing us to prove everything else from His Word!

Before beginning this study, remember, assumptions do not count! Neither do superstitious myths or traditions based on ignorance! What can be known from science? Only accept facts. Think rationally and clearly. Then accept what can be proven!
The Most Perfect Clock

You probably have a watch. Without it, you would be lost in a world that demands that people “be on time.”

Some watches are more accurate than others. How accurate is yours? How long before it loses a second? When this happens, you adjust it by reckoning from a more accurate source. That source, whatever it is, is also imperfect and has to be regularly updated, though not as often, to be in accord with the Master Clock of the United States at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.

For many years, until 1967, Naval Observatory astronomers “observed” the motion of the earth, in relation to the heavens, to accurately measure time. All clocks in this country were set in relation to these very precise measurements. It was God who made this Master Clock of the Universe! He set the heavens in motion and mankind learned how to use its wonderful accuracy. As marvelous as this Great Clock is, the story does not end here.

In 1967, scientists built an “Atomic Clock.” It uses Cesium 133 atoms because they oscillate (vibrate) at the rate of 9,192,631,770 times per second. This produces accuracy within one second every 30 million years! Wouldn’t you love a watch that accurate? Cesium 133 atoms never vary a single vibration. They are steady—constant—reliable—and cannot be an accident of nature that just “happens” to always turn out exactly the same. God had to design the complexity and reliability of these atoms. No honest mind can believe otherwise. Men merely learned how to capture what God designed, for use in time measurement. Again, the story continues.

Doubters, consider this! Scientists in Boulder, Colorado, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, have built an optical clock that is even more accurate. How? By measuring time with light. Time is now measured in what are called femtoseconds—or a million-billionth of a second. These clocks use mercury ions at their “heart” to count the number of times they vibrate in a second.

Optical frequencies regularly oscillate at one million-billion (1,000,000,000,000,000—one quadrillion) times per second. By using lasers and “cooled down” mercury ions, scientists have harnessed God’s precision to better measure time. Optical clocks only slip by one second every 30 BILLION years! This is 1,000 times more accurate than atomic clocks!

All human watchmakers use extraordinary precision in their work. Quartz watches measure time by counting the exact number of oscillations of a quartz crystal through use of a digital counter. Digital clocks use the oscillations of quartz crystals or power lines (60 cycles per second in the United States), but may also count through use of digital counters. Grandfather clocks use the swing of a pendulum, once every second and recorded by metal gears inside the clock, to keep time.

As with the movement of the heavens, men have learned to capture the reliability of Cesium 133 atoms and the movement of cooled mercury ions to count time. Their number of oscillations per second never varies. Could this perfect order be the product of an accident?

In summary, only with great time and effort, the finest watchmakers in the world can, at best, devise several kinds of relatively imprecise clocks. Can any honest, fair-minded person then believe that the three highly precise clocks—the heavens, atomic and optical clocks—came about by accident? In other words, are we to believe that while very sophisticated, humanly devised watches required the effort and ingenuity of skilled, intelligent men to create them, clocks of far greater sophistication, precision and design developed on their own? How utterly ridiculous!

You have seen absolute proof that only the “Greatest Watchmaker” could have devised these “greatest watches.”

The First Law of Thermodynamics

What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true?

The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590 years.

What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!

This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thought—that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universe—including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginning—gradually came into existence BY ITSELF!

Through your own efforts, try to build something—anything—from nothing. Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be able to do it. You will not be able—in a hundred lifetimes of trying—to produce a single thing from nothing! Then, can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe, in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself? Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Great Creator!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples.

Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down—moving toward disorder or entropy—not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35).

Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been “wound up.” Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!
The Great Proof of Creation

We have established that creation demands a Creator. The next few paragraphs introduce some amazing scientific proofs of creation.

The theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Evolutionists have seized on many theories, within the overall theory of evolution, in an attempt to explain the origins of plants, animals, the heavens and the earth.

Over and over, these “theorists” try to explain how life evolved from inanimate material into more complex life forms until it reached the pinnacle—human beings.

Yet, as one geologist wrote, “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133).

Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a “debunked” theory: “Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).
Complexity of Life

Everyone has witnessed explosions. Have you ever seen one that was orderly? Or one that created a watch or a clock? Or one that produced a single thing of exquisite design—instead of the certain result of chaos and destruction? If you threw a million hand grenades, you would see them produce chaos and destruction a million times! There would never be an exception.

Consider the following quotes, involving the likelihood of an explosion creating the entire natural realm of life all around us on earth—let alone the beautiful magnificence and order seen no matter how far one looks out into space.

Dr. B. G. Ranganathan said, “…the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop” (Origins?, p. 15). And this only speaks to the likelihood of any life at all, rather than the most highly complex forms such as large animals or human beings—let alone all the different kinds of life that exist today.

Another scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle, an English astronomer and professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, stated, “The chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein” (Nature, Vol. 294, Nov. 12, 1981, “Hoyle on Evolution,” p. 105).
Incredible Cells and “Irreducible Complexity”

Consider the common mousetrap. Everyone is familiar with it and most have used one. Which part of a mousetrap could you remove and still have it work? The answer is—not one! As ingenious as it is, it is a very simple mechanism. But since the mousetrap cannot be made any simpler, it represents a condition called “irreducible complexity.” Certain living organisms also cannot be simplified or reduced in complexity, and survive. The removal of any single part causes the system to cease functioning. Irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced gradually, by slight successive modifications from a less complicated pre-condition. They must exist exactly as they are—whole, complete—or they cannot exist at all! Take away any part and they cease to function and, therefore, cease to live. What is the significance of this?

Charles Darwin, in his famous work, The Origin of Species, framed a great problem that he and all other evolutionists face: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (emphasis mine).

Nature contains many different biochemical systems that cannot be reduced in complexity. They are sometimes referred to as “molecular machines” and, like a four-stroke gasoline engine, cannot be simplified and still function.

Here is just one amazing quote about a single, incredible organism. It illustrates the principle we are discussing. You may need to read it two or three times to appreciate its impact. Its length is necessary to illustrate the complexity of just one molecular machine. The quote is from the article Molecular Machines by Michael J. Behe, and the emphasis is mine:

“Earlier we discussed proteins. In many biological structures proteins are simply components of larger molecular machines. Like the picture tube, wires, metal bolts and screws that comprise a television set, many proteins are part of structures that only function when virtually all of the components have been assembled. A good example of this is a cilium. Cilia are hairlike organelles on the surfaces of many animal and lower plant cells that serve to move fluid over the cell’s surface or to ‘row’ single cells through a fluid. In humans, for example, epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract each have about 200 cilia that beat in synchrony to sweep mucus towards the throat for elimination. A cilium consists of a membrane-coated bundle of fibers called an axoneme. An axoneme contains a ring of 9 double microtubules surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of 13 filaments (subfiber A) fused to an assembly of 10 filaments (subfiber cool.gif. The filaments of the microtubules are composed of two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. The 11 microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: subfibers A are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined by linkers that consist of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge. Finally, every subfiber A bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing the protein dynein.

“But how does a cilium work? Experiments have indicated that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered ‘walking’ of the dynein arms on one microtubule up the neighboring subfiber B of a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other. However, the protein cross-links between microtubules in an intact cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance. These cross-links…convert the dynein-induced sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme.

“Now let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what it implies. Cilia are composed of at least a half dozen proteins: alpha-tubulin, beta-tubulin, dynein, nexin, spoke protein, and a central bridge protein. These combine to perform one task, ciliary motion, and all of these proteins must be present for the cilium to function. If the tubulins are absent, then there are no filaments to slide; if the dynein is missing, then the cilium remains rigid and motionless; if nexin or the other connecting proteins are missing, then the axoneme falls apart when the filaments slide.

“What we see in the cilium, then, is not just profound complexity, but also irreducible complexity on the molecular scale.” You see the point!

This was terribly complicated. In a way, that is the point! Organisms are all complicated—some wonderfully so. And yet they cannot be reduced, diminished or simplified in their complexity. They had to come into being exactly as they are, because they never could have arrived at their present condition gradually.

We should stand in awe of any God great enough to be able to design and create cilia!
Amino Acids, Proteins and DNA

Let’s take a journey deep into the cells of all living organisms. This will be unlike any journey you have ever taken before.

Immediately, we see a world of such exquisite detail, design, complexity, inter-dependence and specificity as to boggle the mind. Let’s paint a picture.

Amino acids must link together to form a chain, thus making a protein. Notice: “Yet, amino acids form functioning proteins only when they adopt very specific sequential arrangements…like properly sequenced letters in an English sentence. Thus, amino acids alone do not make proteins any more than letters alone make…poetry. In both cases, the sequencing of the constituent parts determines the function [or lack of function] of the whole. Explaining the origin of the specific sequencing of proteins (and DNA) lies at the heart of the current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking” (Stephen C. Meyer, DNA And Other Designs, p. 9—emphasis mine).

A brief discussion of proteins and sequencing is necessary. Proteins must appear in exact sequences to cause specific chemical reactions or build specific structures within the cells. This action is called specificity. It is because of specificity that proteins cannot substitute for one another. They are as different in purpose as an axe, a drill, a hammer and a screwdriver.

This extensive quote summarizes the enormous difficulty of believing that DNA happened by chance: “The complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically-coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact that this ‘supermolecule’ simply could not have happened by blind chance. As Andrews has observed.

“It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident…A code is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it…This could no more have been the work of chance or accident than could the ‘Moonlight Sonata’ be played by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano! Codes do not arise from chaos.” (Andrews, E.H., 1978, From Nothing to Nature, pp. 28-29).

Here is a second statement: “Indeed, codes do not arise from chaos. As Dawkins correctly remarked: ‘The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer’ (1982, p. 130, emp. Added). That is the exact point the theist is making: an intelligent Designer is demanded by the evidence” (Bert Thompson, Ph.D., The Case For The Existence of God [Part II]).

Dr. Carl Sagan wrote an article for the Encyclopedia Britannica about DNA. He said, “The information content of a simple cell has been estimated at around (one trillion) bits.” He then went on to explain the enormity of this number by stating, “…that if one were to count every letter of every word of every book in the world’s largest library (over ten million volumes), the final tally would be approximately a trillion letters. Thus, a single cell contains the equivalent information content…of more than ten million volumes” (“Life on Earth,” Vol. 10).

In conclusion, regarding DNA, nothing works unless everything works at the same time. It could not have gradually come into existence. Special creation is required for DNA to exist!
“Tiny Engines” Inside Cells

We need to look at one more example of molecular machines to better appreciate the complexity of cells.

Japanese and German scientists have now discovered the smallest of nature’s machines, called “tiny engines.” Consider this advanced research on these remarkable little engines.

As you read this quote, ask yourself where they came from: “A group of Japanese scientists exploring the crystal structure of the F1-ATPase enzyme discovered nature’s own rotary engine—no bigger than ten billionths by ten billionths by eight billionths of a meter. The tiny motor includes the equivalent of an engine block, a drive shaft, and three pistons. It runs at speeds between 0.5 and 4.0 revolutions per second. This motor not only ranks as the smallest ever seen, it also represents the smallest motor that the laws of physics and chemistry will allow.

“In Germany, a research team used the new instruments to examine an enormous molecule, the yeast 26S proteasome. Though not the largest molecule in existence, the yeast 26S proteasome contains over two million protons and neutrons and is the largest non-symmetrical molecule mapped to date. This molecule can only be described as a ‘wonder.’ It serves as an intracellular waste-disposal and recycling system” (Hugh Ross, Ph.D., Small-scale Evidence of Grand Scale Design).

These organisms could never have evolved gradually. No wonder God says of those who do not believe in His existence, “The fool has said…There is no God.”
Life Requires a LIFEGIVER

What about the presence of all life on earth today? Where did it come from? How did it get here? The Bible states that God created all life during the first six days of the creation week of Genesis 1. Is this true, or did life come into existence by itself?

As with Uranium 238, and its provable moment of beginning, the great pattern of all life is that it can only come from other pre-existing life. This is called the Law of Biogenesis. All first-year biology students know it.

When examining tiny organisms, such as protozoa and bacteria, it can be demonstrated that life only comes from life. There are many kinds of life, but each continues to reproduce the same kind over and over. This is indisputable.

Life can never come from inanimate (non-living) objects. Evolutionists theorize that inanimate objects, under certain unknown circumstances in the misty past, somehow spontaneously gave birth to very primitive life forms. This presents enormous problems for anyone familiar with the nature and complexity of simple cells.

Biologists understand that all cells can only come from pre-existing cells. Here is why. Cells, even in their simplest and most rudimentary form, are extremely complex. Consider: “The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech” (Darwin on Trial, Philip Johnson, p. 102). The next source is equally powerful in explaining both the complexity of the cell and its origin: “The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order” (Origins?, Ranganathan, B.G., p. 15).

Will skeptics ignore the truth that it is impossible to have life without a lifegiver? Only God has Life inherent in Himself. This is, after all, what makes Him God. No one created God, because He has Life inherent in Himself. But is this God merely some kind of blind power, some kind of dumb “first force?” Let’s reason together.
The Extraordinary Human Mind

Stop and think! Consider all of the works of nature around you—both on earth and in the heavens.

First, consider the many different kinds of planets, stars and galaxies. Each is its own marvel. Second, consider all the species of plants on earth today. There are millions, diverse in color, shape, size, beauty, length of life, etc. I have spent much of my life studying and planting many kinds of plants. The brilliance of their various designs and purposes never ceases to amaze me! I am more fascinated with these living plants, than with stars and other objects throughout the heavens.

A side note should be considered at this point. All of the food that exists on earth today is perfectly designed for either human or animal consumption. It is constructed so that it contains just the right amounts of different elements necessary to sustain various life forms. Every time man tries to alter or improve food, he seems to pollute, ruin, devitalize, inject with poison, genetically re-engineer, or in some manner reduce its perfection into something inferior to what he started with. If mankind could just leave food alone, and eat it as God created it, sickness, disease and every form of nutrition-related human infirmity would disappear.

The germination, growth, development and maturation of plants into the many kinds of food, available just to human beings, represents its own series of miracles far too complex to recount here. It could command its own book just to explore it beyond even the most superficial overview.

But think! Who is more intelligent? God—who made perfect food, or men—who find every possible way to alter and degrade it before consuming it? Take the time to ponder this question.

Third, consider the nearly one million different kinds of creatures (plus the estimated several million additional kinds of insects). Because these creatures are animate, they are even more marvelous and fascinating than is the world of plants. Their diversity in color, shape, size, beauty, length of life, etc., is comparable to plants.

What is the point? As fascinating, marvelous, beautiful and amazing as are all the things described here, surely nothing is as amazing as the human mind. It is the absolute pinnacle of all living organisms. None can doubt this.
The Limits of Your Creative Power

Now think about what mankind has been able to produce. He can build houses, telephones, trains, automobiles, planes, rockets, computers, fax machines and other sophisticated devices that are practically limitless in complexity and usefulness.

However, all this creative genius has a simple limit. No man, or group of men, you and I included, can create anything as marvelous as the human mind. Everything that man creates is inferior to his own mind. Try to think of a single thing that has ever been created by men that is superior to the minds who created it. You will not think of anything.

Here is the question: Who or what created your mind—and you? King David said, “…for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14). Surely this is most true of the human brain. Be honest with yourself. Can you possibly believe that some kind of blind, dumb power or force—of less intelligence than yourself, or of no intelligence—created your mind? Remember, you can create nothing superior to your mind. So, only a greater mind could create your mind.

Do not insult yourself by suggesting that your extraordinary creative powers of intelligence, reason, logic, thought, volition and ingenuity are a product of mere dumb luck!
One Great Step Further

Consider what we have discussed about the universe and its contents—including stars, planets, galaxies, plants, animals, humans and the human mind!

Assume for a moment that you have all power to create whatever you wish. Do you think that you could have created this much beauty, majesty, design, size, precision of engineering and magnificence on your own, with no help from one single additional person? Remember, you would have no pattern to copy. You would be “on your own.”

Would you be able to design approximately one trillion galaxies, each containing an average of 100 billion stars—with no pattern to copy as you did this? Would you think to create light and cause it to travel at 186,000 miles per second? Could you think to make sound move at 660 miles per hour? Could you create every kind of atom known to science and include every sub-atomic particle within them? Would you then think you possess the ability to merge various atoms into complex molecules able to serve a myriad of indescribably complicated purposes?

Would you think yourself able to design millions of plants—many of which are utterly interdependent upon one another? Would you then be up to the task of designing, without a single pattern to follow, several million animals and insects, which are not only perfectly interdependent with one another but also interdependent with, and dependent upon, the entire plant world? Could you then put all of the food, for both plants and animals, in place, so that they would be perfectly sustained throughout whatever time you had allotted for their existence? I could go on and on, but you see the point.

Now be careful! Just as you do not want to insult yourself by believing that your mind is a product of dumb luck, be sure that you do not insult God by suggesting that all of the universe and its contents could just happen into existence—entirely by itself! If there are ignorant, foolish atheists willing to believe that this could all occur on its own, then honest, intelligent people would never believe such folly, simply because ignorant men assert it!

Through reason and sheer plainness of logic, we now have absolute proof that only a Great Being of Superior Intelligence could stand as the Designer and Architect of the entire universe and all complex life within it—including the pinnacle of His creation, your human mind!
The Fossil Record Gap

Evolutionists once referred more often to evidence from the “fossil record.” Does such evidence exist? Do bones and artifacts from millions of years ago tell a story—offer convincing proof—that man evolved from simple organisms? What is the truth of the scientific record? Remember, we want facts—proof—not theories requiring faith to believe them!

This quote, from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, in a letter to L. Sunderland, summarized the “fossil problem”: “…I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils…I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a water tight argument.”
Some Fossils

In the 1920s, a single tooth was found in Western Nebraska at the Snake Creek quarry. Scientists came forward offering this tooth as proof that evolution had occurred and purported it to be a “missing link.” Because of where it was discovered, the human-like sketch drawn around it was called “Nebraska Man.”

Much “to do” was made of this discovery. It was big news. Evolutionists rejoiced. But a funny thing happened on the way to the theory of evolution. Five years later, someone decided to ask a farmer his opinion of the tooth. His answer was to identify it as a “pig’s tooth!” More excavation at the site of the “find” proved that the rest of the skeleton did, indeed, represent some kind of peccary (pig).

It is often bones, or even bone fragments (and some of these have been determined to be hoaxes) that cause evolutionists to assert that important “links” from the fossil record have been discovered. Merely because someone found a piece of bone, sophisticated artist renderings are then presented, assigned names and offered as convincing visual proof that evolution occurred.

“Orce Man” was based on what turned out to be the skullcap of a donkey. “Ramapithecus Man” was simply a baboon skull. “Piltdown Man” was a hoax and “Neanderthal Man” was determined to be severely bow-legged simply because he had rickets. He was assuredly not proof from the fossil record of a half-ape, half-man transitional creature.

There is a desperation in the thinking and actions of many evolutionary scientists. The following quotes demonstrate their approach:

“A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib…The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid [human] that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone” (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, Univ. of California, Berkeley, New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199). “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it” (H.S. Lipson, FRS, Prof. Of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK, ‘A Physicist Looks at Evolution,’ Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, 1980, p. 138).

Here are the facts. Absolutely no transitional forms exist anywhere in the fossil record. While evolutionists will suggest that it took “50 million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian,” the simple truth is that there are no transitional fossil forms to prove this. There are no creatures found that evidence partial fins, partial feet or partially evolved brains, legs, eyes, organs or other body parts.

The following comes from the “father” of evolutionary thinking: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” (The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, ch. 6.)

Consider a statement regarding how bone fragments are supposed to represent entire human skeletons within various stages of the fossil record. Dr. Leakey, considered the most famous fossil anthropologist in the world, said that the skull of his famous discovery, “Lucy” (known as Australopithecus afarensis), is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris.” He admitted that no firm conclusions could be made about what species she was, even though she was assigned the age of 3.5 to 4 million years old. I have personally seen a photograph of her “skeleton,” and it is meaningless.

The front cover of a well-known national news magazine showed a picture of an ape’s head accompanying an article entitled “How Apes Became Human.” The article was a pitiful attempt to first connect a toe bone to other bones found ten miles away from it, and then to depict them as proof of evolution. It speaks of evolution as a foregone conclusion.

The article was filled with uncertain phrases like “close to answering,” “what appears to be,” “people have speculated,” “we are suggesting,” “still something of a mystery,” “probably,” “about,” “presumably,” “maybe,” etc. These phrases are endless. Yet the artwork and diagrams make the flimsy, speculative “evidence” look like absolute proof.

The reader is even left with the impression that the writers were themselves uncertain and uncomfortable. Mixed with baseless assumptions, the artwork lends credibility through sensationalism, giving it “sale ability.”

Consider! There are no links from plants to animals, reptiles to birds and mammals, etc. The fossil record shows that animals appear suddenly. When this was recognized, the whole theory of “micro-evolution” collapsed, and evolutionists admitted as much. They then decided that possibly the fossil record could best be described as indicating “macro-evolution,” sometimes referred to as “punctuated equilibrium” or “the hopeful monster theory.” This ludicrous idea suggests a reptile could suddenly lay an egg, which would hatch a bird.

So many people seem willing to fall for ridiculous ideas because they have been told throughout their lives that evolution is a fact and assume that it cannot be wrong if “everyone believes it.” One source admitted, “That living things are suited for their environment better explains the fact that they were created for it not that they evolved into it” (Origins?, Ranganathan, B.G.).

After all is said and done, the fossil record has never revealed what evolutionists have hoped for. The record gives distinct evidence of one fact—sudden, special creation of all life in a fully-formed condition! To believe anything else is to be dishonest with the evidence.
The Amazing Human Eye

The balance of this booklet contains a series of brief examinations of various examples reflecting God’s creative genius and bear testimony to a literal, divine creation. Each of these miracles of engineering defies atheists and evolutionists! Think carefully about what you are reading and ask yourself if even one of them could have evolved.

Begin with the human eye. This mechanism is spectacularly complex and is a particularly inspiring testimony to the greatness of God’s supreme intelligence.

Here are three statements from Dr. David N. Menton. The first represents the magnitude of difficulty in having the human eye evolve to its current state of extraordinary design and complexity:

“The most amazing component of the camera eye is its ‘film’ or retina. This light sensitive layer, which lines the back of the eye ball, is thinner than a sheet of Saran Wrap and is vastly more sensitive to a wider range of light than any man-made film. The best man-made film can handle a range of 1,000-to-one. By comparison, the human retina can handle a dynamic range of light of 10 billion-to-one (or 10 million times more) and can sense as little as a single photon of light in the dark! In bright daylight, the retina bleaches out and turns its ‘volume control’ way down so as not to overload.

“The light sensitive cells of the retina are like an extremely complex high gain amplifier. There are over 10 million such cells in the retina and they are packed together with a density of 200,000 (per millimeter) in the highly sensitive fovea. These photoreceptor cells have a very high rate of metabolism and must completely replace themselves about every 7 days! If you look at a very bright light such as the sun, they immediately burn out but are rapidly replaced in most cases. Because the retina is thinner than the wavelength of visible light it is totally transparent. Each of these minute photoreceptor cells is vastly more complex than the most sophisticated man-made computer.”

Now notice: “The evolutionist Dr. Ernest Mayer once said: It is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.”

Even Darwin once said that the very thought of the complexity of the eye gave him chills. Here is another reason Darwin said this. This quote, while inspiring, certainly is chilling: “It has been estimated that 10 billion calculations occur every second in the retina before the light image even gets to the brain! It is sobering to compare this performance to the most powerful manmade computer. In an article published in the computer magazine, Byte (April 1985), Dr. John Stevens said: ‘To simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous non-linear differential equations one hundred times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways it would take a minimum of a hundred years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second’” (Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D., The Eye, Missouri Assoc. for Creation, Inc.—emphasis mine).

You are left to draw your own conclusions about how such a marvelous organism—the human eye—could have evolved. No wonder my own optometrist told me that he believes that the eye did not evolve. He understands that it could not! It was “invented” by the Great Inventor.
Australian Termites

Next, we look at a tiny, little-known creature—the Australian termite. This particular termite differs from all others. Actually, it is four creatures in one, and each depends on the others for continued existence. This termite represents a case in which you cannot have one without all the others. Consider this:

“A curiosity I studied in microbiology class was a microorganism called Mixotricha Paradoxa that lives in the gut of Australian termites. When it was first discovered, it looked as if it was covered with a bunch of curly hairs. Looking at it closer, it was revealed that these were not hairs at all, but spirochetes, which were a totally different type of microorganism. On the Mixotricha, there were bumps or appendages where the spirochetes attached, and bacillus which lodged on the other side of the bump. The spirochetes provided a means of locomotion for the entire colony of microorganisms. They are three totally different germs that decided to live together in a community. So, what you have is an interdependence between a large microorganism, a spirochete, a bacillus, an Australian termite, and even the trees the termite feed upon. I suppose if you are an evolutionist, you would have to believe that at one point in time they formed a committee and decided to all work together; the Mixotricha ‘developing’ bumps where the spirochetes could bury their heads and behind which the bacillus could hide; all of whom ‘decided’ to live in the gut of a termite” (Douglas B. Sharp, The Revolution Against Evolution, ch. 5—emphasis mine).

Obviously, this illustrates the case for special creation of all these creatures at the same time. They could not have developed separately and ever made it to the point where they could “rendezvous” and forever spend their existence interdependent and together.
Koalas and Eucalyptus Trees

Most are familiar with cuddly koala “bears” and have at least heard of Eucalyptus trees. They have a special relationship. Each is native to only one place on earth—Australia. Koalas eat nothing but eucalyptus leaves, often living their entire lives in one grove. They also derive moisture from these leaves because they almost never drink water.

Koalas possess specific microorganisms in their digestive systems necessary to break down the elements in eucalyptus leaves that are toxic to every other creature. These toxins are actually converted into vitamins. How did koalas evolve, unless they were created with these microorganisms already present in their stomachs? Without them, they would have eaten eucalyptus leaves and died. Yet their systems are so specific that they can only survive by eating eucalyptus leaves. Many naturalists consider them to have “the most advanced digestive system on the planet.” Their low 5% protein intake, with tannins and toxins, would kill other animals.

To reject special creation by a God, evolutionists are forced to conclude, “What luck for koalas that just the right microorganisms entered their systems at the exact same time that they developed a taste for eating only eucalyptus leaves.” This proves that God created koalas.
Whales and Dolphins

The next quote demonstrates the impossibility of whales and dolphins evolving to their present state. It lies in the context of a larger statement about why there is no fossil record demonstrating various stages of transition in their development:

“We can demonstrate one such transition problem by using the example of dolphins and whales. These mammals bear their young alive and breathe air, yet spend their entire lifetime in the sea. Presumably, in order for dolphins and whales to have evolved, they must have originated from a land mammal that returned to the water and changed into a sea creature. But dolphins and whales have so many remarkable features upon which their survival depends that they couldn't have evolved! It would be a lot like trying to change a bus into a submarine one part at a time, all the while it is traveling at 60 miles per hour.

“The following is a list of transitions evolutionists have to account for in the dolphin in its evolution from some unknown land dwelling pre-dolphin: (1) The nose would have to move to the back of the head. (2) Feet, claws, or tail would be exchanged for fins and flippers. (3) It would have to develop a torpedo shaped body for efficient swimming in the water. (4) It would have to drink sea water and desalinize it. (5) It's entire bone structure and metabolism would have to be rearranged. (6) It would need to develop a sophisticated sonar system to search for food.

“Could the dolphin acquire these features gradually one at a time over a period of millions of years? What about the transitional stages? Would they have survived with just some of these features? Why is there a total absence of transitional forms fossilized?

“Consider the whale and its enormous size in comparison with the plankton it feeds upon. The whale is a nautical vacuum cleaner, with a baleen filter. While it was ‘developing’ this feature, what did it feed upon before? For me, it takes a great stretch of the imagination to picture the evolution of dolphins and whales” (Douglas B. Sharp, The Revolution Against Evolution, ch. 5.).

It must be concluded that whales and dolphins were created!
What About Hummingbirds?

The briefest overview of birds reveals some remarkable facts. Virtually every bird builds its nest in a different way. Courtship behavior, sexual roles and reproductive activity are different among nearly every species. In one bird, the roles of the male gathering the food while the female sits on the eggs are reversed. And when did the sexes diverge—for birds or any other animal? (Even some plants are male and female. How did this happen?)

Hummingbirds represent true genius. They weigh one-fourteenth of an ounce and, like helicopters, can fly forward, backward, sideways and can hover in mid-air. Their flight mechanism is incredibly complex and the quills in their feathers are stronger for their weight than any structure designed by man. These quills constantly change shape to adjust for wind and air pressure. The leading vane of their feather functions much like a propeller, to offer lift and propulsion.

Three-quarters of their entire weight is in their wing muscles. They possess a kind of jet-assisted takeoff mechanism that they can use during landings and takeoffs. Air flows only one way into their lungs so as to bring a constant supply of oxygen for such strenuous high-speed flight. They also possess retractable landing gear, a migration navigation system, streamlining and camouflage and an extraordinary respiration system where they can store extra air inside their hollow bones. In turn, this provides buoyancy and an internal air conditioner. Hummingbirds must eat continuously to satisfy their high level of metabolism. To stop eating would mean death. Only by undergoing a kind of “hibernation” at night, can they survive. Could all this have evolved or just happened?

Like the bumblebee, which also appears to completely defy the laws of physics in its ability to fly, the hummingbird is just as unique but is practically an aerodynamic perfection. Only God could have made such an efficient flying machine. No aeronautical engineer has ever designed anything close to this tiny marvel of flight!
And Fish?

The angler fish, the archer fish, and the anableps are three fish that literally swim in the face of evolution.

The female angler fish has a lure hanging from an appendage extending from the front of her nose. It lures fish close so that she can strike and swallow them. The male does not have one because he never eats. Rather, he attaches himself to the female, allowing the bloodstreams of both to merge, thus feeding him. Evolutionists cannot explain the angler fish.

The archer fish can shoot down bugs above the surface by squirting water at them. Water severely bends (refracts) light and should cause an impossible targeting problem for the fish. How do all archer fish instinctively know how to perfectly compute the severe angle of refraction of light in order to successfully hit their prey as they do?

The anableps is a fish with absolutely extraordinary eyes. They allow it to sit on the surface and see out of water and under water at the same time. Its eyes are literally divided into two entirely separate parts. How did evolution cause half an eye to gradually evolve so that it can see out of water and vice-versa with the other half?

What engineer has ever made such efficient submarines, whose design makes them perfect hunters, so well-suited for their needs and environment?
Design Requires a DESIGNER

We are not prepared to address the final conclusions in this booklet until we look at two more sources. More scientists are accepting that the great evidence of design all around us requires acknowledgment of a Great Designer. More are recognizing that acceptance of any other explanation forces them to deny reality. The first source sets up the second:

“Everyone concludes naturally and comfortably that highly ordered and designed items (machines, houses, etc.) owe existence to a designer. It is unnatural to conclude otherwise. But evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe in what is unnatural, unreasonable, and…unbelievable…The basis for this departure from what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact, observation, or experience but rather unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities, mathematics, and philosophy” (Wysong, R. L., The Creation/Evolution Controversy, 1976).

Now for the second source:

“In concluding, it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opened up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.

“It was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues” (Behe, Michael J., Molecular Machines).

Certainly, true science is always in harmony with the facts. No one who believes in God or special creation need ever fear God or science based on facts!
The Probability of an Earth

Let’s take an imaginary trip to the moon and look back at earth. Consider all that we left behind in our journey. We could ask: What are the mathematical odds that the earth, with all its plants, animals, eco-systems and complex interdependence, could come into existence by itself? What are the actual odds that all this could happen—even once? What are the odds of a single earth occurring?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Konoko Rikushu
post Jul 08, 2007, 11:55 AM
Post #2


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Jul 08, 2007
Member No.: 12072



“Finding a distinct beginning to the universe was something that most scientists did not anticipate and which made most of them, like Einstein, enormously uncomfortable. ‘There is a kind of religion in science,’ says Jastrow, ‘it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe, and every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause.’ But here it was, a First Effect. The universe, most astronomers and physicists now agree, had a distinct beginning. There therefore must be a First Cause, a Prime Mover—God—that set the universe in motion. ‘For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries’” (The New American, “Divine Design,” D. Behreandt, Dec. 18, 2000).
To the Skeptic

Among the educated in the Western World, the popular terms for those who refuse to accept the authority of an all-powerful God, are “deists,” “rationalists” or, more popularly, “higher critics.”

The Bible teaches that “the carnal mind is enmity [hostile] against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). This is the natural tendency of all human beings—including you—although most would never believe or admit it. (Also see Jeremiah 17:9.) There is no proof, evidence, fact, logic or sound reasoning that could ever cause anyone, who is unwilling to set aside their natural, automatic prejudice against believing in and yielding to the authority of a loving God, to do so. Natural bias and prejudice against belief in an all-powerful God, who tells them how to live, is sufficient to keep most from honestly admitting the proofs contained in this booklet!

What will you do?

In his booklet Does God Exist?, Herbert W. Armstrong concluded with this statement under the subhead “Master Clock of the Universe”:

“But then you, Mr. Skeptic—you look up into the great vast sky at the master clock of the universe, which never misses a second—the perfect watch by which we must constantly set all our imperfect man-made watches—and you tell me, ‘That all just happened! There was no Great Watchmaker! No Master mind thought out and planned that vast universe, brought it into being, set each star and planet in its own exact place, and started the myriad heavenly bodies coursing through space, each in its prescribed orbit, in its orderly precision. No, it just fashioned itself, put itself together, wound itself up, and started itself running. There was no Intelligence—no planning—no creation—no God!’

“Do you say that to me?

“If you can, I answer that I do not respect your intelligence. And the God I acknowledge replies to you, ‘The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God!’ (Ps. 14:1; 53:1.)

“If you can look about you, and observe how intelligently planned and executed is everything in nature and in plant and animal life—everything we see except the bungling, botching, polluting of God’s beautiful handiwork by the clumsy hand of God-ignoring-and-rejecting man—and then say you doubt the existence of an all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator God, then I do not have much faith either in your rational processes or your sincerity as a seeker of the truth!”
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jul 08, 2007, 11:58 AM
Post #3


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



the main problem of God is defining the term. If defined as a Totality along the lines of pantheism or panentheism, then it is probably not possible to refute the existence of God since the existence of anything and everything proves that God exists. If God is defined as a Creator separate from his Creation, then there is little or no scientific support for this claim. So whether God exists or not really comes down to how you define God.

As a side note, the Bible is so antiquated and outdated, that it is comparable to Gilgamesh and Greek mythology, and so has no relevance as to the question of God's existence.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 08, 2007, 12:41 PM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



No.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jul 08, 2007, 12:47 PM
Post #5


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jul 08, 2007, 01:41 PM) *

No.

lol. I would say that if you believe in the exisence of anything, and if God is equated with that, then that would make you a pantheist.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jul 18, 2007, 04:02 AM
Post #6


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Jul 08, 2007, 11:58 AM) *

the main problem of God is defining the term. If defined as a Totality along the lines of pantheism or panentheism, then it is probably not possible to refute the existence of God since the existence of anything and everything proves that God exists. If God is defined as a Creator separate from his Creation, then there is little or no scientific support for this claim. So whether God exists or not really comes down to how you define God....
Excellent! Your comment, LD, prompts me simply to say: Amen!

As in my signature, I use the symbol 'GØD' to make the point that I do not consider GØD to a be an objective masculine-like being, like you and I, a heavenly father, an animated idol figure, one who occupies space and time and wills to do this that or the other thing--like creating galaxies, stars and planets--whenever "He" feels like it. Those who believe this, it seems to me, believe in a kind of mental idolatry. If such theists expect me--I describe myself as a unitheist/panentheist--to believe in such a god they will need to introduce "him" to me, not just tell me about him. I expect to meet the boss. A blind faith is not worth believing.

Also, in my humble opinion, GØD represents being, itself, which I sense with all my senses. When I speak of GØD. I am only comfortable using one verb: the verb 'to be'.

As to the conflict between creationism and evolutionism: I find emanationism far more intellectually satisfying.
As always, I keep a loving and open-mind, and I strive to agree to disagree in the spirit of love, agreeably . smile.gif

BTW, I enjoyed reading the opening post and I found the science-based facts, if they are accurate, very facinating.

ABOUT THE ARTICLE BY HERBERT W. ARMSTRONG--The World Wide Church of God.
To those with a science background: Are the facts quoted in the article accurate?
BTW, Armstrong started off as a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, which teaches that it has the truth about God and the Bible. The SDA's keep the Jewish Sabbath, not Sunday. Unlike Christian Science and the JW's they do good work running hospitals and use transfusions. They are also good with diet matters.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 18, 2007, 07:02 AM
Post #7


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



It's great to see you back Lindsay!
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jul 18, 2007, 01:02 PM) *
BTW, I enjoyed reading the opening post and I found the science-based facts, if they are accurate, very facinating.
It was science-speak by a non-scientist - very problematic, full of misunderstandings and, in its entirety, misleading, although quite humorous!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jul 18, 2007, 08:21 AM
Post #8


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jul 18, 2007, 07:02 AM) *

It's great to see you back Lindsay!
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jul 18, 2007, 01:02 PM) *
BTW, I enjoyed reading the opening post and I found the science-based facts, if they are accurate, very facinating.
It was science-speak by a non-scientist - very problematic, full of misunderstandings and, in its entirety, misleading, although quite humorous!
Correction: It is not H. J. Here is information about Herbert W. Armstrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_W._Armstrong

BTW, Konoko Rikushu, I remember hearing that during his ministry HWA boasted that he would be around and introduce Jesus at his second coming. He did not make it. I would like to ask, HOW COME?
=====
In 1968, Garner Ted Armstrong (the son of Herbert W. Armstrong) was the voice and face of the new television version of The World Tomorrow. It was speculated that with his charisma and personality, he was the logical successor to his father, H.W. Armstrong. But doctrinal disagreements and widespread reports of extramarital sex led to his suspension; after initially changing his behavior he returned, but these issues resurfaced, coupled with his challenging his father's authority as Pastor General, resulting in his permanent excommunication.

To those who claim that God is there answering all prayers I ask: If God is in control of all things, how come He allows a lot of nonsense to happen? Or at least, how come he doesn't make it clear why such things happen?

PLEASE DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME AND TAKE ME WRONG
I hope people do not resent me asking probing questions. I do not ask them with the intention to be mean. Actually, it would be very convenient and nice to a have a personal, all-powerful and all-loving Heavenly Father, and even a Heavenly Mother (the Catholics have Mother Mary), looking after all our needs. It is with this in mind that I am willing to work with other theologians, lay and professional, to develop a concept of God that is rational, pragmatic and works in cooperation with the sciences to help find out what is truly good for all of us and really helps to make the world a better place.

BTW, Wayne Dyer's books give us some real clues about how this works when he talks about the POWER OF INTENTION in a book by the same name. So do the writings of Karen Armstong and Bishop John Shelby Spong. Over a year ago. I helped set up a church near where I live, which is based on this open-ended theological approach.
All searchers, including agnostics and atheists, are welcome.
http://www.pathwayschurch.ca/forum/
Also check out http://www.progressivechristianity.ca/ccpc/index.php
and http://progressivechristianity.ca/ccpc/ind...id=17&Itemid=32
=====
BTW 2: HH, is the information about the atomic clock and the optical clock true? Or not? Is the following problematic: "Optical clocks only slip by one second every 30 BILLION years! This is 1,000 times more accurate than atomic clocks!"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jul 18, 2007, 08:45 PM
Post #9


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



Dialoguing with Atheists: From www.scienceagogo.com

TFF, an atheist wrote me: "I'm not even sure that atheism qualifies as a philosophy, by itself. (In fact, I'm not even sure I care.)"

Now this expresses what I feel is the essential nature and true essence of atheism; not being sure of the value of caring. Thanks for pointing this out to us.

John writes: GOD IS LOVE. Now Love is all about caring, and being willing to care.
==================================================
TerryNZ asks: "Anything you can't hear, touch, feel, taste or smell is not God?"

No. I think of evil as being like chaos, part of all that is (GOD). It is simply good in the making.

You ask: "What controls all these things; the Devil, Satan, Ahriman?"

I am not a dualist, nor a fundamentalist. BTW, 'devil'--The Greek is 'diabolos', from which we get 'diabolic'-- literally means that which splits and divides us from our good.

TNZ, even my short signature makes it clear: in my opinion, GØD includes everything, even atheists. It even includes the right of atheists not to be included. Smile

TNZ comments: "As TFF says it sounds like you accept God can be anything we want it to be."

If this is a question my answer is: GØD is, like all self-evident existence, self-evident.

GØD IS THE TOTAL PROCESS OF LIFE--part of the philosophy of the great mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

Of course I like existing. I readily admit that I want to go on and on existing, ad infinitum, and growing as part of the eternal process of life, within self-evident existence, GØD, which I find it impossible to deny.

I see no advantage in denying that which is self-evident, do you? If so tell me what it is.

TNZ: "This idea has always ultimately led to the belief that once we have decided what our God is we can then try to exterminate others who don't accept our definition."

"Exterminate others?" Where did I say this? Quite the opposite. It is my firm hope that others will choose NOT to reject the opportunity to live on and on by exterminating their souls.


HELL IS NON-BEING
BTW, this is my definition of "hell": Hell is non-being.
As Hamlet put it, the choice is, "To be, or not to be..."
I see atheism as choosing not to be. Correct me, if I am wrong. If atheists choose not to be, tell me, why would anyone make such a choice? It boggles the mind.

If death is followed by non being, none of us will ever know. But if there is being beyond death think of the fun those who believe are going to have with their atheist friends. Smile

BTW, Ellis, I agree with you: "getting on with it all..." is what it is all about, if you agree to add: morally and ethically. I also happen to believe that there is an option, which atheists are free to reject: This "getting on...", in my opinion, is without end.
GØD is the one in all that is; The one with cosmos, earth, sky, sea; GØD's one with time, the eternal now, And all pervasive gravity. G=moral goodness. Ø=the order in all of nature, as explored by the sciences, and D=disciplined design--in the arts.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 19, 2007, 04:33 PM
Post #10


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(code buttons @ Jul 19, 2007, 11:00 PM) *
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jul 18, 2007, 08:45 PM) *

, from which we get 'diabolic'-- literally means that which splits and divides us from our good.

I guess that explains why my Ferrari "Diablo" cost me so much: It seperated me from all that is good! But it feels so good to hang out with something so evil!
Now I know who's fueling the greenhouse! wink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jul 20, 2007, 04:45 AM
Post #11


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



RE: Dialoguing with Atheists--VERY interesting. Join in.

TAKE NOTE: The dialogue which I am having with atheists in http://scienceagogo.com has taken a very interesting turn over the last 24 hours. Check it out. All the one-up-man-ship and non-productive comments, sometimes filled with bitter sarcasms has gone. It seems to me that we are now really dialoguing not just trying to score debating points.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthr...#Post22814
=========
For example: After I told stories about growing up in very trying conditions, I wrote: "I tell these stories to point out that I grew up under no illusion that life is easy and that there is a god who makes life easy for us, automatically."

Ready responded: "Thank you for a very interesting post. It's often helpful in a discussion to have a broader view of the participants. The lack of such insight is, perhaps, the greatest obstacle to constructive forum debates, and cyber communication in general."

Then the dialogue really began.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Culture
post Jul 22, 2007, 07:40 AM
Post #12


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Jan 11, 2006
From: all over the place
Member No.: 4711



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jul 20, 2007, 04:45 AM) *

RE: Dialoguing with Atheists--VERY interesting. Join in.

TAKE NOTE: The dialogue which I am having with atheists in http://scienceagogo.com has taken a very interesting turn over the last 24 hours. Check it out. All the one-up-man-ship and non-productive comments, sometimes filled with bitter sarcasms has gone. It seems to me that we are now really dialoguing not just trying to score debating points.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthr...#Post22814
=========
For example: After I told stories about growing up in very trying conditions, I wrote: "I tell these stories to point out that I grew up under no illusion that life is easy and that there is a god who makes life easy for us, automatically."

Ready responded: "Thank you for a very interesting post. It's often helpful in a discussion to have a broader view of the participants. The lack of such insight is, perhaps, the greatest obstacle to constructive forum debates, and cyber communication in general."

Then the dialogue really began.


It seems to be an interesting dialogue and I would of loved to post something until I read there
obligations area on signing up.

"Obligations

By accessing the Website (including the materials contained in the discussion forum) and/or by registering as a member of our discussion forum, you agree to abide by the following terms and conditions:

1. you acknowledge that any information or material submitted by you to the discussion forum is and will be treated by us as non-confidential and non-proprietary and we may use such material without restriction;
2. when you submit material to the discussion forum, you assign all copyright which subsists in such material to us"

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=newuser


Kind of stopped me in my tracks.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nornerator
post Jul 23, 2007, 08:58 AM
Post #13


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Member No.: 12095



Like it has been said before, it absolutely depends on a persons definition of God.

It is almost certain, without any tiny bit of doubt that the God described by the major religions of the world is bunk. There is not a wince of evidence in favor of those types of God's existing, in fact there is overwhelming and simple evidence that those types of God's do not exist.

I think everyone would enjoy it if there was a benevolent all knowing personal God that helped people. However this is not the case. A benevolent God would be fair. Why is it that some of us are born into a privelidged life, who have ample supply of food, a place to live and access to education, and others are born into starvation? Why are some born into torture? Certainly these people do not deserve torture or starvation anymore than those of us born into privelidge. Some faithful might argue that the human idea of fairness is not God's idea of fairness. I would ask why God would be so cruel as to make our idea of fairness so much different from His/Her's that it makes the idea of a kind or Benevolent God absurd? Also a kind or benevolent God would certainly not create an entire realm devoted to making people suffer (hell). Those of faith may argue that an evil entity created the realm of suffering, not God. This is contradictory to the idea of an all powerful God that is benevolent. If God is all powerful, it controls everything, even the evil entity.

In addition to those contradictions a God who interacts with humanity would leave a mark. Anything that affects anything else can be measured in some way. If a rock falls from a cliff, it affects the ground below, and even if the rock is carried away by an animal it can be deduced that a rock struck the bottom of the cliff, also accurate predictions of its mass, and possibly even its shape can be deduced.

If God is interacting with humanity its presence should be able to be measured, yet everytime humanity tries to measure, there is no evidence of interaction.

What a cruel God it would be to purposefully evade detection so to prove itself to non-believers, yet punish them for not believing.

I am not outright denying the existence of ANY God, it certainly is possible that there is some sort of consciousness that made the cosmos spring into existence, but it is clear that if there is a Supreme Being, it neither cares, nor interacts with humanity.

As it stands, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not think that there is a God, but I do think it is possible for there to be some sort of "God". Until that "some sort of God" leaves humanity some evidence I will continue to think that it doesn't exist.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 23, 2007, 09:14 AM
Post #14


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



This "definition of God" is just diversionary. Criticize some aspect of God or religion, and the religious change the definitions to avoid the issues.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Jul 23, 2007, 11:18 AM
Post #15


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



Hallow Gentlemen,

Hope you are doing well. I was missing all of you.

As I see the same epic question still triggers tentative brains.

I guess that the scientific proof is available. If somebody decides to fund that research I swear openly to take part in it. As far as nobody in the civilized world openly funds any research on God’s existence, the answer on that question remains open.

Find a person that will abundantly fund scientific research on that topic and the proof will be disclosed. wink.gif

With best regards,
Enki
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Jul 23, 2007, 11:23 AM
Post #16


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



Catholic Church is welcomed. If they are ready to pay 600,000,000 USD reparation for sexual abuses of children by the priests in US, then I think that they should be able to spend some dollars on such an important subject. laugh.gif

Checkmate!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 23, 2007, 12:09 PM
Post #17


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(nornerator @ Jul 23, 2007, 09:58 AM) *
As it stands, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not think that there is a God, but I do think it is possible for there to be some sort of "God". Until that "some sort of God" leaves humanity some evidence I will continue to think that it doesn't exist.

A well thought out and written post. I used to be an agnostic atheist, but lately I have become more active. I am now an anti-theist. That is, I have come to understand that false belief in non-existent gods is actually harmful.* Therefore, it seems to me to be the duty of all who can see the truth to point out the errors in thinking of all who exhibit them in the hope that deluded persons might some day be improved, and the horrors and smaller evils done in the names of gods might be somewhat alleviated.

* Harmful to both the believer and innocent bystanders.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jul 23, 2007, 03:10 PM
Post #18


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(nornerator @ Jul 23, 2007, 08:58 AM) *

Like it has been said before, it absolutely depends on a persons definition of God...."
Precisely, Norm. If you have read any of my stuff--Have you?--you will know that I agree with you. I hope I have your permission to quote you. I like the colorful way you put what you feel is true.

By the way, I say this as a theologian, of sorts.

FROM LABRADOR, NEWFOUNDLAND, TO BOSTON UNIVERSITY
For your information, after I was the first minister at Happy Valley/Goosebay, Labrador, I took serious studies in theology at Boston University--a great university, by the way--in 1954-1955.

My wife, Jean, and I--She teached while I preached smile.gif--arrived in Boston, from Woodstock, NB, in September, 1954.

Without being aware of what was happening, we actually travelled, by train, through what was laater labelled, Hurricane Hazel--a major storm at the time. Later, we also discovered that Martin Luther King was aat BU just before us. He graduated in the spring of 1954. We arrived in the fall of 1954. As a postgrad student at Boston University, for two years, I studied theology, in depth. I was fortunate enough to have some Harvard profs.

BTW, because of my interest in psychology, at the time, I was on my way out of the Christian ministry of the United Church of Canada made up of the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches. I was on my way out of becoming a minister of theology and to becoming a minister of psychology.

However, what I learned at BU helped me bring theology and psychology into a kind of harmony. Later--during my ministry in Toronto--I called this union of theology and psychology, pneumatolgy--the study of the human spirit, holistically--body, mind and spirit.

Norn, you go on and say,
QUOTE
It is almost certain, without any tiny bit of doubt that the God described by the major religions of the world is bunk. There is not a wince of evidence in favor of those types of God's existing, in fact there is overwhelming and simple evidence that those types of God's do not exist.
AMEN!!!! Time and time again, I have invited the gods of the many theisms to join in this dialogue.

No show.

This tells me that "they"--the gods of theism--are a figments of the human imagination. You write:
QUOTE
It is almost certain, without any tiny bit of doubt that the God described by the major religions of the world is bunk. There is not a wince of evidence in favor of those types of God's existing, in fact there is overwhelming and simple evidence that those types of God's do not exist.
I certainly agree also. Allow me to add what you write:

QUOTE
I think everyone would enjoy it if there was a benevolent all knowing personal God that helped people.

However this is not the case.

A benevolent God would be fair.

Why is it that some of us are born into a privelidged life, who have ample supply of food, a place to live and access to education, and others are born into starvation?

Why are some born into torture?
Certainly these people do not deserve torture or starvation anymore than those of us born into privelidge.

Some faithful might argue that the human idea of fairness is not God's idea of fairness.

I would ask why God would be so cruel as to make our idea of fairness so much different from His/Her's that it makes the idea of a kind or Benevolent God absurd?

Also a kind or benevolent God would certainly not create an entire realm devoted to making people suffer (hell).

Those of faith may argue that an evil entity created the realm of suffering, not God. This is contradictory to the idea of an all powerful God that is benevolent. If God is all powerful, it controls everything, even the evil entity.

In addition to those contradictions a God who interacts with humanity would leave a mark. Anything that affects anything else can be measured in some way. If a rock falls from a cliff, it affects the ground below, and even if the rock is carried away by an animal it can be deduced that a rock struck the bottom of the cliff, also accurate predictions of its mass, and possibly even its shape can be deduced.

If God is interacting with humanity its presence should be able to be measured, yet everytime humanity tries to measure, there is no evidence of interaction.

What a cruel God it would be to purposefully evade detection so to prove itself to non-believers, yet punish them for not believing.

I am not outright denying the existence of ANY God, it certainly is possible that there is some sort of consciousness that made the cosmos spring into existence, but it is clear that if there is a Supreme Being, it neither cares, nor interacts with humanity.

As it stands, I am an agnostic atheist.

I do not think that there is a God, but I do think it is possible for there to be some sort of "God".

Until that "some sort of God" leaves humanity some evidence I will continue to think that it doesn't exist.

=====================================================
NORN, IN THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE EXPRESSED HOW I FEEL, THEOLOGICALLY, ABOUT MANY THINGS THEOLOGICAL.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Jul 23, 2007, 07:22 PM
Post #19


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



QUOTE(Rick @ Jul 23, 2007, 12:09 PM) *
I am now an anti-theist. That is, I have come to understand that false belief in non-existent gods is actually harmful.* Therefore, it seems to me to be the duty of all who can see the truth to point out the errors in thinking of all who exhibit them in the hope that deluded persons might some day be improved, and the horrors and smaller evils done in the names of gods might be somewhat alleviated.

* Harmful to both the believer and innocent bystanders.


Anti-theism is a form of proactive 'Satanism'.

God related aspects must be subject of serious scientific research rather than denial.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Jul 23, 2007, 07:54 PM
Post #20


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



QUOTE
Also a kind or benevolent God would certainly not create an entire realm devoted to making people suffer (hell).


It may turn so that humans are not well aware about true structure of the Universe up to now, it may turn so that eventually with development of science such category as Hell will be defined scientifically.

QUOTE
In addition to those contradictions a God who interacts with humanity would leave a mark.


So he/she probably did so. Please consider the following very minor linguistic examples of the marks you speak about:

A) Some religious

Buddah \,\ Huddah,
Christ \,\ Krishna,
Jesus \,\ Zeus,
Allah \,\ MagdAllah,

cool.gif Minor Political makrs related with destruction of the Third Reich and USSR, in case of Hitler due to inappropriate usage of God’s name variation and in case of Andropov just a cybernetic coincidence: when even two atheists Andropov and Gor_bachev meet things may happen:

E(H)VA – E(Hitler)VA Brown [Alchemical marriage of Her Hitler and Eva Brown for getting power]
Y(G)VA – Yuri (Gor-bachev) Vladimirovich Andropov [Head of KGB]

C) Funny simple example from English

The English verb “to Have” – an anagram of EHVA wink.gif

And there are quite many other marks. So please do not think that the Great Old Democrat is a part of the mythology. As far as people learned form “Dogma” movie He/She dislikes when He/She is considered as mythology. wink.gif

Best regards,
Enki

PS: Funny is not it?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 24, 2007, 05:49 AM
Post #21


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ Jul 23, 2007, 09:09 PM) *
That is, I have come to understand that false belief in non-existent gods is actually harmful.* Therefore, it seems to me to be the duty of all who can see the truth to point out the errors in thinking of all who exhibit them in the hope that deluded persons might some day be improved, and the horrors and smaller evils done in the names of gods might be somewhat alleviated.

* Harmful to both the believer and innocent bystanders.
I'm very glad to see you're a Dawkinist.
QUOTE(Enki @ Jul 24, 2007, 04:22 AM) *
God related aspects must be subject of serious scientific research rather than denial.
Only with respect to psychological and psychiatric associations. Otherwise we will waste still further resources that could be put to better use. I mean, if millions of believers (including some scientists) cannot come up with any evidence after centuries, is that not telling us something?

Of course, history is also an interesting subject and how religion has influenced human development over time is worth study. If only in order for us to try and avoid such mistakes in the future. But history is not science.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 24, 2007, 08:36 AM
Post #22


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(Enki @ Jul 23, 2007, 08:22 PM) *
Anti-theism is a form of proactive 'Satanism'.

Hardly. No gods exist, not even evil ones. Nor do devils, ghosts, and angels exist. They are all psychological phenomena, with no more reality than unicorns and fairies.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 24, 2007, 08:38 AM
Post #23


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jul 24, 2007, 06:49 AM) *
I'm very glad to see you're a Dawkinist

I have read three of Dawkins' books now: The Blind Watchmaker, the Ancestor's Tale, and The God Delusion. All three are excellent examples of nonfiction.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jul 24, 2007, 08:44 AM
Post #24


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE
From HH... (Rick) I'm very glad to see you're a Dawkinist....(History is of value) If only in order for us to try and avoid such mistakes in the future. But history is not science.
Recently, via our much appreciated, at least by me, CBC, I heard and taped an in-depth interview given by Professor R. Dawkins (Oxford) to Michael Enright, a lapsed Catholic, by the way. Interestingly, RD was not nearly as polemic as he appears to be in his GOD DELUSION. I guess, writers need to be controversial--with this in-your-face approach--just get out attention so as to make their books more saleable. Boring documentaries just don't sell.

In the interview RD said that he was ready and willing, anytime, to sit down with non-polemic theologians and philosophers and dialogue about the pros and cons of religion and the god-concept. Not once did he say that all metaphysics, including the great religions, is of no positive value. He did not come across to me as an absolute materialist. He did not paint himself in a space-time and three-dimensional corner.

At the end of the interview I had the pleasant feeling that RD is the kind of person (spiritual being) with whom I would very much enjoy having a dialogue, as I am trying to do in this and the scienceagogo forums. smile.gif

BTW, I wonder what RD knows about the work of the great Nikola Tesla--the son of a devout clergyman, and a believer, himself, who said: "God has no properties".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

Read what it says about his personality. Of course he had his dark side--for example he was a bit of an anti-semite--but he was a scientist with a strong faith that the universe is more than a collection of physical bits and pieces. BTW, Thomas Edison, in the latter part of his life admitted that he should have listened to NT.

Interesting, also, is: NT did not accept, holus bolus, Einstein's theory of relativity. He called Einstein's theory "metaphysics", not that metaphics of itself has no value. He said that a fellow serb had written about it 200 years before Einstein.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Jul 24, 2007, 08:59 AM
Post #25


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jul 24, 2007, 05:49 AM) *
QUOTE(Enki @ Jul 24, 2007, 04:22 AM) *
God related aspects must be subject of serious scientific research rather than denial.
Only with respect to psychological and psychiatric associations. Otherwise we will waste still further resources that could be put to better use. I mean, if millions of believers (including some scientists) cannot come up with any evidence after centuries, is that not telling us something?

Of course, history is also an interesting subject and how religion has influenced human development over time is worth study. If only in order for us to try and avoid such mistakes in the future. But history is not science.


I think Hey Hey, that eventually we will advance in our understanding of the matter and existence of something interesting will be a part of Undeniable Reality. It is just a matter of few years.

Besides there are many evidences. Just some people fear to recognize the existence of the problem . And certainly we know why...

Historiography is an important science. So History is a science.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jul 24, 2007, 09:10 AM
Post #26


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE
HH asks: "I mean, if millions of believers (including some scientists) cannot come up with any evidence after centuries, is that not telling us something?"
Evidence for WHAT, HH? Define your terms, please. What do you think I have in mind when I write GØD--my symbol for the god-concept?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Jul 24, 2007, 09:12 AM
Post #27


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



QUOTE(Rick @ Jul 24, 2007, 08:36 AM) *

QUOTE(Enki @ Jul 23, 2007, 08:22 PM) *
Anti-theism is a form of proactive 'Satanism'.

Hardly. No gods exist, not even evil ones. Nor do devils, ghosts, and angels exist. They are all psychological phenomena, with no more reality than unicorns and fairies.


Really?! How do you know that? We should investigate it. Scientifically. Who knows, maybe they all exist. Can you imagine...

At least I am sure, that if gentlemen fail to understand necessity of disclosing reality to mankind in a proper and secure way, then I am sure that the Catholic Church under such grave situation it is now in will definitely fund the research.

So in any case things will change soon . I am sure. And when I am sure Rick, then things coincidentally are changing.

Few days ago I watched Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix and that great idea sparked in my mind. Especially when I recognized some interesting characters… Besides the info about release of the Spyglass of Amber on 7 December 2007 boosted that great idea as well. If not to speak about Calypso …

You are old wise man Rick, you should understand what Enki speaks about.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Jul 24, 2007, 09:16 AM
Post #28


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



It is called balance of powers. In other words Devine Blackmailing. wink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 24, 2007, 09:40 AM
Post #29


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Enki @ Jul 24, 2007, 05:59 PM) *
So History is a science.
Next, you'll be telling me that religion is a science.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 24, 2007, 09:42 AM
Post #30


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jul 24, 2007, 06:10 PM) *
QUOTE
HH asks: "I mean, if millions of believers (including some scientists) cannot come up with any evidence after centuries, is that not telling us something?"
Evidence for WHAT, HH? Define your terms, please. What do you think I have in mind when I write G�D--my symbol for the god-concept?
There you are again, being diversionary. If god is not a being for you, then why not just use the words that are already in the dictionary? But we've been through this. I think you might have an ulterior motive for this elusivity.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th May 2017 - 11:33 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles