Intelligent Design vs. Evolutionary theory

Im not sure that I believe that good and evil are parts of nature. I think we (men) have created this concept. I mean is it wrong to kill another person? Is it wrong to kill an animal? Is an animals life worth less than a humans? What if you are starving? It seems animals have no moral dilema killing and raping animals for survival. We may feel that acts of killing other things or raping our own species are evil or wrong? But on what level are these acts wrong? Are they only wrong under the premise of religious goods and evils? I've never seen animal commit a 'good' act or at least I've never seen documentation of such events occuring in nature such as a two predatory animals sharing food with one another because the other is hungry. It just seems to me like good and evil might not exist.


God is an American.

Ok, if you want to argue semantics, then rephrase to suffering. Why should suffering exist? That's surely not a man-made concept.

Suffering is a direct result of sin, its not man made. And JD im not sure if you made this point or not, but someone asked why God just doesnt wipe out sin, and leave us in a perfect world with choice. That is easily explained by saying yes thats going to happen in the event of his 2nd coming, but that will not happen until everyone has had a chance to accept God or not. Until then, the human race has chosen sin and we have to deal with the consequences of our actions.

On another note.. I am really disappointed with a few of you and your posts. They are very uneducated and worthless..Tim and JD, gravtek, you know im not talking about you. But for the rest of you i suggest you take some Theology courses at a christian college so you can get an idea of what ur trying to talk about. Many subjects like semantics, apologetics, ect., are way beyond your current level of understanding and you should definatley think about studying both sides before you make any sort of decision. Im saying this after i read a post that said 'Religion is the reason why the world is so messed up'..... thats the biggest pile of shit ive ever heard.
______________
seth

Fairygirl: Why must you be so damn good looking? Why?? lol
nipe: Thats right Diabhal, because we're skiers

I'd say that everyone in the world has heard about it. Well, very nearly anyway. Even those little tribes in the congo and africa will have heard, known the story and had the chance to believe. How many people could you walk up to in this society and ask if they know about God and have them tell you no. Then again, in the bible, does it mean all 'people', or all 'peoples', difference. Then again, there's a new person born every second or so of everyday so it's impossible for everyone to have made that choice.

Even if you are totally against religion, christianity, non-evolution, creation, whatever, go have a quick read of Revelation and Matthew in the bible. Very very interesting predictions of the last days of the world and a lot of it is starting to happen now, pretty scary stuff.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@
%Jesus Is My Homeboy%

JD I will tell you right now that about two years ago I was in the same boat as you, I had to have a reason and I could figure everything out through science. Fact of the matter is that you can’t know everything no matter how hard you try and you can’t understand the feeling of God working inside and through you. Since I’ve truly started my personal relationship with God my bouts with major depression (which medication couldn’t fully fix) have gone away and I’ve felt indescribably happy and full of love. There is no scientific reasoning for that and it is something that one has to feel on their own to understand. I’ve been able to do things that should have been impossible for me to do, and they shouldn’t have gone as well as they have.

I’ll admit that I don’t know everything, but I do know that there is nothing else like this that I’ve ever experienced. I must also thank you for scape goating around my question with no answer aside from, you wouldn’t understand. If you could link me to a journal or something of the like I would be thankful.

Fact of the matter with suffereing is that we all sin every day and by the shear grace of God we are taken back to him (through his Son). When you look at a girl in the wrong way, when you steel the smallest of things. That is all sin and separates us from God and all is just as bad as what osama bin ladin did, all sins are equal in the eyes of God.

Prins, first of all,
'I must also thank you for scape goating around my question with no answer aside from, you wouldn’t understand.'
One, you can't scapegoat around a question. It's like saying I ate breakfast around a question. I doesn't mean anything.
Secondly, I didn't say 'you wouldn't understand' (though you have yet to suggest that you do), I said I DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENTIFIC THEORY ENOUGH TO MAKE A DECENT ARGUMENT. Not many people can, it's a difficult doctrine, that's why it took so damn long for someone to come up with it.

By the way, I think you just 'scapegoated' around my question with your 'Godly inspiration is inexplicable, you wouldn't understand until you've experienced it'.

The holier-than-thou attitue you exude doesn't actually attract me to your position; in fact, it's a principal reason for much of the modern laity (those who don't understand the position of the church or of science) to avoid both. Just for your information, if you want converts, don't talk to people like you're somehow better than them for having accepted your beliefs.

You weren't 'in the same boat' as me two years ago, I don't need a reason, I need to be able TO reason, to decide what I want to believe for myself without simply accepting what a guy in St. Peter's, or my local chapel, tells me. To simply believe, even if you're right, and it did 'fill me with love and happiness', it would be a surrender to my own ignorance. I don't do that. I learn and I improve myself. I challenge my own beliefs, and decide if they're worth discarding. Hell, I used to be an egoist not six months ago, and I'm not anymore. As far as religion goes, I'm undecided, so I'm not going to believe firmly in anything until I have reason to do so.

I have nothing against organized religion, I have nothing against religious types, and if I have any grievances with God, they're personal. I just look at things from a fully objective perspective. My original argument was not against the existence of God, but against a way of proving he exists. The teleological argument is bullshit. The cosmological argument is weak.

Unless another theory is pointed out to me, and effectively and convincingly explained, I will believe that the only grounds we have to accept God on are those of faith, which may or may not be a bad thing. I was just pointing that out. I'm sorry you had to take it personally.

I really wish the thread search still existed. I really want to go back and be able to copy and paste my explanation of the formation of matter out of vacuum fluctuations. Not that this wasn't disputed here on the boards, but I want to lend insight into the scientific communities new leads on possible explanations of the formation of matter. If anyone happens upon the thread entitled GOD (I think it had 4 or 5 pages possibly), hit that baby back up to the top or link it to this post.

You seem to have implied that just because I have faith and trust in my relationship with God that I am somehow arrogant and not as intelligent. Fact is that I enjoy reading the works of Stephen Hawkins (sp) about different objects in our universe and he is truly a genius with how he figured out all that he has. It’s a shame for his physical condition although he seems to have made the best of it. Personally I have been trying to find the case study on the big bang theory so I could read it and work through it in my mind. That’s why I asked if you knew where you had seen it (as it sounded like you had).

I’m just trying to get you to see that Christianity supports the majority of science and their discoveries (although a large portion of the time only in hindsight).

If you really would like to explore some of the more concreteness of the bible check out christiananswers.com, they do a really good job of addressing several issues (from personal or historical to archeological). Look for Sodom and the parting of the Red Sea, both are very interesting.

^And I'm sure, given their URL, that they aren't biased in the least...
Gravteck: I found it, here you go...

The following was written by Gravteck, over a year ago.

''My favorite argument against creationism and religion:

Get ready to think.
1) This is the hardest step but you must imagine absolutely nothing, don't think outerspace without matter, imagine no space, and no matter.
2) Quantam theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical systems. This is what I was saying before. We don't even have to picture this in terms of time, just in terms of probability, the likeliness of an event to happen, you can have probability w/o time.
3) Anyone who has taken chem has heard about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Where you can no the speed of an atom, and not its location, or its location and not its speed. This is one of the problems with atoms, it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the behavior of a single atom, or even 10 atoms together, we can only predict what happens in a substantial group of atoms. We'll refer to the actions of one particle or atom as uncertainties.
4)Quantam measurements have shown that vacuums are also subject to these same uncertainties. So what does this mean? ahhh yes just as individual atoms in groups of matter appear and reappear... well for lack of better terms you could understand, the same thing happens in vaccuums. Although we can't direcly observe it, when tests are run on the strengths of a known mount of electron activity it shows that these fluctuations and things popping out of n othingness, are indeed real, in fact its happening in space right now. Granted these fluctuations of particles usually only last for 10E-21 seconds.

5) Here comes the kicker, how do we get the universe from having one sustained fluctuation. Well this fluctuation is referred to as a 'false vacuum' the theory is very difficult to understand and i doubt i can really explain it that well, it's not really a vacuum it's a type of matter that acts very strangely. Imagine a gas, as the gas expands, it also disperses. However a false cavuum actually expands and retains its energy without dispersing, meaning it stays concentrated while it expands. This means RAPID EXPANSION, because you're not decreasing the density, only increasing it based on its nature to inflate. Calculations with false vacuums even show that a path of a valse vacuum only 1 billionth the size of a proton would rapidly and exponentially grow to the size of a marble in 10E-34 second!!! That would be exactly like a pea growing to the size of a Milky way... yes I know it sounds strange, but hopefully if I haven't convinced you of how something could come to be, you now have something to go on if you'd like to read about it further.''

''I'm saying that space is nothing, and that since we exist it was never possible that there was absolutely complete voided nothing. I'm pretty sure this is sound physics. As long as you can accept that it's possible that there has always been the vacuum of space (which again i think is physically sound...) then the vacuum fluctuation observations support the theory of where matter for the big bang could have came from. ''

''The vacuum fluctuation produces two subatomic particles, one positive and one negative. This is the first sign of any matter. the theory is that the false vacuum produced further subatomic particles, because one characteristic of the false vacuum is that it has an enormous repulsive gravitational field strong enough to explode into a universe. So when the false vacuum starts compounding there is a huge amount of ever doubling energy which decays and reacts w/ the other subatomic particles to turn into a stew of electrons, positrongs, and neutrinos. By the rate of compounding this soup of electrons and positrons and neutrinos heat and neutralize eachother into atoms... in the time of about 300,000 years. Simple atoms like hydorgogen, helium, and lithium were further 'ripped' apart and 'crushed' together to form more complex atoms inside stars and were eventually exploded into space by supernovas. so we start w/ the false vacuum whic hi is an era of quantum gravity->quark soup->origin of protons and neutrons->origin of light atomic nuclei->origin of atoms->first galaxies->on into today. Theoretically the quantum mechanics of vacuum fluctuations actually allow for even a dog or cat to pop into existence, but the probability of subatomic particles sustaining is already low, and the actual high ordered animal is hella unlikely, but it's kinda cool to think about anyway. ''

Phattim Replies:

''Gravteck: Yeah, interesting, I see what you're saying dude. But what about the Cosmological Red Shift? It's due to the Crompton effect rather than the Doppler effect. If the red ship was produced as a result of the Crompton effect then the universe is not expanding at all, it is 'static'.

The oldest and perhaps best known problem of Big Band Theory is that of the singularity. At the first instant of the Big Bang universe, in which its density and temperature were infinitely high, is what is known to mathematicians as a singularity. That situation is considered to be a breakdown of theory. That is, it cannot be assumed that the laws of physics as we know them can apply to that event, thus presenting serious questions about it.
In addition, the postulated creation of the entire mass and energy of the universe out of nothing in the first instant of time, seems to represent an extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.

If the big bang were to have happened. It would have required an infinate amount of energy right? Accelerating particles to well about light speed which would take an infinite amount of energy to do so. All these accelerating particles would create so much energy that any other particle gaining speed would simply not be able to escape the ever increasing gravitational mass of the center of the 'forming universe', leading to a probable implosion or something, I dunno but they would never be able to escape that energy in the middle.

There is also the problem with age. Most big bag theories predict the universe to be around 10 million years old (give or take 10-15 minutes, hehe). However most observations predict a lot of stars - based on their uranium content and light given off - to be more than 15 million years older. Stars that are older than their alledged creation.

Yeah, so that's some of the issues that I find the most weird and challanging about the big bang. Sorry if I used a tonne of abreviations and stuff in there, is annoying to type that much. But gravteck, you had some good points dude, I'm gonna have to sit down and have a think now. ''

Gravteck:

''In classical physics it seems like this violates the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) and conservation of mass. But in quantum physics:

'But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion.' - (Davies, 1983, 162)

And since mass and energy are interchangeable (e=mc^2), the creation of this matter from a vacuum fluctuation doesn't violate those laws.''

''I think I left something out that would be a big mistake on my part. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. The equation for gravity is actually G = g((m1d1)/(m2d2)) where g is the gravitational constant. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. So having zero energy in the vacuum, actually allows for the matter to be produced because we have zero energy afterwards still... I know this isn't the most deductive explanation, but I think it shall do. ''

Phattim:

''Hmmmm, that's interesting.

So you're saying that the negative and the positive energy in the universe basically cancels each other out to make a zero constant gravitational value over the universe? Okay.

According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, the cosmic egg exploded. As the matter and radiation expanded, so the theory says, it cooled sufficiently for elements to form, as protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four. Most of the gas that formed consisted of hydrogen. These gases, it is then supposed, expanded radially in all directions throughout the universe until they were so highly dispersed that an extremely low vacuum and temperature existed. No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed. The universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas.

So that's how space got here according to the big bang theory. Then there's planets. You have all these clouds of cosmic gasses out there with all kinds of gravity swirling around. What I don't quite understand is how these gas clouds and elements managed to form planets. Surely you could have a few particles join together with their own individual gravitational pulls right, but seeing as to begin with, all the particles are seperate they would have either stayed all apart or they would have grouped together and formed one giant planet - perhaps. Else they may have formed many smalled balls and then torn each other apart or gradually formed a larger one - maybe. But seeing as we can't bring gasses together like that here on earth under controlled environments, how would it happen in space in such an unpredictable state? Perhaps it's that unpredictability that could allow it to happen, I don't know, but we're dealing with something pretty darn amazing. ''

NoTeefa:
''im gonna try and reduce the intelligence level hhhere by saying......i like tacos.''

Source: https://newschoolers.com/PHP/Forum/ReadTopic.php4?post_id=10015815&catid=2&start_num=50

I'm not sure about suffering either. I am not gonna say we invented that as well but its very hard to dispute the fact that we did/didn't without another species perspective. I think the one major rule of thumb in life is everything is temporary and nothing is permanent (yes there may be exceptions to the rule). But I think suffering aswell as happiness are both temporary feelings that are not guarenteed and both must be attended to in order to maintain. What truely is suffering? Is suffering feeling sad or hungry or confused? I would like to know what suffering means to you.


God is an American.

^Suffering, in this case, can be defined as the existence of any state less than ideal, or more ostensibly, undesriable. If someone claims to be unhappy, then obviously suffering, in this contest exists. It doesn't matter whether we made it up or not, Go, if he is all powerful, all knowing and benevolent should be able alleviate any adverse feelings we may have. If he can't he isn't all powerful, if he can and doesn't know how, he isn't omniscient. If he just doesn't want to, he isn't wholly benevolent. Take your pick, all of the assertions cannot exist at once.

'suffering in this context* exists'

But that doesn't make sence if there was/is a god and we took away all the suffering than what would happiness be? Its like without contrast nothing exists. Maybe theres just enough suffering in the world or in our lives for there to be contrast to happiness?


God is an American.

Without relativity, there would be nothing. At least that is the extent which our minds are able to concieve. I like reading other people's opinions on this. I cant say that I have my own however, because I know that I dont understand it, and I never will; I dont think that we are meant to.



Dont forget your snorkle ~ Bridger Bowl

Not true, without contrast we can't DEFINE happiness, but it can, in theory, exist without our being able to conceptualize it. I'll reread my Hume tonight so I can do a better job of commenting on the problem of evil, though. As I remember there were some holes in it.

hmm interesting perspective but the truth is if it was never light outside you would never go outside and feel it was dark. It would just FEEL normal regardless of the fact that brighter or darker conditions could exist I still dont buy that it would feel dark outside. But I gotta drive up to alta real quick and hit a ski shop Ill be back to pick your brain later.


God is an American.

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a007.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168

^links to stuff about Sodom and the red sea

You seem to have derived so much. Without feelings of pain or suffering what desire would there be to grow closer to Him. Also you discounted my link because it was Christian based, I would hope that you could unspin it and read it for what it truly is. Anything you would send me to would be of scientific basis (for the most part) but you don’t seem to notice that because it coincides with what you believe in.

As far as never feeling happiness but still experiencing it, that is a falsehood. Happiness is based on our past. We are constantly comparing our current situation with those from whence we came. Happiness stands for an elevated state of enjoyment from our previous experiences. If we had NEVER had a bad experience in our lives (which would be impossible because by the nature of being human we aren’t perfect and would inevitably hurt those around us, either physically or emotionally) we would have nothing to compare are current utopian state of being against. Which would only lead to a simply mediocre understanding of our emotions and feelings and a bland world where you can’t truly be happy, at the same time you couldn’t be sad either. It’s a trade off that each person would feel differently about, personally I wouldn’t like a life like that. You wouldn’t feel any better when you were in love, or around people whom you care about, or when you help someone out. It would have drastic ramifications upon the whole of society.

“all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, the cosmic egg exploded.”

Interesting that you posted that… because it seems to me like it was placed there by something greater then we are. From nothing to something does not just happen, any scientist will tell you that.

i think it was JD that said it: proving the arguement wrong does make you correct. this is an arguement that can never be resolved because of faith. some people have it, some dont. neither side has enough proof to go with arguement to effectively win it.

It's interesting that a lot of you try to explain things through science. Science isn't constant, actually, most of the time science is in fact bullshit. Couple hundred years ago, science would tell you that the world was flat. It wasn't a theory, it was actually KNOWN and proven that the world was in fact flat. If you sailed too far you would fall of the edge. Now that we've explored and learnt some stuff we know that oh hang on, the world is round, science tells us that. 'Science' tells us what foods are good for us, but wait, every couple of years a new breakthrough disproves all that and there's new foods that are good for us and all the old good stuff actually causes cancer!

What I'm trying to say is that there is no constant in science. We really know nothing and we think we know everything. Science can't explain everything because it's everchanging as we continue to learn.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@
%Jesus Is My Homeboy%

However, nickskier, by proving an argument wrong (if I did or not I don’t know) it would hopefully make him re-think his philosophy in that area. I have no intention of trying to get him to believe something he doesn’t want to. That’s not what I am here to do and not what I am trying to do. Only want to supply the other voice of the argument which so often is not heard as it should be.

All of this is explained explicitly and broken down in C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity. In the books he breacks down christianity into morality, belief, behavor, and theology. Rather then regurgitate the entire book i will just recomend it. Also, there is not one single argument that can prove Christianity, not one argument that can prove it, and frankly if there was such an argument countless numbers of people would still fail to believe. It is a religion that is both based in faith and reason. It must have a coexistance of both of these, not just faith and not just reason.

Lewis starts of the first chapter of the book by delving into the issue of some moral structure that humanity lives within. Coincidently, he continues in saying that regardless of the fact that we all no what we should do in terms of right and wrong, we do in fact ignore the Natural Law and do the wrong thing. Moving from stating that there is some moral fiber woven in all human mind, he faces peoples objections and concerns with his theory. He addresses this by giving several options in how to define this moral law. The first option is that moral law and herd instinct are two instincts in conflict, fighting for priority. The second is that moral law is a judge of instinct; it decides what instinct to act on being a herd instinct, self-preservation, etc. The third option is that moral law is simply one of our instincts, right in their with the most primitive, the herd instinct and the gut feeling. From this he segues into the argument that rather then instinct that morality is taught and differs from culture to culture. He goes through this conundrum by stating that while some manners in decency are taught (this explains the cultural differences in morality); however, there remains an underlying framework of morality that exists from birth. This continues in to the beginning of a debate on perspective, and how from one perspective something can be seen as downright evil while from an other the action can be as moral as giving food to the homeless. This idea of perspective continues on and is shown through many other examples and demonstrates that the right thing might not always come up on top. He continues in saying that due to the fact that this natural law exists is a testment to the idea of a creator, a builder of the universe. And in end this leads us back to God, being that creator, and Christianity for finding comfort in this land of “moral law.”

With the opening Lewis puts all world views together, as a collective whole, and then weeds them out until only Christianity remains. He confronts them first with their view of God, if there is a God, and then if their God is above good and evil and if their God was a Pantheistic animator or not. He speaks about the fact that with out light, good, there would be no dark, evil, and how each is just the absence of the other. In the second chapter Lewis introduces the Christianity and water idea, the over simplification of the philosophies that are built around and within the faith. He calls this simplification 'boys' philosophies' due to their child like nature, immaturity, and the fact that they are all too shallow; they fail to support any argument because they are fact that relies on almost total faith and very little logic, a blind Christianity if you will. The fact that Christianity is simple does not stand up to Lewis, for he says that it is complex and can not be explained in such simple means because of the fact that the universe is not standard, ordered, and basically symmetrical. Christianity is then applied with a dualistic approach of ying and yang, yet this is not totally applicable in the sense that good and evil are not equal. He states that badness is merely perversion of good thing, ill means to obtain pleasure, money, power, etc.. So, in doing so he states that dualism can not work because the fact that bad is not original, but a perversion of means to reach a good ends that is undertaken by intelligent creatures. He advances this with an extensive WWIIesq analogy of infiltration of good behind the overwhelming battle lines of evil, which has come to infect the Earth. This is exhibited as Christ, a lone paratrooper sent by God to start a good rebellion in a land cloaked in extraordinary evil. This leads into how did the evil come to exist in this land, and why did God allow it to happen by giving us free will and thusly opening us to evil practices? He took a risk, he wanted us to come to him on our own, and he did not want to keep us closed and single minded. God made the choice to give us a choice; it was a risk to do so, and he did lose a large amount of support in doing so, however it was a risk that he was willing to take. He speaks about how the evil originated with the fall of Satan, and his perversion of us by setting it in our heads that we want to be like God; this is followed by God trying to straighten up the Jews as an example, yet more drastic measures are necessary. This leads back to the paratrooper Jesus, the one sent by God to get us going back in the right track, and if need protect us from ourselves by sacrificing himself. Enters theology, and the difference between different practices within the faith and what Jesus was and why he did it. Lewis takes the stance that Christ was ether God, Satan, or some nut job. He continues in the question of how and why Christ died for us, yet he makes it know that it is irrelevant and that we should concentrate on the fact that he did die for us. He dives into how different Christians view Christ, their individual denominations, how Christ works within them and how they are right. He closes the book by wrapping up the paratrooper analogy, when his great army does have its D-Day, will you be the one who says 'God, man, I was with you the whole time,' or do you want to be the man that he already knew was with him prior to the invasion.

Lewis begins by dividing up morality into three distinct areas. The first is when a problem arises with people around a person, outward conflict, a problem arises inside a person, inward conflict, and when there is no direction in ones life. Problems also arise when a person is overly pragmatic, only concerning themselves with no outward troubles and making sure that everyone is happy, this creates inward conflict by allowing themselves become so deranged inside that they become a terrible person over time. It is stated that one must balance an inner clam, collaboration with other people, and a straight and steady direction in ones life in order to achieve morality. Continuing on, Lewis discusses the four Cardinal virtues, prudence, or a mature common sense, temperance, knowing when and how to control ones self, justice, basic fairness and honesty, and fortitude, courage and ability to stand against adversity. Lewis declares that these virtues must be practiced under ones own will and not just by chance. For example, you stop drinking before you are drunk because the bar catches on fire; this is not a righteous exhibition of temperance, this is not true obedience to God and this will not withstand the test of time. Morality, as he continues, is not rewritten, however it is reinforced by new and more current teachings. The golden rule should not overrule culture or art, for it is not truthful for Christians to take down an offensive painting when others around us let Da Vinci's 'Madonna on the Rocks' continue to hang. We should let art stand in its place just like our art standing currently, not coming under fire with controversy. From this Lewis paints a picture of a perfect Christian society, and it is very commonly recognized as socialism, a world where you work to eat, there is no interest, no obscene amenities, and a land where Christianity is practiced in every trade and walk of life. A good man in Lewis' eyes is one that abides by the golden rule, who knows both good and evil, and he knows that the evil still resides within him. He continues into sexual morality by saying that our sexual instinct has gone wrong by seeing sex as food and that man is a glutton and that it is not found in its place, marriage. This is also demonstrated by people saying that sex is nothing to be ashamed of, but the state of sexual instinct at this time is something to be ashamed of. Continuing on into marriage, Lewis states that marriages is more then love, it is a connection between two halves that make a whole, and this should not be split up by Christians. However, it is not the place of Christians to dictate whether or not other people should be able to get divorced or not. Marriage as love is a pure emotion, and it has no concrete bond that hold the two people together, and in hard times the loose emotional bond can be broken, whereas marriage as a contract can not be broken because it works into the places where love may fail and helps hold the two people together. On the idea of forgiveness Lewis states that we can not be forgiven until we forgive others ourselves. Forgiveness means loving your dearest friend, and also loving your most hated enemy. A person is a sinner, yet he does not hate himself, so intern he hates the sin, however he loves himself and thusly love the sinner. However the sinner must still be punished, and to rightful extent, this includes death if so is the crime, yet when one kills they must do it for punishment or for war, and they should not hate the person or take pleasure in that hate. The greatest sin of all is pride, as described by Lewis, the very sin that cast Satan out of heaven. The moral opposite of this sin is humility, and this tames the competitive spirit in having more then the next man. This pride and greed has brought much strife, yet it is not prideful to accept praise, but it is to hide within pride and enter the center of the religious community. Pride in its most evil form is belittling others to make ones self bigger and ignoring what it may look like from those around. Lewis describes charity as giving to those who have not, put simply. Moreover, charity means biblical love, the acceptance and love of people and giving them forgiveness. Charity is not emotional in the traditional sense; it is being kind to all people regardless of who they are. Hope, as described by Lewis, a positive outlook on the future, both in events in the physical world and what is to come in entering the spiritual world. These spill over into desire in which the Christian only desires things that can exists and can be reached, such is heaven for a Christian. Heaven is not desired or hoped for by a Christian because they can not fathom or understand it. Faith is described in two ways, the first sense is belief, I believe in something so I have faith in something, the second is that even though we attempt at achieving Christian virtues, we will inevitable fail, and we will still be taken back to God. The discovery of good faith is very important, yet it will not let you reach heaven. Instead one must see the light of heaven and God within himself and desire heaven to the extent where goodness is natural within ones self.

that was just a brief synthsis of the first three books


Drivin that Train

I don't really think reason has anything do to with it. Maybe from our point of view but not from Gods'. Christianity is based completley on faith. Remember that christianity has nothing to do with God, it is the mere act of believing in him.

You're right, God gave us a choice. To believe or not to believe. That's why it is all based on faith. If God came out into the open and we could all see him and KNOW that he was real then there would be no such thing as free will or a personal decision to believe or not to believe, you would have no choice but to believe because it's right there in front of you. So don't ask a christian to prove God to you because they won't be able to. They can show you the affects of God, kinda like the wind, you ain't never seen it but you can see what it does. It's all completley based on faith and personal belief which is why I can't stand these people that try and shove it down your throat. It's a personal decision that God wants us all to make. To follow or not to follow.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@
%Jesus Is My Homeboy%

If he came out in the open and said 'Hi I'm god!' you think that would take away all the freedom of choices in the world? I think it would fix so many things in this world if he would come out and just explain to us what we are doing is wrong and fucked up. Then we would start progressing toward a brighter future. Saying that it would take out anything good about life I dont agree with we would stil have every choice to do what we want, when we want. People would just realise that repercussions for their actions are real and might think twice about doing shitty things to people. In fact if there is a god I think it could do a little more on the side of making the world a better place. Blind faith doesn't cure/help/fix anything and its kind of a proposterious notion.


God is an American.

This is my 1000th post, so I put a little effort into it.

Not that that was particularly necessary, because Prins seems devoted to ad hominem, and sets up enough straw men to feed the world's equestrian population for a year. I'll deal with his points first.

'Without feelings of pain or suffering what desire would there be to grow closer to Him.'
Horrible argument. In fact, you've just agreed with me. A wholly benificent God would not allow his creatures to suffer merely to effect their love of him. Basically, what you're saying here is that God is a places himself before his children.

'As far as never feeling happiness but still experiencing it, that is a falsehood.'
This simply makes no sense. Feeling happiness is essentially synonymous to experiencing it. I said It can EXIST without our experiencing it. Think of it this way. Look at something red. Now, suppose, out of sheer coincidence, that that particular shade of red had never appeared in any form anywhere in the unverse. Would you say that that shade of red is impossible?
'Interesting that you posted that… because it seems to me like it was placed there by something greater then we are.'
So, are you just going to go through every theory and shout 'GOD!' whenever we can't explain something (yet)? Because that's superstition, not religion, and it's exceedingly weak. Furthermore, Phattim posted that, I just REposted it. Last point on this, Tim only posted the original big bang theory, whereas the actual argument, by Gravteck, contains no invalidities and lacks no support.

'a simply mediocre understanding of our emotions and feelings and a bland world where you can’t truly be happy, at the same time you couldn’t be sad either'
Even if this is true...Clearly God could have prevented this. He could easily have made mankind so that we could always be happy with no adverse side effects. That's the whole point... none of the arguments you can make abouot human nature, or free will, can possibly overcome the truth that an all knowing, all powerful, and wholly benificent God would not allow his creatures to be unhappy, by the definition of each term. If you want to say God is not all knowing, or he is not all powerful, or he is not wholly benificent (as Prins did above), then there is no problem as far as this argument goes; such a God can exist.

To say that ecil is an illusion of the human mind is impossible within a religion based upon the stark realism of the bible. They record every kind of sorrow and suffering,every mode of man's inhumanity, to man and of his painfully insecure existence in the world. There is no attempt to regard evil as anything but dark, menacingly ugly, heart-rending, and crushing. In the Christian scriptures, the climax of this history of evil is the cruxifixion of Jesus, which is presented not only as a case of utterly unjust suffering, but as the violent and murderous rejection of God's messiah. There can be no doubt, then, that for biblical faith, evil is unambiguously evil, and stands in direct opposition to God's will.

Similarly, to solve the problem of evil by means of the theory of a finite deity who does the best he can witha material, intractable and coeternal with himself, is to have abandoned the basic premise of Christian monotheism; for the theory amounts to rejecting the belief of the infinity and sovreignity of God.

I don't know if anybody is going to mention this, so I will. there are two posible counterarguments. Firstly, we can say that if God is infinitely perfect, everything else in the world, including his creations, must be finitely perfect (limited in their perfection).

The second is that evil is necessary in God's plan because in order for there to be the best kind of goods, those goods must triumph over adversity, over evil. So evil has to be there to be triumphed over. Of course, this begs the question, 'Why isn't it ALWAYS triumphed over', so that's a problem...Anyways, that's something to think about.

But really, there have been no effective arguments put forth in SUPPORT of the existence of God; as Hume says, 'The Christian Religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one'. And since God's existence can't be ascertained empirically (we can't see him, or experience him in any real, tangible sense), the onus of proof should logically be on religion. Prins, how about offering some sort of evidence, some reason to believe, instead of answering all opposition with insupportable rhetoric?

Of course, the convenient answer has already been put forth: God's existence cannot and should not be verified, because proof denies faith, and to deny faith would be to deny God. Whether that's a good enough assertion depends on your perspective. I'm not sure it's good enough for me.

Very well said, however, I strongly disagree with your final statement: '...because proof denies faith, and to deny faith would be to deny God.' Negative. Proof would CONFIRM faith, it wouldn't deny anything. You can only have faith in something if you are unsure of it's existance. If you ARE sure of it's existance then there is no need for faith and a lack of faith does not deny God. How does it deny God? Proof would obviously prove his existance and therefore be the complete opposite of denial.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@
%Jesus Is My Homeboy%

wow, this is interesting, because it could go on forever, and exactly as someone put it up there- this controversy is caused by our choice to believe or not believe in God. -but someone else said that he/she took a religions class and won blue ribbon for state- this proposal isnt for a religions class-which would be a good elective- yet it is to put i.d. 'objective origins' in the science room. ok but i have a question-what exactly could they teach if they did do this?
*live 4 life*
~Shelby~

^ o and up above^ im not trying to prove a pooint, i would just like to know
*live 4 life*
~Shelby~

Intelligent design refers to the teleological argument, which is basically that God must exist because everything is complicated, interconnected and has a purpose.

Tim, that last point wasn't mine, it was a view commonly held by many religious thinkers, and you may have misinterpreted it: what it means by 'proof denies faith' is exactly what you said, only not only does it confirm faith, but in doing so it makes faith unnecessary because we then KNOW and don't need to have faith.

shelbyski, it wasn't a world religions class, it was World Civilizations section 1, we also went over the idea of creationism in my biology class. Just because it isn't based on science doesn't mean that it still can't be taught as an option. You even said yourself that your parents taught you all the options and let you decide what was right or wrong. Why should the schools be any different?

Well. Having read every word in this thread of which i found very interesting. gravtech,PhattTim,J.D._May i liked some of your ideas.
I can only conclude that we will never answer this debate, and all that will result is opinions. And these are as individual as person typing them and they wont be persuaded otherwise.
I have my own opinions about religion and evolution and being a biochemist i swerve to the step by step natural selection evolution arugment because i understant how DNA works and how mutations arise and can affect the outcome of the organism and can picture these events happening. Maybe once we fully understand all biology (And we ar SO far away from that), evolution will be proved or disproved but untill then we can only believe in what we do.

and also I would like to add that an all knowing all powerful god could also very easily make us blissful unconditionally without contrast.


God is an American.

The whole 'it's so unlikely that life would develop by chance, there must be a creator' argument is complete bullshit. This isn't a 'chance' like tossing a coin is 50% heads, 50% tails, or a 'chance' like you might have a 1/1000 chance of winning the lottery. Since no universe where life did not arise would ever be observed in any way, we can consider these irrelevant. There could be (and probably are) a number approaching infinity of possible universes devoid of life, but the only one ever observed by us will be the one we live in. This means that whatever the external chance of a universe developing life, we are the result of that chance. In short, the chances of life arising independently are very small, let's say 1/10^100. However, if we assume that the number of possible universes is very nearly infinite, than obviously one of these possible universes will develop life. This life will inevitably observe itself, and obviously, the chance that we will OBSERVE a universe containing life is a 100% certainty, because we cannot observe ourselves (or lack thereof) without first existing.
Just ask if you want me to get more technical with the physics here... I left a lot of stuff out, but I could elaborate if people are interested.
_______________________
Dubbya: 'OH NO A BREAST...UPGRADE TO CODE RED, INVADE SYRIA'

for all...

pick up a book called 'A brief history of time' a steven hawking book. im sure some of you are familiar with it. Alot of what was said is touched on in his book. reading could help grasp some perspective on creation or evolution. giving a lot of theory and a lot fact, one can have a better understanding before or at least some background on the formation of the universe and posibily of creation or not.

peace

SqueakyWaffle, your arguement doesn't hold up. You talk about 'chance' being 'bullshit' and then you go and develop your arguement based entirely on 'chance', what are you talking about?

And besides, the way you are talking, life in one of those many 'infinite' universes could only happen if the chance of one having life was affected by whether another one does. It's a simple statistical error and the chance of it happening is not at all 100%. Each random universe is entirely independent from any other so the chance of their beig life in each seperate one is going to be 0.000000...00000.... (you get my point). There could be infinite universes and none of them have life on them, not one. You're working on the idea that they are dependent. Here's another example. Condoms are 99% reliable. That means there's a 1 in 100 chance of them not working. you could have sex 10,000,000 times and they may work everytime. Your arguement makes an assumption that the 1% chance is going to happen out of that 100 times, not so my friend, not so. And bring on your physics because personally, I think your answer is 'bullshit'

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@
%Jesus Is My Homeboy%

It's interesting that a lot of you try to explain things through science. Science isn't constant, actually, most of the time science is in fact bullshit.
phattim

science and religion are pretty similar that way. the scientific method is to just invent something and then find a bunch of reasons it should be true. there could still be plen ty of reasons its not, but you tell people it is and they believe you. in religion someone has to write down or invent each practice or idea, someone had to write the bible, the kuran etc... and then after that a whole bunch of people decide to follow along tweak parts they dont find acceptable and run along. so really its all the same and personal understanding and interpretation is all that matters.
___________________
Silly Rabbits. Pink is for cheese! –stevexs2
you bettter still have my jagermeister shirt, or I'll fucking drive a train through your anus. – jibtech
numbers are for jewish investment bankers - sleezemcfly
Somedays I like it crunchy, other days I take it up the ass! - Lanemeyers
Looting, it's the new way to buy stuff! - Jib_This

I see what you're saying, not entirely true. Science changes, it has changed for many centuries and as new discoveries are made it continues to chance. Religion is actually constant. There is one core belief. That Jesus died to forgive sins, that's all it comes down to. Religion is based on no book or man made object, the bible, koran etc, these are simply guides to life, historical accounts and interpretations for guidence and as you said, personal understanding. Religion is simply the act of faith and belief of whatever it is you choose to believe in. That, has not changed and never will. The core of religion is, in fact, very constant. Science however, certainly isn't. So from that respect, science and religion are very, very differnt.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@
%Jesus Is My Homeboy%

wow this post has been pretty cool to read, getting pretty deep and definatly way over my simple ski bum head. I just think that its important to remeber two things:

1. Everyone has a bias, a viewpoint that shapes their outlook on life. It is important to remeber this. If someone is an Athiest, he will strive to prove evolution, whether he realizes it or not, because this justifies his belief system. Likewise, a Christian will probably strive to prove Creation, because he belives in a Creator. Realize this, and it will cause you to take things you read with a grain of salt.

2.This may start a controversy, but I belive science and religion are, to an extent, intermingled, at least in the issue of the origins of the world, for the precise reason listed above. The Scientist's bias or viewpoint will have an efect on his scientific work, whether he realises it or not; It is hard to be completly objective. I belive it all comes down to Faith! A Christian Scientist has faith in Creator, But the Evolutionary scientist has faith as well, and IT IS ESSENTIAL TO REALIZE THIS.
He has Faith in the big bang, the exisitence of somepremordial slime, I've even heard some scientists claim that life on earth was started be aliens from some other planet. So he must have some belief system in place, and isnt that faith??? and isn't faith religion??

This brings me to my final point: The issue of Origins is not really true science, because it Cannot, and never will be, definitivly proven by experiements...remember the scientific method back in high school....i don't belive we will will ever, by experiments, be able to definitivly prove either creation or evolution. So it all comes down to faith. I am interested to hear what you all have to say about this. Cheers and pray for snow.


WE TAKE THESE RISKS NOT TO ESCAPE LIFE, BUT SO THAT LIFE DOES NOT ESCAPE US

Science, or the fundemental laws the govern matter and such have always been constant, it is only man's 'interpertation' or understanding of them that has formed and changed.

canadianskibum: exxxxactly. an evolutionist must have faith that a 'cosmic egg' existed, of which the big bang came from.

a creationist must have faith that God exists.

i choose to have faith in God, rather than a cosmic egg.

Joel

'Go shut yourself in a freezer and see if you can evolve out of it.' -PhattTim

'i think its funny that they decriminilized both homosexual sex and animal sex at the same time... what kinda message does that send?' -Apple

hey canadianskibum, do you mean a Christian scientist, or a Christian Scientist? The second is a Christian denomination.
___________________
Silly Rabbits. Pink is for cheese! –stevexs2
you bettter still have my jagermeister shirt, or I'll fucking drive a train through your anus. – jibtech
numbers are for jewish investment bankers - sleezemcfly
Somedays I like it crunchy, other days I take it up the ass! - Lanemeyers
Looting, it's the new way to buy stuff! - Jib_This

The possibility that one universe is created is 1 minus the possibility that no universes are created

The probability of independant events in repeated trials is just the product of those events P(A1)*P(A2)... * P(An)
As n-> infinity the probability = P(A)^infinity

So simplifying it the probability that a universe doesn't occur could be .9999999
so the probability that it would occur would be 1-(.9999999)^n as n approaches infinity, and this does approach the probability of 1

Gget a statistics book if you don't agree =)

'Science, or the fundemental laws the govern matter and such have always been constant, it is only man's 'interpertation' or understanding of them that has formed and changed. ' - I'd have to disagree with this, I think it was 'skihobo' who stated it.

The fundemental 'laws' that govern matter have actually changed, mainly because our understanding and interpretation of them have changed. The ACTUAL laws are the same, we just don't really know them. So yeh you're kind of right but the actual laws that we know and have developed are not constant because we don't understand matter and it's foundations enough to be able to create these laws.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@
%Jesus Is My Homeboy%

Crystal my bad on the caps on Scientist...I am referring to a Christian who is a scientist, not a memeber of the religious orginization, which is neither Christian not Scientific, in my opinion.


WE TAKE THESE RISKS NOT TO ESCAPE LIFE, BUT SO THAT LIFE DOES NOT ESCAPE US

I am with Lanks: I find if far easier to belive in a God who created this amazing world we live in, rather than a ' cosmic egg' that somehow by random chance caused this all to come into being.

Now since I belive in God, I have a bias, and that is fine, as long as it is realized that those who do not belive in God also have a bias. My question is this: Why are those who belive in evolution so threatened by having Creation taught in the schools??

Both are a matter of faith, both are valid theories supported by the scientific community, despite what the media, which is also biased, want you to believe. Many influential scientists belive in God, Einstein is a notabe on that comes to mind, I belive both theories should be given equal weight in the schools. I belive in Creation, but I am not threatened by evolution, its simply a theory that i belive is not correct.

Some one else has a right to look at the same set of facts and coem to a different conclusion, but HE HAS A RIGHT TO HEAR BOTH THEORIES!!!
Im not talking about religion in the schools, Intelligent design can be presented without shoving one particular religion down soemone's throat.
I think the defensiveness and ardour with which evolutionists fight to keep Creation out of the schools shows they are threatened by it, and I ask why??


WE TAKE THESE RISKS NOT TO ESCAPE LIFE, BUT SO THAT LIFE DOES NOT ESCAPE US

possibly because they're scared of the alternative?

I also agree with you and lanks.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@
%Jesus Is My Homeboy%

Of course someone has a right to hear both theories, but what if someone does not want to hear those theories? A high school system can be very manipulative w/ respect to its administrative biases. They can incorporate that into a core curriculum and make it required. By the time highschool has rolled around many kids have already decided what they believe in so you could be educating kids against what they believe in on either side. I believe if you're going to put it in schools you need to make it a choice.

Well, it passed. Hmm... this may be a good or bad thing depending on who you are- o but wait, it didnt pass as 'intelligent design' which it was at first presented at the meeting by 'mr.b' i guess they 'made a mistake' and are 'sorry' but dont mean for it to be about religion- they mean for it to be Objective Origins-which teaches the pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Which I do believe is essential to our learning process. Yet, they claim they 'made a mistake', but frankly, this is too big of an issue to'make a mistake on' such as presenting something entirely different than what you want. This makes me question the people who are presenting this to our school-board, also, the people on our school-board. You see, we are a very small town, and there are only 5 members on our board. You have to have 3 to vote for somthing to pass a policy. What a coincedence, we had exactly three-one of which already cost our school tons of money by trying to stay on the board to pass this very thing a couple of months ago. Also, the evidence which was presented to pass this policy was very disturbing, many facts outright lies. One about Ohio having adopted this policy-not true. and the board members themselves lied to the whole 'congregation of us.' I really wasnt against teaching this whole thing, just we were warned by our lawyers and and representitives of our state school board not to go through with this-which will evenutallly lead to lawsuits and our school being sued. There is a ton of redundant statements made by the people supporting this idea, and it really makes me distressd to see these people on the school board seriously mis-representing our town. Both principals, all the teachers (excluding 3), and pretty much all of the students that were at these meeting opposed this idea. Sure, some people favored it, but most were out-of-towners who had been recruited by their churches to speak. which really isnt cool. But, we were misrepresented by 3 members of our board, who looked at all the students(some in tears) and faculty opposing this, and still went on their own beliefs and passed it. I went up and spoke about letting the children of the school have a say in it-well not exactly but soemthing along those lines, and it was really tough because i was the only student from my grade to even say anything, and i knew and completly respected every single board memner( all 5 of them...) but really had to say this....it was nerve-wracking...ok so im sure this makes no sense to any of you, so if you want to know more..just ask..its confusing to say-ive been spending alot of time thinking bout it, and have some good thoughts, but i cant really say them without sounding silly.....
*live 4 life*
~Shelby~

Sounds like you guys made on freakin' big deal over something that really isn't. Who cares if they wanna teach 'pros and cons' of an arguement for one topic, there's bigger and more important things in life to worry about than that. And anyway, you can't teach properly about an arguement, idea or theory without properly analysing both sides and any or all other alternatives and information anyway, stupid schools.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@
%Jesus Is My Homeboy%

Sounds like you guys made on freakin' big deal over something that really isn't. Who cares if they wanna teach 'pros and cons' of an arguement for one topic, there's bigger and more important things in life to worry about than that. And anyway, you can't teach properly about an arguement, idea or theory without properly analysing both sides and any or all other alternatives and information anyway, stupid schools.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabba Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@
%Jesus Is My Homeboy%