POLL: Is there a God ??
- Thread starter megablue
- Start date
Believers can have unanswered questions too: if evolution is a thing and we have come so far, then why have other kinds and species failed so miserably?
Why is it no other species on earth can spell spectacularly?
Why is it no other species on earth can spell spectacularly?
If you understood evolution even at a jr. high school level then you'd realize Natural Selection perfectly answers your question already.
Im listening professor
Enlighten us, einstein.
Give us something other than 6th grade responses.
Oh, and amswer my 2nd question while youre at it.
Also, ur response seems rather bigoted against other species.
If we are all random, why is one better than another?
Last edited:
You type like you've been drinking. Have we broken you?
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
I can not create a universe. And neither did your imaginary friend. But if I were to create a universe, I would be able to explain how it worked. I wouldn’t tell folks that I created plants before I created a sun. That would be dumb. I wouldn’t tell people that I made the sun stand still in the sky. I might tell them that I stopped the earth from rotating. Because I would understand that the sun does not actually travel across the sky. Only ancient men that didn’t know any better might write that the sun travels across the sky, because they didn’t understand how it actually works. And I certainly wouldn’t have my child murdered in order to forgive the people I created. That was very dumb! I would just forgive them.
Not trying to be disrespectful ... but dude, this is pretty shallow thinking. Easy example is wrt the sunset ... we can say "Wow, God created this beautiful sunset!" AND THEN ask, "How does He do that?" and then pursue finding the answer. You think very poorly of religious people, as others have pointed out, that is clear. Pursuing the details does not mean you have to give up one's ideas that God created.
BTW, your explanation doesn't do the answer justice in terms of "how"? I would think something more detailed like how the wavelengths of light and radiation pass through the atmospheric layers and bounce off of or through molecules and dust in the air. The sunset has nothing to do with clouds (if it is real cloudy you won't see a sunset), but I suspect you were just using it as an idealistic answer and not a detailed answer.
I'm sure you would; your angry towards believers proves your point ... that you have unlimited forgiveness in you. Once again, not trying to be mean, but you really don't think too deeply on things.
You think there was a great flood that wiped out humanity which has, like all myths in the Bible, no evidence, same with the story that Jews were freed from Egypt - no evidence. "You don't think too deeply on things"
f
After reviewing almost all the pages of the thread (I'll try to get through the rest tomorrow), I've yet to see one convincing argument or evidence against a Creator. Instead, there are mostly childish put downs, such as in the first few pages: "tiny brains", "their brains were too limited", "ancient people had the understanding of today's 4 year olds". It is almost like you guys are threatened by a Creator. In fairness (which is something you'll not give back), you guys did dip your toe in some of the tough questions (e.g. why does a good God allow bad things to happen), but you quickly run from any real consideration of the issues and implications. You guys completely dismissed other tough questions against atheism, such as how the ancient writers understood the shape of the earth when even "enlightened people" thought it was flat (some still do!)?
Oh wait, you guys did offer these gems as theories:
"we don't know"
aliens (btw, are those your little friends in the sky??)
circles.
(This one was particularly good) "A perpetual recurrence of the same basic ingredients churning in a circular loop of both time and space." (But you don't ask nor answer: where does the matter go? where did it come from?)
"So perhaps there wasn't just one Big Bang? Maybe there have been trillions across time?"
"you will arrive from where you started both in time and space"
I've GOT to go do some other things! But I'll leave you with one more thing to think about ... if all of this is "random" and all due to random chemical reactions and brain activity is essential chemical reactions (which we just said is random), then how can you trust your thought processes (which are chemical reactions) to NOT be random? Your faith doesn't hold logically. Have a great night, sorry for the long post.
Haha, yea you got it Tex. Nah, i was at a function and was really bored. I got a little bored with your sophomoric responses and was responding in kind. I thought it was kinda funny, if you would have been there, you might have too.
After reviewing almost all the pages of the thread (I'll try to get through the rest tomorrow), I've yet to see one convincing argument or evidence against a Creator. Instead, there are mostly childish put downs, such as in the first few pages: "tiny brains", "their brains were too limited", "ancient people had the understanding of today's 4 year olds". It is almost like you guys are threatened by a Creator. In fairness (which is something you'll not give back), you guys did dip your toe in some of the tough questions (e.g. why does a good God allow bad things to happen), but you quickly run from any real consideration of the issues and implications. You guys completely dismissed other tough questions against atheism, such as how the ancient writers understood the shape of the earth when even "enlightened people" thought it was flat (some still do!)?
Oh wait, you guys did offer these gems as theories:
"we don't know"
aliens (btw, are those your little friends in the sky??)
circles.
(This one was particularly good) "A perpetual recurrence of the same basic ingredients churning in a circular loop of both time and space." (But you don't ask nor answer: where does the matter go? where did it come from?)
"So perhaps there wasn't just one Big Bang? Maybe there have been trillions across time?"
"you will arrive from where you started both in time and space"
I've GOT to go do some other things! But I'll leave you with one more thing to think about ... if all of this is "random" and all due to random chemical reactions and brain activity is essential chemical reactions (which we just said is random), then how can you trust your thought processes (which are chemical reactions) to NOT be random? Your faith doesn't hold logically. Have a great night, sorry for the long post.
How was the grand canyon created? (hint, it is not due to loooooooong running rivers esp when water levels are backwards) Go think a little more deeply.
(another hint: The strata in the gc provide evidence of very rapid sedimentation.)
Last edited:
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
Fair enough, I'll take you at your word. Your responses come across as pretty angry and condescending, particularly the responses dripping with ridicule (e.g. your spelling of Bible).
He thinks very highly of himself.
“Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart.”
The Grand Canyon was absolutely carved out by the Colorado River. You're either trolling (less likely) or scientifically illiterate (more likely).
The people on this thread, for the most part, who believe in God, believe in the God of the Bible. The atheists on this thread who post the most, really just want to demean those who believe in the God of the Bible, because they really won’t say much about why they believe what the believe about the complexity of the universe or the existence of God.
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
I spell it that way because I’m puzzled by those that chose to “buy” all the bull**** that’s in it.
I like watching the “Closer To Truth” series YouTube videos that deal with many interesting and deep questions in a thoughtful way, much like many of the “good faith” exchanges in this thread. Here is one that has very balanced perspectives, is well-done and thought-provoking, does not settle the issue, of course, but is enjoyable to watch and consider.
en.wikipedia.org
Closer to Truth - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Ok. Again, i will take your word.
I will still offer that your spelling and all the comments about "small brains" seem pretty condescending and not very understanding. People can see the same data and reach different conclusions, often bc of their own biases. IOW, science doesnt say anything, scientists do.
Do differing opinions or ideas "scare" you? Lol
All i am telling you is there are good, smart people who disagree. Spend a little time researching, but fyi, you will have less time to insult people.
Thx. I will check it out. My suspiscion is their bias impacts their "balance", but i really hope to be wrong. CheersI like watching the “Closer To Truth” series YouTube videos that deal with many interesting and deep questions in a thoughtful way, much like many of the “good faith” exchanges in this thread. Here is one that has very balanced perspectives, is well-done and thought-provoking, does not settle the issue, of course, but is enjoyable to watch and consider.
Closer to Truth - Wikipedia
I think this is pretty silly. There are people that want to unravel mysteries of the world that are religious and not religious. Not every religious person is a simple minded farmer and every atheist a Harvard trained PhD.
Robert Kuhn wants to believe, but has doubts, he readily admits. He is seeking truth in the series. Obviously, the various people he interviews have opinions and believes (bias, perhaps), but he talks with people on both sides. This is the balance that I am suggesting the series tries to fairly present.
God and religion are certainly not the only topics he explores in the series. Many other big and interesting questions are discussed. He's had physicists, chemists, biologists, psychologists, rabbis, priests, divinity and biblical scholars, historians, philosophers, etc... on the episodes, covering a wide range of topics. Like I said, I find the series quite interesting and enjoyable to watch and think about. fwiw ...
Last edited:
I briefly read a little of the wiki and it looked like they covered many topics.
Appreciate the insight into his perspective. I think we all either have doubts or have had doubts. I dont know anyone who hasnt doubted at some point. None of us were here at the bang. None of us saw the formation, etc. We each have to search for information and make an informed decision.
I find people very interesting sometimes. Esp those who have been spoon fed info their entire life, never depart from that info, will not process contrary information, yet think they are open minded. Ppl like that are fascinating.
Most believers have encountered the same doubts the atheists have expressed. That is evident through the thread. Maybe we were open minded enough to consider a differing viewpoint and actually follow where the evidence leads?. Just an idea.
I can't speak for every atheist, but from the people I have talked to a lot of them want to believe in something. There is just no evidence. It's not like atheists are stubbornly digging their heels in despite overwhelming evidence. At least most I've spoken with. It does require a leap of faith to believe in any religion. Like there is an actual book of Mormon that exists. How do you know that is not the truth? You don't.
Ok, i am trying to listen to this. 2 observations after 2 minutes in. 1. He is funded by PBS. We have no doubt which side of the argument they are on. He may be searching, but he is only going to get so much rope from them.I like watching the “Closer To Truth” series YouTube videos that deal with many interesting and deep questions in a thoughtful way, much like many of the “good faith” exchanges in this thread. Here is one that has very balanced perspectives, is well-done and thought-provoking, does not settle the issue, of course, but is enjoyable to watch and consider.
Closer to Truth - Wikipedia
2. His first statement is rediculously wrong. He said he is told, "to know whether there is a God, you must first believe in God." That is absurdly false. It is actually downright insulting. His bias shows already. His bias is believers had to believe first and could not have possibly gotten there otherwise. That is no better than the thread putdowns i quoted yesterday.
I will keep listening to see if he recovers from his error. I highly doubt he will. But the way he started the discussion, he will never get to yes.
But again, thx for sharing.
Last edited:
Atheism takes faith as well. In fact, it takes more IMO.
To keep it VERY simple for a chat board, I would start an evaluation of any religion on its historical and prophetic accuracies.
But i think the first answer to pursue is intelligent design or random? Then, if design, then search for Who..
Just suggestions
I think a lot of people believe in some kind of higher power. Doesn't mean it's the one from the Bible. It doesn't have to be JC or nothing. Saying "something created all this" doesn't make the Bible true.
IDK if you are responding to me, but that is not what i said. First, is there a creator? Then, pursue Who?
I didn't say that. Again, what I am saying is there are good, smart, honest, well-intentioned people on both sides (trigger!! I'll probably get another ban for that lol) that disagree. You are not saying that. You are saying believers are rubes.
Okay. I listened to the whole thing. My suspicions were absolutely confirmed. Please hear me out.I like watching the “Closer To Truth” series YouTube videos that deal with many interesting and deep questions in a thoughtful way, much like many of the “good faith” exchanges in this thread. Here is one that has very balanced perspectives, is well-done and thought-provoking, does not settle the issue, of course, but is enjoyable to watch and consider.
Closer to Truth - Wikipedia
He may be searching for truth on some issues, but whether there is a God is not one of them. Here is my commentary (my opinion) of what I heard organized by opening and then experts. It might be a little brutal ... if so, my apologies now.
1A. As i said earlier, his bias on this topic was front and center within 2 minutes. His first assertion was a lie. And it went downhill from there.
1B. EVERY one of his guests were unimpressive and disappointing. None of them made an argument for anything using evidence. If they did, he edited it out. The believers "spake" word salad and also said nothing with a lot of words (haha) and every non-believer started with contemptuous putdowns of the other side (great way to win a philosophical argument).
2. He told the female priest that he wanted to believe. There is too much to unpack in one post, but he doesn't want to believe and he is asking the wrong questions. I find him completely dishonest. He should want to pursue the truth instead and actually follow where it leads him. Her word salad was horrendous. She said she will "give over control when she dies." She may know a lot, but she doesn't understand. (Bonus: just because someone is british, doesn't make them sound smarter ... it makes them sound snooty.)
3. The atheist guest's first response is an attack. He does that because it makes him feel morally superior without confronting the real issues. The host's follow up questions were agreements, not oppositional at all (common theme).
4. The believing scientist's expertise is scientific, yet discussed NOTHING along those lines. Very disappointing. He also couldn't communicate "fire" in a crowded theater even if everyone already had 2nd degree burns. I feel for his students.
5. The first question to the friend atheist "do you feel sorry for me?" Really?!? Wow, that's deep and a real pursuit of truth. If it helps ... I feel sorry for him. The atheist later said, "nothing happens without a reason", but offered no reason for anything, especially "the beginning". Big statement (something happened) with nothing behind it at all (reason).
Conclusion (IMO of course): This had zero balance and zero substance. This was a typical production, with nothing more than skimming the surface and feel-good questions for atheists. This did not move the ball forward on the issue. The believing experts offered nothing of substance and the non-believers offered nothing but condescension.
I wish everyone would view these puff pieces with a little more scrutiny. If people think that represented a real pursuit of truth, then that is a sad. (Please watch it again and "doubt" every question and comment.) I'll check out his other stuff, maybe his other topics are balanced. I sincerely appreciate you sharing. Sorry for long post.
Not to ar
I think a lot of Kuhn and his project.
I always find him quite sincere.
I have especially enjoyed his episodes on cosmology and consciousness, more so than those dealing with God, although I like them quite a lot, too. There 257 episodes, so you might have some of interest.
Here is the series’ website, if you care to explore topics, contributors and partners who support Kuhn’s project.
Thanks for your time and candid comments.
I think a lot of Kuhn and his project.
I always find him quite sincere.
I have especially enjoyed his episodes on cosmology and consciousness, more so than those dealing with God, although I like them quite a lot, too. There 257 episodes, so you might have some of interest.
Here is the series’ website, if you care to explore topics, contributors and partners who support Kuhn’s project.
Last edited:
You started to say, "not to argue". (WHat?!? haha, just joking.)Not to ar
Thanks for your time and candid comments.
I think a lot of Kuhn and his project.
I always find him quite sincere.
I have especially enjoyed his episodes on cosmology and consciousness, more so than those dealing with God, although I like them quite a lot, too. There 257 episodes, so you might some of interest.
Here is the series’ website, if you care to explore topics, contributors and partners who support Kuhn’s project.
I understand and please do not take my criticism of that one episode as indicative of all the episodes. That wouldn't be fair of me at all and that wasn't my intent. I usually get a podcast or two daily while driving, so I'll check em out. I can recommend some authors/videos if interested in exploring differing viewpoints.
All cool … I’m far more interested in the cosmology and consciousness parts of his series, as I mentioned. After a heavy participation in Christian dogma, doctrine and belief, although I enjoy the repartee on the subjects of God and religion, I realize I am now far more firm and solid in non-belief than I was in my belief … not counting the innocence of a youthful upbringing in a parochial environment.
Still, I enjoy the religion/God debates and viewpoints, but those on the theistic side are all quite familiar and have been abandoned in my later years. Thanks, again, for the interest and comments in the video.
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
I don’t recall claiming that anyone had a small brain. I didn’t sift thru all 21 pages of this topic thread. But I did re-read my posts from the previous 5 or 6 pages and I don’t see any mention of small brains. Perhaps you inferred that’s what I meant by some of my comments. I was likely trying to imply that perhaps religious people are gullible. But not small brained.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
If UL lands Nate Ament…it’s time to worry- Latest: silentsaregolden2.0
-
