Is it still going?
Yep. Im going through. Just scan for the replies to your posts when i get there. Im editing the one above.
I’m at post 160 right now.
First, I must confess I skimmed through this thread… but to address the original topic.
Eucharistic miracles…
Eucharistic miracles!?
As in The Holy Communion? Are you getting your info from Catholics?
As a Reformed Protestant I can say this looks like bull.
RESPONSES TO POSTS 160-172
A and B are both reasonable science.
C isn’t a fact its an opinion.
D isn’t really anything. You cant say that I’m not thinking these things through.
E Don’t see a point.
F Since when is the earth being flat, at the center of the universe, or the heart being the source of emotion religion? Its just bad science.
Because random events under no circumstances create meaning. Meaning can only come from an intelligence.
???
Anyway, just ignore all posts but the most recent ones.
And why is that? Meaning is a very abstract concept. Also, who says the world has nay meaning?
C True, but I can point out that no one I know of has ever directly applied the scientific method to religion and come out supporting god
D You so fervently believe in religion you block out common sense.
E Darwin observed traits in animals that suggested they all had common ancesters.
F Bad science stubbornly supported by religion even after good science proved it wrong.
Edit: going to sleep, say goodnight to god for me.
Yet it is precisely the eye that many creationists and Intelligent Design advocates use as their centerpiece for “irreducible complexity”. There is no such thing. It is a term invented by people that don’t know what they’re talking about.
Horse manure.
you show me empirical evidence by a repeated test where chance created meaning.
And there’s not much more ground we can cover.
Right.
We agree here on virtually everything. Information is indeed relative and subjective. It does require a decoder to decipher it. It does yes only make sense to those who can interpret it. All good.
Your language example I think is an example for my point. No one designed language? It was intended for one human being to talk to another. The fact that everything relies on information I think proves my point. Explain how simple informational systems can arise naturally. You just told me that information requires intelligence to understand it and to relate it.
We agree again. Well mostly. You say there is no beginning because before the big bang there was no time. Well current theories place the big bang at 13.5-14 billion years ago. Sure there is no time before, but however you look at it, time started. It hasn’t been around for an infinite amount of time. I think we’re off topic though. I’m not sure what we’re trying to prove at this point.
It seems to me that we understand each other for the most part, at least it certainly seems that way. If you have any further questions I’d enjoy discussing them. Thanks and I’ve had a great time discussing with you Burbinator.
I’m all for science! Bring on the science! Religion and Science don’t interfere. I don’t know how else to put it really. I think we’ve already stated that science can’t prove God’s existence, and it can’t disprove God’s existence, because science doesn’t work on God.
I really want to know.
Reply to Soup’s post.
And Soup, I can’t very well respond when you do it by editing the quote. I can’t hit respond. Can you in the future break it up like I have done? Thanks.
Yours are in Bold, my new response in Italics.
Originally Posted by The_Assassin47
Scientists do every day. Brane Theory? M-theory? Right now if you went to the store and looked at the magazines, the science ones are especially touting the brane multiverse theory.
No one has ever said these have been proven, because there’s no evidence. That’s why it’s difference, it’s matter of thought and discussion, not blind acceptance.
I think so too. My previous posts also indicate God can’t be proven or disproven.
God isn’t an assumption. If it were I would totally agree with you. Rather, God is the conclusion based on observation.
I actually laughed out loud at this one. I know you’re going to get all high-and-mighty at this and ask me “well, how isn’t he?” but this doesn’t even deserve an answer.
Even if its many occurrences of chance, in the end its still chance.
Microevolution where species adapt and change is totally legit. Evolution happens, but not on such a scale as to explain phenomenon as the Cambrian explosion.
Man, you should be a comedian: this is a laugh a minute! Oh, of course! Micro-evolution, that’s fine! Makes sense because species can adapt and change to their conditions, but there’s no way it can happen, oh, I don’t know, over and over due to changing conditions! That’d be crazy!
We don’t know it to. We don’t see examples of it happening today. We don’t understand how it would happen. But does this matter? If we did know this doesn’t prove or disprove God. These are just scientific musings.
I didnt say there’s no evidence or observation. Thats the starting point. The stuff around us. Howd it get there? Evidence of design? You start with observation.
How can you work out how everything got here if you need to look back to a point where there was nothing? Just because you can’t work out what happened before the Big Bang doesn’t mean that religion automatically makes sense. Also, I and many others have observed a hell of a lot, and I still see no evidence of design. How about a hallmark, a logo, or maybe a little signature?
I believe the beauty and simplicity is the signature. As well as the information. I want to hear back from Burb, but I don’t think yet that information can arise from chance. Data and a decoder as he called it have to arise at the same time for there to be information. I dont see how this can happen without intelligence.
A deity is a potential cause.
So is my arse, but that doesn’t mean it’s probable.
I didnt mention the well what caused God part, cause I thought it was silly.
Of course nothing caused God. If something did, fine call that thing God instead.
[b]Oh, man, this got the most laughs yet. Hahaha, yes, that argument is silly! Something really complex, like the universe, had to have a creator because it’s so complex. Why’d he make it? Oh, we can’t know, he’s too complex.
Oh, yep, perfect sense. Certainly no recursive nonsense in that argument.
Complexity = creator, in your argument. Complex universe <- Complex God <- Complex ??? <- Complex ??? etc. I’m sure you’re argument is that “it’s silly.” Well, hat’s off to you, sir, you should be in Mensa.[/b]
Why did God make the universe? Isaiah 43 explains simply. ‘For His own glory’. That wasn’t too complex.
It attempts to prove that certain things couldn’t have evolved. That has nothing to do with evolution? Does anybody claim to know how the eyeball evolved?
This has already been answered very well, so I’ll leave it here.
Woah man. What do you mean there is no proof? Psalm 19.
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
God has made himself known in His creation such that no man is without excuse. Natural Man rebels and turns from him.
Look up the word proof. You seriously need to.
Is it a logical proof? No. I should have used the word evidence. My bad. You’re right there is no scientific proof for God.
- Knowledge can be discovered by science, but science can also be wrong. Science can and does point to a creator, namely God.
[b]Yeah, science can be wrong. No-one says otherwise. There have been so many scientific theories that have been removed or revised over the years that this point is just… Ugh.
And no, it doesn’t do anything of the sort.[/b]
Order doesn’t happen by chance. This at least you must admit. And yet through science we see an ordered world. This points to a rational creator.
Originally Posted by The_Assassin47
They try to find evidence of this in a natural world.
God is a supernatural being, and true as far as we know you cant do a test on natural things and have a supernatural outcome. There’s no litmus test for God. You won’t find God doing natural tests, but you will find indications of God and evidences of God’s handiwork.
Again, look up proof, look up evidence.
Again, thanks for addressing this.
My point was that you don’t assume God and conclude something else. You look at the evidence, a complex organism perhaps, and conclude that such an organism could not evolved through natural processes because information can not arise form natural events. This gives evidence for God, you don’t start with God as the assumption.
The problem is that we don’t know everything about the world, and this isn’t conclusive. As far as we know currently, the only reasonable explanation for how information could arise is through a supernatural force. Chance can’t create meaning. Meaning comes through intention and design only.
This is such a load of crap. You’re making this utterly ridiculous “watchmaker” argument, aren’t you? Yeah, you can get “information” out of chance if the event reoccurs enough. That’s what chance is all about.
If its just chance, it should be random. You can’t get information out of randomness.
What we have is long bursts of time with no evolution, and then explosions of evolution. Not like the tree of life where there are gradual evolution happening, but millions of years of nothing, and then within a very short time-span thousands of new species. These bursts are currently unexplainable.
I know I’ve already answer, as have others, but, come on, really? You actually made that point with a straight face?
Again, scientific musings that don’t relate to the existence of God. We don’t understand this yet. I hope we continue to research it until we do. Again, evolution does not remove God from the picture.
The scientific arguments for God, as opposed to the logical arguments for God, come from the evidence of the beauty around us.
The world. The universe. Matter. Beings. All points to a creator. How did matter get here. How did stuff arise. We know there was a point in time where there was nothing, and then there was something. Something beautiful. Something that follows orderly laws. Where we can discover the characteristics of God by the things he has made. The evidence is simply things exist.
That. Isn’t. Evidence.
It isn’t? I’m looking at orderly things pointing to an orderly system. Chance isn’t orderly, its random.
C Cause God isn’t scientifically testable.
D You can’t say I’m not thinking any of this through.
E Youre on evolution again. Which means you’re offtopic again.
F Supported by religious people who took meaning form religious things where they shouldn’t have. I agree with you that religious people were foolish to deny such things.
[COLOR=‘Red’][align=center]FINALLY[/align][/SIZE]
[COLOR=‘red’]I’m all caught up and have answered everything, I think. Guys, that was alot of time to say all that. I can’t be doin this everyday. If you have a question, please one at a time, clearly address the question to me, and make the questions succinct. I have very much appreciated the discussion.[/SIZE]
If there is anything which you feel inadequate or confusing in my response, please let me know.
And none of that contributed to my post count. How sad.
Lets do this. Ask questions like this.
TO ASSASSIN: your question
and I’ll respond similarly. That way I can know what is a direct question to me. Okay guys?
Any of the other Christians that would like to contribute it would be great if you did cause I can’t keep up with all of this. Whew.
Ban for using coloured text!
Look in a mirror.
Alternatively, watch this Youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
Think about it this way: Take letters of the alphabet. The letters C and H have natural affinities for each other. Words, in order to survive, must have a vowel inside them. Throw letters on the floor. You have no idea how many of each letter there are.
The first time you do it, you get nothing. The second time you do it, you get nothing. The 80th time you do it you get CHA. A word. CHA stays. Keep going. On the 150th time you do it, you get the the word CHURCH. Another word. Keep at it. Oh, look, you got CHEECH. Sure, it’s a proper name and wouldn’t be allowed in Scrabble, but it’s still a word.
Eventually, you’re going to have MANY words in your possession.
Now, expand this out to other letters. S and H have natural affinities. Y can be considered a consonant or vowel. Q can only bind with U. And so on. Affinities occur in nature all the time.
Quickly, after hundreds of generations of throwing these letters on the floor, you start forming actual words BY ACCIDENT.
Eventually, some words bind with other words.
After 600-1000 generations, throw what you’ve got on the ground. “PREPARE FOR UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES” What did you just do? You created a sentence with meaning. By accident.
What happens to all the possible English words such as FLOOBLE which have no meaning? They’re ugly and don’t get a date to the prom. They die, alone, with 50 cats in their house. These words do not survive or produce offspring.
-
2 Kings 2… There where a number of curses before hand. This was not just about the shallow mocking of baldness. This is about the mocking of God’s mouth (prophet) by entire households, not just fathers and mothers.
-
Fig Tree; He talks about it again, I forgot where.
Thanks Quintix. I’ll add a little bit more for context and all. So you have two men, Elijah and Elisha. This passage and the passage before it discuss the transition from Elijah who was the head prophet, to Elisha who was to be the next head prophet. The people still want Elijah, but Elisha is called to be the new prophet, and Elijah is taken up to God in the chariots of fire story.
This connects back to the point of this thread. In order for Elisha to be respected, he has to perform a sign in order to prove (yes prove, not evidence this time. 
This is how prophets were proven) that he was indeed the next prophet and not some liar. So he lifts the curse on the water that Joshua had placed on it. As he leaves the city, the youths you’re talkin about say ‘Go on up [to God] you baldhead!’
The point isn’t that they are teasing him for being bald, its an insult that was aimed ultimately at the God whom he represented. Elisha’s prophetic ministry was in jeapordy, the people need to respect him as the prophet of God. The sudden arrival of the two bears who mauled the 42 youths to death would serve as both an awful sentence on unbelievers and a widespread reminder that blasphemy against God and his prophet would be met with swift and certain consequences. These two miracles secure Elisha’s succession to Elijah as God’s chief prophet. Well now you know.
Does this mean we should throw anyone who mocks God to the bears? No of course not. God had commanded that his messangers were to be approached with reverence and without mockery or abuse. And God is just according to His Word.
All of your retorts to my point were either non-committal vagueness or about your stupid watchmaker argument.
Like danielsangeo has said, it’s so, so easy to create “information” using chance. Like I said, it’s the nature of chance to produce something we can interpret as information.
By the way, what is it you mean by “information”? Are you talking about DNA, or what?
Also, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. Not logic, not reasons, but proof. Viruses and bacteria evolve all the time. We’ve also witnessed the evolution of all kinds of animals: insects, birds etc. There is evidence for it happening.
It’s pure, beautiful logic.
If a creature has offspring that are slightly different, and it has offspring itself that are also slightly different, it’s not hard to believe that after a significant number of offspring down the line the end result could easily be wildly different. If there are certain changes in conditions (say temperature, surroundings, other wildlife) then certain changes will mean that some types of this creature will die off quicker than others. These other ones will thrive more, blah blah blah.
It’s just logic. I don’t see why you’d even contradict it, plenty of Popes have supported evolution for god’s sake. It doesn’t go against the bible, it makes sense and it happens all the time.
There’s absolutely no reason to deny it.
Wow, I’ve never heard of that… God sending bears to maul 42 kids to death? Lol, Brutal!
A fun video. But here’s the problem. Youre going backwards here. You’re trying to make a clock, or you’re trying to make a sentence. Before you do, these things don’t exist. When you start, CHURCH has no more meaning than FLOOBLE. Its the same. Its not information. You need to have a system before you can information. You can’t work toward a function before you have a function. He orders them by how close they are to a working clock, but without him this wouldn’t make sense. Before a clock exists, this is impossible.
EDIT: In light of recent posts, I’m not going to muse upon evolution anymore. It is being argued that it disproves religion. My questioning it is being connected to Christianity. If you want to make a different thread on the current evolutionary models, that is fine. But here it is off topic.