How you know that God is real
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Yes it might. However, based on the 1st law, I would have to press the other person to explain their beginging.
'beginging' should be begining.
Hehe. Beginging.
Aug 12, 2010
0
#25
BasketballPlayer wrote:
If there was an explosion that made the earth, how did the explosion start? If someone says "A planet!" you can ask "How did that planet start?" And you can just keep asking it to yourself another time and see if it ever ends... I made this so that unchristians can think....
Another HUGE problem--How did life come from nonlife?
PawnMagician wrote:
BasketballPlayer wrote:
If there was an explosion that made the earth, how did the explosion start? If someone says "A planet!" you can ask "How did that planet start?" And you can just keep asking it to yourself another time and see if it ever ends... I made this so that unchristians can think....
Another HUGE problem--How did life come from nonlife?
well, if its not an explosion, what else would people think?
Po218 wrote:
D_Plew wrote:
An interesting discussion I had once involved the other person saying that the universe never began, it always was as it is now, and will be forever. There is no reason for it, it's just the way it is.
For the next time it comes up...the 2nd law of thermodynamics briefly: energy dissipates as heat and becomes unavailable for work. In other words, system run down, wind down, get slower, move toward disorder, etc.,. This is the most tested/supported law in physics and disproves an eternal universe.
Hope this helps.
Does anyone here have a degree in physics? Do you not think that if the second law of thermodynamics disproved an eternal universe, the physicists would have thought about it?
Bottom line: there is no evidence of God. In real science, you cannot say something exists unless you have evidence. Things in the universe apearing as if they could not have been created naturally is not evidence of a God that acts completely contrary to all known physics. The reason humans exist on a planet that is perfectly suited for our survival is that if it was not, humans never would have evolved here. The reason waterfalls and lakes look so beautiful is that we evolved to think water is beautiful so that we would settle in areas with something to drink. There are gaps that scientists dont understand about evolution or the universe, but those gaps cant just be filled by a God. Sometime we have to say "we just don't know" because that is the true scientific method
shmuby wrote:
Po218 wrote:
D_Plew wrote:
An interesting discussion I had once involved the other person saying that the universe never began, it always was as it is now, and will be forever. There is no reason for it, it's just the way it is.
For the next time it comes up...the 2nd law of thermodynamics briefly: energy dissipates as heat and becomes unavailable for work. In other words, system run down, wind down, get slower, move toward disorder, etc.,. This is the most tested/supported law in physics and disproves an eternal universe.
Hope this helps.
Does anyone here have a degree in physics? Do you not think that if the second law of thermodynamics disproved an eternal universe, the physicists would have thought about it?
Bottom line: there is no evidence of God. In real science, you cannot say something exists unless you have evidence. Things in the universe apearing as if they could not have been created naturally is not evidence of a God that acts completely contrary to all known physics. The reason humans exist on a planet that is perfectly suited for our survival is that if it was not, humans never would have evolved here. The reason waterfalls and lakes look so beautiful is that we evolved to think water is beautiful so that we would settle in areas with something to drink. There are gaps that scientists dont understand about evolution or the universe, but those gaps cant just be filled by a God. Sometime we have to say "we just don't know" because that is the true scientific method
Yes, but some people think we came from gorilla's because of their "Five Fingers" with thumb unlike most animals.
Ok, first of all we didn't come from gorrilas, you clearly don't know anything about evolution. We came from a common ancestor. Secondly, scientists know humans are related to other primates because we share more than 99% of our DNA. You can't challenge things that are accepted by the entire scientific community unless you actually have knowledge of science!
Im not saying we do... I know we dont but im saying some poeple still think we came from monkies
99% is a number posted years ago when only a small % of chimp DNA was sequenced. I believe that number has been adjusted down somewhat.
Windows 2000 is 99% similiar to Windows 2003 because of the need for a common function. Why can't DNA simliarity be because of common function?
Simliarly of something does not prove common descent. A nail is very simliar to a screw but I know of locations that produce them as seperate creations.
Scientists do not 'know' because they have not observed common descent. They 'believe' based on fossils, structures (which you alluded to), etc.,.
A much more useful discussion about the merits of evolution would involve the heart of the theory: Mutations cause new information to be added to the genome which can be environmentally selected to be passed to the next generation. Is this true or false?
Po218 wrote:
A much more useful discussion about the merits of evolution would involve the heart of the theory: Mutations cause new information to be added to the genome which can be environmentally selected to be passed to the next generation. Is this true or false?
Well, I havent learned much about mutations but i think it may be true...
The proccess of natural selection is obviously true, you can't really argue against that because you actually test it. If you throw a bunch of animals together, only the ones best suited for the situtation will pass on their genes.
Po218, you do bring up some good points. If you look at the fossil record of two animals and you can see the gradual change of the fossils untill both fossil records converge into a single species, then you can see if they have a common ancestor.
People can beleive in god, but I don't think it's fair for them to try to use pseudo-science to try and disprove evolution
But how did life come fron non-life? In millions of years, I don't think it's that ridiculous that by chance a primitive structure was created by chance that could somehow duplicate itself
shmuby wrote:
The proccess of natural selection is obviously true, you can't really argue against that because you actually test it. If you throw a bunch of animals together, only the ones best suited for the situtation will pass on their genes.
Po218, you do bring up some good points. If you look at the fossil record of two animals and you can see the gradual change of the fossils untill both fossil records converge into a single species, then you can see if they have a common ancestor.
People can beleive in god, but I don't think it's fair for them to try to use pseudo-science to try and disprove evolution
But how did life come fron non-life? In millions of years, I don't think it's that ridiculous that by chance a primitive structure was created by chance that could somehow duplicate itself
Yes, I agree!
I believe in a God, merely because I want to. A great many generations of my family have all believed in God, and I have been raised in a family background where attending church has been commonplace. Of course, the reason why most people do believe in God can be explained through the fact that it is an inherited practice, going all the way back to primitive culture, and beyond. And so the main questions with which I constantly battle is this: why did people begin to believe in God? Was the reason a good one by today's standards? Or was it simply because things that can be explained by science today were seen as supernatural back then? Is there any ongoing justification for the concept of God's existence? Or is it merely a belief that is had because it's convenient? I still think that I believe in God, but I am not sure that I can continue to trust in his existence without knowing that believers were actually given a legitemate reason to do so. No offense is meant to anyone on this thread, but do you see where I'm coming from? I would be glad to entertain any questions anyone has about what I have written here.
There is also a group on chess.com called Open Discussion, where we have had heavy debates about philisophical matters. I have been deeply involved in threads titled: "The Bible is Wrong" and "What Being a Great Christian Can Mean".
