Because they are ignorant of logic and scientific laws.
If the universe requires a creator then the creator should require a creator = religion is made-up
Sort:
Sep 2, 2015
0
#303
The problem w/ the materialists is they hafta come to grips w/ the space-time continuum. Space is not infinite (we can't comprehend anything being infinitely large/small) and time always moves forward (everything is slowly dying....stars, bugs, ppl dying to know something 
, etc.). IOW's, some thing musta made all this 'cuz space & time musta had a beginning. By deduction, we conclude a higher power did it....and that sounds reasonable to me (Pascal's Wager).
The results of the Scientific Method changes stuff all the time. Technology in the 20th Century overturned alotta SM conclusions but also created alotta new ones. For the better and the worse (confuzing). And since the SM is overturning the stones we step on to cross the river of life ?....well, you can be pretty much assured you're never gonna reach the other side of the river. You might even hafta step backwards now & again.
So, I don't blame people for adhering to a spirit....'cuz the SM doesn't have any good answers for me right now.
It's kinda funny that the materialists believe in nature. Not much difference between that and a god....now is there.
Maybe the Native Americans can teach us more than just how to get outnegotiated....
....hilarious !
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
petrosianpupil wrote:
I'm a big fan of Greek philosophy. I used to have "let no one ignorant of geometry enter" above my classroom door as even if it wasn't on the door of Platos academy as many suggest it should have been. His version of democracy where only people who understood logic would be allowed the vote is one I have some sympathy for. I do have a problem in understanding the soul, as I do the existence of the universe. But humans are not perfect and I see lots of evidence for evolution in our imperfections. we commonly have backache, a useless appendix, very poor distant vision. In fact I see so much evidence of evolution it amazes me that people can deny it.
It just saddens me when people deny either side. Evolution isn't an alternative to God but rather one more piece of evidence for his greatness. He is the holy of holies, omnipotent, and evolution demonstrates his unbelievable far-sightedness. The way he calibrated the universe so life can evolve is so genius there's no word for it. As strict as criteria for life developing is (if the star's the wrong color for example it means not enough or too much of certain kinds of radiation for amino acids to develop into life) and God knew those amino acids would eventually evolve into bugs, fish, eventually rats, monkeys, proto-humans, and eventually humans. DNA is unbelievably complex, in fact at a deep enough level it's so complicated it gives the illusion of chaos and disorder! Yet to God it all makes perfect sense.
Evolution isn't an alternative to God, but rather God's ingenius (even that word doesn't do it justice) tool for allowing mankind to come into the world.
it is an alternative because the bible tells us that god created man, but evolution shows that man evolved. Two completely different takes on how man got here.
The bible is an alternative theory(a wrong theory I might add) compared to evolution.
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
The problem w/ the materialists is they hafta come to grips w/ the space-time continuum. Space is not infinite (we can't comprehend anything being infinitely large/small) and time always moves forward (everything is slowly dying....stars, bugs, ppl dying to know something , etc.). IOW's, some thing musta made all this 'cuz space & time musta had a beginning. By deduction, we conclude a higher power did it....and that sounds reasonable to me (Pascal's Wager).
The results of the Scientific Method changes stuff all the time. Technology in the 20th Century overturned alotta SM conclusions but also created alotta new ones. For the better and the worse (confuzing). And since the SM is overturning the stones we step on to cross the river of life ?....well, you can be pretty much assured you're never gonna reach the other side of the river. You might even hafta step backwards now & again.
So, I don't blame people for adhering to a spirit....'cuz the SM doesn't have any good answers for me right now.
It's kinda funny that the materialists believe in nature. Not much difference between that and a god....now is there.
Maybe the Native Americans can teach us more than just how to get outnegotiated........hilarious !
There is a ton of difference and Im baffled as to why you are not able to see it? Just think a little.
We believe in nature because there is evidence of nature creating things. Belief in a god is based on "faith" which has no evidence to support it, hence they take things on faith.......i.e. they believe in them anyway.
chessterd5 wrote:
drpsholder wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
Petrosianpupil, Drpsholder, and Colin20G:
First: God or the creator always existed. If you read Socrates he stated plainly that humans have a soul and also he mention there is a creator, he came to this conclusion by asking questions and investigating facts; what is facts he investigated, the natural world around and governing laws of nature. It is illogical not to be in God. We in the west have lost the ability to questions our professor, it is time we stop believing everything they say. There is a wonderful book title; " Who kill Homer", we have lost our our Greek culture in the west.
Lets investigating the natural world or the governing laws of nature: For humans to exist we need oxygen, orbit has to be perfect, it can't be even just a little away from the sun or towards the sun other wise life would cease to exist. We have gravity is that irretuable law, we have complete dominion over the animals,we are superior to the animals, everything according to its kind, that mean only human can reproduce human babies, dogs reproduce puppies and cat reproduce kittens, in other words, a dog mating with a cat cannot produce offsprings. Human body is prefect, it must be a designer or creator; there is no way it could of been ramdon or by accident ( evolution).
There is law and order in a universe, something must of give it and the conclusion is there is a creator.
One last thing, what animate a human because when he dieds something leaves his body; that has to be a soul.
Even if I grant you this "creator" it doesn't tell WHAT the creator is. You assume this creator is a "who", which is biased because only a person's name will satisfy your question as to "who created the earth?". I assume this creator is a "what", which is not biased because now anything will satisfy my question as to "what created the earth?".
that's the problem that creationists don't understand.
If we found something and knew nothing about it, would you ask "who" created it or would you ask "what" created it? If you ask "who" then you are biased and making assumptions about something that you know nothing about.
So, I say this creator is nature...........natural processes.
We have no evidence of supernature creating anything, but we have evidence of nature creating all kinds of things.
So nature would be evolution, because the idea of the cosmos peeing a rock for along enough time to create the BILLIONS of diversified life forms we see on the earth is the only REASONABLE explanation.
Huh? I clearly pointed out that just because someone can conclude that this earth was created doesn't mean that the creator is a god.........because it could have been created through natural means.......and you bring up something about a rock?
chessterd5 wrote:
2travel wrote:
@chessterd5
So nature would be evolution, because the idea of the cosmos peeing a rock for along enough time to create the BILLIONS of diversified life forms we see on the earth is the only REASONABLE explanation.
Reasonable? only according to those who choose to believe in total absurdities coming from their denying the obvious!
Yes, I agree. God is the only answer that makes sense. He is the master & creator of the universe & I am somewhat saddened at the lengths that people will go to simply to deny him.
We deny him because the evidence you use to support him doesnt add up. Quite simple, huh?
Imagine I showed you a photo of bigfoot. You would deny bigfoot's existence right? Why? Because that photo doesn't prove that bigfoot exists, right?
But remember, its not that you deny his existence because my proof was invalid..........you are just going through great lengths to deny his existence because you hate bigfoot, huh?
See how silly your argument is? WOW!
Sep 2, 2015
0
#308
Believing in nature is also a leap of faith....when you really think about it.
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Believing in nature is also a leap of faith....when you really think about it.
Nope, because there is evidence of nature, but none of supernature. Since there is no evidence of supernature, people believe in it anyway and call it "faith".
Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof.
Belief is the the same except its based on proof and evidence.
Sep 2, 2015
0
#310
Lemme clarify. Believing in science, as it studies nature, is a leap of faith....when you really think about it.
God has given plenty evidences he and he alone is the creator; by observation we come to the truth. This is what the Greek thinkers did, Socrates observe nature and testify back that there is a creator, he also came to the conclusion humans have a soul, because something must animate human body and a person dies it cannot be revive again.
Here is quote from George Mavrodes: "If there is no God then everything is permitted. But if not everything is permitted then there must be a God." We know from right and wrong, we know to murder someone is wrong, to steal and others wrong doing. There is the moral law in our hearts, we know what is right and wrong and only a creator or God would give us the moral law in our heart, this cannot be ramdon. Life has to have a meaning and higher purpose. Animal don't have this, they kill for food and pleasure, my cat kill a squirrel, he did it for no reason, was the squirrel after my cat food, no, was my cat endanger, no and was my cat afraid, no, if hunman did this we all be appall by this. Humans are superior to animals because we have God imagine, animals rely on instinct to survive but human have a higher purpose in life. To say we evolve is saying we are the same like the animals and we are not. We have complete dominion over the animals, this alone is proves that God exist.
I recommend a book for everyone The God Question, this book give both side evolution and creation, a fun read.
Rosheen-Dove wrote:
that is not the original meaning of the word belief. now it is interpreted as thinking something is true without so-called proof, the proof being determined by actual facts or science dogma.
The word belief originally came from "be life", which meant something that should not be mentioned on a website where only mental concepts are bandied about.
A dogma is, by definition, anti-science. A dogma is a central tenet of Catholic theology and is a "truth" that must not be questioned by believers. Every finding in science is contingent in that all are subject to possible counter-arguments and evidence.
Sep 2, 2015
0
#313
My thinking is you probably know just enuf about science to be dangerous w/ sodium and water.
(....TG I've found a kindred spirit....)
drpsholder wrote:
chessterd5 wrote:
2travel wrote:
@chessterd5
So nature would be evolution, because the idea of the cosmos peeing a rock for along enough time to create the BILLIONS of diversified life forms we see on the earth is the only REASONABLE explanation.
Reasonable? only according to those who choose to believe in total absurdities coming from their denying the obvious!
Yes, I agree. God is the only answer that makes sense. He is the master & creator of the universe & I am somewhat saddened at the lengths that people will go to simply to deny him.
We deny him because the evidence you use to support him doesnt add up. Quite simple, huh?
Imagine I showed you a photo of bigfoot. You would deny bigfoot's existence right? Why? Because that photo doesn't prove that bigfoot exists, right?
But remember, its not that you deny his existence because my proof was invalid..........you are just going through great lengths to deny his existence because you hate bigfoot, huh?
See how silly your argument is? WOW!
So you deny God because you hate him ?
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Lemme clarify. Believing in science, as it studies nature, is a leap of faith....when you really think about it.
Nope, not even close! One has evidence whereas the other one doesn't. Believing evidence is normal. Believing in things that dont have evidence is faith based.
petrosianpupil wrote:
Sorry drp but by definition
Belief:
1.an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
BELIEF: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
FAITH: is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof.
If your definition is correct, then what do we call "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially when there is evidence to suggest its true"?? What do we call this??
If you accept something as true because there is evidence to suggest its true and this is called "belief", then what is it called when you accept something as true when there is no evidence to suggest its true?? Faith?
If belief is the acceptance that something is true when there is no evidence to suggest its true and faith is the acceptance that something is true when there is no evidence to suggest its true.........then why call them by different names? Are they not the same thing?
What distinguishes faith from belief? What separates them?
Both are trust, confidence, conviction, placed on a statement, person, or thing that is deemed to be real, legit, true, and/or correct, but one of them is based on evidence, while the other is based on no real evidence whatsoever.
Evidence is what separates them.........or the lack thereof.
Rosheen-Dove wrote:
that is not the original meaning of the word belief. now it is interpreted as thinking something is true without so-called proof, the proof being determined by actual facts or science dogma.
The word belief originally came from "be life", which meant something that should not be mentioned on a website where only mental concepts are bandied about.
belief (n.) 
late 12c., bileave, replacing Old English geleafa "belief, faith," from West Germanic *ga-laubon "to hold dear, esteem, trust" (cognates: Old Saxon gilobo, Middle Dutch gelove, Old High German giloubo, German Glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed," from intensive prefix *ga- + *leubh- "to care, desire, like, love" (see love (v.)). The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb believe. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c.
chessterd5 wrote:
drpsholder wrote:
chessterd5 wrote:
2travel wrote:
@chessterd5
So nature would be evolution, because the idea of the cosmos peeing a rock for along enough time to create the BILLIONS of diversified life forms we see on the earth is the only REASONABLE explanation.
Reasonable? only according to those who choose to believe in total absurdities coming from their denying the obvious!
Yes, I agree. God is the only answer that makes sense. He is the master & creator of the universe & I am somewhat saddened at the lengths that people will go to simply to deny him.
We deny him because the evidence you use to support him doesnt add up. Quite simple, huh?
Imagine I showed you a photo of bigfoot. You would deny bigfoot's existence right? Why? Because that photo doesn't prove that bigfoot exists, right?
But remember, its not that you deny his existence because my proof was invalid..........you are just going through great lengths to deny his existence because you hate bigfoot, huh?
See how silly your argument is? WOW!
So you deny God because you hate him ?
You didn't answer my questions. Because if you did, you would have seen that "lack of belief" doesn't equal "hate".
Does your lack of belief in BigFoot mean you hate him? Of course not.
So what would you say to someone who claimed that you must hate BigFoot because you do everything you can to deny BigFoot's existence?
yureesystem wrote:
God has given plenty evidences he and he alone is the creator; by observation we come to the truth. This is what the Greek thinkers did, Socrates observe nature and testify back that there is a creator, he also came to the conclusion humans have a soul, because something must animate human body and a person dies it cannot be revive again.
Here is quote from George Mavrodes: "If there is no God then everything is permitted. But if not everything is permitted then there must be a God." We know from right and wrong, we know to murder someone is wrong, to steal and others wrong doing. There is the moral law in our hearts, we know what is right and wrong and only a creator or God would give us the moral law in our heart, this cannot be ramdon. Life has to have a meaning and higher purpose. Animal don't have this, they kill for food and pleasure, my cat kill a squirrel, he did it for no reason, was the squirrel after my cat food, no, was my cat endanger, no and was my cat afraid, no, if hunman did this we all be appall by this. Humans are superior to animals because we have God imagine, animals rely on instinct to survive but human have a higher purpose in life. To say we evolve is saying we are the same like the animals and we are not. We have complete dominion over the animals, this alone is proves that God exist.
I recommend a book for everyone The God Question, this book give both side evolution and creation, a fun read.
If we give you the "creator" argument............there is no evidence for supernatural events, but there is evidence of natural events.
So, in other words, its illogical to believe this creator is anything but natural.
I believe I've mentioned this a time or two.
"Then he must have been created right?"
A first, uncaused cause has always been, God has no creator.
Fine but then why are some people always claiming that it is impossible for something to exist without being created?