If the universe requires a creator then the creator should require a creator = religion is made-up

dp, I've made the mistake of not simply sharing the Gospel message & instead have engaged in arguments that are not important. The Bible says that God has already revealed himself in his creation. It also says that some have chosen to worship the creation instead of, or more than the creator himself & this is wrong. Today is the day of salvation. The bible states in the book of John (1.1-1.14) that all things were made by the Christ. Don't you think its funny that thousands of years later scientists are still looking for the "GOD" particle? If accepting God is just a matter of haveing to trust something before you can flesh it all out then the real issue is a control issue. Humble yourself &let God in.Thank you.

Well, until you answer my previous questions and engage in an honest debate, there is no sense in trying to teach you anything else.

Even if there is historical evidence that jesus really did exist, it doesn't mean that jesus could heal the sick, walk on water, is the son of god, etc.

There is no debate.God exists wether you believe or not. The Book of Job confirms this. The fire will still be hot wether you believe or not. Each man will stand in judgement wether he believes or not. This does not change. What would you teach me? That God does not love me?, that my life is worth nothing?, Through random chance I was "created" to live a life of doom & despair waiting for that last moment when my eyes will dim I will cease for ever merely because you said so? The apostle Paul already answered this & I'm paraphraseing, If God is a myth than I am a man most mytherable.

You are not willing to engage in a debate, therefore you are not worth teaching.

So. do you agree that Space is not infinite (I can't comprehend anything being infinitely large/small - I can only believe it) ? Do you agree that time always moves forward & everything is slowly dying ?....stars, bugs, ppl dying to know something , etc.).

IOW's, I believe space has an ending and entities dependent upon time will come to one too - I mean an ending. This makes sense to me. So, I kinda feel forced to believe in what Blaise Pascal once said about his "wager". And I'm all good w/ that.

IOW's, the space-time continuum kinda forces the atheist to say that they understand what 5 millenia of minds can't comprehend. And I'm good w/ that too (snicker).

So, let the naturechild believer spend some time partying with me....but gimme some space....and we'll do a continuum until our star peeks over the salten sea.

....that's exactly what I'm talking about !

if every information is made up, then if some of them are contradicting - we should choose which is/are based upon more logical reasoning.

I didn't ask whether you liked the words or not. I asked you what makes them different and it appears that you don't know.

Says the person who assumed I asked if they "liked" the words or not. LOL!!!

Again, you can't tell me the difference.  Try again or run away because you can't. Its up to you.

U mean kinda like the fork u come to on the Occam Razor Road ?....except that the left fork is ur head & the right one is your heart. Well, I'm not choosing to veer right. My car is taking me there !

All dirt roads lead to ur heart. When you get there & find that uv arrived at a ghost town ?....well, then u try to make some sense of it all.

Ur heart leads u around....& ur head reacts to ur <3. Not the other way - 'cuz ur head is not proactive. And don't expect that to change in u. Oh sure, u can fight it....but it's not gonna help. Trust me on this one Bubule'.

I'm not really sure where to start with this one. First of all, by "heart" I assume you mean your emotional-intuitive center, which is of course located in the brain, located in the head.

I don't really know what you mean by "ur head is not proactive," either. In the sense that people act on their thoughts and/or emotions, which are both sourced in the head, and in the sense that the brain is required for any mammal to take action, I would say the head is very proactive. Now, the question of whether or not everything is predetermined (in a mechanical sense... either our entire futures are unchangeable and bound by the laws of nature, or they are not), is an interesting one, and might challenge the idea that anyone can be truly "proactive," i.e. possessing of a truly free will.

To be a little less nitpicky with what I think you're trying to say - I can understand the idea that faith and spirituality are feelings that perhaps cannot be accessed through logical/analytical thinking, but logical/analytical thinking has every right to challenge and examine those spiritual feelings. If you acknowledge that we can be so easily governed by our emotions, shouldn't we learn to be more distrustful of them?

drpshoider wrote: Cool. My background is in science........anatomy, biology, physiology.

So beliefs shouldn't be based on evidence? Beliefs should be based on no evidence whatsoever?

Now, if beliefs should be based on evidence, then when all the evidence is natural............should we believe this earth was created supernaturally? Why?

If all the evidence is natural, why shouldn't I believe the earth was created naturally...........and then change my beliefs if new evidence reveals it happened another way?    

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.  

Surely can one believe in science without a creator?  You can't have science without a creator, there has to be explanation to how things came to existence. Natural processes is not possible because it is impossible for something to come into existence without a creator. Human anatomy is too complex for it be random, human beings  testify to a creator; reason is animals is a lot lower than a human. We have a inner laws that give us right and wrong, animal don't have this and behave according to their nature. So,to answer your question, Yes, God is supernatural. The creation is a testimony to God, and there is your evidences; if everything came to existence by accident, natural processes or evolution it is not logical, it doesn't explain the why and the how it came to be .

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. 

My mom taught me the Greel philosophers, I also read all about Socrates through Platos; asking a series question to come to the truth. Is evolution practical and is it a true science? First: Evolution doesn't answer the pertinent question to the hows and leaving with more questions than answers. Second: Is evolution a religion? Is base on faith and people blindly follow it because the professor said so. Not to able to question something and debate it, how can we come to the truth?  

The first question: evolution does a lousey job in explain why we come to existences; random or by accident and natural processes, the big bang (destructive force created life, that seem farfetched) , ( I wonder what Sccrates would think of this)  coming from primordial slime, you know Greeks thinkers superior because of their logic, they never consider themselve a lower life form, but today so call scientists that believe in evolution believe in this. Human anatomy is prove that evolution is faults, the design of a eye, our brain, a single cell, and even our hand is a marvel of a creator.  

Second  question: To believe that something just exist, came to existence by natural processes or just evolve without a creator, is base on faith and there no evidence to facts. Evolution is a religion, you must have faith to believe it. Come on a destructive force (big bang) created the universe, that is putting  a lot faith in your professors.

Well said yuree,

Evolution is a religion. First one must believe a creation story ( the big bang). Second, one must believe that the earth formed perfectly as it needed to over the course of about a billion or so years + or - in an unstable enviroment. And then you must believe that over an extrodinary amount of time every living thing as we understand it emerged from a single amino acid formed by a caustic reaction between primordial rain and contact with a rock, the surface of the earth.Remember, this all happened without ANY STRUCTURE,GUIDANCE, OR INFLUENCE BY AN OUTSIDE FORCE!

Seems like it requires just as much faith to believe in evolution....

said so right........

I think the creationists have a technical win here !

Why do you still need proof that God exists when the entire universe stands as a witness to his existence?