Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

22 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

That's why we call them "theories" instead of "facts."  No human living now on earth was there back in those ancient times to be able to recount the details for us.  The best we have are assumptions.  You are free, of course, to determine which set of assumptions seems most logical to you.  I have based my assumptions on the best ancient records we have--the Bible--and have, insofar as possible, matched its details up with the evidences we see today.

Tbh, i don't understand your apparent disregard for other ancient records, like the Indian Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Vedas, which have been transmitted orally for who knows how many 1000s of years before the script, there you can find accounts of flying machines, terrible wars and nuclear explosions.

The vetrified rock samples found in areas going from the Sahara desert, the middle east to the Indo river basin are yet to find a plausible explanation.

Legends from all over the world tell about gods (or deities) fighting each other, giants and world wide catastrophes.

Now, one can assume that some details of those legends can be just fantasies, and other details inaccurate translations, but surely not complete lies.

The Biblical tale of Noah and the flood seems to be taken from Sumerian legends, which predates the Jewish civilization and the invention of the script. 

As you said, probably we will never know what exactly happened 1000s of years ago, but it's clear that not even the best scientists in the world know the whole truth.

 

[Woof999]

AAH, first of all, thank you very much for your replies. I truly appreciate the effort you are putting into answering my questions. So here are some more ????

 

10 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

That was the point in time where Creation "theory" was displaced by the theory of "naturalistic evolution" in the educational system.  The problem with this is simple: If they are both considered "theories," why should one trump the other?  Why should public schools teach only evolution, and not be allowed to mention Creation?

In science, theory does not mean what many think it means. A theory is not a guess, even a good one. It is knowledge that is based on demonstrable fact, peer reviewed and shown to be accurate within the current bounds of that knowledge. Before a theory, would come a hypothesis. The theory of natural evolution matches those criteria (of a theory). Creation by a higher power would be a hypothesis at best, more likely a busted hypothesis because of the overwhelming evidence to disprove it, much of which, of course, has come from the theory of evolution.

 

10 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

If you say it is because teaching creation entails teaching religion, then I say that "science" has become a religion of its own, and its faith is based on naturalistic evolution--which is an atheistic theory, as I'm sure you would admit.  No atheist believes in God's Creation; but virtually all atheists accept evolution as "fact."

Then I'm afraid you're misunderstanding science, or you're basing your opinion on false science or charlatan scientists. Science does not involve the need for faith which is a fundamental requirement for a religion. Real science does not follow preconceived paths nor have an agenda whereby results would be skewed to match that agenda any more than mathematics does. Sure there are humans involved in science that have those very traits, but peer review and new techniques will eventually bust them. Even wrong science can be useful. An example would be Newtonian gravity. It has been shown by Einsteinian gravity that the former does not hold true for huge mass (think black hole mass) or speeds approaching C. However you can still launch a space ship accurately around our universe just using the former with high precision. Not bad for busted science. Similarly, Neptune was discovered by pure science (and a lot of maths) because of unexplained wobbles in the orbit of Uranus. Newtonian gravity would have done the job perfectly there too.

 

10 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

I know you claim to be an atheist, but I will tell you something.  Only God knows the future--yet through His prophets He reveals the future to us.  And here is what is coming:  God can do miracles, and often does; but only when it serves His purpose, and never simply on demand.  People asking for proof of God's existence are unlikely to see a miracle in response, particularly if their attitude is defiant, and they are not truly seeking to know God.

These are your opinions of course. They also show that your god is arrogant or at least short tempered. How dare us flawed (as we and your god must know) humans ask for any kind of real proof of such a commanding being's presence. He will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, although he truly loves us all?

 

10 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Since most people recognize that God can do miracles

Surely you mean most religious people?

 

10 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

While I was in Laos just a few years ago, I personally witnessed a lame person brought into a gathering of people, and a loud and boisterous prayer made on her behalf.

I live not far from Laos and visit there relatively often. I've seen all sorts over here (and back in the west). A fake lame person being healed in minutes with nothing more than a prayer and some music is a circus trick almost surely. If it were real it would have made top slot on every news show around the world. All the world's lame would be heading to Laos for this cure. You're far too intelligent to believe is was real.

 

10 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

God loves us each very much.  His only thought is for our happiness,

Which brings us back to all the suffering in the world. Even ignoring starvation, natural disasters, cancer et al, why, if god loves us, are some babies born with terrible deformations? It's a very strange way to show love. If my mother allowed my life to be filled with misery I'd surely question her love, so why wouldn't I question your god? Even if he doesn't allow us to.

 

10 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Adam was created about 5,975 years ago...again, plus or minus a few years (mostly minus).  The Bible says he lived to be 930 years old.

There have been numerous human remains discovered that are much older than this (40,000 times older). To bring in a reply you've given to a later thread, not all of these discoveries rely on C14 dating, but even the most generous of estimates would put the ages of these human remains way outside your timescale. Like... way outside. Again, to show a point about science not having an agenda, it is scientists using science that have discovered that the burning of fossil fuels is skewing the ratios of C14 and C12, although not likely to make a 6000 year old corpse appear to be quarter of a million. Again, science has no agenda to disprove the existence of god, it's just going where it's going and doing a good job of it anyway.

 

10 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Regarding the apparent lack of giants in the fossil record, I believe that scientists have deliberately concealed the facts on this because these anomalies run counter to their theory of origins which they are trying to cause everyone to believe.

As above. This is a fanciful opinion (surely you know that), is based on zero evidence of any kind and still assumes that all of science must have an anti-creator agenda.

 

10 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

I have heard a rumor, for which I have no actual evidence, that there are skeletons of giants in the basement of the Smithsonian Institute.

Do we really need to discuss this one? ???? There's a Guy Works Down the Chip Shop Swears He's Elvis ????

 

10 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

I don't believe any of the Bible is "fiction," although I would call parts of it "prophetic symbolism" or "allegory" or "parable."  The word "fiction" implies something that is not true, but an allegory or parable can be quite true, even though its symbols are only for illustration.

Let's just take once example (that is repeated several times in the old testament. The bible claims that Earth was made before the sun and stars. The early universe did not contain the heavier elements (iron for example) that make up a decent percentage of Earth's mass. Some of those elements (according to science of course) could only be made in the cores of stars by nuclear fusion. If iron could not have existed before the stars, how was Earth made first? I expect I could find plenty of other examples or errors of contradictions.

 

10 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Regarding physical sizes, my ancestors were bodyguards to the king of Armenia because they were over seven feet tall.  I'm not that tall, nor has anyone for the past several generations in my family ever been that tall.  This was several hundred years ago, predating the modern medical advances to which you seem to be alluding.

I'm not for one moment doubting you, but your ancestors would very much be the exception to the norm.

[AsianAtHeart]

22 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

AAH, first of all, thank you very much for your replies. I truly appreciate the effort you are putting into answering my questions. So here are some more ????

 

In science, theory does not mean what many think it means. A theory is not a guess, even a good one. It is knowledge that is based on demonstrable fact, peer reviewed and shown to be accurate within the current bounds of that knowledge. Before a theory, would come a hypothesis. The theory of natural evolution matches those criteria (of a theory). Creation by a higher power would be a hypothesis at best, more likely a busted hypothesis because of the overwhelming evidence to disprove it, much of which, of course, has come from the theory of evolution.

 

Then I'm afraid you're misunderstanding science, or you're basing your opinion on false science or charlatan scientists. Science does not involve the need for faith which is a fundamental requirement for a religion. Real science does not follow preconceived paths nor have an agenda whereby results would be skewed to match that agenda any more than mathematics does. Sure there are humans involved in science that have those very traits, but peer review and new techniques will eventually bust them. Even wrong science can be useful. An example would be Newtonian gravity. It has been shown by Einsteinian gravity that the former does not hold true for huge mass (think black hole mass) or speeds approaching C. However you can still launch a space ship accurately around our universe just using the former with high precision. Not bad for busted science. Similarly, Neptune was discovered by pure science (and a lot of maths) because of unexplained wobbles in the orbit of Uranus. Newtonian gravity would have done the job perfectly there too.

 

These are your opinions of course. They also show that your god is arrogant or at least short tempered. How dare us flawed (as we and your god must know) humans ask for any kind of real proof of such a commanding being's presence. He will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, although he truly loves us all?

 

Surely you mean most religious people?

 

I live not far from Laos and visit there relatively often. I've seen all sorts over here (and back in the west). A fake lame person being healed in minutes with nothing more than a prayer and some music is a circus trick almost surely. If it were real it would have made top slot on every news show around the world. All the world's lame would be heading to Laos for this cure. You're far too intelligent to believe is was real.

 

Which brings us back to all the suffering in the world. Even ignoring starvation, natural disasters, cancer et al, why, if god loves us, are some babies born with terrible deformations? It's a very strange way to show love. If my mother allowed my life to be filled with misery I'd surely question her love, so why wouldn't I question your god? Even if he doesn't allow us to.

 

There have been numerous human remains discovered that are much older than this (40,000 times older). To bring in a reply you've given to a later thread, not all of these discoveries rely on C14 dating, but even the most generous of estimates would put the ages of these human remains way outside your timescale. Like... way outside. Again, to show a point about science not having an agenda, it is scientists using science that have discovered that the burning of fossil fuels is skewing the ratios of C14 and C12, although not likely to make a 6000 year old corpse appear to be quarter of a million. Again, science has no agenda to disprove the existence of god, it's just going where it's going and doing a good job of it anyway.

 

As above. This is a fanciful opinion (surely you know that), is based on zero evidence of any kind and still assumes that all of science must have an anti-creator agenda.

 

Do we really need to discuss this one? ???? There's a Guy Works Down the Chip Shop Swears He's Elvis ????

 

Let's just take once example (that is repeated several times in the old testament. The bible claims that Earth was made before the sun and stars. The early universe did not contain the heavier elements (iron for example) that make up a decent percentage of Earth's mass. Some of those elements (according to science of course) could only be made in the cores of stars by nuclear fusion. If iron could not have existed before the stars, how was Earth made first? I expect I could find plenty of other examples or errors of contradictions.

 

I'm not for one moment doubting you, but your ancestors would very much be the exception to the norm.

Probably don't have time to address all of this again, as it seems even one point, to thoroughly address it, can take time.  Ignoring the more supernatural items which you do not accept, let's look at some items that might interest you.

 

First, regarding the theory of evolution being supposedly more solid than the "theory" of Creation.   May I ask you some questions?

 

How long do scientists say it took to form the Grand Canyon, and do you agree with them?

How long did it take to form the canyons on Mount St. Helens after its eruption in 1980?

 

How long do scientists say it took to form the layers of petrified wood, such as are seen in Yellowstone National Park in Montana?

How long did it take to form the layers of trees in Spirit Lake on Mount St. Helens?

 

Keep in mind as you answer these questions that if we turn away our eyes from seeing the facts because we have a pet theory to uphold, we are not true scientists.

 

Now another question:  Is it true that evolution theory has no explanation for animal instincts?  If it is not encoded in an animal's DNA, how can a bird who never saw its parents build a nest, successfully build one?  (We have weaver birds here and their nests are awesome.)

 

Yet another question:  Are you aware of the actual mathematical odds of the random-chance mutation (evolution all the way from abiogenesis) development of the human genome?

 

And how much do you know of the Higg's boson (aka "the God particle")?

 

Well, enough with the questions.  Let me answer a little more regarding your questions.
 

Quote

Let's just take once example (that is repeated several times in the old testament. The bible claims that Earth was made before the sun and stars.

 

While I am not questioning the literal chronology here, it should be noted that the items mentioned as being created during Creation Week were prophetic of the future.  They were symbols--many of them explained in other passages of the Bible, such as in the Psalms, Isaiah, Matthew, and Revelation.

 

Here's a short list:

 

Day 1: Light -- light represents truth: consider "That sheds light on the matter!"

Day 2: Waters and firmament -- waters represent nations and peoples; waters in firmament, called "heaven", represent people who are heavenly minded/righteous

Day 3: Dry ground -- represents a place with relative lack of people (no water = no people)

Day 3: grass, herbs, trees -- grass represents people; trees represent leaders among the people

Day 4: Sun, moon, stars -- sun, "the bright and morning star," represents Christ; moon, which reflects light (truth) represents the prophets who speak for Christ, stars represent saints and angels

Day 5: Fish, fowl -- Fish, who simply follow the crowd, represent the ignorant masses; fowl represent the demons/foul spirits

Day 6: Land animals -- animals ("beasts") represent nations, governments, kingdoms

Day 6: Humans -- the crowning act of creation

 

If you're interested, I could provide Bible texts to support each of these symbolic interpretations, e.g. Rev. 22:16 for the morning star being Jesus, Isaiah 40:7 for the grass representing people, etc.

 

The main thing to understand is that God's Word is no ordinary book.  While a surface reading may be helpful, the layers of meaning go well beyond the surface, and the best treasures are worth digging for.  Was the earth created before the sun?  The Genesis account does not actually specify this.  The word "sun" is not found in the whole chapter.  What it says is that God created two great lights, a greater light and a lesser light.  I neither presume to say this was not the sun and moon, nor do I limit it to these.  I wasn't there.  What I do know is that these symbols were highly significant prophetically.

 

2 Peter 3, with special emphasis on the first ten verses, indicate that the creation week prophesied of Noah's flood.  It tells us in verse 8 that each day must represent a millennium of time.  Many people have misunderstood the Bible and have tried to say it took God 1000 years for each day of creation.   That is not so.  But each day of creation represented and predicted the major events of each millennium to follow.

 

It usually takes me at least an hour to expound the entire prophecy to someone who has not before heard it--with Bibles in hand.  So I won't trouble you here with those details...but feel free to let me know if you're interested in more.
 

Quote

Which brings us back to all the suffering in the world. Even ignoring starvation, natural disasters, cancer et al, why, if god loves us, are some babies born with terrible deformations? It's a very strange way to show love. If my mother allowed my life to be filled with misery I'd surely question her love, so why wouldn't I question your god? Even if he doesn't allow us to.

 

God loves us enough to let us have free choice.  Having a choice in things means we must be allowed to make mistakes.  Have you seen a parent who never allows his or her child to make a mistake?  What kind of life does that child have?  And if the child touches the hot stove, was the parent unloving to have allowed it?  If the child tries to walk, but falls, was the parent unloving to have encouraged it?

 

God's love is not to be put on trial on account of our own mistakes.  We must take responsibility for our own misdeeds. 

 

If you were to put a gun to a young woman's head and say "love me or I'll shoot," would she say she loved you?  Probably.  But would she really?  Of course not.  And God knows this.  He doesn't want to coerce our love.  Either we will love him voluntarily, of our own free will, or He would rather that we be left free to choose our own way.  He will never force our will--not even if we were to ask Him to do so.

 

If you question God, it is because He has given you that privilege to do so.  He may not be happy with your choice, but this is simply because He knows that your choice is based on ignorance of His love and the happiness that you are missing out on by having made that choice.  He loves you deeply, and does not want to see you come to any harm or unhappiness.  Yet He knows that you could never be happy if you were not able to choose your own course.

 

God has not caused any of the problems we see on earth.  The problems have come as we have departed from His wise counsel and sought our own selfish ways.

 

[Elad]

Blimey whats happened to this thread. It used to be quite interesting, but now, just reading some of these posts is like pulling teeth.

It seems we have religious fundamentalists in here, and you cannot debate a fundamentalist. Why? because evidence means absolutely nothing to them, no matter how much you put on the table.

An example would be the American young Earth creationist Kurt Wise who has a PhD in Geology from Harvard university. Kurt Wise said:

 

" I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

 

You can't do anything with a mind like that, and a mind like that is a disgrace to the human race.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Elad

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Elad said:

It seems we have religious fundamentalists in here, and you cannot debate a fundamentalist. Why? because evidence means absolutely nothing to them, no matter how much you put on the table.

I have the same problem with materialists, they're just unable to think outside the box ????

[Woof999]

Thanks again for your reply.

 

  

5 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

How long do scientists say it took to form the Grand Canyon, and do you agree with them?

How long did it take to form the canyons on Mount St. Helens after its eruption in 1980?

 

How long do scientists say it took to form the layers of petrified wood, such as are seen in Yellowstone National Park in Montana?

How long did it take to form the layers of trees in Spirit Lake on Mount St. Helens?

We're comparing very different geological events. This article The University of Waikato goes a long way to explain the differences of the Grand Canyon vs Mt St Helens example you gave.

 

5 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Keep in mind as you answer these questions that if we turn away our eyes from seeing the facts because we have a pet theory to uphold, we are not true scientists.

This is exactly my point. How much true science is involved in faith and in the belief of your god?

 

5 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Now another question:  Is it true that evolution theory has no explanation for animal instincts?  If it is not encoded in an animal's DNA, how can a bird who never saw its parents build a nest, successfully build one?  (We have weaver birds here and their nests are awesome.)

I'm not sure that evolution theory ever set out to explain the existence of instincts, but their existence does support the theory. An animal lacking the basic instincts for survival will likely not.... well, survive. I'd find it hard to find a better example of survival of the fittest and natural selection.

 

5 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Yet another question:  Are you aware of the actual mathematical odds of the random-chance mutation (evolution all the way from abiogenesis) development of the human genome?

I expect they are astronimical, but we live in an astronomical universe. Trillions of galaxies each containing trillions of solar systems each having the potential to have existed for billions of years means that we are dividing a huge number by another huge number to work out probabilities. Also remember that every life form ever discovered (to date) is based on the most abundant elements in the universe. We're not made of plutonium or unobtainium, we're made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, iron and others. We cannot help but see these elements all around us. Typically, humans perceive time-spans based on those that they are familiar with. Weeks, years, decades, a lifetime, a generation. Anything larger becomes hard to fathom. 14 and then some billion years of possibilities is beyond the comprehension of most of us mere mortals.

 

5 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

And how much do you know of the Higg's boson (aka "the God particle")?

I'd estimate my knowledge is more than most and less than many. Science could not explain how matter gains mass. It was hypothesised (by scientists) that an undiscovered particle must exist and they even had a good estimate for the energy level (or mass as E=MC2) of that particle. The LHC paid for itself many times over on that amazing day in early July ten years ago.

 

5 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Day 1: Light -- light represents truth: consider "That sheds light on the matter!"

Day 2: Waters and firmament -- waters represent nations and peoples; waters in firmament, called "heaven", represent people who are heavenly minded/righteous

Day 3: Dry ground -- represents a place with relative lack of people (no water = no people)

Day 3: grass, herbs, trees -- grass represents people; trees represent leaders among the people

Day 4: Sun, moon, stars -- sun, "the bright and morning star," represents Christ; moon, which reflects light (truth) represents the prophets who speak for Christ, stars represent saints and angels

Day 5: Fish, fowl -- Fish, who simply follow the crowd, represent the ignorant masses; fowl represent the demons/foul spirits

Day 6: Land animals -- animals ("beasts") represent nations, governments, kingdoms

Day 6: Humans -- the crowning act of creation

I think that highlights one major issue with the bible. Much of it is specific. Certainly much of the darker passages (murder, rape, incest, hate... i could go on), but much of it that is used to explain the existence of a god is so abstract that it could be used to explain anything, or nothing.

 

5 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

God loves us enough to let us have free choice.  Having a choice in things means we must be allowed to make mistakes.  Have you seen a parent who never allows his or her child to make a mistake?  What kind of life does that child have?  And if the child touches the hot stove, was the parent unloving to have allowed it?  If the child tries to walk, but falls, was the parent unloving to have encouraged it?

My mother allowed me to go out on my bike, to fall off my bike, to scratch myself and for my body's immune system to grow stronger because of it. She showed love by tending to my wounds. However, if I had tried to put my hand on a hot stove or into a fire she would have physically stopped me, again showing me her love. Or perhaps she was due for a night out down the bingo and really didn't want to spend a few hours in A&E. Either way I am grateful. There is allowing those you love to make mistakes that will make them stronger and then there is allowing those you pretend to love to make mistakes that will cause them real lifelong harm. Noah's flood, if one is to believe that it ever happened, is a good example to prove that your god does not allow us to make mistakes without paying a price. In this case the ultimate price. That was out of love?

 

5 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

If you were to put a gun to a young woman's head and say "love me or I'll shoot," would she say she loved you?  Probably.  But would she really?  Of course not.  And God knows this.  He doesn't want to coerce our love.  Either we will love him voluntarily, of our own free will, or He would rather that we be left free to choose our own way.  He will never force our will--not even if we were to ask Him to do so.

Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would believe the woman in the example you give. However, if your god came to me in the milliseconds before a car crash that would surely take my life and clearly prevented it happening, then asking me if I believed he loved me.... my answering in the affirmative would be totally believable. The god of your bible does hold a gun to people's heads. Aren't we destined for eternal hell if we are not true believers?

 

5 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

If you question God, it is because He has given you that privilege to do so.  He may not be happy with your choice, but this is simply because He knows that your choice is based on ignorance of His love and the happiness that you are missing out on by having made that choice.

I think that shows a huge misunderstanding and does a massive injustice to those that hold differing opinions than yours. You know little to nothing about my life, my mistakes, my achievements, my joy or anything else. To assume that your level of happiness, with your god, is elevated above mine, without your god, is pure arrogance. (I've worded that to be both as accurate and non-confrontational as possible, while still making the point, because you're clearly a good person).

 

5 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

God has not caused any of the problems we see on earth.  The problems have come as we have departed from His wise counsel and sought our own selfish ways.

If god is all seeing, all knowing and all powerful, plus loves us as much as you want me to believe, then he knows our weaknesses. He knows what choices we will make before we know ourselves. Which means he's caused every one of those problems.

 

Either than or he's not as good, loving or powerful as you think you know he is.

[Woof999]

12 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I have the same problem with materialists, they're just unable to think outside the box ????

There's thinking outside the box and then there's Hans Christian Andersen ????

[Woof999]

30 minutes ago, Elad said:

Blimey whats happened to this thread. It used to be quite interesting, but now, just reading some of these posts is like pulling teeth.

It seems we have religious fundamentalists in here, and you cannot debate a fundamentalist. Why? because evidence means absolutely nothing to them, no matter how much you put on the table.

An example would be the American young Earth creationist Kurt Wise who has a PhD in Geology from Harvard university. Kurt Wise said:

 

" I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

 

You can't do anything with a mind like that, and a mind like that is a disgrace to the human race.

You can blame me )

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Woof999 said:

You can blame me )

Pls tell us again that big bang story ????

[Woof999]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Pls tell us again that big bang story ????

Only if you promise not to think that bang = explosion.

[mauGR1]

Just now, Woof999 said:

Only if you promise not to think that bang = explosion.

Ok, promise.

[Woof999]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Ok, promise.

So let's start based on the OPs original post - do you believe in god and why? I've purposely written god in lower case. I've tried to back up my answer with reasons, going into quite some detail about what formed my opinions and beliefs.

 

Almost all believers have answered with comments such as "just look around you" or "you're not open minded enough to begin to understand". For me that doesn't cut the mustard. They might as well have answered by writing "just because I do" and leave it there. To me it suggests that their belief is based on nothing tangible or that they just don't know, or that it's the easiest answer without having to really think about it.

 

I've given some relatively detailed answers about why I'm a non-believer. Perhaps you might do the same to support your position.

 

I'll ask a couple of questions?

 

Did you ask about the big bang because you believe that recent JWST images suggest it can't have happened?

 

Do you think that scientists wont follow new knowledge because it might make them re-evaluate what they believed they already knew?

 

[Sparktrader]

Good things - god rewards you

Bad things - god kicking you in the shins, wake up call

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Did you ask about the big bang because you believe that recent JWST images suggest it can't have happened?

 

Do you think that scientists wont follow new knowledge because it might make them re-evaluate what they believed they already knew?

 

I don't know about JWST images, for what i know, big bangs can happen, but not out of nothing.

Evolution happens too, it's part of the intelligent design, but the "official " theory has more holes than substance.

As for the 2nd question, i believe that there are honest scientists who can reevaluate their knowledge, but it seems that scientific research in general is in the pocket of the big investors. 

Great scientists have been heard admitting the existence of an intelligent design, and I'm surprised sometimes that intelligent people can't see it.

It's literally everywhere. 

[Woof999]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

I don't know about JWST images, for what i know, big bangs can happen, but not out of nothing.

Evolution happens too, it's part of the intelligent design, but the "official " theory has more holes than substance.

As for the 2nd question, i believe that there are honest scientists who can reevaluate their knowledge, but it seems that scientific research in general is in the pocket of the big investors. 

Great scientists have been heard admitting the existence of an intelligent design, and I'm surprised sometimes that intelligent people can't see it.

It's literally everywhere. 

A great answer. The only part that I'd probably question (which I'm sure comes as no surprise to you) is around intelligent design. Early life existed with simple, single celled organisms made from the most abundant elements on the planet. Given billions of years I don't think it's much of a jump to get where we are today.

 

I guess one needs to define what their definition of god is too. If someone said that it was "whatever force / entity / thing was behind the existence of the universe" then I couldn't possibly disagree. I might not call it "God" though. I think I'd use "Bob" instead.

 

Could there be an intelligent creator behind everything? Of course. But what created the creator?

 

I love the point about science and big investors, although I'm not sure what they would lose if science ever proved the existence of a religious god (or any other).

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

A great answer. The only part that I'd probably question (which I'm sure comes as no surprise to you) is around intelligent design. Early life existed with simple, single celled organisms made from the most abundant elements on the planet. Given billions of years I don't think it's much of a jump to get where we are today.

 

I guess one needs to define what their definition of god is too. If someone said that it was "whatever force / entity / thing was behind the existence of the universe" then I couldn't possibly disagree. I might not call it "God" though. I think I'd use "Bob" instead.

 

Could there be an intelligent creator behind everything? Of course. But what created the creator?

 

I love the point about science and big investors, although I'm not sure what they would lose if science ever proved the existence of a religious god (or any other).

Space-time is not linear, but it's difficult to prove it with physical means.

Life has no beginning and ni end, so imo there's not something like " early life".

God is infinite and eternal, thus non-born, otherwise it would not be God. Of course you can call it Bob, that's a free choice. 

I think there's a plan to keep the masses dumb, thus easily controlled, and "scientism" has become a sort of cult, which I'm afraid can have negative effects in the long term.

So, hats off to science, if it means search for knowledge, and hopefully that knowledge should be used to make this planet a better place.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/17/2022 at 3:58 PM, mauGR1 said:

There's a difference between a " christian " who goes to church on sunday to conform to social rules, and a 

"Christian " who believes in the spiritual wealth of the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

But i guess you know that.

I do.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Tbh, i don't understand your apparent disregard for other ancient records, like the Indian Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Vedas, which have been transmitted orally for who knows how many 1000s of years before the script, there you can find accounts of flying machines, terrible wars and nuclear explosions.

The vetrified rock samples found in areas going from the Sahara desert, the middle east to the Indo river basin are yet to find a plausible explanation.

Legends from all over the world tell about gods (or deities) fighting each other, giants and world wide catastrophes.

Now, one can assume that some details of those legends can be just fantasies, and other details inaccurate translations, but surely not complete lies.

The Biblical tale of Noah and the flood seems to be taken from Sumerian legends, which predates the Jewish civilization and the invention of the script. 

As you said, probably we will never know what exactly happened 1000s of years ago, but it's clear that not even the best scientists in the world know the whole truth.

 

I have no doubt that a super intelligent species inhabited Earth many millenia ago, given what they left behind, but they vanished for some reason. Just look at the ancient stone cutting in Sth America, to know that advanced technology existed. No way primitive people without the ability to use specialized metals ( or a type of laser ) for cutting could have made those cuts.

I do not know if they were from another planet, but that's possible.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Woof999 said:

These are your opinions of course. They also show that your god is arrogant or at least short tempered. How dare us flawed (as we and your god must know) humans ask for any kind of real proof of such a commanding being's presence. He will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, although he truly loves us all?

The early stories of God were based on human values and life back then was brutal ergo God was brutal ( unless one believes the Bible was actually written by God, and I certainly do not ).

I do not ascribe human values or emotions to a being that can create universes, but nor do I think God "cares" about us as individuals. IMO God created life the universe and everything and left the universe to get on with it.

For all I know, God has made millions of universes, trying to get it right. IMO, if God actually took an interest in this individual planet, God would eliminate us to allow the possibility of a better species to take over. Perhaps God sent the asteroid to eliminate the dinosaurs because they didn't become more intelligent.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Woof999 said:

Which brings us back to all the suffering in the world. Even ignoring starvation, natural disasters, cancer et al, why, if god loves us, are some babies born with terrible deformations? It's a very strange way to show love. If my mother allowed my life to be filled with misery I'd surely question her love, so why wouldn't I question your god? Even if he doesn't allow us to.

Rehashing the past 510 pages?

 

IMO God created life the universe and everything and everything in it is of equal importance. Why do you assume that God has any human emotions, eg love? There is nothing to say that God does except human desires.

You might as well ask why black holes exist and destroy everything dragged into them such as suns and planets with all their life.

 

Some people are born deformed because something went wrong, not because a being ordained that they should be born so.

 

IMO to assume God is in any way like humans is a nonsense, let alone illogical.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have no doubt that a super intelligent species inhabited Earth many millenia ago, given what they left behind, but they vanished for some reason. Just look at the ancient stone cutting in Sth America, to know that advanced technology existed. No way primitive people without the ability to use specialized metals ( or a type of laser ) for cutting could have made those cuts.

I do not know if they were from another planet, but that's possible.

Many of those buildings, and some rare artifacts are just unbelievable. 

Something apparently simple concepts like intensive agriculture and farming, for example, must have taken 1000s of years to develop, permitting an increasing number of specially talented guys to study science and creating the script, without worrying for housing and food. 

Possibly on special occasions, like in the aftermath of the last big flood, which was altering dramatically the earth geography, "superior beings " have been helping survivors to reorganize. 

It seems that this planet cyclical catastrophes keep down the number of the polluting, litigious humans;

From the point of view of our planet,  it the right thing to do, i guess.

 

[mauGR1]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

do not ascribe human values or emotions to a being that can create universes, but nor do I think God "cares" about us as individuals. IMO God created life the universe and everything and left the universe to get on with it.

This is exactly the point were i cannot agree with you.

When is apparently rational to say that God is like a father, and it's also logical to think that God cannot care for each of us living beings .

In both cases, we describe some of God's actions through a human point of view.

That's why studying the consciousness of other forms of life , insects, birds, mammals and even tiny molecules, it's so interesting. 

The consciousness is everywhere, i have very little doubt about that.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Woof999 said:

Almost all believers have answered with comments such as "just look around you" or "you're not open minded enough to begin to understand". For me that doesn't cut the mustard. They might as well have answered by writing "just because I do" and leave it there. To me it suggests that their belief is based on nothing tangible or that they just don't know, or that it's the easiest answer without having to really think about it.

Some of us believe because we looked around and saw a world that came into being because the creator provided the material to do so many billions of years ago. The evidence is there if one chooses to look, but we can't make you see it.

Of course we believe because we had a personal experience that opened our eyes to God. Exactly what form God takes is different depending on the believer, but the common belief is that God created us and everything.

I guess if one doesn't have a road to Damascus moment one doesn't believe, but I certainly did.

 

God is not incompatible with science, as God created the physical rules of the universe.

 

If one does not believe in God, explain where the material to form the universe came from. Did it just magically appear out of nowhere? That wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Woof999 said:

If god is all seeing, all knowing and all powerful, plus loves us as much as you want me to believe, then he knows our weaknesses. He knows what choices we will make before we know ourselves. Which means he's caused every one of those problems.

The story of Adam and Eve explains that. God looked after them and they never had a problem, never got sick, never hungry etc. Then they were kicked out of Eden and left to get on with it as best they could. Can't have it both ways.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The story of Adam and Eve explains that. God looked after them and they never had a problem, never got sick, never hungry etc. Then they were kicked out of Eden and left to get on with it as best they could. Can't have it both ways.

That's a metaphor of the human existence, and imho just a metaphor, but a great one.

One of the aspects of the metaphor which i failed to understand until recently, is that men tend to lose their reasoning abilities when they talk with a beautiful woman.????

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's a metaphor of the human existence, and imho just a metaphor, but a great one.

One of the aspects of the metaphor which i failed to understand until recently, is that men tend to lose their reasoning abilities when they talk with a beautiful woman.????

Blame that on the genetic imperative to reproduce. Reproduction is one of the few absolute imperatives other than eating.

Most males of all species on the planet have to "prove" in some way to the female that their genes are worth using, but men were cursed in that human females don't have to be in heat to be sexually attractive, which means we lose our minds every day, and porn is probably the most watched thing on the internet.

I was happy to be an an all male base in Antarctica, as it removed the insanity for me. The guys that had wives/ GFs back home still had the desire because they phoned them all the time. I was lucky that I didn't have a GF back home.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was happy to be an an all male base in Antarctica, as it removed the insanity for me.

Lol.

What removed that "insanity"  from me is just my age..

At some point i just got tired????

[Sparktrader]

29 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's a metaphor of the human existence, and imho just a metaphor, but a great one.

One of the aspects of the metaphor which i failed to understand until recently, is that men tend to lose their reasoning abilities when they talk with a beautiful woman.????

Have you experienced one? There is a god.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Have you experienced one? There is a god.

Must be the morning fog, i don't understand, can you elaborate?

[KonaRain]

Scroll this video a couple minutes

Alohoho 

https://youtu.be/9ax8hU2zW54

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by KonaRain
accidentally posted a screenshot of thaivisa menu