The only difference is that you are looking in the desert for the forest
------------------------------------------------
Makes no sense.
________________________________________________
In other words, you only see what you want to see.
By the way, when have you seen the air?
In other words, you only see what you want to see.
By the way, when have you seen the air?
-----------------------------
You don't know anything at all about me. All you know about me is that I don't believe in a god. I'd say it's you that only "sees" what they want to see. You've never seen the air? How odd.
We now know that humans were not suddenly created, but evolved in degrees to the imperfect specimens we find ourselves today. Issues of the soul, such as self-awareness, compassion, empathy, and the numinous can be found, to various degrees, in lesser animals. We have simply refined those, and other, qualities to an abstract level.
DF
___________________________________________________________
Deep, you know nothing of the sort. You speak of theories as if they're facts. People have dug through yesterday's garbage dumps in order to discover where man came from. They've yet to learn because God is not in the garbage dump. And those who believe that we got here by mere accident are ludicrous. Believe what you want to believe. But the God I serve talks back and He's done things that defy the realm of coincidence. What you believe is that chance and time can defy all probabilities of logic. Yet you claim to be logical. I could never be so blind as an atheist even if I didn't want to beleive in God. I have to use reasoning, and I can't discard it as you do.
An atheist will point to a clearing in a desert and say, "Look, there is no such thing as trees." Keep believing in what you want to believe in. But my faith is not based on figments of my imagination as yours is. I have come to know the God you say does not exist. He is as real as you are.
My dear What,
I am not real. I am an avatar who goes by the name of "DeepFat". So, we agree.
The provenance of humanity, however, is well known now. We know for certain that there were no Adam and Eve in any literal sense. Certainly no Garden guarded in perpetuity by an angel with a flaming sword.
Keep digging, and ask me about what you find.
DF
An atheist will point to a clearing in a desert and say, "Look, there is no such thing as trees." Keep believing in what you want to believe in. But my faith is not based on figments of my imagination as yours is. I have come to know the God you say does not exist. He is as real as you are.
-------------------------------
Using your "logic" a christian seeing a clearing "in the desert" would say, "there are trees there, we can't see them but they're there because someone told us they were and we believe them." Oh, and btw, trees exist.
_________________________________________________
I can't see you, but you're there. I have plenty of evidence that you're there. Since I have set my heart on knowing and following Christ, God has given me much greater evidence than I had in the beginning that He is there. He has spoken to me and answered my prayers and intervened in my life as only He can. Knowing what I've seen and heard, I would be a fool to say God wasn't there.
I don't see you, but you're there. I know you're there because when I post, you post in return. I don't see the air, but it is there. I see it inflate the baloon and the tires, and I breathe it in and out and know that without it I cannot live. Now where is your logic going to take you if something is not there simply because you can't see it? Would you stop breathing because you don't see the air? God is the source of life. You could look at yourself and know that God must exist. But you refuse to accept that reality. Why? Is it because you haven't seen Him? Don't hold your breath just because you don't see the air. It is there. And don't refuse to believe in God just because you can't see Him. I can assure you that He is there.
What, I take your assurance in the same fashion as I take the assurance that Thor causes thunder. It's easy to assure the imaginary. You dare me to disprove your assertions.
I am under no such obligation. Let me grant you, for sake of conversation, that you have had a personal experience with god. There are two points of which you should be aware.
Point one: Your personal experience is in no way binding upon me. If god has a message for me, he can tell me himself.
Point two: Hindus have personal experiences with Shiva. Buddhists with Their Man, Mountain Jujuists with the Mountain Juju. We humans, pattern seeking beasts who we are, are keen to make up things that just ain't so. We are perfectly capable of deluding ourselves to a high and convincing degree. This is a matter of psychology, not theology.
DF
The time has come to boogie
Boogie oogie oogie.
DF
All you've proven is that atheists believe they are above God. In the end, every person you drive away from Christianity is ripe pickings for Islam. Once enough of them have been established in this country, we'll see how forthcoming you'll be with your thoughts.
Hoobs, not only are atheists above god, but so are you. You don't share the evil and wicked and cruel nature of the God of the Bible. Your morality is superior to God's.
You would not commit genocide on a nation, except to spare the virgins for your own tribe's use. You would not murder the first born of any nation for any reason. You would not murder every living thing on Earth except for a few specimens on a highly unlikely boat whose architecture was impossible thousands of years ago.
Hoobs, you would not curse every human to Hell, and hold their redemption over their heads at the cost of a blind faith that robs each individual of his critical facilities. You're not that wicked. God is.
A morality of reason, empathy, and innate human solidarity is what is called for, and what we are in the process of creating. It's not only enough, but what is best about our species.
DF
There are multitudes of lost people looking for something meaningful, and atheism isn't doing it for them.
I do find it interesting that the more presence athism has the bigger the muslim popluation in this country gets.
____________________________
I respectfully disagree. Those multitudes of lost people you say are looking for something meaningful? It's not Atheism that isn't doing it for them, it's Christianity. Why would any decent, compassionate, human being want to be like Bill Gray & Gingee?
I find it interesting that the more presense of Christianity with the stone you have to wear on your back that makes the road almost impossible to walk, the more interesting Atheism looks.
Atheist & Christians could get along w/o all the controversy if each could realize you can't convince the other that each way is the right way. I find that it's the Christians treating the Atheist like they're stupid for believing the way they do, rather than vice versa. That in turn causes them to retaliate with the same. If you don't agree with them, fine, but at least don't put them down for it. They are adults that don't need a Christian with an attitude telling them they're doing it wrong.
Christianity isn't about being like Bill or Gingee. You have read the word. You know what it says. The Bible says that you should do God's will and walk in the spirit. It doesn't say you should be like anyone but Jesus Christ. If you see fault in myself, Bill or any Christian in that we are straying from the word of God as you have read it then you should try not to make that same mistake. The mistakes of one Christian should have no bearing on your relationship with God. You have heard and read the Word of God. Whether you believe it is your business. I am not responsible for saving your soul. If you do not believe in God it is my belief that you are wrong. If you believe you are right then so be it. I see no reason for some on this site to attack myself and other Christians because we believe in God. Some attack God himself by using slang for His name knowing that this is very disturbing to Christians. If you don't believe, fine. But don't expect Christians to stand by and let anti Christs attack God. Anti Christs need to continue to not believe in anything or whatever they say they believe and let Christians believe in God. I as a Christian am not trying to convert any athiest to Christianity. It is my belief that God will decide that. If an anti Chjrist has a problem with something I write then that is fine, they need to address me with it, I will refrain from voiceing strong opinions toward anyone as long as they are attacking myself but I will not hesitate to respond to an attack on God.
Again, if you don't believe in God that's your business. You know the Word, that's your decision and I respect that.
From the book of Matthew:
38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
I've been saying for a long time that you will never see "proof" that God exists. The only "proof" *I* need is not a sign, not scientific proof, not even to hear His voice. The proof I have is in my heart, placed there by God's Holy Spirit.
Amen O No!
quote: Originally Posted by Jennifer Bestworking:"The only difference is that you are looking in the desert for the forest."
Makes no sense.
Neither does atheism make sense. Yet, you have embraced that.
We see the glory of God all around us -- yet, you say there is no God. We experience His love through answered prayer -- yet, you say there is no God. I live in the "peace of God" through my relationship with Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1) -- yet, you say there is no God.
Now, how does that make any sense to a reasonable, thinking person?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
My dear What,
I am not real. I am an avatar who goes by the name of "DeepFat". So, we agree.
The provenance of humanity, however, is well known now. We know for certain that there were no Adam and Eve in any literal sense. Certainly no Garden guarded in perpetuity by an angel with a flaming sword.
Keep digging, and ask me about what you find.
DF
___________________________________________________________
Deep, since you're not real, I see little use of me continuing this discussion with you. If you're not real, then you will not understand anything I tell you. It would be like talking to my wall, so to speak.
Why would any decent, compassionate, human being want to be like Bill Gray & Gingee?
__________________________
Originally Posted by Gingee:
Christianity isn't about being like Bill or Gingee. You have read the word. You know what it says. The Bible says that you should do God's will and walk in the spirit. It doesn't say you should be like anyone but Jesus Christ. If you see fault in myself, Bill or any Christian in that we are straying from the word of God as you have read it then you should try not to make that same mistake. The mistakes of one Christian should have no bearing on your relationship with God. Whether you believe it is your business. I am not responsible for saving your soul. If you do not believe in God it is my belief that you are wrong. If you believe you are right then so be it. I see no reason for some on this site to attack myself and other Christians because we believe in God. But don't expect Christians to stand by and let anti Christs attack God. Anti Christs need to continue to not believe in anything or whatever they say they believe and let Christians believe in God. I as a Christian am not trying to convert any athiest to Christianity. It is my belief that God will decide that. If an anti Chjrist has a problem with something I write then that is fine, they need to address me with it, I will refrain from voiceing strong opinions toward anyone as long as they are attacking myself but I will not hesitate to respond to an attack on God.
Again, if you don't believe in God that's your business. You know the Word, that's your decision and I respect that.
_______________________________
If Christianity isn't about being like Bill or Gingee, then it's odd that you & Bill try to make it about you. You're constantly talking about your being a Christian, you're constantly telling the people here that already know, what the Bible says. Bill, (not you) is constantly telling people that aren't in the Baptist church that they're in a cult, he's constantly telling us what this or that scrpiture means & God forbid if you disagree with him. He believes that God has told him to beat people over the head with religion, he believes God told him to show no love or compassion. He's to take his Bible & the Word as he see's it & beat the Hell out of people with it.
The mistakes of one Christian should have no bearing on your relationship with God? That may be so but it does have a bearing. I knew a lady that was a Pastor's wife. A sweeter, kinder, God loving woman, you would never find. She was my friend, & I had failth in her life as a Christian. She was someone I trusted, someone I told my secrets to, someone I knew loved me for me, & not because the Bible told her to. If she had stumbled, if I saw her make a mistake, it would have had a bearing on me as a Christian. She told me one time that she hoped to never do or say anything that would cause someone else to stumble. So yes, the mistakes of one Christian can have a bearing on another.
I sure am happy to hear that you're not responsible for saving my soul. If you were, I would be in deep doo doo. If you're not trying to convert athiest to Christianity, why do you tell them what the Bible says? Why do you let it bother you what they believe/don't believe or what they say?
Where have I ever said that I expect Christians to stand by & let anti Christs attack God? I haven't & you can't show me where I have. That's none of my business, & if you feel the need to defend it, have at it. You can disagree with what someone believes but you don't have to put down the person.
I can show you where you have voiced strong opinions toward me for saying something against you (what you call attacking) personally & not God, so yes, you do attack.
Yes, it is my business if I do/don't believe in God, so I ask respectfully, that you butt out of my business.
Let me grant you, for sake of conversation, that you have had a personal experience with god. There are two points of which you should be aware.
Point one: Your personal experience is in no way binding upon me. If god has a message for me, he can tell me himself.
Point two: Hindus have personal experiences with Shiva. Buddhists with Their Man, Mountain Jujuists with the Mountain Juju. We humans, pattern seeking beasts who we are, are keen to make up things that just ain't so. We are perfectly capable of deluding ourselves to a high and convincing degree. This is a matter of psychology, not theology.
DF
_____________________________________________________________________________
Deep, I don't know about all the personal experiences these Hindus, Buddhists, etc. may have had. They may very well be delusional. But I know my own experiences could not have possibly been conjured up in my imagination. What you say to me are clearly your thoughts, and they are not words I would make up and put in your mouth. The fact is we're both very real and very different. And so it is that God is very real and different from me. God has often surprised me with both his words and his ways. What I have seen and heard in my experiences with God could not possibly be delusions. God has responded to me in ways that defied probabilities of chance or coincidence, and in ways that I never would have expected or imagined. What he has said to me and shown me has sometimes surprised and perplexed me, and ended up turning my thinking around and setting me on a different course. Although he has on occasion surprised me, he has never once contradicted what he has already spoken in his word. God has given me understanding and clarity in the midst of my confusion. He has lifted my heavy burdens, and given me peace. He has healed me when I was in great pain, and could barely move, and he did it while I was praying and believing. He has answered my prayers more than once in ways that defy coincidence. He has proven to me that he is very real.
But as you say, until you have those experiences, my experiences are nothing to you. But I would go a step further than that. If you had such experiences, chances are you would not accept them. You might very well spend your entire life looking for some rational explanation of what happened rather than believe God had anything to do with it. Why? Because you choose not to believe, and that's all the reason you need not to believe.
Nothing is impossible in your mind except the probability that God exists. No matter what miracles or what things took place in my life where God was concerned, you would either consider me a liar, delusional, or chalk it up to chance. You are not impressed with the impossible, because to be an atheist you must believe chemicals can come together and eventually begin to move and think and breathe and laugh and smell and see and propagate with the opposite sex all by a long series of improbable coincidences taking place. How could I possibly convince you that God exists when you believe that impossibilities can take place without him?
Originally Posted by what4:
Deep, I don't know about all the personal experiences these Hindus, Buddhists, etc. may have had. They may very well be delusional. But I know my own experiences could not have possibly been conjured up in my imagination. ..........
funny... i've heard hindus, buddhist, etc... say the exact same thing!
Neither does atheism make sense. Yet, you have embraced that.
We see the glory of God all around us -- yet, you say there is no God. We experience His love through answered prayer -- yet, you say there is no God. I live in the "peace of God" through my relationship with Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1) -- yet, you say there is no God.
Now, how does that make any sense to a reasonable, thinking person?
--------------------------------------------------
Do you call yourself an example of that glory of your god? You live in peace? LOL!
Personally I have no problem with an Atheist saying there is no God. I can understand that and I fully believe that they are sincere in their statement for I fully believe they cannot see, feel, understand, comprehend, or experience God.
The Scriptures teach, Christians believe, that God's Holy Spirit comes into the body, alongside our inner soul/spirit, as a guarantee of our Salvation and as a help a ministry unto us from God as a gift. Those who are Atheist and deny God do so because they have no proof of God they have no sense hence they are only pronouncing that which they KNOW. The problem is many will not ever give possibility or consideration that there is that possibility that God exist. Unlike my Christian brother, Bill, I don't believe they are hiding from admitting sin. Everyone has a sense of morals and as a recent article stated "Religious People Less Driven By Compassion Than Are Atheists And Agnostics, Study Says". There are some Atheist that, from all outward appearance, do more good and honorable deeds and actions than some Christians or Believers. They don't look at sins as sin for we reference sin as doing things against God's Will. Atheist don't believe in God hence no feeling they are doing bad or wrong for they aren't living against God for they don't believe in God.
We, Christians, can't understand anyone not being able to see God or believe in God for we have experienced God through and by His Holy Spirit. We should realize that those whom are not believers, not Christians, do not know God or know God's Holy Spirit and not until they encounter God's Holy Spirit's conviction will they ever experience God. IF though they become under the Holy Spirit's conviction then they, at that time, will know God or at least have reason to question their belief that there is no God for then and only then will they have to reconcile what that power or conviction is from and about. They can deny it or justify it as something it isn't but they will have to confront it.
Until then how are they to know and believe in God? Everyone bases their beliefs on reason or a basis and for the Atheist they have no basis to place a belief in God therefore they don't believe in God.
That is why I have no problem with them making that statement. What I do have a problem with is blatant dogmatic statements about what they have no way to disprove or no way of knowing, which is that God doesn't exist. Just because they don't see Him or Know Him doesn't mean it is fact that He doesn't exist. They likewise cannot prove and know beyond all shadow of doubt that they Evolved from a single organism that sparked all life forms and which itself had to derive and come from non-life. I have no problem with them believing that but making dogmatic statements that they cannot prove is just arrogance on their own part (my own opinion).
They likewise cannot prove and know beyond all shadow of doubt that they Evolved from a single organism that sparked all life forms and which itself had to derive and come from non-life. I have no problem with them believing that but making dogmatic statements that they cannot prove is just arrogance on their own part (my own opinion).
--------------------------------------------
Is believing without proof, or knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a being that was always here took dirt, made a man, then a woman from that man's rib, and that every human that has ever been on the earth came from those two, and making "dogmatic" statements to that effect, arrogance on that person's part?
In other words, they can have their non-belief, but if they talk about other alternatives/thoughts it's arrogance, but to believe in a god and claim you know beyond a doubt he exists is Ok and should be spoken about without interference or rebuttal??
I agree with Best. At least we present evidence to support our non-belief. I have never been given a solid piece of evidence for the existence of a god. What I usually get is that they say they just know in their hearts and that is enough for them to believe. Good for them. Now enjoy that and leave the rest of us out of your mind meld with your god.
I can not say without ANY possibility that there is no god or gods. I also can't say without ANY possibility that there is no Big Foot or Leprechauns. It is honestly the same thing to me.
Hi Dark,
Since you cannot say for certain there is no God, that would make you an agnostic -- one sitting on the fence waiting to see which way to go.
Yet, I seriously doubt that you are agnostic in your thoughts about "Big Foot or Leprechauns."
So, based upon that -- you KNOW you will never have to stand before "Big Foot or Leprechauns" in judgment. But, being agnostic toward God -- you CANNOT say for certain that you will not stand in judgment before Him. Therefore, would it not be prudent to hedge your bet and give God a better audience -- because one day you may have to stand before Him, face to face -- and explain why you rejected Him? And, what if your eternal destiny does depend upon how you handled His Son, Jesus Christ?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
I'd take a nation of atheists over a nation of Islamicists any day. Just sayin. If there's any religion that needs more non-believers, it's Islam.
So, based upon that -- you KNOW you will never have to stand before "Big Foot or Leprechauns" in judgment. But, being agnostic toward God -- youCANNOT say for certain that you will not stand in judgment before Him. Therefore, would it not be prudent to hedge your bet and give God a better audience -- because one day you may have to stand before Him, face to face -- and explain why you rejected Him?
------------------------
Bill, how do you know you won't have to stand before bigfoot or leprechauns and explain why you denied them? After all, the belief in them had to come from somewhere. People claim to have seen them, had interactions with them, written about them and so forth.
Hi Dark,
Since you cannot say for certain there is no God, that would make you an agnostic -- one sitting on the fence waiting to see which way to go.
=============
Wrong as usual. Theism and atheism are statements of "belief." You either believe there are gods or you do not.
Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with "knowledge." In this case, of gods.
I personally believe in a God so I am a theist. But I do not "know" there is a god because I have no proof. So I am an agnostic theist.
For atheists to be logically consistent, they would declare they are "agnostic" with respect to gods because the cannot "know" that do not exist. But if you do not "believe" on gods, you are an atheist. So a logically consistent atheist would declare he is a agnostic atheist. There are many atheists who claim to "know" there are no gods. This is not consistent with logic.
No doubt someone like Bill and others would claim to "know" there is a god. That is simply not logical and explains why logic would never work to convince these people either way. They are comfortable in their version of logic that would not make sense to those who actually understand the meaning of logic.
http://greenlotus.hubpages.com...lieve-in-Leprechauns
Leprechauns are, as believers would say, true “Irish nature spirits”, committed to sustaining and maintaining the natural world. Their favorite places to hang about are wishing wells filled with fresh spring water, clear babbling brooks, and sparkling waterfalls. They enjoy both Celtic and Irish music and are fabulous dancers.
These mythical Irish elves, are “green” creatures in the fullest sense of the word, in fact, those who believe in them know that all a Leprechaun really wants (besides a good smoke and a shot of single malt whiskey) is to help us humans protect and preserve the natural beauty of the planet. They promise that if we do so, they'll help us realize our own dreams and they won't pull any pranks!
What4,
I thought I was the wall.....
Anyway, you said: How could I possibly convince you that God exists when you believe that impossibilities can take place without him?
Impossibilities don't take place. If they happen, then they're possible. This is pretty easy. If this is that on which you hang your belief in god, welcome to my club.
DF
DF
Where and how do you think life and matter came to exist?
He think they sprang out nothing in an instant, along with space and time.
How supernatural is that?
I agree with Best. At least we present evidence to support our non-belief. I have never been given a solid piece of evidence for the existence of a god. What I usually get is that they say they just know in their hearts and that is enough for them to believe. Good for them. Now enjoy that and leave the rest of us out of your mind meld with your god.
I can not say without ANY possibility that there is no god or gods. I also can't say without ANY possibility that there is no Big Foot or Leprechauns. It is honestly the same thing to me.
__________________________________________________________________
Hello Dark,
When you say that you at least have evidence for your non-belief, is there any evidence to support the idea that inanimate matter can be made to come alive? What evidence do you have that supports your non-belief?
Are you referring to bones and skeletal remains found in the earth at different depth levels that have some resemblance to the skeletal remains found miles away at other depths? Have you ever noticed the similarities that exist today between one species and another, yet none are evolving to become the other? Aren't you at least a little suspect as to why everything is so stable today, and so orderly, and so predictable? Have you ever considered that those various piles of similar bones scattered in the earth may simply be different creatures with similar skeletons, each living in different times, with neither descending from the other? Why assume one had to evolve from the other? Is that the evidence that you say supports your non-belief?
Do you believe that time and random chance could accidentally manipulate organic matter to produce perfectly formed kidneys, lungs, livers, nerves, joints, beating hearts, stomachs, brains, etc. in a complex animal or human being. All these organs perform only one amazingly unique critical function, and require all the other organs working together in amazing unity to sustain the life of all? Should one fail to function, they all would cease to live. If one imperfectly evolved, they all would then die and decay. So how could any one organ of a complex organism live long enough to evolve, or have reason to evolve apart from the other? Wouldn't they have to work together perfectly the first time around for such a complex life to come into existence? What are the chances of such a thing happening? It would be literally impossible without some outside planning, manipulation, and oversight of an intelligent force or being. Should a valve in our heart not exist and it fail to pump, or our lungs fail to remove the oxygen from the air, or our chest muscles fail to expand our chest and take on air then we would die. So how could we possibly have come into existence by accident? Do you honestly believe that random chance and time can do all of that. Have you examined closely the evidence you claim supports your non-belief?
It's not the impossible that you refuse to believe in, but the source that makes the impossible happen that you refuse to believe in.
Evidence for a creator is “so everywhere’.
When you say that you at least have evidence for your non-belief, is there any evidence to support the idea that inanimate matter can be made to come alive?
What,
There is perfectly good evidence that life can arise from certain chemical situations. Life being defined as a self-replicating, metabolizing chemical or assortment of chemicals.
Without bothering you with the more sophisticated examples, you might acquaint yourself with the Urey Miller experiments of the 1950's. Those experiments showed how self-replicating chemicals could have come from an environment much unlike our own, but possibly like that of an earlier Earth. It is not The All demonstration, but a demonstration.
Surely you don't disagree that we are creatures of chemicals and that our replicable chemistry is a matter of some certainty.
DF
What4,
I thought I was the wall.....
Anyway, you said: How could I possibly convince you that God exists when you believe that impossibilities can take place without him?
Impossibilities don't take place. If they happen, then they're possible. This is pretty easy. If this is that on which you hang your belief in god, welcome to my club.
DF
______________________________________________________________
That is a little like you looking above and seeing a plane flying overhead and saying, "That plane must have evolved by accident or else it would not be here." I would then shake my head and say to you that it would be impossible for that plane to evolve by accident. Then you would smugly smile and say, "Look, it is here, so it's obviously not impossible for it to evolve."
Your statement lacks any reasonable credibility. You have taken the one thing that makes life possible out of the equation. It is like trying to solve a complicated problem in physics without understanding the concept of addition. You are left with an impossibility. You look up and say the universe came into existence by accident. You look at yourself and you say you got here by accident. You look at raw chemicals and say hello dad, and pretend Murphy's Law and the Laws of Probability didn't exist in the beginning as it does today. Where did the Laws that govern our universe and hold everything in it's appropriate orbit and place originate? How could such order accidentally come out of chaos? How could blind time and foolish chance create a world in balance with abundant life forms living in harmony, where families live and plants and animals interact sustaining the other. How is it that we are able to comprehend and understand the depth of beauty of what our eyes see, our ears hear, and experience the world in friendship, and love, and have the ability to govern our thoughts and set our course in life, if all we are are simply a manipulation of inanimate matter? The assumption you make is in great error. You ignore the one element of life, and that is the giver of life. By taking the Creator out of the equation of life, you left reality with no credible leg to stand on. What you claim is possible is only possible if you include the Creator.
Our body is so complex that it could not possibly exist by accident. But our body is not life. Our body is simply the vessel that life exists in and uses. Show me life and tell me the chemicals that make it up. What do you believe life is? Where did it come from?
There is perfectly good evidence that life can arise from certain chemical situations. Life being defined as a self-replicating, metabolizing chemical or assortment of chemicals.
DF
______________________________________________________________________
You are saying that life can arise from chemical situations. But your explanation of life is that it is nothing more than a self-replicating metabolizing chemical or assortment of chemicals. My friend, that is a play on words. You have redefined life in order to conclude that life can arise from chemicals. That is not life. That is not even a plant life. That is chemicals forming compounds that may find a way of replicating themselves in certain environments with the right atmosphere. My friend. Let's get real here. When those chemicals start moving and thinking, or feeding and digesting, then let me know.
What4,
I'll skip your non sequiturs until this point: Our bodies are not life? then what are they? Non life? Rocks?
We are life. We humans are alive in the same fashion as dingos, daffodils,and ducks. We are evolved products of an Earthly phenomenon known as "life".
It's enough. Life, along with our abstract brains, are enormous gifts of Nature.
Planes do not evolve. Planes are not alive.
DF
There is perfectly good evidence that life can arise from certain chemical situations. Life being defined as a self-replicating, metabolizing chemical or assortment of chemicals.
DF
______________________________________________________________________
You are saying that life can arise from chemical situations. But your explanation of life is that it is nothing more than a self-replicating metabolizing chemical or assortment of chemicals. My friend, that is a play on words. You have redefined life in order to conclude that life can arise from chemicals. That is not life. That is not even a plant life. That is chemicals forming compounds that may find a way of replicating themselves in certain environments with the right atmosphere. My friend. Let's get real here. When those chemicals start moving and thinking, or feeding and digesting, then let me know.
Life has arisen from chemical situations. Are you saying we are not chemical in nature?
I have not defined life as such, that is the simple fact. We are assortments of the chemicals of nature, especially the most common ones. Are we made of spirit or stardust?
You have no idea of what we are formed. Look into it. We are carboniferous beings. Yes, let's get real here. We are the moving, thinking, feeding, digesting chemicals. What else could we be?
DF
We've... strayed... from the point of this thread.
I'm gratified that no one, at least the sane among us, has proffered any defense of Original Sin. It is the most profoundly absurd notion in all of theology, yet that which Christians must swallow.
To repeat, St. Paul, the man who invented Christianity, declared in no uncertain terms, that Jesus had to die to erase the curse from God that was the result of Eve eating a fruit. Heck, not to erase it out of hand, but only to offer the possibility of erasing it.
I ask my Christian friends if this makes any sense to you and if you have considered this matter critically, or if you have simply accepted this as your s.mut.ty fate. I suggest that you need not accept this nonsense at face value and that you are free to consider it skeptically.
DF
Personally I have no problem with an Atheist saying there is no God. I can understand that and I fully believe that they are sincere in their statement
The Scriptures teach, Christians believe, that God's Holy Spirit comes into the body, alongside our inner soul/spirit, as a guarantee of our Salvation and as a help a ministry unto us from God as a gift.
Just because they don't see Him or Know Him doesn't mean it is fact that He doesn't exist. They likewise cannot prove and know beyond all shadow of doubt that they Evolved from a single organism that sparked all life forms and which itself had to derive and come from non-life.
_____________________________
I don't have any problem with an Atheist saying there's no God either, just as I have no problem with a Christian saying they believe in God. It's all about the way they deliver that belief. I've never had an Atheist treat or talk to me like I'm stupid the many times I have said that I can't quite wrap my brain around the thought that we came to be here with a big bang, by a monkey, or however they believe we came to be here. But I've never attacked them or treated them like they're stupid for the way they believe. All of us are entitled to what we believe or don't believe.
I have had a hat wearing, bench warming "Christain" attack me & treat me like I'm stupid for not believing the way he says I'm supposed to believe.
There are many Christians that talk the talk, but give no thought to walking the walk. I don't think you have to be a Christian to know if someone is or is not a Christian, if you trust your instincts, you can know. I've heard Christians refer to that knowing as the Holy Spirit, but I call it instincts.
Life has arisen from chemical situations. Are you saying we are not chemical in nature?
I have not defined life as such, that is the simple fact. We are assortments of the chemicals of nature, especially the most common ones. Are we made of spirit or stardust?
You have no idea of what we are formed. Look into it. We are carboniferous beings. Yes, let's get real here. We are the moving, thinking, feeding, digesting chemicals. What else could we be?
DF
__________________________________________________________
Our body is made of chemicals, minerals, what have you. I don't deny that at all. Yet, chemicals are not alive and will not come alive no matter how you assemble them. Scientists can examine the body's cells, tissue, and organs closely under a microscope and see how they are structured and what chemicals make them up, but they don't understand what it is that makes them live. If they were able to build a body from the chemicals and elements of the earth, that body might be capable of supporting life, but it would not suddenly come alive.
If our body is nothing but an assortment of chemicals and elements within the earth, then why can't we simply replace a missing chemical or defective part of a deceased body and it come to life? Why can't a super duper team of scientists go to a hospital morgue and repair the defective parts of a recently deceased body and watch it come back to life? Why not, if life is nothing more than the sum of the chemicals and parts that make up the body?
If our body were our life, then our brain would be our thoughts. But that is not the case. We reason within the capacity of our brain, but our brain does not reason for us. Have you ever noticed how a stroke victim might struggle to reason or talk, but is limited by the capacity of their damaged brain? Why would they struggle against the limitation of their brain and body if they were nothing more than the chemicals that make up their brain and body? Our brain is a tool that we use that works with our eyes and ears and senses to access data and store it in our memory. We make use of our brain to develop and communicate our thoughts. But our brain does not do our thinking or acting for us. There is something greater within us that quickens us and sets us apart from the body we live in. Chemicals will not reason or feel, and chemicals will not live or die. Life is more than the body, or the chemicals that make up the body. Within each of us is a soul and spirit. When our body dies, our spirit leaves. If after a few hours someone finds our dead body, they cannot restore it to life, no matter what chemical or defective part they replace. Just because our body is made of chemicals, it doesn't mean that our life consists of nothing but chemicals.
When the body dies and is put in the grave and decays, all the chemicals that make up the body will still remain in the decayed matter. According to you, all the chemical ingredients necessary to make a life form would be right there in one place to work with. Yet no matter how you arrange them or heat them or magnetize or electrocute them, they will not come alive. With every chemical in one place to work with, time and chance would still have no hope of creating life?
Even a plant is more than a conglomeration of chemicals. A plant is guided by the sun and puts out leaves and leans as necessary to capture the sun's rays. It often searches for water and nutrients with its roots. It may close or open its leaves or open or close its flowers or blooms depending on the time of day or the weather conditions. It interacts with its environment with a purpose to sustain its life. It has a DNA that guides it in its development. It has a membrane that protects it from the elements around it. It takes energy from the sun and converts it to some natural or tangible substance. It creates more than what it was in the beginning. It is subject to die if it doesn't get the nutrients or sunlight that it needs. It is more than simply a chemical. A chemical does not live or die and it has no purpose in sustaining its life. Even a plant is more than the chemicals that make it up.
The pattern that we always see in nature is that only life begets life. And I honestly don't believe you can say chemicals have life without downgrading what life is? Life is more than the sum of all the chemicals in the world. Let me now ask you a question. If a living thing and a dead thing both have the same chemical makeup, then how can you say that life originates from the chemicals that make it up?
Naw DF we are made of Bosons and Fermions. Just li’l halos of energy with frequencies of different photon wavelength. The same stuff God created when he said Let there be light”. The scientific answer has always been recorded in the Bible. A no brainer than cannot be disputed by you confused persons. Give it up. God is your Creator
Our body is made of chemicals, minerals, what have you. I don't deny that at all. Yet, chemicals are not alive and will not come alive no matter how you assemble them.
What, first you admit the obvious, then you go on a tortured rant to deny what you just admitted.
Cognizant dissonance much?
DF
Our body is made of chemicals, minerals, what have you. I don't deny that at all. Yet, chemicals are not alive and will not come alive no matter how you assemble them.
What, first you admit the obvious, then you go on a tortured rant to deny what you just admitted.
Cognizant dissonance much?
DF
_______________________________________________________________
What I said I stand by. There was no contradiction whatsoever. If chemicals are the source of your life, and those chemicals remain when you die, then obviously it's not the chemicals that are the life of your body. Life and chemicals are two different things, and if you don't understand that, then there is little reason for us to discuss anything else. Simply have a conversation with the elements and compounds you see and enjoy yourself. Be careful that you don't step on a carbon molecule and squash the life out of it while you're having a conversation with your friend oxygen.
What's interesting to me is how one that believes in Evolution and that man/mankind/humans are nothing but evolved apes or an advancing and more advanced life form from the most basic form such as the original primordial pool of molecules and chemicals or ooze. How you get from the most basic base elements to an ever greater, more complex, being that not only has more ever complex structures dependent on each other for survival but that contains the ability for thought and reasoning, memories, planning etc and maintaining the belief that all this happened by accident.
Yet let someone say or indicate that they believe that man along with his cognitive abilities and complex structures and complex thinking came from an intelligent source or creator and that person is deemed as delusional, simple, nonthinking, dumb, etc, because they dare to think that we have a creator. Any scientist or teacher or instructor voice those beliefs or sentiments and then that person is thought by many to have to forfeit their job, their position, their living because they dare challenge the prevalent theory. There is so much hypocrisy with those who advocate Evolution today that if they were treated the same way as they are now treating people who reject their hypothesis then these same people would be screaming abuse and demanding that their rights to believe as they wish be honored. Yet they, now that they are in the mainstream or prevailing opinion, have no problem in justifying the squelching of those who are opposed to Evolution, and readily justify and rationalize it with no remorse.
Those who advocate an absolute rejection of Intelligent design or Creator should have some ability to explain the development of thought and intelligence, decision making ability and free will as a process of that accidental accumulation of the right chemicals and molecules in order to form a living being, much less moving to being human. And even though their beliefs and opinions cannot be replicated and duplicated they still hold to them as if they were undeniable truth.
Yet let someone say or indicate that they believe that man along with his cognitive abilities and complex structures and complex thinking came from an intelligent source or creator and that person is deemed as delusional, simple, nonthinking, dumb, etc, because they dare to think that we have a creator.
-------------------------------
And let someone give another opinion besides a "creator" and you call them arrogant.
Those who advocate an absolute rejection of Intelligent design or Creator should have some ability to explain the development of thought and intelligence, decision making ability and free will as a process of that accidental accumulation of the right chemicals and molecules in order to form a living being, much less moving to being human. And even though their beliefs and opinions cannot be replicated and duplicated they still hold to them as if they were undeniable truth
------------------------------
My goodness, it has been explained. You just don't like the explanation and won't hear it. You call them arrogant. Where in the world were you educated that you didn't hear it? Can you make a man out of dirt?
