Recent content by coelacanth

jasoncran, I'd be happy to discuss what you brought up, but it doesn't in any way address my question/comment and would be very much off topic in this thread. So the laws "always was", and yet at some point they "just popped in"? Can you please elaborate here? The same level of faith as...

Does science require that there is a "who" involved? I have never seen anything scientifically valid that leads to that conclusion.

That article doesn't support the original assertion. It would also be nice to cite a scientific work to back up a claim about what is considered to be scientific fact.

Have a citation for this?

Factual error: Rabbits don't chew their cud.

Regarding the OP, I'd like to throw out a piece by the late Carl Sagan, who said: "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza...

More specifically, these fields tell us that the universe is billions of years older than our earth, thus negating 6 literal days for everything. A day in the literal sense meant nothing anyway before there were planets near a star to rotate 360 degrees about their axes.

Then you must admit that God went to great lengths to make it appear that the earth is billions of years old. Same with the universe. Why?

Wwe know from geology and astronomy that it did not happen anywhere in the neighborhood of 6,000 years ago; the earth and the universe are orders of magnitude older.

A Greek friend of mine assured me that the Koine Greek portion of it is the same meaning as in the English translation. As for the Old Testament, it would have to be multiple times that the word doesn't properly translate; it calls God jealous on several occassions.

One thing that link points out is that there may be a benevolent God who judges us based on following our conscience rather than believing in him; a scenario I find far more plausible than one who saves people based on belief (in reality I believe neither). Therefore an unbeliever could go to...

Those still skirt the issue that the bible says "love is not jealous". You are describing people who love and are jealous, but isn't God supposed to be perfect in his love?

Which seems ridiculous to me in the first place since evolution is a scientific pursuit, not a religious one. What business does a faith based organization have denouncing scientific fact because of bronze-age mythology? Oh well, they did it with Galileo, and history repeats itself sometimes...

When the claim is in dispute, yes. However, circumstantial evidence and prior knowledge would lead me to infer that the road ahead is dangerous. I could be wrong, but its not worth the risk. This is very different from Pascal's wager, however. I've explained to you why Pascal's Wager is...