Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] The origins of the universe

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Could that be the biggest blow to atheism and evolution?

That it has no way of explaining how matter, enery, form, etc. came to existance?

Now, I understand that creationism seems to have the same problem.
SEEMS. Its true that God created the world, but it is unknown precisely what it was like. God spoke, and existance of matter, earth happened.

But thats what SEEMS to be a problem. How could God exist before anything else? No simple answer. A sure answer not attainable yet.
I'll try to delve into that tommorrow.

Now for the atheist god. hold on, even though I say "god" I don't mean it like it sounds. I mean that for atheism to be correct, matter would have to exist eternally. Because matter cannot be created. God is above this rule and possesssess the ability to manipulate His universe creation. So, this seems to contradict the possibility that atheism could have even a posssibilty to be true.

_______

I'll try and expand this more later.

_______

So I have questions for God believers and a question for atheism followers. Quite similar ones.

_______

For believers in God: It can't be proven that God exists yet, or about creation, or how God exists without being created Himself.

So my question is: How is God eternal? How does he exist before anything else? How was he not created himself?

________

For atheists: How did matter come into existance? How would that work? And if there was no God to create it, how do you get around the contradiction of "matter cannot be created?"

________________

I'll expand more, ask more questions, and try and give poosiible answers for some questions tommorroow.
 
Someday maybe you will realize that nobody knows how the world started or the answers to all its mysteries.

Modern-day people attempt to understand it with scientific methodologies.

Ancient people made-up stories and legends. Collectively, they're called religions.
 
Modern people also come up with myths and legends, and false religions.
One of the most illogical but accepted reilgions is atheism and evilution. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Featherbop said:
Modern people also come up with myths and legends, and false religions.
One of the most illogical but accepted reilgions is atheism and evilution. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Religion without a god, huh? Pretty bright comments there.

You should just totally renounce science. Stop going to doctors, taking medication, driving a car...everything. You obviously think it's voodoo though you reap the benefits of it everyday and would probably be dead already without it.
 
Yes, religions don't all have gods. Atheism believes in nothingness, independance from God. Its indirect.

Atheism, evolution is not science.
I know why its here. It has nothnig to do with actually believing God is nonexistant.

Some people can rationalyze these stupids ideas though. :roll:
 
Featherbop said:
Yes, religions don't all have gods. Atheism believes in nothingness, independance from God. Its indirect.

Atheism, evolution is not science.
I know why its here. It has nothnig to do with actually believing God is nonexistant.

Some people can rationalyze these stupids ideas though. :roll:

All religions have gods or a supreme being. If I have to correct you on such basic things that any school children would know, you are even more lost and ignorant that you have appeared so far. And that's saying a lot.

You obviously have never gone to college. If you have, you skipped biology or just flunked it miserably.
 
Its better to skip colledge when all they teach is atheist crap propaganda.

I don't explain thnig well. I need to practice up on that for sure.
Everyone believes in something. That is what they get behind.
You do too, otherwise you wouldn't be here arguing with me.
 
You act like people who make up the species lists with humans on it, and believe they know evolution are infallible.

I don't always know when to take you seriously, I'm sure the feelings is likewise.

I really wish I could explain better than I do.

nyah
 
Atheism, humanism, and evolution ARE religion(s).

The attempt to put man ahead of god, and deify man's accomplishments and discoveries over the works of the Lord.
 
Bryan said:
Atheism, humanism, and evolution ARE religion(s).

The attempt to put man ahead of god, and deify man's accomplishments and discoveries over the works of the Lord.

Patently stupid.

A religion requires a supreme being. It requires spiritualism.
 
Featherbop said:
You act like people who make up the species lists with humans on it, and believe they know evolution are infallible.

I don't always know when to take you seriously, I'm sure the feelings is likewise.

I really wish I could explain better than I do.

nyah

People do classify animals, and put us in with them. That's why I don't know why you get so upset if somebody call you an animal. It's just a human classification.

Evolution is a fact. An absolutely irrefutable fact.

I've said this many times, but here it is again:

The only problem people have with evolution is when it is applied to humans.

No religious group is denying evolution in the animal kingdom.
 
evolution a religion? honestly guys - are you able to say that out loud with a straight face? skipping college so you don't have to learn atheistic propaganda? you guys have this confrontational view that it has to be christianity vs. evolution which i completely disagree with but my main issue with comments like i've read here is that people are going to start taking christians to be brainwashed morons like the muslims who blow stuff up in israel! it does more harm than good to spreading the word and that's serious stuff. i'm not even asking you to change your opinion - evolutionary models may well be very flawed and probably are due to how rare fossilization is. but evolution as a force of nature is observable and there is no theological problem with it. from what i've read you think evolutions aim is to claim God doesn't need to exist for life or something. however, evolutionary thinking has nothing to do with God. just like when people were discovering electricity it had nothing to do with God. i personally believe God is behind it all but scientific research, in all fields i think, is done without God in mind. i don't know if that makes sense, i'm plagued with the same inaptitude as feather when it comes to explaining stuff...
 
A religion is defined as anything that someone truly believes in and is part of their life.

Using common sense we can then determine that if you believe in Evolution and you are willing to get on the internet and go to a religious forum to discuss or debate your belief, you act the same as someone religious in their beliefs. Therefore, the belief in Evolution can be called a religion.

saved4life said:
Evolution is a fact. An absolutely irrefutable fact.

I would be careful with your choice of words. There are two kinds of evolution. The kind where fish grow bigger fins over a period of time has been proven. We can see it in our own lifetime. Average qualities of an animal change.

The kind where fish turn into lizards is false and has never been proven. You can argue all day long that the first is actually this one and that it takes billions of years for big changes to happen. You make me laugh. It has it's own word: adaptation. Not evolution.

I've grown tired of discussing creation. The simple and obvious truth is that evolution has NOT been proven and there is NOT irrefutable proof.

A God-creation and young earth holds just as much water as a rock turning into life and evolving over billions of years.

So please, don't ridicule people for believing in something when your own belief is not proven without a doubt. There are holes in all theories, beliefs, religions, that's because humans come up with most of it and as we all know, we're not perfect.
 
I think I shall do my bit to bring us back onto the matter at hand:


Could that be the biggest blow to atheism and evolution?

That it has no way of explaining how matter, enery, form, etc. came to existance?

Well 'atheism' and 'evolution' certainly won't, because atheism is a philosophical point of view, not a scientific discipline, and evolution is concerned with the development of species, but I know what you mean.

Now, I understand that creationism seems to have the same problem.
SEEMS. Its true that God created the world, but it is unknown precisely what it was like. God spoke, and existance of matter, earth happened.

But thats what SEEMS to be a problem. How could God exist before anything else? No simple answer. A sure answer not attainable yet.
I'll try to delve into that tommorrow.

Now for the atheist god. hold on, even though I say "god" I don't mean it like it sounds. I mean that for atheism to be correct, matter would have to exist eternally. Because matter cannot be created. God is above this rule and possesssess the ability to manipulate His universe creation. So, this seems to contradict the possibility that atheism could have even a posssibilty to be true.

Already you have made a huge assumption; that god existed 'before' everything and is exempt from standard rules. That is to say, you believe that while standard laws of physics must be binding, they must not need to be binding on god. How did you make this assumption?

The details of what happened in the big bang are hardly my strong point, and are hazy enough in any case, so I shall merely give what I know about prevailing theory and evidence:
-Red shift analysis of galactic motion and the bang's microwave echoes indicate that there was indeed an expanding/ exploding singularity in distant time.
-According to several internally-consistent and well-verified theories, and a branch of general relativity (if my memory serves), time and it's progression is dependent, among other things, on the shape of space time with the inevitable result that when the universe is compressed to a singularity, time is a non-issue. It certainly seems like an impassable barrier; time in it's conventional sense cannot, it seems, exist 'before' the singularity and so such conversations about 'before' get muddled.
-Superstring theory proposes a mathematical model (a rather multi-dimensional one, at that) which could go towards explaining many of the processes involved at this stage of deep time. Sadly, as yet, we cannot generate the kind of energy densities in experimental procedures to test string theory, so it is for now just a rather good mathematical model which may or may not be true.

-But back to god. It is irrational for the creationist to assume the nature of the void before the singularity to start with, as little to no evidence exists to suggest it's nature. It is even more irrational to start personifying it with his deity, and frankly ridiculous to start twisting the laws of physics ('god is eternal and can violate whatever laws he pleases') as some kind of 'rational' explanation.

Inevitably, the statement of 'god did it' leaves open the very viable questions of:

-How did he do it?
-What created god?
-Why do we assume an omnipresent and sentient being?

Answering "he is eternal and can screw with his own creation and it's laws as he likes" answers nothing and merely dodges the point with a large assumption.

I have yet to see a creationist explain why their god is the most 'rational' explanation (read; 'explanation with fewest assumptions') about the jump-starting of the universe.

For atheists: How did matter come into existance? How would that work? And if there was no God to create it, how do you get around the contradiction of "matter cannot be created?"

You are thinking in start->finish terms again. Who is to say that the singularity was any less massive than our own universe (insofar as 'mass' can be assumed in a region where the laws of physics are completely different)?

The evidence exists to show that in the distant past there was a singularity which expanded/ exploded. Sadly the processes behind that have not been explained 100%, but that is no reason to invoke the god-of-the-gaps, as that is not in fact an explanation at all and just raises more assumptions and more questions.
 
saved4life said:
Bryan said:
Atheism, humanism, and evolution ARE religion(s).

The attempt to put man ahead of god, and deify man's accomplishments and discoveries over the works of the Lord.

Patently stupid.

A religion requires a supreme being. It requires spiritualism.

Humanism makes man the supreme being, and DENIES the necessity of spiritualism as it's basic tennet. It is a religion in the purest sense.
 
How could God exist before anything else? No simple answer. A sure answer not attainable yet.

God existed as He has always existed, just in the same way as he exists now! No mystery!
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
 
Bryan said:
saved4life said:
Bryan said:
Atheism, humanism, and evolution ARE religion(s).

The attempt to put man ahead of god, and deify man's accomplishments and discoveries over the works of the Lord.

Patently stupid.

A religion requires a supreme being. It requires spiritualism.

Humanism makes man the supreme being, and DENIES the necessity of spiritualism as it's basic tennet. It is a religion in the purest sense.

False. Secular humanism does not discount the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. They don't know if we're are the most advanced society in the universe.

It also doesn't consider mankind to be gods with unlimited power...obviously.

Your statements are stupid, plain and simple. You should be smart enough to realize that a religion requires a supreme being otherwise it is just a philosophical position or a secular viewpoint.
 
Falling into the semantical debate of religion v. philosophy v. science is silly and absurd. As a default, I use the phrase "belief system" and that adequately communicates my thought without damaging the concoction of separation between the three that seems to pervade itself into today's culture.

On a side note, religion is not officially the belief in a supreme being. That may be what you associate religion with, but asserting that religion and deity are obviously and elementarily fused together is a ridiculous display of ignorant arrogance. It is important if one is to demean another (which I highly dissuade) that that person be correct in what they are saying - doing otherwise proves costly for the debate of the accuser.

Religion, as defined by Merrian-Webster is, in its rawest form:

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

And please, do not let that sidetrack you from the main purpose of this contribution: the term "belief system" is usually more inclusive.

BL
 
Blue-Lightning said:
Falling into the semantical debate of religion v. philosophy v. science is silly and absurd. As a default, I use the phrase "belief system" and that adequately communicates my thought without damaging the concoction of separation between the three that seems to pervade itself into today's culture.

On a side note, religion is not officially the belief in a supreme being. That may be what you associate religion with, but asserting that religion and deity are obviously and elementarily fused together is a ridiculous display of ignorant arrogance. It is important if one is to demean another (which I highly dissuade) that that person be correct in what they are saying - doing otherwise proves costly for the debate of the accuser.

Religion, as defined by Merrian-Webster is, in its rawest form:

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

And please, do not let that sidetrack you from the main purpose of this contribution: the term "belief system" is usually more inclusive.

BL


ARRGGGGHHH..

Just because you take the very last definition of a word in a dictionary doesn't mean that you are correct.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

A religion requires a god or a supreme being. PERIOD.

The way dictionaries work is people apply the word in different situations, and the "dictionary people" eventually include the "misuse" of a word as a new "use."

Religions also entail spirituality and worship.
 
The way dictionaries work is people apply the word in different situations, and the "dictionary people" eventually include the "misuse" of a word as a new "use."

This is actually the way that languages evolve (minus the "dictionary people"). Thus, what you perceive as religion is not held by the consensus. The word religion can properly and adequately be used to describe anything held with "ardor and faith."

I will not debate this point, both dictionaries cited have given at least one definition of the word, equal to every other definition of the word, which defines religion in a way that does not carry a connotation of spirituality, deity, or supernatural.

BL
 
Back
Top