Does God Really Exist???

quote:

---

no one has ever seen a Fat red man with a white beard in a suit climb down chimneys all over the world and leave presents under Christmas Trees.

---

I have. Turns out later it was my Dad, dressed up. Go figure.That's why we discount hearsay. It's unreliable.

quote:

---

Dan you need to stop making me laugh so hard! You are personally invading MY urinary tract!!

---

If I were Mr. Hambre, "You are personally invading MY urinary tract!!" would be my new sig quote.But we all know I'm classier than Hambre.

quote:

---

Let's look at basic bio. We have never observed life being created "ex nihlio," (out of nothing).

---

But we have observed life. There it is, right there. *points*We don't have to observe the origin to know it's there. And given that we can't see any cause, all we can know is that it's there. How did it start? More research, more time, maybe we'll find out. Until then, though, there's no reason to go assuming we know how it happened.There seems to be a tendency among people to use "God" as a synonym for "I don't know." Why? We don't know how life began, therefore it must have been God?

quote:

---

True, but from a biolocial stand point we have NO reason to beileve that they do. Why? Because we know that urinary tracts can function without the Ghosts of Baboons. However, we also know that life is NOT like our urinary tract, it could not have originated without an ORIGINATOR.

---

Why not?It's perfectly reasonable to guess that the conditions existing on the Earth when life arose were all that was needed for life to begin. Sort of like when you drop salt in water, it dissolves, simply because of the chemical properties of both substances. There isn't a dissolver telling it to happen.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
in hopes that St Nickolas soon would be there;
The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads;And mamma in her 'kerchief, and I in my cap,
Had just settled down for a long winter's nap,
When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow
Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below,
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer,
With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick...............Clement Moore must have seen him. After all he wrote that he did.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Actually, no. The authors of Matthew and Luke are unknown - the names of those two gospels are simply 2nd-century guesses. They're referred to as Luke and Matthew because it's traditional, not because we have reason to believe those figures wrote them.As for Mark and John, Mark is the earliest gospel - Matthew and Luke copy it heavily, including some of the mistakes - and the earliest it could have been written was 70 CE. Popular myth holds that the writer Mark is also the apostle Mark, but internal evidence dispels this misapprehension.As for John it was written well after the other three, also anonymously. The account of Jesus's life that it gives contradicts the other three chronologically.So, what do we have? Four gospels, all second- or third-hand accounts, and they contradict each other. That doesn't stand up in court. Nope. You need to do a little research on this. No scholar believes the gospels to be eyewitness accounts.

You only saw your dad in your own house, not in every one elses, and your dad is not Santa Clause.Perhaps you are unaware that there REALLY was a Santa Clause? That's I think Dutch for St. Nicholas. A REAL Person who lived in the 14 - 1500's (Not sure of the date). .This is not true in every case. If you mixed NH4 with H2O, this would mix because both substances are polar. Although, if you mixed oil and H2O it would not mix because one is polar and the other not. However, if you were to add a detergent to the oil and H2O solution it would Mix! The solution had to wait to be told to mix!Secondly you are making the assumption that but you have not given a scientific model as to how life could have arose. And third, you are also starting with the earth already in existence. Where did the earth come from? How did it just pop into existence?

---

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"Creation Man

Yes, but you haven't. It doesn't contradict the Big Bang. Therefore we know that whatever you think the law is, you're wrong.

Yet what you're proposing is in direct contradiction of this principle. You're proposing that your God DID create life ex nihilo -- which is contrary to all of our observations. Why do think this: ...follows from our observations that life always comes from something before it? If the life we observe always comes from something before it, how does that imply that there was some form of life that did NOT come from something before it? As in my earlier analogy to which you did not respond, if you picked 999 blue marbles out of a sack, on what basis do you predict that the last will be yellow?By the way, if you are the biologist you claim to be, you should know that according to the biological definition of "life," your God is not alive since He does not metabolize nor reproduce.EDIT:And another thing... you should realize that "life" is not some magical property inherently possessed by some things and not others. It is a property abstracted from the behaviors of certain configurations of matter. There is no difference between a carbon atom in a rock and a carbon atom in my body. One is simply involved in a process we call "life." Humans define what "life" is a posteriori. Objectively, there is no difference between "living" and "dead" matter.[This message has been edited by ::, 02-18-2004]

All you did was provide opinion and statements, no facts. I could say I don't believe that Josephus wrote the histroy logs that we have I think they are a lot of third hand accounts...BIG DEAL!!There is no evidence for that. Another statement made without an example given. They don't contradict in anyway. Ha! No Scholars? Do you really mean that there is not one scholar who believes the gospels to be eyewitness accounts? Because if you are right then that means that all the Scholars I know who say they believe the gospels to be eyewitness accounts are ALL lying.PS. read Dr. Simon Greenleaf on the issue....he takes them as eyewitness accounts, and he's not even a Christian.

---

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"Creation Man

quote:

---

You only saw your dad in your own house, not in every one elses, and your dad is not Santa Clause.

---

Exactly. I thought I saw Santa Clause, and reported to others that I had done so, but was mistaken.But by all accounts... fat man... dressed in red... white beard... presents under the tree...Certainly seemed reasonable to assume it at the time.

quote:

---

Perhaps you are unaware that there REALLY was a Santa Clause? That's I think Dutch for St. Nicholas. A REAL Person who lived in the 14 - 1500's (Not sure of the date).

---

Yeah, I know. Last I heard, he didn't leave presents so much as eviscerate children. But that might be urban legend.

quote:

---

This is not true in every case. If you mixed NH4 with H2O, this would mix because both substances are polar. Although, if you mixed oil and H2O it would not mix because one is polar and the other not. However, if you were to add a detergent to the oil and H2O solution it would Mix! The solution had to wait to be told to mix!

---

But not by any conscious force. Just by chemical reaction.

quote:

---

Secondly you are making the assumption that the conditions existing on the Earth when life arose were all that was needed for life to begin but you have not given a scientific model as to how life could have arose.

---

Why would I have to?We know the Earth was there. We know life is here now. We don't see any outside variables.Just Occam's Razor, really. I'm assuming that what we see is what was involved. I'm open to the concept of variables, but I'm not going to assume they were there without some evidence.And I also don't see the point in filling in my "I don't know" with "God must have done it." Jeez, I can't even get anyone to tell me what God is, let alone what his specific involvement with the origin of life was.

quote:

---

And third, you are also starting with the earth already in existence. Where did the earth come from? How did it just pop into existence?

---

Dunno. But the best guess is that the conditions existing in the universe gave rise to it... like salt dissolving in water.Let me ask you one... if nothing can come from nothing, then where did God come from?Suggesting that everything in the universe must have come from something just moves the goalposts. You have to ask "where did that something come from?"This goes on to infinity, and eventually, something had to come from nothing.So why wouldn't that something that came from nothing be the only thing we know for certain is here... this universe?

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

Oh, I'm sorry. I assumed you knew,having read the Bible and all. Maybe you haven't read it? Here's some examples:

quote:

---

The gospel of John differs from the synoptics in many substantial ways. It recounts stories about Jesus that do not appear in the other three. Its whole framework of Jesus' ministry also differs substantially from the synoptics. In the synoptics, Jesus ministry begins only after John the Baptist was imprisoned (Mark 1:14; Matthew 4:12), John showed the two prophets preaching together (John 3:24). While the synoptics timetable of Jesus' ministry can be fitted into a single year, John makes the ministry last for three years (for John said Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples thrice: John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55). The main location of Jesus' ministry is given in the synoptics as Galilee. John placed Jerusalem as the principal location. According to John Jesus went to Jerusalem five times (John 2:13; 5:1; 7:10; 10:22; 12:1), while the synoptics only recorded one such trip of Jesus to Jerusalem...

​

For some of the episodes in the synoptics that do appear in John, the chronological order in John is irreconcilable with that given in the synoptics. One example is an incident that is given in all four gospels: the Cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:12-19; Matthew 21:12-13; Luke 19:45-48; John 2:12-22)...

​

This event must have caused quite a commotion and could not have failed to produce unpleasant consequences for the Galilean prophet. In the synoptics, Jesus was dead within a week of the incident. John incomprehensibly placed this event in the beginning of Jesus' ministry; and made him preach for another three years with impunity! Thus where all the synoptics placed the incident near the end of Jesus ministry, John placed it at the beginning.

---

From No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/john.htmlThat, or they're misinformed. Can you provide the evidence that they're using to substantiate that claim? I'm not impressed that your source was writing in the 1800's. Why don't you try a more modern source?

[Replying to points from two posts]

quote:

---

Let's look at basic bio. We have never observed life being created "ex nihlio," (out of nothing). From a biological stand point it would be impossible. Life can only come from pre-existing life.

---

From which it follows that the diversity of life is better explained by evolution - which has been observed, than by creation - which, as you say, has never been seen.

quote:

---

...ever hear of the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

​

This scientific LAW doesn't fit very well with the big bang "Theory."

---

That's the "Big Bang" theory invented by Kent Hovind, which has almost nothing to do with the theory proposed by scientists. If you don't want to be laughed at I strongly suggest that you investigate the real science and don't trust Kent Hovind (even AiG think that Hovind is unreliable)

No it's not, just bad statement on my part. Life has never been observed to originate BY ITSELF apart from other life. That line of reasoning makes no sense. It is obvious that YOU are NOT a biologist or even remotely familar with the subject. That definition applies to organisms such as Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes (we're still not sure about viruses). God, by definition is niether. He is not an organism. He is a metaphysical being. And since by your own claims you have not seen Him, how do you know that he doesn't have a metabolism? Or reproduce? He has a Son.Please don't question the validity of my claim to be a biologist only to side step the issue and points that I made. That's very bad manners on a forum. If you like I can send you a picture of me in my lab coat.

---

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"Creation Man

Been observed?? MICRO yes. MACRO NEVER.PS. I don't like Hovind Either.

---

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"Creation Man

Heh. I can send you a picture of me with an eyepatch, but that doesn't make me a pirate.Why don'y you send us a copy of the peer-reviewed papers you've published? If you're a biologist, then you should have some...

CreationMan,You're arguing a point that does you no good. The only reason that you believe the Bible is support for belief in God is because the Bible says so. You've already made up your mind that the Bible is the authority, so you'll accept living organisms made from dirt, a worldwide flood, people rising from the dead, and other completely impossible things.What you've been asked for is evidence that could support the notion that God exists. I've never seen any, but that's never made me conclude anything more radical than that the subject of God is beyond science. I expect science to tell me about the development of life on Earth, and the amazing workings of a self-sustaining universe. Some people would accept that as appreciation for the wonders of God's creation, but you're not satisfied with that.regards,
Esteban "Dan's Urethra" Hambre

quote:

---

MICRO yes. MACRO NEVER.

---

Heading this one off at the pass right now:http://EvC Forum: Always talking about micro-evolution?

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya