Faith and belief - The Almighty God revealed through his grandness

That's not a metaphor. That's cribbing Pascal's Wager. Not exactly the most sophisticated argument for believing in god. Of course, it doesn't even attempt to support God's existence, and isn't that your aim?Try again.

meh. what's new about your preaching?You certainly don't achieve your aim: We've had several "preachers" come through EvC. Not one has demonstrated a serious case for believing in god. You're no different.

Even theologically your argument is not strong. Your argument was that god's greatness can be understood when we figure out how he's outside of time. Instead, you show God's greatness through his willingness to sacrifice his son so that we won't end up in hell. Disconnect, much?Your theological proof is weak, not even on par with Aquinas or any of the church fathers (I'll give you this: at least you aren't rob, yet). As I said earlier, nothing new here. That you think this is an incredible argument is sad, really.

No, that is an argument from incredulity. "Wow, how impressive, a god must be behind it!" is what all those scientists said.Isn't it funny how you have to turn to 3-400 year old scientists in order to support your argument for belief in god? Kepler, for instance, was unaware of gravity. Newton was also extremely religious, writing more theology than science. I daresay there's a touch of confirmation bias with him. Also, he argues from the god of gaps when he says "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Of course, we know now how the planets were set in motion.

what, this old claptrap? That's all you have, "cause and effect must mean god"?You are well aware that unless you remove god from cause and effect, that god himself must have a cause, right?If you remove god from cause and effect (that is, he needs no cause), how can he effect? Oh yeah, he's magic. Argument from ignorance. Also known as god of the gaps. We know that life came from non-life, since life has not always existed. The question is simply how, and there are numerous hypotheses, some better than others. Newton didn't know how the solar system was created, but that doesn't mean god is the only answer (or even an answer). And now you use morality to prove god? Please, don't. It's not even remotely credible anymore. Except perhaps for the ignorant. You do realize that ants have socially acceptable and unacceptable behavior within their colonies, right? I guess god gave them morality, huh? Or perhaps morality is a result of living in society, and moral behavior is that which allows the society to function without great interruption or destruction.This is what I was talking about. All you people have are amateur, ignorant, or perhaps even immature arguments for believing in god.

You must have a hard time remembering what you wrote.Here's your message in full:

quote:

---

Ravin, its not really incredulity and the universe has every bearing on the existence of a diety

​

an early German astronomer of the 16th/17th centuries by the name of Johannes Kepler was himself motivated by his examination of the planetary movements to be a believer in a Creator, the more he studied the movements and structure of the planets, the stronger his faith became.

​

Newton was one of the greatest scientific minds and he himself believed in a creator

​

so, to marvel at the universe is natural...its what makes every intelligent person conclude that there is an intelligent creator behind it
  —Peg

---

http://EvC Forum: Faith and belief - The Almighty God revealed through his grandness -->EvC Forum: Faith and belief - The Almighty God revealed through his grandness
bolding mine.You claimed that every intelligent person concludes that there is an "intelligent creator" behind the universe. Conversely, everyone who does not think there is an "intelligent creator" must therefore be stupid (stupid being the opposite of intelligent).

Where did I say that? I have merely said that you, as a general rule, cannot give convincing arguments for believing in god.As to the arguments you find compelling, well, that's fine. You may think they are compelling, but they certainly aren't. This is hardly the thread to hash out the reasons. There are numerous abiogenesis threads, numerous morality threads, and I'm sure there's a thread somewhere on cause and effect. Dig them up.

Thank you for calling me stupid. And for calling all other atheists stupid.Go fuck yourself.

The ignorance of this post is stunning.Spontaneous Generation, which was disproved by Pasteur, is not abiogenesis. The hypotheses we have for abiogenesis are not nonsensical, nor unsound (well, those are seriously considered, at any rate). This is a good article:
Abiogenesis - WikipediaAs to morality and evolution, there is an ancient thread on that:
http://EvC Forum: morality, charity according to evolution -->EvC Forum: morality, charity according to evolution (I'm sure there are others)
Morality is not opposed to evolution, especially when one considers social organisms (termites, bees, ants, wasps, whales, dolphins, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and probably every other herd/pack out there).Darwin didn't exactly fail medicine school. He was simply not interested in becoming a doctor.Your ignorance is certainly not your fault, unless you choose to remain willfully ignorant. Before you make such ridiculous claims, try doing some research (and avoid the creationist sites, as they do nothing but distort what science actually says).

Um, right. That's wrong right there. Human beings have a large amount of learned behavior, but we still operate on instinct for a good number of things. Um, ants aren't allowed to have sex. If they do, they're killed.
Page not found | TIMERape can destroy the fabric of society, and increased rates of rape occur in places where society has basically crumbled. Everyone raping does not lead to a secure community, and a secure community is necessary to the survival of the species. Of course, raping people from outside your community helps increase genetic diversity, but that we've largely moved on from this in no way means that morality and evolution are at odds. It just means that we can define what is acceptable behavior, and it is we who create new morality, not god.Anyhow, we should take arguments regarding the evolutionary implications on morality to the appropriate threads (such as the one I linked to earlier). Suffice it to say that god, if he is the creator of morality, is indistinguishable from evolution.

Right, so god just happened to say, "okay, we'll make the law of gravity F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}, "Or, you know, the law of gravity might just simply be the result of, you know, mass. And the distance between two masses.You're still confusing prescriptive and descriptive law. The only confusion is on your part.