Unless you have a REALLY big boat. --And like I've said before, that's not what matters about religion. It's the faith you put in it.
The bible is not God. If the bible is wrong, that doesn't make God wrong. What the bible says could very well be a fairy tale; what people describe God as could be very wrong too. That still doesn't rule out the possibility of a god though. It's just an opinionated matter really, if you think God exists or not. Also, the bible (even if it's fakey) still has good stories in it that have good morals.
The bible is what says that the world is about 6000 years old, not creationism. If you believe in creationism then you can say god made the big bang or made the 11 dimensions of M-Theory. Creationism is not bound to the bible.
So, if the bible is wrong, then everything it says about god is wrong. Then that would mean he would have been a normal person, if he existed, which means everyone could be god.
You talk as if the bible is the only reason God exists. Even if the bible is wrong, there could still be a god.
No, not what I said. I said he could still exist, he would just be a normal person (not supernatural I guess you could say).
Keep in mind this isn't linking him to the bible If the bible was wrong, which says supernatural stuff about him, then he can't be that. So let me rephrase what I said earlier. I think god is a figurehead, or imaginary character, like bugs bunny. He is there to give people hope if they don't have much or if they want to live forever, ect.
No, everyone can make up their own god. Some people will believe in the bible's god and some people will believe god is the force that started the universe (assuming it is not infinite). So if the bible is wrong that does not make god nonexistent. FYI: I am an Atheist.
Thats a silly argument. If God never exisited, how is it possible to prove him wrong? Example: 1- God exists 2- Mid way through the age of the dinosaurs, a small dinosaur, no bigger than 3ft, completely ate a 10ft T-rex. Bones, organs, muscles everything. Now, here are some strange things about those 2 storys. They cannot be proved. I completely made the 2nd one up, and it is utterly ridicolous, but can you dis-prove it? Of course not, because someone made up a story about it, and it happened to long ago for anyone to prove/disprove it. Which is what i believe God is, just like all the stories that surround him,(Jesus' miricles, Afterlife etc) Both stories, as is God. You cannot disprove a story that happened that long ago, just as, rather suspiciously, you cannot prove it. The only decent argument you have is 'you cannot disprove it,' which just shows how unbelievably blind the belief in God is.
while if u think bout Newton's First Law of Motion (An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force...) so if our universe is in motion.... then obviously something started the motion AY.... so theirfore their needs to be something that was there b4 everything else to not only start the first motion... but create everything... LOGICALLY... think about it... if their is no GOD what are we doing here... imagine life with no God... no planets... no ppl... no space... no nothing... now im just a 15 yr old kid and im surely not going to sucessfully impove my catholic ways on you... and I think u no that ur not going to make me turn Athiest... so what am i doing here... merely blowing into the already much to large fire... and with that being said i will be leaving now LOL....
A VERY poor argument until you explain what a God would be doing there either. Did he just 'appear?' If so, then who's to say soemthing didn't 'just appeare' and life formed?
Well guess what God(capitilized) shouldn't be compared to a cartoon character even if examples are stated to show what an "imaginary character" is. He is not a character, he is God. I am Christian, Assembly of God to be more specific, and totally believe that the Bible is 100% correct because God would not allow his own book to be incorrect. About Noah's ark, you say that there are over 1,000,000 species. Well scientists still do not know if this is a fact or not. When Noah's ark was around there probably were not as many species to fit on the boat. There were probably around maybe 500 and after that the general names for the animals breeded and through time they look different and are then given different names. Usually I hate seeing these kinds of threads, where Christians have to try to "Explain" themselves or why that they believe God exists. All I see is atheists trying to turn Christians into atheists, even though that might not be your intention.
He is not a cartoon, he is an animated figure. So you believe that an infinitely powerful god had to rest on the 7th day? I mean really? God needs a day off every once in a while? Whats up with that, seriously. That is an impossibility. Your talking about 4,000 years of mutation and selection. To use salmon as an example there is an extreme amount of diversity between the Coho and the North Atlantic. For them to mutate in the time you've suggested would create genetic loads so high the animal wouldn't be able to survive. All the species on earth would have died out due to inbreeding and the immensely high mutation rate. You also need to consider what kind of world would be left during the flood and in the wake of it. If the flood covered Mt. Everest the winds that would be blowing across the planet would create swells so high that Noah and his Ark would have capsized and sank. We're talking swells, 100 ft., 200 ft., 300 ft.! Even if he did some how manage to survive, what's he going to eat when he gets off the boat? Carcasses everywhere, no plants to eat, he'd have to eat the animals he had just saved and indeed he did sacrifice some of the animals he saved to god. Noah couldn't have possibly taken care of fish either. If you recall rain is fresh water. When it first began to rain and the oceans and the rivers swelled enough to meet and the fresh water fish would soon die because of the salinity of the water. The rain would continue to fall until covering Everest and the salinity of the water would be so minuscule that the salt water fish would now die out. The oceans would be completely ravaged by this flood and all these reefs we have, such as the Great Barrier Reef, would not exist, in fact the oceans would be dead. How did Noah assemble the animals anyway? No one knew what America, Antarctica, or Australia was. And how would some of these animals that couldn't swim get to Noah or how could he get to them? And what about microorganisms? Where do they go during this ordeal? The Great Pyramid was constructed about 500 years before the flood, it would have been washed away in the chaos as well as many ancient wonders of the world. So what do you say in defense? What could you possibly say, other than, "That's the way god did it." No reason, no rhyme. If he did indeed use a supernatural force to protect everything, why didn't he just supernaturally kill all the evil people in the world? Then all the innocent animals wouldn't have had to have died with us (guilt by association I suppose). And what's with god using violence to solve violence? And isn't god proving himself imperfect by saying, "I am sorry I have made them."? Is he doing this yet again when he says he will never flood the earth again because man is innately evil (kills man because we're evil but then promises not to kill us again because we are evil...wtf?)? You need to explain yourself if you expect to be an educated person.
I don't think 500 species can go to 1,000,000 in a couple thousand years. And also, microorganisms have always existed.
Stupid argument, as I have already said, you're explaining the unknown with god. @Eguitarplayer: You take the bible 100%? Do you think women are lesser? Gays? Look up the rest of Leviticus and you will realise how pick-and-choosy christians are.
I do believe in God, the divine beign. Now, I know that has little power so let's move into the reasons why I believe why God is real. 1. The universe came from nothing Science's reason for why the universe began is the Big Bang. Now, I will agree with science in saying that the Big Bang did happen. There is plenty of evidence for it which can be remembered by, in the begginning there was a great SURGE. S - stands for the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The law states that everything that comes into being is running out of energy. Therefore the universe can't be eternal because then it would have been out of energy by now. Notice that this is a law. U - stands for the universe is expanding. The force of the "bang" was so great that the universe is still expanding. Which can be seen by the red shift in the galaxy. R - stands for background radiation. If the universe really did "explode" there should be radiation left over. The hypothesis proved to be true and we have found cosmic background radiation. G - stands for great galaxy seeds. If the Big Bang did happen there should be "ripples" in space where tempratures are greater. We have found great galaxy seeds, which are clumps of galaxies, proving yet another hypothesis. E - stands for Einstein's theory of Relativity. His theory leads to the conclusion/result that the universe came from nothing. Einstein, an aetheist, was "agitated" by this fact and did a big math no, no; by dividing by zero. So the Big Bang did happen, but you have to keep in mind that the evidence points to that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, before the "bang". And I believe that it takes a lot more faith to believe something came from nothing than that a God made there universe in which we live in. 2. Science cannot explain how life began either. The closest science has come to a credible explanation for the orgin of "life" has been Oparin's hypothesis. He hypothesized that a reaction in the earth's primitive atmosphere could have created compounds that could be used to create the first life. Well, Stanley Miller performed an experiment to test Oparin's hypothesis, and he got organic compounds which could have been used to create the first life. Since then, however, his experiment and up to date experiments of the same kind have been discredited. It turns out that if you use the correct atmosphere compounds you get some goo that is rather unfriendly towards life. Even if Miller's experiment was successful you still have one big problem; he used intelligence to perform the experiment (oops, I said the i-word). You also have the problem of DNA. DNA isn't just a bunch of chemical, which is what Miller's experiment produced, and it can't just be thrown together. DNA is a complex and organized message. The simplest single cell amoeba has enough information in its DNA to fill 1,000 complete sets of Britanica Encyclopedias. So basically, science gives you the ink and the paper, but the message is still missing! Also, the probability of one protein molecule forming is like blindfolding a man, putting him in the Sahara desert, and having him find the same grain of sand three times. And that's for just one protein. You need about 200 to get the simplest form of life. Now don't say, "Well that's still a chance!" The truth is that chance is a word of no value. When you flip a coin you say there's a chance that it'll land up heads. You say there's a chance because you don't know how hard the person is going to flip the coin, what kind of are resistance there is on the coin, or how hard gravity is pulling down on it. You use chance to cover what you don't know. In the same way scientist use the word chance to cover their ignorance. They simply do not know. 3. Even if science can come up with "life" evolution can not account for all of earth's life forms. This is because of: a. genetic limits b. cyclical change c. irreducible complexity d. molecular isolation e. nonviability of transitional forms, and f. the fossil record a. Genetic Limits The problem with evolution is that you hit genetic limits. No matter how hard humans try they cannot breed two dogs and get a cat. The genetics are just not right. And if intelligent forces cannot produce different species, how can nonintelligent forces do so? b. Cyclical Change Darwin uses finches as evidence that all species came from one common ancestor, but those are only cyclical changes. Cyclical changes only happen within a species and only occur between a limited range. Darwin's observation can be used to prove microevolution (small changes within species) but not macroevolution (large scale changes, new species). Darwin did not observe lizard tails on any finches or finches having scales instead of feathers; he only observed cyclical changes. c. Irriducible Complexity In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely bread down." Well, the cell is irriducibly complex. You cannot take away one part of the cell and have it function. It needs every part in place and working. There is no way it could have come about by small changes, because it would have failed and died out. d. Molecular Isolation If all the species had a common ancestor we should be able to look at protein sequences and trace it all the way back down the tree. The problem is that there are several pieces missing. There is no clear path. It is true that some species have close DNA, because DNA is only made up of A,T,C, and G; but there is no path connecting all the species. e. Nonviability of Transitional Forms If evolution were correct there would be transitional forms connecting species. The problem is that there are none. This is because transitional forms wouldn't have survived. A chicken with scales instead of feathers would have died and a lizard with feathers instead of scales couldn't have survived either. d. The Fossil Record If evolution were true there should be evidence in the fossil record of small, non-complex organisms slowly evolving into more complex creatures. The fossil record says the opposite. Instead of creatures evolving slowly, species appear suddenly and dissappear suddenly without changing. This is called the Pre Cambrian explosion and it basically takes Darwin's tree, uproots it, and turns it upside down. Evolution isn't so much a theory any more, but another religion. It can't account for how new life forms came about. 4. Every law has a giver. We have a Moral Law. Therefore someone must have given us this Moral Law. Each one of us has a basic knowledge of right and wrong called the Moral Law. People may be able to ignore this law, but they still know what they did is wrong. That's the reason cannibals perform rituals before eating humans, to justify it. It's also why there aren't too many murderers who, after committing a murder, turn themselves into the police station. They ignored the Moral Law, but they still know what they did was wrong. 5. Personal Conviction I can't really prove this one, but I've felt God's presence before and I've seen his impact in my life. The fact that the universe came from nothing, life couldn't have came up by itself, new life forms couldn't have evolved, the fact that humans have a Moral Law, and personal conviction are plenty enough to prove there's a God for me. If you guys have any questions on this feel free to ask, politely preferibley, and I'll do my best to answer. I'm not an apologeticsist (person who studies the Bible and the like), and I don't have all the answers, but I can try all the same. If this caught any of your guys' attention you might want to read I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. It's where I got most of my information from (; Hope this helped - flaming omelet
But if you say we believe something came from nothing, what did god come from? Nothing? DNA can mutate. People have been born with tails coming out of certain areas. There was a thread here about it. Our DNA is close to monkey's. That could have been a cyclical change. Well, before the big bang, there was a tiny ball of energy. Thats something. You say the probobility that a protein forming is basically impossible. So is the fact that humans are living. Do you know how many conditions have to be right for us to live? If two dogs breed and a crapload of DNA gets mutated, then you could possibly get a cat. PS: I'm not being an ass, but you spelled being wrong. I just noticed because that line is sort of important, unless it is supposed to be beign.
God is a supernatural beign and doesn't need to be created. Should a god need to be created, I don't think so. Also, everything that came into being needs a cause. God did not come into being, He was always there, therefore he doesn't need a cause. Yes, DNA can mutate; but 99% of the time the mutations are harmful and will usually kill the mutatee. So you need a lot of time to get a "good" mutation and the more time natural laws have to work on an object the more disorganized it becomes (I can go more into this if you want). Our DNA is also closely related to a mouse's. That's because DNA only uses four letters (A,T,C,G). So eventually we should find species that have a lot of DNA in common with us. Monkeys are also a lot different from us. We have similarities, but we're not really the same. Yes there was a ball of energy, but where did that come from? I don't get the conditions remark. It just supports my reasons because it worsens the chances for life to develope. Going back to mutations, even if that did happen that cat would be majorly messed up and die. Therefore it wouldn't carry on (nonviability of transitional forms). Sorry about the spelling. I used a lot of words. Good questions, I'd probably ask the same things if I didn't believe God; my faith helps my in those areas a lot. Hope this helps.