Debate God

With the way that Wikipedia works, i'm not surprised that it has an 80% accuracy rating. The thing is, this means that 20% of the articles have small flaws. When it comes to entire concepts, like the expanding universe, it it impossible for somebody to simply 'make it up'. So yes, while you probably shouldn't trust Wikipedia when it comes to detailed facts, ideas as a whole are completely reliable.

@Chedderboy: I don't really argue to win. I have known from the start that most people wouldn't change their minds, no matter how much evidence they were given. I debate simply because I enjoy it. It encourages me to expand my own knowledge in order to properly argue my points.
The only time you can really convert somebody is in real life. When I moved to the high school that I'm currently in, all of my friends were religious. I'm happy to say that from my influence alone, almost all of them have become atheists. I can tell that only one who still remains religious is beginning to question himself- we spent all of lunch today arguing, and I'm hoping to see a change soon.

 

Have you personally witnessed God intervene in any form? Or do anything? Anything at all?
The reason I can believe that the universe expands but not believe in God is because the universe expanding can be explained by math. It follows with previous observations. Math itself is an explanation of the universe, as it governs everything. Now that I think about it, in a certain sense, math is a god and mathematics a religion...but I won't go down that road.

 

No. Before you try to say that I can't be sure that it is expanding:
I have also never seen an your mother, but I'm confident that she exists given the fact that you also exist. And logically, every person much have a mother.

 

That's only 3 teachers.

Wiki is generally very accurate and when someone edits something it needs to be approved by a different third party. Saying it isn't valid is ignorant, and teachers aren't exactly scholars or scientists.

On topic. Yes there is no proof either way, but I believe there is absolutely no God out there, and to those who quote the bible, I'll count it as your wikipedia. You can interpret any which way, and because I don't believe it, it is not a valid source. From what I have seen in vestigial organs, there must be evolution, why else would we have pointless organs like wisdom teeth, and an appendix. Logically if God made man perfect we would not have organs that do nothing.

EDIT: I also find it ironic that a man defending God has a username as "El Diablo"

 

Maybe he has multiple teachers for each class. Why bother coming into a debate and saying "there is no proof" automatically this gives us no reason to debate you, regardless if anyone changes, and I know people do.

Maybe God made those organs because we needed them back then. Before everything came in packages, we actually probably had needed wisdom teeth to eat more efficiently.

Ironic? Maybe so. "Do not judge a man by what he says but by his actions"

 

You actually saw God doing something? Or did you observe something that you merely attributed to God?

 

From my side if creation of man, if creation of humankind if you will is disproved, why even go further? If we can not even prove our own existence why even follow that line in trying to prove the creation of the universe? Of course I cannot sway one's beliefs and I have spent hours arguing with creationists and Christians on why they are wrong in my eyes. I have had one friend approach me and tell me Dinosaurs are extinct because Noah didn't put them on the ark... Now I don't know about you, but the oldest remaining human skeletons were only about 70,000 years old, if I am correct, do not quote me on that. While we look at Dinosaur fossils which have been carbon dated and shown that they are 65 million years old, and those are those that are closest to the actual year.

I know I went off topic there, but I wanted to show an instance of how ridiculous creationism can get. And as many have said before, this is not a debate, because debates can be made on facts, not beliefs. This is just an argument with two sides pulling their meager evidence, both being hypocrites to their own arguments.

I am calling myself a hypocrite, but I believe that the world, and the universe was created in a different way. Now that there have been small discoveries in anti-matter, I believe that had something to do with it. And since the opposing side can base their arguments on beliefs, I will as well. I believe that there was a large collision between a large mass of matter and a large mass of anti-matter, and through that collision thousands of bits went out, expanding more and more through supernovas and being destroyed through black holes.

I would like to say that I want to believe in God, but I have been far turned off by seeing science, and highly bigoted friends. So I do not hate you for what you believe in, merely don't agree with it.

 

Carbon dating. It is not a very controversial topic - either you accept it or you don't. Obviously its true, its very real. However, the problem with using carbon dating to determine the age of things is that it cannot go farther than a few thousand years (50,000 I think). The amount of C14's in the atmosphere during the prehistoric era's was too little to be able to use carbon dating properly. Even if you use different methods, such as potassium argon, the dates can vary by millions of years. Call that accurate science. So do scientists simply change the date to fit the theory? Sure seems so. However, unbiased science will change a theory in order to support the facts. Theories do not support facts.

In 1990, a man sent in an allosaurus bone to the universy of arizona, in order to be carbon dated. However, it was not mention what kind of bone it was. The carbon dating resulted in 10,000 or 16,000 years. EDIT: Allosaurus bones are meant to be 180,000,000 years old.


Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago.
The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years.
The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago.
Antarctic seawater has a low level of C14. Consequently organisms living there dated by C14 give ages much older than their true age.
Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago.

Aww... but that's just carbon dating, dude!

Potassium Argon: Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.

1. First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.

2. The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.

3. Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

4. The evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this ain’t necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position.

The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

 

Sorry too let you down, but doesn't really hold much weight here. Typical response, still is true, at least my interpretation of the word.

 

No, my first thought was a simple "ok" Don't assume we'll instantly scoff at your story. While like said above in a debate setting it holds little weight I find storys like it to be nice for the sake of having a better understanding of the exact kind of experiences that shape faith. (Though I will admit to having a similar experience........though it didn't convert me, merely made me question my own die hard atheism which if you knew me would be considered one of the hardest of things to get me too do. I can PM it too you if ya like.)

 

Who disproved the Christian Genesis? Talk to me, this should be funny.

 

Honestly now, if you can't prove or disprove the existence of God, how can you say he did anything with absolute certainty?

I don't believe I've ever responded to any of your points in this whole discussion. I'm really confused, because you seem to be refuting both sides at the same time. I don't know what post you're even referring to.

 

I think he exists, because of things he's done that's come true. But because people like you who (assuming here, correct me if i'm wrong) probably haven't seen something he's done, you fail to see his existence.

Does it matter which side he argues to? I'm just trying to prove a point here. The point of the debate is not to take sides and argue, it is to prove your point. I think cronato is merely questioning the faults of others.

 

I just don't like religion's unwillingness to question and explore; so I left mine.

No, it doesn't matter what side he argues to. However, his post I quoted sounded like he was saying I told him to (example) "watch your wording in the bold part". I never even said anything to him! That's why I'm asking for a little clarity.

---

iOI NITROUS!

So a common argument here is that if the universe couldn't have just existed, then there needs to be a God. But what if the universe is God and our consciousness is just a slice of his? Then when we die, we are pulled back into his collective consciousness and redistributed to another body? Hmm, that's kinda like reincarnation, but hey. And what if this universe all started when he kinda "exploded" himself and turned himself into planets and such?

I challenge you!!!​

 

In that last paragraph you stated a philosophy that is completely un-Christian, and preceding that you said you were Catholic, how many times did you change religions?

The Jews ARE wrong, (by that I mean Judaism, not the race). The new testament is the truth whether they like it or not. Jesus fulfilled 48 old testament prophecies, in 33 years. The odds of that are one in ten to the one hundred and fifty-seventh power.

To give you a better idea of what that is, image blindfolding a man, burying Texas, every inch, in 12 feet of sand dollars, and telling him to pick up the one with the black dot on it. He can only pick up one and if it is wrong he loses. Think about it.

If you don't care whether there is a God now, you never were a Christian. First you went from being a Christian to a Catholic, [assuming you know there is a difference] that makes you an apostate. Then even further with your next sentences.

Know that if anything occurs, it could not have been preceded by an infinite amount of time, because it would never occur if so. Since you have breathed, we know something occurred. So there had to be a finite amount of time preceding it, meaning time had a beginning. If time had a beginning, and time is the measure of change, so did matter. Until absolute zero is achieved there is no exception to that fact that matter depends on change.

[Temperature]

Space is a measure requiring matter's presence, so it also had a beginning.

Choose:

It all popped up out of Nowhere OR Something always existed and created it.

 

. wat

I was Catholic. And so what if I was never really a Christian; maybe that's why I chose not to be one then? But what does it mean to be Christian? I had faith in the bible and God. Is it wrong I thought it was ok other religions could be right? Did it lessen my faith? This joke that my priest told once sums up my thoughts nicely:

There was once a good Jewish man who died and went to Heaven. While he was there, he saw a great brick wall. However, he thought nothing of it even though he heard partying on the other side. He proceeded to join the party on his side. However, after several days he became curious. He asked God, "Who is on the other side of the wall?" God answered, "Oh, those are the Christians; they think they're the only ones up here!"

And how about I choose: Everything always existed. No creator; see my above post.

 

At prosper, who are you to question one's faith? If Christianity is a system of beliefs then anyone can have their own beliefs, or judge on what they have. It's good to know that people like Eons can respect other religions while still be part of another. Prosper just seems to be the stereotypical Christian bigot, that sets his own high standards to how you have to believe which is ridiculous. That's basically telling someone how they should think, and if they don't think that way then they are wrong. I'm not arguing about your "God" yet. I'll save that for another discussion

 

Something can only come out of something... So there has to be a finite amount of time.

 

I can accept that there was someone who talked with him. Whether or not that person was supernatural or not is a different topic. Personally, I find it a more reasonable explanation that it was just a really convincing person.
And if anyone who lies is automatically not a Christian, well...then there are no Christians. Everybody lies.