Versions of Ourselves All human beings should form their opinions of what reality is, based on the best data we have available at the time. As we look back on previous versions of ourselves as a species, 200, 1000, 5000 years ago it is crystal clear that the further you go back, the less we understood about our universe. Whichever time period you pick, we took our best guesses at trying to explain our surroundings. When we think back on a caveman's primitive tools, or entire societies that believed the Earth was at the center of the universe or that the earth itself was flat, it's hard not to chuckle a little at just how naive those people where. Why do we think we are any different? The people of the near and distant future will undoubtedly be shocked at how little we understood. All we can do is look at the best evidence we have and support that reality. It is time that we moved on to something else as a species. Holding onto an ancient explanation(their best guess given a 2000 year old understanding of the universe) about how we got here is holding us, as a culture, back as well. Knowing that the further you go back, the less we understood, ask yourself why you would want to side with a much more primitive version of humanity. The humans that are on the cutting edge of scientific discovery and understanding(during our time) are telling you that Creation didn't happen. They are telling you that we evolved from single cellular organisms. What is it about us that makes a enormous number of Americans cling to this outdated explanation of our origin?
This is actually false. While I agree there is no evidence for Gods existence or non existence, I disagree with your primary assumption of the opposing position. You see, not believing in a God or Gods is default position, as per Ockham's Razor. We must accept that which can be demonstrated. You must demonstrate your God or Gods for it/he/she/them to be accepted, not vice versa.
Because a scientific book has enormous amounts of evidence to back it up. The bible does not. (There is no proof that it was written by god) Space is infinite. Our universe is not. That's just one theory, though. You need evidence to prove your beliefs, not the opposite way around. By your logic, you also can also prove that the flying spaghetti monster exists. So you are saying that every person has independently come to their own idea about which religion they follow, not influenced by family and cultural ties? Stop with the insults. They don't make you look good. Explain to me where my logic is flawed when it comes to evolution, please. Don't make claims without backing them up. I wasn't trying to define it, I was saying that once a person brings up faith in a debate, it is showing that they are actively going to resist changing their minds. Just because it gives us the answers doesn't mean they are the right answers. We need something like proof to confirm that.
Yes, but this is why we have Faith... It's called Faith for a reason, as long as God is not proven to be nonexistent then I refuse to believe he is nonexistent. It's simple, and then your theory would disprove many things that disprove God. Big Bang Theory is therefore not true, Evolution is therefore not true...
Whoops; what I meant to say is that we have no way of knowing if they were actually inspired by god, or were just making things up. Let me rephrase that to fit my own purposes: "By obvious logic in this dimension we can easily conquer that there is no God. In the realm of the flying spaghetti monster could this exist? What if you were born into one of the indigenous African religions, then? I'm not going to explain evolution to you, but of course one proton can't turn into a human.. There is no faith required to not believe. Nonbelieving is what we fall back to when we choose not to believe. We don't have 100% proof, but we have enough to convince anybody who doubts it.
Hm? It doesn't work like that. Just because it's a theory doesn't mean it's unfounded. Theories are based upon many facts. And the great thing about science is that even though it is based on facts we find, we still know we can be wrong. That is why there are always new theories and such; and still they are grounded with scientific evidence. Science isn't almighty, and that's ok. It's an interesting idea, but couldn't there be organisms that would adapt to the new environment? (I feel like that's a dumb thing to say, but I'm more of a biology guy anyway.) I find the Big Bounce to be more plausible since it could explain how things could be "infinite". Because other "end of the universe" theories don't really touch on how the Big Bang suddenly happened. But I guess that's where God comes in. (The Big Crunch is when the universe would end up in a black hole singularity, my bad.)
[media]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gENFnzEMIFw/SBOy6jppKFI/AAAAAAAAAIc/607Ek32nnB0/s400/Facepalm1.jpg[/media] A CREATOR CANNOT BE CREATED. If it wasn't obvious enough I'll say it again. GOD ISNT GOD IF HE WAS CREATED. The Bible says God is ETERNAL. I sure hope you know what eternal is.
If your God needs no creation, why postulate that the Universe requires creation, and that this creation is your uncreated God? Sounds like a ridiculous cycle of assumption to me.
Got that right. Sounds like a ridiculous cycle of words that don't make any sense. So the creation of the universe is a God that is uncreated? That makes no sense.
Do you actually have dyslexia or were you trying to infer that I was dyslexic? Regardless, it is a well established fact (yes, fact) that nothing exists without creation.
well as you can see in this pictures, monkeys have almost the same skeleton structure as us, so mabey cave men/cave ladies were monkeys/humans (Gibbon), but then we have evoled to what we are today and are bone structures has increased in organizing a human skeloton...
Not at all. What I stated was that if you can assume God is uncreated, why can we not assume the same for all matter that exists?