Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: God Is Dead

  1. #21
    911=inside job Guest
    HAHAHAH!!!! i believed in god up until i was 22... then i thought about... HAHAHAH!!!!

    the god scam make 911 look like nothing....

  2. #22
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rachel
    Unless you're a Christian/Muslim/etc., you're going to Hell. I don't know what the answer to that one is. I don't understand the absolution (absolute-ness?) of religions. I'm not sure if it's a valid argument or not. It seems to me if you're right with God in your heart, then your fate is between you and Him.
    That's what pisses me off. When peole say you're gonna go to hell because you don't believe there god.

    My God would destroy there god.

    Holla!

  3. #23
    rachel Guest
    Can you imagine if people at church said "holla!" all the time? I can just see it... The preacher makes a good point and someone in the crowd yells "holla!" It could replace "Amen" as the word people shout to show their support.

  4. #24
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rachel
    Can you imagine if people at church said "holla!" all the time? I can just see it... The preacher makes a good point and someone in the crowd yells "holla!" It could replace "Amen" as the word people shout to show their support.
    Yeah, after he says something important he goes, "If you have any more questions about life or God, feel free to holla at yo boy".

    But don't they already sing "holla luya"? (or however that's spelled)

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749
    bump
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  6. #26
    AuGmENTor Guest
    A PRACTICAL MAN'S PROOF OF GOD
    The existence of God is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years. Most of the time, these debates have revolved around all kinds of assumptions and definitions. Philosophers will spend a lifetime arguing about the meaning of a word and never really get there. One is reminded of the college student who was asked how his philosophy class was going. He replied that they had not done much because when the teacher tried to call roll, the kids kept arguing about whether they existed or not.


    Most of us who live and work in the real world do not concern ourselves with such activities. We realize that such discussions may have value and interest in the academic world, but the stress and pressure of day-to-day life forces us to deal with a very pragmatic way of making decisions. If I ask you to prove to me that you have $2.00, you would show it to me. Even in more abstract things we use common sense and practical reasoning. If I ask you whether a certain person is honest or not, you do not flood the air with dissertations on the relative nature of honesty; you would give me evidence one way or the other. The techniques of much of the philosophical arguments that go on would eliminate most of engineering and technology if they were applied in those fields.

    The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective. To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere.

    THE BEGINNING
    If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to

    form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

    The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.


    Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity!

    A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. The picture to the right is a picture of the sun. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

    Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas I If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum_a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!

    A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

    The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.

    THE CAUSE
    If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question_was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause_a creation_but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

    In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

    The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

    THE DESIGN
    If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is

    "through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:

    We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.
    The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.

    THE NEXT STEP
    We have seen a practical proof of God's existence in this brief study. A flood of questions arise at this point. Which God are we talking about? Where did God come from? Why did God create us? How did God create us?

    All of these and many more are answered in the same way_by looking at the evidence in a practical, common sense way. If you are interested in pursuing these things in more detail, we invite you to contact us. We have books, audio tapes, video tapes, correspondence courses, and booklets available and all can be obtained on loan without cost. Just request our catalog from:

    DOES GOD EXIST?
    718 E. Donmoyer Ave.
    South Bend IN 46614-1999


    REFERENCES:
    Hoyle, Frederick, The Intelligent Universe, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983.
    Humanist Manifesto I and 11, Prometheus Books, 700 East Amherst St.,
    Buffalo, NY 14215, 1985.

  7. #27
    borepstein Guest
    Well, since there are things we can not explain - love, death, basic attractions and fears - I think God as a concept is not entirely invalid.

  8. #28
    AuGmENTor Guest
    BUMP

  9. #29
    werther Guest
    If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning.
    This is laughable. A fallacy and infinite regress. Who created god. Athiesm does not purport that there was no beginning. Actually first of all athiesm is not a religion. A person that labels himself an athiest simply does not believe in god. It seems they are lumping athiesm and science togethor.....hmmm perhaps the author is right about that. Science through M theory can go back before the big bang. However we still lapse into infinite regress. Both religion and science, (and I contend that they are very much different), in trying to explain the 'beginning' result in infinite regress.

    At what scientists call a singularity!
    Yes however the common thought among scientists today (quantum physicists) is that there is more than one universe. So our beginning is not THE beginning. Again infinite regress.

    As I read the whole BEGINNING part I am confused by its utter stupidity. It starts by saying by believing in god you are excepting that there was a beginning. God created the universe and that was the beginning. With such juevenille prepubescent playground logic why can't the scientist say ...."well there was the big bang and that was the beginning".

    THE CAUSE


    Now this starts off with another fallacy ...circular reasoning. It is arguing god's existence by referencing quotes from the bible. If you didn't believe in Santa Claus and I started quoting from 'twas the night before christmas' would that make you believe? The rest then goes on again forgetting that if god created the universe something had to create god because as it states something cannot come from nothing. ....did god not have a beginning?

    DESIGN

    And could somebody tell me what god made the universe from....wait for it...NOTHING! Another fallacy and contradiction in terms.

    The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance
    Another fallacy; appeal to emotion.

    rubbish.

  10. #30
    AuGmENTor Guest
    I don't refrence the bible to sustain my belief in a higher form of existence other than myself. That is one fucked over piece of literature IMO. Distorted by the same types of MEN who do it today to suit their needs.
    Alls I need to do is stare at the night sky, and think of the distances, and the raw NUMBER of bodies (I was giong to take a stab a cellestial, but as you can see, I knew better). Or look at an oak tree, or a newborn baby. Complicated ooze? I think not. But that is just me. My version of God doesn't care if you believe in him or not. (He could also give a shit if you eat meat on friday or work a sunday.)
    It seems to me that it comes down to either you believe that everything to date has happened as chaotic chance. What are the odds of that? Intelligent design for that matter seems like a long shot. But not quite as long of one as happenstance.
    I freely admit that the article I origionally posted sucks the big hogs leg. I will try another tack.

Similar Threads

  1. Ceasefire Dead Before It Starts
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-06-2006, 12:49 PM
  2. Gilligan Is Dead
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2005, 05:44 PM
  3. 2 - 20,000 Estimated Dead
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-05-2005, 04:28 PM
  4. Tigger Is Dead
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2005, 06:09 PM
  5. The Pope Is Dead
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-05-2005, 12:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •