Religious Debate Thread

[artemis-lady-warrior]

you're a Wicca, Nurann? I didn't know that. So is my bro in law.

[Nurann]

ROTFL Artemis dear, I know it was a while ago now, but do remember page 9? That was how the whole "reincarnation" side conversation started; I had started talking about Wicca as a contribution to the challenge I put out. That, and I thought adding "Blessed Be" to my sig was a dead give away....

Do you know what tradition your brother in law is, by any chace?

Lol Rakshash, as much as I love reading your replies, go study!!! Do good on your exam!

[artemis-lady-warrior]

I don't know much about Wicca stuff so I wouldn't have known that. So are you or aren't you?

Nope. I would have to ask him, though I don't think he's part of a certain branch anymore. I never bothered finding out.

[Nurann]

-_-* That was a yes, Artemis. I'm an "eclectic solitary," meaning I don't have any distinctive practices, and I don't belong to a coven (meaning I practice by myself). I include North American, Shinto, Celtic, Buddhist, and native American material into my practice. Not everyone does.

Tradition just means the style and methods of practice. Like how Christians have Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, etc. Wicca has Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Egyptian, Ceremonial, (the all-femme) Dianics, etc. Someone practicing a certain tradition can be in a coven, or church group, or they can be Solitary. I guess that's sort of the advantage to not really being an actual organized religion. It's all "go with the flow!" Anyways, I was just curious, that's all.

[Blazemane]

Quote:
So Nurran, its because of the indestructabilty of matter? I could... almost see that as an evidence against simple non-exsistence after death, except for the fact, that we must know our soul exists and is bound by the same rules that physical laws are bound by.

But even granted that, the indestructability of a person's soul fits into the idea of an afterlife as much as it does the idea of multiple lives. I guess the question is... what evidence distincts the multiple lives idea over the afterlife idea?

Quote:
It's observation of nature. Cycle of seasons, cycle of the day, matter/energy can't be created/destroyed therefore is cycled, etc.


I'll assume you missed the "energy" part because you were distracted by your earlier research against Rakshash.

We're actually saying the same thing here; because energy can't be destroyed, something has to happen to our energy when we die. I'm just adding an extra step to your definition. And if you want to look back to page 9, I talk a little bit about the Summerland. Basically, you know it as Heaven. The difference is one may choose to stay in the Summerland temporarily or permanently. That's the extra step.
Aw'right, lemme dig out some reading material…. Be warned, I'm bad at picking what is the most relevant for quotes, so you're getting the good part of the chapter!

Why? Why are we reincarnated? In common with many other religions, Wicca teaches that that reincarnation is the instrument through which our souls are perfected. One lifetime isn't enough to attain this goal; hence, the consciousness (soul) is reborn many times, each life encompassing a different set of lessons, until perfection is achieved.

No one can say how many lives are required before this is accomplished. We are human and it's easy to fall into non-evolutionary behaviour. Greed, anger, jealousy, obsession and all our negative emotions inhibit our growth. …

The soul is ageless, sexless, non-physical, possessed of the diving spark of the Goddess and God. Each manifestation of the soul (i.e., each body it inhabits on Earth) is different. No two bodies or lives are the same. If this wasn't so, the soul would stagnate. The sex, place of birth, economic class and every other individuality of the soul is determined by its actions in past lives and the lessons necessary to the present.
…

What happens after death? Only the body dies. The soul lives on. Some Wiccans say that it journeys to a realm variously known as the Land of the Faerie, the Shining Land, and the Land of the Young [The footnote states that these are Celtic terms. "Summerland" is a commonly used Theosophical term]. This realm is neither in heaven nor the underworld. It simply is – a non-physical reality much less dense than ours. … Others see it vaguely as a realm without forms, where energy swirls coexist with the greatest energies – the Goddess and God in their celestial identities.

The soul is said to review the past life… . Lessons learned or ignored are brought to light.

After the proper time, when the conditions on Earth are correct, the soul is reincarnated and life begins again.

Yeah... we are saying the same thing. I simply used the word "matter" instead of energy. I meant the same thing. The point being, that our soul seems indestructable.

My problem, however, is this: What evidence is there for a soul, as its own entity? I understand there are some things we can... feel. I'm with you on that level. We've both agreed on it.

One of my main things, for example, is the absolute power of music. Scientifically speaking, music is a collection of vibrations creating waves at certain frequencies. Great. That definition makes me *love* music. Not. Just like this world. Technically speaking- a bundle of physical laws to bring matter and energy together, forming an existence perceived by our minds. But you and I have agreed that we see something larger in nature before, haven't we? That we see God through this Earth's absolute portrayal of an artistic flourish. Music is the same for me. I guess I can see God through music, in the fact that those same technical wavelengths can say things unspeakable simply with words.

But... we sense something bigger. How do we know that our souls aren't finite? I mean... did we have a soul before we were born? Your definition of incarnation solves this nicely. Sure, we had a soul before. We were another creature (or maybe even the same creature, but a different one specifically).

The problem is, where was our soul before that? Another creature. Before that? Another creature. But where did we start?

You might say that our soul's capacity for existence is the same as God's. That we never had a starting point. But then... what significance does God have in Wiccanism or reincarnation? Did he create our souls? Or were our souls as infinite as his, not only in the henceforth, but the previous?

But this gets back into my idea of God's necessity to exist, because He is the only One with enough power to go beyond human comprehension and exist forever (and either the universe, or God needed this power. The universe does not have it).

But in terms of reincarnation, this raises a ton of questions. Is your god all-powerful? Are our souls (recognize, they must be powerful enough by themselves to break the laws of time, or they must be empowered by God to be eternal)? The ability to break the laws of time ourselves should endow us with a lot more power than we have now, shouldn't it? And if we break the laws of time along with god, then how in the world is he the lucky won who managed to get all the rest of the power and regulation necessity? And how come we have to work our way towards Nirvana if we are timeless? For if we are indeed timeless in a backwards sense of motion, shouldn't we have learned every possible lessson already?

So the way I see it, it doesn't seem logical that our souls should be infinite in terms of previous time. We had to have been created at some point. Does reincarnation agree or disagree with such an idea?

But then, if our souls are not infinite in a previous time sense, then what happens to the idea of using non-creatable energy as proof for incarnation? And how was the cycle of energy proof for incarnation to start with? It provides... a pattern after which reincarnation can be described, but not necessarily a proof that a soul actually goes through that cycle. For first, if you are referring to metaphysical energy, we have to know that metaphysical energy exists, and that it is bound by the same cycles as matter and physical energy. For just because matter and physical energy do go through some cycles, doesn't mean the soul does the same thing (After all, we Christians believe the soul doesn't go through cycles. We are created, given a life-time, then an eternity. We don't return to nothingness to start over again).

And even then, reincarnation, as defined with the existence of a Summerland and a Nirvana, defies cyclical nature too. People can choose to stay in the Summerland forever? Where's the cycle in that? We go through a few cycles maybe to learn our lessons, but I mean if you can choose to stay in the Summerland forever, you might take one life and never go back right? That definitely wouldn't be cyclical.

Neither is Nirvana. What is a trillion cycles of life times compared to eternity? The same as one life. The normal definitions of reincarnation completely deny cyclical nature. The only way it wouldn't is if we never had a nirvana or a summerland to even give us the potential to sit for eternity.

I did find a few articles for you:

Unfortunately, this is just an abstract, but at least it does show that there is research out there.

This set of case studies has some holes in the data collection methods, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.

In this report, one of the mentioned case studies is the same as one of the case studies from the above article. They compliment each other on a couple of details. It's also an interesting, yet sadly brief, read.

One more, then I've had enough searching for the night. This one concerns birth marks and birth defects corresponding to injuries in deceased individuals. http://www.scientificexploration.org/js ... sricha.pdf

And while admittedly there is also research against, it comes back to the fact everything has research for and against. Read it and take what you will from it.

Source 1: Research out there. Granted.

Source 2: I really don't mean to offend you here, but working today on researching/responding to you and Rakshash's arguments had taken me over 2 and a half hours so far. Therefore, if you say it has holes in data collection, I'm going to have to take your word for it right now. If you actually want me to read it for evidence later, (as opposed to the fun reading you mentioned, which I will agree with you on- this is interesting to go through) then tell me. I may or may not be able to get to it though. Sorry...

Source 3: I read it. Again, interesting. I would also be interested, however, in why in the world there were always at least 5 factors wrong. Why would they have some things to perfection and not other things?

Source 4: I, kinda' skimmed it... (again, long time working on this. I have to get to bed at a relatively reasonable time tonight. I have two exams, neither of which I am terribly frightened of, but then, pride was never necessarily a good thing. I want to be awake enough in the morning to actually give myself a brief review of some of the concepts). One thing I noticed, between both source 3 and 4... why does this all take place in Southeast Asia? Why does nobody from, for example, America, seem to remember previous lives? And why no memories of lives, as say... animals?

I'm going to be bluntly honest. As I am a Christian, I believe we live in a world where spiritual warfare occurs daily. If these accounts are accurate, and not hoaxes (another possiblity we must consider), then they may have been a result of spiritual warfare. This could be a trick by evil forces to confuse the world.

Why did I mention Southeastern Asia as opposed to America? Let me explain. My dad once said that America is like a sleeping lion. It is easy in America to be ridiculed for holding up the idea of Christianity and anything beyond out understanding of physical existence. We, as a nation, have been slowly drifitng away from religion of any sort. In this case, the forces of spiritual evil have no interest in "waking" us. If we're drifitng away from God, why should there be evidence given for his existence. In places like India however, the rate of atheism is just about... 'nil. It might become the most effective strategy for the spiritual forces of evil to add confusion to the mess then. Give "evidence" of reincarnation, etc. In fact, in places like India, there are tons of accounts of sights of frightening, demonic looking figures.

The spirtual world seems hardly concealed over there. It is, however, more of a mixture of religious proofs and superstitions, and thus, it is dificult to find the truth through the massive amounts of lies.

You might not accept that theory, but that's where I'm coming from.

Rakshash! Hello there, hope you didn't think I'd forgotten about you, hee hee hee.

As for your response to the verses I brought up, I am glad for the thorough explanations. My problem, however, is this.

Let's think about the Old Testament of the Bible. God gives time-specific commandments to the Israelites also. But in the Old Testament, it is always given, in the text, what context the commandment is from. My problem with the verses in the Qu'Ran is that they seem to give timeless commandments because they don't explain the context the commandments are given in. As it stands, I can't exactly debate with you on the verses right now, because I don't have enough basis in Islamic history to verify which verses were from which battles.

Therefore, I am consulting a missionary from my church via email (he also happens to be in Pakistan right now), to see if he can verify the battles you mentioned and the verses they come from.

If he can verify that the commandments were merely time specific, than I will have been educated, and for this I can thank you. At that point, our debate will have to move to a different level (debating the individual evidences for Islam verses Christianity, etc.).

If he seems to disagree though, I really won't know what to say. He is extremely experienced with Islamic theology, but I mean- come on- so should the scholars you mentioned be.

Either way, I'll report back what he tells me, and we'll see where this goes from there.

There are a few things I did want to mention though.

Coming back to that fascinating law of physics and energy never dying again:

Every motion and act undertaken by man counts as a good or a bad deed, and at the same time it represents a kind of deposit in the body that is expended in the form of energy. The acts and even the speech in which a person engages are, therefore, differing forms or manifestations of energy, either auditory or mechanical energy, or, in some cases, a mixture of the two.

It can therefore be said that our actions and words, dissolved in the atmosphere in the form of energy, are not annihilated, and that whatever we do in the course of our lifetimes is stored up in the archive of nature, an archive which the powerful hand of God has established and the permanence of which He has assured. The day will come on which nature will return to its true Owner all the trusts that have been deposited in it, and all the energies that have been accumulated in it will display themselves.

Certain Islamic traditions regard obedience to divine command without any fear of punishment or hope of reward as the special characteristic of those who consider themselves always protected and favored by God. It is they who attain the highest degree of sincere devotion to God and knowledge of Him; they think of nothing but earning God's favor and worshipping Him in obedience. This is indeed the way in which God wishes to be worshipped.

Imam `Ali, upon whom be peace, describes this group of men, in a profound and eloquent expression, as "free men." He says:

"Some men worship God in order to attain reward, and this is the worship of traders. Others worship Him out of fear of punishment, and this is the worship of slaves. But there are others again who worship Him out of gratitude and recognition that He is fit to be worshipped, and this is the worship of free men." (Nahj al-Balagha, ed. Fayd, p. 1182)
- Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari

Interesting- we just had a lesson on this like... two Wednesday nights ago at church.

The fundamental question was- is it a godly thing, to worship God with the reward of heaven as one of our pieces of motivation?

Come on, face it- at first glance, this seems so wrong. Where's the love? Shouldn't we obey God because we love him? But then another question was posed.

Would you obey God, if God said that obedience meant going to hell, and disobedience meant going to heaven? You must still accept that God wants us to love and obey him, but that love and obedience will still put us in hell.

The answer, from a stand-point of love, would dictate that we obey God regardless. But the answer from a logical, and completely honest stand-point would dicate... well... we're human. Of course we'd opt for heaven.

We see that both desires are present. But the thing that's wrong with that question is that God did not set it up that way. God meant heaven as a reward. It would only be logical.

Now, why would a reward be offered, if it wasn't meant to motivate us?

1 Corinthians 15: 12-19 states: 12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

1 Corinthians 15: 29-32 says "29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
'Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.'"

So what does this say? Without the hope of heaven, what do we have? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

Sometimes we really want to do something bad, like cheat on a test, or punch that annoying kid who doesn't seem to know when to quit. Sometimes, we avoid these things, but our hearts are not in the avoidance. What then is our motivation? We see it as a trade off. We can feel vindicated, maybe for an entire life time (although, that'd be a pretty solid smack), but then we'd find out in the end that it wasn't worth it. Sometimes, heaven has to be our motivation when nothing else will be. We make a trade off (here I agree with man you quoted. But I don't agree that a.) we are always trading. We have a mix of motivations, and yes, it should involve our love of God too, and b.) trading is always a bad thing). We say, yeah, we can't be rewarded right now, but it will be so much more worth it to have made it to heaven.

Indeed, 1 Corinthians 9:24 states "24Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize."

It is very Biblical to have heaven as a motivation. God wouldn't have made it a motivating factor if it was only meant to be a temptation.

But another thing about that quote. I mentioned in my first serious debate post on this thread, the following:

But… since all of us obviously have our faults (which is also, completely logically true- don’t we always say nobody’s perfect? So why are people afraid to accept that when they get into a theological discussion? Haven’t we all wrongfully offended someone in our lives?), doesn’t that mean we have all offended whichever God is real in an irrevocable way? If we sin against someone so high above us, we have committed an ultimate defiance. And our good acts could never make up for that, not only because we sin more than we do good, but nobody that powerful could be impressed by our good deeds in and of themselves, because God is perfect. Righteousness in itself is not impressive to God, because since He is completely righteous, we’ll never come close to Him anyways. Sin however is an ultimate defiance, because God is perfect, and because He is so high above us. Think about it- what if I was to disobey my parent? Defiance right? Relatively unlikable consequences. What if I were to disobey President Bush (Well, I am an American), or national law in general? It's an even larger defiance right? I am in much less of a position to threaten him than a parent, and there would be *severe* consequences right? So take that up even more. How about if I sin against God, Who is all-powerful? Considering His eternal position above us, there is actually no limit to the consequences.

Do you agree with this? I would think not, since you seem to be saying that good and bad deeds (or perhaps, intentions) get measured, and then a decision is made. But that quote explains my dislike for the idea of judging our good with our bad. Our bad is in ultimate contrast to God. Our good... is nothing compared to Him.

As for sins being stored away as energy, here's where I think Christianity is in definite disagreement.

God says He will seperate our sins as far as the east is from the west, and that we'll be washed as white as snow. This suggests that our sins are not left in reserves, but completely destroyed (I think we are taking the idea of energy a little too far, just perhaps. Sin is a philosophical concept. It is not a metaphysical form of energy, so far as I perceive it. Even if it is, Christianity would still suggest that it is totally destroyed (again, suggesting that the laws of the soul are different than the laws of matter and energy).

One more thing:

[2:62]
Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the Sabians; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

Well, I see a verse 2:62 which says [2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

I'm having a hard time with the logic here. Everywhere else, those who don't believe in Allah are at least put in some danger. Even your example of the good-doing unbeliever had him in hell with a protective hut.

I would thus conclude that the verse is referring to Allah. Obviously, Jews, Christians, and Sabians did not believe in Allah. They believed in some one entirely different. Could the verse perhaps be referring to these three groups more by culture and ethnicity than by belief?

And if it refers to Jews, Christians, and Sabians, as different faith based entities, and we are to conclude this verse refers to any god, does that mean athiests are the ones in the most trouble?

But to sum up, we can have good ideas about who will and won't get to heaven in the Islamic faith, but we still just plain don't know.

I guess I'm confused then, on what assertion is being made here:

Myth: Allah weighs your good and bad deeds on a scale when you die, and if your good outweighs the bad, even then he might just end up saying, “I don’t feel like letting you in,” and throw you into hell anyway.

Fact: No. In fact, the opposite!

Muslims believe their deeds will be counted “on a scale” for or against them. This is what is called justice. But there’s another component of Allah’s dealing with humanity called ‘mercy.’ The idea is if the bad deeds outweigh the good, Allah will have mercy and call it off. ‘The foundation of all deeds is on your intentions.’ If you have intended good, even if you mess up you’ll get into Heaven. That means any Muslim with a good heart, a compassionate nature, who does good deeds for others etc can and will wind up in Heaven.

As for the myth you presented, I don't know that anybody said that Allah would through you in hell if your good outweighed your bad. I don't think... anybody thinks that. The closest person to asserting that was me, and what I did say was that our good deeds, in and of themselves would never outweigh our bad deeds.

Secondly, Allah will have mercy if bad outweighs good? But not on everyone? And it's based on intention? So... my problem here is that I see no guarantee, not even for Muslims, and especially not for those who aren't Muslims. Notice, you said "That means any Muslim with a good heart, a compassionate nature, who does good deeds for others etc can and will wind up in Heaven." But only Allah knows the intention of the heart, right? Even we, who held the intentions, how are we to know that in the end, our good intentions were what were prevalent? Haven't we all sinned? And for non-Muslims, there is still risk, even if you somehow knew you were pure of heart?

I don't want to be mean. If I'm coming across like that, tell me. But in all honesty, I'm confused.

EDIT: Iiiiiiii love tyyypooooss. *der-ner-nee-ner-nur-nah-nuh-nuh* Iiiiiiiii love tyyyypoos *der-nee-nee-der-der-der-der-muah-now* Also, for articulation purposes.

All before anyone responded.

[Beastbot]

Don't normally just include a post with a link, but I just read an article I found really well-done, and directly related to the subject at hand. It's called "When Science Points to God" by Dinesh D'Souza. Here's the article, cut-and-pasted:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDS ... nts_to_god

Contemporary atheism marches behind the banner of science. It is perhaps no surprise that several leading atheists—from biologist Richard Dawkins to cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker to physicist Victor Stenger—are also leading scientists. The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator.

But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence. One sign of this is the public advertisements that are appearing in billboards from London to Washington DC. Dawkins helped pay for a London campaign to put signs on city buses saying, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Humanist groups in America have launched a similar campaign in the nation’s capital. “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake.” And in Colorado atheists are sporting billboards apparently inspired by John Lennon: “Imagine…no religion.”

What is striking about these slogans is the philosophy behind them. There is no claim here that God fails to satisfy some criterion of scientific validation. We hear nothing about how evolution has undermined the traditional “argument from design.” There’s not even a whisper about how science is based on reason while Christianity is based on faith.

Instead, we are given the simple assertion that there is probably no God, followed by the counsel to go ahead and enjoy life. In other words, let’s not let God and his commandments spoil all the fun. “Be good for goodness sake” is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far. The question remains: what is the source of these standards of goodness that seem to be shared by religious and non-religious people alike? Finally John Lennon knew how to compose a tune but he could hardly be considered a reliable authority on fundamental questions. His “imagine there’s no heaven” sounds visionary but is, from an intellectual point of view, a complete nullity.

If you want to know why atheists seem to have given up the scientific card, the current issue of Discover magazine provides part of the answer. The magazine has an interesting story by Tim Folger which is titled “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator.” The article begins by noting “an extraordinary fact about the universe: its basic properties are uncannily suited for life.” As physicist Andrei Linde puts it, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”

Too many “coincidences,” however, imply a plot. Folger’s article shows that if the numerical values of the universe, from the speed of light to the strength of gravity, were even slightly different, there would be no universe and no life. Recently scientists have discovered that most of the matter and energy in the universe is made up of so-called “dark” matter and “dark” energy. It turns out that the quantity of dark energy seems precisely calibrated to make possible not only our universe but observers like us who can comprehend that universe.

Even Steven Weinberg, the Nobel laureate in physics and an outspoken atheist, remarks that “this is fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident.” And physicist Freeman Dyson draws the appropriate conclusion from the scientific evidence to date: “The universe in some sense knew we were coming.”

Folger then admits that this line of reasoning makes a number of scientists very uncomfortable. “Physicists don’t like coincidences.” “They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea.”

There are two hurdles here, one historical and the other methodological. The historical hurdle is that science has for three centuries been showing that man does not occupy a privileged position in the cosmos, and now it seems like he does. The methodological hurdle is what physicist Stephen Hawking once called “the problem of Genesis.” Science is the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena, and what could be more embarrassing than the finding that a supernatural intelligence transcending all natural laws is behind it all?

Consequently many physicists are exploring an alternative possibility: multiple universes. This is summed up as follows: “Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.” Folger says that “short of invoking a benevolent creator” this is the best that modern science can do. For contemporary physicists, he writes, this “may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation” for our fine-tuned universe.

The appeal of multiple universes—perhaps even an infinity of universes—is that when there are billions and billions of possibilities, then even very unlikely outcomes are going to be realized somewhere. Consequently if there was an infinite number of universes, something like our universe is certain to appear at some point. What at first glance seems like incredible coincidence can be explained as the result of a mathematical inevitability.

The only difficulty, as Folger makes clear, is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any universes other than our own. Moreover, there may never be such evidence. That’s because if there are other universes, they will operate according to different laws of physics than the ones in our universe, and consequently they are permanently and inescapably inaccessible to us. The article in Discover concludes on a somber note. While some physicists are hoping the multiverse will produce empirical predictions that can be tested, “for many physicists, however, the multiverse remains a desperate measure ruled out by the impossibility of confirmation.”

No wonder atheists are sporting billboards asking us to “imagine…no religion.” When science, far from disproving God, seems to be pointing with ever-greater precision toward transcendence, imagination and wishful thinking seem all that is left for the atheists to count on.

[Razor One]

I'm currently writing a long and massive reply to most of the points raised between my last reply and this one, however, Beastbot, I'll make a special exception for your post as it is so laughably refutable.

TLDR Version of the article you copy / pasted: "The Universe is finely tuned for life!"

My Refutation:

A finely tuned universe has no superfluous nor extraneous features

We can strike out gravity and the weak electromagnetic force from our universe entirely and this would not preclude any function of biology.

Organic molecules, DNA and cells operate on a scale where gravity is utterly meaningless. Molecular biologists frequently ignore gravity and still come to the correct conclusions by completely ignoring gravity entirely.

The weak electromagnetic force governs beta decay of certain radioactive isotopes and is not necessary for the functioning of life.

Thus, being able to strike out two of the fundamental forces of nature in the supposedly "Fine Tuned" universe, we're left with the strong force required to hold atoms and their constituent quarks, leptons and so on, together, and the Magnetic force.

Complexity is not a valid argument for design. The article, and you by extension, are confusing Science and Atheism. An Atheistic campaign need not cite scientific evidence for their claims in an advertising campaign, just as a religious advertising campaign need not cite scripture when they claim "Jesus loves you!".

The articles logical fallacies do not even bear pointing out. Any clear minded thinker can spot them a mile off.

Furthermore, while I do appreciate the amusing read, I'd remind that using links as your sole argument on a particular front is bad, mmkay? Make your arguments in your own voice, link to supporting evidence, not the other way round

Best get back to the long post. It'll take the better part of a week at this rate =\

[Beastbot]

We can strike out gravity and the weak electromagnetic force from our universe entirely and this would not preclude any function of biology.

Um... we kinda need gravity for a planet... and an atmosphere... and tons of other things that give rise to complex forms like us. I'm not seeing the "laughable" quality of this article anywhere, despite your odd claims that complexity is not an argument for design, etc. It's quite a great read, which is why I made an exception in this case.

And I thought one of the rules was no insulting others?

[Razor One]

We can strike out gravity and the weak electromagnetic force from our universe entirely and this would not preclude any function of biology.

Um... we kinda need gravity for a planet... and an atmosphere... and tons of other things that give rise to complex forms like us. I'm not seeing the "laughable" quality of this article anywhere, despite your odd claims that complexity is not an argument for design, etc. It's quite a great read, which is why I made an exception in this case.

And I thought one of the rules was no insulting others?

Unless your argument is a physical or mental part of you, I am not insulting you.

Saying "Your argument is laughable" Is not quite the same as stating "I'm laughing at you" in the vindictive manner.

The argument that the universe is fine tuned for life for the formation of any life whatsoever. Life does not require gravity to exist. We may need it for planets but striking gravity from the equation does not outright destroy life. The universe will of course look vastly different but it does not preclude the formation of proteins, DNA, cell division, and the other assorted erratta that is requisite of life.

Eliminating the strong force, for instance, destroys life, by destroying all atomic matter. Eliminating electromagnetism precludes the formation of complex compounds such as water and other chemical molecules requisite for life to exist.

Notice how the article mentions life specifically. Not life as we know it. Not human kind as we would recognise it. It simply states life. Which means a single cell existing without the use of gravity or the weak interaction disproves it.

And guess what? Single celled organisms do not rely in any way on the weak interaction and gravity is utterly pointless in it's environment. By striking out two forces from the supposedly fine tuned universe, the article is refuted.

Too many “coincidences,” however, imply a plot.

This is failure and laughability rolled up in one. Lets say I sleep in 4 days in a row by accident. Do all the "Coincidences" of sleeping in reveal some insidious plot on my part where I in fact intended to sleep in from the get go, or am I simply a heavy sleeper for whom the alarm no longer even disturbs my sleep?

The statement makes a massive assumption based upon very little or at best circumstantial evidence.

It turns out that the quantity of dark energy seems precisely calibrated to make possible not only our universe but observers like us who can comprehend that universe.

It turns out that the atmosphere of the Earth seems precisely calibrated to make possible not only our lives, but also all aerobic oxygen life forms. Does that mean our atmosphere was precisely engineered from the get go? No. Nature struck a balance spontaneously and on its own and it tends to alter when that balance is disrupted. The earth's history of ice ages and hot spells is evidence of this.

While the universe is quite a different beast from the earths climate, we can make assumptions of precise calibration all we like, but unless we find such a calibrator, unless we find the "Creator", they remain assertions and nothing more.

Finally, a brief parting note.

The biblical god asks that you have faith in him and in jesus.

Proof of god means knowledge of god.

Belief in god based on knowledge of god is not faith in god.

Faith requires little to no proof whatsoever. It's called the leap of faith.

Searching for proof of god destroys faith in god. Once you prove god exists, you damn all humanity forever, since faith in god cannot co exist with the knowledge that god exists.

In any case, we're hitting the semantics of the bible without addressing the most important aspect. It doesnt matter how life got here. It doesnt matter how the universe was formed and it doesnt matter if there was a flood or not.

The ultimate message of the bible is that you have faith in god and jesus. Everything else is utterly superfluous.

Scientific fact and religious belief do not need to be placed at loggerheads with each other. Darwin believed in God and had faith whilst also accepting evolution as a fact. Many christians believe in the truth of the bible and accept the scientific facts that the earth is billions of years old.

The conflict that Science disproves religion is a false one. You can accept both without conflict with sufficient compartmentalisation.

This ultimately comes down to Faith and Reason. They are the shoes upon your feet. You can go further with both then you can with either one alone.

To adopt one at the complete and utter expense of the other is fallacious and useless. To do so means you have pointlessly crippled yourself.

Faith and Reason. Both are more powerful together then either alone.

Chew on that for a while.

[artemis-lady-warrior]

No offense but saying something is "laughable" is almost like saying "I'm laughing at you". when I read, see, or hear something termed "laughable" I find myself laughing at it. Couldn't you have used a different term?

I would post some responses about what you said but my computer is acting up with blue screens so I can't write anything that is long.

Darwin believed in God? When did that happen?

[Sinead]

To just briefly touch upon something, Razor, I am getting really annoyed that you continually shoot down Christianity. You didn’t wait to address Beastbot in your “huge post,” but you jumped onto his argument like a bad habit, all but saying, in my interpretation of your “argument,” that Christians are wrong, believe in “nothing” and therefore are stupid for believing in something that “doesn’t exist.” Yet I have yet to see you shoot down Islam, Paganism, Buddhism, or any other faith on this forum. Why focus so hard upon attacking Christianity? It's not a rhetorical question. I genuinely wish to know the answer.

The biblical god asks that you have faith in him and in jesus.

Proof of god means knowledge of god.

Belief in god based on knowledge of god is not faith in god.

Faith requires little to no proof whatsoever. It's called the leap of faith.

Searching for proof of god destroys faith in god. Once you prove god exists, you damn all humanity forever, since faith in god cannot co exist with the knowledge that god exists.

Out of curiosity, why don’t you capitalize proper names? Jesus is a proper name, no matter how you come across it. God is as well, when you refer to the Christian God (who is technically known as Jehovah, “God our Savior.”) That’s just one thing I’d like to know, because I know that if I didn’t capitalize “Allah,” for example, that would be considered highly disrespectful to a Muslim. Therefore, chew on this: I find it disrespectful that you do not capitalize the names of God.

Furthermore, there is indeed proof of God existing. Have you looked into the early and mid 20th century, and the tent-revivals that happened? Do you know what happened IN those tent revivals, that continue to happen today? Miracles of healing. Proof of God existing. Furthermore, I have spoken with people who were there, and who currently work at my seminary as the archival directors. The particular line of revivals that I would ask you to look into would be “The Voice of Healing.” They have documented all healings. Even more so, there is one case that has made it to Ripley’s Believe It Or Not. Dare ya to look into that. It’s got to do with a man being able to see without an eyeball. No lie, no joke, and it’s recorded. There are pictures of a young boy who had one leg that was shorter than the other. In one of the revival meetings, it grew out to full length. I don’t know his name, but I see his picture every day at work.

I have to refute your claim that searching for proof of God destroys my faith God and damns humanity. We are more than encouraged to find proof of God here at the seminary that I attend, to try to find out who God is, what He’s done, where He has supernaturally guided our lives. Faith and knowledge in God do more than co-exist. Just like reason and faith do more than co-exist. They aren’t any more than two words defining opposite sides of one concept.

How do you know that it’s day on the other side of the world when it’s night on your side? Knowledge of the spin of the Earth upon its axis, and faith that it will continue to spin. How do you know that your house is still standing when you come home from work or school? You know how the structure is built, you’ve walked inside it, and it really is solid to your understanding. You furthermore have faith that it will continue to stand, since it has always been there when you left, and been there when you returned.

If you think that I’m fetching a bit too far on this, reconsider my words carefully.

My understanding and my knowledge of God is just like that analogy to that house. I have felt His presence, I have searched Him out, I have asked Him questions, had them answered, and furthermore, I know that he is always with me. How? I can stop at any moment and seek out His Presence. I can listen to any conversation, be part of any conversation, and ask God, “What do you want me to say?” And you know what? He gives me what I need to say. I cannot claim that some of the things that have come out of my mouth are from me. I can see that they’re words that are specific, mean something very pertinent to someone. Often, in Christianity, we call these “Words of Confirmation.” They come from God, who has heard the prayers of someone who needs Him to help in a certain situation. They are echoes of the specific words spoken in private prayer, affirming, encouraging those who need to know something unambiguous from God Himself, given through us who are His children and His earthly mouthpieces.

God exists. I have had proof after proof after proof of knowledge of God, coming to understand Him more and more, understanding how His Spirit moves. Granted, nobody can really fully understand God. Not while we’re alive, anyway.

So I say this: Searching for proof of God strengthens faith in God.

Why? Because there’s scripture that says “Seek and you shall find.” Jetstorm in Beast Machines actually quoted it. When you seek God, and when you seek to find proof that He exists (and if you think about C.S. Lewis, proof that He doesn’t exist), then you will find that proof. Reason backs the simplicity of faith that God exists. The world loses some of the shades of grey, but just like when you lose some of the extra grey or extra noise from a photograph, you get a clearer vision of what that picture is of, and what the world really looks like.

[Beastbot]

Unless your argument is a physical or mental part of you, I am not insulting you.

Saying "Your argument is laughable" Is not quite the same as stating "I'm laughing at you" in the vindictive manner.

Well, I don't take that quite the same way-- particularly when you said that "Any clear minded thinker can spot [the fallacies] a mile off." But if you insist that those weren't back-handed insults, then I'm inclined to believe you.

The argument that the universe is fine tuned for life for the formation of any life whatsoever. Life does not require gravity to exist. We may need it for planets but striking gravity from the equation does not outright destroy life. The universe will of course look vastly different but it does not preclude the formation of proteins, DNA, cell division, and the other assorted erratta that is requisite of life.

How do we know this? We haven't formed the simplest life under the most ideal conditions, much less in zero gravity. Observing life doing okay in zero gravity isn't the same thing as creating life in zero gravity.

Too many “coincidences,” however, imply a plot.

This is failure and laughability rolled up in one. Lets say I sleep in 4 days in a row by accident. Do all the "Coincidences" of sleeping in reveal some insidious plot on my part where I in fact intended to sleep in from the get go, or am I simply a heavy sleeper for whom the alarm no longer even disturbs my sleep?

The statement makes a massive assumption based upon very little or at best circumstantial evidence.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. You're using one personal experience and comparing it to (as far as we know) the unbendable rules of the universe. Also, notice how the word "implies" is used. The author does not say that this, by itself, proves God exists, but it certainly puts the burden of proof on the other side. I'd say a more apt comparison would be coin flips, since the "laws of the coin" state that you get either heads and tails. Let's say you get 200 heads in a row. Now, are you more apt then to say that this was pure coincidence, as you are when a person flips 5 heads in a row, or that there was something else going on-- a weighted coin, a person doing the flip a certain way to always get heads, etc.? Yes, it's possible that 200 heads in a row can happen by pure coincidence, but it's so unlikely you'd best consider other explanations first.

Scientific fact and religious belief do not need to be placed at loggerheads with each other.

You'll get no argument from me there.

Darwin believed in God? When did that happen?

Actually, that's true. Darwin did believe in God, and he was reluctant to bring his theory forward because of it. Justly or not, he regretted doing so much of the rest of his life.

[Razor One]

No offense but saying something is "laughable" is almost like saying "I'm laughing at you". when I read, see, or hear something termed "laughable" I find myself laughing at it. Couldn't you have used a different term?

Lets see...

well that's getting a bit off topic. I thought this was about beast wars... incidently the Bible says man was created in God's own image. If people think God created the monkeys and they became humans then they practically believe that God was some kind of ape. >.<

Getting back on topic. Yeah there is those two episodes at the end of season 3 with all the revolation stuff in them... I wonder if it was from like The Holy Book of Primus or something. XD

Usage of the "lol" smiley indicates laughter.

Oh man, I know! Theistic evolutions have no sense of logic! I don't see how they can believe in evolution AND trust God at the same time... it makes no sense.

Oh, and sorry about getting off topic. I get carried away when I talk about God, and I could keep going! I mean, he's so cool. But I know this is a Beast Wars forum and not a religious debate.

Anyway, I believe that in season three, Optimus says that the book is the Covenant Primus, of which there are only two copies left.

7Knight basically stated that theistic evolutionists had no sense of logic or sensibility. Basically, he called them insane.

To Razor & General Statement

Just to let you know: I am using the New King James Version text for whatever I quote the Bible. However, I am also a seminary student. If you want to quote what the Bible says back to me, remember one thing: I'm also using Lexicons and Dictionaries on what the words mean. That means that I'm researching the words to give you a better explanation of the Bible's words. The tool I use is a free program called e-Sword.

I will post later upon the inaccuracies regarding scriptural references later tonight, once I cool off from the ridiculousness that I just read.

Seriously.

Sinead called my arguments Ridiculous, which not only means laughable but also worthy of ridicule, derision and scorn.

If I am incorrect to use the term laughable then so too are you, Sinead and 7Knight.

Strange then is it not that when I use the term that I am the first to be called out on it.

To just briefly touch upon something, Razor, I am getting really annoyed that you continually shoot down Christianity. You didn’t wait to address Beastbot in your “huge post,” but you jumped onto his argument like a bad habit, all but saying, in my interpretation of your “argument,” that Christians are wrong, believe in “nothing” and therefore are stupid for believing in something that “doesn’t exist.” Yet I have yet to see you shoot down Islam, Paganism, Buddhism, or any other faith on this forum. Why focus so hard upon attacking Christianity? It's not a rhetorical question. I genuinely wish to know the answer.

Count how many Christians are in this thread, then count out the Islamics, Pagans and Buddhists. Now, from what vector am I seeing the most points being raised up against things I percieve to be true? Are all these arguments logical?

You say I'm attacking Christianity, how so? From my perception I'm attacking logically fallacious argumentation. If an Atheist came on this forum right now and argued that Christianity is a bloody religion that has a history bloodshed ranging from the Spanish Inquisition to the Crusades and that we should abolish it's barbarity, you would find me arguing just as vigoursly with him as I am with the Christians in this thread.

To state that I'm targetting Christians alone is fallacious. I challenged Nurann when she stated the moon does not rotate.

I was going to jump on Blazemane earlier on quoting out of context and leave it out of my Big Post but Rakshash beat me to the punch.

Reread my previous post in this thread if you will. I never said Christians were stupid.

For the most part I was attacking the argument that something complex and apparently (to our senses) fine tuned must be the product of an intelligent being was a fallacious one.

I cannot think of a single instance where I point blank called belief in Christianity "Stupid".

The biblical god asks that you have faith in him and in jesus.

Proof of god means knowledge of god.

Belief in god based on knowledge of god is not faith in god.

Faith requires little to no proof whatsoever. It's called the leap of faith.

Searching for proof of god destroys faith in god. Once you prove god exists, you damn all humanity forever, since faith in god cannot co exist with the knowledge that god exists.

Out of curiosity, why don’t you capitalize proper names? Jesus is a proper name, no matter how you come across it. God is as well, when you refer to the Christian God (who is technically known as Jehovah, “God our Savior.”) That’s just one thing I’d like to know, because I know that if I didn’t capitalize “Allah,” for example, that would be considered highly disrespectful to a Muslim. Therefore, chew on this: I find it disrespectful that you do not capitalize the names of God.

29 Hours without sleep and striking while the iron is hot can do that to a person. I apologise if you found it insulting and disrespectful but such was never my intent. I will endeavour to attempt to capitilise their proper names from now on but you will have to forgive the odd error as there are times when I am typing feverishly and fast and there are the odd punctuation and spelling errors that get by as I try to funnel my raging ideas through my hands and into the computer as fast as my mind can think, which can be a difficult process at times even at 200 WPM =\

Furthermore, there is indeed proof of God existing. Have you looked into the early and mid 20th century, and the tent-revivals that happened? Do you know what happened IN those tent revivals, that continue to happen today? Miracles of healing. Proof of God existing. Furthermore, I have spoken with people who were there, and who currently work at my seminary as the archival directors. The particular line of revivals that I would ask you to look into would be “The Voice of Healing.” They have documented all healings. Even more so, there is one case that has made it to Ripley’s Believe It Or Not. Dare ya to look into that. It’s got to do with a man being able to see without an eyeball. No lie, no joke, and it’s recorded. There are pictures of a young boy who had one leg that was shorter than the other. In one of the revival meetings, it grew out to full length. I don’t know his name, but I see his picture every day at work.

This is why Scientists can go into the lab, do a test and go "Aha! God!" Hrrm? It's not proof, it's religious belief. For Scientific proof of god, he must be testable, verifiable, falsifiable, must subscribe to Occams Razor and tests for his prescence must be repeatable.

Would any of these faith healers in the tent revivals be able to repeat their miracles of healing through faith under lab conditions with skeptics watching? Why isnt the medical community ecstatic that they can now use faith healers to help terminally ill patients?

I have to refute your claim that searching for proof of God destroys my faith God and damns humanity. We are more than encouraged to find proof of God here at the seminary that I attend, to try to find out who God is, what He’s done, where He has supernaturally guided our lives. Faith and knowledge in God do more than co-exist. Just like reason and faith do more than co-exist. They aren’t any more than two words defining opposite sides of one concept.

I know the desk in front of me exists. I know the chair beneath me exists. I can see them, I can touch them, were I to hit them I could hear the sound they would make, and if I were so inclined I could smell and taste them as well.

Knowing that God Exists, as incontrevertibly as this chair or this desk is what destroys faith in my argument. You seem to be stating that knowledge ABOUT God, who he is, as opposed to whether or not he exists.

That kind of knowledge is worthy of pursuing if you are theologically inclined, but is not the argument I'm making.

How do you know that it’s day on the other side of the world when it’s night on your side? Knowledge of the spin of the Earth upon its axis, and faith that it will continue to spin. How do you know that your house is still standing when you come home from work or school? You know how the structure is built, you’ve walked inside it, and it really is solid to your understanding. You furthermore have faith that it will continue to stand, since it has always been there when you left, and been there when you returned.

If you think that I’m fetching a bit too far on this, reconsider my words carefully.

I think you are mincing the words a bit here. There is the common definition of faith, such as "I have faith in my fellow man" and then there is the religious aspect of faith such as "I have Faith in God".

In order to avoid confusion in future, I propose using the word "faith", uncapitalised when referring to common faith and "Faith" whilst referring to the religious kind.

I have faith that gravity will keep on... graviti...sing... That the world will keep on spinning and that my computer here wont explode and kill me at any point **eyes computer warily**. But I cannot claim to have Faith in God.

My understanding and my knowledge of God is just like that analogy to that house. I have felt His presence, I have searched Him out, I have asked Him questions, had them answered, and furthermore, I know that he is always with me. How? I can stop at any moment and seek out His Presence. I can listen to any conversation, be part of any conversation, and ask God, “What do you want me to say?” And you know what? He gives me what I need to say. I cannot claim that some of the things that have come out of my mouth are from me. I can see that they’re words that are specific, mean something very pertinent to someone. Often, in Christianity, we call these “Words of Confirmation.” They come from God, who has heard the prayers of someone who needs Him to help in a certain situation. They are echoes of the specific words spoken in private prayer, affirming, encouraging those who need to know something unambiguous from God Himself, given through us who are His children and His earthly mouthpieces.

God exists. I have had proof after proof after proof of knowledge of God, coming to understand Him more and more, understanding how His Spirit moves. Granted, nobody can really fully understand God. Not while we’re alive, anyway.

And you wouldnt be wrong in any way to believe that, it is personal knowledge and I will not dispute ones personal knowledge.

But it isnt objective knowledge. You can state what you know here but it does not convince me. I do not feel his presence, I do not get counsel from him in the same manner nor am I compelled to say things that I can attribute to him.

Your personal beliefs are valid and irrefutable, but do not serve as objective proof of God.

Can you objectively prove that God exists? You can bring in a hundred examples of why God exists for you but can you prove him objectively? Can someone look at your evidence and attribute it to none other then God Himself?

So I say this: Searching for proof of God strengthens faith in God.

Why? Because there’s scripture that says “Seek and you shall find.” Jetstorm in Beast Machines actually quoted it. When you seek God, and when you seek to find proof that He exists (and if you think about C.S. Lewis, proof that He doesn’t exist), then you will find that proof. Reason backs the simplicity of faith that God exists. The world loses some of the shades of grey, but just like when you lose some of the extra grey or extra noise from a photograph, you get a clearer vision of what that picture is of, and what the world really looks like.

And in context:

7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

"Seek and you shall find", when placed in context, does not appear to my reasoning to be stating "Go forth and find god" but seems more to me as a method for finding, or returning, to faith.

It could also be applied for any field of knowledge, whether that's knowledge about god, how the universe was made or why kids like Cinnamon Toast Crunch so much. It can apply to prayer, it can apply to just about any form of inquisitive or curious nature, it can even apply to prayer.

While you are correct in applying that particular use of the phrase, it does not explicitly state what you mean.

And of course, in the spirit of conciliation, and for proof that I dont think everything in the bible is claptrap:

9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

The final part, Do to Others what you would have them do to you, is an absolute gem of wisdom that I try to subscribe to as best I can. I cant always adhere to it and the failing is mine but it is a wise and good passage which would make the world a better place if everyone subscribed to it.

To that end, I expect everyone to call me out on my logical fallacies in this debate, it's only fair after all

Unless your argument is a physical or mental part of you, I am not insulting you.

Saying "Your argument is laughable" Is not quite the same as stating "I'm laughing at you" in the vindictive manner.

Well, I don't take that quite the same way-- particularly when you said that "Any clear minded thinker can spot [the fallacies] a mile off." But if you insist that those weren't back-handed insults, then I'm inclined to believe you.

Ah, I see how that can be insulting now, such was not at all my intention and for that I apologise. I'm a fairly straight up kind of guy when it comes down to it, so if I were to insult you, I would do so directly and unequivocally. I dislike underhandedness and veiled words. In some way their usage I feel is dishonorable, strange as it may seem.

The argument that the universe is fine tuned for life for the formation of any life whatsoever. Life does not require gravity to exist. We may need it for planets but striking gravity from the equation does not outright destroy life. The universe will of course look vastly different but it does not preclude the formation of proteins, DNA, cell division, and the other assorted erratta that is requisite of life.

How do we know this? We haven't formed the simplest life under the most ideal conditions, much less in zero gravity. Observing life doing okay in zero gravity isn't the same thing as creating life in zero gravity.

The problem here is ones definition of Finely Tuned. If the universe is finely tuned then life cannot possibly exist without gravity at all and is easily refutable.

If the definition for Finely Tuned is "Life As We Know It" then it comes back to the coincidences we observe that apparently lead us to think that something finely tuned to the universe to be suited for life, to which I have the following.

I once tossed a coin 100 times as part of my probability homework. I got Tails. 84 times in a row. The chances of that occurring are astronomical to say the least, but not impossible. An improbable universe raises no issue with me as an Atheist. The universe does not necessarily conform to our senses of probable or improbably, right or wrong, sensible and insensible and so on. Relativity is proof of that.

Too many “coincidences,” however, imply a plot.

This is failure and laughability rolled up in one. Lets say I sleep in 4 days in a row by accident. Do all the "Coincidences" of sleeping in reveal some insidious plot on my part where I in fact intended to sleep in from the get go, or am I simply a heavy sleeper for whom the alarm no longer even disturbs my sleep?

The statement makes a massive assumption based upon very little or at best circumstantial evidence.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. You're using one personal experience and comparing it to (as far as we know) the unbendable rules of the universe. Also, notice how the word "implies" is used. The author does not say that this, by itself, proves God exists, but it certainly puts the burden of proof on the other side. I'd say a more apt comparison would be coin flips, since the "laws of the coin" state that you get either heads and tails. Let's say you get 200 heads in a row. Now, are you more apt then to say that this was pure coincidence, as you are when a person flips 5 heads in a row, or that there was something else going on-- a weighted coin, a person doing the flip a certain way to always get heads, etc.? Yes, it's possible that 200 heads in a row can happen by pure coincidence, but it's so unlikely you'd best consider other explanations first.

I kept this seperate as to make my response a little less meandering, but essentially, you'd have to verify whether or not the coin was tampered with. If the coin was not tampered with, as it was in my 84 tails coin toss experiment, that leaves only the improbability of what occurred. You can go forth and seek proof that the coin has been tampered with; you can also disprove the coin has been tampered with by studying the coin carefully and looking for evidence for or against such a notion.

The implication of an intelligent designer for the universe is neither verifiable, testable, nor falsifiable, and thus, useless for cosmologists when it comes to aspects of the universe, leaving us thus with Improbability at best.

Darwin believed in God? When did that happen?

Actually, that's true. Darwin did believe in God, and he was reluctant to bring his theory forward because of it. Justly or not, he regretted doing so much of the rest of his life.

Are you perhaps referring to the Lady Hope incident? It's my understanding that's a widely believed myth, but if you're not then I'd like to hear more.

Okay, 2 AM, time for dinner

[artemis-lady-warrior]

No I'm NOT going to quote everything you said, Razor. because soem things I don't intend to get into.

No offense but saying something is "laughable" is almost like saying "I'm laughing at you". when I read, see, or hear something termed "laughable" I find myself laughing at it. Couldn't you have used a different term?

Lets see...

well that's getting a bit off topic. I thought this was about beast wars... incidently the Bible says man was created in God's own image. If people think God created the monkeys and they became humans then they practically believe that God was some kind of ape. >.<

Getting back on topic. Yeah there is those two episodes at the end of season 3 with all the revolation stuff in them... I wonder if it was from like The Holy Book of Primus or something. XD

Usage of the "lol" smiley indicates laughter.

Yeah That's what I'm referring to. Did you read me wrong? I said if I read something that sounds laughable I'm gonna laugh. If it does not make me laugh I don't term is laughable. I term it "something to argue about"

Oh man, I know! Theistic evolutions have no sense of logic! I don't see how they can believe in evolution AND trust God at the same time... it makes no sense.

Oh, and sorry about getting off topic. I get carried away when I talk about God, and I could keep going! I mean, he's so cool. But I know this is a Beast Wars forum and not a religious debate.

Anyway, I believe that in season three, Optimus says that the book is the Covenant Primus, of which there are only two copies left.

7Knight basically stated that theistic evolutionists had no sense of logic or sensibility. Basically, he called them insane.

you are bringing up an older topic here. Why did you do that? How long ago was that posted? October? Or are you trying to make a point?

To Razor & General Statement

Just to let you know: I am using the New King James Version text for whatever I quote the Bible. However, I am also a seminary student. If you want to quote what the Bible says back to me, remember one thing: I'm also using Lexicons and Dictionaries on what the words mean. That means that I'm researching the words to give you a better explanation of the Bible's words. The tool I use is a free program called e-Sword.

I will post later upon the inaccuracies regarding scriptural references later tonight, once I cool off from the ridiculousness that I just read.

Seriously.

Sinead called my arguments Ridiculous, which not only means laughable but also worthy of ridicule, derision and scorn.

If I am incorrect to use the term laughable then so too are you, Sinead and 7Knight.

Strange then is it not that when I use the term that I am the first to be called out on it.

who else used that term? lat time I checked te word/term 'Laughable" meant

of a kind to provoke laughter or sometimes derision : amusingly ridiculous

maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong, but I do belive you're the only one who used the term.

To just briefly touch upon something, Razor, I am getting really annoyed that you continually shoot down Christianity. You didn’t wait to address Beastbot in your “huge post,” but you jumped onto his argument like a bad habit, all but saying, in my interpretation of your “argument,” that Christians are wrong, believe in “nothing” and therefore are stupid for believing in something that “doesn’t exist.” Yet I have yet to see you shoot down Islam, Paganism, Buddhism, or any other faith on this forum. Why focus so hard upon attacking Christianity? It's not a rhetorical question. I genuinely wish to know the answer.

Count how many Christians are in this thread, then count out the Islamics, Pagans and Buddhists. Now, from what vector am I seeing the most points being raised up against things I percieve to be true? Are all these arguments logical?

You say I'm attacking Christianity, how so? From my perception I'm attacking logically fallacious argumentation. If an Atheist came on this forum right now and argued that Christianity is a bloody religion that has a history bloodshed ranging from the Spanish Inquisition to the Crusades and that we should abolish it's barbarity, you would find me arguing just as vigoursly with him as I am with the Christians in this thread.

To state that I'm targetting Christians alone is fallacious. I challenged Nurann when she stated the moon does not rotate.

I was going to jump on Blazemane earlier on quoting out of context and leave it out of my Big Post but Rakshash beat me to the punch.

Reread my previous post in this thread if you will. I never said Christians were stupid.

For the most part I was attacking the argument that something complex and apparently (to our senses) fine tuned must be the product of an intelligent being was a fallacious one.

I cannot think of a single instance where I point blank called belief in Christianity "Stupid".

To be fair it did seem that way. Just pointing that out.

Furthermore, there is indeed proof of God existing. Have you looked into the early and mid 20th century, and the tent-revivals that happened? Do you know what happened IN those tent revivals, that continue to happen today? Miracles of healing. Proof of God existing. Furthermore, I have spoken with people who were there, and who currently work at my seminary as the archival directors. The particular line of revivals that I would ask you to look into would be “The Voice of Healing.” They have documented all healings. Even more so, there is one case that has made it to Ripley’s Believe It Or Not. Dare ya to look into that. It’s got to do with a man being able to see without an eyeball. No lie, no joke, and it’s recorded. There are pictures of a young boy who had one leg that was shorter than the other. In one of the revival meetings, it grew out to full length. I don’t know his name, but I see his picture every day at work.

This is why Scientists can go into the lab, do a test and go "Aha! God!" Hrrm? It's not proof, it's religious belief. For Scientific proof of god, he must be testable, verifiable, falsifiable, must subscribe to Occams Razor and tests for his prescence must be repeatable.

Would any of these faith healers in the tent revivals be able to repeat their miracles of healing through faith under lab conditions with skeptics watching? Why isnt the medical community ecstatic that they can now use faith healers to help terminally ill patients?

to the second part I have no clue, but it might have something to do wit the spirit moving. I've gone to church my entire life and people I know with medical problems go up for prayer all the time like for cancer and stuff and the next day they go to the doctor and it's gone. How can you explain that?

I have to refute your claim that searching for proof of God destroys my faith God and damns humanity. We are more than encouraged to find proof of God here at the seminary that I attend, to try to find out who God is, what He’s done, where He has supernaturally guided our lives. Faith and knowledge in God do more than co-exist. Just like reason and faith do more than co-exist. They aren’t any more than two words defining opposite sides of one concept.

I know the desk in front of me exists. I know the chair beneath me exists. I can see them, I can touch them, were I to hit them I could hear the sound they would make, and if I were so inclined I could smell and taste them as well.

Knowing that God Exists, as incontrevertibly as this chair or this desk is what destroys faith in my argument. You seem to be stating that knowledge ABOUT God, who he is, as opposed to whether or not he exists.

That kind of knowledge is worthy of pursuing if you are theologically inclined, but is not the argument I'm making.

Razor, you say that people who believe in God should not try to prove he exists and it should just be faith. While that might be all well and good it isn't always useful. People have to have some knowledge of the existence of God to explain it to people who don't believe. Like you. You are asking "How can you prove God exists?" and many posters are giving you that proof. So then you say to them. 'You should not be trying to prove he exosts because it will be the fall of humanity" (i'm paraphrasing, I know you didn't say it like that). No offense but make up your mind.

(I won't quote the rest of what you said. it will take too long, but you get the jist.

Darwin believed in God? When did that happen?

Actually, that's true. Darwin did believe in God, and he was reluctant to bring his theory forward because of it. Justly or not, he regretted doing so much of the rest of his life.

Are you perhaps referring to the Lady Hope incident? It's my understanding that's a widely believed myth, but if you're not then I'd like to hear more.

Okay, 2 AM, time for dinner [/quote]

YOU'RE the one who said Darwin belived in God, Razor, not me! you said and I quote

Darwin believed in God and had faith whilst also accepting evolution as a fact.

because from everything I've read about him he did not. Make up ypour mind.

[Razor One]

No I'm NOT going to quote everything you said, Razor. because soem things I don't intend to get into.

No offense but saying something is "laughable" is almost like saying "I'm laughing at you". when I read, see, or hear something termed "laughable" I find myself laughing at it. Couldn't you have used a different term?

Lets see...

well that's getting a bit off topic. I thought this was about beast wars... incidently the Bible says man was created in God's own image. If people think God created the monkeys and they became humans then they practically believe that God was some kind of ape. >.<

Getting back on topic. Yeah there is those two episodes at the end of season 3 with all the revolation stuff in them... I wonder if it was from like The Holy Book of Primus or something. XD

Usage of the "lol" smiley indicates laughter.

Yeah That's what I'm referring to. Did you read me wrong? I said if I read something that sounds laughable I'm gonna laugh. If it does not make me laugh I don't term is laughable. I term it "something to argue about"

You laughed at Theistic Evolutionists in such a way that could be interpreted as demeaning or insulting to them.

Oh man, I know! Theistic evolutions have no sense of logic! I don't see how they can believe in evolution AND trust God at the same time... it makes no sense.

Oh, and sorry about getting off topic. I get carried away when I talk about God, and I could keep going! I mean, he's so cool. But I know this is a Beast Wars forum and not a religious debate.

Anyway, I believe that in season three, Optimus says that the book is the Covenant Primus, of which there are only two copies left.

7Knight basically stated that theistic evolutionists had no sense of logic or sensibility. Basically, he called them insane.

you are bringing up an older topic here. Why did you do that? How long ago was that posted? October? Or are you trying to make a point?

I'm bringing it up as an example. Yes, I am trying to make a point. Read on.

To Razor & General Statement

Just to let you know: I am using the New King James Version text for whatever I quote the Bible. However, I am also a seminary student. If you want to quote what the Bible says back to me, remember one thing: I'm also using Lexicons and Dictionaries on what the words mean. That means that I'm researching the words to give you a better explanation of the Bible's words. The tool I use is a free program called e-Sword.

I will post later upon the inaccuracies regarding scriptural references later tonight, once I cool off from the ridiculousness that I just read.

Seriously.

Sinead called my arguments Ridiculous, which not only means laughable but also worthy of ridicule, derision and scorn.

If I am incorrect to use the term laughable then so too are you, Sinead and 7Knight.

Strange then is it not that when I use the term that I am the first to be called out on it.

who else used that term? lat time I checked te word/term 'Laughable" meant

of a kind to provoke laughter or sometimes derision : amusingly ridiculous

maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong, but I do belive you're the only one who used the term.

I termed a point laughable. You laughed at an entire belief system earlier on in this thread. 7Knight called theistic evolutionists insane and Sinead called my points of argument ridiculous.

If YOU can laugh at an entire belief system.
If 7Knight can call a subset of humanity insane.
If Sinead can call my arguments ridiculous.

Why is it that it only becomes objectionable when I use the term correctly and in the correct context? If it's okay for you to laugh at others, their arguments and so on, why is it NOT okay for me to do the same?

Or does one rule apply to you and another to me?

To just briefly touch upon something, Razor, I am getting really annoyed that you continually shoot down Christianity. You didn’t wait to address Beastbot in your “huge post,” but you jumped onto his argument like a bad habit, all but saying, in my interpretation of your “argument,” that Christians are wrong, believe in “nothing” and therefore are stupid for believing in something that “doesn’t exist.” Yet I have yet to see you shoot down Islam, Paganism, Buddhism, or any other faith on this forum. Why focus so hard upon attacking Christianity? It's not a rhetorical question. I genuinely wish to know the answer.

Count how many Christians are in this thread, then count out the Islamics, Pagans and Buddhists. Now, from what vector am I seeing the most points being raised up against things I percieve to be true? Are all these arguments logical?

You say I'm attacking Christianity, how so? From my perception I'm attacking logically fallacious argumentation. If an Atheist came on this forum right now and argued that Christianity is a bloody religion that has a history bloodshed ranging from the Spanish Inquisition to the Crusades and that we should abolish it's barbarity, you would find me arguing just as vigoursly with him as I am with the Christians in this thread.

To state that I'm targetting Christians alone is fallacious. I challenged Nurann when she stated the moon does not rotate.

I was going to jump on Blazemane earlier on quoting out of context and leave it out of my Big Post but Rakshash beat me to the punch.

Reread my previous post in this thread if you will. I never said Christians were stupid.

For the most part I was attacking the argument that something complex and apparently (to our senses) fine tuned must be the product of an intelligent being was a fallacious one.

I cannot think of a single instance where I point blank called belief in Christianity "Stupid".

To be fair it did seem that way. Just pointing that out.

To be fair, it was not intended that way. Put yourself in my shoes and think from my perspective.

Furthermore, there is indeed proof of God existing. Have you looked into the early and mid 20th century, and the tent-revivals that happened? Do you know what happened IN those tent revivals, that continue to happen today? Miracles of healing. Proof of God existing. Furthermore, I have spoken with people who were there, and who currently work at my seminary as the archival directors. The particular line of revivals that I would ask you to look into would be “The Voice of Healing.” They have documented all healings. Even more so, there is one case that has made it to Ripley’s Believe It Or Not. Dare ya to look into that. It’s got to do with a man being able to see without an eyeball. No lie, no joke, and it’s recorded. There are pictures of a young boy who had one leg that was shorter than the other. In one of the revival meetings, it grew out to full length. I don’t know his name, but I see his picture every day at work.

This is why Scientists can go into the lab, do a test and go "Aha! God!" Hrrm? It's not proof, it's religious belief. For Scientific proof of god, he must be testable, verifiable, falsifiable, must subscribe to Occams Razor and tests for his prescence must be repeatable.

Would any of these faith healers in the tent revivals be able to repeat their miracles of healing through faith under lab conditions with skeptics watching? Why isnt the medical community ecstatic that they can now use faith healers to help terminally ill patients?

to the second part I have no clue, but it might have something to do wit the spirit moving. I've gone to church my entire life and people I know with medical problems go up for prayer all the time like for cancer and stuff and the next day they go to the doctor and it's gone. How can you explain that?

Sounds like an effect I've heard of before.

Patients were given a pill that they were told would make them better. Lo and behold it did! The pill, however, was made from sugar. Belief does have a power on the human mind. Believing that a pill will cure them cured them of their condition in at least half of the cases tested.

Given that I dont believe god exists, I can see how that could happen instead with prayer. The people believed that prayer would cure them and lo it did. Good for them.

I have to refute your claim that searching for proof of God destroys my faith God and damns humanity. We are more than encouraged to find proof of God here at the seminary that I attend, to try to find out who God is, what He’s done, where He has supernaturally guided our lives. Faith and knowledge in God do more than co-exist. Just like reason and faith do more than co-exist. They aren’t any more than two words defining opposite sides of one concept.

I know the desk in front of me exists. I know the chair beneath me exists. I can see them, I can touch them, were I to hit them I could hear the sound they would make, and if I were so inclined I could smell and taste them as well.

Knowing that God Exists, as incontrevertibly as this chair or this desk is what destroys faith in my argument. You seem to be stating that knowledge ABOUT God, who he is, as opposed to whether or not he exists.

That kind of knowledge is worthy of pursuing if you are theologically inclined, but is not the argument I'm making.

Razor, you say that people who believe in God should not try to prove he exists and it should just be faith. While that might be all well and good it isn't always useful. People have to have some knowledge of the existence of God to explain it to people who don't believe. Like you. You are asking "How can you prove God exists?" and many posters are giving you that proof. So then you say to them. 'You should not be trying to prove he exosts because it will be the fall of humanity" (i'm paraphrasing, I know you didn't say it like that). No offense but make up your mind.

(I won't quote the rest of what you said. it will take too long, but you get the jist.

I've yet to see convincing objective and conclusive proof of God appear in this thread.

I Require proof that god exists. I have no faith in god.

Those that have faith in god should not require proof of god to have faith in god.

My beef, as it were, are people who search for proof of God whilst having faith in god. In my view it shows a certain weakness of faith, though it is entirely possible I'm mistaken.

Darwin believed in God? When did that happen?

Actually, that's true. Darwin did believe in God, and he was reluctant to bring his theory forward because of it. Justly or not, he regretted doing so much of the rest of his life.

Are you perhaps referring to the Lady Hope incident? It's my understanding that's a widely believed myth, but if you're not then I'd like to hear more.

Okay, 2 AM, time for dinner

YOU'RE the one who said Darwin belived in God, Razor, not me! you said and I quote

Darwin believed in God and had faith whilst also accepting evolution as a fact.

because from everything I've read about him he did not. Make up ypour mind.

You misread me. I was asking about the reluctancy part of Beastbots post, not about the belief in god section.