Many animals exhibit imagination and there are a number of studies that support it in monkey and dolphins, for example.
Perception does not substitute in place of truth no matter how desperately some people living in a bubble want it to be.
POLL: Is there a God ??
- Thread starter megablue
- Start date
Perception does not substitute in place of truth no matter how desperately some people living in a bubble want it to be.
Good answer re truth. Where does truth come from?
Here are the 2 options i see:
1. Everything came about through randomness. If everything is random, then how can randomness determine truth?
2. Everything was created. Truth is defined from the Creator.
(FTR. There are ppl that can describe this.much better than i. There are volumes of books about this topic; am trying to put it in soundbites.)
Last edited:
If you're going to consider truth some ethereal philosophical question then you have some runway but I am talking about scientific truth. Testable, observable, scientific truth. 1 or 0. It happened or it did not happen. Like the bear in the woods nonsense like in order for there to be a sound then human ear must be present for it to be type nonsense.
Because the one part of imagination that is unique to humans is the belief in an invisible friend.
You didnt answer my question, esp related to the 2 options. Random? Or created? Philosophy and morality depend upon the answer.
Do you have any observed evidence (1 or 0) of macroevolution?
Are you familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Are you familiar with the law of angular momentum?
Why did the big bang ... bang? And, if was random, will it happen again? Has it happened more than once? (The universe is expanding out in all directions, that suggests it has only happened once. Because if a 2nd bang occurred then galaxies would be moving toward ours. And another galaxy movimg towards ours has not been observed, 1 or 0, right?) So, this random thing only happened once in billions of years? (That is an argument for creation.)
Last edited:
Any fool can avoid a question.
It is called a conversation, an exploration to the origins of truth. (Edit: I tried to respond with "scientific truth" based questions. And you didn't respond like an adult.)
If you're not interested, then move along. Or report me again.
You guys keep challenging us with some of the most difficult questions in all of science while on your side you get to play make-believe in your imaginary world. Must be a fun game for you.
Either engage in the conversation or move along.
I have been where you were and searched for evidence. We may never have observational/inductive scientific proof in this life, but through deductive reasoning we can observe the evidence. In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelming.
My question was not a difficult question: were we created or randomly appear? Once you honestly evaluate the evidence, it is clear this was all created. But ... you can avoid mature discussions and play make-believe in your imaginary world. Makes no diff to me.
Have you considered that there are other options that us humans simply can’t grasp? For a species that still doesn’t understand how it’s own brain fully functions I’m not quite confident we have a clue about galaxies billions of years away…
Don't engage him. The juvenile replies aren't worth it. His loss in the long run.
Yes I have, Ron.
Are you offering a 3rd solution: aliens? (even then, if that is the scenario you're offering, would aliens be the creator?)
How does God create? What is that process, exactly? Does he say "presto" or "shazaam?"
Science has answered many questions, but certainly not all. Unanswered questions are not evidence for a creator or a god.
Answered questions are in no way dispositive of His "unevidenced" reality.
That made me laugh. I really appreciate the honesty. Lets go have a beer...
I have read, "Let there be light..." translated to english, of course.
I answered your sophomoric question. Do you have any answers to the serious questions?
It is ironic you accuse ppl of living in a fantasy when you have no answers to life's fundamental questions.
Which is right, incidentally... "scientifically"
The beginning stage of the universe was dark. No other "god" got even that right... "scientifically"
Agreed. Science seeks to find out how the universe works. It does not seek to prove or disprove the existence of a creator or a god. However, it is clear that science has explained many things that were unknown and attributed to gods throughout the history of mankind. Science is cool … in my view.
Last edited:
I have almost fully grasped on to the idea that I'm agnostic. The only thing holding me back is that my wife is very adamant about raising our future kids in a Christian home and I frankly couldn't give less of a crap about that but also don't want to have some ongoing argument over it. Probably TMI but everyone else is sharing a lot on this thread too
So when God wants something he just says it then it appears? Does he need ingredients or is it conjured whole from nothing? If so, then how did he describe what it is he wanted to create? Since earth is in one of a trillion trillion galaxies and untold number of planets, don't you think he spent an inordinate amount of his time talking about earth in the bible? Why didn't he warn some people that if they kept misbehaving he would send them to Othello 999 on the other side of the universe and their commute would suck if they kept it up? Seems like earth gets a lot of play for such a miniscule part of his overall creation?
Let there be... stuff. I have no idea how it works. They'll figure it out. While I'm at it I will make a zillion billion trillion galaxies brimming with planets but this one place I am going to focus all my time and effort on and not mention any of these other ones.
I'll start with this thing I'll call a man and then another one called a woman and I'll have them procreate by this shameful procedure that I'll roundly discourage from frivolously engaging in, and I'll have this thing I will call an apple that I won't want them to eat, but they will. Then I'll send my son in and kill him to lay the biggest guilt trip on them you could ever devise. Gee, this plan is really coming together. I wonder if I should do anything with all these other planets and stars? Nah...
Something to ponder re: your future young’uns…
1. Be wary of any church that pushes thoughts on young kids like, “you’re a sinner”, “you’re nothing without god”, “if you leave the church you’ll be tortured for eternity”, or any other such messages. Kids need to be encouraged, not shamed and made to feel inferior or not worthy.
2. Never, ever, ever, for any reason, allow them to be alone with a member of the clergy.
Good luck!
That's what I meant; it does nothing to advance the atheist argument.
God explains what we understand equally as much as that which we don't. And the "existence" of other gods says nothing about God. "A" god does nohing to preclude the God.
Thanks for the info! We actually have our first little one on the way right now. We live in a small town with not a lot of options as far as faith-based institutions (a lot of fear-mongering, discriminatory churches that want to dive head first into places where they don't belong) so I'd really rather not take them anywhere but such is life.
As complex as the universe is then of course it's intelligent design. Believing we evolved from mud is laughable at best.
I am not going address the majority of this post, as most has been debated ad nauseum in this thread. Would like to briefly comment on your description of sex (at least I think that's what you are referencing), which you term a "shameful procedure" that God will "roundly discourage from frivously engaging in"...
Biblically speaking, God has designed sex to be enjoyed in the confines of marriage between husband and wife. This is done for our protection. Generally speaking, if society adhered to God's command to enjoy sex within the confines of marriage, I wonder how much better off society would be in general. Percentage of unplanned pregnancies would drop exponentially, as would abortions. Second, contraction of STDs/HIV would drop exponentially as well. Emotional/psychological despair from engaging sexually with numerous partners, especially in women, would drop markedly as well.
Society, in general, sells the lie to sleep around as much as possible, and you will love a happy satisfied life. If it feels good, do it. Look at how rampant hook up culture is in society. Yet people, especially unmarried women who are now tainted by having numerous sexual partners, are more miserable than they have ever been, according to numerous studies. Society in general, is more miserable than they have ever been.
Just observations on my end.
Agreed. No way did man just appear from the ground…
Genesis 2:7
New International Version
7 Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.I really don’t think any atheist here attempt to explain these types of things through the lens of their world view. I will add another.
NT Wright speaks of a friend whose daughter was killed 1/2 way around the world. She and her husband were physically far apart when she was killed. He learned of her death when he saw a vision of her in his room that quickly disappeared. He attempted to contact her and discovered she had been killed.
How do atheists describe these stories?
And, yet, we are carbon-based and the foundations of all we are physically is found in nature. If it was not, the theory of abiogenesis would be even more unlikely than it currently is. Reading poetry that speaks to truths, but never intended to be a science book and then pretending it’s a science book is self delusional.
Again, you don’t understand the genre if you don’t believe poetry speaks to truth.
We often see "scientists" rule out half of the possibilities before they start, and still call themselves scientists. It seems disingenuous.
Your "faith theory" is that all life came from a rock.
The greatest scientists historically were men of faith... the greatest modern ones, like Feynman, were more ambivalent, saying something along the lines of can't be known scientifically and held great respect for religion, neverheless.
They weren't on some "agnostic" jihad like so many militant atheists are today.