The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Is there a God?in Religion

YeshuaRedeemed

I am wondering how nature is possible without God.

Pieter

Yes. There is a God.

Nature is completely impossible without God.

Here is my 'longer' answer lol. Quite similar question...

Okeeeyy! I am a late debater in this one. I take the stance of those who believe in the existence of a Creator.
To those who do not, I want to ask a few simple questions:
1. What do you define as a fact? You claim that we have no evidence to support the existence of a Creator. I disagree. We have perfectly sound evidence of a Creator, namely: Our bible (if you're a Christian like me) - hold tight with me on this one. I believe in a Creator because it was written down. Much like you believe in the existence of Julius Ceaser. What evidence do we have of either's existence but what has been written down by those who knew them?
2. How do you explain the start (if not creation) of the Universe? From our scientific observations: Something cannot come from nothing. However, the existence of the Universe is very evident so presumably it had to 'start' somewhere. Where did it start? How did it start?
3. Quite close to #2, how do you explain the existence of Space, Time and everything else that forms our Reality? Even Time had to start somewhere.
4. If the Universe (and everything that came with it) was not created, then we have to assume that we are 'creating' math, 'creating' science and 'creating' everything else instead of exploring already created patterns, rules and sequences. So then are we 'creating' evolution? And if evolution is 'created', does it really exist - seeing that under different circumstances we might never have created this thing we call evolution?
5. Quite close to #4, how do you explain the existence of genders? Did we 'create' genders? Genders couldn't just have happened you know... You kinda need genders to reproduce.
6. How do you explain the existence of Truth? And if you can't, then firstly, is evolution true? I mean, given that there cannot be a higher calling, or truth, then what is the truth? Secondly, what are you doing? If there is no such thing as an objective truth, then why roam the internet for it, spend thousands of dollars on college education seeking it, always wanting it?
This last question is my strongest point. You see my friend evolutionist: If the truth is not founded within the existence of an All-Good Almighty Creator, then truth would vary from the perspective of every person. We would all be relativists, and no such thing as 'The Truth' could exist. Think about the absurdity of it: Robbery, rape, murder, every thing considered 'bad' would only be bad for those who happen to consider it bad. In the eyes of the one who did them, they were completely rational and good. He did what he thought best. So why punish him? And let's not stop there shall we, since we are talking about it, why do we spend any time or money on something that does not give us direct pleasure? If man's only purpose is to produce more of himself (I'm quoting Richard Dawkins btw) then what are you doing? Shouldn't you at least be trying to produce more of yourself? I mean, this isn't exactly the most effective way of doing it. You're quite wasting your 'reproduction' time on this website advocating a case that is not true to anyone but yourself. 
That my friend is the absurdity of being a Rational Atheist.
Please note, English is not my mother tongue. I sometimes have difficulty in expressing my thoughts directly in a second language. Secondly, my knowledge of science may be surpassed by many, I am but 18 years old and with a poor education in science. I am very fond of logic though, so the idea of this argument was to show to the reader the ridiculousness of being an atheist, not from a scientific point of view, but from a logical point of view. 
I hope you found this interesting. Please challenge my ideas if you don't agree. I'd be happy to debate their truthness! (no pun intended)
Happy Debating!

Nope

Pieter

"1. What do you define as a fact? You claim that we have no evidence to support the existence of a Creator. I disagree. We have perfectly sound evidence of a Creator, namely: Our bible (if you're a Christian like me) - hold tight with me on this one. I believe in a Creator because it was written down. Much like you believe in the existence of Julius Ceaser. What evidence do we have of either's existence but what has been written down by those who knew them?"
I am cruise to know, people write both fiction and fact. Story's of many other gods like the gods on Olympus have been written down in books. What makes you hold the bible as a more reliable source then those written by the Greeks about their "gods". 

"2. How do you explain the start (if not creation) of the Universe? From our scientific observations: Something cannot come from nothing. However, the existence of the Universe is very evident so presumably it had to 'start' somewhere. Where did it start? How did it start?
3. Quite close to #2, how do you explain the existence of Space, Time and everything else that forms our Reality? Even Time had to start somewhere."
If their is a creator of the universe where did it come from or start? Is it infinite?

"4. If the Universe (and everything that came with it) was not created, then we have to assume that we are 'creating' math, 'creating' science and 'creating' everything else instead of exploring already created patterns, rules and sequences. So then are we 'creating' evolution? And if evolution is 'created', does it really exist - seeing that under different circumstances we might never have created this thing we call evolution?"
If god created the universe who created god?

"5. Quite close to #4, how do you explain the existence of genders? Did we 'create' genders? Genders couldn't just have happened you know... You kinda need genders to reproduce."
I think gender could have just happened. Multi celled organisms get slight variations in their DNA because DNA replications is not perfect. When a mutation that causes the organisms to be more successful they last longer. Sense getting genes from two organisms makes the new organisms, less susceptible to diseases and other problems, last longer the organism is around and the multi celled organisms with out genders is not.

"This last question is my strongest point. You see my friend evolutionist: If the truth is not founded within the existence of an All-Good Almighty Creator, then truth would vary from the perspective of every person. We would all be relativists, and no such thing as 'The Truth' could exist. Think about the absurdity of it: Robbery, rape, murder, every thing considered 'bad' would only be bad for those who happen to consider it bad. In the eyes of the one who did them, they were completely rational and good. He did what he thought best. So why punish him? And let's not stop there shall we, since we are talking about it, why do we spend any time or money on something that does not give us direct pleasure? If man's only purpose is to produce more of himself (I'm quoting Richard Dawkins btw) then what are you doing? Shouldn't you at least be trying to produce more of yourself? I mean, this isn't exactly the most effective way of doing it. You're quite wasting your 'reproduction' time on this website advocating a case that is not true to anyone but yourself."
As some one who thinks evolution is highly likely I would say mans purpose is not to produce more of himself rather animals who are better at produce more of themselves survive longer so only animals who are good at producing more of them selves are left. Most every habit we have would help us survive in the wild before humans started to farm. We do what we feel is best to the robbers who do what they think best. It is human nature to want to protect them selves and help others because those people last longer in the wild so evolving these habits by mutations in DNA causes those with these habit to last longer and to continue to exist.

Pieter

@Nope Thanks for answering so clear, though I wonder why you would answer most of my questions about evolution with questions of your own about Christianity.

I am cruise to know, people write both fiction and fact. Story's of many other gods like the gods on Olympus have been written down in books. What makes you hold the bible as a more reliable source then those written by the Greeks about their "gods". 

You're quite right that people write both fiction and fact. Which one is evolution?
The truth of the bible is founded in three things. Firstly, it never contradicts itself. Over thousands of years of it being written down, it was never ever contradicted. Secondly, people died for it. After Jesus died, there were 500 people who saw him, after he was resurrected. Most of them died because of believing. Have you ever seen someone die for something they made up? Thirdly, the faith is not something we create, it is given to us. God gave me the faith, you can't take it from me. This is also why I understand that you don't agree with me. It's impossible to have faith from yourself. Faith is not born from yourself, it's given to you by God.

If their is a creator of the universe where did it come from or start? Is it infinite?

The possibility of the universe coming from nothing cannot be expressed. From our observation: something can't come from nothing, however, I agree that from our observation, God does not exist either. That makes it quits. You can't explain your version of how everything came to be, and I can't explain my version.

If god created the universe who created god?

You're asking the same question again?

I think gender could have just happened. Multi celled organisms get slight variations in their DNA because DNA replications is not perfect. When a mutation that causes the organisms to be more successful they last longer. Sense getting genes from two organisms makes the new organisms, less susceptible to diseases and other problems, last longer the organism is around and the multi celled organisms with out genders is not.

And again, you are right. The process you describe is right of course, but why? Do you really believe that all of that came by chance? Do you even know how complicated DNA is? Do you really believe that everything we know, gender, DNA, physics, math, patterns, science, all of this just came to be by chance?

As some one who thinks evolution is highly likely I would say mans purpose is not to produce more of himself rather animals who are better at produce more of themselves survive longer so only animals who are good at producing more of them selves are left. Most every habit we have would help us survive in the wild before humans started to farm. We do what we feel is best to the robbers who do what they think best. It is human nature to want to protect them selves and help others because those people last longer in the wild so evolving these habits by mutations in DNA causes those with these habit to last longer and to continue to exist.

You know that by saying that man's purpose is not to reproduce itself, you are in fact making Richard Dawkins a liar? I didn't know we were on a team here! High Five! Man's purpose is to love God! 

Pieter

@Nope, Feel free to check this out: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong 

sheds a bit of light on evolution doesn't it?

Nope

"You're quite right that people write both fiction and fact. Which one is evolution?
The truth of the bible is founded in three things. Firstly, it never contradicts itself. Over thousands of years of it being written down, it was never ever contradicted. Secondly, people died for it. After Jesus died, there were 500 people who saw him, after he was resurrected. Most of them died because of believing. Have you ever seen someone die for something they made up? Thirdly, the faith is not something we create, it is given to us. God gave me the faith, you can't take it from me. This is also why I understand that you don't agree with me. It's impossible to have faith from yourself. Faith is not born from yourself, it's given to you by God."
I must apologize as I have never found the time to read all the bible (I have trouble reading long books). People have claimed to see mythical animals and while 500 people seeing something that does not exist is less likely It is not compelling evidence because it is only one piece of evidence and like many thing that happened in the past their is to much uncertainty for me. I suppose if faith is given and it has not been given to me then their is to much uncertainty if what you say is true to be convinced of the existence of god.

"The possibility of the universe coming from nothing cannot be expressed. From our observation: something can't come from nothing, however, I agree that from our observation, God does not exist either. That makes it quits. You can't explain your version of how everything came to be, and I can't explain my version.
And again, you are right. The process you describe is right of course, but why? Do you really believe that all of that came by chance? Do you even know how complicated DNA is? Do you really believe that everything we know, gender, DNA, physics, math, patterns, science, all of this just came to be by chance?"
The scale of the observable universe leads me to believe that their was always a high chance of something like life coming in to existence. I do not no why or how Physics, math, science came to be. This is why I am still agnostic.

"You know that by saying that man's purpose is not to reproduce itself, you are in fact making Richard Dawkins a liar? I didn't know we were on a team here! High Five! Man's purpose is to love God!"
Purpose implies their is a goal something to be obtained. While I do not no the reason for are universe based on it laws it is highly possible their is no goal of life nothing to be obtained life is the way it is because that is how the situation would play out with the laws of the known universe. 

Joeseph

For me no there is not a god and there is so far zero evidence to back up a belief in such , do believers in a god also accept all the other gods claimed worldwide as equally acceptable?   If not what make their particular claim special .

Believers claim to have a belief in a supernatural entity that exists yet fulfills non of the criteria of existent things as in this god cannot be seen , heard or touched yet exists .

The reason believers believe is mostly because they are indoctrinated , their belief is based on nothing but a book of contradictory nonsense of which one reading should be enough to make one an Atheist 

Polaris95

As far as I know, there is no god of any form. It is just too much of an assumption that there is some all-knowing creator that created everything, and yet there is nothing we have to show that he exists. 

Zombieguy1987

If god exists, his/her book is pretty evil (And more contradictory than anything I've seen)

10/10 Should proofread again 

Pieter

@Nope

Right. I don't want to win a debate. I simply want you to think for yourself about the logic of a beginning without a creator.

Pieter

@Zombieguy1987

That is desperation to say the least. If that is indeed contradictory then I don't know what you're going to call the contradictions between different atheistic scientists. As for the 'God is Love' quote. All of the texts are taken out of context and falsely interpreted. If you want me to, I can give you the context of each and every one and educate you with a simplistic style that even you will understand as to how different their meanings were from what you've made them to be. But hey, where else did we see texts being quoted falsely? Oh wait, it was the devil who did it when he wanted Jesus to sin. Just a thought.

Pieter

@Joeseph

Big words, from someone who clearly is not educated well enough on the subject that he so cheaply chose to condemn. I've been reading the bible for my whole life, and I am quite sure I'll never become an atheist. If the bible is full of contradictory nonsense, prove it.

Joeseph

@Pieter


You say .....Big words,

My reply .... I can state it more simply if you find the language too challenging to comprehend 

 You say .....from someone who clearly is not educated well enough

My reply .... This is a baseless assertion and speaks volumes prehaps about your lack of education and your attempt to project back at me what you do not posess as in a solid education 

You say .... on the subject that he so cheaply chose to condemn.

My reply .... Cheaply ? Again another claim you have not justified 

You say ....I've been reading the bible for my whole life, and I am quite sure I'll never become an atheist.

My reply .... So what ? People are reading the communist manifesto their whole lives and they will never become as me , I cannot remedy your ignorance 

You say ....If the bible is full of contradictory nonsense, prove it.

My reply .... How many do you want to start give me a number ? I bet you the only defence you will offer will be the dreadful “ Buh , buh you’re taking it out of context “ 

Zombieguy1987

@Pieter ;
Desperation? Lol 
No, you're denying something, because you've likely never actually read the bible like I was told to do when I was younger because my grandmother was a diehard Christian, and my 10 year old self knew how contradictory it was! 


"All the texts are taken out of context"

So you're defending mass genocide, extortion, rape, slavery etc.?

Pieter

@Joeseph, you know, I sometimes wonder what you are trying to accomplish.

Please challenge the subject of my argument not the individual words. Now, you condemn the bible, while it is clear that you do not have a good enough knowledge of it's contents for such a condemnation. If you feel that this statement is false, and that you've condemned it out of proper knowledge of it's contents, then I'd be happy to answer to any reason why you find the bible to be contradictory.

Pieter

@Zombieguy1987

Thew accusations of the image you used, are all defended from a biblical and in context perspective below.

1. First of, the alleged genocide from genesis 7. Did you even read the chapters before it? God created man. At this point, even if directly after God created man, He would kill him, God would still be just. It's like man creating a pot, and then destroying it. If you are the creator of it, then you can do with it as you please. After this, man did the one thing God told them not to do. They sinned. Now God would be completely justified in killing them, yet out of grace, He makes a promise that Someone else would take their burden. I'm not going into God's election for now, so let's continue. The people of the earth now starts becoming more and more sinful, until it was so bad that all of them, except Noah and his family had left God's grace, and fallen into a complete life of not believing. At this point, God decided to wipe the earth clean, in order to have a fresh start for humanity. Remember, He is the Creator, anything He does to the creations is still just. So He decides to kill all of humanity except for those that He elected to be His children. Despite the verse being taken from context, the part you've missed is that God is the Creator, and therefore entitled to wiping the creation from existence. 

2. Ethnic Cleansing. Once again, despite the verse being taken from context, God has the right to kill whoever he wishes. Remember that when you're sinning next time.

3. Infanticide. I wonder what you would consider justice. I want you to read Exodus 1, the entire chapter but especially the last verse.

4. Murder. If a criminal is punished according to the law, we call it justice and not murder. Whether death should be used as punishment or not is an entirely different debate.

5. Slavery. If ever something has been taken out of context. Ephesians 5 and 6 is actually about obedience to those who are due to be obeyed. The verse tells slaves to obey their masters. The verse never justifies slavery. The time this specific book was written is in the time of the Roman Empire, and a lot of Christians then were actually slaves. These Christians wanted to know whether or not they were still obliged to obey their earthly masters, since they now had a heavenly Master and Savior. This specific verse is actually very beautiful in that it tells them to still obey their masters, since it is right to do so. You wouldn't want a rebellion that would cost thousands of lives would you?

6. Sex Trafficking. The meaning and even context of these verses are being twisted. Here's the text:

When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

This is not sex trafficking at all. Should a man fall in love with a captive woman, he will be allowed to marry her. If you have any further inquiries about this chapter I'd be very happy to explain.

7. Rape. Once again, the meaning and context is twisted. This one precedes the previous point, and actually they both speak of the same circumstance. Here's the text:

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

So read this one, and then read the previous one (Deuteronomy 21:10-14.) This one speaks of what should happen to a city that would not surrender. It is not stated that the men were allowed to rape as they pleased, however, sadly this did happen from time to time as was the custom of the time. This only speaks that the people of Israel were allowed to use the plunder. The way they were allowed to 'use' the women is then explained in the next chapter, Deuteronomy 21. Again, I'd be happy to answer more questions about this text.

8. Punishing the innocent. Who was innocent? Come on! This is lame! In genesis 3 both Adam, Eve and the Devil was punished. They were all three guilty as could be. This is not even twisting, this is downright lying. If you use this as an argument in the real world you'd be so toasted for falsifying evidence. Is this the sort of evidence evolution is based on?

9. Extortion. I don't see how the specific verse has anything to do with extortion.

10. Killing people of other faiths. This final text is actually one that is difficult to explain, and I can see how you can misunderstand it. However, this is not only about people changing faith. To understand this you have to understand how the kingdom if Israel worked. Religion and government was very closely interlinked. The bible verse states that if troublemakers has caused the people of a city to change faith, that then the whole city should be killed. This is not only because the people has been brought up to believe, and has left God, but also because changing faith was at that time seen as a revolution. If you have any further questions about this text, I'd do my best to explain them.

Zombieguy1987

Pieter said:

@Zombieguy1987

Thew accusations of the image you used, are all defended from a biblical and in context perspective below.

1. First of, the alleged genocide from genesis 7. Did you even read the chapters before it? God created man. At this point, even if directly after God created man, He would kill him, God would still be just. It's like man creating a pot, and then destroying it. If you are the creator of it, then you can do with it as you please. After this, man did the one thing God told them not to do. They sinned. Now God would be completely justified in killing them, yet out of grace, He makes a promise that Someone else would take their burden. I'm not going into God's election for now, so let's continue. The people of the earth now starts becoming more and more sinful, until it was so bad that all of them, except Noah and his family had left God's grace, and fallen into a complete life of not believing. At this point, God decided to wipe the earth clean, in order to have a fresh start for humanity. Remember, He is the Creator, anything He does to the creations is still just. So He decides to kill all of humanity except for those that He elected to be His children. Despite the verse being taken from context, the part you've missed is that God is the Creator, and therefore entitled to wiping the creation from existence. 

2. Ethnic Cleansing. Once again, despite the verse being taken from context, God has the right to kill whoever he wishes. Remember that when you're sinning next time.

3. Infanticide. I wonder what you would consider justice. I want you to read Exodus 1, the entire chapter but especially the last verse.

4. Murder. If a criminal is punished according to the law, we call it justice and not murder. Whether death should be used as punishment or not is an entirely different debate.

5. Slavery. If ever something has been taken out of context. Ephesians 5 and 6 is actually about obedience to those who are due to be obeyed. The verse tells slaves to obey their masters. The verse never justifies slavery. The time this specific book was written is in the time of the Roman Empire, and a lot of Christians then were actually slaves. These Christians wanted to know whether or not they were still obliged to obey their earthly masters, since they now had a heavenly Master and Savior. This specific verse is actually very beautiful in that it tells them to still obey their masters, since it is right to do so. You wouldn't want a rebellion that would cost thousands of lives would you?

6. Sex Trafficking. The meaning and even context of these verses are being twisted. Here's the text:

When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

This is not sex trafficking at all. Should a man fall in love with a captive woman, he will be allowed to marry her. If you have any further inquiries about this chapter I'd be very happy to explain.

7. Rape. Once again, the meaning and context is twisted. This one precedes the previous point, and actually they both speak of the same circumstance. Here's the text:

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

So read this one, and then read the previous one (Deuteronomy 21:10-14.) This one speaks of what should happen to a city that would not surrender. It is not stated that the men were allowed to rape as they pleased, however, sadly this did happen from time to time as was the custom of the time. This only speaks that the people of Israel were allowed to use the plunder. The way they were allowed to 'use' the women is then explained in the next chapter, Deuteronomy 21. Again, I'd be happy to answer more questions about this text.

8. Punishing the innocent. Who was innocent? Come on! This is lame! In genesis 3 both Adam, Eve and the Devil was punished. They were all three guilty as could be. This is not even twisting, this is downright lying. If you use this as an argument in the real world you'd be so toasted for falsifying evidence. Is this the sort of evidence evolution is based on?

9. Extortion. I don't see how the specific verse has anything to do with extortion.

10. Killing people of other faiths. This final text is actually one that is difficult to explain, and I can see how you can misunderstand it. However, this is not only about people changing faith. To understand this you have to understand how the kingdom if Israel worked. Religion and government was very closely interlinked. The bible verse states that if troublemakers has caused the people of a city to change faith, that then the whole city should be killed. This is not only because the people has been brought up to believe, and has left God, but also because changing faith was at that time seen as a revolution. If you have any further questions about this text, I'd do my best to explain them.

All of what you said was why the Bible is evil
"God has the right to kill whoever he wishes"
Alright, I guess have right to go egg my school as I wish
"It is not stated that the men were allowed to rape as they pleased,however, sadly this did happen from time to time as this was the custom of the time"
And guess what? Today rape is condemned, but was fine 2-3,000 years ago, and yet people are reading a book about customs 2-3,000 years ago, most of which are illegal
I can go on, but this already makes me wonder how you can read this book and not find it stupid 

George_Horse

There is no god.  I may be wrong, but no one can prove or disprove the existence of a god. There is no credible, or scientific proof of the existence of a god, the belief in a god is based on faith, not evidence or fact. 

Joeseph

@Pieter

You wonder what I’m attempting to accomplish ? You do realise it’s a debate site it’s what we do here you know ? 

You made a seies of accusations unfounded against me and I’m stating my position ,regards you claiming my commentary is based on a lack of knowledge this again is merely your unfounded opinion based on what you wish the case to be .

I guarantee you that you have never actually read the Bible and any understanding you have of such comes from copy and pasted arguments from Christian websites , I’ve already stated your go too defence would be the usual “Buh , buh you’re taking it out of context “ and I see that’s exactly what you’ve done with others as in your ham fisted attempts to re state what’s actually written in the book you’ve never read .

Here are a couple of clear contradictions to start you off ,

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. 

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. 

GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. 

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. 

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26 Man is to have dominion over fish, birds, cattle, and all wild animals, yet-- 

GE 2:15-17 It is wrong to be able to tell good from evil, right from wrong.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. 

GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction. 

LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation. 

GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation. 

(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience as well as with the fact that God allegedly does not change his mind: NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17.)

 

TTKDB

@YeshuaBought:

I wonder, if some of humanity spent as much time detracting from life with the anti religious rhetoric conversations, they might come to enjoy nature more? 

If humanity itself was the creator of nature, from the moment it began all the way up to now as  we've come to know it (the anti religious might have an argument to platform their anti religious talking points on.)

But being that humanity itself didn't create nature, and another entity did, I guess provides something for some of the anti religious something to create an argument over? 

Pieter

@George_Horse

Quite right. But then again there's no more evidence of a start without a Creator, so technically speaking evolution is a faith as well.

Pieter

@Joeseph

You wonder what I’m attempting to accomplish ? You do realise it’s a debate site it’s what we do here you know ? 
You made a seies of accusations unfounded against me and I’m stating my position ,regards you claiming my commentary is based on a lack of knowledge this again is merely your unfounded opinion based on what you wish the case to be .
I guarantee you that you have never actually read the Bible and any understanding you have of such comes from copy and pasted arguments from Christian websites , I’ve already stated your go too defence would be the usual “Buh , buh you’re taking it out of context “ and I see that’s exactly what you’ve done with others as in your ham fisted attempts to re state what’s actually written in the book you’ve never read .
Here are a couple of clear contradictions to start you off ,
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. 
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. 
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. 
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. 
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26 Man is to have dominion over fish, birds, cattle, and all wild animals, yet-- 
GE 2:15-17 It is wrong to be able to tell good from evil, right from wrong.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. 
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction. 
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation. 
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation. 
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience as well as with the fact that God allegedly does not change his mind: NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17.)

I apologize for my previous message. I was getting excited and was carrying out quite unsportsmanlike. I hope you will forgive me. 

However, I do not agree with you in that I've never read the bible before. I've read it, and I can vouch for it's truth for what my word is worth. And if you will believe me, all of the arguments I've so far posted on this website I've come up with by myself. I know there are quite a few Christian websites where one can get access to arguments against evolution, but I make a point of it to always argue with my own arguments.

Furthermore, the defense of the previous bible verses that I posted a few posts earlier to Zombieguy was not just the usual stuff about “Buh , buh you’re taking it out of context “. A few of his verses was taken out of context, but most of his verses was completely twisted to serve his own needs. 

I don't have time to look into the verses you've just posted, but I will be happy to do so when I get the chance. Please note that I am still but young, and that I do not know everything there is to know about God, but I trust that the knowledge I do have will be enough to satisfy your enquiries.

Joeseph

@Pieter

You say ....I apologize for my previous message. I was getting excited and was carrying out quite unsportsmanlike. I hope you will forgive me. 

My reply .... It’s fine it’s in the heat of battle and I shouldn’t have retaliated either , it takes courage to say what you hust said and I respect that 

You say .....However, I do not agree with you in that I've never read the bible before. I've read it, and I can vouch for it's truth for what my word is worth. And if you will believe me, all of the arguments I've so far posted on this website I've come up with by myself. I know there are quite a few Christian websites where one can get access to arguments against evolution, but I make a point of it to always argue with my own arguments.....

My reply .... Yes I actually believe you’ve read the Bible and I was merely retaliating to your charge about my knowledge as such so I also apologize for that . I was educated in a catholic school by the Jesuit’s and have read the Bible more than once,  I’ve gone from a position of being deeply religious to one of being an atheist this has come from investigations into the Bible and religion generally 

I don’t get the reason why Christians always bring up Evolution in debates such as this , what has that got to do with atheism ? 

You say .....Furthermore, the defense of the previous bible verses that I posted a few posts earlier to Zombieguy was not just the usual stuff about “Buh , buh you’re taking it out of context “. A few of his verses was taken out of context, but most of his verses was completely twisted to serve his own needs. 

My reply .... It always seems bizarre to me that believers use the Bible to contradict the Bible , where does it say in the Bible that cross references have to be made to different parts of the Bible to validate each verse ? 

You say ....I don't have time to look into the verses you've just posted, but I will be happy to do so when I get the chance. Please note that I am still but young, and that I do not know everything there is to know about God, but I trust that the knowledge I do have will be enough to satisfy your enquiries.

My reply .....

Joeseph

@Pieter

Sorry for butting in you say .....then again there's no more evidence of a start without a Creator, so technically speaking evolution is a faith as well


My reply .....Using your logic you claim there is no evidence of a start without a creator yet you allow a special exemption for the creator as in he did not need a start which is special pleading and nothing more .

How do you know it all had to start with a creator can you demonstrate that something cannot come from nothing ? 


What has  has Evolution got to do with you argument ? Technically speaking Evolution is fact this is accepted as such bythd mountains of evidence supporting it 

Pieter

@Joeseph

@Pieter 
Sorry for butting in you say .....then again there's no more evidence of a start without a Creator, so technically speaking evolution is a faith as well

My reply .....Using your logic you claim there is no evidence of a start without a creator yet you allow a special exemption for the creator as in he did not need a start which is special pleading and nothing more .
How do you know it all had to start with a creator can you demonstrate that something cannot come from nothing ? 

What has  has Evolution got to do with you argument ? Technically speaking Evolution is fact this is accepted as such bythd mountains of evidence supporting it 

I'll answer the last question first. Evolution is frequently brought forth when arguing because it is widely used as the theory atheists claim about the start of the universe. If you have a different theory, then I'm not aware of that, but I'd be happy to debate on it.

About my claim that something cannot come from nothing, your logic is sound, and I agree with you. However, it is clear to me that we will never be able to fully know everything about the start of the universe. From a Christian perspective, you are indeed right. I don't know how God came to be, and from a human logical point of view, even He had to start somewhere. However, given the fact that humans are bound to a start and time, I believe that should a Being not be subject to time, He could indeed be without a creator. From our logic it does not make sense, but from the logic that a Being Who created our logic would have his own reality - and logic - it does make sense that He could be without a start, and therefore without a creator. From an evolution perspective - I'm going with evolution because I believe it's the theory most atheists use for the start of the universe - a Creator doesn't exist, because strictly speaking, there are no evidence of one. However, an evolutionist perspective need a start, since it is clear that the universe, time, space and reality had to start somewhere. From Richard Dawkins' works, the universe was derived from nothing, with no-one. However, our average nothing cannot produce something, since nothing is nothing and nothing can produce something from nothing. Therefore you need a special nothing, that is part of something. A mysterious Nothing, like a God perhaps? Anyway. Nothing is not part of something. Nothing is the opposite of everything, and something is part of everything. Therefore, nothing cannot produce everything, and therefore cannot produce something. This is a logical problem that not only evolutionists face, but creationists as well, simply because when presented with any theory as to the start of the universe, all anybody has to do is keep asking 'but how did that came to be?' and eventually the theorist would have to agree that he doesn't know how that came to be. 

Despite this, evolution is by definition a faith, since any given theory can never become a fact. A theory is something derived from a certain set of given facts. That's why Newton's theory of gravity was later proven to be incorrect, and therefore replaced by Einstein's theory of relativity. So evolution would only be true until it is proven to be untrue. It can never be proved to be true beyond doubt, and hence I conclude that evolution is also a faith. Whether it is a more likely faith, and more logical than Christianity remains open to debate. Do you agree with me on this? Would you agree that evolution is indeed a faith?

Joeseph

@Pieter

Evolution has absolutely nothing to say regarding the start of the Universe as it’s not concerned with that this seems to be a common misconception amongst believers .

Atheism is a position on one question and one question alone as in is there a god , I’ve seen zero evidence to support such a belief so therefore I’m an atheist .

As an atheist I do not have to know how it all started as this is the honest answer and incidentally latest scientific thinking does indeed believe it possible something may come from nothing .

Regarding things being 100 per cent true we can never know with 100 per cent certainty but we can believe in a lot of things with extreme confidence that we are correct , it’s interesting you put forward these extreme limits for Evolution but do not do so for religious belief it seems to me .

Is belief in Evolution faith based you ask ? No itsnot as when the term faith is used by a believer it’s based on a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof , Evolution is the total opposite as it’s supported by mountains of evidence 

Pieter

@Joeseph ;

So would you agree with me that atheism is a faith? Yes or no.

Zombieguy1987

@Pieter
Atheism is a lack of faith

Lack, as in without 

This is elementary school stuff, and you failed big tim
 

MayCaesar

There are not any more gods than there are macaroni monsters or the Jedi. These are all fictional concepts.

I find it harder and harder with years to seriously debate this topic, since as I grow older and gain experience and wisdom, it more and more starts resembling a sandbox for children, with the only difference that it is the adults that are playing in it. The whole concept of "god" is based on ancient pieces of art and folklore and has nothing to do with the observable phenomena. 

I work at an officially Catholic university, and our group studies stars with very high carbon content. How Catholicism and astrophysics can coexist under the same roof is still a mystery to me.

Pieter

@Zombieguy1987

@Pieter 
Atheism is a lack of faith
Lack, as in without 
This is elementary school stuff, and you failed big tim

Did you go to elementary school? Because I've noticed some spelling errors in your English.
Anyway, if Atheism is a lack of faith, theoretically you (yes you Zombieguy) need to know everything there is about atheism, evolution, and how the universe came to be. If you don't know everything there is to know about it, you're taking other scientists and philosophers' word for it, and therefore you have faith in them. Not so much a lack of faith is that?

Oh and please just don't reply with: "Atheism is not a faith!" because you've said that already. I'm beginning to wonder when you'll start to attempt to prove it. Just because something is allegedly elementary school stuff, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be proved.

Pieter

@MayCaesar

On what facts or logic do you base the non-existence of God?

Joeseph

@Pieter

I’ve already answered yet you ignored my response to your question......When the term faith is used by a believer it’s based on a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof , Evolution is the total opposite as it’s supported by mountains of evidence 

Pieter

@Joeseph I don't agree.

The 'facts' evolution is based on has been proven to be faulty and untrustworthy on many occasions. Even despite that, any of the observations we make as to the age of the earth, the age of fossils, the reason behind the forming of any specific fossil are still liable to the laws of observation, and therefore are only proof of what they are. A fossil is only proof of a fossil, our tools for measuring it's age is restricted and therefore the age of a fossil is never a fact, rather a guess. Don't believe me, read this article.

No worldview with any theory as to the origin of the universe can ever be a fact, but will remain a faith even though maybe not in the sense that it's a faith to honor a higher Being. You are still part of a faith and I'm really getting tired of you not being able to accept it. Something is never a fact due to 'mountains of evidence' but only due to being a fact, and even then it's liable to the laws of observation.

Pieter

@Wowsil

You keep on telling me that there is 'overwhelming evidence of evolution' yet you do not seem to know any of it, since you haven't been able to bring any of it into the debate. What concrete evidence of something that happened millions of years ago can anyone produce?

Joeseph

@Pieter

You say ......

The 'facts' evolution is based on has been proven to be faulty and untrustworthy on many occasions.


My reply .... Nonsense , prove it 


 You say .....Even despite that, any of the observations we make as to the age of the earth, the age of fossils, the reason behind the forming of any specific fossil are still liable to the laws of observation, and therefore are only proof of what they are. A fossil is only proof of a fossil, our tools for measuring it's age is restricted and therefore the age of a fossil is never a fact, rather a guess. Don't believe me, read this article.

My reply ..... More nonsense , let’s see the peer reviewed papers that posit an alternative to Evolution? Bet you cannot provide one .

I’m not interested in reading you appeal to authority 

You say .....No worldview with any theory as to the origin of the universe can ever be a fact, but will remain a faith even though maybe not in the sense that it's a faith to honor a higher Being.

My reply .... What had this got to do with Evolution  ? 

You need to look up the meaning of the term faith , this has been explained to you many times do you need me to explain it again for you ?

You say .... You are still part of a faith and I'm really getting tired of you not being able to accept it.

My reply .... I’m not nor am I accountable for your stupidity. 

You say .... Something is never a fact due to 'mountains of evidence' but only due to being a fact,

My reply ... You mean like Evolution, yes I know 



You say ..... and even then it's liable to the laws of observation.

My reply .... But of course this special clause of yours excludes god no doubt 

Zombieguy1987

Pieter said:

@Zombieguy1987

@Pieter 
Atheism is a lack of faith
Lack, as in without 
This is elementary school stuff, and you failed big tim

Did you go to elementary school? Because I've noticed some spelling errors in your English.
Anyway, if Atheism is a lack of faith, theoretically you (yes you Zombieguy) need to know everything there is about atheism, evolution, and how the universe came to be. If you don't know everything there is to know about it, you're taking other scientists and philosophers' word for it, and therefore you have faith in them. Not so much a lack of faith is that?

Oh and please just don't reply with: "Atheism is not a faith!" because you've said that already. I'm beginning to wonder when you'll start to attempt to prove it. Just because something is allegedly elementary school stuff, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be proved.

So, just because I spelling errors means I didn't go to elementary school? No one is perfect.

I'm not having faith in other scientists, evolution is a fact! The genes in humans are 90%+ related to chimpanzees, gorillas and similar share a similar ancestor.

Adaptation is also a fact. 
Example

The reason different skin colors exist is to adapt to the other climates. 

For example, if a black family moved to say the Nordic countries, over time, as the family tree progresses, will slowly get lighter skin because it's colder. Same thing if a white family moved to say Liberia, same thing will happen, because they need to adapt to the hotter temperature. 

It also explains why in the summer artic foxes fur changes to gray instead of white

 Now, as for the big bang.... 

Let's think about this for a second.

If the big bang came out of nothing, as you will likely say as a counter. Well, a God can't come out of nothing either. That would be a contradiction. A huge contradiction 

Oh, and the Bible contradictions @Joeseph has been telling you

MayCaesar

@Pieter

Historically the concept of "god" appeared as a result of people trying to find answers with regards to how the world worked and, having no reliable theories, trying to explain everything through supernatural categories. This concept might have made sense for cave people, given how little they really knew about the world and how desperate they were to build, at least, some world view that did not seem completely outlandishly ridiculous - but it does not make sense today, when we understand how the world works pretty well down to the quark level and up to the clusters of quasars. 

Just like a 60 y/o person will not have such naive ideas about the world as a 6 y/o person, a person living in the 21st century AD should not follow the same naive concepts about the world as a person living in 12,018 BC.

Pieter

@MayCaesar

I agree with you that we have learned a lot about the world since the creation 6000 years ago. Now I am tired of these other dudes who can't seem to spell, and neither seem to thwart my arguments but always when asked how something came from nothing, would counter-question me as to the origin of God.

You seem to be open-minded, however, historically the concept of 'God' came, because God was, is and will be. Now, a 60 y/o does have a lot more knowledge about the world than a 6 y/o, yet a lot less still than a 30 y/o. We now pretty much know how the world works. Science is indeed something God gave us to explore, and every day we grow in knowledge of it. We explore it, yet as we explore it, we frequently realize that what we once thought was facts, turned out to be untrue after thorough study with more advanced equipment and technique. Newton vs Einstein is the perfect example of this. I don't suggest that we thwart any and all science, or that we abort all efforts to use it, but I do advocate being extra careful when drawing conclusions based on scientific discoveries, since science has changed over the course of the last thousand years many a time. The article I posted earlier is not written from a creationist's view to my knowledge, so it might be worth the reading. It's a clear view as to the acceptance of a fact through scientific proof. Here it is.

Pieter

@Wowsil

A theory can be proven to be correct, but can never be accepted as a fact. This is simple logic. As I said earlier, Newton vs Einstein is the perfect example. No matter how hard you try to convince everyone, evolution is a theory, and albeit some proof for it exists, the proof used for it is generally untrustworthy. The methods used for measuring the age of fossils for example has been proven to be inaccurate on many occasions. Furthermore, even though you claim that humans are genetically very close to chimps, (in your case this may be true but in my case definitely not) you just can't seem to find the missing link. Moreover, the ones you do claim to find has often been proved to belong to other animals such as pigs, but clearly not to a half human, half ape. Face it Wowsil: Evolution is science fiction. Did you listen to that interview with Dawkins that I posted? Any sane person listening to that would realize that he was actually referring to God. Mysterious is it?

Pieter

@Wowsil

I Think you will find that the old red herrings of "theory" and "missing link" are well and truly passed their use-by date.

I quite agree. So let's scrap both evolution and the possibility of a missing link from the 'possible' list.

I made no such claim that humans are genetically close to chimps and nor has any reputable scientist.

You're right in this case. Neither you nor any reputable scientist ever said that. I'm talking about other atheistic debaters on this site. Sorry I was over-simplifying it by saying that all atheists believe that.

Cite one example whereby the methods used for measuring the age of fossils is inaccurate?

The specific one I have in mind is actually in the prep-book for the GED test, under the science division. I don't have the prep book with me, but in the book it was mentioned that a volcanic eruption - documented in the 1820's - when it's age was tested via the same methods frequently used for measuring the age of fossils was then measured as being thousands of years old. This is a weak point, and I realize that you probably can't take my word for it. There has been studies conducted by creationist scientist as well where fossils dated 62m years old were found to contain liquid that were not supposed to be contained after 10,000 years. I don't have a link to the studies though, so you'll have to take my word for it. I'm no scientist though.

If you could post the Dawkins interview I would be interested to see it.

This one was edited though to display only that specific part, here is the original:  this is the full interview mind you. The audience was obviously packed with creationists so that is a disadvantage that I can understand. Furthermore, Cardinal Pell is not exactly the person I'd call a Christian myself. I'm referring specifically to what Dawkins said about nothing. It sounds almost as if he's talking about God. I mean God is pretty mysterious.

Pieter

@Wowsil

See also: https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

This is written by a creationist, so you may not like everything that the article is about.

Joeseph

@Pieter

I’ve already dealt with this error ridden piece in a previous post which conveniently you ignored yet you persist in posting the same nonsense again , so let me ask yet again show me one peer reviewed paper proving Evolution is incorrect ? But as we know you cannot , it’s amusing you dispute the mountains of scientific evidence for Evolution  yet you believe in a god base€ on zero evidence .

Your comment about Dawkins is again nonsense why not prove it , I would say Dawkins himself is unaware of this but yet again you cannot prove it can you .

Even if Dawkins did believe in god so what ? 

Also I’m still waiting on you to even attempt a defence of the biblical contradictions you claimed mistakenly didn’t exist but not surprisingly that’s another claim you cannot defend isn’t it ?  

Pieter

Ai-ja-jai...

You guys. This argument is simply going in circles. I've done my part of trying to persuade you through common sense, but only now I realize that some just can't seem to reason properly. I'm leaving this debate, seeing that everything that could be done to persuade you, has been done, and I don't see the sense of wasting my time here any further. Adios!

Joeseph

@Pieter

Yes you better flee as it’s your only option , I don’t think debating is for you .

You make claims and cannot back any of them up , you couldn’t even defend the biblical contradictions I mentioned as you’ve never read the Bible. You need a new hobby mate 

George_Horse

Pieter said:

@George_Horse

Quite right. But then again there's no more evidence of a start without a Creator, so technically speaking evolution is a faith as well.

But evolution is not religious. 

Evidence

Joeseph said:

@Pieter

You wonder what I’m attempting to accomplish ? You do realise it’s a debate site it’s what we do here you know ? 

You made a seies of accusations unfounded against me and I’m stating my position ,regards you claiming my commentary is based on a lack of knowledge this again is merely your unfounded opinion based on what you wish the case to be .

I guarantee you that you have never actually read the Bible and any understanding you have of such comes from copy and pasted arguments from Christian websites , I’ve already stated your go too defence would be the usual “Buh , buh you’re taking it out of context “ and I see that’s exactly what you’ve done with others as in your ham fisted attempts to re state what’s actually written in the book you’ve never read .

Here are a couple of clear contradictions to start you off ,

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. 

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. 

GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. 

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. 

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26 Man is to have dominion over fish, birds, cattle, and all wild animals, yet-- 

GE 2:15-17 It is wrong to be able to tell good from evil, right from wrong.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. 

GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction. 

LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation. 

GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation. 

(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience as well as with the fact that God allegedly does not change his mind: NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17.)

 

@Joeseph who made up that list? Wait, let me guess, .. "the Four Horsemen"?

MayCaesar

@Pieter

Science constantly evolves by its very design. We never know anything with 100% confidence, and there are always theories that have a potential in the future to replace our current ones.

There is, however, a very strong difference between having a very high degree of confidence in something, to the point that we build extremely complicated machinery and trust our very lives to that machinery on an everyday basis without as much as a second thought that their design might be flawed - and literally making guesses about how the world works, writing those guesses down in a book and claiming that this book describes the history of the world.

There is a reason the "6000 years old Earth" theory has not created anything other than a few pamphlets, while the "4.5 billion years old Earth" theory and its foundation are the backbone of every piece of technology created in the last few centuries.

The only way your views on the age of Earth could reasonably be correct is if the god created Earth 6000 years ago and aligned all evidence on it and around it in just the right way to make it look like it was 4.5 billion years old. Such a conspiracy technically is not impossible, but practically makes little sense.

Joeseph

@Evidence

Made it up ? What are you on about ?