Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

It is the word of GOD in my mind and in my opinion. Written by man from words spoken from GOD.

I would like to believe in a God, but logic and experience teaches me otherwise. I think the concept of a loving all-powerful omnipotent being who looks after us is a nice idea. I like the idea that there's life after death and that potentially there's a better existence awaiting us beyond this world.
#437 by Citizen grayhaze - 9/18/2003 4:41:02 PM

I think logic and experience works both ways when your eyes are looking in "both" directions "openly"

I don't deny spirituality, and some of the things I have experienced in my life lead me to believe that there is more beyond that which I can sense in any conventional manner. However, I'm not about to devote the time I have in this life to the worship or fear of a being which has had no discernable influence on my life, and who makes no effort to advertise his existence to me. I'd much rather use the short time I have in as productive and fulfilling a way as possible and only worry about the afterlife when I am in a position to experience it.
#437 by Citizen grayhaze - 9/18/2003 4:41:02 PM

sounds like you have experienced something more but you still try to deny? whatever it is you experienced, which I believe is why God does not reveal himself too much cuz no matter when he does ppl always tend to look for smoke and mirrors the bigger the reveal he does the harder we look to disprove what we thought we seen or experienced?

very good point doreen.

On a side note i worder what would happen if we started a abortion thread?

It would be no different then this thread Kona

Kona,

An abortion thread? Man, if you think this one is contentious

The discussion is hard when you try to win it. Some people believe that there is no use in that. Religion, atheism and agnotism do even join several other groups. Humanists and the Unitarian Universalist Association are examples of that.

It is also interesting that Darwin was an agnostic.

Charles Darwin, a 19th century British biologist and writer wrote in two places in his book "Life and Letters":

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

"I think an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. The whole subject [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect."

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence). I Don't know if anyone in this thread has said anything along the lines of the following examples, but they highlight some problems with that assumption:

‘Well, I still believe in the “big bang”, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations. Such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Kona,An abortion thread? Man, if you think this one is contentious

this one is getting that way. Way out of hand. >

TheRatedPG,

You are, of course, correct, at least as far as the commonality of evidence and the degree of some presupposition in the particular positions.

However, that does not negate the fact that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and creationism is a religious tenet.

Evolution exists within the body of the scientific method and mechanisms, whether the theory itself is right or wrong, it *is* a scientific theory.

And Kona's argument notwithstanding, a fact is a fact. If I point to a wall (to use a trivial example), the fact of its existence will be disputed by only the most contentious.

There are things that exist where the evidence can be interpreted in different ways, that's why they are theories, rather than facts.

And since it is my contention that the entire universe (and all its mechanisms, events, etc.) were created by God, then any evidence, observations, etc., that we make or discover, are also created by God.

You can't draw a line in the sand and say that something was created by Man and something was created by God. If you believe that God created the universe, then at some level, everything was created by God, including the things that we discover as Man.

For example, Man discovered and learned how to use the electromagnetic force (the basis of just about everything we use in a modern society), but the force itself existed before Man used it.

Believing in the big bang or evolution theory is no option. It is not a belief system. One tries to prove a theory is right or wrong - by using scientific methods and observation - is all what we can tell about it. That is enough for me.

this one is getting that way. Way out of hand

There have been a few points where that's true, but, by and large, this has been much more civil overall than other threads of this type that I have seen.

I think, that to a large degree, everyone on this site seems to have a basic level of respect for each other that isn't always evidenced on other sites I've seen.

I agree with Aleatoric in #461.

TheRatedPG,

(I seem to be responding to you quite a bit Plenty of good points).

It seems that you're of the viewpoint that the creation of the universe and evolution are mutually exclusive concepts.

I have no trouble with a God that can create the universe to form from a big bang, following processes based on physical laws built into the system, and producing life that forms and grows through the process of evolution, producing us.

For me, my faith is in God as creator, father, fundamental force of life, etc. Science is a tool I use to examine and understand what goes on around me in the physical universe.

Aleatoric: Do you view yourself more like an 18th century Rationalist?
---
Rationalism: This was a movement in the 18th century Protestantism that abandoned the idea of Biblical inerrancy and adopted the belief that the Bible can be analyzed as a historical document. Some Rationalists assert that the existence of some form of deity can be proven by reason. Others see Rationalism and Atheism as synonyms.

Or let me put it another way. Do you thing your God's existence can be proven?