I thought this was quite the interesting thought. I was gonna write this
as a response to one of a other discussions, but thought that I'd like
to get a bigger audience in on this one.
Many, if not all, good atheist believe that God simply does not exist. But I beg to ask the question: "If he doesn't exist and nothing in creation lends to the existence of God, why do we have so many thoughts about God? Are not our thoughts shaped by our environment? If our environment does not support the existence of a God, why do so many of us rule him into the equation? Is it that we are inclined to desire a god. Are we naturally inclined to think about one irrespective of our environment?"
The light bulb was created based on something that already existed, light! So I imagine Ben Franklin was inspired by the sun. Even the delusional has inspiration of thoughts based on things that exist. So why do we think about God if he doesn't even exist?
@NakkiNyan so why didn't we anthropomorphize something else other than a god?
If god is not subject to science then your assertion it is in nature is invalid because it is not noticeable.
But it is noticeable. Maybe not in the form that you would like, but it is very noticeable. This whole discussion says that humans have noticed God from the very beginning.
Gravity is a bad example if you are going to then say your god created it because we know how gravity works and requires no god to do so. (side note: Tell me, what is it that holds you and I to the ground. What keeps us from being flung into space)...the bible says God created creation and now he is in rest. Is it possible that God placed the laws of gravity in place for it to simply work? I don't think Gravity is a bad example. And neither is DNA replication and cell division. Those seem to have a certain order to them. Seems like someone created it to follow a certain pattern.
That is because all of your "proof" is anecdotal not physical or measurable. There is evidence to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is all we really need, although there is more.
Well tell me what your big bang theory is, if not a theory. Anecdotal doesn't make it any less true. Scientific theories don't hold very much weight in the court of law either. Hard evidence will always outweigh it. So your court of law thing would also debunk science.
It is not noticeable because you say so. There are a lot of things in science I don't like, like how my brain works causing me to live with seizures. That does not make them untrue. If your god is so noticeable then point to precise examples or better yet point them out to scientists, if they win a Nobel prize and your name is on the paper you win a portion.
Your asserting that God created gravity I already said it was unnecessary to do so as it is created by the mass of objects, pick something else. You are adding another player of complexity to things with natural explanations. Just because you don't like that your god is not needed to create gravity it does not make it true, if you want to add some layer of complexity then you need concrete evidence To answer your other question it is also likely that pixies and sky turtles (Bahamut) created these laws you need evidence to add them into already explained.
DNA does not follow a pattern by the way, there are constant mutations even within our own bodies as proof that they don't follow anything.
Actually scientific theory does hold up in court, scientific hypothesis does not. You are using the lay definition of theory use the scientific one. The lay definition is almost exactly what the definition of hypothesis is. Scientific theory is a description of hard evidence that has been tested and retested to be accurate.
We do anthropomorphize many other things, demons, monsters, dragons, etc...
@Matt where have you read that the creationist argument has been debunked. Who is the author of that article. And what other articles have that author written? I guarantee the person who writes that also wrote a bunch of other stuff against Christianity and religion on a whole. Scientists with an agenda are no scientist.
1) Why this constant dragon theory. There are stories we write for entertainment and then there are stories we write for the sake of life. They are different. On the other hand, dragons were inspired by dinosaurs, as was mentioned in the book of Job. Job was the earliest book in the bible.
2) did you just call me a straw man...so again no...what? You haven't said anything. you are merely repeating atheist arguments. What is your historical proof sir?
3)huh...atheist scientists claim that it happened randomly. Atheist What is the possibility that in a baseball stadium, without a seating chart, that everyone sits in alphabetical order in accordance to their first name first then their last name. Very slim. how many times do you think you could throw a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle in the air before they all fell in their right place. So what makes you think that billions of code of DNA will randomly align itself in such a way so as to produce the life we now have. Odds are not so funny my friend.
You can't show me proof of the DNA randomly forming either, so what's your point. At least my argument appeals to the psychology of man and doesn't just leave things to chance. I'm sorry, I'd rather have purpose for my life and not just random chance.
You know what my conclusion is to this who matter. The atheists here are so desperate to rid the air of God that you'd even deny the wonders of the DNA that is in your very body. The only reason why some of these arguments have come up, is to simply try to disprove theism. It's not even real science. The motive I find here is to simply get rid of God. Even if you have to rip him out by way of twisting science.
You keep asking for proof. And I keep showing you proof. And you keep asking for more proof. Well you have just made an excuse for yourself to not believe God is even a viable option...
This is my last post, I've been writing for hours now. I'll probably put up one more discussion but that's it for a couple of months. Thank you everyone for all your thoughts. I learned allot. I might just write a book on this experience...maybe not! But it was rousing none the less. Once I hit the reply button I'm going to stop following this discussion and go clear out all the notifications from my email inbox. If you care to, please hit me as a friend. If you don't well buzz off. Just Kidding! Anyways...thanks again. KEEP THINKING. Stop accepting atheist beliefs as the norm. Question your atheist beliefs. I came to this site to question my Christian beliefs.
"You can't show me proof of the DNA randomly forming either, so what's your point. At least my argument appeals to the psychology of man and doesn't just leave things to chance. I'm sorry, I'd rather have purpose for my life and not just random chance."
If you are going to use the argument from complexity we are done here because the thread is completely derailed. Google it there are plenty of people trained in the field of biology that can explain the science of why DNA is the way it is. It is not as complex as you think or may have been told, really it isn't. Original DNA is not evolution is it abiogenesis so start there.
Believing something because it feels good is not valid as proof either, you are welcome to whatever fantasy you like so pixies, dragons and unicorns are fine too that does not make them proof.
"The atheists here are so desperate to rid the air of God that you'd even deny the wonders of the DNA that is in your very body."
DNA is more fascinating without an unproven layer of unknown complexity slapped onto it for no reason. It does not disprove theism it simply shows that your gods are unnecessary to explain how they work. I have not twisted any science, that is another invalid assertion on your part.
I still have yet to see any tangible, visual, audible, or measurable proof, you have provided absolutely nothing other than "it feels good" or "I can see it you are just blind"
God is as much an option as sky pixies are, that does not mean that we need to consider them seriously.
There are no atheist beliefs, that is your problem right there, you assume we have to think the same like theists do. If you hit us up individually we would likely give you varying answers but it comes down to humans like authority, we like anthropomorphizing things, and we like thinking that we will live forever in a happy place.
@Trev, you ask why we don't anthropomophize anything but god. That's an invalid question because we anthropomophize everything, from the Man in the Moon, to the Luv Bug. We see patterns everywhere, even where there are none. Your argument that there must be a god because we are psychologically predisposed to see a god is totally vacuous.
So therefore I'll say this. The proof is not the problem. But the problem lies in the heart.
"The problem" lies in dark hearts. That's as far as I go, today.
The atheists here are so desperate to rid the air of God that you'd even deny the wonders of the DNA that is in your very body.
Ruh roh, denying the wonders of DNA. I think you meant the wonders of God. Don't lump me into that category, anyway. I have as much interest in "ridding the air of God" as I do in ridding the air of unicorns or other mythology.
Think I'll start bowing out of this discussion. Flames starting to steal oxygen.
Is it possible that God placed the laws of gravity in place for it to simply work?
Doesn't bother me if someone believes that. It can't be proven or disproven it, so it's irrelevant to science, anyway.
What I do care about (e.g.) is when people distort evidence while calling it science, as an attempt to prove creation theory. I want to counter the anti-science movement, which has stepped up its fight in the last decade or two. (That's "desperation", when they resort to distortion of evidence in order to support their faith.)
Seriously. I'm only in this fight as a rock-solid atheist because of the attacks on science, and logical and independent thinking.
dragons were inspired by dinosaurs, as was mentioned in the book of Job
There are a lot of beasts in the bible to choose from, and perhaps one may do the trick? I challenge you to cite just one that fits a good description of a real dinosaur. All I saw were vague descriptions.
Please, this can take us right to the heart of solid evidence, so can you give this one your best shot? I'd really like to see it!