Anyway, the same thing could be said about any "first cause", be it God or something entirely naturalistic.
I have no intention of causing any form of harm or disruption or argument, I'm simply saying the truth. You can take it if you want, or simply don't. Your choice.
The first cause has always been God, and God causes the natural to happen. So either way it is still God.
The origin of the world (the Earth) have been convincingly explained, which is enough to disprove the three religions of the book.
On the origin of life, biological research is developed enough to show that life - and Man - weren't created like it is said in the Bible.
I mean:
The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. [...] Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. [...] Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." [...] Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
You can't reasonably still believe in that after Darwin and radiocarbon dating.
The Big Bang is still a theory, so I acknowledge that believing in a God creator of the Universe (and only that) is not in contradiction with scientific discoveries - but for how long?
We're not discussing biblical inerrancy, and while I'm not a Christian, I could say "the lack of repeatable observation of the formation of the solar system and evolution of the first life form means the Biblical account is still logically possible". Of course, that would require denying the uniformity of nature and causality, but given the fact that they believe in miracles anyway, there's not much you can say to definitively disprove Christian theism.
Not sure what you mean by your last paragraph. The Big Bang theory will always remain a theory since a scientific theory is the highest status within the scientific framework; there's nothing higher than that.
Even if a natural mechanistic explanation for the Big Bang were to be discovered, a theist could easily argue "God used this mechanism to create the universe". If God is defined as the Cause of all causes, the Sustainer (of the laws of nature), then no scientific discovery can disprove God even in principle. In short, this is a really weak argument for the improbability of God's existence.
I have no intention of causing any form of harm or disruption or argument, I'm simply saying the truth. You can take it if you want, or simply don't. Your choice.
The first cause has always been God, and God causes the natural to happen. So either way it is still God.
I have concluded how theists argue.
Theist: Spout nonsense with no evidence Atheist: No evidence? Theist: More nonsense about God being the 'alpha and omega'. Rinse and repeat. You cannot fathom what God i. He isn't the alpha and omega. You cannot comprehend these terms. It means something else to him and you will never know. Ever.
It obviously depends on the country where that justice system is based and that's why different nations have different morals. That is essentially how our countries already work because we don't have evidence that any of the morals we subscribe to are objective. And we can all see that our moral judgements have changed over time.
Descriptive ethical relativism doesn't imply moral relativism.
If you look closely at the norms and ethics of cultures throughout history, you'll notice a few universal, moral axioms that may/may not lead to different, even contradictory laws.
Theist: Spout nonsense with no evidence Atheist: No evidence? Theist: More nonsense about God being the 'alpha and omega'. Rinse and repeat. You cannot fathom what God i. He isn't the alpha and omega. You cannot comprehend these terms. It means something else to him and you will never know. Ever.
Your conclusion is very weak. Making a conclusion based on one resource is absolutely abhorring. You will certainly achieve bad grades if you keep up with that. Please go and learn how to make proper conclusions, making reference to at least 3 or more relevant sources...
Your conclusion is very weak. Making a conclusion based on one resource is absolutely abhorring. You will certainly achieve bad grades if you keep up with that. Please go and learn how to make proper conclusions, making reference to at least 3 or more relevant sources...
My references are your posts throughout this discussion. Feel free to check them out buddy, maybe if you remove that blindfold you will see what I'm talking about. Besides, 'God' told me how to make these conclusions in of my personal experiences. God is above your rules and laws and always right, therefore so am I.
You can't take the bible literally, there are so many different ways of looking at it and it has been translated so many times current bibles only contain a rough translation of the original version.
No this isn't true. You don't know what you're saying. You also don't see the serious implications if what your saying is true.
The bible has been translated many times - indeed it has. Yet, if you aren't satisfied with the translations available, then you can look at the many many reliable manuscripts yourself, study Ancient Greek and Hebrew, and make your own translation.
If you knew anything about ancient texts, we don't have a more reliable set of ancient texts than the Old and New Testaments. Nothing on earth compares. Not Homer's Iliad. Not Plato. Yet you're not claiming those to be unreliable.
You may also want to google the discovery called the Dead Sea Scrolls for more evidence on the reliability of the OT.
The bible contains many stories which illustrate how we should lead our lives. As Christians, it doesn't really matter whether we believe that each event happened but that we believe in God and lead our lives with a Christian ethos.
The bible doesn't just contain stories on how to live our lives. Being a Christian isn't just about living a moral life. It's actually all about Jesus, a man who actually existed, who was also God. Jesus was crucified by people like us, sinners, haters of good, lovers of evil. He did nothing wrong, but he was accused of something he didn't do, and allowed himself to be executed, in order for whoever would believe to have their sins forgiven. Being a Christian is about knowing the one who loved you enough to die to save you from all the wrong things you and everybody else has done.
It's NOT about being moral. If we could get by just by being a good person, Jesus certainly would not have given his life as a sacrifice for us. No, it's about either having Jesus' righteousness undeservingly and freely imputed to you, or having to pay for your sins by yourself.
My references are your posts throughout this discussion. Feel free to check them out buddy, maybe if you remove that blindfold you will see what I'm talking about. Besides, 'God' told me how to make these conclusions in of my personal experiences. God is above your rules and laws and always right, therefore so am I.
haha, funny. you'll still get very bad grades referencing all your points just from one "website".
No this isn't true. You don't know what you're saying. You also don't see the serious implications if what your saying is true.
The bible has been translated many times - indeed it has. Yet, if you aren't satisfied with the translations available, then you can look at the many many reliable manuscripts yourself, study Ancient Greek and Hebrew, and make your own translation.
If you knew anything about ancient texts, we don't have a more reliable set of ancient texts than the Old and New Testaments. Nothing on earth compares. Not Homer's Iliad. Not Plato. Yet you're not claiming those to be unreliable.
You may also want to google the discovery called the Dead Sea Scrolls for more evidence on the reliability of the OT.
The bible doesn't just contain stories on how to live our lives. Being a Christian isn't just about living a moral life. It's actually all about Jesus, a man who actually existed, who was also God. Jesus was crucified by people like us, sinners, haters of good, lovers of evil. He did nothing wrong, but he was accused of something he didn't do, and allowed himself to be executed, in order for whoever would believe to have their sins forgiven. Being a Christian is about knowing the one who loved you enough to die to save you from all the wrong things you and everybody else has done.
It's NOT about being moral. If we could get by just by being a good person, Jesus certainly would not have given his life as a sacrifice for us. No, it's about either having Jesus' righteousness undeservingly and freely imputed to you, or having to pay for your sins by yourself.
You're right, I'm no expert of the bible and I totally see your point. I was just drawing on my knowledge of how things get lost in translation.
Yes, I also know that Jesus plays an important part. I was just trying to say that you can't just say "I'm a Christian because I believe everything in the bible". You have to act on what you learn from the bible and live how Jesus would have wanted you too.
The commonly used definition of agnosticism in theological discussions was proposed by Huxley, who was neither convinced by arguments for God's existence, nor for His non-existence. Huxley explicitly denied atheism; he didn't "lack belief". Hence agnosticism has always been a stand-alone position in this particular context.
It's a fun idea, but it doesn't really work. A deity that is practically invisible to us and is believed by many to have created the earth and its inhabitants vs. a reptilian creature that would hardly be inconspicuous, yet nobody the world over has never seen even a single trace of.
I'm talking about invisible 4th dimensional dragons