PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Why can't people see...
       My theory for the creation of religion

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Klown

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am only 15, and I am currently going to a Catholic high school which unfortunately I hate because of the primitive ideal of a religion, the only reason I attend this particular religious school is because it had much higher standards than any of the public schools which unfortunately were quite distasteful, so for now I will have to bear with it. Now onto my point…

Fortunately for me I have already been able to understand the motives for the development of religion. But what I can't seem to figure is why so many others can't understand the reason for these quite obviously false belief systems.

1.) Why can't many people understand that man created the idea of super-natural deities merely to explicate unexplained occurrences in nature or otherwise.  

2.) Why can't people see that the idea of an afterlife was created buy humans to help compensate the fear of death and to understand it.

These questions do have a perfectly logical approach to looking at religion but why can't religious people see this. They seem to always have the same response "God created everything, Can't you see this" which really isn’t that logical taking into account science and the logical explanation for the creation of religion

Here is an example to help support my belief of an explanation of false religious beliefs:

Take into example that there are only two religions, religion A and religion B, both A and B have millions of followers but neither religion shares any similarity to the other and both religions contradict the others beliefs. Both the religions followers are devout and faithful to their religion.

Now here’s, the question. If both religions are sure that they are correct and the other one is wrong and both believe that their deity is the one true deity and both religions have identical arguments to defend their belief with no evidence to support their claims. How are the religious followers supposed to know which religion is correct?

Unfortunately, for fear of being prosecuted in the afterlife no follower of their particular religious sect is  willing to question their belief and therefore the religion continues onward being passed down through families never being examined using a logical approach. So we will have to answer the question ourselves.

Does it not make sense to believe that both religions were merely created by humans and that there is no truth to religion. because we know that one of the religions A or B must be false this fact can not be defended. And now that we have realized this we can now argue that there is an incorrect one which was created falsely. But if one could be false than the other could be equally as false as the reasons for the creation of which ever one was ‘false’ would equally apply to the other religion. And since neither religion has any evidence of truth does it not make sense that both religions are false and they were both created by a false belief system because of both the will to have an explanation of the unknown causes of nature and the aftermath of death.

Does this not make perfectly logical sense and why after reading it can religious people still continue to believe in their religions, especially when science can explain everything so logically.

This whole thing is quite frustrating and I eagerly await the day that people finally realize this and can finally settle their religious differences.

I just wanted to post this to see what others opinions on it were.







-------
~ Klown
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 1:40 PM on January 19, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.) Why can't many people understand that man created the idea of super-natural deities merely to explicate unexplained occurrences in nature or otherwise.

Well if they truly did explicate them then I'm not sure what your point is...

2.) Why can't people see that the idea of an afterlife was created buy humans to help compensate the fear of death and to understand it.

Created buy?  So much for higher standards.  

Now, suppose religion A has been proven to be historically true, has been corroborated by secular texts, and has made prophecies which came to pass...

And suppose science continually changes and has to label those changes as "coming from better understanding" when it all it really is saying is "well, I guess we were wrong, let's try again".  

Would you accept that which was proven to be true or that which has to keep coming up with different conclusions every few years (months, days, whatever)?  Seriously?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:58 PM on January 19, 2007 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 10:58 AM on January 19, 2007 :
Would you accept that which was proven to be true or that which has to keep coming up with different conclusions every few years (months, days, whatever)?  Seriously?


 the only proof lies in personal experience.  science is a guideline.  religion is a guideline.  there are no absolutes.

besides, that which modifies in accomidation to reality will always be a more helpful tool than that which stays the same especially in the face of change.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 5:57 PM on January 19, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If there are no absolutes, then there is no reality.  Ergo, science is completely pointless.  

However, if there are absolutes, then there is reality.  Ergo, religion does not need to accommodate to changes that do not exist.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:27 PM on January 19, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If there are no absolutes, then there is no reality.  Ergo, science is completely pointless.  


The only absolute in this world is that I am conscious. I know that I am thinking right now.

You may argue that you are conscious, but you will never prove to me beyond all glimmer of a doubt that you are, in fact, conscious like me. This is because my knowledge is based on perception, and the only perception I know to be solid is my own. I cannot experience your perception--assuming that you even have any and aren't just a non-existent creation of my own mind.

Science does not find "truth" in the most literal meaning of the word. Science assumes that we are all conscious because that's what the situation appears to be, and with that assumption we make conclusions based on everyone's universal perception. 2+2 may not actually equal 4, but according to my perception of other people, everyone else's perception seems to agree that it does.

Science is useful if our perceptions are right about the world. If they are wrong, so be it, but it's not a waste of time to find consistencies in our consciousnesses so long as we are here and have nothing else to do.



(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/20/2007 at 5:36 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:35 PM on January 20, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If that's your argument, and I know that I am thinking right now, then by extenstion, you may just be thinking what I'm dreaming you are thinking...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:50 AM on January 21, 2007 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:27 PM on January 19, 2007 :
If there are no absolutes, then there is no reality.  Ergo, science is completely pointless.  

However, if there are absolutes, then there is reality.  Ergo, religion does not need to accommodate to changes that do not exist.



explain, because this makes no sense to me.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 3:58 PM on January 23, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You said "there are no absolutes", therefore there is no reality.  What is the point of science if nothing is absolute?  For science to work one must assume that things are absolute.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:14 PM on January 23, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 5:35 PM on January 20, 2007 :
If there are no absolutes, then there is no reality.  Ergo, science is completely pointless.  


The only absolute in this world is that I am conscious. I know that I am thinking right now.

You may argue that you are conscious, but you will never prove to me beyond all glimmer of a doubt that you are, in fact, conscious like me. This is because my knowledge is based on perception, and the only perception I know to be solid is my own. I cannot experience your perception--assuming that you even have any and aren't just a non-existent creation of my own mind.

Science does not find "truth" in the most literal meaning of the word. Science assumes that we are all conscious because that's what the situation appears to be, and with that assumption we make conclusions based on everyone's universal perception. 2+2 may not actually equal 4, but according to my perception of other people, everyone else's perception seems to agree that it does.

Science is useful if our perceptions are right about the world. If they are wrong, so be it, but it's not a waste of time to find consistencies in our consciousnesses so long as we are here and have nothing else to do.



(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/20/2007 at 5:36 PM).



What is thinking? What separates the electrical activity of your brain from that of an electrical storm?

(Edited by SilverStar 1/30/2007 at 4:09 PM).


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:08 PM on January 30, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is thinking? What separates the electrical activity of your brain from that of an electrical storm?


Consciousness.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:08 PM on January 30, 2007 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Entwink, I would like to see
your reply on "What is thinking" as posed by SilverStar....



(Edited by CipherComplete 3/17/2007 at 8:59 PM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 8:46 PM on March 17, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Entwink, I would like to see
your reply on "What is thinking" as posed by SilverStar....


Thinking is the level of consciousness where cognitive awareness occurs. Since you seem so unusually estranged with Psyche 101, I suggest you read Chapter 9: Consciousness, pages 309 through 311, from the sixth edition of Psychology by Bernstein, Penner, Clarke-Stewart and Roy.

Alternately, you could consult Wikipedia:

Consciousness
Thinking

Now, speaking of failing to address topics, why don't you get back to the half dozen threads you cut and ran from last August, Cipher?

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/17/2007 at 10:05 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:57 PM on March 17, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I disagree, science does have absolutes. Science starts with observations and notations. From that a hypothosis and tests and then theories are developed stating the results. Those results are then tested and retested by various labs, doctors, universities for years. If the results are always the same as stated in the thoery... You have a scientific FACT... an absolute that can not be denied. You can nay say all you want but it will still hold true.


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 5:33 PM on March 18, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I disagree, science does have absolutes. Science starts with observations and notations. From that a hypothosis and tests and then theories are developed stating the results. Those results are then tested and retested by various labs, doctors, universities for years. If the results are always the same as stated in the thoery... You have a scientific FACT... an absolute that can not be denied. You can nay say all you want but it will still hold true.


Have you ever seen The Matrix? The idea of the plot is that people are trapped in a completely pretend world. They are trapped within their minds, and they don't know it. Why is this? Because your brain interprets electrical signals, and it can be fooled.

The idea that what you perceive or experience is real is an assumption that science requires to make "absolutes."


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:19 PM on March 18, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well we are not talking Matrix we are talking real world. But if you want to go that route... The Matrix was designed by computers. Computers that knew scientific facts, like psychology, physics, thermodynamics, energy displacement and conservation... need I go on. These were applied to fool their captives. Not to mention, Morpheus even stated that all the LAWS of physics still apply in the matrix, but they can be bent. You may want to keep in mind that; Belief is not truth because it is useful. Just because you believe in God doesn't make him any more real than The Matrix. If God were fact, there would be no way to deny it. FACT: All living people need sun, air, food, companionship and shelter to survive... there have been billions of people who have walked this earth and never knew God. Religions thousands of years older than Christianity that had nothing to do with God and they all thought as you do. God is not a unique being. Check your mythology and you will find thousands... and when they were the No.1 religion at the time people would give there lives for them with all the same zeal. I've been doing this a long time... you have nothing to offer to the argument. Go back and watch some more movies.

(Edited by The_Wizard 3/18/2007 at 10:54 PM).

(Edited by The_Wizard 3/18/2007 at 10:55 PM).

(Edited by The_Wizard 3/18/2007 at 11:04 PM).


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 10:53 PM on March 18, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well we are not talking Matrix we are talking real world.


Is that what you call the collection of stimuli you perceive to be a functioning environment?

You may want to keep in mind that; Belief is not truth because it is useful. Just because you believe in God doesn't make him any more real than The Matrix. If God were fact, there would be no way to deny it. FACT: All living people need sun, air, food, companionship and shelter to survive... there have been billions of people who have walked this earth and never knew God. Religions thousands of years older than Christianity that had nothing to do with God and they all thought as you do. God is not a unique being. Check your mythology and you will find thousands... and when they were the No.1 religion at the time people would give there lives for them with all the same zeal. I've been doing this a long time... you have nothing to offer to the argument. Go back and watch some more movies.


None of that has anything to do with what we are talking about. I'm asking you to prove that the stimuli you experience are representative of the true world. You cannot, but through scientific reasoning, you do not have to. The burden of proof in science works so that there must be some form of evidence that this world is not real, and there is none that you or I know of. Although it is an assumption that this world is real, it is scientifically valid -- the same way assuming the world functions without a supernatural deity is also a scientifically valid assumption.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:39 PM on March 18, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The proof is that even without science or god an animal still has to do what is need to survive as does man or baby who again still has no concept of science or god. My daughter cries when she is hungry or hurt, with no advanced knowledge of her world she knows what she experiences is real. You should pose your questions to someone who is dying and see if their experiences and stimuli are real.

Experiences and stimuli are tools one gathers to succeed. These are used to promote one, hopefully for the better. If the experiences and stimuli are good and true one continues to grow in body and mind. If it is false, the knowledge gained will render nothing useful. Truth is foundation on which knowledge grows. Falsehoods crumble under their own weight. If what I experienced was not real I would not grow and I would be no smarted than my child. Knowledge is the sum of experiences and stimuli. The proper application of your knowledge makes you who you are.

You are masking your inexperience with ambiguity and pseudo-philisophical tripe. If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it does it make a sound... Can god make a stone so big that he can't lift it... Quoting Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche is cliche. Your not deep, stop trying.


(Edited by The_Wizard 3/19/2007 at 02:00 AM).


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 12:35 AM on March 19, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Experiences and stimuli are tools one gathers to succeed. These are used to promote one, hopefully for the better. If the experiences and stimuli are good and true one continues to grow in body and mind. If it is false, the knowledge gained will render nothing useful.


The hypothetical situation posed by The Matrix shows that this is false. The people trapped within the matrix go about making changes in what they believe to be their lives but is nothing but a simulation.

The proof is that even without science or god an animal still has to do what is need to survive as does man or baby who again still has no concept of science or god. My daughter cries when she is hungry or hurt, with no advanced knowledge of her world she knows what she experiences is real. You should pose your questions to someone who is dying and see if their experiences and stimuli are real.


A dying person could prove no more than a perfectly healthy person that their world is real. When you lose awareness, your mind is incapable of discerning whether you are still alive or dead.

Truth is foundation on which knowledge grows. Falsehoods crumble under their own weight. If what I experienced was not real I would not grow and I would be no smarted than my child.


This is not true either. People in comas don't experience anything, but they still grow. Likewise, you experience a growth of knowledge while dreaming. While in REM sleep, the body exhibits all signs that the mind is conscious save just one trait: the muscles aren't moving. While you dream, your brain experiences false stimuli, and your brain responds to these stimuli, but a neurotransmitter literally paralyzes your muscle movements and prevents you from actually moving. You can experience an infinite number of possibilities while in a dream, and yet you can't tell if you're dreaming or not until the neurotransmitter that inhibits your physical responses lets up.

You are masking your inexperience with ambiguity and pseudo-philisophical tripe.


Big words. Are you done sprouting tangents and rambling off on them yet? I've made two claims, and I would appreciate it if you would either leave the discussion, contribute to it without hurling mud like a Ferrari stuck in a pig pen, or answer these two statements: Science is based on perception and the assumption that what we perceive is real; Said assumption doesn't matter in the context of scientific reasoning.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it does it make a sound...


Irrelevant, but yes.

Can god make a stone so big that he can't lift it


A fair question for a theist, but since I am not one, I could care less.

Quoting Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche is cliche. Your not deep, stop trying.


Now that's a wild card. I'm sorry. Do you want the details? Of course not, but in any case, the quote is supposed to be a connection with a novel of mine. It casts a villain whose motivation is just but whose rationality is destroyed by his obsession against evil. In his quest to kill a monster, he becomes, as Nietzsche predicted, a monster himself. Tief, oder? Perhaps not, but it makes for a fun plot.




I'm not sure if it's even occurred to you yet that I am both a materialist and an evolutionist. No, none of what we're discussing has anything to do with Nihilism or Existentialism. In fact, meaning itself has nothing to do with this discussion. You're denying a principle of science that scientists actually acknowledge. No scientist would be so arrogant as to claim that their perception of the world is undeniably accurate, and neither should you.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/19/2007 at 6:25 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:18 PM on March 19, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science is not perception and assumption not in total. It is calculation made on observation, logic and tests. To this day nobody know what really happen during a coma. Even if tests show no brain activity, those who do manage to awaken have different stories. But as far as sleep goes, in REM sleep your sub-conscience and some of the right lobe is in control.  And while it will produce stimuli and experiences... they are illogical (at least to science today), denying one of accurate analysis and calculations within the dream. Measurements can not be taken within REM dreams, at least not any of use. Documentation can not be taken down within REM dreams, spelling let alone complex writing is impossible. I know this first hand as I practice Lucid Dreaming and have for 27 years.

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.
This is just how it started and I apply it every day to almost everything. I veiw the world with an artistic and scientific eye.

I never said scientist claim that their perception of the world is undeniably accurate. I said science has absolutes, not is absolute.
To even claim that is not scientific.

I would like to apologize for my angry blathering. I am very passionate about science and loathe those who I feel are polluting good science.


(Edited by The_Wizard 3/20/2007 at 12:11 AM).


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 8:32 PM on March 19, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science is not perception and assumption not in total. It is calculation made on observation, logic and tests.


I totally agree. The issue is whether or not our observations are accurate. That's where the dilemma posed in The Matrix comes in: they can't falsify the accuracy of their observations.

they are illogical (at least to science today), denying one of accurate analysis and calculations within the dream.


I don't know about you, but while I'm dreaming of having tea with my sister and all of a sudden I'm running away from an air-breathing great white shark, I don't find it illogical in the slightest. The point is that logic itself also depends on perception. Autistic people experience a different logic than we do because they don't perceive the world in the same way.

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.
This is just how it started and I apply it every day to almost everything. I veiw the world with an artistic and scientific eye.


I do the same thing. What I'm asking you is how you know what you observe to be truth. How do you know, for instance, when your hand is holding a rock? The only evidence you have to believe you are holding a rock is based on the chemical signals sent to your brain. Changing or turning off those chemical signals completely alters your brain's understanding of the world. If you were to inhibit your senses, you could still be holding the rock and not know it, or your brain could receive false information and believe it is holding a rock when it really is not. How do you know the signals coming to your brain are accurate? My claim is that you cannot.

Our perception is one of the very limitations of science. Science can't go where sight, hearing, smell, taste or touch can't go. It is our empirical interpretation of what we think the world around us is.

I don't see this as a problem, however. That is my second point. Whether or not the world is "real" in the most literal sense does not actually matter, because what we do know is that, whether based on false information or not, when we make a response to our perceived environment, we get an expected reaction. Because we can't tell the difference between a real and fraudulent world, science takes off from the next level and bases its conclusions off what our brains do receive instead.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/21/2007 at 07:57 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:54 AM on March 21, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 10:27 PM on January 19, 2007 :
If there are no absolutes, then there is no reality.  Ergo, science is completely pointless.  

However, if there are absolutes, then there is reality.  Ergo, religion does not need to accommodate to changes that do not exist.


Yeah, who needs science? Let's stick with alchemy, and astrology...

Okay nothing supernatural is known to exist. At all. Ever. The only exceptions are things that are natural that are interpretted to be supernatural, such as the aurora borealis, etc.

Plus over time interpretations of the bible, koran, etc. change so people always think that what they are reading is the truth. It's the same book people read one thousand years ago, when the earth was the center of the universe.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:32 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Nothing supernatural is known to exist"

I think God might differ with you on that.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:01 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 10:01 PM on April 22, 2007 :
"Nothing supernatural is known to exist"

I think God might differ with you on that.


I think logic will differ with you on that one. If there is a God, he doesn't do much.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 6:20 PM on April 30, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right.  That whole "create the universe" thing was child's play.  Let me know when you are done making yours.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:44 AM on May 1, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 07:44 AM on May 1, 2007 :
Right.  That whole "create the universe" thing was child's play.  Let me know when you are done making yours.


The universe is expanding from a common point. I'm pretty sure that means it wasn't created. Besides, Who creates the creator?


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:59 PM on May 2, 2007 | IP
submitmj

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello,
It seems that many people reject the notion of GOD, yet at the same time want to believe in GOD. If somebody told you there was irrefutable physical evidence out there that GOD exists, would you want to see it? If so, here it is. Verify it for yourselves. click here for the evidence.

Peace
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 01:46 AM on October 14, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If somebody told you there was irrefutable physical evidence out there that GOD exists, would you want to see it? If so, here it is.

It's complete nonsense.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:09 AM on October 14, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.