I'm seriously not understanding how people come to that conclusion. Just because bad things/people exist that does not mean those things are either representative of God or evidence for a higher power not existing. It's called free will.
What is there to sum up? I understand the very basic argument of "Oh look, there are bad things in the world so I guess that means God doesn't exist". I honestly think it's ridiculous for anyone to try and call God out on his supposed "wrongdoings" in such a short sighted sort of way. What value would life hold if everything was perfect, if there was nothing to learn from and truly gain a real and complete appreciation for? Go ahead and pretend that you are God. Take away free will (because with free will bad things will absolutely happen), struggle, sadness, death, ect. What kind of world are you looking at? Arguably not one where you are truly living to the fullest capacity. So to argue that the bad things in life are either proof of God's non-existence or proof of some sort of evil nature is simply not a very strong argument at all, considering there is absolutely possible good reasoning for why the world is the way that it is. I should add that I don't think bad people/ bad things done by humanity are intentionally brought about by God, but are an obvious product of us having free will.
Definitely feel free to believe what you want to, but don't use the existence of bad things in the world as some sort of damning argument against those who believe in a higher power.
how about this, we should be the God of this world...
because with free will bad things will absolutely happen
you just say you are bad :P , well a pure god won't let any kind of struggle, sadness, death etc to happen and there will be haven and no point of life at all... it does not mean if we have free will we have to do bad thinks... if god create us from his own image that mean he is also bad.
What is there to sum up? I understand the very basic argument of "Oh look, there are bad things in the world so I guess that means God doesn… more't exist". I honestly think it's ridiculous for anyone to try and call God out on his supposed "wrongdoings" in such a short sighted sort of way. What value would life hold if everything was perfect, if there was nothing to learn from and truly gain a real and complete appreciation for? Go ahead and pretend that you are God. Take away free will (because with free will bad things will absolutely happen), struggle, sadness, death, ect. What kind of world are you looking at? Arguably not one where you are truly living to the fullest capacity. So to argue that the bad things in life are either proof of God's non-existence or proof of some sort of evil nature is simply not a very strong argument at all, considering there is absolutely possible good reasoning for why the world is the way that it is. I should ad… [view original content]
I think he needs to get on his knees and beg for forgiveness because there's some real fucked up shit in the world that He looks the other w… moreay on.
lol what kind of sense of entitlement is this?. Humans are inherently really stupid, evil and ignorant, we deserve what we've got.
I'm seriously not understanding how people come to that conclusion. Just because bad things/people exist that does not mean those things are either representative of God or evidence for a higher power not existing. It's called free will.
... that's fine. I was by no means telling you what you can or can't believe in. What was your point in saying this? It really has nothing to do with what I had said.
And yours aren't canned from any other bible humpers out there? This thread isn't about that, it's just about sharing what you believe. Not arguing with someone who has another opinion. Would you fight a Muslim or Buddhist about what they believe? Why fight me in my lack of belief?
... that's fine. I was by no means telling you what you can or can't believe in. What was your point in saying this? It really has nothing to do with what I had said.
I'm not saying it's 100% proven, however, there is that possibility of it being true, just because there's no evidence to support an event that happened many years ago doesn't mean it never happened because it's biologically impossible. I guess the fact that a giant ark identical to Noah's ark was found doesn't mean anything... I mean someone just built a giant ark cause yolo I guess.
Well, first of all, I didn't reply to your comment. Second of all, even if my comment had been in response to you, it was relevant at least. What you said in response to my comment had nothing to do with my point at all. So again... what was your point?
I'm a deist,I just think that the concept of god or deity existed from the dawn of civilization for a reason,and we must keep studying that through the universe,using science and rationality.
Talos the mighty! Talos the unerring! Talos the unassailable! To you we give praise!
We are but maggots, writhing in the filth of our own corruption! While you have ascended from the dung of mortality, and now walk among the stars!
But you were once man! Aye! And as man, you said, "Let me show you the power of Talos Stormcrown, born of the North, where my breath is long winter. I breathe now, in royalty, and reshape this land which is mine. I do this for you, Red Legions, for I love you."
Aye, love. Love! Even as man, great Talos cherished us. For he saw in us, in each of us, the future of Skyrim! The future of Tamriel!
And there it is, friends! The ugly truth! We are the children of man! Talos is the true god of man! Ascended from flesh, to rule the realm of spirit!
The very idea is inconceivable to our Elven overlords! Sharing the heavens with us? With man? Ha! They can barely tolerate our presence on earth!
Today, they take away your faith. But what of tomorrow? Do the elves take your homes? Your businesses? Your children? Your very lives?
And what does the Empire do? Nothing! Nay, worse than nothing! The Imperial machine enforces the will of the Thalmor! Against its own people!
So rise up! Rise up, children of the Empire! Rise up, Stormcloaks! Embrace the word of mighty Talos, he who is both man and Divine!
For we are the children of man! And we shall inherit both the heavens and the earth! And we, not the Elves or their toadies, will rule Skyrim! Forever!
Terrible and powerful Talos! We, your unworthy servants, give praise! For only through your grace and benevolence may we truly reach enlightenment!
And deserve our praise you do, for we are one! Ere you ascended and the Eight became Nine, you walked among us, great Talos, not as god, but as man!
Trust in me, Telltale forums! Trust in the words of Snook! For I am the chosen of Talos! I alone have been anointed by the Ninth to spread his holy word!
The reasoning of "God didn't help Jews in the holocaust, therefore he doesn't exist" is quite the stupid argument, since it doesn't disprove the existence of a God and rather his reluctance to help them, since the Jewish nation then and nowadays was far from God for not believing in Christ that was sent to cleanse them, but that's another story for another time.
My point is that God's number one priority is the freedom of choice. Choose to do good, and he will favor it, choose to do evil, he will respect your choice to do so and not get in the way, but will take it into account and punish you in accordance when the time comes if deemed necessary.. That's my belief.
The reasoning of "God didn't help Jews in the holocaust, therefore he doesn't exist" is quite the stupid argument, since it doesn't disprove… more the existence of a God and rather his reluctance to help them, since the Jewish nation then and nowadays was far from God for not believing in Christ that was sent to cleanse them, but that's another story for another time.
My point is that God's number one priority is the freedom of choice. Choose to do good, and he will favor it, choose to do evil, he will respect your choice to do so and not get in the way, but will take it into account and punish you in accordance when the time comes if deemed necessary.. That's my belief.
Well, first of all, I didn't reply to your comment. Second of all, even if my comment had been in response to you, it was relevant at least.… more What you said in response to my comment had nothing to do with my point at all. So again... what was your point?
I didn't know that. I just was wondering because I dont know how far is too far and im not realy sure what a bannable offence is some people seem to get away with more than others. I should shut up now
Damn, I wasn't using that as my number 1 argument and I'm not trying to tell other people that no god exists. This is how I, feel and what I believe. That's what the thread asked for.
I do think the Holocaust is 100% caused by humans. I'm just saying that if there is a higher power, I don't like him/her taking the credit for good things ("god looked over ___ in her coma and she woke up!", "god made the world and man and woman!", ect) but nothing bad. My main reason is that I look a things realistically and have always valued logic. There isn't any solid proof besides what people are willing to believe in. That's fine, I just don't see it.
The reasoning of "God didn't help Jews in the holocaust, therefore he doesn't exist" is quite the stupid argument, since it doesn't disprove… more the existence of a God and rather his reluctance to help them, since the Jewish nation then and nowadays was far from God for not believing in Christ that was sent to cleanse them, but that's another story for another time.
My point is that God's number one priority is the freedom of choice. Choose to do good, and he will favor it, choose to do evil, he will respect your choice to do so and not get in the way, but will take it into account and punish you in accordance when the time comes if deemed necessary.. That's my belief.
I'm not blind, I just don't believe in what you believe. How is that bad? And you talk about entitlement- is everyone that believes differently than you blind because your belief is the one true belief?
Fair enough. Let each man stick to his own. I don't know why I came into this debate, but I did, and you are right, we are here to express our beliefs, not argue about them.
Damn, I wasn't using that as my number 1 argument and I'm not trying to tell other people that no god exists. This is how I, feel and what I… more believe. That's what the thread asked for.
I do think the Holocaust is 100% caused by humans. I'm just saying that if there is a higher power, I don't like him/her taking the credit for good things ("god looked over ___ in her coma and she woke up!", "god made the world and man and woman!", ect) but nothing bad. My main reason is that I look a things realistically and have always valued logic. There isn't any solid proof besides what people are willing to believe in. That's fine, I just don't see it.
Fair enough. Let each man stick to his own. I don't know why I came into this debate, but I did, and you are right, we are here to express our beliefs, not argue about them.
Have a lovely day Dawn!
I didn't think it was, but I knew that it convinces more than enough people so had to clear it up.
Well, according to those who do believe in God, everything that's happening is "his fault", the holocaust is "his fault" because he allowed us to resort to it, and it's "his fault" for the good things because he let us choose to do them, so I think God's "at fault" for everything, if anything, and that doesn't necessarily paint him as a bad God.
So here's the thing, there is actual logic in the divine origin of this world. I'm not going to say that "evolution is wrong, therefore God", but the evolution theorem was perceived by Darwin himself as a theory that is basically filled with holes on his book "On the Origin of Species", here are some of them:
To accept the theory of macroevolution as an absolute truth, we must assume that the original material wasn't withered with time, but the opposite, it has expanded its limits and developed into the "masterpiece" that is the human body, the complicated and convoluted machine that we have today, that is working as it does today. This theory contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics - which determines that things tend to atrophy or rot and break down with time - steel rusts.
If we want to accept the theory of macroevolution as a solid fact, we'll have to believe that both males and females have developed at the same historical period and the same environment and climate, as well as that both of their reproductive organs, with all of the difference in them, were created randomly.
The macroevolution theory will also have to explain how the extremely complicated DNA had developed in our own complicated body.
About 700 international scientists as of late had shown their doubts about the macroevolution theorem, they signed this petition that calls for further cautious investigation on Darwinism:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
This is what they say:
"During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.
Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.
The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.
The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others."
In case you don't believe me, here's the link to their website:
Furthermore, the evolution theory has no explanation as to how and why our emotions have developed. As rare as this to happen statistically speaking, it also had to happen on other species other than humans, without accidentally creating weird half-human mutations along the way. No cross-race fossils of such organisms had been discovered so far.
Let me quote Charles Darwin himself:
"To suppose that the eye.. Has been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest absolute degree."
Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places?
You could say that to believe the evolution theory is the answer as to why we're here, you'd have to have a good amount of faith.
The body and soul of Darwin's Theory of Evolution was the idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new. The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many flaws. One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless?
This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection. According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly.
How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution: the natural selection. Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea.
Ok, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard.
Let's look at this from a statistic perspective (excuse me if I'm wrong with any of the numbers, some of them are translated from books I've read):
Those who reject Creationism and support evolution claim that life started by a random encounter of amino acids that made proteins, the chance of randomly created effective protein cells aspires to zero: It takes a long time to create such a random protein. To illustrate this, let's say we take a bunch of monkeys and put them next to a typewriter. They knock on the keys without any intention or planning. How many such attempts will be required until the hands will compose a book such as "War and Peace"? Scientists today estimate that the universe is ten billion years old and that the earth is a four and a half billion years old. Is that enough time to make the proteins that allow life?
Isaac Asimov suggests that there are 10 to the power of 27 (i.e. 8 with 27 zeros behind) various variations for creating insulin-like proteins. Suppose that every minute some kind of mixture of insulin is created somewhere in the universe. Once ten billion years or so pass about 10 to the power of 17 multiplied by 3 different compounds (ten-billionth of required variations) are created. In order to gain the required amount the waiting period is ten times the length of the period the universe exists, according to the same authors.
Pure Randomness?
The odds of hemoglobin cells being randomly created is even lower. According to Asimov, the number of these options is 10 to the power of 165 multiplied by 135. Of course, only a minor portion of these variations may lead to the formation of hemoglobin. If we assume that every minute since the universe was created 10 to the power of 100 variations are added (An unacceptable assumption because 10 to the power of 78 kinds of atom are known, which means that ten Sextillion - (1 followed by 21 zeros) - universes need to be created every minute to be for there to be 10 to the power of 100 variations), ten trillion years are required to produce all the variations of hemoglobin.
From here it is clear how low the prospect of the simplest bacteria is. The DNA of the smallest virus has 10 to the power of 1505 multiplied by 1 variations. Therefore, for life to be created randomly, the age of the universe should be much much higher than it currently is.
Consider the outstanding improbability of the beginning of the evolutionary process. People speak as if evolution is a solid-given fact - but the truth is that no one has a logical explanation for how molecules, which carry complex information, that is required even for the first “fundamental life”, have emerged without any intervention of external intelligence. In contrast, there are good scientific reasons to believe that this is, in fact, impossible.
The Cell’s Composition:
It is often ignored that the characteristics of the cell, allowing it to live, aren’t explainable only by reference to the chemical properties of its building blocks. In the same way, all the characteristics of a car can not be explained by the characteristics of rubber, metal, plastic and so on. The idea, or the concept of a car is forced from the "outside" onto the crude raw material. Both material/energy and information (which is a non-materialistic attribute that is carried by the material but does not grow from within it) are required.
If all that was needed is the right composition, why do not we see mosquitoes that were crushed to death, coming back to life from time to time? Perhaps it will happen if we add energy? Of course not. The process consumes more than energy and the right ingredients; Order, organization - and of course, information, are all required as well. Living organisms get their information from their parents, but never will we observe something growing from raw and unorganized material alone.
Sequence:
Everyone knows that life is dependent on information-carrying polymers. These are long chains of molecules whose actions depend on the sequence in which the subunits are arranged, just as the operation of a computer program depends on the sequence of the symbols on the software commands.
In order to explain how such a mechanism could be developed, "natural selection" is useless, since you need the ability of a system to create copies itself before it will even be possible to talk about choice. But self-replication requires the anterior carrying of information, a precedingly designed mechanism. In other words, we will have to have a software that carries information in order to explain the origin of a software that carries information; Not a good start to a theory that tries to explain the origin.
The bottom line is that supporters of evolution must believe that information grew by pure and utter randomness.
Nobel Prize winner, Sir Fred Hoyle, wrote in his book "Evolution from Space" that the chances that even a molecule bearing one such length’s worth of information will grow randomly is the same as the chance to perform the following act:
Countless blind people will be standing shoulder to shoulder in a way that will entirely fill our solar system, then they will each succeed to solve a Rubik's Cubes at the same time - all by pure chance!
Anyway, if you'd like to know more, you can always message me somewhere.
Damn, I wasn't using that as my number 1 argument and I'm not trying to tell other people that no god exists. This is how I, feel and what I… more believe. That's what the thread asked for.
I do think the Holocaust is 100% caused by humans. I'm just saying that if there is a higher power, I don't like him/her taking the credit for good things ("god looked over ___ in her coma and she woke up!", "god made the world and man and woman!", ect) but nothing bad. My main reason is that I look a things realistically and have always valued logic. There isn't any solid proof besides what people are willing to believe in. That's fine, I just don't see it.
Just thought it would be nice to post this amazing quote by Albert Einstein (taken from Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press) on his own beliefs:
"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."
Interesting read. Thanks for taking the time to write all of that out.
I don't know how it is where you are, but where I am, anyone who doesn't openly accept the theory of evolution as fact is pretty much labeled as an idiot. I wish I was more informed on the topic, so I could actively debate with these people (such as my sister... who you would probably have a nice conversation with).
All in all though, even if the theory of Evolution was proven to be fact, this does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of a higher power. I have no idea why people dismiss God on the existence of various scientific theories (and facts). For some reason people are hell bent on separating science and religion, even though there is no good/ logical reason to do so.
I'm not saying it's 100% proven, however, there is that possibility of it being true, just because there's no evidence to support an event t… morehat happened many years ago doesn't mean it never happened because it's biologically impossible. I guess the fact that a giant ark identical to Noah's ark was found doesn't mean anything... I mean someone just built a giant ark cause yolo I guess.
Indeed, it does not. But it would disprove most of the holy scriptures if it were
I hate when people make the separation between science and religion, I despise the current division between the so-called "reasonable atheists" and "wacko God worshippers" - as if one or the other and nothing else.
If you want something good to read about this, try and see if you can pick up a book called "A Lawyer's Case For God" by Jim Jacob, he sums up everything in less than 150 pages - I know the title sounds a little too confident, but it lives up to its title.
Interesting read. Thanks for taking the time to write all of that out.
I don't know how it is where you are, but where I am, anyone who d… moreoesn't openly accept the theory of evolution as fact is pretty much labeled as an idiot. I wish I was more informed on the topic, so I could actively debate with these people (such as my sister... who you would probably have a nice conversation with).
All in all though, even if the theory of Evolution was proven to be fact, this does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of a higher power. I have no idea why people dismiss God on the existence of various scientific theories (and facts). For some reason people are hell bent on separating science and religion, even though there is no good/ logical reason to do so.
I'm seriously not understanding how people come to that conclusion. Just because bad things/people exist that does not mean those things are either representative of God or evidence for a higher power not existing. It's called free will.
Because we believe that having a personal relationship with God through Christ is much better than going through life alone, that's the ideology of those who believe in Christ, they believe they are helping people - if the guy won't believe in God, then it doesn't matter to him anyway, does it?
Comments
What Stephen Fry would say to God
Stephen Fry summed it up best imo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPLeAvtMcik
What is there to sum up? I understand the very basic argument of "Oh look, there are bad things in the world so I guess that means God doesn't exist". I honestly think it's ridiculous for anyone to try and call God out on his supposed "wrongdoings" in such a short sighted sort of way. What value would life hold if everything was perfect, if there was nothing to learn from and truly gain a real and complete appreciation for? Go ahead and pretend that you are God. Take away free will (because with free will bad things will absolutely happen), struggle, sadness, death, ect. What kind of world are you looking at? Arguably not one where you are truly living to the fullest capacity. So to argue that the bad things in life are either proof of God's non-existence or proof of some sort of evil nature is simply not a very strong argument at all, considering there is absolutely possible good reasoning for why the world is the way that it is. I should add that I don't think bad people/ bad things done by humanity are intentionally brought about by God, but are an obvious product of us having free will.
For further elaboration: http://www.raystedman.org/daily-devotions/ecclesiastes/a-time-for-everything
Definitely feel free to believe what you want to, but don't use the existence of bad things in the world as some sort of damning argument against those who believe in a higher power.
how about this, we should be the God of this world...
you just say you are bad :P , well a pure god won't let any kind of struggle, sadness, death etc to happen and there will be haven and no point of life at all... it does not mean if we have free will we have to do bad thinks... if god create us from his own image that mean he is also bad.
Again, this is just my opinion. I could shit on yours if I want, but that's not the purpose of this thread.
And I have the free will not to believe in a magic man in the sky. Go figure.
I believe there's a god, maybe multiple ones exist. I never believed in all of the tales. I'm more on the realistic approach however.
... that's fine. I was by no means telling you what you can or can't believe in. What was your point in saying this? It really has nothing to do with what I had said.
[removed]
And yours aren't canned from any other bible humpers out there? This thread isn't about that, it's just about sharing what you believe. Not arguing with someone who has another opinion. Would you fight a Muslim or Buddhist about what they believe? Why fight me in my lack of belief?
If you want to play that game, why did you even reply to my comment in the first place?
I'm not saying it's 100% proven, however, there is that possibility of it being true, just because there's no evidence to support an event that happened many years ago doesn't mean it never happened because it's biologically impossible. I guess the fact that a giant ark identical to Noah's ark was found doesn't mean anything... I mean someone just built a giant ark cause yolo I guess.
Those who don't believe and worship him go straight to Hell, how nice of him...
Well, first of all, I didn't reply to your comment. Second of all, even if my comment had been in response to you, it was relevant at least. What you said in response to my comment had nothing to do with my point at all. So again... what was your point?
I'm a deist,I just think that the concept of god or deity existed from the dawn of civilization for a reason,and we must keep studying that through the universe,using science and rationality.
TALOS IS THE ONE TRUE GOD OF MAN
Talos the mighty! Talos the unerring! Talos the unassailable! To you we give praise!
We are but maggots, writhing in the filth of our own corruption! While you have ascended from the dung of mortality, and now walk among the stars!
But you were once man! Aye! And as man, you said, "Let me show you the power of Talos Stormcrown, born of the North, where my breath is long winter. I breathe now, in royalty, and reshape this land which is mine. I do this for you, Red Legions, for I love you."
Aye, love. Love! Even as man, great Talos cherished us. For he saw in us, in each of us, the future of Skyrim! The future of Tamriel!
And there it is, friends! The ugly truth! We are the children of man! Talos is the true god of man! Ascended from flesh, to rule the realm of spirit!
The very idea is inconceivable to our Elven overlords! Sharing the heavens with us? With man? Ha! They can barely tolerate our presence on earth!
Today, they take away your faith. But what of tomorrow? Do the elves take your homes? Your businesses? Your children? Your very lives?
And what does the Empire do? Nothing! Nay, worse than nothing! The Imperial machine enforces the will of the Thalmor! Against its own people!
So rise up! Rise up, children of the Empire! Rise up, Stormcloaks! Embrace the word of mighty Talos, he who is both man and Divine!
For we are the children of man! And we shall inherit both the heavens and the earth! And we, not the Elves or their toadies, will rule Skyrim! Forever!
Terrible and powerful Talos! We, your unworthy servants, give praise! For only through your grace and benevolence may we truly reach enlightenment!
And deserve our praise you do, for we are one! Ere you ascended and the Eight became Nine, you walked among us, great Talos, not as god, but as man!
Trust in me, Telltale forums! Trust in the words of Snook! For I am the chosen of Talos! I alone have been anointed by the Ninth to spread his holy word!
TO MIGHTY TALOS WE SING PRAISE
The reasoning of "God didn't help Jews in the holocaust, therefore he doesn't exist" is quite the stupid argument, since it doesn't disprove the existence of a God and rather his reluctance to help them, since the Jewish nation then and nowadays was far from God for not believing in Christ that was sent to cleanse them, but that's another story for another time.
My point is that God's number one priority is the freedom of choice. Choose to do good, and he will favor it, choose to do evil, he will respect your choice to do so and not get in the way, but will take it into account and punish you in accordance when the time comes if deemed necessary.. That's my belief.
[removed]
I also just want to point that humans caused the Holocaust entirely.
Of course, it's not like God had caused it.
You shouldn't talk about banned members, it's prohibited in the forum guidelines.
Don't bother Belan,
How can you explain the color red to someone who has been blind their entire life.
It is pointless.
I didn't know that. I just was wondering because I dont know how far is too far and im not realy sure what a bannable offence is some people seem to get away with more than others. I should shut up now
Yup.
Damn, I wasn't using that as my number 1 argument and I'm not trying to tell other people that no god exists. This is how I, feel and what I believe. That's what the thread asked for.
I do think the Holocaust is 100% caused by humans. I'm just saying that if there is a higher power, I don't like him/her taking the credit for good things ("god looked over ___ in her coma and she woke up!", "god made the world and man and woman!", ect) but nothing bad. My main reason is that I look a things realistically and have always valued logic. There isn't any solid proof besides what people are willing to believe in. That's fine, I just don't see it.
I'm not blind, I just don't believe in what you believe. How is that bad? And you talk about entitlement- is everyone that believes differently than you blind because your belief is the one true belief?
Fair enough. Let each man stick to his own. I don't know why I came into this debate, but I did, and you are right, we are here to express our beliefs, not argue about them.
Have a lovely day Dawn!
OMG I'm so sorry.
I looked at a comment from Dawn in a other thread and came over here and for some reason thought I was replying to her.
Dawn?
I didn't think it was, but I knew that it convinces more than enough people so had to clear it up.
Well, according to those who do believe in God, everything that's happening is "his fault", the holocaust is "his fault" because he allowed us to resort to it, and it's "his fault" for the good things because he let us choose to do them, so I think God's "at fault" for everything, if anything, and that doesn't necessarily paint him as a bad God.
So here's the thing, there is actual logic in the divine origin of this world. I'm not going to say that "evolution is wrong, therefore God", but the evolution theorem was perceived by Darwin himself as a theory that is basically filled with holes on his book "On the Origin of Species", here are some of them:
To accept the theory of macroevolution as an absolute truth, we must assume that the original material wasn't withered with time, but the opposite, it has expanded its limits and developed into the "masterpiece" that is the human body, the complicated and convoluted machine that we have today, that is working as it does today. This theory contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics - which determines that things tend to atrophy or rot and break down with time - steel rusts.
If we want to accept the theory of macroevolution as a solid fact, we'll have to believe that both males and females have developed at the same historical period and the same environment and climate, as well as that both of their reproductive organs, with all of the difference in them, were created randomly.
The macroevolution theory will also have to explain how the extremely complicated DNA had developed in our own complicated body.
About 700 international scientists as of late had shown their doubts about the macroevolution theorem, they signed this petition that calls for further cautious investigation on Darwinism:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
This is what they say:
"During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.
Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.
The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.
The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others."
In case you don't believe me, here's the link to their website:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
As well as this:
http://store.americanvision.org/blogs/the-american-vision/7522962-why-evolution-is-impossible
Over 300 Biologists also have a similar petition:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2114
Furthermore, the evolution theory has no explanation as to how and why our emotions have developed. As rare as this to happen statistically speaking, it also had to happen on other species other than humans, without accidentally creating weird half-human mutations along the way. No cross-race fossils of such organisms had been discovered so far.
Let me quote Charles Darwin himself:
"To suppose that the eye.. Has been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest absolute degree."
Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places?
You could say that to believe the evolution theory is the answer as to why we're here, you'd have to have a good amount of faith.
The body and soul of Darwin's Theory of Evolution was the idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new. The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many flaws. One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless?
This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection. According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly.
How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution: the natural selection. Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea.
Ok, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard.
Let's look at this from a statistic perspective (excuse me if I'm wrong with any of the numbers, some of them are translated from books I've read):
Those who reject Creationism and support evolution claim that life started by a random encounter of amino acids that made proteins, the chance of randomly created effective protein cells aspires to zero: It takes a long time to create such a random protein. To illustrate this, let's say we take a bunch of monkeys and put them next to a typewriter. They knock on the keys without any intention or planning. How many such attempts will be required until the hands will compose a book such as "War and Peace"? Scientists today estimate that the universe is ten billion years old and that the earth is a four and a half billion years old. Is that enough time to make the proteins that allow life?
Isaac Asimov suggests that there are 10 to the power of 27 (i.e. 8 with 27 zeros behind) various variations for creating insulin-like proteins. Suppose that every minute some kind of mixture of insulin is created somewhere in the universe. Once ten billion years or so pass about 10 to the power of 17 multiplied by 3 different compounds (ten-billionth of required variations) are created. In order to gain the required amount the waiting period is ten times the length of the period the universe exists, according to the same authors.
Pure Randomness?
The odds of hemoglobin cells being randomly created is even lower. According to Asimov, the number of these options is 10 to the power of 165 multiplied by 135. Of course, only a minor portion of these variations may lead to the formation of hemoglobin. If we assume that every minute since the universe was created 10 to the power of 100 variations are added (An unacceptable assumption because 10 to the power of 78 kinds of atom are known, which means that ten Sextillion - (1 followed by 21 zeros) - universes need to be created every minute to be for there to be 10 to the power of 100 variations), ten trillion years are required to produce all the variations of hemoglobin.
From here it is clear how low the prospect of the simplest bacteria is. The DNA of the smallest virus has 10 to the power of 1505 multiplied by 1 variations. Therefore, for life to be created randomly, the age of the universe should be much much higher than it currently is.
Consider the outstanding improbability of the beginning of the evolutionary process. People speak as if evolution is a solid-given fact - but the truth is that no one has a logical explanation for how molecules, which carry complex information, that is required even for the first “fundamental life”, have emerged without any intervention of external intelligence. In contrast, there are good scientific reasons to believe that this is, in fact, impossible.
The Cell’s Composition:
It is often ignored that the characteristics of the cell, allowing it to live, aren’t explainable only by reference to the chemical properties of its building blocks. In the same way, all the characteristics of a car can not be explained by the characteristics of rubber, metal, plastic and so on. The idea, or the concept of a car is forced from the "outside" onto the crude raw material. Both material/energy and information (which is a non-materialistic attribute that is carried by the material but does not grow from within it) are required.
If all that was needed is the right composition, why do not we see mosquitoes that were crushed to death, coming back to life from time to time? Perhaps it will happen if we add energy? Of course not. The process consumes more than energy and the right ingredients; Order, organization - and of course, information, are all required as well. Living organisms get their information from their parents, but never will we observe something growing from raw and unorganized material alone.
Sequence:
Everyone knows that life is dependent on information-carrying polymers. These are long chains of molecules whose actions depend on the sequence in which the subunits are arranged, just as the operation of a computer program depends on the sequence of the symbols on the software commands.
In order to explain how such a mechanism could be developed, "natural selection" is useless, since you need the ability of a system to create copies itself before it will even be possible to talk about choice. But self-replication requires the anterior carrying of information, a precedingly designed mechanism. In other words, we will have to have a software that carries information in order to explain the origin of a software that carries information; Not a good start to a theory that tries to explain the origin.
The bottom line is that supporters of evolution must believe that information grew by pure and utter randomness.
Nobel Prize winner, Sir Fred Hoyle, wrote in his book "Evolution from Space" that the chances that even a molecule bearing one such length’s worth of information will grow randomly is the same as the chance to perform the following act:
Countless blind people will be standing shoulder to shoulder in a way that will entirely fill our solar system, then they will each succeed to solve a Rubik's Cubes at the same time - all by pure chance!
Anyway, if you'd like to know more, you can always message me somewhere.
Just thought it would be nice to post this amazing quote by Albert Einstein (taken from Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press) on his own beliefs:
"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."
I believe in the Darwin theory, but i believe in god too... I know im weird...
Interesting read. Thanks for taking the time to write all of that out.
I don't know how it is where you are, but where I am, anyone who doesn't openly accept the theory of evolution as fact is pretty much labeled as an idiot. I wish I was more informed on the topic, so I could actively debate with these people (such as my sister... who you would probably have a nice conversation with).
All in all though, even if the theory of Evolution was proven to be fact, this does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of a higher power. I have no idea why people dismiss God on the existence of various scientific theories (and facts). For some reason people are hell bent on separating science and religion, even though there is no good/ logical reason to do so.
that is foolish way to say from a priest, is like if I don't believe in Him I will go strait to hell event if all my life I do all goodies.
That was why I built my giant ark.
Because there is a lot more to faith than simply not wanting to go to hell...
Indeed, it does not. But it would disprove most of the holy scriptures if it were
I hate when people make the separation between science and religion, I despise the current division between the so-called "reasonable atheists" and "wacko God worshippers" - as if one or the other and nothing else.
If you want something good to read about this, try and see if you can pick up a book called "A Lawyer's Case For God" by Jim Jacob, he sums up everything in less than 150 pages - I know the title sounds a little too confident, but it lives up to its title.
[removed]
Because we believe that having a personal relationship with God through Christ is much better than going through life alone, that's the ideology of those who believe in Christ, they believe they are helping people - if the guy won't believe in God, then it doesn't matter to him anyway, does it?