Based on his response, it seems to matter to him or at least he is just pointing out what many feel is a very important question. I know that spreading religion is a big part (missionaries in Africa or the early ones in Native America, those damn Jehova's Witnesses ringing my bell every week) but is it so hard to believe that some people don't need that personal relationship and can be left to their own beliefs? If I had to choose between being left to believe what I want or be sent to the fiery pits of hell for eating shrimp and getting a divorce, it'd be an easy choice to make.
Again, I didn't make my post to argue with the religious. I'm not commenting on other people's posts and trying to discredit their beliefs or "correct" any of their arguments. I know you feel differently, but I find arguing on a simple post just meant to share my beliefs/lack thereof tiresome.
Because we believe that having a personal relationship with God through Christ is much better than going through life alone, that's the ideo… morelogy 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?
is it so hard to believe that some people don't need that personal relationship and can be left to their own beliefs?
It isn't, but it is hard for me to believe that someone would choose to pass on it after experiencing what it's done to some people. I understand you probably just said that as an example, but any of the stupid little things like not eating shrimps or divorcing are not the things that God sends people to Hell for, and despite what any edgy fanatical pastor says - neither is being of a certain race or being gay.
Well, this is a thread to discuss this exact topic on, so you can't really make a comment here and not expect someone replying with his own opinion. You can certainly reply to other people's comments as well - as long as you're being rational and mature with them.
My point is: Arguing is a good thing, debating and explaining things to each other is a good thing, as long as it's civil. You don't have to, but this is what this thread is for: Discussing beliefs.
By the way, Jehova's Witnesses actually have nothing to do with the Christians you know, they're a cult that made some changes in the scriptures.
Based on his response, it seems to matter to him or at least he is just pointing out what many feel is a very important question. I know tha… moret spreading religion is a big part (missionaries in Africa or the early ones in Native America, those damn Jehova's Witnesses ringing my bell every week) but is it so hard to believe that some people don't need that personal relationship and can be left to their own beliefs? If I had to choose between being left to believe what I want or be sent to the fiery pits of hell for eating shrimp and getting a divorce, it'd be an easy choice to make.
Again, I didn't make my post to argue with the religious. I'm not commenting on other people's posts and trying to discredit their beliefs or "correct" any of their arguments. I know you feel differently, but I find arguing on a simple post just meant to share my beliefs/lack thereof tiresome.
Personally, I believe there is a God and all the religions are different interpretations of that God.
There is no such thing as Good or Bad- duality is a myth. Both good and evil are concepts of human interpretation. The way I see it, you should do good the way you see good. So even if you thought robbing a person or beating someone up was a good thing (not for you, but in principle a good thing), then if that's good in your eyes then you should do it. Just do what you personally think is right, not what a book says. Sure, the Bible and the Quran are beautiful books and full of brilliant ideas but you can only do good the way you see it. Use such religious books to learn and expand your knowledge of God, not as strict guidelines on what is wrong or right, or how you have to live your life. Do good the way you see fit.
And really, you don't need churches or books to prove your religious: religion lies, to me, in faith and not just in action and participation. Have faith in what you believe, allow your own ideas of religion to develop through education. True religion is in unjustified faith, not in the search for answers or logic- neither can truly be applied to God. God is not a science.
Also, a note to some so called "atheists"- by truly believing God doesn't exist, that is technically a form of Faith- you can't prove if God is real or not, you just choose to believe. I find it funny how so many atheists like to scream about how stupid faith is, and yet the whole time their personal views have no back-up evidence either.
Even if you are an atheists, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Christian...it doesn't really matter what you believe in, as in the end it's all the same thing. Just do what is good in your eyes, and if you want a more broad religious picture read the holy books.
Everyone believes in something- even atheists! When they scream about God not being real, they are actually revealing their own Faith. No one can prove whether God is real or not. Religion lies in unfounded faith, whether that be that there is no God or that there is a God.
When i was a younger man, i didn't really know what to believe. My mother was Catholic, and my father was insane. After experiencing my l… moreife to this point, i am convinced god exists. I've experienced god's touch a few times in my life, who knows what would've happened if he wasn't watching over me on that day.
Recently i used religion to try to get over my anger, and it is working. Eventually i think most of you will find something to believe in, if not that is very sad.
Well, this is a thread to discuss this exact topic on, so you can't really make a comment here and not expect someone replying with his own opinion. You can certainly reply to other people's comments as well - as long as you're being rational and mature with them.
I don't know where the thread creator says that, he/she clearly says "It can be simple answer to a simple question, I am just curios..." and never made any kind of statement of debating about it. And not everyone in this whole comment chain from my original post has been rational or mature.
I also understand that Jehovah's witness is different. I wasn't exclusively making the comment to Christians (although they are one of the most notorious of doing that) and was just adding in a bit humor. And mild frustration of getting pamphlets and having to put pants on and answer the door. But whether you consider them a cult or not, the idea is the same- preaching to people who want nothing to do with it.
is it so hard to believe that some people don't need that personal relationship and can be left to their own beliefs?
It isn't, but … moreit is hard for me to believe that someone would choose to pass on it after experiencing what it's done to some people. I understand you probably just said that as an example, but any of the stupid little things like not eating shrimps or divorcing are not the things that God sends people to Hell for, and despite what any edgy fanatical pastor says - neither is being of a certain race or being gay.
Well, this is a thread to discuss this exact topic on, so you can't really make a comment here and not expect someone replying with his own opinion. You can certainly reply to other people's comments as well - as long as you're being rational and mature with them.
My point is: Arguing is a good thing, debating and explaining things to each other is a good thing, as long as it's civil. You don't have to, bu… [view original content]
You can't just do whatever though, committing acts that are clearly evil by both humans and God like murder, torture, rape, genocide, all those can't be good only if they're perceived as good by the one who committed them.
By the way, if you believe what is written in the holy books is truth, then belief in God is more than important - not trying to say what is wrong and what is right, but if you want to follow the scriptures, being good isn't enough.
I don't like the fact that some people think they can take something as absolute as "God" and say that they believe it their own way. Don't get me wrong - you are free to do that without being hated on, but someone who decides his own criteria for good and bad, and decides what to pick which things he wants to follow/not follow cannot expect to be favored by God.
Personally, I believe there is a God and all the religions are different interpretations of that God.
There is no such thing as Good or B… moread- duality is a myth. Both good and evil are concepts of human interpretation. The way I see it, you should do good the way you see good. So even if you thought robbing a person or beating someone up was a good thing (not for you, but in principle a good thing), then if that's good in your eyes then you should do it. Just do what you personally think is right, not what a book says. Sure, the Bible and the Quran are beautiful books and full of brilliant ideas but you can only do good the way you see it. Use such religious books to learn and expand your knowledge of God, not as strict guidelines on what is wrong or right, or how you have to live your life. Do good the way you see fit.
And really, you don't need churches or books to prove your religious: religion lies, to me, in faith and not just in act… [view original content]
I'd just like to point something out quickly. Who are you- in fact, who are we- to say what is good or bad? Good and Bad (the belief in Duality, or opposites) don't exist, as they are entirely open to human interpretation- someone's own vision of Good can vary a lot to someone else's. Take for example the Holocaust: our society and culture has developed to teach us that it was a horrific, terrible event. But what if society and culture had been different? What if we had been taught that the Holocaust was a great thing? Would you believe it was a great thing?: yes. Our culture shapes and defines us, and our Western culture tells us that such and such is wrong and such and such is right.
The existence of right and wrong is utterly ridiculous: there is no such thing as either, only your interpretation. It doesn't matter whether you don't believe in God or not, the belief in ANYTHING is a justification of Faith. And by doing what you think is good, you are also proving your faith. Use the Bible or Quran as educative and informative tools to expand your knowledge of religion, and not as strict guidelines on how you should live.
A person can only do what they think is good- there is no such thing as "x is good" and "x is bad". Just do what you think is right in life
And also, how does God actually TAKE any credit for "good" or "bad" deeds? He/she/it doesn't take any credit, humans just attribute "good" fortune to God. It's not like someone wakes up from a coma and then God shouts down to those people "Look at me! Look how great I am!"- people just naturally associate what they consider to be a "miracle" with a greater power. If it annoys you so much then blame the people for being happy and attributing "good" fortune to God.
I'm guessing from your last sentence that your atheist, but to say you don't see it is actually incorrect. See, religion is purely based in Faith, Faith being the unjustified belief. No one can prove that God is real or not real: therefore, if you believe in either idea then you are actually justifying your faith.
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.
I guess it's just inevitable to have a thread about beliefs without arguments about it, whether or not he intended it to be, it's going to go down that way one way or another. I hope everyone can be a little more rational from now on.
Well, this is a thread to discuss this exact topic on, so you can't really make a comment here and not expect someone replying with his own … moreopinion. You can certainly reply to other people's comments as well - as long as you're being rational and mature with them.
I don't know where the thread creator says that, he/she clearly says "It can be simple answer to a simple question, I am just curios..." and never made any kind of statement of debating about it. And not everyone in this whole comment chain from my original post has been rational or mature.
I also understand that Jehovah's witness is different. I wasn't exclusively making the comment to Christians (although they are one of the most notorious of doing that) and was just adding in a bit humor. And mild frustration of getting pamphlets and having to put pants on and answer the door. But whether you consider them a cult or not, the idea is the same- preaching to people who want nothing to do with it.
That's probably very much in line with what I used to think. But then again, there is no such thing as good or bad- both are open to human interpretation and are two extremes created by society to channel our behaviour. So by defining good and bad for yourself, your actually being quite ironic
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 am a weak agnostic. I find myself sometimes wanting to believe in a higher being, but as I'm getting older, I want to live my live for the here and now and not for the promise of more in an afterlife. If evidence arises to prove the existence of a higher being, then so be it. But as of now, for me, life is a special gift and should be treated as such. I can fully understand in wanting to believe in something bigger and that our life ultimately serves some divine purpose, but I've just grown to try and make the best of what is put in front of me.
We are all different in beliefs and that is also a special gift. There is no one path through life that is the best for everyone, but there is one path through life that is the best for you.
Ugh. Disagreeing with someone's religious belifs does not make you 'blind'.
I've read every main depiction of the Ancient Greek gods. Choosing not to believe in them does not make me blind, it just means I've chosen not to follow the Ancient Greek religion.
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.
Good attempt by the creator(s) of the video, but they are completely missing the point. It's not a matter of God caring about a person's right to do evil, it's a matter of creating a real and whole existence. For them to insist that God favors immorality over good/innocent people on the basis of him not doing anything to stop people from doing whatever the hell they want is illogical. There is good reason for God letting us rule ourselves as individuals opposed to us essentially being puppets. Think about a life where everyone is theoretically hard wired to behave in a certain (good) way. One could argue that isn't what it means to be truly living. One could argue that God didn't want to create a bunch of mindless beings who he had created to behave in a set way. It's kind of amusing to me that the creators of this video are essentially arguing for the case of removing freewill, without even touching on the massive impact of such a thing. I mean, they are obviously incredibly biased... but come on. Might as well argue that God should have created robots instead of us fallible human beings...
Do bad things come of us having free will? Yes. Does this prove God's nonexistence or evil nature? Definitely not.
I don't really see why we should believe any religion over another.
Like, the idea of religion is appealing, but what makes the Christian view of the gods more valid and correct that the Ancient Roman view of the gods?
I'm guessing it was removed because it's actually pretty openly offensive to those of the opposite opinion (as in the video itself, not your posting of it). I personally don't care at all, but that's my guess as to why it was removed.
Good attempt by the creator(s) of the video, but they are completely missing the point. It's not a matter of God caring about a person's right to do evil over someone else's protection from it, it's a matter of creating a real and whole existence. For them to insist that God favors immorality over good/innocent people on the basis of him not doing anything to stop people from doing whatever the hell they want is ridiculous. There is good reason for God letting us rule ourselves as individuals opposed to us essentially being complete puppets. Think about a life where everyone is theoretically hard wired to behave in a certain (good) way. One could argue that isn't what it means to be truly living. One could argue that God didn't want to create a bunch of mindless beings whom he had created to behave in a set way (through no free will of their own). It's kind of amusing to me that the creators of this video are essentially arguing for the case of removing freewill, without even touching on the massive impact of such a thing. I mean, they obviously make no efforts to hide their extreme bias... but come on. Might as well argue that God should have created robots instead of us fallible human beings...
Do bad things come of us having free will? Yes. Does this prove God's nonexistence or evil nature? Definitely not.
I replied to this comment with this video earlier, but that comment seems to be gone without a trace. Therefore, I shall post it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BzP1wr234
I've made it pretty apparent in my other comments that I don't want any debates.
Who am I to say what is good or bad? I go by my own set of morals. I believe what I want to believe in, or not believe in. I personally think decapitating a child (for example) is immoral, but I don't have any say if some Joe Shmoe thinks it's okay. Where are you getting all that from? Your post confuses me.
In your last comment, that's a belief in and of itself. You're stating that it's "incorrect"- no, that's just the way you see it and not a fact. I have no faith at all, and I don't associate myself in any religion. Not sure why you are trying to argue that because god can't be proven, my disbelief is a belief itself. I go by what is proven and what I see with my own eyes and what I learn.
I'd just like to point something out quickly. Who are you- in fact, who are we- to say what is good or bad? Good and Bad (the belief in Dual… moreity, or opposites) don't exist, as they are entirely open to human interpretation- someone's own vision of Good can vary a lot to someone else's. Take for example the Holocaust: our society and culture has developed to teach us that it was a horrific, terrible event. But what if society and culture had been different? What if we had been taught that the Holocaust was a great thing? Would you believe it was a great thing?: yes. Our culture shapes and defines us, and our Western culture tells us that such and such is wrong and such and such is right.
The existence of right and wrong is utterly ridiculous: there is no such thing as either, only your interpretation. It doesn't matter whether you don't believe in God or not, the belief in ANYTHING is a justification of Faith. And by doing what you think is … [view original content]
It's interesting how some people attribute the good things that happen in their lives to themselves and their skills rather than good fortune (or even a god). But if anything bad happens, they'll be quick to blame others.
Events such as the Holocaust are horrible on so many levels because it really challenges even the most devoted believers into questioning the design of the world. Teachers, scholars etc. would have a hard time convincing the population that the torture and execution of a certain group of people was right. There are case studies that show obedience of authority was the root cause of those atrocities, not a belief that their actions were just.
I'd just like to point something out quickly. Who are you- in fact, who are we- to say what is good or bad? Good and Bad (the belief in Dual… moreity, or opposites) don't exist, as they are entirely open to human interpretation- someone's own vision of Good can vary a lot to someone else's. Take for example the Holocaust: our society and culture has developed to teach us that it was a horrific, terrible event. But what if society and culture had been different? What if we had been taught that the Holocaust was a great thing? Would you believe it was a great thing?: yes. Our culture shapes and defines us, and our Western culture tells us that such and such is wrong and such and such is right.
The existence of right and wrong is utterly ridiculous: there is no such thing as either, only your interpretation. It doesn't matter whether you don't believe in God or not, the belief in ANYTHING is a justification of Faith. And by doing what you think is … [view original content]
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… more, 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 pr… [view original content]
Somewhere between a deist and agnostic. I believe there is a God but I do not believe God actively influences outcomes in daily life. I don't believe God has aplan for us as far as life on Earth.
I don't believe religion. I find it kinda strange how people can trust something filled with such oxymorons and large gaps in their teachings and history. Also, the fact that a lot of them are essentially dictatorships is concerning.
I don't believe religion. I find it kinda strange how people can trust something filled with such oxymorons and large gaps in their teachings and history. Also, the fact that a lot of them are essentially dictatorships is concerning.
I believe in God.
I believe in the Bible, as the word of God.
And I believe Jesus, was sent by God, and that he died for our sins.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16. (King James Version.)
No, there isn't. The theory of evolution is quite solid and factual and has been proven many times. Over time, species evolve through needs or die out. I don't believe either though.
The issues with the theory of evolution though is ironically the same issue religion has. The one question neither have answered; how it all started. Religion says god and evolution says the big bang. While there is evidence of a big bang, the question simple moves on to what created it and it's the same question you apply to religion. If a god created us, who created him?
We don't know the answers and I doubt we ever will, but I see no reason to follow the even more absurd illogical theory of religion that dictates billions of lives.
Are you sure you're educated enough about evolution? If you were, you'd know the many problems with it.
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. 10 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.
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 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 preceding 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.
About 700 international scientists as of late had shown their doubts about the macroevolution theorem, they signed this petition that calls for further caution 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."
Don't believe me? Understandable, 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.
No, there isn't. The theory of evolution is quite solid and factual and has been proven many times. Over time, species evolve through needs … moreor die out. I don't believe either though.
The issues with the theory of evolution though is ironically the same issue religion has. The one question neither have answered; how it all started. Religion says god and evolution says the big bang. While there is evidence of a big bang, the question simple moves on to what created it and it's the same question you apply to religion. If a god created us, who created him?
We don't know the answers and I doubt we ever will, but I see no reason to follow the even more absurd illogical theory of religion that dictates billions of lives.
edited for clarity
I personally don't like the King James version of the bible, since they mistranslated some things, like the commandment "thou shalt not kill" - originally supposed to mean "thou shalt not murder" - a pretty big difference, since kill doesn't have to be intentional, and murder is.
I believe in God.
I believe in the Bible, as the word of God.
And I believe Jesus, was sent by God, and that he died for our sins.
"For … moreGod so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16. (King James Version.)
I don't think you read what I said right. I don't think the theory of evolution is right nor is religion. Yes, I think the theory of evolution has solid factual work in it about species (as you've quoted) but that's it.
Religion though, asks too much and gives very little and no evidence what so ever. Having faith is fine, but having blind faith is just silly to me.
Are you sure you're educated enough about evolution? If you were, you'd know the many problems with it.
Those who reject Creationism and … moresupport 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. 10 with 27 zeros behind) various variations for creating insulin-like proteins. Suppos… [view original content]
I personally don't like the King James version of the bible, since they mistranslated some things, like the commandment "thou shalt not kill… more" - originally supposed to mean "thou shalt not murder" - a pretty big difference, since kill doesn't have to be intentional, and murder is.
It's not that illogical if you think about it - I agree that blind faith is bad, but it can be logical:
The cosmological argument attempts to prove God’s existence by observing the world around us (the cosmos). It begins with what is most obvious in reality: things exist. It is then argued that the cause of those things’ existence had to be a "God-type" thing. These types of arguments go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and theologians ever since. Science finally caught up with theologians in the 20th century, when it was confirmed that the universe must have had a beginning. So, today, the cosmological arguments are even powerful for non-philosophers. There are two basic forms of these arguments, and the easiest way to think of them might be the "vertical" and the "horizontal." These names indicate the direction from which the causes come. In the vertical form, it is argued that every created thing is being caused right now (imagine a timeline with an arrow pointing up from the universe to God). The horizontal version shows that creation had to have a cause in the beginning (imagine that same timeline only with an arrow pointing backward to a beginning point in time).
The horizontal is a little easier to understand because it does not require much philosophizing. The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. The universe had a beginning; therefore, the universe had a cause. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. Someone might say that some things are caused by other things, but this does not solve the problem. This is because those other things had to have causes, too, and this cannot go on forever. Let's take a simple example: trees. All trees began to exist at some point (for they have not always existed). Each tree had its beginning in a seed (the "cause" of the tree). But every seed had its beginning ("cause") in another tree. There cannot be an infinite series of tree-seed-tree-seed, because no series is infinite—it cannot go on forever. All series are finite (limited) by definition. There is no such thing as an infinite number, because even the number series is limited (although you can always add one more, you are always at a finite number). If there is an end, it is not infinite. All series have two endings, actually—at the end and at the beginning (try to imagine a one-ended stick!). But if there were no first cause, the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore, there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause—one that had no beginning. This first cause is God.
The vertical form is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is more powerful because not only does it show that God had to cause the "chain of causes" in the beginning, He must still be causing things to exist right now. Again, we begin by noting that things exist. Next, while we often tend to think of existence as a property that things sort of "own"—that once something is created, existence is just part of what it is—this is not the case. Consider the triangle. We can define the nature of a triangle as "the plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments." Notice what is not part of this definition: existence.
This definition of a triangle would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. Therefore, a triangle's nature—what it is—does not guarantee that one exists (like unicorns—we know what they are, but that does not make them exist). Because it is not part of a triangle's nature to exist, triangles must be made to exist by something else that already exists (someone must draw one on a piece of paper). The triangle is caused by something else—which also must have a cause. This cannot go on forever (no infinite series). Therefore, something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence.
Now, apply this example to everything in the universe. Does any of it exist on its own? No. So, not only did the universe have to have a first cause to get started; it needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This something would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, and be infinite. That something must be divine. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge" (Psalm 19:1-2).
The organized religions of today have it all wrong, they might read the holy scriptures and worship God, but they are far from God, they're corrupt, man-made and revolve around money and power. You don't need religion to get close to God, you can do that on your own, no matter what pope or rabbi might say.
I don't think you read what I said right. I don't think the theory of evolution is right nor is religion. Yes, I think the theory of evoluti… moreon has solid factual work in it about species (as you've quoted) but that's it.
Religion though, asks too much and gives very little and no evidence what so ever. Having faith is fine, but having blind faith is just silly to me.
Yeah, you see, that isn't logical to me. There's no proof that a higher being is part of that and if it was true, they'd be a cause for the god also. It goes back to falling on blind faith.
It's not that illogical if you think about it - I agree that blind faith is bad, but it can be logical:
The cosmological argument attempt… mores to prove God’s existence by observing the world around us (the cosmos). It begins with what is most obvious in reality: things exist. It is then argued that the cause of those things’ existence had to be a "God-type" thing. These types of arguments go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and theologians ever since. Science finally caught up with theologians in the 20th century, when it was confirmed that the universe must have had a beginning. So, today, the cosmological arguments are even powerful for non-philosophers. There are two basic forms of these arguments, and the easiest way to think of them might be the "vertical" and the "horizontal." These names indicate the direction from which the causes come. In the vertical form, it is argued that every created thing is b… [view original content]
'Euthanize' is a fancy word for mercy killing, like if someone was bitten by a zombie and you put them down so they wouldn't have to suffer.
I think it's bad, cause I don't like killing people, doomed or not (that probably be different in a ZA, but in our current world I am against it)
I don't think God likes it either, because if you do without the person's expressed opinion is it murder to me, and even if their opinion, I don't think it's right, but that's a whole different issue I will NOT be arguing with, so anyone out there PLEASE DON'T RESPOND TO THESE POINTS.
You can't just say that the creator isn't divine, since if someone else created him, and it would go back to a chain of creators who preceed eachother, it will never stop.
There must be an original creator, it's simply impossible otherwise.
Yeah, you see, that isn't logical to me. There's no proof that a higher being is part of that and if it was true, they'd be a cause for the god also. It goes back to falling on blind faith.
And the current theories we have at the moment offer no substance to back the claim of a real "creator" and how it became to be. Which is why I don't believe religion is right.
You can't just say that the creator isn't divine, since if someone else created him, and it would go back to a chain of creators who preceed eachother, it will never stop.
There must be an original creator, it's simply impossible otherwise.
And the current theories we have at the moment offer no substance to back the claim of a real "creator" and how it became to be. Which is why I don't believe religion is right.
Comments
Based on his response, it seems to matter to him or at least he is just pointing out what many feel is a very important question. I know that spreading religion is a big part (missionaries in Africa or the early ones in Native America, those damn Jehova's Witnesses ringing my bell every week) but is it so hard to believe that some people don't need that personal relationship and can be left to their own beliefs? If I had to choose between being left to believe what I want or be sent to the fiery pits of hell for eating shrimp and getting a divorce, it'd be an easy choice to make.
Again, I didn't make my post to argue with the religious. I'm not commenting on other people's posts and trying to discredit their beliefs or "correct" any of their arguments. I know you feel differently, but I find arguing on a simple post just meant to share my beliefs/lack thereof tiresome.
It isn't, but it is hard for me to believe that someone would choose to pass on it after experiencing what it's done to some people. I understand you probably just said that as an example, but any of the stupid little things like not eating shrimps or divorcing are not the things that God sends people to Hell for, and despite what any edgy fanatical pastor says - neither is being of a certain race or being gay.
Well, this is a thread to discuss this exact topic on, so you can't really make a comment here and not expect someone replying with his own opinion. You can certainly reply to other people's comments as well - as long as you're being rational and mature with them.
My point is: Arguing is a good thing, debating and explaining things to each other is a good thing, as long as it's civil. You don't have to, but this is what this thread is for: Discussing beliefs.
By the way, Jehova's Witnesses actually have nothing to do with the Christians you know, they're a cult that made some changes in the scriptures.
Personally, I believe there is a God and all the religions are different interpretations of that God.
There is no such thing as Good or Bad- duality is a myth. Both good and evil are concepts of human interpretation. The way I see it, you should do good the way you see good. So even if you thought robbing a person or beating someone up was a good thing (not for you, but in principle a good thing), then if that's good in your eyes then you should do it. Just do what you personally think is right, not what a book says. Sure, the Bible and the Quran are beautiful books and full of brilliant ideas but you can only do good the way you see it. Use such religious books to learn and expand your knowledge of God, not as strict guidelines on what is wrong or right, or how you have to live your life. Do good the way you see fit.
And really, you don't need churches or books to prove your religious: religion lies, to me, in faith and not just in action and participation. Have faith in what you believe, allow your own ideas of religion to develop through education. True religion is in unjustified faith, not in the search for answers or logic- neither can truly be applied to God. God is not a science.
Also, a note to some so called "atheists"- by truly believing God doesn't exist, that is technically a form of Faith- you can't prove if God is real or not, you just choose to believe. I find it funny how so many atheists like to scream about how stupid faith is, and yet the whole time their personal views have no back-up evidence either.
Even if you are an atheists, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Christian...it doesn't really matter what you believe in, as in the end it's all the same thing. Just do what is good in your eyes, and if you want a more broad religious picture read the holy books.
Everyone believes in something- even atheists! When they scream about God not being real, they are actually revealing their own Faith. No one can prove whether God is real or not. Religion lies in unfounded faith, whether that be that there is no God or that there is a God.
I don't know where the thread creator says that, he/she clearly says "It can be simple answer to a simple question, I am just curios..." and never made any kind of statement of debating about it. And not everyone in this whole comment chain from my original post has been rational or mature.
I also understand that Jehovah's witness is different. I wasn't exclusively making the comment to Christians (although they are one of the most notorious of doing that) and was just adding in a bit humor. And mild frustration of getting pamphlets and having to put pants on and answer the door. But whether you consider them a cult or not, the idea is the same- preaching to people who want nothing to do with it.
You can't just do whatever though, committing acts that are clearly evil by both humans and God like murder, torture, rape, genocide, all those can't be good only if they're perceived as good by the one who committed them.
By the way, if you believe what is written in the holy books is truth, then belief in God is more than important - not trying to say what is wrong and what is right, but if you want to follow the scriptures, being good isn't enough.
I don't like the fact that some people think they can take something as absolute as "God" and say that they believe it their own way. Don't get me wrong - you are free to do that without being hated on, but someone who decides his own criteria for good and bad, and decides what to pick which things he wants to follow/not follow cannot expect to be favored by God.
I'd just like to point something out quickly. Who are you- in fact, who are we- to say what is good or bad? Good and Bad (the belief in Duality, or opposites) don't exist, as they are entirely open to human interpretation- someone's own vision of Good can vary a lot to someone else's. Take for example the Holocaust: our society and culture has developed to teach us that it was a horrific, terrible event. But what if society and culture had been different? What if we had been taught that the Holocaust was a great thing? Would you believe it was a great thing?: yes. Our culture shapes and defines us, and our Western culture tells us that such and such is wrong and such and such is right.
The existence of right and wrong is utterly ridiculous: there is no such thing as either, only your interpretation. It doesn't matter whether you don't believe in God or not, the belief in ANYTHING is a justification of Faith. And by doing what you think is good, you are also proving your faith. Use the Bible or Quran as educative and informative tools to expand your knowledge of religion, and not as strict guidelines on how you should live.
A person can only do what they think is good- there is no such thing as "x is good" and "x is bad". Just do what you think is right in life
And also, how does God actually TAKE any credit for "good" or "bad" deeds? He/she/it doesn't take any credit, humans just attribute "good" fortune to God. It's not like someone wakes up from a coma and then God shouts down to those people "Look at me! Look how great I am!"- people just naturally associate what they consider to be a "miracle" with a greater power. If it annoys you so much then blame the people for being happy and attributing "good" fortune to God.
I'm guessing from your last sentence that your atheist, but to say you don't see it is actually incorrect. See, religion is purely based in Faith, Faith being the unjustified belief. No one can prove that God is real or not real: therefore, if you believe in either idea then you are actually justifying your faith.
I guess it's just inevitable to have a thread about beliefs without arguments about it, whether or not he intended it to be, it's going to go down that way one way or another. I hope everyone can be a little more rational from now on.
That's probably very much in line with what I used to think. But then again, there is no such thing as good or bad- both are open to human interpretation and are two extremes created by society to channel our behaviour. So by defining good and bad for yourself, your actually being quite ironic
I am a weak agnostic. I find myself sometimes wanting to believe in a higher being, but as I'm getting older, I want to live my live for the here and now and not for the promise of more in an afterlife. If evidence arises to prove the existence of a higher being, then so be it. But as of now, for me, life is a special gift and should be treated as such. I can fully understand in wanting to believe in something bigger and that our life ultimately serves some divine purpose, but I've just grown to try and make the best of what is put in front of me.
We are all different in beliefs and that is also a special gift. There is no one path through life that is the best for everyone, but there is one path through life that is the best for you.
Ugh. Disagreeing with someone's religious belifs does not make you 'blind'.
I've read every main depiction of the Ancient Greek gods. Choosing not to believe in them does not make me blind, it just means I've chosen not to follow the Ancient Greek religion.
I replied to this comment with this video earlier, but that comment seems to be gone without a trace. Therefore, I shall post it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BzP1wr234
I don't really see why we should believe any religion over another.
Like, the idea of religion is appealing, but what makes the Christian view of the gods more valid and correct that the Ancient Roman view of the gods?
Good attempt by the creator(s) of the video, but they are completely missing the point. It's not a matter of God caring about a person's right to do evil, it's a matter of creating a real and whole existence. For them to insist that God favors immorality over good/innocent people on the basis of him not doing anything to stop people from doing whatever the hell they want is illogical. There is good reason for God letting us rule ourselves as individuals opposed to us essentially being puppets. Think about a life where everyone is theoretically hard wired to behave in a certain (good) way. One could argue that isn't what it means to be truly living. One could argue that God didn't want to create a bunch of mindless beings who he had created to behave in a set way. It's kind of amusing to me that the creators of this video are essentially arguing for the case of removing freewill, without even touching on the massive impact of such a thing. I mean, they are obviously incredibly biased... but come on. Might as well argue that God should have created robots instead of us fallible human beings...
Do bad things come of us having free will? Yes. Does this prove God's nonexistence or evil nature? Definitely not.
Reminds me of a good George Carlin quote.
“I have as much authority as the Pope. I just don’t have as many people who believe it.”
I'm guessing it was removed because it's actually pretty openly offensive to those of the opposite opinion (as in the video itself, not your posting of it). I personally don't care at all, but that's my guess as to why it was removed.
Good attempt by the creator(s) of the video, but they are completely missing the point. It's not a matter of God caring about a person's right to do evil over someone else's protection from it, it's a matter of creating a real and whole existence. For them to insist that God favors immorality over good/innocent people on the basis of him not doing anything to stop people from doing whatever the hell they want is ridiculous. There is good reason for God letting us rule ourselves as individuals opposed to us essentially being complete puppets. Think about a life where everyone is theoretically hard wired to behave in a certain (good) way. One could argue that isn't what it means to be truly living. One could argue that God didn't want to create a bunch of mindless beings whom he had created to behave in a set way (through no free will of their own). It's kind of amusing to me that the creators of this video are essentially arguing for the case of removing freewill, without even touching on the massive impact of such a thing. I mean, they obviously make no efforts to hide their extreme bias... but come on. Might as well argue that God should have created robots instead of us fallible human beings...
Do bad things come of us having free will? Yes. Does this prove God's nonexistence or evil nature? Definitely not.
I've made it pretty apparent in my other comments that I don't want any debates.
Who am I to say what is good or bad? I go by my own set of morals. I believe what I want to believe in, or not believe in. I personally think decapitating a child (for example) is immoral, but I don't have any say if some Joe Shmoe thinks it's okay. Where are you getting all that from? Your post confuses me.
In your last comment, that's a belief in and of itself. You're stating that it's "incorrect"- no, that's just the way you see it and not a fact. I have no faith at all, and I don't associate myself in any religion. Not sure why you are trying to argue that because god can't be proven, my disbelief is a belief itself. I go by what is proven and what I see with my own eyes and what I learn.
It's interesting how some people attribute the good things that happen in their lives to themselves and their skills rather than good fortune (or even a god). But if anything bad happens, they'll be quick to blame others.
Events such as the Holocaust are horrible on so many levels because it really challenges even the most devoted believers into questioning the design of the world. Teachers, scholars etc. would have a hard time convincing the population that the torture and execution of a certain group of people was right. There are case studies that show obedience of authority was the root cause of those atrocities, not a belief that their actions were just.
Heimskr would be proud.
Somewhere between a deist and agnostic. I believe there is a God but I do not believe God actively influences outcomes in daily life. I don't believe God has aplan for us as far as life on Earth.
I believe in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the son of God who sacrificed Himself so that we may live as sinners in the light of His glory.
Wow, I sound like a pastor lol. But that's the simplest way to put it I suppose.
I don't believe religion. I find it kinda strange how people can trust something filled with such oxymorons and large gaps in their teachings and history. Also, the fact that a lot of them are essentially dictatorships is concerning.
And what's the other explanation you have? Evolution? As if that isn't filled with large gaps and oxymorons in itself.
I believe in God.
I believe in the Bible, as the word of God.
And I believe Jesus, was sent by God, and that he died for our sins.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16. (King James Version.)
No, there isn't. The theory of evolution is quite solid and factual and has been proven many times. Over time, species evolve through needs or die out. I don't believe either though.
The issues with the theory of evolution though is ironically the same issue religion has. The one question neither have answered; how it all started. Religion says god and evolution says the big bang. While there is evidence of a big bang, the question simple moves on to what created it and it's the same question you apply to religion. If a god created us, who created him?
We don't know the answers and I doubt we ever will, but I see no reason to follow the even more absurd illogical theory of religion that dictates billions of lives.
edited for clarity
Are you sure you're educated enough about evolution? If you were, you'd know the many problems with it.
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. 10 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.
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 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 preceding 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.
About 700 international scientists as of late had shown their doubts about the macroevolution theorem, they signed this petition that calls for further caution 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."
Don't believe me? Understandable, 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.
I personally don't like the King James version of the bible, since they mistranslated some things, like the commandment "thou shalt not kill" - originally supposed to mean "thou shalt not murder" - a pretty big difference, since kill doesn't have to be intentional, and murder is.
I don't think you read what I said right. I don't think the theory of evolution is right nor is religion. Yes, I think the theory of evolution has solid factual work in it about species (as you've quoted) but that's it.
Religion though, asks too much and gives very little and no evidence what so ever. Having faith is fine, but having blind faith is just silly to me.
wow I never put that way...
It's not that illogical if you think about it - I agree that blind faith is bad, but it can be logical:
The cosmological argument attempts to prove God’s existence by observing the world around us (the cosmos). It begins with what is most obvious in reality: things exist. It is then argued that the cause of those things’ existence had to be a "God-type" thing. These types of arguments go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and theologians ever since. Science finally caught up with theologians in the 20th century, when it was confirmed that the universe must have had a beginning. So, today, the cosmological arguments are even powerful for non-philosophers. There are two basic forms of these arguments, and the easiest way to think of them might be the "vertical" and the "horizontal." These names indicate the direction from which the causes come. In the vertical form, it is argued that every created thing is being caused right now (imagine a timeline with an arrow pointing up from the universe to God). The horizontal version shows that creation had to have a cause in the beginning (imagine that same timeline only with an arrow pointing backward to a beginning point in time).
The horizontal is a little easier to understand because it does not require much philosophizing. The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. The universe had a beginning; therefore, the universe had a cause. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. Someone might say that some things are caused by other things, but this does not solve the problem. This is because those other things had to have causes, too, and this cannot go on forever. Let's take a simple example: trees. All trees began to exist at some point (for they have not always existed). Each tree had its beginning in a seed (the "cause" of the tree). But every seed had its beginning ("cause") in another tree. There cannot be an infinite series of tree-seed-tree-seed, because no series is infinite—it cannot go on forever. All series are finite (limited) by definition. There is no such thing as an infinite number, because even the number series is limited (although you can always add one more, you are always at a finite number). If there is an end, it is not infinite. All series have two endings, actually—at the end and at the beginning (try to imagine a one-ended stick!). But if there were no first cause, the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore, there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause—one that had no beginning. This first cause is God.
The vertical form is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is more powerful because not only does it show that God had to cause the "chain of causes" in the beginning, He must still be causing things to exist right now. Again, we begin by noting that things exist. Next, while we often tend to think of existence as a property that things sort of "own"—that once something is created, existence is just part of what it is—this is not the case. Consider the triangle. We can define the nature of a triangle as "the plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments." Notice what is not part of this definition: existence.
This definition of a triangle would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. Therefore, a triangle's nature—what it is—does not guarantee that one exists (like unicorns—we know what they are, but that does not make them exist). Because it is not part of a triangle's nature to exist, triangles must be made to exist by something else that already exists (someone must draw one on a piece of paper). The triangle is caused by something else—which also must have a cause. This cannot go on forever (no infinite series). Therefore, something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence.
Now, apply this example to everything in the universe. Does any of it exist on its own? No. So, not only did the universe have to have a first cause to get started; it needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This something would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, and be infinite. That something must be divine. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge" (Psalm 19:1-2).
The organized religions of today have it all wrong, they might read the holy scriptures and worship God, but they are far from God, they're corrupt, man-made and revolve around money and power. You don't need religion to get close to God, you can do that on your own, no matter what pope or rabbi might say.
Hey is that Skyrim? what so ever TO MIGHTY TALOS WE SING PRAISE
It would be ridiculous to think God does not permit killing at all - euthanizing people, for example, is not going to be tolerated as a violation.
wait, wait I don't know what you say there my English is a bit rusty, this world "euthanize" is bad, and killing is allowed by God?
Yeah, you see, that isn't logical to me. There's no proof that a higher being is part of that and if it was true, they'd be a cause for the god also. It goes back to falling on blind faith.
What makes the Christian explanation better/more worthy of belief than the Ancient Roman explanation? Or any other version?
'Euthanize' is a fancy word for mercy killing, like if someone was bitten by a zombie and you put them down so they wouldn't have to suffer.
I think it's bad, cause I don't like killing people, doomed or not (that probably be different in a ZA, but in our current world I am against it)
I don't think God likes it either, because if you do without the person's expressed opinion is it murder to me, and even if their opinion, I don't think it's right, but that's a whole different issue I will NOT be arguing with, so anyone out there PLEASE DON'T RESPOND TO THESE POINTS.
You can't just say that the creator isn't divine, since if someone else created him, and it would go back to a chain of creators who preceed eachother, it will never stop.
There must be an original creator, it's simply impossible otherwise.
And the current theories we have at the moment offer no substance to back the claim of a real "creator" and how it became to be. Which is why I don't believe religion is right.
But they do, as suggested above.
Unless you have something logical to say that will contradict it.
What you wrote isn't logical though. It's theory.