Does God exist?

[Vereya]

I think that what we call "God" is the supreme intelligence and the life force that keep our world whole and keep it in balance. It is the power that does the very complex work of seeing that all the elements of the universe, all the living beings, all the powers and forces interact together to create the beautiful and fascinating world that we live in.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I think that what we call "God" is the supreme intelligence and the life force that keep our world whole and keep it in balance.

You assume such a thing necessarily exists. Why, and what do you think the world would be like in its absence?

 

[Tonington]

Good answer, Tonington. There are so many fundamental misapprehensions in Mhz's post it's hard to see where to begin answering it. Despite all evidence to the contrary, for instance, he believes there was a global flood 3500 years ago. I have no idea how to get past such a denial of reality; reason and evidence obviously aren't enough. People who operate from mysticism can utter more bunk in a few paragraphs than can be adequately debunked in hundreds of paragraphs. Selected readings from Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable perhaps, accompanied by a guided tour of a good natural history museum...

That's the problem exactly. A fundamental lack of knowledge for what the theory actually says, and what we actually know...

And the evolution of how the arguments change given correct details as input, kind of ironic.

 

[MHz]

Good answer, Tonington. There are so many fundamental misapprehensions in Mhz's post it's hard to see where to begin answering it. Despite all evidence to the contrary, for instance, he believes there was a global flood 3500 years ago. I have no idea how to get past such a denial of reality; reason and evidence obviously aren't enough. People who operate from mysticism can utter more bunk in a few paragraphs than can be adequately debunked in hundreds of paragraphs. Selected readings from Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable perhaps, accompanied by a guided tour of a good natural history museum...

Let me guess, your version of that flood has the world covered by an 'ocean' (making it several miles deep where Jerusalem stands now) that was 21ft over the top of Everest?

I said millions of years for the changes you're talking about. You were talking about Classes of organisms, not species. You know how organisms are classified? Class is four levels of organization above species. That certainly takes millions of years, you can see that in the fossil record lineages.

A species is defined as this,
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. 2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
That makes dogs and cats different species but from the same class, right? Doesn't Dawkins (and anybody else who promotes Darwinism) say that dogs and cats have a common ancestor that is not even from the class of mammals? That 'trail' also has some missing parts to it. Yet this line of thought is called scientifically proven when it contains elements that are based on faith not fact.

That it takes millions of years for a leopard to change it's spots means evolution cannot be observed in action.

Yeah, populations get separated. Adaptations occur. Niches form. More adaptations. Genetic drift. Mutations that are favourable to new conditions. Then more adaptations. New niches form. And before you know it, the one population that remained in the original location is quite different from the population in the frontier regions.

I wouldn't argue against that, but a butterfly that gets separated from the colony is still a butterfly after being in the frontier regions for many generations. It may even be a different species in that it is unable to produce offspring with the 'stayed at home' butterflies. If the living conditions were very stable at home would those butterflies changed at all. Logic would say that if the environment stays the same the the species living there should also stay the same.

A virus doesn't eat. A virus is a package of DNA that is completely inert except for when it contacts cells with the precise conditions, and then it directs the host cell to process it's DNA or RNA for it. After lysis, the virus waits until it contacts another cell with the right conditions, typically this means it has the correct three dimensional shape which fits the protein structures on the viral envelope. If there are no more organisms, the virus will exist in it's form until something destroys it, or until a favourable host happens along. It doesn't dies except for extreme environmental conditions...a lack of hosts won't kill it.

Fine does destroys

"Typically, bacteriophages consist of an outer protein hull enclosing genetic material. The genetic material can be ssRNA (single stranded RNA), dsRNA, ssDNA, or dsDNA between 5 and 500 kilo base pairs long with either circular or linear arrangement. Bacteriophages are much smaller than the bacteria they destroy - usually between 20 and 200 nm in size."

If the virus is changed enough to warrant a new name, it is a species change, at least under the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses. Just as it is for other life forms in Linnaean Classification.

If it changes that much then it is also targeting a new bacteria.

And any other organism which happens to share common cell membranes with that bacterium. There are plenty of virii that can infect multiple species, from different classes of organisms.

"Bacteriophages ("phages" for short) were the only effective treatment against infectious diseases until antibiotics came along during WWII.

Phages are the most ubiquitous organism on Earth. They are naturally occurring viruses that infect bacteria and bacteria only. We live in a sea of phages. Our bodies are more phage than human. There approximately 10 to the 32 power of them around us. That's 10 with 32 zeros behind it.

Antibiotics cannot keep up with evolving infections, while phages naturally co-evolve with the bacteria. "

Again, a virus doesn't need food. It doesn't have a digestive tract. It doesn't have enzymes. It's a packet of genetic material.

It still targets a specific bateria and that bacteria is destroyed.

It sure would be nice to have a list of all those animals, you know so we could compare. I guess we'll have to take people on their word, yet again... I mean Noah had what, 800 years or something like that. What did he do to pass time? He could have classified them himself...

Adam named all the animals. Go with the list of clean and unclean animals that are given, have any of them changed?

Besides the point, 3500 years is a blink of an eye when any one species in the fossil record exists for millions of years...

So, again, evolution cannot be observed and the fossil record is far from complete and that means Darwinism is not based on fact, it has elements of faith involved.

You really are obtuse.

Not really, I just don't buy crap that can't be proven. You may have bought into Darwinism just because you can't comprehend God. What does that make you and Dexter?

There's no way to see into the future, because we don't know which mutations and recombinations will be favourable. We can make guesses. But without knowing what the environmental changes are, or what the mutations are, it's a blind guess.

Oh come on, that little picture that show the progression of man from a monkey to what we are today can certainly be include a few new drawings based on what changes have already taken place. It wouldn't serve any purpose though.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Let me guess, your version of that flood has the world covered by an 'ocean' (making it several miles deep where Jerusalem stands now) that was 21ft over the top of Everest?

No, my version, and the version of every other informed person on the planet, confirmed by evidence from geology and biology and the records of ancient civilizations, is that it didn't happen. Egyptian records, for instance, are continuous from before 3000 BCE, and they record no such event.

Doesn't Dawkins (and anybody else who promotes Darwinism) say that dogs and cats have a common ancestor that is not even from the class of mammals?

Yes. So what? Every living creature has a common ancestor with every other one, all the way back to the origin of life, which appears to have happened only once around 3.5 billion years ago. If it happened more than once, other forms were out-competed and disappeared, because the basis of life and inheritance, the DNA molecule using the same four basic chemicals, is the same in all living things. Molecular biology makes it clear that every living thing is related to every other one.

That it takes millions of years for a leopard to change it's spots means evolution cannot be observed in action.

No it doesn't, it just means we can't observe that particular change in action directly.

Logic would say that if the environment stays the same the species living there should also stay the same.

Not necessarily, it's still possible that some random genetic change could confer some advantage that natural selection would preserve. Living things are not perfectly adapted to environments, natural selection doesn't produce optimum results, merely workable ones, there's always room for improvement even in an unchanging environment.

Antibiotics cannot keep up with evolving infections, while phages naturally co-evolve with the bacteria.

Aren't you the person who just claimed evolution can't be observed in action? What do you think bacterial resistance to antibiotics is?

Go with the list of clean and unclean animals that are given, have any of them changed?

Seen an aurochs lately? Modern domestic cattle descend from it, but the aurochs is gone. The list can't possibly be complete, there are far more kinds of creatures than are named in the Bible. We know of about 4600 mammalian species alone, the biblical list is a good deal shorter than that.

So, again, evolution cannot be observed and the fossil record is far from complete and that means Darwinism is not based on fact, it has elements of faith involved.

Right, and you just implicitly stated that is has been observed among bacteria and bacteriophages. The only element of faith involved in science is that the world is consistent and in principle comprehensible. Based on the successes of science at discovering how things are, that certainly seems to be a reasonable belief. Can't argue with the results; science visibly and obviously works.

... I just don't buy crap that can't be proven.

Says the man of faith. You might at least try to be consistent in your arguments. You believe a huge lot of things you can't prove, you even believe things, like the global flood, that are provably false.

You may have bought into Darwinism just because you can't comprehend God. What does that make you and Dexter?

That isn't why we bought Darwinism, and it makes us better informed and more thoughtful than you. Not only do you not understand the evidence that proves evolution, you don't even know what it is, and you never will because you'd rather believe, based on "crap that can't be proven," a Bronze Age text that's inconsistent with what we know now of how nature really works.

 

[truebeliever]

I'd rather live my life believing in God and following God and living a good life so that when I get to heaven I have a seat on his thrown for eternity than to live my life without God and when I get to Heaven He has no room for me since I had no room for Him and go to hell to dwell and suffer in fire and brimstone.

Eternity people! Eternity!

Fire and brimstone people! do you know what fire and brimstone is?

Heaven or hell for eternity? It's really not a hard decision.

This time on earth is nothing. Eternity is forever.

 

[scratch]

ed

I'd rather live my life believing in God and following God and living a good life so that when I get to heaven I have a seat on his thrown for eternity than to live my life without God and when I get to Heaven He has no room for me since I had no room for Him and go to hell to dwell and suffer in fire and brimstone.

Eternity people! Eternity!

Fire and brimstone people! do you know what fire and brimstone is?

Heaven or hell for eternity? It's really not a hard decision.

Did you ever get a chance to think or make decisions for yourself or did the indoctrination start as soon as you could understand language.

Have you ever thought outside of the box that you were forced to be in or did that never occur to you?

i am going to practice my freedom of thought and speech at any time that I wish. Can you say the same.

How did you ever lose your freedom, or didn't you ever know what freedom was because you were not allowed to go there or even think about it.

To me that is a denial of your human rights.

Did that ever occur to you?

.......list is too long .......



This time on earth is nothing. Eternity is forever.

How long are you willing to sit on his "thrown"?
An eternity?
How do you know how long eternity is?
Have you been there and returned to tell?

I'll take "hell' for one day, apparently the golfing is good.

 

[talloola]

ed

How long are you willing to sit on his "thrown"?
An eternity?
How do you know how long eternity is?
Have you been there and returned to tell?

I'll take "hell' for one day, apparently the golfing is good.

Just don't take your wooden clubs.:lol:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I'd rather live my life believing in God and following God and living a good life so that when I get to heaven I have a seat on his thrown for eternity than to live my life without God and when I get to Heaven He has no room for me since I had no room for Him and go to hell to dwell and suffer in fire and brimstone

A rather extreme restatement of Pascal's Wager, possibly the most famous false dichotomy of all time. :roll:

 

[Scott Free]

I was very religious once. Practically everyone I know is religious and what strikes me now about it is that it is a complete waste of life. They are all living so they can start really living once they are dead!

 

[In Between Man]

(man, not enough time to get to all these replies, one at a time I suppose...)

Of course it suggests a supernatural plan to some. To others it doesn't. I would suggest that due to the laws of physics and other applications the universe can only act as it does. Nothing "supernatural" about it: it is natural.

Your not even open to the idea of a supernatural (or intelligent, if you will) cause! But let's talk about the guys on the front lines. The scientists who observe the evidence first hand. I would like to remind you of the following: Science is married to philosophy. In fact, science cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and, therefore, cannot be the result of them. For example, scientists assume (by faith) that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand the world around us. That cannot be proven by science itself. You can’t prove the tools of science—the laws of logic, the law of causality, the principle of uniformity, or the reliability of observation—by running some kind of experiment. You have to assume those things are true in order to do the experiment! So science is built on philosophy. Unfortunately, many so called scientists are very poor philosophers.

Philosophical assumptions can dramatically impact scientific conclusions. If a scientist assumes beforehand that only natural causes are possible, then probably no amount of evidence will convince him that intelligence created the first one-celled amoeba or any other designed entity. When atheists presuppose that intelligent causes are impossible, then natural laws are the only game in town. Likewise, if a theist rules out natural causes beforehand, then he also risks missing the right answer. But a scientist who is open-minded to both natural and intelligent causes can follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Science doesn’t really say anything—scientists do. Data is always interpreted by scientists. When those scientists let their personal preferences or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of the evidence, they do exactly what they accuse religious people of doing—they let their ideology dictate their conclusions. When that’s the case, their conclusions should be questioned, because they may be nothing more than philosophical presuppositions passed off as scientific facts.

Atheists have been successful in convincing the public that the only bad science is that which disagrees with their view (and that really isn’t science at all, —it’s just a secular religion masquerading as science). In fact, the exact opposite is true. It’s the atheists who are practicing the bad science, because their science is built on a false philosophy. In effect, it’s their secular religion of naturalism that leads them to ignore the empirically detectable scientific evidence for design.

What's more, there is nothing to contradict ID, so in spite of all the efforts to offer ID as scientific; the fact that it cannot be contradicted makes it by definition, non-scientific.

ID is simply a disguised term for creationism. And some of us know how unrealistic and irrational creationism is.

No one's talking about Adam and Eve here. That's a whole other topic. In regards to ID, a common objection to ID is the claim it's not scientific. We all know that science is a search for causes, and there are only two types of causes: intelligent and non-intelligent (natural). The atheist’s claim that intelligent design is not science is based on their biased definition of science. If your definition of science rules out intelligent causes beforehand, then you’ll never consider Intelligent Design science. The irony for the atheists is this: if intelligent design is not science, then neither is darwinism. Why? Because both darwinists and ID scientists are trying to discover what happened in the past. Origin questions are forensic questions, and thus require the use of the forensic science. In fact, to rule out intelligent design from the realm of science, in addition to ruling out darwinism, we would also have to rule out archaeology, cryptology, criminal and accident forensic investigations, and SETI. These are all legitimate forensic sciences that look into the past for intelligent causes.

Something must be wrong with the atheists definition of science.

 

[talloola]

Well why don't you apply your own theory to your own belief, and prove what 'you' believe to be true. No believer in any god has ever done that, and never will.

 

[In Between Man]

There is 'no' fault, in either way of thinking.
Each of us obviously know 'what' we 'know'. Simple.
I know that there is 'no' god.
It is interesting reading all of the posts, for each side,
working very hard to prove their positions. Some very
intelligent people on this board, making good points.
The believers have their belief system, and the athiests
have their facts, that is the difference.
The believers try to turn their belief system into facts,
and they try to turn the athiests facts in beliefs.
Interesting indeed, doesn't make much sense, but interesting
none the less.

Quoting alleywayzalwayz on October 21st:

Second, While some faith is required for my conclusions, it’s often forgotten that faith is also required to believe any worldview, including atheism and pantheism. Why? Because faith covers our gap in knowledge. Atheism, requires some degree of faith. Even skeptics have faith. They have faith that skepticism is true. Likewise, agnostics have faith that agnosticism is true. There are no neutral positions when it comes to beliefs. One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs. In other words, atheists, who are naturally skeptical of let's say, christianity, turn out to be true believers in atheism. The real question is who has more faith?? Who has a bigger gap to cover???

What he said.

 

[In Between Man]

Ayn Rand - Faith vs Reason

Sorry, not convincing. In high school, I actually read one of her books. Atlas shrugged. It was horrible. Depressing really....

 

[talloola]

You are then assuming that atheism is a religion, and I've read on these posts many times that
atheism is not a religion.

We live on this earth with no sign of god anywhere, no angels, and whatever else the relgious
deem to be part of their god world.
We live on this earth with our ability to see all of our reality in it's true natural form.
That is what we can see, so, for me that is what is true.
Are you going to tell me that, what I can feel and see is 'only' true, because I believe it to be true? I don't think so.
I don't agree with all that 'thinking' by you that, scientists must have faith and belief, before they
can do their science. You are just using those words because 'for you' it connects your religious beliefs to science. scientists are very intelligent and creative, curious and full of ideas, and driven to test their theories to see if they work, a natural human trait,
they proceed from there, using the word faith, is just a play on words.
I don't practice atheism, like you might practice your religion. I don't even think about it,
and I don't go somewhere and kneel and pray to my atheism.
I am just a person who relates to this earth, and what I see and share with all of the other living things.
So, I don't have to prove what is allready obvious, as everyone can see it.

But people 'do' have to prove that something exists, that no one can ever see or touch,
and they expect us to believe that, just because they tell us to, no thanks, I'm not that
dumb, I will rely on my own intelligence and instinct, as a child of this earth, I will enjoy
my life here, it is my home, and I will stay here after death, as this is where I began.
I don't believe in souls, (another invisible entity), there is 'no' soul in my body, and of
course you say the soul is invisible, another one of those stories, believe in something
that no medical scientists has ever found inside one's body, no thanks.

If there was a group of children, who were never told to believe in a god, and knew
absolutely nothing about religion, and managed to grow up 'free' of such thoughts, they
could live their lives without that crutch, and be free creatures of this earth, like I am,
and would not have to pray to somelthing imaginary, and invisible.
We are not nomadic simple humans now, as they were back when natural happenings on
this earth frightened people, as they did not understand them, and their imaginations
told them something 'supernatural' was causing it to happen, so intelligent children in
todays world, with todays education, can grow up without those fears.

The only thing I believe was possible at one time or another, was that, other beings from other
planets could have come here, I don't really know that, as it has not been proven, yet,
but it is
possible. And, if that did happen, those people/beings were 'real', not invisible or imaginary.
For me that is a realistic thought.

 

[Scott Free]

Sorry, not convincing. In high school, I actually read one of her books. Atlas shrugged. It was horrible. Depressing really....

It's a difficult transition going from irrational thought to rational thought. Definitely there is a feeling of something being lost. Like a child giving up their belief in Easter bunnies, dragons and discovering their parents are only people, a certain silly innocence is lost; however, eventually you come to a point where you realize that what it is that you're giving up is only perpetual childhood. The sky clears and the world is brand new again. You become the universe conscious and for the first time you see things as they really are not as you dream them.

 

[MHz]

No, my version, and the version of every other informed person on the planet, confirmed by evidence from geology and biology and the records of ancient civilizations, is that it didn't happen.

Are those references the same ones that point to the Ark not being strong enough when compared to a sailing vessel from the last few hundred years? The Ark was a raft, it was not subject to the stresses that tall masts and many sails would put on a vessel.
How much evidence would 21ft of rain in 40 days leave behind?
Do you sort of think that Noah's son's might have had some knowledge how things worked before the flood, granted they would not have had the power of fallen angels there to 'help' If the Sphinx shows water damage that might date it back to 10,000 BC which is the time it stopped raining, that would make that structure even older. They wouldn't have a clue what to say about that change in the dates.

It didn't take long to find this article, did you miss it in your research?
"Egyptian Evidence There is no known Egyptian flood tradition in literature. However, there is important evidence from other literary indications and archaeology.
The First Dynasty of pharaohs, after 3000 BC, apparently corresponds to the arrival of a group of people from Mesopotamia who in a short time established a complete civilization. Arts, crafts, architecture, etc. of a high level suddenly (possibly in less than a hundred years) appeared all over Egypt. Was this from Mesopotamia? Many scholars think so (Edwards 1964:35-40; Emery 1961: 30-3; Frankfort 1956:124-37; Gardiner 1966:395-8; Kantor 1952; Roux 1966:80; Wilson 1956:37-41).
More important, much of lower Egypt at the founding of the First Dynasty was marshland, and today's deserts were pasturelands. This was true as late as the 5th and 6th Dynasties (Frankfort 1948:16, Kees 1961:17-24). None of the land north of Lake Moeris was above water (Herodotus 1954:104). This includes the whole Delta, meaning the shore was at least 150 miles inland (near Cairo) compared to its present position.
The first Pharaoh, Menes, is famous for making embankments, draining swamps and establishing Memphis, which became for millennia the capital of Egypt. As founder, he was its "Creator" and was deified in the person of the god "Ptah." The story of this is found in the Memphite Theology (Frankfort 1948:17-20, 24f., Wilson 1956:58-60). Indications of Lower (northern) Egypt as marsh is taken from tombs. This may have been during the period after the Flood while the remaining waters were drying up."
Ancient Days :: The Date of Noah's Flood: Literary and Archaeological Evidence :: by Dr. David Livingston

I wouldn't even agree with that last sentence, after the flood all the people stayed in the same local, they were still 'one family' up to the tower of Babel incident, that is when the migration to other parts of the world occurred. Even with a change in language they could probably still manage to create some impressive structures or build on the remains of what was there before the flood.

Well we have rocks that old so at least some parts of the earth were 'cool', if that is the time water was found in two forms (liquid and vapor) then it was, how old is the oldest tree found, about 450 million maybe?

Don't forget I am an old earth creationist not a young earth one.

That should be true in that we all belong to the Earth but adaptability has its limits.

"Molecular Biology Fails to Confirm Darwinism Although molecular biology has been used to hasten research in many fields of biology, it has failed to confirm the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwinian theory. According to Dr. Paul Sharp, "Attempt to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success." Although the study described one of the few molecular successes of evolutionary theory, the trend has been that molecular biology contradicts much of evolutionary theory. (Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular Darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112)."
Recent Problems in Evolution - 1997

The above is more than 10 years old, would you like some links to the most recent articles that deal with this very subject, they have the same view?

No it doesn't, it just means we can't observe that particular change in action directly.

And if the spots haven't changed in 4500 years then can you say they will have changed in 45,000 years? If they are the same as they were in the 'recent past' then the fact should say that they remain the same generation after generation, that is what an honest observation would point to.

That's true, catastrophes on a global scale could have occurred. The sea rising some 400 ft as the glaciers melted could have also pushed some forms of life into the past.

Things seem rather stable for the last few thousand years, I would hesitate on saying there is room for a 'better version' if the 'living conditions' remain the same. Life could be at it's optimum for any given environment and some change in that would then require a change in the species that are adapted to that new specific environment. Longer fur would not be an advantage if the weather was not getting colder, it could very well mean the end of the line for that mutation.

Aren't you the person who just claimed evolution can't be observed in action? What do you think bacterial resistance to antibiotics is?

I don't deny that new bacteria is part of the life of bacteria as a class, but they are still bacteria, have it change into a bird or some other class of life and that is Darwinism at it's finest. But that part is not provable is it?

Seen an aurochs lately? Modern domestic cattle descend from it, but the aurochs is gone. The list can't possibly be complete, there are far more kinds of creatures than are named in the Bible.

What could you fit into 101,250sqft. When it says cattle after their kind or fowl after their kind, and birds of every sort. (fowl and birds are not the same, one has been domesticated), does 'after their kind' denote class or species?

We know of about 4600 mammalian species alone, the biblical list is a good deal shorter than that.

From the few that are listed have any changed in the last 4313 years? How many more could you fit in if you had the very young rather than fully grown ones?

Right, and you just implicitly stated that is has been observed among bacteria and bacteriophages. The only element of faith involved in science is that the world is consistent and in principle comprehensible.

How many new medications have been 'pulled off the shelves' in the last 70 years after science has deemed them 'safe'? Science went with antibiotics rather than the method that was already working quite well because it basically made some people very rich and gave them total control over one aspect of human existence. Now those antibiotics no longer work like they should and phage medicine is still being suppressed in the west. Science works just like that, it promotes what it is told to promote.
That is life multiplying, so what, they are still staying in their specific class of life are they not?

Based on the successes of science at discovering how things are, that certainly seems to be a reasonable belief. Can't argue with the results; science visibly and obviously works.

Subject to revision several times a year depending on the subject.
Total abandonment on some 'thought being promoted' at least once a decade. Not the most stable ground to promote any thought or line of thinking.

Says the man of faith. You might at least try to be consistent in your arguments. You believe a huge lot of things you can't prove, you even believe things, like the global flood, that are provably false.

As an old earth creationist I don't have a problem allowing for adaptability for any form of life. One class changing into another totally different class is not provable so why should it be accepted?

That isn't why we bought Darwinism, and it makes us better informed and more thoughtful than you.

You are assuming that Darwinism is a new concept to me, it isn't and it has a lot of holes in it, whether you want to admit it or not.
As for the 'we' thing, that just makes more people wrong. The number of 'believers' does not alter the fact of something being real or false.

Not only do you not understand the evidence that proves evolution, you don't even know what it is, and you never will because you'd rather believe, based on "crap that can't be proven," a Bronze Age text that's inconsistent with what we know now of how nature really works.

Is that becoming one of your favorite sayings? When you say 'inconsistent' that only tells me you know nothing about what the Bible speaks of, zero, zilch.

 

[MHz]

I was very religious once. Practically everyone I know is religious and what strikes me now about it is that it is a complete waste of life. They are all living so they can start really living once they are dead!

LOL That must have been some type of group.
Religion only comes up in this place, the rest of my day is spent dealing with daily activities, some enjoyable some are a pain in the butt.
I also have other 'hobbies' but they sometimes run past their 'set budgets' and so they get rest periods. Talking is free so really talking about Scripture is a waste in what way, let alone a complete waste? Since you troll this thread I guess religion isn't totally out of your life yet.

 

[In Between Man]

It's a difficult transition going from irrational thought to rational thought.

Again, if one can reasonably believe that God exists, then it is rational thought. Doesn't mean my interpretation is right. I fully believe your rational. I fully believe I'm rational. I guess I'll never get that concession though. That's okay, I still like ya!

Definitely there is a feeling of something being lost. Like a child giving up their belief in Easter bunnies, dragons and discovering their parents are only people, a certain silly innocence is lost; however, eventually you come to a point where you realize that what it is that you're giving up is only perpetual childhood.

Big diff between God and the easter bunny, santa and the bunch. Actually, a huge difference.

The sky clears and the world is brand new again.

Hmmm. A lot of people who are saved, claim the same.

You become the universe conscious

Please elaborate on this for me, bud.

:smile:

 

[Scott Free]

LOL That must have been some type of group.

Yeah, it was.

Since you troll this thread I guess religion isn't totally out of your life yet.

You're right, most of the people I know are religious.