Are there any other agnostics on CC?

College Confidential Community
41

<p>I can't remember where I saw this, but 2/3 of scientists are creationists</p>

<p>the more you learn, the more you appreciate the incredible complexity of the universe, beyond the possiblities of chance</p>

<p>I've seen both sides, and I must say that creation science is more convincing...remember, Christianity can be destroyed by a single scientific discovery, so the fact that it's still around today is a testament to its validity</p>

<p>Evolutionists: Carbon dating reveals that many objects are older than 6000 years
Creationists: That is based on the assumption that the percentage of carbon-14 in the Earth has remained constant; if we assume instead that, as the Bible says, Earth began 6000 years ago protected by a barrier of water and then deduce that Earth began with no radioactive material, the figures work out right</p>

<p>Evolutionists: language evolved through three stages
Creationists: all three "stages" are alive and well today</p>

42

<p>can we continue this discussion tomorrow, after a good night's sleep? possibly via email?</p>

43

<p>I think death can be peaceful even for an atheist. After living a long life, I think many feel okay to go. Animals go through it and I think people can die feeling peaceful. You can look at it worrying, ughh this is it. Or maybe you feel your time is right to be gone. That perhaps sounds horrible to you but sometimes an end feels right.</p>

<p>I see your computer game thing analogy, though it isn't convincing for me. If I were to believe in a god it would more likely be some sort of deity that does not interfere with our lives but controls the cycle, that is what the next stage after earth is, or something maybe like that. I have a very hard time believing the Christian god. </p>

<p>I really don't believe in the "sin" arguments and all that. THat is a long story....</p>

<p>With the game theory... I really truly believe in the ultimate innocence of humanity, of everything. It's kind of ironic maybe. But I seriously think there is a reason the bad comes. There is a reason someone commits a crime. It may be a reflection of mental problems, personal problems, improper learned behaviors, depression and dissatisfaction with life, and a million other things. But in the end I think that we are all innocent because we did not choose our genes and we did not choose the original environment where we grew. </p>

<p>Who we are, our conscience is at first a genetic make-up and then learns from the environment. The start to this soul is not at all a choice to the individual. The soul then created , that is how it is based on things that it did not choose, will come to make decisions. But each decision will be based on the conscience it has, and the very beginning of that concsience that would influence how it would grow in the end is not chosen by the conscience originally. It's kind of confusing, but we all boil down to our genes and our environment and our choices. Of course our decisions reflect our genes and environment. So I think we are inherently innocent even if we may naturally be evil. </p>

<p>Phew..I'm gonna have to go to bed soon!</p>

44

<p>Yes, good idea. Let's continue tomorrow or via email sometime. Thx for the respectful responses!</p>

<p>Also, quick... WIth the carbon dating... They use various types of dating. IT is odd if the different forms come to the same millions of year dating. Well, I can't explain this right now. </p>

<p>Also, I understood a much different statistics concerning what percent believed in creationism and god. We will have to get the links to show one another later. The proof will come later since tonight has come!</p>

<p>Sweet dream Tanonev!</p>

45

<p>The Christian belief is that the soul is not physical (which explains why we have a couple of psychics here and there; they've tapped into a power beyond the physical world, namely, their own souls)</p>

<p>This is my idea, probably not very good Christian theology (I'd be burned at the stake if it weren't this century lol): omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are relative terms. I mean, I could create a game in which I had all such powers, but I'm certainly not any of those in real life. I'm not demoting God to a computer geek, don't get me wrong...what I'm saying is that maybe our souls, not being of this world, are not fully subjected to the rules of this world. As a result, God cannot know for sure what we will do because He gave us user control. So, we're not really innocent, because we have free will because physics does not fully govern us; therefore we are ourselves responsible for our actions and we cannot blame genes or society.</p>

46

<p>good night leonesa :)</p>

47

<p>


</p>

<p>LOL, sad to say tis true... A lot of them are commies/anarchists just cuz their friends are and they don't really know or truly understand their political standing. I actually don't mind anymore, the worst part is when they discriminate against people with religion and think that they are stupider coz of it... Probably why I've had such a hard time making friends here. :rolleyes:</p>

48

<p>I'm sorry, but i must stray from the original topic a little to strongly disagree with tanonev. Christianity certainly cannot be "destroyed" by a single scientific discovery (nor can the existance of God) - if it could, i would love to know what such a discovery would be.
And second, no where in the bible does it say that Earth is 6000 years old. There is nothing in the Bible that makes this statement even arguable.</p>

<p>As a religious person and scholar (both of religious and secular matters) myself, I think creationism (at least the fundamentalist version of it, based on strict interpretation of Genesis) has been pretty well disproved by science. But despite this, I like how well Religion and science compliment each other (and I capitalize Religion because some denominations are better at accepting science and working with it than others). It's quite late, so I can't really elaborate right now and make sense (I'm not sure I even could do this well when I am completely lucid). </p>

<p>But back to the original topic, on the existance of God. At least at some level, I think we are all agnostic. It is impossible to prove the existance of God - at the same time, it is impossible to disprove it. All arguments for or against the existance of God have holes. This is, as they say, where faith comes in.
As it is, morality and logic are independant of a God (however you want to define God), and we ought to strive live as best we can, working toward our own betterment as a race. (at least, thats my romanticized view of how things should be)</p>

49

<p>I would also like to ask what possible scientific discovery could disprove God. The simple fact is - science's purpose isn't to answer those questions. Science, as it is now, serves to record observations and note what we consider cause/effect relationships. What observation could we make about God - something we can't experience - or about His purpose in creating the world and creating men? What study is going to tell you the meaning of life? Another pretty overlooked bit is that science is not infallible truth. Not at all. It's doubtful enough when it applies to the physical world, but to mess with souls, with purpose, with concepts, it's pretty much useless.</p>

<p>A question for you, Icarus - how and why are morality and logic independent of a God?</p>

<p>In my opinion, God sets the standard. I don't mean that "He" sits up there in the clouds saying what's right and what's wrong. I don't believe he's an extended or physical being at all, and for me all arguments about God allowing things to happen are pointless, as he is not a physical partificant. Insofar as He is perfect, possessing all perfections and truths, all-knowing, infinite, etc. His is the only perfection we can emulate or strive for. It's the only perfection we can know, there can't be a greater God, and God is Perfect. If you believe there's a God but aren't satisfied with him, you aren't thinking of God, but rather some lesser being - an imperfect one. From this it follows that your logic and your morals - your ideal ones - are God's. Can you imagine another type of logic, another way of reasoning? No, only imperfect ones, any other system being considered valid is absurd. The same for morals. While this may seem like a stretch, I believe all men share the same basic values, the same principles - none of this "we can both be right" crap and "we can't decide what's good and evil." If we all share the same values, we should be able to recognize them and hopefully try to live a good life. Claiming one lives a good life or refusing to better one's life is willful blindness, cowardice, laziness - sin. </p>

<p>That's just how it works for me. </p>

<p>As another sort of general reply... to the whole game theory, to the genetic makeup theories, to the soul as otherworldly, etc.... Christians don't believe the soul is otherworldly so much as that it's separate from the body. I guess that can count as otherworldly in that it's not made up of anything on this earth. Simply put, as far as I understand it, the soul is the mind, or the consciousness. Self-awareness. What separates us from animals. The mind ISN'T the brain, the mind is the will, the understanding, all of those faculties, it's you.. you in so far as what goes on inside you. It's not IN your brain - when they cut open people's heads and poke things and ask what color you see and you say "Blue" they don't see blue inside your brain, they rely on what you say based on what you see, and the seeing isn't going on inside your head. The eye doesn't see an object - the mind sees an object. The eye only sees light and colors. The brain doesn't will, the mind wills. And so on... What I said before, about God, is that he is basically the perfect mind. He has all the knowledge and so he makes all the right choices (or he would if he had any choices to make), but he has all the morals down. So in some way minds aren't otherwordly for God, they are of the same essence of God (except that God's is infinite and perfect). So you're under his rules, his is the only perfect way for the mind/soul to work.</p>

<p>Believing this, I don't believe that your genetics determine who you are. YOU determine who you are. Does this depend on your perceptions, on the physical world, on your genetics, your environment, etc.? Yeah, sure. But you still make choices. The one unlimited thing we have is our will. Can you think of anything you can't will? Your choices are never restricted. Your character, your personality, isn't some set in stone INTP sort of type that will always act the same way, you are your habits, your routine choices. Start choosing something else and your character changes. No one's born an alcoholic. No one is forced into being an alcoholic through sheer genetics. I just think this is an excuse, plain and simple.</p>

50

<p>one discovery--that of the body/remains of Christ--throws Christianity out the window, since it is built upon hope in the Resurrection</p>

<p>yet His body has never been found...</p>

<p>the Earth is ~6000 years old according to the Bible...add up the ages of people listed in the Bible...the Flood occurs ~4400 years ago (science backs this up: oldest trees: 4300-4400 years old; Sahara desert: ~4400 years old)</p>

51

<p>Well, I think you have more of a case for morality being dependant on God than logic. Let me use a simple example to illustrate. God could not simply say one day that 2+2=5 and it would be right. Logic is not dependant on God because God cannot define it. </p>

<p>Similarly, God cannot define morality. If God were to say tomorrow that murder is morally right, would it be? Now I know that most religious people would say "well, God wouldn't do that" - but why not? Of course he could.
Plato asks this question in the euthyphro, so I shall quickly run through the argument. We ask if something is right because God commands it or if God commands it because it is right.
1) Suppose God commands us to do what is right (all religions accept that God is good).
2) If we accept what you propose, that something is right because God commands it, then God's commands are morally arbitrary, and the goodness of God becomes meaningless.
3)Therefore, we must accept that God commands something because it is right. Although this admits that there is a standard of right and wrong independant of God, it is the only acceptable answer.</p>

52

<p>and to tanonev, you assume that the body of Christ (and actually, if you were arguing that Christianity is not valid, then he wouldn't be Christ anyway) would be differentiable from any other 2000 year old body we might find. So I'm sorry, but you are still incorrect - there is no scientific discovery that could disprove Christianity or the existance of God in general.</p>

<p>And the logic of adding the ages of everyone in the Bible is massively flawed. First, because the Bible cannot be taken literally on all points. (especially the creation storiesand early history, as well as revelation, etc.) We could get into a whole exegetical thing on this alone I'm sure, but that would deviate too much. Scond, how are you to assume that everyone listed in the bible lived in a linear fashion, starting with Adam (if such a person ever existed)? Do you really think that person X died at the exact moment Person Y (the next to be listed) was born - because this seems to be the only way your thing of adding all the ages would work.
Thirdly (and most strongly), it simply doesn't make sense that Earth is only 6000 years old, based on all the science that says otherwise. Sure, dating is not always an exact science, but there are things that have been dated to be millions of years old. There is no way that those measurements are that far off. </p>

<p>And in fact, in that last post of yours, you contradicted yourself. You say that dating is inaccurate, yet you use scientific dating of the "flood" to back up your claims.
Again, you are wrong.</p>

53

<p>When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh.
When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan.
When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel.
When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared.
When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch.
When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah.
When Methuselah had lived 187 years, be became the father of Lamech.
When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. He named him Noah...</p>

<p>Noah was six hundred years old when the flood waters came on the earth...
Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad.
When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah.
When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber.
When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg.
When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu.
When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug.
When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor.
When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah.
After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran...</p>

<p>Abraham had Isaac when he was 99 or 100...
Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to [Jacob and Esau]</p>

<p>I really don't want to type out any more, but you get the idea...add up all the numbers and you get about 6000</p>

<p>I said "carbon dating" and any other kind of RADIATION dating is inaccurate...I backed up the flood with the indisputable dating method called "counting tree rings"</p>

<p>Creation only makes sense if taken literally...think about it...plants on the 3rd day, the sun on the 4th...how do you expect the plants to live those two days aren't adjacent?</p>

<p>besides, why would the Bible lie? Why would God lie?</p>

<p>It makes perfect sense that the Earth is only 6000 years old...remember, you can lie with statistics, and many scientists, with the PRIOR MINDSET that the Earth is millions of years old, look for details that they can morph into "proof" that the Earth is millions of years old.</p>

<p>Btw, the Grand Canyon was made all at one time by the Flood, not by the Colorado River eating through it slowly and surely</p>

<p>Also, how do you explain a human footprint being discovered alongside and underneath a dinosaur's footprint?</p>

<p>How do you explain the inversion of the "geologic column"?</p>

54

<p>I'd like to tell Icarus something...if you're going to use the Bible as an argument, read it first...I mean read, not skim, not look for specific verses...read that thing from cover to cover...THEN argue to your heart's content</p>

<p>I'm about halfway through the Bible now, reading it, not skimming it</p>

55

<p>And a day has been a day (give or take a couple seconds)...an explanation of the Methuselan ages of, well, Methuselah and his counterparts, comes from taking Creation literally</p>

<p>Day 2: let the firmament (sky) separate the water from the water, so there may be water above and water below
There was water above the sky before the Flood! It formed a protective layer of ice that (1) blocked out harmful solar radiation and (2) created hyperbaric conditions on earth. Of course, the ice was broken when the Flood came (presumably a meteor took out the ice), so that's why the ages of people declined rapidly after the flood</p>

<p>There was also water below the ground; the ice layer and this ground water were set loose in the Flood, and subsequent geologic movements dumped all that water into today's oceans</p>

56

<p>I know I'm hardly going to make a breakthrough on the Euthyphro dilemma, but my thoughts nonetheless. It doesn't seem like much of a dilemma to me. Go with the second conclusion first, if there is an external standard it simply means that there is actual knowledge as to what is a right choice, what is true for living a good life, and that it is out there. Knowledge can't be "out there," it must be known by someone for it to exist. As God is infinite and all knowing, he has a perfect knowledge of this always. There can't be a standard or knowledge greater than him because he will always choose what is right according to what he knows. Neither is he less powerful because his knowledge of what is true/false depends on things being true/false and him not designating them. Because he knows everything he can never fall into error - or falsehood. Or if you go the other way, that he defines morality based on what he chooses, you end up at the same point. Either way, God has defined morality, and it's not a question of accepting it, we have no choice but to accept it. The goodness of God doesn't become meaningless in the same way that our logic doesn't become meaningless - it's our minds' ONLY way of functioning. We can say sure, there might be another lifeform that thinks 2+2=5, but ultimately, our truth is that 2+2=4. Who decides what's true for us? God because he creates us. Because God creates us our morality is still dependent on God and dependent on his perfect knowledge of right/wrong. And likewise, this standard can't exist anywhere except comprehended by a mind - God's mind. Its existence is depended on God's conception of it. I know I'm being completely redundant and I forgot what I started out saying, but (so) it seems to me (Socrates) that posing this as an obstacle to objective morality is pointless, like asking who created God. Knowledge depends on facts, sure. God has all the facts. What are facts? Things the mind can conceive of clearly and distinctly? I wish I knew...</p>

57

<p>Even though this is off the original topic, I feel like responding.</p>

<p>
[quote]
besides, why would the Bible lie? Why would God lie?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Bibles can't lie. No book can lie. The people who write books, including the bible, can lie if they want to, or make things up if they want to, or embellish and twist the truth if they want to.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It makes perfect sense that the Earth is only 6000 years old...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please do explain, using science rather than an religious book.</p>

58

<p>the Bible IS a science book</p>

<p>note the story that Eve was made from Adam's rib, then note that ribs are the only bones that regenerate</p>

<p>of all the "religious texts," only the Bible correctly states that "He hangeth the Earth upon nothing"</p>

<p>the hydrologic cycle is contained in the Bible</p>

<p>compare lesser Old Testament prophets' prophecies with history: they match quite well</p>

<p>the Bible says "[man's] years shall be 120" (after the Flood)...world record for longevity: 119 years</p>

59

<p>but if you want some "cold, hard science," consider this:
each year (and a half) is about 1 second longer than the one before it. Extrapolate backwards, and if the Earth really was millions of years old, it would have been spinning like a top during the "Age of Dinosaurs"</p>

<p>Evidence suggests that the percent composition of material in the Earth's atmosphere has yet to stabilize (and I mean overall, like argon and such, not just the whole carbon dioxide-ozone thing); calculations say an atmosphere will stabilize after 30000 years</p>

60

<p>Just because the bible has passages that do not contradict science doesn't make it a science book. If it "predicted" some things correctly, there's no other evidence to prove that it's not just coincidence. If you've got evidence backing your opinions on evolution and creationism outside of the bible and bits of uncited information, I'm perfectly willing to hear and consider it, and I'm sure other non-believers are, too.</p>