Science-Religion. Which wins?

[Baelor]

<p>

If something is NOT observable, it cannot be a part of reality

</p>

<p>Are you kidding? That is a lie. Reality is what IS, not what is observable.
Let’s put it this way.</p>

<p>A person believes in a God that does not interact with our world at all. What is reality to that person? God plus our world. God is real, just not observable.</p>

<p>

If got is not observable, if his actions have no effect on us, what point is there in believing he even exists?

</p>

<p>Here are the statements, which you present in order:</p>

<p>1) God is not observable
2) His actions have no effect on us
3) There is no point in believing he exists.</p>

<p>2) does not follow from 1), and 3) does not follow from 2) even if you assumed 2) were true. The fact that he is not empirically observable does not mean he does not have an effect in our world, only that that effect is not observable in isolation. Pat Robertson provides an excellent example of this type of belief, as psychotic as he is. </p>

<p>

What point is there in acknowledging their existence?

</p>

<p>Because you seek Truth.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

Then you ought to not criticize individuals for any perceived personal attacks if you are willing to employ one yourself.

</p>

<p>You lack a sense of humor. How disappointing - but I suppose I shouldn’t have expected too much.</p>

<p>

As I stated above, if one presumes that the universe and living organisms originated and evolved through specific acts of a holy force, a non-continuous or lack of belief in natural processes, then one may be considered a creationist.

</p>

<p>Well, it’s lovely that you have a preconceived notion of what a creationist is. However, I will go by the standard definition: “the literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis.” </p>

<p>I do not satisfy that characterization.</p>

<p>

Your assertion that you do not believe that humans, in particular, were fully stemmed from a natural process of chemical evolution, leads me to believe that you support some type of pious conviction.

</p>

<p>Don’t assume; I simply feel that certain aspects are lacking in proof. This does not indicate I am incapable of believing in such if appropriate evidence is presented.</p>

<p>And my convictions aren’t the pious ones here. I’m not you.</p>

<p>

Then, once again, what basis does it have in explaining – or by your personal presumption, appearing in – empirical reality?

</p>

<p>It does not explain, something I am pleased to see you have acknowledged. And as for the latter part of your query, I am befuddled as to why on earth you would pose such a question in a train of serious thought. Simply because the Bible does not provide a clear-cut scientific explanation for every event that ever occurred does not mean that certain aspects of God’s handiwork cannot appear in the reality in which we live. Quantifiable means are not available to assess the qualitative realm, but it does not mean that one cannot affect another.</p>

<p>

You state that you – somehow – resolutely find some godly influence in scientifically explainable findings. In reality, you are merely interjecting your own emotional biases.

</p>

<p>Yes, I do find godly influence in the laws of chemistry and the interaction of subatomic particles. It is not a bias - it is a belief.</p>

<p>Furthermore, what scientific explanation is there for the fact that the laws of physics and chemistry exist?</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

No, you ought to communicate or posit your position more clearly.

</p>

<p>I have been abundantly clear in my responses to your queries.</p>

<p>

I have repeatedly stated that religion provides a means for intellectual fulfillment

</p>

<p>Before or after you stated that the intellect of those who deigned to possess a religious belief was undoubtedly inferior to those who abstained from such?</p>

<p>

Again, reiterating one of my earlier claims – science assists in transcending beyond this spineless fear that humanity has had for so many centuries. It teaches us to evidence and substantiate belief, to no longer seek and misconceive imaginary moral or epistemological crutches, to no longer fabricate superhuman entities in the sky, but rather to look at the world honestly, honorably, and systematically as it is and use the extent of our technology and mental aptitudes to create a better world around us.

</p>

<p>You hold such an apotheosized, romantic vision of science. Take off your rose-colored glasses.</p>

<p>

You state that you “quarrel” with the gradual expansion of structural and biochemical complexity of humanity (and only humanity)

</p>

<p>False. One of my concerns was from the leap from unicellularity to multicellularity, which encompasses a far greater number of organisms than just homo sapiens; I would simply like more proof and conclusiveness. Furthermore, though I used humanity as my primary example, that does not mean I discount other qualms I possess with regards to saltation.</p>

<p>

If you believe in the Christian Bible’s assertions, then why do you not label yourself as a creationist – or do you simply selectively choose what you wish to believe?

</p>

<p>As I have already explained above, I do not meet the criterion for being a creationist, which involves literal belief in every statement of the Bible. I do not selectively choose what I wish to believe; the account of Creation can be quite true when viewed from a scientific perspective.</p>

<p>

@Adenine

^Bravo! Brilliant!</p>

<p>You religious folks seriously need to pack it up. mifune’s got this topic nailed.

</p>

<p>Adenine, make a substantive contribution to this discussion or ■■■■. kthxbi</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

Something is not definitively true simply because one wants it to be, which is precisely the rationality you are utilizing.

</p>

<p>According to the rules of logic, something does not need to be true for it to be valid. Furthermore, you have not managed to definitively prove that the Bible is wholly false.</p>

<p>

Rather than one particular empirical phenomenon, the entire book of Genesis attempts to dabble in such scientific matters.

</p>

<p>I have already addressed this point. However, I will state it once more: from a scientific perspective, Genesis follows the order of evolution quite closely.</p>

<p>

So you concede to that?

</p>

<p>I am not conceding to a fact; I am simply acknowledging it as a truthful statement that you unnecessarily made.</p>

<p>

According to your logic for the acceptance of Christianity, if I believed in such, regardless of its inherent contradiction, superficiality, or irrationality, it would be true.

</p>

<p>Your logic unraveled the moment you began to type.
Firstly, the “inherent contradiction” you view as being immanent to Christianity largely dissipates when one examines the Bible and uses it as their sole religious text. The “irrationality” you view as being central to Christianity exists to you because you have not made Kierkegaard’s leap of faith, in which you believe that which transcends the impossible in a feat of infinite resignation. As for the so-called “superficiality,” this does not merit serious consideration or response.</p>

<p>

Again, the plethora of contradiction, inherent in all beliefs that claim to propound the genuine truth of some spiritual realm, in turn, unravels the entire perspective.

</p>

<p>Your absence of logic is striking; you are arguing out of preconceived notions here and scrambling for premises to make your conclusion true.</p>

<p>

Given the ideologies that have ever been in existence and the sheer extent of the assertions that they make, what is the possibility that one is uniformly true?

</p>

<p>It doesn’t matter what the probability is. One of them is going to be true.</p>

<p>

That’s the issue.

</p>

<p>No, it’s actually not an issue; it’s simply an example of you grasping at straws to justify your atheism and pathetically attempt to disprove the existence of God.</p>

<p>

Faith allows any individual to make whatever claim about reality that he or she pleases, which is based on personal opinion – and indeed even dysmorphic judgments – and is obscured so that it does not require testing against nature, cannot form consistent and dependable conjecture, and steers well clear of peer review.

</p>

<p>****ing peer review? That doesn’t exist in most fields, and only in a limited sense in religion, with the discussion and publication of various texts upon the Bible. Furthermore, God has no peers.
With regards to testing against nature, this is something done by millions of individuals every day in an act called living. Under differing conditions, identical results cannot be achieved. Life isn’t a science experiment.</p>

<p>

In essence, religion deserves to be consigned to the same category as pseudoscience, fairy tales, superstition, and delusions of all styles.

</p>

<p>Organized rituals that regrettably are a part of some religions may be discardable. However, the fundamental tenets of religion do not fit in with your hodgepodge grouping.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

Why are you construing my reference to Hume’s “contrary means different” paradigm as something that is immanently biased?

</p>

<p>Well, firstly, I do not agree with Hume’s “contrary means different” paradigm in all cases.
Secondly, you’ve referred to such luminaries as Dawkins - why wouldn’t your reference to Hume have a similar motive?</p>

<p>

The genuine assertion that “God” is nothing but a figment of the human imagination is stigmatized as the worst of all mortal sins.

</p>

<p>Actually, the worse sin is immortalized by the First Commandment: worshipping false gods with the knowledge that God exists. Please, don’t embarrass yourself with such whopping generalizations.</p>

<p>

The lack of immersion in this case is the lack of exposure to the concept of the supernatural.

</p>

<p>And, as our discussion has devolved into an argument over the validity of Christianity, that is all I intended with my reference to immersion.</p>

<p>

Have you been fully exposed to every religious doctrine that has ever existed in order to fairly form your set of beliefs?

</p>

<p>A few years hence, I undertook a rigorous study of Tibetan Buddhism and Shintoism, with some ancillary participation in Hinduism. Neither of the three satisfied me. While I have not studied religion with the same intensity I have lavished upon other subjects, like hot peppers (including Scoville ratings, hot sauce, and capsaicin research), I have become moderately well-read upon the subject and regularly stay up to date on the more mainstream beliefs. I find that these studies have enriched my own spiritual experience. Granted, my extensive direct participation was unfortunately limited to three belief systems.</p>

<p>At any rate, it is impossible to respond to your query in the affirmative - that would require traveling back in time to explore religious traditions that have now died out. Furthermore, some of them are undoubtedly beyond the reach even of modern technology and have not yet been discovered. In short, that’s an asinine question.</p>

<p>

What evidence do you have for your last assertion?

</p>

<p>Science, in my opinion, shows the effects of God’s groundwork. How exactly you’d like me to prove using empirical methods God’s influence in the creation of molecular forces I’m not quite sure. Care to elaborate?</p>

<p>

And if you do not attribute the transfer from unicellularity to multicellularity in eukaryotic organisms to the clear evolutionary perspective, then with what do you evidence it?

</p>

<p>I do not attribute it solely to evolution based upon the current evidence provided.</p>

<p>

That is inherently the basic groundless assumption one makes when using the “God” concept to explain empirical reality – it is a process of active non-thinking, a means of not intelligibly clarifying anything, and purely an acknowledgement that one does not have an explanation.

</p>

<p>You still have the boldness to claim in fits of self-righteousness and sickening sanctimoniousness that you have not yet insulted a believer’s intellect in light of these statements. </p>

<p>And to answer your claim:
False. It is simply an acknowledgement that science cannot provide one.</p>

[Adenine]

<p>Ksarmand, I hope you realize that your entire argument is based on a huge ball of nothingness. You assume that the god explanation is correct, assume that you faith is correct, and have nothing to support yourself other than a book that hasn’t proven itself to be any more valid than Little Red Riding Hood. I could write a book on the invisible elephant example and put it some place where it doesn’t need to be validated (in other words, write a pile of bull****), claim it came out of the sky from god and it would have the same basis. Quit deluding yourself.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>^Ah, finally a contribution longer than a few sentences!</p>

<p>

Ksarmand, I hope you realize that your entire argument is based on a huge ball of nothingness.

</p>

<p>Your statement is contradictory - if I were to have a ball, that would be something, not nothing. </p>

<p>

You assume that the god explanation is correct, assume that you faith is correct, and have nothing to support yourself other than a book that hasn’t proven itself to be any more valid than Little Red Riding Hood.

</p>

<p>You done spouting ignorant crap?</p>

<p>I’m not too sure what “god explanation” you’re talking about. Care to elaborate?</p>

<p>Yes, I assume that faith is correct, and that the act of believing is also correct. Simply because there are infinite possibilities in terms of the numbers that can be placed after the equation "2 + 2 = " does not mean that all of them are correct, as it is known that the only answer can be 4, regardless of the infinite variety of possibilities available.</p>

<p>With regards to the validity of the Bible, its historical parallels are clearly evident, though you have chosen to ignore them. Lowering it to the level of Little Red Riding Hood, which along with the Three Little Pigs appears to be a popular choice of reading material around here - is that where you get your religious knowledge from? - shows your lack of knowledge.</p>

<p>

I could write a book on the invisible elephant example and put it some place where it doesn’t need to be validated (in other words, write a pile of bull****), claim it came out of the sky from god and it would have the same basis.

</p>

<p>Stop being a dumbass. Please. This doesn’t even merit a typed response which, for the sake of your elucidation, I will provide anyway. The basis of religion is not the same as an idiotic example that is not even analogous to religion. Your thought process is clearly awash with presuppositions you have not bothered to clear away with a simple Google search.</p>

<p>

Quit deluding yourself.

</p>

<p>I am not particularly inclined to be obliging. Perhaps if you write with a shred of intellect present in your post, I shall entertain actual discussion with you.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Genetics has proven that the human race did NOT share a common ancestor only a few thousand years ago. If you deny that genetics, radiocarbon dating, and a whole host of other scientific principles are not real, what’s the point in arguing with you? If you won’t look at facts when presented with them, it’s completely pointless in arguing with someone who is not rational.</p>

<p>How do you account for genetic variation in human beings then?

</p>

<p>I’ve heard that said before, but havn’t been able to find the facts of the issue. Link please? I’d be interested to look into that. With what little I understand of genetics, you are saying that the human race contains more than 4 mutually exclusive alleles for some traits?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

There exists NO EVIDENCE that the natural or supernatural entity exists! Unless you provide me with any evidence that god exists, I cannot accept the existence of such a being. Go ahead right now. Provide evidence that God exists. In your case, that the Christian god exists. Please go ahead. Also provide evidence, in your case, that evolution is false and that the Earth is 6000 years old. Please, in your case, provide evidence that the world’s men are descended from Noah and Adam and Eve.

</p>

<p>…sigh</p>

<p>Here we go again.</p>

<p>I already stated my reason for concluding that “supernatural” sentience must exist, in every human being. I will restate it.</p>

<p>This is indirect proof. Statement to be refuted:</p>

<p>“The human mind is nothing more that a brain, which operates according to the natural laws of chemical reactions to convert incoming stimuli into outgoing impulses.”</p>

<p>If this is true, then everything I do is the neccesary product of the previous state of the universe. Whatever state the universe is in now defines what reaction will occur next, and thus what I will think.</p>

<p>However, if that is true, why should the things I think correlate with reality? If I think “the dog is barking” simply because of the chemical state of my brain, how do I know that the thought “the dog is barking” only occurs when a dog is actually barking?</p>

<p>Under a naturalistic worldview, there is no grounds for saying any idea or theory is “right” or “wrong” or “true” or “false”, as all such things are simply the sum total of the energy and matter in the universe following the natural laws.</p>

<p>In other words, if the naturalistic worldview is true, then our ability to determine its truth value is invalidated.</p>

<p>It is therefore neccesary assume that the statement is false, in order for any debate or research on any subject to have any value.</p>

<p>That explains my reason for rejecting a naturalistic worldview. Once this is done, there is no longer anything illogical or inconsistent about the existence of a creator deity.</p>

<p>Now that the existence of a deity is a valid option, I look at the world. As I do so, the existence of a sentient being that originated the first cause and set up the natural laws seems more reasonable than the assumption that said laws have no cause. I also look at genetics and biochemistry and conclude that the creation of a large genome that has undergone natural selection to give us the variety today seems far more probable than the emergence of all traits from random molecules.</p>

<p>All this leads me to conclude that:</p>

<p>a: naturalism is contradictory and useless.</p>

<p>b: Evolution is highly improbable.</p>

<p>c: Even by what I consider to be the flawed standards of evolutionist science, there is sufficient doubt that to mock other viewpoints, suppress debate, and attempt to outlaw the teaching of any other theory is both scientifically irresponsible and either incredibly misguided or pridefully bigoted.</p>

<p>As for my belief in the christian god, that is irrelevant to my argument here, which is on science, not philosophy.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

That’s “evidence” that radiometric dating is not reliable. </p>

<p>that doesn’t account for the other methods for realizing the age of the Earth and I find it VERY FUNNY that you did not answer my initial question. I stated that I accept you believe that radiocarbon dating is wrong but WHY is the Earth 6000 years old? Is there any positive evidence to indicate it is 6000 years old (instead of “evidence” to show that radiocarbon dating is false)?

</p>

<p>It is rather unreasonable for you to expect me to prove more than I am certain of myself. As I have said, I do not consider a 6000-year age for the earth to be certain, only more probable than a 6 billion year age. However, I do have reasons to consider that most probable. In particular, our record of human civilization goes back about 5000 years, as hahalolk pointed out. Since I belive that humans were created as humans, and since humans are extremly resourceful, that puts the creation of man at not much farther back than 4000 BC. If humans were created, say, 500,000 BC, then we’d probably already be on Alpha Centauri. Whether the rest of the universe was created along with humans, I do not know. The earth could have existed for billions of years as an uninhabited rock for all I know. In fact, the description of the creation in Genesis seems to suggest that. Christian philosophers had been arguing these questions for centuries before evolutionists ever came along to challenge them.</p>

<p>What do I personally belive? [conjecture]I guess that if we could have been there at the “let there be light” moment we would have witnessed something similar to the Big Bang, with a massive expansion of energy that then fell into matter, atoms, etc according to the natural laws that had been implemented by that act. Immediately after creation, time was extremely rapid, and light reached across the void as stars and galaxies formed. As things settled down, god selected the rock since named Earth, and formed it into a habitable planet, with oceans and a moon, and an orbit timed to create a balance of seasons and weather. He then populated this planet with a vast biome, including a huge variety of species, each with the genetic potential for a large amount of variation. On one of those species, Homo Sapiens, he conferred a soul, allowing that species to think and make choices, including the choice between good and evil.[/conjecture]</p>

<p>That’s my wild mass guessing. Don’t attack it, as I’m not claiming it to be provable or more than my conjecture. The core point is: When there is so much unknown, it is blindness to suppress alternative viewpoints.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

please justify that statement. The Big Bang is just as observable as Dinosaurs are. They were both events or objects that existed in the natural world at some point in time. Just because humans werent there to witness it doesnt make the phenomena not “observable”. The definition of observable doesnt require humans to be present.

</p>

<p>The dinosaurs are somewhat observable. We can dig up their bones, find castings of footprints, skin, etc, compare them with existing reptiles, and throw in some educated guessing to get a decent idea of what they were like.</p>

<p>The Big Bang is not observable. At best we can look at the universe and say “this would make sense if it started as a giant expansion of energy”. It is in the same category as deistic thought: a theory that would appear to explain the source of phenomena. It cannot be tested empirically, only inferentially.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Can you prove specific evidence in favor of your Christian (or, any god for that matter)?</p>

<p>Can you provide evidence for the divinity of Jesus?
Can you provide evidence for Noah’s flood?
Can you provide evidence for the age of the Earth being 6000 years old? (No, I am not asking you to say why you think the Earth isnt 5 billion years old, I’m asking you to state why you think it is very specifically 6000 years old).

</p>

<p>Again, you are expecting me to provide proof for things which I do not consider proven. The divinty of Jesus is irrelevant to my argument, and the others are not things I consider proven (or disproven).</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Will you condone the teaching of Xenu and the Scientology myth in science classrooms?
[Xenu</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Xenu - Wikipedia”>Xenu - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Will you condone the teaching of the Hindu and Mayan creation myths? How about Satanism and Buddhism? Can we teach our children, in science classrooms, that the Earth was created by the Evil Overlord Xenu?</p>

<p>Please, if you want to teach “The controversy”, why not the “Controversy” over Xenu?

</p>

<p>Why not? If a signifigant portion of the population actually believes something, then students need to be aware of that when they reach a sufficient age to understand it. This doesn’t mean we should be teaching the legend of Xenu in science classes, but it does mean we should NOT be teaching students that evolution is proven science and no other theories can possibly be true.</p>

<p>As I said before, I think religious instruction should be left to the parents.</p>

[Adenine]

<p>

Your statement is contradictory - if I were to have a ball, that would be something, not nothing.

</p>

<p>You know exactly what I meant. Purposely not understanding what people say isnt witty, its just annoying.</p>

<p>

You done spouting ignorant crap?

</p>

<p>How much more valid is your bible than some other fairy tale? Why do you think fairy tales and other bibles are not true whereas your bible is? How do you know its not a pile of BS like the other bibles and gods? And you claim to not be a creationist but Im sure that you support “gods” influence in creating the universe - its still creationism if you dont believe that everything is caused naturally. if you are not a creationist then you dont totally support what the bible says. Its just one big assumption on your part. I can claim that some new god gave a bible to me out of the sky and write a pile of misleading garbage much in the same way that you do.</p>

<p>

I’m not too sure what “god explanation” you’re talking about. Care to elaborate?

</p>

<p>you say that “god” exists without any bit of proof - to you, you simply state that its there, somewhere where it cant be disproven, in every scientific discovery and all that other nonsense. If you think that then go ahead and prove it to us all if you think you’re so high and mighty.</p>

<p>

Yes, I assume that faith is correct, and that the act of believing is also correct. Simply because there are infinite possibilities in terms of the numbers that can be placed after the equation "2 + 2 = " does not mean that all of them are correct, as it is known that the only answer can be 4, regardless of the infinite variety of possibilities available.

</p>

<p>Bogus analogy but i’ll assume its true for a second. Ok, so if an infinite number of possibilities exist for religion, what is the probability that you are correct? if there are thousands of creation myths out there give me the probability that genesis is correct. I simply want you to realize that if you deal with religion in terms of probability, you can see how its assured that one is completely wrong by trusting one belief and all of its claims.</p>

<p>

Your thought process is clearly awash with presuppositions you have not bothered to clear away with a simple Google search.

</p>

<p>This applies to you. Have you even realized that your beliefs are different from the other religious people on this thread? You dont agree with mosbymarion’s age of the earth theory and you agree with evolution somewhat while he/she doesnt at all. baelor thinks morals come from religion whereas you dont. Cant you all realize that its guaranteed that all of you are just BSing us all to death in one way or another? Look at the world as it is and quit trying to resort to a pile of unprovable garbage.</p>

<p>

Stop being a dumbass

</p>

<p>Nice insult. If you debate (altough its hardly evident if you do going by your thought process) I suggest using that line against your opponent in your next contest. See what the judges think of it.</p>

<p>

The basis of religion is not the same as an idiotic example that is not even analogous to religion.

</p>

<p>If I want an invisible elephant, or a kangaroo, or whatever else to exist in the supernatural realm how can you prove that Im not correct? And this elephant is present in every scientific discovery. It made the universe. It helps me through my troubles. It looks after me. I want you to DISPROVE those statements which are just as brainless as your ideas.</p>

<p>

I am not particularly inclined to be obliging. Perhaps if you write with a shred of intellect present in your post, I shall entertain actual discussion with you.

</p>

<p>Your going to use the same assumptions, and say the same things without any evidence for supernatural truth. if you think it exists give us proof.</p>

<p>Keep it going ksarmand. Keep the laughs coming. Every post you display your own incompetence at proving your belief.</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>…sigh
The vitriol on this thread makes me sad.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

You know exactly what I meant.

</p>

<p>It is because I knew exactly what you meant that I showed you that little contradiction you had going on there.</p>

<p>

Purposely not understanding what people say isnt witty, its just annoying.

</p>

<p>Why would I bother being witty if you were involved? I wouldn’t expend the effort.</p>

<p>

if you are not a creationist then you dont totally support what the bible says.

</p>

<p>Oh boy. Since you appear to have missed my definition of a creationist in another one of my posts, let me put it here once more for you: “creationist - As commonly used, a person who believes that the world and all of life came into existence over a time period of six ordinary days.” No, I am not a creationist; I do not interpret Genesis literally.</p>

<p>

If you think that then go ahead and prove it to us all if you think you’re so high and mighty.

</p>

<p>Science, as I have said before, is the proof.</p>

<p>

Your going to use the same assumptions, and say the same things without any evidence for supernatural truth.

</p>

<p>And you are going to persist in using “your” for “you’re.” So?</p>

<p>

if you think it exists give us proof.

</p>

<p>I have already answered this redundant point earlier in my post.</p>

<p>

Every post you display your own incompetence at proving your belief.

</p>

<p>Au contraire, with each post you prove that you are wholly incapable of disproving the existence of a higher power empirically.</p>

<p>

Nice insult. If you debate (altough its hardly evident if you do going by your thought process) I suggest using that line against your opponent in your next contest. See what the judges think of it.

</p>

<ol>
<li>I do not participate in any formal debate and do not plan on joining any such organization any time soon.</li>
<li>I really don’t care what you, or any judge for that matter, thinks of it, because it is what you are.</li>
<li>You’ve essentially regurgitated my insult. You fail at repartee.</li>
</ol>

<p>

If I want an invisible elephant, or a kangaroo, or whatever else to exist in the supernatural realm how can you prove that Im not correct?

</p>

<p>Well, there are over ten theoretical dimensions. I suppose you could place a variety of phantasms in any of them. And furthermore, I would not set out to prove that you are not correct, as you would be perfectly entitled to hold your own belief.</p>

<p>

Have you even realized that your beliefs are different from the other religious people on this thread?

</p>

<p>Yes, I have. However, this point does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of a higher power.</p>

<p>

baelor thinks morals come from religion whereas you dont.

</p>

<p>I did not comment anywhere upon the relationship between morals and religion and don’t think you’re in a position to dictate my stance upon that issue.</p>

<p>

Ok, so if an infinite number of possibilities exist for religion, what is the probability that you are correct?

</p>

<p>The same probability that 2+2=4.</p>

<p>

@hahalolk

The vitriol on this thread makes me sad.

</p>

<p>It has gotten quite nasty, I’ll admit.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>ksarmand, you started off doing an excellent job of addressing some of the questions about the old testament vs new testament, but now you’re degenerating into insults. Try to stay respectful, if you want anyone to be convinced of the reasonableness of your views.</p>

[CelaPlusAimaple]

<p>^^^ I concur. This entire thread is based upon a false dichotomy used to attack a specific group of people, and it is impossible for anyone to be civil and use logic as a result.</p>

[Adenine]

<p>

It is because I knew exactly what you meant that I showed you that little contradiction you had going on there.

</p>

<p>Then dont misinterpret.</p>

<p>

Why would I bother being witty if you were involved? I wouldn’t expend the effort.

</p>

<p>Another insult. </p>

<p>

2. I really don’t care what you, or any judge for that matter, thinks of it, because it is what you are.

</p>

<p>and another insult… Where’re these religious morals? I thought religion makes you virtuous and perfect??</p>

<p>

Oh boy. Since you appear to have missed my definition of a creationist in another one of my posts, let me put it here once more for you: “creationist - As commonly used, a person who believes that the world and all of life came into existence over a time period of six ordinary days.”

</p>

<p>But you dont totally believe in naturalism. If you believe that some dude created the universe then you qualify as a creationist.</p>

<p>

Science, as I have said before, is the proof.

</p>

<p>Thats not proof at all. Thats like saying because the oceans exist, that proves Poseidon exists or because of thunder that proves Thor exists or because of the seasons Persephone exists.</p>

<p>

Au contraire, with each post you prove that you are wholly incapable of disproving the existence of a higher power empirically.

</p>

<p>If you want to go with the crowd of christian followers and make up some god in your imagination the proof is on you - just as the proof is on me to back up the belief in my invisible elephant or kangaroo.</p>

<p>

I suppose you could place a variety of phantasms in any of them.

</p>

<p>its already full of these “phantasms”. What makes your god any less of a phantasm? Why is my invisible elephant a phantasm? It is founded on the same basis as your god and all the others that have ever been created.</p>

<p>

Yes, I have. However, this point does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of a higher power.

</p>

<p>Do you realize that your ideas contradict and that all of you cant be correct? (none of you are but Im qualifiying so you can register the basic point)</p>

<p>

I did not comment anywhere upon the relationship between morals and religion and don’t think you’re in a position to dictate my stance upon that issue.

</p>

<p>You said that you dont believe religion is needed to behave morally.</p>

<p>

The same probability that 2+2=4.

</p>

<p>Why are you so sure? You cant prove that you are. Why isnt my invisible elephant the one working the universe and looking out for everyone? What about Allah? Is everyone in Islam wrong then for believing in it? What about Krishna? What about Zeus? What about Ra? Why are all of those wrong whereas your god is correct? Why arent they the ones designing all the science findings for the future? mifune brought up a point before that christians claim that a god created the universe but the Buddhists do not. This makes one invalid right off the bat.</p>

<p>Why are vampires incorrect to believe in? Same with ghosts? Why are other creation myths wrong? What makes your particular imaginary friend real while everything else is just a phantasm?</p>

<p>Dont you realize that your belief is just another fake idea with no more proof than other gods and gods that have been lost to history and gods that havent been made up yet?</p>

[panache]

<p>I’ll touch on a few matters.</p>

<p>

Where’re these religious morals? I thought religion makes you virtuous and perfect??

Actually, Christianity states that we are all born sinners (ie imperfect). ;)</p>

<p>

its already full of these “phantasms”. What makes your god any less of a phantasm? Why is my invisible elephant a phantasm? It is founded on the same basis as your god and all the others that have ever been created.

Using your reasoning, it is your job to prove the existence of your invisible elephant. See below for God theory.</p>

<p>

Why are you so sure? You cant prove that you are. Why isnt my invisible elephant the one working the universe and looking out for everyone? What about Allah? Is everyone in Islam wrong then for believing in it? What about Krishna? What about Zeus? What about Ra? Why are all of those wrong whereas your god is correct? Why arent they the ones designing all the science findings for the future? mifune brought up a point before that christians claim that a god created the universe but the Buddhists do not. This makes one invalid right off the bat.</p>

<p>Why are vampires incorrect to believe in? Same with ghosts? Why are other creation myths wrong? What makes your particular imaginary friend real while everything else is just a phantasm?</p>

<p>Dont you realize that your belief is just another fake idea with no more proof than other gods and gods that have been lost to history and gods that havent been made up yet?

</p>

<p>Reality, the universe, and all it contains exist. Scientific evidence says that the universe began and continues to expand, and since something cannot come from nothing, this means it was created. With the universe, time, space, dimensions, etc, were created. This points to a Creator that is eternal (without beginning and end), omnipotent, immaterial, and omnipresent.</p>

<p>As we’ve gotten to the conclusion of an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, immaterial Creator, we can deduce from His creations His characteristics (the effect must share likeness with the cause). There is a universal moral law: this must be born from the Creator. Moral law originates from caring – without caring, the creator would have moral abandon and subsequently His creations would as well. Since this Creator created time and space, He is timeless and unchanging.</p>

<p>From these examples (and more if you need them), we can align this Creator among all known religions with God. Note: This is the very condensed version of this theory.</p>

<p>Hopefully that can provide enough of a basis for you to draw your own conclusions about vampires.</p>