Is God Real?

why do we always have to talk about his everyone has diffrent believes and we should respect that

^^Your quite right.

I agree with Liz X D

yeah every time we do this we fight just stop brining it up people arent ganna change anyway inl;ess they want to

Son Goku wrote:I don't deny evolution or God. If God is all powerful, He can create life however He wants to. To sort of quote South Park - to say there is no God is as equally presumptuous as saying there is a God.

Exactly, I was always saying that, exactly that.
Just as you cannot prove there is some greater force, you cannot either prove there is not.
I always thought that the whole question of "do you believe in god" is very unspecific, undefined and confusing to be able to be answered with just YES or NO. Its kinda like asking - do you believe in "#@$@#T#$^#@%".
When I get the exact precise definition of God, then I'll be able to answer with only YES or NO

I am not religious in a way that I follow some specific religion, but I have nothing against religion whatsoever I fully support religious people, especially Orthodox Christians cause those people are following one very moral philosophy(My family and country I live in are majority Orthodox Christians so I had a chance to be pretty familiar with its ideology and philosophy)...I mean if somebody REALLY follows such preachings then he MUST be very good, kind and moral person, and that's what matters to me.

Bottom line I am glad people here realize that believes are different and we should respect each others believes.

I wanted to avoid participating in this topic. But I just want to say a few things. First- I hope that the discussion up until now was a polite and respectful one. If anyone stepped out of line please report such post to DTX.
I'll just make a few comments on some of the statements that caught my eye.
In a way, yes you can't say that the Bible preaches stuff contrary to the theory of evolution. A lot of christian theologists are still strongly criticizing it with some rather interesting and meaningful arguments based on the Bible of course. But to me it's all about how you interpret it. Hermeneutics is something that some people spend their whole life mastering. I met a lot of people, believers and atheists that have a problem with it. They maybe read the Bible, or just memorized some of the quotes that they like or dislike and they think that they know their true meaning, but they only came to a wrong interpretation. To me, even if the theory would be proven to be true, it wouldn't change much on the way I perceive the preachings in the Bible.

Exactly!! Its my oppinion too... The preachings would be the same, and thats what it matters!! Unfortunnelly most of the humans (specially the ones in good social positions), do not think like that, and because of them, religion brought more death and destruction than the opposite

When people use the bible to make politics or forcing their own ideals into the society, that is wrong... just like, for example, in Portugal there was a conference on abortion, and lot of politics and church members started making advertisement against it, using God's name... Who the hell are they to say what God likes or not? Seriously... WTF?? What happened to the free will?? The only one to judge should be God and not people who just loves to stick their noses into other people's lives!

More people should think like you, ningen... this world would be a better place!!

^ Heh, tnx, but I would be happy if people would just think more. That's all I ask. If people would think more, this world would be a better place.
Now, you see, you opened a very interesting topic there. Unfortunately, it doesn't have much to do with the discussion here, so I'll just try not to end up with a wall of text.
What you saw is politics at it's core, that is what politics is. From that perspective Serbia and Portugal (or any other country) ain't that different.
Abortion issue is a very important issue for every society and that is why politicians, religious leaders, different independent groups of citizens etc. are dealing with it. Now if I understood you correctly you don't have a problem if a politician or a priest steps out and debate about it as long as he\she doesn't call upon religious believes of a certain group. I hope that I got you right, because I don't see why anyone in democracy(as long as it's according to the law) should be excluded.
But here's the thing, in Serbia you got around 70% of people that share the same believes, same moral values (at least in public). So when you deal with such group you can't avoid religion. Most of the politicians will belong to such group and on the election and if their elected they will represent their voters. And voters will vote for those who suit them best, for those who hold the same values (or pretend they do). And of course it's also a priest's job to lead the people both on a spiritual level and through their daily life, so if you look at it that way, such things are unavoidable.

ningen wrote:^ Heh, tnx, but I would be happy if people would just think more. That's all I ask. If people would think more, this world would be a better place.

My thought too... people should think for themselves and not doing something like voting "Yes" or "No" on abortion just because someone told them to do so!! People should read about the matter and than decide!

ningen wrote: Abortion issue is a very important issue for every society and that is why politicians, religious leaders, different independent groups of citizens etc. are dealing with it. Now if I understood you correctly you don't have a problem if a politician or a priest steps out and debate about it as long as he\she doesn't call upon religious believes of a certain group. I hope that I got you right, because I don't see why anyone in democracy(as long as it's according to the law) should be excluded.

Yes it was what i was trying to say!
I think its unfair, some priest saying that God is against something, because most of religion people would be against too just because of that,.... and what is the most stupid is the fact people think they are pleasing God with that, but they are just pleasing the priest by choosing his ideals and not the God ones (because only God knows what He likes)
Now if the priest is just saying his oppinon (without using God's name), than its his right of course and everyone should respect that...

ningen wrote:^ But here's the thing, in Serbia you got around 70% of people that share the same believes, same moral values (at least in public). So when you deal with such group you can't avoid religion. Most of the politicians will belong to such group and on the election and if their elected they will represent their voters. And voters will vote for those who suit them best, for those who hold the same values (or pretend they do). And of course it's also a priest's job to lead the people both on a spiritual level and through their daily life, so if you look at it that way, such things are unavoidable.

Of course... i Know religion is a set of ideals created by Men..and lots of people have the same ideals like those ones!When religion is used like that i have no problem with it, because just like you said the preachings are what it matters and i can not agree more!
Here in Portugal is a little different... because the political parties are seen like soccer clubs... people will vote on them not because their ideals or politic vision but just because those are the ones who normally have more votes and therefore they will have more chance of victory!! Thats why every year there are protesters on the street against politic measures taken by the government (and the protesters are the ones who voted in favour for that government)... its stupid... and thats because Portugal will always be in "the tail" of Europe since the government its always the same

^ In a way you're right and in another you're wrong.
A person can't say anything that comes to his\hers mind about God and then claim that he\she belongs to a certain religious group. Each religion has its dogmas. So talking about God is what is expected from a priest(he\she doesn't even have to be a high-ranking one) or a theologist, other members of the church, etc.

My turn....if u guys took ur time to type out ur beliefs, take the time to read whats below...

Is evolution really scientific?

The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the thoery are fulfillled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation on life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened,"-The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley ackknowledged: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the enviable position of having to create a mythology of its own; namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."-The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists...argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all...Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."-June 25, 1981, p.828.

Physicist H.S. Lipson said: "The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."-Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p.138.

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conslusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution."-By W.R. Thompson, the director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control. Ottawa, Canada.

"A century after Darwin's death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place-and in recent yearsthis has lead to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question...A state of almost open war exists among evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification."- C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said; "Evolution...is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent."-October 1980, p. 88.

What does the fossil record show?

The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."-January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?

Science Digest states; "Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires." However the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: "Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes." (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.


The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: "The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process."-(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742

Do textbooks present evolution as fact?

"Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic...over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth...But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science."-The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15.

^ O.O
Le gasp, who are you and what did you do to our Venus?!
Venus that was beautifully presented. I couldn't have done better even if I wanted and had the time. I really respect your efforts invested in this.
There is this one famous sociologist (in sociology circles) who said practicly the same thing as Loren Eiseley, but he wasn't referring just to this one theory. If I find again his name and the exact words, I'll post it here.

Venus wrote:My turn....if u guys took ur time to type out ur beliefs, take the time to read whats below...

Is evolution really scientific?

The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the thoery are fulfillled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation on life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened,"-The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley ackknowledged: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the enviable position of having to create a mythology of its own; namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."-The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists...argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all...Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."-June 25, 1981, p.828.

Physicist H.S. Lipson said: "The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."-Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p.138.

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conslusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution."-By W.R. Thompson, the director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control. Ottawa, Canada.

"A century after Darwin's death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place-and in recent yearsthis has lead to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question...A state of almost open war exists among evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification."- C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said; "Evolution...is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent."-October 1980, p. 88.

What does the fossil record show?

The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."-January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?

Science Digest states; "Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires." However the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: "Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes." (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.


The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: "The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process."-(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742

Do textbooks present evolution as fact?

"Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic...over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth...But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science."-The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15.

First point!
I agree that there lacks a MACROSCOPY observation of the fact, but if we delve into the MICROSCOPY world, we see evolution through the adaptation of bacteria. Bacteria adapt to our medicine everyday, hence why they keep coming back in different strains. A particular individual capable of surviving the drugs, suddenly finds itself in an environment that favors it (said environment being that humans are treating the weak bacteria with the drug). So, as such, the new individual propagates and thus the species lives on
While it's rather unsatisfying for the average person to take these bacteria as evidence, for anyone of science it should be sufficient, as bacteria are as much of a living being as you or me (they just have vastly different characteristics, but, down to the molecular level, we are the same)

Second point!!
It is true, there are very capable scientists that refute evolution. And, believe it or not, any good thinking man is grateful for this. A theory stops being a theory and becomes a prejudice once people take it as fact.
It is always important to contest the claims made in a scientific theory, so, that that theory can either evolve to better explain it's subject, or be proven wrong and substituted with one that can. it's how science evolves
And the Darwinist theory is under attack from more than one front. It's both under attack in the Creationism vs Evolution front, and, inside evolution, under attack from people that have began advocating Lamarckism again, based on studies (I don't know much about this. If this topic is still alive by about this time in one year, I'll already be studying Evolution and I can better explain this)

Third point!!!
If fossil records were the only thing that supports it, it would have died long ago. I don't know why you brought up this particular point. It isn't even the strongest point made.

Fourth point!!!!
This is also assuming that the mutations are bad. Darwin had this explain in the first publication of his book (his and Wallace'. I find it strange that he gets little mention. Russel Wallace)
Anyway, in the book, Darwin describes that species have natural different characteristics (like the bacteria I've already mentioned). When environmental changes start favoring one of those characteristics, then, those die out and that one remains. Some minor mutations occur, and then, after another environmental change, another new favorable characteristic might emerge. If we take this succession and spray it across the billions of years of our planets history, then it's kinda understandable how we get from point A to point B through small favorable mutations at a time.
This is also why observing changes at a macroscopy level is so difficult. It takes too much time

Fifth point!!!!!
I must agree. The fact schools teach evolution as fact is very wrong and needs to be corrected. Just because creationism has less supporting evidence as is associated with religion (the other, church state separation) it should still be properly explain
In college, like I've said, I'll have a chair in the 4th Semester (2nd Semester of the 2nd year) called Evolution that will teach this and many other theories that are largely ignored up until then


As a closing...DAAAAAAMN GIRL! I did not expect this from you!

god cant be explained

lol1991 wrote:

Second point!!
It is true, there are very capable scientists that refute evolution. And, believe it or not, any good thinking man is grateful for this. A theory stops being a theory and becomes a prejudice once people take it as fact.
It is always important to contest the claims made in a scientific theory, so, that that theory can either evolve to better explain it's subject, or be proven wrong and substituted with one that can. it's how science evolves
And the Darwinist theory is under attack from more than one front. It's both under attack in the Creationism vs Evolution front, and, inside evolution, under attack from people that have began advocating Lamarckism again, based on studies (I don't know much about this. If this topic is still alive by about this time in one year, I'll already be studying Evolution and I can better explain this)

That is how science is done!! Science do not take anything granted... saying origin of life is ONLY explained by evolution... its wrong!!! i myself have some doubts.. some things in evolution do not make sense to ME... yet of all theories its the one that explain it better (at least for me, and the majority of the scientific community). Maybe in the future some elements of the evolution theory may be used to a create a new theory that could explain this matter even better. Normally religious people cant do that.. for them there is only God (its their right, of course), but how can someone take them seriously, if they do not have an open mind for new possibilities??? They are blind by their faith... one example: Einstein!!! He believed in God ( not the bible one), but when he discovered sub atomic particles (he is the father of quantum physics) present in the light (he won the nobel prize for that), he denied it... because for him, God could not have created such unpredictable and random particles - a world of probabilities (chaos)... for him the universe must be predictable and harmonious, and those particles were the opposite!! He spent half of his life trying to make a theory about that and he die trying!!!
With this i want to say: to make science we need an open mind.. a conditioned mind by some belief (faith in something where there are no facts to supporting it - for example the afterlife) would always lead to error and denying the true that is in front of our eyes!!

Yeah, in a way I can relate to that poor guy. He had a vision of a universe in harmony, he started studying it and that eventually led to the theories that were implying the opposite. Although one thing is very interesting- both his theory of relativity and the quantum theory have been proven to work, yet they cancel each other in a way. Hehe, during the debate Einstein once said: "God doesn't play dice!" Bohr responded:"Don't tell god what to do with his dice."
Ingenious!

I have a huge respect for Einstein, especially the way he dealt with the nuke incidents.
Bet the poor bloke was sorry for that up until the final moments of his life

ningen wrote:Yeah, in a way I can relate to that poor guy. He had a vision of a universe in harmony, he started studying it and that eventually led to the theories that were implying the opposite. Although one thing is very interesting- both his theory of relativity and the quantum theory have been proven to work, yet they cancel each other in a way. Hehe, during the debate Einstein once said: "God doesn't play dice!" Bohr responded:"Don't tell god what to do with his dice."
Ingenious!

Relativity works... but is only applied to non sub-atomic particles! The new M-theory include sub-atomic matter and some aspects of the relativity!! Einstein would not like that one...lol

Bohr thinks like me in that matter... its exactly what i am always saying to religious people... like my mom, for example, lol

Oh im not finished boys; i got lots more. it would just take an hour 2 type it so im gonna download it then just paste it. ^_^ btw the bibles contents are scientifically sound on matters that human researchers discovered only at a later date. One example is:

Isaiah 40:22: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth."

In ancient times the general opinion was that the earth was flat. It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in about another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the appox. radius of the earth. But the idea of a spherical earth was not the general view even then. Only in the 20th century has it been possible for humans to travel by airplane and later into outer space and even to the moon, thus giving them a clear view of "the circle" of earth's horizons. : D

That's hardly anything that's scientific

People thought the Earth was flat because it's what they could see. Why assume what our eyes see is the truth (Galileo suffered greatly because of this in relation to his theories)

Anyway, circle can imply flat circle and sphere circle

It is scientific cuz it's correct. It may not have said specifically "sphere" but the Earth is circular in shape. For all they knew in those days, it could've a cube, octogon, triangle, or even a pancake. All they had to do was read the Bible to find out. Another text says "He who is hanging the Earth upon nothing."

There was some myth that the Earth was carried on top of elephants standing on top of a turtle. (dont know how anybody got that funky idea), but if you were to look at earth in orbit, it does poetically look like it's hanging "upon nothing". : D

Also there is Matthew 24:3 which says:

"While he (Jesus) was sitting upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: "Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?"

And in answer Jesus said to them: "Look out that nobody misleads you; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, 'I am Christ,' and will mislead many. You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet.

"For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.

"Then people will deliver you up to tribulation and will kill you, and you will be objects of hatred by all the nations on account of my name. Then, also, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and mislead many; and because of the increasing of lawlessness the love of the greater number will cool off. But he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."

The hypocrisy and killing and betrayal in religion you guys have seen is talked about here. Where it says "false prophets will mislead many" and in the beginning where it says ]"look out that nobody misleads you; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, 'I am Christ' and will mislead many." and "many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another."

Obviously you have seen the horrible things that have happened in religion while ppl claiming that they are doin such things in "the name of Jesus and God." Those are the "false prophets" who are "misleading" ppl. They've got their own agendas and they're using God's name to back them up. Little do they know that God doesn't have their back; that's why whenever world's religions try to create peace and unity, they always fail. Anything they try will fail cuz God is not with them.

Most ppl blame God for all that has happened and not doing anything about it, but he is watching and nothing goes unnoticed by him. He will act, in due time. The predicted wars, food shortages, and earthquakes are signs that the world and humankind is reaching it's breaking point, and if you look around...everything it says in the text is exactly what is happening in the world right now.

earth is a circle no question.

Odds are, God or some diety exists, yes most miracles can be explained scientifically (the History Channel even had a special on the Exodus where the ten plagues and parting of the Reed Sea (ages old mistranslation...) were all explained scientifically, the tectonic plate happened to go funky at that time of history), but even if they can be explained, it doesn't answer how the events were timed so perfectly for whoever needed them. So some deity up their (as a Roman Catholic/possibly Protestant in the future (Popes an idiot...) my bets on God) has probably got some incredibly complex Xanatos Roulette going on because he/she/they/it decided to give us mortals choice (the problem inherit to the Matrix as the architect puts it, and indeed is the problem of everything) while still making sure he/she/they/it succeeds in the battle of good over evil.

As for those who still do good deeds but happen to cheer on the wrong deity(s) most likely they'll be rewarded to, hey they did good, what does it matter if they were doing it in someone elses name?

(Apparently enough for us humans to get into debates/wars over it when we should just realize we'll find out in the end)

If we go by just deity and not God in the Abrahamic sense, then I believe as well

But, I will not be a fool as to try and give whatever it is (if it's even a it/he/she) a name

I call him the bastard upstairs for the sake of being familiar, because if it's true he created all the universe, I'm sure there must be something it feels for it...then again, I may be wrong and it may be just a passive force that doesn't care for anything

Or maybe, it's even the very universe. Maybe the very universe is the supernatural entity. We are all just part of it

But its stupid, because if God is omniscient then He knows what is going to happen in the future (like that Jesus talk posted by Venus)... whats the point??? Why create something if He already knows the result??? to make us suffer?? thats why even if humans prove God's existence, He would not get my devotion!!