Leyla

I also dont think that everythings possible, everything is bound to limitation. However why do you assume that creating life is part of that limitation? [Edit: I think i misread your answer lol, thought you did not believe that everythings possible]

If we can agree on these 3 things, why cant we agree that its possible to create life? What makes life more than just chemicals and reactions? Okay, atomic level. What exactly shouts creator? I went through tons of atomic theory lately (im nowhere close to an expert in this field). What exactly points to a creator? Well, dark matter is quite a mystery, maybe we will understand more about it. Just because its a mystery for us now, doesnt mean that it will be a mystery forever. The standard model of elementary particles was expanded alot. The idea of a Higgs-Boson, at the top right on the picture, was first proposed in 1964. However it took scientist !!48 years!!, to actually confirm that the Higgs particle exists. Before we were able to confirm it, it had a similiar mystery to us like dark matter and it was the unknown particle. Just because we have something that is not confirmed yet, doesnt mean that scientist made something up. There is serious evidence that lead scientists into assuming that dark matter exists.

Which God? Yachweh, allah, wischnu, zeus, thor, santeria, vodou??? Why choose yachweh? You cant use the bible as a reference material, to proof that the bible is true. Im sorry, but Job 38:1-40:2 is not convincing. Yes nature and our world and everything else are cool things. However pointing to nature, when you try to proof your religion can be misused. Quran 3:190-191 Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding. Who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire. What is your reason to believe that the bible is not a "man's theorie?". In theory christianity could be a smokescreen, that stops us from seeing the one true faith that will lead to salvation. (PS many questions from 38:1-40:2 were answered by science: For example “22 Have you entered the storehouses of the snow?"we know how snow forms by now and its definitely not stored in a storehouse ) How Snow Forms nsidc.org/cryosphere/snow/science/formation.html Snow in the atmosphere Whether winter storms produce snow relies heavily on temperature, but not necessarily the temperature we feel here on the ground. Snow forms when the atmospheric temperature is at or below freezing (0 degrees Celsius or 32 degrees Fahrenheit) and there is a minimum amount of moisture in the air. If the ground temperature is at or below freezing, the snow will reach the ground. However, the snow can still reach the ground when the ground temperature is above freezing if the conditions are just right. In this case, snowflakes will begin to melt as they reach this higher temperature layer; the melting creates evaporative cooling which cools the air immediately around the snowflake. This cooling retards melting. As a general rule, though, snow will not form if the ground temperature is at least 5 degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit).

Just because our universe has the law of conservation of mass/energy, doesnt mean that this mass/energy is a creation. Do you have any reason outside of the bible to believe that what we have in this universe is a creation? If not what is your reason to take the word of the bible above other religious texts?

Why do you assume that we will never be able to create living things? Lets agree on somethings first. 1) Can we agree that we are made from nonliving chemicals? 2) can we agree that we can find and use these nonchemicals? 3) can we agree that the organic bounds in our body, are possible to recreate in labs? If we agree on these 3 things, then I really dont know why we should not also agree, that creating life form nonlife is possible.

Hello, I could be wrong about that, I will look more into it. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution by natural selection a theory. I read through the link you gave me and I saw several things that I consider a mistake. Evolution doesnt happen accidentally. Natural selection is not random, animals that are better suited to their enviroment are universally more likely to survive. The people that wrote it, probably confused "evolved" with "mutated". If its "mutated" then we can say randomly/accidentally, however you want to call it. We are not trusting the theory of evolution or the people that developed/work on it. We can view all released scientific papers that are released. Sometimes we have too wait some time, until already published papers are made public. If we have the equipment and knowledge, then we can replicate all experiments in the scientific papers, that lead the scientist into the assumption that an evolution happened. The difference between a prophet and for example Richard Dawkins, is that noone would take Dawkins seriously, if all he did was make claims, without any evidence for these claims. People like Dawkins, read through scientific papers (or make them themselves) and present it to us in a way that is easier to understand. I looked for the definition of faith and found "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." The theory of evolution by natural selection and evolution itself, has very good proof and evidence and thats the only reason why people even talk about it. People tried to disprove evolution since the very first day and noone was able to do it yet. That speaks alot for how strong it is. Again, Im not 100% sure, that animals have no souls, that was simply my conclusion I got so far (and it could be wrong) Hello, and thanks for the kind words. I try to not take anything personal because these subjects are very close to most people here so I can relate why some people could say or think something, that they usually would not do. Just pointing to the beautiful nature, as proof for God can be misused. I want to give you one example of the Quran S30:8 " Have they not thought about their own selves? God did not create the heavens and earth and everything between them without a serious purpose and an appointed time, yet many people deny that they will meet their Lord. " This Quran verse tries to proof allah, by pointing to our bodies, to the sky and to the earth [and what is on the earth]. So basically the same argument, can be used in any religion and it would only point to a "God" or more "Gods" but not to which God and not which specific religion. It doesnt proof that our genesis was the actual beginning of everything. Christianity could have just hijacked this idea form other religions. If our genesis has no value, then there is no reason to reject the idea of ancestors before the first human. Also, is nature really sufficient proof for a God?

We cant compare a living thing with a nonliving thing. Its like saying "if we pour water into a glass, the water will take the shape of the glass, so if we put a big rock in the glass it should take the shape of the glass too". In this case it would be comparing liquids with solids. This comparisson could have the same accuracy as comparing living things with nonliving things Not understanding something, only proofs that we dont understand it. What exactly points to a designer? What is your way of measuring complexity? Complexity is relative, we need another nature, on another planet to compare complexity. Only then can we say that nature is complex or not complex. Just because somethings complicated for us, only proofs that its complicated for us. Nature and DNA could be absolutely simple in the grand scheme of things. Give me one example in nature that points to a creator. If it was never intented to be used as something like a reference material in science, then why do people mention the bible so often when we talk about scientific facts like evolution?

From what I concluded so far, its building a personal relationship with God and reading the scripture and to never attempt to strengthen your believe with naturalistic methods like science.

No science never "believed" anything. Believe means knowing something without proof or evidence. What scienctist did, was to make the most likely assumptions, given the information they had. Thats why the scrutiny auf ideas is so important in sciences, only the best hypothesis actually become theories. What is an absolute truth? We could be living in a computer simulation that was generated 5 minutes ago, and all your memories were generated too. We could be a brain in a jar. Our brain could play a prank on our understanding of the universe. We cant be certain that anything exists. Can you give me one example of an absolute truth? Yes scientific theories change, but how likely is it, that we will believe in a flat earth for example? We have to make realistic assumptions given the informations they have. Genetics and the fossil record, are as big of a proof, as Eratosthenes calculation of the circumferences of the earth, which required the assumption that the earth was round. Thinking that evolution will be replaced and corrected, is like saying that the model of a round earth will be replaced and corrected. How could we develop vaccines or antibiotics without a strong understanding of evolution? We introduce bacteria to different pressures or take into account their genetic history and make useful things with it. Here is one example from the PNAS https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2009/12/22/0906198106.full.pdf "The diphtheria toxoid vaccine selects against toxin production, which is what causes disease, rather than other features of Corynebacterium. Thus, diphtheria infections and clinical isolations still occur, but the extant strains lack toxin production." The results are amazing! Even now we can send DNA samples, and for only 60 bucks they can trace your ancestors back to the 1700. Imagine how much more accurate and better tracing will become in the future. We have a fairly good and sophisticated tree of life, we can predict what animals we will find, at what level etc. Define missing link to me. What is supposed to be a missing link? Evolution doesnt explain the origin of life and never intented to explain the origin of life. Evolution is only about life that is already there. It explains how there is slow change because some kind of pressure is involved. Saying that evolution is wrong, because it doesnt explain the origin of life, is like saying that Newtonian mechanics are bad because they dont explain relativity, or that a cheese cake recipe is bad because it doesnt tell you how to make an apple pie. Im alot less educated on abiogenesis so I dont know if I should even start to talk about it but I can try. The idea is that lifeles chemicals made chemical bonds that had the ability to save information and to self replicate. Mutation and natural selection did the rest. The bible doesnt fulfil the scientific standard, so it cant be used as a reference material

Yes DNA is cool and studying about it is fun but it doesnt point to a designer. Something can only be complex in relativity to something else. To truly say that our DNA is complex, we need to find life on other plants and compare the complexity of its genom with ours. Also evolution had billions of years, and we are just great apes that evolved to survive in the wild and not to do science and our lifespan is short. It would be quiet a challenge for me to write a whole genom, unless there are some big jumps in the progress of science. Just because we cant do something doesnt mean that its complex

DNA consists of a sugar, a phospate group and one out of 4 bases. Is it really that complex? The whole human genom fits on a 750 MB disc. The operating system on your computer has more information than DNA. How does it point to a designer?

We dont call things theory because we dont know it enough that would be a hypothesis. We observed a natural fact, that things fall on the ground and we called this observed natural fact gravity. We made the theory of gravity, to describe this natural observation. A theory is something that describes a concept. The theory of gravity is that objects with mass attract to another with a force that is directely proportial to their masses and inversily proportial to the square distance between them. A law usually describes a pattern and is usually a formula for example Fg = (Gm1+ m2) / r². Thats the standard I think

Why is it worth mentioning that the theory of gravity is a theory?

More progress in science proved it wrong More progress in science proved it wrong Cold fusion was a hoax for everyone that understood science but even if noone understood it, more progress in science would proof that cold fusion is ineficient. I have a farnsworth reactor and its basically just a big lightbulb that can cause cancer. More progress in science proved it wrong Are you also convinced that it will be proven one day, that the earth is not round or that the sun orbits around us? We have to be realistic. Evolution has as much evidence as the shape of our earth or the movement of our heavenly bodies. Denying evolution is like rejecting reality. You can try to proof it wrong and everyone is welcommed to do so, and everyone would accept that evolution is false, IF It was proven to be wrong. However, as we stand now and given our current information, it would be silly to reject evolution. Its the backbone of many scientific fields like medicine, genetics or biology, it gives incredibly good results and it has extremly good evidence

Hello, I feel the need to add in a backstory that you can skip, the question will start with another colour. Im leyla and im 14, I was born muslim, left it and now I lean towards christianity. I thought that I accepted Jesus and I also spend alot of my time lately studying the bible, however I still did not study it enough to claim that I know the Bible as much as I know the Quran. I dont want to say that Im a christian, because I still have many doubts in christianity and it would be wrong for me, to call myself something that I am not (atleast something that Im not fully in my heart). As some of you may have noticed, I tend to be fairly active on some parts of the forum lately, because of my doubts (it usually involves me trying to prove something about christianity wrong). I dont do it because I want to get my point across. Throwing away all my biases and emotions, and putting myself in the shoes of a sceptic, was the thing that helped me leave islam, something that I consider to be wrong now. This method generally gave me good results and it helped me alot in my life. The thing is that I dont stop with christianity and that I want to scrutinise christianity too, to see if it holds any meaning or value. I dont know if this part of the forum is made for confessions like that, but many people here started to view me differently, after I started asking my questions. I also lost some of my friends, I made in my new more or less christian enviroment, so I experienced how it feels to be left because of my doubts for a second time, and I would rather have these things not happen at all but i value the truth more than comfort. These things were bothering me and I felt the desire to get them out of my chest. Now back to the Question. What exactly are "Sins"? Are sins bad because God said that they are bad, or are they bad because they are bad? Also, why are silly things like homosexuality, or not believing in a God a sin? (Edit: I intend to let this thread go offtopic alot if you dont mind)

Hello, Im looking forward to any kind of answers! Is there any reason, outside of genesis, to not believe that we had ancestors before adam?

I could take the book "Mein Kampf" and choose it as my "why". Why is the "why" of christianity something I should put above other religions or ideologies. Science ( our best method by far at finding the truth) points against any supernaturalism. We dont have proof for the supernatural. We dont have proof, no its worse. The proof that we have shows that we are wrong about any claims made in religious texts. Not accepting evolution for example, is as bad as rejecting that the earth is round. How is it anything but blind faith? Can I ask you why you had a mirracle healing and not other people? For example people like me? We have to admit that mirracle healings have no proof and are just personal experience. Personal experiences have no value. Ill look through the links maybe it will clear some things up

That way it punishes people that are highly analytical / have trust issues / have a high standard and rewards people that were lucky with choosing the right religion (mostly being born in the right religion) and sticking with the right faith (One out of thousands of religions, so the probability is small)

That goes too far into speculations for me. So far God has only shown to be willing to go through great lengths, to hide his existence.

Its interesting to hear your view, lets put it through my view. I just decided to stop driving my BMW (Islam) and decided to look for another car. The lamborghini (science) seems to be the perfect car for me. There are scientific evidences that it performs well, that it will lead me to a good path and the "paint" seems to be exceptionally good. However, there is this guy that stood out to me so I decided to approach him. He tells me that driving a lamborghini is bad, that it will make me bad, that I want to drive it because my ancestors ate a forbidden fruit and that I will go to hell, a place of eternal torture if I decide to drive that Lambo. He tells me to drive the ferrari (christianity) instead. According to this guy, the ferrari is a car with rocket engines, that it can heal the people that drive in it, that it doesnt need maintenance, it doesnt need petrol and it has the greatest paint ever. After a moment of hesitation I would ask "how much does the ferrari cost"? His answer would be its free because Enzo ferrari, the creator of the ferrari brand decided to sacrifice his income for a few days, and because of this gracious act, we will have free ferraries forever. That would make me doubt even more, so I would naturally ask to have a look on his ferrari. When I ask him to see the ferrari, he gets defensive and tells me that I just have to believe that there is a ferrari and that he doesnt need to proof to me that the ferrari exists. All I need to do is to accept that the ferrari is true, that Enzo Ferrari sacrificed his income for a few days and that I will get a ferrari. He gives me the building plan and manual of the car and expects me to believe that it exists and that I will get it, if I believe in it. When I tell him that I accept that the ferrari exist, he just tells me "good, just wait until you are dead and you will get the chance to drive your ferrari forever, oh and by the way it has the greatest paint it will even last forever". How does it sound from my view?

Good thing im not a leftist then. I would vote for a capitalistic party, if I got the chance. Can I ask you how leftist have anything to do with the way we wrote? Also, when have I ever not considered an answer here? I read all replies, examine them carefully and give the best response I can think of

Defining a human reaction is hard and this instance doesnt always happen. But if it was a computer programm it would look something like this. If question == uncomfortable: print("you are not looking for the truth" / "youre just trying to get your points across etc.") If you documated that videotape well and if we can assume that it wasnt modified, then that videotape wold have a very significant meaning and I would be normal to believe that he was risen. The problem is that the scientific standards are high. We would need for example multiple blood samples from independed researches, before death and after hes risen or other ways to identify that he is jesus, died and was risen. If a student would reject a videotape of the risen jesus, then it only means that he has a really, (maybe unreasonably high) standard. Why do you think that I dont want to believe? I cant just accept and believe everything that is presented, I need to think first alot about this subject. This thread is called christianity vs other religions, so I thought it was a good place, to show the similarities I found in christianity and for example my old faith. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 mThen all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. nSo you shall purge the evil from your midst, oand all Israel shall hear, and fear. Even the babies were terrible? How can exclusively bad cities exist in the past and where are they now? We dont even nuke ISIS, because of the innocent people it would kill. Exodus 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. That doesnt sound like nice treatment of slaves. [Edit Can "respectful" slavery really exist? Is it possible to even imagine that?]

Can you tell me more specifically, why the 10 commandments are something we should keep, but not the other instructions from God? I would like to copy my old answer : " I talked about evolution in another subforum earlier and people accused me of not trying to find the truth and that Im just trying to proof something wrong. Im "getting the vibe" that people automatically assume this everytime things get uncomfortable or when the odds start to stand against you, as a natural defense mechanism. "

Okay let me copy the full phrase then. 5:17 " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. " Did I really change the meaning behind it? I doubt it Okay lets start with hell because that list is too long to talk about everything. How is it not something that is cruel and evil? I talked about evolution in another subforum earlier and people accused me of not trying to find the truth and that im just trying to proof something wrong. Im "getting the vibe" that people automatically assume this everytime things get uncomfortable or when the odds start to stand against you, as a natural defense mechanism.

Okay, so the 10 commandments dont apply too then, im not a member of that nation. It feels like we are just wiggling our way out of the old testament, because it gets uncomfortable sometimes.