Hold on...

[Guest]

Dear DaveM

What indeed!

what exactly happened to change them from perfect as in 'God's image', to the current imperfect form, and why?

Perfection!

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (Genesis 1:31)

A Simple Request.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:17)

A Simple Response, Sin.

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." (Genesis 3:6)

Why?

"But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death." (Proverbs 8:36)

The Gift.

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:16)

Perfection!

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)

Dear DaveM

"The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:" (Numbers 6:25)

Love, Joe

[The Lorax]

jimmiej

Question: is science really science if it's examined with the assumption that a deity is responsible for the world? To be fair, the opposite is true, is it science to assume that there IS no god?

Where is your logic mate – did you leave it at home? You are in error. Isaac Newton, the English physicist, mathematician and arguably the greatest scientist of all time – the same guy who invented the scientific method with its set of “four rules for scientific reasoning” demonstrated a methodology considered to be strictly logical yet he believed in and taught the necessity of a God.

The theological views he left behind show there is no conflict between science and belief in God - in fact they go hand-in-hand. His writings are characterized by his deep belief that all "beauty and regularity" found in the natural world could only "proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." He wrote that "the Supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere."

The English poet Alexander Pope pinned the famous epitaph for Newton after his death - “Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night; God said, Let Newton be! and all was light."

Hehe. I'm afraid your logic is in the same place as Jimmie's, horizoneast.

Jimmie is starting off with the assumption God does not exist. Oppositely, you (or in your example, Sir Isaac) are starting off with the assumption God does exist. Neither assumption is really scientific. Since neither have been proved (indeed, many argue neither can be proved), they are both matters of faith.

Personally speaking, I have faith in God. You do too, Horizoneast. Just don't mistake your faith for a basic tenet of science. It's not.

Science and the supernatural have what we might call an estranged relationship. Scientists must, by necessity, ignore the possibility of supernatural workings. Not because they don't exist, but because they can't be systematically measured and tested. This is not actually a problem unless a person mistakes science as the be-all and end-all of knowledge. (Most atheists do, and unfortunately some Christians do as well.) Needless to say, it isn't. It's just a handy tool for evaluating the measurable universe.

Edited February 24, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[The Lorax]

No logic problems friend. I believe the point Newton was making is there is no contradiction between science and the Christian faith – a point I agree with.

Great.

I just think it's important to keep things in perspective. Both theists and atheists make assumptions and in debates like these we tend to attack each other for them. It would be much easier if both sides simply admitted to their assumptions and then tried to defend them in kind. The best debates I've had haved always followed that scheme. But most debates are spent slugging a hot potato back and forth--the potato being the need to defend one's own assumptions. It's much easier for both parties to just split that potato in half and eat up.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[The Lorax]

I guess I am from the old school where one defends their “assumptions”. And I think things are in perspective - let’s not forget this is the “Apologetics Forum” - from the Greek apologia, meaning to "give a defense”.

Maybe you need to check out the “Compromise Forum” down the street - they split a lot of potatoes down there.

Woah woah woah. I'm not talking about compromise--I'm talking about each person defending their position. I just thought it was somewhat unfair that you would call the assumption that God doesn't exist illogical and then, at the same time, insinuate that the assumption God does exist is perfectly scientific. By "splitting the potato" I meant each person should defend their assumptions, not just pass off the burden of position-defending to their opponent, which is what it looks like you have tried doing.

Why is it safe to assume your faith-based position (belief in God) is correct but others' (disbelief in God) aren't? Just because Netwon did held your same position?

I don't want to seem contrary, but I just don't like when people try to pass off matters of faith as matters of science... Your treatment of ideological assumptions also strikes me as somewhat hypocritical... I would really like to hear why you think the existence of God is a safer assumption for science than his nonexistence...

(For me it is a matter of personal faith. I don't pretend it is scientific.)

Edited February 25, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[Guest]

Well that proves it!

Who ME!

Dear TheAtheistReview

You are one smart fellow!

This man can't prove anything spiritual to anyone.

All I can do is share the Words of The One who can prove "it".

Faith is a Divine gift.

Perhaps God will offer "it"

Perhaps you will receive "it"

Perhaps I should shut up and pray?

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." (John 3:12-13)

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36)

"Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water." (John 4:10)

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" (Ephesians 2:8)

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23)

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13)

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Revelation 3:20)

Love, Joe

[The Lorax]

Horizoneast, did you forget my potato talk?

Let's not keep passing off the potato here... You're asking this young man for disproof of God. Can you offer proof of God?

The difference between debate and interrogation is symmetry. Unilateral demands are hardly fair.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[The Lorax]

I am glad, theatheistreview, that you don't claim to be 100% sure of God's nonexistence, as that knowledge is impossible. Atheists like that simply can't be reasoned with.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[The Lorax]

The truth is Angry I didn’t forget you potato talk – it was a non-discussion. I only ask for “disproof” of God from so-called atheist who insists they “know” God doesn’t exist. You seem to be confusing “disproof” of the existence of God with “evidence” that God does not exist.

Oh, ok. Well in his last post he said he doesn't know for certain God that does not exist, so I guess that is also a non-discussion. But you can bet if he did say he knew for sure I would be questioning him too.

I have provided my evidence to believe God exists – you can go back and read my posts. But then you claim to believe in God so you probably don’t need to review such evidence.

I don't think we should look to science for evidence of God. In fact, I think a lot of the "scientific" arguments for God denigrate the real reason for believing in him: Faith. Faith doesn't come from a lab, it comes from the heart. It is very much a personal issue, one which science can't hope to elucidate.

For the record – which God to you believe in – the one who created all things as recorded in Genesis?

The atheists here will be relieved to hear I am not--repeat: NOT--a 6-day creationist. I'm aware of the use of literary devices in Scripture and I don't see why I should categorically reject the findings of modern astronomy, biology, and geology just to literally interpret a few pages of the Bible that were quite obviously figurative.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[Guest Apropos]

If I can throw in my two cents on the debate as a whole...

If you went to an American High School, you probably had to take some form of shop class. That is, you had to take a class where someone taught you about various tools and how they are intended to be used. You learned that you wouldn't get very far trying to use a phillips head screwdriver on a screw that required a flathead screwdriver, that trying to cut a piece of wood with a drill press would just be silly, etc. Every tool had a purpose, and to use something outside of that purpose usually didn't give you very good results.

The scientific method is a tool. It is not the key to some Universal Truth , the Meaning of Life , or anything else, but rather a tool to understand the physical environment. It can't tell you the nature of the soul, but it can tell you why it rains. It can't tell you why there's suffering in the world, but it can help cure diseases.

Imagine that you, as a mathematician, asked a historian to describe the life of Otto von Bismarck in terms of a mathematical equation. The historian would think you were crazy. If he could fufill your request, his answer would be so convoluted and bizarre as to be useless.

The same goes for someone trying to talk about the supernatural in terms of science. It just won't work, because the scientific method isn't designed to be used that way. It operates on the assumption that there is a natural explaination for everything, and works off of that. Furthermore, if something isn't "testable," it cannot be examined scientifically. But if something isn't "testable," that doesn't mean that it isn't true, or that it doesn't exist. Remember that we as human beings are always going to be limited by our ability to percieve our environment. Without the telescope, we couldn't reach our understanding of the cosmos; without the microscope, we couldn't reach our understanding of atomic theory.

To take the scientific method and apply it as an all-encompassing worldview (as many people do) requires the assumptions that: (1) every force at work in the universe is somehow "testable" by mankind to examine and reach a full understanding of it's properties, and (2) mankind has the capacity to extend its perceptions (through new technology) to the point that we will be able to test all of the forces at work in the universe. Frankly, from my perspective, that's a huge stretch, and a somewhat arrogant one at that.

So should science and religion be seperated? Yes, but insofar as they are two different pieces of one cohesive whole.

[The Lorax]

No it’s not a “non-discussion” – you misunderstand. The question is, "does God exist?” This type of question is an interrogative and as such each side of the question must provide evidence to support what they consider to be the correct answer. I answered the question in the affirmative and I have provided evidence for why I believe God exists, I am simply asking my friend (who takes the negative position) to please provide his/her evidence why he/she believes my God does not exist. It’s a simple concept.

Sure, sure. I was just pointing out that the atheist didn't claim to know the status of God's existence, which you had said he did. Your words: "I only ask for 'disproof' of God from so-called atheist who insists they 'know' God doesn’t exist."

Obviously a universal negative like God's nonexistence can't ever be proved. This gives you the high ground in this argument, as I'm sure you know. You can prove your point but atheistreview never even hope to. From up here you can just drop the potato on him. Easy.

The best he can argue is for improbability, which is what we are waiting to hear about, apparently.

But I thought you said you accepted the ID theory.

No. IE. But I guess I don't believe in that either. I just believe God planned for evolution to occur. He is smarter than creationists will have us believe.

Why should we not examine science to discover the fingerprints of God? Doesn’t Paul teach us that no one has any excuse for not believing in God based on what they see around them in nature (natural science)? (Romans 1:18-21)

Paul was no scientist. He may have been spiritually attuned but, like all his contemporaries, he lived in complete ignorance of the workings of God's creation. We can expect anyone in his position to submit to the argument from design. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

Anyway, if you are a 6-day creationist you could attempt to find God's fingerprints, because a 6-day creation will certainly leave different traces than a creation 14-billion-years longer. If you believe in the latter case, God's fingerprints will appear most clearly at the beginning, and unless you also believe in an interventionist God, his fingerprints will be scarce in nature thereafter. To me, the amazing unlikeliness of the cosmological constants is the best evidence life was intended to unfold in this universe. That and, of course, the utter abitrarity of an event like the Big Bang.

Will the knowledge that you are not a “6-day creationist” help convince the atheist to become a theist? Why will they be happy? You didn’t answer the question - do you believe that God *literally* created all that is created per what is recorded in the first chapter of Genesis? This is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

I already answered it. I said I interpret Genesis figuratively, ergo, not literally.

What do you believe, sir?