Who here believes in god?

I believe in God!

i do not believe in religion. it is man made and contradicts itself in many ways. however, the presence of a higher being cannot be determined by simple human minds. i am agnostic.

Hi Michael!
"Yes English is my first language was it your first?"
Yes, born and raised in England, in fact.

"The connection between your rude comment to Lipton and the Jesus tap dancing Christ phase was not made by me. It was made by you I pasted the whole comments so that made so there would be no dispute as to the accuracy of the quote. "

Replace "Jesus-Tap-Dancing-Christ" with "Bloody Hell" and the comment retains its meaning. It was just showing my frustration at Lipton's sheer stupidity. It may have been rude, but when a 17 year old posts a "proof" that my ten year old brother could see a flaw in, I think it is justified. My Christian friend said that he was shocked about how Lipton pretends to be a Christian, but then makes a big posts filled with so many lies, half-truths, and distortion of the facts. I'm inclined to agree.

"In other words I am not mad at you."
Good! The only person I meant to offend was Lipton, and I did not mean to blaspheme with that comment in any way.

"your were trying to intimidate freethinking "
Which free thinker was I trying to intimidate?

"I am impressed with your scientific mind and I am happy that you took this challenge"
Compliment accepted, but what exactly am I challenging? I'm discussing Science and God, I'm not going to argue about God's existence.

"Personally I did not think that the data was infallible. I am among the Catholics that believe the age of the earth has nothing to do with faith if you can understand that."
So...you're a theistic evolutionist and agree that the Earth is in fact 4.5 billion years old (and it doesn't conflict with the Bible) ? That's how I interpreted that comment, but I'm unsure.

"I hope that I have not led any to believe that I have credentials as a scientist."
Don't worry about that. Your method of thinking is that of a philosopher/theologian, not a scientist.

"I have spent the last two years writing a book of poetry. The books title is ‘The balance of the Heart Soul and Mind Chemical Balance through Spirituality.’"

Yes, I saw that. Good job, mate.

"I don’t think can be explained by science there emotional pain is not easily treated or at least it is not being treated by physicians."

If you're talking about depression, then depression certainly can be explained by science. Depression is a medical condition by chemical imbalances in the brain. It's not easily treated, but it can be treated by psychiartrists through counseling and drugs.

" Of course I don’t expect you to understand them. Or care about them. "
It would be very unscientific for me to immediately assume that there is no merit to a testable concept.
How's this for an experiment on Spiritual healing?
1) Take a large group of people with approximately the same ailment. 400 sounds good.
2) Divide them up randomly into 4 groups of 100. All groups are provided with medical treatment.
Group A gets nothing apart from the regular medical treatment.
Group B is prayed for by a local church (or spiritual healer), but isn't told about it.
Group C is prayed for by a local church (or spiritual healer), and is told about it.
Group D is told that they are being prayed for, but they aren't.

Then, we check the recovery rate data. If spiritual healing is more than a placebo, then we would expect to see groups B and C to be higher than groups A and D. If spiritual healing is only a placebo, then we would expect groups C and D to have a higher recovery rate than A and C.

"I would like to explain why my simple mind had to make a connection between the big bang and life..."

Obviously, the theory of Evolution could not have happened unless it had a Universe to happen in. However, this does not mean that the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are linked. The Theory of Evolution would do fine if the Big Bang Theory was falsified, and vice versa. One explains the origin of the universe, and one explains the origin of species and biodiversity.

"As far as the tower of Babel analogy, I am only required to accept the bible as the inspired word of God."

But God made the people scatter around the Earth with their new languages in such a way to make it look like languages have "evolved" from one another?
Also, there appears to be a contradiction in the Babel Story.
10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

10:20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.

Gen 10:31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.

As you can see, it says that before Babel (Which was in chapter 11 of Genesis) that Noah's descendants were already splitting up by language (after their tongues).

Gen 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

A bit of a contradiction, I must say.

What you must remember is that the first books of the OT was first passed down through the generations by word of mouth through the Hebrew tribes. Obviously, it's going to have myths mixed in with the nuggets of truth. Even if you think that the original Old Testament came directly from God, it has also been translated and copied and rewritten many times to keep it alive. All books had to be copied by hand until the 1400's (ish), so obviously there are going to be translation errors and copying errors. I think that there probably was a tower of Babel, but not one that reached to heaven, and God didn't stop it's construction by changing the languages of the workers.

"Many historians agree that Babylon is the site of that tower"
Source?

"Just for fun what if I was to state that the probability of a major earthquake is very hi around the tenth of this month would you believe in astrology if it happened or would you say lucky guess"
I consider this to be off-topic, but I will reply to it if you make another thread.

Cheers!

Power out for three days, now... Sorry it took so long to respond.

Many people would think I'd be embarrased to post up here again, after Alasdair has proven me "stupid". Unfortunately, he didn't do anything but prove my point...

At one time, these facts were accepted as true facts (whether you want to see it or not) (for the population one, those are numbers that scientist have come up with, so, I'm not the stupid one). However, as Alasdair has shown, these ideas have changed and been seen as false, or highly unliklely.

What's my point? Science is always changing. I can't put my trust and faith in something that's always changing (yes, it IS faith and trust to a degree). That's what I was trying to prove. At one point, these things weren't seen as half-truths and such... However, as our technology became better enhanced, and whatnot, we were able to prove that these are wrong.

I posted those for the sole purpose that someone would see the flaws. Yeah, I know you won't believe me, anyone, but it's the truth, and that's just the way it is.

Alasdair, I don't understand why you suddenly just come in on this post, and become all antagonistic with me. I never said anything that hurt you, and, if I offended you with my beliefs, get used to it. Not everyone's beliefs are going to correspond with yours. Sorry if that sounds harsh. And for someone who's an agnostic atheist, you sure are making some judgment calls on Christianity.

Sorry if I offended anyone, or if my post sounds unreasonable. Frankly, I don't care if you think it's unreasonable... Sometimes, the truth doesn't seem reasonable...

~Ciao Lipton

I definitely believe in God. I think that there is one all high deity, but who can say exactly which religion is right. It is all faith, and believing. What I believe is that he is there, and that everyone just gets worked up in their own religion (The Jews, Christians, and Moslems) to realize that the deity we all worship very well could be the same one. And I believe that that is he. Although I am a Christina. But Moslems actually view Jesus Christ as a prophet from Allah... they believe Allah is our God too... but most Catholics don't accept that. Then there are all the protestant religions. I just clasify myself as a Christina believing in God and Christ as the "Messiah" but I believe that all the scientific facts we have found out... why can;t they be the rules God set? There must be rules to thing... and laws of gravity and what not. And when it says in the Bible God created man.... who said it happened snap, just like that? It has always been assumed, Keep in mind the time period when Genesis was written. Whats to say evolution wasn't the hand of God working over all the years to create man? Thats what I believe. Same with the creation of the universe. I think religion should be viewed with a little more of an open mind... and the main this, people should have faith. No one answer is right... and who's to say any answer is wrong?

Tyler

"Many people would think I'd be embarrased to post up here again, after Alasdair has proven me "stupid". Unfortunately, he didn't do anything but prove my point..."

Why are you putting "stupid" in quotes? Think about your "proof" concerning human population. Think about it. It's ridiculous.

"What's my point? Science is always changing. I can't put my trust and faith in something that's always changing (yes, it IS faith and trust to a degree). That's what I was trying to prove. At one point, these things weren't seen as half-truths and such... However, as our technology became better enhanced, and whatnot, we were able to prove that these are wrong."

Science is always changing, you're right. It steadily becomes less wrong. When something is proven wrong, it is tossed out. That's how science works. And don't give me that crap about knowing all your "proofs" were wrong, you know that the reason you brought up those "proofs" was to attempt to show that science proved a young earth, and none of them were. How do I know that? Because those "proofs" all come directly from Kent Hovind, who still uses them. More lies from you.

You say that those facts were once accepted as true facts? Show me a source. Those aren't even facts...facts don't change. It's how we explain the facts that change.

"for the population one, those are numbers that scientist have come up with, so, I'm not the stupid one"
Creation Scientists are NOT scientists. They are the only ones who made those assertions. Show me a source that shows that real scientists agree with this number. Using your calculation, the number of elephants would be 2 plus 60 zeroes.

"And for someone who's an agnostic atheist, you sure are making some judgment calls on Christianity."
I'm not making judgement calls on Christianity. I'm making judgement calls on people who call themselves Christian and then post a pack of lies.

Lipton, if you want to come and chat, come into this chat : http://back-on-earth.tripod.com/id3.html

It has most of the poems and quote chat regs.
You can also catch me on:
MSN : AlasdairJC@hotmail.com
AIM : Alasdairxjc (Yes, there's an x)
Yahoo : AlasdairJC

1. The first and most important rule is to be respectful to all members. Being disrespectful to other members will not be tolerated.

Obey.

Personally, I feel justified in calling him a liar. I'm not usually an angry or insulting person...but when somebody posts so many "proofs" that a ten year old can refute, "proofs" based on "facts" that are just plain wrong...I'm going to get uber-pissed. I'll stop being "disrespectful" if he admits to lying in an attempt to mislead and apologizes (not to me, but to the forum for misleading them).

Cheers! I have no quarrel with Michael or Sean, by the way.

I have a great deal of respect for Lipton and I have a lot of respect for Alasdair. This discussion to me is no different than what history has shown has been going on for centuries between church and science. As Asdiair so kindly pointed out some of us think like scientist and some like philosophers or theologians I don’t know if anyone has said this before but it has occurred to me that for every question there is an answer and for every answer there is a question. If I ask a scientist; when did the law of gravity begin he might not know. but in his passion for truth offer a theory to satifsy
the first to cross the barrier between subjective and objective in my opinion was the church or was it?i love you guys got to go to work

i beleive that God created everything and i believe every story in the bible.
But i respect that other people dont believe the same things as me.

Thanking you, Michael.

I think that even for the religious people, it is important to look at the evidence when it comes to Evolution vs Creation. Why? Because if God made everything, it means that he also made all the evidence. It is impossible that God made the Earth and all the animals at the same time 6,000 years ago, and also make evidence to the contrary. If he did, that would make him a deciever and liar.
The evidence that came directly from God should take precedence over the Bible which came from man (God inspired or not). Even if the Bible was 100% accurate when first written, it has been translated and rewritten and copied and copied for thousands of years.

1 Cor.14:33
For God is not the author of confusion....

Rom.1:20
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

Heb.6:18
"It was impossible for God to lie."

Tit.1:2
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began."

1 Sam.15:29
"The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent."

Yes, I'm acquainted with scripture :)

Finally, an essay by a Christian who accepts Evolutionary Theory. Half of it has to do with the Bible. It's enlightening.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html

Although I think a new thread should be started about Evolution vs Creation.

Cheers!

Alasdair, you, apparently, have still missed my point.

Yes, those things NOW are lies, because they have been proven wrong and still are today.

This is what I was trying to do: Show that science was, and still is changing. I purposefully posted those "lies" as you call them, to prove that point. In no way do I actually believe them.

Of course I made that post AFTER you proved them wrong. No one would understand why I posted them in the first place if I didn't. I'm not going to sit here and say, "Look at all of this stuff... However, it's all wrong anyway, so yeah." To me, it just made more sense to have someone else prove it wrong, and then me come back with "you proved my point. Thank you."

"And don't give me that crap about knowing all your "proofs" were wrong, you know that the reason you brought up those "proofs" was to attempt to show that science proved a young earth, and none of them were. How do I know that? Because those "proofs" all come directly from Kent Hovind, who still uses them. More lies from you"

For one, the fact that they come from someone that still uses them doesn't mean anything. In fact, if anything, that should show you WHY I chose that information. Secondly, Why would I care how old the earth is? I don't! I believe God created man with age, so He did with the earth. The young earth bunch was just something I had stumbled upon a while back, and I had it all neatly organized, so I decided I would just use that. Besides, proving that the earth is young won't help me in anything, really. A young earth does not prove the Bible; niether does an old earth disprove it.

And if you still think I'm a liar (and that you're so justified to call me that) then, you really are more dense that I thought you were. I don't know how else to beat it through your head that I was not lying, but merely proving a point. You are gifted with a good mind, and I respect you in that. However, if you can't accept the truth in something just because you don't want to... well...
You don't know me, so you don't know how I like to operate. Therefore, you have no right to call me a liar just because you probably wouldn't do the same thing I did, and most people don't. In fact, if I were to admit to lying, that would be a lie.

~Ciao Lipton

"Yes, those things NOW are lies, because they have been proven wrong and still are today."

You haven't answered the fact that those things were NEVER accepted in the scientific community. I CHALLENGE you to provide a source for each of those assertions that they were once accepted. If you really want, I can go through and point out every misconception. The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a single preliminary measurement. It came from one observatory in Hawaii, who basically said "This is our HIGHEST guess of the rate of moon dust collecting". The story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a total fabrication. As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon's surface, that dust was not extensive. 30 years later, Creation "Scientists" pounce upon it and use it to "prove" a young Earth.

"Show that science was, and still is changing."
Yes, and that's exactly why we can trust in it...it corrects it's mistakes! Point out one point in history when science went from right to wrong?

"I believe God created man with age, so He did with the earth."

So he made all those fossils as well with age?

"you really are more dense that I thought you were."
I know that you think I'm dense if you think I'm going to buy into the "I was trying to make the point that science is changing".
By the way, Kent Hovind is a Creation "Scientist". He's not a real Scientist in any sense of the word.

"In fact, if anything, that should show you WHY I chose that information."
You did a good job of showing Creation "Scientists" to be bleedin' liars.

And even if you were trying to prove your (weak) point, are you saying that the ends (proving a weak point) justifies the means (making stuff up)?

You know what, Alasdair? I'm not interested in fighting with you. In fact, it's downright immature to fight with someone over the internet.
As of now, I'm through talking to you on this matter. If you wish to fight with me over e-mail, that's just fine. I'm not surrendering this because I don't know what to say. It just aggrivates me to no end how you keep throwing the same things into my face, and I keep throwing the same thing into your face. Besides, anything I tell you, you won't believe because for some reason, it can't make it through your thick skull. Just accept what I've done, and deal with it. It's not changing, no matter what you say or do.

And for the last time, I didn't make any of this up, so, you can just stop acting like a two-year old and grow up some. Accept what's happened and live with it. I had no intentions of offending you, so I don't know why you find it nesessary to offend me. It seems like that's the only way you can communicate with people...

~Ciao Lipton

Pfffft. If you want, I'll play along. Please answer me on two things.

1) Can you back up that REAL scientists ever made ANY of your claims?

2) Can you say why we shouldn't trust in science because it corrects its mistakes?

Edit : those proofs come from http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=UniverseIsNotBillionsofYearsOld.jsp

The sources read like a who's-who in Creation "Science". So much for being backed up by "SCIENTISTS".

personally i believe what scientists have said and i have done my research but pretty much everything had been said, however there times when i have felt that someone(thing) has made a difference in my life.

I just thought I would point out that this discussion has inspired me to write two more summaries which I posted in the poem section again I think a lot of these conflicts have happened a lot throughout history. There is an undeniable vast difference of opinion in the world. And apparently the unforgivable sin is to be stupid. Or to be a loser, History is full of paradoxes One paradox I wanted to share without bias is that I had never heard of the Occum’s razor before Alasdair sited it as widely accepted by respected members of the scientific community. You can imagine my surprise when the first thing I found ‘on line’ is that the razor was named after a Franciscan monk who used it a lot. The monk lived in the 13th century, William of Oakham as far as anyone can prove died in good standing with the church. Giordono Bruno was another philosopher science has adopted as a hero. He was condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake. To some he is known as the forgotten philosopher. I was fascinated when I read he was burned at the stake for saying our sun was just one of many stars William of Oakham was also known as a philosopher. It has been speculated that he would be surprised not only that the razor was named after him but widely used by atheist to promote their views. Alasdair makes a valid argument that the church has in the past has opened itself to ridicule. And some church authorities still are defending the mistakes of the dark ages it is always difficult to discern bias from truth I was reading one modern professors comment on Bruno that he showed a poor understanding of astronomy. I have not to this day understood that considering most astronomers of his day could not even believe the earth moved. If you read my poem survival of the fittest Moses Lewis Linton was another obscure personality in science that I believe is my graet great great uncle

man this disscussion is still going...

it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one law to pass away but I suppose that there is as many opinions on what the law should be as there is as to what god should be

I am a born again Christian who like every one else has had there troubles but I believe in God and I belive that his son Jesus died for all of our sins so that we could go to Heaven with him for eternity instead of Hell.

Wow.. Had to skip all the comments.. I'd be here for a year. But, yeah. It's usually an internal conflict with me. I believe God with all my heart, although he doesn't show it I know he remains steadfast in my heart and soul, and helps me each and every day. But I do question existence and how the world came to be. Why are we here? But there are some questions that should left be unanswered, right? We aren't an almighty race, and shouldn't tempt God's wrath. Be humbled in his magnitude and grace.

But then I also question if there is one sole God. If there was, would we have the diversity of religions that we have today? The Buddhists have Mahatme Buddha or whatever his name is. The Muslims have Allah, if I'm right. And there are tons of other cultures out there. Is one sole religion correct?

Just my .02.

-S~

Religion is a path not the destination

sure i believe in god...

xX-Katherine-Xx

hmmmmm.... yes.... i do.... but i wonder if there's anyother explanation i could be here... i sometimes ask myself if i'm real.... is this all real... at one point in time there was nothing... but nothing is an oxymoron there has to be something to make up nothing....

Religion hides the face of God. What ever he/she might be.

I believe and i always will

Jeez Simplicity, yoiu don't live up to your name very well. :) Many of your questions have already been discussed in this forum (though I understand you not wanting to read all of it, my powers been out for a while, and I have quite a bit of catching up to do)

Tessa: I do accept that you do not believe in God, I just simply have an intrest in what others believe (I find it fascinating most of the time). And yes, I understand that you don't want to jump around, there are too many Christians in this world that do that. (not implying that you are a Christian) The only reason that I thought it was intersting that you believed in Heaven but not God was because I have never heard of anyone believeing that before...if it is true, how would one get into Heaven? I believe that the only way to will get into Heaven is by accepting Jesus into your life and living for Him...(a Heaven that is ruled by God) And I'll tell you right now that I don't know what Heaven is like because no person does (I'm really kind of excited to find out.) Well, I hope this answers the questions you had for me--sorry it took so long to respond, like I said earlier in this, my power has been out for a while, and I haven't been able to get on the computer.

God bless.

just wonderin if you know that you should capitalize Gods name when you are using it????

Thats a good point you should capitalise Gods name

Alhumdillah for conversations of philosphy like this I'm suprised this hasn't become more heated :o)

I do believe in God and that evrything happens for a reason. However like *heather*loves*u* I do not follow the Bible as I am Jewish. Love Emma xxx

G-d? Not to sound harsh, but how much harder is it to type God? I mean, "O" is right close to "-". You seemed to have gotten all of your other "o's" fine. Anyway, just wondering (Really, I'm just bored...)

~Ciao Lipton

I believe in God, a higher power, whatever you want to call it. If you don't, I'm not saying you're wrong, but why wouldn't you?

no, that's basically how I am, even though I was baptised Anglican. lol

So you two are agnostic..interesting. :)

btw Lipton, i think that one reason people might type G-d instead of God is a respect thing, sort of like taking the Lord's name in vain or what have you. My philosophy teacher always wrote God as G-d.

Oh, well... okay I guess. It's not taking God's name in vain if you're actually talking about Him. Just as if you were swearing and said something like, "God! That hurt!"
When my friends say stuff like that, sometimes I'll say, "God knew it hurt. You didn't have to tell Him." They just look at me... -_-

~Ciao Lipton

Yeh, I also think it has something to do with some rule like "if you write 'God' on a piece of paper, you can't ever throw that paper away" or something... Iono where the heck I heard it. I personally don't care, but I think that though it may be madness, there is a method to't

Wow, that's wierd, I've never heard of that before. :)

i dont have time to read all of this, but i want to say. the bible isn't different from what it ever was in hebrew. it was inspired by God, He is the one that told the disciples, psalmists, and anyone else who wrote a book thats in the bible, what to write. and God didnt create Himself. He has always existed, always. He doesnt have a physical body, made of matter, so He didnt have to be created out of atoms, and molecules, and all the junk our bodies are made of. our souls arent of these materials, and neither is God. the bell just rang so i have to go to 7th period. i'll be back later.