Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Well I said it first!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism makes no sense. You cannot get something from nothing without a God.
- Thread starter IsmailaGodHasHeard
- Start date
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
Listen, Ismail, you need to first of all learn what the theory of evolution actually is, learn what "circular logic" refers to, and most importantly, GROW UP.
From what I have observed of your posts, you have a tendency to act extremely paranoid and it is unjustified. Whenever someone comes at you with reason, you say that they are mocking you.
But the thing is, until you are ready to listen to reason, YOU DESERVE TO BE MOCKED, and these people are being far too nice to you.
Let's start with the basics:
Since you draw the conclusion that "evolution is a myth" from the idea that something cannot be made from nothing, you obviously have no idea what the theory of evolution actually covers, because otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution, put simply, states that organisms will change over time due to the process of natural selection. When an organism has traits that help it survive and reproduce in it's environment, those traits get passed down to it's offspring. When an organism has traits that hinder it's survival or reproductive ability in it's environment, it is less likely to have offspring to inherit those traits. In this way, certain traits are selected for over time. Over time, the genetic difference between two groups of what was once the same species may become great enough to create two distinct species.
Next:
You say that something cannot come from nothing.
Yet not only does God himself come from nothing, God CREATES the universe from nothing. Even if it was justifiable to define God as eternal, why not just skip the God step and define the universe as eternal and be done with it?
The overarching question here is: Why is it more reasonable for God to have created the world from nothing than for the universe to have formed on it's own from nothing?
NEXT:
You say that "evolution is just a theory." [sarcasm]Of course, if it was a FACT, they'd call it the FACT of Evolution, just like the Heliocentric FACT, the FACT of Relativity, and the Germ FACT of Disease...[/sarcasm]
In scientific context, a "theory" is an explanation for a behavior. It is not a level of science - a "law" is not "better" than a "theory," and the two never "become" or "upgrade" into one another. A "law" is an observation based on mathematics, like the equation for gravity. The theory explains that observation in ways that can be tested.
Remember, a "theory" in science is much different from a "theory" in commonspeak.
And do NOT merely reply that I am "mocking you" when I call your wrong preconceptions wrong. Even if it were true that I was mocking you, it would not be a reason to reject the content of my post.
From what I have observed of your posts, you have a tendency to act extremely paranoid and it is unjustified. Whenever someone comes at you with reason, you say that they are mocking you.
But the thing is, until you are ready to listen to reason, YOU DESERVE TO BE MOCKED, and these people are being far too nice to you.
Let's start with the basics:
Since you draw the conclusion that "evolution is a myth" from the idea that something cannot be made from nothing, you obviously have no idea what the theory of evolution actually covers, because otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution, put simply, states that organisms will change over time due to the process of natural selection. When an organism has traits that help it survive and reproduce in it's environment, those traits get passed down to it's offspring. When an organism has traits that hinder it's survival or reproductive ability in it's environment, it is less likely to have offspring to inherit those traits. In this way, certain traits are selected for over time. Over time, the genetic difference between two groups of what was once the same species may become great enough to create two distinct species.
Next:
You say that something cannot come from nothing.
Yet not only does God himself come from nothing, God CREATES the universe from nothing. Even if it was justifiable to define God as eternal, why not just skip the God step and define the universe as eternal and be done with it?
The overarching question here is: Why is it more reasonable for God to have created the world from nothing than for the universe to have formed on it's own from nothing?
NEXT:
You say that "evolution is just a theory." [sarcasm]Of course, if it was a FACT, they'd call it the FACT of Evolution, just like the Heliocentric FACT, the FACT of Relativity, and the Germ FACT of Disease...[/sarcasm]
In scientific context, a "theory" is an explanation for a behavior. It is not a level of science - a "law" is not "better" than a "theory," and the two never "become" or "upgrade" into one another. A "law" is an observation based on mathematics, like the equation for gravity. The theory explains that observation in ways that can be tested.
Remember, a "theory" in science is much different from a "theory" in commonspeak.
And do NOT merely reply that I am "mocking you" when I call your wrong preconceptions wrong. Even if it were true that I was mocking you, it would not be a reason to reject the content of my post.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
This is one of my favorites also from Nikola Tesla. Science has already graced the truth yet mainstream science still foolishly wonders in the desert misled by equations.
Long ago... [mankind] recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.Nikola Tesla
Both Einstein and Tesla understood this creative force.
Einstein nodded: he was a good listener. After a pause he said, "The cosmic man must be restored, the whole man who is made in the image and likeness of the arch-force, which you may call God. This man thinks with his heart and not with party dogma. As I've explained before, there is an order in the universe – a cosmic order – and humans have the possibility of understanding these laws."
Einstein leaned back in his chair; so did I,putting my writing pad on my knees. He added, "I have no doubt that the allies will win the war."
I smiled, "Oh, you are my prophet again."
"Prophet or not," he scratched his head, "what I say is more often felt through intuition than thought through intellect."
Einstein leaned back in his chair; so did I,putting my writing pad on my knees. He added, "I have no doubt that the allies will win the war."
I smiled, "Oh, you are my prophet again."
"Prophet or not," he scratched his head, "what I say is more often felt through intuition than thought through intellect."
Hermanns is constantly pushing Einstein to acknowledge his inherent mysticism. He succeeds in getting Einstein to say something that probably few scientists today would say—that there is a vital force or energy in creation. Einstein is willing to associate energy with what are generally seen as spiritual concepts.
I pulled out some notes. "Once, in England, I was at dinner with people highly trained in meditation, among them Professor Suzuki who asked me to ask you if spiritual vibrations and electricity have the same original cause or force."
"I believe," Einstein answered, "that energy is the basic force in creation. My friend Bergson calls it élan vital, the Hindus call it prana."
"I believe," Einstein answered, "that energy is the basic force in creation. My friend Bergson calls it élan vital, the Hindus call it prana."
Last edited:
The unnameable god is the eternal god.
Matthew78
aspiring biblical scholar
I think you have a serious misunderstanding of evolution and atheism. While all atheists, that I know of, are evolutionists, not all evolutionists are atheists. Some evolutionists are deists and some are followers of Abrahamic religions. Let me proceed to point out where I think you strongly misunderstand atheism and evolution. I say this with the utmost respect.
First of all, you have to be very careful about what you mean when you say "something cannot come from nothing". What are you talking about here? Are you talking about the universe? Are you talking about new species? Can you be very precise?
Secondly, I'm assuming that you're talking about biological evolution. But how does biological evolution entail that "something comes from nothing"?
Third, if we look at different types of evolution, such as stellar evolution, galactic evolution, planetary evolution, and what-not, it should be born in mind that many different types of evolution are consistent with theism. It's perfectly consistent to believe that some divine being started the universe off with a big bang or some other creation event and that the universe subsequently evolved.
Lastly, your statements indicate to me that you're probably not well-read in atheist literature. What atheists have you read? Michael Martin? Richard Carrier? Victor Stenger? Dan Barker? I am asking you this so I can assess how conversant you are with the relevant literature, both academic and popular. Most atheists believe that our cosmos, whether a universe or multiverse, is eternal. It didn't "come from nothing", assuming I understand what you have in mind. Rather, they believe that the cosmos is eternal and uncaused.
No atheist that I know of believes that the cosmos "came from nothing". They believe that the cosmos always existed and never began to exist. Only if it began to exist, might it need a cause for its existence.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Scriptures call Him I AM for He does not fit into labels.The unnameable god is the eternal god.
Matthew78
aspiring biblical scholar
This entails that if atheists believed that a divine being existed, that would not accept evolution as a fact. Are you saying that theism entails special creation?
There are many theists who accept evolution. There are a number of Christians who accept evolution. Kenneth Miller is a Catholic Christian, a cell biologist with a Ph.D. and a strong proponent of evolution. Believing that a divine being exists doesn't entail, necessarily, that special creation must be true.
Matthew78
aspiring biblical scholar
I'm pleased that you agree that it's wrong to mock people. Can I interest you in stopping Christians from mocking nonbelievers? I can give you specific examples of people who mock non-Christians if you would like. I'm completely serious!
Matthew78
aspiring biblical scholar
Seriously, what have you attempted to back up? What have you attempted to demonstrate as true? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Feel free to show me otherwise.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Don't let the left brain analitical thinkers bother you! Remember Jesus sits on the right hand of the Father!
Matthew78
aspiring biblical scholar
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Well actuallt they are both. They make better scientists also because they are intuitive like Einstein and Tesla and Newton.You always notice a sense of religiousness in them that comes from the right brain.There are some Christians who are left-brain analytical thinkers.
outhouse
Atheistically
Ah more proof christians dont believe in the trinity either lol.
one deity with 3 equal parts would not sit next to itself lol
What happens here is theology makes stuff up to meet their theological needs.
science merely reports findings of observation, it sucks some people with a literal reading of ancient books have to fight known valid science not up for debate.
I suppose that is true. But the way you say it, it looks like atheism is a major component of evolutionism.
In truth, it is biological research, not religious conviction (or lack of same) that supports evolution.
Photonic
Ad astra!
Well actuallt they are both. They make better scientists also because they are intuitive like Einstein and Tesla and Newton.You always notice a sense of religiousness in them that comes from the right brain.
Lol, it's adorable that you think that is true. Care to provide examples?
Einstein, Tesla and Newton were about as analytic as it gets.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
I thought i said they were both.
This is how they see beyond the illusion into the realm of intuition!You want examples.
Well we know Newton was a Christian and Einstein a somewhat pantheist who still understood the creative force in the universe we call God.
Same with Tesla.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...sense-you-cannot-post2633954.html#post2633954
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
I call Poe.
Nobody is that abysmally uneducated and still able to put a sentence together. :sarcastic
Me Myself
Back to my username
WRONG
He explained it to you. Spelled it out even
Let´s make this simple:
If you need God to create universe, then you need Uber God to create God.
If God can be uncreated, then so can the universe.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
"Ex nihilo nihil fit."
Or in English: "Nothing cannot come from nothing".
Evolution is not atheism, though. I accept evolution, and science as a whole, and I am religious.
Additionally, evolution has so much evidence behind it, in order for it to be wrong would be pretty.. insanely difficult, really. There's probably as much evidence behind evolution as there is gravity.
This URL may help you. Please consider reading it. Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
The flaw is that you did not explain what God is and where God came from.
Where did 'something' come from?
- It is possible that 'something' allways existed and was never created. What we see as creation is just 'something' turning into 'something else'
- Maybe 'something' didn't allways exist but was createdd
If this God of yours didn't always exist then God was created, which you claim is impossible whithout God.
That must mean you believe that God is eternal and was never created.
But how is that different from 1) ?
What is God?
And why does creation require God?