Do you believe when you die that....

God has always existed. It is a mystery that is impossible to explain.

Yes. He created everything. He is a superior being.

Two words: free will.

I'm not sure which emotion you are talking about. Please clarify.

Prove the stories are imaginary.

The Bible in no way proves God's existence. Please get that through your head.

We have no proof that God does not exist either.

I actually sought religion out on my own. No one told me to. I found a Bible, and got to reading. Only later did I start attending a church.

You are a fool if you think that they give money to the church in the "name of Jesus". It is called Tithing. In order to have a place to worship, you tithe 10-12% of your earnings. This helps support the church, there is no other way for the church to survive, is there?

Yes, it is, thank you!
(I assume that was a typo.)

I watched it.

All of the examples given were selfish things. Like $1,000 dollars, etc. I watched it this morning so I don't remember all of it.

You cannot prove/disprove prayer scientifically. Whoever thinks so is a fool.

I admit that it does have its flaws as any one/thing can answer a prayer as yes, no, or maybe.

But you must also keep in mind that because I believe God exists, he is actually listening, unlike the object.

He therefore has the ability to answer with yes, no or maybe, unlike the jug of milk, which uses coincidences.

 

I don't expect you to explain every little detail, but could you at least explain more deeply?

If I told you I could fly, you would probably say prove it, right? What if I replied, "do you have any proof I can't fly?"
It's the same thing with this. You are making the assertion, so it is up to you to back it up, not me to disprove it.

 

I smell contradictions. Think before you type, and don't focus on trying to 'sound' intelligent.

Does a superior being have to rest? I mean, he created sleep, and he created insomnia, and he created life, which gives way to resting, so if your answer is yes, then 'why' does a superior being have to rest?

So he is malevolent? He has the ability to stop pain and evil, and yet he doesn't. Even if you pray to him, he doesn't. Hm.

Jealousy.

The burden of proof is ultimately upon the believer. Though the stories may not prove Gods existence, apparently, you believe in them.

""'' Oh, planning on saying that you don't?

""''

Yeah, I know.
So, apparently, the Bible is your reason for believing. Yet, you said that the Bible in no way proves Gods existence. Why, then, do you believe?

Come on, you're contradicting yourself, A LOT.
Get it together, bud.

We do, however, have logic.

The greeks didn't have a 'Tithing', and their places of worship lasted many, many years. Why, then, do you need this tithing? Does your God care how fancy your 'place of worship' is?

No, it was sarcasm.

No, but you can show how illogical it is, scientifically. Whoever thinks otherwise is a fool.

That makes no sense. Nonetheless, this would imply that if you didn't believe that God existed, he wouldn't 'actually listen'. Do you agree with this?

 

There is no contradiction?

The first quote was what I believe.

The second quote was simply saying that there is no evidence that says it is impossible for there to be a God.

Maybe you should think things through before you "smell" a contradiction. I'm not trying to sound intelligent. I always type like this, unless its a post like "lolwut."

Why wouldn't he rest? You enjoy resting, yes? Resting is a nice thing if you ask me. Why can't he rest? This is a silly argument in my opinion.

Free will.

Whatever happens to you, is for the best. Trials make you stronger...

I would actually prefer God being jealous, if you are referring to his jealousy between himself and Satan, that he would rather us be with him instead of Satan. If not, please clarify.

Yes. I believe in them. And by believing in them, I believe in God, because God is in the stories.

Because I believe that scientific evidence, contrary to popular belief, points to a younger earth.

I have no contradicted myself once.

Their temples were supported by the state. And other means, for example, in the Temple of Aphrodite, you had to pay to get in so that you could see naked statues of Aphrodite.

And I know that some Roman temples had a form of this similar to the Greeks, where there was an entrance fee.

Is sarcasm necessary in a debate? No.

Then PLEASE show me that it is illogical. You have yet to do it. You have only talked about it.

It does make sense.

No, because God is the only being/thing you can pray to that will listen.
Regardless if you believe in him or not, he will listen to your prayer.

 

That's quite the claim. Can you back that up?

 

I will attempt to, although, just like saying that the world is 4.5 billion years old, it is impossible to prove.

Here is a quote, because I suck at paraphrasing.

 

Before you read the long explanation below. Your 'young earth arguments" are retarded and my former respect for you has went down the shits.

One thing to describe the possible existence of God, another to dispute the long existence of the Earth. These sort of foolish debates are the sorts that are destroying what could otherwise be a much stronger argument.

I'll begin:
The assorted evidence to determine the probable existence of God is undefined. The real debate is whether there is rational cause for belief. This argument -> subject to interpretation.

Arguing against FUNDAMENTAL science, to prove God WEAKENS ANY ARGUMENT

The evidence that determines the most probable age of the Earth is EXTREMELY well defined. The age of the Earth was objectively determined, the "contradictory" evidence was obtained with a "goal-in-mind" mentality. Thus it is highly culpable to numerous flaws. Let's take "The ocean should be getting saltier" argument. You can clearly see the scientific BULL SHIT when they say "27%". It's exactly like those infommercials they tell you, "it 297% better!". Honestly think about it, this theory can be debunked in a matter of minutes. For over a century, we've documented ocean salinity. And what do you know... it's stable! This proves that the ocean's ARE NOT getting saltier, and assholes like you and that website are just spewing out shit to get attention...

Here's the explanation:
"Ocean salinity has been stable for billions of years, most likely as a consequence of a chemical/tectonic system which removes as much salt as is deposited; for instance, sodium and chloride sinks include evaporite deposits, pore water burial, and reactions with seafloor basalts.[6] Since the ocean's formation, sodium is no longer leached out of the ocean floor, but instead is captured in sedimentary layers covering the bed of the ocean. One theory is that plate tectonics result in salt being forced under the continental land masses, where it is again slowly leached to the surface."

This follows a well known scientific assertion: equilibrium. As someone with college level oceanography, biology, and chemistry - I've seen this recurring theme repeatedly. Unless an environment meets a disturbance, over time, it will reach stability.

 

I don't believe in faith. I respect those who do, but only when a more rational explanation cannot be found.

 

No one knows, so this is just a guess.
The most logical explanation is that it is the end.

 

Wow, you are the ignorant one.

Let's break this down logically, shall we? You're asking for proof of the non-existence of a being, correct? Non-existence; what do you think when you interpret that word? When I say non-existence, I mean exactly what its definition states: Does not exist. Can you provide proof for me that something doesn't exist? Say, provide proof of the non-existence of a teapot orbiting Saturn and perhaps I'll rethink my stance.

In other words, to provide proof of the non-existence of an entity or object is a fallacy; one cannot provide proof of the non-existence of something that does not exist, just as one cannot provide proof of the non-existence of something that does exist.

Not at all! Don't you think it illogical that an all-powerful, omnipotent and omniscient being needs to rest? According to how most people including you define such a being, I find it rather ridiculous that it should need to rest.

Oh? The existence of the Christian God as you know it actually directly contradicts the concept of free will. All Christians believe that their God has a plan for them. All Christians also believe that their God is all knowing. Take in to consideration that an all-knowing creator with a plan for everything already has everything mapped out in the first place. In other words, we don't have free will if your God is as you say it is because everything is already implicitly planned out for us.

This is not true in a lot of cases. For example, if I get shot by a bullet and have to spend a month in hospital, does that do me any good in the end? Most likely not, for chrissakes.

This isn't a question of what you prefer, it is a question of your God contradicting itself. It explicitly states in The Bible that jealousy is a sin. If your God is a jealous God, and by all means it certainly looks like that is the case, then it is a goddam phony.

So, why do you believe?

Care to clarify just what you mean by this? If you mean scientific evidence is devolving our intelligence, then I don't know what I ought to say about religion.

I suggest you take the intellectual point of view and examine your arguments and their foundations in depth before you make such a claim.

Personally, I still find such tithing appalling practice. It's just a goddam statue for chrissakes'.

This doesn't change anything about Christianity though, does it? I'm lead to believe that you're just trying to use the Romans and Greeks as a scapegoat for the past practices of your Church.

If you've actually experienced a debate in real-time, you would understand that sarcasm is an EXCELLENT way to get your point across. It emphasizes the point and more often than not makes the opposition unsure of themselves. I guess it doesn't work for people who fail to understand the key concepts, though.

Do you have anything to back up such an outright claim?

---

The person who makes an affirmative claim must back up their claim with empirical evidence, lest they bow out of the debate. So far, no-one that has questioned you has made the assertion that God doesn't exist. You've stated on the other hand that God does exist. In a rational debate, as stated, you must provide evidence for your claim. Please do so.

 

Since I'm defending against two people, I'll make two posts for convenience's sake.

So, before even reading it, you have decided that they are wrong. That is flawed.

I have not brought God into this at all. I have only brought the age of the earth into this. Nor does the young age of the earth prove God. It is impossible to prove God. It is impossible to prove evolution.

A young earth is rational cause for believe in God.

It's annoying to have to explain every ounce of my logic to you all.

Please prove this to me.

[/quote]

Give me a source that says the amount of salt in the sea has not risen at all for over a century.

And, you ignorant son of a bitch, let's stay away from the "ad hominem"'s. There, we're even. ^_^

Here is a source that says the ocean has been getting much saltier in the past 40 years.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20031117204012data_trunc_sys.shtml

 

Perhaps using an unbiased source would suit you better. All you're doing is taking a biased source without doing any actual research yourself, and as such this particular argument is flawed until you remedy that. Find me an unbiased source or case study about the sodium levels coming in and out of the ocean, experimental results, procedures, result discussions and so on.

 

Please stay away from personal attacks in a debate.

Ah. I see what you're saying.

I miss spoke.

I better thing to say would be, prove to me the evolution/old world theories, thus making it illogical to believe in God.

I think you're confusing "resting" with "sleeping." God did not sleep. He rested.

I believe this is the definition of the word rest being used.

Free will vs. predestination is a very debatable topic! If you want to start a thread, I'll debate it with you there. I believe in free will.

This is why:
Adam and Eve were able to sin in the Garden of Eden. Thus, God does not control what we do.

It depends how you access the situation. It would make me mentally stronger, and more appreciative of everyday things.

God's jealousy is not the same as "man, I really want my friend Bob's car!"

God's jealousy is "man, I wish I could take care of Bob's kids. Bob beats them, and I don't want that for them!"

In your post, the answer was right below where you said this.

I believe in a young earth.

No, I am saying that most scientific evidence is based on too many assumptions.

I have. And I found none. Please point out a few contradictions in my arguments.

It was an early form of pornography. The statue was nude.

Not to mention the fact that tithing is not mandatory. At least, not at my church, and I do not believe it should be.

Tithing is not mandatory at my church.

I have. And I think that one doesn't need to use literary devices to get their point across in a debate. All you need is facts and logic.

Once again, the personal attacks just take credibility from your argument. It is foolish to use them.

Nothing other than I believe in God.

I already have in an above post. Evidence that the world is young.

With a young world, Creation is the only logical theory for the origin of the world.

 

You will forgive my ad hominem, I didn't intend for it to sound like that.

Nowhere in any scientific theory does it state that God does not exist, please keep that in mind. It would be foolish to base a theory on the credibility of something which we know almost nothing about empirically.

What I'm getting at is that an all powerful being shouldn't have to rest. It just seems illogical to have to rest if you're omnipotent, be it physical recuperation or mental recuperation.

I'm not really in the mood for debating about free will right now - I'm content to debate in this topic.

As for Adam and Eve, it is the standpoint of most people to accept that Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden are all metaphorical terms, so it is hard to interpret them and say directly what happens. Because of this, it doesn't really hold much sway in the topic of free will.

It does indeed depend on the way one would assess the situation, but this works in different ways for each person. Some people may become paranoid after such an incident. Others may seek revenge, and so on. Suffice to say where there is good there is also evil.

That isn't necessarily jealousy, though. It is more of a feeling of empathy and agape` love.

Let's assess the situation from your point of view.

X planet is young. Because X planet is young, Y deity exists.

Do you see any shred of logic in that? I don't.

Not really. Initially assumptions are made, but research is then conducted to provide evidence for those assumptions. Most scientific theories take decades or even centuries to refine, and take a LOT of experimentation. Yes, theories are initially hypothetical in most cases, however the reason we consider them theories is because they have sufficient evidence to classify them as such.

I'll re-examine this later. I've just gotten home from school so I need time to unwind

I was born without clothes on. My parents should be charged with child abuse and witnessing child pornography because I was naked.

What I'm getting at is it used to be mandatory.

I was referring to past practices of the church.

Literary devices are not required, but they are effective when executed correctly. Not everything needs to be as cut and dried as you seem to think should be.

I was pointing out that you need to understand that methods such as the employment of sarcasm in the right situations can influence the way your argument is received majorly. Using satire and the like isn't a bad thing, it just needs to be well executed.

I suppose your argumentative split would be "Society and individual", then? You're taking the social viewpoint and saying "I believe in X so it is true."

Forgive the ad absurdem, but I really do believe in psychic pink ravens.

That was from a biased source, hence it is not reliable for hard fact. You haven't examined any other scientific reports on the matter, nor have you looked at it from any other point of view. What you've done is taken one source (biased, taking away a lot of credibility) and based an entire argument on it. You've hardly done any research at all, and as such this "proof" is not reliable.

Creation is also not the "only logical answer", assuming this world is actually young. Because X theory has not yet been thought of does not mean the concept doesn't exist.

 

Forgiven.

Creationism is a scientific theory.

I still think that "mental or spiritual calm; tranquillity" does not point to any type of recuperation. It simply says that he reflected on his creation.

Fair enough.

Erm, I do not believe they are metaphorical terms.

However, if one sought refuge in the scriptures, they would most likely look for the good in it.

Exactly.

You left out the middle argument. I'll outline it.

X planet is a young planet.
All young planets need a creator. (there are no other theories on how a young planet/universe could have been created.)
X planet has a creator.

Alrighty. ^_^

The statue was a fully grown nude woman. There is a bit of a difference.

Which I do not believe is right.

Also, I don't know if that's exactly right. Source please?

Of which church?

I do not believe tithing should be madatory.

Ok. Point taken.

More like:

I believe X is true
Therefore I will state X is true in order to avoid hypothetical phrases that take longer to type.

Why do you believe this?

I really don't feel like doing extensive research to prove my point, but here I go. I'll most likely have some sources, etc by tomorrow. >_<

Well then, you come up with a young earth theory without a creator.

 

No. It's not a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It would have gotten thrown out after being proposed due to lack of evidence.

Even if the Earth was young (and it's not, it's about 4.6 billion years old) that still isn't proof for a creator.
You don't know that all young planets need a creator. Just because there are no other theories doesn't mean that idea is true. (And stop butchering the definition of theory, it's not just some idea you have)
You're basically saying:
The Earth is young
I don't know how a young planet would form without a creator
Therefore, the Earth was created.

Because proof shows the Earth is young, and we all know young Earths need a pink raven to create it, therefore psychic pink ravens exist, duh!

The Earth isn't young -.-
Forgive my appeal to authority, but you don't think there is a reason why basically every mainstream scientist disagrees with you?

Zircon from Australia has been radiometrically dated to at least 4.404 billion years old. (If you don't want to take my/wikipedia's word: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6817/full/409175A0.html)

 

Okay, I can't come in here with the debating skills of your caliber, but I have a point that has made me curious...

The Law of Conservation of Energy, a law which much of our times science is based off of, states that energy can be neither created or destroyed.

If the Law of Conservation of Energy says no energy can be created, how does one explain everything around us? To say that it "was just always there." is a cop out that would be shot down if someone were to say "God was just always there."

If logic is based off of science, what happens when science disproves itself? What becomes of what we call logical?



(Note, if I am missing something from the Law of Conservation, the term "logic", or any other point I have brought up, feel free to tell me. I made this post not to debate, but to hear how you explain this. This post is more so I can learn the other half...)

 

This won the debate. Been a good read.

 

Nobody knows for sure. However, I believe that matter must have always existed because if you say God has always existed, and then he created matter, that adds sort of an unnecessary step in. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but maybe less likely.
It's a good question and I really don't know that much about. Maybe there's somebody lurking here that does.

Eh...I'd say science is more based off of logic..
And science isn't disproving itself if matter has always existed, but it is if matter was created at some point. Which if it was, maybe means that that rule needs to be revised based on the new evidence.

I don't think you were missing anything, and it's a good question. I wish I knew more about it.

 

You keep saying this, yet ignoring all the evidence that suggests otherwise. You will probably move on and ignore what I am about to say.

You mentioned the "salt theory" which stated that only 27% of the salt is recycled back. According to this theory, salt levels should have reached maximum saturation by now, or the salt levels should be increasing as a result of a younger earth. However, salinity (which can be measured to the THOUSANDTHs of a percent) has NOT been increasing over ANY period of time. If you use your logical brain, you should be arriving at the conclusion that the 27% figure was obviously miscalculated (probably intentionally).

A real scientist should test the hypothesis that are made - have you considered that the evidence you are reading on "creation.com" is wrong?

Radiometric dating and other scientific measures are ALSO certainly subject to error. As such, we can't definitively point to the earth's age in anything but the hundred's of millions of years. The dating mechanisms must also coincide with OTHER dating mechanisms before an actual age can be appropriately measured.

I've read other "anti-old earth" evidence pieces. Most demonstrate a clear lack of fundamental science, and they all share a common pattern - none of them seem to agree to the date of actual creation.