The God Debate

Avatar Image
Theland1 | 02:43 Tue 04th Oct 2011 | Religion & Spirituality
22 Answers
I thought it might be interesting to consider if the authors of the web site below are as ridiculously and illogically as mad as I and my believing brothers and sisters are perceived to be?
I am going to have a good read of the arguments and hopefully come back in a day or so to either reap my rewards, or spend time in the AB pillory department, sentenced to many years, no doubt, of such diverse punishments as having to listen to Enya records, and fed only on garlic bread and holy water.
I would much appreciate a Mibualistic analysis from the master himself, supported, of course, by the usual suspects.


1 to 20 of 22rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Theland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jesus, you don't half talk some cr@p!
the irony of that site is that, despite its name, it contains not a single scrap of 'Evidence for god' ...
Theland, Having extended the courtesy to undertake a preliminary perusal of your suggested site I've come away with the conviction that it is dedicated solely to the bashing of atheism and promoting some form of a Christian agenda. This I've confirmed having taken a nosey round their forum which is diligently moderated against any form of decent or rebuttal towards the ideology they are promoting, a closed group discussion forum if you will.

It appears to me you've found your long sought after sanctuary . . . enjoy.

I look forward to going head to head with anyone who wishes to share any treasures they believe they might have found there for which they wish to engage in an open rational discussion, time permitting. You remain a highly sought after commodity here in R&S, Theland, and I welcome you to rejoin us in this somewhat open community at any time you should choose to venture a return to the human race . . . not that I have anything against closed group discussions, mind you. I wouldn't mind belonging to a group myself to which I felt I could make a worthwhile mutually appreciated contribution. ;o)
Anyone who attests to a belief in godmust also believe in faeries
Hi Theland,

One usual suspect at your service! :o)

Blow! For a moment I was quite hopeful of stumbling across a genuine attempt to bridge the gap between atheism and religion, but moments in it became clear that the website makes no attempt to offer a logical argument. It is, as Mibs says, dedicated solely to promoting Christianity - and from what I can see, Christianity at a rather fundamental level. Therefore the author's rationality must be questioned.

//Although there is no direct evidence for the cause of the universe, we now have a fair amount of knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it, which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe.//

Why? What indirect evidence? It's the same old story. We don't know how it happened so God must have dunnit.

The writer makes some basically erroneous assumptions. He says that even atheists have beliefs, but belief is not 'faith'. More importantly, he suggests that the creator God is he of the Abrahamic religions, which, if we read the bible, makes no sense at all. That reportedly omniscient God - wasn't. Not only did this 'perfect' being make mistakes, the bible records several instances where he didn't have the foggiest idea what was happening.

If there is a creator God, and if we are ever to have any hope of discovering what it is, then we must extend our search far beyond the tales of magic and demons recorded in the pages of books written by superstitious men of old. Unless those books are studied with a mind unfettered by the restrictive and fearful doctrine that is religion, they serve only to control and constrain the intellect.
"I thought it might be interesting to consider if the authors of the web site below are as ridiculously and illogically as mad as I and my believing brothers and sisters are perceived to be"

yes deffo, and i only had a 5 minute peek.
I had a look at the ID page, out of interest. Its fall of staw man assumptions about what science or naturalism says, or suggests, or predicts. It attempts to clothe ID in some kind of respectable garb of science, and fails.

Quick scan of the sight - self evidently evangelical / fundamentalist christian site designed to provide some sciencey sounding answers to the faithful who are challenged by real science, and if the ID page is anything to go by, failing lamentably.

This will provide you with no credible, scientific or rational answers Theland - just more superstition dressed soberly.
Question Author
Well, thank you all for your replies. There is a considerable amount of material to get through, and alas, as one who is limited to only 24 hours a day to play with, much of which cannot be devoted to religious studies, it would take me ages to gather enough information with which to construct a decent argument, and make a meaningful contribution, (by your standards), to a debate.
So, if I pluck a few points from the site, maybe you will be gracious enough to limit your rasberry blowing to just a few decibels.
Question Author
One or two points to ponder though.
Predictions and prophecies.
The Bible predicts the return of the Jews to their own land of Israel, which for centuries must have seemed an absurd idea.
The history of the land illustrates just what a dump the place was, eg the comments made by Mark Twain on his travels through the area. Yet it all came true, and the land now blossoms with the fruits of either human endeavour, or, if you will, human endeavour blessed by God.
The unlikely scenario actually happened.
But surely The Bible contains soooo many passages that could be characterised as "predictions" ... it would be staggering if one or two of them didn't occasionally tie in with real events.

In fact, statistically, even by pure chance, The Bible should have a much higher success rate. If you look at the ratio of "did come true" to "haven't come true" The Bible is possibly the least successful predictor of all time.

It's like the "works of Shakespeare" thing. If The Bible had been written by monkeys, it would have probably contained more successful predictions.

Having which ...

I have a friend who is a bit quiet (yes, I actually have one quiet friend!). A couple of years ago, her mother left her a house with a big garden. So the meek really did inherit the earth. Maybe there's more to these Bible predictions than I thought!
"Having "said" which"

Question Author
Thanks JJ.
This quote from Edelman on science topic is interesting regarding origin of life.

Why do these matter? Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove?

At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.
Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite,

17:30 Mon 26th Sep 2011
One of the questions here should does one convince the converted? Religionists will never be swayed away from their beliefs so is it worth even trying to debate the subject with people like Theland...? Ok, I'm just a born again pessimist lol.
Question Author
Oh do try Daisy, do try.
No thanks Theland, I need all my energy for other more worthwhile projects <smile>
Question Author
Is Wizard still about?
@Theland - re the Edelman passage you quote - could you actually link it back to the site?

I think he somewhat misrepresents the studies that are happening around abiogenesis. The point of most of the experiments is to show a couple of things - first, that primitive earth atmospheres contain the right ingredients and phenomena to allow for the creation of self-replicating molecules - because, fundamentally, that is what life is.

Secondly, their are lots of experiments looking at how you can go from inorganic to organic life - and there is some really interesting stuff here, ranging from the ordering and creation of self-replicating structures from inorganic material and on from there.

What it would show, contrary to his assertions, is that purely natural development and phenomena could more than easily be capable of creating the right conditions, the right base molecules for complex, evolved life to arise using the beautifully elegant process of natural selection.

To attempt to assert, as Edelman does, that by creating conditions from which something like a primitive cell could arise we help to prove divine creation is a reach and frankly absurd. He knows very well that if you can demonstrate a purely naturalistic process by which life could arise from an inorganic soup, one of the last, faint remaining gaps in which a divine being could claim to have some function is further reduced.
Theland, That 'prophecy' has been clung to, promoted, and well-publicised, for generations by the Jewish people. Their ultimate aim has always been to return to the land of Israel. However, without politicians taking that fervent desire into account, and considering it paramount in their deliberations, it wouldn't have happened. Plenty of politics were involved in the Jews being given the land of Palestime, but there was no magic or mystery.
Theland does however make a good point that, creating artificial life is not evidence for how life came about on Earth.

Personally I don't think that question is liable to be accessible - I think that the required evidence has probably not been preserved.

However it is worth considering the fact that basic life forms came about very early on Earth, almost as soon as the heavy bombardment epoch ended.

This seems good evidence against theories like panspermia as, uness life is rife in asteroids and meteorites, (and it doesn't seem to be) it would be rather a coincidence that life arrived just at the point at which it could survive.

This rapid arrival of primitive life makes it look as if primitive life is very easily achieved and I expect common in the Universe.

Complex life however only appeared half a billion years ago compared to the first life nearly 3 billion years earlier.

3 billion years of nothing but single cells life.

I suggest a similarly important question is not the origin of life but why we are not all just slime
^ sorry, *Palestine.

1 to 20 of 22rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

The God Debate

Answer Question >>