-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
God vs Science
- Thread starter Fuzznip
- Start date
Look, God wants everyone to have a positive afterlife (that's assuming he exists). The problem is, He can't.
He is holy, therefore, no one can be with Him in heaven if they have sinned. Have you ever done anything wrong or thought of doing anything wrong? That is sinning. I'm sure you have a conscience and can decide for yourself what is right or wrong.
God gave us one way to get to heaven. No one is going to go to heaven because of their own good deeds. The only way is asking for forgiveness through Jesus Christ. If you haven't done that in your lifetime, according to the Bible, you go to hell.
Yea, God is loving, yet he is also just. Parents punish their children when they disobey them, right? Does that mean the parent's are not loving?
Would your parents be hurt if you don't believe in them? Would your mom or dad want you to listen to their word? (Bible = God's word) The analogy is simple, we are rebellious children of God that think we know better than Him. Your mom and dad were smarter than you. The stopped you from doing certain things because they cared about you. When you didn't listen, they punished you out of love, not hatred or vanity.
Edit: I forgot about the proof against athiesm.
The only way to really disprove athiesm is to disprove evolution and show why creation fits with the facts we find in this world.
Example: Birds are here on this earth and there are many diverse kinds. How did they get here?
Evolution: Birds evolved from dinosaurs millions of years ago.
Problems:
1. Birds are warm-blooded, Reptiles are cold-blooded. Also, the microscopic structures in dinosaur bones are very similar to those of other cold-blooded animals.
2. Birds have feathers, the closest thing to a feather ever found in a dinosaur is some fuzz that is very similar to collagen fibers.
3. Birds have very unique lungs, some preserved lungs of dinosaurs that have been discovered look nothing like the lungs of birds.
Creation: Birds were created by God.
Problems:
1. none
Archaeopteryx, isn't it the missing link? It has a bony tail, teeth in its beak, and has claws on it's fingers.
Why not:
1. Penguins have a bony tail, so Archaeopteryx having a bony tail dosen't help it.
2. A hoatzin chick also has claws on its fingers.
3. While no modern bird has a toothed beak, many extinct birds do.
4. Archaeopteryx is dated 20 million years older than the supposed feathered dinosaurs. If evolution had occured, it be reversed.
okay...so by "god is just" you mean "believe in me or burn." very just...
also, may i remind you that roman (an possibly irish, i'm not sure) catholism allows for the salvation of those who where holy but not christian. (this differs from their old stance, where they would still go to hell, but they wouldn't be that bad off. ex. dante's inferno)
as for the parent analogy, this assumes that the parent in question is mentally sane and not vindictive. also "i smite you and damn you to eternal hellfire, out of love" makes perfect sense...
also, may i remind you that roman (an possibly irish, i'm not sure) catholism allows for the salvation of those who where holy but not christian. (this differs from their old stance, where they would still go to hell, but they wouldn't be that bad off. ex. dante's inferno)
as for the parent analogy, this assumes that the parent in question is mentally sane and not vindictive. also "i smite you and damn you to eternal hellfire, out of love" makes perfect sense...
I can see my parents. I cannot deny my parents existence.
I cannot see God. God has never shown himself to me.
There is a great difference between getting grounded by your parents, and being sentenced to eternal damnation. Meanwhile your parents will usually only punish you temporarily, and will end the punishment after you learn your lesson. Once you are in hell you are in hell forever. God no longer cares about you, he won't accept your forgiveness after you die. He simply lets you suffer for all of eternity. Your God is unreasonably cruel.
Also according to you God punishes those born in foreign countries who have not even heard of Christianity.
I also have a nice little story to share. My parents are Jewish. I had no idea what Christianity even was until I was 12. I had no idea who Jesus Christ was. I am sure glad I did not die before then, because according to your logic God would have punished me simply for being a sheltered child.
Are you sure your God is just?
So he's not omnipotent.
Non sequitur.
How bleak. If I lie once in my life and then defeat world hunger, it's the lie that counts?
Dude if I kick you in the balls I'm going to ask you to forgive me. Why the fuck would I ask Jesus Christ? That doesn't make any sense.
Not necessarily. However, quite certainly, if the punishment is not understood by the children, irrespective of whether they are loving or not, the parents are inconsequent if not dangerous. It also stands to reason that punishment is meant to correct behavior. Hell, as a punishment, is useless since it achieves nothing, it does not correct the behavior of anyone who is sent there. Should God be loving, the existence of hell would only serve to prove his incompetence.
If they never show up, they would only have themselves to blame. If they do show up but the child ignores them, they would have to conclude that he simply does not sense their presence and thus they would make greater efforts. If all fails, they would feel pity for their child and they would not hold him responsible for anything - how could they?
Sure, and that's why they actually talk to their children instead of expecting them to fetch some arbitrary book in the library.
Many parents are absolutely horrid. Hence, many children know better than thair parents. There almost always occurs at least one situation in any child's life where they know better than their parents. If hell in the Christian sense exists, I would say that it is abundantly clear that we know better than God.
No they were not.
You are too generous. Parents often punish their children out of nevrosis or because they do not conform to arbitrary principles. It is also important for the punishment to be understood. Badly executed punishments are breeding grounds for revolt and are worse than a lack of punishment.
It is impossible for one to send another to hell out of love. One can only send another to hell out of hatred, vanity, spite or incompetence.
And I don't know what kind of parents you had, but parents punishing children out of vanity or spite is hardly uncommon.
To God any sin is vile, it's like a dead, rotting rat that cannot be in His presence. So burning in hell would be a fitting punishment to any sin.
We were created perfect with a free will, until the first human sinned and his sin nature was passed down.
Everyone was God's child, until they sin. They have been disowned. Unless they are forgiven, God will not consider you his child and will have to be your judge, and the punishment is hell. He still loves you, and is willing to have his son pay the price. When you accept you are a sinner ask for forgiveness, then God can drop the charges and you will be his child again.
We were created perfect with a free will, until the first human sinned and his sin nature was passed down.
Everyone was God's child, until they sin. They have been disowned. Unless they are forgiven, God will not consider you his child and will have to be your judge, and the punishment is hell. He still loves you, and is willing to have his son pay the price. When you accept you are a sinner ask for forgiveness, then God can drop the charges and you will be his child again.
Definitely an all-loving creator, then.
I can't be doing with God, I've had far too much shite happen in my life to even entertain the thought - if s/he/eir/it's real (why must God be male..?) and has a teary at me about not following whatever religious code it picked then I'm going to politely but firmly point out that I've been through quite a lot of undeserved shit, and thanks very much but I'm not going to give more than a passing thought anything that not only let the most horrendous things happen to me, but in It's Almighty Creation has things like worms that exist solely to burrow inside the eyes of children, to paraphrase Attenbrough.
Morality is simple. Don't do anything that'll hurt other people, try to avoid doing things that'll get you arrested in front of people that can arrest you.
edit: The 'Do The Handicapped Go To Hell.. Probably' South Park duo comes to mind and makes me smile.. even within Christianity there's a lot of conflicting ideology. The Mormons picked right!
I can't be doing with God, I've had far too much shite happen in my life to even entertain the thought - if s/he/eir/it's real (why must God be male..?) and has a teary at me about not following whatever religious code it picked then I'm going to politely but firmly point out that I've been through quite a lot of undeserved shit, and thanks very much but I'm not going to give more than a passing thought anything that not only let the most horrendous things happen to me, but in It's Almighty Creation has things like worms that exist solely to burrow inside the eyes of children, to paraphrase Attenbrough.
Morality is simple. Don't do anything that'll hurt other people, try to avoid doing things that'll get you arrested in front of people that can arrest you.
edit: The 'Do The Handicapped Go To Hell.. Probably' South Park duo comes to mind and makes me smile.. even within Christianity there's a lot of conflicting ideology. The Mormons picked right!
I pity him. Even the most simple-minded of all humans can tell the moral difference between lies and murder. It must feel terrible not being able to appreciate these subtleties. Poor God. Stuck in a world where only black and white exist...
Punishment is meant to serve a purpose. The only reason punishment exists is that it works: it removes "defective" people from the system and it deters other people from committing crimes. Hell serves no purpose, hence as a punishment it does not fit anything at all. God would know that. Unless, as you suggest, he is an incompetent boob.
How do you pass down a "sin nature"? Is it genetic?
Ok so if a dead, rotten rat asks for forgiveness he becomes prince charming? How can God have such high standards for sin and such low standards for forgiveness?
then why did he ever create it?
If God really thinks that he is a merciless jerk, not a loving father
If we were perferect we would never have wanted to sin,
read through some of the earlier pages free will has been thouroughly discussed
He disowns you for making one mistake, even though he knows that it is unnavoidable? that's not very nice
If god is truly all loving as you say why would he not forgive everyone?
A good punishment makes the criminal realize thier mistakes and become a better person, god using hell as a punishment shows he is either wicked and spiteful, or extremely incompetent.
bull crap..
"hey I'm gonna send you to a place of eternal torture, but I still love you, you know"
tangent- this made me think of a random person in heaven at the morning brunch taking an extra biscuit/muffin/whatever and having the floor beneath them drop out, causing them to fall into hell.
that made me lol.
Crynts says "Birds have feathers, the closest thing to a feather ever found in a dinosaur is some fuzz that is very similar to collagen fibers."
If you knew anything about this subject, you would know that such "collagen fuzz" were found after a long hard search for just such structures. What lead to the search for such structures? Well, lots and lots of fossil dinosaurs with fully formed feathers. Most feathered Dinosaurs were not discovered before the 1990's, so it's understandable that creationists, whose classic arguments are decades old (and debunked many times over) would insist that no such fossils exist (unless you look at archeopteryx, who was discovered over a century ago). Still, it is humorous that he would say that the fuzzy raptor was the only evidence of dinosaur feathers, because for years it was exactly what paleontologists hoped to find, only to be (relatively) disappointed by still more and more dinosaurs with fully formed feathers.
For your google-searching pleasure, here is a list of dinosaur fossils that are known to have feathers.
Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis
If you knew anything about this subject, you would know that such "collagen fuzz" were found after a long hard search for just such structures. What lead to the search for such structures? Well, lots and lots of fossil dinosaurs with fully formed feathers. Most feathered Dinosaurs were not discovered before the 1990's, so it's understandable that creationists, whose classic arguments are decades old (and debunked many times over) would insist that no such fossils exist (unless you look at archeopteryx, who was discovered over a century ago). Still, it is humorous that he would say that the fuzzy raptor was the only evidence of dinosaur feathers, because for years it was exactly what paleontologists hoped to find, only to be (relatively) disappointed by still more and more dinosaurs with fully formed feathers.
For your google-searching pleasure, here is a list of dinosaur fossils that are known to have feathers.
Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis
I thought I heard Velociraptors had feathers.
Although I prefer to think of them without since they're cooler that way. (=
Although I prefer to think of them without since they're cooler that way. (=
Awesome story, however I believe the moral of it has nothing to do with proving if there is a God or not.
It says, IF there is a God, why did he create evil? To which the answer is that evil is simply the absence of good, like cold is the absence of heat.
About the whole evolution thing; I'd rather originate from a monkey than be the result of thousands of generations of inbreeding.
It says, IF there is a God, why did he create evil? To which the answer is that evil is simply the absence of good, like cold is the absence of heat.
About the whole evolution thing; I'd rather originate from a monkey than be the result of thousands of generations of inbreeding.
Mammals and birds evolved from warm blooded reptiles (albeit, different ancestors).
Those different ancestors still share a common ancestor though.
Look, pointing out (often imaginary) flaws in theories and arguemts describing the formation of the world without a god or opposing the existance of a god does not constitute an arguement for the exitance of your God.
If I quibble that the lack of fibre in a small section of your small intestine may indicate that you did not have toast, eggs, bacon and mushrooms for breakfast I have not proven that you definately ate raw fish and honey and a mandarin for lunch. Forgive me that sounds absurd, but that is the reality of some of the arguments here.
Before I propose my argument as to why an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnicient god (the most popular type) does not exist, I would request an arguement in favour of the existance of God. It doesn't have to be perfect, just not another "your theory may be imperfect and you cannot prove it absolutely therefore mine is right" please.
Right. If I were to have children, which I give free will because it allows for them to make moral choices, and I disapear before they are even born, and my children were to deny my existance and refuse to follow commands I had written for them on the other side of the planet, on the moral grounds that well why should they and that said morals don't really make that much sense, I would appear in front of them and say "hey, actually I do exist, and it would be a good idea to do as I ask since its in your best interests", and answer any questions they may have about set morals until they were satisfied that following the commands would be a moral thing to do. If for whatever reason my omnipotence was limited (paradox anyone) and I couldn't do this, I would make the message load and clear, with thunder, lightning, burning things that don't get burnt, an awe inspiring voice, as apparently I am fully able to do these things.
I would not, however, make an eternal torture chamber for anyone who refused. Maybe prison, if they just had no interest in being moral and were causing problems, but an eternal torture chamber doesn't really strike me as the best way to show your love for your children. Similarly, anyone who lived a moral life and disbelieved in me despite the wonders I produced (which actually don't happen in real life) or disobeyed me because they though I was wrong would get greeted with a breif role of the eyes, possibly a sarcastic comment, and an invitation to spend eternity having fun too, rather then send them to the eternal torture chamber.
Would this be so difficult for an omnipotent god?
If I quibble that the lack of fibre in a small section of your small intestine may indicate that you did not have toast, eggs, bacon and mushrooms for breakfast I have not proven that you definately ate raw fish and honey and a mandarin for lunch. Forgive me that sounds absurd, but that is the reality of some of the arguments here.
Before I propose my argument as to why an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnicient god (the most popular type) does not exist, I would request an arguement in favour of the existance of God. It doesn't have to be perfect, just not another "your theory may be imperfect and you cannot prove it absolutely therefore mine is right" please.
Right. If I were to have children, which I give free will because it allows for them to make moral choices, and I disapear before they are even born, and my children were to deny my existance and refuse to follow commands I had written for them on the other side of the planet, on the moral grounds that well why should they and that said morals don't really make that much sense, I would appear in front of them and say "hey, actually I do exist, and it would be a good idea to do as I ask since its in your best interests", and answer any questions they may have about set morals until they were satisfied that following the commands would be a moral thing to do. If for whatever reason my omnipotence was limited (paradox anyone) and I couldn't do this, I would make the message load and clear, with thunder, lightning, burning things that don't get burnt, an awe inspiring voice, as apparently I am fully able to do these things.
I would not, however, make an eternal torture chamber for anyone who refused. Maybe prison, if they just had no interest in being moral and were causing problems, but an eternal torture chamber doesn't really strike me as the best way to show your love for your children. Similarly, anyone who lived a moral life and disbelieved in me despite the wonders I produced (which actually don't happen in real life) or disobeyed me because they though I was wrong would get greeted with a breif role of the eyes, possibly a sarcastic comment, and an invitation to spend eternity having fun too, rather then send them to the eternal torture chamber.
Would this be so difficult for an omnipotent god?
The idea that the ultimate, perfect, infallible God of justice has only two places to send us after we die is utterly laughable. This is especially so if you look at cases where somebody may be on the brink of going either way... by helping an old lady across the street, Jon Doe just changed the course of his entire eternal existence but WAIT! he just sneaked a glance at some cleavage! Looks like he's back in hell again!
The idea that anything we do in our finite time should justly equate to an infinite amount of anything is not only ridiculous, but we can say it is false with mathematical certainty. In fact, it is wrong by a factor of infinity.
Most dinosaur fossils that we find are just bones, or occasionally sediment molds of internal organs (this is how we found an advanced heart, a home run for the idea that at least some dinosaurs are warm blooded). At any rate, only in certain types of fossils do we see imprints left by the skin (or feathers) of the dinosaur. Most of the feathered dinosaurs found recently have been found in the same region in China, because there are large areas there that make/made the type of fossils that leave these superficial imprints (similar to the type of fossil that the recent Ida is). When we find a particular fossil, and want to find more evolutionary stages of that animal, we tend to look in the same area, deeper or shallower depending where in the chronology we want to find (that fact that this works is a home run for evolution, too). So all of these feathered dinosaurs have been coming from the same place, from a fairly small sampling of dinosaurs. The punch line is, so many of the dinosaurs (theropods, to be more specific) found there have feathers, and these fossils are relatively unique in terms of preservation of outer tissue, so scientists are beginning to wonder if most theropods actually had feathers. I don't know in the specific case of Velociraptor if we have found feathered fossils or if we just say they might have because of their close lineage to known feathered dinos, but this is likely the reasoning behind what you heard.
The idea that anything we do in our finite time should justly equate to an infinite amount of anything is not only ridiculous, but we can say it is false with mathematical certainty. In fact, it is wrong by a factor of infinity.
Most dinosaur fossils that we find are just bones, or occasionally sediment molds of internal organs (this is how we found an advanced heart, a home run for the idea that at least some dinosaurs are warm blooded). At any rate, only in certain types of fossils do we see imprints left by the skin (or feathers) of the dinosaur. Most of the feathered dinosaurs found recently have been found in the same region in China, because there are large areas there that make/made the type of fossils that leave these superficial imprints (similar to the type of fossil that the recent Ida is). When we find a particular fossil, and want to find more evolutionary stages of that animal, we tend to look in the same area, deeper or shallower depending where in the chronology we want to find (that fact that this works is a home run for evolution, too). So all of these feathered dinosaurs have been coming from the same place, from a fairly small sampling of dinosaurs. The punch line is, so many of the dinosaurs (theropods, to be more specific) found there have feathers, and these fossils are relatively unique in terms of preservation of outer tissue, so scientists are beginning to wonder if most theropods actually had feathers. I don't know in the specific case of Velociraptor if we have found feathered fossils or if we just say they might have because of their close lineage to known feathered dinos, but this is likely the reasoning behind what you heard.
I am a strong beleiver in science and think that anyone who beleives in God is an idiot. However, I am always fair when it comes to debates like this, so I will point out the other side to the argument. Christians will justify the evil and suffering in the world by saying that God gives humans free will. They say that if they had no free will and were forced to do good, they wouldn't earn a place in heaven. Also that God didn't create evil, but he gave humans the thinking capacity to commit it - Again, the free will stuff.
But whatever, it's only a matter of time before religion is proven obsolete.
Btw Latios, you owned the dude and stole the words right outa my mouth.
But whatever, it's only a matter of time before religion is proven obsolete.
Btw Latios, you owned the dude and stole the words right outa my mouth.
I stopped reading right here and laughed.
I think crynts needs to get congbanned.
**cricket noises**
**cricket noises**
The only thing that could possibly lead to actual discussion here is whether free will leads to evil.
We may have free will, but that doesn't mean our actions are random. Our character determines most of our actions, and for the argument I'll assume our character is determined by souls. God creates our souls, doesn't he? Why does he create souls that would want to do immoral acts?
Here's another way of putting it. Right now I could grab a knife and stab myself in the arm. I have the opportunity to do so, and I have the free will to do so. But I won't, because it will cause me a lot of pain. Why can't God make it so that we are put in some sort of pain when we do immoral acts, so we still have the choice to do so but are influenced into not doing so?
We may have free will, but that doesn't mean our actions are random. Our character determines most of our actions, and for the argument I'll assume our character is determined by souls. God creates our souls, doesn't he? Why does he create souls that would want to do immoral acts?
Here's another way of putting it. Right now I could grab a knife and stab myself in the arm. I have the opportunity to do so, and I have the free will to do so. But I won't, because it will cause me a lot of pain. Why can't God make it so that we are put in some sort of pain when we do immoral acts, so we still have the choice to do so but are influenced into not doing so?