How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Balloon guy 158]

false. evolution doesn't posit anything specific about origins.

Then maybe you shouldn't have titled your first book Origin of the Species

[Balloon guy 158]

I am going to ask some stupid questions because I have 15 minutes till I can go home for some great TV.1. So is it my understanding that Christians are completely against science as an explanation for anything? Seems that way but I may be taking it too far. So thunder is not the immediate increase of temp and pressure from lighting that produces a quick expansion of air thus forming some sort of sonic shock wave, it really is God bowling? Or is it, some stuff can be proven with science as long as it doesn't mess with our religious belief?2. I guess I only had one. Damn. I still have 13 minutes.

100% true.Except for the science partWe got most Ivy Leagues schools on our list of contributions to society as references.Good luck with finding the references for the other side

[Balloon guy 158]

1. dawkins claims he was not made aware he was being interviewed for an anti-evolution piece and that there was deception involved.2. obviously dawkins would have indicated aliens seeding life is a *possible* answer, since there's no evidence they exist. he doesn't believe that is true.3. why do you think god is more likely to have started life on earth than aliens?

I love number 1Dawkins thought he was talking to a friendly group, so he spoke his mind. Had he known that this was the enemy, he would have lied?#2, Then why is he so upset that he said it on film?Oh it's possible, but we don't know we are scientist. We are so devoted to truth that we work for free, which is why we must sneak into movie theaters illegally because we have no money to pay.#3 Cause God is real Aliens are not. God made Cows, Aliens only molest them

[Balloon guy 158]

no i did that to point out your assertion that historical impact = truth is false.

but it's okay when you do it?

[Loismustdie 0]

Then maybe you shouldn't have titled your first book Origin of the Species

For it is me, BG, and I dub thee owned.

[crowTrobot 2]

Then maybe you shouldn't have titled your first book Origin of the Species

yeah origin of species, not life. doh yourself.

[crowTrobot 2]

Dawkins thought he was talking to a friendly group, so he spoke his mind. Had he known that this was the enemy, he would have lied?

no, he wouldn't have bothered at all because it's pointless.

#2, Then why is he so upset that he said it on film?

if he's upset it's because he knows what he said is going to be used out of context, because that's what creationists have always done in the past.

[Loismustdie 0]

no, he wouldn't have bothered at all because it's pointless.if he's upset it's because he knows what he said is going to be used out of context, because that's what creationists have always done in the past.

If it's so pointless what are you doing here?

[Balloon guy 158]

yeah origin of species, not life. doh yourself.

Ad it's funny that the evolution of new species is the part you guys have the hardest time with.At least thats what the charlatans that sell books to the masses of us ignorant Christians say.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The sciencetific world approaches every problem with we know the world is x years old and everything like decay rates is constant always because we have records of the last 50 years to prove that over 50 million years argon decays at this rate. Or the rock in said strata are this old since the fossils in the level are this old. and the fossils are this old becuase the strata is this old.

Things like decay rates are based on more than empirical observations. We have deep theoretical reasons to believe that things decay at a particular rate, and of course our predictions match all the evidence that we have gathered. Further, we can test the rate of decay rates back billions of years by looking at the stars. The stars we see today actually existed up to billions of years ago. If the stars behave in the deep past as they do in the not so deep past, then we have observable evidence that the laws of physics have been consistent throughout time (the behavior of stars is dictated by decay rates and other similar measurable quantities associated with nuclear fission and fusion, so the example of stars is indeed relevant). I'm not here to give a science lesson (I mean, I'm happy to, but if I were to, I wouldn't do it in the religion forum). My point is that things like decay rates and their application to the age of the Earth are very well understood. If you don't believe the evidence that scientists offer to measure the age of the Earth, then there's really no evidence that you would believe.In other words, what would it actually take to convince you that the Earth is billions of years old. You can also answer that no amount of evidence would convince you that this is true since the bible tells us otherwise. This would be fine, but if it's true, then you should say it so we can avoid trying to discuss science since it would be entirely moot.

The Big Bang is your guys theory to explain where all the mass and energy came from, because you had to have some explanation. It has no rhyme or reason, just convience for being AN explanation. That is just as large a leap of faith. And until science gives you a truth to how the mass came into being, you are just filling in the blanks with your sides pre-concieved wish for there to be no God.

Again, the Big Bang theory describes the geometry of the universe at a very early date and how this geometry effected the formation of atoms, gas clouds, galaxies, light, etc. It says nothing of where anything came from. Most likely we'll never be able to say where everything came from. Scientists don't really worry too much about things that they will never be able to measure (I mean, they probably do in their personal lives, but not in their professional lives).

i think you mean matter, not mass. LLY is about to prove where mass comes from and win the nobel prize by finding the higgs boson.

Lol. No one's going to win a nobel prize for finding the Higgs Boson. But we're certainly going to find it. It's nearly guaranteed. It's also nearly guaranteed that we'll discover Supersymmetry. These are extremely strong bets. And Higgs theory doesn't describe the origin of mass in the way that a philosopher would be interested in. It could only really shift the question from "where did the mass come from" to "where did the energy come from.Of course, to a physicist, it's extremely interesting (you know, because it allows us to use renormalizable gauge theories to describe the world by having massive propagating particles).

Speedz, I get what you are saying, but I am trying to go back a step.If we start with here we are and here's life, let's assume this is how it evolved, I think you can make a rational case for evolution.So I go back to where did this life begin, where did this universe begin, where did gravity, matter, light begin.I get that you guys are comfortable with You don't know...YET. It is the only rational way you can look at it considering your world view. I am not the one saying you guys are childish for thinking this, or deluded or lying.

Again, evolution doesn't explain nor does it attempt to explain abeogenesis. However, the chances of us figuring out how lifeless particles were able to form into living beings is much, much greater than our finding out where the energy of the universe came from. It's certainly possible that one could model and experimentally confirm the creation of proteins and nucleic acids from scratch.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm not here to give a science lesson (I mean, I'm happy to, but if I were to, I wouldn't do it in the religion forum). My point is that things like decay rates and their application to the age of the Earth are very well understood. If you don't believe the evidence that scientists offer to measure the age of the Earth, then there's really no evidence that you would believe.In other words, what would it actually take to convince you that the Earth is billions of years old. You can also answer that no amount of evidence would convince you that this is true since the bible tells us otherwise. This would be fine, but if it's true, then you should say it so we can avoid trying to discuss science since it would be entirely moot.

I will say this, I am comfortable with my belief that God created a mature earth. And that you're assumption that all things continue as they always have is reasonable logic. Both can't be right, but neither is crazy.

Lol. No one's going to win a nobel prize for finding the Higgs Boson. But we're certainly going to find it. It's nearly guaranteed. It's also nearly guaranteed that we'll discover Supersymmetry. These are extremely strong bets.

90% according to the guy...what's his name

And Higgs theory doesn't describe the origin of mass in the way that a philosopher would be interested in. It could only really shift the question from "where did the mass come from" to "where did the energy come from.Of course, to a physicist, it's extremely interesting (you know, because it allows us to use ).

Who wouldn't get excite by the prospect of renormalizing gauge theories to describe the world by having massive propagating particles?

Again, evolution doesn't explain nor does it attempt to explain abeogenesis. However, the chances of us figuring out how lifeless particles were able to form into living beings is much, much greater than our finding out where the energy of the universe came from. It's certainly possible that one could model and experimentally confirm the creation of proteins and nucleic acids from scratch.

Well that would be a good step for the scientific process to actually created the necessary building blocks for life in a controlled environment. you'd think it would be easy seeing how smart we are and how it happens randomly on it's own.

[crowTrobot 2]

It's also nearly guaranteed that we'll discover Supersymmetry.

that should make the string guys happy

[crowTrobot 2]

I will say this, I am comfortable with my belief that God created a mature earth. And that you're assumption that all things continue as they always have is reasonable logic. Both can't be right, but neither is crazy.

your belief is decidedly crazy by any standard of logic and reason you want to apply. you might as well believe in the easter bunny, because that would be no more illogical/irrational.

[Nimue1995 1]

Huh? Christians don't believe in science. I guess I'm one weird Christian then. Because I believe there is nothing in science that will ever contradict the existence of God. Period. And I for one, am not of the opinion that we know all about how God created the universe any more than science knows all about how the universe was created. I'm perfectly content to say I don't know how God did it. But I do have faith that He exists and He did. Unlike Balloon Guy I don't necessarily believe that God created a mature earth all at once. I do believe the Genesis story was a simplified explaination given by God to a people that would never understand the entire process. And Crow, yes I have faith but there is also evidence to support that faith. Do you actually have something to pounce with to prove that evidence wrong?

[Balloon guy 158]

Huh? Christians don't believe in science. I guess I'm one weird Christian then. Because I believe there is nothing in science that will ever contradict the existence of God. Period. And I for one, am not of the opinion that we know all about how God created the universe any more than science knows all about how the universe was created. I'm perfectly content to say I don't know how God did it. But I do have faith that He exists and He did. Unlike Balloon Guy I don't necessarily believe that God created a mature earth all at once. I do believe the Genesis story was a simplified explaination given by God to a people that would never understand the entire process. And Crow, yes I have faith but there is also evidence to support that faith. Do you actually have something to pounce with to prove that evidence wrong?

Well you must believe in the Easter Bunny and the FlyingSpaghettiMonsters and why is your religion better than the other ones?Oh wait, I left my mind closed for a minute.Nevermind.

[crowTrobot 2]

And Crow, yes I have faith but there is also evidence to support that faith.

what's the point of mentioning faith if what you believe has to be supported by objective evidence? even if you don't think it has happened or will ever happen, surely you can envision a *hypothetical* scenario such as where someone uncovers historical evidence that most of the NT is faked or whatever. would you still have "faith" that jesus was the son of god then?i'm harping on this because i think the concept of faith as it is usually formulated (pretentious dogmatic certainty of belief) is the primary cause of all the world's social conflicts having to do with religion. it would be beneficial if its roll in religious debate were reduced or removed - among other things it would allow everyone much more flexibility to change their minds, have a better appreciation of other people's views, and even create room for compromise.

[crowTrobot 2]

and why is your religion better than the other ones?Oh wait, I left my mind closed for a minute.

what's closed-minded about that question?

[Nimue1995 1]

what's the point of mentioning faith if what you believe has to be supported by objective evidence? even if you don't think it has happened or will ever happen, surely you can envision a *hypothetical* scenario such as where someone uncovers historical evidence that most of the NT is faked or whatever. would you still have "faith" that jesus was the son of god then?i'm harping on this because i think the concept of faith as it is usually formulated (pretentious dogmatic certainty of belief) is the primary cause of all the world's social conflicts having to do with religion. it would be beneficial if its roll in religious debate were reduced or removed - among other things it would allow everyone much more flexibility to change their minds, have a better appreciation of other people's views, and even create room for compromise.

Because I have faith that the NT wasn't faked and no such evidence exists to show that it was. However I don't believe such evidence exists because so far you've not shown me where it does. Just because I have faith doesn't mean that there's no evidence to correlate with that faith. But that evidence will not give you faith because for you it's not enough. Just the evidence itself isn't enough for anybody to have faith. Faith has to come first for that evidence to have meaning. That's why I'm not really into the whole Christian Apologetics thing. No matter how much is debated in favor of God's existence, no one is going to believe just based on that. It takes reaching out and seeking God with an open heart. Then He will give you that faith.

[PMJackson21 0]

what's the point of mentioning faith if what you believe has to be supported by objective evidence? even if you don't think it has happened or will ever happen, surely you can envision a *hypothetical* scenario such as where someone uncovers historical evidence that most of the NT is faked or whatever. would you still have "faith" that jesus was the son of god then?i'm harping on this because i think the concept of faith as it is usually formulated (pretentious dogmatic certainty of belief) is the primary cause of all the world's social conflicts having to do with religion. it would be beneficial if its roll in religious debate were reduced or removed - among other things it would allow everyone much more flexibility to change their minds, have a better appreciation of other people's views, and even create room for compromise.

Very interesting thread to read. I have nothing to add of significance, but your post reminded me of this part of the movie Dogma:Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it. Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good? Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I don't mind faith. You can have faith in things that are right, like gravity. You can have faith in things that are wrong, like not swimming after eating. You can have faith in Jesus or Allah or Zoroaster or Thor, and as long as you don't start attacking other people to force that belief on them, I don't care. [Which is what Crow's problem with belief is -- is HAS resulted in millions of people being attacked and murdered over the years.]But this statement --

Faith has to come first for that evidence to have meaning.

-- has always offended me intellectually. If you have to have prior belief in something in order for the evidence to seem true, then you're being scammed, and what you believe in is false, plain and simple. You don't have to "believe in" electricity for the light to come on when you flick the switch. You don't have to "believe in" convection for the oven to cook your food. These things are true independent of your belief or lack of belief, and that's how true things work. False things work by pressuring you to believe, like with rewards of heaven or fear of hell, or the chance at millions from a Nigerian diplomat, and then provide "evidence" that seems true only if you've already bought into the main premise and are looking to justify why you did that.My sister's quote is always "signs, miracles, and wonders follow those that believe." My response is "No, those that believe are primed to explain anything they don't fully understand as a "sign," a "miracle," or a "wonder," when it isn't. And they'll do that precisely BECAUSE they've been told over and over that "signs, miracles, and wonders" will follow them around like an oompah band at a polka festival."If the truth or falsity of something depends upon the perspective of the observer, then there is no independent truth in the thing. If there is independent truth in a thing, then the opinion of the observer doesn't matter.If you aren't satisfied with faith alone, and require evidence and claims of truth to back up your faith, than maybe your actual faith isn't really all that strong. This is what Crow, and I, and the excellent Dogma quote by PMJackson, are all saying.

[Loismustdie 0]

I don't mind faith. You can have faith in things that are right, like gravity. You can have faith in things that are wrong, like not swimming after eating. You can have faith in Jesus or Allah or Zoroaster or Thor, and as long as you don't start attacking other people to force that belief on them, I don't care. [Which is what Crow's problem with belief is -- is HAS resulted in millions of people being attacked and murdered over the years.]But this statement ---- has always offended me intellectually. If you have to have prior belief in something in order for the evidence to seem true, then you're being scammed, and what you believe in is false, plain and simple. You don't have to "believe in" electricity for the light to come on when you flick the switch. You don't have to "believe in" convection for the oven to cook your food. These things are true independent of your belief or lack of belief, and that's how true things work. False things work by pressuring you to believe, like with rewards of heaven or fear of hell, or the chance at millions from a Nigerian diplomat, and then provide "evidence" that seems true only if you've already bought into the main premise and are looking to justify why you did that.My sister's quote is always "signs, miracles, and wonders follow those that believe." My response is "No, those that believe are primed to explain anything they don't fully understand as a "sign," a "miracle," or a "wonder," when it isn't. And they'll do that precisely BECAUSE they've been told over and over that "signs, miracles, and wonders" will follow them around like an oompah band at a polka festival."If the truth or falsity of something depends upon the perspective of the observer, then there is no independent truth in the thing. If there is independent truth in a thing, then the opinion of the observer doesn't matter.If you aren't satisfied with faith alone, and require evidence and claims of truth to back up your faith, than maybe your actual faith isn't really all that strong. This is what Crow, and I, and the excellent Dogma quote by PMJackson, are all saying.

Bingo. Faith IS the evidence.

[Nimue1995 1]

Bingo. Faith IS the evidence.

The evidence is there and nice to have but it isn't necessary to my faith. However, the evidence alone doesn't produce faith. Only God can produce faith in a person. And only if that person is seeking Him.

[crowTrobot 2]

The evidence is there and nice to have but it isn't necessary to my faith.

what if evidence contradicted your faith (hypothetically)? would you still believe?

[Loismustdie 0]

The evidence is there and nice to have but it isn't necessary to my faith. However, the evidence alone doesn't produce faith. Only God can produce faith in a person. And only if that person is seeking Him.

There is no real concrete evidence, so, no, there is no nice evidence and that is the crux of the issue. The ONLY evidence is the faith itself. As far as only God producing faith, no. That's not true because a degree of faith is needed to even have your sins forgiven, and that is all on you. You make that choice, with no interference from God- that whole free will thing. If faith was all about God and only about God everyone would have it, that's just not the case. You have alot more power in that relationship than you realize.

[Loismustdie 0]

what if evidence contradicted your faith (hypothetically)? would you still believe?

Precisely why evidence should never be the focus.