How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[crowTrobot 2]

Quoted for awesomnessOnly not how you meant it

then what is your justification for thinking aliens are less likely?

[crowTrobot 2]

As Lois said that doesn't really mean anything.And you yourself have shown that the word evolution doesn't mean what others think it means, it has a variety of meanings, giving the end result of your 'belief' that half the world believes in it, less value.If there is such a thing as value.Heck I believe in evolution, micro evolution. Not interspecies evolution though. So do I believe in evolution? or not?

to clarify all the polls i've read ask the specific question "did man evolve from lesser species" or something similar. there is no wiggle room left for micro vs macro BS.

[Balloon guy 158]

It's not about god being improbable. Obviously it's impossible to put "odds" on whether or not there is a god. Rather, the idea is that inserting a god to explain the unexplainable becomes more and more unnecessary as we understand the universe better and better. As we get closer and closer to the ultimate truth, the role of god becomes more and more limited.

So what you are saying is that as we apply our collective effort to understand how things work in the universe function, as we peek into the cell and see the DNA strands with billions? of bits of information, as we get our minds around the immense power held in one atom, all only made possible after we invent a computer to perform millions upon millions of complex mathmatical problems for hours on end, all this points more and more to random chance accident?I think you only get to that conclusion if that is where you were heading before you started.I also think you get to my conclusion much easier if you are heading there before you start.The point of Ben Steins movie is that one side shouldn't be able to shut out the other side's efforts.

[Balloon guy 158]

then what is your justification for thinking aliens are less likely?

Because aliens are for the most part a recent phenomona started oh so coincedantally during the time in our life when flying airplanes were breaking all conventional wisdom and reaching speeds never before dreamed of, under secret cloaks from our military. Because aliens are not a logical follwed conclusion unless you want to believe A. Intelligence was needed AND B There is NO God.Whereas a true blank slate would not reach a space alien because the complete lack of historical precedence, lack of written history, and lack of current tangible evidence. Meaning that Aliens have supposedly flown over our cities, abducted our people, impregnated some of them, and set up bases in different mountains. Yet all our techonolgy finds zero facts to support this.Now if God had made claims to be seen in mechanical machine in local areas recently, then you could apply the same demands on Him for this proof. It's not the same.However the idea that God created the world, and left behind a written guideline to follow would be logical in everything that we hold logical. Leaving room enough for you to choose to not believe is on you, not Him.

[Balloon guy 158]

creationist propaganda - nobody believes the building blocks of life could have "randomly formed and mixed" into complex cells. we don't know how improbable abiogenesis is because we don't understand the processes that might have been involved. it could well have been some self-organizational mechanical process similar to natural selection building from very simple pre-life to complex cells over gradual incremental steps taking a billion years (or more if it happened elsewhere than earth).

A.E.Wilder Smith proved you wrong. Natural Science Knows Nothing of Evolution.It is wonderfull how easy you switch form we know enough about the universe to be very very sure there is no God, to we don't really know how life started. So much knowledge, so little sense.

then write up an equation for how unlikely pink unicorns are. insert god for pink unicorn. the amounts of evidence for and against are about the same for both (assuming you'll only settle for a personal intervening god and not a deistic disinterested version).

Wait, I thought the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. Little Dickie Dawkins said he believed it was close to 99%, much higher than 50% that there is no God. And the quote I referenced was Speedz saying Dickie Dawkins said that God was very very improbable.Now which is it? Am I on the hook to prove God, or are you on the hook to quantify why God is greatly improbable.If it's me I'll go Watchmaker argument. The universe is pretty cool, this much coolness needs a Fonz.If it's you you will need to misdirect, because your side has nothing but hyperbole. Try the FSM, it's so much more chic to use that debate poisoning technique. Or you can go back to "We really don't know" live which is your pretend open mindedness because we all know that you really do know there is no God.

[Balloon guy 158]

then they edited or used a quote out of context because he has stated the opposite (improbable) in every book he's ever written on the subject. this happens all the time to him.

I'm not one to demand you see the movie in order to be allowed to debate it. I think we're adults here and can understand why you don't want to give them money, same reason I wouldn't buy a Dawkins book from a store.When the Youtube people start with the clips, then we can debate what he "really" meant and not what he "actually" said.So this debate will continue later if you're cool with that.

[crowTrobot 2]

all this points more and more to random chance accident?

this is your primary misconception, and apparently it's permenantly ingrained since you always just ignore everyone that points it out. natural (intelligence-free) processes don't necessarily imply intrinsic randomness, and non-random processes do not intrinsically imply intelligence. those are both just assumptions your arguments are all based on, and there is no validity to them. it's a proven fact that intelligence-free processes can create complexity and mimic "design", and given enough time there's no reason to think they can't easily create more complexity than the human brain can fathom (without the help of science).

[crowTrobot 2]

Because aliens are for the most part a recent phenomona started oh so coincedantally during the time in our life when flying airplanes were breaking all conventional wisdom and reaching speeds never before dreamed of, under secret cloaks from our military. Because aliens are not a logical follwed conclusion unless you want to believe A. Intelligence was needed AND B There is NO God.Whereas a true blank slate would not reach a space alien because the complete lack of historical precedence, lack of written history, and lack of current tangible evidence. Meaning that Aliens have supposedly flown over our cities, abducted our people, impregnated some of them, and set up bases in different mountains. Yet all our techonolgy finds zero facts to support this.Now if God had made claims to be seen in mechanical machine in local areas recently, then you could apply the same demands on Him for this proof. It's not the same.However the idea that God created the world, and left behind a written guideline to follow would be logical in everything that we hold logical. Leaving room enough for you to choose to not believe is on you, not Him.

you somehow switched from the possibility of alien life seeding earth to the possibile validity of modern UFO sightings, which is utterly irrelevant.

[speedz99 145]

You think I care what an organization that can be bought and sold thinks about God? I notice you won't touch THAT with a ten foot pole. Science is as corrupt as any religion could ever be.

I disagree with the idea of science as a whole being corrupt...but of course individuals can be. I believe the same thing about religion.But no, it's not as corrupt as any religion could be. I'm pretty sure that the number of deaths due to religion (even if it was politicians using religion as an excuse) is huge. Maybe just as huge as the number of lives saved by science. But I digress.

Quoted for awesomnessOnly not how you meant it

I like when you "lol" at things like that.

Heck I believe in evolution, micro evolution. Not interspecies evolution though. So do I believe in evolution? or not?

You believe in the evolution you understand. You do not believe in the evolution you do not understand. It's really that simple, and it follows pretty much every interaction between religion and science since the two started butting heads.

I look forward to the equation placed on God's probability.I'm sure it will be based on deep science and hard values, with no bias, just pure science.

Obviously that's not possible. Everyone just has to use their own logic to make a guess about that one. I actually wouldn't even attempt to put a number on it, other than to say that I think it's around .0001% that there is a god that has ever interfered in the development of our planet in any way. And what bias? Nobody is biased against God. Maybe against religion, but that's a totally different issue for those of us that aren't religious (we can separate the two).

So what you are saying is that as we apply our collective effort to understand how things work in the universe function, as we peek into the cell and see the DNA strands with billions? of bits of information, as we get our minds around the immense power held in one atom, all only made possible after we invent a computer to perform millions upon millions of complex mathmatical problems for hours on end, all this points more and more to random chance accident?

What he's saying...I shouldn't speak for him, but whatever...is that with every discovery it becomes more evident that there is no need for a magical creature of any form outside of the Universe to be pulling the strings around here. The forces of nature are capable of running things quite nicely. No, this does not prove that all of existance was not started by some god-like creature. I think that at the beginning of time all that existed was a point of pure energy, which I doubt had any consciousness. I guess you could call that "God", but it doesn't really make sense to do so based on the preconceptions people have about that word. But I digress.

Because aliens are for the most part a recent phenomona started oh so coincedantally during the time in our life when flying airplanes were breaking all conventional wisdom and reaching speeds never before dreamed of, under secret cloaks from our military.

You don't mean "aliens"...you mean "sightings of aliens".Wait, do you think it's most likely that we are the only living things in the Universe? Maybe you shouldn't answer that...we've got enought to talk about.edit: As for the Dawkins thing, I probably won't ever watch the video, so yeah...let's table that one. I tend to think that it was out of context, but I also believe you that it's in there.

[speedz99 145]

Because aliens are not a logical follwed conclusion unless you want to believe A. Intelligence was needed AND B There is NO God.

What? Why would you think that you can't believe in God and aliens? Is thinking that we're the chosen intelligent race a prerequisite for believing in a higher power?

[crowTrobot 2]

A.E.Wilder Smith proved you wrong. Natural Science Knows Nothing of Evolution.It is wonderfull how easy you switch form we know enough about the universe to be very very sure there is no God, to we don't really know how life started. So much knowledge, so little sense.Wait, I thought the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. Little Dickie Dawkins said he believed it was close to 99%, much higher than 50% that there is no God. And the quote I referenced was Speedz saying Dickie Dawkins said that God was very very improbable.Now which is it? Am I on the hook to prove God, or are you on the hook to quantify why God is greatly improbable.

if you're interested in what dawkins thinks about the probability of god read the god delusion.all i'm saying is god is a hypothesis, not a starting axiom.

[crowTrobot 2]

I'm not one to demand you see the movie in order to be allowed to debate it. I think we're adults here and can understand why you don't want to give them money, same reason I wouldn't buy a Dawkins book from a store.When the Youtube people start with the clips, then we can debate what he "really" meant and not what he "actually" said.So this debate will continue later if you're cool with that.

i've read almost everything he's ever written multiple times. i know what he thinks. it's not open for debate - if he appears to say he believes aliens seeded life on earth his words are absolutely being used out of context by the producers.

[Balloon guy 158]

What? Why would you think that you can't believe in God and aliens? Is thinking that we're the chosen intelligent race a prerequisite for believing in a higher power?

I had a pastor that believed that God made many worlds because the god of the Bible is a creative God.I personally believe the entire universe was made for me. It's a test, I think I'm getting a B-

[Balloon guy 158]

i've read almost everything he's ever written multiple times. i know what he thinks. it's not open for debate - if he appears to say he believes aliens seeded life on earth his words are absolutely being used out of context by the producers.

Or he says things that are stupid, but when he writes them down and sees them he realizes how dumb they are and corrects them, or his editor does.Pays your nickle and takes your shot.

[Balloon guy 158]

I disagree with the idea of science as a whole being corrupt...but of course individuals can be. I believe the same thing about religion.

Agree 100%

But no, it's not as corrupt as any religion could be. I'm pretty sure that the number of deaths due to religion (even if it was politicians using religion as an excuse) is huge. Maybe just as huge as the number of lives saved by science. But I digress.

Mareline Murray OHair debated Walter Martin years ago and Walter Martin used his research staff to get a reasonably accurate number of deaths due directly to wars started by Christianity, the number was over 5 million, in 2,000 years.Communism had 400 million after 50 years.

I like when you "lol" at things like that.

Me too, I can see how much your side hates that I'm so stupid. It's delicious because I know I'm right and your side's arguments are so amazingly faith based.

You believe in the evolution you understand. You do not believe in the evolution you do not understand. It's really that simple, and it follows pretty much every interaction between religion and science since the two started butting heads.

This has got to stop, it's time once and for all to clarify what evolution is. You guys have been way to quick to change the meaning based on how bad your argument is doing.

Obviously that's not possible. Everyone just has to use their own logic to make a guess about that one. I actually wouldn't even attempt to put a number on it, other than to say that I think it's around .0001% that there is a god that has ever interfered in the development of our planet in any way.

I don't think that means what you think it means. Your opinion is of equal value as mine, which is 99.999% that there is a personal God. Together we make a whole.

And what bias? Nobody is biased against God. Maybe against religion, but that's a totally different issue for those of us that aren't religious (we can separate the two).

Help I can't hear because of all the baloney I am hearing. Tell you what, until you admit your side is biased when approaching the subject, I will also stop admitting my bias, which in fact does not exist, I am totally 100% taking the facts as presented and concluding easily that you guys are delusional.

What he's saying...I shouldn't speak for him, but whatever...is that with every discovery it becomes more evident that there is no need for a magical creature of any form outside of the Universe to be pulling the strings around here. The forces of nature are capable of running things quite nicely. No, this does not prove that all of existance was not started by some god-like creature. I think that at the beginning of time all that existed was a point of pure energy, which I doubt had any consciousness. I guess you could call that "God", but it doesn't really make sense to do so based on the preconceptions people have about that word. But I digress.

See you keep pretending that things are less and less complex, when in fact they are more and more complex. Darwin believed the cell was a simple no big deal organism, no the massively complex structure with millions of bits of data all combining in a symphony of double helixes and DNA strands that results in a self replicating, self healing, and unique building block for life that we still are just coming to grasp the amount of information we do not know. Without complex computers, electron microscopes, and years of schooling, there is little to no chance of even understanding this necessary ingrediant for life. You are making the case that the more we know about it, the less likely it didn't self generate. Okay. this is why I LOL at the last statement too.

You don't mean "aliens"...you mean "sightings of aliens".

I hired a guy that was a true believer...if you guys want to hitch your wagons with them...fine by me.

Wait, do you think it's most likely that we are the only living things in the Universe? Maybe you shouldn't answer that...we've got enought to talk about.

see above

edit: As for the Dawkins thing, I probably won't ever watch the video, so yeah...let's table that one. I tend to think that it was out of context, but I also believe you that it's in there.

We'll wait for the youtube clip to allow for fair representation.

[Balloon guy 158]

if you're interested in what dawkins thinks about the probability of god read the god delusion.all i'm saying is god is a hypothesis, not a starting axiom.

Then can't He be a hypothesis of THE starting axiom?

[Balloon guy 158]

this is your primary misconception, and apparently it's permenantly ingrained since you always just ignore everyone that points it out. natural (intelligence-free) processes don't necessarily imply intrinsic randomness, and non-random processes do not intrinsically imply intelligence. those are both just assumptions your arguments are all based on, and there is no validity to them. it's a proven fact that intelligence-free processes can create complexity and mimic "design", and given enough time there's no reason to think they can't easily create more complexity than the human brain can fathom (without the help of science).

We need a whole thread on this definition, because I contend that you guys change the meaning at a whim whenever it suits the current direction of the argument.Sometimes evolution is the puzzle pieces that prove the absence of Goid, other times it's the natural selection process, and other times it's where we came form.I will start a new thread so don't answer this one.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

So what you are saying is that as we apply our collective effort to understand how things work in the universe function, as we peek into the cell and see the DNA strands with billions? of bits of information, as we get our minds around the immense power held in one atom, all only made possible after we invent a computer to perform millions upon millions of complex mathmatical problems for hours on end, all this points more and more to random chance accident?I think you only get to that conclusion if that is where you were heading before you started.I also think you get to my conclusion much easier if you are heading there before you start.The point of Ben Steins movie is that one side shouldn't be able to shut out the other side's efforts.

I'm saying that as science progresses, it moves back one step the line which describes that which we can't explain. A while ago we didn't know how our bodies worked. They we looked inside and discovered organs and figured what those did. But exactly how they worked was a mystery. God simply made them that way. Then we looked in those and saw cells and figured out what those did. But how cells worked remained a mystery. Maybe god just built them that way. They we looked in that and found DNA and figured out what that did. But how DNA worked remained a mystery, and the gap in our knowledge could have been filled with god. They we looked inside and found molecules and atoms and figured out what those do. But how they work was a mystery. Then we looked inside and found protons and electrons and neutrons and figured what those were and what they did. But why they did what they did remained a mystery. They we looked inside protons and neutrons and found quarks and we figured out what those were and we can understand how they work. But we don't know exactly why they work that way, though we have good ideas.My point is that as science progresses, things become simpler and simpler, not more complicated. The rules of the universe grow less and less as we understand them better. Though the phenomenon that these rules lead to are diverse and complicated, the underlying rules are simple, elegant, and beautiful. I'm saying that at this point, all god can possibly be is a man who owns a chalkboard and some chalk and wrote down some rules one day. Everything else takes care of itself. That's what I mean when I say the role of god becomes more and more limited as we understand the world better.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm saying that as science progresses, it moves back one step the line which describes that which we can't explain. A while ago we didn't know how our bodies worked. They we looked inside and discovered organs and figured what those did. But exactly how they worked was a mystery. God simply made them that way. Then we looked in those and saw cells and figured out what those did. But how cells worked remained a mystery. Maybe god just built them that way. They we looked in that and found DNA and figured out what that did. But how DNA worked remained a mystery, and the gap in our knowledge could have been filled with god. They we looked inside and found molecules and atoms and figured out what those do. But how they work was a mystery. Then we looked inside and found protons and electrons and neutrons and figured what those were and what they did. But why they did what they did remained a mystery. They we looked inside protons and neutrons and found quarks and we figured out what those were and we can understand how they work. But we don't know exactly why they work that way, though we have good ideas.My point is that as science progresses, things become simpler and simpler, not more complicated. The rules of the universe grow less and less as we understand them better. Though the phenomenon that these rules lead to are diverse and complicated, the underlying rules are simple, elegant, and beautiful. I'm saying that at this point, all god can possibly be is a man who owns a chalkboard and some chalk and wrote down some rules one day. Everything else takes care of itself. That's what I mean when I say the role of god becomes more and more limited as we understand the world better.

I guess I am wired different. You're explanation to me makes it seem more likely that there is a designer, but to you it makes it less likely. I have no doubt though that I want to see a Designer. I will leave it to you if you are trying to not see One, or if for you there isn't One there.Would you say though that a person could look at the incredible Quark that runs a proton that makes up an Atom which has the energy of a bomb, that makes up a cell that uses DNA to make a person that can think, love and write music and from all that a person could see a designer? From a more metaphysical perspective?

[bigkg 0]

Interesting read:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr...niverse.physics

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I guess I am wired different. You're explanation to me makes it seem more likely that there is a designer, but to you it makes it less likely. I have no doubt though that I want to see a Designer. I will leave it to you if you are trying to not see One, or if for you there isn't One there.Would you say though that a person could look at the incredible Quark that runs a proton that makes up an Atom which has the energy of a bomb, that makes up a cell that uses DNA to make a person that can think, love and write music and from all that a person could see a designer? From a more metaphysical perspective?

My post had nothing to do with the idea of whether or not there was a designer. I was merely trying to state what his role as a designer would have to be. I can certainly see how one could see a designer in the beauty of the universe. As a scientist, however, I see the argument about whether or not there is a designer as impossible to prove one way or another and therefore moot.

[speedz99 145]

I had a pastor that believed that God made many worlds because the god of the Bible is a creative God.I personally believe the entire universe was made for me. It's a test, I think I'm getting a B-

Hey, I'm a sociopath too! High five!

Agree 100%Mareline Murray OHair debated Walter Martin years ago and Walter Martin used his research staff to get a reasonably accurate number of deaths due directly to wars started by Christianity, the number was over 5 million, in 2,000 years.Communism had 400 million after 50 years.

Are you trying to connect Communism to the lack of a belief in God? I can't see how or why you would make that connection, but I also don't see the point of this post unless that's what you were trying to do.

Me too, I can see how much your side hates that I'm so stupid. It's delicious because I know I'm right and your side's arguments are so amazingly faith based.

Cute.

This has got to stop, it's time once and for all to clarify what evolution is. You guys have been way to quick to change the meaning based on how bad your argument is doing.

No, this is what you don't get. We never change the meaning of the word. You just try to clamp on to what you think the word means, and you're almost never right. Believe me, it's just as frustrating for us to try and explain it to you. The word "evolution" is so hugely encompassing that there are probably dozens of college level courses devoted to it that cover different types of material. Try taking one or two of those classes, then come back to us and tell us that it isn't totally valid.

I don't think that means what you think it means. Your opinion is of equal value as mine, which is 99.999% that there is a personal God. Together we make a whole.

It's not of equal value, per say, but I know what you mean. I think I'm right about my percentage. You think you're right. That's why we're arguing. The only difference is that I see how much we can explain without an intelligent designer so I think that there doesn't have to be one, while you see the things (that become fewer every decade) that we can't explain and assume that they were done by an intelligent designer.And I'm near positive that my guess is much more rational and less based on wishful thinking than yours.

Help I can't hear because of all the baloney I am hearing. Tell you what, until you admit your side is biased when approaching the subject, I will also stop admitting my bias, which in fact does not exist, I am totally 100% taking the facts as presented and concluding easily that you guys are delusional.

Biased about what? I'm really asking. What do you think that science is biased about and tell me why. It certainly can't be the existance of a personal god, because the scientific community (aside from the individual nuts we agreed are in both camps) admits that there's no way right now or in the foreseeable future to disprove His existance with 100% certainty. It can't be the intelligent design vs evolution thing, since the theory of evolution was created with and supported by the scientific method, and if you don't understand why there's no bias involved with that then you just don't understand the whole science thing at all.So...what are scientists biased against when it comes to formulating theories these days? Just give a few examples, and I'll do my best to refute them. Remember, we're not talking about individuals here.

See you keep pretending that things are less and less complex, when in fact they are more and more complex. Darwin believed the cell was a simple no big deal organism, no the massively complex structure with millions of bits of data all combining in a symphony of double helixes and DNA strands that results in a self replicating, self healing, and unique building block for life that we still are just coming to grasp the amount of information we do not know. Without complex computers, electron microscopes, and years of schooling, there is little to no chance of even understanding this necessary ingrediant for life. You are making the case that the more we know about it, the less likely it didn't self generate. Okay. this is why I LOL at the last statement too.

What does the computer thing have to do with anything. We are the ones who created the machines that are necessary for understanding many of these things...so? Does it make the discoveries less valid? I don't see your point here when you keep pointing that out.Yes, the more we know about it, the more we see that the building blocks needed for turning inorganic material into "life" were mostly likely present billions of years ago . Why is that hard for you to believe?

[Loismustdie 0]

I'm saying that as science progresses, it moves back one step the line which describes that which we can't explain. A while ago we didn't know how our bodies worked. They we looked inside and discovered organs and figured what those did. But exactly how they worked was a mystery. God simply made them that way. Then we looked in those and saw cells and figured out what those did. But how cells worked remained a mystery. Maybe god just built them that way. They we looked in that and found DNA and figured out what that did. But how DNA worked remained a mystery, and the gap in our knowledge could have been filled with god. They we looked inside and found molecules and atoms and figured out what those do. But how they work was a mystery. Then we looked inside and found protons and electrons and neutrons and figured what those were and what they did. But why they did what they did remained a mystery. They we looked inside protons and neutrons and found quarks and we figured out what those were and we can understand how they work. But we don't know exactly why they work that way, though we have good ideas.My point is that as science progresses, things become simpler and simpler, not more complicated. The rules of the universe grow less and less as we understand them better. Though the phenomenon that these rules lead to are diverse and complicated, the underlying rules are simple, elegant, and beautiful. I'm saying that at this point, all god can possibly be is a man who owns a chalkboard and some chalk and wrote down some rules one day. Everything else takes care of itself. That's what I mean when I say the role of god becomes more and more limited as we understand the world better.

You just described perception vs. reality. Yes, understanding a process is nice, but to say that understanding begats simplification is in my mind erroneous.

[xfrodobagginsx 0]

Science and the bible:http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

[crowTrobot 2]

science and the bible: