*Warning: May contain nuts, Christians and/or both

[Learner]

: Who's going to easily believe the story thats in place now? (.

Well, you, apparently. For one.

Not so easily, I joined this forum before I was a born-again for about 3 years now.

 

[bilby]

Here's a thought. For the atheists. If not God, then what?

OK, this question comes up a LOT, so I am going to try to answer it. But the answer is a great deal more complicated (and paradoxically, a good deal simpler) than you appear to expect. Reality isn't as simple as you seem to want it to be, and secular explanations and descriptions of reality do not start from the expectation that every question has the same ultimate answer.

Do you guys all believe that there was just this big explosion, rocks and random stuff went flying out, and then, given a billion years, everything just fell into place, by accident.

No. I can assure you that nobody believes that.

I think not. After a billion years, a rock is still a rock.

That's only true if you have a VERY simplistic idea of what a 'rock' is. And even than, it's wrong for those rocks that encountered other objects during that time.

You are not explaining the part about the spark of life. Where did that originate?

This is a question that is a long distance removed in both time and understanding from the question of why there is anything at all. 'The universe' and 'life' may have a single explanation in your belief system; But that's not a constraint that applies to anyone who doesn't subscribe to your beliefs.

You are not explaining the part about the code (ie. DNA; laws of mathmatics and physics) that was obviously planted into everything to make it work. Where did that code come from? I say God.

And again, you are talking about two further things that are not closely associated with each other, or with the other two things you are already asking about.

So there are actually four questions here:

1) Why is there something, rather than nothing?

2) How did life come to exist?

3) How did physical laws and mathematics come to exist?
and
4) How did the DNA code come to exist?

These four questions are only distantly related to one another. But in each case, there are two possible approaches - you can take a complex system, and try to understand it as the assembly of less complex building blocks, until you find a building block so simple that you can imagine it existing spontaneously; Or you can declare that complex systems can only be the result of an even more complex 'designer'. The latter approach has a major problem - if complex entities require an (at least equally complex) designer, you are going backwards. If humans are too complex to exist spontaneously, then gods must also require an even more complex creator, which must also require an even more complex creator... Your only way off that runaway train is to cheat, and declare a finish to the sequence by arbitrary fiat "God is eternal". But then, why not declare humans to be eternal? Or just the universe?

The answer to question 1, 'Why is there something rather than nothing', is unknown - but we do know enough to rule out a LOT of hypotheses. We don't know whether time has a beginning, or whether the past is eternal; But we do know that about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was so small, and so dense, that it contained no matter of any kind - it was just a LOT of energy in a very small universe. Not a small space within a big universe; but a very small universe with nothing but energy in it. We don't know where this came from, or even whether it makes sense to talk about it 'coming from' somewhere. But it's a very simple starting point - lots of energy, not much space, nothing else. One idea is that 'nothing' isn't a stable state - if you have nothing, it tends to collapse into something and minus something. This may seem weird, but we can actually observe it happening today - 'empty' space consists of all kinds of stuff popping into existence, and then (usually) destroying itself fairly quickly.

The universe then expanded. Possibly very rapidly indeed. And as it expanded, the energy in it remained constant. So it became less energy dense - it's temperature dropped - until it was cool enough for some of the energy to congeal as matter, and not immediately return to being energy.

Matter is also very simple indeed. It's made up of a very small number of fundamental 'particles'; Some people think that these will themselves turn out to all be made of a single kind of object, but we are not sure about that yet.

What we are sure about is that everything in our daily lives is made from four 'fermions', and that the interactions between these four 'fermions' are mediated by five (perhaps six) 'bosons'. There are two (perhaps more) other 'families' of fermons, but these only exist in the middle of stars, or in high energy particle accelerators, and are essentially the basic four but with more energy.

From these simple building blocks, you can make everything in the universe.

View attachment 21744

To understand the planet Earth, and all of the things on it, including life and humanity, you can start from just these few things. There's nothing complicated about them; They are a handful of tiny particles that are so simple it's not much of a stretch to imagine that they exist spontaneously. Down and Up quarks stick together in threes to make protons (two up and one down); or neutrons (two down and one up). An exchange of Gluons sticks these together.

Protons carry a positive electrical charge, so clumps of Protons and Neutrons tend to attract negatively charged Electrons, by exchange of Photons. The W and Z Bosons allow Down and Up quarks to change from one to another, with the Neutrino 'balancing the books' so that a property called 'spin' is conserved.

This brings us to question 3 - where do physical laws come from? Well, we simply don't know. Physical laws just are. But again, they are not complicated. It may be that it's impossible for physical laws to be any different from what they are - mass-energy, charge, and spin are 'conserved' - the total amount of any of these in the universe never changes. And there is a body of opinion that the sum total amount of these in the universe is zero - that is, for every negative charge, there's a positive charge, etc. If so, it would be odd if these conservation laws were able to be anything other than what we observe them to be.

So that's the start of the universe dealt with, as briefly as possible. There's a LOT more detail out there if you are interested; Obviously this brief post has to include a lot of broad strokes, and is a bare bones summary of how it all fits together.

So we have a universe containing Protons, Neutrons and Electrons, held together (and/or pushed apart) by Photons. The other stuff isn't particularly important to the story of life - the W and X Bosons and Gluons are responsible for radioactivity, which is a sidetrack; The Higgs Boson gives everything else its mass, which is another sidetrack; and the Graviton (which has not yet been observed) causes gravity, which is a very complex and largely unimportant sidetrack, if we want to discuss life; But which does play an important role in the very first bit.

Protons and Neutrons clump together in 'atomic nucleii', which we usually classify by their number of Protons (which is effectively the same thing as their electrical charge). A set of nucleii with a common number of Protons is called an Element; The number of neutrons varies, and an Element can be categorized into Isotopes, each with a different number of Neutrons. There are 90 elements which have at least one stable isotope (and some have many more). As the positive charge of these nucleii attract Electrons (via photon exchange), they build up 'shells' of electrons around themselves, and the interactions between these shells we call Chemistry.

In the early universe, the only elements were Hydrogen, with one proton; And Helium, with two protons. As Helium is a Noble gas, and Hydrogen can only form a single bond with other Hydrogen, this made for a pretty boring universe, chemically speaking. But fortunately, gravity pulls stuff together, and if you pile up enough Hydrogen in one spot, the sheer weight of it all forces the atoms so close together than their nucleii 'fuse' - making a bigger atom out of two smaller ones. This process, 'nuclear fusion', generates a LOT of excess energy, because the bigger atoms have slightly less mass than the smaller ones that went into making them; When a lot of Hydrogen is piled up in one place so that the atoms fuse together in the middle of the pile, we call it a Star. This process of 'fusion' carries on making heavier and heavier elements, and releasing more and more energy; Then after a few billion years, the energy being released slows down, as there are not enough light elements left to fuse together. Gravity has been trying to make the star collapse, but has been held back by the energy being produced by fusion - but now it wins the billions of year long tug-o-war, and the star collapses so fast that it triggers a massive explosion of fusion reactions, blowing the star apart, and spreading heavy elements through the universe.

These then start to fall back together under gravity, and form new stars - but this time, with enough heavy elements that they can fall together to form rocks, some of which congregate until they are planets.

Chemistry causes some elements to bond loosely with others, to form Compounds. A Compound is just a bunch of atoms stuck together by their electron shells. Rocks are mostly Silicon and Oxygen. Ice is Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Each pair of elements has different ways to form compounds. Some won't form compounds at all (we call these 'Noble Gases'); others can form bonds with one, two, three, or even four other atoms.

One Element that is particularly good at forming lots of bonds is Carbon. Carbon has six Protons (and usually six neutrons), and it can form four bonds with other atoms, including other Carbon atoms.

This allows Carbon to make long chains, sometimes with side branches; It can also form loops or rings of five or six atoms, and these can also join together. If lots of Carbon joins together in a three dimensional lattice, we call it diamond, and it is one of the toughest materials there is, due to all those bonds between atoms.

Carbon can easily form very large molecules, and when these also include Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and other elements, these molecules can have a bewildering array of properties. Some are 'self catalysts' - their shape means that when they form from smaller components, they tend to speed up the rate at which those components form into more of that new molecule.

Some are able to catalyse other reactions too - they can help to 'build' other molecules, or to break them apart. This isn't a conscious process; It's just an inevitable result of the shapes formed when these atoms bond with each other in different ways.

In the presence of liquid water, lots of interesting reactions occur, and on the early Earth, huge numbers of compounds formed wherever there was water and traces of carbon and nitrogen - which was everywhere, as the Earth is mostly covered in water, and is surrounded by an atmosphere of Nitrogen molecules, and (to begin with) compounds such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane, which contain Carbon; And Ammonia, which contains Nitrogen in a more reactive form.

Some of these molecules catalysed the formation of other molecules, and some of those molecules stuck together, or joined up in long chains. Other molecules broke up those chains, or broke down other molecules into there component parts - and sunlight, lightning, and other energy sources also broke up and re-built this huge variety of molecules. There is lots of very complicated chemistry that can occur when you have plenty of water, and traces of Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Sulfur, and other elements, all exposed to various energy sources.

Sooner or later, it's inevitable that a molecule will form that tends to make copies of itself. The simplest way this happens is called 'crystallization', which is the self assembly of a structure from simple compounds (or even a single element). Crystals tend to grow in suitable conditions until they run out of materials to add to themselves. Many rocks on Earth are 'self organized' crystals of this kind; The most common rocks are those that can crystallize under a wide range of conditions, while those that need water or other less common conditions are rarer.

Carbon doesn't tend to crystallize on its own, except under extreme heat and pressure, which is why diamonds are rare. But when mixed with other elements, it can form various common compounds - such as simple sugars (carbon rings, with some oxygen and hydrogen stick to them); And more complex compounds made from sticking these rings together. It turns out that if you take one of these simple sugars, and stick a phosphate group to it (a seven atom group made from phosphorous, oxygen and hydrogen), the resulting molecule will link up with others just like it to form a long chain, which can have a wide range of different molecules attached to each 'link' in the chain.

A long chain, with a range of possible 'bases' stuck to each link, can fold up on itself to form all kinds of shapes, and some off those shapes catalyse the making of more molecules that have the same properties. Rather than building a crystal, they form 'replicators', which make more and more of themselves, but don't stick to each other. And because these chains can be very long, different parts of the chain can catalyse different reactions.

Now, if a replicator crops up that has a portion of it's length that catalyses the breakdown of other replicators into the components it can then use to make more copies of itself, then that particular replicator will become far more common than any other, in fairly short order. This is a simple consequence of how chemistry works - it requires no intelligence or 'design'. But it is certainly 'life' by at least some definitions of the word. And it's not difficult to see how this kind of replicator could add more links, with more ways of assembling and disassembling chemicals in its environment, that each give it a greater or lesser chance to dominate in the environment.

So now we have stuff that a) Makes copies of itself; b) can sometimes make those copies a bit different and c) can influence the environment it is in by using other stuff for materials, or by being broken up by other stuff. When you have a parent that produces similar (but not identical) offspring, and when the different offspring have different chances of becoming parents themselves, you have all the ingredients necessary for natural selection. And natural selection makes very complex things indeed, very quickly. That's life - and that's the answer to 'How did life come to exist?'.

The final question is about the DNA code. The DNA code is essentially a long chain molecule; In this case, the sugar is a molecule we call 'deoxyribose'. Stacks of those, each held to the next by phosphate, and each with a different 'base' attached to it, can reproduce copies of themselves, because the particular bases they involve are able to interact only in very specific and limited ways. Better still, groups of DNA bases can interact with similar groups of bases on similar chains (called RNA, because their ribose isn't the de-oxy kind), to catalyse the sequential addition of Amino Acids into chains of their own - and chains of Amino Acids (also called 'proteins') can catalyse a vast range of different chemical reactions.

Which sequences of bases DNA contains is not determined by some 'designer'; It's simply the end result of lots and lots of long chain molecules obeying the laws of chemistry, in an environment where those that survive most effectively are used as the templates for the next generation. Those that don't survive, don't become the templates for the next generation.

The reason for the DNA code we see underlying life on Earth is that it was the one that survived and beat all the others. We cannot know whether another, different, code might have been possible - only that this is the one that survived here.

Life is complicated Chemistry. Chemistry is complicated Physics. Physics is the complicated result of lots and lots of very simple components acting on each other.

There's no 'spark of life'; Life is just a word we use that means "This is too complicated for chemistry, so we will talk about it at the next highest abstraction level, and call it 'Biology'".

You can describe everything in terms of Physics. But you don't need to get bogged down worrying about all those subatomic particles if you only care about the way atoms interact with one another. You can ignore the physics, and talk chemistry instead. And if you only care about the way long chains of atoms interact, you can talk biochemistry. And if you only care about the way whole groups of biochemicals interact, you can talk cell biology. And if you only care about how whole groups of cells work together, you can talk biology. If they are human cells, human biology or medicine. If you care about how humans interact, then it's sociology, or politics. Each layer just assumes that the layer below all just works. And we know it does, because it's been demonstrated by the experts at that lower level.

Each level gets more complex, and less definitive. Ignoring the fine detail is OK, but it means abandoning perfection. And the whole edifice rests on a foundation of 'we don't know yet, but we are certain that it's even less complex'.

Life, the universe, and everything comes from simplicity. It couldn't be otherwise - because if it came from complexity (aka 'Gods'), it couldn't possibly make sense. If a God creates a universe, then you didn't solve the problem of 'Why is there something, rather than nothing?'; You just doubled it to read 'Why is there something PLUS a God, rather than nothing?'.

Complexity - including life itself - can easily be explained as the interaction of huge numbers of very simple components, conforming to very simple rules. Those components and rules are so simple, that it's quite possible that they couldn't NOT exist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A lot of text just to say ‘I believe because I want to.’

Unfortunately I was giving up all the enjoyable things and habits, which I didn't want to, quite hard indeed. I have become boring. What a life eh?

Enough of me whats on for discussion?

Goalpost shifting I believe.

 

[Learner]

Its up to you, if you think "me" is worth the topic of discussion

 

[bigfield]

What kind of explanation did it take to convince you that the flood story is true?

I like to think that you would have the same sort of questions we have. The story is so full of plot holes that it's more holes than plot.

I was convinced by other parts of the bible,first, the flood automatically follows so to speak - no believing in one part and not the other. I used to think that the NT was totally different and at odds/ disconnected with the OT, with the violence and so on . This was of course before being a born-again. It all came down to Jesus in my case, i.e. validating the OT.

I don't know what some would call it, the holy spirit sent out into believers thing but I have a somewhat better / hightened sense to the scriptures than I've ever had previously, not saying more than anyone or am I claiming to be anything more than that,to which I think is normal for a lot of bellievers but it makes a lot of sense to me IOWs. I have experienced personal things, noticable after a while, certainly not worth the mention in discussions let alone to debate with. I am convinced.

You've got the Holy Spirit in me, which gives you the insight to understand how the Bible is true, but you can't explain it to other people.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You've got the Holy Spirit in me, which gives you the insight to understand how the Bible is true, but you can't explain it to other people.

And ideally, the Holy Spirit would give holy discernment to everyone, including translators, so how are there any possible translation errors?

During the US Civil War, there were people on both sides who read the Bible and determined that they were doing God's work by ending slavery AND by preserving slavery. If the Sacred Spook works to ensure Christain understanding of the Holy Book, how could there be such a blatant discrepancy in Christain interpretations?

 

[Learner]

You've got the Holy Spirit in me, which gives you the insight to understand how the Bible is true, but you can't explain it to other people.

Well thats the theology when one accepts Jesus etc.. I never heard voices or anything. I have become a lot wiser, is the best and main explanation. Wise lets say; to atheistic biblical explanations, perhaps thats the pupose. I am already convinced and don't really need to discover more to get verification, but thanks to people like you (anyone in general) it causes me to study a little further on the particulars you (plural) bring up that I believe can be challenged. Maybe not always, and Christianity's credibility doesn't rest on me.

 

[Learner]

You've got the Holy Spirit in me, which gives you the insight to understand how the Bible is true, but you can't explain it to other people.

And ideally, the Holy Spirit would give holy discernment to everyone, including translators, so how are there any possible translation errors?

During the US Civil War, there were people on both sides who read the Bible and determined that they were doing God's work by ending slavery AND by preserving slavery. If the Sacred Spook works to ensure Christain understanding of the Holy Book, how could there be such a blatant discrepancy in Christain interpretations?

The above post I include here. Interpretation as opposed to the athiests explanation, is what I think its about, Say like: What is your (anyone) definition of unicorn that may or may not have existed? Often used a lot by atheists to erroneously give the false image and flawed impression in an argument.

 

[bigfield]

You've got the Holy Spirit in me, which gives you the insight to understand how the Bible is true, but you can't explain it to other people.

Well I thats the theology when one accepts Jesus etc.. I never heard voices or anything. I have become a lot wiser, is the best and main explanation. Wise lets say; to atheistic biblical explanations, perhaps thats the pupose. I am already convinced and don't really need to discover more to get verification, but thanks to people like you (anyone in general) it causes me to study a little further on the particulars you (plural) bring up that I believe can be challenged.

You say you're wiser, but then you tell us that you believe the Bible uncritically, which doesn't strike me as a wise thing to do.

What special insight have you gained that reveals the flood story to be something more substantial than a folk tale?

 

[Learner]

You say you're wiser, but then you tell us that you believe the Bible uncritically, which doesn't strike me as a wise thing to do.

What special insight have you gained that reveals the flood story to be something more substantial than a folk tale?

I didn't need to study thoroughly the flood in particular to believe because there are tons of varied events.Simply: If I believe one section then I should believe in all of them. You'd accuse me of not being consistent. Its still an ongoing process, I believe archeology and bio-chemistry (mostly) will potentialy get there before the physicists, bringing us closer to some conclusion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You say you're wiser, but then you tell us that you believe the Bible uncritically, which doesn't strike me as a wise thing to do.

What special insight have you gained that reveals the flood story to be something more substantial than a folk tale?

I didn't need to study thoroughly the flood in particular to believe because there are tons of varied events.Simply: If I believe one section then I should believe in all of them. You'd accuse me of not being consistent. Its still an ongoing process, I believe archeology and bio-chemistry (mostly) will potentialy get there before the physicists, bringing us closer to some conclusion.

Science doesn't support my position, but I'm sure it will one day, therefore God exists.

The Narrative of the Flood is in the Jewish scriptures. Oddly enough, most Jewish people don't believe it is a historical event. Yet, they still manage to keep the faith.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You've got the Holy Spirit in me, which gives you the insight to understand how the Bible is true, but you can't explain it to other people.

And ideally, the Holy Spirit would give holy discernment to everyone, including translators, so how are there any possible translation errors?

During the US Civil War, there were people on both sides who read the Bible and determined that they were doing God's work by ending slavery AND by preserving slavery. If the Sacred Spook works to ensure Christain understanding of the Holy Book, how could there be such a blatant discrepancy in Christain interpretations?

The above post I include here. Interpretation as opposed to the athiests explanation, is what I think its about, Say like: What is your (anyone) definition of unicorn that may or may not have existed? Often used a lot by atheists to erroneously give the false image and flawed impression in an argument.

But I am not asking you to compare your holy-spook-enhanced interpretation to a secular one.
Two people who believe in their hearts that they are Christains, open their hearts to the same divine being, read the same divinely inspired book, and come up with opposite meanings. How is that possible if the holy spirit helps you (or any Christain) read the book for God's intended meaning?

 

[bigfield]

You say you're wiser, but then you tell us that you believe the Bible uncritically, which doesn't strike me as a wise thing to do.

What special insight have you gained that reveals the flood story to be something more substantial than a folk tale?

I didn't need to study thoroughly the flood in particular to believe because there are tons of varied events.Simply: If I believe one section then I should believe in all of them.

No, that's poor reasoning. The Bible is a compilation of writings from various sources, so even if you trust one source it doesn't mean you should automatically trust the rest.

Its still an ongoing process, I believe archeology and bio-chemistry (mostly) will potentialy get there before the physicists, bringing us closer to some conclusion.

You're right. Bio-chemistry has already discovered that the flood story is false. We know that humans were never reduced to a single family, because geneticists can show that the human species has never had less than a few thousand people.

And if we look at other parts of Genesis then we find that science has already demonstrated pretty soundly that Genesis is wrong in many ways.

How do you deal with the fact that science disagrees with the Bible?

 

[skepticalbip]

You say you're wiser, but then you tell us that you believe the Bible uncritically, which doesn't strike me as a wise thing to do.

What special insight have you gained that reveals the flood story to be something more substantial than a folk tale?

I didn't need to study thoroughly the flood in particular to believe because there are tons of varied events.Simply: If I believe one section then I should believe in all of them. You'd accuse me of not being consistent. Its still an ongoing process, I believe archeology and bio-chemistry (mostly) will potentialy get there before the physicists, bringing us closer to some conclusion.

That is silly reasoning. The "Iliad" has some sections that describe real events as does "Gone With the Wind". Do you really believe that since there is some truth in these books then everything in them is truth?

 

[bilby]

1+1=2
2+2=4
4+4=53
8+8=16

I believe that, as most of the above is true, it must therefore all be true. I am not quite certain exactly how four plus four can equal fifty three; But I know that some of what is written above is true, so I am going to be wise, and believe that it all must be, even though right now I cannot see exactly why.

 

[southernhybrid]

What kind of explanation did it take to convince you that the flood story is true?

I like to think that you would have the same sort of questions we have. The story is so full of plot holes that it's more holes than plot.

I was convinced by other parts of the bible,first, the flood automatically follows so to speak - no believing in one part and not the other. I used to think that the NT was totally different and at odds/ disconnected with the OT, with the violence and so on . This was of course before being a born-again. It all came down to Jesus in my case, i.e. validating the OT.

I don't know what some would call it, the holy spirit sent out into believers thing but I have a somewhat better / hightened sense to the scriptures than I've ever had previously, not saying more than anyone or am I claiming to be anything more than that,to which I think is normal for a lot of bellievers but it makes a lot of sense to me IOWs. I have experienced personal things, noticable after a while, certainly not worth the mention in discussions let alone to debate with. I am convinced.

Well, that damn holy spirit failed me. I was a "born again" Christian from the ages of 5 until the age of 18. I was the youngest person ever Baptized by dunking in my church's history. I had to convince the pastor that I was serious about my beliefs, and at the time I was, but I was only 7 or 8 years old. You can't blame a child for believing the things she is told by her parents and other adults. I used to witness to my little friends in elementary school, while they tried to convince me that Catholicism had all the answers.

In all those years, the holy spirit never even visited me. And, by the time I attended a very conservative Christian college, just down the road from Salem, Ma., where fundamentalist Christians burned witches back in the day, the things I had been taught all seemed insane. That's right. It took being around born againers 24/7 for a couple of months that helped me see the light. It was a tremendous relief once I realized that the horrible Bible god was just a myth.

It took me ten more years of careful thought, prayer, and study to become a full blown atheist. I thought at first that perhaps I had just been taught the wrong religion, but eventually I realized they were all myths. I've never felt as much inner peace as I have since being able to rid my brain of those horrible, childhood beliefs. After more than forty years, I'm still a better, happier person without religion.

I'm sorry Learner, but this thing that you call the holy spirit is just your imagination. If the HS was real, it would have spoken to me, because nobody wanted to know the truth more than I did. You think the holy spirit is talking to you, when in fact, it's just your own voice convincing you that impossible, irrational things are real. That's because it's what you want to believe. For some odd reason, you feel better or more comfortable believing these things. If you must believe, I hope these beliefs have made you a better, more charitable person because at least something positive has come from your conversion.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Here's a thought. For the atheists. If not God, then what? Do you guys all believe that there was just this big explosion, rocks and random stuff went flying out, and then, given a billion years, everything just fell into place, by accident. I think not. After a billion years, a rock is still a rock. You are not explaining the part about the spark of life. Where did that originate? You are not explaining the part about the code (ie. DNA; laws of mathmatics and physics) that was obviously planted into everything to make it work. Where did that code come from? I say God.

Actually, the scientific answer to your question is both much simpler, and much more complicated. The difference is, it's all out there for you to learn on your own. I would recommend you at least make an attempt to do so before saying such stupid and blatantly, ignorantly, incorrect stuff as the tripe above.

 

[atrib]

Learner,

I'm just curious about something... Has it occurred to you once or twice that the flood is a strange story that stretches the bounds of believability? Do you feel skeptical about it sometimes, before reminding yourself it's in the bible and therefore must be true?

Yes quite a few times before, just as few other things in the bible. If there are any doubts it would be more to do with me, understanding correctly certain passages and contexts, I have to look for those from others who have better explanations, who in turn learn from others vice-vera. The net is a blessing

It is good to have doubts, because doubts drive us to do research and learn how reality works. I suggest that in addition to scripture you also look to science for explanations, and try to match up the stories of the Bible with what we actually know about reality.

For example, a little bit of research would reveal to you that the account of the Biblical flood could not possibly be true. We know that Earth was struck by a moderately sized meteor (less than 5 miles wide) about 65 MYA which caused worldwide extinction of many large animals, and the evidence for this event can be found all over the globe. In stark contrast, the global flood described in the Bible, which allegedly happened just a few thousand years ago, and was many orders of magnitude more energetic than the meteor impact, left no evidence in the geologic column. None at all! In addition, the genomes of living things today exhibit no signs of experiencing the kind of severe bottle-necking that one would expect if all species had been whittled down to a single mating pair a few thousand years. There are many other reasons why the Biblical flood story should be considered wildly implausible, but I won't get into them now. There is no way to explain away the discrepancies that we observe, and the only reasonable conclusion we can arrive at is that the story is not true.

 

[atrib]

Here's a thought. For the atheists. If not God, then what?

Your question presupposes that god claims are deserving of merit. They are not. They are stories that people made up.

Believing in a falsehood, no matter how much comfort you get out of it is, is wrong. I don't want to live a lie. I would rather know the truth, as difficult as it may be sometimes, and live my life to the best of my ability. I get comfort from the people I love and care for, and who love me and care for me in return. I have plenty of love in my life and I don't need an imaginary friend to fill that hole.

Believing in the Christian god is to subjugate yourself to a life of mental slavery, and I choose to live my life as a free man. I can't imagine spending my life bowing before an imaginary god that also happens to be a vicious, homicidal tyrant. No thank you.

That's what you get when you get off your knees and learn to look at the world as a free person.

Do you guys all believe that there was just this big explosion, rocks and random stuff went flying out, and then, given a billion years, everything just fell into place, by accident.

There was no explosion, but there was a rapid initial expansion of spacetime. The universe is still expanding, and we know that because we have looked.

Life on Earth exists because conditions on Earth allow life to exist. Those conditions will change and our planet will become a piece of charred space debry when our Sun transitions from a main sequence star into a read giant. Most of the universe is inhospitable to life. And from what we know today, once the Stelliferous Era ends and the stars die out, life will not be possible any more. That is, the universe will not have the ability to support life for a VAST majority of its existence. Does that sound like the universe was designed?

I think not.

And you are wrong.

After a billion years, a rock is still a rock. You are not explaining the part about the spark of life. Where did that originate? You are not explaining the part about the code (ie. DNA; laws of mathmatics and physics) that was obviously planted into everything to make it work. Where did that code come from? I say God.

And you would be wrong again. The universe allows life to exist, and as long as energy gradients exist, life is a possibility. You would know all this if you took some time to educate yourself, but I guess the scriptures take up all your time. What a waste of a good brain.

 

[1ICrying]

(Earth goes around the sun each day? Really? Duuuude.)

Rhea, whether the earth goes around the sun or dips behind the moon, that was not the point. The point is that I successfully proved my point that the six days of creation story is symbolic - you cannot have 'days' (of the 24 hour variety) without planets and stars.

That's all I got for now. Thank you all who are contributing to this lovely thread. I wish that I had the time to correct you all : ) but I just don't have the time.

But I'll be back.

1i