 |
|
|
|
| Any Christians, Regardless Of Denomination, Can Explain Creation To Non-believer, As To Where We All Came From |
| Let face it, Atheists views in Evolution is as viable as saying there's no intelligent design and God. So fellow brothers and sisters of Christs, please explain Creation in Genesis with rational proofs to counter, as in archaeological findings... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course we can. The evidence is right in Genesis. Atheist need to realize that God created
everything and get over it. One would have to be totally stupid to not believe in God and his
creation. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's complicated...but bottom line is, until proven otherwise, it's as good a scientific theory as
any.
Difficult to get past the incredible variety of religious definitions of a creator. "Christians"
have disagreed to the point of killing each other by the thousands simply on the point of what it
takes to be a "Christian". When some non-Christians get irritated about being asked to believe in a
creator on the basis of a Christians loving personal relationship with the creator, it's easy to
understand why.
Anyway, the theory that a perfect (eternal, infinite, nothing before it, nothing after, nothing
other, nothing would exist without it's energy) force is behind the first moment of the universe, is
not out of reason.
The belief that the universe was infinite had a lot to do with where astrophysics is today.
Currently science has a wealth of evidence that the universe is not infinite (doesn't mean that it
isn't - but it sure looks that way).
The ultimate goal would seem to be to find the first "reality". No matter how far science goes, it
wants to know what is behind the last thing it finds. Up to this point, it is simply not out of
reason that the "ultimate" answer would be the ultimate force. Again, something that is "the
answer". Once it is found, the game is over.
It's rumored that Einstein was spurred by the infinite universe and when it began to seem finite
(much due to Einsteins findings), that he "retired" from the pursuit.
It can be argued that a finite universe, even though proven to exist because humans are aware of it,
has very little reason at all. Whether the universe is temporal or infinite has not been proven, but
as far as science goes, humans are extremely temporal. To base reasoning on the reasoning of
temporal humans in a temporal universe, could be about as unreasonable as reason could get.
If eternity exists, whether for the universe or humans, the definitions of eternity blow the
temporal out of reason. The entire universe, at it's largest point, would be the smallest measurable
area possibly measured. It's entire duration would be the shortest amount of time that could
possibly exist.
All the reasoning in the universe would be about the stupidest thing that could possibly occur if it
was all based on the "reasonable" universe.
So, it is not unreasonable to believe that eternity created the universe. Up to now, it is
definitely a possibility. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Not another one...and of course i disagree |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You can explain anything to anyone. Whether or not they believe what you’re saying is a whole
other story. I’m not an atheist, but I’d love to see these rational proofs and archaeological
findings you claim assist Genesis in its story of creation, because frankly, I haven't ever found
any. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If you spoke to a primitive society, let's say some obscure Native American tribe, they may have a
creation story going something like: One day the Great Thunderbird layed an egg and when it hatched
the world was born. And we'd say where is this Thunderbird, how is it possible everything came from
an egg, and where's your proof? And they'd say it's written in the ancient cave so it must be true,
and only those believing in the truth of the ancient cave will be lifted by the Thunderbird to
eternal peace. And we'd say, sorry, but that's pretty crazy.
Creationism: The exact same thing, just a different parable. Originally created for a much more
primitive culture to have a basic explanation of their own existence. But still people take it as a
literal story and go on naively insisting it's true and the world only has existed for a few
thousand years.
NONSENSE. We find bones and fossils and ruins of civilizations going back much further than the
story of creation. What?, did God waste energy creating withered ruins and remains for us to find? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cretinists have no arguments, they avoid arguments instead. All rational arguments are predicated
on "false until proven true": That is, all claims used in the argument must be supported by facts.
The religious, however, don't have the honesty to prove their "god" exists before making statements
based upon their unproven (i.e. False) premise.
Any mythical "god" needs to be proven to exist before claiming it does. To any godbot, I issue this
chance to prove it: Come to where I live, follow me to a hospital, and you raise a dead body back to
life. If you can't do it, get your "god" to do it. If your "god" can't do it, it doesn't exist.
If you won't do it, it means you know your "god" doesn't exist and you are a liar. Put up or shut
up.
Without any provable "god", all religious arguments about the Earth's origins are false from the
outset. They must prove one exists before any of their claims can be considered. |
| |
 K9  25 Jul 2008 20:01
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
"Difficult to get past the incredible variety of religious definitions of a creator. "Christians"
have disagreed to the point of killing each other by the thousands simply on the point of what it
takes to be a "Christian". When some non-Christians get irritated about being asked to believe in a
creator on the basis of a Christians loving personal relationship with the creator, it's easy to
understand why.
"
Really and what proof to you have that this creator loves you? You may love him but you cant prove
he loves you and if he does then why does disease, pain, and hatred exist?
"Anyway, the theory that a perfect (eternal, infinite, nothing before it, nothing after, nothing
other, nothing would exist without it's energy) force is behind the first moment of the universe, is
not out of reason."
perfect- no there's no evidence that anything can be "perfect" its purely a opinion.
"eternal, infinite, nothing before it, nothing after, nothing other, nothing would exist without
it's energy"- This is basically the hardest point to prove or disprove at your current time. How can
the universe exist if something didn't create it? What created the creator? What if the universe
was always there? This problem with this though is that if the universe is "infinite" that means
that matter might be infinite also and if matter is infinite then energy is infinite to, since
matter in some theories is condensed energy. How can energy exist in the first place? Lets assume
for a moment that the universe always existed. Where did the energy and matter come from? If i have
a ball in a area with no energy, absolute zero, How did energy get to that area? These are all
questions that are neither probable or unprovable at the moment.
"The ultimate goal would seem to be to find the first "reality". No matter how far science goes, it
wants to know what is behind the last thing it finds. Up to this point, it is simply not out of
reason that the "ultimate" answer would be the ultimate force. Again, something that is "the
answer". Once it is found, the game is over."
Your manipulating words here. We don't know if a answer exists and whats this ultimate your throwing
around mean? Maybe the ultimate answer is that god does exist? Well that answer opens up trillions
of more questions which open more questions. We may never have a final answer. Some questions could
be: Where did god come from? Where does god live? Why did god create humans? And many others.
"It's rumored that Einstein was spurred by the infinite universe and when it began to seem finite
(much due to Einsteins findings), that he "retired" from the pursuit."
Rumors are like theories and faith. Don't take any of them indefinitely without evidence. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign In
