Does God exist?

[Jaded]

I don't know where you are getting these ideas from. The evidence for The Bible's historical accuracy is in fact very, very strong. Pretty rock solid to be honest.

I agree that many religions or cults are fantasised.

QED

 

[Noodley]

blah, blah, blah.....etc

Hey Mr Pig. D'ya have red white and blue kerbs in yer town?

 

[mickle]

oh and i don't buy this practice of putting "Him" with a capital "H" either.
Who does god think he is, that he needs a capital letter when using the objective pronoun for god's sake? Is he going to get pissed off just 'cos you don't give him one?

You are going straight to HELL.
Or purgatory. Or Limbo. Or the place where babies go who've died before being baptised but don't qualify for heaven due to 'original sin', or did that get abolished?

 

[Jaded]

And You are going straight to HULL.

 

[mickle]

And You are going straight to HULL.

Please god no! I repent!


Well maybe for the day, the sea life centre is said to be very good.

 

[Noodley]

And You are going straight to MULL.

Oh well...

 

[Dayvo]

Whatever!
It's all a load of BULL

 

[Flying_Monkey]

there has been little real substance to the arguments against some of the simple points I've made.

You have had plenty of substance from me, but you have ignored every single answer. In contrast you have not posted a single substantial argument, simply assertions which have no basis in any accepted research in the areas concerned. Why then do you expect a substantial response?

I will however deal with these briefly:

How do you explain the fact that the concept of macro-evolution breaks two fundamental laws of science?

It doesn't. That's simply your misunderstanding.

Why is it considered science when it cannot be observed, tested or replicated?

It can be observed and is all the time - especially in life forms with much faster cycles of evolution, notably bacteria and viruses. I already told you this. (And replication is only a condition for experiments, not for 'science' more generally).

Why is it considered reasonable to conclude that the most complex designs known to man, life forms, came about by chance when we would not accept this as the explanation for any other object that exhibited lesser features of design?

That's just rhetoric. It's not about what is 'reasonable' to your subjective judgement, it is about what we (collectively) know from research to be the case, and what still remains to be uncovered. The whole history of the universe is about increasing complexity at different scales - human beings are far more complex than stars, for example. Complexity emerges from things that are much simpler. Lines of evolution appear and die out. We happen to exist at this point in time; other beings very similar to us have existed and now do not. Life as we see it now is simply the result of billions of years of quantum, atomic, molecular, organismic, ecological and social interactions. You cannot conclude anything about how special we are or the life that we see now is.

You start from your beliefs and try to fit the universe into them - however obviously ridiculous that biblical literality is - whatever is discovered or known, you are still always certain and always 'right'. Rationality starts from no such preconceptions. It accepts the limits of human knowledge and the contingency of conclusions. I am as 'right' and as 'certain' the evidence allows me to be and no more.

 

[jonesy]

... Why is it considered reasonable to conclude that the most complex designs known to man, life forms, came about by chance when we would not accept this as the explanation for any other object that exhibited lesser features of design?
...

Oh dear, the old 'a watch implies a watchmaker fallacy'. Unlike artifacts, which by definition can only be designed, life-forms reproduce themselves. The mechanism by which they come into existence are fundamental different so it is silly to try to draw similar conclusions about their origins. It is only because they reproduce, and can pass on inherited characteristics, that lifeforms can evolve.

 

[Maz]

Did anyone watch Switzerland v Turkey last night? Exciting game...

 

[andyoxon]

Dear Mr. Pig... Is there a book with evidence for a real Jesus?

The only book of antiquity, external of apologists, that mention the words Jesus Christ is Antiquities of the Jews, and the passages are considered to be interpolated, reworked or forged.

Jim, it should be - Jesus The Christ, i.e. Christ is not akin to a surname, but from the Greek for 'anointed one', as in the Hebrew word - Messiah. In the Gospels, biblical manuscripts, Jesus indicates that he is The Christ / Messiah.

 

[Fnaar]

He's not the Messiah... he's a very naughty boy!

 

[Maz]

I was cutting my toenails so I missed it.

You missed a good game, man. Much more exciting than cutting toenails.

 

[Jaded]

It was a bit wet there.

I don't think god likes football being played in Austria/Switzerland.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Jim, it should be - Jesus The Christ, i.e. Christ is not akin to a surname, but from the Greek for 'anointed one', as in the Hebrew word - Messiah. In the Gospels, biblical manuscripts, Jesus indicates that he is The Christ / Messiah.

If you want to knitpick, it shouldn't be 'Jesus' either but 'Jeshua' (Joshua). And even in the four mainstream gospel stories, it is not all that certain that he does claim this status, or indeed whether the Greek term for the annointed one indicates the same thing as either the Jewish idea of the messiah or what Christians mean by that word.