How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

C'mon, a hen can lay an egg, but that would be all she could do until she died and now you have no more eggs.

...and? Make your point.

 

[james bond]

I don't understand how a person can claim to "know", one way or the other.

There can be no 100%. No God believer will be truthful if they say they never have questioned. But many athiests will tell they know they are 100% certain.

I used to, often. Now I have zero doubt. Nary an oz.....

Science doesn't work that way using 100% certainty. That's mathematics. Science is best theory. Evolution is best theory. The way to destroy evolution is for people to not believe in it anymore. People believe in natural selection or speciation, but the difference between creation's vs evo's version is one is rapid while the other is slow. Rapid will win out because we see those changes in months instead of years.

Public’s Views on Human Evolution

The best argument for creation is the Bible. It is God's Word and it is indestructible, so it is favored to win out over evolution.

 

[Mac1958]

The best argument for creation is the Bible. It is God's Word and it is indestructible, so it is favored to win out over evolution.

That's a total "the chicken or the egg" viewpoint. Your assumption is that the God you believe in exists to create us in the first place.

Faith is fine, but it's not fact. It's not indestructible. If the God you believe in doesn't exist, then the Bible is nothing more than mythology.
.

 

[BreezeWood]

>>BW: physiology is a metaphysical substance that can appear anywhere in the universe and is not native to planet Earth that is proof of its existence elsewhere.<<

WRONG. Physiology is part of biology and has nothing to with the metaphysical. Speaking of which, fine tuning is found is biology, too. The last part shows that Multiverses were made up to explain the fine tuning facts.

Merrian-Webster defines physiology as: "[A] branch of biology that deals with the functions and activities of life or of living matter (such as organs, tissues, or cells) and of the physical and chemical phenomena involved." physiology.


or: of living matter (such as organs, tissues, or cells) and of the physical and chemical phenomena involved.


you are not alone in ignorance pertaining physiology that constitutes the physical structure for life in the universe ... as a metaphysical substance that appears and disappears when life exists or is removed from it and is not native to planet Earth and will appear wherever in the universe life is physically sustainable.

in our solar system I agree there is no other planet where physiology is present to sustain life.


... and has nothing to with the metaphysical

life is the same for all beings no matter their physical nature. Fauna and Flora both evolve not physically but metaphysically, metamorphosis that shapes their physiology - not the other way around.

 

[james bond]

The best argument for creation is the Bible. It is God's Word and it is indestructible, so it is favored to win out over evolution.

That's a total "the chicken or the egg" viewpoint. Your assumption is that the God you believe in exists to create us in the first place.

Faith is fine, but it's not fact. It's not indestructible. If the God you believe in doesn't exist, then the Bible is nothing more than mythology.
.

The Bible is indestructible as well as faith in God. People have died for it, and the Bible is the best selling non-fiction book on the planet of all time. Check Guinness. If evo were true, then Darwin's book would be right up there. People have largely forgotten it since a lot of his theories in it were wrong.

Speaking of chicken or the egg, it is a fact now that the chicken came first. God created it.

 

[james bond]

>>BW: physiology is a metaphysical substance that can appear anywhere in the universe and is not native to planet Earth that is proof of its existence elsewhere.<<

WRONG. Physiology is part of biology and has nothing to with the metaphysical. Speaking of which, fine tuning is found is biology, too. The last part shows that Multiverses were made up to explain the fine tuning facts.

Merrian-Webster defines physiology as: "[A] branch of biology that deals with the functions and activities of life or of living matter (such as organs, tissues, or cells) and of the physical and chemical phenomena involved." physiology.


or: of living matter (such as organs, tissues, or cells) and of the physical and chemical phenomena involved.


you are not alone in ignorance pertaining physiology that constitutes the physical structure for life in the universe ... as a metaphysical substance that appears and disappears when life exists or is removed from it and is not native to planet Earth and will appear wherever in the universe life is physically sustainable.

in our solar system I agree there is no other planet where physiology is present to sustain life.


... and has nothing to with the metaphysical


View attachment 184247


life is the same for all beings no matter their physical nature. Fauna and Flora both evolve not physically but metaphysically, metamorphosis that shapes their physiology - not the other way around.

We already discussed singularity for this universe. It is metaphysical. One cannot have infinite nor divide by zero. Same with multiverses and how they are created. Thus, today's atheist science is venturing into the metaphysical just as Dr. Craig's video stated.

 

[Mac1958]

The best argument for creation is the Bible. It is God's Word and it is indestructible, so it is favored to win out over evolution.

That's a total "the chicken or the egg" viewpoint. Your assumption is that the God you believe in exists to create us in the first place.

Faith is fine, but it's not fact. It's not indestructible. If the God you believe in doesn't exist, then the Bible is nothing more than mythology.
.

The Bible is indestructible as well as faith in God. People have died for it, and the Bible is the best selling non-fiction book on the planet of all time. Check Guinness. If evo were true, then Darwin's book would be right up there. People have largely forgotten it since a lot of his theories in it were wrong.

Speaking of chicken or the egg, it is a fact now that the chicken came first. God created it.

Your worldview, at its most fundamental, begins with the greatest and largest possible assumption.

The very most you can base this assumption on, is faith. You cannot know, as certain as you feel you are.

I admit I don't know. It seems to me that to think one knows, one way or the other, is a terrible display of ego.
.

 

[james bond]

The best argument for creation is the Bible. It is God's Word and it is indestructible, so it is favored to win out over evolution.

That's a total "the chicken or the egg" viewpoint. Your assumption is that the God you believe in exists to create us in the first place.

Faith is fine, but it's not fact. It's not indestructible. If the God you believe in doesn't exist, then the Bible is nothing more than mythology.
.

The Bible is indestructible as well as faith in God. People have died for it, and the Bible is the best selling non-fiction book on the planet of all time. Check Guinness. If evo were true, then Darwin's book would be right up there. People have largely forgotten it since a lot of his theories in it were wrong.

Speaking of chicken or the egg, it is a fact now that the chicken came first. God created it.

Your worldview, at its most fundamental, begins with the greatest and largest possible assumption.

The very most you can base this assumption on, is faith. You cannot know, as certain as you feel you are.

I admit I don't know. It seems to me that to think one knows, one way or the other, is a terrible display of ego.
.

What assumption? One needs faith to believe in God and it changes everything. It's evolution that has the more assumptions such as radiometric dating or change over millions/billions of years, common ancestor and tree of life.

 

[Mac1958]

What assumption?

Your argument appears to be that God exists, and that God made us, because God says so, and so that's that.

So, in investigating where we came from, instead of starting at Square One of Ten, you're starting at Square Nine.

You have to assume that He is there to believe that, and such an assumption can only be based on faith, not fact.
.

 

[james bond]

What assumption?

Your argument appears to be that God exists, and that God made us, because God says so, and so that's that.

So, in investigating where we came from, instead of starting at Square One of Ten, you're starting at Square Nine.

You have to assume that He is there to believe that, and such an assumption can only be based on faith, not fact.
.

I investigated both from the beginning. The Bible has Genesis. It wasn't long ago that scientists believed in an eternal universe. Now, we know that it had a beginning. The science backed up the Bible even though it's not a science book.

Evolution has fish that turned into a human because of 1) Billions and millions years of time, 2) Common ancestor and 3) Tree of life. Genesis is more credible. The science shows things happen rapidly, not billions and millions of years. There is no universal common ancestry (idea that all living organisms are related due to the family tree of life). The tree of life is more like a bush of life where there are different groups of living organisms. Which science doesn't have any more reptiles? Your pet lizard, chameleon, snake, etc. is now a dinosaur.

 

[Mac1958]

What assumption?

Your argument appears to be that God exists, and that God made us, because God says so, and so that's that.

So, in investigating where we came from, instead of starting at Square One of Ten, you're starting at Square Nine.

You have to assume that He is there to believe that, and such an assumption can only be based on faith, not fact.
.

I investigated both from the beginning. The Bible has Genesis. It wasn't long ago that scientists believed in an eternal universe. Now, we know that it had a beginning. The science backed up the Bible even though it's not a science book.

Evolution has fish that turned into a human because of 1) Billions and millions years of time, 2) Common ancestor and 3) Tree of life. Genesis is more credible. The science shows things happen rapidly, not billions and millions of years. There is no universal common ancestry (idea that all living organisms are related due to the family tree of life). The tree of life is more like a bush of life where there are different groups of living organisms. Which science doesn't have any more reptiles? Your pet lizard, chameleon, snake, etc. is now a dinosaur.

Science and scientists and those of us who are interested in it all admit the same thing - we don't know, yet.

I find the "Big Bang" theory nearly as unsatisfying as the Bible's account. So, since there's nothing I can do about it, I'll just be patient. Hopefully some better evidence will present itself. If not, I'll just have to get over it.

Also, for all I know, there could actually be a Creator. That does not mean that He or It is the benevolent, loving God of the Christian Bible. In fact, I find that pretty hard to believe, too. Humans have had many Gods over the millennia. None of us know for sure.
.

 

[BreezeWood]

We already discussed singularity for this universe. It is metaphysical. One cannot have infinite nor divide by zero. Same with multiverses and how they are created.

One cannot have infinite nor divide by zero.

that explains why all matter is expanding at a finite angle, does not change direction and will reconvene as a mirror image at the same time and location of origin where the expansion began. in the vacuum of space. only religions equate the event to something supernatural where a metaphysical, secular explanation does suffice.

it is the latent and dishonest desire of christians, the desert religions through forgery to control the Free Spirit rather than allowing a true meaning for its existence to prevail, for some reason they fear the consequences they can not control - bond.