I serve an amazing God

[knapplc]

Years ago I had a distinguished collegiate science professor (when pressed by the class) explain the seeming contradiction between his strong faith and his vocational science background.

 

He responded that he (as a mere man) could NOT explain it, but found peace by believing in God and not concerning himself with trying to analyze God’s methods and motives. He simply accepted it.

 

That works for me.

 

That's a fine sentiment. I can't see a problem living your life that way.

[JJ Husker]

JJ, I agree with a lot of what you said there. But the one thing I will disagree with isn't that those of us who do not believe in your god don't want to believe, it's just that there's nothing, nothing at all, that says your god exists. Any of the life experiences you've cited could have happened because Zeus did them. There is no connection to the Christian God other than your belief that there's a connection.

It does get more unclear when you try to qualify it as the "Christian God". My point was not to say that my religion is necessarily the only correct one but rather that I know there is a God. As you probably are aware I am Catholic (grew up Lutheran) which also means I believe in the Christian God. But not all of my beliefs are taken directly from the Catholic or Christian train of thought. I think there is one God but that he also is the God of Muslims, Jews, and whatever version of a creator numerous other religions believe in. It's a little complicated but I think he is very capable of allowing for our individual experiences and exposures and being more than just what any one religion says he is. In other words, what I feel is right for me may be somewhat different for another. I am convinced that Jesus did die for my sins and that my adherence to Christian beliefs is required for me but I also believe that may not necessarily be required for someone else. The one constant though is that I think there is an omnipotent, omniscient, loving creator for all of us. In some cases humans may have sullied and twisted things to fit particular religions for various motives but I don't let that detract from what I believe applies to all of us, and in particular cases, what only applies to some of us.

[bhamHusker]

The problem in this debate is not necessarily the lack of proof that God exists and does act in his own way in our lives but rather the lack of acceptance of this proof on the part of the non-believers. There have been at least a few examples listed in this thread alone. The OP is convinced he was miraculously healed in answer to his prayers. The non-believers have tried to expain it away as some naturally occuring event...<snip>

When someone can offer evidence stronger than weak anecdotes and hokey stories, I will happily listen. Just remember one thing: the skeptics have no obligation to disprove the claims made by the believers. The supernaturalists are the ones making claims of divine intervention, and so the onus is on them to offer proof if they want their stories to be accepted as fact. Anecdotes aren't evidence, and neither is a dusty old book written by ancient, desert-dwelling "holy" men** with dubious motivations. Simply proclaiming - no matter how strongly - that something is true doesn't make it so.

 

** Ancient / primitive people can be forgiven for coming up with a bunch of superstitious nonsense to explain their world. They didn't have the advantage of the mountains of knowledge that modern scientific practice has given us. We do not have that excuse.

[HuskerShark]

JJ, I agree with a lot of what you said there. But the one thing I will disagree with isn't that those of us who do not believe in your god don't want to believe, it's just that there's nothing, nothing at all, that says your god exists. Any of the life experiences you've cited could have happened because Zeus did them. There is no connection to the Christian God other than your belief that there's a connection.

 

Who's to say that all religions don't worship the same God but just give Him different names? It's something I have thought about a lot, and I could see it being true. Different people of different cultures just may have a different interpretation of what God really is.

[JJ Husker]

The problem in this debate is not necessarily the lack of proof that God exists and does act in his own way in our lives but rather the lack of acceptance of this proof on the part of the non-believers. There have been at least a few examples listed in this thread alone. The OP is convinced he was miraculously healed in answer to his prayers. The non-believers have tried to expain it away as some naturally occuring event...<snip>

When someone can offer evidence stronger than weak anecdotes and hokey stories, I will happily listen. Just remember one thing: the skeptics have no obligation to disprove the claims made by the believers. The supernaturalists are the ones making claims of divine intervention, and so the onus is on them to offer proof if they want their stories to be accepted as fact. Anecdotes aren't evidence, and neither is a dusty old book written by ancient, desert-dwelling "holy" men** with dubious motivations. Simply proclaiming - no matter how strongly - that something is true doesn't make it so.

 

** Ancient / primitive people can be forgiven for coming up with a bunch of superstitious nonsense to explain their world. They didn't have the advantage of the mountains of knowledge that modern scientific practice has given us. We do not have that excuse.

Not to be disrespectful but I really don't care if if you listen to it or believe it or not. If the level of proof is not to your liking then please continue as you are. I ask nothing of you. I realize it takes some faith and some ability to accept things that can't be presented in the manner we prefer to see our proof. I believe some of this may have to do with how the Holy Spirit works in believers and the lack of that presence in someones life may make it extremely difficult but that is beside the point. You just remember that the believers have no obligation to provide proof to the skeptics. Nice shiny new books written by contemporary, city dwelling, non holy men with dubious motives aren't evidence either. I agree that simply proclaiming something is true doesn't make it so but it also doesn't make it untrue. Please keep in mind that many of us think your mountains of modern scientific knowledge were made possible by our mystical sky fairy (or please insert whatever derogatory term you prefer). Whether or not you accept it is up to you.

[tschu]

Life's origin is tricky subject, and one in which there are a ton of possibilities but very few answers, mostly because we have very little means to research exactly how it happened, because obviously there is no fossil evidence of proto-cells just sitting around after a couple billion years.

 

Basically, we know that the volatile environment of the early earth produced conditions where amino acids (the building blocks that make up every single protein in our bodies) formed. There is also evidence that early nucleic acids formed in this environment as well.

 

For the absolute most basic life to form, though, you need metabolism and reproduction. In other words, these building blocks had to assemble in a way where they could form a simple entity and produce more of themselves (this might be as basic as a short strand of RNA inside a basic membrane - think of a virus, except with the ability to self-reproduce without relying on other cells. Viruses are the most basic types of "life" that we know of.). There are a lot of complicated theories about how this may possibly have happened, but I haven't studied them at all.

 

From there, the basic theories of evolution ABSOLUTELY account for producing all of the life that we see today.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

It appears we have reached an impasse.

 

 

We as non-believers cannot prove that God doesn't exist to you believers, and we don't have to prove that he doesn't exist to you.

 

 

You as believers cannot prove that God does exist to us non-believers, and you don't have to prove that he does to us.

 

 

Nothing short of Him physically coming down to Earth to be viewed in front of the masses will re-draw the lines in the sand. Subsequently, however, Him not coming down to Earth to be viewed in front of the masses doesn't necessarily mean that He does not exist.

 

 

Besides, I don't think the issue of whether God exists or not is really the key. I think faith is more important than anything else, be it however it is construed or placed in the mind of an individual.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Life's origin is tricky subject, and one in which there are a ton of possibilities but very few answers, mostly because we have very little means to research exactly how it happened, because obviously there is no fossil evidence of proto-cells just sitting around after a couple billion years.

 

Basically, we know that the volatile environment of the early earth produced conditions where amino acids (the building blocks that make up every single protein in our bodies) formed. There is also evidence that early nucleic acids formed in this environment as well.

 

For the absolute most basic life to form, though, you need metabolism and reproduction. In other words, these building blocks had to assemble in a way where they could form a simple entity and produce more of themselves (this might be as basic as a short strand of RNA inside a basic membrane - think of a virus, except with the ability to self-reproduce without relying on other cells. Viruses are the most basic types of "life" that we know of.). There are a lot of complicated theories about how this may possibly have happened, but I haven't studied them at all.

 

From there, the basic theories of evolution ABSOLUTELY account for producing all of the life that we see today.

 

Curious (and this is a question of curiosity), you put the word life in quotation marks when describing viruses. It is my understanding that viruses aren't living things because they fail to meet the criteria, "composed of cells", out of the list of criteria needed for something to be considered alive.

 

I am no biologist (although in a way I have to be aware of biology, considering I'm a psychology major, even though it may not affect the area of my specialization), so correct me if I'm wrong.

[bhamHusker]

Not to be disrespectful but I really don't care if if you listen to it or believe it or not. If the level of proof is not to your liking then please continue as you are. I ask nothing of you. I realize it takes some faith and some ability to accept things that can't be presented in the manner we prefer to see our proof. I believe some of this may have to do with how the Holy Spirit works in believers and the lack of that presence in someones life may make it extremely difficult but that is beside the point. You just remember that the believers have no obligation to provide proof to the skeptics. Nice shiny new books written by contemporary, city dwelling, non holy men with dubious motives aren't evidence either. I agree that simply proclaiming something is true doesn't make it so but it also doesn't make it untrue. Please keep in mind that many of us think your mountains of modern scientific knowledge were made possible by our mystical sky fairy (or please insert whatever derogatory term you prefer). Whether or not you accept it is up to you.

Your previous post indicated to me that you do care. You were the one lamenting the fact that the nonbelievers don't accept the "proof" offered by yourself or others that allegedly supports the existence of a god or gods. Believers DO have that obligation if they wish to convince the skeptical. Simply saying we should believe this nonsense in the absence of any legitimate proof - especially if believers (not necessarily you individually; I don't know) want to advance some matter of public policy based on their mythology - is not going to cut it. You go on to conflate evidence with assertion. You assert that god(s) exist because your holy book says so or that you think you were sick and you got better, saw angels / demons / saints or maybe Jesus himself, or some other inexplicable event that you attribute to "god". The mountains of scientific knowledge that believers are so quick to dismiss are based on - here's the difference - repeatable, demonstrable observations in a variety of disciplines from archaeology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and others. Writing it in a book or screaming it from a mountain top doesn't make something true, but repeatable observation does. There is a substantial body of actual evidence that gives us a pretty good idea of how we came to be where we are now. I have yet to see any scientific evidence to support the mythology of any one of the thousands of gods we humans have come up with over the millenia. When I do, I'll consider it.

[tschu]

Life's origin is tricky subject, and one in which there are a ton of possibilities but very few answers, mostly because we have very little means to research exactly how it happened, because obviously there is no fossil evidence of proto-cells just sitting around after a couple billion years.

 

Basically, we know that the volatile environment of the early earth produced conditions where amino acids (the building blocks that make up every single protein in our bodies) formed. There is also evidence that early nucleic acids formed in this environment as well.

 

For the absolute most basic life to form, though, you need metabolism and reproduction. In other words, these building blocks had to assemble in a way where they could form a simple entity and produce more of themselves (this might be as basic as a short strand of RNA inside a basic membrane - think of a virus, except with the ability to self-reproduce without relying on other cells. Viruses are the most basic types of "life" that we know of.). There are a lot of complicated theories about how this may possibly have happened, but I haven't studied them at all.

 

From there, the basic theories of evolution ABSOLUTELY account for producing all of the life that we see today.

 

Curious (and this is a question of curiosity), you put the word life in quotation marks when describing viruses. It is my understanding that viruses aren't living things because they fail to meet the criteria, "composed of cells", out of the list of criteria needed for something to be considered alive.

 

I am no biologist (although in a way I have to be aware of biology, considering I'm a psychology major, even though it may not affect the area of my specialization), so correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, I put it in quotes because you're pretty much right. They don't have the capability of metabolism and cannot produce their own cellular products - proteins and the like. They also cannot reproduce on their own. Viruses rely on foreign cells for both of these processes. It has been debated for a long time - I think right now viruses are considered to be in their own category pretty much right on the line of being considered alive or not. Not technically "alive" ...but not non-living either.

[NUance]

Life's origin is tricky subject, and one in which there are a ton of possibilities but very few answers, mostly because we have very little means to research exactly how it happened, because obviously there is no fossil evidence of proto-cells just sitting around after a couple billion years.

 

Basically, we know that the volatile environment of the early earth produced conditions where amino acids (the building blocks that make up every single protein in our bodies) formed. There is also evidence that early nucleic acids formed in this environment as well.

 

For the absolute most basic life to form, though, you need metabolism and reproduction. In other words, these building blocks had to assemble in a way where they could form a simple entity and produce more of themselves (this might be as basic as a short strand of RNA inside a basic membrane - think of a virus, except with the ability to self-reproduce without relying on other cells. Viruses are the most basic types of "life" that we know of.). There are a lot of complicated theories about how this may possibly have happened, but I haven't studied them at all.

 

From there, the basic theories of evolution ABSOLUTELY account for producing all of the life that we see today.

 

Curious (and this is a question of curiosity), you put the word life in quotation marks when describing viruses. It is my understanding that viruses aren't living things because they fail to meet the criteria, "composed of cells", out of the list of criteria needed for something to be considered alive.

 

I am no biologist (although in a way I have to be aware of biology, considering I'm a psychology major, even though it may not affect the area of my specialization), so correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, I put it in quotes because you're pretty much right. They don't have the capability of metabolism and cannot produce their own cellular products - proteins and the like. They also cannot reproduce on their own. Viruses rely on foreign cells for both of these processes. It has been debated for a long time - I think right now viruses are considered to be in their own category pretty much right on the line of being considered alive or not. Not technically "alive" ...but not non-living either.

That's a question I've been wondering about for years. (Too lazy to research the topic, I guess.) Anyway, thanks for the Cliffnotes explanation. +1 :

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Life's origin is tricky subject, and one in which there are a ton of possibilities but very few answers, mostly because we have very little means to research exactly how it happened, because obviously there is no fossil evidence of proto-cells just sitting around after a couple billion years.

 

Basically, we know that the volatile environment of the early earth produced conditions where amino acids (the building blocks that make up every single protein in our bodies) formed. There is also evidence that early nucleic acids formed in this environment as well.

 

For the absolute most basic life to form, though, you need metabolism and reproduction. In other words, these building blocks had to assemble in a way where they could form a simple entity and produce more of themselves (this might be as basic as a short strand of RNA inside a basic membrane - think of a virus, except with the ability to self-reproduce without relying on other cells. Viruses are the most basic types of "life" that we know of.). There are a lot of complicated theories about how this may possibly have happened, but I haven't studied them at all.

 

From there, the basic theories of evolution ABSOLUTELY account for producing all of the life that we see today.

 

Curious (and this is a question of curiosity), you put the word life in quotation marks when describing viruses. It is my understanding that viruses aren't living things because they fail to meet the criteria, "composed of cells", out of the list of criteria needed for something to be considered alive.

 

I am no biologist (although in a way I have to be aware of biology, considering I'm a psychology major, even though it may not affect the area of my specialization), so correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, I put it in quotes because you're pretty much right. They don't have the capability of metabolism and cannot produce their own cellular products - proteins and the like. They also cannot reproduce on their own. Viruses rely on foreign cells for both of these processes. It has been debated for a long time - I think right now viruses are considered to be in their own category pretty much right on the line of being considered alive or not. Not technically "alive" ...but not non-living either.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think viruses were necessarily defined as living things, but they weren't necessarily dead either, because they do satisfy a couple of the requirements for things which are defined as alive.

 

But whether a virus is alive or not falls outside my realm of applicable knowledge, simply just a curiosity.

 

Also curious to me suddenly, is when they decided to go about making the rules for living things. I'm almost sure it was retrospectively, from observation. Because to live you must have metabolism and reproduction, and when trying to think of things that don't have either one...I couldn't come up with a single example

[knapplc]

It appears we have reached an impasse.

 

 

We as non-believers cannot prove that God doesn't exist to you believers, and we don't have to prove that he doesn't exist to you.

 

 

You as believers cannot prove that God does exist to us non-believers, and you don't have to prove that he does to us.

 

 

Nothing short of Him physically coming down to Earth to be viewed in front of the masses will re-draw the lines in the sand. Subsequently, however, Him not coming down to Earth to be viewed in front of the masses doesn't necessarily mean that He does not exist.

 

 

Besides, I don't think the issue of whether God exists or not is really the key. I think faith is more important than anything else, be it however it is construed or placed in the mind of an individual.

 

Surely I'm not the only one who thought this post was leading up to a pair of wine goblets and some iochane powder after reading the first couple of lines, am I?

[bhamHusker]

Surely I'm not the only one who thought this post was leading up to a pair of wine goblets and some iochane powder after reading the first couple of lines, am I?

No. No you were not.

[tschu]

Also curious to me suddenly, is when they decided to go about making the rules for living things. I'm almost sure it was retrospectively, from observation.

Yeah, the "rules" are all observation-based. Life is pretty hard to specifically define. But you know us humans, always categorizing everything