Where did life begin? (Merged)

Do you believe we have a creator, aka "God"?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#576
#576
RespectTradition said:
When in doubt, always go back to the greek manuscripts. You don't have to be a greek scholar to break out a strongs and a good lexicon and figure out enough to get a good feel for which translation is best for a particular passage.
Click to expand...

This all day long and twice on sunday.

It doesn't hurt to consider the intended audience and context while you're at it.
 
#577
#577
I know this topic has morphed and evolved since the first page but I just saw it. I really have no idea why this whole topic is in serious debate and just like social issues in the political arena I think this constant dick wagging in academia over whether or not there is a God is killing our advancement. Quite trying to "win" and just govern without bankrupting us or discover the cure for cancer, which in the end, its discovery does not hinge on us coming from monkeys OR from a dude with a beard who wiggled his fingers.
 
#578
#578
OrangeYankee said:
I know this topic has morphed and evolved since the first page but I just saw it. I really have no idea why this whole topic is in serious debate and just like social issues in the political arena I think this constant dick wagging in academia over whether or not there is a God is killing our advancement. Quite trying to "win" and just govern without bankrupting us or discover the cure for cancer, which in the end, its discovery does not hinge on us coming from monkeys OR from a dude with a beard who wiggled his fingers.
Click to expand...

I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I want to try and respond to this.

At the heart of all morality, all ethics, all human interaction, be it political, economic, relationships, etc, lies our beliefs in what is right and wrong.

It is very hard to define a moral system without a yardstick. There are really two main choices. Either there is no universal yardstick, or there is one. If we assume that one does not exist, then we are in a situation, much like in the past, where a foot was defined by the size of the king/lord/etc foot. How tall you were could change depending on who was in charge. On the other hand, once a universal is found, then we can know how tall we are without reference to who is in charge.

There can be no universal yardstick unless that is from the outside. There can be no absolute right and wrong if our yardstick comes from within... we would each arrive at a different yardstick.

Whether there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong is a very important question for morality, ethics, etc. For most people, absolute morality comes from some concept of God.

How we treat one another and why we do so is intrinsically tied to the question 'is there a God'. Trying to determine if there is a God, where we came from, and how is at the heart of so much.

I am not arguing that one cannot have a moral code without God. I am simply stating that there can be no absolute morality without God. I am not trying to argue one way or the other whether absolute morality is better than relative morality. That conversation is better left to another thread. However, how and why we treat one another the way we do is part and parcel of this conversation.
 
#579
#579
OrangeYankee said:
I know this topic has morphed and evolved since the first page but I just saw it. I really have no idea why this whole topic is in serious debate and just like social issues in the political arena I think this constant dick wagging in academia over whether or not there is a God is killing our advancement. Quite trying to "win" and just govern without bankrupting us or discover the cure for cancer, which in the end, its discovery does not hinge on us coming from monkeys OR from a dude with a beard who wiggled his fingers.
Click to expand...

It's the whole thirst for knowledge thing I mentioned a while back. There are people working to cure cancer, there are people working to find the biological start of life. It's all about personal interest. I get it, you're not interested in how humans became, this isn't a discussion for you.
 
#580
#580
No I have no problem with debating it at all. But the debate just seems to have more importance to it than it truly deserves. I'm telling you a guy could HAVE the cure for cancer sitting in a lab but if he believed in ID, the professors at most universities would want him booted out.

I guess that's my point. Outside of the realm of anthropology/philosophy I'm not sure why people get so up in arms about it. I think both theories take a giant leap of faith to accept as no one truly knows what went down.

Yes we know adaptation thrives in our current biological realms as things adapt to better survive their environment. But can we prove that entire new species were born up out something else (and I'm talking from lizard to rat, not from dog to something that very closely resembles a dog).

You see I gave my views just above, but I'm guess I can't help but think of Ben Stein's documentary about the snubbing of anyone who believes in ID in our colleges, whenever I see these debates creep up.
 
#581
#581
RespectTradition said:
I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I want to try and respond to this.

At the heart of all morality, all ethics, all human interaction, be it political, economic, relationships, etc, lies our beliefs in what is right and wrong.

It is very hard to define a moral system without a yardstick. There are really two main choices. Either there is no universal yardstick, or there is one. If we assume that one does not exist, then we are in a situation, much like in the past, where a foot was defined by the size of the king/lord/etc foot. How tall you were could change depending on who was in charge. On the other hand, once a universal is found, then we can know how tall we are without reference to who is in charge.

There can be no universal yardstick unless that is from the outside. There can be no absolute right and wrong if our yardstick comes from within... we would each arrive at a different yardstick.

Whether there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong is a very important question for morality, ethics, etc. For most people, absolute morality comes from some concept of God.

How we treat one another and why we do so is intrinsically tied to the question 'is there a God'. Trying to determine if there is a God, where we came from, and how is at the heart of so much.

I am not arguing that one cannot have a moral code without God. I am simply stating that there can be no absolute morality without God. I am not trying to argue one way or the other whether absolute morality is better than relative morality. That conversation is better left to another thread. However, how and why we treat one another the way we do is part and parcel of this conversation.
Click to expand...

And honestly that point I totally agree with. I do. The basis of morality I believe truly rests in the idea of a higher power. Mine just so happens to be the Jehova God that sent his Son to die for our sins. And while I believe wholeheartedly he created the universe and all that is in it, I just think the whole debate right now in the official realms is killing advancement. But I also believe most debates are. Everyone is too busy to prove they are right not discovering new breakthroughs.

I'm going to admit I just saw this for the first time when I posted and it was already pages long and I just wanted to blurt that out. (I have been away from volnation for some time).
 
#582
#582
OrangeYankee said:
No I have no problem with debating it at all. But the debate just seems to have more importance to it than it truly deserves. I'm telling you a guy could HAVE the cure for cancer sitting in a lab but if he believed in ID, the professors at most universities would want him booted out.

I guess that's my point. Outside of the realm of anthropology/philosophy I'm not sure why people get so up in arms about it. I think both theories take a giant leap of faith to accept as no one truly knows what went down.

Yes we know adaptation thrives in our current biological realms as things adapt to better survive their environment. But can we prove that entire new species were born up out something else (and I'm talking from lizard to rat, not from dog to something that very closely resembles a dog).

You see I gave my views just above, but I'm guess I can't help but think of Ben Stein's documentary about the snubbing of anyone who believes in ID in our colleges, whenever I see these debates creep up.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people working to find vaccines or cure cancer to coincide with evolutionary biology field research. No one in the scientific community is shunned because they believe in ID if they have something to offer. There are people at CERN, working on the LHC, that are highly religious. Someone that may hold the key to cancer research is going to find somewhere to do their research.
 
#585
#585
For me it boils down to two things. If it was the big bang where did the initial elements come from? If it's creation where did God come from?
 
#586
#586
orangeslice13 said:
I struggle with This as well. GOD just is and always has been. I have trouble wrapping my mind around that. It's no different than in science Where the new school of though is energy always has been. The big bang is just the most recipient big bang. The theory goes on to say at some point all will collapse and bag out again.

Apparently with both God and science there was no beginning.
Click to expand...

From page 2 for smitty
 
#587
#587
orangeslice13 said:
From page 2 for smitty
Click to expand...
hmmm interesting, i have trouble with theories that have no beginning. kinda like if you travel faster than that speed of light you go back in time. I dont buy into that. I should be called the resident skeptic i guess.
 
#589
#589
rmsmith said:
so the universe will collapse, become one black hole and expand again?
Click to expand...

Yes, in theory. Its called convergence of mass.....I think. Its been a while since I looked into it. Net result is no beginning. Which is hard to grasp.
 
#591
#591
orangeslice13 said:
Yes, in theory. Its called convergence of mass.....I think. Its been a while since I looked into it. Net result is no beginning. Which is hard to grasp.
Click to expand...

If there was no beginning then how did we get here?

(This is actually a math question not a philosophical question.)
 
Last edited:
#592
#592
orangeslice13 said:
From page 2 for smitty
Click to expand...

He's wrong about the Big Bang reoccurring. It's currently more accepted that the Big Bang was a one time thing.

This is due to current evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up.
 
#593
#593
I've taken a break away from the board to handle some personal issues, but I wanted to ask a quick question. And it's not a trap question, or anything like that but an honest question(s) and I want a honest and best possible answer.

People ask if there's a God, why he doesn't perform miracles any more like he supposedly did in the Bible. When things that SEEM to be miracles to believers happen, it often gets labeled a coincidence. If I suffered from PTSD, for let's say 14-15 months, and I asked God for a miracle. That in Jesus name these symptoms would go away and never come back, and they haven't been back for over 3 years since that very moment I said that prayer, is it a miracle or just a coincidence?

Yes obviously I'm telling my story, and without that moment I'm not sure if I'd be a believer or not, I don't know. But I'm fully convinced Jesus heals, and he healed me that night.No you don't have to believe my story and no my story won't be enough proof for unbelievers and I know that. You'll say something along the lines of "the human mind tells you you're sick with these symptoms, it also tells you there's a man in heaven who heals so your human mind healed itself by believing the man in heaven can heal your symptoms" I don't know. But the question remains, was it just a coincidence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#595
#595
VolsByNature said:
I've taken a break away from the board to handle some personal issues, but I wanted to ask a quick question. And it's not a trap question, or anything like that but an honest question(s) and I want a honest and best possible answer.

People ask if there's a God, why he doesn't perform miracles any more like he supposedly did in the Bible. When things that SEEM to be miracles to believers happen, it often gets labeled a coincidence. If I suffered from PTSD, for let's say 14-15 months, and I asked God for a miracle. That in Jesus name these symptoms would go away and never come back, and they haven't been back for over 3 years since that very moment I said that prayer, is it a miracle or just a coincidence?

Yes obviously I'm telling my story, and without that moment I'm not sure if I'd be a believer or not, I don't know. But I'm fully convinced Jesus heals, and he healed me that night.No you don't have to believe my story and no my story won't be enough proof for unbelievers and I know that. You'll say something along the lines of "the human mind tells you you're sick with these symptoms, it also tells you there's a man in heaven who heals so your human mind healed itself by believing the man in heaven can heal your symptoms" I don't know. But the question remains, was it just a coincidence?
Click to expand...

If you had prayed to Zeus or Mohammad/Allah and your miracle happened, would you believe they granted you that miracle and adopt that particular belief system?
 
#596
#596
PKT_VOL said:
If you had prayed to Zeus or Mohammad/Allah and your miracle happened, would you believe they granted you that miracle and adopt that particular belief system?
Click to expand...

But he didn't.


His question is do you think its a coincidence?
 
#597
#597
PKT_VOL said:
If you had prayed to Zeus or Mohammad/Allah and your miracle happened, would you believe they granted you that miracle and adopt that particular belief system?
Click to expand...

I prayed to Allah and Buddha for that big Mega Millions jackpot, nope didn't win. They are a farce!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#599
#599
Obsessed said:
But he didn't.
Click to expand...

The point would stand though. It is a question meant to provoke a thought experiment to figure out how he is making the connection in his mind. It would be the same if he has asked things from Jesus before that didn't happen.

Obsessed said:
His question is do you think its a coincidence?
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is in any position to say one way or the other in any sort of definitive manner. That being said, I would be highly skeptical. Then again, that is just the prism from which I view the world through.
 
#600
#600
Obsessed said:
But he didn't.


His question is do you think its a coincidence?
Click to expand...

to be fair he never gave them a shot

if the illness wasn't cured would that mean God doesn't exist/care? If the illness returns is that God's fault? Why was his illness cured while many other believers continue to suffer and die? The whole "God works in mysterious ways" is convenient but doesn't answer anything
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top