Logic dictates that there is a God!

[jay_a2j]

I have a question. This is pointed more towards Jay than anyone else. I don't go to church. I sometimes (But very rarely) read the bible. But, I believe in God. I have faith that he created the world, man, and everything else. But, since I don't read the bible or go to church, does this mean that I will go to hell? I've been saved, and gave my heart to god. I'm still young, and sometimes I think that he isn't real, but that's usually when I'm reading bullshit about evolution. It makes me think to hard about the subject, when you're watching or reading things about evolution, and how the they could actually be true, but the people writing say all the right things to make you believe it. This is a serious question.

"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"

I don't have a steady church and haven't been in a long time. My Bible reading has become almost non-existent. But I most definitely believe that Jesus is the Son of God, died for my sins and raised from the dead. I have believed this for the past 25 years and although my personal walk is less (much less) than perfect, God who is perfect knows my heart.

As far as evolution is concerned. I've dealt with teachers/professors who talk about it as if it were a fact. Like they have the proof in their back pocket but neglect to show it. Some Christians believe in evolution but they (and I'm speaking of committed Christians, not "people who attend a Christian church") are in the minority. Will they "go to hell" because they believe in evolution? No more that I will go to hell because I don't. The issue of evolution is not a salvation issue. But Satan is the master of deceit and when he plants doubts about our faith, that's really a time we need to talk to God and read His Word. Because I'd say most, if not all, Christians go through this at one time or another. But it's nothing we can't overcome through Christ.

Unless of course, if Christ was not actually God, and you have been worshiping a false god your entire life, a rule expressly forbidden in the very bible you quote above.

Who saw christ rise from the dead? How many people? Did they have anything to gain? Does the fact that people wrote about the supposed event make it true? With nearly no proof whatsoever, you possibly betray the one God you absolutely know to be true, with this very possible impostor of a god, simply because someone added some pages to your original bible.
But I suppose you know this must also be true 100%. I mean, how could you possibly ever be wrong about such things? The rest of the world must be wrong. They just have to be, or it would mean youve been worshiping the wrong god your entire life, and devoted your life to a blasphemous joke, simply because someone told you to read one book, and not another.

Luckily, I believe no God of good would allow such a possibility to exist. I think a god of good makes such a possibility impossible defacto. Therefore, logically, one must assume that God is either not a God of pure good, which of course is possible, or that he may very well not exist at all. If he is a God of good, than no one has anything to fear about any belief of anything, because a god of good would not worry about any such technicalities and only care about His children. In which case, it means you have still wasted your entire life worshiping a God, which most certainly, is not exactly what you think he is in the first place.

Christ is God. "Peter, who do you say I am?"

No one saw him rise from the dead, they did see Him appear to them AFTER he was killed and some saw him ascend to heaven.

Scripture is not an afterthought of mere men but is from God Himself.

I believe and have faith, then faith validates my belief. (It's just something that must be experienced, you can't explain it)

The proof of God is written on the hearts of believers.

"The rest of the world must be wrong".... "Wide is the gate that leads to destruction" in which many will pass through.

Luckily, It does not matter to God what you believe... you don't define Him.

God wants willing followers, people who love Him back. If you choose to not love God that is your choice but don't expect to be invited to His house when you die. No one is allowed to enter the presence of God in his sinful nature. The sin must be removed which only happens by repentance and forgiveness.


"as far as the east is from the west" are your sins in Gods memory if you ask Him to forgive you.

[tzor]

A.)I am not going to respond seriously to people who say shit like "rocks can't turn into organisms" in a serious way.

Good thing too, because the science of silicone based life forms is very theoretical. Currently you need carbon.

[jonesthecurl]

A.)I am not going to respond seriously to people who say shit like "rocks can't turn into organisms" in a serious way.

Good thing too, because the science of silicone based life forms is very theoretical. Currently you need carbon.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Horta

[stuart133]

There is a good reason for this. At room temp only carbon can form chains with itself longer than 8 molecules, hence how complicated carbon based life works.

Silicon on the other had only forms chains of 8, which is too small for life supporting molecules. But in other conditions ...

[Snorri1234]

Does someone not essentially believe that life came from a rock if they believe earth cooled down and developed a hard rocky crust about 4.6 billion years ago and believe that it rained on rocks for millions of years and turned them into soup that came alive 3 billion years ago?

No.

[john9blue]

Hey Jay, which one of these two premises do you reject:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

[jay_a2j]

Hey Jay, which one of these two premises do you reject:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Why must I reject either of them?

[jrl332005]

Hey Jay, which one of these two premises do you reject:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Why must I reject either of them?

Because those are two main points of evolution, along with mutations caused by a genetic mess-up during conception. Seeing as you don't believe in evolution you have to disagree with one or both of these points.

[2dimes]

Hey Jay, which one of these two premises do you reject:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Why must I reject either of them?

Because those are two main points of evolution, along with mutations caused by a genetic mess-up during conception. Seeing as you don't believe in evolution you have to disagree with one or both of these points.

Yeah Jay ya doofus. Evolution is when the next generation is the same as it's parents or has a low risk of heart falure!

[john9blue]

Hey Jay, which one of these two premises do you reject:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Why must I reject either of them?

To put it extremely simply: the traits that are better suited for survival are more likely to be passed on, because those individuals love long enough to reproduce. Eventually the average traits of a species will change based on what works and what doesn't. On a larger scale this can cause huge differences, such as the differences between humans and chimps.

[natty dread]

Hey Jay, which one of these two premises do you reject:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Why must I reject either of them?

I got to say
jay.

You walked straight into that one.

You really didn't see it coming? Did you?

[bradleybadly]

To put it extremely simply: the traits that are better suited for survival are more likely to be passed on, because those individuals love long enough to reproduce.

So, the males had to last at least 10 minutes?

[Maugena]

Evolution is almost certainly true. Once you understand how it works there is very little room for doubt. If you believe in a creator God, even if you're a Christian, you can still accept evolution. Otherwise there would be little to no Christian scientists. They are not mutually exclusive; this is a false dichotomy perpetuated by radical atheists and fundamentalist Christians.

Wat.
You meant that radical atheists and fundamentalist Christings believe it to be impossible to have such a dichotomy?
'Cuz what I'm getting from the bolded part is that you're saying that the dichotomy is false and that it has been perpetuated by radical athiests and fundamentalist Christians.

[Maugena]

@Maugena

Jay has not yet contradicted himself. In your earlier post you said he did by quoting him saying that life can not come from non-life, and that God has always existed. This is not a contradiction. Since we are looking at this from Jay's point, God is the creator, so to say... he is the beginning and the end, he has always been around. Now that we see this view, we can assume that God is the only being never created and he has always existed, everything else was created by God. Which makes Jay's first statement "life can not come from non-life" un-compromised by the second statement.

I write this strictly taking the view of one observing the debate here. Im just pointing out an objective flaw in your argument, I do not yet want to take a side.

No.
You missed the most vital part of what he had said.
"[...]living God[...]"

Page 347 - A little bit above half way down.

The whole logic of it all is based on the given: life can not come from non-life. I hold to the belief that this is a truism. And if indeed it is a truism then a living God must exist and must have always existed. There is no getting around it. Logic takes you back to God.

[2dimes]

So would the amount of evolution be directly proportional to the amount of traits passed on to the next generation?

[jay_a2j]

Hey Jay, which one of these two premises do you reject:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Why must I reject either of them?

To put it extremely simply: the traits that are better suited for survival are more likely to be passed on, because those individuals love long enough to reproduce. Eventually the average traits of a species will change based on what works and what doesn't. On a larger scale this can cause huge differences, such as the differences between humans and chimps.

Really? Then downs syndrome should not exist.

[jay_a2j]

@Maugena

Jay has not yet contradicted himself. In your earlier post you said he did by quoting him saying that life can not come from non-life, and that God has always existed. This is not a contradiction. Since we are looking at this from Jay's point, God is the creator, so to say... he is the beginning and the end, he has always been around. Now that we see this view, we can assume that God is the only being never created and he has always existed, everything else was created by God. Which makes Jay's first statement "life can not come from non-life" un-compromised by the second statement.

I write this strictly taking the view of one observing the debate here. Im just pointing out an objective flaw in your argument, I do not yet want to take a side.

No.
You missed the most vital part of what he had said.
"[...]living God[...]"

Page 347 - A little bit above half way down.

The whole logic of it all is based on the given: life can not come from non-life. I hold to the belief that this is a truism. And if indeed it is a truism then a living God must exist and must have always existed. There is no getting around it. Logic takes you back to God.

No, you missed the point. God who is living created all living things. Life cannot come from non- life. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

[john9blue]

Evolution is almost certainly true. Once you understand how it works there is very little room for doubt. If you believe in a creator God, even if you're a Christian, you can still accept evolution. Otherwise there would be little to no Christian scientists. They are not mutually exclusive; this is a false dichotomy perpetuated by radical atheists and fundamentalist Christians.

Wat.
You meant that radical atheists and fundamentalist Christings believe it to be impossible to have such a dichotomy?
'Cuz what I'm getting from the bolded part is that you're saying that the dichotomy is false and that it has been perpetuated by radical athiests and fundamentalist Christians.

That's what I meant. Radical atheists, knowing that evolution is true, seek to group all Christians under the anti-evolution umbrella, so that they can all be labeled as ignorant and anti-scientific. Fundamentalist Christians, thinking that the acceptance of evolution is a stepping stone to the abandonment of one's faith (why do you think damn near every biologist is an atheist? A life of biology breeds the "humans are worthless piles of meat" mentality, which in turn calls into the question the idea that anything is sacred), seek to discredit evolution as much as possible.

[john9blue]

To put it extremely simply: the traits that are better suited for survival are more likely to be passed on, because those individuals love long enough to reproduce. Eventually the average traits of a species will change based on what works and what doesn't. On a larger scale this can cause huge differences, such as the differences between humans and chimps.

Really? Then downs syndrome should not exist.

That requires an understanding of genetic mutation. Do you deny that such a thing exists?

[jay_a2j]

Hey Jay, which one of these two premises do you reject:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Why must I reject either of them?

Because those are two main points of evolution, along with mutations caused by a genetic mess-up during conception. Seeing as you don't believe in evolution you have to disagree with one or both of these points.

Um wrong.

[Maugena]

Eh guys, I'm sorry here but... after reading the past few pages I have to ask. Does it make sense that a rock is going to someday change into a living creature? I mean sure, some of its components like nutrients will go to a plant one day that sucks the nutrients from the dirt, and a cow will eat that plant, but beyond that I don't think that your rock (in any form such as sand), no matter how many years it sits there, will become a living organism.

You're right.
A rock will not become a living being.
Solids by themselves cannot create living beings.
Think about it.
What does every living thing you know of have in it?
Solids?
Liquids?
Gasses?
It's a mixture.
I think it's safe to assume that you need at least a solid and a liquid to create life. Edit: And no, not just one atom of each...

Am I invisible around these parts or what?

Sorry, but you just kind of gave your life story and put absolutely no input into this conversation.
You're just like...
Damn, this shit is deep./Good question.

[Maugena]

@Maugena

Jay has not yet contradicted himself. In your earlier post you said he did by quoting him saying that life can not come from non-life, and that God has always existed. This is not a contradiction. Since we are looking at this from Jay's point, God is the creator, so to say... he is the beginning and the end, he has always been around. Now that we see this view, we can assume that God is the only being never created and he has always existed, everything else was created by God. Which makes Jay's first statement "life can not come from non-life" un-compromised by the second statement.

I write this strictly taking the view of one observing the debate here. Im just pointing out an objective flaw in your argument, I do not yet want to take a side.

No.
You missed the most vital part of what he had said.
"[...]living God[...]"

Page 347 - A little bit above half way down.

The whole logic of it all is based on the given: life can not come from non-life. I hold to the belief that this is a truism. And if indeed it is a truism then a living God must exist and must have always existed. There is no getting around it. Logic takes you back to God.

No, you missed the point. God who is living created all living things. Life cannot come from non- life. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

No, sir.
What I miss is how you fail to understand how you say that life cannot come from non-life and that life must come from somewhere.
Where then does a living god come from, jay_a2j?

[Snorri1234]

Hey Jay, which one of these two premises do you reject:

- Children inherit traits from their parents
- Certain traits are better suited for survival than others

Why must I reject either of them?

To put it extremely simply: the traits that are better suited for survival are more likely to be passed on, because those individuals love long enough to reproduce. Eventually the average traits of a species will change based on what works and what doesn't. On a larger scale this can cause huge differences, such as the differences between humans and chimps.

Really? Then downs syndrome should not exist.

:sarcastic frown smiley"

[Snowden]

OH NO! YOU'RE RIGHT! EVOLUTION IS ALL LIES! LET'S GO WORSHIP JAY'S PARTICULAR SKYDADDY INSTEAD OF THE MILLIONS OF OTHER GODS IN HISTORY!

He's not talking about evolution, he's talking about abiogenesis.

Also, I find it funny that some atheists see the fact that God has been perceived in countless different ways throughout the millennia as proof that God doesn't exist...

A.)I am not going to respond seriously to people who say shit like "rocks can't turn into organisms" in a serious way.

B.) It's not proof that God doesn't exist, it's proof that your particular deity is unlikely to be the true one. Have fun in Tartaros.

So you respond to my casual comment with a very childish outburst? I was serious, but not being formal at the same time. Please, if its not constructive, don't reply to my comments.

"an organism can't come from a rock" is an argument against the most mangled form of abiogenesis imaginable. If you're serious about it that means you have so little clue as to what most modern science is that it would be futile to argue against you.

You have less understanding than a 8year old, I simply can't be bothered.

Snorri, Im summarizing what you have so far tried to prove to me. I dont even know what side to pick here, I was just making an observation on something that did not make sense. Please feel free to educate me. As of now you have pushed me away from wanting to join your side of this argument by insulting me and questioning my understanding, which is crystal clear as far as everything that you have explained (which seems to be quite cloudy). Please, won't you write with the maturity of more than and eight year old?

[Snowden]

@Maugena

Jay has not yet contradicted himself. In your earlier post you said he did by quoting him saying that life can not come from non-life, and that God has always existed. This is not a contradiction. Since we are looking at this from Jay's point, God is the creator, so to say... he is the beginning and the end, he has always been around. Now that we see this view, we can assume that God is the only being never created and he has always existed, everything else was created by God. Which makes Jay's first statement "life can not come from non-life" un-compromised by the second statement.

I write this strictly taking the view of one observing the debate here. Im just pointing out an objective flaw in your argument, I do not yet want to take a side.

No.
You missed the most vital part of what he had said.
"[...]living God[...]"

Page 347 - A little bit above half way down.

The whole logic of it all is based on the given: life can not come from non-life. I hold to the belief that this is a truism. And if indeed it is a truism then a living God must exist and must have always existed. There is no getting around it. Logic takes you back to God.

No, you missed the point. God who is living created all living things. Life cannot come from non- life. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

No, sir.
What I miss is how you fail to understand how you say that life cannot come from non-life and that life must come from somewhere.
Where then does a living god come from, jay_a2j?

Sorry for the double post.


In the Christian Bible, it says that God has always existed. Christians accept this as part of the mystery of God, they say that you can not understand him.