Can God love? (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

The problem we have is that we can only think in our limited terms , we do not know of any process that covers the universe but if we did it would be just as simple as us explaining to a child how a toy was made etc

Depends on how much education you have, how bright you are and whether or not you are willing to learn things that are outside your comfort zone in the search for the truth. The universe and all that is in it is a complex place.

All the atoms that make up you were created in the stars. We are stardust, poly.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990625080416.htm

I can well understand the way you feel, if you have been let down in life and feel disillusioned and been brain washed by the scientists who have to change all their ideas and theories on a regular basis, when the actual truth is available think back to when you actually believed in God and look for any sensible reason for not still doing so.

I know people who have changed from God to the Devil and those who have done the opposite and I know who are the happiest and content.

The constant reappraisal of scientific understanding based on new discoveries is a strength rather than a weakness. The rest of your post is drivel too.

You may be able to spell drivel but you certainly cannot understand the meaning.

Well, if you disagree with what I said about science, I'll take that as a compliment.

It takes one to know one.

To say my second language is English just proves you have no real idea or understanding of same.

It would help if you could get someone to explain just what the implications of what I post actually mean.

You continually request an answer to an answer, obviously word blind.

I take it the humour bypass operation was an unmitigated success.

There is a place for humour, however, you have to be able to appreciate the difference between humour and ignorance, please get someone to explain.

I think Heretic was taking the hit and miss. Which is what I was driving at.

You would certainly not be any good at cricket.

Maths was always my best subject and I made a very nice living from it.

The odds of life having no meaning other than what we see on earth are such as to be beyond those accepted as impossible.

The problem is and always has been man's ignorance and self.

Could you demonstrate that to be true using maths rather than just saying it, PG? If so, go ahead. If not, stop lying.

Just read the Bible.

That's a "no" then.

Christians can be found in any place that they frequent, it is not a place that determines what a Christian is but the life they lead and the faith they have in both God and Jesus.

Now do you want someone to explain the obvious point that you are unable to understand this truth.

PG,You expect us to believe that christians only frequent churches and holy places? think again please regarding the RC priests who were prosecuted for peadophilia,rape, and such like. these so called holy people were not being very christian then were they?

polyglide wrote:Maths was always my best subject and I made a very nice living from it.

The odds of life having no meaning other than what we see on earth are such as to be beyond those accepted as impossible.

The problem is and always has been man's ignorance and self.

It is only the hubris brought about my our consciousness that causes us to believe there is some sort of "meaning" to our existence. Our brains loathe chaos and we try to put everything into an ordered structure - which is why we see faces in our pizza and shapes in the clouds. Stare at something long enough and you'll start to "see" something in the otherwise random patterns.

I fear you are unable to understand the written word.

Perhaps a consultation with a normal two year old would enable you to understand that a Christian is one who believes in Jesus and all he stands for, it matters not where he/she lives or what colour they are it is a state of mind and belief, just as the religion of evolution is.

The only difference being Christianity is true and evolution a figment of imagination.

You're never going to get through to someone as dishonest as you are, PG. I suspect even you don't really believe half the patter you come out with but perhaps that's being overly generous.

The reply of one who is unable to appreciate fact from fiction.

polyglide wrote:The reply of one who is unable to appreciate fact from fiction.

I think what you meant was 'appreciate the difference between fact and fiction' or 'separate fact from fiction'.

No I meant what I said.

PG,most of us on this site know the meaning of drivel,all we have to do is wait until your posts appear.

polyglide wrote:The only difference being Christianity is true and evolution a figment of imagination.

You really don't have any sort of relationship with either God or Jesus. I bet you're as closed off from them as I am.

Because if you REALLY had any kind of relationship with the divine, an actual feeling that they are present in your life, then you wouldn't NEED to disprove evolution.

You're seeking scientific validation of your beliefs because you can't do it spiritually. You don't feel a thing. So in order to prove to yourself that God is real, you need to turn to the physical world. People who really KNOW their gods are real don't need to run around rejecting science like an ignorant hick. They can accept both as being perfectly viable. The Bible isn't the end-all, be-all of belief and worship, the spiritual presence of God/Jesus should be. But you don't have that, do you. I know you'll say you do, but your actions and beliefs bely your own doubts.

After all, if my mother walks into the room, I don't need to disprove that she's in New York City or Tokyo or Timbuktu. She's in the room with me so I know she exists. But you ... and creationists like you ... seem to think that, if evolution is true or the Big Bang is true, it undermines your entire beleif system - which is essentially Bible worship. People like you only believe in God because the Bible tells you to, NOT because you have an honest-to-goodness connection with your creator. If your god was in the room with you, you wouldn't need to disprove evolution because God's presence would be proof enough. Unfortunately, for folks like yourself, the Bible MUST be literally true for your beliefs to work because that's all you really have - the Bible. But I think your life is as devoid of God and Jesus as mine is ... and while I'm fairly positive that you'll ferverently deny it, I think I'm keenly accurate.

I do not have to disprove evolution it does not exist.

There are many examples of coincidence, however, there becomes a stage when through many examples of one kind or another coincidence does not explain matters and you have to experience these matters to understand them.

It is shear arrogance to suggest that I do not believe certain matters as well as beionging to a religious atheist church you claim to be a mind reader no doubt next it will be a magician,

You belong to this tiny little subset of Christians who flagrantly reject science simply because it contradicts their holy books. You'll never convince me that you believe evolution just happens to be "false" independently of the Bible being "true." Or, in other words, even if you were an atheist, you would still reject evolution in favor of some third, hitherto unknown, third option. No, no, you reject evolution because it clashes with your literalist view of the Bible - and why would you need to take the Bible so literally if you really had a bona fide relationship with your creator?

Science and religion are perfectly compatible, but ONLY if you go about it the right way and stop confusing metaphor and fable as historical fact. I have ZERO interest in converting you to atheism or disproving your faith.

What would be nice, though, is a more reasoned approach to religion where we don't have to accept fable, myth, and stories as historical fact - to the point where we have to reject scientific evidence and objectivity in favor of magic and superstition.

MOST of the world has done precisely that and have moved on from literal interpretations. There is simply no need to stunt our intellectual growth by clinging to ancient notions of creation.

polyglide wrote:I do not have to disprove evolution.

Just as well.

I do not pretend to understand the Old Testament because I am unaware of all the circumstances relative to those times but as a Christian I believe they represent those times and nothing more.

As for evolution, microevolution and macroevolution are as discredited as it is possible to be, the fact is that evolution within a species for various reasons may take place but never to form a seperate species, mutations die out faster than they ever occur etc;

All life indicates that intelligence of the highest order was involved
and still is.

The odds of random mutation have been calculated as 10 to the power of 40,000 and life from none life as 10 to the power of 20, if you then calculate the actual overall odds of either, microevolution or macroevolution being correct then it is the same as a typhoon going through a scrap yard and a Boeing 747 being created.

polyglide wrote:The odds of random mutation have been calculated as 10 to the power of 40,000 and life from none life as 10 to the power of 20, if you then calculate the actual overall odds of either, microevolution or macroevolution  being correct then it is the same as a typhoon going through a scrap yard and a Boeing 747 being created.

Can you provide a source for these claims about the odds involved please?

Read, Roger Penrose.

polyglide wrote:Read, Roger Penrose.

Ignoring for a moment your failure to get the punctuation right in a three-word sentence - could you be more specific? Quotes and references would be nice, rather than something plucked out of context off a creationist site.

You asked for the information, I gave you the reference, I have no intention of typing the relevant infomation, I find typing difficult in the first place.

There is nothing out of context in the calculations made by the person I refer to.

Well, I don't believe you understand the maths or have read his works and I'm citing that last post of yours as evidence (or as a reference, if you like). In any case, it sounds like the lottery winner fallacy (you can look that up).

I believe in that which is self evident, all facts to date disprove evolution, it is the religion of the deluded.

I understand the odds regarding those accepted as impossible by the people who are educated in that respect and all the odds regarding evolution are millions if not trillions beyond those odds and accepted as such by many scientists.

Could you provide a quote from Penrose stating the odds he calculated are impossible then? I'm guessing that's going to be a 'no' (complete with attempts at obfuscation, moving the goalposts and logical fallacies)
Have a nice weekend, by the way.

You too Dan and I will pray for you.

The information will be forthcoming and I hope you will realise the implications.

regards.

If you can actually calculate the odds of something occurring, then it cannot be impossible.

Shirina wrote: If you can actually calculate the odds of something occurring, then it cannot be impossible.

Good point, although I think the problem with said calculation is that it involves unknown variables about the probability of spontaneous occurrence life. At least that's what I gleaned from a TV show. However, if you accept the figures then it's apparent that the odds of it happening are significantly less than there are stars in our own galaxy (I think) therefore it becomes more likely that it will happen somewhere. The evidence that we are the 'lottery winners', if you like, is that we are here. Case closed

Well Shirina you seem to have the odds right not impossible.