• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NoToReligion and SA Huguenot creation evidence.

SA Huguenot

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
NoToReligion. With reference to your post,
Debate on Creationism
I will be delighted to give you my point of view on why I believe there is a God who created it all.
I am a disbeliever in anything that does not have evidence, and surely will not believe in a God by "Blind faith".
My belief in God came from the propability that :
If there isa God, He would have spoken to humans here on the earth.
If He spoke to humans, then surely we can look at what He said and compare it with logic, science, and history.
If these descriptions agree, and we know it was conveyed at a time when no human would have known about these details, surely we should agree that there laythe evidence of a Creator.
If you find it in order to discuss it on this thread, lets continue.
 
T

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
To keep out the riff-raff, the homeless, and the commoners in the balcony, consider taking your debate, if you undertake one, to "Everything But The Kitchen Sink", "General Debates", "One-on-One Debates".
 
Last edited:
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
SA Huguenot said:
My belief in God came from the propability that :
If there isa God, He would have spoken to humans here on the earth.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity: do you have the slightest idea what 'probability' means?

Or is 'propability' [sic!] some newly coined term designating a baseless assumption that props up your belief system?
 
SA Huguenot

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Just out of curiosity: do you have the slightest idea what 'probability' means?

Or is 'propability' [sic!] some newly coined term designating a baseless assumption that props up your belief system?
Click to expand...
I do apologise for my english vocabulary.
English is my third language, Afrikaans first and Zulu second.
In Afrikaans the thought on my statement would be,
I believe in God, because what I read in the Bible about how He say he created the Earth, is what I find scientists describe on their theories on the evidence they collected.
This is highly propable, even more propable than what the Atheists explain to the effect of spontanious creation.
Therefore, It is more propable that there is a creator, than the possibility of none.
Is it perhaps possible that you propably dont like a Christian using the Bible as evidence that God explained how He didit?
Why the tentioning heel pal?
 
SA Huguenot

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Terry Sampson said:
To keep out the riff-raff, the homeless, and the commoners in the balcony, consider taking your debate, if you undertake one, to "Everything But The Kitchen Sink", "General Debates", "One-on-One Debates".
Click to expand...
Shaacks pal.
I missed out on learning how to debate on another forum.
Thanks for the advice.
I will go and check
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
SA Huguenot said:
I believe in God, because what I read in the Bible about how He say he created the Earth, is what I find scientists describe on their theories on the evidence they collected.
Click to expand...

This is a joke, right?

SA Huguenot said:
This is highly propable, even more propable than what the Atheists explain to the effect of spontanious creation.
Click to expand...

There is no atheist explanation of "spontaneous creation".

SA Huguenot said:
Therefore, It is more propable that there is a creator, than the possibility of none.
Click to expand...

How did you arrive at this conclusion? How is a "creator" that exists for no known reason any more probable than a universe that exists for no known reason?The central mystery of existence is identical.
 
SA Huguenot

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
ratiocinator said:
How did you arrive at this conclusion? How is a "creator" that exists for no known reason any more probable than a universe that exists for no known reason?The central mystery of existence is identical.
Click to expand...
Like this....>>>>
How is it that you think the universe exists for no reason?
They call such reasoning A.S.S.U.M.P.T.I.O.N.
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
SA Huguenot said:
Wrong!
Click to expand...

Bizarre. Either you know nothing about science or you're reading things in to the bible that really aren't there...

SA Huguenot said:
So what do we call something that just came into being?
Click to expand...

Is this a guessing game? Vacuum fluctuation?

SA Huguenot said:
How is it that you think the universe exists for no reason?
They call such reasoning A.S.S.U.M.P.T.I.O.N.
Click to expand...

I actually said no known reason. However, can you say why your god exists? If not, you have made just as much of an "assumption" - which isn't actually an assumption, it's an unknown.

So to return to your claim about probabilities, why do you think your god just happening to exist for no known reason is more probable than the universe just happening to exist for no known reason?
 
SA Huguenot

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
ratiocinator said:
Is this a guessing game? Vacuum fluctuation?
Click to expand...
Oh yeah,
This is where Andrei, Sakae, Linde, Guendelman and company came up with the following.
There existed a false vacuum, and inside this vacuum some small vacuum bubbles which keeps on faling into itself.
Then they need to put a monopole in this vacuum to make it grow.
It will grow bigger than our universe, if you are in the inside, but if you are outside of this bubble, it will stay the same.
Where will we get a monopole, well we need a Cosmic string to smach into other matter, and we will have lots of monopoles.
Well, where will we get a cosmic string?
That is a huge problem, because our universe started out with only one cosmic string.
OK, so if we do get one, it means we can create our own universe, but oh dear!
We will not even know if we did create a universe!!!
Because it will happen so fast, and it will detach from our universe by a wormhole, but will still be immeasurable tiny.
Something so small as to 10 to the power of -26 mm.

So, your theory of vacuum fluctuation is realy some silly theory made up by Guendelman and Sakai to publish books, get grants, and to get money from the USA government to build even bigger hadran colliders.
All they do is feed the world BS, and get gold in exchange.

Now, If I take that silly "Scientific theory" and compare it with Genesis Nebular theory, I laugh at any atheist that tries to tell me Vacuum fluctuations was responsible for creation.

Look at the error:
They needed empty space, a Cosmic string, and matter it could collide with!

Do you see the Bulls#^ i see?
Read for yourself!
Create your own universe - Popular Mechanics
Now, you can have the worlds best scientists speaking nonsense, it remains nonsense!
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
SA Huguenot said:
Oh yeah,
This is where Andrei, Sakae, Linde, Guendelman and company came up with the following.
Click to expand...

Never heard of these people and I wasn't proposing a theory of creation - I was just referring to something that "just comes into being". Vacuum fluctuations are a normal part of the universe.

Perhaps you should actually try to come up with the first hint of the slightest reason to take your god idea seriously, instead of trying to build straw men to knock down.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
SA Huguenot said:
I believe in God, because what I read in the Bible about how He say he created the Earth, is what I find scientists describe on their theories on the evidence they collected.
Click to expand...

It is quite simply, brutally, blatantly incorrect that science agrees with the bible creation mythology in every possible sense. The very opposite is true.

This is highly propable, even more propable than what the Atheists explain to the effect of spontanious creation.
Click to expand...

Atheism is a single position as a response to the claim "god exists". Atheism has nothing to say whatsoever about anything. And most defintaly not concerning scientific topics like the origins of life.

The only thing that "the atheists" are saying, is that they don't believe in god. That's it.

Therefore, It is more propable that there is a creator, than the possibility of none.
Click to expand...

1. that's not how probability works. To be able to say that X is more probable then Y, you need to be able to calculate the odds and show your work. Good luck with that.

2. Assuming the existance of undetectable, undemonstrable, unfalsifiable and unsupportable supernatural entities, pretty much by definition, are NEVER "more probable" then such things not existing.

On the other hand: natural physics, chemistry and bio-chemistry all demonstrably exist. And nothing in the processes of life, both on the small as well as on the big schale, are violating any of these. There's no reason at all to assume the existance of supernatural entities to make it all work, just like there is no reason to imagine undetectable graviton pixies that are regulating gravity.

Is it perhaps possible that you propably dont like a Christian using the Bible as evidence that God explained how He didit?
Click to expand...

I don't like misinformation and lies.
So I don't like when somebody pretends that science agrees with biblical mythology, because it doesn't.
 
N

NoToReligion

Member
SA Huguenot said:
NoToReligion. With reference to your post,
Debate on Creationism
I will be delighted to give you my point of view on why I believe there is a God who created it all.
I am a disbeliever in anything that does not have evidence, and surely will not believe in a God by "Blind faith".
My belief in God came from the propability that :
If there isa God, He would have spoken to humans here on the earth.
If He spoke to humans, then surely we can look at what He said and compare it with logic, science, and history.
If these descriptions agree, and we know it was conveyed at a time when no human would have known about these details, surely we should agree that there laythe evidence of a Creator.
If you find it in order to discuss it on this thread, lets continue.
Click to expand...

The probability that he would have spoken to humans on Earth? Even then you're making it bigger than it was. He only spoke to one people, in one region, in only a few, small countries, until Rome came along. But really, why would God speak to humans on Earth?

The universe is large and amazing. If we are to believe that God created the universe as Genesis 1 says, we must take into consideration that universe. So let's just start with our galaxy. Do you know how massive our galaxy is? There's hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy alone, with multiple planets around each one, and many able to host life. Yet God decides to talk to one species, on one planet, in one region, on just a few occasions, and commits genocide 5 times there. That's not even taking into consideration the bigger picture: the universe.

Now, let's talk about the universe. Did God really decide to make over 90% of the universe inhospitable for nearly all forms of life, including humans, just so he could wait 9 billion years to create Earth, 4 billion years to create humans, a couple hundred thousand more years for society to develop, to then reveal himself to some people and commit multiple genocides? Sounds a bit odd, don't you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top