quote: To answer the great question "How can 0+0=1?", here is an artical i read in Discover magazine a while ago, I urge anyone who hasn't read it to do so now, on either side of the debate.
I always thought you had what you needed right there. 0+0=1 with extremely large values of zero... or something along those lines.
quote: Throughout the Bible you have all sorts of names, yet I haven't come across one other Jesus.
Books with a main character dont usually like to confuse the readers with people of the same name. Especially when they don't factor in at all. You only hear of one James and Joseph in the NT. And only two Johns. We're dealing with a small population of people this centers around. They don't even give names to half these people.
quote: Well scientists have found remains of what looks to be Noah's Ark on a mountain top in Turkey and many believe the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia.
What "many believe" is indeterminant. I beleive I have a life, however, I know from ratehr reliable sources that it's never shown itself and proof of it's exietence is scarce.
quote: I saw an ABC News show on that one. But if you want proof of the Bible, just read the daily newspaper; there's always something about the United Nations or European Union doing SOMETHING. Both organizations are pushing for a One World Government, prophesied in the Bible (Daniel, Jeremiah, Revelation).
Living where I do I also know a guy (who is admittedly insane) who aid the same thing. I don't really consider him a prophet. Most apocalyptic writings predict totalitarian domination. Even those from atheists. It's a common prediction. And seeing as how we've already had the League of Nations, the Napoleonic Wars, the Soviet Union, the spread of communism, American Imperialism, NATO, The Third Rech, The Roman Empire, The Greek Empire, The Egyptian Empire, Ghengi Kahn, The African Consortium, OPEC, The British Commonwealth. The British Empire, The Spanish Colonies, The Treaty of Tordesaillas, Multinational Companies, the WTO, the World Bank, Freemasons, World-wide religions, etc. etc. etc. and so on and so forth It's easy to see why so many people forcast world domination or at least charasmatic leaders that turn evil (as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely). It is not only an easy prediction, it is bound to come true at least in the minds of beleivers. It is also a source to draw from. John, when writing, was in exile and Nero very much fit the description of an antichrist. It could have been a simple description of the times (written in a way as to avoid punishment for anti-State writings) or a pessimistic prediliction for the near future based on the course of the current events of the time. Why you contend that some random letter to 7 curches 1900 years ago is validated by the random fact that closely related countries want economic ties, or by the fact that some nations wanted to avoid WWIII in the nuclear age, is beyond me. Things like this are bound to happen. And to try to connect it with any number of prophecies (from Nostradamus to Dionne Warwick) is going to be easy when there are so many examples to draw from and such a likelihood of vague statements coming true. Revelation was only a typical example of that era's apocalyptic writings, of which, there were many.
More info on Box (Note phrases like: While most scholars agree that Jesus existed, no physical evidence from the first century has ever been conclusively tied with his life. and ames, Joseph and Jesus were common names in ancient Jerusalem)
That's funny because I do not recall ever hearing of another man named Jesus at the time of Jesus.
Throughout the Bible you have all sorts of names, yet I haven't come across one other Jesus.
Well scientists have found remains of what looks to be Noah's Ark on a mountain top in Turkey and many believe the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia.
I saw an ABC News show on that one.
But if you want proof of the Bible, just read the daily newspaper; there's always something about the United Nations or European Union doing SOMETHING.
Both organizations are pushing for a One World Government, prophesied in the Bible (Daniel, Jeremiah, Revelation).
Just listen to the nightly news. The One World Government supporter TV anchors (Brokaw, Jennings and Rather are members of the highly-powerful Council on Foreign Relations) report U.N. and EU issues a lot of the times.
Actually, the Shroud of Tuirn was a hoax (if it's too good to be true...). For most of recorded history people have scoured Mt. Ararat and found nothing. The box, has yet to be verified, and if true, only shows there was someone named Jesus (a popular name at the time) who had a brother James (also, a popular name at the time), and a father Joseph (you guesed it, not altogether too uncommon either).
i am a science person...no matter how much i deny it i love science...as of my 93% in AP biology...good, but ill improve...anyway thats why i believe in evolution so much...i luv science...plus creationism sounds impossible and weird and insesutous to me. is that a word??
SuperMegaAwesomeChica: Thank you, you just told it like it was! I heard on the news about the burial box. It had Arabic on it, and it said, "James, son of Joesph, brother of Jesus." They found evidence of an ark on Mt. Ararat. The Shroud of Turin is supposed to be the burial cloth of Jesus. Christians are starting to get some real proof here. Evolution is wrong and it makes no sense. Sorry if you are offened, but like SuperMegaAwesomeChica said, it it true, and that is just the way it is.
Strangelove-that's an interesting site. Though I didn't uderstand some of what was being mentioned (much like when I took a stab at "A Brief History of Time), I'll give what I think.
Firstly the scientists involved in this have no proof that these atoms are actually out there, flickering in and out of nowhere. They have good evidence, but it has never been observed (correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't see anyhting saying they had). Therefor, what they have is much like what Christians have-the Bible. Both are evidence for either side, and both present an argument. The Bible, a guide, essentially, and summary of Christ's life and that of the Israelites and their Jewish religion. Then there is all the crap going on in space (crap seems to sum it all up... ), which pulasting magnetic forces, ect ect. The natural argument for Athesists is that the only "proof" of God comes from the Bible, and is only supported by itself. Why this makes it less likely that God exists, I don't know. People back then would not be any less honest than us today-why are we so critical of them? I'm not saying we should blindly follow them, but still. Now, the scientist have all that crap going on up in space to prove their point and this is backed up by...(drum roll)....more crap going on in space. I believe this is a quote from the Bible- "The wisdom of man is foolishness unto God". And I still really don't get how something can come from nothing. If I remember correctly, gravity is negative, and mass is positive (or visa versa). Now, the theory is that there is actually still "nothing" right now out there-which is slightly confusing, as then where the hell did this computer I'm in front of come from? Back to the point, it said that there is actually nothing right now, there is no reason why the whole nothng we've got now couldn't erupt from the nothing of nothing before there was anything. This is based on the positive/negative energy combination we have with mass and gravity in the universe today. But, this does not hold water, as there is not an equal amount of matter and gravity in the universe today. There is gravity in space-not just around bodies in space. There is far more gravity-and thus negative energy-in existance than positive energy-mass-in existance. There should be far more negative then positive energy in the universe, but, according to the studies, there is an equal amount, and much of the whole "something from nothing" theory is based on this. After this, I'm back to the 0+0=ing 1 conundrum. I can't see it happening.
quote: Can someone please explain to me this theory of apes turning into humans? If this is what you believe then please tell... why aren't apes evolving into humans now? Scientist say that the world is over 4 billion years old.... this could not possibley be true. It is scientifically shown that the sun has gotten smaller and has disintergrated over the years. If the earth was that old then when the earth was first made the sun must have been touching the surface, which would have killed any form of life that was on it. ....just some things to think about.
Oh, god, please educmacate yourself.
Evolution is usually portrayed as cumulative mutations. This means that todays primates are on a completely different path than we are. The simple way to visualize this is to find a flow chart of the evolution of species. These can usually be found in a high school biology book.
As for the sun, I have no idea where you got that idea from. Here, in a few simple steps, is the supposed history of a star 1.) Condensation of hydrogen/helium from a nebula into a cocentrated sphere. 2.) The pressure from all the gas starts a fusion reaction, which releases huge amounts of energy. Heavier elements are either burned up, or congeal into orbiting bodies. 3.) The fuel (hydrogen) eventually (over 10 billion years or so) slowly fuses into heavier elements. 4.) The star cools as this happens, causing it to expand as it's mass is condensed in it's center. This is usually called a "red giant". (this would be the stage where the Earth would be burnt to a crisp, and is about 5+ billion years away) 5.) There are several stages after this, all of which depend on the spcific characteristics of the star. in the end though, the star will become a small, extremely dense object.
To answer the great question "How can 0+0=1?", here is an artical i read in Discover magazine a while ago, I urge anyone who hasn't read it to do so now, on either side of the debate.
FIRSTLY to pie. i think it's cool we can get into these theological debates like this using reason and discussion and not resort to name calling or immaturity. right on. i'm not saying that god didn't have a say in starting the laws of the universe(the intelligent design theory); i just recognize that they are there. we wouldn't be here observing them if they didn't work.
you said:". But it could not have always existed, it must have come from somewhere, unless you believe that it could have existed forever, from the beginning, which I can't see one of, to the end, which also cannot happen or have been."
something from nothing? impossible, no? then you state:"The Bible says that God always has been, and always will be. No beginning and no end."
sounds more or less the same to me. that's all i want to say.
next. supamgaawsmcic. you claim that evolutionists believe that things spontaniously appeared out of thin air!?!?!??! are you sure you know what side your on? so when god created the earth and all the little things in it, he made humans, giraffes, lions, bears, squirrels, zebra, FISH, bacteria, dogs (ha!), cats, cows, etc, JUST THE WAY THEY ARE TODAY!?!?! runnning around eden huh? to bad ALL FOSSIL record proves other wise. animals progress. they don't stay the same. that's evolution. hominoids first appear in south africa. we became nomadic, which means moving around to different areas for survival. human fossil records are scattered all across the globe. no doubt they're there because they find hominoid skull progression up the east coast of africa all the way up to europe. I DON'T WANT TO SOUND OFFENSIVE, but to dismiss the facts because they don't fit in your perfect little world is just ignorant.
Pie - Glad you brought up that point about how everything seems "just right". The theory of evolution actually explains this.
At this point I'm going to drop the ideas of "right" or "wrong" and just present two of many possibilities.
Natrual selection says that the environment around us "arrived" first, and that humans and human-like creatures evolved or were "tailored" to it so that we becames a spieces that was perfectly adapted to this environment. We have 3-D vision, we know what colors of berries are good to eat, we understand the value of the environment - what kinds of trees to live in, what kinds of animails to eat, what to stay away from.
This gave us the idea that it was in fact the other way around; that the environment was created to suit our needs. It's actually kind of poetic, because it means that natrual selection explains the origins or religion.
So that leaves you with a few options there: You can believe that humans are best designed for this environment, or that this environment is best designed for humans. I totally respect your descision either way, because I now understand religion to be a sort of natrual human tendancy.
By the way, does anyone have a proof for God's existance?
I really can't see how anything really is, though. Think about nothing. No time passes, for there is nothing for it to effect. There would be a pure clearness-no white, only clear as air, with the possible exception of that over major cities. Nothing to see, just infinity. You could really see everything forever in front of you, because there would be nothing to inhibit your vision. Now, how could a ball of incredibly dense material, containing trillions of tons of matter, suddenly "be" there? There would be no area for it to spawn from. But it could not have always existed, it must have come from somewhere, unless you believe that it could have existed forever, from the beginning, which I can't see one of, to the end, which also cannot happen or have been. (I'm just saying, "it" will always "be"). But, back to what I was aying, the matter couldn't exist from no where, so there always must have been matter, even from before the beginning. A complete circle, but one has to wonder where we started drawing it. I feel like I'm just retreading what it is I've been saying, and I probably am. Now, about God. The Bible says that God always has been, and always will be. No beginning and no end. Much like how I'm trying to say existance both is and isn't. So, I'm thinking that God is not physical, nor energy, that he exists, but he doesn't. He exists, but not really. Hell, I'm finding this hard to explain. What it is, is that God never came from anywhere, but he is. I'll come back to this in a bit-maybe by then I'll have an example or better explaination of sorts.
I whole heartedly believe in creation. I can not see how someone can look at all the things in this world and not believe that there was someone who made it. Everything is so precise and exact and has many specific details..... saying that it spontaniously errupted into what it is now... (sorry evolved) is insane. The Bible states that God created it in 6 days... The Bible IS NOT controdictive or fiction, and I'm quite sorry if this offends you or you disagree with it but it is true.... Can someone please explain to me this theory of apes turning into humans? If this is what you believe then please tell... why aren't apes evolving into humans now? Scientist say that the world is over 4 billion years old.... this could not possibley be true. It is scientifically shown that the sun has gotten smaller and has disintergrated over the years. If the earth was that old then when the earth was first made the sun must have been touching the surface, which would have killed any form of life that was on it. ....just some things to think about.
pie. nice prose. i like trying to prove our own existence too. it's a metaphysical riddle, existence. who knows?? ya know. i disagree with the solipism philosophy (i.e.i am the only living entity in this reality-since it's the only one i can TRULY know). stuff happens everyday and has been for the past millions of years before i existed. i didn't have to be alive for them to happen. biology and history make impressions and ripples in time. niether are static or constant.
i also think that consciousness is a living thing. i'm a scientist though. ultimately, in my opinion, brain, mind, soul and spirit are outdated words for nueral biology and chemistry, energy and electromagnetism [which govern the laws of astrophysics too. (imagine a cell is a universe.)] science proves that fact can be stranger than fiction. and far more complicated.
it was once common belief that the world was flat. makes sense in theory; i mean you look out and you see only so far. it has to have an end right? can't go on forever right? well it doesn't. but it kind of does. the human imagination is the only limitation.
if something can't come from nothing, tell me where and or when god came from!!! god had to come from somewhere right!!!! what was before god? it's the same kind of thing as arguements against the big bang. i think that "stuff" can come from nothing; scientifically speaking. i'd have to do some rereading somewhere but i heard that the sub-subatomic particles like quarks\fermions\bosons came from plasma (which incidentalty is an abundent element - yes it is an element) in outer space. I THINK that supergravity masses like black holes got so large that they ate up solar systems, galaxies and then eventually each other crashing into each other and eating themselves and then bang. the grand unification (of all matter and antimatter in the universe)!!! i tryed imagining it once. doubt it really happened like that, but who knows. we might find out one day because humans evolve on a telescopic level. first 10 thosand years. then hundreds, next generational, soon; we'll be changing daily. if you ever read any Hawking or rather comprehended him, then you would find science has made vast achievements in the quantom physics department. can't wait till 5 and a half years.
So, where did that little blob of matter come from? You know the one. The little one that held all the billions of trillions of matter in the ubiverse. Where the hell did that come from? Nowhere is the only explaination I can come up with. Something cannot appear from nothing, I can't recall any instances in which I could make a few thousand bucks materialize in my hand no matter how hard I tried.Something can't come from nothing, and the universe is something, but it had to come from nothing, but it can't have come from nothing, so it must have existed forever, so there was no beginning,which means that existance is a circle, which would have to have started somewhere, which means again that the something we have in the universe must have come from the nothing before it, which couldn't happen. This means that nothing, or perhaps very little, is real. So, if nothing in the universe actually exists, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that all of you are only figments of my imagination, and therefor none of you can say anything I don't already know, but since what you're saying isn't true, I can't know it anyways, I'm just making it up. But it's tricky trying to be inventive when your conciousness doesn't really exist, so that must be why my perception of the world is in such a mess. Perhaps a few of you are real, and we are all linked mentally as the few, the elite, those that exist, and through this mental link, we all see these others posting as we imagine them. To bad we can't make them make complete fools of themselves in front of all the other non-entities, but I can't see why we couldn't, as we have created them. Perhaps we all have conflicting images of them being idiots, and they thus cannot do all the things at once, so choose to do none of them, but they cannot choose to do none of them as they have no conciousness, and don't exist. But since we only exist, and everyhting outside of us doesn't, does that mean that we cannot die? How can the conciousness, a non living thing, die? It has nothing to live by, yet it does, it could not be capable of death. I wonder if we can choose our afterlife-and our minds will give us a body in which to live it out. Perhaps ghosts are those who are real and have died, and now infest our world. Perhaps I should go to bed-there is always the possibilty that it is my dream world that is the real one, and it needs attending to. Yes, that seems a good idea. Meh.
Additionally,Why must someone disprove the existence of God? (Which is by definition impossible.) Why can't it just be a wash or an agnostic "I'm not sure"? We can safely assume creation has a lot to recover from. Additionally, teh Bible, like any good book, is occasionally contradictory, or likely more fiction than non. You can keep your faith as long as it's logical and you simply say something like: "I have a good idea. I have something to me that feels right and I'm not looking for proof. It gives me a moral code and a hope for something more to life." A dogmatic cling to religion unless they can absolutely destroy the core of your religion is harmful to you and will likely polarize you against whoever begs to differ. You don't need proof. You don't need the Bible. Your faith isn't so shallow that it depends on the belifs of others or the ancient words of mere mortals. You'd rather not argue it. You have faith. What you also don't need is a fatalistic ballte-to-the-death attitude. I just don't think that to cling to something and demand so much of others is really the way to win an argument. There are much better ways of going about this.
Topics 
), which pulasting magnetic forces, ect ect. The natural argument for Athesists is that the only "proof" of God comes from the Bible, and is only supported by itself. Why this makes it less likely that God exists, I don't know. People back then would not be any less honest than us today-why are we so critical of them? I'm not saying we should blindly follow them, but still.