 | | Does God Exist? (was Re: Mercy? (was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)) —Ian Warfield
|
| | | (...) Oh dear. Let me start over. God is good, and there is no evil or sin in him. God created everything, so therefore everything reflects God's goodness in some way. People doing good things don't do it because of their innate goodness; they (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Does God Exist? (was Re: Mercy? (was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)) —Jason J. Railton
|
| | | | | (...) So, here's how I like to see it. If God started everything off, what if He let it play out - what if He wasn't sticking His oar in every five minutes? What if we really do have free will, for a start? Who wants to live in a universe where you (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Does God Exist? (was Re: Mercy? (was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)) —Ian Warfield
|
| | | | | | (...) God reserves the right to engineer events, but He makes sure to allow us to maintain our free will. Anyway it's God's universe; He can do what He wants with it. (...) You have that choice. The tree of knowledge was placed in the Garden of Eden (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Does God Exist? (was Re: Mercy? (was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) You're not getting it. Maybe there were 10^37 (or whatever) universal incarnations that had nothing like us occur. That's fine. You're arguing that a probability that doesn't actually have any bearing on our likelihood, does. I'm sorry, but (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Does God Exist? (was Re: Mercy? (was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes indeed. Another way to approach it is to point out that we (life in general) weren't running around looking for a universe to populate and were lucky enough to find this one; we (again, life in general) arose within this universe because (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Does God Exist? (was Re: Mercy? (was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Might that be because you don't play? That's *usually* my reason for not winning, although once in a while (when the expected value (of the net present value of the win after taxes) >100% of the cost to play) it is because the gods don't like (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | The Origins Debate —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | (...) It's not nearly so cranky as many of the others, but it's still largely based on anti-logic. Why can't it be the Hindu gods? Or why can't the Hare Krishnas be right? (...) But the physical state of the universe was quite different. We're in a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) <snip> Excellent refutation. If Ian had been doing his homework reading what has been said here before maybe he wouldn't be posting essentially the same tired stuff all over again that we've all already heard. If people want to take comfort in (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | (...) Yeh, well, it's never for me so much as for the spectators. :D (...) My only search for common ground is to get the agreement that yes, belief in religion is a matter of faith and is therefore unprovable positively *or* negatively. My aim, if (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Spot on. I have no beef with religion or any other dogma except when it obstructs progress. (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Kirby Warden
|
| | | | | | (...) I think that this is the stance I have been leaning towards the past year or so. I feel rather lonely in church these days as I no longer "see" as the majority of the congregation seems to. Blind faith ("dogma" I suppose) seems to work at (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | | (...) As a Christian, I agree that if many so-called Christian leaders had their way we'd all be almost Amish. As I've said before, I believe it's because most Christians are guilt-motivated. They really don't know what to think and as such are (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Ian Warfield
|
| | | | (...) If that's a backhanded concession of any sort, I'll take it. :) Another good site is www.swordandspirit.com. It's chock full of humor - about as far from cranky as you can yet. (...) I don't see this. Can you cite an example? (...) At this (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) I don't understand this argument. Everything science proposes is theory (hypothesis, actually). It never goes beyond that. Everything science determines is a tentative explanation, pending better. It is not valid to claim that "evolution is (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Ian Warfield
|
| | | | (...) That's exactly what I meant. It wasn't an argument; I was just restating the fact that evolution is, indeed, a theory. (...) I wasn't claiming that it necessarily would. I was merely guarding against the possibility of anyone claiming it as (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) To be more precise, evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The Darwinian model of natural selection is an evolutionary theory--that is, a theory that hopes to explain the process by which the fact of evolution occurs. (...) But no one (...) (23 years ago, 20-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Ian Warfield
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) Let me restate my position this way: FACT: Many, many species exist and have existed on Earth. The first species which appeared were very simple, single-celled organisms, without nuclei. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins "Debate" —Dave Low
|
| | | | | (...) There is more evidence around than just the fossil record though. For instance, my work involves comparing DNA sequences from different organisms. We can measure the differences between sequences, and draw a tree or nested set describing how (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | |In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes: | |>Let me restate my position this way: | |>The theory of evolution states that these organisms developed of their own |>accord, by means of spontaneous, large-scale genetic mutations in a (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) Dave!: Here we come to the great defeater of your argument: The existence of Baseball is final and convincing proof that a Loving and Good God does in fact exist. I defy you to postulate any theoretical universe in which Baseball, in all its (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) I'm not a particular fan of baseball, but even I am amazed that the Pirates have seemed somehow to lose more games this year than everyone else in the league combined. What especially steams me is that Pittsburgh in its infinite, (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) While the existence of Baseball may be an unarguable proof of God, I feel that I must point out that unfortantely, the Dodgers are an unarguable proof of the existence of the Devil (some might argue that the Yankees are actually the proof of (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Wasn't he implicated in the Applegate scandal a few years back? Dave! FUT OT.Alleged-Humor (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) No, it is proof that the universe is in fact random, if not actually cruel and malevolent. Why else would such an ultimately boring game fascinate so many? (including me) (...) And if you REALLY want proof of no justice, consider the Tigers. (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —James Simpson
|
| | | | | (...) Ah, but here we have merely the inscrutability of Divine Wisdom. Presumably God foreknew that a universe with baseball, in sum totality of its joys and many despairs, would be an inherently better state of affairs than a universe without (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Origins Debate —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) Baseball (...) Perhaps they just bounce too much.... ROSCO (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
