Was there or was there not, a time when God was non-existent? Has He ALWAYS been around? or was there a time when he wasnt there, then a second later, he was? If not, then why not?
I will reply to myself. You are stating that "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics." This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature? The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws. See, I can use the internet too.
It's basically faith vs. no faith. If you have faith in certain things, like your religion for example, then you simply don't need to question these things. You know these things by virtue of having faith in anything your religion says. Whether you think something is rational or not, just the fact that it came from a superior being and you BELIEVE that it came from a superior being should be enough for you to say "ok, it's true, and i don't understand it, but i'll try". However, if you DON'T have faith in these things, you'll keep questioning them and never really reach an answer, case in point: outlaw.
What you described to a large part is ignorance and not faith. Part of faith is searching, and questioning and ultimately believing. Searching for greater understanding is in no way belittling faith. I believe in evolution, science, and have faith in the bible. Not believing in things that are proven wouldn't be pleasing or a tribute to any person let a lone a perfect Deity. The bible isn't there to be a science textbook. It's there to be a spiritual guide. I'm perfectly content to let scientists work on science text books, while I read the bible for spiritual guidance.
Not disagreeing with you really. If you believe that the Bible is from God, and you believe in the Bible, then anything in the Bible would be true in your eyes right? If you believe that the Bible is from God, then you read that (FOR EXAMPLE) the bible says that there was a Big Bang and that evolution didn't create this world, then wouldn't you believe it despite some convincing, yet unproven, theories? I don't understand why Islam requires you to do the washing up ritual even after a shower (I do now, but Ididn't before), but it says I have to so I'll believe it. If I findd the reason, that's great, if not, I'll put my trust in God's book before I trust myself, one of 5 billion people, a portion of a particle in this endless universe which was, according to what I believe, created by God. God created the universe and I went to university... Hmmm, who probably has the best answers?
But did "God" give us the ability to figure things out? I would think the gift of rational thinking would be an answer to itself.
but why do you have faith in your religion? because your parents forced you to when you were a kid? you're the one talking about empirical evidence in the other thread and yet you don't have/need any to support your views of creationism.
Tell me outlaw, do you need empirical evidence to know if some girl is the right person for you? Is there a bunch of statistics you gather before you get married? While that answer keeps you tied up, I want to note that there is evidence that proves MY faith to be true, but that's stuff for another thread. I wish my parentshad forced Islam onto me, I really really do. I wish they had forced me to pray and forbidden me from listening to music. I even wish they had forbidden me from openly and freely mingling with girls. I wish my dad didn't drink or smoke in the house. But that wasn't the case, unfortunately for me, as well as your argument. MR MEOWGI, Yes he did, but some things are beyond a human brain. If we had the ability to figure everything out, that means we'll eventually be able to do God's work. To me, that's absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn't have faith in God's religion if I thought I could one day figure out everything he did. Humans can only use 5% of their brain AT A TIME. Considering the size of your brain, and considering how small 5% of that is, how do you expect to unlock the secrets to things that God designed? Side note: my faith clearly states that we are limited thinkers and also states that humans will never fully decode the Qura'an simply because they're not capable of it. So to me, it's just fine that people are trying to find the answer, and I support that. I just don't think they'll find the answer. I mean, seriously, you expect me to wait on an answer about whther or not God created earth when it's already been proven to me (personally) that he does?
yeah your parents sound like monsters. if there is evidence that you claim, please share it. why not enlighten the rest of the world to the answers we all seek? And yes I would need empirical* evidence to know if someone was the right person for me to marry. Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment or experience; depending upon the observation of phenomena; versed in experiments.
I guess my definition of empirical evidence differs. But you know what I mean. If we're going to get hung up on technicalities, we'll forget the point of this conversation. Fine. First we have to agree on when Islam was written. We're definitely talking before modern science, correct? WAAAAAAY before modern science, right? So if the Qura'an explains in detail the creation of an embryo and the birth of a child, how would you explain that?
I definately agree that there are limitations to thought. We may not be able to "figure out everything" but we can figure out enough to live well and be happy, without mandates from "god". Other religions and cultures have proved this. I also believe only by understanding the limitations of thought can one transcend it, taking you to another level of comprehension.
Harrold C. Urey, a winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry, declared that many scientists now admit to the impossibility of evolution and that random mutations could never account for the remarkable biological diversity that characterizes life on Earth. Howeverm he also admitted that evolution was generally accepted by modern scientists as "an article of faith", as a kind of religous belief system, rather than as a result of logical analysis of scientific facts. In confirmation of the actual religious nature of many scientists' acceptance of evolutuon, Proffessor Urey said, All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere... And yet we all believe as an "article of faith" that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great that it is hard for us to imagine that it did. Another Nobel Prize winner, Ernest Chain, wrote about the failure of Darwin's theory of evolution. To postulate that the developement of survival of the fittest is entirely a cosequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. The classical evolutionary theories are a gross intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time by so many scientists without a murmur protest."
You see the difference between me and you is that you want to live well and be happy, while my goal is to go to the highest level of heaven. We can figure out enough to live well and be happy, but to go to heaven, I personally think we need help which is why I personally think God sent us a bunch of rule books known as the Bible, the Torah, the Qura'an, and the two other books whose names I don't know in English. Things like "treat people the way you want to be treated" is wonderful for being happy and having a generally happy society. However, I personally don't think it's specific enough for me to be able to follow and go to the highest level of heaven.
Another difference between you and me is that I understand heaven exists right now, this very moment, and I do not have to abandon this world to experience it. I don't have to die to arrive at the gates of heaven, I just have to be truly alive. Jesus described the Kingdom of God as being like a tiny mustard seed. It means that the seed of the Kingdom of God is within us. And according to the Buddha, life is available only in the present moment, in the here and the now. And when you go back to the present moment, you have a chance to touch life, to encounter life, to become fully alive and fully present, and experience heaven. I think of the Bible is a guide book, not a rule book. When the living values are absent, rituals and dogmas are lifeless, rigid, and even oppressive. I really don't know much about the Qura'an, but wish I did.
You're like a broken record, you just post the same garbage, over and over again. Seriously, you don't know sh-t about Urey, Miller or the Oparin Haldane hypothesis, you don't know sh-t about what evolution is.....at all. And you have demonstrated it, again, and again and again. It's ironic because you pretened to have an open mind when you started this trainwreck of a thread, but then you just keep citing foul smelling 'evidence' gleaned from a book written by some televangelist charlatan. Give it up already man, it's not going to work, you dig?
You believe heaven exists right now, just like I believe you go to heaven after judgement day. I also believe heaven exists right now, but in a different dimension, one that we can not enter without "permission". I'll say this much: the Qura'an doesn't leave you wondering. you've got your concrete answers "heaven is here, exists like this, this is how you get there". I know exactly how to get to heaven, when I'll get there if I deserve it, and I believe that heaven is something much greater than the simple pleasures in life. I don't need to wonder, specualte, pick up pieces from the Jesus, Moses and Buddha to piece together. Sure, I've read into all these things, researched them, whatever. But it was just out of curiosity, out of "I'll take a look, who knows, maybe I'll be convinced". No dice. I believe in Islam and all my answers are, to my surprise, in its book. I know why I was created, I know why certain things are permitted and certain things are not, I know the meaning of life, the beginning, the ending, and everything in between.
sane -- truly, i do not wish to enter into some sort of holy war with you. but if you're reading the teachings of Christ and coming away with the idea that they form a "rule book," then maybe you should read them again...just get a new testament that has Christ's words in red...and just read through those words. statements attributed to him. i think what you'll find is tribute to a holy God...and mankind who seems entirely incapable of bridging the gap between man and God without God's own sacrifice. not a theology where i could earn my way to heaven, or every be worthy of God's love, because i can't and i couldn't.
Point well taken. Bad choice of words on my part. Outlaw, God gave the message to Gabriel (the angel), he dictated it to the Prophet Muhammad who wrote it down in the form of the Qura'an, and that's where I get MY info from. As far as I'm concerned, God could've phoned me and the message would be exactly the same. The Qura'an, unlike the Bible, has not changed and has been preserved in its original form and language. The Bible has many versions, as well as 2 testaments (fact). There are many divisions in Islam, there's the 9unni, Shi3i, Wahabi...etc... but the book is the same. Exactly the same. Always has been, always will be. outlaw, just because you're having trouble searching for your answers doesn't mean you have to rip everyone who found them. You're like the sore loser who can't finish the race, so you try to sabotage the winners' party. Maybe you should spend more time finding the answers that you don't have and less time trying to rip into people who got there first?
