The "Created God" Paradox

[Arceus3000]

so much for getting our morals from god if we all receive different ones. you failed to prove your own statement.

The morals are now different due to choice, which God gave us. You have not read the bible.

 

[Ergonomic]

The morals are now different due to choice, which God gave us. You have not read the bible.

Exactly! Good post! We have chosen to refute God's laws because we as humans are sinners. Excellent.

 

[pocketmunster]

Isnt playing pokemon a distraction from god or the worship of a false idle? Shouldnt you be praying some where right now?

 

[Comedy of Errors]

the main branches of evolution contain the following:

- DNA
- embrology
- similar bone structures

and many more.

(Assuming that you mean that DNA is proof of evolution because animals that supposed evolved from each other have similar DNA) Let me give you a metaphor I used earlier:

If you go into your neighbor's backyard and see that they have a small blue doghouse, a small blue treehouse, a blue shed, a blue garage, and a large blue house that all have the same design would you say 'Oh, they all must have started as doghouses then gradually from wear and tear by the earth's forces increased in size and development' when it's much more likely that they all had the same designer instead?

EDIT:

Isnt playing pokemon a distraction from god or the worship of a false idle? Shouldnt you be praying some where right now?

Am I playing Pokemon right now? No I'm not. I'm trying to show people the way to the light.

 

[Ergonomic]

Isnt playing pokemon a distraction from god or the worship of a false idle? Shouldnt you be praying some where right now?

Who said I worship Pokemon? Not true at all. I know they are false. Get your facts straight.
God tells us to go and spread the news of Him. That's what I'm doing.

 

[pocketmunster]

God tells us to go and spread the news of Him. That's what I'm doing.

Good job. Pokemon distracs you from god now go repent before its too late!

 

[Ergonomic]

Good job. Pokemon distracs you from god now go repent before its too late!

Um... Seriously? We just told you that it doesn't. I could say, "OH, YOU'RE AGAINST WHATEVER RELIGION YOU'RE FOR BECAUSE YOU'RE ON THIS FORUM!"
It wouldn't be true, now, would it? Well I'll leave that for you to think about. See all you debaters come morning! Or whenever I get home from school...

~God Bless~

 

[pocketmunster]

But your not praying or reading the bible if your playong pokemon, and besides the god dam pokemon evolve in the game. But seriously I dont want to be preached at so im done.

 

[GhostAnime]

okay, i'm in a hurry, but i'm gonna summarize a bit here:

ergonomics: science changes all the time because scientists themselves are infallible; but the fact that science can correct itself just makes it even more reliable compared to religion.. which asserts things, leaves more questions, and never changes. why does it never change? because it's not falsifiable, and if you cant possibly falsify a statement, you're free to do whatever you want.

in science, there are ways to prove others wrong. there are systematic developments that advance our knowledge about the world and if they didnt exist i honestly ask you how on earth do you type here?

If you go into your neighbor's backyard and see that they have a small blue doghouse, a small blue treehouse, a blue shed, a blue garage, and a large blue house that all have the same design would you say 'Oh, they all must have started as doghouses then gradually from wear and tear by the earth's forces increased in size and development' when it's much more likely that they all had the same designer instead?

i dont see what this has to do with DNA. DNA shows that everything is related and youve yet to show SCIENTIFIC evidence of intelligent design.

Error you need to understand what science is before you challenge it. it is a process; it is not a 'club' of people who purposely attack religion. evolution is also not a guess but rather a discovery. it didnt come out of thin air but interpretations of facts such as fossils, DNA, and bone structures.

fact is, science is the reason you're typing here and probably why you and some family members are alive yet religion only comes into play based on what you believe.

but science has already worked for everybody here. so my question to you is, and to hopefully not have another war of quotes at me (and please, one at a TIME this time), anything at all, that i can sense with any of my 5 senses using science, that exists a christian god (i'm not interested in debating a vague 'creator' but a specific entity here).

also what some of you dont (and no christian ever will) understand is what a theory is in a scientific context.

take any science college class. they will clearly distinguish between theories in both regular speech and scientific speech. look at the sources i gave you. read any high school science textbook. if you refuse to do any of these things and accept the fact that evolution is as established as gravity and the germ theory to all scientists, do not even bother typing a reply to me; there is no debate here if you wont accept common knowledge. if you think there's a flaw in it, try to present one but if you're just going to tell me you wont believe pack your ****.

if ANY three of you want to reply to any of my posts, i do NOT want to hear:

- faith based arguments. we get it. these 'spiritual' and 'miracle' things are important to you. i am not interested in debating something you cant debate about, so dont bother posting about it otherwise it WILL be ignored.

- the big bang theory. it does not make your god any less imaginary to me. attacking it is pointless.

- argument from ignorance fallacies. basically what i mean is asserting yourself right just because you cant EXPLAIN something. anytime you do this i'll just tell you the fallacy and be done with it.

we've already trailed off-topic so may as well go this route ;[

 

[Hammerheart]

Common knowledge. Have you ever seen anything that has not be created? Every earthly/worldly thing has been created in some form or another. The only thing that was not created was God (because God is not worldly). You cannot say "well something had to create God". God's power cannot be put into humanistic terms.

I dont think you understand me. I mean just cause we cant handle the concept of something not being created doesnt mean it cant happen. The whole everything has to be created may only be a 'rule' that aplies to earth. so werever god is (if indeed anywere), this may not be the case.


And the other obvious answer is We created god.

 

[bandgeek777]

scientific theory:
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
it is something that can be still provent right or wrong which is exactly what we have been saying
yes, but we are on the earth, not in the heavenly realm, so i still dont get your argument hammerheart

 

[GhostAnime]

bandgeek, look up theory in a scientific dictionary and come back to me please. dont define it by your current knowledge.

 

[Ergonomic]

ergonomic: science changes all the time because scientists themselves are infallible; but the fact that science can correct itself just makes it even more reliable compared to religion.. which asserts things, leaves more questions, and never changes. why does it never change? because it's not falsifiable, and if you cant possibly falsify a statement, you're free to do whatever you want.

My religion never changes because it right. Science is not always right, so it changes.
If something changes its facts constantly, how can it be reliable?

in science, there are ways to prove others wrong. there are systematic developments that advance our knowledge about the world and if they didnt exist i honestly ask you how on earth do you type here?

This just goes back to your previous posts.
The universe is in a constant state of decay, correct?

i dont see what this has to do with DNA. DNA shows that everything is related and youve yet to show SCIENTIFIC evidence of intelligent design.

No, DNA shows that all living creatures have it. A dog has dog DNA, that will never change. Tell me, has a scientist ever witnessed evolution?

Error you need to understand what science is before you challenge it. it is a process; it is not a 'club' of people who purposely attack religion. evolution is also not a guess but rather a discovery. it didnt come out of thin air but interpretations of facts such as fossils, DNA, and bone structures.

Fossils have yet to prove the existence of evolution.
DNA, like previously stated, is different for allanimals.
Bone structure? If we all have the same bone structure, shouldn't we all be sentient?

fact is, science is the reason you're typing here and probably why you and some family members are alive yet religion only comes into play based on what you believe.

Perhaps science is, but evolution, no.

but science has already worked for everybody here. so my question to you is, and to hopefully not have another war of quotes at me (and please, one at a TIME this time), anything at all, that i can sense with any of my 5 senses using science, that exists a christian god (i'm not interested in debating a vague 'creator' but a specific entity here).

also what some of you dont (and no christian ever will) understand is what a theory is in a scientific context.

A theory in science is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. See, theories can be accepted as facts even if they aren't.

I dont think you understand me. I mean just cause we cant handle the concept of something not being created doesnt mean it cant happen. The whole everything has to be created may only be a 'rule' that aplies to earth. so werever god is (if indeed anywere), this may not be the case.


And the other obvious answer is We created god.

Wait what? So you accept the fact that God is not of this earth, if at all?

As previously stated, the universe is in a constant state of decay. Would it be in decay if it was eternal? No. Something created the universe. You may argue of the Big Bang or God. OR God created the Big Bang. Huh? Did you ever think of that?

 

[GhostAnime]

Ergonomics, one topic at a time.. please.

now please, give me the definition of theory out of a scientific dictionary before you comment once more.

Fossils have yet to prove the existence of evolution.
DNA, like previously stated, is different for allanimals.
Bone structure? If we all have the same bone structure, shouldn't we all be sentient?

1) fossils prove the slow change of many animals if you bothered to look. come on; show me a sequence of fossils and try to tell me you cant see anything funny about them.
2) DNA is different for a lot of animals, but the similarity in many that are already close together can't be denied.
3) we dont all have the same bone structure, but many animals animal groups and kingdoms share similar bones that do different things depending on the environment.

My religion never changes because it right

oh by the way, the only reason religion doesnt change is because nobody can change; you cant disprove most of the claims (and most of them remain unproven) things about it yet with science since you can disprove many theories and calculations, you can always trust it because you have evidence to rely on.

if something is able to be falsified, then it is scientific.

say, for instance, i said the reason we cant find vaccines for viruses is because of their constant changing (evolution, basically).

if one would want to falsify this, they could demonstrate this by finding other ways to cure viruses. thus, this sort of thing is falsifiable.

however, if i stated that there is an invisible gnome in your head and you cant detect it with science and you need faith, you cant ever really prove me wrong.

so which is a more reliable method again? something that involves physical contact and research and facts that is POSSIBLE to disprove or something that's just a hypothesis and impossible to even do anything with?

which do you think would 'stay right'?

funny how that works.

 

[Cyber Robert]

Ergonomics, one topic at a time.. please.

now please, give me the definition of theory out of a scientific dictionary before you comment once more.


1) fossils prove the slow change of many animals if you bothered to look. come on; show me a sequence of fossils and try to tell me you cant see anything funny about them.
2) DNA is different for a lot of animals, but the similarity in many that are already close together can't be denied.
3) we dont all have the same bone structure, but many animals animal groups and kingdoms share similar bones that do different things depending on the environment.

1. Fossils, bones, etc. change over time due to weathering. Tell me, when you put a rock in a river does it stay the same? I seriously doubt it.

2. Okay you are right, there are similarities...but that does not mean that the similarities prove that they are related.

3. Maybe the bones were already made for their purpose then the animals moved to where it would be most effective. This theory does seem to make a bit more sense than the animal not having something necessary to survive yet it still somehow has many descendants.

 

[GhostAnime]

1. Fossils, bones, etc. change over time due to weathering. Tell me, when you put a rock in a river does it stay the same? I seriously doubt it.

you honestly think weathering would shape the entirety of an animal? ever seen a rock do this multiple times? we dont really study 'weathered away' fossils. they study fossils that are fully intact (and they can honestly tell if they are or arent since weathering can actually be traced).

2. Okay you are right, there are similarities...but that does not mean that the similarities prove that they are related.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#DNA_redundancy

Here we can be quite specific in our prediction. Any sequence differences between two functional cytochrome c genes are necessarily functionally neutral or nearly so. The background mutation rate in humans (and most other mammals) has been measured at ~1-5 x 10-8 base substitutions per site per generation (Mohrenweiser 1994, pp. 128-129), and an average primate generation is about 20 years. From the fossil record, we know that humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor less than 10 million years ago (a conservative estimate - most likely less than 6 million years ago) (Stewart and Disotell 1998). Thus, if chimps and humans are truly genealogically related, we predict that the difference between their respective cytochrome c gene DNA sequences should be less than 3% - probably even much less, due to the essential function of the cytochrome c gene.

i'd pretty much say there's something going on here if it predicts evolution.

keep in mind that the evidence is supposed to be combined; not taken alone.

3. Maybe the bones were already made for their purpose then the animals moved to where it would be most effective. This theory does seem to make a bit more sense than the animal not having something necessary to survive yet it still somehow has many descendants.

how so?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1

why exactly would a creator put these kinds of bones in fish? it makes no sense. why do you think a whale is classified as a mammal?

 

[Ergonomic]

now please, give me the definition of theory out of a scientific dictionary before you comment once more.

We have; multiple times. You just choose not to accept it, I guess.

1) fossils prove the slow change of many animals if you bothered to look. come on; show me a sequence of fossils and try to tell me you cant see anything funny about them.

No, fossils prove microevolution, not macroevolution.

2) DNA is different for a lot of animals, but the similarity in many that are already close together can't be denied.

Contradiction right there. Yes, the DNA for a panther would be similar to that of a lion. But not exact, obviously.

3) we dont all have the same bone structure, but many animals animal groups and kingdoms share similar bones that do different things depending on the environment.

But your science just stated that all mammals have similar bone structure...

oh by the way, the only reason religion doesnt change is because nobody can change; you cant disprove most of the claims (and most of them remain unproven) things about it yet with science since you can disprove many theories and calculations, you can always trust it because you have evidence to rely on.

I say, therefore, evolution is not reliable. How can you put your faith in something that is constantly revising its theories?

if something is able to be falsified, then it is scientific.

2+2=4. Oh, this can't be falsified, it must not be scientifically possible.

say, for instance, i said the reason we cant find vaccines for viruses is because of their constant changing (evolution, basically).

Microevolution. Not macro. The viruses are adapting to the constant attack of the body's immune system. Wow...

 

[GhostAnime]

We have; multiple times. You just choose not to accept it, I guess.

source it instead of giving me your personal definition. please or i wont debate something you arent referring to.

No, fossils prove microevolution, not macroevolution.

did you not just ignore those middle-fossils? what are they then?

Contradiction right there. Yes, the DNA for a panther would be similar to that of a lion. But not exact, obviously.

i dont.. see a contradiction. the whole point is RELATION man.

But your science just stated that all mammals have similar bone structure...

no, you're misinterpreting me: bone structure is the framework of our bodies (as in, the human bone structure is upright), but the BONES are still similar.

I say, therefore, evolution is not reliable. How can you put your faith in something that is constantly revising its theories?

science as a whole revises theories. evolution as of today has yet to revise anything significant even if you want to go that route.

we put faith in science because it works.

2+2=4. Oh, this can't be falsified, it must not be scientifically possible.

this is math; not science.

actually this is falsifiable as well. the whole idea of something being able to be falsified is being able to have a way to prove it wrong.

that's why it's called falsifiable. if you wanted to prove somebody's math wrong, what do you do? use math.

Microevolution. Not macro. The viruses are adapting to the constant attack of the body's immune system. Wow...

yes wow evolution. see it work!

now you're just picking and choosing science.

 

[Comedy of Errors]

oh by the way, the only reason religion doesnt change is because nobody can change; you cant disprove most of the claims (and most of them remain unproven) things about it yet with science since you can disprove many theories and calculations, you can always trust it because you have evidence to rely on.

if something is able to be falsified, then it is scientific.

which do you think would 'stay right'?

A theory that has been accepted for thousands of years is what I'd prefer to believe over a theory that has only been accepted for like a hundred years and is constantly being revised.

yes wow evolution. see it work!

Microevolution/natural selection =/= macroevolution in any way, shape, or form, sorry.

 

[GhostAnime]

for one, religion isnt a theory because it isnt scientific.

two, evolution isnt being 'constantly revised'. it's actually been solid for more than a century.

three, yes they are the same thing because they both have almost the same type of evidence.

if you want to try and refute evolution, by all means, at least attack the evidence that supports it.