Spoon

[hambone29]

I know you're a smart guy, and I certainly respect your opinion. You've shown much more basis for what you believe than anyone else that has been on here saying Christians are wrong but provide no explanation as to why or what they even believe to be the alternative. That's why you're pretty much the only one that's still saying anything about the alternatives.

Not sure if I am one of the posters you are referring to, but I wasn't aware that in order to question God's existence or to doubt the authenticity/accuracy of the Bible, or any other religious book, one must have the alternative answer. Hope not, bc I don't. That has been my stance. Everyone believes in something, but no one knows. Man has always wanted to know the answers. That's how we are wired. But as I said before, no one knows what happens when we die. No one knows the origin of everything as we know it. But believing books written thousands of years ago over modern day science is pretty stubborn in my opinion. Can you believe in both? Depends on the subject and depends who you ask.

[Champ967]

That's how we are wired.

A program requires a programmer. A design requires a designer. A way something is wired .... necessitates a wirer.

Serious question --- if humans (and humanity) are a chance confluence of molecules, what makes them special? Why should we value a talking lump of water and carbon chains?

Do you love your family because your DNA is making your synapses fire in such a manner to maximize the likelihood of its continued replication? Or do you love your family members because they hold intrinsic value as human beings?

[Guisslapp]

What do you mean "value"? Don't most things have some sort of value, whether negative or positive?

[Guisslapp]

I mean some of us may be equally amused arguing with
a lump of coal, but I would personally find it at least slightly less enjoyable.

[Champ967]

What do you mean "value"? Don't most things have some sort of value, whether negative or positive?

Precisely. But I would submit that value or worth can only be ascribed to a thing by a greater thing.

Value requires an evaluator.

If people have value, then from what, where or whom does it derive?

Not long ago, you posted on this board a heartfelt memorium for your late father-in-law. Was he special to you because your DNA has evolved into an organism with emotions and memories -- really just chemical compounds and reactions -- that might (or might not) serve to perpetuate that DNA?

Or did you love the man for who he was?

Stated differently .... Are people special? Does a human life have value?

[Guisslapp]

Precisely. But I would submit that value or worth can only be ascribed to a thing by a greater thing.

Value requires an evaluator.

If people have value, then from what, where or whom does it derive?

Not long ago, you posted on this board a heartfelt memorium for your late father-in-law. Was he special to you because your DNA has evolved into an organism with emotions and memories -- really just chemical compounds and reactions -- that might (or might not) serve to perpetuate that DNA?

Or did you love the man for who he was?

Stated differently .... Are people special? Does a human life have value?

Value is not intrinsic. It only exists in the valuer. The same person or thing probably has different values to me and you.

Value for people can come from physical attraction, personal qualities that you consider important, things that they have done, common interests, etc. But any given person will be valued differently by other people because of the differing degrees to which the people share those feelings are ascribe value those attributes.

[Friscofan]

Precisely. But I would submit that value or worth can only be ascribed to a thing by a greater thing.

Value requires an evaluator.

If people have value, then from what, where or whom does it derive?

Not long ago, you posted on this board a heartfelt memorium for your late father-in-law. Was he special to you because your DNA has evolved into an organism with emotions and memories -- really just chemical compounds and reactions -- that might (or might not) serve to perpetuate that DNA?

Or did you love the man for who he was?

Stated differently .... Are people special? Does a human life have value?

This is well said. Better than I was able to communicate. My point was that each part of creation has a purpose. Some are still not even completely understood. At least by me anyway. But logic would tell me that there is in fact a designer or creator that orchestrated all of this. To have the amazing differences of species that do what they do to fit the whole of creation, can't be by "chance". Also Guisslapp, who has proven the earth is a billion years old? Who has proved it's not? Takes faith in something either way.

[Guisslapp]

This is well said. Better than I was able to communicate. My point was that each part of creation has a purpose. Some are still not even completely understood. At least by me anyway. But logic would tell me that there is in fact a designer or creator that orchestrated all of this. To have the amazing differences of species that do what they do to fit the whole of creation, can't be by "chance".

Everything has a "purpose", even if you don't understand it? Pardon me but that sounds like a statement of faith and not evidence for faith. Because we are intelligent creatures we can fashion a "purpose" for most things. We use things to suit our ends, directly or indirectly. Perhaps this is what gives you the illusion of purpose.

Also Guisslapp, who has proven the earth is a billion years old? Who has proved it's not? Takes faith in something either way.

Radiometric dating of different rocks containing different elements with different radiometric scales all agree on an age of about 5 billion years. Your question is about like asking "how do we know a football field is 100 yards." Well, we measured it. Radiometric dating is a well understood and well tested method. This time scale is also corroborated by other physical evidence including distance measurements dating the age of the universe.

Btw, as you can see, Earth has most likely not had life for even half of its existence. In other words, abiogenesis was a longer time coming than the entire evolutionary chain leading to humans.

[Dowty]

Not sure if I am one of the posters you are referring to, but I wasn't aware that in order to question God's existence or to doubt the authenticity/accuracy of the Bible, or any other religious book, one must have the alternative answer. Hope not, bc I don't. That has been my stance. Everyone believes in something, but no one knows. Man has always wanted to know the answers. That's how we are wired. But as I said before, no one knows what happens when we die. No one knows the origin of everything as we know it. But believing books written thousands of years ago over modern day science is pretty stubborn in my opinion. Can you believe in both? Depends on the subject and depends who you ask.

I don't remember everything you said before, and quite frankly, don't care to dig through 32 pages of this thread to find out. I may or may not have been referring to you, but I do remember some of the posters on here saying that those of us that believe in the Almighty God were wrong for doing so, but then they provided nothing as to why or bothered to even state their own beliefs.


Do I know all the answers? Of course not. That's why I'll continue to ask questions and seek information. Being inquisitive and asking the tough questions are great. Refer to one of my other posts for my thoughts on that (I think it's the one that you're partially quoting). I agree that it's human nature to seek information, especially to what is arguably the biggest question of all: "why are we here, and how did we get here in the first place?" What I have an issue with is people telling me or anyone else that what they believe is absolutely false while providing no basis for an alternative answer. That applies to anything, not just my faith in God. If you told me 2+2 isn't equal to 4, you should probably tell me why you think it isn't or at least tell me what you believe the answer to be. Guisslapp has been stating his case and providing resources and information as to why he believes what he believes since this thread formed into what it's become. Regardless of whether or not I agree with him, I can certainly respect what he's doing.

I wouldn't call my faith in the Lord stubborn, and I highly doubt that anyone that shares my faith would claim it to be, either. I've shared the short version my story; please go back and look at it. I've lived on both sides of the fence, and based on my experiences, I'm convinced I'm on the right side now. If you don't agree with it, that's your prerogative. If you want to know more about my story, you're free to shoot me a PM and I'll be more than happy to tell you about it. The experiences of my life have allowed me to relate to many people because I haven't always been tied to one side of this debate. As I said before, I believe science and religion are fully capable of coexisting and supporting each other. To answer questions such as these, we need all the information we can gather. It'd be ignorant to not look at it all.

[hambone29]

I don't remember everything you said before, and quite frankly, don't care to dig through 32 pages of this thread to find out. I may or may not have been referring to you, but I do remember some of the posters on here saying that those of us that believe in the Almighty God were wrong for doing so, but then they provided nothing as to why or bothered to even state their own beliefs.


Do I know all the answers? Of course not. That's why I'll continue to ask questions and seek information. Being inquisitive and asking the tough questions are great. Refer to one of my other posts for my thoughts on that (I think it's the one that you're partially quoting). I agree that it's human nature to seek information, especially to what is arguably the biggest question of all: "why are we here, and how did we get here in the first place?" What I have an issue with is people telling me or anyone else that what they believe is absolutely false while providing no basis for an alternative answer. That applies to anything, not just my faith in God. If you told me 2+2 isn't equal to 4, you should probably tell me why you think it isn't or at least tell me what you believe the answer to be. Guisslapp has been stating his case and providing resources and information as to why he believes what he believes since this thread formed into what it's become. Regardless of whether or not I agree with him, I can certainly respect what he's doing.

I wouldn't call my faith in the Lord stubborn, and I highly doubt that anyone that shares my faith would claim it to be, either. I've shared the short version my story; please go back and look at it. I've lived on both sides of the fence, and based on my experiences, I'm convinced I'm on the right side now. If you don't agree with it, that's your prerogative. If you want to know more about my story, you're free to shoot me a PM and I'll be more than happy to tell you about it. The experiences of my life have allowed me to relate to many people because I haven't always been tied to one side of this debate. As I said before, I believe science and religion are fully capable of coexisting and supporting each other. To answer questions such as these, we need all the information we can gather. It'd be ignorant to not look at it all.

As you said: I would, but I don't remember everything you said before, and quite frankly, don't care to dig through 32 pages of this thread to find out.

I've never told anyone they are wrong. And I've stated my case many times in this thread. I don't think you have to have an alternative answer in order to doubt something. Sometimes it is OK to say I don't know. It seems that is difficult for humans to do. But I admit I don't know if God exists, or if he is God of the Bible, or if this is all one great big luck of the draw. But no one else knows either.

[Tech77]

I can't imagine what it would feel like to not believe God is there for me in the good and the bad times.

[Champ967]

Value is not intrinsic.

Why have science, law, art, literature, history, cities, families, etc .... if humans have no intrinsic worth?

What would be lost by killing off all humanity?

[Cool Hand Clyde]

what would be lost by killing off all humanity?

bteii

[maverick]

bteii

Hate to tell you, but all of that work didn't come directly from God.

[Guisslapp]

Why have science, law, art, literature, history, cities, families, etc .... if humans have no intrinsic worth?

What would be lost by killing off all humanity?

Just because they don't have intrinsic worth doesn't mean that they are not valued by other people. Value is derived solely by the valuer. A penny on the street has no value to me so I won't stop and pick it up. Other people would. I would stop to pick up a dollar. Obama probably has more value to you than to me. My life is more important to me than it is to you, and vice versa. Science clearly has more value to me than some others in this thread. The opposite is true with religion. You think far more highly of U2 than I do. To me, it would kind of be nice for someone to kill them off (and Pearl Jam) so I can stop suffering from painfully awful "new" albums.