Evolution, big bang and why we the religious are so wrong

[_Buffalo]

Well, if we're calling this scientist god, then he/she wouldn't be the god described in scripture. That god seems to be completely ignorant of even the most basic scientific principles.

I'm not really a literalist when it comes to scripture. It seems to me that which is written in scripture is written by men. What you ascribe to God is really just what should be considered the ideas expressed by those who claimed to be those who are God's servants.

That seems awfully convenient. Whenever something in the scriptures is ignorant, that's from men. If it's something worthwhile, it's from god.

[_stemelbow]

Doesn't it bother you that that a being whose existence cannot be proven also requires faith in him as a necessity?

Why would that bother me? Since I've found such pleasure in my faith, I would say quite the opposite.

And how convenient is it that the required faith is supposed to be a benefit to us?

Its very convenient sounding, sure. I don't doubt that at all.

[_stemelbow]

First of all, define God for me.

In my mind, God is what LDS define as God.

There have been uncountable iterations of this God you speak of. Each of them seems to defy being detected in any way.

I don't know about the "in any way" part of it. I feel detection is very apparent in faith. Of course, faith for me is very personal so I don't think I can prove the detection, or rather evidence. but I can't help or deny how I really truly think on this.

Could you please explain why I should believe that the Mormon/Christian God is the correct one and that the thousands and thousands of other gods in cultures spanning the existance of man are incorrect?

hell no I can't. Pep pep. That's far too tall an order for me, i admit. The best I can do it hope that faith is a true principle on this. That evidence for you can only come in the form of faith, and that you learn to trust that. If it doesn't work like that for you, then cool. I can't do much else.

[_stemelbow]

That seems awfully convenient. Whenever something in the scriptures is ignorant, that's from men. If it's something worthwhile, it's from god.

By gums, I think you're getting it.(-:

I know it sounds convenient, but just because it is convenient doesn't mean its wrong. It is just a matter of fact that men wrote scripture. I can't help that these men lived in eras when understandings regarding science were minimal at best. it is what it is, Buffalo. I wish I had more on that.

[_Buffalo]

In the old testament, God seemed to be more than willing to prove his existence in dramatic ways.

or so we're told. I don't think the Old Testament suggests this was a regular occurance. The Old Testament, afterall, covers thousands of years of time, and is limited to a very small populace, relative to the world, and a very small region.

Except to faith employers, faith is evidence. But evidence itself doesn't equate to sure knowledge.

Yes, but remember, Yahweh originally was strictly regional, tribal deity.

Evidence is a much higher standard than faith - faith is belief based on no evidence. Credence based on evidence is automatically superior.

[_stemelbow]

Yes, but remember, Yahweh originally was strictly regional, tribal deity.

Evidence is a much higher standard than faith - faith is belief based on no evidence. Credence based on evidence is automatically superior.

If faith is evidence, as I beieve, then I don't see how evidence is a much higher stand than faith. Indeed, what we call evidence in terms of court cases, and anthropology, could very well be but a sampling of what is evidence.

[_Buffalo]

Yes, but remember, Yahweh originally was strictly regional, tribal deity.

Evidence is a much higher standard than faith - faith is belief based on no evidence. Credence based on evidence is automatically superior.

If faith is evidence, as I beieve, then I don't see how evidence is a much higher stand than faith. Indeed, what we call evidence in terms of court cases, and anthropology, could very well be but a sampling of what is evidence.

Faith is not evidence, Stem. Words mean things. We don't get to make up our own definitions.

[_Tarski]

we can't come close to proving a big bang ever happend.

the solar system runs in a cycle.

look at them chemical makeups of the planets, their behaviors/activity science proves this to be true. if you don't believe me research it.

why all planets are moving closer to the sun. venus has magnetic deposits on 2 ends proving it had a moon, mars has an ice cap, no magnetic polls because it doesn't have a moon. then comes the astroid belt which is made up of the same material as earth's moon, jupiter is radio active and shrinking, saturn is made up of plazmas which are below solid's an above gasses, saturn's inner rings are lighter elements and the outer rings are heavier elements. neptune is made up of complex gasses, uranus is basicly pure hydrogen which is the simplest element. pluto is ice, hail bop is like pluto with less structure.

)0+ mercury, 0+ venus, (+) earth, <-0 mars, look at the rest of the "original planetary symbols.

3 will become 2, earth will become venus.

this cannot be refuted by science.

?#?
What are you talking about and what is your point?

[_stemelbow]

we can't come close to proving a big bang ever happend.

the solar system runs in a cycle.

look at them chemical makeups of the planets, their behaviors/activity science proves this to be true. if you don't believe me research it.

why all planets are moving closer to the sun. venus has magnetic deposits on 2 ends proving it had a moon, mars has an ice cap, no magnetic polls because it doesn't have a moon. then comes the astroid belt which is made up of the same material as earth's moon, jupiter is radio active and shrinking, saturn is made up of plazmas which are below solid's an above gasses, saturn's inner rings are lighter elements and the outer rings are heavier elements. neptune is made up of complex gasses, uranus is basicly pure hydrogen which is the simplest element. pluto is ice, hail bop is like pluto with less structure.

)0+ mercury, 0+ venus, (+) earth, <-0 mars, look at the rest of the "original planetary symbols.

3 will become 2, earth will become venus.

this cannot be refuted by science.

?#?
What are you talking about and what is your point?

Its good to see I wasn't the only one perpelexed by that post.

[_stemelbow]

Faith is not evidence, Stem. Words mean things. We don't get to make up our own definitions.

Faith is evidence. That's how its defined in Hebrews. That's what faith is to me. It is evidence.