I personally don't believe there is a God or higher, almighty deity, but I am not saying it is 100% impossible, just implausible. There is no real proof of a God. Science can actually prove a lot of stuff of the universe, although there is no scientific "proof" of anything. HOWEVER, there are scientific theory's, which are a lot different than normal theory's. Science is a process of falsification, which is the act of disproving a proposition, hypothesis, or theory until one cannot be dis-proven, and it is stated as a fact, or scientific theory.
Also, anyone saying anything about a "Miracle" or "Exorcism", etc...
Do you have any proof for it? Can you prove to me, that a miracle or exorcism has passed, with actual evidence?

I believe in the God of the Bible for three main reasons. First, the universe is too ordered to have happened by chance. Second, because if there is a God, then he would have revealed himself to the world, and then I believe that he is the God of the Bible because the Bible is the only religious book without any contradictions that can’t be plausibly explained. Also, the second law of thermodynamics states that nature tends toward disorder, and a planet with intelligent life is not proof of unintelligent muck becoming more disorganized.

sloanstar1000 : The Bible is the most historically attested book ever. There are more manuscripts of the Bible than any other book. Copies of the New Testament exist that were written within one hundred years of the originals. The Old Testament is also pretty well attested for, but not quite as well. The earliest manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, date back to somewhere in the second to fourth centuries B.C.

As for the worldwide flood, there is tons of evidence. A major source is the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is the deepest canyon in the world, and something like that doesn’t form randomly, like I’m sure everyone will agree. Evolutionists point to the Colorado river carving the Canyon out of the bedrock. However, there is no evidence for rivers causing erosion of bedrock, though I won’t deny the possibility. Also, there are tons of supposedly “missing” layers that evolutionists try to explain by saying that the missing layers were weathered away, but in some places with the missing layers are, instead of the expected flat surface from weathering, we get curved layers of sedimentary rock. This also forms a problem because sedimentary rock only forms wavy layers if it is formed quickly. If it gradually becomes wavy, it becomes metamorphic rock. Quickly resulting layers- quickly moved substances- sounds like something big was moving it. A worldwide flood maybe? Also, lower levels in the Canyon curve up into multiple layers supposedly millions of years older that are on top of them. This is unexplainable by an evolutionary standpoint, because the newer layers would have wiped away the old, and the old layers could not have forced their way up that far (they would have curved over) if the newer layers were already not there. So how could they have formed? A large flood quickly depositing many layers in a short amount of time, and shoving the specific portion of rock upwards.  Mt. Everest is also a good source of proof for the flood, as there are marine fossils on the top of Mt. Everest, which would make sense if the whole earth was covered in water.  For more on the flood, see here. Proof of Noah’s Flood

However, on the other hand, I have a problem with the Big Bang theory. This is the generally held to theory of atheists for creation of the universe, and I haven’t seen any others. The second law of thermodynamics doesn’t allow for an eternal universe, if you don’t believe in the big bang or creation. The big bang theory states that the universe was formed when nothing collapsed on itself and then exploded. Nothing is nothing. It can’t collapse. It can’t explode. Just saying that the nothingness was inconceivable (Richard Dawkins) so that it had the properties to collapse and explode isn’t really changing anything.

maguc : You can’t prove their isn’t a God; you said so yourself:
“I personally don't believe there is a God or higher, almighty deity, but I am not saying it is 100% impossible, just implausible.”
However, while we can’t directly prove that there is or there isn’t a God, then first, think about this: If the tiny chance (in your opinion) that there is a God happens, to be true, then because you decided that by your standard there wasn’t enough proof, you are going to burn in hell for eternity because you rejected God. A major proof of God is the order in this universe. If you haven’t noticed, the whole world around us is organised. Gravity came from somewhere. Moral standards (arguable, I know) came from somewhere. The structure of higgs boson particle came from somewhere. The structure of the sun came from somewhere. The structure of a cell came from somewhere The structure of a human beings with their complexly complementary sexual systems came from somewhere. Logic came from somewhere.
I believe the answer to all these questions is the Bible. I have yet to see convincing evidence to the contrary.

I believe in god 

star4z :   Thanks for responding, btw your post is a bit difficult to read, making the font a different color might help.

The point about the manuscripts, is that they come from an ancient Jewish oral tradition,  that As far as the bible being the "most historically attested book ever", that's simply not true. I can think of plenty of historical contradictions in the bible off the top of my head. We know there was no census decreed by Rome, there's no historical evidence that anything about the Exodus taking place, more importantly, most of the things that were claimed to happen in the bible, there's simply no evidence for, like the resurrection.

As for the Grand Canyon, it is NOT evidence of a worldwide flood. I agree that it didn't form randomly, it formed according to the laws of physics and geology. It's impossible for the Grand Canyon to have formed from a single geological event. The Grand Canyon is comprised of very hard granite, shist, shale, limestone which would take millions of years to erode away. There are also strata of coral deposits in the strata of the Grand Canyon, coral simply doesn't settle, it is the result of a coral reef. More importantly, there isn't even enough water on the entire planet to flood the entire planet, so where did the water come from, and where did it go? Even though the story of a global flood is widespread in specific parts of Asia. Most of the world has no reports of a worldwide flood, which you might think they would do if their entire civilization was destroyed. Then again, if everyone was killed in the flood, you wouldn't expect ANY reports but one. However, China has a well documented history that stretches back LONG before 2300 BC(when the flood supposedly occurred).

As far as mount Everest, I'm starting to think that you're simply copying and pasting from a creationist website. There are instances of marine fossils being found on mountain tops across the globe. This is explained by realizing how tectonic plates form mountains. A LONG time ago, these layers of rock were at the bottom of an ocean. When two tectonic layers meet, these layers are thrust up to form mountains. It's not because the earth was flooded, and marine fossils swam to the top of Mount. Everest. As I said, there isn't enough water on the planet to even allow that. The global flood is an absurd proposition, I'm sorry.

I would also like to point out that the big bang theory is not an "atheist theory", in fact, the person who first Proposed the big bang theory(George Lemaitre) was a catholic priest. The theory simply explains the expansion of the universe. We know the universe is expanding right now because of the Doppler effect on light waves from distant galaxies. This means that at one point, the galaxies and stars were closer to each other.

You said "The second law of thermodynamics doesn’t allow for an eternal universe", well the FIRST law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation, which is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. According to that law, the universe has existed eternally. That being said, "eternal" is not a concept that we can apply outside of the universe. As far as we know, time did not exists, so "eternal" would be a meaningless concept.

You also said: "The big bang theory states that the universe was formed when nothing collapsed on itself and then exploded. Nothing is nothing." This is absolutely NOT what the big bang states, as I said, the big bang simply explains the EXPANSION of the universe. NOTHING in the big bang theory says that "nothing" existed and caused something to exist. The definition of nothing is that it does not exist. Lawrence Krauss did give a talk titled "a universe from nothing", but he makes it clear that by "nothing" he means quantum energy, which is not "nothing".

Much of what you said seems to have been taken right off of the discovery institute website, a creationist organization. They attack science, they are not scientists. There are many actual scientific websites that give extensive substantiated explanations about these subjects. I would recommend talkorigins.org

star4z : "I believe that he is the God of the Bible because the Bible is the only religious book without any contradictions that can’t be plausibly explained."
Oh boy, you just dug your own grave!
There are so many contradictions in the bible, it could even be used as an example of a contradictions. 2 humans (Adam and Eve) could not have populated the entire earth, neither with the Noah's ark thing, God being "all powerful" and the list goes on!
Second off, the universe is not in order. if it was, then life could grow on any planet by it self. Right now, we have found less than 10 planets in our entire observable universe that can life can grow on.
Third off, I agree that everything didn't come from nothing, although in the bible they say it does! God just creates THE. ENTIRE. UNIVERSE. out of nothing! Everything came from something, which was The Big Bang Theory expanding matter and creating time and the universe. Not from a higher deity.

sloanstar1000: Three things...


"We know there was no census decreed by Rome..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

"...there's no historical evidence that anything about the Exodus taking place..."


There's no?archaeological?evidence.

"...most of the things that were claimed to happen in the bible, there's simply no evidence for, like the resurrection..."


Most of the things that were claimed to happen in Plato's dialogues have no evidence. Most of the things that were claimed to happen by ancient Chinese scribes have no evidence. Most of the things that were claimed to happen by ancient Persian scribes have no evidence. The only evidence of these historical events is what they wrote.

The Jews wrote.

Everything else is spot on. Well, it's not actually "...Doppler effect on light waves", but its called "red shift" and "blue shift". Basically the same thing. There should be no war between religion and science. If God created this universe, it should show marks of the author, and it does. They are not so base as world floods or fossils on mountain tops; that is disorderly, messy, odd, and certainly not in the character of an omniscient, omnipotent Deity.

Instead, the marks of the creator should flow with the creation itself to magnify what is "natural". Something subtle, yet in all aspects of the universe. Something that inspires awe and passion in that deepest realm within all creatures with the capacity to understand. That is the perfect mark of a perfect Creator.

So, you like science?

Txgangsta : Sorry, I didn't get the summons.

I was speaking specifically to the consensus at the supposed time of Jesus' birth, and the wikipedia article that is given is oddly presumptuous, based on the writings of Josephus known for interpolations and falsehoods, I can grant that there may have been a census of Quirinius, though it's absurd to think that people were forced to return to their birth place for this event(which would be a one time event in this case). It's just not plausible, I tend not to take wikipedia at it's word. Regardless, Even the gospels of Luke and Matthew disagree on when the census took place, before or after Herod's death. Though it doesn't matter.

And no, there is absolutely NO evidence for the Jewish exodus from Egypt, despite extensive funding and motivation for the Jewish people to uncover it.

I'm also aware that there are many historical documents, considering Plato, and things that were documented by Chinese scribes. On their own, these documents aren't very useful for telling us what happened, especially when they cannot be individually confirmed by other contemporary documents, or do not match archaeological evidence.

I also made sure to confirm what I said about the Doppler effect on light waves. It is the Doppler effect on light waves. Light wave frequencies change relative to our position to the source. When light waves are stretched out as a result of the light source moving away from us, it appears to have a slightly red tint to it "red shift". As opposed to a blue tint when a light source is coming towards us. Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us and is a good example of a blue tint.

I'm also not sure what you mean in your last sentence, I don't see that something that provokes awe is indicative of a creator. Humans have the capacity to be awed, that fact is only evidence of itself. Why people have that capacity isn't very clear to biologists, but introducing the concept of a creator doesn't explain anything.

That's my main problem with the god argument, god has so many definitions it doesn't really have a meaning. Some people define god as an eternal non-physical force, some define god as love, some define god as an actual person in the sky. Until someone can properly define what god is, only then is a debate possible.

Thanks for responding

Is there a god? The answer lies in the eye of person being questioned. There can be a God or there isn't. The answer depends on the person believing in God or not. The person can believe there is God yet the true answer lies within ones heart and soul. If one is a non-believer then that is OK. Their beliefs should be left alone and they shouldn't be judges based on their opinion. Same goes with believers. So the persons answer relies on their faith and their heart and their soul.

sloanstar1000 :

The bible is evidence for an exodus, just as Plato's documents are evidence for Athenian political-philosophical turmoil, Hammurabi's code of law are evidence for Mesopotamian standards, the Odyssey (while certainly non-historical in nature) is evidence for the battle of Troy. Historical skepticism is not the way to understand the past; it only throws unreasonable doubt at our forefathers.

Sorry about the Doppler effect bit. I thought that Doppler specifically was about sound waves and did not include light waves (although, as I mentioned, it's basically the same thing). You're correct, the Doppler effect has to do with all waves.

"Awe" at things like particle physics, some majestic mountain, child birth, or the relationship between psychology and biology is a reaction to an external stimuli. I'm making a teleological argument and claiming the "awe" is our human reaction to the marks of the creator. Teleological arguments don't seem to be your style, so I'll switch over to metaphysics.

We "awe" over the relationship between psychology and biology (Well, I do). What is the stimuli of "relationship of psychology and biology"? When did I touch "relationship between psychology and biology" or hear "relationship of psychology and biology"? I touched carbon atoms as "paper" and I heard people manipulate sound waves, but never did I touch or hear "relationship between psychology and biology". However, there is truly a real, existent relationship between these two concepts. The relationship does not exist physically. If it did, I could pick it up and paint it green. Therefore, we have a really existent non-physical thing that I am aware of.

Two main points: it's non-physical (more than just a physical universe) and I am aware of it (I can sense non-physical things). Physical things do not sense non-physical things. My hears pick up vibrations, my eyes light, much of my body senses temperature. There is nothing in my body that would make me aware of non-physical things. Therefore, I have something outside my body that allows me to be aware of non-physical things. This we may call "Intellect", a piece of what the philosophers would consider part of the human soul.

While we need to debate all the points listed above before I move on, I'm not tired and have nothing left to do tonight, so I'll continue with phenomenology.

We have this "Intellect" that allows my awareness of non-physical things. Now I see that majestic mountain or go study particle physics, and I am "awed". There is something I sense that has an "awe" effect". Certainly it is not simply size; while I'm awed by planets and atoms, I am also awed by dogs and people and houses and things of all sizes and shapes. Perhaps it is just nuero-chemicals? Well, why did the brain release the nuero-chemicals? There must have been some sort of stimulus that made the brain react the way it does, but I experience light and sound all the time, and only sometimes it creates awe. Physical stimuli does not explain this "awe" effect. Perhaps non-physical stimuli is also at work? This "awe" stimulus is what I originally was claiming as the "mark of the creator". The mark is truly existent, but simply not physically. The design is totally natural, and it was completely intentional.

sloanstar1000 :

I’m glad you like to think critically, and try to adequately defend your position, but you need more evidence. At a glance, I saw quite a few holes in your argument that show ignorance of even secular sources. I’ve included some sources this time to show that I’m not just saying things.

“The point about the manuscripts, is that they come from an ancient Jewish oral tradition,  that As far as the bible being the "most historically attested book ever", that's simply not true. I can think of plenty of historical contradictions in the bible off the top of my head.”

First off, the most historically attested book ever does not only mean that people don’t think are contradictions in it. It means there are lots of manuscripts, manuscripts written near to the time that the original document was written, and, though I did forget this in my first post, proof from other sources. Below you’ll see some examples of that.

“We know there was no census decreed by Rome”

Not true. There was a census that took place in the Roman province of Palestine somewhere in 6-7 A.D., as recorded not only in the Bible, but also by the Jewish historian Josephus, who was not a Christian, and who would not have followed the Old Testament. Source: A History of the Jewish People by Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, Harvard University Press.

“there's no historical evidence that anything about the Exodus taking place,”

True, there is no direct archaeological evidence of the exodus from Egypt taking place. However, there is evidence of a huge tablet which tells of the Israelites in contact with Egypt. Just because there is no archaeological evidence evidence for it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, though.  
Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/merenphatvictorystele.htm

“More importantly, most of the things that were claimed to happen in the bible, there’s simply no evidence for,”

That’s not true, but just because there’s no evidence for something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. A lot of things wear away with time. For example, we don’t have any

“like the resurrection.”

There is no direct evidence evidence for the resurrection, but different people that weren’t Christians accepted the resurrection who were living at the time, such as Tertullian and Justin Martyr.  Source: Trypho 108, De Spectaculis 30.

“As for the Grand Canyon, it is NOT evidence of a worldwide flood.”

No, it is, but you’re interpreting the evidence differently from me because of your presuppositions, i.e., creation is wrong.

“More importantly, there isn't even enough water on the entire planet to flood the entire planet, so where did the water come from, and where did it go?”

Oh, please, you’re insulting my intelligence. I would have thought this topic is so widespread by global warming activists that you wouldn’t have even said that. There’s tons upon tons upon tons upon tons of this stuff called ice covering both the north and south poles. Ice is frozen water. There is enough of it that if the north and south polar ice caps melted, the top of Mount Everest Creationists believe that after the flood, which was a supernatural phenomenon, there was an ice age, in which most of the earth was covered by huge chunks of ice, and then it receded to form the oceans and ice. Basically the same thing evolutionists believe about ice ages, except we only believe in one. When you said this I see computer presentations of New York being flooded, courtesy of Al Gore's "An Unfortunate Truth.'

“Then again, if everyone was killed in the flood, you wouldn't expect ANY reports but one. “

Not necessarily true. They could have brought manuscripts on the ark.

“However, China has a well documented history that stretches back LONG before 2300 BC(when the flood supposedly occurred).”

This is probably based on dating using radioactive decay, which I don’t consider reliable because we haven’t actually seen any of the isotopes decay as far as their accepted half-lives say they take. We merely making inferences based on observations of how fast they decay now.

“As far as mount Everest, I'm starting to think that you're simply copying and pasting from a creationist website.”

I don’t copy information from other sources, and I barely even looked at the page I suggested. You’re merely saying that you think those sources are inferior to yours because they don’t agree with your presuppositions.

“I would also like to point out that the big bang theory is not an "atheist theory", in fact, the person who first proposed the big bang theory (George Lemaitre) was a catholic priest.”

Yeah, and Catholicism allows one to believe that the account of creation is a nice story, not fact. Also, Catholicism has a different highest authority than evangelical Christians: the pope. Evangelicals reject the authority of the pope and believe in the Bible as the sole source of religious authority. So saying that a cult member invented the theory of the big bang means nothing to me. Also, I didn’t say that it was an “atheist theory”, I said, “This is the generally held to theory of atheists,” meaning that atheists usually hold to this, not that only atheists hold to it.

“The theory simply explains the expansion of the universe.”

So you don’t know where the universe came from? Or do you believe the universe came from somewhere else?

“"Eternal" is not a concept that we can apply outside of the universe. As far as we know, time did not exists, so "eternal" would be a meaningless concept.”

I agree with that eternal is more or less a meaningless concept outside the universe, as God is not bound by time. Eternal is merely the human term for a phenomenon that occurs on Earth, so  I was merely using a human term to describe something not bound by time. 

“Lawrence Krauss did give a talk titled "a universe from nothing", but he makes it clear that by "nothing" he means quantum energy, which is not "nothing".”

So where did the quantum energy come from?

“Much of what you said seems to have been taken right off of the discovery institute website, a creationist organization. They attack science, they are not scientists. There are many actual scientific websites that give extensive substantiated explanations about these subjects. I would recommend talkorigins.org.”

First, I’ve never heard of the discovery institute. Second, I didn’t look at their website for any of my information. Third, the origin of the earth/universe is not scientific in the first place, because it can’t be observed or repeated. Talkorigins appears to be a nice site, but I’m not prepared to read a whole textbook, as I saw over sixty pages in small font under a one topic I was looking for.

maguc :

“There are so many contradictions in the bible, it could even be used as an example of a contradictions. 2 humans (Adam and Eve) could not have populated the entire earth, neither with the Noah's ark thing, God being "all powerful" and the list goes on!

Why couldn’t two humans populate the earth over thousands of years? Two people have eight babies. Each couple of babies have eight babies, so four couples times eight babies equals thirty-two babies, plus the parents and the grandparents equals forty-two babies, and so on and so forth, and you get a big number. (*People can have this high number of babies, but people today choose not to.) If you’re trying to say something about the genes not working, fine, but that’s not true, either. Even in the rememberable past. Also, you, unlike sloanstar, haven’t even tried to back up what you said (about the flood)! “It could not have happened” is the essence of what you are saying. No “because”. Why should I accept it just because you say so? And I don’t see a problem with God being all powerful, either. If you’re trying to imply the whole “free will vs. God’s omnipotence” thing, God can do anything, but at the same time we can choose what we want. Think of it like he’s holding the chain on us, and he can let it go as far as he wants, but if he decides to interfere, he can pull the chain back. (There’s a little more to it than that.)

“Second off, the universe is not in order. if it was, then life could grow on any planet by it self. Right now, we have found less than 10 planets in our entire observable universe that can life can grow on.”

That isn’t true, because that natural order states that life can only live under certain conditions. God’s ordering of the universe says that most if not all planets besides Earth does not support life. Just because one planet supports life doesn’t automatically mean that all planets should support life if they follow the order. There are other patterns for planets to follow in accordance with the natural order.

“Third off, I agree that everything didn't come from nothing, although in the bible they say it does! God just creates THE. ENTIRE. UNIVERSE. out of nothing!”

Yeah, so what? If God is all-powerful he can do anything. He lives independent of the universe. He can create the universe if he likes. The universe didn’t come from nothing; it was made from nothing. There is a HUGE difference between the two. The Bible says: “In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth.” God isn’t nothing. The Bible does NOT say that.

“Everything came from something, which was The Big Bang Theory expanding matter and creating time and the universe. Not from a higher deity.”

The matter that expanded came from where, may I ask?

killer255 : Your response was very relative. If I believe in a God, he’s there, but if I don’t believe in him he’s not there. That’s like saying I believe there’s a big wooden block lying on the ground, but another guy doesn’t believe its there. That guy is still going to stub his toe if he kicks the block. “The sons of the age dies with the age,” as the saying goes.

I do not know.
I'll "e-mail" the results when I'm done.
Good Luck.
Peace.

star4z :
"Why couldn't two humans populate the earth over thousands of years? Two people have eight babies. Each couple of babies have eight babies, so four couples times eight babies equals thirty-two babies, plus the parents and the grandparents equals forty-two babies, and so on and so forth, and you get a big number. (*People can have this high number of babies, but people today choose not to.) If you’re trying to say something about the genes not working, fine, but that’s not true, either. Even in the remember able past. Also, you, unlike sloanstar, haven’t even tried to back up what you said (about the flood)! “It could not have happened” is the essence of what you are saying"

First off, genetics would not allow your "Solution" to populate earth. Babies would become deformed and inbred, and would mostly die off in a couple of years, ergo humans would die off.

Second off, I didn't really need to explain myself, as sloanstar already did explain it, and it would be redundant to say about the same thing.

Third off, the matter from from the big bang theory came from light. In the beginning, there was not yet any matter. However, there was a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle.

Lastly, your "argument" was really only "God did it" or "God is omnipotent, and did it" Sorry, but I really don't accept those types of arguments.

star4z :

As I conceded with Txgangsta, there might have been a census dating at 6-7 AD, though it's based on the writings of Josephus known to be subject to interpolations and forgeries by the Catholic Church, and there's never been any evidence to suggest the absurd notion that people were forced to return to their place of origin during a census. Regardless, the census only serves to show a discrepancy between the gospels Matthew and Luke, did the census occur before or after Herod's death?

"Just because there's no archeological evidence that the exodus occurred, it doesn't mean it didn't happen"

You don't seem to understand the nature of evidence, until there is SUFFICIENT evidence to believe in something, you are not justified in believing it.

I said "The Grand Canyon is NOT evidence for a worldwide flood"

you said: "No, it is, but you’re interpreting the evidence differently from me because of your presuppositions, i.e., creation is wrong"

It's NOT a presupposition! This where this conversation ends, I don't have patience for that.

If I simply had a presupposition against creation, I wouldn't have taken the time to write a lengthy paragraph concerning geological strata, the discrepancies between geological data and a global flood, the fact that there isn't enough water on the earth to flood the earth(and I find it funny that you think that climatologists claim that glacial melting would flood the entire earth, There simply isn't enough water in the glaciers, lakes, rivers or water vapor that could be condensed from the atmosphere to flood the entire planet). I gave you the reasons why I(and 99.9% of geologists) don't accept the proposition of a global flood, that's not a presupposition.

This thread is not about geology, or physics, it's about the existence of god.

If you were to maybe DEFINE god(meaning give it attributes), then we could make predictions as to what kind of evidence this god would leave behind. For every theist I've met(and me being a theist for most of my life and the son of a preacher) there's a different definition for god, and I've yet to see sufficient evidence for any definition.

Txgangsta : "Historical skepticism is not the way to understand the past; it only throws unreasonable doubt at our forefathers."

So you believe that the battle of Troy took place, even though there's no good reason to believe it took place? Do you also believe that the tower of Babylon was built and that's where the different races of people come from?

Historical skepticism is simply a way to understand what most probably took place, and what most probably didn't, and is very useful, it's a soft science.

The brain is not a supernatural, or metaphysical object. When you damage it physically your "intellect" tends to change. When we study the brain, we can see different areas of the brain "light up" when someone is in a state of "awe". We can usually assess a person's state of mind using brain imaging technologies.

Your argument is simply an argument from incredulity. Just because neuroscientists can't readily explain "why" the brain releases certain neurotransmitters at certain times, doesn't give way to to the possibility to the supernatural.

Supernatural, and metaphysical explanations to questions are NOT answers. It doesn't explain anything because we don't know anything about the supernatural, all you've done is make a whole new bigger question that needs to be answered for no reason. We experience awe for a certain reason, science will give us the answer, not appeals to metaphysics.

sloanstar1000 : ?

"So you believe that the battle of Troy took place, even though there's no good reason to believe it took place?"

I believe a battle between Aegean powers took place. I think there was plenty of creative license in describing this and that, but in general, there was a "Battle of Troy" that probably lasted a while.

"Do you also believe that the tower of Babylon was built and that's where the different races of people come from?"

No. I don't think Genesis 1-11 is historical, but etiology. It starts getting more historical with Noah, but even then the purpose is not to teach history.

"The brain is not a supernatural, or metaphysical object. When you damage it physically your "intellect" tends to change. When we study the brain, we can see different areas of the brain "light up" when someone is in a state of "awe". We can usually assess a person's state of mind using brain imaging technologies."

Correct. When someone had brain damage, they lose intellectual ability. Awe has brain activity, which is displayed through imaging technologies. And most certainly, the brain is not a supernatural or metaphysical object.

However, none of this actually impacts what I've asserted about a soul. There is one person. My liver interacts with my pancreas and my stomach my brain and my toes my hair and everything in between. If my liver shuts down, my whole body feels it. That will affect everything in my body to one degree or another and if left untreated is an easy way to die. Equally, if someone receives brain damage, the whole person is affected, including the soul. The brain receives data. Lots of it. That data is now corrupted because the brain is damaged.

Yes, the intellect changes due to the interaction of the body and soul. The body has been grievously damaged.

"Your argument is simply an argument from incredulity. Just because neuroscientists can't readily explain "why" the brain releases certain neurotransmitters at certain times, doesn't give way to the possibility to the supernatural."

It's actually an argument from causality. I claim that it is impossible to have a physical causal origin because certain things do not exist materially. The stimuli which awes is not always something material. Lets take "parent" and "child". That isn't material. I truly have parents. I am truly their child. They definitely exist, and I definitely exist. We both physically exist. But none of that tells me "parent" or "child", but only tells things exist. We have very similar DNA. In fact, I am exactly half of one and half the other. That doesn't tell me "parent" or "child", but only things about our body's cells. My mom is adopted. Her parents do not have DNA that is similar. They are still her parents. Relationships are not material things, but relationships exist.

All I have in response to the thread's question is another question. 

Can anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a god? 

Is there any rock-solid evidence that one can present? No. But, one also can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there isn't a god. Just like one can't prove that there isn't a flying spaghetti monster in space that you can't find because it doesn't want you to. The way I look at it, the only difference God and the Spaghetti monster is that way more people believe in God, and have preached and written myths about him. How is the Bible any more credible that a book of Greek myths?

I apologize if I offended anyone, as this was just meant to drive my point across. I'm also not jumping into the whole debate going on behind me. I'm just answering the thread's question, and that's it.

Txgangsta :   You said: "It's actually an argument from causality. I claim
that it is impossible to have a physical causal origin because certain
things do not exist materially."

well, what do you claim is impossible to have physical origin? If you're talking about neurotransmitters that provoke the phenomena of "awe", those are physical things.

"The stimuli which awes is not always
something material. Lets take "parent" and "child". That isn't material.
I truly have parents. I am truly their child. They definitely exist,
and I definitely exist. We both physically exist. But none of that tells
me "parent" or "child", but only tells things exist. We have very
similar DNA. In fact, I am exactly half of one and half the other. That
doesn't tell me "parent" or "child", but only things about our body's
cells. My mom is adopted. Her parents do not have DNA that is similar.
They are still her parents. Relationships are not material things, but
relationships exist."

I am having trouble understanding where the "metaphysical" part comes in, what about this paragraph makes an argument for a soul? And how are you even defining soul? The labels "parent" and "child" are labels, that's all they are, there's nothing metaphysical about it. Unless you're talking about metaphysical concepts. Relationships are based on mutual feelings, feelings that are based in nature. There's nothing supernatural about it. I just don't understand what you mean when you say "soul"

I used to believe but even then I wasn't fully convinced. If anything I would find a collection of gods, like in Roman and Greek mythology, much more realistic because it would be impossible for one to do everything by themselves. Only downside would be that those gods could be just like the Roman/Greek versions and make humans suffer over petty things. Even if there is a singular, almighty deity I am still not convinced it would not be the God of the bible because it is full of contradictions. In any case, I disagree with most religious deities because the ones I have heard about are mostly vindictive, cruel or just plain bullies who deserves no worship.

sloanstar1000 :

I like how you block quote my text. I'm stealing that style =p

"Well, what do you claim is impossible to have physical origin?
If you're talking about neurotransmitters that provoke the
phenomena of "awe", those are physical things."

I'm talking about "awe" itself as a "state of being". Neurotransmitters are things that pass chemicals along. Passing chemicals along is passing chemicals along. Calling it "awe" is wrong. However, you get to the usual rebuttal in your next bit.

"I am having trouble understanding where the "metaphysical"
part comes in, what about this paragraph makes an argument
for a soul? And how are you even defining soul? The labels
"parent" and "child" are labels, that's all they are, there's nothing
metaphysical about it. Unless you're talking about metaphysical
concepts. Relationships are based on mutual feelings, feelings
that are based in nature. There's nothing supernatural about it. I
just don't understand what you mean when you say 'soul'"

First, none of what I claim is "supernatural". I think that non-physical things are a part of nature. However, metaphysical is still the correct word. Not actually important, but just trying to clarify my position. Anyway...

"Parent" and "child" are not labels or concepts. Relationships are not feelings. Feelings are feelings. The neuro-chemicals that dance around while I interact with my mother is not the relationship; those are neuro-chemicals dancing around in my head. If "parent" or "child" is just a label/concept, "parent" and "child" only exist subjectively, and objectively parents and children do not exist. We can keep going with this. It's a philosophy called "atomism" (not talking about an atom as we call it today, but literally "irreducible and indestructible material unit".

The universe has bunches and bunches of matter and energy (which are essentially the same thing). Everything we see is just matter. Life is just matter. A dog sits when a person says "sit" because the matter in the person made matter in the matter in the air mess with matter in the dog that messed with other matter in the dog that produced a totally mathematically sound equation to make this bunch of matter we call "a dog" "move" to a position we call "seated". All these things are just concepts in our head: dog, life, obedience, move, sitting, and many more.

However, this philosophy has at least one very notable flaw...

You are matter and energy. As you read this, the atoms that make up your eyes (which is just matter) react to the light energy which messes with these neurotransmitters (just matter) and not other ones. There is no such thing as the "I" nor any such thing as the "you". Those are concepts.

The first person (I), second person (you), third person (he/she), singular, and plural are relationships. And relationships are just labels/concepts. In atomism, nothing exists but the irreducible and indestructible material unit. And don't attempt to count them, quantity is a relationship too.

"Is there a god"

Hmm...i don't know,and i really don't care,and if i am going to burn for eternity for not believing in some deity,when there is SO little evidence whats so ever,except for a 2000 year old book,that was written by primitive man,that were mostly using symbolism for hope,and not to be taken seriously,well then screw it,i will burn for eternity 

And for any religious people i have a question.

If there is a god,and if are intellect is so below his,if he just dwarfs us,then why would he want us to worship him...? that's like me going in my backyard,looking over an ant hill,and yelling

"Worship me ants,worship me,all who do not worship me,will feel my FURY"

Just think about that...,you think that he would make a being,or creature,that was just as smart as he was,so he could have some intelligent conversation






Image upload: 300x199 totaling 8 KB's.

Txgangsta : You're more than welcome to take my block quote style

In your initial post, you said that you were able to sense non-physical stimuli, you called in the "intellect" and referred to it as the human soul. I just don't see where you're making the case for a non-physical stimulus. That's making a claim that something non-physical exists.

We as humans conceptualize the world around us, we also have the ability to conceptualize non-physical or metaphysical objects or symbols. This does not mean that these things exist. I don't understand what you mean when you say a "non-physical stimulus"

I would also argue that "Parent" and "child" are labels, what else would they be? Human reproduction occurs, we can study it inter-subjectively(objectively), we call the two organisms that contribute DNA to their offspring "parents" and the offspring we call "children". I don't think I missed anything. Using the labels of "parents" and "children" is no different than giving labels to anything else. Like giving the label "awe" to the phenomena that we experience inter-subjectively. I don't see what atomism has to do with it either.