Evidence for God from Science

The commandments given in the bible are for the purpose of an intelligent species like ourselfs. Many studies have shown that families are stronger and children have a generally better start in life with a present mother and father in the family unit. Marriage solidifies that unit and gets God's Blessing in the progress.

Sex outside of marriage in general leads to more unwanted pregnancies and even more crucial more unwanted children - there is a breakdown of the family unit in this respect and society as a whole is effected. So the advice is good and sound.

And to consider a child to only be alive after birth is absolutely ludicrous. My wife has a living baby inside her with a real heartbeat and it is kicking up a storm inside here. You are telling me that I should not grant that the same status as a born human being is probably the most ridiculous and evil thing I have heard.

Silvertusk.

Enginseer wrote:

K wrote:So there being no absolute frame of reference... is it really true that there is no absolute frame of references or are you just relatively speaking?

In special relativity you can only be in an inertial frame of reference if you are travelling at a constant rate. In this case you can never be aware that you are even moving. Yet if you where accelerating then you are no longer in an inertial frame of reference.

I can relate this to opinion as new knowledge replaces acceleration. Once your insights have been expanded, from any source, then you are no longer in an 'inertial frame of reference' and it justifies people being able to learn new things.

So then, according to your analogy, not everything is relative once "acceleration" happens or "insights have been expanded" correct?

Enginseer wrote:Dolphins don't think they're evil, but you do. Neither has evidence that they are or are not so both are respectively in an 'inertial frame of reference' Neither one is more correct than the other.

Well actually, I don't think dolphins are evil at all, nor any other animal. Not sure why you believe I do. A human raping another on the other hand is. Or you are telling me that is just my opinion which is not more correct than a rapist's?

Enginseer wrote:Scientists do believe everything has a cause, I don't believe any person is more evil than another.

I am not sure how causation got brought in, however when did you end up representing the belief of all scientists?

While causation is observable, and thus influences the realm of science, the belief that everything has a cause is actually a metaphysical idea and so belongs in the realm of philosophy. So I think you have your authorities mixed up.

Inertial frames of reference and relativity are of the same theory, yet not the same thing.

In physics, we use the term Inertial Frame of Reference for an object moving at a constant rate. There is no way for that object to know how fast it's going. In the reference frame of the object, it is stationary. In the reference frame of another object moving at a different rate, it is moving. Neither one can say which one is moving until one experiences an external force and is no longer within an inertial frame of reference.

I believe without external scientific evidence to back up your theories, you are just travelling in an 'inertial frame of reference' and hence cannot be deemed more correct than any other theory.

further, that ludicrous mess about 4 dimensions

You doubt Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity? I warn you, they have proven it.



So if a group of Dolphins rape an adolescent dolphin they are not evil, yet if a group of humans rape an adolescent person they are evil? If we assume there is an absolute frame of reference [which happens to be everything relative to humans?] than why is there a difference?

I think you have to say both are evil or neither. I personally say neither is evil, not believing in an absolute frame of reference I think the concept of 'evil' and 'righteous' only exists in the minds of those who believe in them.

To the man with the pregnant wife, I in no way wish for your child to be aborted. You have a structured family, with good values and I believe your child will most likely grow up to be a considerate person and constructive to society.

However to the drug-abusive 14 year old mothers living in violent neighbor hoods. There child does not have such a future. Most likely neglected they may not have the same respect for other human beings. It's noticed that these kinds of children will often follow their mothers into drug-abuse possibly violent gangs. Life has been unfair to him, why should he care if he rapes someone? He will just grow up to become someone a Christian might label as 'evil'. I don't think it's his fault he's the way he is, yet maybe it would have been better if he was never born?

Either way, I believe the parent has a right to choose.



One last, off-topic, thing I only noticed today. People often say "Explain what happened before the Big Bang?" [Atheists and Religious followers alike] Yet the question is invalid. Time didn't exist before the big bang.

So just because a person may end up with a life of crime and drugs - you say it is better if they were never born?? What gives you the right to make that judgement - Who made you God to decide whether someone should have the right to life or not. I know of people who did start off in a life of crime - yet turned their lives around anyway and became amazing people in their own right - their testimonies giving strength to people going through similar hardships and making a real difference for the good - yet you believe these people should never have been born?

However - if you don't believe in God and therefore do not believe that we are made in his image then it does not surprise me that you have such a low value on human life.

SIlvertusk.

Enginseer wrote:One last, off-topic, thing I only noticed today. People often say "Explain what happened before the Big Bang?" [Atheists and Religious followers alike] Yet the question is invalid. Time didn't exist before the big bang.

Can you dwell on that more? When you say that time didnt exist before the big bang that is true, but because there was a big bang we CAN say "what happened before big bang" but id rather not put it into those words as you are right about no time before it, so it would be wiser to put it like this "what is and has always been behind or outside the big bang?" since there is no time before big bang we can conclude there is no start or ending to what is outside the universe. Plus when we say "explain what happened before the big bang" the question is obvious to what it is trying to address, since we dont know how it works outside our universe we have to use the knowledge we have here to at least try and answer these thoughts and questions of the unknown. An example is when in many cases God is given human like qualities such as smelling, looking and hearing in the bible so that we can understand what is going on and at least comprehend it in some way, because we all know that God has no nose, eyes, ears but we know He can do all those things.

Do you kinda get what im saying Enginseer? What you pretty much said is not really answering the question; but rather you made an obvious statement on the matter yet not understanding what was actually asked.

Enginseer wrote:Okay so to the extent of my knowledge, a good Christian waits until marriage to propagate his seed "You shall not commit adultery."

Yet biology has proven that sex is essential for the continuation of a species. If we are in some form or another, related to all living creatures on Earth.[even for Creationist, we came from the dust and the animals certainly didn't appear from outer space] How come we must wait until marriage to co-populate with but one female.

Seeing as Christian beliefs on sex before marriage are at least partially derived from exegesis of scripture, asking a Christian why you shouldn't have sex before marriage when biology shows "that sex is essential for the continuation of a species" is a bit like asking a Muslim why they remove their shoes before entering the mosque when studies have shown that stubbing your toe quite hurts. Or like asking a Jew why they "remember the sabbath and keep it holy" when research has shown that the other days of the week are quite good, too.

Enginseer wrote:

cslewislover wrote:

Enginseer wrote:While I believe we are very similar to animals we have some differences.

First humans gain pleasure from sex, which other animals do not. Animals do not rape the young, as they have no desire to. If humans where more like animals it's arguable that we would be less immoral, only having sex for strictly reproduction purposes, not pleasure. I do not believe any human should have to suffer at the hand of another, which is a view I believe many none-religious people agree with.

One interesting thing however, Dolphins have been known to have sex for pleasure. Lacking empathy, they are known to gang bang and rape as well as have homosexual relations through each others blow holes. Are dolphins evil for this? Everything is relative.

Yes, humans gain pleasure from sex, but some humans also use sex to dominate and punish, and of course that's immoral. But you say animals do not rape, but then go on to say dolphins rape. Animals will have sex with their offspring, and it's just natural for them. I do not know about dolphins, but, some human societies do gang rape certain persons as a form of punishment.

I'm unclear on much of your op. You sound like you're asking why we shouldn't act like animals.

News flash, humans are animals. To understand you most conceive this.

No kidding?? I meant like other animals . . . not hard to understand, I don't think (certainly no reason to be so disrespectful). If you want to get so picky, then you should edit your title. "Morales" is a Spanish surname, and a verse has a number of meanings, none of which mean "against" or "in contrast with." And, you didn't address the dolphin issue any farther in your post to me . . .

As for how our species deals with sex and reproduction, you could read some anthropology articles. Our species has done very well with the way different societies choose to deal with it. Humans have choice in the matter. We are quite different in that we're always ready for sex, pretty much, and it's not just instinctual as with other animals. The point is, in your op you seem to want us to act like other animals when there's no reason to, and when, in fact, we're quite different sexually. We've been successful as a species when it comes to reproduction, despite female deaths related to reproduction and only having one child at a time, and it taking a long time at that. I'm sure it's partly because we DO have monogamous families, for the most part; our devotion (protecting family members) seems to be strongest that way.

And touchingcloth, you could engage in the op instead of "speaking for us." If we are going to act stereotypically here, then let us do it on our own.

News flash, humans are animals. To understand you most conceive this.

Hey, here's an idea, why don't you try to be respectful of the people on this board! That would be a nice change of pace!

Okay so to the extent of my knowledge, a good Christian waits until marriage to propagate his seed "You shall not commit adultery."

And we have this for some very good reasons too! Shall we explain them all to you?

Yet biology has proven that sex is essential for the continuation of a species. If we are in some form or another, related to all living creatures on Earth.[even for Creationist, we came from the dust and the animals certainly didn't appear from outer space] How come we must wait until marriage to co-populate with but one female.

Why should you wait until marriage to co-populate with but one female...? You are kidding me right? Let me think here... hm... does it have to do with, oh I don't know, STD's!!!! Yeah.... the more sex you have with more people the more you spread them. How about this too, we don't have enough supplies as it is because people keep having babies, and many a time it is with someone they are not married to, so more of that would not be good, or would you like poverty and world hunger to be worse? Not to mention the spread of disease and that all leads to more war and murder and well, things would just not be good at all!

When in other species, the males attempts to impregnate as many females as possible. [Which can be seen in our own species by the desire of males to seek alternative mates]

No the "men" in our species are simply accepting that idea because they lack a simple thing called SELF CONTROL!!!!! I do not wish for multiple partners, nor have I ever. I do not seek "alternative mates" I seek a relationship with a person with whom I can have a deep connection with and converse with about many things. Some one I can explore with and draw closer to than anyone else. Some one who knows my innermost heart. Otherwise there is no point, what is the point in fruitlessly having babies with people you care very little about? Why bother having babies if you are going to die, why bother caring if you seed continues? Ultimately you will die and rot in the ground, so why should you even care?

Killing and stealing I can easily understand as sin, but sex isn't some disgusting perverted negative event. It's essential for all human life, the only reason I believe people would see it as seen is because of the dopamine it releases, which is why it's enjoyable.

It's enjoyable because it is the ultimate expression of love and a way of binding yourself to one other individual for life. It touches the deepest and most emotional parts of you, that no one else other than your spouse is supposed to be able to do.

Also why would God have one of the commandments as "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Because envy will drive a man to do things he should not, like how David killed a man to get his wife... unless you think we should kill people because they have things that we cannot at times. Also you should be happy with what you have, and not desire to have everything others have.

God is all knowing, so why would the commandment only partake to that time era. It could mean that it was interpreted wrong, possibly what happened with "You shall not commit adultery." as well. However Gods words would be eternal.

It did not partake, as you put it, only to that time era; it is meant for all times, just like the adultery one.

Also, I believe life starts after birth, before then you are but an embryo. Technically you're preventing a potential life with contraception [which some people see as interfering with God's decided fate]. Yet you cannot possibly have 50 000 children so how does one justify these things?

Life starts at conception, if you did any research you would know that during an abortion even a newly developed fetus tries to survive.

With regard to self-sacrifice. It's natural in many species to preserve the life of the child. Preserve the next generations. That seems more apparent. Sacrificing ourselves for others who are not family is less obvious but still linked to empathy and serving/preserving society.

So if a child of yours tried to kill your wife and you could only take him out by some way that would kill you as well... then what, and what about killing off our own race, like in war (and let's just say it was father vs. son again) then what?

Enginseer, do not be disrespectful to Vicki again, or anyone else. Do we have an understanding here?

Gabrielman wrote: With regard to self-sacrifice. It's natural in many species to preserve the life of the child. Preserve the next generations. That seems more apparent. Sacrificing ourselves for others who are not family is less obvious but still linked to empathy and serving/preserving society.


So if a child of yours tried to kill your wife and you could only take him out by some way that would kill you as well... then what, and what about killing off our own race, like in war (and let's just say it was father vs. son again) then what?

Oh and Dee, I was not upset with you, I am just wondering about this. I mean what would you say to that? About if it is natural.

cslewislover wrote: And touchingcloth, you could engage in the op instead of "speaking for us." If we are going to act stereotypically here, then let us do it on our own.

Engaging in the OP is what I did (note what I quoted was from the OP). I'm not sure where you got the "speaking for us" idea from.

This may sound irrelevant now, but I should probably point out that other animals DO gain pleasure from sex. There have been records of animals masturbating (something which offspring are not resultant) and records of homosexual behaviour in animals (which again, does not result in children).