Evidence for God from Science

Zenith wrote:

Jay_7 wrote:

Zenith wrote:

Jay_7 wrote:

Zenith wrote: whether they are right or wrong, they still exist and that means they exist for a purpose. if god did not want atheists, there would be no atheists.

God created humans, and gave them the choice to love him or not.

God didn't want atheist and he doesnt create atheist, they have free will and become them, but they could become christians if they really wanted to.

i didn't say he created them. i meant that if he didn't want them then he wouldn't have allowed for their existence. but there are atheists so there must be some reason, even if it is to teach others that their path is wrong. but being atheist does not mean that you are wrong about everything, it just means that they look at everything from a different perspective, and sometimes that is a good thing.

Yeah but you mis-unterstood me. What i mean is atheist arent here for a specified 'purpose', even though it does show us that we should follow God, but it wouldnt matter if there were none and everyone believed in God, but because thats highly unlikely that is why theres atheist, they have free will to be them or not to be them, they dont have a purpose, though you can find purposes in your life by knowing atheists.

it is god's will that we are all different, and that we are able to freely choose who we are. this ever-increasing diversity allows for as many different thoughts and ways of thinking as there are people, maybe even more. an atheist can tell me something about the universe that I don't know because I might have been preoccupied with another thought. and the same goes vice versa. even if they don't believe in a christian god, they are still able to observe the world around us, and in doing so they inadverdantly know a part of god.

I know. But what im saying is there doesn't need to be atheists, but of coarse its about impossible not to have them.

I know. But what im saying is there doesn't need to be atheists, but of coarse its about impossible not to have them.

<b>Nor is there a need for theists for the universe to function.

Resident Atheist wrote:
Nor is there a need for theists for the universe to function.

Sorry i wasn't inviting you to but in on me thanks.

Jay_7 wrote:

Resident Atheist wrote:
Nor is there a need for theists for the universe to function.

Sorry i wasn't inviting you to but in on me thanks.

What the hell is your problem? All I did was take part in the conversation. Gee, thought that's what forums are for.

Resident Atheist wrote:

Jay_7 wrote:

Resident Atheist wrote:
Nor is there a need for theists for the universe to function.

Sorry i wasn't inviting you to but in on me thanks.

What the hell is your problem? All I did was take part in the conversation. Gee, thought that's what forums are for.

Nothing, sorry.

But theres no hard proof atheism is true. we may not need theist to understand the universe but still, people have their reasons.

There is no "hard proof" that unicorns are clip clopping around on mars right now, is there?

Does that make it a valid belief?

Or do you need actual evidence to believe it?

Resident Atheist wrote:There is no "hard proof" that unicorns are clip clopping around on mars right now, is there?

Does that make it a valid belief?

Or do you need actual evidence to believe it?

Theres a difference between unicorns and Jesus. Jesus actually has a book and evidences, unicorn doesn't.

There are books that say that x japanese emperor was born from a dragon mating with a human, or that The Buddha was born of a virgin.

Someone once put it this way: In the past 200 years we have not recorded one instance of nature going out of it's way to do the impossible, but we know that in that same period of time millions of lies have been told. So the odds that the miracles claimed in the bible are true to the odds that they are lies are millions to one.

It's true.

Resident Atheist wrote:There are books that say that x japanese emperor was born from a dragon mating with a human, or that The Buddha was born of a virgin.

Which books are those? When were they written and by whom?

August wrote:

Resident Atheist wrote:There are books that say that x japanese emperor was born from a dragon mating with a human, or that The Buddha was born of a virgin.

Which books are those? When were they written and by whom?

I don't have specific titles but I know those myths exist. My point is that people wrote a lot of wierd stuff down.

Buddha, btw, was supposed to have been born of a virgin.

Resident Atheist wrote:

August wrote:

Resident Atheist wrote:There are books that say that x japanese emperor was born from a dragon mating with a human, or that The Buddha was born of a virgin.

Which books are those? When were they written and by whom?

I don't have specific titles but I know those myths exist. My point is that people wrote a lot of wierd stuff down.

Buddha, btw, was supposed to have been born of a virgin.

You know those myths exist, but you cannot quote them? How are we supposed to know your statements have any credibility if you don't quote sources? I thought you said in another thread you believed something to be true by empirical observation and the scientific method, now it seems you believe things based on hearsay?

The virgin birth of Buddha, by the way, was added to his life sometime after Jesus was born. All earlier documentation made no mention of a virgin birth, and, by the way, his mother was not a virgin either.

"The oldest accounts of Buddha's ancestry appear to presuppose nothing abnormal about his birth, and merely speak of his being well born both on his mother's end and father's side for seven generations back. According to the later legend he is born not as other human beings, but in the same was as a universal king he descends from the Tusita heaven by his own choice, and with this his father is not concerned. This is not properly a virgin birth, but it may be called parthogenetic, that is, Suddhodana was not his progenitor."

You do realize I never said atheists are ignorant. The point was: Why you attacked me with all that nonsensical/unessential "info." is puzzling.

August wrote: The virgin birth of Buddha, by the way, was added to his life sometime after Jesus was born. All earlier documentation made no mention of a virgin birth, and, by the way, his mother was not a virgin either.

The White Elephant Dream is older than Christianity,
also it is written down in ancient Chinese and Korean manuscripts before the introduction of Christianity.

August wrote:You know those myths exist, but you cannot quote them? How are we supposed to know your statements have any credibility if you don't quote sources?

Since when has accurate citations been any kind of requirement on this site? Despite bringing it up many times before, I rarely ever see those condemning evolution (or anything else supported by science) providing citations backing up their claims within any non-internet sources. One side cannot simply say to the other, "do as I say, not as I do".

thereal wrote:

August wrote:You know those myths exist, but you cannot quote them? How are we supposed to know your statements have any credibility if you don't quote sources?

Since when has accurate citations been any kind of requirement on this site? Despite bringing it up many times before, I rarely ever see those condemning evolution (or anything else supported by science) providing citations backing up their claims within any non-internet sources. One side cannot simply say to the other, "do as I say, not as I do".

Why don't you show me where I have given any inaccurate citations? And he did not give any citations, accurate or not, simply made a claim.

Anyhow, it seems that you wish to define what accurate citations mean, that being all of those that agree with evolution or whatever point of view you support.