Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is

[paarsurrey1]

Revealed-Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is "man-made", is it so?

Regards

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 22 by benchwarmer]

It means something that is true. If there is any debate about the truth of something then it is NOT a fact."

If it does not conform to reality, then, no matter if everyone agrees, it is still not a fact. If everyone agreed that the Earth was flat, or that pi was exactly equal to three, the Earth would still be spherical and pi would still be irrational.

[Danmark]

Danmark wrote:

When we look at processes or forces such as evolution or gravity, we see patterns, patterns that can be and are replicated before our very eyes

.

And we also see design. What do you make of that?

No. 'WE' do not see 'design.' YOU do. I see no design at all. Seeing 'design' is false sight, a product of lack of vigor in analysis. I suppose it comes from a lifetime of prejudice that because people design things, everything else must have a designer as well. This is a wild leap of logic (or rather illogic) that has no basis.

Seeing design is backward logic. Such a claim is inherently circular since it starts with the premise there must be a designer. The better course of analysis is to look at an object, let's say 'a flower,' and make no assumptions whatsoever. Then one can begin the proper task of analyzing how it came to exist without contaminating the analysis with presupposition.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 22 by benchwarmer]

It means something that is true. If there is any debate about the truth of something then it is NOT a fact."

If it does not conform to reality, then, no matter if everyone agrees, it is still not a fact. If everyone agreed that the Earth was flat, or that pi was exactly equal to three, the Earth would still be spherical and pi would still be irrational.

Correct.
It is also fair to say that a fact can be (and often is) a fact even if there is debate. Benchwarmer's statement is simply false, as can be easily demonstrated by your example. it is a fact that the Earth and all planets are basically spherical. The fact that some people take the absurd flat Earth argument in a debate has ZERO effect on the FACT the Earth is round.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to Danmark]

Hello Danmark,

Easily. When we look at processes or forces such as evolution or gravity, we see patterns, patterns that can be and are replicated before our very eyes. We look at the overwhelming evidence and can repeat it thru current experimentation or observation. When we do that, we see that things happen exactly according to our predictions. When we throw an object away from the Earth, it returns exactly as predicted. We practice artificial selection and the results align with what was predicted. All of the sciences show that the age of the Earth, the fossil record and other factors are perfectly congruent. This is the exact opposite with fantasy, religious miracles and superstition, where nothing is predictable and everything is a surprise and does not fit with what we actually observe.

How may we extol the institutions of science that serve us with increases in knowledge of nature while at the same time downgrading the Creation-based moral institutions that serve us with knowledge and wisdom that guide our behavior? Shouldn't the institutions work in harmony in serving us?

Maybe it will be helpful for us to review the pros and cons of the evolutionary (humanistic) worldview versus the Creation based worldview and the fruit of each and then determine which should be defended. Although apparently long, the lists below are short and very brief. I will start with the creation account.

If The Biblical Creation account is true:

• 1. The phrase, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." (Emphasis added) in the U. S. DOI is based solely on knowledge of the Creation account.
  
  The phrase, "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Power..." shows it applicable to all nations besides the U.S.
  
  2. We learn from Genesis how the nation of Israel originated and of God's promise and warning to mankind in relation to Israel. How may we say that Biblical truth is a myth while Israel is real?
  
  3. God made everything good in the beginning until man's rebellion and consequent fall brought undesirable death and destruction that we witness daily. We are also informed of a promise for regeneration (Genesis 3:15). Even if we ignore the fact that everything started out good, why do we yet long for good and hate evil?
  
  4. Life, intelligence, and order came into existence by the spoken word of the Creator. Because you and I were created in the Creator's "image (Genesis 1:27)," our lives are sacred and we owe each other respect for our dignity and great worth. Any desire to do each other harm is thus strongly discouraged.
  
  5. From Genesis we learn the basis of the covenantal institution of marriage between man and woman, knowledge of right and wrong, and why we have a seven day week and a Sabbath.
  
  6. Based on the Creation account we know of Jesus as the reason that dates of past history are divided into BC and AD.
  
  7. We know that the fall of rebellious man is the reason that women suffer pain during childbirth.
  
  8. From the Creation account we know and recognize the Creator as the only explicable source of life, purpose, and intelligence.

If Evolution is True and the Genesis account is False:

• 1. The US DOI that so well protects liberty would be invalid because it would be based on a myth.
  
  2. The evolutionary mindset ignores the uniqueness of Israel with its demonstration of the providence of the Creator and the Creator's promises and warnings to all nations regarding Israel.
  
  3. From the evolutionary standpoint, all of life has endured millions of years of death and destruction as it evolved to its present state. Death and destruction is only seen as included in the package because "evolved" man has supposedly never fallen to cause it. The evolutionary mindset thus ignores vital knowledge of the fall that includes hope for regeneration, for the conquest of death, and for life beyond this life. Rejection of and failure to be informed of these vital facts tends to open people up to be led by subtle tornadoes. Because of consequent erroneous thinking, some have shared their false perception of God is careless, cruel, and thoughtless.
  
  4. On the evolutionary foundation, we have no basis for knowledge of where life, intelligence, and order originated. Neither are we informed of right and wrong, that human life is sacred, why we are special and have dignity, why we have worth, and why we deserve respect. Life is thus cheapened. Human nature easily runs uncontrollably amuck with this apparent lack of the need for respect.
  
  5. We find no basis for vital understanding of the covenantal relationship of marriage between man and woman, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, nor for the seven day week and the Sabbath. Why bother with such if that's the case?
  
  6. What would be the need to divide dates of past history if there had never been Christ that died? Why was it divided?
  
  7. There would be no understood reason that women suffer pain during childbirth and thus no reminder of the fallen nature because man supposedly never fell.
  
  8. Everything would only be seen as products of purposeless chance. The universe, life, and intelligence would be the equivalent of a CD ROM with an operating system written on it that came into being on its own. How does one feels when he thinks of himself as having no purpose?

Which overall view comparison appears the most practical? What scientific advantage do we find for embracing the evolutionary mindset? What hope does the evolutionary mindset leave us beyond this life with all of its ills and hurts? Isn't life more than only scientific inquiry?

Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Hello DrNoGods,

There are many examples of people who "find religion" for one reason or another, often in a life threatening situation as you describe, or while incarcerated, etc. But this has no bearing at all on whether their imaginings actually mean anything. It just means they have had an experience that changed their minds. For my own case, I just see no reason to believe that gods of any type exist, or ever did exist. There is simply no evidence for them of any kind, anywhere, and never has been. The more we understand about how nature works (and that is infinitely more now that it was 2000 years ago and prior), the less need there is to think that an imaginary protector in the sky is really there.

Are you implying a need for you to have a similar experience to that of the Russian general in order for you to be brought to reality? I tend to think that you are too wise to necessitate Mr. Reality to whip you with similar severity! Aren't you?

Are we as children that increase in learning as they age only to think they are smarter than their "old fashioned" parents? What do you think of such kids? Should scientists do the same?

There are all kinds of methods for understanding what happened in the past. A great deal of efforts in geology, archeology, biology, chemistry, physics, and all the "'ologies" has led to continuously advancing knowledge in these subjects. This cumulative knowledge over the centuries has given us a far more accurate picture of how nature works, how to date fossils and other items accurately, how the Earth's crustal plates move and interact, and countless other examples. We apply these things every day in forensics and other areas where there is no human to relay direct visual evidence of an event.

But what have you say about the recent discoveries of soft tissue found in supposed 65+ million year old dinosaur bones that tend to counter the belief in the 65+ mega-year age?

If someone could produce any kind of legitimate evidence that a god exists, and it was convincing and reproducible evidence, I'd change my mind immediately.

Are you sure this promise is one that you wont back out of if the required condition is met?

My post to Damark Should also be helpful.

Earl

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 115 by Erexsaur]

But what have you say about the recent discoveries of soft tissue found in supposed 65+ million year old dinosaur bones that tend to counter the belief in the 65+ mega-year age?

Not this one again! That is just another attempt by theists to misinterpret something completely and try to twist it into support for a young earth. It has been debunked many times in many venues (including this website), and is much like similar activity with carbon dating of dinosaur bones and other nonsense where data is misinterpreted to try and build a story.

It was a good try by the theists, but failed miserably. The author of the original paper you are referring to (Mary Schweitzer) has cleared this up repeatedly, as have many others, but if you want a quick and easy summary here is one on YouTube:

Are you sure this promise is one that you wont back out of if the required condition is met?

Certainly not. Have you got anything?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 22 by benchwarmer]

It means something that is true. If there is any debate about the truth of something then it is NOT a fact."

If it does not conform to reality, then, no matter if everyone agrees, it is still not a fact. If everyone agreed that the Earth was flat, or that pi was exactly equal to three, the Earth would still be spherical and pi would still be irrational.

Correct.
It is also fair to say that a fact can be (and often is) a fact even if there is debate. Benchwarmer's statement is simply false, as can be easily demonstrated by your example. it is a fact that the Earth and all planets are basically spherical. The fact that some people take the absurd flat Earth argument in a debate has ZERO effect on the FACT the Earth is round.

Umm, That was not my statement, that was paarsurrey1's response to my previous reply. He/she was confused what the word 'fact' meant and was obviously still confused.

Anyway, carry on....

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 116 by DrNoGods]

xxxx

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 116 by DrNoGods]

Hello DrNoGods,

Not this one again! That is just another attempt by theists to misinterpret something completely and try to twist it into support for a young earth. It has been debunked many times in many venues (including this website), and is much like similar activity with carbon dating of dinosaur bones and other nonsense where data is misinterpreted to try and build a story.

I'm no fossil expert. But based on my limited knowledge, I would tend to side with the young earth model in light of the discussed surprise discovery simply because 1,000 times 1,000 years is an extremely long time to allow Mr. Decay to do his job let alone 65,000 times 1,000 years. (Phew!!) I did not mention the countless other reasons I stick to the young earth model.

Why should anyone be at arms because of my conclusion? Why the alarm about creationist with the same mind by the people on the video you shared? I also saw other videos that supposedly debunked other creationist claims. Why all the controversy?

May I please defend us creationist by saying that any act of forcing precious truth on anyone by deceptive means with falsehoods is anathema to us? Prevalence of evidence of creation truth is overwhelming if we care to see.

OK. I'll tell you who the bad guy is. Surprise!! It's me! Aren't we all? We all are our own worst enemies even apart from our enemies! It thus behooves me to guard my thoughts and actions to keep them in line with the standards of the Justice of justices whose words settle all arguments and is our Advocate. Habitual pointing fingers at the other guy only victimizes with the "what-goes-around-comes-around" syndrome.

Are you sure this promise is one that you wont back out of if the required condition is met?

Certainly not. Have you got anything?

Am I correct in understanding that you said that you will certainly not back out? I'll take your word and hold you to it.

I am only able to prove the existence of God personally by testimony. Aren't testimonies useful in court? I have shared much with you already and my surety of speech is based on the fact that God has personally proven Himself to me in a way not possible by another because of my trust in Him.

If someone tells you to meet a person at a train station and you see him at the station, you will get to know him only by facing him and communicating with him regardless how much another may have shared about him beforehand. Then you will have your proof that the person is who he was said to be.

It's possible for a person to spend his entire life engaged in lots of religious and yet never know God. But knowledge of the whole world opens up in a new light to him whom God has personally revealed Himself because he followed God's sovereign command to trust and seek Him.

As you remember what I shared earlier, Mr. Reality will take you along. OK?

Thank you for the quotations by John Paul Jones and Mark Twain.

Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 119 by Erexsaur]


Is anyone home?

Earl