I lost my faith a while back

[Son of Jack]

A sort of faith, but a stunted one. I set out why prior. You reserved your right to judge God, to question His authority and nature. That reservation isn't faith as the Christian should have it. It is more a rough enchantment with a subjective sense of probability.

Rather, I can rationally distinguish it from my own and what I believe is required of someone who would follow Christ. Your reservation was like unto the rich young ruler's wealth. And it cost you the full and redemptive experience of Christ.

No. You're still very much asleep. You just heard Christ passing and stirred for a moment.

I feel no need to state what have been very clearly been stated by others, so I'll affirm. While there has been a lot of good written in this thread, I found this especially so.:thumb:

If Spectrox War should return to the thread, I would hope that he would take the bolded into careful consideration and meditate on it. I would commend to him that story. I believe there is something there for him.

 

[Nick M]

If dust can turn into a man and a rib can turn into a woman, why not? :idea:

A man's rib didn't turn into a woman. But, some people claim they can now clone. So my guess is the creator can create again, from the man.

 

[Nick M]

Although, I'm am perplexed that if you feel happier without God and His wisdom, that you would then join a site that is geared toward God and His wisdom.

So he can do this. :IA:

 

[Stripe]

If Spectrox War should return to the thread

What does this thread have to do with him? :idunno:

 

[alwight]

Why? You don't seem to think it's much of a stretch to believe a bunch of molecules can just line up and form a protein, so why not just go a few steps further?

One self-replicating molecule occurring by chance among countless other similar ones that don't, doesn't seem that much of a stretch to me. Even if the odds of it occurring at any one place or moment in time are perhaps quite large. But the prospect of it happening quite naturally at any moment in time and in any particular suitable place are probably rather good imo.

On the other hand the prospects of a very particular strand of DNA, several feet in length, simply coming about by chance where no other DNA exists, seems so vanishingly small and unlikely to me that it can indeed reasonably be deemed as a natural impossibility.

 

[Stripe]

One self-replicating molecule occurring by chance among countless other similar ones that don't, doesn't seem that much of a stretch to me. Even if the odds of it occurring at any one place or moment in time are perhaps quite large.

Not very good at math, are you. :chuckle:

But the prospect of it happening quite naturally at any moment in time and in any particular suitable place are probably rather good imo.

Except you have no evidence to support this. One would think that if it can occur by itself, it could surely occur with people trying to make it happen.

On the other hand the prospects of a very particular strand of DNA, several feet in length, simply coming about by chance where no other DNA exists, seems so vanishingly small and unlikely to me that it can indeed reasonably be deemed as a natural impossibility.

Right.

And this is probably what you need to get the simplest population to survive.

 

[alwight]

Not very good at math, are you. :chuckle:

Don't need to be, there is a considerable margin of error here imo.

Except you have no evidence to support this. One would think that if it can occur by itself, it could surely occur with people trying to make it happen.

Only that all the evolutionary evidence rather suggests that it did happen that way and that the simplest answer is usually the more likely, simpler the better perhaps.

Right.

:thumb:

And this is probably what you need to get the simplest population to survive.

As long as these molecules can keep on replicating that's rather all it needs, it doesn't need a specific population and there'd be no competition of course.

 

[TruthSetsFree]

My name is Spectrox. I am from the UK.

I lost my Christian faith about 15 years ago.

I would now consider myself either an agnostic or an atheist or an agnostic atheist depending on my mood and the definitions being used.

I am much more skeptical about religion and spirituality than I used to be (obviously) and I reckon I am more logical and rational now than when I believed Jesus was my saviour.

I am certainly happier.

I enjoy honest debate.

i was miserable a lot of the time b4 i went back to the Church i was raised in... and there is only ONE Church tht God established on Earth through Christ - the Roman Catholic

i tried other "churches" but, even tho i found some good there, i never... uh... How to say it? i nver really got anywhere until i found (re-found) the RCC

i cannot put into words, esp in this small space... all that has happened to me since then... but 3 words rather sorta work: Hell, Purgatory, Heaven... which 3 words sum up life in this sinful world. The word Purgatory is not in the Bible but the concept of having to endure certain fiery ... stuff... is there ... 1 Cor 3:13

St Mt 18:23... i could go on and on

I started reading the OT and THAT caused me to lose my faith... It was only something uniquely Catholic that brought it back: thinking of the Real Presence of Christ in the Church (24/7). When i am There... I see the truth about my life... This is where"hell" comes in because sometimes i dont like what i see... but... with Jesus by my side, I'm more than OK

 

[Stripe]

Don't need to be, there is a considerable margin of error here imo.

Your opinion ain't very accurate.

Only that all the evolutionary evidence rather suggests that it did happen that way and that the simplest answer is usually the more likely, simpler the better perhaps.

Funny how when it suits them, suddenly evolution supports abiogenesis. :chuckle:

Usually atheists are quick to say abiogenesis and evolution are two entirely separate things.

And you really don't have any evidence for what you propose as fact.

As long as these molecules can keep on replicating that's rather all it needs

What is the simplest population that can survive and reproduce in isolation?

 

[Son of Jack]

What does this thread have to do with him? :idunno:

:idunno:....but just in case.

 

[alwight]

Your opinion ain't very accurate.
Funny how when it suits them, suddenly evolution supports abiogenesis. :chuckle:

Usually atheists are quick to say abiogenesis and evolution are two entirely separate things.

And you really don't have any evidence for what you propose as fact.

What is the simplest population that can survive and reproduce in isolation?

Unlike you I don't claim to know exactly how life actually did begin and without the supposing of any supernatural omnipotent entities the Theory of Evolution seems to me like the best explanation from the evidence.

 

[voltaire]

Anything that actually did violate physical norms or laws would be evidence of a "something else" being true, have you got any?
Why should we assume a "something else" anyway without it.
Nobody has said anything about "cannot possibly be true" other than you I suspect.

I have no idea what you said. Could you rephrase it?

 

[Stripe]

Unlike you I don't claim to know exactly how life actually did begin

So you choose to be ignorant. :idunno:

That's hardly my fault, is it?

and without the supposing of any supernatural omnipotent entities the Theory of Evolution seems to me like the best explanation from the evidence.

Can some professional atheist clue this guy on to the mistakes he's making? :chuckle:

 

[alwight]

So you choose to be ignorant. :idunno:

That's hardly my fault, is it?]

No, I simplly choose not to make magic stuff up instead.

 

[alwight]

I have no idea what you said. Could you rephrase it?

OK
Anything that actually did violate physical norms or laws would be evidence of a supernatural being true, have you got any?
Why should we assume a supernatural anyway without it?
Nobody has said anything about "cannot possibly be true" other than you I suspect.

If you still don't get it then you'll need to be rather more specific.

 

[Stripe]

Programming of Life

 

[voltaire]

OK
Anything that actually did violate physical norms or laws would be evidence of a supernatural being true, have you got any?
Why should we assume a supernatural anyway without it?
Nobody has said anything about "cannot possibly be true" other than you I suspect.

If you still don't get it then you'll need to be rather more specific.

So something could possibly be true if it did violate physical norms or laws? The OP writer refused to believe anything that did that. That is why I asked the question. I will ask the same of you. Can anything be possibly true that violates physical norms and laws?

 

[alwight]

So something could possibly be true if it did violate physical norms or laws? The OP writer refused to believe anything that did that. That is why I asked the question. I will ask the same of you. Can anything be possibly true that violates physical norms and laws?

Well, I don't see any reason to suppose that anything ever does, so my presumption is no, until some evidence were to change that view.

 

[voltaire]

Well, I don't see any reason to suppose that anything ever does, so my presumption is no, until some evidence were to change that view.

Why don't you see any reason to suppose that anything ever does?

 

[alwight]

Why don't you see any reason to suppose that anything ever does?

Good question if it does, but then again why would I if it never happens?
Some evidence of it happening might help of course, while I don't see that there could be any evidence that it doesn't.