The odds of the order we have coming into existence by happenstance are so astronomical I am dumbfounded anyone truly believes it; in fact I'm actually convinced they don't actually believe it as much as they'd like us to believe they do.
toldailytopic: In your opinion what are some of the most convincing pieces of evidenc
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Aimiel
Well-known member
Simply stating that creation happened by sheer chance is paramount to saying that given enough time a landslide will occur where the trees will be trimmed into planks, sand formed into windows, animal fur will be somehow made into carpets and furniture will appear and a house will 'accidentally' build itself. The human body is FAR more complex than a house and yet fools imagine that we evolved from monkeys formed from amphibians, fish or even the 'primordial ooze' that brought all this about... it's easier to believe the plot of a 'B' sci-fi movie than such nonsense. As God's Word says: He is known, they simply are without excuse because they're not glorifying Him as God. They know, they simply deny in their innermost being because they're in enmity against everything that is called: "God." They flat out deny God and yet they wonder why...
...God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
It's because their understanding is darkened by their own un-belief. They are self-deceived. They walk around saying: "Why is there so much evil in the world if there really is a god?" Yet they do not look to His Word for understanding. They do not seek God, they seek the pleasures of sin, which are only for a season.
...God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
It's because their understanding is darkened by their own un-belief. They are self-deceived. They walk around saying: "Why is there so much evil in the world if there really is a god?" Yet they do not look to His Word for understanding. They do not seek God, they seek the pleasures of sin, which are only for a season.
physically DNA, spiritually Messiahs word.
zippy2006
New member
Lost Comet
New member
They'll let any old riff-raff in here.
Nah. That's a "want," not a "need."
:think:
Good point.
Chalmer Wren
New member
The cosmological argument.
I don't think empirical evidence makes a good cause for or against a god.
Son of Jack
New member
Yes...it does.
Son of Jack
New member
Perhaps claim would have been a better choice of words. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The fact is that there is something, and that speaks to the idea that something has always been.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
See Vaquero's post #59, thanks Vaquero.
It will convince someone, just not everyone . . . sadly . . . I'll have to join Silent Hunter with a drink.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Since we ARE here the odds, by definition, MUST BE 1:1 . . .
.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
:cheers:
StanJ53
New member
Yeh I'm a big fan of Heb 11:1, and I do agree some people employ Pascal's Wager even though not knowingly.
StanJ53
New member
Since we ARE here the odds, by definition, MUST BE 1:1 . . .
I guess you know nothing about odds then.
Not surprisingly, a huge number of scientists have tried to calculate the probability of life arising by a chemical accident. The results of their calculations reveal the enormity of the dilemma faced by evolutionists. In the 1970’s British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle, an evolutionist, set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the spontaneous origin of life from a primordial soup environment.
Applying the laws of chemistry, mathematical probability and thermodynamics, he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth - a bacterium. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power. Hoyle stated: “the likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand zeros after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution, he said.
Mathematicians tell us if an event has a probability which is less likely than one chance in 10 to just the 50th power, then that event is mathematically impossible. Again we’re talking about one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power. Prior to his project, Hoyle was a believer in the spontaneous generation of life. This project, however, changed his opinion 180 degrees. Now look around you at the abundance of life you see. How impossible is it that all of what you observed just accidentally formed. If you’re honest with yourself, you must admit the odds of it being accidental are impossible. The only other option is that it was created by God.
~Carl Ramsey~
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
.Life exists, therefore, it follows that the odds of life arising by chance HAS TO BE 1:1 . . . QED.
StanJ53
New member
Life exists, therefore, it follows that the odds of life arising by chance HAS TO BE 1:1 . . . QED.
Guess you didn't quite get the OP did you?
Life exists because God exists. If you want to play word games go to the humor forum.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
:box:
Prove it.
Word game, eh?
. . . from the OP . . . "In your opinion what are some of the most convincing pieces of evidence that God exists?"
Your response should be . . . "Life exists. I believe that this is convincing evidence that my particular version of deity exists."
But, then again, you're not that sharp . . .
Last edited:
StanJ53
New member
Disprove it!
Glad you can read, I said LIFE, you added the editorial comment bozo.
The OP is about why God exists, NOT why you exist, or why life like you exists.
If you have something tangible to contribute, by all means do so. All this buzzing around just means sooner or later you'll get smacked down.
I edited out the link to the huge debate in #59 and added this link instead, (also by Hilston ) it's a great answer for Dena also, and much easier to read.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3339352&postcount=118
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
You're the one with the burden of proof, not me.
. . . because it is your argument . . .
No . . . the OP is about ARGUMENTS as to why your version of deity exists. That life exists is a pretty good one . . . though not a great one.
"Smacked down?" By you? :rotfl:.