Who created life, if not God, man should be able to create life. To that point I offer this:


The Contest

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!" But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You must make your own dirt!"

I think the mechanism is very straight forward. You either believe in God or you do not. There is no absolute proof of God's existence or God's non existence. All of the above posts are an example of that. It is what each of you think. I am good with the fact that there are an unlimited number of ideas about God. I agree with Victor that an atheist does not have faith. I think an empirical belief would be more accurate. Though I know I am reaching when I say that. If God exists there will never be a way to prove it. To me believing in God is a leap of faith. You don't need empirical evidence to prove your belief, you have faith that you are correct.

Victor, everything the Church teaches hinges on creation. Not just in the beginning but throughout the entirety of history. It's not so much that creation is the linchpin but moreso the statement of what God did.

What does the church say about who created God?

Does God just have dominion over this universe, or does he have dominion over all universes?

If just this universe, that would imply there exists more than one god, doesn't that contradict monotheism?

Define "the beginning".

http://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2011/11/14/is-pascals-wager-an-appropriate-use-of-game-theory/

The religious right, for sure.
But atheists, by definition, feel a need to prove it.

Most Americans embrace religion only as tightly as they embrace their elderly aunts during the holidays.

Although I've defended my faith on occasion, I've NEVER told a non-believer that they were wrong or stupid simply because they didn't believe.

How many atheists can say the same?

THAT was funny...

So I watched the video. Figured I may as well since I'm commenting on the thread.

It's dumb.

It isn't saying anything at all. Just saying "god is outside of all this" doesn't actually answer any questions. It doesn't define anything. It is by nature of the answer waving ones hands in the air and saying "everything is answered by the fact that it's god!".

I understand that for those who are willing to make that leap of faith that their "god" is "god" this is an appropriate answer. It has to be. Otherwise you don't have sufficient faith.
But those of you who have that amount of faith absolutely have to also understand that what he is saying is absolute gibberish if you take out the fundamental assumption that your god is "god".

The biggest problem I've had with these sort of arguments is that there is no defining characteristics.
Christians are sure it's their deity, as defined in their bible which exists outside of the universe.
So are all the other religions.

The definable qualities of this "god" is that it's "outside of the universe" and therefore cannot be quantified or measured or subjected to any laws of our universe.

Every "god" has that quality. Including gods which have not been defined by christiantiy. There is an infinite number of potential religions (including one which is exactly like christiantiy, but god is left handed, or one which demands all of you give victor all your money while you are on the mortal plane) which fit that quality.

His argument is neither a defense of this external deity, nor is it an argument that his external deity has any more probability of existence than any other random creation of rules.

Why would such a being have hands when he can move sh1t with his mind?

Of course... that's funny too. and additional evidence that this guy in the debate was just talking out of his azz.
Because for god to have made man in his image, you need to have an image. That requires "matter". There has to be a way of measuring a thing for there to be a thing ...

You can't say god is outside of space, time and matter, and also have a religion which states we were made to look like the god.

But that's just one more in the millions of inconsistencies

So which hand did you used to rub one out with when there was nothing?

Don't make me smite your ass...

You sure are smitten by lots of ass

I thought God was anti-sodomy.

Gotta be a record... we made it to halfway through page 2 before teedub queered things up.

I believe religion...all religion...sucks and has little to no place in modern society. I also believe in spirituality. I have no idea if there is a God but when I hear the laughter of a child or am sitting in my boat at dawn on a beautiful summer day enjoying the peacefulness of nature my ability to be a full blown atheist is destroyed. Besides....who gives a **** what I believe or do not believe. Those atheists that insist on shoving their atheism up everybody's a$$ are just as bad, if not much worse, than the hard-core Christians. Believe or do not believe what you want....just keep me the f*ck out of it.

well, you're not Little Jack Horner.

Remember god spelt backwards is anal

Lana does anal?

why didn't you tell me when I was dating her?

And on the last day, Drafter held up his ticket and asked...

What can brown do for you?

No denying that!




Remember to wash your hands there. We all know where that thumb has been!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lPYjWntLN8

No, if life resulted from some random lightening strike into some primordial goo, it should be reproducible. Perhaps you have a better explanation for the origin of life?

why would the product of the lightening strike be expected to be able to reproduce the event?
Proving or disproving what? It's own creation?