Runboard.com
Слава Україні!



Runboard.com       Registered Members Will See No Ads - CLICK TO REGISTER FOR FREE  LOGIN

 
Order ofMelchizedek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 27
Reply Quote
The Search For Truth


Here are some interesting notes I've taken from a book by Mark Cahill - One Heartbeat Away.
Awesome book, I suggest everyone who reads this just go ahead and go buy it.

Science and Creation
The key is not the amount of faith we have but the object of that faith.
Faith that other drivers will stop at red lights, faith that your chair will continue to hold you, faith that the pilot of an airplane is not suicidal and planning to crash the plane.
So it doesn’t really matter what we believe about life after death. But it does matter whether the object of our faith is trustworthy and will support our trust.

Does science alone explain this complex creation in which we live? How does the sun provide just the right amount of energy to light and heat our planet? What makes everything in our orderly world work so well together?
Every time we look at something built by man, we know it had a builder, someone who assembled it. When we see something that has design, like a watch, we know it had a designer who planned it. Paintings – we know there was an artist. When we see order, - such as twenty Coke cans lined up in a row - we know there was an “orderer” who set them up that way.
So, why would we not think that there is a Creator, Designer, Artist, and Orderer behind the universe? We aren’t amazed at the effects of erosion in created Mount Rushmore, are we?
What evidence is there that proves there is no God? Most people have none at all. Without evidence, they actually have blind faith. So, what would be enough evidence to prove that God exists? Most can’t really answer that either.
The concept that the universe displays creation, design, art, and order. If everything else has a creator, designer, artist, or orderer behind it, why wouldn’t there be one behind this universe?
The sun, the moon, the stars, the oceans, the sand, each unique snowflake, the three billion pieces of your DNA that are different from mine, are absolute proof that there had to be a Creator of the universe. Just like buildings and paintings, the evidence left for us to look at is all the evidence we will ever need in order to know that our universe has a Creator.

The Law of Cause and Effect is an indisputable, universal law that says that for every material effect, there had to be a cause. There is nothing in the universe that doesn’t have a cause behind its existence. Go back far enough and you must eventually reach a First Cause which created that first effect. Something doesn’t come out of nothing all by itself.
You may find it hard to believe that God could make everything out of nothing, but the alternative is that nothing turned itself into everything. Which takes more faith to believe?
Blind random chance does not give rise to design. A tornado thru junkyard doesn't assemble a 747 (or anything else for that matter) when it's done. Take the pieces of a watch and put them in a shoebox, and shake it. How long will you be shaking before they come together as a working watch?
The Law of Cause and Effect also dictates that an effect never precedes its cause, and is never greater than its cause. Therefore, there must be something that existed before the universe was brought into being, and that cause must be superior to our awesome universe in every way.

The search for truth is beginning to narrow.



---
I know who saved my soul and I want this world to know, that I was once blind, once lost, Now I'm blood bought, reconciled to God by the blood He shed on the cross. -Eternal M.o.G.
13/Jul/07, 20:53 Link to this post PM 
 
Order ofMelchizedek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 27
Reply Quote
Re: The Search For Truth


Evolution
Microevolution is limited by the genetic code. No features that are not already present in a creature’s DNA can ever be produced by natural selection. It cannot create anything new; it can only select from the information contained in the organism’s genetic blueprint.

The origin of life, according to macroevolution is that living matter came from non-living matter. However, that has been shown to be impossible. Life only arises from life. Scientific method requires repeatable observation to prove something, yet they have never been able to create life from non-life. In fact, the opposite is the case.
The Law of Biogenesis states that life can arise only from pre-existing life and will perpetuate only its own kind.
If I lined up various styles of cars from a certain manufacturer according to their size, and pointed out similarities. Would you believe that they obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor – or would you use your common sense and think they simply had a common maker?
If macroevolution were true, all species would have spent more time in transition than in completion. There should be millions upon millions of transitional forms I the fossil record of creatures in the intermediate stages of evolution. There are none. Darwin himself stated that these must exist for his theory of evolution to be true.
Some say that the species evolved so rapidly that they left no fossil record. However, they also say that no one can see evolution taking place today because it occurs too slowly.
The fossil record doesn’t show gradual change but sudden appearance and stability – most fossil species appear all at once, fully formed. Does this evidence support gradual evolution by accident, or does it point to a Creator?

If you lined up a computer, a robot, a 747 jet, and a lowly worm, which one would a scientist say is the most intricately designed? The worm – when you examine the function of a digestive system, or any least physical system, you begin to appreciate the highly ordered inner workings of that system. We know that the other three had a creator and designer, but somehow think that the worm happened by luck and by chance over time?

Then there’s irreducible complexity – This refers to an organism so complex that it could not have come together piece by piece and still function; all the parts must have come about at once in order to have any function at all. – Biochemist Dr Michael Behe
For instance, the knee joint consists of at least 16 essential characteristics, each requiring thousands of pieces of information to exist simultaneously in the genetic code. Therefore, the knee could not have evolved gradually but must have been created all at once as a whole, fully functioning joint.
Even Darwin admitted that the eye is so complex that it is “absurd in the highest degree” to think that it evolved by natural selection.
The evidence just isn’t there, the facts don’t support the theory of evolution.

Once we know there is a God, we know we must answer to that God, and be held accountable.






---
I know who saved my soul and I want this world to know, that I was once blind, once lost, Now I'm blood bought, reconciled to God by the blood He shed on the cross. -Eternal M.o.G.
13/Jul/07, 21:05 Link to this post PM 
 
Order ofMelchizedek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 27
Reply Quote
Re: The Search For Truth


So, Who is this God?
Since there’s evidence for a Creator and no evidence for evolution, who is this Creator?
Some would say it’s intolerant or arrogant for anyone to claim that only one belief system is true and all others false. But each one offers a concept of God that is contradictory to that of other religions. How do we decide which is correct?
Once you know the correct answer, how much time do you need to study the other options? None at all.
Truth, by nature, will be narrow. There is only one true answer to 2+2. And there are billions of wrong, untrue answers. So why study other options once you have the truth?

Is it possible that a person could believe something is going to be on the other side after death, but when he dies he finds that what he thought was going to be there was not actually there? Of course.
So, if someone believes there is nothing when he dies and there is something, then he is 100% wrong. But you can’t have a wrong answer unless you have a right answer. There has to be a right answer for eternity, which means there is eternal truth. Now, what is the right answer?
If there’s reincarnation, based on the law of karma, Who or what is able to keep track of each deed of each person who has ever lived in order to make the karmic circle work? Such an entity would have to be everywhere (omnipresent), all-knowing (omniscient), all-powerful (omnipotent) and good (righteous enough to make a just judgment in assigning how a person will be spending their future life).
These requirements do not describe an impersonal “cosmic force”, but a separate, personal, all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful, moral, just, intelligent, righteous Being. In addition, for individuals to have their actions justly judged as right or wrong, they would have to know in advance what the definitions of right and wrong are.
Unlike other religious writings, the Bible actually does that.
The Bible - 66 Books written by more than 40 writers over a period of 1600 years that reads like one book by one author. The Bible is the best-selling book of all time, with sales at 150 million per year.
The Bible claims to be written by God, over 3,000 times saying “Thus saith the Lord”
Historical evidence. We have 24,000 ancient copies of portions of the NT. The next closest is Homer’s Iliad with 643 ancient copies. And no other text has manuscripts that come as close in time to the original writing as the Bible does.
External evidence from Tacitus, a Roman historian, and Josephus, a Jewish historian, both support the historical accuracy. Seventeen secular historians wrote about the death of Jesus by crucifixion. Intensive and prolonged study have shown that the historical accuracy of the Bible is far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations.
25,000 archaeological finds that provide support regarding people, their titles, and their locations mentioned in the Bible. Not one of those finds has contradicted the Bible.
Science and fulfilled prophecy support the Bible as well.

Truth has been found, the Bible tells us all we need to know in order to choose where we will spend eternity. Choose wisely.




---
I know who saved my soul and I want this world to know, that I was once blind, once lost, Now I'm blood bought, reconciled to God by the blood He shed on the cross. -Eternal M.o.G.
13/Jul/07, 21:13 Link to this post PM 
 
Reythia Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 33
Reply Quote
Re: The Search For Truth



Order ofMelchizedek wrote:
Does science alone explain this complex creation in which we live? How does the sun provide just the right amount of energy to light and heat our planet? What makes everything in our orderly world work so well together?


 
The classic atheist's answer to this is called the Anthropic Theory, which states: "The anthropic principle provides a plausible explanation for the fine tuning of our universe: typical universes are not fine-tuned, but, if there are enough universes, a small proportion will be capable of supporting intelligent life: ours must be one of these, and so the observed fine tuning should be no cause for wonder." Basically, if there are many possible universes, ours would be like it is because if it was different, we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.

Details are here: Anthrogic Principle

Note that the anthropic theory does not prove that God doesn't exists -- it merely provides one (unproven and unprovable) alternative. Which is true about all science: scientists cannot disprove God. They can disprove specific human-described tenets of belief, but not the general theory or existance of God.


The sun, the moon, the stars, the oceans, the sand, each unique snowflake, the three billion pieces of your DNA that are different from mine, are absolute proof that there had to be a Creator of the universe.



"Absolute" proof?! *sigh* This guy clearly isn't a scientist. There is no thing as absolute proof. What you stated above makes it very LIKELY that there is some organizing structure behind it all, but it's not proof. After all, just as it's possible (but very unlikely) that I flip a coin and it lands heads 5000 times in a row, so it is possible that everything in nature just "happened" to end up as it has. The anthropic principle (above) is based off this logic. For the record, I've always found the anthropic principle a bit of a cop out, but then, atheists say that about God, too.


Go back far enough and you must eventually reach a First Cause which created that first effect. Something doesn’t come out of nothing all by itself. You may find it hard to believe that God could make everything out of nothing, but the alternative is that nothing turned itself into everything.



I remember running into this "Nothing Can Come From Nothing" in religion class in high school and being unimpressed with it. After all, it's a paradoxial question: you're supposed to believe that nothing can come without God, but that God Himself arose from nothing. This was the easiest of the four arguments for God's existance to refute, because it contradicts itself. If you want to prove God's existance, I would STRONGLY suggest avoiding this argument.

---
  -- YAR!
13/Jul/07, 22:15 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  MSN 
 
Reythia Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 33
Reply Quote
Re: The Search For Truth



Order ofMelchizedek wrote:
There is only one true answer to 2+2.



Actually, if you've ever taken an upper-level college mathematics class, you'll realize that there are an infinite number of answers to "What is 2 + 2" -- depending on how you define the parts of your equation. Normally, we all use the same rules in math -- we know what "2" means and we know what "plus" means. But there's no reason that we HAVE to use those rules -- and sometimes mathematicians don't. Basically, my point is that "2 + 2 = 4" only holds true in OUR "universe" of mathematics. But there are many "true" answers to the question. It's possible (unproven and unprovable) that there are other "universes" of thoughts and morals out there -- which makes this argument invalid.


The Bible claims to be written by God, over 3,000 times saying “Thus saith the Lord”


This is either inaccurate or else simplifying in order to suggest a point that isn't true. I know of no one (else) who would say that all four Gospels where written DIRECTLY by God. Many will say they were "inspired" by God, but no one's going to say that the Father sat down at a desk with a pen. Don't pretend otherwise. There are a lot of other books written by people who claim to have been inspired by God. The Bible is no different in this claim.


Historical evidence. We have 24,000 ancient copies of portions of the NT. The next closest is Homer’s Iliad with 643 ancient copies.


So what? Popularity does not equate to accuracy (nor inaccuracy). This isn't "American Idol" here. You're gaining nothing with this bit of trivia. Your later comment about "And no other text has manuscripts that come as close in time to the original writing as the Bible does" is VASTLY more meaningful.


Science and fulfilled prophecy support the Bible as well.


Not really. I mean, sure, sometimes science and the Bible line up, but sometimes they don't. It's really not a very impressive correlation.


Truth has been found, the Bible tells us all we need to know in order to choose where we will spend eternity.


Then why are we here? If just reading the Bible tells us everything, why doesn't God just give us all a few Sunday school classes as kids and then "graduate" us into Heaven? Perhaps because there IS more to learn -- after all, God made the whole wide cosmos. Is it too much to ask to think that perhaps he made it for us to explore, learn about, and question?


---
  -- YAR!
13/Jul/07, 22:30 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  MSN 
 
Order ofMelchizedek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 27
Reply Quote
Re: The Search For Truth



you're supposed to believe that nothing can come without God, but that God Himself arose from nothing.

Not exactly. He always was.

If you want to prove God's existance, I would STRONGLY suggest avoiding this argument.

I don't think so. God is the First Cause.
Again, which is harder to believe? God created everything out of nothing, or nothing turned itself into everything?

It's possible (unproven and unprovable) that there are other "universes" of thoughts and morals out there -- which makes this argument invalid.

No, there is universal truth.

There are a lot of other books written by people who claim to have been inspired by God. The Bible is no different in this claim.

3,000 times, it states "thus saith the Lord." Got an example of another?

So what? Popularity does not equate to accuracy (nor inaccuracy).

True, but it wouldn't hurt to look into it. Nothing else has even come close. I wonder why?

Is it too much to ask to think that perhaps he made it for us to explore, learn about, and question?

Well, yes. But He also gave us a Book. Check it out, it's a very popular bestseller this year.



---
I know who saved my soul and I want this world to know, that I was once blind, once lost, Now I'm blood bought, reconciled to God by the blood He shed on the cross. -Eternal M.o.G.
17/Jul/07, 7:58 Link to this post PM 
 
tahn1000 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

New Member
 


Registered: 07-2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Reply Quote
Re: The Search For Truth


personally i find it easier to believe that the universe is "always" and therefore self creating than something nobody has ever seen nor witnessed was "always".

but what is the difference really? why is it harder to believe that the universe "always was" then some invisible non-descript "creator" "always was"?

given the sheer beyond-comprehension magnitude and diversity of the universe i find the idea that any one thing that had to be in existence before anything else was dreamed it up.

and what was there before something? nothing? how can anything exist before existence itself?

---
Smelling the Coffee
my site Aliens Amongst Us
9/Jul/09, 12:41 Link to this post Email   PM  Blog
 
tahn1000 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

New Member
 


Registered: 07-2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Reply Quote
Re: The Search For Truth


i meant to say - "given the sheer beyond-comprehension magnitude and diversity of the universe i find the idea that any one thing that had to be in existence before anything else was dreamed it up - in order to dream it up - to be unlikely purely on grounds that it would be impossibly beyond the imagination of any being....(etc)"

---
Smelling the Coffee
my site Aliens Amongst Us
11/Jul/09, 16:47 Link to this post Email   PM  Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 

Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 64
Reply Quote
Re: The Search For Truth


I can sum up what you're saying with one law, tahn.
Conservation of Mass-Energy. emoticon

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
14/Jul/09, 9:27 Link to this post Email   PM  Blog
 
bummee Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

New Member
 


Registered: 08-2009
Posts: 8
Reply Quote
Re: The Search For Truth


But what was there before mass energy? And why would this energy be forced to be converted to something more tangible?

Is this where God comes in? A planned conversion perhaps? But where how and why?

Many people have lost their minds trying to figure it out. Many others have stopped short of trying to break thru this everylasting mystery

Bummy
21/Sep/09, 3:54 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 

Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 64
Reply Quote
Re: The Search For Truth




Conservation of Mass-Energy.


But what was there before mass energy?


There was no "before mass energy", which is exactly the point.

Google: "law of conservation of mass-energy"

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
22/Sep/09, 2:11 Link to this post Email   PM  Blog
 


Add Reply






You are not logged in (LOGIN)