Free Games Forum
Free Games Games Forums Music Forums TV Forums

  Free Games Forum Home FORUM
HOME 		Search Posts SEARCH
POSTS 		Who's Online WHO'S
ONLINE 		Log in LOG
IN 		Rules & FAQ RULES / FAQ
REPORT SPAM

Free Games Forum: General: Debating Forum:
The Great 'God Debate'

 
 


-Acer-
Newbie


Sep 6, 2007, 6:22 AM

Post #1 of 9 (235 views)
Shortcut
     The Great 'God Debate'  
I recently read an article titled "The Great God Debate." I found it very interesting and decided to bring it to this forum.

Does God exist? Are we controlled or created by a supreme, unseen force? Or is all of this just a load of garbage set up by the Church?

Here are two, quick sides of the argument:

GOD EXISTS:

God has to exist. How else did we get here? Evolutionists mean to tell me that we evolved from some amino acid in a puddle billions of years ago to intelligent humans today? Even if I do believe in evolution, couldn't there be a possibility of a supreme being 'tweaking' it to create humans? What about the dinosaurs? A worldwide catastrophe wiped them out, right? Wouldn't the offset evolution and slow it down? How could we evolve from little, prehistoric mammals to humans in only 65 million years?

GOD DOES NOT EXIST:

Cells have a natural tendency to split and evolve. The first living organism split into two, then four, then eight, and so on. Soon there were thousands of them and they began to fuse creating larger, more intelligent organisms. In time, they evolved to plants and animals. When the dinosaurs were wiped out by the meteor that landed offshore of the Yucatan, it gave mammals a chance to speed up their evolution. Animals evolved into apes, which ultimately evolved into humans.



Which side do you take? Is there a God and did he create humans? If not, how do you explain the missing link? Who created the creator?



-Xavier-
Veteran


Sep 6, 2007, 8:14 AM

Post #2 of 9 (230 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [-Acer-] The Great 'God Debate' [In reply to]  
Evolution is not meant to explain our existence, but merely how we got to where we are, and where we might be going as a species.

The idea of a "God" doesn't coherently explain how we got here either. Truthfully, it's completely unknown. There are hypotheses, but nothing solid.

However, the argument stands: The idea of God is not able to be proven or disproven. Thus, if that idea is given enough credit, than equal amounts of credit should be given to ideas that cannot be proven or disproven (Tooth Fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster, trolls that live under my bed that are invisible and do not generate heat, etc.)

The Church is a money-making institution, nothing more. There is no such thing as "salvation".

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)


Jindrak
Veteran


Sep 6, 2007, 12:24 PM

Post #3 of 9 (221 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [-Xavier-] The Great 'God Debate' [In reply to]  
In Reply To
The idea of God is not able to be proven
Disagree, he could come down himself if he so does exist. :D

Though I doubt any of this really matters. In 2000 years, if we haven't destroyed the Earth already, our religions and scientific theories will be looked at like Greek Mythology.


Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
Some call me the gangster of love
Some people call me Maurice
Cause I speak of the pompitous of love




neocloud101
Veteran


Sep 6, 2007, 3:54 PM

Post #4 of 9 (216 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Jindrak] The Great 'God Debate' [In reply to]  
So the other day Zeus zapped me with his lightning staff and I looked up at him and was like, "lol, you" and he bowed and was like, "ty, tyvm" and I was like "np" and then Poseidon was like "stfu nub" and Zeus was like "f u nigger" and then I drank some water and went back to sleep.

"If you are a hero, you must be wearing clothes.
This is the new rule."
-- Jindrak


Athlon XP
Veteran / Moderator


Sep 7, 2007, 5:20 AM

Post #5 of 9 (207 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [-Xavier-] The Great 'God Debate' [In reply to]  
New rule: No more creationist/evolutionist threads. Some people just can't read through the forums.

In Reply To
Evolution is not meant to explain our existence, but merely how we got to where we are, and where we might be going as a species.
yayaya

In Reply To
The idea of a "God" doesn't coherently explain how we got here either. Truthfully, it's completely unknown. There are hypotheses, but nothing solid.
Lies, it goes like this.

1. God created both the universe and the laws it lives by, thus He does not live by those laws. This debunks the morons who say "well then who created God?"

2. If you can say that there's nothing solid with a straight face then you clearly have not been paying attention throughout the great debates of this community.

In Reply To
Thus, if that idea is given enough credit, than equal amounts of credit should be given to ideas that cannot be proven or disproven (Tooth Fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster, trolls that live under my bed that are invisible and do not generate heat, etc.)
But those are all about as stupid and senseless as Scientology (though not quite).

Lord I was born a shamblin' man
Archives (Newest Addition: The Judgment of Tate's Father)


-Xavier-
Veteran


Sep 7, 2007, 5:28 AM

Post #6 of 9 (204 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Athlon XP] The Great 'God Debate' [In reply to]  
In Reply To
New rule: No more creationist/evolutionist threads. Some people just can't read through the forums.

AGREED.

In Reply To
Evolution is not meant to explain our existence, but merely how we got to where we are, and where we might be going as a species.
yayaya

In Reply To
The idea of a "God" doesn't coherently explain how we got here either. Truthfully, it's completely unknown. There are hypotheses, but nothing solid.
Lies, it goes like this.

1. God created both the universe and the laws it lives by, thus He does not live by those laws. This debunks the morons who say "well then who created God?"

Nonsensical, that is pure speculation and cannot be proven by the scientific method. There is absolutely no reason why the idea should be given any credit.

2. If you can say that there's nothing solid with a straight face then you clearly have not been paying attention throughout the great debates of this community.

What, Taz's arguments? I think that Richard Dawkins provides much better arguments than some random Canadian on the internet.

In Reply To
Thus, if that idea is given enough credit, than equal amounts of credit should be given to ideas that cannot be proven or disproven (Tooth Fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster, trolls that live under my bed that are invisible and do not generate heat, etc.)
But those are all about as stupid and senseless as Scientology (though not quite).

Uh huh..

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

(This post was edited by -Xavier- on Sep 7, 2007, 5:29 AM)


Athlon XP
Veteran / Moderator


Sep 7, 2007, 5:36 AM

Post #7 of 9 (202 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [-Xavier-] The Great 'God Debate' [In reply to]  
In Reply To
some random Canadian on the internet.
i have nothing more to say in the face of such fact

thread done

Lord I was born a shamblin' man
Archives (Newest Addition: The Judgment of Tate's Father)


-Xavier-
Veteran


Sep 7, 2007, 8:21 AM

Post #8 of 9 (196 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Athlon XP] The Great 'God Debate' [In reply to]  
LOCK! LOCK! LOCK!

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)


Dr. Funk
Veteran


Sep 7, 2007, 12:39 PM

Post #9 of 9 (189 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [-Xavier-] The Great 'God Debate' [In reply to]  
l8r thread

TIME FOR SEX

 
 
 


Search for (options) Web Design by Web Ideas - Page loaded in: 0.16 s on (CGI/1.1)