The debate "God did not create man. Man created God" was started by
June 29, 2014, 9:20 am.
128 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 135 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
smartphgeek posted 1 argument, WhatOnEarthIsTh posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 5 arguments, Mr_Anonymous posted 3 arguments, Superr1fifty posted 2 arguments, mdavis1309 posted 1 argument, project_mayhem posted 1 argument, milimehta068 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
akshay58165 posted 1 argument, ayleine posted 1 argument, Dbass24 posted 1 argument, NikAhmadIrfan1 posted 1 argument, Shahmir posted 1 argument, Conquistador0 posted 6 arguments, sonaybitch posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
smartphgeek, WhatOnEarthIsTh, Shift_Logan, jourdynpayne, Agent_Firefox, MerciPol, Mr_Anonymous, JonL, Mriduljain, sickboyblonde, Sosocratese, Unfathomable, Ornes, true_debate_life, slash606, Shivi_410, Bailz, Preploukus, DeathsDespair15, carloseagle93, Socrateezus, ansumanshah, Sasha777, ferri, giveuspeacedamnitt, phattie83, rickrollross, PsychDave, bitman, Hayleenikkole, darlingelysian, Jungleheart, Mikey2k, I_Voyager, liamjosephcash, shinywhale, Superr1fifty, Egert_Clueless, Hjkp98, Satvik_Soni, project_mayhem, werdninja, mdavis1309, renatus8993, danielle, Tassja, iakwal, misfitcarrot, JMP9940, Electrogoose, SiGuy27, Bodaciouslady16, molly314, milimehta068, epoche, Shreemauli, Devinc25, Cormi98, Mastermind, Alex11113, DarkSkyz06, stormshy, stevenee, daddyfantastic, Untamed, transfanboy, Caelan, skyfrancois_97 and 60 visitors agree.
begbie, alyssapeterson, wmd, Rave, guillermo63, DavidStuff777, akshay58165, Vigilante, ayleine, djrayjay123, Kirito, denmob, Noyd, Dbass24, username_gracie, NikAhmadIrfan1, Aakanksha, Shahmir, Vikram, Hollister_boy, Carlitosj41, Conquistador0, Gordonchm, jessicaS02, kennamarlaina1214, dianajoo0313, Sandeep, means31, LeaderOfDiscussion, angryMonk, taigaaisaka, BabyT14, quinnislegit22, ameliajane, sonaybitch, Haelaeif, llthslvtr, MOSKAU, TmlxIss2cool, Biotic, nikoli3664, Mechanigenic, abuhodayfa, processing123, rcmcmurray, aparana, Thomas, gtomk, AdamChase, Scottie, Getmurked, cocobb, debateer, PathwayHomeFan, sabrina and 80 visitors disagree.
God is positive power ,energy ,vibes
Everybody believes man created many gods, just not theirs.
To me I think the belief in the modern god has gradually transformed. First, I think ancient people used him to explain natural things that they couldn't explain themselves. Next, I think kings used him as a way to gain and keep their power. Kings and tyrants would often say that they were appointed by God and their peasants wouldn't challenge them because of the fear that God creates. Now, I think people use him because they need to believe in some thing more.
Hey, he's GOD. How can you know it wasn't 2 seconds? Or you can't know was there really big bang, wich can just be a God's sneeeze.
ok I feel I should just say it didn't literally take God 7 days to create the world... it would of taken years for him to do it... it was said in 7 days for children to understand easier so sorry u couldn't clarify that
I have a challenge for you. If you believe in the literal truth of the Bible how do you explain the various dating methods. I'll give you a few to try.
Amino acid racemization
Used to date fossils up to several million years old...
Obviously take along time to grow and would have died if a global flood would have occurred... Current estimated put the great barrier reef corals at about 600,000 years old
Again trees older than the flood couldn't still be alive, but they are
Iron manganese nodule growth
Lack of DNA in fossils
Length of prehistoric days
We're able to determine (based on coral growth) the last time we had a 400 day year with 22 hour days at about 370 million years ago
Nitrogen impurities in diamonds
And the big one
Used to date ceramics and lava. Accurate for objects between 300-10,000 years old... These dating techniques completely rule out the creationist time line as we can date pottery to before the biblical Adam and eve
I get if you don't want to address all of them, but don't these pose a huge problem for creationists? It means the literal truth of the Bible is impossible. Creationists like to point at carbon dating as being flawed, so I purposely didn't include it since it's a very technical debate we can certainly have, but probably not at this Junction.
On to the atheism as religion
The reason for the legally defining atheism as a religion is to protect it from the government. It has very little to do with the actual definition. Atheism is simply a non believe in a deity. The same as you are an a-thorist, a-zeusist, etc... Just means I believe in one God less than you. It takes about as much faith to not believe in God as it does to not believe in Santa. I agree, that atheism is simply a more radical form of agnostics since you can never really say God isn't real... Just like I can't actually disprove unicorns and dragons. Bit does it take faith to not believe in those? I don't think so.... Religion is defined as
A belief in a god or gods
An organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship
An interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
So the only definition that would fit would be the last one. However, that would mean that climbing, skiing, riding, drinking, smoking, etc... Are all religions...
...... XD ok, I blame the autocorrector for thay one. Giem is not the same as Firm.
Parrt 2 @ Anonymous
(yes, the program is giving fits)
And you know what? we know the age of the geological columns by the fossils they contain...yeah, it still says that in your textbooks. Rediculous.
Carbon 14 has a half life under 70,000 years, yet whenever its tested (meaning it's not tested everywhere) the fossils come back positive. in fact, Carbon 14 has been found in every layer scientists have studied. oops...
P. Firm, "Carbon 14 Content of Fossil Carbon," Origins 51 (2001): 6 - 30
Part 3 @ Anonymous
C) Athiesm by its definition does not exist. Richard Dawkins, by all accounts the most famous, admitted in 2012 he is an agnostic at best. (search theweekco.uk)
D) Athiesm, or hardened agnostics, is a religion. it takes faith to be one. Funny thing about that, don't just take my word: You will find in Government, particularly the American Experiment, that Athiesm is classified as a religion in order to be given free speech. Even the law knows that.
E) I am a busy man, as I'm sure you are too. so I tried to hit the major points.
A) I don't think you know then. I recently worked with a Biology book from a regionally accredited, reputable school. Lucy, the missing link is still being paraded around even though that has been debunked for goodness knows how long.
B) my favorite part about the book mentioned is twofold: there is not one place you can find the mystical Geological Column and rocks are still dated by the fossils they contain.
Uniformative perspective, the principle method in dating, relies on a fatally non-scientific assusmotion that the earth's rock layers have been accumulating the same general pattern since the dawn of time....and who was there to know this? No book, no writings, no hope.
If you're arguing for the God in the Bible, you have a couple of huge issues to combat.
Your argument rests on the assumption that the Bible is the true word of God; this means that everything in it has to be true. That every story has to be absolutely correct. If it's not, then the text is fallible and the whole text can be brought into question. I understand that there are a bunch of apologists out there who are willing to defend the Bible to the end. However, there are so many scientific facts that disprove the Bible's literal truth that it's hard to take your claim as fact.
You would have to overcome a lot of problems in order to claim that the Bible is literally true. Not the least of which are the age of the earth and of course the big one, the story of Noah's Ark. These two are probably the most easily contested subject in Christianity. You'd have to square all the criticisms to those events.... I've never seen a Christian apologists able to do that. But if you really wanna give it a try, please feel free.
they are not delusional. If anyone is its people who believe in the morals your books and others like it claim.
Science can't disprove god because it is a unfalsifiable hypothesis. However yours isn't because the bible gives him characteristics. And according to what the bible says he cannot be because he himself is a paradox. And the biblical account of creation is not how the world was created. Your god either must adapt to fit these new parameters or be disproved(and I mean your god not all gods). I have never seen something so ridiculous as the argument from silence claim. Evidence is evidence and once you have it have however long it took to be found or appear is entirely irrelevant. And we do have irrefutable evidence for evolution. And a good deal of evidence for the big bang. Your "hypotheses" have none. You don't need a "written account" to understand, you need a testable hypothesis to understand. Which you don't have. Hence not the bible.
People do have imaginations, which like all others, is where your god was formulated. Actually many parts of the bible have been disproven or had holes poked in them. If you want to play this game on the premises of historical verifiability then Muhammad is the true prophet because we know he existed. However we don't know if Jesus was even a real person. The vast majority of the historical things that occur in the bible are only supported or recorded in the bible which is a circular logic fallacy. The most incriminating of these is exodus only the bible and bible believers of the time ever wrote about it. Nobody or nowhere else. And the Egyptians were very meticulous about record keeping including the not so flattering parts. Again, calling people who disagree a name and not addressing their arguments or points is the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Actually the goal of a "false" religion is the same as yours. Maybe that's because they're both false. Atheism is also not to "rid mankind's (supposed) dependence upon god.
To which one are you referring to? (Atheism isn't a religion if that's what you were referring to)
No a murderer can't, however according to your book if they genuinely feel bad and repent to jesus that will be forgiven. In fact all but two things are forgivable according to your book. Non belief and suicide. So that child raping cannibal only has to repent and he gets eternal " bliss" but if you commit suicide because your a starving African or whatever you're in some deep shit. Exactly right no one is righteous because that's a subjective term, like morals or right and wrong. However cont
Yes lacking the belief of a god has been around forever. Ever since people started thinking. The fool does say it in his heart, the wise man says it out load.
(That's also ad hominem which is a logical fallacy)
The world contains no "evidence" of god. That's why its called having FAITH. Which is belief despite the lack of evidence. No, we do have different evidence. (Trans fossils, etc.) I always love it when you people try to pull the "well you didn't see it card". You don't have to see something to know it. It just has to be testable, which evolution is. Again no, we expect you to look at the overwhelming evidence and be reasonable. In science evidence is ALL that matters.
I may be wrong about what your argument was at this point but it seemed a little broken up. We have showed you people multiple missing links and Transitionary fossils. You people just go " well where's the missing link between that specie and the next/previous ad infinitum which is a horrible question asked by people who are being affected by confirmation bias. I don't understand what you mean by "show me how there's no laws" please elaborate on that. They remain like that because they evolved earlier. Evolution takes a long time and as you become more complex it takes longer to evolve. And yes it is billions. You say that like its erroneous when in fact its the only logical amount of time. The earth being billions of years old. That's a fact and if it conflicts with your religious beliefs it's time to question them. Yes you can point out all those things. However it all started simpler than what we observe today. It builds on existing structures and those that fail the test don't make it which is why 99.9% of all life that ever was is now dead. Pretty much the rest of this argument is a lie. We have explained it and time is not as "magical" as you imply.
Wrong, you get toothpaste because we put it there. What you see around you is a little oasis of order that has arisen out of chaos. That is why. Finally something partially accurate, you aren't random. You do have some order BUT a god is not needed. Its merely what arises from a few simple laws. (I implore you to look up the game of life experiment)
Conclusively, Science is no closer to moving God off his pedestal than an Ant is capable of saying he has seen the whole world. If your evidence has to take millions of years to be, then it is an argument from silence and is not science. That is why you need an account written to understand what has happened, and to make sense of the order (or principle disorder). Hence the Bible.
Now to the charge religions are made up: I agree.
People have imaginations. Isaiah 44: 19 (No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, "Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?")
However, the Bible has been proven and will continue to be proven correct historically and grammatically. God did not leave us blind, even with deceivers surrounding us.
Remember, the goal of a false religion is to rid mankind of their dependence on God.
All religions save one teach righteousness can be attained, as if a murderer can suddenly not be a murderer by giving to a charity. It is laughable how the false religions create their own righteousness or willingly fantasize a world without consequences and without divine punishment. No one is righteous, nor do they seek God on their own, they have all become delusional in their own thinking. And the Bible stands predicting and being available to those who wish to escape the vanity.
?..whew?ok, that was a lot to cover. I can get more in-depth easily enough, just thought a framework for the discussion was better.
Ah, the classic debate of the century. This is a broad response, please know I sympathize in the length.
Foremost, the disbelief of God is nothing new, even the Psalms speak of "'The fool who says in his heart, there is no God' ". Indeed, many people nowadays have adopted an eastern view of ?many pathways to God'.
Remarkably, though the world is drowning in evidence to the glory of God, as the book of Romans tells us, evolutionists reject Him. It's not that an evolutionist has different evidence, his assumptions differ. Has anyone lived a million years ago to see these supposed changes? Nope, the scientist just expects us to believe his word since he's "learned" and can speak words.
Show me one legitimate missing link, how there are no Laws (like Gravity or the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics), and I shall believe. Birds are still birds (like the one's at Cape Cod which Darwin found), and bacteria remains?.bacteria despite the millions, even billions of years evolutionists would have us believe, have passed. On the other hand, I can point to laws regarding DNA barriers, of the cellular complexity of life, and the rule of saturation has on species. I can show the information which an organism uses to program its development, but evolutionists cannot explain how information gets there. An evolutionist has magic of time as his secret ingredient.
Regardless of these, I can show you if God is real by a bottle of toothpaste. When you squeeze it, what comes out? Why do you not get peanut butter instead? There being the Lord, you get toothpaste. You live this way, you are not random. You have reason and logic. None of that is evolutional.
While the idea of science and religion being mutually non exclusive is a nice idea, religions that are based on absolute knowledge and a deity which is an active agent in the world, are mutually exclusive.
It's a matter of how we see the universe. It's either a place where everything that occurs is due to natural causes or some acts are caused by a supernatural agent. The two philosophies are mutually exclusive because of the way they approach the big questions.
Now, if your arguing that more philosophical religions like Buddhism isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with science, I'd have to concede the point. However, most people aren't talking about those types of religion which is why I didn't argue to that standard.
The notion that God created people is becoming less and less likely as the evidence piles up. I know that this is all a game of probability at this point and that it's not like odds betting in Vegas where there is a nice clean number. However, if you are really honest with yourself and look at the progress that science has made in the last few decades, it seems like only a matter of time until we can definitively answer the question of our origin.
I think a degree of ambiguity should always be tolerated and I also believe in the notion that Science and religion can always coexist. Religion without science is superstition and science without religion is materialism.
In Religion Islam / Muslim.
God just only one.
God looking what you do it.
Human Not Create God.
God Create A Human.
God Create All About In The World.
I Love My Religion
I Love Muslim
I don't know to explain more about my Religion Islam .
I agree, i didn't offer proof against God. However, I was addressing @akshay58165's absurd statement that the rising of the sun is somehow God's doing every morning....
Now on to your coexistence argument
Science is not compatible with all interpretations of God. Obviously the people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible will not be able to accept the facts that science offers as it discredits the biblical stories. I.e. The way the universe was created, the time it took, the notion or Adam and Eve, the great flood, being descents of Noah, the notion that people can live to be 400+ years old, etc.... Same of course goes for people who believe in the Koran or the tora. Since they too are religions founded on the old testament.
Now, if you're arguing that a deistic interpretation of the Bible or other religious texts is compatible with science, where the stories aren't meant to be taken literal, but rather interoperated as moral teachings, I would say that is still false. Most deistic versions of God maintain that he is an actor in everyday life. That he influences people's lives through supernatural events. (if this is not what you mean, please correct me) that God is somehow responsible, through supernatural events, for our being here. This notion is completely at odds with the scientific principle that every event has a naturally explainable cause or phenomenon which can be used to explain said event. The sheer existence of a supernatural being is incompatible with the principal of science that seeks to use natural laws to explain the supernatural.
Does science preclude the nonexistence of God, no. However, if we ever find something akin to God, in the scientific view at least, it would be something natural, not supernatural.
@sosocratese The existence of God is not dependent on the necessity, to use god, as an explanation for the natural world. we can still use science to explain things and god could still exist at the same time. They can coexist just fine.
That is a ridiculous argument. We know the forces that give us the sunrise, that gave us stars, that give us eclipses and all the other natural "wonders" you attribute to God. Those things may have been attributed to God at some point, however, our understanding has surpassed those early days and we no longer need God to explain those events. God is just a cheap explanation for natural events and a great feel good story for those afraid of death.
For some people who believes in god, they trust that god created them. For some religion that trust in god, their god is a statue so that makes the man made the god. No offense to anyone but seriously, a statue can't do anything but yet their god.. Not for me though..
OK so do you have a remote control to operate the sunrise and sunset, the rains and the springs? The thing is we humans don't really know what to believe in. If you are saying the god in terms of idols and structures that are created by man, which are kept in temples, churches and any worship place then yes, man has created it but the real God is never seen, never known, it is only a powerful mysterious power which is controlling the stars, the planets, the revolution of the earth, the eclipse, the waves and many more. The miraculous things that happen around us cannot be explained, there is a controller.
Looks like it, yeah
Man created God in his own image....
God's human like emotions (anger, jealousy etc.) seem to be straight out of heads..
Also don't you think religious texts aren't a bit to obvious for something out of this world.. Nothing in it goes beyond something our human minds can produce..