R
redhen
Guest
As others have pointed out, this quiz is rigged. Here’s a page with much more interesting philosophical quizzes. philosophersnet.com/games/
Enjoy
- Status
Enjoy
J
josie_L
Guest
Darn it, I can’t enjoy it, as I can’t access the page (due to many people accessing the cite). What a bummer!! I’ll check it out later though.
J
j1akey
Guest
If I were willing to believe in anything then I’d be willing to believe in a god which isn’t true so the statement doesn’t make sense, nor is it logical.
One does not “believe in” evolution. It’s an established scientific theory with 150 years worth of evidence behind it and not a single piece of evidence against it. It only takes one piece of scientific evidence to potentially render a theory invalid and I have yet to see one.
One also does not “believe in” paralell universes or a metaverse. It’s a hypothosis at best which has been brought up in physics, atronomy, and phylosophy as well.
As far as believing anything that debunks the plausibility of god goes. Nothing you have mentioned debunks the possibility of god. Not evolution or a multi-verse. I don’t see how these things attempt to debunk god. One explains how species of the world evolved from one species to another from a single point on the evolutionary tree and says nothing about a creator existing or not existing. The other isn’t even a theory, it’s a hypothosis, even if it had moved up to a theory it still says nothing about the existance or lack off a god.
How does science point to a creator? I don’t understand this statement. I also don’t understand how scientists deny their own profession. Please explain.
A
Angel7
Guest
Don’t fall into propaganda my friend.
The THEORY of Evolution
To DATE it is not an established Truth. Only a theory.
and there are CONSIDERABLE Gaps in said theory.
It does not show when the Human Brain or Eye developed. NO EVIDENCE.
If we came from Cells, then when did Cells turn into a computer (the brain)
or when did Cells turn into a Camera (the eye) capable of capturing more then 7,000 different types of color.
- A man once asked a Scientist, what is the Theory of what caused the Big Bang?
The Scientists Responded. These are not questions to be asked in a Science Class.
He asked a question to a Biology professor, on what caused Chemicals to turn into Cells (Life)
He Responded, this is not the Type of question one asks in Science.
so how did a whole Universe suddenly come into Being out of NOTHING. The only answer would point to a creator, who has the power to make something out of nothing!
G-d has ALWAYS existed. The Universe did not Always exist. There WAS a beginning.
The Same man that asked those questions later became a Christian. He even read his Wife’s Bible to try and prove all the scientific Contradictions. He would make a book at how Un-scientific the Bible is. He later gave up because of Lack of Material. There were no Contradictions in the Bible with Science.
Evolutionists hold on to their belief unaware of (or ignoring) the fossil remains of humans which have been found in the very same layers of rock as dinosaurs (see “Forbidden Archeology” mentioned above).
The Bible even has a description of a Dinosaur in the Book of Job.
“15 Behold now behemoth, which** I made with thee; he eateth grass(Grasses refering to “Greens” like trees) as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins (legs), and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar (Huge cedar tree like tail): the sinews(Vividley describes the Muscles of the leg) of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. **
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. (the one that made this creature can defeat it)
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. (This animal trusts that it could drink the entire river Jordan)
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.”
This is a very good description of a Sauropod Dinosaur. Such as a Brachiosoraus.
J
j1akey
Guest
If by propaganda you mean actual evidence that supports a theory then yes. I guess I shouldn’t “fall” for gravity either since it’s just a theory as you say. Yes, pun intended.
Are all theories meaningless to you or just the ones the ones you choose not to accept? If that’s the case then I guess the earth isn’t round, gravity doesn’t keep our feet on the ground, and light isn’t really light. These are all theories by the way.The “only a theory” argument is getting old and tired. It only shows that you don’t really know the meaning of the word in the context of science. If you do then you purposely choose to use it in an incorrect way to try and make your case.
Evidence shows eyes first developed during the cambrian explosion about 530 million years ago based on the fossil record. Also cells didn’t just suddenly turn into a working eyeball as you imply. It happened in severa stages over a long period of time. If you type in ‘evolution of the eye’ in google you’ll find plenty of places to research this.
Jellyfish have simple nervous systems and don’t actually have brains. Worms are the simplest organisms to actually have brains whish suggest they may have evolved before fossils appeared. Either way there are several types of nervous systems in the world and not all of them have a brain. Besides, not knowing when the first brain appeared isn’t evidence against evolution or anything else for that matter.
I’ll just get this with one statement. Lack of explanation does not = God is the only explanation.
I think it’s more reasonable to say that scientists don’t know what what was before the big bang. If they all knew that there was nothing then they’d have their answer and they wouldn’t still be trying to figure it out now would they? That would not be logical.
God has always existed based on what? To just make a statement without anything to back it up isn’t logical. I will agree that the universe probably had a starting point and didn’t always exist in it’s current form. The steady state theory was disproved decades ago but the current says nothing other than the universe had a beginning which most people will agree with regardless of what they believe phylisophically.
That’s because the bible isn’t a science book and isn’t interpreted as one, therefore there is no conflict.
Either way if I were to try and interprete it as a scient book a virgin birth, a flood that covered the world, woman being created from a rib of a man, a talking snake, and rising from the dead all seem pretty unscientific to me.
Show me. I looked and couldn’t find any evidence of this.
Given the context of how things were written in the day he could just as easily seen a fossil of a dinosaur and wrote down what he immagined the creature would look and act like. The description is pretty vague and can be interpreted in many ways. If dinosaurs were actually alive during this time then I have to think that such monsterous creatures would have been given names by the people of the time like every other animal mentioned in the bible and not some super vague discription such as this.
S
SimonArizona
Guest
Dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago.
No writings from even 10,000 years ago could survive.
this is poetry obviously, it could be an elephant
A
Angel7
Guest
No, Cause gravity is not a THEORY it is scientific LAWIf by propaganda you mean actual evidence that supports a theory then yes. I guess I shouldn’t “fall” for gravity either since it’s just a theory as you say. Yes, pun intended.
Given the context of how things were written in the day he could just as easily seen a fossil of a dinosaur and wrote down what he immagined the creature would look and act like. The description is pretty vague and can be interpreted in many ways. If dinosaurs were actually alive during this time then I have to think that such monsterous creatures would have been given names by the people of the time like every other animal mentioned in the bible and not some super vague discription such as this.
2.the word "Dinosaur was not invented untill 300 or so years back.
Behomoth could have been their Hebrew word for it.
This is not Job Describing something
The book of Job is a book about hte meaning of Suffering.
G-d is the one that was describing Behomoth.
He was scolding Job, because he misudnerstood suffering, or another…
that is G-d’s Description of what he Created, I think G-d knows what he is talking about.
Plus G-d, is Describing to Job All sorts of Animals, in order to teach him something
A
Angel7
Guest
Although I think G-d would make a Poet, he wasn’t making a poem, he was scolding Job.
If you take the bible literally, why is Genesis your one exception.
If you don’t take it Literally, are you saying you don’t believe in Jesus’ Miracles?
Genesis is as official as any other book in the bible.
You don’t include Noa’s flood, in your idea of how Dinosaurs went “Out”
That was a literall event.
J
j1akey
Guest
Well, if you want to get right down to it, gravity is one of the 4 main forces which also include electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. Gravitational Theory is how we explain how this force works. There are quite a few anomalies related to gravity that haven’t been explained or need a better explanation. The explanation for gravity (ie. the Theory) is incomplete. By your reasoning it should be thrown out because there’re gaps in the theory. We know it exists but we can’t explain everything about it yet, just like evolution.
To explain the differences between laws and theory’s I’m going to take a paragraph from wikipedia.
Wikipedia:
I know the word “dinosaur” didn’t exist in biblical times but I would think the author would have been able to come up with some word. Behemoth simply means big which could mean anything. Bones of bronze sounds like a fossil to me since fossils sometimes can be a dark color from sitting in the ground for all that time. If it was alive then how could he know what color bones were? If there were dinosaurs living with man then why are there only a couple vague references to big animals? One would think that they would play a bigger role in human history to the point that there would be some actual evidence.
You said earlier "All im Trying to do is to get someone who does not believe in G-d. To think Logically, and to start thinking, don’t seek to prove us wrong, but seek the real answer, and the Truth."
So far I haven’t tried to prove you or anyone else wrong. I’ve stated my thoughts as clearly and as reasonably as I can and I’ve refuted much of what you’ve said, yes. But, I’ve asked several questions and made the statements that I’ve made so far in an attempt for you to show me some validity to what you’re saying. Most of which you have completely ignored or chose not to answer and instead chose to cherry pick a couple lines here and there out of the paragraphs of text I’ve written. If you want to debate with me about the subject then please address what I’ve said. Not just type at me with your caps lock key on as if it somehow makes what you say more true.
I’m more than willing to entertain your ideas about God but you need to be able to back it up with actual logic as you claim. So far it just seems like the company line except for the dinosaur thing, most people I know regardless of what they believe don’t think dinosaurs roamed the earth along side humans.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Or a talking donkey?
A
Angel7
Guest
Tension Quotient Score Tension Quotient = 27%
The average player of this activity to date has a Tension Quotient of 28%.
I played this Philosohpical Health Game. Apparently my “Contradiction” are 1% lower than average. However this game is also “Rigged” in a way. so Touche.
A
Angel7
Guest
Do elephants or donkeys (talking or not) have tails the size of a full grown Cedar tree?
A
Angel7
Guest
Bronze Meaning, they were strong like bronze, not colored, They are like bones but out of bronze, they are LIKE bars of Iron. (I’m sure its obvious, that G-d is reffering to the Density/strength of the bone, and not a fossilized color.
as anathiest said in one of the first replies to this thread “G-d is beyond logic.”
If G-d could be Logically understood he would not be big enough to be worshipped. For what? If man can decipher the Nature of G-d, would that not make Man a G-d? G-d Forbid, for we lack, wisdom, and our decisions are always to the benifit of our selves, and not humanity.
The Laws of G-d are there for our own GOOD. Not to impede us of anything. The do not kill thing (except in self defense)
The non-beliver does not care about G-d, so why should he care about you, when he is pointing a gun at you?
If we ALL only fought back during self-defense, then there would be no war!
! Ccuz no one would be hte agressor.G-d’s Way is perfect, the Way of the Lord is Proven. He is a shield to all those who trust in him. (some where in Proverbs)
Not one of an Athiests Arguements or counter arguements, have diminished my faith, over time, rather I rely on G-d even more, and it is when I am weak that I am Strong.
Your saying I have not answered your arguements? well, Likewise.
No one has told me how cells can evolve into a computer (brain) or a camera (eyes). There is no proof that Cells formed into a brain. How would they Go about it?
I’ll take this out of one of the Philosophical games from that site link.
"It is reasonable to believe in something, that has no PAUSIBILITY of evidence? Disagree or Agree. There is no Pausibility of evidence for the evolution of the brain.
There is much evidence that points to G-d, as Creator.
No one seems to have answered the big bang Paradox. How is something created out of nothing, what so ever?
A
Angel7
Guest
Isn’t the Truth that the Earth is round comon Knowledge? Even in ancient times they could tell the world was round, because ships would dissapear off the Horizon, and pop up from the Horizon all the time.Because were sick of such obvious attempts to fool people.
That website’s author has no idea about the things he’s talking about.
E.g. scientific laws, laws of mathematics/logic, and moral laws are three distinctive and quite different things, yet he uses them in the same context. I might add jurisdictional laws as a forth meaning of the term “law”, those are not mentioned there, perhaps because it is too obvious that they are far from “absolute”.
Which brings us to the next point. What does “absolute” mean when applied to different thing like morals and laws of nature? The same? How?
The questions asked make heavy use of the bifurcation fallacy, they basically follow this pattern:
Depsite what theories have been made in history about the shape of the Earth, what do you think about the shape of the Earth?
[Earth was always a sphere] → next question
[Earth is flat] → you’re stupid, go to disney.com
Do you think the shape of the Earth has changed through time?
[Yes] → That contradicts your first answer, stupid, go back or exit
[No] -->next question
This is knowledge even ancient man knew of. You have to answer truthfully on what you believe.
A
Angel7
Guest
No one has quoted on these external sources i linked, the first one uses simple logic.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Would there be a reason for them to have that apparatus?
A
Angel7
Guest
Over the past two centuries researchers have found bones and artifacts showing that people like ourselves existed on earth millions of years ago. But the scientific establishment has ignored these remarkable facts because they contradict the dominant views of human origins and antiquity. Cremo and Thompson challenge us to rethink our understanding of human origins, identity, and destiny. Forbidden Archeology takes on one of the most fundamental components of the modern scientific world view, and invites us to take a courageous first step towards a new perspective. (Forbidden Archaeology, find some answers yourself, don’t ask me everyhting my not a priest or a scientist, just a lay person.)If by propaganda you mean actual evidence that supports a theory then yes. I guess I shouldn’t “fall” for gravity either since it’s just a theory as you say. Yes, pun intended.
The “only a theory” argument is getting old and tired. It only shows that you don’t really know the meaning of the word in the context of science. If you do then you purposely choose to use it in an incorrect way to try and make your case.
Evidence shows eyes first developed during the cambrian explosion about 530 million years ago based on the fossil record. Also cells didn’t just suddenly turn into a working eyeball as you imply. It happened in severa stages over a long period of time. If you type in ‘evolution of the eye’ in google you’ll find plenty of places to research this.
Jellyfish have simple nervous systems and don’t actually have brains. Worms are the simplest organisms to actually have brains whish suggest they may have evolved before fossils appeared. Either way there are several types of nervous systems in the world and not all of them have a brain. Besides, not knowing when the first brain appeared isn’t evidence against evolution or anything else for that matter.
I’ll just get this with one statement. Lack of explanation does not = God is the only explanation.
I think it’s more reasonable to say that scientists don’t know what what was before the big bang. If they all knew that there was nothing then they’d have their answer and they wouldn’t still be trying to figure it out now would they? That would not be logical.
God has always existed based on what? To just make a statement without anything to back it up isn’t logical. I will agree that the universe probably had a starting point and didn’t always exist in it’s current form. The steady state theory was disproved decades ago but the current says nothing other than the universe had a beginning which most people will agree with regardless of what they believe phylisophically.
That’s because the bible isn’t a science book and isn’t interpreted as one, therefore there is no conflict.
Either way if I were to try and interprete it as a scient book a virgin birth, a flood that covered the world, woman being created from a rib of a man, a talking snake, and rising from the dead all seem pretty unscientific to me.
**Show me. I looked and couldn’t find any evidence of this. **
Given the context of how things were written in the day he could just as easily seen a fossil of a dinosaur and wrote down what he immagined the creature would look and act like. The description is pretty vague and can be interpreted in many ways. If dinosaurs were actually alive during this time then I have to think that such monsterous creatures would have been given names by the people of the time like every other animal mentioned in the bible and not some super vague discription such as this.
(im answering these Bottom up) Was nothing before the Big bang, because the Big Bang was THE beginning. Think about it. When the Big Bang Started the Universe was only an inch across, etc… it continues to grow. Well, what happens when you CROSS said end of Universe? what was Beyond the inital 1 inch of the Universe? A vacuum? no Space is already a vacuum.
it was simply non-existent.
Is that so? The Brain is a web of Electric Signal. How did Cellular matter gain the ability to transmit Electricity, thus creating “Thought”
It was Quoted that Darwin “Shuttered” when he contemplated the “eye” For that also points to a creator. How the Cell could form a Camera capable of Deciphering over 7,000+ colors, take a visual photo send it to the Brain etc… How did Cells Learn the ability to capture image?
That would mean occurding to “Evolution” Early Creatures were both Brainless and Blind, untill “trail and error” made the Perfect brain and Eye.
A
Angel7
Guest
A Sauropad type of Dinosaur would need to have a tail like a Cedar Tree, or else their Long Necks would end with a short body, that would be uncomfortable for such a creature. Rather it continues Neck = SPine = Tail.
A
Angel7
Guest
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, as presented in his book “Origin of Species” has been widely accepted as fact, although it is based on Darwin’s fallible speculations. His critics write, “If the theory of natural selection of Darwin is correct, why can’t we see the intermediate forms of species, the connecting links?” Darwin did not have the answer nor the archeological evidence to back it up. Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links.
If Evolution was true, would there not be transisitional Species on Earth Right now? ie. The next humans?
I certainly see none.
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don’t observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?
In fact, precisely because of this problem more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don’t see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced “instantaneous” changes from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.
I’d rather trust G-d, then a Scientists when it comes to know how.
These are quotes from gosai.com/science/darwin-debunked.html
If Evolution was true, would there not be transisitional Species on Earth Right now? ie. The next humans?
I certainly see none.
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don’t observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?
In fact, precisely because of this problem more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don’t see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced “instantaneous” changes from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.
I’d rather trust G-d, then a Scientists when it comes to know how.
These are quotes from gosai.com/science/darwin-debunked.html
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The OP is the only one thinking like a Christian instead of like a rationalist. “Proof” of God is an insult to faith; it’s an obscenity. Luther was right on target in calling reason a whore, for so it is: it can be used to “prove” anything. 
The OP needn’t be a Christian to be able to see that some Christians insist on using anti-Christian considerations to argue for a God. Just as you needn’t be RC to spot trashy & destructive arguments by RCs for RCism. - Status