The Top Ten Reasons....

[skyblue888]

Ellen White said it best:

"Because they cannot explain the wonderful exhibition of divine power in nature, many reject the evidences of such power, attributing them to natural agencies which they can comprehend still less. The only key to the mysteries that surround us is to acknowledge in them all the presence and power of God." E.G. White, D.A.606.

And "The divine Spirit that the world's Redeemer promised to send is the presence and power of God." E.G. White, Signs of the Times, Nov.23, 1891.

The acceptance of this amazing fact prepares us to accept the following:

"Whatever line of investigation we pursue with a sincere purpose to arrive at truth, we are brought in touch with the unseen, mighty Intelligence that is working in and through all." E.G. White, Education,14.

These declarations by Ellen White are in perfect harmony with the declarations of the Scriptures. It is by far the best explanation of the relation between nature and nature's God.

God's throne is in Heaven, yet By His Spirit He is everywhere present working in and through all, moving in all things according to His will.

Without the presence and power of God, all nature would die, and that includes all created beings whether men or angels or any other created beings living throughout immensity.

"In Him we live and move and have our being," for "He is before all things and in Him all things consist." Acts 17:28; Col.1:17.

sky

[Overaged]

Ellen White said it best:

"Because they cannot explain the wonderful exhibition of divine power in nature, many reject the evidences of such power, attributing them to natural agencies which they can comprehend still less. The only key to the mysteries that surround us is to acknowledge in them all the presence and power of God." E.G. White, D.A.606.

And "The divine Spirit that the world's Redeemer promised to send is the presence and power of God." E.G. White, Signs of the Times, Nov.23, 1891.

The acceptance of this amazing fact prepares us to accept the following:

"Whatever line of investigation we pursue with a sincere purpose to arrive at truth, we are brought in touch with the unseen, mighty Intelligence that is working in and through all." E.G. White, Education,14.

These declarations by Ellen White are in perfect harmony with the declarations of the Scriptures. It is by far the best explanation of the relation between nature and nature's God.

God's throne is in Heaven, yet By His Spirit He is everywhere present working in and through all, moving in all things according to His will.

Without the presence and power of God, all nature would die, and that includes all created beings whether men or angels or any other created beings living throughout immensity.

"In Him we live and move and have our being," for "He is before all things and in Him all things consist." Acts 17:28; Col.1:17.

sky

[Overaged]

My body is only self-sustaining because all of the proteins that make my body function are in their correct locations (and yes, there are well-known mechanisms that relegate each protein to its required place. These evolved too).

While some great discoveries have been made re these mechanisms; they still cannot be classed as "well known" mechanisms. Not by a long shot

[Igakusei]

Ellen White said it best:

"Because they cannot explain the wonderful exhibition of divine power in nature, many reject the evidences of such power, attributing them to natural agencies which they can comprehend still less. The only key to the mysteries that surround us is to acknowledge in them all the presence and power of God." E.G. White, D.A.606.

And "The divine Spirit that the world's Redeemer promised to send is the presence and power of God." E.G. White, Signs of the Times, Nov.23, 1891.

The acceptance of this amazing fact prepares us to accept the following:

"Whatever line of investigation we pursue with a sincere purpose to arrive at truth, we are brought in touch with the unseen, mighty Intelligence that is working in and through all." E.G. White, Education,14.

These declarations by Ellen White are in perfect harmony with the declarations of the Scriptures. It is by far the best explanation of the relation between nature and nature's God.

God's throne is in Heaven, yet By His Spirit He is everywhere present working in and through all, moving in all things according to His will.

Without the presence and power of God, all nature would die, and that includes all created beings whether men or angels or any other created beings living throughout immensity.

"In Him we live and move and have our being," for "He is before all things and in Him all things consist." Acts 17:28; Col.1:17.

sky

It's worth noting that biology was extremely poorly understood in EGW's day. Scientists in her day didn't even know how genetic information was passed on. The structure of DNA wasn't discovered until the 1950. Now you can open any high-school biology textbook and find an understanding of hundreds of proteins that relate to its packaging, repair, replication, transcription, and translation.

She was essentially making her own god of the gaps argument, and the 120 years that have passed since she made it have significantly closed those gaps.

Considering this history, there is no reason to believe that any of the remaining gaps in our knowledge have supernatural explanations.

[Overaged]

Even when the "gaps" are all allegedly "closed" there will still be the supernatural element which science will never be able to "close."

[Igakusei]

Can you point me to evidence of that?

[skyblue888]

Iga, the evidence is when we are enabled to see the invisible with the eyes of our understanding.

sky

[Igakusei]

Iga, the evidence is when we are enabled to see the invisible with the eyes of our understanding.

sky

Funny; I was an SDA for a very long time and only recall understanding that there were many "mysteries" that we would only be able to understand "when we got to heaven."

The argument that "spiritual things are spiritually discerned" is a cop-out to ensure that you don't have to deal with those inconvenient "facts" that the "scientists" keep discovering.

[Igakusei]

I also love it when Christians bust this one out in response to atheists or "heretics" quoting scriptures that they think are being interpreted wrongly.

How hypocritical, since most Christians tend to think that they understand the Torah better than the Jews, and the Koran better than the Muslims.

The fact that most of the people here think the Earth is just several thousand years old is evidence that "spiritual discernment" is a euphemism for blindness and ignorance.

[fccool]

There are really two things that drive the TOE forward:

1) The inherent biological, functional, and genetic similarities in living organisms.

2) The ability of organisms to adopt to their environment over time.

Those are the two major pillars that make TOE plausible and compelling.

The problem with TOE is that it makes connections, which end up being a circle of self-supporting evidence for evolution. TOE largely relies on assumptions derived from observation, and in itself there's not thing wrong with it if such assumptions were not a claim to the proven theory.

I would certainly not outright reject the TOE as plausible explanation of a variety. But, for the same exact reasons I would not reject the plausibility of super-natural creator. Both are logical. Sure, the second one is not "scientific" due to the nature of the theory, but nevertheless it is logical.

It's difficult to debate whether or not evolution ever "happened" (from single cell to human species) due to the nature of knowledge that revolves around such debate. Such knowledge is largely circumstantial, thus it is not "knowledge" at all. It's a belief, if we consider the epistomelogical requirement for knowledge.

I think the major problem with this debate is that we mistake science with explanation of certain phenomenon. Sure, we know and understand concepts through explanation, but in terms of knowledge (sciencia), evolution theory... even while providing objective support for the theory, still rests in the realm of epistemological belief.

How do you prove a believe that it's 12:00? You can look at the clock in your living room that's designed to accurately measure time. You can then compare that with various clocks around the world, and you can prove that your belief reflects certain reality.

How can you prove that all life on earth started from a single-cell organism? The answer is simple, you can't. Just like you can't prove that the entire universe began with a "big bang". Sure, we can discuss and measure possibilities. The universe is expanding, and there are good correlation evidence to consider the plausibility of single-cell origin of all biological variety, but likewise, we can make the opposite arguments from statistics and cosmology that would rule out such explanations, and leave us to search for better ones.

Just because there are no better explanations, does not justify us taking the best possible (yet unprovable theory) and run with it by making the assumptive connections that exist without direct evidence... and given the nature of the evolutionary argument, the evidence we find is indirect, and we are left with making connections that may or may not be true.

The point being, any ontological debate of Creation vs Evolution is a practical waste of time. It accomplishes very little, just like the statements akin "Bible is proven to be reliable truth" and "Evolution is a proven fact". Both statements are derived from taking a small amount of factual discoveries and then using these as a "proof blanket" for entire belief.

Science is important. We know things through scientific method. Religion is important, because it makes us consider the philosophical implications of being that extend beyond the simple clockwork.

Both, should be contextualized and reconciled properly.

[Overaged]

Funny; I was an SDA for a very long time and only recall understanding that there were many "mysteries" that we would only be able to understand "when we got to heaven."

The argument that "spiritual things are spiritually discerned" is a cop-out to ensure that you don't have to deal with those inconvenient "facts" that the "scientists" keep discovering.

No cop-out involved at all. It's actually the opposite where further exploration/study is invited into all these types of things.

[Igakusei]

In conversations between people with differing opinions about evolution, it's really easy for every conversation to get drawn into that. Please try to keep that argument in the origins forum.

For the purpose of this thread, please try to understand that arguments for design or "celestial maintenance" aren't going to win me over. I've already been down that road.

Do you have anything to say about any of the other points?

[Overaged]

In conversations between people with differing opinions about evolution, it's really easy for every conversation to get drawn into that. Please try to keep that argument in the origins forum.

For the purpose of this thread, please try to understand that arguments for design or "celestial maintenance" aren't going to win me over. I've already been down that road.

Do you have anything to say about any of the other points?

You brought up the subject in the op; now you say don't discuss it here? Hmmmm

[Igakusei]

You brought up the subject in the op; now you say don't discuss it here? Hmmmm

It's like talking to someone who believes the Roman empire never existed. It's simply not interesting for me, and I've already spent way too much time doing that on this forum. We're like five pages in now and I still can't get off that topic. There are a lot of other great arguments there (religion running in families, for instance) that I wouldn't mind discussing instead.

I brought up a LOT of subjects in the OP, and it's clear from this and past discussions that this line of debate isn't going anywhere productive. I think you guys are wrong, and you think I'm wrong, and I see no chance that either of us are about to renounce our opinions. So let's just move on.

[Overaged]

OK sounds reasonable from your end now.

What about religion running in families? That would interest me too. Which of your ten reasons deal with that?

And btw, that was such a long OP I did not get it...ten reasons for what?

[Igakusei]

Number five:

The single strongest factor in determining what religion a person is? It's what religion they were brought up with. By far.

Very, very few people carefully examine all the religious beliefs currently being followed -- or even some of those beliefs -- and select the one they think most accurately describes the world. Overwhelmingly, people believe whatever religion they were taught as children.

Now, we don't do this with, for instance, science. We don't hold on to the Steady State theory of the universe, or geocentrism, or the four bodily humours theory of illness, simply because it's what we were taught as children. We believe whatever scientific understanding is best supported by the best available evidence at the time. And if the evidence changes, the understanding changes. (Unless, of course, it's a scientific understanding that our religion teaches is wrong...)

Even political opinions don't run in families as stubbornly as religion. Witness the opinion polls that consistently show support of same-sex marriage increasing with each younger generation. Even political beliefs learned from youth can and do break down in the face of the reality that people see and live with every day. And scientific theories absolutely do this, all the time, on a regular basis.

Once again, this leads me to the conclusion that religion is not a perception of a real entity. If it were, people wouldn't just believe whatever religious belief they were taught as children, simply because it was what they were taught as children. The fact that religion runs so firmly in families strongly suggests that it is not a perception of anything real. It is a dogma, supported and perpetuated by tradition and social pressure -- and in many cases, by fear and intimidation. Not by reality.

[Overaged]

Number five:

The single strongest factor in determining what religion a person is? It's what religion they were brought up with. By far.

Very, very few people carefully examine all the religious beliefs currently being followed -- or even some of those beliefs -- and select the one they think most accurately describes the world. Overwhelmingly, people believe whatever religion they were taught as children.

Now, we don't do this with, for instance, science. We don't hold on to the Steady State theory of the universe, or geocentrism, or the four bodily humours theory of illness, simply because it's what we were taught as children. We believe whatever scientific understanding is best supported by the best available evidence at the time. And if the evidence changes, the understanding changes. (Unless, of course, it's a scientific understanding that our religion teaches is wrong...)

Even political opinions don't run in families as stubbornly as religion. Witness the opinion polls that consistently show support of same-sex marriage increasing with each younger generation. Even political beliefs learned from youth can and do break down in the face of the reality that people see and live with every day. And scientific theories absolutely do this, all the time, on a regular basis.

Once again, this leads me to the conclusion that religion is not a perception of a real entity. If it were, people wouldn't just believe whatever religious belief they were taught as children, simply because it was what they were taught as children. The fact that religion runs so firmly in families strongly suggests that it is not a perception of anything real. It is a dogma, supported and perpetuated by tradition and social pressure -- and in many cases, by fear and intimidation. Not by reality.

This is really just her opinion though; I hope you do not consider it, in and of itself evidential? But sure; this would be of interest to me to discuss the main points she brings up. Certainly; I can say right off the bat that what she states here has nothing to do with my own personal situation and how I became a Christian.

You did not answer me yet when I asked re these ten reasons, what are they the top ten reasons for? Can you fill in for the ellipses used in the title of this thread?

[Windsor]

God created life to be self-sustaining. That's the miracle right there. It also doesn't discount other types of miracles. Just because you haven't seen one personally doesn't mean that one of the other 6 billion plus people on Earth hasn't experienced a miracle.

[Overaged]

Funny; I was an SDA for a very long time and only recall understanding that there were many "mysteries" that we would only be able to understand "when we got to heaven."

LOL, now that you are not an Adventist, I'd be willing to bet there are still "many mysteries."

[Igakusei]

This is really just her opinion though; I hope you do not consider it, in and of itself evidential? But sure; this would be of interest to me to discuss the main points she brings up. Certainly; I can say right off the bat that what she states here has nothing to do with my own personal situation and how I became a Christian.

You did not answer me yet when I asked re these ten reasons, what are they the top ten reasons for? Can you fill in for the ellipses used in the title of this thread?

Ten reasons she doesn't believe in God. I think they're all pretty decent reasons too, so I guess you could say they are ten reasons I don't believe in God as well.

Certainly there are first-generation Adventists, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that online forums such as this one have more than their fair share.

My experience has been that every single person I went to high-school with was at least a second-generation Adventist (as you would expect at a private SDA school), and out of the several hundred people I knew from there, only ONE that I know of is no longer SDA. Put both of us together and you have two.

Even the pot-smoking rebel who once burned an anarchy sign into his shoulder with a hot paper clip now proudly spouts bible verses on a regular basis from his Facebook page. From people I've talked to that went to private Christian schools of other denominations, they've all had very similar experiences.

Teenagers grow up, graduate from high school, and often drift away from the church for a few years. Then (usually coinciding with childbirth) they come back, almost always to the same church they were raised in.

So yes, you are an outlier.

[Igakusei]

LOL, now that you are not an Adventist, I'd be willing to bet there are still "many mysteries."

Of course there are still mysteries.

The difference is that when you believe that revelation is a better source of knowledge than the scientific method, a lot of things tend to get lumped into the "we'll find out in heaven" category--especially if there is evidence that seems to disagree with whatever theology you ascribe to.

When you believe that the secrets of the universe are forever beyond our comprehension, honest critical inquiry just stops.

Relevant video:

[fccool]

Quote:

For the purpose of this thread, please try to understand that arguments for design or "celestial maintenance" aren't going to win me over. I've already been down that road.

Do you have anything to say about any of the other points?

Sure, I'll address them one by one.

[Overaged]

Quote:

when you believe that revelation is a better source of knowledge than the scientific method,

honest critical inquiry just stops

As I already alluded to; I don't see this as a line of thought reflecting reality, or truth. Christian revelation is accepted on the basis of evidence for the integrity of the Biblical testimony, personal experience with the Creator, and knowledge concerning the plausibility of alternative concepts. For a positive witness to the creationism presented in the Bible; it is desirable to have an understanding of the plausibility for the origin of life by alternate means. Therefore, you will find many christians in the world who invite scientific inquiry, and honest study of alternative modes of reality. You can't start flinging adjectives such as "dishonest" because such beliefs contrast with your's, (the atheistic belief). When you do this; it makes whatever you believe into a sociological religion of cognitive moral development with the emphasis on form rather than content; the focus on concepts of rights and duties rather than issues of the good; and the emphasis on moral judgment rather than behavior. Atheism is based mostly on tortured legalistic philosophy, rather than true evidence. But with Christians; all things become new. (2 Cor 5:17)

A lot of different people and religions have tried to argue against Christianity and the Bible, stating words to the effect that Christianity cannot be proven and it does not reflect reality. While the standards of proof and reality for same are all different, depending who you listen to; evreyone objecting to Christianity eventually comes round to the same types of arguments as to why "religion" (christianity) does not reflect reality. Satan knows that the more voices there are, the more confusing it will be for people to find truth in anything.

Close beside the danger of ignoring or distorting the plain teaching of inspired testimony in order to be in harmony with a prevailing viewpoint is the danger of not admitting that the only safe course to follow is in recognition that God speaks truth consistently, whether in the canon of Sacred Scripture or in the evidences of the natural world, (science), that these two sources of information actually clarify each other, and that a correct understanding of both will always prove them to be in harmony, and that when, because of limited understanding, harmony between them appears unattainable the best thing to do is to interpret Scripture on the basis of its own testimony.

Nature, and science are full of lessons of the love of God. Rightly understood, these lessons lead to the Creator. They point from nature to nature’s God, teaching those simple, holy truths which cleanse the mind, bringing it into close touch with God. These lessons emphasize the truth that science and religion cannot be divorced.

Christ came to this earth to teach men the mysteries of the kingdom of God. But men could not by human reasoning understand His lessons. Man’s wisdom cannot originate the science which is divine. … When man is reconciled to God, nature speaks to him in words of heavenly wisdom, bearing testimony to the eternal truth of God’s Word. As Christ tells us the meaning of the things in nature, the science of true religion flashes forth, explaining the relation of the law of God to the natural and spiritual world

Quote:

Why didn't anybody tell me

You said that the video you linked to was a "relevant" video; but I don't know why you would use such a word to describe it. The video is a very emotional ploy to get people sympathizing for an idea before it is proven in any way, shape or form. And when you or the video say "religion" what is really meant? That is anyone's guess? Do you mean moral psychology, moral development; sociological development; there are all sorts of cognitive moral development legalistic systems of belief; all based upon the same arguments against Christianity. At the very least; you need to explain what YOU mean by "religion."

Quote:

this leads me to the conclusion that religion is not a perception of a real entity

The fact that religion runs so firmly in families strongly suggests that it is not a perception of anything real. It is a dogma, supported and perpetuated by tradition and social pressure -- and in many cases, by fear and intimidation. Not by reality.

Worse fear ridicule and character-smearing is directed at christian people by atheists if others dare to believe in the christian religion, and go against the norm, for whatever society they are living in. According to Prov 26:10 it is a good thing when religion runs in families, and the parents teach a child in the way they should go by looking at Jesus and His Word. Many enveloped in the various dogmas and traditions you refer to all look to the same Jesus; and have the same moral ideas, planted there by His holy Word.

Quote:

Ten reasons she doesn't believe in God. I think they're all pretty decent reasons too, so I guess you could say they are ten reasons I don't believe in God as well.

Those ten reasons are not based on true evidence. Only claims and half truths. But looking at #5 first, can you explain better, with references pointing to true evidence that the #5 reason is true?

[Overaged]

When you believe that the secrets of the universe are forever beyond our comprehension, honest critical inquiry just stops.

[skyblue888]

God created life to be self-sustaining. That's the miracle right there.

Windsor

___________________

Brother, Holy Writ does not teach that life is self-sustaining. We would be deifying nature if we were to teach this. Nature is not self-sustaining. It is continually depending upon a power outside of itself, upon the providence of God.

"In Him all things hold together." Col.1:17.

"Without the life of God, nature would die." E.G. White, Bible Commentary, Vol.1,1081.

"For all the objects of His creation, the condition is the same--a life sustained by receiving the life of God... A Mysterious life pervades all nature--a life that sustains the unnumbered worlds throughout immensity, that lives in the insect atom which floats in the summer breeze, that wings the flight of the swallow and feeds the young ravens which cry, that brings the bud to blossom and the flower to fruit. The same power that upholds nature is working also in man."

"It is His life that we receive in the sunshine, in the pure, sweet air and in the food which builds up our bodies and sustains our strength. It is by His life that we exist, hour by hour, moment by moment. Unless as perverted by sin, all His gifts tend to life, to health and joy." E.G. White, Education,197,198.

Jesus said, "I am the life."

"He is all in all." Col.3:11; 1 Cor.12:6; 15:28.

sky