Reverse Pascals Wager

[Entropist]

A loving God would not create humans and then set them on a course to try and find there way to Him. God seeks us out and compels us to come to Him but it is our choice as to what we want to do He never forces us to choose Him. God wants us to have a genuine love for Him and that can not be forced.

[Minimalist]

Answer to the above underlined I know what God reveals to me, I ask Him for the truth in and about His word.

[leo-rcc]

This may suprise you but I do understand the theory behind evolution I just do not accept it.

That started out so well and then you said this:

There is not one shred of proof that life could have come about without help.

And with that one sentence you show hat you really don't understand the theory of evolution through natural selection or you would have known that that is not what the theory is about.

[Captain Scarlet]

This may suprise you but I do understand the theory behind evolution I just do not accept it.

That started out so well and then you said this:

There is not one shred of proof that life could have come about without help.

And with that one sentence you show hat you really don't understand the theory of evolution through natural selection or you would have known that that is not what the theory is about.

Exactly L-R.

Godschild you have clearly demonstrated you dont understand evolutionary theory. You are referring to the theory of abiogenesis (which is indeed incomplete). We have only ever been able to synthesize some rather disappointing organic chemicals under a simulation of what we know of earths conditions 4bn years ago (this in itself is not straightforward to replicate). Having said that at least we have been able to get this far actually producing chemicals which could lead to life and have seen it. One thing we have never seen is a big hand descend from the clouds and zap creatures into existence. So is it really evolution you take issue with?, if you still do find it unacceptable you haven't stated which parts of evolutionary theory do you take issue with? I'd be happy to help with any misconceptions you may have.

Your argument of forced v compelled carries no weight. God is said to be omnipotent. As such the difference between force, compel or even urge is irrelevant. He is all powerful and therefore if he is doing anything to us, he is simply toying and trampling on our freewill. But worse still in the 10 commandments he says "I'll get you and your kids to the 3rd / 4th generation if you don't worship me". It is a clear threat to humanity. A threat is not allowing someone to exercise freewill and therefore you either you need to reject the 10 commandments or admit that god is not all loving in the terms you defined it, which is it?

You can apologise for calling me a "child" in your own time, as unlike your god I do not have a fragile vanity.

[Tiberius]

It should be a law of the internet, that when someone says "I understand evolution, I just don't believe it", you can guarantee they don't understand evolution.

[Edwardo Piet]

I prefer this quote:

"You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic." - House M.D.

The two aren't mutually exclusive of course

[Minimalist]

This may suprise you but I do understand the theory behind evolution I just do not accept it.

That started out so well and then you said this:

There is not one shred of proof that life could have come about without help.

And with that one sentence you show hat you really don't understand the theory of evolution through natural selection or you would have known that that is not what the theory is about.

Unfair, Leo. There you go trying to confuse him with facts again.

Pick on someone your own size.

[Godscreated]

This may suprise you but I do understand the theory behind evolution I just do not accept it.

That started out so well and then you said this:

There is not one shred of proof that life could have come about without help.

And with that one sentence you show hat you really don't understand the theory of evolution through natural selection or you would have known that that is not what the theory is about.

I know the theory is about natural selection and parts of natural selection I agree with but why do you say that evolution is not part of spontaneous life. I thought you did not believe in creation. I thought it was either creation or evolution.

---

This may suprise you but I do understand the theory behind evolution I just do not accept it.

That started out so well and then you said this:

There is not one shred of proof that life could have come about without help.

And with that one sentence you show hat you really don't understand the theory of evolution through natural selection or you would have known that that is not what the theory is about.

Exactly L-R.

Godschild you have clearly demonstrated you dont understand evolutionary theory. You are referring to the theory of abiogenesis (which is indeed incomplete). We have only ever been able to synthesize some rather disappointing organic chemicals under a simulation of what we know of earths conditions 4bn years ago (this in itself is not straightforward to replicate). Having said that at least we have been able to get this far actually producing chemicals which could lead to life and have seen it. One thing we have never seen is a big hand descend from the clouds and zap creatures into existence. So is it really evolution you take issue with?, if you still do find it unacceptable you haven't stated which parts of evolutionary theory do you take issue with? I'd be happy to help with any misconceptions you may have.

Your argument of forced v compelled carries no weight. God is said to be omnipotent. As such the difference between force, compel or even urge is irrelevant. He is all powerful and therefore if he is doing anything to us, he is simply toying and trampling on our freewill. But worse still in the 10 commandments he says "I'll get you and your kids to the 3rd / 4th generation if you don't worship me". It is a clear threat to humanity. A threat is not allowing someone to exercise freewill and therefore you either you need to reject the 10 commandments or admit that god is not all loving in the terms you defined it, which is it?

You can apologise for calling me a "child" in your own time, as unlike your god I do not have a fragile vanity.

Abiogenesis has never gotten off the ground and it never will, man's endeavor to recreate what scientist believe happened to bring about the first life form is interference by man(giving a helping hand) and that is not spontaneous anything it is simply interference. As I see it abiogenesis is part of evolution. There are only two sides to this argument creation or abiogenesis/evolution.

I see no need to apologize for stating you're a child, you act like one that will not accept anything but total agreement with your beliefs, here where I live we call that being a brat.

[Edwardo Piet]

I thought it was either creation or evolution.

Well it isn't. Creation Vs Evolution is a false dichotomy. Evolution can only apply after life exists, not before. Life can only evolve once there is already existing life to evolve into more life. Either life or existence itself's ultimate origin comes from a Creator or it doesn't. But there can be Evolution from life's origin with or without a Creator. Evolution can only come from something. Whether that's a Creator or just the Cosmos or whatever.

[Tiberius]

Here is an alternative to Creation vs Evolution. How about a mix of the two? How about God created the first single celled organism, and then Evolution took over? Boom! Your faulty dichotomy is now destroyed.