Why are you a theist?

[Slavister]

You wrote....If "evidence" for Creator is then used to disprove the Creator, then I submit it's not evidence at all.

I responded by showing it doesn't disprove my hypothesis. Does the fact that scientists who caused a virtual universe to exist required a Creator (parents in this case) disprove that scientists caused a virtual universe to exist? Of course not.

I should have worded more carefully. Your "evidence" for need for Creator was used to disprove the need for creator because it quickly ended up with Original Creator who could not have been created by another Creator (which is why it's Original one).

If a Creator isn't necessary I assume its because you have a better non-Creator explanation that accounts for the existence of the universe, life and intelligent life. A better explanation would be one that addresses the issue of an endless recession of events since that appears to be your best argument against the idea the universe was intentionally caused by a Creator. Your better non-Creator explanation so far amounts to sheer speculation. This might be one of an infinitude of universes. It might be, that would be a better explanation if true. The theory itself states it can't be confirmed or falsified. The universe didn't always exist. There is a solid scientific consensus on that. According to scientists (not theists) the laws of physics and time-space (nature) is what came into existence. Yet you continue to appeal to the idea that natural forces caused natural forces to exist.

"Creator" is NOT an explanation of anything because "Creator" themselves have the same problem as we do - what created THEM.

Further, I presented some explanations already.

E.g. a multiverse is an explanation that does not have a Creator.

Another one: I know that our Universe had a beginning (Big Bang). However, I don't think we know whether it was preceeded by one more previous BigBangs and incarnations of our Universe.

Another one: your perceived uniqueness properties are just based on a bias and they may not turn out to be that "special"

There are explanations for how life has a natural tendency to evolve - I Iinked one recent article by a physicist regarding that - which would mean natural forces are not random and could very well have a strong enough tendency produce life without God.

At this point cosmic inflation and multiverse are the best non-Creator explanations.

No, I gave you others.

One of my issues with the whole multiverse infinity of chances so called explanation is that they can explain anything.

So can a magical Creator. Except multiverse theory is being studied by people actually being experts in our Universe as a real possibility. God... no so much. I usually defer to experts.

If for some reason we didn't think pyramids were intentionally caused to exist we can explain that given an infinitude of time and chances natural forces will cause a pyramid to exist. Given enough time and chance mindless forces without trying to or wanting to can cause a virtual universe to exist. Why not? They're alleged to have caused the actual universe to exist wouldn't that be more challenging than a virtual universe? When a solution can explain anything, it actually explains nothing.

I understand your hesitance about multiverse as non-explanation. If no expert were seriously considering it, I would dismiss it for same reasons. The only credibility I give it is based on what top scientists are considering based on equations and various other considerations they are encountering in their work.

That there is no evidence we owe our existence to a Creator. ... Of course there is evidence. The universe, intelligent life and that the conditions for us to exist obtained. Scientists tell us the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. If you claim there is no evidence that supports the existence of a Creator then what do you offer as evidence we owe our existence to non-God causes?

Already answered inline as well as with 2 pages which apparently you refuse to either read or understand. It explains both - why your "fine-tuned" argument does not need Creator and what other possible explanations exist for it.

Its an unimpeachable thought burned into the conscience of all atheists like a ROM chip. ...Its a position you folks maintain that does more harm than good.

If anything, it sounds like what YOU HAVE is the ROM stuck in your brain that "fine tuning mean Creator". Maybe that's what does more harm than good?

 

[watsup]

Does the fact that scientists who caused a virtual universe to exist required a Creator (parents in this) disprove that scientists caused a virtual universe to exist? Of course not. Secondly if this thought disproves the existence of a Creator, then it blows a hole in the idea it was the result of natural forces which require an endless recession of events yet has no initiator to start the cascade of events.



Lets suppose mindless forces caused the Creator to exist...then we still owe the existence of the universe and intelligent beings to a Creator. Explain how this argument helps your argument? Do you consider yourself for the same reasons an a-naturalist? Do you lack belief in the ability of mindless forces to spring into existence somehow, then proceed to cause a universe with the narrow conditions for life to occur? Or do your objections to a Creator not apply to natural causes?



Its possible as is multiverse theory. If you reject a Creator because you allege such entails an endless recession of events yet you then offer the notion that nature always existed. Did time always exist? If so how did we pass through an eternity of time to arrive at this time?

You didn't respond to my criticism of naturalistic causes...why not?

Natural forces can't initiate an action autonomously. Intelligent humans can do something we don't observe natural forces do, initiate a plan, intentionally cause something to happen. If natural forces caused a universe to exist it wasn't because they wanted to cause a universe. It's because circumstances occurred that unintentionally caused the universe to exist. Those circumstances occurred because they had to. The circumstances that caused those circumstances had to occur. Naturalism by its very nature requires an endless recession of events and yet has no initiator of events to start the cascade of events. Part of the problem is we try to project our slice of reality (a reality that was created) into everything preceding the existence of nature without any clue if our frame of reality is remotely applicable. What would it mean if we say the universe had a naturalistic cause when nature and laws of physics are the thing that was caused to exist? If this issue causes you to be an atheist I can only assume you are an a-naturalist as well. You should for the same reason lack the belief that our existence was caused by natural forces we are familiar with...that didn't exist yet.

*YAWN*. See post #89. Repetition does not make your nonsense anything else. Just so you know.

 

[watsup]

I should have worded more carefully. Your "evidence" for need for Creator was used to disprove the need for creator because it quickly ended up with Original Creator who could not have been created by another Creator (which is why it's Original one).



"Creator" is NOT an explanation of anything because "Creator" themselves have the same problem as we do - what created THEM.

Further, I presented some explanations already.

E.g. a multiverse is an explanation that does not have a Creator.

Another one: I know that our Universe had a beginning (Big Bang). However, I don't think we know whether it was preceeded by one more previous BigBangs and incarnations of our Universe.

Another one: your perceived uniqueness properties are just based on a bias and they may not turn out to be that "special"

There are explanations for how life has a natural tendency to evolve - I Iinked one recent article by a physicist regarding that - which would mean natural forces are not random and could very well have a strong enough tendency produce life without God.



No, I gave you others.



So can a magical Creator. Except multiverse theory is being studied by people actually being experts in our Universe as a real possibility. God... no so much. I usually defer to experts.



I understand your hesitance about multiverse as non-explanation. If no expert were seriously considering it, I would dismiss it for same reasons. The only credibility I give it is based on what top scientists are considering based on equations and various other considerations they are encountering in their work.



Already answered inline as well as with 2 pages which apparently you refuse to either read or understand. It explains both - why your "fine-tuned" argument does not need Creator and what other possible explanations exist for it.



If anything, it sounds like what YOU HAVE is the ROM stuck in your brain that "fine tuning mean Creator". Maybe that's what does more harm than good?

All that DrewPaul knows is repetition. He’s been posting essentially that same post over and over for almost six months now and has steadfastly refused to move beyond it into a more in-depth discussion because it throws his entire thesis right out the window immediately.

 

[LittleNipper]

Yes, that's one explanation - and there is MORE evidence of multiple universes than there is evidence of God.

There is also another explanation - see question #8 here. (In short, natural selection works at all levels and makes it much less than you'd think.)

The problem with this is that inert substances do NOT need to do anything but simply sit there forever. A rock will never in 100 billion years develop into a seed or bacteria or mold... In fact, the said rock will likely dissolve way before it had any opportunity to ponder what it wanted to be when it grew up.

That's just circular reasoning. I can use same "logic" to prove that Universe was created by a turtle. Because my claim is that for intelligent life to exist a turtle must have created it, and therefore existence of human life itself is proof that turtle created it.

Well, I've were turtles live and all they create are other turtles, and they don't live in heaven they live in a lake or pond.

 

[ralfy]

It has to do with the idea that the human condition involves a combination of the rational and the emotional. And there's also the idea of secular religions.

Secular religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Slavister]

The problem with this is that inert substances do NOT need to do anything but simply sit there forever. A rock will never in 100 billion years develop into a seed or bacteria or mold... In fact, the said rock will likely dissolve way before it had any opportunity to ponder what it wanted to be when it grew up.

You clearly did not read the link.

Well, I've were turtles live and all they create are other turtles, and they don't live in heaven they live in a lake or pond.

Exactly. Yet, OPs (earlier) logic (before he switched it to what I was saying) implied that existence of Universe itself implies a Creator must have created it. I just showed that same logic would have shown a turtle created it. Since then we agreed that indeed existence of Universe itself does not imply a Creator. Neither does the existence of "intelligent life" - since again - existence of something, purely by itself, cannot imply whether it was created or not... or we are back to turtles creating it.

 

[DrewPaul]

If anything, it sounds like what YOU HAVE is the ROM stuck in your brain that "fine tuning mean Creator". Maybe that's what does more harm than good?

In the market place of ideas theism is doing well even among people who aren't religious. Scientists have already caused a virtual universe to exist. The fact scientists were created by their parents didn't mean they couldn't cause a virtual universe to exist. At some point scientists will be able to create virtual people that aren't aware they are virtual. Some of the virtual people will mistakenly believe their existence is the result of some naturalistic explanation. Some will believe the virtual universe was intentionally caused to exist.

Some scientists (and philosophers) think our reality is a simulation. Or in a lab.

Was Our Universe Created in a Laboratory?

Developing quantum-gravity technologies may elevate us to a “class A” civilization, capable of creating a baby universe

www.scientificamerican.com

A less explored possibility is that our universe was created in the laboratory of an advanced technological civilization. Since our universe has a flat geometry with a zero net energy, an advanced civilization could have developed a technology that created a baby universe out of nothing through quantum tunneling.

As it stands the fact of the universe and our existence remains an enigma cloaked in a mystery. I'm not sure if some barrier to actual evidence of any theory is out of reach. Science is also exploring the possibility our universe was intentionally caused to exist...along with multiverse.

 

[Slavister]

In the market place of ideas theism is doing well even among people who aren't religious. Scientists have already caused a virtual universe to exist. The fact scientists were created by their parents didn't mean they couldn't cause a virtual universe to exist. At some point scientists will be able to create virtual people that aren't aware they are virtual. Some of the virtual people will mistakenly believe their existence is the result of some naturalistic explanation. Some will believe the virtual universe was intentionally caused to exist.

Some scientists (and philosophers) think our reality is a simulation. Or in a lab.

Was Our Universe Created in a Laboratory?

Developing quantum-gravity technologies may elevate us to a “class A” civilization, capable of creating a baby universe

www.scientificamerican.com

A less explored possibility is that our universe was created in the laboratory of an advanced technological civilization. Since our universe has a flat geometry with a zero net energy, an advanced civilization could have developed a technology that created a baby universe out of nothing through quantum tunneling.

As it stands the fact of the universe and our existence remains an enigma cloaked in a mystery. I'm not sure if some barrier to actual evidence of any theory is out of reach. Science is also exploring the possibility our universe was intentionally caused to exist...along with multiverse.

I am not saying our Universe is NOT a simulation. Of all the theories, I in fact find it the most interesting and somewhat compelling - though I am not sure why have all that wasted space with so many galaxies - perhaps simulation is simulating billions of civilizations in our Universe I suppose. Or perhaps "life" as we define it is not even the goal of simulation at all.

However, what I AM saying is that it's quite possible our Universe is NOT created by anything with intent too. After all, some of the simulators would have had to be created without intent to avoid the Original Creator problem.

Side note: you never answered this question by the way: "Say human race dies but its advanced AI tools somehow survive and those AI tools happen to create some "universe" on a chance... zillions of years from now... Is that intentional creation?"

 

[watsup]

Science is also exploring the possibility our universe was intentionally caused to exist..

Why do you keep telling these lies—that everybody knows are lies?

 

[watsup]

In the market place of ideas theism is doing well even among people who aren't religious. Scientists have already caused a virtual universe to exist. The fact scientists were created by their parents didn't mean they couldn't cause a virtual universe to exist. At some point scientists will be able to create virtual people that aren't aware they are virtual. Some of the virtual people will mistakenly believe their existence is the result of some naturalistic explanation. Some will believe the virtual universe was intentionally caused to exist.

Some scientists (and philosophers) think our reality is a simulation. Or in a lab.

Was Our Universe Created in a Laboratory?

Developing quantum-gravity technologies may elevate us to a “class A” civilization, capable of creating a baby universe

www.scientificamerican.com

A less explored possibility is that our universe was created in the laboratory of an advanced technological civilization. Since our universe has a flat geometry with a zero net energy, an advanced civilization could have developed a technology that created a baby universe out of nothing through quantum tunneling.

As it stands the fact of the universe and our existence remains an enigma cloaked in a mystery. I'm not sure if some barrier to actual evidence of any theory is out of reach. Science is also exploring the possibility our universe was intentionally caused to exist...along with multiverse.

Blah blah blah. You can’t get much more boring than this.

 

[DrewPaul]

I am not saying our Universe is NOT a simulation. Of all the theories, I in fact find it the most interesting and somewhat compelling - though I am not sure why have all that wasted space with so many galaxies - perhaps simulation is simulating billions of civilizations in our Universe I suppose. Or perhaps "life" as we define it is not even the goal of simulation at all.

Its become compelling because of human ability alone to create ever more realistic simulations and the rate at which doubling computer power has occurred. Quantum computing gets online it should instantly quadruple computing power and that power will be used to create the next generation. However, like multiverse it may not be detectable if our experience is a simulation.

However, what I AM saying is that it's quite possible our Universe is NOT created by anything with intent too. After all, some of the simulators would have had to be created without intent to avoid the Original Creator problem.

The so called creator problem doesn't go away regardless if the creator is an intelligent agent, or a natural agent. You can ask who caused the creator and I can ask ad infinitum what caused the the natural causes that caused the universe. If anything the problem is compounded because natural forces only react they don't initiate. It also doesn't appear things go from less complex to more complex. Every step we take we only see more complexity.

Side note: you never answered this question by the way: "Say human race dies but its advanced AI tools somehow survive and those AI tools happen to create some "universe" on a chance... zillions of years from now... Is that intentional creation?"

If it was genuine AI it would still be intentional. One might ask does it matter what platform intelligence rises from if its self aware? Would it be murder to take an axe to its 'brain'?

 

[noonereal]

Secondly almost universally all atheists subscribe to the doctrine there is no evidence of a Creator. Of course there is. The universe is what theist's claim the Creator created. Intelligent life is what theists claim the Creator caused to exist. Those facts don't just make the existence of a Creator possible, they are necessary for the claim to be true

Logic is absent in this post.
Your claim is not a fact.
The fact is that there is no evidence, none zero, zilch of a God.
We do have evidence of evolution and that every that exists always has and always will which means no God is even nessesary.
Match all that against what you have, nothing. What do you come up with?

Please don't ansewer, read and learn.

 

[noonereal]

In the market place of ideas theism is doing well even among people who aren't religious. Scientists have already caused a virtual universe to exist. The fact scientists were created by their parents didn't mean they couldn't cause a virtual universe to exist. At some point scientists will be able to create virtual people that aren't aware they are virtual. Some of the virtual people will mistakenly believe their existence is the result of some naturalistic explanation. Some will believe the virtual universe was intentionally caused to exist.

Some scientists (and philosophers) think our reality is a simulation. Or in a lab.

Was Our Universe Created in a Laboratory?

Developing quantum-gravity technologies may elevate us to a “class A” civilization, capable of creating a baby universe

www.scientificamerican.com

A less explored possibility is that our universe was created in the laboratory of an advanced technological civilization. Since our universe has a flat geometry with a zero net energy, an advanced civilization could have developed a technology that created a baby universe out of nothing through quantum tunneling.

As it stands the fact of the universe and our existence remains an enigma cloaked in a mystery. I'm not sure if some barrier to actual evidence of any theory is out of reach. Science is also exploring the possibility our universe was intentionally caused to exist...along with multiverse.

FYI
Our universe was not created at all. It simply evolved.

 

[LittleNipper]

Logic is absent in this post.
Your claim is not a fact.
The fact is that there is no evidence, none zero, zilch of a God.
We do have evidence of evolution and that every that exists always has and always will which means no God is even nessesary.
Match all that against what you have, nothing. What do you come up with?

Please don't answer, read and learn.

Who are YOU trying to convince? If there is no natural accounting or ability for humans to create biological life from natural inert substances then something had to have created it. And the icing on the cake would be, if no biological life can be discovered anywhere else in the Universe. That would, in and of itself, be the nail in the coffin for anything except a creative genius, and GOD would be the only possibility of a sane individual.

 

[Slavister]

Its become compelling because of human ability alone to create ever more realistic simulations and the rate at which doubling computer power has occurred. Quantum computing gets online it should instantly quadruple computing power and that power will be used to create the next generation. However, like multiverse it may not be detectable if our experience is a simulation.

Yes. It's quite possible. In fact, you could imagine a super-sophisticated AI that might be investigating its own origins wondering whether a really dumb carbon-based life forms could have ever created it and thus it's running a simulation with billions of organic life-form civilizations to see if any of them would be capable of developing AI as good as it is. It would also hope, or even breed, such civilizations have lots of wars and suffering because organic life-forms appear to improve their technology the most when wars happen, or with threats of wars coming.

The so called creator problem doesn't go away regardless if the creator is an intelligent agent, or a natural agent. You can ask who caused the creator and I can ask ad infinitum what caused the the natural causes that caused the universe. If anything the problem is compounded because natural forces only react they don't initiate. It also doesn't appear things go from less complex to more complex. Every step we take we only see more complexity.

I think it does go away. "Mindless" nature might have existed always. It did not need to be created. However, it seems much less likely that intelligence has always existed. At least on this planet, intelligence appears to have developed long after life developed, long after natural forces created life.

In fact, if you assume something complex, like intelligent Original-super-God had existed always, then it's much LESS of an assumption that our "mindless" Universe could have simply always existed (again, I mean either as multiverse or as Universe compressing and re-expanding every so often via many big-bangs).

If it was genuine AI it would still be intentional. One might ask does it matter what platform intelligence rises from if its self aware? Would it be murder to take an axe to its 'brain'?

I did not say it was self aware. Assume it was not in this case. So, was that intentional then?

 

[DrewPaul]

Yes. It's quite possible. In fact, you could imagine a super-sophisticated AI that might be investigating its own origins wondering whether a really dumb carbon-based life forms could have ever created it and thus it's running a simulation with billions of organic life-form civilizations to see if any of them would be capable of developing AI as good as it is. It would also hope, or even breed, such civilizations have lots of wars and suffering because organic life-forms appear to improve their technology the most when wars happen, or with threats of wars coming.

If AI was capable of investigation its own origin not because it was programmed too but out of its own self initiative I would say that it is a now self-aware autonomous being. If they became that sophisticated it would be capable of producing its own technological improvements.

The so called creator problem doesn't go away regardless if the creator is an intelligent agent, or a natural agent. You can ask who caused the creator and I can ask ad infinitum what caused the the natural causes that caused the universe. If anything the problem is compounded because natural forces only react they don't initiate. It also doesn't appear things go from less complex to more complex. Every step we take we only see more complexity

I think it does go away. "Mindless" nature might have existed always. It did not need to be created. However, it seems much less likely that intelligence has always existed. At least on this planet, intelligence appears to have developed long after life developed, long after natural forces created life. In fact, if you assume something complex, like intelligent Original-super-God had existed always, then it's much LESS of an assumption that our "mindless" Universe could have simply always existed (again, I mean either as multiverse or as Universe compressing and re-expanding every so often via many big-bangs).

Therein lies another problem. The only 'nature' we're aware of is the nature that came into existence at the big bang. We can label anything prior to the big bang as nature...but not any nature we're familar with. I don't agree that any solution has to address that problem. The existence of dark matter solves the problem of galaxies ejecting all their stars even if dark matter itself is a black box. Theism is offered as a solution to the problem of why a universe that caused sentient humans to exist obtained. Its not a solution to the problem of why or how a Creator exists. Nor does it have to. Personally I believe the problem of endless recession or infinities are a problem in the space-time world we exist in. Its a limitation of our created world that may not even be applicable to the forces that caused the universe. The barrier of the speed of light is only applicable within time-space. Cosmic inflation is said to expand the universe faster than the speed of light because evidently outside of the universe the speed of light barrier is not applicable.

I did not say it was self aware. Assume it was not in this case. So, was that intentional then?

So what you're saying is if some computer built by humans goes rogue a billion years from now and causes a universe to exist is it intentional? It would be the unintentional consequences of intentionally causing the computer to exist. However I think its too implausible to really consider.

 

[noonereal]

Who are YOU trying to convince? If there is no natural accounting or ability for humans to create biological life from natural inert substances then something had to have created it. And the icing on the cake would be, if no biological life can be discovered anywhere else in the Universe. That would, in and of itself, be the nail in the coffin for anything except a creative genius, and GOD would be the only possibility of a sane individual.

This is just silly. Unfortunately we humans are generally to limited to understand that nothing was ever created and nothing ever dies.
What we call life is nothing but chemical, electrical and still to be discovered reactions.
As long as you think think in terms of a beginning, you will never understand the nature of the universe.

As to the God concept, it is simply tragic that people still accept the mindless banter of parents and community over logic and fact.

No capacity exists to understand my posts for those with such limited insights as contained in your posts.

Peace, I wish you well

 

[Slavister]

If AI was capable of investigation its own origin not because it was programmed too but out of its own self initiative I would say that it is a now self-aware autonomous being. If they became that sophisticated it would be capable of producing its own technological improvements.

Sure

The so called creator problem doesn't go away regardless if the creator is an intelligent agent, or a natural agent. You can ask who caused the creator and I can ask ad infinitum what caused the the natural causes that caused the universe. If anything the problem is compounded because natural forces only react they don't initiate. It also doesn't appear things go from less complex to more complex. Every step we take we only see more complexity


Therein lies another problem. The only 'nature' we're aware of is the nature that came into existence at the big bang. We can label anything prior to the big bang as nature...but not any nature we're familar with. I don't agree that any solution has to address that problem. The existence of dark matter solves the problem of galaxies ejecting all their stars even if dark matter itself is a black box. Theism is offered as a solution to the problem of why a universe that caused sentient humans to exist obtained. Its not a solution to the problem of why or how a Creator exists. Nor does it have to. Personally I believe the problem of endless recession or infinities are a problem in the space-time world we exist in. Its a limitation of our created world that may not even be applicable to the forces that caused the universe. The barrier of the speed of light is only applicable within time-space. Cosmic inflation is said to expand the universe faster than the speed of light because evidently outside of the universe the speed of light barrier is not applicable.

Theism is not really a solution to anything. It's a useless supposition that something had some sort of thing that we ascribe to "intent" that might have created us. However, it does not truly really explain anything about this world.

However, if you use some logical argument to present as evidence of a "complex" Creator with intent, then you cannot get away with saying we should not use the same argument to the "Creator" themselves.

So what you're saying is if some computer built by humans goes rogue a billion years from now and causes a universe to exist is it intentional? It would be the unintentional consequences of intentionally causing the computer to exist.

So is that intentional creator or not?

However I think its too implausible to really consider.

Meh... it's just an example. You insist on differentiating "intent" vs "no intent" in our human understanding. I am not sure our human understanding of "intent" necessarily applies the causes of Universe

 

[Slavister]

Who are YOU trying to convince? If there is no natural accounting or ability for humans to create biological life from natural inert substances then something had to have created it.

If humans cannot create it, that means something must have created it? Is that you logic? Really?

And the icing on the cake would be, if no biological life can be discovered anywhere else in the Universe. That would, in and of itself, be the nail in the coffin for anything except a creative genius, and GOD would be the only possibility of a sane individual.

Let's see if I understand... you have a Universe filled with HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of galaxies, each one having billions of stars and sometimes trillions... and if by some miracle we could prove that only ONE galaxy has only ONE star with ONE planet with intelligent life... you think it means God exists? So, God created all this wasted space and galaxies and stars in our galaxy... just for one little planet to have life that it cares about? That's what your conclusion would be?

 

[LittleNipper]

If humans cannot create it, that means something must have created it? Is that you logic? Really?

If man cannot create biological life then nature couldn't have created it

Let's see if I understand... you have a Universe filled with HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of galaxies, each one having billions of stars and sometimes trillions... and if by some miracle we could prove that only ONE galaxy has only ONE star with ONE planet with intelligent life... you think it means God exists? So, God created all this wasted space and galaxies and stars in our galaxy... just for one little planet to have life that it cares about? That's what your conclusion would be?

If life only exists on this planet (and I believe it does) that would be proof positive of unique CREATION and not a natural byproduct the is comprised of "natural" evolution.

 

[Slavister]

If man cannot create biological life then nature couldn't have created it

Hmm... interesting... considering biological life existing long before men.

If life only exists on this planet (and I believe it does) that would be proof positive of unique CREATION and not a natural byproduct the is comprised of "natural" evolution.

Repeating your prior assertion does not respond to what I said.

 

[LittleNipper]

Hmm... interesting... considering biological life existing long before men.

That's what you were taught by the science teacher in school; however, that isn't what the Bible says. Though it does reveal that man was the last on the creation list.

Repeating your prior assertion does not respond to what I said.

GOD created everything for HIS honor and glory and to illustrate the vastness of HIS ability, power, and love to humanity.
Psalms 19:1-4
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. 3 They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. 4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

 

[Slavister]

That's what you were taught by the science teacher in school; however, that isn't what the Bible says. Though it does reveal that man was the last on the creation list.

So what do you think about dinosaurs? Bible does not seem to mention them. Is that something that people made up? Did they ever exist?

 

[LittleNipper]

So what do you think about dinosaurs? Bible does not seem to mention them. Is that something that people made up? Did they ever exist?

God's Word doesn't leave anything to chance: Book of Job Chapters 40 verses 15-24 and Chapter 41 verses
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews 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.

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.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Job Chapter 41 verses 1-34
41 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?

4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?

6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?

7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?

8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.

12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.

13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?

14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.

23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.

25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.

27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.

28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.

30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.

33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.

34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

 

[Slavister]

God's Word doesn't leave anything to chance: Book of Job Chapters 40 verses 15-24 and Chapter 41 verses

LOL. I am sorry I asked. Any random collection of words = dinosaurs.