Tsunami: Where Was God? 7pm C4

Custard, I continually ask myself the questions and the more I read and find out, the more I know there is no afterlife. You mustn't be asking the right questions as to me its a clear cut answer.

Maybe if your god didn't speak to 2,000 year old individuals and wasn't so benign then I may start believing.

ovalman - as i said in my very first post it all comes down to faith in the end , i have it [didnt for 44yrs] and obviously you don't , so we will just have to agree to disagree .

Good programme that i thought .

mind bending cr^p i thought

preferred the dan brown stuff last night

Fair point for defending your beliefs on a betting forum full of degenerates and atheists. I look at things from a scientific viewpoint, I wish all religionists do likewise.

Never believe something because someone told you, always find out your own answers.

ovalman - i did look at things from both sides , evolution and creation and found the evolution [science] side of things full of holes where as i found the creation viewpoint spot on .

CC I have to disagree with your interpretation of the word Faith, you have faith in God, you are saying Ovalman has no faith whatsoever which is unjustified imo.

so who created God then? surely HE's the one we should be worshipping?

custard ... do you believe in the devil too ?

pang - im sorry if that comes across like that , but ovalman as said he cant find any scientic reason to believe in god so im assuming he as no faith or believe of any kind .

moon-yes .

The holes are being filled in on evolution, its the way science works, while religion seems to unwind at every opportunity. I don't know the big answers but they can be explained a lot more through science than any religion.

ahh .. ok .. ty

No faith in god does not mean you cannot have faith & beliefs in life C-C

ovalman - do you have any believes or faith in anything ?

I don't believe there is any higher being in the universe. If there is a creator, who created the creator? There's no easy answer.

ok

u appear to enjoy knocking God but dont believe in him.

No one knows what went on with the tsunami or indeed many other disasters, it could just be feasible, tho ull prob never know, that mankind has caused many a natural disaster, you have no idea oof the effect of underground nuclear testing, mining etc has on the earth's fragile crust.

Mankind has lived without God for a long time, we dont want him, yet when something goes wrong, we blame him for it!
No one deserves to suffer ..specially children, but i would argue that this miserable here today gone tomorrow existence cannot compare with eternity where all suffering will cease, if u dont believe u have no hope of anything except returning to the dust from which u came.

that was to canary btw

There's no easy answers.

I don't like the big bang theory, it calls for an inflationary universe which things expand much faster than the speed of light. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light which smacks of scientific progress. Many scientists are happy with this but I'm not, I feel dark matter has a lot to do with things. I haven't discounted Fred Hoyle's steady state universe which I feel answers a lot better than any current feeling. But I'm not a scientist, I only read about science in layman's terms.

I keep asking questions however, religion has NEVER gave me an answer. The more I read religion (whatever faith) the more I know it is wrong.

God is made in man's image and nothing else.

the more i study the more i am convinced of supreme intelligent design And mankind's need of a saviour, the world is very very sick.

if u dont believe u have no hope of anything except returning to the dust from which u came.

-----------------------

which is why people are so ready to accept religion despite the flimsy evidence. an eternity in heaven where you are reunited with your loved ones and everyone is happy all the time? who wouldn't want a piece of that?

you read too much Tony ;-)

which is why people are so ready to accept religion despite the flimsy evidence. an eternity in heaven where you are reunited with your loved ones and everyone is happy all the time? who wouldn't want a piece of that?

Like the guy who tried to blow up the plane on Xmas day because his god was right?

why can't God himself be the supreme big boss scientist?

Theres so much evidence of his hand in creation, but the simple faith of the believer will be happy with the statement: 'God said'

As for the longing for heaven scenario, thats not the point, its based on LOVE ...nothing to do with eternal insurance, just an acceptance of God's grace..ie the free gift of salvation in jesus christ.

Hes really made evrything so simple - even for scientists!

exactly. If he believed that once you die you just rot in the ground, I think he'd probably cherish his time on Earth a bit more.

ovalman murder is wrong, the terrorists are murdering in the 'name' of a god, but actually using religion to further their own selfish aims

Why is you God so benign?

Is the Christian god correct? What about Allah, Buddah, Zeus or any one of the 1000 and 1 gods on this planet?

not if u believe in eternity, and whos to say he doesnt punish in the here and now anyway..i dont know the answer to that one and wouldnt presume to say for eg. hes punishing the usa now!! tho he may be...and i do believe in the tribulation period to come, when suffering will indeed reach new heights, and the reaon i believe it is because it says so...as u know i believe the bible is the word of God, its man who interprets it to suit his own ends

none of the other religions allow a mere human to become Gods friend, adopted child, offer forgiveness of sin through grace alone

as u know i believe the bible is the word of God, its man who interprets it to suit his own ends

Which you have done, predicted the World would end and failed, hasn't the penny dropped yet?

Jesus was a human

Custard offered me a decent reasoned argument, you have none Tony.

er, the world will indeed end ..im not reponsible for false prophets....i said the bible, not weinlands book, i fell for it in part but also used his statments in conjunction with bible prophesis and my own studies..where wienland goes worng imo is to give dates, i wont do that any more, have hopefully learned a valuable lesson..God has his own timetable, and then u may realise he may not be so benign, but on saying that just maybe hes forestalling because he wants people like urself to come to salvation

if God exists there is only one

custard used faith as a basis for her arguments, and i agree with everything she said, for without faith we wouldnt believe in the creation story at all

everyone knows religion is just a made up reason /story/control propoganda - to keep the masses in check,but why spoil it for all the needy who believe in it - if it works for them let them cling to this hope /believe to help them lead better happier lives.

I'll wait until I see the asteroid about to hit me on the head and then I'll convert, sure I'll be at the top table just as yourself.

The Christian God is a man nailed to a cross, in absolute poverty, dying in "need of all things."

I suggest there might be a clue in there...

think you'll find that was Jesus :)

tb - custard is a he not a she !

how can u even attempt to argue with jesus' main commandment, love god and your neighbour, if everyone only did as he said without adding any 'buts' into the equation, the world would certainly be a better place by far
I would imagine God saying 'ok, u dont believe, see where it gets you, see how u get on without me, ' and the majority of the world's population do try to get on without him, and look what a mess weve made of things, if only we'd do as he said!

oh darn cc uve ruined all my illusions no wonder u wouldnt go out with me!!

wheres ovalman i think he must be on his knees!!

i have enjoyed this thread, have to go and make some spoonsize shredded wheat now, i know this important slice of info wont go un noticed... tc

So did God cause the Tsunami Tony?

I didn't see the program BTW.

Ovalman 27 Dec 21:43
Is the Christian god correct? What about Allah, Buddah, Zeus or any one of the 1000 and 1 gods on this planet?
----------------

The "Christian" God is Jesus himself - Jesus is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Buddha never claimed to be God. The Allah of the Koran is inscrutable and unknowable - the opposite of Jesus, who is immanent.

If you want to know about Thor and Odin, check out the Vikings and Nazis.

I told you and Custard, I listen to every point of view. I think yours is a little more crackpot than others but I still respect it.

You and Vel to a certain extent won't listen to reason and don't see any point of the argument. I think you'd make a good suicide bomber in another religion.

God didn't "cause" the Tsunami - he ALLOWED it to happen.

The entire Book of Job is about the seemingly pointless suffering of an apparently "righteous" man. Jesus also talks about the people who died when the tower of Siloam collapsed.

What about the poor little one year old kids he killed?

What religion where they?

All one year old Moslems?

Did he allow that to happen because the were Moslems?

What about the odd 1 year old Christian he killed? OK if there's 1,000 Moslems?

Ovalman - if you represent "reason" then I want no part of your reason...you make the most absurd, verbose accusations - they fly about like cow sh1t thrown in a hurricane.

You and Vel to a certain extent won't listen to reason

spot on but thats why you are wasting your time ovalman,point out a white piece of paper and before you know it they will swear its black.

what question have I offended you on?

Don't you ask your God the same questions?

I can't imagine anyne who actually believes in God expects him to be doing them favours down here

Ovalman - Did he allow that to happen because the were Moslems?

What about the odd 1 year old Christian he killed? OK if there's 1,000 Moslems?
---------------------------

I wouldn't presume to know. I'm in Glasgow and I have my own tragedies and disappointments to face. I would presume to shout at God about those.

Religionists speak in rhetoric and don't usually live "in the now", good answer Vel.

I have to laugh at this use of words like "reason" and "science" - they're used totemically by Ovalman and Hearts.

Does it never occur to you pygmies that the likes of Plato, Socrates, Pascal, or indeed the prophets of the Old Testament, would never think to divorce God from reason...? And yet you presume to do so...

Quote from the Bible : "Come, let us reason together."

Plato and Socrates didn't belieev in your God while Pascal took the easy option out of his theory. Please don't cut your own throat.

Isaac Newton said "Standing on the shoulder of giants" which is apt as there ar others that have come after him that have proved him wrong.

Custard had a reasoned argument with me, you 2 are just preaching.

"Please don't cut your own throat."

Is that a reasonable and scientific statement...? Or is it rhetoric? I mean, I wasn't actually thinking of doing it...I was more like, "I quite fancy a ham and mustard sarnie with a glass of Guinness..."

You quoted 2 Greek Scientists before Christianity was invented and one who said a daft theory and you expect me to respect what you say?

Pascals theory/ reason/ whatever- better to believe in something than nothing as if you don't believe in something and die you will go to nothing.

Ovalman - The Ancient Greeks also worshipped the "Agnostos Theos" -- the "Unknown God" -- and Michelangelo was so impressed that he included the Greek philosophers in the Sistine Chapel paintings.

See also Raphael's "School of Athens."

New Testament :

"Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you."

Worshipping false gods were those Greeks?

"TO AN UNKNOWN GOD."

Very humble.

Which God?

How can yo be sure it was your God? I mean the Jesus God didn't come on the show for another couple of hundred years.

Er...no, mate...he had been already! Paul was about to "proclaim" him!

Jesus wasn't God .

and in theory if he was sent by God ... surely God had been here forever !

Jesus IS God.

Son of God

Vel will answer you with quotes or riddles and offer no argument.

That's what separates the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and so on, from Christians.

That's how to get the JWs from your doorstep : If you say, "Jesus is God," they go batsh1t and quickly flee the scene, to sell their pamphlets elsewhere.

Ovalman will answer you with his OPINION, derived from thousands of unknown sources, and subject to every whim and fancy...

Fair do's, I will give you my opinion which is formed from 1000's of sources throughout my life.

Its an ongoing opinion not formed from 2,000 year old hearsay.

So...you prefer hear-say that...was on the "History Channel" in the last few weeks, between the adverts...?

Vel, you have NEVER put an argument in front of me. You've always quoted from the Bible. Give me some substance and I might respect your views.

And what have you put in front of me?

Ovalman, you don't seem to understand that you've written and quoted your very own "bible." Go and check what the word "bible" actually means and which language it's derived from.

This thread has the word "God" in its title - but don't (whatever you do) quote from the Bible, a foundational text in Western law and history!

Yeah, I can see you're a man of "reason" !

It is a one way street.

I had a decent and constructive argument with Custard earlier, we disagreed but the respect was there. You and Tony have no arguments, you are right and we are wrong.

Ovalman - Is that how it seems to you?

Poor fella.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy what's left of this Winterval Festival.

Here's my gift recommendation for the 12 days of Winterval : "Reason, Science and Faith," by Roger Forster and Paul Marston.

Also, "Folk Dances of the Iberian Peninsula" by Herman Notkey-Dawlish. A cracking read. I was going to quote from it, but I thought I'd chuck in some Bible stuff instead.

G'night.

ovalman if i was preaching, i would say something like, you either believe that jesus christ died for your sins, or you will spend eternity without God.

That, you may say, is fair enough, as you don't believe in a god anyway, christians have to live by faith, they either believe in God's providential grace and mercy as represented by christ's sacrifice, or they look elsewhere for answer to life's great seemingly unanswered questions.

I do indeed respect your views, we are coming at this tv prog question from different angles which can find no common ground for agreement.
The fact is i just dont think anyone can blame god for every disaster which happens, i can look at the miracles of nature in all her glory and see intelligent design at work, whereas you adhere to the principles of a more scientific explanation...to me science and Gods creation actually go hand in hand.

My mail is God had a bit too much to drink celebrating his sons birthday the day before and was not up for saving people on boxing day.

his sons birthday isnt christmas day joel

interesting username btw..your name means ' Jehovah is the Lord.'

ovalman. Found this from christian answers.net

who created God?
A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question Who created God? is illogical, just like To whom is the bachelor married?

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
Its important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.


Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.

So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.


Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn't think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.

Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

IN SUMMARY
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

OBJECTIONS
There are only two ways to refute an argument:

Show that it is logically invalid

Show that at least one of the premises is false.

Is the argument valid?
A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this article is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore Moby Dick has a backbone. So the only hope for the skeptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.

Are the premises true?
1. Does the universe have a beginning?

Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy.

This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2

Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is open.


According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3

Some recent evidence for an open universe comes from the number of light-bending gravitational lenses in the sky.4 Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universes expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe.5,6 It seems there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a big crunch.

Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable inflationary version of the big bang theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse a flat universe.

Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical big crunch.7

As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.

Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that's the end.8

2. Denial of cause and effect

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario should not be taken too seriously.

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate their quantum vacuum is a lot of matter-antimatter potential not nothing.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

Is creation by God rational?

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened before the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened before the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universes beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (17241804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this cant be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A final thought

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called

Amazing they can try and rationalise their fantasies with bunkum like that!
It doesn't stand up to any scrutiny from the first sentence onwards!

rude not to get the thread over 300 imo

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?


I hope this is of assistance in clearing up any doubt whatsoever!

i didnt see the programme last night but since the tsunami I have thought about it in terms of religion.

the tsunami was caused by an underground earthquake, triggered when the giant plates that make up the earth shifted.

if you believe in god, you believe god created the earth. therefore, the giant plates design was gods idea. when the great one was planning the earth, he obviously did not envisage how these plates could shift and cause destruction.

shoddy workmanship. poor planning.

either that or he just went ahead with his giant plates design regardless. maybe that was the first design he came up with and just went with that.

shoddy workmanship ,negligent or just lazy?

"thank god i survived"

idiots. if your house fell down because of an inherent flaw in its design, you wouldnt climb out of the rubble shouting "thank the architecht i survived"

it was some time, 10 or 15 mins?, between the earthquake and the giant wave hitting the shore.

god is all seeing, all powerful, and all good.

god saw the initial earthquake as he is all seeing.
god knew the destruction that was about to occur.
he knew it would be terrible as he is all good.
god could have stopped it as he is all powerful.

but he didnt. why not? was he in the bath? on the ps2 with jesus? what was more important to him at that time?

if i had 10 mins to click my fingers to save 500000 lives yet didnt.... i would be a hate figure. i would be strung up.

spot on

And what if overpopulation happens on this planet? Is it God's fault as well?

he would certainly have played a big part due to how the catholic church oppose contraception.

tho he tries to offset it giving people aids

Hardest job in the world imo

If god exists then why did he make his most loyal followers into kiddie fiddlers? This god fella obviously is not in full control of his own program is he?

Also, since no one can actually communicate with the great being, then how is that a zillion years after he created the universe did he happen to drop a few thousand pages of the bible off, (twice in fact), to let us know how he felt. And in doing so, given the zillions of years to prepare the manuscript did he leave it with so many holes and contradictions in it, and why no mention of Alah, mohammed etc etc. Surely he knew of there existence and wanted to clarify his position at the earliest opportunity.

Why also does every single religious group beg for cash, and services. Surely god would have equipped his most loyal followers with some skills to avoid such perils as begging for handouts, aside from peadophillia.

On other side of the debate, we have half of the planet fighting over which version of god and or his rules we should be following. This many people cannot be wrong surely? The fact that they cannot agree is not the point is it, they all want to be right and that is really what religion is about. The more we are seen to be right, the more we can secretly break the rules right?

Simple stuff for simple peoples.

Happy new year god whoppers!

The earth was not designed. It is an accident of physics in itself. Caused by an explosion/implosion. If it were designed then so was every other planet, star, astroid etc, and the all came from the same firework. Surely even the godwhopping brigade can see the implausability of that, and grant the thousands and thousands of agreeing scientists that they have in fact proven enough of the universe to dispel some uber being as an architect.

Remind me, I have forgotten. Where is the actual evidence for god being the architect of the universe? Apart from mass propaganda, there is actually no evidence is there?

TJM, if you lift up Bulgaria, he's put his name underneath.

That is a red herring Sparky. It was supposed to read GO DIG ELSEWHERE, but they found vodka and lost the chisel on day 4.