since nobody actually knows what happened, or the specs involved, any statement about probability is just a matter of opinion. if a self-replicating organism is numerous and replicates rapidly you could have a massive number (like potentially quadrillions or quintillions) of trials in a very short time. you can't say DNA couldn't evolve in a million years, much less billions.
I do agree with much of what you're posting. I just found the "as close to scientific fact" claim to be baseless, as there are so many variables that are unknown to even those who propose these theories.
Besides the fact that there's is not a single archaeological finding that contradicts the events recorded in the Bible. In fact it's the exact opposite, the more discoveries made the more it backs the stories told in the Bible. If there was a discovery that contradicted the Bible, you'd have heard about. People have been trying to do it for centuries.
Yeah, I would think that Christ's last words would not be something they could have had 'different experiences' with. Unless you are claiming that in some supernatural way he spoke different last words to each of them as he died. Occam's Razor. It's by far the simplest explanation that fits the facts. No, I can't prove it. So what? You can't prove that God exists. Could be all sorts of motives. Might be political, might be social, might be religious, might just be to make the story more entertaining for the listener. So tell me, what were Jesus' last words? barfo
The historical truth of some of the events in the bible doesn't make it the word of God, any more than the historical truth of the events in yesterday's newspaper make the Oregonian the word of God. barfo
you should do a little objective research on this subject. the events in genesis and exodus are almost entirely contradicted by every relevant branch of science.
I saw a mention of abiogenesis in this thread as an explanation for the origin of organic and animate life. If that theory is true, it shouldn't be difficult to find many examples of it throughout history. Unless, of course, it was a one-time event, in which case, is just as faith-based as any tales of creationism. ETA - I do find abiogenesis in terms of the creation of crude oil to be much more plausible than the old and tired "fossil fuel" conventional wisdom.
Not really comparable, because probability and cost-benefit also have to be factored in. The "benefit" obtained via a godless life is far outweighed by the potential benefit of a godly life, and the probability of one versus the other is much more favorable than in the examples you cited.
I already explained the first two to you, clearly what He says in the gospel of Luke happened after what He said in Matthew. There's no reason all three of those saying couldn't have happened. Nice cop out. I think God's existence is pretty self evident because of existence. Plus a Creator makes more sense than everything just "happened", especially when you look at it objectively. You realize for the first 300 years of Christianity you would be heavily persecuted or even killed/martyred for adhering to the faith, right? Hell of a way for people to go to spread something they knew to be a lie just to be "entertaining". All of Jesus disciples were executed by the Jews and authorities.
While Mook's question is pretty morbid, I can definitely see the philosophical dilemma. I would say the problem with this is that they're being denied experiences needed from the perspective of eternal progression. One of the big things you have to keep in mind when discussing virtually any "Mormon" doctrine is the eternal nature of our spirits. We don't just cease to exist after we die, nor do we spend the rest of eternity kneeling and praising God. We still have a lot to learn as we progress through the eternities. There are many things that are immeasurably easier to learn and understand while in possession of a physical body. We can't understand and truly have compassion for someone dying of cancer if we don't have a physical body to understand what pain is. Those lessons will have to be learned by some other means. So yes, if all you're concerned about is being saved, it makes twisted sense to kill as many babies as you can to ensure their eternal reward, but potentially screw yourself over in the process. (I say potentially, because you'd have to be a certain kind of insane to do something like that, and God takes things like that into account when evaluating your ability to understand right and wrong and to choose the right.) However, if there's a broader eternal perspective, you're not doing the children as great a favor as you think you are. Separation from one's body is not a pleasant experience. Can you imagine losing the ability to feel anything tangible? Taste? We will be chomping at the bit for the resurrection to come so we can be reunited with our physical bodies. Additionally, in the pre-mortal existence, we fought for the opportunity to come to earth and gain a physical body. Having it taken away from us would not be our first choice. The reason you accept religion now as opposed to later in the Great Waiting Room in the Sky, is that the dispositions and proclivities and habits you have in mortality carry over into the spirit world. You won't magically change into a saint if you were a murderer or rapist while on earth. Obviously those are extreme examples, but the principle is the same. If you aren't doing the things you were supposed to while on earth, you're not going to do them just because you discover there is life after death. That being said, I'm not certain as to the make up of the "waiting room". It's not just a bunch of different living rooms where missionaries come to your door and teach you the gospel. That much I do know. Additionally, God determines when you've had sufficient opportunity to accept the gospel. If you're intentionally avoiding it or simply electing to do your own thing after feeling the promptings of the Holy Spirit to change your life, you may not be afforded the opportunity later on; or more likely, you will simply choose to reject them again for the same reasons as before. I have no idea what "sufficient opportunity" means, but I'm sure it won't be a passing thing. God loves all of us and wants all his children to return to him, so He's going to give you every opportunity to accept the gospel, but there comes a point where He resigns himself to the fact that you're going to use your agency and reject the gospel.
the fact that scientists STILL can't recreate a single-celled organism (the most basic building block of life) should tell you something...
They aren't, though. Is it more believable? I think so. Does that mean it contradicts another faith-based story? Not to me.
When archaeological discoveries back what it says in the scriptures say I'll put more weight in that than what scientists "think they know what happened", especially when it makes NO sense. It's easy to see why people want to eliminate God from the picture, they don't want to be held accountable for their actions.
Well, of course we disagree about the probabilities. The gain from a godly life is obviously huge, but the probability of there being a God (of the Christian variety) is (in my opinion, obviously) very tiny. I think there are several more zeros after the decimal point in the latter than there are zeros in front of the decimal point in the former, but different people draw very different conclusions about that, and come out with very different cost-benefit analyses as a result. barfo
what are you referring to specifically? it's evidence-based scientific fact that the earth formed 4.5 billion years ago and life evolved gradually in a different order than specified in genesis, there was no global flood in biblical times, modern human races evolved tens of thousands of years before the time of the tower of babel story (there's a reason the pope had to endorse the first 7 chapters of genesis as 'allegory'). also millions of hebrews were never in egypt, never spent 40 years in the sinai, never colonized canaan etc.
So, then, there's the crux of the matter. Why is it that you believe the probability of God's existence to be so remote? Do you feel the same about all concepts of deity, or just about the notion of a singular omnipotent creator?
if you're the type who believes stories in genesis are literally true then i don't think you would listen. no even slightly informed objective person would consider them anything more than allegorical. the exodus story is slightly more interesting because it lends itself more to looking at archeological findings than just deciding to turn your brain on.
