Why I believe God exists......

[Enema]

This thread certainly has become populated with many of the most commonly mocked religious positions.

 

So far we've seen:

 

- Pascal's Wager

- God of the Gaps

- Magic man dun it

 

What's next? I believe in god because of the bible, and I believe the bible because it's the word of god!?

[Rooster_DAR]

This thread certainly has become populated with many of the most commonly mocked religious positions.

 

So far we've seen:

 

- Pascal's Wager

- God of the Gaps

- Magic man dun it

 

What's next? I believe in god because of the bible, and I believe the bible because it's the word of god!?

 

Well, I might as well just pick up any book and believe in it just because it is written by someone whom I'm supposed to trust as accurate. Blah!, the bible was written over time by man, it's just another interpretation of the confusing thoughts of primitive humans trying to figure out who the hell they are and what the universe is.

 

In time I believe everyone will finally understand that they have been blinded by a ancient belief system based on fantasy and the need to govern human socialism.

 

(Darwin was right!)

[nittygritty]

Well, I might as well just pick up any book and believe in it just because it is written by someone whom I'm supposed to trust as accurate. Blah!, the bible was written over time by man, it's just another interpretation of the confusing thoughts of primitive humans trying to figure out who the hell they are and what the universe is.

 

In time I believe everyone will finally understand that they have been blinded by a ancient belief system based on fantasy and the need to govern human socialism.

 

(Darwin was right!)

 

 

The Bible is a History book. It was written in a primitive time by primitive people and the dialects used by the different authors have also been translated differently throughout history.

 

I think that we were created to evolve and learn. I also think that the harsh significant events that occurred were necessary for future generations to also learn from so that the lesson would carry through to the end of times. The same should hold true from any harsh significant event in history.

 

Personal beliefs are unique to each individual. While groups of people may share some beliefs there will always be variances on the details and interpretation of what something means to a person.

 

Just because I wasn't at the Boston Tea Party does not mean that it didn't occur.

[JamesM]

This thread certainly has become populated with many of the most commonly mocked religious positions.

 

So far we've seen:

 

- Pascal's Wager

- God of the Gaps

- Magic man dun it

 

What's next? I believe in god because of the bible, and I believe the bible because it's the word of god!?

 

 

No, let's believe the best theories of all...

 

Life began because of chance interaction in some prebiotic soup.

OR

 

I believe there is no God, because there is no evidence.

 

Any evidence that occurs cannot be real, because there is no God.

 

Please point out where each of those "commonly mocked religious positions" occurred in this thread?

[Moai]

Exactly...thanks for making the point I was trying to make. The odds of those cards dropping in perfect sequence are almost impossible. The odds of anything that is highly complex happening is incredibly high.

 

Since this thread has been going for a few days while I have been gone I'll start here. Some things I will post do not address this post specifically, but most do.

 

First, complexity does not equal design. If you were to pour a bag of sand on your table the odds that the grains would come out as they did are beyond measure, yet there the sand is, in that exact configuration.

 

Second, life appearing is not, and cannot be random. Chemicals behave according to their properties, all the time everywhere. Under particular circumstances they will behave in certain ways, and in the case of the Earth obviously the circumstances were such that life appeared, and then evolved. The evidence for this is undeniable and overwhelming. It is available for all to see in any library you care to visit (save the ones at AIG or The Creation Museum, et al).

 

It is true that we do not know exactly what the conditions were on the prebiotic Earth, but we are closing in on it every day.

 

I know what you are saying. You say since it happened, it is futile to give probabilities. Since there is no God, then it must have happened by chance.

 

Again, not quite. But it is futile to give probabilities because there are too many variables that we just cannot define. It also begs the question as to whether or not the type of life we see on Earth is the only kind of life that is possible.

 

So, when we look at the earth, the complex life, the detailed parts of each creature, the exact distances of everything...we have a choice. We can see it as planned or we can see it as it happened by chance.

 

True, and seeing it as designed is fallacious reasoning. Any place we find ourselves MUST appear to be designed for us, since we evolved within it. We shaped to the environment, not the other way around. Considering that 99% of all life that has ever existed is extinct it can't even be said that our planet is really that hospitable to life in the first place.

 

Let's look at carbon synthesis in stars, for example. It has been suggested (and I think that this is one of Moose's reasons) that the way carbon forms in stars is fine-tuned for us, and that is evidence for a Creator. Steven Weinberg, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics examined this claim, and he concludes thusly:

 

"Looked at more closely, the fine-tuning of the constants of nature here does not seem so fine. We have to consider the reason why the formation of carbon in stars requires the existence of a radioactive state of carbon with an energy not more than 7.7 MeV above the energy of the normal state. The reason is that the carbon nuclei in this state are actually formed in a two-step process: first, two helium nuclei combine to form the unstable nucleus of a beryllium isotope, beryllium 8, which occasionally, before it falls apart, captures another helium nucleus, forming a carbon nucleus in its radioactive state, which then decays into normal carbon. The total energy of the beryllium 8 nucleus and a helium nucleus at rest is 7.4 MeV above the energy of the normal state of the carbon nucleus; so if the energy of the radioactive state of carbon were more than 7.7 MeV it could only be formed in a collision of a helium nucleus and a beryllium 8 nucleus if the energy of motion of these two nuclei were at least 0.3 MeV—an energy which is extremely unlikely at the temperatures found in stars.

 

Thus the crucial thing that affects the production of carbon in stars is not the 7.65 MeV energy of the radioactive state of carbon above its normal state, but the 0.25 MeV energy of the radioactive state, an unstable composite of a beryllium 8 nucleus and a helium nucleus, above the energy of those nuclei at rest. This energy misses being too high for the production of carbon by a fractional amount of 0.05 MeV/0.25 MeV, or 20 percent, which is not such a close call after all."

 

Perhaps that was a bit much for those without a physics background, but it makes the point. It shows that what might appear to be designed for us to exist isn't when looked at more closely.

 

He goes on to say:

 

"The 'argument from design' made by the English theologian William Paley is not on most peoples' minds these days. The prestige of religion seems today to derive from what people take to be its moral influence, rather than from what they may think has been its success in accounting for what we see in nature. Conversely, I have to admit that, although I really don't believe in a cosmic designer, the reason that I am taking the trouble to argue about it is that I think that on balance the moral influence of religion has been awful."

 

You can read his entire essay here:

 

http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm

 

You say...there is zero evidence for a God, so this must have happened by chance and couldn't have planned.

 

Except for the way you use "chance" I agree 100%. There is zero evidence for god. That is so true, in facct, most believers have abandoned such physical arguments for god and are instead trying to concentrate on the moral argument--which fails also. But you can't blame them for trying.

 

I say....the complexity of all around us demands a Creator and is evidence that there must be a Higher Being, so there must be a God.

 

Then the designer MUST have been designed, by your own reasoning. Clearly something that is so complex as to be able to spontaneously create matter, control the path of planets from billions of miles away, monitor and control the force of gravity, and on and on and on could not have just "appeared" or created itself. You admit yourself above, something that complex MUST have a designer, no?

 

I will close this with a last quote from Weinberg's essy that I find eloquent and succinct, more than I could possibly be:

 

"In an e-mail message from the American Association for the Advancement of Science I learned that the aim of this conference is to have a constructive dialogue between science and religion. I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment."

[disgracian]

True, and seeing it as designed is fallacious reasoning. Any place we find ourselves MUST appear to be designed for us, since we evolved within it. We shaped to the environment, not the other way around.

This reminds me of a speech that Douglas Adams gave (he may have been quoting somebody else, I'm not sure). He talked about a puddle that, using creationist logic, concluded that the hole in the ground he lived in must have been created especially for him. Afterall, it was exactly the right size, the right shape, it fit perfectly in every way. Surely proof of a Creator of Puddles!

 

Even creationists should have no difficulty spotting the fallicious logic at work here. It's a pity they're not so adept at spotting the same patterns in their own thinking.

 

Cheers,

D.

[johan]

God does not play dice with the universe. I just made that up. Sounds brilliant though.

[This_Too_Shall_Pass]

so god is physics?

 

that says nothing of a personal, benevolent god, all it does is list things that exist. it doesnt list all of the things that don't exist. what does that prove?

 

Nothing.

 

I also noticed that the long list is missing point #52.

 

Which I believe has been erased by Moose.

 

It said that evolution was a myth, we all landed here from planet Xorbia, and worshipped Xorbio, the Xorbian God.

[Moose]

Nothing.

 

I also noticed that the long list is missing point #52.

 

Which I believe has been erased by Moose.

 

It said that evolution was a myth, we all landed here from planet Xorbia, and worshipped Xorbio, the Xorbian God.

Okay???? Never seen it......

but we are closing in on it every day.

BOY.....are YOU going to be surprised!!!

[Moose]

God does not play dice with the universe. I just made that up. Sounds brilliant though.

I like it.....

 

But do you think Marbles would go better, or does that sound too corny?

[Geoffrey]

Easter bunny....tooth fairy....etc.

 

It just makes like soooo much simpler!

[disgracian]

Holding multiple contradictory beliefs simultaneously is something I certainly can't do. What's your secret, Geoffrey? You would make a good citizen of Oceana.

 

Cheers,

D.

[DutchGuy]

No, let's believe the best theories of all...

 

Life began because of chance interaction in some prebiotic soup.

 

OR

 

I believe there is no God, because there is no evidence.

 

Any evidence that occurs cannot be real, because there is no God.

 

Please don't try to be wittier than an Atheist, you'll surely lose .

 

If you had the understanding of the numbers of loose atoms and molecules, their proneness to collide and interact you would be able to see that the 'chance interaction' is far more probable than you take it for.

Furthermore, in retrospect, aren't all historical facts statistically inprobable?

Nobody denies that WWII happened solely on the ground of improbability.

I mean, what were the chances that Hitler was born out of millions of spermatozoids, became the leader of Germany and was able to kill millions of jews? The chance, in retrospect, may be slim but given that it happened... it happened.

 

But now you think "haha nice try, but there is evidence for WWII, it was documented".

Well, so is evolution, in all of us today.

You heard it all before, I'm not going to sum up all the standard stuff about evolution, but I invite you to read up on something called the Endosymbiotic theory (although called a theory it is as clear as finding a man standing over a dead body holding a knife with 3 witnesses independantly declaring they saw him stab the victim to death).

 

Something that is inherent to Atheists is that we demand evidence for stated facts. We can not accept something simply because someone else says it is so, if you state something the burden to come with evidence is on your shoulders.

 

About the 'evidence' for the existence of god: there is none.

 

Tell me this:

Priests have been talking for ages to a god that is omniscient (so he never has to change his mind, because if he does, he could have known before his first decision that it would turn out to be false in the end)

How is it possible that these priests can not find out whether something like homosexuality is a sin? Just ask god, you talk to him on a daily basis.

Or does god change his mind so often?

Isn't it just a fact that priests don't derive their moral from god, but merely from Zeitgeist?

[Rooster_DAR]

God does not play dice with the universe. I just made that up. Sounds brilliant though.

 

LOL

 

What an Einstein you are!

 

[Rooster_DAR]

The Bible is a History book. It was written in a primitive time by primitive people and the dialects used by the different authors have also been translated differently throughout history.

 

I think that we were created to evolve and learn. I also think that the harsh significant events that occurred were necessary for future generations to also learn from so that the lesson would carry through to the end of times. The same should hold true from any harsh significant event in history.

 

Personal beliefs are unique to each individual. While groups of people may share some beliefs there will always be variances on the details and interpretation of what something means to a person.

 

Just because I wasn't at the Boston Tea Party does not mean that it didn't occur.

 

Excellent reply, I agree.

 

Would it not be funny if some alien civilization dropped life off on our planet just to see how it would evolve, and laugh at us while we try to figure out how the hell we got here.

[nittygritty]

Excellent reply, I agree.

 

Would it not be funny if some alien civilization dropped life off on our planet just to see how it would evolve, and laugh at us while we try to figure out how the hell we got here.

 

Thanks and as for the aliens, they better be willing to speak our languages. Also, they have to become citizens and pay their fair share of taxes if they plan on staying because I certainly don't want to pay for them living here.

[Jinnah]

 

If you had the understanding of the numbers of loose atoms and molecules, their proneness to collide and interact you would be able to see that the 'chance interaction' is far more probable than you take it for.

 

This is what I don't get: if you don't believe in God, why would you even think there were just loose atoms and molecules floating around... where did those come from? What were those even doing "there"? What was "there" and how did it get there? It seems like that would make even less sense. Sounds like these atoms and particles are your "god".

[JamesM]

Please don't try to be wittier than an Atheist, you'll surely lose .

 

Wit and humor is not about winning or losing. It is about adding levity to a situation. But hey, you win. Your joke is better than mine. Whatever.

 

Well, so is evolution, in all of us today.

 

This is a poor arguement, and I would say that even if I was an evolutionist. It is the same as a creationist saying that we are living proof of God's creation. While I might believe it, it is not evidence to someone who does not believe in God. So it is with this.

 

Evolution as used to postulate how life began on earth is NOT a fact. ( I will put it in bold so that everyone sees it ) And I am saying what evolutionary biologists say. Actually, Stephen Jay Gould has said that it is both, and I agree. We see microevolution occur all of the time, but evolution as a description of how life and an interpretation of the evidences found is a theory. But this can not be an argument against anything. As was used, gravity is a theory. And it is the best one that fits what happens when say you drop an object. SO evolution is a theory, and it fits the facts/evidences as interpreted by scientists who want to keep the possibility of the supernatural out of science. (This statement is not intended to begin an argument. I am actually stating this FOR the evolutionist here. I know that you say there is no evidence for God. ) By continually repeating the mantra that evolution is a fact, naturalists actually sound like they are ignorant of their own "beliefs."

 

Here is a link to a good article that Gould wrote discussing this.... Obviously I am not in agreement with everything said here, but he has stated this well for the Evolutionist, so I thought I would help you out.

 

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

but I invite you to read up on something called the Endosymbiotic theory (although called a theory it is as clear as finding a man standing over a dead body holding a knife with 3 witnesses independantly declaring they saw him stab the victim to death).

 

You seem to feel that calling something a "theory" demeans its value. I personally have never felt that. Even if I think there is a better theory, I know as many scientists will say...a theory is based on the evidence as we know it today. A better theory may come along tomorrow that explains the evidence as we know it then. The theory of gravity explains the evidence for gravity, but "tomorrow," more evidence may come along that brings a need for a redefining of the current theory. This is okay. There have been many such theories along the way. Now there is research being done to prove the String Theory...something unheard just a few years ago. When a scientist defends a theory as unchangeable, he has done himself and science a disservice. He has stopped growing intellectually. (Again, this is not meant to be demeaning to any viewpoint.)

 

This theory that you now describe is not as clear as someone standing over a dead body, etc. In fact, the situation you describe could still be false. The "suspect" could not be the actual killer. You didn't bring up the murder scenario to be debated, so I won't. But this theory you described as so well accepted has only been recently well accepted. In the past, it was considered akin to a "special creation" and too fantastic to be considered by scientists. So once again, this shows that new evidence as interpreted by scientists actually brought to life one theory that was at one time considered too fanastic to be discussed in "polite biological society."

 

Even at this point...although this theory is "widely accepted," it has many problems and questions that need to be resolved. The theory may change with time as needed.

 

Since I am not a scientist of the caliber that could discuss the difficulties of this theory, I am not even going there, but I do suggest that you consult some viewpoints (not just creationist or evolutionist) that will show that this theory is still not necessarily the answer to this particular area of evolution. Today (according to naturalists) it may be the best, but even at my age, I am willing to guess that in ten years a "better" one will come along.

 

Nobody denies that WWII happened solely on the ground of improbability.

I mean, what were the chances that Hitler was born out of millions of spermatozoids, became the leader of Germany and was able to kill millions of jews? The chance, in retrospect, may be slim but given that it happened... it happened.

 

We could go round and round on this one... it could also be argued that this was planned. But then next will be...why did God allow Hitler to be born and murder so many Jews? So, this documented fact does not add to either side, but it does indicate the reason that is given so often for evolution and its correlating interpretations...

 

The chance, in retrospect, may be slim but given that it happened... it happened.

 

And that is where faith comes in.

[Moai]

This is a poor arguement, and I would say that even if I was an evolutionist. It is the same as a creationist saying that we are living proof of God's creation. While I might believe it, it is not evidence to someone who does not believe in God. So it is with this.

 

Actually, it is a great argument. Your DNA is 99% the same as a Bonobo.

 

Evolution as used to postulate how life began on earth is NOT a fact. ( I will put it in bold so that everyone sees it )

 

Thanks! And by that statement above, you show that you do not understand evolution--or biology at all.

 

Evolution is what happens after life appears. The theory of evolution cannot address how life began by definition.

 

Tell me why I should address any further point with you, since you don't understand even the basics of this subject? I am not writing this to be mean, but this information is available virtually EVERYWHERE.

 

And I am saying what evolutionary biologists say. Actually, Stephen Jay Gould has said that it is both, and I agree.

 

I am not sure what you are saying here. Dr. Gould said what is both, exactly? A reference would be nice.

 

We see microevolution occur all of the time, but evolution as a description of how life and an interpretation of the evidences found is a theory.

 

Oh, here we go. "Microevolution". There is no such thing. This is a division asserted by Creationists, mainly because they cannot deny evolution happening, so they "create" and artificial schim where none exists.

 

But I'll bite. Please provide the mechanism that prevents "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution". Please forgive me if I do not hold my breath while you search for one.

 

But this can not be an argument against anything. As was used, gravity is a theory.

 

No, gravity is a natural phenomenon and currently we have no theroy to explain it.

 

And it is the best one that fits what happens when say you drop an object. SO evolution is a theory, and it fits the facts/evidences as interpreted by scientists who want to keep the possibility of the supernatural out of science. (This statement is not intended to begin an argument. I am actually stating this FOR the evolutionist here. I know that you say there is no evidence for God. )

 

Again, wrong. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is this: "Species change over time". That's it. It is a fact. We have a theory that EXPLAINS how this process works. And it is one of the best theories in all of science. It makes sense with what we know of geology, physics, and chemistry.

 

ANd scientists don't want to keep the supernatural out of science. The supernatural is out of science BY DEFINITION. Science is a tool we use to explain the natural world around us. A supernatural explanation is "god did it." When that explanation is used, inquiry stops.

 

If we were to use the supernatural explanation, we would not have vaccines, electronics, or air conditioning.

 

The fact is that god is an unnecessary hypothesis.

 

By continually repeating the mantra that evolution is a fact, naturalists actually sound like they are ignorant of their own "beliefs."

 

It isn't a mantra. It is demonstrably true. You would know this if you bothered to look at any of the evidence for it. I find it hilarious that you think men who have dedicated their lives to the study of evolutionary biology don't know what they are talking about, but YOU somehow know better. You have already shown that you don't even understand it, yet you watl in here and proclaim your position. By any stretch, that is foolish. One might also see it as particularly insulting.

 

Here is a link to a good article that Gould wrote discussing this.... Obviously I am not in agreement with everything said here, but he has stated this well for the Evolutionist, so I thought I would help you out.

 

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

Why don't you agree? Do you think that one of the greatest biologists who ever lived is lying, or misguided? The fact is, in this instance, you don't GET to disagree with him.

 

It's funny, but it seems that because we live in a democracy people extend that to think that eveyone's opinion is also equal, and they are not. When Gould discusses biology, he has the evidence, you do not. Until you have attainted his level of education on the subject you don't get to have a position.

 

To say you do is to say that all cosmologists have to call you on the phone to see if you agree with them or not before they publish a paper. They don't, do they? Gee, I wonder why.

 

Gould is laying out what I do above, and he did it succinctly and eloquently. Yet you either are not capable of understanding it, or are shutting your eyes tight and repeating 'IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT!!!!!"

 

You disagreeing with how the internal combustion engine works doesn't mean engines don't work, or that you don;t look foolish in saying they don't.

 

You seem to feel that calling something a "theory" demeans its value. I personally have never felt that. Even if I think there is a better theory, I know as many scientists will say...a theory is based on the evidence as we know it today. A better theory may come along tomorrow that explains the evidence as we know it then.

 

Yep. That's how science works. That is a strength, not a weakness. As all theories are subject to modification, one would expect theories to change in the face of new evidence. Science is not dogmatic.

 

I would abandon evolution tomorrow if their was evidence against it. The probability of that happening is so close to zero that I need not worry. Nor does wnyone else who has taken a biology class.

 

The theory of gravity explains the evidence for gravity, but "tomorrow," more evidence may come along that brings a need for a redefining of the current theory. This is okay.

 

Gee, thanks. Again, we don't have a theory of gravity. But let's say we did. The theory explains the fact. If the theory changed, gravity would remain the same, right?

 

There have been many such theories along the way. Now there is research being done to prove the String Theory...something unheard just a few years ago. When a scientist defends a theory as unchangeable, he has done himself and science a disservice. He has stopped growing intellectually. (Again, this is not meant to be demeaning to any viewpoint.)

 

You cannot be demeaning to things you don't understand. So far, String Theory has no evidence. It could be true, but we don't know yet. And yes, sceintists staunchly defend their positions. Against who? OTHER SCIENTISTS. Evidence is examined and the theory that explains it best is the one accepted--which is not to say that other scientists don't keep on attacking it. That is how the process works, and it works great.

 

This theory that you now describe is not as clear as someone standing over a dead body, etc. In fact, the situation you describe could still be false. The "suspect" could not be the actual killer. You didn't bring up the murder scenario to be debated, so I won't. But this theory you described as so well accepted has only been recently well accepted. In the past, it was considered akin to a "special creation" and too fantastic to be considered by scientists.

 

Huh? WHen Darwin first proposed it there was certainly controversy in the scientific community, but that faded fast, and now there is none--in so far as evolution being a fact. There is a great deal of controversy about the theory itself amongst biologists, but that is way out on the edges. And none of the men working in the field today believe that evolution is not a fact.

 

So once again, this shows that new evidence as interpreted by scientists actually brought to life one theory that was at one time considered too fanastic to be discussed in "polite biological society."

 

Yep. But the evidence was so overwhelming that no everybody accepts it. Are you suggesting that we will wake up tomorrow and geologists will claim that the Earth is really 6,000 years old?

 

Even at this point...although this theory is "widely accepted," it has many problems and questions that need to be resolved. The theory may change with time as needed.

 

But the fact will not.

 

Since I am not a scientist of the caliber that could discuss the difficulties of this theory, I am not even going there, but I do suggest that you consult some viewpoints (not just creationist or evolutionist) that will show that this theory is still not necessarily the answer to this particular area of evolution. Today (according to naturalists) it may be the best, but even at my age, I am willing to guess that in ten years a "better" one will come along.

 

Abiogenesis is part of biology but has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution happens AFTER life arises.

 

Do you really think that Creationists have ANYTHING worthwhile to say about ANYTHING? They are demonstrable liars, for one thing, and for another their assertions regarding science are so vapid that reading anything of theirs is beyond a waste of time.

 

We could go round and round on this one... it could also be argued that this was planned. But then next will be...why did God allow Hitler to be born and murder so many Jews? So, this documented fact does not add to either side, but it does indicate the reason that is given so often for evolution and its correlating interpretations...

 

And that is where faith comes in.

 

Only if you believe in magic, which requires faith. God didn't allow Hitler to be born because there is no such thing as god. See? Problem solved.

 

Why does disease exist? Because of bacteria and viri. See? Problem solved?

 

Why do bad things happen to good people? No reason. Life is fragile. Accidents happen. There is no underlying reason for any of it.

 

Solved! ALl of the mumbo-jumbo about what god wants and why a god that is infinitely good can allow bad things and yadd yadda yadda is taken care of. No we can all live the best lives we can, try to help others to do the same, and focus on understanding the Universe and world around us.

 

Was that so hard?

[Moai]

This is what I don't get: if you don't believe in God, why would you even think there were just loose atoms and molecules floating around... where did those come from?

 

I am typing slowly as I am sure you can't read very fast...

 

The answer is....

 

WE DON"T KNOW YET.

 

Shocked?

 

What I don't get is people who are so desperate for answers they accept "answers" that are really no answer at all.

 

If I had to answer the question as to where matter came from, I would say leprechauns. Prove me wrong. There is just as much evidence for leprechauns as there is your god, by the way. Have fun!

 

What were those even doing "there"? What was "there" and how did it get there? It seems like that would make even less sense. Sounds like these atoms and particles are your "god".

 

I for one have no god, since there is no such thing.

 

Where did god come from? If you can accept that god always existed, why can't you accept that the Universe probably always existed?

[JamesM]

Actually, it is a great argument. Your DNA is 99% the same as a Bonobo.

 

Perhaps..I have been told I act like one. But are you sure this is scientifically proven?

 

read this link....

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892

 

Chimpanzees seem almost human, and scientists have maintained for decades that chimps are, in fact, 98.5 percent genetically identical to humans.

 

But the results of a new study call that figure into question, with a finding that there are actually large chunks of the human and chimp genomes that are vastly different.

 

And here is another...

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/05/05-01-07tdc/05-01-07dscihealth-05.asp

 

So at least you now have a more current figure to use.

 

And here this quote may help understand that DNA closeness isn't everything...

 

In The Biotic Message, on page 449, Walter ReMine noted that DNA is not always so important. There are two virtually identical species of fruit flies that share only 25 per cent of their DNA in common. If human and chimp DNA is 96 per cent similar, then the DNA of those fruit flies is "30 times more different than that between humans and chimpanzees."

 

Thanks! And by that statement above, you show that you do not understand evolution--or biology at all.

 

Evolution is what happens after life appears. The theory of evolution cannot address how life began by definition.

 

Tell me why I should address any further point with you, since you don't understand even the basics of this subject? I am not writing this to be mean, but this information is available virtually EVERYWHERE.

 

Oh you love to do that, don't you? Since you don't like it when I combine the two, you are right...abiogenesis is what naturalists use as the way life began. So I never told you to address any point with me...I believe you have taken that upon yourself...not to be mean.

 

I am not sure what you are saying here. Dr. Gould said what is both, exactly? A reference would be nice.

 

Scroll back up the page, and you will see that I provided a link to Dr Gould's paper on his "official" website.

 

Oh, here we go. "Microevolution". There is no such thing. This is a division asserted by Creationists, mainly because they cannot deny evolution happening, so they "create" and artificial schim where none exists.

 

But I'll bite. Please provide the mechanism that prevents "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution". Please forgive me if I do not hold my breath while you search for one.

 

I am sorry, but evolutionists/abiogenetists/naturalists don't make that distinction BECAUSE they want to show that evolution within a species can be "macro"-ed out to show evolution between species. I don't know how you can show a mechanism that shows how something DOESN'T happen. Oh, yes, there is a wall that prevents it from happening. So far there are only "theories" on how it CAN happen. Let your breathe out. What do they call this fallacy? I really need to read that debate book.

 

Again, wrong. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is this: "Species change over time". That's it. It is a fact. We have a theory that EXPLAINS how this process works. And it is one of the best theories in all of science. It makes sense with what we know of geology, physics, and chemistry.

 

That was interesting logic. Perhaps you do need to read that article by Dr. Gould. It even helped me to understand your position better.

 

Why don't you agree? Do you think that one of the greatest biologists who ever lived is lying, or misguided? The fact is, in this instance, you don't GET to disagree with him.

 

What happened to intellectual freedom? Oh yeah, evolution is a fact.

 

Abiogenesis is part of biology but has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution happens AFTER life arises.

 

Oh, that is right...you like these kept distinct from each other. I need to show more intelligence here.

 

It's funny, but it seems that because we live in a democracy people extend that to think that eveyone's opinion is also equal, and they are not. When Gould discusses biology, he has the evidence, you do not. Until you have attainted his level of education on the subject you don't get to have a position.

 

We agree on the first statement. Yet on this Board we have individuals who argue religion like they have studied it for years. We have people here who argue history even when they have not studied it for years. So critical thinkers do not always have to agree with what has been decided for them. They can have individual thoughts. I respect Dr, Gould for much of the work he has done, but I see others who have higher degrees of education who do not agree with him. BTW, I am not thinking of just creationists (who you feel cannot be scientists), but perhaps Even Richard Dawkins is not in full agreement with him?

 

Gould is laying out what I do above, and he did it succinctly and eloquently. Yet you either are not capable of understanding it, or are shutting your eyes tight and repeating 'IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT!!!!!"

 

Nah, I am keeping an open mind to the fact that he is human and not God. And I am keeping in mind that he may even find down the road that he doesn't agree with himself on the interpretation. And I am keeping in mind that not all scientists agree period no matter what their level of degrees. This is called intellectual freedom.

 

I would abandon evolution tomorrow if their was evidence against it. The probability of that happening is so close to zero that I need not worry.

 

Why would you worry? Another theory would come along..that may still prove satisfactorily to you that God does not exist?

 

Huh? WHen Darwin first proposed it there was certainly controversy in the scientific community, but that faded fast, and now there is none--in so far as evolution being a fact. There is a great deal of controversy about the theory itself amongst biologists, but that is way out on the edges. And none of the men working in the field today believe that evolution is not a fact.

 

Read this in context. I was not talking about the Theory of Evolution, I was talking about the Endosymbiotic theory, which I have heard and read about...on evolution websites.

 

Yep. But the evidence was so overwhelming that no everybody accepts it. Are you suggesting that we will wake up tomorrow and geologists will claim that the Earth is really 6,000 years old?

 

Again, wrong theory referred to here.

 

Do you really think that Creationists have ANYTHING worthwhile to say about ANYTHING? They are demonstrable liars, for one thing, and for another their assertions regarding science are so vapid that reading anything of theirs is beyond a waste of time.

 

Ahh, the inevitable ad hominems. This one I recognize. As for being liars, can we say Piltdown Man? And no, I don't think that this means that all evolutionary biologists are faking evidence and lying.

 

Only if you believe in magic, which requires faith. God didn't allow Hitler to be born because there is no such thing as god. See? Problem solved.

 

Problem solved. No need for you to discuss it any more.

 

Why does disease exist? Because of bacteria and viri. See? Problem solved?

 

Why do bad things happen to good people? No reason. Life is fragile. Accidents happen. There is no underlying reason for any of it.

 

Okay, well done. And now you know that you will never have to face a God. That should make life easy...or will it?

[JamesM]

 

Where did god come from? If you can accept that god always existed, why can't you accept that the Universe probably always existed?

 

Wait...didn't Einstein show that it could not have always existed? Perhaps you could read THIS link. Stephen Hawkings showed that this was no longer tenable.

 

http://english.cri.cn/2946/2006/06/19/[email protected]

[Trimmer]

This is what I don't get: if you don't believe in God, why would you even think there were just loose atoms and molecules floating around... where did those come from? What were those even doing "there"? What was "there" and how did it get there? It seems like that would make even less sense. Sounds like these atoms and particles are your "god".

 

Actually, in our observable 3-dimeinsional universe, if you believe in the big-bang (for which there is lots of cool evidence...) we didn't start out with just a bunch of loose atoms and molecules floating around. Soon after the big bang, space was pretty much filled with one "substance" if you can even call it that, and as the universe cooled, it gradually condensed into matter, and the mechanisms of the physics that we observe now took over to form protons, neutrons and electrons, then into a big ol' heap of hydrogen, and from there, nucleogenesis (isn't it called?) mostly in stars, has provided us with pretty much all the higher elements...

 

Now, is this an incredibly complex process? Yes indeed. But it proceeded from one "simple" (if you will..) and hugely energetic event in the direction of more complex nuclear and molecular constructs - we didn't "start out" with a bunch of complex elements and molecules. So we started out with a relatively consistent "soup", and the theories of the physical world do a good job of explaining pretty much everything else that has happened (in a nuclear/molecular sense) since just a very tiny fraction of a second after the big bang.

 

This is what I don't get: if you do believe in God, why would you even think he was just there forever, floating around.... where did He come from? What was He even doing "there"? What was "there", and how did He get there?

 

How is it easier to believe that a being of infinite complexity existed, without explanation, infinitely far back in time without a beginning or a creator, than to believe that a "simple" (in terms relative to your God) singularity - the big bang - could have started, admittedly also without current explanation, at a particular time. I'm not saying either one of them is particularly easy to believe or explain, but my view postulates a single, relatively simple event, at a point in time that observable evidence supports, from which complexity has proceeded in ways that we can observe and explain better and better as our theories improve. You propose that an infinitely complex construct with infinite and unlimited power has existed forever, without itself having a beginning or a creator.... That is not easier for me to believe than the big bang...

 

I don't feel like the investigation and explaining of "my" version of the origin of our universe is done - there's still work to be done, which will probably never end. That work is done openly, and accepts being questioned, challenged and modified over time as our understanding and technology increases. But I guess I feel like you still have a lot more explaining to do too, if you're going to use the argument "how could something so complex have come into existence?"

 

In order to explain something inexplicable, you postulate something even more inexplicable, and shut off any questions with, essentially, "well, He's all-powerful and all-knowing, and all-everything, so of course, He's inexplicable."

 

I say....the complexity of all around us demands a Creator and is evidence that there must be a Higher Being, so there must be a God.

By that logic, then, the infinitely greater complexity of your God even more strongly demands a Creator above it, and given that our intellect as a species will continue to grow over time, the idea of a complex creation having recursively created itself is eventually bound to become less credible than an inexplicable "big-bang", except, perhaps, to a faith that frowns on that question being considered.

 

It's not that I think I know all the answers, but how am I confident enough to turn down the clear "guaranteed win" available to me in Pascal's wager, especially in view of the potential "risk" of selecting the "don't believe" option? The best way I can describe it to you is... and this may sound oddly familiar... faith. Not faith in a being or in creating a "false God" out of science, but faith that the world is as we see it, with many mysteries still to unfold, but with an underlying order that is explained pretty well by a continual cycle of hypothesis, observation, conclusion, and discussion, feeding back upon itself.

 

How do you tell me you know of the existence and even presence of God? If I ask for physical, measurable, observable evidence, I expect I will hear that you don't need that, but that you read His word and you feel his presence in your life and in your heart, and you believe in His influence in your family and your community and the world, and you don't need to measure or observe, because you have faith. As I've said before, I accept the depth of your conviction.

 

The best I can describe it, is that I have a similar faith in my beliefs. I don't use that term intending to demean or belittle your faith in God, and I certainly attempt to remain humble - I don't think I have all the answers, and I don't think I am the pinnacle of development or complexity in the universe; part of life's journey, as an individual, a community, and society is in improving myself and working out questions and mysteries, big and small, a little bit at a time, and I believe that what "lives on" after our death is all that we contribute to our society and the people around us during our lives.

 

But like the believer in God feels and believes the presence of God in his heart with a calm confidence, I believe, and have my faith in my worldview with the same calm confidence. And my faith is sufficiently strong that I am not particularly bowed by Pascal's wager and its threat of eternal damnation. Just another classic game-theory decision matrix. I'm cool with it.

 

Speaking of which, interestingly, in your expecation, I will suffer eternally for these beliefs after we die.

 

In my expectation, once we die, you will fare no worse than I; I kinda like that better, too.

[Moai]

Perhaps..I have been told I act like one. But are you sure this is scientifically proven?

 

read this link....

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892

 

Chimpanzees seem almost human, and scientists have maintained for decades that chimps are, in fact, 98.5 percent genetically identical to humans.

 

But the results of a new study call that figure into question, with a finding that there are actually large chunks of the human and chimp genomes that are vastly different.

 

Yep. The human and chimpanee genome are HUGE. You can have large chunks and still get a small percentage of the overall genome.

 

Bonobos are a subspecies of chimpanzees. They are the only ape besides us that recognie themselves in the mirror and exhibit facial expression. They are our closest living cousin.

 

And here is another...

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/05/05-01-07tdc/05-01-07dscihealth-05.asp

 

So at least you now have a more current figure to use.

 

Do you even read what you quote? The above refers to rhesus monkeys. And rhesus monkeys are 93% the same as us, according to the above link. Mankeys and apes are both primates, but they are not the same.

 

And here this quote may help understand that DNA closeness isn't everything...

 

I didn't say it was everything, but it a whole damn lot. And it fits perfectly within the evolutionary model we now have.

 

Oh you love to do that, don't you? Since you don't like it when I combine the two, you are right...abiogenesis is what naturalists use as the way life began. So I never told you to address any point with me...I believe you have taken that upon yourself...not to be mean.

 

Yes, I did choose to answer your post. It isn't that I don't like it when you comine the two, they are two seperate subjects in biology.

 

Scroll back up the page, and you will see that I provided a link to Dr Gould's paper on his "official" website.

 

WHich I saw, and didn't bother to correct. Mea Culpa.

 

I am sorry, but evolutionists/abiogenetists/naturalists don't make that distinction BECAUSE they want to show that evolution within a species can be "macro"-ed out to show evolution between species. I don't know how you can show a mechanism that shows how something DOESN'T happen.

 

They don't make that distinction because there isn't one. If you cannot provide a mechanism for something that you assert is happening--micro versus macro--then what are you even talking about?

 

Oh, yes, there is a wall that prevents it from happening. So far there are only "theories" on how it CAN happen. Let your breathe out. What do they call this fallacy? I really need to read that debate book.

 

You sure do. I am not even sure what you are talking about.

 

Theories about how what can happen? Transitions between species? Already covered. Look it up.

 

That was interesting logic. Perhaps you do need to read that article by Dr. Gould. It even helped me to understand your position better.

 

That wasn't logic, it was a statement of fact. Go to the library, pick out a book about evolution, and read it. Or go to http://www.talkorigins.org and read the FAQ.

 

What happened to intellectual freedom? Oh yeah, evolution is a fact.

 

Ok, so we should take someone seriously who thinks that the Earth is flat, or that the Sun orbits the Earth....no, sorry. You are free to believe whatever you want, and people who actually understand these things are free to think that you are at best misinformed and at worst an idiot. Right?

 

Oh, that is right...you like these kept distinct from each other. I need to show more intelligence here.

 

Yep. They are distinct. The gas tank and oil resevoir are both part of a car, but you don't put only in your gas tank, do you?

 

We agree on the first statement. Yet on this Board we have individuals who argue religion like they have studied it for years. We have people here who argue history even when they have not studied it for years. So critical thinkers do not always have to agree with what has been decided for them. They can have individual thoughts. I respect Dr, Gould for much of the work he has done, but I see others who have higher degrees of education who do not agree with him. BTW, I am not thinking of just creationists (who you feel cannot be scientists), but perhaps Even Richard Dawkins is not in full agreement with him?

 

No, but you aren't disgareeing with his position on punctuated equliibrium, you are disagreeing with his description of evolution being a theory and a fact. Nobody in biology disagress with him about that.

 

MOreover, I don't disagree with him about punctuated equillibrium, but I know that Dawkins does. And they can have at it. Such a disagreement is above my paygrade.

 

Nah, I am keeping an open mind to the fact that he is human and not God. And I am keeping in mind that he may even find down the road that he doesn't agree with himself on the interpretation. And I am keeping in mind that not all scientists agree period no matter what their level of degrees. This is called intellectual freedom.

 

So you doubt gravity then? How can anyone make it more clear. Evolution is a fact. We have a theory that explains the fat we see. We could come up with a new theory tomorrow and it wouldn't make evolution any less of a fact. So, do you really have an open mind, or do you really reject reality in favor of your superstitions?

 

Why would you worry? Another theory would come along..that may still prove satisfactorily to you that God does not exist?

 

Nothing can prove something not to exist. I am open to evidence for god, but there isn't any so far, so I am not holding my breath. The probablity of a god is so near zero I am not worried at all.

 

Read this in context. I was not talking about the Theory of Evolution, I was talking about the Endosymbiotic theory, which I have heard and read about...on evolution websites.

 

If that is so, you should have said so, but you didn't. Am I supposed to read minds now? You can read about abiogenesis on evolution websites as well, that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

 

Again, wrong theory referred to here.

 

You obfuscate the issue, and then blame me for the mistake. Sorry, won't wash.

 

Ahh, the inevitable ad hominems. This one I recognize. As for being liars, can we say Piltdown Man? And no, I don't think that this means that all evolutionary biologists are faking evidence and lying.

 

And scientists pointed out that Piltdown Man was a fraud. Not Creationists. And all Creationists, every single one, is a liar. And they don't even call each other out on it.

 

Kent Hovind (and his wife) is in prison for income tax evasion. Ken Ham is under indictment for fraud in his native Australia. Duane Gish was shown to be a liar in a debate, and yet still prints the same lies in his tracts. The Dover Schoolboard was shown to be lying--a matter of public record.

 

Problem solved. No need for you to discuss it any more.

 

Okay, well done. And now you know that you will never have to face a God. That should make life easy...or will it?

 

Oooooh, spooky. Golly, I hope not!!!! What if you're wrong, and when you die you don't have a sword in your hand? No Valhalla for you. I would tremble at my core if I were you.

 

And why would god care what I believe more than how I behave? DO you think thoguthcrime is important?

[Moai]

Wait...didn't Einstein show that it could not have always existed? Perhaps you could read THIS link. Stephen Hawkings showed that this was no longer tenable.

 

http://english.cri.cn/2946/2006/06/19/[email protected]

 

Uh-huh. Hawking is pretty smart. That doesn't address my point, though. Also, as Steven Weinberg suggests, we cannot hope to know what was before our Universe began, so it is possible that there has always been something. But we can't know that, so why postulate about it?