Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Does GOD exist?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Very well, Powder. It is a shame that you won't edit your work with a simple [Link], but that is up to you and the moderators of mmorpg.com.
As to your original post, the problems inherent in them requires very little scientific knowledge. They are flawed...
1. "Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation."
The problem with this point is that it confuses 'beginning' with 'creation'. They are not synonymous. So, to go from the first sentence to the second and see a connection is fallacious.
2. "Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer."
This is, if it were a question, begging the question. The word 'designed' is thrown into the first premise, assumed to be correct, and then later used as proof in the second sentence. With little effort you could remove the word 'designed' and the entire argument falls apart. Nevermind that 'information' and 'intelligence' are not dependent upon each other.
3. "Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?"
In the 2nd sentence we have "...scientists aren't even sure...", which leads to the 3rd sentence, "If life did not arise by chance..." Are we to assume that being unsure now means that it can not happen? That is quite the leap, and it truly begs the question.
4. "The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?"
This is very common in the ID/Creationist debate. We often hear it as, "Evolution is just a Theory". Which ignores what a scientific theory really is, compared to the everyday use of, "Oh, hey, I got this theory about why your mom hates me so much." In this case it is confusing scientific laws with the laws of man. For instance, we see a law that limits the speed on interstate highways -- which come from local government and serves the purpose of, supposedly, keeping us safe and, possibly, regulating fuel usage. Then we look at a scientific law. Isn't it only fair to ask where it comes from and what it's ultimate goal is? Ummm.. no. They are two completely different types of law. The author of these points only want you to assume that they are the same type, and therefore, assume a creator/designer.
5. "Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?"
First of all, Philosophers seldom agree on anything. So, which philosophers completely agree on this? Secondly, it is possible that something made of fiction requires a fictitious character to create it. Philosophers agree that the green rock known as kryptonite proves the existence of Krypton. How could it exist otherwise? My point being, if there is no objective moral standard (which there is not), then whatever we imagine can be the provider of this fictional ideal. I say it was Zeus, how about you?
Therefore, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentence become irrelevant on such a shaky foundation. Which fictional character gave you an objective moral standard? Why did this fictional thing give you an objective moral standard? Again, the author has assumed too much and begs us to go along with it.
6. "People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?"
There has never been proof of the supernatural. Period. The burden of proof lies with those making exceptional claims. So, bring it on.
- LC
hey there,phenomena? not sure if you mean a range of phenomena or just the spontaneous mutation one.
I am not an evolutionary scientist and i don't know what the flaw you are talking about. are you talking about doubting the occurance of transcription errors? or that they don't lead to gross changes in cells? these things are being pretty thoroughly explored in cancer research.
or is just randomness and the complexity that is the problem. One common mistake is to define an "isolated change" excluding it from the "environment" as there is no such thing, the change is part of its environment.
i am sure i am missing your point here.
also the interconected thing is very vague and emotionaly charged. is it about our ability to empathise with another? or is it the abstract that all masses influence each other by gravitational forces? Your view of us all being one is also very common spiritual theme, probably relating to the fact that we can all relate to some extent with each other. Like a lot of social abstracts it helps a community survive thus supporting the evolutionary drive to reproduce.
on the whole though, i hope you see that the web site you quoted uses poor logic, a semblence of authority and emotional appeals to the ignorant. they use misinformation and strawman arguments to push thier agenda. I am still quite amazed that the emotional appeal to the ignorant by touting the "scientists much vaunted objectivity is just hypocracy" argument. Really, for over 80 years that one has been layed to rest, there is no absolute objectivity without an omnicience outside of the natural order.
I had this discussion before. I will explain why there is no randomness, nor a spontaneous mutation. Evolutionaries would have you believe such a thing. In science a spontaneous event would be a "phenomena" or a unnatural event as defined by science itself.
In simple terms I will use genetic data, or Alleles to explain. Mutation is just that mutation.
If you have a set of data and it copies itself it is the same data. But if events happen to the data due to environ, natural cause that causes either the data to be destroyed, damaged or added then it is no longer the same data. At the copy stage it will mutate into whatever the current data flow is. Thus it is not spontaneous nor random..
This is my biggest issue with evolution. Besides the "observable" ideology that evolutionists use. Most evolutionists do not follow genetics.
Evolution standpoint uses this as a way of explaining: In population genetics, genetic drift (or more precisely allelic drift) is the evolutionary process of change in the allele frequencies (or gene frequencies) of a population from one generation to the next due to the phenomena of probability in which purely chance events determine which alleles (variants of a gene) within a reproductive population will be carried forward while others disappear. Especially in the case of small populations, the statistical effect of sampling error during random sampling of certain alleles from the overall population may result in an allele, and the biological traits that it confers The link can be found hereen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
Notice the "phenomena of probability". Talk about a whack belief. Religion anyone! Most DNA Geneticists do not concur with this belief set. Many standard biologists do. Why the separation? Because standard biologists do not deal with sub particle atomics and DNA strands.
Every mutation that takes place or the simple word"change" is a natural occurring event. Not spontaneous.
If you look at the universe as a whole in its vastness and every changing landscape, mutation occurs frequently and often with explanation. This is from a cosmologist view. In fact if you look in scientific history there is not one mutation that has been proven spontaneous. There has always been a cause and a effect for that mutation to take place. The idea of spontaneous is from my point of view self-admittance to superstition and phenomena.
Evolution would be fine except for this one major flaw.
Very well, Powder. It is a shame that you won't edit your work with a simple [Link], but that is up to you and the moderators of mmorpg.com.
As to your original post, the problems inherent in them requires very little scientific knowledge. They are flawed...
1. "Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation."
The problem with this point is that it confuses 'beginning' with 'creation'. They are not synonymous. So, to go from the first sentence to the second and see a connection is fallacious.
2. "Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer."
This is, if it were a question, begging the question. The word 'designed' is thrown into the first premise, assumed to be correct, and then later used as proof in the second sentence. With little effort you could remove the word 'designed' and the entire argument falls apart. Nevermind that 'information' and 'intelligence' are not dependent upon each other.Your argument here is quite weak. Even from a single mitochondriaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria it is weak. You are just mixing words with no real evidence shown.
As to information. It does require intelligence to form design. But alas we see things from a different perspective. As I explained earlier. You see each thing as a separate. I do not.
3. "Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?"
In the 2nd sentence we have "...scientists aren't even sure...", which leads to the 3rd sentence, "If life did not arise by chance..." Are we to assume that being unsure now means that it can not happen?Actually there are better odds the Universe was designed more so than it happened by chance. Ask a real statistician! That is quite the leap, and it truly begs the question.
4. "The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?"
This is very common in the ID/Creationist debate. We often hear it as, "Evolution is just a Theory". Which ignores what a scientific theory really is, compared to the everyday use of, "Oh, hey, I got this theory about why your mom hates me so much." In this case it is confusing scientific laws with the laws of man. For instance, we see a law that limits the speed on interstate highways -- which come from local government and serves the purpose of, supposedly, keeping us safe and, possibly, regulating fuel usage. Then we look at a scientific law. Isn't it only fair to ask where it comes from and what it's ultimate goal is? Ummm.. no. They are two completely different types of law. The author of these points only want you to assume that they are the same type, and therefore, assume a creator/designer.Actually the Universe is quite ordered in how it does things. There is no confusion concerning the Laws of Man and the Laws of science. Man made science. So of course there is a direct correlation between the two. The one Law you tend to not mention is the law of this Universe. Which is change.. Which will happen regardless of what belief set you have. You also tend to only look at this subject from a small picture not the overall picture.
5. "Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?"
First of all, Philosophers seldom agree on anything. So, which philosophers completely agree on this? Secondly, it is possible that something made of fiction requires a fictitious character to create it. Kinda reminds me of Darwin and a certain set of pictures of a spotted moth. Philosophers agree that the green rock known as kryptonite proves the existence of Krypton. How could it exist otherwise? My point being, if there is no objective moral standard (which there is not), then whatever we imagine can be the provider of this fictional ideal. Amazing, I remember looking at old comic books from the early 1920 ies.. Then it was fiction now its fact.I say it was Zeus, how about you? Please refrain from mixing mysticism and religious overtones as a support of your argument.
Therefore, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentence become irrelevant on such a shaky foundation.Actually the premise of the sentences still stand, you are doing your best to discredit it by using religious overtones and substance. In which the above has noneWhich fictional character gave you an objective moral standard? Why did this fictional thing give you an objective moral standard?Was there a moral standard given? I do not see one? Do you? Again, the author has assumed too much and begs us to go along with it.When one is set in a belief system one can misinterpret information. This entire argument is a very good example of it.
6. "People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?"
There has never been proof of the supernatural. Period. The burden of proof lies with those making exceptional claims. So, bring it on.According to Evolution Spontaneous events take place. Evolution said so! So you wanted proof of a phenomena or a supernatural event, there it is! Do not know why you are disagreeing with evolution on this.
Yes, bring it ON!
- LC
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
well, it is quoted from the linked page that has the original content.
this is a good argument, and it sums up my position nicely, there can be no supernatural God as the material world is the reliable bit. Basically we can reliably interact with the material world. we can experiment with it and develop understanding.
the supernatural is unreliable (statisticaly a prayer does not cure disease any better than a double blinded placebo, and only becomes as good as a placebo if the subject has faith in the prayer). The supernatural is untestable, miracles are unrepeatable.
to me, a supernatural god is useless and has no value above a placebo. I will stick with my a priori position that the natural world is all that there is and then work within those boundaries to make the world a better place.
i think that it is time that people gave up sacrificing goats to a supernatural entity to make it rain.
the linked article goes on to say that anyone holds this view has lost their objectivity. what they are actually doing is attempting to insult and bait those that attempt to use an objective approach with a paper tiger. Through science we all ready can experimentaly show that the observer must be part of the tested system, this means there is no absolute objectivity, only a supernatural entity can show absolute objectivity as they are outside the natural order. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was discovered over 80 years ago, and the religeous still bait scientists with "you are not objective!" and if they reply with anything but "i know, now, how can we use that in our experimentation?" they are showing poor science and have most likely become emotionally involved.
Using the above quoted argument the follow up of "Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?"" you have given up critical thinking by allowing the faith in the unnatural. you recognise that a god must be supernatural being, something outside of the natural order, something that crittical thought cannot be applied to as there can be no testing of its existance.
As such the FSM is as worthwhile a story as any others to explain creation.
Ok you havea valid point about asking the question "Does God exist" but by going with evolution you go with a illogical theory. For evolution is something from nothing, life from non-life, and consicinous from unconsicinous. That is backwards thinking.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Bren is correct. I'm a member of several different forums and EVERYONE cites their sources for direct quotes.
Bren
My school also had an instant expulsion policy when it came to plagiarism or cheating of any kind.
With all of that said, I would most certainly say no. There are far too many inconsistancies with the classic and current view of god for me to consider such a being even close to a likely possibility.
That said, I will concede there is ample room for another force, even an intelligence or purpose in what we know of the universe, and that the existence of such would indeed fill a number of theoretical holes in need of closure.
The concept these days of God is mostly dogmatic, a barbaric picture of what God is like suitable for people of the time it was written. Every religious text and belief uses a medium of truth, such as philisophical ideas worked into Gods "words"
There is a deep connection between knowledge and religion, that few see and the rest dont bother. A truth known to every great philosopher and physicist that ever lived. I cant explain what its like, you have to read philosophical quotes and ideas, and be open minded to a degree. A major portion of the belief is knowledge, i have a compulsive habit to gather random knowledge at times, and after time you see a connection. Explained by philosophy.
Once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy, you see a new value in life, undeniably set there by a designer.
Its curious to me that there are so many people who insist on arguing for the existence of God so forcefully that they manage to damage their cause. That may lead itself to misinterpretation so I'll elaborate. There are evangelicals who invite others to join them and if they get a no, say "fair enough, we will be here if you change you mind." Then there are evangelicals who accost you on the street saying "Do you want to live forever??????"
Powder strikes me as as one of the more sophisticated versions of the latter for they way he relies on half baked science for proof. Whether it be coming out against evolution or using an updated version of the argument from design, the flaws in the position he takes are severe enough to engender resistance against more honest prosletysing.
If you are not being responded to directly, you are probably on my ignore list.
I am curious, what flaws? Care to give some examples.
What is humorous is my halfed-baked science is more sensible than a evolutionist "sensible" science.
You merely need to re-read what aef and others have posted in refutation. But the primary weak point of an argument from design position is that the designer needs a designer ad infinitum.
If you are not being responded to directly, you are probably on my ignore list.
But if you followed most of the refutation I covered the bases. As to a designer needing a designer.. That is a big question. One that no one is capable of answering. As such it is mute. Almost the same as where did that small incredible amount of energy that formed the big bang come from? Do not see anyone explaining pre-bigbang. The assumed answer is it has always been there. From a design point of view it would be the same answer. A designer has always been there.
But if you followed most of the refutation I covered the bases. As to a designer needing a designer.. That is a big question. One that no one is capable of answering. As such it is mute. Almost the same as where did that small incredible amount of energy that formed the big bang come from? Do not see anyone explaining pre-bigbang. The assumed answer is it has always been there. From a design point of view it would be the same answer. A designer has always been there.
I did follow most of the refutation and you ignored some points brought up by Cactusman X and Aeflin though you did respond to some objections.
"One that no one is capable of answering. As such it is mute" It is extremely odd you should say this (the word you are looking for is "moot" incidentally) given that no one is capable of giving definitive answers regarding divinity. That being the case, will you consider your first question "is there a God?" to no longer be worth pursuing as it can not be answered any more than other supernatural questions can?
You bring up "the assumed answer" (I admit to not being a master of astronomy but I try to pay attention to science so I have to know who is assuming this as an answer?) however just before it you say that no one explains the pre-bigbang(which contradicts the first part). I would like clarification on what you mean and what you are citing.
False logic regarding the designer. The principle that MAY apply for the cosmos does not automatically mean that it applies to something different that is independent of it.
If you are not being responded to directly, you are probably on my ignore list.
I promise to get back to you on this. I am quite drunk right now.. Me and the wifey.. But promise to get back to you to further discuss this in the morning. Jack Ds Southern punch..yum
Xpowderx -
I'm going to skip quoting the entire thing again, it's just too big for that now. Instead, I will pick out the relevant parts and address what we've been talking about.
Firstly, my criticism of this article you found is purely, with a few exceptions in which I dip my feet into the pool of science, a rhetorical criticism. I find that many of the arguments made are fundamentally flawed in how they are worded and the fallacies they create. They ask us to assume too much, and then build on each of those assumptions. It is dishonest from the start, no matter if there are relevant points to be found or not. Honestly, it is too shallow to critique scientifically, as it is vague and carries few real points of factual data. It is protected by its vague nature.
_______________________________________________
I followed your link to the Mitochondrion page of Wiki. No where do I see the word 'designed'. The word 'machine' appears, but I think we can assume that does not have the same meaning as say, a truck, or an air compressor, or other 'designed' machines. You would be hard pressed to find the word 'designed' in peer-reviewed, scientific circles that deal in Evolutionary science. That is why I have thrown the word out.
_______________________________________________
"As to information. It does require intelligence to form design. But alas we see things from a different perspective. As I explained earlier. You see each thing as a separate. I do not."
However, the original point was, "Information requires intelligence". So, again it doesn't matter if intelligence is required for design. The argument was about information and intelligence. For a true debate it would require a definition of terms that we could both agree on, and I think that would require another debate entirely.
_______________________________________________
"Actually there are better odds the Universe was designed more so than it happened by chance. Ask a real statistician!"
Again, that section was addressing the problems of rhetoric posed by the point. We are to assume that being "unsure" is the same as "can not happen". And yes, I realize there are statisticians who have attempted to estimate the chances of a universe in which life is able to exist. The problem always comes down to a lack of knowledge and a whole lot of assumptions. Do the statisticians know how many times the universe has collapsed and expanded? How many universes exist? The yet undiscovered laws and theories that effect such a formula? To assume that we know enough to estimate such an event is premature to say the least -- at this point we can only take current knowledge, mix it in with some assumptions, and then throw out a fun number like 1010123 . I don't blame Roger Penrose, I just understand the limited information that he has to work with. Of course, he is fully within his rights to reach a number with his current understanding and information. Science will correct him as new information is gathered. That's how it works. I'm fine with that. The same goes for other statisticians who have attempted this same answer. I believe Dembski is one of them, but can't remember exactly. Do you truly trust this number? If so, why?
_________________________________________________
"Actually the Universe is quite ordered in how it does things. There is no confusion concerning the Laws of Man and the Laws of science. Man made science. So of course there is a direct correlation between the two. The one Law you tend to not mention is the law of this Universe. Which is change.. Which will happen regardless of what belief set you have. You also tend to only look at this subject from a small picture not the overall picture."
There is confusion if we are to assume that one law requires a creator, and therefore so does the other. As for "man made science", are you saying that man caused the laws and theories to occur, or man used science to observe and catalog these occurrences? To observe an event is not necessarily to create the event, and that is certainly where there is a difference. The laws of man can be removed or changed (the speed limit raised or lowered, or removed completely, or even ignored by drivers), are you saying that we can do the same with the laws of science, simply will ourselves to no longer follow relativity or the 3rd law of dynamics?
As for mentioning a 'law of change', I do not see how it has a relevance to this discussion. I understand that scientific laws exist. Again, are you saying that man created this 'law of change'? Or perhaps man merely observed such a thing and recorded it? I'm not even sure what the relevance of mentioning a 'belief set' is in reference to scientific laws. The more I read your comment the more confused I become.
_____________________________________________
"Kinda reminds me of Darwin and a certain set of pictures of a spotted moth."
Yes, you mean this moth? Indeed.
"Please refrain from mixing mysticism and religious overtones as a support of your argument."
Why? The author's point is to ask "does God exist?" Simply put, today's religion is tomorrow's mythology. Our past is full of people who believed that god's created rainfall, the sun to rise, and earthquakes. The only difference is that the closing gaps in our knowledge has caused today's religious followers to get a little more creative in proving their flavor of religion exists. I think it is relevant to the question, "does God exist?" Besides, if I take away mysticism, the question would read, "does ----- exist?"
________________________________________________
I need to grab a bit more for this next point:
"
5. "Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?"
Therefore, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentence become irrelevant on such a shaky foundation.Actually the premise of the sentences still stand, you are doing your best to discredit it by using religious overtones and substance. In which the above has noneWhich fictional character gave you an objective moral standard? Why did this fictional thing give you an objective moral standard?Was there a moral standard given? I do not see one? Do you? Again, the author has assumed too much and begs us to go along with it.When one is set in a belief system one can misinterpret information. This entire argument is a very good example of it.
Transcendent Law Giver? That doesn't shout GOD in a paper entitled, "does GOD exist?"? How can you say that has no 'religious overtones and substance'? That would be seriously dishonest if you truly believe it. I'll give you a chance to reconsider, however.
The moral standard given is the 'objective moral standard' mentioned. Again, this is a paper entitled, "does GOD exist?", so are we to assume that this objective moral standard has nothing to do with the implied religion? Or perhaps this is the objective moral standard of the Smurfs? Or maybe, just maybe, it is the objective moral standard of the author. So, yes. I DO see one. It is the same one that the author is jumping up and down on and pointing at with his every implied word.
Again, I say there is no such thing as an objective moral standard. Some people only pretend that there is, which in their minds is enough to move it to Proof.
______________________________________________________
"According to Evolution Spontaneous events take place. Evolution said so! So you wanted proof of a phenomena or a supernatural event, there it is! Do not know why you are disagreeing with evolution on this."
A decent definition of Evolution:
[Link]"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
I assume you mean that "something came from nothing". If so, the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, merely the changes that life makes. Just as the Big Bang Theory does not cover the origin of the matter used, and the Theory of Relativity does not explain why gas prices continue to rise. But you know that, right? I have no disagreements with Evolution at all, but I definitely have a disagreement with your understanding of it.
- LC
Arndur, firstly you are refering to abiogenisis not evolution. Secondly evolution never states things came from nothing, neither does abiogenisis. They are both dependent on a complex envioronment and non-liniear interactions.
the examples you use, of life, what is life? when is something living? not living? these questions are still debated as well. is a virus alive? a slime mold? a seed? For conciousness, the same questions are being asked, is a dog concious? what about a monkey? what about a human with severe autism? or a 2 month old baby? a Turing machine?
by holding your closed definition of life and conciousness as knowns and absolutes, and not as ambiguous complex systems with shades of grey, you see a world with dicontinuities of black and white. that there is no paths between points, just isolated points. this allows for a belief in supernatural intervention to jump one state to another. Black can never be white inless a god makes it so, but put dark grey on a pale grey background and it will look black, put it on a darker grey background and it will look white. [squares A and B are the same shade of grey, thier evironment affects them]
you acuse evolution of being illogical only because your basic definintions of what you think evolution talks about are not what evolution talks about at all. Your interpretation starts with a faith in absolutes. You look around and think there 'must' be first causes. I look around and go, "damn there is a lot of complex stuff around interacting in a very, very complex way. it would be pridefull of me to say what 'must' have happened, when i can't even undertand what 'is' happening." By giving in to a belief in the supernatural i think people are being negligent, as through the exploration of the complexity of the world we can work out things and then we can help each other by developing technologies.
Sorry what? Science has defined something as unnatural?
I am definitely missing something here. Sometimes a simplified model is used in order to work with a system. For example, Newton’s laws of gravity are used in ballistics calculations as relativistic effects are much smaller than intrinsic errors (air turbulence for example). Maybe this is what is happening?
Or maybe it is a bookkeeping mathematic artefact?
Simply put, as soon as a scientist justifies a system on unnatural influences, they are looking for a job at a religious college.
“Most DNA Geneticists do not concur with this belief set. Many standard biologists do. Why the separation? Because standard biologists do not deal with sub particle atomics and DNA strands."
Or is it a now defunct model that biologist haven’t had enough education about? Scientists are not above error and simply cannot know everything in science. Here you point to a reason, that the biologist don't work as intimately with the cutting edge of theory as the geneticists. Also when you teach you have to teach some of the context of where our current knowledge came from, we are often taught incorrect models as they are old and have been super seeded. But if you think about it, every model in science is assumed to be incorrect, they are only supported as long as there is no evidence to contradict them. It is the evidance that contradicts models that keeps scientists employed, that what they work on, finding better models.
By sub practical atomics, do you mean sub atomic particles? So the bits that makes up atoms? While the interactions of DNA have a lot to do with the electrons, as far as I know no other sub atomic particle has any influence.
With all of that said, I would most certainly say no. There are far too many inconsistancies with the classic and current view of god for me to consider such a being even close to a likely possibility.
That said, I will concede there is ample room for another force, even an intelligence or purpose in what we know of the universe, and that the existence of such would indeed fill a number of theoretical holes in need of closure.
The concept these days of God is mostly dogmatic, a barbaric picture of what God is like suitable for people of the time it was written. Every religious text and belief uses a medium of truth, such as philisophical ideas worked into Gods "words"
There is a deep connection between knowledge and religion, that few see and the rest dont bother. A truth known to every great philosopher and physicist that ever lived. I cant explain what its like, you have to read philosophical quotes and ideas, and be open minded to a degree. A major portion of the belief is knowledge, i have a compulsive habit to gather random knowledge at times, and after time you see a connection. Explained by philosophy.
Once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy, you see a new value in life, undeniably set there by a designer.
It seems you have a very flawed idea of what philosophy is like.
Let me first direct you to this to simply disprove your argument that you have to believe in a designer once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russel
What you have done is listen to philosophy of one side of the fence while you have ignored the other, made by philosophy who ignore perhaps the most important question:
If the designer made mankind...Who made the designer?
I am curious, what flaws? Care to give some examples.
What is humorous is my halfed-baked science is more sensible than a evolutionist "sensible" science.
What I find humorous is that so many educated, sophisticated people can actually believe in a magical omnipotent being that has existed forever and created the entire universe but decided to focus all (or most) of his attention on our little planet. The Greeks thought similarly about their gods but we laugh at them now. Someday, people will also laugh at Christians, Jews, etc. for believing in God.
I think God really exist. Although there’s a lot of Scientific Studies show that people came from the generation of homo’s I still believe that got create us.
Spiritualtiy as a whole is so inherently human I find it unlikely humans as a whole will develop past the use of spirituality. The questions of existance are readily being tackled by both technology and spirituality. Often these two elements propel each other by opening more questions. As most of the best scientists will readily admit, science will never answer all the questions nor will religion. They simply keep progressing.
Now thats not to say extremely advanced spiritualists and nihilists wont develop. Eventually science will allow us to delve into technologies which parallel our beliefs of what a god is. Deism of ourselves and the desire to emulate a god will likely propel the study of what a god is and perhaps open new avenues of understanding.
For me, I believe that GOD is in my mind. GOD can give U everything U want if U try so hard. So, U can be whether GOD or EVIL depending on Ur heart!!!
<<<<<<< Oh!!! My GOD...
I usually don't get into Theological debates as I find it to be like arguing with a rock but here goes anyways. Most of the arguments that support Intelligent Design in this thread and the "science" that back it up are actually something called Pseudoscience. The theories proposed in this thread are only backed up buy conjecture and other theories which are supported by yet more theories. Scientific Theory is supported by facts that have been tested and measured in a strictly controlled environment with repeatable results. The Big Bang and Evolution are Scientific Theories because even though they are supported by scientific facts the overall theory can't be tested in a controlled environment with repeatable results. To do this you would have to create a complete universe or evolve an ecosystem through millions of years under strict lab conditions repeatably which is impossible to accomplish. This is the way science keeps itself in check by not taking leaps of faith even though all of the available facts may support your conclusion.
Now......as for the question "Does God Exist?". The answer is yes, most definitely. God exists as an abstract concept conceived by man to explain the unexplainable. Does belief in God improve people's lives? Also yes, most definitely. Belief in God does cause improvements in people's lives through the Placebo Effect. It's the belief itself that causes the improvements and not some divine intervention by an omnipotent being. God does exist as long as people believe God does exist.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
With all of that said, I would most certainly say no. There are far too many inconsistancies with the classic and current view of god for me to consider such a being even close to a likely possibility.
That said, I will concede there is ample room for another force, even an intelligence or purpose in what we know of the universe, and that the existence of such would indeed fill a number of theoretical holes in need of closure.
The concept these days of God is mostly dogmatic, a barbaric picture of what God is like suitable for people of the time it was written. Every religious text and belief uses a medium of truth, such as philisophical ideas worked into Gods "words"
There is a deep connection between knowledge and religion, that few see and the rest dont bother. A truth known to every great philosopher and physicist that ever lived. I cant explain what its like, you have to read philosophical quotes and ideas, and be open minded to a degree. A major portion of the belief is knowledge, i have a compulsive habit to gather random knowledge at times, and after time you see a connection. Explained by philosophy.
Once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy, you see a new value in life, undeniably set there by a designer.
It seems you have a very flawed idea of what philosophy is like.
Let me first direct you to this to simply disprove your argument that you have to believe in a designer once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russel
What you have done is listen to philosophy of one side of the fence while you have ignored the other, made by philosophy who ignore perhaps the most important question:
If the designer made mankind...Who made the designer?
Bertrand Russel isnt the king of philosophers, he has a bitter attitude in his works; which do contain truth, but that doesnt constitute his belief to be true. Like i said people use a medium on which they base truth. Ill share some quotes that might help.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." -Albert Einstein
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” -St. Thomas Aquinas
"I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion” -Baruch Spinoza
And one of my favorite
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth man's minds about to religion." -Sir Francis Bacon
Bren -
I think you've done an excellent job of describing God/god/gods/etc. I've always enjoyed my opponent's God-of-the-gaps -- He is like an old acquaintance who crashes the party and wrecks a good conversation, drinks all the beer, and drives out the hot women. As to the idea that God improves lives, I am surprised that you would immediately jump to a resounding 'Yes'. A yes ignores the damage that a belief in God creates (the psychosis, the lack of action that occurs while relying on prayer, the misunderstanding of natural events, the hate, etc.) . With the good comes the bad, and all of the good can be replicated without a belief in God. So, why keep God around at all? I think I just paraphrased Hitchens there, or maybe Dawkins, or most likely both.
As to your first paragraph, I believe you might misunderstand the meaning of tests in science. Evolution is tested on a regular basis, as is the Big Bang Theory. You should start here for more information. Not all tests require a clean lab environment or a recreation of the event itself. I didn't learn this until recently while researching another topic, and it is a common misunderstanding.
- LC