Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[boris]

I didn't ask it, but Bohr did.

Atomic structure decides how stable an atom is.

 

[BradCube]

I should restate what I said;

No, I don't believe there is.

There.

Why? Well, what are we calling 'God'? A higher power, right? Then maybe yes. We could say that Earth is God. But the whole man in the clouds thing, errrr, no thanks. People need things to be visual (the devil with a pitchfork surrounded by flames, god as an old man in the sky) Religion is totally based on people's choices and to 'dumb it down' to a childs story book makes me angry. The fact that people can't use their brains enough to have "illogical"(<-- dripping in sarcasm) thoughts...that they NEED it specifically written out for them....I question their overall brainpower.

Sorry if I come off harsh.

Doesn't come off harsh. Your conclusions seem to be a little misguided though. Even if people did make up God on their own, this in itself does not disprove the existance of God. This is known as the genetic fallacy.

I hope I don't come across arrogantly as I sincerely do not mean to. Surely though , you have more reason to disbelieve in God than simply the idea that Christians and the bible are what stupid people believe in?

 

[zstar]

Yeah you've got no clue what you're talking about. Evolution is a slow and systematic process in which DNA mutations lead to traits that are better for particular environments.

Micro-Evolution (I.E Bacterial strains that are resistant to antibiotics) prove this. It's proven.

You can't argue with it. It's fact.

Just because you have a poor understanding of the concepts doesn't mean the concept is false.

Why are you even bringing evolution into this?

We're talking about the forming of the earth which predates any life form on this planet.

How could the ecosystems have been sustainable enough for their to be life? Because what Atheists indicate is that this could only have been an accident.

 

[boris]

Why are you even bringing evolution into this?

We're talking about the forming of the earth which predates any life form on this planet.

How could the ecosystems have been sustainable enough for their to be life? Because what Atheists indicate is that this could only have been an accident.

I haven't met too many intelligent Atheists who indicate it was an accident.

That sounds more like a Creationists counter argument, for lack of anything better (or lack of basic scientific principles)

 

[Kwayera]

Why are you even bringing evolution into this?

We're talking about the forming of the earth which predates any life form on this planet.

How could the ecosystems have been sustainable enough for their to be life? Because what Atheists indicate is that this could only have been an accident.

Actually, life enabled life. Cyanobacteria photosynthesized CO2, created O2, and thus helped create the atmosphere. This shielded the oceans from a lot of UV radiation, and allowed life to complexify.

/ in a nutshell

 

[BradCube]

Not in any way, shape or form by some manner of omnipotent or incredible creator as the large quantities of Junk DNA that serve no purpose other than to clutter our genome show how redundant its' painstaking work is.

I would first direct you to a couple of articles that deal with possible reasons for junk dna:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/connections/2000v2n1/index.shtml#junk_dna
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#junk_dna

Lets put that aside for a second though and even assume that there is DNA that is completely junk and serves no purpose. This still doesn't explain the vast quantities of DNA that do have a use and are neccesary for the first living cell to be created. Where does this information in this DNA originate if not from intelligence (especially when given the previous analogy that all information we currently observe orginates from intelligence)?

 

[boris]

The roles of non-coding DNA are so numerous and pervasive that evolutionary studies are now looking at these sequences for patterns of "concerted evolution (74)." In summary, the non-coding DNA, contrary to statements by evolutionists, is not useless, but is, in fact, required for genomic functionality, therefore actually providing evidence of intelligent design. The "junk" DNA is really some rather amazing "junk."

Man. That's so dumb. It's basically one big massive leap into one big unsubstantiated claim.

"Because scentists think junk DNA serves no purpose, we think it does and therefore it's evidence for intelligent design"


What?

 

[Kwayera]

It was my understanding that junk-DNA is left over crap from when we were proto-primates and amphibians and fish.

 

[Vauxhall]

Doesn't come off harsh. Your conclusions seem to be a little misguided though. Even if people did make up God on their own, this in itself does not disprove the existance of God. This is known as the genetic fallacy.

I hope I don't come across arrogantly as I sincerely do not mean to. Surely though , you have more reason to disbelieve in God than simply the idea that Christians and the bible are what stupid people believe in?

I understand, and you weren't being arrogant. I didn't word it the way I should have, what i'm really asking is, what are we calling God? Not that I don't believe in a God because of Christian beliefs.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

"If the only time we see information written - whether it's painting on a cave wall or book from Amazon.com- is when there's an intelligence behind it, the wouldn't that also be true of nature itself?"

1) So what's the intelligence behind the creator? As far as man-made things are concerned, there then has to be an intelligence which created man right? If the creator is immune from this analogy because SOMETHING has to be, then why can't I just say 'nature' is?

2) It appears to me that we have plenty of natural events which occur without needing the existence of intelligence, but if you keep asking "and what caused it to do that" you'll get to the creation of the universe in which case you're just going to say intelligence was needed to begin the universe.

So if something as simple as a chair or a book cannot be created by accident then how on earth can something as complex as the air we breathe, the water we drink or lands we stand on been accidental?

We don't believe it happened by accident. Personally I'm a determinist and believe that every single thing, once properly understood, will be shown to have been determined.

 

[boris]

I don't get this whole argument.
From what I gather;
'Scientists believe it happened accidentally. Why did it happen accidentally? What caused it to happen accidentally, it must have been an intelligent creator'

A counter argument could be;

What accident lead to the creation of an intelligent creator? If as you guys argue stuff can't happen accidentally, or spontaneously, where did the intelligent creator come from and what gave it its intelligence?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

I will admit that I am of a particular stance on the Junk DNA aspect, and would gladly change my opinion were any evidence for Junk DNA's use put forward.

My understanding is that the junk/duplicate dna is necessary for "information to be added", which means that mutations can progress forward as opposed to always being regressive which is a behe claim against evolution.

 

[BradCube]

I understand, and you weren't being arrogant. I didn't word it the way I should have, what i'm really asking is, what are we calling God? Not that I don't believe in a God because of Christian beliefs.

I think the most common definition of God that most would be discussing here is that of an omnipotent, omnipresent, timeless, intelligent being that is responsible for origins of the universe.

Of course we may see variations upon this - but essentially we are talking about an intelligent being responsible for the universe.

 

[Vauxhall]

I think the most common definition of God that most would be discussing here is that of an omnipotent, omnipresent, timeless, intelligent being that is responsible for origins of the universe.

Of course we may see variations upon this - but essentially we are talking about an intelligent being responsible for the universe.

Ohhh. Well, thank you.

Warning: Genetic Fallacy - It would be all pretty and nice to imagine an omniscient figre created the universe, but it would be even nicer to imagine a great number of complex, timely events brought us to where we are now. It makes you appreciate life more.

 

[BradCube]

1) So what's the intelligence behind the creator? As far as man-made things are concerned, there then has to be an intelligence which created man right? If the creator is immune from this analogy because SOMETHING has to be, then why can't I just say 'nature' is?

This is because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. DNA and its information within it began to exist at some point and therefore it needs a cause or reason.

A timeless God however has no need to have a cause since he did not "begin" to exist. The fact that he is timeless means that there can be no beginning.

2) It appears to me that we have plenty of natural events which occur without needing the existence of intelligence, but if you keep asking "and what caused it to do that" you'll get to the creation of the universe in which case you're just going to say intelligence was needed to begin the universe.

I would say that the universe beginning to exist means that it must have this cause. Saying this cause is God or intelligence simply on that fact would be going too far however.

The reason that I pose Intelligence in regard to DNA is because intelligence is required for every other piece of information we see.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

This is because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. DNA and its information within it began to exist at some point and therefore it needs a cause or reason. A timeless God however has no need to have a cause since he did not "begin" to exist. The fact that he is timeless means that there can be no beginning.

Prove that the universe (as a larger concept than our known universe, I'm talking about all existence) ever 'began'.
There's background radiation which proves that our known universe had a beginning, but beyond that there's no real certainty at all, it's possible that the meta universe from which ours spawned has no beginning.

 

[Vauxhall]

No and further no.

I'm really sick of both Tryhard Atheists and Moronic Christians misunderstanding science, the scientific process, evolution, the development of the universe, the formation of the earth, the basic processes of life and the development of Humankind.

Bad.

No.

Don't.

I didn't even touch on the process. I didn't because I only know the basics. Cool it.

 

[Vauxhall]

Really can't deal with tryhard atheists right now who are fighting against the system because they're so cool and enlightened.

Understand your perspective. Your lack of knowledge made your own atheism seem to be reactionary rather than calm and measured, and it irritated me.

Fair deal, my apologies.

Read the warning BEFORE I stated my perspective.

accepted.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Then that makes time non-linear but rather a relative concept and the notion of progress a delusion within our own meta-psychology which makes our own moralistic decisions entirely meaningless given that our own lifetimes become congruent at 0 time if time itself is infinite.

Sif write off moralistic pragmatism based on the mathematics of the infinite

lol wot.

My belief is that the meta reality beyond our universe could probably exist with somewhat different physical laws to our own... but for the most part this needn't bother us because our reality for the most part isn't even an acknowledgment of our known univerese, it's barely an acknowledgment of the few feeble areas of life we understand in our short time on earth.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Yeah and entropy means evolution is a lie.

THE SUN!