Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Brad, the people here are at best bright kids doing a bachelors degree... I hope you realise that even if we can't answer all your questions, it doesn't mean the answer isn't there. Evolution has been debated a long time by a lot of very smart people who know what they're talking about. The major criticisms (i.e. death knell type stuff, not Stephen Gould type stuff) of evolution have usually come from people who don't understand the biology.

 

[BradCube]

Brad, the people here are at best bright kids doing a bachelors degree... I hope you realise that even if we can't answer all your questions, it doesn't mean the answer isn't there. Evolution has been debated a long time by a lot of very smart people who know what they're talking about. The major criticisms (i.e. death knell type stuff, not Stephen Gould type stuff) of evolution have usually come from people who don't understand the biology.

Yeah, of course I understand this. I myself am in the same boat - in fact I'm probably worse of since I haven't done any of the sciences. As a result I am simply left with an honest search for truth amongst like minded individuals. I don't expect everyone to have all the answers. I'm just asking people to put their best points for the belief they have forward, or simply admit that they don't have an answer (which in itself is not problematic).

 

[Slidey]

Not to mention, Brad, that science doesn't actively set out to discredit or disprove god/religion.

Plenty of biologists themselves have asked why evolution works and posited many problems and scenerios for it. 100 years ago many of these were unsolved problems. Today they are fundamental parts of the theory (e.g. allelic drift).

Religion is a set of ideas created to explain gaps in knowledge. There are many ways religion could be formulated, and indeed many wildly different religions exist on earth. In contrast, there is only one way to formulate science. Science is logic. If Charles Darwin hadn't discovered evolution, somebody else would have (and really, others had actually done so before Darwin). Evolution isn't a possibility; it's an inevitability. Just as we don't know all the details of abiogenesis, the people in Darwin's time didn't know all the details of evolution.

Science is not blind faith. There will always be people there to keep it honest, whether Galileo, Darwin or the religious who feel that a single poorly understood part of a theory is evidence the entire theory is wrong.

Indeed the fact that intelligent design and religion have clashed with science so often in the past 2000 years, and inevitably been on the losing side each time, indicates it's no different in the case of abiogenesis.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

I'm just asking people to put their best points for the belief they have forward, or simply admit that they don't have an answer (which in itself is not problematic).

I just hope you don't place a persons lack of knowledge about certain intricacies of evolution in the same category as when theists get stumped on questions of God's existence, as the latter are much more encompassing questions than the former. For it to be analogous it would require you to be able to answer the question of "How" god works or for my only answer about how evolution works to be "magically through nature!"

 

[KFunk]

If Charles Darwin hadn't discovered evolution, somebody else would have (and really, others had actually done so before Darwin).

Trivia -- David Hume almost stumbled on the basic idea when considering the origins of the universe in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published 1779 - posthumously... he know what happened to people seen to oppose the church). I brought up the relevant passage once in another thread:

Hume wrote "Let us suppose that matter is finite. A finite number of particles is only susceptible of finite transpositions: and it must happen, in an eternal duration, that every possible order or position must be tried an infinite number of times." While I don't agree that every position need be attained an infinite number of times (or at all!), Hume nonetheless notes that "this world... with all its events, even the most minute" may be produced by the random rearrangements of a primitive substance. The important thing to note is that such a system (which itself may be uncaused) could, by yielding semi-stable and increasingly complex systems, perhaps generate the universe we see before us today.

 

[KFunk]

I suppose then I would ask how the "code" (or whatever we want to call it) has come to be?

If this has already been stated, please re-direct me back again

As others have said, we don't have any PhDs here (yet!) and so we are limited in how much evidence we can provide. Slidey is pretty knowledgeable on this stuff, however, so I'll refer you to a past post of his:

Let's talk about RNA since it's simpler and came before DNA.

It's rather simple: RNA can exist; that much is obvious.

Further, nature can spontaneously create RNA that can self-replicate; that has also been shown to be true.

With that in mind it's pretty foolish to think that RNA is the product of an intelligence; it's far more likely that nature spontaneously created it and it got caught up in an oil membrane along with a few other key components, or it formed inside the soup of a membrane that had already formed. Considering it's a fairly 'easy' chemical reaction, and that it had about a billion years to occur in over and over again all around the earth, I don't think resorting to an intelligent designer is called for.

The origin of life is a question not of the ability of RNA to spontaneously form or replicate, but of how all the components of a cell joined together to form the first proto-cell; something that could produce something of at least equal complexity to itself.

What's been proven possible:
1) spontaneous formation of lipid/oil membranes in various different, often unrelated ways.
2) spontaneous formation of nucleic acid polymers
3) spontaneous self-replication of nucleic acid polymers
4) various other things less exciting but necessary
5) for all the different components of life to be present together in one place and for long enough not to degrade too quickly (one theory I like is the rock sheet one - some rock formations form oily organic sheets between their layers; they're safe, protected and have all the necessary ingredients for life)

In reality it's probably a mix of genes-first and metabolism-first; they're not mutually exclusive and one without the other is harder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

 

[KFunk]

Now I realize that we have had a small amount of discussion regarding amino acids etc but essentially I am asking how non repetitious patterns can form from natural causes. For example, in electromagnetic radiation we find information in the form of patterns that can be mathematically expressed. From my reading however, no such patterns exist in DNA "code". Does this get brought back to evolution? If so, would someone be able to simply describe how evolution would work in these cases when life cannot be passed on, and the DNA in it's current state has no use.

On this matter we can actually look back to the Hume quote I posted above!:

"Let us suppose that matter is finite. A finite number of particles is only susceptible of finite transpositions: and it must happen, in an eternal duration, that every possible order or position must be tried an infinite number of times."

We need to alter this a bit of course. As far as we know our universe has only existed for a finite (though incredibly long, on a human scale) amount of time and so while only a limited number of particle arrangements will have occured a huge subset of the possible ones will have arisen. What's the big deal here? Well, some of these arrangements will be more stable than others and (as Hume further realised) these will tend to persist. What other features, chemical stability aside, would increase the persistance of a certain molecule type? Self replication! (see prions) What else? A barrier perhaps... like a cell wall (as Slidey mentioned, lipid membranes spontaneously form --> see Micelles and Bilayers, where the latter are important in cell membranes and organelles).

The rough idea is that many of the components of life are able to spontaneously emerge in the appropriate chemical environment and many of them, either individually or taken collectively, have features which help them to persist over time. Once an entity like a basic cell (much simpler than what we see today, I'm sure, presumably constructed from the appropriate molecular constituents bound by a cell membrane) appears on the scene which can replicate/mutate then our understanding of cellular evolution can take over somewhat.

 

[KFunk]

Well spotted - it's a direct paste from another thread (Adam & Eve or Evolution), hence my saying that I was bringing in stuff from an old post. I think you were involved in the discussion at the time.

 

[long tiem]

this is the ulitimate debate toipic, people die for their religious beliefs, which i think is stupid, people kill for religion the way i see it, if you belive in god, then thats good for you, but theres NO point in trying to convert the converted... and if you feel so passionate towards it, just think, the people who arent listenting to you, who refuse to belive, they wont be there in heaven...

i have some questions also... and i dont want "because the bibal is the word of god" as an answer!

1) if Noah was to take all the animals in his arc to safty, how the hell did the kangeroos, koalas, platypus, echidna... and all the other *DISTINCTIVLY* Australian animals get on, and why are they still here today, the arc was *i havent read the bibal, sorry* ages ago, and Australia was only founded in 1788.. *i think...*

2)when the animals are in the boat, how did they seperate the hunters from the hunted? and how the hell did they get all the wood to build it, i mean, just think, 2 elephants alone, how much space would they take up?

3) if we are all Gods children, why did he kill the egyptians while trying to save mosus?

4) why the hell even have a "forbidden tree"?

5) if i kill 2434335534 people, and just before my death, beg forgiveness, i will still get into heaven, but, a docter who dosent belive in God, is sent to hell how the hell dose that work?

why cant the bibal just be a guide on how to live or lives?
why does it have to be taken so litterally?


please reply to these Questions!

 

[KFunk]

Would it be unkind/overly presumptuous to assume that you are a troll? (Quote: "bibal")

 

[Trajan]

I'll be the first to admit that my idea of God is pretty different. I believe
in a God with a long white beard, a gold crown, and a long robe with lots of
shiny jewels on it. He sits on a big throne in the clouds, and He's about five
hundred metres tall. He talks in a real deep voice like "I...AM...GOD!" He can
blow up stuff just by looking at it.

This is my own, personal idea of God

 

[Captain Gh3y]

this is the ulitimate debate toipic, people die for their religious beliefs, which i think is stupid, people kill for religion the way i see it, if you belive in god, then thats good for you, but theres NO point in trying to convert the converted... and if you feel so passionate towards it, just think, the people who arent listenting to you, who refuse to belive, they wont be there in heaven...

i have some questions also... and i dont want "because the bibal is the word of god" as an answer!

1) if Noah was to take all the animals in his arc to safty, how the hell did the kangeroos, koalas, platypus, echidna... and all the other *DISTINCTIVLY* Australian animals get on, and why are they still here today, the arc was *i havent read the bibal, sorry* ages ago, and Australia was only founded in 1788.. *i think...*

2)when the animals are in the boat, how did they seperate the hunters from the hunted? and how the hell did they get all the wood to build it, i mean, just think, 2 elephants alone, how much space would they take up?

3) if we are all Gods children, why did he kill the egyptians while trying to save mosus?

4) why the hell even have a "forbidden tree"?

5) if i kill 2434335534 people, and just before my death, beg forgiveness, i will still get into heaven, but, a docter who dosent belive in God, is sent to hell how the hell dose that work?

why cant the bibal just be a guide on how to live or lives?
why does it have to be taken so litterally?


please reply to these Questions!

A wise man (???) once said

Well while we're at random rants, why is it that everyone who joins needs to make their first post on BoS in NCAP? Bitch please.

 

[veloc1ty]

"Long tiem", you realize those questions address the Bible (i.e. Christianity) and not actually the existence of god(s)? In other words, even if the Bible is 100% fabricated it doesn't mean god(s) can't exist.

1) if Noah was to take all the animals in his arc to safty, how the hell did the kangeroos, koalas, platypus, echidna... and all the other *DISTINCTIVLY* Australian animals get on, and why are they still here today, the arc was *i havent read the bibal, sorry* ages ago, and Australia was only founded in 1788.. *i think...*

2)when the animals are in the boat, how did they seperate the hunters from the hunted? and how the hell did they get all the wood to build it, i mean, just think, 2 elephants alone, how much space would they take up?

Bible literalists have put forward various solutions such as god gathering the animals to Noah, and then while on the ark they went into hibernation etc. I agree it's ridiculous. However, you know Australia was around [and populated] before it was discovered by the British... >_<

why cant the bibal just be a guide on how to live or lives?
why does it have to be taken so litterally?

It can be a general guide if you want it to (though it's not a good one). It doesn't have to be taken 100% literally, though some would argue it undermines its veracity otherwise.

 

[surjulz]

to look at the other questions from a Christian POV

I don't like being generalised as someone who would go around killing for my faith, and there is a difference between faith and religious pride (which made Jesus angry and was the reason he didn't like the established religious establishment in the bible). Consider someone like Barak Obama who does have faith in God, and who wears his beliefs with integrity and not arrogance (perhaps as opposed to his pastor but that is a different story too).

3) we are not all God's children, and the reason the Eygyptians died was that they were abusing God's children in slavery and they were actually given a number of chances not to.

4) with the forbidden tree I see it a bit like the Matrix, the problem wasn't the tree, the problem was choice. And Adam and Eve had the ability to chose what to do and they chose to go against God.

5) it basically "works" on the premise that no one is perfect and right before God and we all need to have faith in Jesus (who died and faced God's anger instead of us) in order to be forgiven.

 

[dodgyv]

NO
believe in no god(s)
-to an extend believe in some of there philosophy
-god helps no one you got to help yourself
-BElieve..... Believe in me
lOl

 

[oswald]

I'd say both science and religion take faith, think about it. Neither case can prove the other false. So what does that mean?

 

[Slidey]

I'd say both science and religion take faith, think about it. Neither case can prove the other false. So what does that mean?

(Human) science can't prove unicorns don't exist. What does that mean? It means we don't know enough about the universe to say either way. If humans knew more about the universe, science would be able to prove/disprove unicorns and religion.

Science is an inevitable interwoven understanding of the world around us (humans) based on statistical correlation and proof by contradiction.

Religion is, in contrast, is an arbitrary attempt to make the world around us easier to deal with.

They're different frameworks. Trying to use one to disprove the other is like trying to describe the taste of an apple using only the taste of a tomato. It doesn't mean religion is correct.

Not to mention that whilst science (as limited by humans) can't prove the concept of religion false, it can certainly prove many parts of any arbitrary religion false (like Islam or Christianity).

 

[surjulz]

but how can you be so certain that perfect rationality would disprove "religion"?

if God did make the universe there is no arbitary reason to believe he wouldn't reveal himself to his own creation.

 

[Slidey]

but how can you be so certain that perfect rationality would disprove "religion"?

I never said that. I said complete knowledge of the universe would allow one to use science to prove or disprove any given entity.

if God did make the universe there is no arbitary reason to believe he wouldn't reveal himself to his own creation.

And there's no reason to believe he would, especially not in the ways the wildly different (and contradictory) human formulations of religion depict.

 

[surjulz]

well I don't disagree with what you've just said...