You seem to know an awful lot about God. What if instead, he resides in all dimensions simultaneously?Cougar wrote:
God resides in a SEPERATE DIMENSION.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-07 00:37:54)
Hmm... if you said that to a leading particle/quantum physicist, they would yell
'God is string!'
I won't bother to explain.
'God is string!'
I won't bother to explain.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
An easy way out. If scientists told you the universe was eternal, just not in its present form, I imagine you would not accept it as a valid explanation. Throughout this entire thread the creationists (And I suppose by that I mean JaMDuDe) have been applying a double standard of evidence. Scientists cannot create life in a laboratory, thus a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the first cell is bunk. God made the first life, and no evidence of that or a demonstration is necessary because... well, He's God. Now once again a double standard is being applied, in that you are making assumptions about the universe and not applying the same assumptions to God; the universe must have come from somewhere because everything comes from something else, but God is eternal and needs no explanation.rawkfist22 wrote:
God had no beginning, He is eternal, therefore he doesn't fall under the argument because he did not "begin to exist"
What are the odds? Creationists (and to a lesser extent the proponents of ID) are very fond of quoting the odds of the universe and saying its impossible, but as other people have pointed out the odds of almost everything are astronomical. Like I said, there are well over 30 different people who have responded to this thread, what are the odds that of all 6.5 billion people on Earth that these 30 people would be here? I did the odds for just 3 people earlier, and it amounted to something like 3x10^-30, which is something like 300 trillion trillion trillion to one against (I think, I'm a bit tired right now). Does it follow that we are here by the will of God, or is it as you say the result of common interests, which are themselves the result of our individual experiences. Life is random, and one can make almost anything seem impossible by spouting off some random statistics. Saying that the odds of our universe existing with its current physical properties is unlikely because of (x y and z), and thus God must have done it is essentially meaningless.rawkfist22 wrote:
This forum was created. The code for the site didn't just all fall into place, It was designed for people who play BF2. It isn't random chance that we are here posting, it is because we have similar interests (although many different opinions obviously).
I would quibble with that analogy a bit; the junkyard would have to contain all the components required for a 747, as well as the tools and machinery required for the construction. It is, as you say, not going to happen, but my point was that evidence that an event or series of events is unlikely does not mean God must be responsible for the outcome of those events (in this case evolution and the creation of life are the unlikely events, and all life on Earth is the outcome).rawkfist22 wrote:
Granted, but still, unlikely means unlikely. A tornado could rip through a junk yard and assemple a fully functional 747 airliner, it could happen, but it isn't likely.
A book cannot reproduce itself, neither can a computer program. In this regard they do not benefit in the least from their contents. On the other hand, a beneficial mutation benefits its parent organism a great deal, and will allow that organism to reproduce more often.rawkfist22 wrote:
Of course books and computer code benefit from their information. A book won't last long if no one reads it. A computer program will not be used if it doesn't work. If someone prints a book full of gibberish, chances are it will end up in the garbage (die). It will also not be reprinted (not reproduce).
As I've mentioned several times in this thread, nothing is impossible if you accept that God exists. God could have created the world last monday and all our memories prior to that are fabrications of His will. Is that very likely? Not really. Similarly, it is possible that he created all life on Earth 6000 years ago and Genesis is literally correct, or maybe he started life ~3.5 billion years ago and evolution is the way He planned it out, or maybe ID is correct. I dont know. What I do know is that all established science points to evolution and a naturalistic origin of life. In my experience, it is only people who are already Christian (or in some way religious) that are pushing for ID.rawkfist22 wrote:
Kinda of grasping at straws? Is it "absolutly impossible..."? Of course not, but I could just as easly respond to your evidence by saying, "is it absolutly impossible that it wasn't designed?"
I would very much like to see this research. Everything I've been taught and learned through my own experience says the brain is the primary and only cause of consciousness. If, as you say, beliefs, emotions, desires and the personality as a whole are seperate from the brain, why do people suffer dramatic personality changes after brain damage? Phineas Gage, who I mentioned earlier, lobotomized himself and went from a hard working decent individual to a trash talking lazy bastard. Did he manage to damage his soul with a steel rod? To get back on point, I cannot tell you how consciousness first arose because I was not there. Noone was. All we can do is provide theories to try and explain it, and that theory is evolution. Somehow, somewhere, some creature developed something like a brain, and it helped that creature survive to pass that brain on to the next generation.rawkfist22 wrote:
Research has shown that conciousness can continue after the brain has stopped functioning. Current scientific research supports the view that the "mind", or "consiousness" or "soul", whatever you want to call it, is seperate from the brain. So the brain isn't what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about our thoughts, beliefs, emotion, desires, etc. If the universe began with dead matter having no conciousness, how do we have it now through natrualistic means? But it makes sense how we have it if we were created by God.
I don't label all christians as ignorant, but there are certainly some ignorant christians out there. You can believe whatever you like to believe, but when you try and get your religious beliefs put into the public school system under the guise of science, that is where I draw the line. ID and creationism are both based on the existence of God, and have no place in an institution designed to teach people of all backrounds and beliefs. Similarly, God has no place in science, because He cannot be measured or tested. Any beliefs founded on the existence of God can never be accorded a place in science until every other possibility has been exhausted to the fullest. That is my opinion at least.rawkfist22 wrote:
I can't speak for JaMDuDe, but there are many Christians out there (me being one of them) who enjoy trying to understand how the universe works. In my experience, the more you understand of the complexities of the universe, the more awesome you realize the Creator is. I understand that others view things differently and I respect that. But I think people need to stop lump-summing Christians together and labeling them as ignorant.
Anyway, that statement was directed at JaMDuDe (if you read through this entire thread you will see why I have developed a certain degree of frustration), but you are in essence doing the same thing. Everything that you cannot explain or understand you are attributing to the almighty. Life, the universe, consciousness, order... the list goes on. If we were having this discussion 400 years ago you might very well be attributing things that are well explained by science today, such as gravity, to God's will.
I'm not here to debate the nature of God. I do not believe that God exists, but I also do not know that He does not. In that regard I am an agnostic, but I have to say that if I did believe in God it wouldn't matter to me in the least how and why he existed, simply that he did. It's the same way I don't really care about every little detail of what causes my car to work, because it is the results I am concerned with, not the process.cougar wrote:
a bunch of stuff
It is not a double standard, that is how it is. Since scientist's cannot prove it in a lab, they discredit it and call it a double standard because it has no explaination. Some things in life are not meant to be understood and besides, what would be the upside, the point, the purpose, of learning how God came about, if he did per say "come about"? If there was an answer, hypothetically speaking, who is to say man would not use it for evil purposes (think about splitting the atom)? In that case, you would pretty much untwine and unravil the universe because if something evil came from the same place God did, it would be just as powerful and opposite in it's intentions, therefore making God not an all powerful being. Maybe the universe would simply "un-exist" itself or perhaps a dry ice and fire effect? Who knows, which is exactly the point, you don't need to know the answer, granted that there is one. Which there isn't. Confusing huh.Skruples wrote:
An easy way out. If scientists told you the universe was eternal, just not in its present form, I imagine you would not accept it as a valid explanation. Throughout this entire thread the creationists (And I suppose by that I mean JaMDuDe) have been applying a double standard of evidence. Scientists cannot create life in a laboratory, thus a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the first cell is bunk. God made the first life, and no evidence of that or a demonstration is necessary because... well, He's God. Now once again a double standard is being applied, in that you are making assumptions about the universe and not applying the same assumptions to God; the universe must have come from somewhere because everything comes from something else, but God is eternal and needs no explanation.rawkfist22 wrote:
God had no beginning, He is eternal, therefore he doesn't fall under the argument because he did not "begin to exist"I'm not here to debate the nature of God. I do not believe that God exists, but I also do not know that He does not. In that regard I am an agnostic, but I have to say that if I did believe in God it wouldn't matter to me in the least how and why he existed, simply that he did. It's the same way I don't really care about every little detail of what causes my car to work, because it is the results I am concerned with, not the process.cougar wrote:
a bunch of stuff
Also, if you are not here to debate the nature of God, then why are you here? You want to debate the fact of wether he exists or not, right? How can you debate wether or not a dog exists if you do not first examine the nature of a dog? To determine if a dog exists or not, it would be easier to try and prove the dog does exist rather than he doesn't. To say the dog doesn't exist is one thing, to deny the shedding fur, smell, and dog poop on the floor, is ludacris.
My view on it personally, is why not? Why not do as the bible says, accept Jesus Christ, etc etc? If God doesn't exist, when you die, well..you won't care anymore now will you. On the other hand, if he does and you spent all your time trying to disprove Him and rejecting Him...well, it sucks to be you.
I think you have only succeeded in confusing yourself, because alot of that made no sense. Learning where God came from will cause the universe to cease it's existence? Come on...cougar wrote:
It is not a double standard, that is how it is. Since scientist's cannot prove it in a lab, they discredit it and call it a double standard because it has no explaination. Some things in life are not meant to be understood and besides, what would be the upside, the point, the purpose, of learning how God came about, if he did per say "come about"? If there was an answer, hypothetically speaking, who is to say man would not use it for evil purposes (think about splitting the atom)? In that case, you would pretty much untwine and unravil the universe because if something evil came from the same place God did, it would be just as powerful and opposite in it's intentions, therefore making God not an all powerful being. Maybe the universe would simply "un-exist" itself or perhaps a dry ice and fire effect? Who knows, which is exactly the point, you don't need to know the answer, granted that there is one. Which there isn't. Confusing huh.
Anyway, religion uses science to discredit science, but science cannot be applied to religion? You can't have your cake and eat it too, if you want to discredit the big bang by saying it has no cause, I'm going to ask you for a cause of God.
In this case it would be more like finding poop and fur of some sort on the floor, and immediately jumping to the conclusion of a dog. Could it be another animal? A cat perhaps? Of course not, because there was a book written 2000 years ago that says the dog exists and took a crap on the floor, so obviously that is the only explanation.cougar wrote:
Also, if you are not here to debate the nature of God, then why are you here? You want to debate the fact of wether he exists or not, right? How can you debate wether or not a dog exists if you do not first examine the nature of a dog? To determine if a dog exists or not, it would be easier to try and prove the dog does exist rather than he doesn't. To say the dog doesn't exist is one thing, to deny the shedding fur, smell, and dog poop on the floor, is ludacris.
And the word is ludicrous... ludacris is a rapper.
Should I be watching my karma as well (real karma that is, not the forum version). After all, I don't know Buddhism's tenets are false, I could be reincarnated as a dung beetle. Anyway, several people have said pretty much the exact same thing, and I told them pretty much the exact same thing, which is that they are assuming that they are correct and everyone who believes otherwise is wrong; a pretty grand display of arrogance if you ask me.cougar wrote:
My view on it personally, is why not? Why not do as the bible says, accept Jesus Christ, etc etc? If God doesn't exist, when you die, well..you won't care anymore now will you. On the other hand, if he does and you spent all your time trying to disprove Him and rejecting Him...well, it sucks to be you.
I think it might be about time for this thread to die, or at least for me to stop participating in it. It's come down to new people repeating the same ideas brought up earlier in the thread.
Come on now, be realistic. Do you seriously expect new people to read through 40+ pages of posts?
...
If you look at this in the most logical, neutral, reasoned way (like a machine, really) - Christianity represents a quater to a third of the world. This is a huge amount - but not nearly as much as the 70% or so of the world who do not believe that Christ was our saviour and/or the Son of God.
This does not construe that they don't believe in God - indeed FIVE religions believe in teh same god (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Ba'hai). So I, at least, will not comment on that.
...
If you look at this in the most logical, neutral, reasoned way (like a machine, really) - Christianity represents a quater to a third of the world. This is a huge amount - but not nearly as much as the 70% or so of the world who do not believe that Christ was our saviour and/or the Son of God.
This does not construe that they don't believe in God - indeed FIVE religions believe in teh same god (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Ba'hai). So I, at least, will not comment on that.
Last edited by Spark (2006-05-07 03:00:26)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Its not a double standard because we are attempting to prove 2 different things. You are attemping to prove that life could come about all on its own without outside help, therefore you must prove how this happens. I am trying to prove that life was created which is the logical explanation if life can not come about on its own.Skruples wrote:
An easy way out. If scientists told you the universe was eternal, just not in its present form, I imagine you would not accept it as a valid explanation. Throughout this entire thread the creationists (And I suppose by that I mean JaMDuDe) have been applying a double standard of evidence. Scientists cannot create life in a laboratory, thus a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the first cell is bunk. God made the first life, and no evidence of that or a demonstration is necessary because... well, He's God. Now once again a double standard is being applied, in that you are making assumptions about the universe and not applying the same assumptions to God; the universe must have come from somewhere because everything comes from something else, but God is eternal and needs no explanation.rawkfist22 wrote:
God had no beginning, He is eternal, therefore he doesn't fall under the argument because he did not "begin to exist"
You are repeating yourself here. As I said before, we are not here by random chance. The "astronomical" odds you are describing would be more accurate for the situation in which you pick 30 people randomly out of the earths 6.5 billion, and they all happen to have posted on this forum.What are the odds? Creationists (and to a lesser extent the proponents of ID) are very fond of quoting the odds of the universe and saying its impossible, but as other people have pointed out the odds of almost everything are astronomical. Like I said, there are well over 30 different people who have responded to this thread, what are the odds that of all 6.5 billion people on Earth that these 30 people would be here? I did the odds for just 3 people earlier, and it amounted to something like 3x10^-30, which is something like 300 trillion trillion trillion to one against (I think, I'm a bit tired right now). Does it follow that we are here by the will of God, or is it as you say the result of common interests, which are themselves the result of our individual experiences. Life is random, and one can make almost anything seem impossible by spouting off some random statistics. Saying that the odds of our universe existing with its current physical properties is unlikely because of (x y and z), and thus God must have done it is essentially meaningless.rawkfist22 wrote:
This forum was created. The code for the site didn't just all fall into place, It was designed for people who play BF2. It isn't random chance that we are here posting, it is because we have similar interests (although many different opinions obviously).
Even if all the parts, machinary and tools were there, it will wouldn't happen. My point is that it that if a fully functional 747 appeared in that junk yard, the logical assumption would have to be that some intellegient people who knew what they were doing put it together, not that the wind or anything else caused it to eventually assemble perfectly.I would quibble with that analogy a bit; the junkyard would have to contain all the components required for a 747, as well as the tools and machinery required for the construction. It is, as you say, not going to happen, but my point was that evidence that an event or series of events is unlikely does not mean God must be responsible for the outcome of those events (in this case evolution and the creation of life are the unlikely events, and all life on Earth is the outcome).rawkfist22 wrote:
Granted, but still, unlikely means unlikely. A tornado could rip through a junk yard and assemple a fully functional 747 airliner, it could happen, but it isn't likely.
Then what about mutations that would require several steps before they become beneficial? For example, the woodpecker. Hard beak, shock absorbing tissue around its beak, long tongue., etc. For it to have any advantage over an unmutated version of the same bird, each of these (and probably more) mechanisms must be present.A book cannot reproduce itself, neither can a computer program. In this regard they do not benefit in the least from their contents. On the other hand, a beneficial mutation benefits its parent organism a great deal, and will allow that organism to reproduce more often.rawkfist22 wrote:
Of course books and computer code benefit from their information. A book won't last long if no one reads it. A computer program will not be used if it doesn't work. If someone prints a book full of gibberish, chances are it will end up in the garbage (die). It will also not be reprinted (not reproduce).
Again you say "all established science points towards evolution" and thats simply not true. Your inability to accept anything I say as founded in established scientific fact and observation is dissapointing. You may believe there is no science pointing towards a creator, but check the facts out first, because there is. And there has been many atheist scientists who have changed there belief because the science just didn't fit without the idea of a creator.As I've mentioned several times in this thread, nothing is impossible if you accept that God exists. God could have created the world last monday and all our memories prior to that are fabrications of His will. Is that very likely? Not really. Similarly, it is possible that he created all life on Earth 6000 years ago and Genesis is literally correct, or maybe he started life ~3.5 billion years ago and evolution is the way He planned it out, or maybe ID is correct. I dont know. What I do know is that all established science points to evolution and a naturalistic origin of life. In my experience, it is only people who are already Christian (or in some way religious) that are pushing for ID.rawkfist22 wrote:
Kinda of grasping at straws? Is it "absolutly impossible..."? Of course not, but I could just as easly respond to your evidence by saying, "is it absolutly impossible that it wasn't designed?"
If our brain and conciousness are the same thing. Essentially we have no free will, we are simply programmed to follow laws of nature and the programming in us. But we do have free will. I don't have time to fully get in to it now unfortunatly, but studies by Wilder Penfield (neurosurgeon), Roger Sperry, Laurence C. Wood, have all led towards the belief that the brain and conciousness are different.I would very much like to see this research. Everything I've been taught and learned through my own experience says the brain is the primary and only cause of consciousness. If, as you say, beliefs, emotions, desires and the personality as a whole are seperate from the brain, why do people suffer dramatic personality changes after brain damage? Phineas Gage, who I mentioned earlier, lobotomized himself and went from a hard working decent individual to a trash talking lazy bastard. Did he manage to damage his soul with a steel rod? To get back on point, I cannot tell you how consciousness first arose because I was not there. Noone was. All we can do is provide theories to try and explain it, and that theory is evolution. Somehow, somewhere, some creature developed something like a brain, and it helped that creature survive to pass that brain on to the next generation.rawkfist22 wrote:
Research has shown that conciousness can continue after the brain has stopped functioning. Current scientific research supports the view that the "mind", or "consiousness" or "soul", whatever you want to call it, is seperate from the brain. So the brain isn't what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about our thoughts, beliefs, emotion, desires, etc. If the universe began with dead matter having no conciousness, how do we have it now through natrualistic means? But it makes sense how we have it if we were created by God.
It seems that is what a lot of evolutionary science has been. Trying to discredit the existance of God, and yet after so many years of trying, its still not working, at least not to those who accept the facts.I don't label all christians as ignorant, but there are certainly some ignorant christians out there. You can believe whatever you like to believe, but when you try and get your religious beliefs put into the public school system under the guise of science, that is where I draw the line. ID and creationism are both based on the existence of God, and have no place in an institution designed to teach people of all backrounds and beliefs. Similarly, God has no place in science, because He cannot be measured or tested. Any beliefs founded on the existence of God can never be accorded a place in science until every other possibility has been exhausted to the fullest. That is my opinion at least.rawkfist22 wrote:
I can't speak for JaMDuDe, but there are many Christians out there (me being one of them) who enjoy trying to understand how the universe works. In my experience, the more you understand of the complexities of the universe, the more awesome you realize the Creator is. I understand that others view things differently and I respect that. But I think people need to stop lump-summing Christians together and labeling them as ignorant.
Actually, I attribute everything I can't explain and everything I CAN explain to God. After all, why shouldn't I? Just because we know how it works, doesn't mean He didn't make it. Rather then saying "God's will", I would more likely be saying that God made it to work like that, I just don't know how.Anyway, that statement was directed at JaMDuDe (if you read through this entire thread you will see why I have developed a certain degree of frustration), but you are in essence doing the same thing. Everything that you cannot explain or understand you are attributing to the almighty. Life, the universe, consciousness, order... the list goes on. If we were having this discussion 400 years ago you might very well be attributing things that are well explained by science today, such as gravity, to God's will.
Are we trying to prove two different things? I'm not looking at this as trying to prove if God exists or not, I'm looking at it as a choice between creation of the universe BY natural events or BY the acts of God. You want proof of the natural events but no proof of the acts of God. How is that not a double standard? I would also point out that evidence against the current theory of the creation of the universe is not evidence for God, just that our understanding of the universe is in it's infancy.rawkfist22 wrote:
Its not a double standard because we are attempting to prove 2 different things. You are attemping to prove that life could come about all on its own without outside help, therefore you must prove how this happens. I am trying to prove that life was created which is the logical explanation if life can not come about on its own.
Are we not essentially 30 random people, albeit with a common interest? My only point was that one can make almost anything seem impossible by quoting ridiculous odds. For this reason I would take the 'odds against naturalism' argument that I only seem to see on creationist websites with a grain of salt.rawkfist22 wrote:
You are repeating yourself here. As I said before, we are not here by random chance. The "astronomical" odds you are describing would be more accurate for the situation in which you pick 30 people randomly out of the earths 6.5 billion, and they all happen to have posted on this forum.
Point taken. However, we have once again digressed to human inventions to try and prove a point about nature. A cell or any other organism benefits directly from each beneficial mutation, and becomes more likely to procreate and pass that mutation on. The 747, on the other hand, does not benefit at all from the random acts of the wind. I think it would be more apt to say if we left the wind blowing on the junkyard for 3 billion years, and every positive step the wind took towards completing the 747 made it more likely to make the next positive step, that the odds of the 747 being completed would be a bit better.rawkfist22 wrote:
Even if all the parts, machinary and tools were there, it will wouldn't happen. My point is that it that if a fully functional 747 appeared in that junk yard, the logical assumption would have to be that some intellegient people who knew what they were doing put it together, not that the wind or anything else caused it to eventually assemble perfectly.
You are again assuming that every one of those attributes had to be present at the same time in the past. Species change with their environment. Is it not possible that the woodpecker developed a hard beak first to cope with some unknown environmental factor in the past? Or perhaps it developed the hard beak, and all the woodpeckers without some amount of shock absorbing tissue around their neck developed wiplash injuries and died? Creationists are quick to jump to conclusions when it comes to the complexity of life today, but you have to remember these creatures had three and a half billion years to get this complex.rawkfist22 wrote:
Then what about mutations that would require several steps before they become beneficial? For example, the woodpecker. Hard beak, shock absorbing tissue around its beak, long tongue., etc. For it to have any advantage over an unmutated version of the same bird, each of these (and probably more) mechanisms must be present.
I did not say all science, I said established science. If you go to any university in the nation (with a few exceptions, such as the universities that teach a literal interpretation of the bible) they will teach you evolution in biology. Why? Because that is the accepted theory for the existence of life. You can quibble with that all you like, but at the end of the day ID is still dependant on something that cannot and and will never be tested.rawkfist22 wrote:
Again you say "all established science points towards evolution" and thats simply not true. Your inability to accept anything I say as founded in established scientific fact and observation is dissapointing. You may believe there is no science pointing towards a creator, but check the facts out first, because there is. And there has been many atheist scientists who have changed there belief because the science just didn't fit without the idea of a creator.
Admittedly, I didn't spend much time looking up their work (if you have a link it would be appreciated), but they seem to have done their research a decent time ago. I understand sperry did work on the two halves of the brain after the corpus collosum was severed, but what I do not understand is how this is evidence for the seperation of brain and 'soul' for lack of a better word. If you take any introductory psychology course, they will probably cover the corpus collosum experiments, and what you would see is that the two halves operate independantly once the collosum is cut. I recall that patients with split brain syndrome (a severed corpus callosum) could not communicate between the two halves of their brains.rawkfist22 wrote:
If our brain and conciousness are the same thing. Essentially we have no free will, we are simply programmed to follow laws of nature and the programming in us. But we do have free will. I don't have time to fully get in to it now unfortunatly, but studies by Wilder Penfield (neurosurgeon), Roger Sperry, Laurence C. Wood, have all led towards the belief that the brain and conciousness are different.
There seems to be something of a persecution complex among christians, namely that they believe evolution threatens the existence of God. Is it so unthinkable that God is the one who set up the conditions for the creation of the first cell, rather than just wished it into existence? Maybe evolution was His plan all along? Most Christians I know personally have absolutely no problem getting evolution and God to exist in the same universe. Now, for the last time, I cannot and won't try to disprove the existence of God, because it's impossible. All I can do is say I find it unlikely that there is a God who would do one thing (create life) and then arrange all the evidence to point towards something else.rawkfist22 wrote:
It seems that is what a lot of evolutionary science has been. Trying to discredit the existance of God, and yet after so many years of trying, its still not working, at least not to those who accept the facts.
Thank you for making my point. What would happen if ID was universally accepted? The parts of the creation of life that we cannot explain, such as the appearance of the first cell, would just be attributed to God. Or physics, we can't explain where the universe came from, so we'll just say God did it and go home. Would we be absolutely certain that there is no other explanation? We would very possibly miss out on some amazing discoveries due solely to our intellectual apathy. This is why God cannot be allowed into science or the schools.rawkfist22 wrote:
Actually, I attribute everything I can't explain and everything I CAN explain to God. After all, why shouldn't I? Just because we know how it works, doesn't mean He didn't make it. Rather then saying "God's will", I would more likely be saying that God made it to work like that, I just don't know how.
That is true, but if we take that one step further and look at almost every culture on the face of the planet, we'll find that they all have some sort of deity or religious structure, and many of them don't include anything like the Christian God. If one were to look at this like a machine, as you suggest, it might indicate that humans in general have a need for order and a desire to have an explanation for everything, even that which they do not understand. But then, that's coming from someone who does not believe in the Christian god, so take it for what it's worth.Spark wrote:
If you look at this in the most logical, neutral, reasoned way (like a machine, really) - Christianity represents a quater to a third of the world. This is a huge amount - but not nearly as much as the 70% or so of the world who do not believe that Christ was our saviour and/or the Son of God.
This does not construe that they don't believe in God - indeed FIVE religions believe in teh same god (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Ba'hai). So I, at least, will not comment on that.
lolSpark wrote:
Hmm... if you said that to a leading particle/quantum physicist, they would yell
'God is string!'
I won't bother to explain.
funny. A physics joke. i didn;t even know they existed! lol
Heres what I'm trying to say. If you believe the unverise was created, then the that is the cause for the initialization of the universe. If you believe in naturalistic causes, then you must provide evidence that the universe could begin all on its own. Its a different situation. However, I have given evidence (I avoid the word proof because neither theory has been, or can be "proven") pointing towards a creator, so to say that I want "no proof of the acts of God" is false.Skruples wrote:
Its not a double standard because we are attempting to prove 2 different things. You are attemping to prove that life could come about all on its own without outside help, therefore you must prove how this happens. I am trying to prove that life was created which is the logical explanation if life can not come about on its own.
Are we trying to prove two different things? I'm not looking at this as trying to prove if God exists or not, I'm looking at it as a choice between creation of the universe BY natural events or BY the acts of God. You want proof of the natural events but no proof of the acts of God. How is that not a double standard? I would also point out that evidence against the current theory of the creation of the universe is not evidence for God, just that our understanding of the universe is in it's infancy.
Obviously you look at this a different way then I do. I believe that several cirumstances resulted in these 30 people posting. Therefore it is not random, each of us made a point to go to BF2s.com, viewed the topic, and replied to it. Its important to note that the seemingly impossible odds against the universe being so finely tuned on its own are not just made up. They are based on current science and mathematics. I'd encourage you to read into this more, its actually quite interesting. Heres a wiki page about it (not a creationist site) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universeAre we not essentially 30 random people, albeit with a common interest? My only point was that one can make almost anything seem impossible by quoting ridiculous odds. For this reason I would take the 'odds against naturalism' argument that I only seem to see on creationist websites with a grain of salt.
Still, logically, the best explanation on the observation of anything which has a complex design is that it had an intelligent designer.Point taken. However, we have once again digressed to human inventions to try and prove a point about nature. A cell or any other organism benefits directly from each beneficial mutation, and becomes more likely to procreate and pass that mutation on. The 747, on the other hand, does not benefit at all from the random acts of the wind. I think it would be more apt to say if we left the wind blowing on the junkyard for 3 billion years, and every positive step the wind took towards completing the 747 made it more likely to make the next positive step, that the odds of the 747 being completed would be a bit better.
In the woodpeckers case, the hard beak has no advantage without the shock absorbing tissue. If it had to use the hard beak to overcome any "unknown environmental factor", its beak would be pushed into its skull. They may have had 3.5 billion years to get it right, but no matter how many times a bird was born with a hard beak, it wouldn't have any advantage over any other bird unless it was born with multiple advantageous mutations at the same time.You are again assuming that every one of those attributes had to be present at the same time in the past. Species change with their environment. Is it not possible that the woodpecker developed a hard beak first to cope with some unknown environmental factor in the past? Or perhaps it developed the hard beak, and all the woodpeckers without some amount of shock absorbing tissue around their neck developed wiplash injuries and died? Creationists are quick to jump to conclusions when it comes to the complexity of life today, but you have to remember these creatures had three and a half billion years to get this complex.
I didn't say science either, I said established science. Sadly, your correct. The majority of schools teach evolution, and worse, they teach it as if it is fact. That is not only a lie, but if you teach only one theory you lose indepentant thought and you get nations of people believing in a theory because it is the only one they have been taught.I did not say all science, I said established science. If you go to any university in the nation (with a few exceptions, such as the universities that teach a literal interpretation of the bible) they will teach you evolution in biology. Why? Because that is the accepted theory for the existence of life. You can quibble with that all you like, but at the end of the day ID is still dependant on something that cannot and and will never be tested.
Sorry, I don't have a link for you since this information comes from books. I'm not sure what the corpus callosum has to do with the subject though. Penfield electrically stimulated the brains of epilepsy patients and could cause them to move, talk, etc. The patients always responed by saying "I didn't do that, you did". According to Penfield, 'the patient thinks of himself as having an existance seperate from the body". Penfield found no place in the brain which caused a person to believe or deside. These functions originate in the conciousness, not the brain. Through Sperrys studies, he concluded that materialism was false and that the mind had power independant of the brains activities. Laurence Wood said "many brain scientists have been compelled to postulate the existance of an immatierial mind, even though they may not embrace a belief in an after-life". Another thing to note on the subject, is that nothing in the brain is about anything. You can't cut open the head, look at the left hemisphere and say, "that electrical pattern is about pizza". Brain states aren't about anything, but some mental states are, therefore they must be 2 different things.Admittedly, I didn't spend much time looking up their work (if you have a link it would be appreciated), but they seem to have done their research a decent time ago. I understand sperry did work on the two halves of the brain after the corpus collosum was severed, but what I do not understand is how this is evidence for the seperation of brain and 'soul' for lack of a better word. If you take any introductory psychology course, they will probably cover the corpus collosum experiments, and what you would see is that the two halves operate independantly once the collosum is cut. I recall that patients with split brain syndrome (a severed corpus callosum) could not communicate between the two halves of their brains.
I absolutly agree that the existance of God can not be proven, at least right now. As someone who believes in God and in the return of Jesus Christ, I believe that Gods existance will most definitly be proven. Unfortunatly (and it truely does sadden me), for people who wait for proof, it will be to late.There seems to be something of a persecution complex among christians, namely that they believe evolution threatens the existence of God. Is it so unthinkable that God is the one who set up the conditions for the creation of the first cell, rather than just wished it into existence? Maybe evolution was His plan all along? Most Christians I know personally have absolutely no problem getting evolution and God to exist in the same universe. Now, for the last time, I cannot and won't try to disprove the existence of God, because it's impossible. All I can do is say I find it unlikely that there is a God who would do one thing (create life) and then arrange all the evidence to point towards something else.
Let me answer this by quoting Stephen C. Meyer as he answered similar questions.Thank you for making my point. What would happen if ID was universally accepted? The parts of the creation of life that we cannot explain, such as the appearance of the first cell, would just be attributed to God. Or physics, we can't explain where the universe came from, so we'll just say God did it and go home. Would we be absolutely certain that there is no other explanation? We would very possibly miss out on some amazing discoveries due solely to our intellectual apathy. This is why God cannot be allowed into science or the schools.
Question #1. If scientific evidence for theism is so compelling, why don't more scientists believe in God?
Answer: "...it takes time for new discoveries to percolate and for their implications to be fully considered, and some of the best evidence for theism is very new. Scientists who are focused on one particlar field may not be aware of discoveries in other fields that point toward theism. Also, the materialistic worldview has exercised dominance on intellectual life in estern colture for a hundered and fifty years. It has become the default worldview...I'ts presupposed. Some people who dissent from it gace expeience hostility and sometimes persecution...within the scientific culture there are belief systems that are philosophically very questionable. For instance, some believe that science must only allow naturalistic explanations, which excludes from consideration the design hypothesis. Many scientists put blinders on, refusing to acknowledge that evidence..."
Question #2. Skeptic Micheal Shermer said almost all the people he sees in the ID movement are Christians. Doesn't that undermine the lgitimacy of their science?
Answer: "Every scientist has a motive, but motives are irrelevant to accessing the validiy of scientific theories...You have to respond to the evidence or argument that's being offered, regardless of who offers it or why...There are scientists who are proponants of ID who are agnostic or Jewish...The vast majority of people who advocate Darwinism are naturalists or materialists, so you could play the motive-mongering game either way"
Question #3. If scientists do allow the possibility of the miraculous as an explanation, then doesn't that foreclose further investigation?"
Answer: "I think the shoe is exactly on the other foot...Let's take the issue of origins for example. The question thats asked is 'How did cells arise on earth?'. If you say 'We're only going to let you consider answers that involve materialistic processes,' then that shuts down inquiry, because one of the possible casual explanations for the origin of life is that intelligence could have played a role."
To remove God from science actually takes away from scientific inquiry.
Last edited by rawkfist22 (2006-05-08 16:03:52)
Thank you for making my point. Again. Have you demonstrated that God has the ability to create the universe? You assume he is all powerful and you assume he has the desire to do so, with no proof whatsoever. I would go on to point out that most of, if not all, of the evidence for ID hinges on odds based on our current understanding of the universe, which, as I poined out, is not that comprehensive.rawkfist22 wrote:
Heres what I'm trying to say. If you believe the unverise was created, then the that is the cause for the initialization of the universe. If you believe in naturalistic causes, then you must provide evidence that the universe could begin all on its own...
And those several circumstances that resulted in our being here are not random? Life is random my friend, you are just choosing to look at certain aspects of that randomness and attribute them to a higher power. If I roll a dice 100 times, what are the odds I will get the exact sequence of numbers that result? infinitesimal, yet no one is running around blaming God for their dice hand (not many, at least).rawkfist22 wrote:
Obviously you look at this a different way then I do. I believe that several cirumstances resulted in these 30 people posting. Therefore it is not random, each of us made a point to go to BF2s.com, viewed the topic, and replied to it. Its important to note that the seemingly impossible odds against the universe being so finely tuned on its own are not just made up. They are based on current science and mathematics. I'd encourage you to read into this more, its actually quite interesting. Heres a wiki page about it (not a creationist site) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
Moving on to the fine tuned universe, as the wikipedia article says intelligent design is not the only explanation. Granted, I dont ascribe to the multiverse theory, but random chance could easily have created our universe. Saying it is unlikely to have happened and then saying it must be made by God is like saying 'I love my parents, thank you God for letting me be born to them.'
This is a picture of a snowflake. Am I to assume that this flake and every other like it was personally handcrafted by God? I'd like to go back to my earlier point: "We would very possibly miss out on some amazing discoveries due solely to our intellectual apathy. This is why God cannot be allowed into science or the schools."rawkfist22 wrote:
Still, logically, the best explanation on the observation of anything which has a complex design is that it had an intelligent designer.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/ima … _8702t.jpg
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/ncar_graphics/mmmice.jpg
Again, you are making the assumption that the advantages creatures enjoy today must have been present all together at some point in the past. Could random mutation have caused the woodpeckers predescesor to develop fatty deposits in its neck? Such a mutation would not be directly harmful to the woodpecker and would have later become beneficial when the 'shock absorbers' were needed. Whales are a nice example, they have bone structures very similar to land dwelling mammals, yet they live in the ocean. It is speculated that whales were once related to wolves, and found an advantage to hunting in the water. Over millions of years, they slowly adapted to that new environment.rawkfist22 wrote:
In the woodpeckers case, the hard beak has no advantage without the shock absorbing tissue. If it had to use the hard beak to overcome any "unknown environmental factor", its beak would be pushed into its skull. They may have had 3.5 billion years to get it right, but no matter how many times a bird was born with a hard beak, it wouldn't have any advantage over any other bird unless it was born with multiple advantageous mutations at the same time.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra … 34_05.html
Hmmm. Sort of like Christianity? zing!rawkfist22 wrote:
I didn't say science either, I said established science. Sadly, your correct. The majority of schools teach evolution, and worse, they teach it as if it is fact. That is not only a lie, but if you teach only one theory you lose indepentant thought and you get nations of people believing in a theory because it is the only one they have been taught.
Very subtle. I'm sure I'll have good company in hell, there seem to be alot of smart evolutionists.rawkfist22 wrote:
I absolutly agree that the existance of God can not be proven, at least right now. As someone who believes in God and in the return of Jesus Christ, I believe that Gods existance will most definitly be proven. Unfortunatly (and it truely does sadden me), for people who wait for proof, it will be to late.
I'm not sure if mr. Meyer payed attention in history, but Christianity excercised intellectual dominance over Europe for over a millennia, yet evolution still took over as the dominant theory. When Darwin wrote his world famous book, the only explanation available for the creation of life and the universe was God.Answer: "...it takes time for new discoveries to percolate and for their implications to be fully considered, and some of the best evidence for theism is very new. Scientists who are focused on one particlar field may not be aware of discoveries in other fields that point toward theism. Also, the materialistic worldview has exercised dominance on intellectual life in estern colture for a hundered and fifty years. It has become the default worldview...I'ts presupposed. Some people who dissent from it gace expeience hostility and sometimes persecution...within the scientific culture there are belief systems that are philosophically very questionable. For instance, some believe that science must only allow naturalistic explanations, which excludes from consideration the design hypothesis. Many scientists put blinders on, refusing to acknowledge that evidence..."
The difference? Us naturalists aren't basing our entire universe on the existence of an invisible, omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent super-entity.Answer: "Every scientist has a motive, but motives are irrelevant to accessing the validiy of scientific theories...You have to respond to the evidence or argument that's being offered, regardless of who offers it or why...There are scientists who are proponants of ID who are agnostic or Jewish...The vast majority of people who advocate Darwinism are naturalists or materialists, so you could play the motive-mongering game either way"
I would also point out that an agnostic believing in ID is a contradiction in terms. One must believe in a supreme designer to believe things are designed...
And what happens when we allow God a prominent place in science? One only has to look at JaMDuDe to see. Again, questioning scientific theories is a good thing, it helps advance those theories or get them thrown out. How is God scientific? How do you plan on testing God? How do you plan on providing evidence of His existence? Of course, you don't need any evidence because you already believe He exists, this is the essence of faith.Question #3. If scientists do allow the possibility of the miraculous as an explanation, then doesn't that foreclose further investigation?"
Answer: "I think the shoe is exactly on the other foot...Let's take the issue of origins for example. The question thats asked is 'How did cells arise on earth?'. If you say 'We're only going to let you consider answers that involve materialistic processes,' then that shuts down inquiry, because one of the possible casual explanations for the origin of life is that intelligence could have played a role."
To remove God from science actually takes away from scientific inquiry.
Lets take a look at the scientific method, as defined by wikipedia
Now, can you offer "observable, empirical, [and] measurable evidence" for the existence of God? Is your faith subject to the laws of reason?Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, as well as the correction and integration of previous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning(emphasis mine).
Your asking for God to be put in a lab and tested so that you have scientific evidence of him being.
Do you have any proof of this? No? It didnt happen since u dont have any evidence. Is it possible it was created?Skruples wrote:
Could random mutation have caused the woodpeckers predescesor to develop fatty deposits in its neck?
No, I'm asking that you not bring God into science because you can't put Him in a lab.JaMDuDe wrote:
Your asking for God to be put in a lab and tested so that you have scientific evidence of him being.
Do I have proof of random mutations? not me personally, but there is certainly more than enough evidence that random mutations are an integral part of evolution, and random mutations can be observed today. Do I have evidence that in the case of the woodpeckers, specifically, millions of years ago, one small adaptation was caused by random mutation? No, but I can connect the dots.JaMDuDe wrote:
Do you have any proof of this? No? It didnt happen since u dont have any evidence. Is it possible it was created?Skruples wrote:
Could random mutation have caused the woodpeckers predescesor to develop fatty deposits in its neck?
You are - for the somethingth time - grasping at straws before he's even put them out. Saying 'YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE' without thinking logically is retarded.JaMDuDe wrote:
Your asking for God to be put in a lab and tested so that you have scientific evidence of him being.Do you have any proof of this? No? It didnt happen since u dont have any evidence. Is it possible it was created?Skruples wrote:
Could random mutation have caused the woodpeckers predescesor to develop fatty deposits in its neck?
I still fail to grasp why some people hold so adamantly to creation - when there is little SCIENTIFIC evidence to suggest so.
I invite rawkfist to put a response to this post.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
There is evidence. But evolutionists just make a "theory" to explain it. As jonathan wells(former athiest/evolutionist) said, 20-30 years from now people will look back and ask how they ever believed evolution. Its not all desperate creationists who are believing we were designed, its SCIENTISTS who were atheists and fully believed evolution then studied it more and the evidence obviously pointed to a creator.
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-05-09 08:26:15)
Where's proof of his Atheism? All I can find on him is that he's a "scientist" working for the Discovery Institute, and has had several other leading scientists severely criticize his points on evolution and on his proposition of creationism. Not to mention the fact that he's been part of the Unification Church since 1976...
If 1 scientist out of 10 happens to agree with creationism, then I'd take his words with a grain of salt.
NMSR Takes on Mr. Wells
Several people against Wells' ideas, with resources and citations
National Center for Science Education, the opposite end of DI
Go ahead and teach ID in a philosophy class, but keep it out of the science classroom. Creationism and ID absolutely must contain the belief in a creator of some kind (*cough* god *cough*). The key word here is belief, and belief itself relying on blind faith...these methods automatically drop these ideas out of the realm of science, since you are attempting to teach something that cannot be proven or tested, which is the Very Nature of science itself. Proponents of ID and anti-evolutionists are trying to push a philosophy into the science classroom, when the rest of science is based on hard and measurable fact.
If 1 scientist out of 10 happens to agree with creationism, then I'd take his words with a grain of salt.
NMSR Takes on Mr. Wells
Several people against Wells' ideas, with resources and citations
National Center for Science Education, the opposite end of DI
Go ahead and teach ID in a philosophy class, but keep it out of the science classroom. Creationism and ID absolutely must contain the belief in a creator of some kind (*cough* god *cough*). The key word here is belief, and belief itself relying on blind faith...these methods automatically drop these ideas out of the realm of science, since you are attempting to teach something that cannot be proven or tested, which is the Very Nature of science itself. Proponents of ID and anti-evolutionists are trying to push a philosophy into the science classroom, when the rest of science is based on hard and measurable fact.
Of course they are going to disagree with him. Hes just one of the many people who disagree with evolution. Its not based on blind faith like FSM. Its based on writings of people who devouted their entire life to God and historical fact, and the obvious evidence that points to a creator.
More like the obvious evidence that they haven't put enough thought into it, or are avidly trying to explain something that they do not know enough about in the first place, and thusly try in earnest to attribute it to a creator. If you devote your life to blind faith (if you don't understand the underlying concept to the FSM, you are lost), then everything you do will function around the upkeep of this faith, even when common sense and universal reason unveil the logical fallacies and punch holes miles wide into it. This is why religion and science don't mix, as you'll always have people who will stubbornly stick to what they believe, and will not think objectively about their own position, thus destroying the sense of "truth" seeking. Any truths they find they will abruptly try to twist it to fit in with their beliefs and their faith, rather than allowing free-thinking to occur for them to establish the truth and change their minds to go with it. Free-thinking is also directly tied to the overall enlightenment and advancement of society, something that constant stubborness in faith prohibits.
If this is only desperate creationists who dont want to believe anything else, how come most of the books ive been reading about this are written by scientists who are former atheists that fully accepted evolution? From what i have seen its the opposite of what your first sentence says. After studying the subject more they find out that evolution and chance arent the most reasonable answers. Not they havent studied it enough so they say it must have been created. A lot of scientists dont even consider ID an option, they "know" evolution is the truth from what they have been taught in school. They dont even teach anything against evolution in schools. Thats not free-thinking.
scientology is the true religion
long live L. Ron Hubbard
long live L. Ron Hubbard
I can feel all my thetans manifesting themselves now. *Long guttural moan* Get back thetans. Xenu will never come back to Teegeeack to rescue you.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
scientology is the true religion
long live L. Ron Hubbard
EDIT: sorry to go astray from the God/No God banter, I just felt that one was long needed.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-05-09 11:43:08)
I changed my mind. Marshall Applewhite is the new messiah and he shall return one day to take to take us to heaven with his alien friends
Long live nike lowtops and castration. On another note, I want to try some of that vodka/barbituate mix, that stuff must be great.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I changed my mind. Marshall Applewhite is the new messiah and he shall return one day to take to take us to heaven with his alien friends
OK OK back on topic-
You: I know god exists
Me: I don't think god exists.
You: (A bunch of pseudoscientific facts to back up existence of God/6000 year old earth/noah's ark)
Me: (A bunch of concrete scientific evidence proving evolution is occuring as we speak/radiocarbon dating etc)
Me: I don't know if God doesn't or does exist, as we cannot prove either way.
You: I know God exists, because a bunch of people a long time ago wrote about it, so it must be true.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-05-09 12:26:37)
Give me one other theory that determines Natural Selection and describes the current state of Natural Order and species that doesn't come down to faith or any other "higher creator" theories that is Based on Science.JaMDuDe wrote:
If this is only desperate creationists who dont want to believe anything else, how come most of the books ive been reading about this are written by scientists who are former atheists that fully accepted evolution? From what i have seen its the opposite of what your first sentence says. After studying the subject more they find out that evolution and chance arent the most reasonable answers. Not they havent studied it enough so they say it must have been created. A lot of scientists dont even consider ID an option, they "know" evolution is the truth from what they have been taught in school. They dont even teach anything against evolution in schools. Thats not free-thinking.
The reason evolution is taught, once again, is because it relies on Proof, Evidence, and Measurable results, the very basis of science itself. You bypass scientific boundaries when you start adding conjectured philosophy into it, relying on faith to explain things that you don't understand.
Things "other" than evolution should NOT be taught in SCIENCE classes unless they are based on and around SCIENCE. Anything that deals with faith instantly becomes philosophy, and should be taught and treated as such! Why do you not understand this?
Also, the books you've been reading are solely based on trying to disprove evolution and are trying to promote creationism, which is not science, plain and simple. Plus, the whole "former atheist" titles are unnecessary and only aid in trying to promote a sense of "strength in faith" for your side. That's just useless propoganda in this debate.
Edit: This is for you Ken. This link describes a few of the things that have happened in this thread:
Click to see!
Evolution doesnt have any solid proof or evidence. Its flexible so when they find things that go against it they just make another theory on how it happened. Please show me solid evidence of evolution. I know ive seen evidence before but i havent seen any solid proof that obviously points to evolution.
No they books ive been reading arent based on proving evolution wrong and saying God created us in 7 days. They are written by scientists who were atheists and evolutionists and then they studied astronomy, cosmology, physics and biochemistry and found that evolution isnt the most reasonable thing to believe.
No they books ive been reading arent based on proving evolution wrong and saying God created us in 7 days. They are written by scientists who were atheists and evolutionists and then they studied astronomy, cosmology, physics and biochemistry and found that evolution isnt the most reasonable thing to believe.
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-05-09 14:02:15)