- NEW!
by Mr. Meaulnes on July 30th, 2008
Does it bother Christians that Jesus looks like a Manson Family Member?
by KDP on May 16th, 2012
| 8 people like this
Will you magically find faith in God right before it's your time to die?
by KDP on May 19th, 2012
| 7 people like this
Do you think god feels guilt over all the millions of people he killed?
by Banana Breath plays the piano on May 13th, 2012
| 2 people like this
Does God keep a record of our Sins?
by anil m on May 20th, 2012
| 4 people like this
If you are heavily into religion or God or creationism, or the wages of
sin(9.99 per ten is the standard levy),
by einsteinwasright0116 on May 13th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading If you say God exists because you believe it, and I say he doesn't because I don't, does 'Occam's razor' swing the balance in my favor?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
I kind of started thinking about my vacation while I was reading that Frankie. I appreciate your persistence in squeezing the last drop of relevant fact into the Bag for us though.
You obviously know what you're talking about, so you get all the points they'll let me give - one unfortunately. Thanks
by Endor Frobe on July 30th, 2008
I ramble, I know, sorry.
I was actually just thinking of cramming this into the bag in the form of a question today, but this form works much better, so thanks for asking.
by Mr. Meaulnes on July 30th, 2008
hey roland, i dont see how its "illogical" as you say, to believe in God? how is abiding by "ex nihilo nihil fit" not logical? and what about all the people with personal experiences?
by insaner on August 20th, 2008
How exactly do you associate Theism with Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit? Most Theistic creation stories clearly state that God created the universe from "Darkness"/"Void" etc. in other words, *Nothing*.
.
Personal experience with "God", when not confirmed by universally perceptible evidence, can, in %99.99999 of cases, be explained in a much simpler, more logical way than by the existence of the sort of God's that most religious believers do.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 20th, 2008
In other words, you may hear the voice of "God" and consider it personal experience, which could make it logical for you to believe that some sort of higher consciousness exists and talked to you, but does not present any reason to accept many of the things beyond that which are inherent in the common definition of "God" (e.g. That said Higher-Power is omnipotent; That said Higher-Power is the creator of the universe, etc.)
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 20th, 2008
yeah, but God was there, wasnt He? "something" was there from which to create. without God, then nothing can exist, since stuff cannot just create itself.
by insaner on August 20th, 2008
Do Atheistic theories of creation not abide by the same rule?
The Big Bang theory, for example, does maintain that the universe as we know it today spawned from a dense mass, rather than a void.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 21st, 2008
but then its not a story of creation, its just "geologic" evolution, so to speak, since you first needed that dense mass to exist. whereas "creation" talks about, or would answer the question "where did that dense mass come from?" it had to be there for the big bang to occur, and it could not have come from "nothing". you cant however answer the question of creation with "we dont know yet" or that it came from "something else" since that would be begging the question. the question to be answered is where did the first speck of matter come from? know what i mean?
by insaner on August 22nd, 2008
Does it matter if its a creation story? It is the explanation of the universe as it is and how it came to be.
The Big Bang theory answers that question too, it's answer is "It was Always There. There was no first speck of matter"
And considering that the basic laws of physics state that matter and energy cannot truly be created or destroyed, that sounds like a perfectly logical explanation to me.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 23rd, 2008
It's true that there are some areas in which science simply says "We Don't Know", but at least, unlike religious theories, it doesn't try to fill the unknown with cop-out answers such as "God Did It".
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 23rd, 2008
see, theres a problem with matter (or any such form of consistency) having always been there, because if it had, that means also that energy (since according to these "laws" they are equivalent, just different states) must have been there all along, this means that we have an infinite regression of events into the past, which is logically impossible. in other words, if we had an infinite number of events leading to "now" we would never reach "now".. by the simple fact of the definition of infinity. so it is logically impossible for matter to be eternal.
by insaner on August 24th, 2008
Hehe... Vere astute.
However, using infinite regression to call infinite illogical has its own faults.
For one, it assumes that time is in fact linear, and not just perceived that way.
For all we know, "Now" is all there ever is or was.
-
Even if the universe were in fact a space-time singularity, with every possible event occurring simultaneously, the human mind is linear, and therefor limited to linear perceptions.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 25th, 2008
not sure i understand what you mean, but if i do, then what you just described is how i perceive time. in other words, everything already happened, we are just moving along the tape like in a cassette.. for that reason, God can see it all at once, whilst we cant, but there is no way for us to travel in any direction but the future. however, this model/view still cannot violate the finite nature of the universe, it still mustve had a first event, just like the cassette has a beginning.
by insaner on August 25th, 2008
1) You're still assuming a God here.
.
2) Considering that the statement you're using to say that the singularity theory doesn't make sense includes the words "Happened" and "First", which are both essentially out of line with the entire concept of a time-space singularity, it can't really even be applied.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 25th, 2008
by singularity, do you mean "everything exists all at once, including all events and matter and arrangements of both"?
sort of like a dot that contains everything and our mind just goes through the already existing events one at a time in a progression? whether thats how our mind perceives it or not, time is defined as the distance between two events. you go back through the progression (or perceived progression, as you wish) and you have to eventually hit a first before which there is nothing.
unless im really not understanding what you mean by singularity, since given what i understand, at least remembering what stephen hawking wrote in one of his books i was using as research once, a singularity actually creates a cone of events, called a light cone. a singularity as far as i understand it possible (i do understand that you are describing something different, but im just explaining) cannot remain a singularity, but must necessarily "expand"
by insaner on August 26th, 2008
Out of nothing comes nothing. Where did god come from? Something had to be there always. Why is this 'something' the most complex being one can possibly imagine? Simplicity leads to complexity, not the other way around. Either way, god is illogical, it's not that hard to see.
by 773491 on August 26th, 2008
Consider this then:
For each of us, the beginning of the universe is, essentially, the first thing we can remember.
So, from a metaphysical point of view, there are many, many "Beginnings", it just depends on where you're looking from.
The flow of time moves on infinitely, but we perceive only finite glimpses of it.
-
Also, what if the flow of time-space is circular and self-perpetuating?
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 26th, 2008
haha i was actually waiting for that one. if something is circular, does it have a beginning? no. if something is moving, did it start moving at some point? necessarily yes. due to the impossibility of infinite regression. even if stuff repeats itself infinitely, which wouldnt be an issue with what i mentioned is my view on space/time, it would still necessarily have to have had a first event, which then gets periodically repeated, but still would have had to have started at some point.
by insaner on August 27th, 2008
773491: in regards to your "where did God come from?" well, if He "came" from somewhere that would violate the definition of God. by definition God must be eternal and infinite, and outside of His creation. otherwise that would mean He's not God. its like saying "what if a black horse is white?" well, if its white, then it isnt really a black horse. if someone created God, then that would mean He isnt really God.
im not sure why people constantly deem God to be incredibly complex, i dont understand the reasoning behind that, you claim the entire universe is simple, but God is incredibly complex, therefore He cant exist. i dont get that. and by the way, you are committing the logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance"
by insaner on August 27th, 2008
I gotta say I like your reasoning. I still disagree though, since my argument is about probability. No matter if god came from somewhere or just is there, how big are the odds of him just 'being there'? Now the point is, a creator gotta be more complex than the thing he creates. When humans build a car, they know how it works, because they design it with a purpose. If the universe is designed, then god would need to be very intelligent and powerful. For something to be intelligent and powerful, it needs a lot of complexity. So nothing was there in the beginning, but a very intelligent and powerful being just always existed? This is not an explanation, and it doesn't make sense. If one argues that energy has always existed, one solves the problem of a beginning, and Occam's razzor clearly favors the easier, less complex solution without an intelligent designer.
by 773491 on August 27th, 2008
"by definition God must be eternal and infinite, and outside of His creation."
If you're saying that, then the theory of creation is no less lacking for a "First Event" than the theory of eternal energy. And at least the theory of eternal energy is literally backed by observations.
-
I'm sorry, but you can't just declare things "Outside of Creation" at will.
Creationism is allowed a lot of illogics, but saying that something exists, but also somehow doesn't count, isn't going to be one of them.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 27th, 2008
as soon as the first event occurs, time begins, and everything begins. if there is matter, and there is energy, then events must be occurring. if events are occurring, due to the impossibility of infinite regression, there must have been a first event.
im not "declaring" God to be outside of creation, thats the definition of God, otherwise it would violate the law of non-self-creation. (again ex nihilo nihil fit) for something to be "eternal" it has to be outside of time, for something to be "infinite" it has to be outside of space. for something to have created time and space, it follows that it must be outside of both. theres just no other option.
creationism of course requires a first event, and the bible says that this occurs when God speaks and says "let there be light" (energy perhaps?) and then all other things are created as well.
by insaner on August 28th, 2008
773491: i understand your point, but nothing can be argued through probability, (atheists dont allow it either, and when a creationist gives the compounded probability of evolution leading to what we have by taking the probability of first forming proteins, then amino acids, then dna, then cells, then complex multi-celled organisms, etc.. http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=590 its not accepted as a valid challenge.
or even just the "habitability of earth" http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200404_probabilities_for_life_on_earth.shtml since the probability that we exist, in mathematics would be considered an impossibility, but that is of no regard since, well, we exist.)
also remember that occams razor is not a law, its a guide, and it doesnt state that the simplest solution/answer is the correct, but rather that we shouldnt "add entities" unnecessarily. while God may be infinitely complex (or infinitely simple) He remains as a single entity
by insaner on August 28th, 2008
I disagree, probability is a valid arguement if used right. There are billions of billions of planets, billions of years of time availabe, and billions of billions of billions of billions collisions of molecules per seconds. This relativates the odds. And many creationists calculate the odds for something as complex as DNA, while scientists assume that the first self replicating macro molecule was much simpler.
by 773491 on August 28th, 2008
I'm not saying that you're declaring God outside of time and space personally, I accept that that is the part of the definition of the term.
I'm just saying that the definition, in that respect is totally illogical.
There may be no other logical option, but assuming an entity to somehow exist "Outside of Existence" is not a logical option, in any way shape or form. It's self-contradictory.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 28th, 2008
insaner: You'd be correct to say that the odds of life and a habitable planet forming at a particular point are relatively small.
However, also keep in mind that Earth wasn't a "Particular Point" until intelligent life had already developed on it and deemed it such.
Before the occurance of intelligent life, Earth was just one in a slew of effectively infinite points in the universe.
And the odds of life (or anything else, for that matter) happening at *any given* point in the universe... those odds are much, much higher.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 28th, 2008
Also, evolution is not a sequence governed totally by chance.
Only the first events in the sequence of evolution on earth really have to happen by chance. Once that sequence starts, natural selection becomes a factor, and over eons of inferior species and individuals tending not to make it, the increase in odds granted by natural selection becomes incalculably larger.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 28th, 2008
exactly, that's what you call the antrophic principle.
by 773491 on August 28th, 2008
correct, to exist outside of existence makes no sense, but thats not what i was claiming. when moses, some 3,500 years ago, asked God "whom shall i say sent me?" God's answer (ie His name) is a hebrew word which actually means "one who has the intrinsic ability to 'be' " which is usually translated as "i am". even without the "advanced" knowledge of the cosmos we have today, and all these things we are discussing, the bible in a single word (or 3) fully related this concept. its not that God is outside of existence, its that only He has the intrinsic ability to "be". we exist, but its something that has been given to us.
by insaner on August 28th, 2008
thats what i mean, probability means nothing given something already is. so if you say the probability of earth having life is 1/10^380 has no bearing on whether we exist or not, since we do. you can declare the probability of God existing as any number (higher or smaller) and that will have no bearing on whether He exists or not. probability is interesting, and is a great tool of analysis, but it does not help us to "prove" something we dont know.
by the way, and i really dont want to get into evolution because i find that talking about evolution leads nowhere, since even if you were able to show evolution (as the source of life from a single cell) to be true and factual beyond doubt (which is impossible) that would still not disprove the existence of God, which is the point of the discussion, right? but just to address one point, darwinian evolution is a destructive process and cant lead to more information, rather a removal of "undesired" information. so you have less not more info
by insaner on August 28th, 2008
okay you have lost my respect. I thought you knew what you're talking about. I'm sick of arguing with creationists. I could as well talk to a wall.
by 773491 on August 29th, 2008
and no, evolution disprove god, it's just another evidence that god is unlikely.
by 773491 on August 29th, 2008
God "Is", and the universe "Is", and they both are subject to the same logical inquiries.
Quoting the Bibles here means precisely squat, because you still seem to be using that quote to shore up the assumption that God is somehow outside of the logic governing everything else that exists.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 29th, 2008
How precisely do you reach the conclusion that evolution is a destructive process?
Inferior traits are removed from the equation via natural selection, but that also comes with the counterpoint of superior traits surviving and being amplified, and random mutation over a vast period of time accounts for the addition of original traits over time.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 29th, 2008
Here's what happens when you start arguing with a creationist:
http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/3801378
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/903068
.
Huge debate, clear evidence, yet no result whatsoever.
by 773491 on August 29th, 2008
i wasnt quoting the bible to prove anything. just making the interesting observation that the concept of the true definition of God (as opposed to the definition that is used for "zeus" for example) exists for now thousands of years. i dont see why you guys should get so upset over that.
i didnt say "evolution" is a destructive process, i said "darwinian" evolution. you are aware that there are several theories of how evolution might work, right? if not, please spare me the mockery and look for yourselves. theres also lamarckian (acquisition of traits by external influences-- which has been proven by science to be wrong, by the way), and quite a few others. darwinian is the one that is summarized as "survival of the fittest". notice the "survival" aspect of it. survival requires others to "not survive". that by definition is destructive. for the "good" traits to remain, the "bad" ones have to be removed. that is a destructive process.
by insaner on September 1st, 2008
i dont understand why you would have to immediately mock and discard my input for something you dont understand. this is intellectual elitism at its worst, and makes you look quite ignorant. if you disagree thats fine, but why must i be discarded and mocked for it?
by insaner on September 1st, 2008
holy fuck did you just bring up Lamarckism? That was more than hundred years ago when the last scientists considered Lamarckism to be a possible answer. Evolution works with natural selection and to a small extent random genetic drift. That's it, that's what people have been saying since a hudred years, and that's proven.
by 773491 on September 1st, 2008
That's not intellectual elitism, if someone comes and tells me that the earth is flat I don't need to take him seriously.
by 773491 on September 1st, 2008
I'm aware that there are different theories of evolution, which is precisely why one should not simply argue against one.
-
You're right that Survival of the Fittest does remove inferior traits, and under that definition is a "Destructive Process", but that doesn't mean that there isn't information added as well.
-
I'm not discarding, nor mocking you. I'm discarding your argument, yes, by simply stating the obvious: That something being written in a book, even if it's an old and influential book, doesn't mean it can circumvent basic logic.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 1st, 2008
There are some little debates going on among evolutionists, but the fundamental principles are totally clear. The disagreements are on small scale (does group selection play an important role? Does punctuated equilibrium play an important role?, everything based on natural selection).
by 773491 on September 1st, 2008
ok, since im answering to both in one answer (as opposed to making the distinction as to whose points im answering when) this might get confusing. but since you are both saying almost the same thing (with completely different tone) its kinda hard to answer to the same points twice each time making distinction in tone. so sorry about that, but what can i do?
773491: of course i brought up lamarckian evo, thats the point. that kind of evo was discarded long ago, which was my point. i really really dont understand why you are having such a fit over everything i say, regardless of what it is. its starting to seem you arent even paying attention to what i say, you just pick a part and go nuts on that. but hey, its your right to do whatever you want, right? just dont expect me to take you seriously if you can have a serious conversation.
by insaner on September 1st, 2008
If 773491 is the one with the unreasonable tone here, why continue to address them and their points?
-
I think the point 773491 was trying to make on Lamarckian evolutionary theory is that no one here is really advocating it, so bringing it up just to say that it's been refuted is just a tad pointless.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 1st, 2008
roland: yeah, thats what i was referring to when saying its a destructive process. "survival of the fittest" only refers to the survival part (of yes, the "fittest") but its another theory (or "aspect" of a theory... though i think the concepts should be separated) to say how the variation occurs in the first place. the variation occurring is indeed a "creative" process, but it has yet to be shown where variation has led to new species. conclusions based on guesswork, assumption and conjecture have been made. but i cant take guesswork as fact.
.
but i go back to my original comment, we can argue evolution all we want, but even if you show me to be wrong, how does any of this bear any weight to the question of whether God exists or not?
by insaner on September 1st, 2008
well, even if they are rude, or offensive, i dont like to just discard the points they make. i am a firm believer that even the most ignorant offensive person can have something to learn from. so i try to separate tone from message as much as i can. but the tone does shed light as to how their thought process functions, which many times is exactly what is to be learned. but in any case, they could always just be upset at something and taking it out on me for whatever reason, so i like to give people at least the chance
by insaner on September 1st, 2008
Much of that lack of evidence comes down to the definition of a distinct species.
It's been illustrated pretty clearly where variation leads to new traits, and the only difference between any two different species is their traits. It's simply a matter of degree.
-
You're right that evolution being correct wouldn't totally disprove the existence of God, nor would it topple a metaphorical interpretation of creation theory.
It would, however, be incompatible with literal Creationism.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 1st, 2008
exactly, I stated this already on Aug, 29 2008 at 07:48 AM.
.
I've calmed down now, you need to know, I yesterday read someting about Sarah Palin and this just shocked me. I mean how can Americans vote for somebody who openly rejects science? And all those creationists always coming up with the same lame straw men, I'm tired of it.
.
So what evidence is there of evolution:
Here's an example of speciation in action, from one species to another, all intermediates still alive (and don't tell me 'they are still salamander, it's a different species, if you want a crocodile, you're misinterpreting something): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
.
Here's evolution observed in the lab on a bacteria:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
.
There are also many examples of 'mistakes of design' (blind spot in the human eye, flatfishes with distorted skulls), or unexpected adaptions (Panda's thumb).
by 773491 on September 2nd, 2008
hey roland, thanks, yeah thats correct it would be incompatible with the biblical account. which at this point i wouldnt find it useful to try to even try to prove. and yeah, you are absolutely right as to the issue being the definition of "species". i cant agree with it being a matter simply of traits since we have dogs with traits as wide and varying as a chihuahua to a st bernard. yet both are still dogs (this should address 773491's points). so i cant see that as helpful to shed light on the evolution of all species from a single cell. but in any case, we were talking about whether God exists or not. so, where were we?
and about the sarah palin thing, im not sure what your issue is (ive only just heard about her from you)
by insaner on September 3rd, 2008
Variations like those found in canines are why biologists use the Kingdom - Phylum - Class - Order - Family etc. system of classification, to make the distinction that although they're all still dogs, they don't consider a chihuahua and a st. Bernard the same thing.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 3rd, 2008
The bottom line is, God doesn't belong alongside scientific speculation about the origin of life on Earth. Which isn't to say that Creationism isn't a valid theory -all things being subjective, people can believe whatever they want- but in a discussion with the agreed upon logic being scientific logic, Creationism is totally out of place.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 3rd, 2008
you mean the binomial system? linnaeus and all that? under the binomial system a chihuahua and a saint bernard are both canus familiaris. no distinction. so not sure what you mean.
in regards to the second comment, lets assume objectivity a moment, and also assume that indeed creationism is the truth (for arguments sake). if we discard this as non-scientific, and therefore scientifically invalid, that means that "science will never know" by default. it will, due to arrogance (or whatever we can call it) never reach the truth, and just dance around it forever because of its refusal to even consider it.
i dont know, this doesnt seem "scientific" to me at all.. especially given the fact that "science" is "the study of knowledge".. but if it refuses to ack-knowledge the truth it will forever be devoid of it. know what i mean?
by insaner on September 3rd, 2008
You're correct that under the Binomial system, all breeds of dog are classified as Canis Familiaris.
However, it's not as though the strict form of the binomial system is the only lens through which science views life forms. My initial point in mentioning that was that a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua *Aren't* considered the same thing; the fact that Breed isn't technically accepted as a tier of the binomial system doesn't matter too much, because the acknowledgment that different breeds are distinct from one another is still made.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 3rd, 2008
That's a great argument, *If* you make that assumption, and assumptions of that magnitude have no place in a scientific argument.
It's not as though no one has ever considered creationism rationally, in fact it has been examined by science quite often, and been deemed illogical.
If irrefutable evidence ever came up in its favour, I'm sure modern science would accept Creationism.
-
And besides, the assumption that Creationism, even if one assumes that it's correct, is unscientific due to the fact that as of yet it is unsupported by anything more than circumstantial evidence, so "Truth" or not, Creationism is incompatible with in-depth logical process.
The fact that one must make that assumption "for argument's sake" (in other words, for the argument to hold together), is precisely what disqualifies Creationism from the realm of scientific discussion.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 3rd, 2008
I want to clarify some important things here:
.
Wolves, pitbulls, bulldogs, chihuauas etc. are all dogs (canis). This is the species. However, they are different races of dogs. The difference between species is that they cannot reproduce with each other. Dogs and wolves can still make hybrids that are fertile, therefore they aren't different species (yet).
by 773491 on September 4th, 2008
Creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory. It is true that one can believe whatever one wants though. Creationism is not testable through experiments, it is only based on trying to make evolution seem unlikely (which it isn't). Creationism does not provide a satisfying alternative to evolution, because it doesn't explain the complexity of life, because it doesn't explain the complexity of god itself. Science doesn't work that way, if everyone assumed that things are just the way they are because god created them this way, we would still live on trees.
by 773491 on September 4th, 2008
Oh, to come back to species, the salamander and the bacteria I mentioned ARE in fact different SPECIES. They cannot interbreed. This is a clear proof of macroevolution. The genetic evidence also proves that all living things have the same ancestor (and no, it isn't because god used the same 'blueprint', there is lots of evidence against this, i.e. 'convergent evolution', relicts of genes of ancestors in our bodies, geographical distribution etc.)
by 773491 on September 4th, 2008
Sarah Palin was one of the reasons why I was getting very annoyed with you. You don't need to consider this important, it's just that America is going nuts.
by 773491 on September 4th, 2008
Since we're talking about the existance of god, the whole point of evolution is to explain complexity. It's the only logical answer to the question of complexity. Creationists love to point out (wrong) calculations of astronomically high odds to show that the random formation of the first replication entity (abiogenesis) looks unlikely. Evolution however, has the power of accumulating the luck, it doesn't need to be in one huge leap of luck. This is the problem of the god hypothesis. Not to mention that god is much more complex than a macromolecule. God can't have evolved, he must have been there, just there. Why don't you calculate the odds of this?
by 773491 on September 4th, 2008
to apply a new term i learned on wiki, we shouldnt be using "weasel terms" such as "science says.." but of course i do know what you mean, just that we are ignoring whos behind "science" and thats people, human beings, erring human beings with biases and preconceived notions and beliefs. just because these scientists (or at least the loudest) are deeming something illogical, doesnt make it so. and dont forget that many of the greats of science (id venture to say "most") were theists. so its clearly not that illogical, and also dont forget that upto as recently as 200 years ago, science deemed meteors as illogical, and said these didnt exist either. science (and NOT a church) was the one that established and proposed geocentrism and a flat earth view. science constantly is correcting itself, a noble deed, but one that shows science is not reliable as a source of truth, only "knowledge" (ie, and enumeration of "things we 'know' but might be wrong about").. one sec im going to eat lunch
by insaner on September 4th, 2008
i requested we assume it true for arguments sake given that we disagree on it. so we can have common ground on which to understand the point that followed, not because thats how i hold it myself. the nature of the origins of existence, or at least the questions pertaining it are such that they lead us down this road that ultimately ends up in belief. there is no way to prove where "everything came from" in a godless, scientific way. its impossible. but venturing a guess in one way or another should not affect the results of all other queries, especially the fundamental ones such as where does life come from (as opposed to matter). but yet, this is what is happening in science today. atheist scientists are sooo ardent in their beliefs that it taints everything they do, the conclusions they reach, the assumptions they make.. etc. ignoring this very very pivotal fact is very dishonest, especially when you criticize (not "you" you, but as in "one") the same thing in creationist scientists
by insaner on September 4th, 2008
why is it ok to rag on creationist scientists for their beliefs, saying that this "clouds" their process, but not so for atheists, who basically claim the unverifiable??
by insaner on September 4th, 2008
773491: by the way, wolves (canis lupus) arent the same species as dogs (canus familiaris) they are the same genus, but not species. and also, tigers and lions can reproduce too, as well as donkeys, mules and zebras, and all manner of other blurred "species" lines. my point is, changes in traits is an observable thing, but not the origin of life as we know it from a single cell.
you say that creationism is not a satisfying alternative due to the inability to explain the complexity of God. well two issues with that, one, this is the fallacy of argument of complexity, and second, you want to explain all of what exists, and all of life as having a simple origin leading to further complexity? but when presenting this complexity, you demand even greater complexity as its origin if that origin is God?? that doesnt make any sense.
by insaner on September 4th, 2008
then you say that if everyone assumed that things are just the way they are because God created them this way, we would still live on trees.. well, thats not a proper conclusion to come to, since like i said before most of science's greats were all theists, that didnt stop them from observing what God created and studying the laws by which our existence and nature and the universe is governed. has nothing to do with whether you believe in God or not. its science, you observe and grow in knowledge. some stuff God gave us to know, but you reject that. the rest is stuff we can observe and study ourselves. but to add our own meaning and let this affect our conclusions is NOT science.
and before you claim that theism and creationism lead to ignorance, dont forget what evolutionary thought has led to. whether it be the treating of certain races of humans as inferior or sub-human (because of being "less evolved") or the removal of useful organs because their use was unknown and hence [...]
by insaner on September 4th, 2008
concluded to be "vestigial".. see, you cant just point out things that you blame (even if theoretically, in a "people would still live in trees" kind of way) on "theistic" or "creationist" views or beliefs and then just blatantly ignore the actual results that your currently held views have had on the world when put into practice.
for the point regarding calculating the "odds" of God existing, im not sure how i would even be able to go about this. what figures could i use? how would i apply the values obtained to form a probability? for existence, logic demands there be an all powerful Creator outside of space and time. id say that makes it a probability of 1.
by insaner on September 4th, 2008
It might barely be true that most scientists are theists. However, the percentage of atheists and agnostics among scientists is significantly higher than in the public. But my argument isn't based on this, every child sees the problem of 'where did god come from?' And you shouldn't compare science today with science in 1800. We have made some progress in the meantime. I know science isn't dogma. This is good. It all comes down to probability. 99.98% of scientists accept evolution. There are 4 times more historians who deny the holocaust, than scientists who deny evolution. The evidence is overwhealming. That's the reason why creationists are backwooders.
by 773491 on September 4th, 2008
Atheists claim the unverifiable, but they don't say 'I know for sure'. And a godless universe is much more easy to explain than one with god. Therefore, atheism is the logical conclusion. Creationists claim something wrong (I'm not saying theists, that's an important difference. Creationists are those who deny evolution. Theists claim something absurd, but it might not be wrong since it doesn't directly contradict evidence)
by 773491 on September 4th, 2008
'Blurred species line'. Exactly! That's the whole point of evolution. God didn't create lion and tiger, animals evolve, and are constantly changing.
I don't get what you're saying in your comment from 01:06 PM.
by 773491 on September 4th, 2008
That with the trees was of course an overstatement. Altough it has some truth. I have nothing against theistic scientists, and I don't deny the important works they have done. Newton was religious (well he lived before Darwin, that's to his defence :D), he was a genius. But I was talking about the way creationists think. They aren't scientists at all.
by 773491 on September 4th, 2008
Your argument about logic is non sequitur.
by 773491 on September 4th, 2008
I answered a huge question about science and evolution today. Here's a lot of my views, if you're interested. I don't address god there, it's just about evolution: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/3929121
by 773491 on September 4th, 2008
whoa, historians who deny the holocaust? are you saying people like zuendel fall under the "historian" definition? not to change the subject but just found your fact really odd to hear.
anyways, yeah, kids might ask that, and then parents would answer. much like they would ask any other question about something they dont know or understand and be answered to the best of their parents ability. another good one is "why do people kill each other? isnt killing bad?"
the point of comparing science in the past to science today, is that today will be history, and soon, the science of today will be the science of the past.. and while the evidence mightve been "overwhelming" of there being no such thing as meteors, of the earth being the center of the universe, etc.. it still just wasnt right. by the way, the "evidence" for evolution isnt overwhelming, what is overwhelming is the conclusions and pressure of evolutionists.
by insaner on September 8th, 2008
a simple fact of life, he who yells the loudest will be the one who gets heard. NOT the one who is right.
.
but atheists DO claim this and they DO state it as fact.. its only when challenged that they take a step back and insert disclaimers.. thats not honest at all.
a godless universe is impossible to explain! it violates the laws of logic! it couldnt have created itself, it mustve come from somewhere! you cant avoid that simple fact!
i dont see how my argument on logic is non-sequitur
the blurred species concept is NOT what evolution is all about, since this is observable and we can all agree on this, but what is not observable is how all living things came from a single celled organism. the bible's creation account says that God created everything according to its "type".. this might be a reference to "genus" or some such concept (im not sure enough to say) but it had to be enough to give rise to all we have today, given noah's ark's limitations..
which part of 1:06?
by insaner on September 8th, 2008
I wouldn't call such people historians either, the point is they got an important PhD or whatever in history and are seen as experts. I wouldn't call creationists scientists, but also very very few of them managed to make it.
by 773491 on September 10th, 2008
Why do people kill each other can easily be answered. From a religious point of view and from an atheistic point of view. The question about god can't be answered. You say that a godless universe is impossible, 'it couldn't have created itself'. Why do different laws apply for god than for universes? If the universe can't create itself, god can't either. If the unviverse can't just be there, god can't either. The universe is much simpler than god, ergo since something HAD to come from nothing or exist always, it's more likely to be the universe (godLESS). That was perfect logic in my view, I don't get how people cannot see that.
by 773491 on September 10th, 2008
You say 'atheist' do say evolution is a fact. That is true, but so do Christians. Scientists do this, and people with a good education. I'm from Switzerland, and even the pastors here would laugh at anyone who can't accept evolution. I already said that it doesn't disprove god.
by 773491 on September 10th, 2008
your argument about logic wasn't even a true argument, you just stated 'logic demands there to be a creator outside of space and time'. When I look up the definition of logic, I don't find this statement. I know what you were trying to say though, and I addressed it now (two comments ago).
by 773491 on September 10th, 2008
I didn't get the the second paragraph of your comment at 1:06.
by 773491 on September 10th, 2008
wait, youre from switzerland?? no way!! (ill answer the other stuff in a bit, i have class in like 3 minutes) which part? (you dont have to answer if you dont want to)
by insaner on September 10th, 2008
i like the point you make about the PhD and that making you an expert. well, thats the way we see it too, except we extend it to everyone. we object (i keep saying "we" but this is probably just the closest circle of christians around me.. not a general rule or anything) to people with PhDs declaring themselves wiser than all because of their lab coat.. thats just ridiculous.
.
i dont know, man, but i would not consider that "why do people kill each other" can easily be answered. it can be answered in a matter of fact way.. but i dont think its easy at all. the question of God is simple tho. God is the creator, nobody created Him. thats pretty simple to me. and different laws apply to God than to the universe for the same reason that different laws apply to liquids than to solids than to gases, theyre just made of different things.. the universe is made up of matter, God isnt. therefore, God isnt bound by the laws that bind matter.. its pretty simple. matter is bound by space and time.
by insaner on September 10th, 2008
God cannot be compared to the universe in any way, its just not a pair of concepts that can be compared. God must be eternal and infinite.. the universe, being made up of matter cannot possibly be regressively infinite.. it cant. God, having no matter, can be.
by the way, switzerland doesnt much have a large body of christians to claim as theirs anymore anyways.. so if you say that pastors there all believe in evolution, id say, "really, they both do?" of course, if you wanna talk about the "protestant" pastors (lutherans or reformed or whatever it is you are talking about) then id say.. "well, first ask if they believe the bible is 100% true and inerrant, and if they believe in the literal account of genesis".. if they cant answer yes to both, i cant say theyre christians either.
most of these "protestant" pastors arent even fully convinced that God exists.. sort of like the united church.. so i wouldnt use them as any indication of anything
by insaner on September 10th, 2008
1:06: "you say that creationism is not a satisfying alternative due to the inability to explain the complexity of God. well two issues with that, one, this is the fallacy of argument of complexity, and second, you want to explain all of what exists, and all of life as having a simple origin leading to further complexity? but when presenting this complexity, you demand even greater complexity as its origin if that origin is God?? that doesnt make any sense."
.
ok, so what i was saying here is in response to you finding it unacceptable to explain the universe as having come from God by using the argument of complexity (which is a fallacy.. and would also fall under the fallacy of ignorance "i cannot conceive it, therefore it cannot be") you believe that complexity can arise from simplicity (single cell leading to all forms of life, without an intelligent guiding force. ie, the spontaneous creation of new and useful information) [contd]
by insaner on September 10th, 2008
but you cannot conceive of an entity of greater "complexity" (im still not sold on using this word to describe God) as leading to what we have, ie, something not as complex? thats just really strange and makes no sense to me.
by insaner on September 10th, 2008
by the way insaner=basler
by insaner on September 10th, 2008
lol that's interesting, so do you speak Swiss-German? I'm from Zurich.
.
I know apealing to authority is questionable. But the way I see it, science is not an 'authority', it's a whole body of thousands of people. Here, self controle comes in. The scientific method is based on this concept.
.
'Why do people kill each other?': Look at animals, we're the product of our genes. Humans are a special case, we have foresight and rationality, but we're still animals. People kill because they see benefits for them in killing, or they kill because they are angered so much that natural empathy (which has a well studied evolutionary background) isn't strong enough to prevent it, or they have an empathy disorder.
by 773491 on September 11th, 2008
If this sounds pessimistic to you, X is conforting doesn't mean X is true.
.
Actually, different laws apply to liquids than to solids because of reasons. Those reasons are within the nature of the laws and liquids and solids. God is defined outside of everything that makes sense.
.
I could as well define some mindless function out of every laws that happens to cause the big bang.
by 773491 on September 11th, 2008
What denomination are you? It's funny how you exclude moderate religious people from Christianity. I kind of agree with you, if I was a believer, I would be full for it, and not such a hypocritical person who never goes to church but 'believes in god and a nice afterlife'. But well, if you take Genesis literally, you're nuts. And I don't care if this is offensive, because it is what I truly believe.
.
I don't see why you think the argument of complexity is a fallacy. It is, in the case of the creationist argument, because evolution is gradual. Does god have such a process? No, he was always there, so here the argument applies.
.
That's the point, I cannot accept an entity of great complexity to just happen to be there. If you look at a human cell, the human eye and such things, you can't just accept them to happen to be there, thrown together randomly. You demand an explanation. This explanation is darwinism. It's the same explanation I demand for god, and there is none.
by 773491 on September 11th, 2008
hey, i mostly understand it yeah, i grew up in costa rica and my moms side is cuban.. so its mostly spanish and english, i went back to switz when i was 18 and learned german there (so its not perfect) and of course my whole family speaks swiss german, so i can understand it and speak a bit of it.. my french is school french, so i couldnt even get mugged in it (true story.. haha) and im also learning hebrew and can get around in italian a bit..
yeah the problem with science is that, ironically, its not only subject to interpretation, its completely based on interpretation.. for this reason "science" can say for hundreds of years the earth is the center of the universe and even give more accurate calculations than for what is the actual truth.. which was the case. the problem is that science is controlled by men and is subject to soo much politics that for certain things its just completely unreliable.. evolution and age of the earth are the main two such examples (at least as [contd]
by insaner on September 23rd, 2008
it affects this conversation) i agree completely in that X being comforting doesnt make X true.. that applies especially to the false comfort a lot of atheists have in that because they believe God doesnt exist, therefore they think they dont have to face judgment for the actions they committed in their life (which by the way is why you see so many of the most ruthless murderers of our time also being atheists.. stalin, mao, pol pot.. etc) and it applies the other way as well, the comfort theists get in knowing that such bastards will be judged accordingly doesnt make it true. as a matter of fact we believe it because God says so, not because we want it to be so. so our belief in the God of the bible precedes our belief in a final judge.
yeah i dont think there can be such a thing as a moderate christian.. like paul washer said (youtube) [contd]
by insaner on September 23rd, 2008
"you cannot have an encounter with something as big as a truck and remain unchanged, and you cannot have an encounter with something as big as God and remain unchanged".. if you know God you KNOW God.. and you live for Him with all the fire in your soul.. because you know not just what He has done for you, and how much He has loved you, but because you also know how undeserving you are in this.. its also that the bible doesnt make mention of denominations or any such thing in defining what a christian is, it defines it as one who has the Spirit of Christ in them. and this spans denominations, and no denomination can claim to be "the right one", so, to answer your question, while i identify as an evangelical, it means exactly jack squat (nothing) since i do not affiliate with any evangelical anything. my church is evangelical baptist but when looking for a church i didnt look for one along denominational lines.. since it means exactly nothing. a real christian MUST take the bible [cont
by insaner on September 23rd, 2008
completely literally.. which means take the text and read what it says, not what you want it to say.. so the passages that are law you take it as law, the passages that are doctrine, you take it as doctrine, and the passages that are poetry you take it as poetry. genesis is not a poetic book so it cannot be taken as such. also, while the earth itself might be really old, life on earth cannot (according to the bible.. ) theres also lots of things that people take as metaphor that arent, and that are for example, dreams or visions (and hence metaphorical) and they take as being something else (as the book of revelations.. which is john telling the dream he had) many people call themselves christians, but they cherry pick to follow what they like and not follow what they dont, and they have no clue what the bible actually says in the first place.. they just try to "rationalize" it in the midst of their ignorance, instead of actually studying it more deeply to understand.
by insaner on September 23rd, 2008
great complexity coming from simplicity all of its own violates entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, it needs an intervening entity to occur.. in the same way that books dont write themselves, DNA, which contains more organized information than an entire library full of encyclopedias, and which has been found to actually have _parallel_ sentences (ie, the "reading heads" can shift over and reread the dna "sentences" and they will have another completely correct meaning which is then used.. imagine the same thing in english.. where a whole book can be read to give an entirely (different and) correct meaning by starting to read just a few characters off.. anthony flew, the worlds former atheist "pope" (haha) before dawkins actually became a deist in light of advances in the understanding of DNA.. dna could not have come about on its own.. even the smallest reproducing set of DNA of the simplest cell cannot have come about on its own without external agency or guidance.
by insaner on September 23rd, 2008
What makes you assume that the universe began as "Great Simplicity"?
Most theories of the early universe state that it was an incredibly complex and nearly chaotic situation.
And especially given the nature of life, is it that implausible for a seemingly simple thing (say... an egg) to hold the basic data necessary for something incredibly complex (say... a human being) to eventually form?
-
DNA being created would be illogical, as would DNA forming spontaneously from no particular origins.
However, (especially given what we know about energy), is there any reason to discount the idea that perhaps the "Creation" of life was not so much a creation or a spontaneous formation, as a transition of the necessary data/energy into a different form?
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 23rd, 2008
To draw a more easily understood comparison, look at the 'Butterfly Effect'.
Information is little but energy in a certain pattern of power, timing, duration, etc.
In the 'Butterfly' scenario, the energy/information of a butterfly's wingbeats translates through an incredibly complex holistic filter into a hurricane, a drastically more complex event.
-
When one takes the complex, holistic nature of the universe, I don't consider it that implausible for a relatively simple piece of information to build on itself.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 23rd, 2008
I hate you´re anti-science attitude. It´s a wrong attitude. Science is open for interpretation, but only, as long as there isn´t enough data. There are some fields were scientists are still working on, there are others were there is so much data that science came to a rational conclusion, sometimes even mathematically proven.
If you understood how science works, you would think differently. Read the link I posted in that agnostic-definition thread.
by 773491 on September 24th, 2008
okay and now your coming with Stalin? In you´re case, the slash / between Christian/anti atheist/anti every other religion is justified. Stalin didn´t commit atrocities because he was an atheist. However, there are dozens of examples where theists used their view to justify war. If you want to play this name game, then you´ll clearly loose it.
by 773491 on September 24th, 2008
You´re making a lot of absolute statements in your last comment, and all of them are unproven.
If evolution violates the 2nd law of of thermodynamics, then so do you (you once were a baby and got bigger and got more complex, your brain synapses made many new connections etc.)
As every living matter, DNA wasn´t randomly scrambled together, it evolved. This means slow, gradual steps that accumulate the luck.
by 773491 on September 24th, 2008
To continue on what I see as the deeper drive of 773491's comment on DNA not being randomly scrambled together:
I do not see even that, necessarily, as evidence of a higher being, persay.
You see, there is an important distinction to be made between an "Artificial Intelligence" and a full-fledged *Consciousness*.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 24th, 2008
An "A.I." is simply a system in which things interact via a certain set of rules.
Say, for instance, that you have a computer system capable of reacting to voice commands: Does the computer understand the meaning of what's said to it? Does it produce its own thoughts spontaneously?
No, and no. It is simply operating under a certain set of parameters, which create the *Illusion* of genuine intelligence.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 24th, 2008
There is no rational reason to assume that the universe could not have its own holistic brand of intelligence, bestowed upon it by the infinitely complex (but ultimately consistent) set of laws by which it functions.
That does not indicate the presence of an intelligence in the sense of a self-aware consciousness, but rather a *Tendency Towards Order*. The reason such organized things as DNA seem to indicate intelligence, is because higher intelligence tends to seek out and design order. But the natural, unconscious laws of the universe share that same tendency.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 24th, 2008
chaos actually means lack of order, ie, it implies simplicity.. as things increase in order, they decrease in entropy, requiring greater energy to not only bring them to this state, but keep them in it too, and making things less stable. order=greater complexity=less stability=greater energy required=lower entropy
in any case, when argue that simplicity can lead to complexity, or in the other direction, you are disbanding the argument that God cannot exist because how can the universe which is so complex/simple come from something so simple/complex. if these infinitely complex laws preexisted, as you argue (either of you, im answering both as a single argument), that means that you allow for infinite complexity to preexist which would allow God to be infinitely complex by this logic.
dna being created does not violate any logic anymore than people writing books and encyclopedias and then organizing these into libraries would violate logic, remember, God is all-powerful, so [contd]
by insaner on September 26th, 2008
He has the ability to create anything. so anything that exists He couldve created. and by the way, if you research a bit more deeply into the elements required not just for DNA and cells themselves, you will quickly run into a wall that shows how its just impossible for these to have come about through "processes".
im not sure if you are actually taking the "butterfly effect" to be an actual scientific fact..
.
im not anti-science.. i think its good to study our world, as a christian, i know this gives glory to God, and most of the greats of science would have agreed with me (as they were pretty much all theists at the very least.. many being christian, others jewish or muslim) i just think its very very important to consider the process and take it for what it is.. the human, erring, study of the natural world. and the fact that it keeps correcting itself should immediately let us know not to blindly trust in it. which many do, and i would go as far as to say ALL atheists do.
by insaner on September 26th, 2008
i didnt say that stalin committed atrocities because he was atheist.. i said that being atheist gave him the sense that he wouldnt have to answer to anyone for his actions, which then enabled him to do what he did.. not all atheists are like stalin, as you may agree with me. so you can see how thats not what i was arguing. and obviously, lots of people will have used their set of beliefs to justify whatever it is they did.. but they for sure didnt use the bible to do it.
.
claiming that i violate entropy would show that you dont understand that its all encoded in my dna to begin with, so its just the instructions being followed, and NOT greater order arising from it.. think of it as the DNA strands "unraveling" into the information they contain.. this is clearly the opposite. however for DNA to arise we would need more and new and better information, ie, the creation of useful information.. and THAT is what violates entropy, unless of course, there is an intelligent guiding force [cont
by insaner on September 26th, 2008
behind it.. thats when it makes sense.
i agree completely and 100% in the AI example you give (except it exactly doesnt qualify as AI, but to follow your example--), exactly, the program isnt "thinking" its only processing according to the commands it was /given/.. ie, there is a human intelligence who had to program that stuff up and then the program just follows the rules it was given.
by insaner on September 26th, 2008
What are your arguments for saying that DNA can´t have evolved? I think you´re the one who should do some reading. It wasn´t a single step formation, DNA evolved out of self replicating macro molecules. Those peptides and co were formed by accident, but the odds of this happening anywhere in the universe are actually very high. And the 2nd law of thermodinamics doesn´t prohibit the accidental formation of self-replicating macro molecules.
by 773491 on September 26th, 2008
Are you saying that Christians are only moral because they fear god´s anger if they aren´t? God told people in the OT to wipe out entire tribes except for the virgins, which should be raped. Ever heard of the Crusades? If Islam can be interpreted as calling for a holy war, Christianity fits this description even more. I don´t think such facts have anything to do whether one side of the discussion is right or not (after all, god could just be a jaelous, cruel monster), but since you brought it up...
by 773491 on September 26th, 2008
You are correct that chaos implies very strongly a lack of order.
-
However, there is the basic logic of averages to consider.
When a process, even a chaotic one, continues long enough, it almost certainly *Will* tend towards order.
However, that order is not synonymous with simplicity, because it comes about on a macro level both in time and space. The sum totally of chaotic occurrences in an infinite, or even a very large, environment will tend to add up to a roughly even statistical distribution.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 26th, 2008
So... If I'm understanding you correctly, your argument is that only a preexisting, conscious intelligence could have designed the complex parameters governing the "A.I." that governs the universe?
That's some pretty circular logic, right there. Because in order for that to be the only option, you have to assume that there are no examples of A.I.s that were not designed by some preceding intelligence, and in order to assume that, you have to have already made the assumption that the universe itself isn't an example.
Therefor... circular logic.
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 26th, 2008
good comments, E.E.
.
Another ironic fact is that evolution is only possible because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The ´progressiveness´in evolution comes from copying errors in DNA. Natural selections strives towards perfect copying, but fortunately, this can´t be achieved because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Copying errors occur, chromosomes get duplicated or deleted, junk of DNA gets pasted somewhere else etc. etc. This often leads to death, but sometimes, the mutations are beneficial and spread. So it´s not a purpsoful increase of order, it´s actually the oppisite, which happens to be an improvement, because only the ´good´mutations survive chosen by natural selection.
by 773491 on September 27th, 2008
What a masterpiece of very bad reasoning! Yes, Occams' razor works against theism, but William of Occam may never have realized that. Religion doesn't answer any questions at all. It often just orders us not to ask. How can someone say such things as the final sentence in this naive rant? believers deal in deception, for their naive beliefs have no basis in reality.
by Garrett_B5610 on August 25th, 2011
Oh wow, I'm embarrassed to read my own comments here. Not that I think they were wrong, just ill-phrased at times, and a tad arrogant / know-it-all. Oh well.
by 773491 on August 25th, 2011