- NEW!
by Gina on July 15th, 2007
I don't understand how someone can say (please no trolling, this is just my belief) that there is no God. Just look around at the beauty of the world. The trees, the sky, light, the sun. I am in complete awe of it. I have a hard time believing in the Big Bang theory.... We all evolved from a huge explosion??? I find that really hard to believe. I go with God. I know I'm going to get some comment about there being Scientific evidence to explain all this, but there is nothing that anyone can say that will change my faith in my God.
by Inspector Javert on July 15th, 2007
Um... nothing, there is no evedience.
by weatherman taking week or so off on July 16th, 2007
Your existence and that you asked this question.
by jin jang on July 15th, 2007
There is no scientific evidence of a higher deity.I would say it comes down to one's faith if there is such a deity.
by Norman_Outside the lines on July 16th, 2007
1ST ;and foremost; Written documentation;(The same thing as many historcal facts), written documantation; The Bible
2nd the Dead sea scrolls
3rd and not factual; faith and beliefs ,
1) go to a hospital and speak with some one who has been cured
2) go to the maternity ward and just look at the babies
3) go to the middle of the woods , climb a hill and look all around
4) go th a packed church on a day of Mass( any denomination) and stand and watch rthe people who have gathered out of pure faith
5) ask some one who has been lucky enough to have received a Miracle ( large or small)
6) call arol Fejka, who was a young girl ( 10 to 12 yrs old) had a softball sized tummor entangled through out her throat, with nothing medical science could do for her, totally baffeled doctors by during a weekly visit all signs had vanished without a trace.
7) ask me who stopped me from stepping infront af a speeding car while carrying my son, grabbed me from behind as I stepped off a curb , ( only one behind me was God)
8) look into you life, not only the pain but the entire picture.
9) look at how bad things Could have been for you but arn t.
now how much evidence do you need ?
by Talimze on May 26th, 2008
There is no evidence for God. I don't know if the people who dreamt him up planned this or what, but the crazy thing about God is that you can say he exists without evidence, and then since there is no evidence even relating to God, whether it be for or against his existence, it is impossible to prove that he does not exist. Therefore, he exists. I tell ya....my mind has been blown.
by Nelson - Jetpacking from bed on July 15th, 2007
Human's need to control and explain nature.
by cancon on July 16th, 2007
You...
by SPLITT on January 21st, 2008
i personaly believe that God is not about evidence, science is. God has more to do with faith than proof and unfortionatly, if you have no faith you will never have YOUR evidence.
by still loves cheerios on July 15th, 2007
Us
by Dmitri on May 25th, 2008
I think everyone can agree that there is evil in this world. And with evil, there is also good. Therefore, there has to be a standard to determine both evil and good, in order to distinguish one from the other. Since there is a standard, there is a rule, and therefore a law. With a law, there must be a law giver. A law giver must have authority, and who has more authority that God Himself?
by philosopher-saint on April 22nd, 2008
A full set of fingerprints! ;-)
by 444 on April 22nd, 2008
God revealing it to you.
by Lovehearts on August 31st, 2007
a sunrise, when it starts raining after you've been walking for miles, new socks, chipped nail varnish, silence in the morning, laughter, the ocean, anything and everything. All that stuff can't be random. there must be a bigger picture, someone watching. If i didn't believe that then i wouldn't be able to get up in the morning.
by Cyndi Ninja on January 21st, 2008
It comes down to what you believe, if you believe it then that's all the evidence you need.
by Highlander is semi-retired from AB on July 16th, 2007
Pray and listen with your heart carefully.
by mrtorch on July 15th, 2007
No one can prove God exists, no one can prove God doesn't.
That's a fact.
by u.. on July 15th, 2007
Is there any real evidence for God? Or do we simply choose what we wish to believe?
by Marky Mark on November 29th, 2008
The perfection of design found in nature and the human body.
by science_geek on November 29th, 2008
Here is some actual evidence of a God, the creator of all, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is better evidence than anything in the Bible, for sure! May you all be touched by his noodly appendage!
by 23Skidoo on November 19th, 2008
There is none.
by Jade on August 26th, 2008
look in the mirror...then decide for yourself if you came from nothing.
by Matthewisdom on May 26th, 2008
A let me think.........Jesus Christ? What other religion had a man raise from the dead and have it documented by so many for some four months after his execution on the cross?
by JayeWants2Know on May 19th, 2008
The wonder of nature. What more proof could we possibly need?
by buttman on April 22nd, 2008
Creation itself testifies to the presence of a SUPREME
LIVING MIND. The manipulation of space force and the primordial energies--every mechanism regarding the universe is, I humbly submit, the handiwork of this
SUPREME DIVINE INTELLIGENCE. There's nothing that could
possibly be so well organized without an "Organizer".
There's absolutely nothing that could possibly have come out of "nothingness". The whole universe ceaselessly and with amazing syncronization and order
works in harmony and in accordance to unalterable laws.
All of this, I submit, could only have been so well
structered and brought into existence by a SUPREME
INTELLIGENCE which I'm not ready to call IT a deity.
Science can only wrangle and vehemently oppose to this fact in its unrelent challenge to its religious foe, but they have not and CANNOT prove otherwise. There's no such a thing as "chance". Everything happens in obeisance to the unalterable law of physic(CAUSE & EFFECT). It's not even remotely likely for all of these
essential properties that creat and sustain life to have come from a hostile environment. For example, there are--according to scientific research--two-hundreds [amino acids]; however, there are only twenty
special [amino acids] found in the proteins of all living things. Does that really sound like an "accident" to you? With all the advance technology scientists have access to they haven't been able to produce new life from [inanimate matter]. But even if scientists could produce living proteins from [inanimate matter], it would only confirm that a pre-existing intelligence was indeed needed as a directing force to so wisely [direct] all the right biologic components in order for life to exist. The intelligence demonstrated--another example--in the work
of the blood cells in humans and animals, is an irrefutable proof of a high degree of consciousness existing in those cells. How could a collection of cells generate a conscious being? "Chance" is just a term lossly used by the scientific community in their
presumtuous attempt to explain something which transcends all the wisdom of this plane of being. "Accidents" are events occurring by chance--a nonessential property, and they have no purpose, for if they had, that would imply "awareness" or "consciousness". The concept that we all are but the result of a "freak accident" shouldn't leave much
room to take life with any seriousness. If we embrace
the idea that we came into existence for no reason or purpose, then it shouldn't be difficult to accept the
[meaninglessness] of our own human existence which such
a concept implies. The greatness of this SUPREME SPIRIT
is unmeasurable and transcends any logic and all mortal's common reasoning and whatsoever idea we could, in our plane of being, conceive in any attempt to explaning. It's utterly beyond all possibility of demonstration, and most certainly can never be proved
by any scientific experiment or by any simple reason of
logical deduction.
by Norman_Outside the lines on April 21st, 2008
Good day all, Its good to be alive and to see you are all here ! :+)
by dr james on April 20th, 2008
actually science is the Best evidence of God...
the contradictions and BELIEFS and BASELESS FAITH and HOPE and TRUST in the crazy theories that they love to call facts should drive all sane folks to hope there is a God.
and in all honesty, the inabilty for scientists to find any scientific evidence for almost anything they spout these days...shows that something of a higher power must be involved.
100 of the top evolutionists, currently, have admitted, they cant find any evidence to support their BELIEFS.
and conclude that some other forces must be involved. in evolution, and astrophysics.
therre are only a handful,less than a handful, that adamantly, forcefully say theres no God.
it seems that all these wanna bees,who oppose the belief in God, havwe gone way past even their own mentors, opinions.
so far the mathmatics have PROVEN that evolution doesnt and cannot exist and the facts show this to be a baseless theory also..
on an order of 10^280 plus.
show me one single solitary proof of evolution anywhere, of anything no matter how insignificant and all peoples of faith will become atheists over night.
its put up or shut up time folks. and so far they blather on a lot more than showing facts.
by TheicidalManiac on March 19th, 2008
There is no "evidence" that doesn't equally lend itself to other explanations. That is why religious folk have to have faith. The bad thing about having blind faith in something for which there is no evidence, though, is that any belief is as plausible and valid as any other, and so you end up with many conflicting faiths.
We should stick to facts, people. Really.
by peterpam on March 19th, 2008
Is there any?
by jesus freak on March 19th, 2008
after my experiences i deffanatley believe in god infact i am a 14 male :) i used to be messed up and even messed with drugs and tobacoo but god turned me i meen i cried and cried and i felt so happy like he was sitting right next to me hugging me and telling me he loves me and that he forgives me :) and 2 years later now i am still crazy about him and will be crazy for him all the way to the end. and then i will finally see his face :O . ohh if u are stuggling with faith then check out the book "the case for christ" and "the case for a creator" it gives scientific evidence for god and how the big bang theory realy just isnt possible. the chances of all the chemicals and atoms and protons and whatever else came together is just astronomically low. its 1 and 24000000000000000000000000 chances of happening. If u dont believe me ask any astronamer and scientist. i got that 1 from the case for a creator. Its about a man named lee stoble who was and athiest and set out to disprove God. Instead, after looking at the facts and figures and talking with world famous scientist and astronamers he came to the conclusion that there is a god and that he loves us all.
by ended on March 1st, 2008
CAN YOU BREATH ?
by mr S on February 4th, 2008
Go away alone asking no one to help you with this answer, instead pray to god to reveal the ultimate truth about himself and i garauntee you that god will not leave you in darkness, may God bless you.
by Candy on January 22nd, 2008
There is no real evidence, since there is no such thing as a god. All gods are human creations used to explain things that humans do not understand, such as death. Gods are used to create religions - which are simply institutionalized cults - as an excuse by the self-righteous to impose illogical moral codes on society. They are also used as a justification to attack others that have different beliefs or challenge beliefs with facts.
by barjacob on November 10th, 2007
One can see that the order in Creation, its magnificent structure, the orgasnization of the Human Body, the relationship of the Food Chain to Sun, Light and Photsynthesis, Moon, Tides, Animals Birds and the inter-dependecy of the Earth and all of Creation are signs of A SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE, which some see as GOD, a GREAT SPIRIT, a CREATOR who loves and so shared all this to show that love, and some see that HE Sent His Son to show in the Flesh what the Unseen God, who is Spirit is like. fAITH convinces of the Spiritual world of God, common sense convinces us of the Higher/Supreme Intelligence, but some folks will believe any "cock abnd bull story" or theory that defies reason and common sense to be Atheists or defend some weird version of any major Faith.
by toucans on August 31st, 2007
Existence.
by borasalama on July 16th, 2007
There is no concrete evidence of God. The HQ admits that right at the beginning of its first chapter after the opening one. HQ 2:3 praises those “Who believe in the UNSEEN, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them”
Of course, NO evidence is really absolute, ultimately all evidence is merely what is perceived by the brain. They say seeing is believing but even visual evidence can be deceptive as we know from how real magic appears and how vivid dream experiences can be.
The best evidence the Theist can offer is all circumstancial, like the examples given below, it points to the amazing this and the marvelous that. All of which the Atheist can come up with a rational 'cause and effect' type of explanation for. But that doesn't pull the rug from under the Theist, because maybe God used the rational 'cause and effect' type of mechanism to bring about His creation and how it functions.
The Theist may not have the hard evidence that the Atheist is after but he has the HQ which gives him a stable rational code of life rooted in justice, and common to all those of his faith, not subject to the changeable fancies of dictators or democracies and, as a bonus, he might come up a winner in the hereafter too, if it turns out to be true. Belief in God is the safest bet, most rational and most wise.
What then is the best evidence? We are. The miracles that are at work to make us what we are and to enable us to do what we do without much voluntary control on our part are evidently the design of an omniscient being. You are reading these black on white patterns and making sense of them. You have a real live moving colour picture of the immediate world around you in your head. This has perfect sound co-ordination. All the while you are breathing at the correct rate and your heart is beating regularly to keep you alive. Your body temperature is maintained at the correct level. Digestion and purification of your blood is taking place. Each cell in you body is itself functioning miraculously like a high security 24/7 efficient factory. If you are a woman then you are even more closely linked with divine powers for the miracles of procreation takes place right inside you. How cells subdivide, how the right cells are formed for the skin, the eyes the tongue hair and how the right cells end up in the right places. The miracles are endless and they all point to a super intelligent designer. You might find the two videos below interesting. They’re titled Seeing The Clear Proofs Of God’s Existence and God Is Known Through Reason
.
by smart9426 on July 16th, 2007
The natural world, esp. before mankind got their hands on it
by Laura Jean on July 16th, 2007
Babies, if you were ever in the delivery room no one would never ask that question again. You see Him in the trees and flowers and animals and their miracle of birth. The miracle of healings, the miracle of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The very breath you take. The very thought that you think. God is ever where if one would open up their eyes and heart to that fact.
by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on July 16th, 2007
The Universe. All of Creation proves the existence of the Lord God Almighty.
-In Christ's service.
Thank you and God bless you!
by Majorly Jetpacking on July 19th, 2009
There isn't any, as far as I've ever seen.
by pokeyokey1 on November 29th, 2008
"...Den alten Gott ergriff eine Höllenangst. Der Mensch selbst was sein größter Felhgriff geworden, er hatte sich einen Rivalen geschaffen, die Wissenschaft macht gott-gleich, - es ist mit Priestern und Göttern zu Ende, wenn der Mensch wisseschaftlich wird!..." Friedrich Nietzsche: Der Antichrist pg. 90.
It says that the old god came upon a terrible fear that his biggest failure was creating the Human. That he created a Rival because Science makes one God-Equal and that it would mean the end of Priests and Gods when Mankind becomes Scientific.
God is an answer to a question. The question "Where did this all come from?". Science is the search for the answer "where did this all come from?" So technically Science is the search for God. And if God is the answer for everything, then your best evidence is your surroundings.
If your unable to accept that as an answer, then your not looking for evidence for "God" your looking for evidence of the absence of "God".
by Wind Walker on November 18th, 2008
Well for me it was when I was meditating. I was asking what am I doing here? What do you want of me? That's when I heard a voice (not my own and no one else around)loud and clear at the back of my head but not inside my head say... BECOME WHO YOU ARE. I have never questioned if there is God again.
by dumdum on September 10th, 2008
A God that humans can comprehand is no god at all. The very concept of faith is to believe in the unseen, the unproven. This is not a court case, there is no "evidence" to prove or disprove. Good luck - enjoy the trip.
by 23Skidoo on August 4th, 2008
There is no evidence either way. Just as there is no evidence about Santa's existence.
That is the best argument for there NOT being a god and there not being a Santa (sorry kids).
by Whizkid on May 25th, 2008
I think there is more evidence for his non-existence.... take the recent disasters in China for example.... 62,000 deaths and counting.... to many innocent lives young and old... caused by us? It's a natural disaster...
by The Dean on April 22nd, 2008
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
In any closed system, the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase.
by philosopher-saint on April 22nd, 2008
A royal flush in Tahoe! ;-)
by Chezter is going to save the Redheads on April 20th, 2008
Vagina
by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on March 19th, 2008
The fact that we're not Absolutely, cold hard facts positive that he doesn't exist. Yet.
by Esteban-- Smartest Pumpkin on January 21st, 2008
my sense of humor.
Can Truth violate an individuals intuitive sense of justice or logic? Why or why not?
by Freedom00 on August 9th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Do you think Ovechkin and Crosby had to sell their souls to Miroslav Satan to get their talent?
by Have A Nice Day on September 14th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
The Lord's prayer says .. Lead us not into temptation! (am I supposed to think thats one of the things the Lord does lead us into it?)
by aiar on November 3rd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Does the brain control the way we perceive reality?
by Sarrow on October 13th, 2011
| 2 people like this
I wonder - how would you respond when it is proven that God does exist? That there is undisputed, factual evidence of his existence?
by Odyssee on August 14th, 2011
| 5 people like this
You're reading What's the best evidence for God?
- which can also be phrased in the following ways:
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
What I fail to see is how people can't see how God and evolution really don't disprove each other. It's just as easy for me to believe that God set the rules for evolution in motion as it is for me to believe it happened by chance. But that is my opinion as that is yours.
by Someone on July 15th, 2007
I believe in both the big bang theory and the theory of evolution, I do not believe in any kind of god.
However, alot of my physics teachers also believe both theorys AND god! They claim that god caused the big bang that then went on and created the world, Evolution then started and after a few billion years we are where we are now.
Now, I do not know why the big bang happened and I suppose god did it is as good a reason as any other (atm) what I do not agree with is that god is this all powerful being that can do what he wants when he wants, as alot of people do believe. The reason for this is becuase if, just if, he existed then why does he not act to stop all that is happening right now???
Also, in reply to your comment on my question, none of this is proof of gods existance, it could be considered circumstantial proof, but then I was in SF in 2002 does that mean I caused an earthquake? OFC not, but that is same kind of evidance.
by slothmister on July 16th, 2007
This is where faith comes in. Either you have faith in God or you don't. and as far as God not stopping what is going on in the world today... That day is coming upon us sooner than you'd think..
by Gina on July 16th, 2007
That is exactly what people have been saying for many many many years and all with absolutly NO evidance what so ever! "Sooner than you think" is simply saying "I have no valid argument for this so will use my opt out clause!" If it is coming sooner than we think then when is it coming??? OR will you simply keep saying that until the day you die? If you say "next tuesday" then we have a time frame, if you simply say "sooner or later" it means nothing and is nothing therefor your God is still, NOTHING!
by slothmister on July 16th, 2007
+6 my friend
by Norman_Outside the lines on July 16th, 2007
Slothmister, The Bible says no man will know the hour in which Jesus Christ will return... Therefore we are not promised another tomorrow, or another second for that matter...There really is no time frame but things are happening now (whether you believe the Bible or not)that correlate with the Bible..
by Gina on July 16th, 2007
OK, so in that case what do you base your assumption on?
Quote:
That day is coming upon us sooner than you'd think..
by slothmister on July 16th, 2007
I base NOT my assumption, but my beliefs on the Bible, and nothing more...I've argued my point and now I'm done..
by Gina on July 17th, 2007
Thats the problem with religion, whoever you try to talk to all they can do is say something then leave NO-ONE can argue a point purely because they have no basis for their points!!!
They are your beliefs and good luck to you :)
by slothmister on July 17th, 2007
I'll give you +2, just IN CASE, there's trolling afoot. But I will say this as a comment: when anyone ever says "there is nothing that anyone can say that will change my faith in ____" (whatever is in the blank), it's a problem, a social disease. It's dangerous because, although you seem innocuous enough, there are plenty of people that can easily fill in that blank with something horrible that justifies war or murder or hatred. And if we don't all agree to FIGHT to be objective and rational, willing to change in the light of evidence and logic, then we have no basis for showing that one person's fairly harmless (or even mildly beneficial) faith is better or truer in any sense than another person's faith that leads them to harm others. And it's impossible for you to argue with those people, because they will repeat your own statement, much to your chagrin (if you realize it): "there is nothing that anyone can say that will change my faith". And frankly, that SHOULDN'T be okay.
by MvL on August 31st, 2007
sad... standing in the face of defeat and no facts for evolution etc...yall are brave indeed
by dr james on April 20th, 2008
yall... Believe in the big bang.. yall have Faith in evolution..
yall Trust in baseless 100 year old theories.
yet you despise thiose who have faith, hope, and belief in things that yall dont understand either...
how childish
by dr james on April 20th, 2008
You use the word "despise" you obviously have to education to use that word!
Google evolution and after reading the several BILLION results come back and say evolution has no evidence, do the same with "bible contradictions" and then try and argue them too.
by slothmister on April 20th, 2008
I don't "despise" people with faith in baseless 1000s of year-old theories.
I would have to clarify that I, as a skeptic, don't actually "believe" in the Big Bang or evolutionary theory - at least not in the strong metaphysical sense of the word "believe". However, those theories have proven very successful at explaining, modeling, and predicting observed phenomena and data (the evidence at hand). On the other hand, religious theories of creationism don't really provide any predictive or explanatory power. They only present us with more questions - or, perhaps, an end to questions, but without answers. So, they're unsatisfactory theories, not least of which because they're unfalsifiable in any sense.
by MvL on April 20th, 2008
dr james - I'm curious why you have problems with Big Bang and evolutionary theory. MOST of the people who believe in these theories would say they DID believe in God, and a large percentage of THOSE people would proudly declare Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour. The vast majority of believers worldwide believe in Big Bang and evolutionary theory. It is the minority that cling to creationism.
Couldn't you accept the possibility that God created the universe in the Big Bang? And that God's method of creating life and the various species, including humans, was via evolutionary processes? If you accept THAT, then all you need to do to believe in those things and STILL maintain your faith is to stop believing in the literal "7 days" - they become "divine days", with varying lengths. It would make sense that God would use a different calendar of days than we mere mortals, wouldn't it?
by MvL on April 20th, 2008
Also, remember, there are SEVERAL passages in the Bible that clearly and unambiguously support the idea that the Earth is the center of our solar system, and that the Sun goes around Earth, not the other way around. Why don't you believe THAT? It would seem that your faith in the literal interpretation of the scriptures fails you on this one - even you cannot deny the evidence anyone can see with their own eyes just by looking through a telescope - that Earth goes around the Sun, and not, as the Bible strongly and clearly suggests, the other way around.
Why do you not doubt the power of your own eyes, in the face of your faith?
I hope this at least gives you room for thought. Most believers today are willing to recognize established science without losing faith. They do so because they believe that God would not have given them REASON and the abilty to draw conclusions of their own if he didn't want them to use it. You might want to think about how YOU are using God's gift of reason.
by MvL on April 20th, 2008
Chapter and verse, please? I like to verify these things.
by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on July 8th, 2008
There are several. Whilst searching for a few exact chapters and verses (don't know them off the top of my head), I came across this website with comprehensive listings of passages, with chapter and verse noted for each. Very informative.
by MvL on July 11th, 2008
i have no problems with big bang nor even evolution.
but they are just theories not facts as most of you try to claim.
unfortunately for yall.. your retoric is as old and baseless as your "beliefs".
95% of the world believe in a "higher power" or God.
the earth is the center of the universe.
the sun does revolve around the earth and the earth moves in a straight line.
all these things can be proven mathematically.
and so can the opposite.
so which is actually correct?.
no one knows for sure.
your belief in the current theory is just that.."belief" in the current theory of the day.
yet, with all your scietific theories and "proofs" and "claims" and "beliefs"...you still cant answer the most fundamental questions of life and order in the universe.
at least, religion has a simple unequivecol and easy to understand answer.. that explains everything. God or a higher power.
your "beliefs" have more holes and open more questions every day.
and your scientific answers and "theories" contradict each other at every turn. and yet, you all "believe" fairy tales as "facts".
quite childish
by dr james on July 12th, 2008
i`ll add one more comment. the universe is a dangerous place.
super novas, gamma ray bursts, black holes, freezing temperatures of open deep space, extreme heat from nearby stars, black energy, dark energy, regular energy, pulsars, comets, asteroids, colisions, volcanoes, earthquake,dieing stars, new stars, galaxies merging, etc etc etc. how much space is actually viable for life in the universe given that just gamma ray bursts kill everything in a diameter of 10,000 light years and add in the other problems. you will find it practically impossible. but keep deceiving and deluding yourselves. i dont have a problem with that either. live and let live.
if you believe you are kin to a banana, im happy for you.
by dr james on July 12th, 2008
The alternative, of course, is skepticism. I consider myself a skeptic, and that means I don't have any beliefs, whatsoever. I don't believe that evolutionary theory is fact, and neither do I believe in one of the many versions of creationism that have been invented by various cultural traditions. I also concede evolution is an invention too. For people who honestly claim to believe 100%, as absolute fact, that evolution is a reality, they make the same mistake as creationists. None of these theories has, or perhaps can ever have, absolute certain proof. The mistake that both evolutionists and Judaeo-Christian-Islamic creationists make is to mistake theories (or accounts) as fact, but more importantly, they ignore all the other (perhaps infinitely many) alternatives. It isn't a question simply of evolution vs. Genesis. It's also a question of the creation beliefs of Hindus, of the ancient Greeks, of every distinct culture on this planet. We've forgotten how many different accounts of
by MvL on July 12th, 2008
creation there really are. Evolution, I definitely agree, is merely one account. Recognizing this, I can say, earnestly, that I don't believe in evolution. However, that being said, in order to act in this world, we need to make decisions on how to proceed. For this, we need to create models of the world, of our observations, so that we can navigate it properly. The models we choose, common sense would dictate, would always be those models that are most useful in terms of their explanatory and predictive powers, and among competing theories that seem equally useful in those regards, the theory that is simplest, in terms of raising new questions and in terms of the number of different concepts it needs to introduce. The reason why evolution has become so successful, despite violent initial opposition to it, is that it has shown itself to be, far away, the most predictive and explanatory theory. Of course, it's a "leap of faith" to assume that just because a model is predictive and
by MvL on July 12th, 2008
explanatory, that it is the Truth (with a capital T). I don't make that leap of faith, and neither should any true scientist. We can always find more evidence one day that discredits a theory that seems very successful at the moment.
The problem with creationists is that they've chosen their theory of how everything came to be in an arbitrary manner - they choose the description their religious texts happen to describe for creation, and they "choose" their religion most often based on how they were raised and other cultural influences. They also, of course, ignore all the alternative creation theories that other religious and cultural traditions, both current and long since passed, have presented. They also ignore all the possible imaginable creation scenarios that have not been imagined in a concrete form yet - perhaps creation by aliens, or by sentient rocks.
The only we know right now is that we don't know anything. Anyone who claims knowledge or a belief MIGHT have stumbled upon
by MvL on July 12th, 2008
real Truth, but we should vigorously inquire and critique until we can determine if this is so, whether the source be science or alleged revelation, or alternative measures we don't yet imagine. True and certain knowledge may or may not be possible - this is another thing we don't know and may never know. But ignorance is not an excuse to decide, arbitrarily, that your beliefs, whether based on faith or even on science, are the Truth, the real Reality "out there". It's that sort of non-skeptical thinking that has always led humanity down the wrong paths, or kept him in squalor.
by MvL on July 12th, 2008
even though i agree with you , your last point is just plain ridiculous and silly.
99% of all historical advancements in science came from religious believers of all persuasions. and yes so did the mistakes.(just as most science and mistakes probably come from nonbelievers nowadays)
but, now, 99% of advancements and mistakes in science are agreed on by all sides of "believers".
believers in religion, faith, agnostics, atheists, evolutionists and creationists etc.
by dr james on July 13th, 2008
the only disagreements are on the 1%. and thats the
CONCLUSIONS REACHED from the SAME SCIENCE.
and as they say: the devil`s in the details, ha.
by dr james on July 13th, 2008
I know that a lot of science and advancement came from believers. But it's good to remember that it didn't come from those people BECAUSE they were believers - their belief in each case was more an accident of history. To the extent that they were scientists, following a skeptical, scientific method of observing and testing, they produced theories that, more often than not, produced progress. Of course, many scientists let themselves fall victim to a far more dangerously invisible form of belief - the belief that they're actually probing nature for the Truth, and that their theories express that Truth. This, of course, is no less a violation of intellectual honesty than belief in God.
You talk about the "conclusions reached" from the same science. Now, as I've said, many scientists make the mistake of confusing a very useful explanatory and predictive theories with Truth, when the Truth could be something entirely different, and even not particularly explanatory or predictive (it's a
by MvL on July 14th, 2008
mistake to assume, again, without certain proof, that reality always formulates itself so that theories that help us humans explain and predict what we see will turn out to be close to the Truth). But true scientists, not deluded into thinking that their theories are anything but theories, will never reach "conclusions". It is reaching conclusions itself that represents a diseased way of thinking. Sadly, that disease exists in the minds of both believers and non-believers alike, with probably only a tiny minority free from it. I'm not saying that we can't reach tentative conclusions for purely practical reasons, but we should never reach conclusions in the deeper, intellectual sense - not without certain proof, which so far has seemed to elude everyone, on every given subject matter, from God to electrons to the necks of giraffes.
I think part of the reason why scientists, especially perhaps evolutionary biologists, are prone to see certain theories (like evolution) as Truth is that
by MvL on July 14th, 2008
non-scientists consistently tend to misunderstand the scientific usage of the word "theory". A theory in common vernacular usage means something like a guess, a hypothesis. In science, it is something that has been worked hard towards, with painstaking observations, sometimes over decades or more, and constant testing and refinement. When scientists hear evolution being referred to as "just a theory", and then compared to versions of creationism, which don't meet the standards of formal scientific theories, they get upset, and start defending the theory until they become prey to the disease of seeing their theory as fact, in the process of defending it. But it is still a theory. By using phrases like "only a theory" or "just a theory", non-scientists demonstrate both their ignorance of the scientific method, and also end up creating a psuedo-religion of fanatical atheistic evolutionist reactionaries, like Richard Dawkins. It helps no one.
by MvL on July 14th, 2008
Incidentally, you might like this article:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
I'd be curious what your thoughts are on its significance.
by MvL on July 14th, 2008
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.......
by Ananamiss on August 18th, 2008
no effense but this to me sounds like blind faith...this is not a good thing. if something is proven to you and you ignore it by all means it is your choice...but i just have to say for all those who believe in what is proven, why beleive at all if you know it is not true
by anonymous on August 24th, 2008
MvL Bacteria can change "within a certain spectrum." Here is a quote from Science, the official magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, speaking of Stephen Jay Gould’s argument him making the same argument as Lenski: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in the physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [a position about midway between extremes].” end quote.In both plants and animals, variations within a species will oscillate or move about like pellets shaken in a glass jar—the variations are held within the boundaries of the species just as the pellets are confined within the jar. Just as the Bible’s account of creation says, a plant or an animal may vary, yet it is restricted to reproduce “according to its kind.”
by no_one_special on August 30th, 2008
It appears they are stretching the definition of new species. Say for example you see a Dachshund and a German Shepard, you wouldn't call them different species, would you? Of course not. They just changed withing the limitations of there pre-existing genes. Here is a quote from that VERY SAME WEBSITE under the sub heading "profound change" "the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolize citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use." end quote. Do you see that E.coli normally cannot use. Normally! It did not say that E.coli could not use it. So it changed, yes, according to pre-existing genes!
by no_one_special on August 30th, 2008
No, although it said "normally", the fact is that no E.coli has ever been observed to use citrate. But more importantly, NONE of the E.coli in the populations studied in the lab metabolized citrate before, as this would have been noticed. Citrate metabolism wasn't a preexisting "variation". It was something new - a mutation that led to a new ability. And if genuinely new features and abilities can emerge in a bacterial population over relatively short time frames, then given hundreds of millions of years, large accumulations of changes are also inevitable - enough changes to warrant considering a population a new and different species. The Dachshund and German Shephard can breed, so they're considered the same species. Also, internally, they're the same - it's only very superficial differences we've bred in. And that makes sense - we only selected for superficial changes, and we only had a few thousand years breeding dogs. Given a few million, we could easily produce different species.
by MvL on September 14th, 2008
I do see your point. However, why did the article say "normally"? If it was a new ability and it was not within E.Coli's ability to change, why use that word? Make sense? And as for the "short time frames" you mention, yes they are short time frames, however this was observed in bacteria. Bacteria have a high reproduction rate as you know. So it cannot be assumed that this is evidence of evolution in progress when you take gestation periods of other species that take far longer. The gene change, if it would occur in a species would have a hard time remaining in the gene pool due to reproduction rate, death rate and others. Also think bacteria have been around for how long? Yet no new species. Bacteria remains bacteria. The same success of a gene change and the gene being passed on over and over to give rise to a new species is not likely in more advanced species, due to slow reproduction rates, in comparison to bacteria. Not probable.
by no_one_special on September 14th, 2008
So long as you admit, that you're belief isn't meant to stand up to critical thinking...that's all I need to hear.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on November 18th, 2008
Beauty isn't evidence of God. By itself it's not evidence of anything other than that we have brains capable of appreciating it.
.
But the main reason I wanted to respond to you is that no scientist says, "We all evolved from a huge explosion". You should learn the science you're skeptical of and perhaps even learn to appreciate the beauty there. It really is amazingly mind-boggling and awesomely beautiful.
by 23Skidoo on November 19th, 2008
@AntiSemantic. Give it a shot.
by no_one_special on November 19th, 2008
@23. I never said beauty was evidence of God. Perhaps you meant someone else?
by no_one_special on November 19th, 2008
I was responding to Gina's question. Sorry.
by 23Skidoo on November 20th, 2008
I was also referring to Gina's statement: "I know I'm going to get some comment about there being Scientific evidence to explain all this, but there is nothing that anyone can say that will change my faith in my God" (sorry for the vagueness)
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on November 20th, 2008
It may be hard to believe in the Big Bang theory when you believe that the words in the bible are 100% accurate. It would be EASY to believe the Big Bang theory when you believe there could be some higher being that Initiated it.
by pokeyokey1 on November 29th, 2008
That is my point entirely!!!
,
Some people will say the big namg just happened for a reason as yet unknown to us, but others will say a god like being planned it all out.
Who is right? Well, there is only one way to find out! Die!
by slothmister on November 29th, 2008
Actually - Research! Why must people always die in the name of this and that?
.
Heliocentricity, heart circulation, fossilized remains, gravitational force...these things didn't "poof" into sudden being - they were discovered by people who ignored stupid dogma, and actual used research, mathematics, and trial-and-error to make discoveries.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on November 29th, 2008
I have the same point of view from the other side - I see all these wonders either created by science, made observable by science, or explainable by science, and I can't see why people need to assign some supernatural creator to it all, instead of finding out about it, what it does, how it works, or and reveling in the beauty of it all.
I also find incredible beauty in science itself, because without science, not only would only a handful of people be able to see such beauty ourselves as things like the Queensland Rainforests, or Galaxies spinning, or an incredible closeup of a tiny insect.
.
I note your ignorance about the actual theory of evolution is almost criminal, in the colloquial sense of course, but I see where you're coming from here.
But I still can't see how in a beautiful garden, you don't think about the gardeners who brought it to what you see today, but instead giving the credit to the fairies living at the bottom of it.
by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on November 29th, 2008
Sgt, the reason some people want to say god done it is two fold...
.
1. They need something/someone to believe in, it answers all their questions nicely and is, quite simply, convienient.
.
2. The science educated religious people argue that there are just too many coincdences for it to be simple chance. Examples:
Pi - if this number changed by 1 in the 200th decimal place the world would not be as we have it now.
Planks constant - same thing as pi, except the changes this would cause alot more drastic changes, ie atoms would not have joined in the same way as they did.
.
Personally, I believe in chance and I also believe that had pi and planks constant (and a dozen other fundamental constants) changed then the matter in the universe would have still developed into something, it would just be different to what we have today. And IF a god like being did create the universe then the description of him provided by all religions is completely false.
by slothmister on November 30th, 2008
I am well aware of this. Science can be big, scary and impenetrable. But you don't need a PHD to find beauty, wonder and excitement in it.
.
Religion is Big, but the scary parts are either not taught, ignored, or hushed up, there is a big community of people at your level welcoming you, and depending on your church, a free tea and coffee/lunch every Sunday.
I can see the almost universal appeal in religion, but frankly, no amount of free tea and coffee could ever make me give up science.
by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on November 30th, 2008
The chance arguments are inherently flawed: If any number of possibilities could have occured, then each and every possibility could actually happen, one at a time, and eventually it would HAVE TO come to a working possibility.
.
Does 2x1 = 100? no; 2x2 = 100? no; 2x10 = 100? no...eventually, you would reach 2x50=100, just by starting with 1 and going one by one.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on November 30th, 2008
I agree Sgt.
.
@Anti, your idea is also flawed. Who is to say the universe repeats itself an infinite number of times? If they first say 2x1 = 100, which is obviously wrong, then maybe they are stuck with a wrong answer.
None of us are god, I dont think any of us even believe in a god. But none of us can actually prove or disprove his existence in any way.
by slothmister on December 5th, 2008
The universe cannot repeat itself an infinite number of times. Since the universe is expanding and at an ever increasing speed this shows this was a one time deal.
by no_one_special on December 5th, 2008
why should we listen to you? You're noone special.
*Rimshot*
Sorry, I couldn't resist another joke - after all, not even a chuckle from the "free tea and coffee" line.
by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on December 5th, 2008
Of course I'm no physicist (not even that good at math) but I'm just saying that, when they say "the way the universe came together was 'too' perfect" - they falsely assume that the universe only could have come together once, with one group of settings, at one time. For all we know about the universe, there are still unexplored theories regarding the possibility of a "multiverse". Perhaps, this is just one of many, and we just happen to be in the one that works, compared to the numerous others that are lifeless.
.
Either way, this is just another "gap" of knowledge - as Dawkins put it - which is automatically ascribed to an all-powerful god, instead of being questioned.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 5th, 2008
I am a physicist, well I hold a UK BSc in Physics and the universe is perfect for life as we know it. Any tiny, nano-scopic alteration would change the universe drastically.
.
As for the universe expanding, latest instruments show it is, but no one knows for sure and this opinion could easily change in the next few years.
by slothmister on December 6th, 2008
Well there's one thing we can be sure about - when (or if...) these mysteries are solved, it will be by the work of empirical and mathematical inquiry.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 6th, 2008
Possibly, but I am under the belief that these will never be solved by humans as we now know them.
.
But then, many other people have said the same about many other theories and been wrong (Fermat's last theorem is a prime example)!
by slothmister on December 6th, 2008
Well, whenever someone brings up the "it'll never happen" belief - I remind them that the "flying machine", the telephone, and the journey to the moon were all "unfathomable" things that took place within 100 years.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 6th, 2008
Exactly. Just because we find it impossible now does not mean it will remain that way indefinitely.
by slothmister on December 7th, 2008
Ok so the latest instruments show the universe expanding. Is there anything that indicates that it may not? If not, then based on that, this was a one shot deal, not an infinite amount of trial and error. That was the point.
by no_one_special on December 8th, 2008
Even if that were the case, it would be a fallacy to assume that is proof of any divinity. You can't deduce the fact that something unfalsifiable is true, regardless of how much [supposedly] supporting evidence is found.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 8th, 2008
@The point is that if this is true, this was a one shot deal. This is not alone to prove divinity. That is a separate issue that may stem from this. But the one shot deal can be true regardless of what one believes about God. You can be an atheist and still believe the universe is expanding.
by no_one_special on December 8th, 2008
@noonespecial, I fail to see the relevance of your last statement. Are we arguing about the universe expanding or contracting or are we arguing about this being evidence for or against a god?
by slothmister on December 8th, 2008
@sloth. My comment was in reference to your comment at Dec, 05 2008 at 08:31 AM. Who is to say the universe repeats itself an infinite number of times?".... This is what I was addressing. There cannot be an infinite amount of trial and error.
by no_one_special on December 8th, 2008
If one of the arguments against God is that there is an infinite amount of trial and error, this must be reasoned on. The reasoning would have to be supported by the universe contracting. All mass and energy coming back together, again. This would enable another Big Band. If this were possible then an infinite amount of trial and error would be plausible. However, this is not the case, therefore the angle of infinite trial and error is removed due to the expanding universe.
by no_one_special on December 8th, 2008
But you are mistaken! The universe is expanding according to modern estimates of the Hubble constant. But that constant is still one of the most uncertain constants in all science. 10 years ago its value was 70 +/- 20, that is a HUGE error. Now it is a lot smaller (the error I mean) and is assumed to show the universe is expanding, however it could be wrong! Hubble's theory is a very new one and is not fully understood, it simply works with the current universe model we accept atm.
.
Regardless of the universe expanding indefinably or not, we still have ZERO sustainable evidence for or against a god.
by slothmister on December 9th, 2008
This is why I said "IF" this is an argument against God and "IF" the universe is expanding. Also that is why I asked if there is any indication that it is not expanding. So "IF" any of these are true, none is an argument against God. Is it proof? Thats a separate issue where we then must reason on aspects or arguments.
by no_one_special on December 9th, 2008
Well, assume that it is true for one minute, it still is not proof. Proof requires solid evidence, this would be circumstantial at best.
by slothmister on December 9th, 2008
You are missing the point. You cannot make a case against God using that argument, of the universe having an infinite amount of trial and error. Secondly, if we cannot rely on circumstantial evidence to arrive a plausible conclusion then we might as well throw out theoretical science.
by no_one_special on December 9th, 2008
You are missing my point. That is still a plausible theory that has NOT been disproved.
And secondly, ONE piece of circumstantial evidence is NOT enough to provide proof, a million pieces and no counter IS enough.
by slothmister on December 9th, 2008
What is a plausible argument that has not been disproved? The expanding universe? I said that already. Secondly I did not say ONE piece of circumstantial evidence is the only proof of God.
by no_one_special on December 9th, 2008
@Noone: You can't make a case against God with...ANY amount of evidence; it is an unfalsifiable, groundless belief; it is not even within the reach of objective analysis.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 9th, 2008
@Anti. I am not making a case against God. I am merely addressing one possible argument against God. The argument of an infinitesimal amount of trial and error so that the probability of life happening randomly becomes possible at least in theory due to an infinitesimal amount of trial and error. Note I said possible in theory not plausible. What I am saying is that "IF" this is one's angle, then it is illogical due to what we know of the universe. Simple.
by no_one_special on December 10th, 2008
I'm not saying you are making a case against God - YOU used that statement against slothmister, a few comments above. What I'm saying is, nobody can possibly legitimize the concept of divinity, when it's very existence is based on unfalsifiable theories and faith.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 10th, 2008
I do not understand what your position is. Are you saying that one cannot make a case for God due to faith being involved?
by no_one_special on December 18th, 2008
Well, It's like this - God "exists" in a gap in science. You cannot disprove the existence of god, however, you also cannot prove it - There is a lack of any evidence either way, the best once can do is figure that it's massively, incredibly unlikely.
I've been ignoring this thread for a while, but I'm just sticking a hand it to try to help - if you've anything further to add, or any corrections, Anti, Please feel free.
by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on December 18th, 2008
@Sgt. But you can say that nature suggest design or that it does not. So proof as one may want and what something indicates or implies is also very strong.
by no_one_special on December 18th, 2008
No, again the "proof is in the beauty of nature" argument is 100% opinion/conjecture. Even though many scientific theories begin with unlikly hypotheses, they are never based on no proof at all. Your saying that nature suggests design, is as much [as little] evidence for the existence of your particular god (if you believe in one), as it is for any other god.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 19th, 2008
Also, the other problem is that "Nature suggests design" is that basically, the core of the argument is that nothing so Complex or beautiful could have come to exist without being designed by a higher entity - However, that creator must have been a complex entity, and therefore, must have had a creator, which must have had a creator, which must have had a creator, so on, ad infinitum. The argument is a recursion, and therefore invalid.
by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on December 19th, 2008
Which is made all the more invalid, when advocates of that very theory retreat from it and say, "actually, God transcends time and space, so the rules don't apply to him"
.
Once again, Lord Brahmin and Mithras can also allegedly transcend time and space, making those gods just as probable as any Abrahamic one.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 19th, 2008
Very good points Anti. The existence or lack there off, of any kind of god like being(s) is completely unprovable.
by slothmister on December 20th, 2008
True, but I wouldn't take that as a reason to be agnostic (if that's what you are implying)...I think there is more than enough evidence, looking at similarities in the patterns, mixing, extinction, and rebirth or many religious beliefs, across the world, and in different times, to dismiss them all as folklore rather than anything substantive.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 21st, 2008
Indeed, but that is all down to personal preference. Personally I do not dismiss the idea of a god, but do believe that ALL religions are wrong.
by slothmister on December 21st, 2008
I think the idea of anything which is "beyond time and space", and "beyond logic", can be safely dismissed along with square circles.
by drdirs on December 23rd, 2008
And that opinion is just as narrow minded as those who believe it is fact that something exists beyond time and space. Yes, to believe is illogical in the fact that there is no evidence to support the belief, but saying it can be dismissed along with square circles is also illogical. Do you know all mathematics? Do you know all languages? NO.
by slothmister on December 24th, 2008
I know a "fair amount" about maths, in fact I know a damn lot about it, but not everything. However the notion of square circles is blankly absurd, a contradiction in terms. To base an argument on square circles would be to leave the realm of mathematics and logic. It could never answer a question in maths.
Picture this: you're playing chess with someone, when suddenly he takes your king off the board, eats the piece and goes "there, I've won". See, winning, in the case of chess, means winning BY THE RULES. If you make up your own rules along the way, you can't win the game because the game is defined by the exact rules of the game. No rules, no game, nothing to win.
There are rules in logic, too. A thing cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way, for example. If God is supposed to be able to break such rules, then introducing him into a logical argument invalidates the argument, renders the question pointless and leaves everyone none the wiser.
by drdirs on December 24th, 2008
You may get some answer, but it's not a logical answer, because God is alogical. Truth and falsity, being logical concepts, would not apply to it.
So whereas you can't dismiss the answer as FALSE, you can safely dismiss it as pointless. That is, if you're looking for truth, you shouldn't start by getting rid of the meaning of the word "truth".
by drdirs on December 24th, 2008
Indeed not. But my point stays the same, you can not disprove the existence of a god like being. You can not prove his existence either.
by slothmister on December 24th, 2008
@Anti. I did not suggest beauty as an argument. I meant order and precision suggest design.
by no_one_special on December 24th, 2008
@NoOne: Beauty, Precision, Order...TomAto TomAHto...whether it is beauty or order or whatever other adjective, believing that a subjective observation suggests design has no meaningful implications.
.
You can say that precision and order suggests design - I can say, ANYTHING can "suggest" design if you want it to, because that is not being objective.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 25th, 2008
@slothmister: And my point stays the same as well. To have a concept of truth you need logic. It's a logical concept, just as addition is a mathematical one, and force pertains to physics. If you move beyond logic, then you move beyond truth, and no statement can be true OR false. So of course you can't disprove the idea that God exists, cause that would mean saying that it's false. Which it can't be. And you can't prove it either, because it can't be true. But this also means we can dismiss the idea, because we won't be closing our eyes to any truths by doing so, nor will we be accepting a falsehood. We'd just be turning our backs on bad logic. Which, experience shows, is a very good thing.
by drdirs on December 26th, 2008
Have you ever tried to study Quantum Mechanics? It is based on logic but is completely illogical.
by slothmister on December 26th, 2008
There are many misconceptions about QM spread by popular science media. An electron doesn't change from a wave to a particle because we observe it, for example.
And it's not a case of "P AND not-P" (would conflict with classical logic), but rather of "P OR not-P OR some alternative (superposition) X". In QM as I understand it, it's useful to describe X as a third option, but the underlying reality of it is (again as I understand it, I'm no expert) that even in the cases where we cannot describe something using "P OR not-P" (e.g. due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle), "P OR not-P" still holds.
by drdirs on December 26th, 2008
Most notably, quantum logic disputes the distributive law, "P AND (Q OR R) = (P AND Q) OR (P AND R)", if, say, P describes the velocity of a particle, and Q and R describe its position such that "Q = not-R". But this is from the perspective of an observer who can't meaningfully say "Q OR R" to begin with. Schrödinger's cat illustrates the problem: we know the cat is either dead or alive, but neither "dead" nor "alive" describes what we know about the cat.
The problem in QM is that (seemingly) we can't know certain things. Effectively we can't open the box and find out what happened to the cat. You can use this as a starting point for questioning classical logic - if we can't describe the cat as dead, and we can't describe it as alive, then clearly we're short of descriptive tools here. QM introduces the superposition which superficially seems like a description of the cat as being both dead and alive, but it's really more of a placeholder for an unknowable state.
by drdirs on December 26th, 2008
It's not exactly fuzzy logic, but there are many parallels. Most notably, I would say, in that neither quantum logic nor fuzzy logic actually CONFLICT with classical logic in any way that I'm aware of.
Maybe I'm too much of an Einsteinian to ever really understand QM, but I assure you that no quantum physicist would agree that QM is alogical (not based on logic/reason) or "completely illogical".
by drdirs on December 26th, 2008
Well, I actually hold a BSc (English) in Physics. And I know loads of QM which simply does not make sense, try thinking 11 dimensionally. An example, look at an atom. How much is made up of empty space?? About 90% of the volume, yet we have solid objects!
by slothmister on December 26th, 2008
You seem to be confusing intuition with logic. There's nothing illogical about n-dimensional spaces. There's also nothing illogical about the atomic model, you simply need to not think of elementary particles as little clusters of matter (which they're not, anyway).
Our intuition is understandably tuned to the "middle world" where our decisions have traditionally been made. So we think in three dimensions, we think of matter as being solid, time is constant, there is no square root of a negative number, and so on. But abstraction allows us to transcend our primitive intuition. The only thing is that when intuition fails we need some other way to tell when something is right. That's why it's so wonderful that logic has a much wider scope.
Modeling 11 dimensions is logically perfectly valid. As would be modeling 12, or 1000. The difficulty is only in visualising it. And there doesn't even seem to be a set limit to our intuition, it's just a matter of conditioning.
by drdirs on December 27th, 2008
All of what you say is correct and goes forward to prove my point entirely!
Just because it seams illogical to you and me (the existence of a god I am talking about) does not mean it is not logical in some other plane of existence.
by slothmister on December 27th, 2008
...The same could be said about any other nonsensical, mythological, insensible object/deity
.
That fact is by no means, a convincing reason to have faith.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 27th, 2008
Not at all. I am just countering the "illogical to believe in a god" idea.
I still do not believe lol, but I am able to listen to the other side of the argument and try to see how people justify believing in an abstract way.
by slothmister on December 27th, 2008
It's "conceivable" by some very far-fetched abstraction that there is a form of reality where 2+2=5, but that reality has absolutely nothing to do with ours. We could never possibly understand it. If you can't dismiss 2+2=5, then you can't dismiss anything.
And I believe you DO dismiss many things that are absurd. Am I not right? If I told you Elvis is currently both dead and alive and throwing a party for Santa Claus (because Santa Claus was recently elected president of the Moon by a majority vote in Sweden), all this going on inside your left nipple on the third Wednesday of next week, what would your response be?
There's such a thing as being too open-minded, I guess is what I'm saying.
by drdirs on December 28th, 2008
Indeed there is such a thing (however, if you said what you did above, then I would know it is false as it would have made the news here in Norway lol).
.
However, look through history, for 1000's of years people have believed in a god like being, indeed even now, the majority of the world believe in a god like being in one way or another. There has got to be an origin to this belief, and that is the reason why I do not completely rule it out as simple nonsense.
by slothmister on December 28th, 2008
Heh. If you dismiss it because you think you would have heard the news, but not because it claims a person is both dead and alive, then you have a weird way of reasoning. ;)
I agree that there has to be an explanation for faith, and you can probably go some way in analysing it, but answering a logical paradox with "God is beyond logic" is sure to end any kind of inquiry then and there. Beyond that point there literally is no true or false, and nothing to know.
Of course I don't mean to say that it's pointless to think about God in any sense, only in the sense where he's "beyond logic". It's just that all the arguments I've heard for deism culminate in that. Big punchline. "Wow". I don't think it's narrow-minded to acknowledge when something is just logically absurd. It's not like there aren't plenty of perfectly naturalistic explanations for faith in God. At the very least we should explore all the logical avenues before we start discarding logic.
Aaaaaanyway...
by drdirs on December 28th, 2008
Being both dead and alive is illogical to us, BUT god is supposed to be a supernatural being, therefore being dead and alive is a perfectly reasonable possibility as death may have no meaning in his plain.
.
Exactly! It is possible that god is completely beyond logic as we see it.
.
Indeed we should, however we need to remember that god is NOT supposed to be a life form like we know and therefore anything is possible.
An example: it is illogical for us to think of a life form producing its own light, however there are fish in the deep ocean that do just that!
My point is this, illogical to us, yes. Illogical in being, no.
by slothmister on December 29th, 2008
For Moses, it was LSD (or some such similar drug)
.
For the majority - the very naturalness of these beliefs are actually evidence of their "unrealism": It is natural to believe the sun goes around the Earth; Natural to believe that brain size directly indicates intelligence; Natural to believe certain colored people are "superior"...the fact that people consistently believe in consistent concepts of divinity show that the need for those beliefs (security, justice, morality) are ingrained in the mind.
.
It is IN SPITE of improved education and awareness of the world over recent centuries, that people still cling to these beliefs. (Heliocentricity took a while, as well. Imagine how long it will take, for a worldview that completely abandons all traditional explanations and hopes in life, much more than just the astronomical, to be widely accepted)
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 29th, 2008
I agree completely. Believing in any kind of religion is ignorance. ALL religions have flaws and contradictions in their fundamental belief systems. I believe that IF there was a god (and I truly doubt that was/is) then he/she/it does not fit into any form of religion as we know it now.
by slothmister on December 30th, 2008
I agree, the deluded idea of God is completely beyond logic as we understand it!
Re: << there is nothing that anyone can say that will change my faith in my God.>>
"washed brains are so dirty, even ‘Original Sin’ couldn't purify them!"
by ScienceSwamy on January 20th, 2009
@anti. Sorry I know this has moved on since i was last on here. But beauty and complexity are not equal as far as design is concerned.
by no_one_special on February 2nd, 2009
No problem. Reasonable debate shouldn't be discarded merely by the passage of time, in my opinion.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on February 2nd, 2009
Case: A man who lived 5000 years ago, who saw the Statue of Liberty, would probably think it was a Goddess. Even if you tried to explain the intricacies of engineering to them, they would doubtless call you a heathen for implying that the beautiful goddess was but a man-made statue...
.
Point: No matter how complex something is, there is always an explanation. Maybe not today, but perhaps tomorrow, next year, or next century. Lack of an explanation today does not justify referral to a deity.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on February 2nd, 2009
Correct. Assuming there is no God. The question though is not so easily answered if that assumption is left out. In fact leaving assumptions of God existing or not is better. One looks at beauty and may see design. But one looking at a complex structure and probability of it arising without direction of a intelligent life is something else.
by no_one_special on February 2nd, 2009
But what is beauty? Perhaps the most subjective of all feelings.
.
In that respect, anybody can prove any theory by referring to beauty. I can say that lightning storms are "proof" of Thor; Another may say that a geological formation is "proof" of the Judeo-Christian God. I would be dismissed as a fool these days, the latter would probably not - yet we are applying the exact same principles to justify our beliefs.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on February 2nd, 2009
I love the " I can say that lightning storms are "proof" of Thor" argument! Think I may use that one myself.
by slothmister on February 3rd, 2009
LOL just watch out for the Greek-Neopagans. They might say "Nu-Uh, lighting is proof of Zeus! You copied us"
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on February 3rd, 2009
The main reason gods exist is because people need reasons for things they cant understand. So you are a perfect example of why god isn't real.
by x-narpolax on April 5th, 2009
Right. And from an evolutionary perspective (I'll admit this is just an idea, not a concrete fact) Richard Dawkins has proposed in interesting theory:
.
The purpose of referring to Gods is typically to explain currently-unexplainable phenomena. But, the reason this does not always mean that theists discard their beliefs even after such phenomena have been scientifically proven, is that they are most often taught those beliefs at the time when they are most vulnerable...
.
You can teach a child to not only believe something, but to believe it stubbornly, potentially for the rest of their life, if you drill it into their head early enough, and often enough. This way, even when they grow up and become independant critical thinkers, that part of their belief system based on dogma becomes sort of "immune" from critical thinking. They don't (or can't) apply the same standards of reasoning to religious knowledge as they would to other types of knowledge.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on April 5th, 2009
Similarly, Michael Shermer argues: "Smart people are very good at rationalizing things for non-smart reasons"
.
This may be why you still see some Scientists believing in idiotic and primitive theories such as Creationism...
.
#4 and #5 in the following links are especially relevant:
.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&page=2
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&page=3
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on April 5th, 2009
@Anti. Alright, fair enough. Forget beauty, complexity stills requires direction. Chaos does not. Precision does. Chaos cannot give rise to order and precision.
by no_one_special on May 30th, 2009
Those are all presumptions! You can't just keep saying "X requires Y, therefore Z"
.
You have to begin by proving that X requires Y, why it requires it, whether it can be found without it....THEN you can progress beyond that point.
.
And even if you topple all of the logical obstacles, the theological obstacle is insurmountable. How do you know WHICH God is real? Or if mulitiple ones are real? If so, which God did what? The answers to these questions are ALL just presumptions and more presumptions.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on May 31st, 2009
How bout a question. Is the universe complex or not? Is that question a presumption? If so how?
by no_one_special on May 31st, 2009
Yes, the Universe is very complex, and beautiful.
.
But, you can't immediately jump from this to "God is necessary".
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 1st, 2009
Drop beautiful, I agree. So do you agree that complexity requires precision?
by no_one_special on June 1st, 2009
I believe that you can't generalize such large concepts. Some things require precision, some don't. Some require a certain chain of events to occur, some don't.
.
But most of all - I believe that "what I believe" cannot ever be the final word. That honour is reserved for "what is proven".
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 2nd, 2009
I did not say that everything was complex or that everything required precision. I merely am asking if complexity requires precision.
by no_one_special on June 2nd, 2009
No, not necessarily.
.
Many people may think that the carving of the Grand Canyon for example, is an example of complexity requiring precision. But actually, it is the result of one of the LEAST precise processes in the natural world - erosion. No chisels or demolitions involved...just wind, water, and heat effects over an extremely long time.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 3rd, 2009
The carving may of not be complex but the but the erosion process is. Or do you disagree. And I do not mean the erosion process is not easy to understand or explainable. But only that it by definition is complex and precise. Do you agree?
by no_one_special on June 3rd, 2009
Sometimes so, sometimes not. Again, there's no concrete pattern:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion#Erosion_processes
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 3rd, 2009
Sometimes so, sometimes not. So how does one explain the "Sometimes SO"?
by no_one_special on June 14th, 2009
Over a timescale of billions of years, it is easily possible for some seemingly-precise events to occur, without intelligent intervention. Just looking at how massive the timescale is, how different climatic effects affect different regions, adding global effects such as continental drift...it would actually be more astonishing if there WEREN'T any seemingly-precise land features, than if there were.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 14th, 2009
And again, even if you don't believe in any of this, that is not a justifiable reason to take a leap of faith; looking at how often people in history have simply said "There's no explanation, therefore God did it"...only to eat their words when new evidence is found, later on.
.
Take a look at this flow chart, especially the "Science" side, to get an idea of why discovery is an ongoing [not static] process:
.
http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/2007/01/15/science-vs-faith/
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 14th, 2009
I am not of the kind that says if there is no explanation it must be from God. You may not agree with my conclusions or line of reasoning but I have not used that as my defense. So rest assured I will not start now.
Anyway, you say, "Over a timescale of billions of years, it is easily possible for some seemingly-precise events to occur, without intelligent intervention."
Now for this line of reasoning to hold weight, aside from the fact you said "some" again which opens that door again, the probability must be taken into account. This is improbable since the requirements are not only that sufficient time be available to complete this puzzle but also in a correct order since there is not an endless amount of coincidences due to the universe expanding. It was a one shot deal.
by no_one_special on June 14th, 2009
Several billions of years doesn't seem at all a "constraining" amount of time to me. How much do you really need? A hundred-trillion?
.
But alright, let's say that it is all improbable. How, from that simple point, could you logically conclude the existence of a specific creator God without taking a massive leap of faith somewhere in the process? (also keeping in mind that "lack of evidence for A" does not automatically result in "evidence for B")
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 14th, 2009
You are looking at the time constraint as if that was the only factor. A certain chain of precise events is absolutely necessary for a planet to even have a chance of having the proper amount of elements for life. If you go back before that you need another set of countless coincidence of events and after that another to our day. And thats not getting technical. This is improbable.
Now from that simple point you do not go to a "specific" creator. I never said nor implied that Anti. I do not believe you or anyone should do it either. A specific creator, that is a separate issue and one I would love to discuss with you.
by no_one_special on June 14th, 2009
You may not have implied that, but the two are almost always inseperable. What else could one point to, when following this line of reasoning - a generic supernatural force? When has that ever been a satisfactory explanation for the religious?
.
Even when objectivity is implied in the beginning, such an argument usually does end up with "...and that's how 'I know' that the Judeo-Christian God is real"
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 15th, 2009
Yes, many precise chains of events are necessary - but again, when you look at the very scale of the universe it doesn't seem as unlikely. If this was the one-and-only planet, and it just happened to be perfect for life, that would indeed be quite fishy...but there are so many millions of planets, moons, and stars in the universe which are NOT at all suitable (at least, not that we know of)
.
With such a massive number of failures, along with the massive timescale, you'd think that 1 single success could eventually occur. It may seem "unlikely" - but it only has to happen once.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 15th, 2009
I most certainly implied a Creator but not the Judeo-Christian God. Anyone, even an agnostic could have made the same argument I made. I am a Christian but am not using that as my reasoning. I could believe in any God so long as he exists outside of the physical universe since my argument is not on a specific God. I understand how you may have arrived at that conclusion but that was solely due to your assumption and not my implication.
by no_one_special on June 16th, 2009
I never claimed there was not enough time to complete life as we know it on our planet. The time scale is not the answer but only part of the equation. You are equating time with likelihood and hence calling it probable. That is illogical. Also your use of the word "failure" is irrelevant in this context since nature or laws of physics have no goal or predetermined result. And if it were directed at the Creator it would be at his choice and not a failure on his part. So either way that is also incorrect.
What needs to be addressed is the probabilities.
by no_one_special on June 16th, 2009
British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has spent decades studying the universe and life in it, even espousing that life on earth arrived from outer space. Lecturing at the California Institute of Technology, he discussed the order of amino acids in proteins.
“The big problem in biology,” Hoyle said, “isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrangements that would be useless in serving the purposes of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of
by no_one_special on June 16th, 2009
them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be?”
Hoyle added: “Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.”
And this is for amino acids. This has nothing to do with getting the little blue marble into the right corner pocket next the medium sized star at a good distance.
by no_one_special on June 16th, 2009
I merely meant "failures" as in "non-life sustaining planets", not planets which did not meet some cosmic goal.
.
The point remains: No matter how improbable something may seem, it only has to happen once.
.
Also, time and space actually can be connected to probability. If the Universe had a very limited size or lifespan, then that would very easily preclude any chain of events leading to life, from arising. But as there is more and more space for different kinds of physical and chemical reactions to occur in different parts of the universe, and more and more time for reactions to run their course and either lead to something or lead to nothing...there is, logically, a greater chance for that certain chain to eventually occur.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 17th, 2009
That is not a point. Saying something that is improbable and that it has to happen once is not a point. Read your statement again because it makes no sense and does not qualify as a point by definition.
You second paragraph seems to be a better point at least from a logical perspective. Yet the issue of probability still needs to be addressed. You cannot escape that.
by no_one_special on June 19th, 2009
No it doesn't, your evading the very definition of probability. The fact that something is 'probable' means that it 'CAN HAPPEN', and it 'not impossible'...you can't simply dismiss a theory because it is not 'highly probable'.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 20th, 2009
So because it can happen it must have. Is that your position?
by no_one_special on June 26th, 2009
No - That's an oversimplification:
.
I'm just saying you can't discount Scientific Theory X and jump to the completely unfalsifiable and even MORE mysterious Religious Theory Y, simply because the former does not seem very probable.
.
No matter how implausible or unsubtantial you think an 'unguided' Big Bang is - the idea of an invisible deity who is omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent forming the universe out of nothing more than sheer willpower is infinitely more implausible and unsubstantial. To believe in that is not just to dismiss Scientific Theory X, it is to dismiss Science as a whole.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 27th, 2009
An oversimplification? Then clarify please. Jumping to a conclusion when the evidence points another direction I have not done. I am saying the evidence points to a Creator or designer and that is the direction I am going. Complexity and improbability make a case for a Creator. You are saying complexity coupled with the improbability does not require direction of a divine being. Do you see the difference? I am going with the evidence, you are avoiding it or ignoring it.
by no_one_special on June 27th, 2009
The "evidence" is completely circumstantial.
.
What if something that you think is a mystery today would be definitively proven to be possible WITHOUT any divine guidance, tommorow --- would you amend your position?
.
Most religious believers tend to feign open-mindedness, saying that they believe in X because it is "more plausible" than Y...but then when Y is eventually proven, they just retreat to their holy book and ignore any and all counter-evidence.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 28th, 2009
I am not of the sort you speak of. So you can leave me out of that group. However, you are of that group, you just have a different religion, call it what you will. You are doing the exact same thing you accuse them of. Think about it. Look back at my post at, Jun, 16 2009 at 10:06 PM and the quote form Hoyle. Let me partial repost.
"When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes."
Are you willing to amend your position?
by no_one_special on June 29th, 2009
You can't demolish a theory with an unconnected posts...What is your religious belief? You keep saying you "aren't this/aren't that"...but simply 'not being something' isn't very useful. Tell me which God you actually believe in, why you believe in that particular one, whether you think there may be others, and how you can think 'uncertainty' proves that specific God's existence.
.
The unlikelihood of one theory (in your mind) does not automatically make an opposing theory more plausible.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 29th, 2009
Unconnected post? What are you talking about, I do not understand what you are implying or saying by that. And as for religious beliefs I do not divulge all that information, some not all. Read my profile. Too many people attach bias to an argument based on that. Which you are trying to do at this moment.
And really it does not matter which God I believe in for purposes of this conversation. Like I said, an agnostic, Muslim, Hindu or any other type of religion can make the same argument based on the evidence available. In fact, you can even hate the idea of any religion and God and still see how unlikely it is life arose from chance.
The unlikelihood of one theory does make that particular theory less plausible. The other way around is not logical. You do not take something implausible and give it credibility just because the other does not fit your desire.
by no_one_special on June 30th, 2009
That's exactly what you're doing! I didn't say "the unlikelihood of one theory automatically makes an opposing theory more plausible", I said "...[doesn't] make an opposing theory more plausible"
.
You are taking what you perceive as the extreme unlikelihood of the nontheistic explanation, and concluding that the theistic explanation is automatically more plausible.
.
And of course it matters which God you believe in, if any. Obviously, all religions tend to believe that their specific God is real, and has the most proof of its existence; while the Gods of other religions are false. For you to simply say "A" God must have done X without giving any details whatsoever as to your specific beliefs is not to take a concrete position, it is to sit on the fence.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 1st, 2009
...You can't just assume anything exists without even beginning to offer objective evidence. If you believe in God X, show evidence for God X. If you believe in Y, show evidence for Y. When you refuse to even bother, and just take such a massive claim to be a "given", it seems like you are predisposed to believe in that God regardless of whether or not there is evidence.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 1st, 2009
You are correct, it [doesn't] make an opposing theory more plausible a theory must stand on its own or fall. The one you have is illogical and impluasuble.
As for having to divulge my specific beliefs. Incorrect since we are not discussing if my religion is true or not.
I am making an agnostic case. I have made that known to you already.
There are agnostics. Not that I am one.
One does not have to believe in a specific God to believe in a Supreme being.
There are plenty of agnostics on here, so you are incorrect on your requirement.
by no_one_special on July 1st, 2009
I don't believe in a God regardless of whether or not there is evidence.
Life comes from life. Am I wrong? Nope.
Complexity implies design. And there is complexity.
Design requires a designer.
Designer of the physical cannot be limited by the physical.
But must exist outside of the physical laws reach.
That which creates must be greater than the created.
That being "God" the created being the "physical."
by no_one_special on July 1st, 2009
Your position? It just happened.
by no_one_special on July 1st, 2009
I am not trying to mock you. But you haven't shown any line of reasoning to support your beliefs. The only thing you have done is attack mine. And you have yet to show a flaw in it. So how bout you show your reasoning. I have shown mine.
by no_one_special on July 1st, 2009
Complexity implies design is just an opinion; there isn't even a concrete definition of "complexity" since - not coincedentally - the word itself is complex in that it can mean any number of things to different people.
.
Just like Descartes, your position is all based on logical opinions, not proven facts. You can make any list of arguments and subarguments all you want; but until you actually produce objective evidence, it's just one theory of many.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 4th, 2009
Is the statement, "life comes from life" an opinion?
by no_one_special on July 4th, 2009
And as for my line of reasoning you say it, "is all based on logical opinions, not proven facts." I have presented my line of reasoning based on the mathematical improbability of life having risen by chance from inanimate chemicals, those coming somehow to life. In essence you are saying I am using a line of reason based on unproven facts. Mathematical probability is not unproven facts Anti.
Yet you are coming to an illogical conclusion based on the proven. You position makes even less sense. You are deliberately ignoring the implications of what science has discovered. The astronomical amount of coincedences that would need to take place just to get the little blue marble in the perfect corner of the universe and at the correct distance from the medium sized star. And thats not even getting technical or outrages.
by no_one_special on July 4th, 2009
You are attempting to discredit my position by labeling it as opinion. Remember that sword cuts both ways. Your position can also be labeled an opinion. And yet there are ways to weigh the validity of any argument. Logic! And thus far you have yet to make any logical path ways to either prove your position, nor disprove mine. My position I have presented logically and debunked yours logically.
by no_one_special on July 4th, 2009
Saying something is an opinion is superfluous for you to mention. It is a given that if one feels a certain way, anyone can label it as an opinion. The purpose of a discussion is to weigh the validity of any opinion. Would you like to try that instead of using the "its your opinion" route?
by no_one_special on July 4th, 2009
On the contrary. I'm saying that you can use all the logic you want, but logic is inherently limited in its ability to lead to knowledge. Logic can tell anyone almost anything, depending on how it is approached.
.
There has to be a demarcation, after which you either have empirical evidence or you don't.
.
And your position that the mathematical probabilities so clearly imply divine creation is extremely presumptuous given the numerous prominent Doctors of Science, Math, and Medicine of the present day, who hold atheistic beliefs. Where are your multiple Nobel Prizes? Why don't you lecture at Harvard, Oxford, or Cambridge? Those are the kinds of people you are ever-so-easily dismissing as quacks with your insults.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_(science_and_technology)
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 4th, 2009
Your "Life comes from Life" statement seems to be based on what you perceive as an absolute undeniable law of nature. But again, given the popularity of the Big Bang theory among top academics, and the fact that the the science behind the Big Bang is still being researched everyday through experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva...this is clearly jumping to a conclusion before all of the science is in.
.
I don't presume to KNOW that the Big Bang not only could have but DID occur without any divine guidance. But as of yet, it has not been proven that the Big Bang could have only occured with guidance, therefore the rational stance is to suspend belief in the divine.
.
.
.
With such an admittedly mysterious subject, where even modern science can go one of many directions...Listing A requires B, B requires C, C requires D, and D requires God doesn't have any meaningful application. This isn't a philosophical debate, it is a debate about evidence - evidence which is STILL coming in.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 4th, 2009
[edit] "...suspend [definitive] belief in divine creation"
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 4th, 2009
I am saying that mathematical probabilities necessitate divine guidance. And at the very least, mathematical probability certainly debunks any position you have taken thus far.
Now you are engaging in ad hominem arguments and straw man's.
I never called any scientist a quack nor implied that. A blatant lie. I see you are getting desperate. And as for my expertise being questioned and mocked, that sword cuts both ways. Why don't just explain your position from a logically based assessment on the available evidence? Don't be so easily impressed by everybody, why don't you try making your own case?
by no_one_special on July 4th, 2009
How does "life comes from life" get mixed in with the Big Bang? The Big Bang is eons before life. Totally irrelevant to our discussion, in the way you are introducing it.
Stay on topic and make your case. Stop the ad hominems and straw man's Anti. I am being direct and blunt but I have not insulted you, nor any scientist. I have challenged you but that is not to be taken as an insult. Unless you are easily offended.
by no_one_special on July 4th, 2009
1) You are basically calling these prominent scientists quacks through logical connection; since I am taking the same position as many of them - that what modern science reveals about the universe does not necessitate divine guidance. How can you dismiss my position but think you aren't dismissing them as well? I obviously didn't create the theory of evolution, the big bang, or anything like that. If you have issue with those theories, you can't debunk them by debunking what I alone say. I don't claim to be THE authoritative source on the matter. But I'm pretty sure that you aren't one either.
.
2) The Big Bang clearly is connected to the discussion at hand, because if it could be shown that the Big Bang could occur without divine guidance through all natural factors, leading to the precise chain of events which did eventually create life of Earth - that would dispel your main position, that life necessarily comes from life. While modern knowledge does not definitively prove that this chain could happen without divine guidance, you really are kidding yourself if you think that the opposite is definitively proven. Neither side is.
.
3) Again, probability and logic are only effective to a certain point, since this is obviously a subject still being heavily researched. Any "conclusion" you draw from available evidence is necessarily a tentative one.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 4th, 2009
I'm not employing straw-man fallacies. You seem to be under the impression that everything you've stated is rock solid:
.
"I am saying that mathematical probabilities necessitate divine guidance" --- Not even that they [probably] necessitate, but they DO necessitate. That is quite a MASSIVE claim; for you to KNOW this would instantly make you one of the most brilliant people in the world. Obviously you shouldn't be wasting your valuable time talking to some lowly forum user like me, you should be lecturing in the world's top universities. Again, that's IF you actually think you KNOW this, instead of just strongly believing it.
.
I'm merely stating [again] that there is still so much uncertainty regarding the evidence, still so much evidence that isn't even in yet...it's sort of the opposite - an "invincible-man" fallacy to think you don't need to wait for the aforementioned research and that you are already definitively correct.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 4th, 2009
1. I am not calling anyone a quack. The thread speaks for itself. I do take issue with your position and anyone who takes the same position since no mathematical line of reasoning is presented. If it were possible the math would prove that. Giving a theory that does not require a divine force requires mathematical probability. You have given none. If you take a challenge as an insult, I am sorry. I certainly did not mean anything along those lines. Asking for your reasoning is not meant to ridicule you. But one must show his reason when discussing matters.
2. You say, "if it could be shown that the Big Bang could occur without divine guidance through all natural factors, leading to the precise chain of events which did eventually create life of Earth - that would dispel your main position, that life necessarily comes from life"
Thats a big "if" isn't it? I am all eyes, present your line of reasoning.
by no_one_special on July 4th, 2009
3. You say, "probability and logic are only effective to a certain point" and you are correct. It is effective to the point of giving something a probability.
Then you say, "Any "conclusion" you draw from available evidence is necessarily a tentative one."
Agreed. Yet the "conclusion" even if tentative should be logically based on the evidence. For which you have presented none.
by no_one_special on July 4th, 2009
Also you are using straw man tactics with the whole quack thing. Please drop that already. If I wanted to insult you what makes you think I couldn't have done that by now. And saying if I am so brilliant why don't I lecture at Cambridge is deviating from topic and totally irrelevant.
Secondly I never said I didn't need to wait for the aforementioned research and that I am already definitively correct.
I have taken a position just as you have. I have based my position on the evidence. You asked me if I were willing to amend my position based on evidence. Yet you are not willing when I present mine. And you have yet to counter it effectively.
by no_one_special on July 4th, 2009
When you keep asking for my reasoning and my proof, you keep ignoring my main point in the last few comments: I DON'T presume to be an authoritative source regarding the creation of the universe or any specific chain of events leading to life.
.
Looking at how often scientific debates have gone from "We know X" to "We thought we knew X until we discovered Y" to "It's a tossup between X and Y" and even to "We were dead wrong. Y is the one" - I'm not going to bother firmly touting any current position using only current evidence. There are numerous eminently qualified scientists taking the concrete stances and testing them using new knowledge and new evidence. When the dust settles, I'll take a concrete stance. But until then, I consider it pointless.
.
And in my opinion (as is obvious by now) - Positive affirmation in the existence of a deity is simply one of the many positions that is totally jumping the gun. Obviously this is not an impasse we are going to get past. I think any continuation of this argument will be a repetition of something which has been already stated...
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 4th, 2009
I understand that in the last few comments you have recently shifted your position. Which is fine. We all make mistakes. I have had to concede on the issue of mutations being a rarity.
The reason I keep pressing your for answers is because you continue to take issue with my stance as if yours was any better.
We both know neither one of us can absolutely present solid evidence for either side.
However this is were the positions must have a logical path and it must be shown.
And this is what I am inviting you to do.
You say, "Positive affirmation in the existence of a deity is simply one of the many positions that is totally jumping the gun."
Would you say life arising from inanimate chemicals unguided is jumping the gun as well?
by no_one_special on July 4th, 2009
YOU totally just shifted your own position: "We both know neither one of us can absolutely present solid evidence for either side", yet just a few hours ago you wrote "I am saying that mathematical probabilities *necessitate* divine guidance". Either that was a poor choice of words, or you jumped the gun, and are now jumping the shark.
.
NECESSITATE: To make necessary or unavoidable; To require or compel.....Seems quite conspiculously "absolute".
.
.
.
Your final question: And now we're back to the beginning?
.
I'm not going to generalize such huge questions, neat and simple as they may seem. Anything can seem ridiculous until it is proven. Anything can seem a no-brainer until it is disproven. When you're on shaky ground, it makes no difference whether you stand 'over here' or 'over there'
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 4th, 2009
Yes I can say, "that mathematical probabilities *necessitate* divine guidance" as my position based on the evidence. That doesn't mean I can call God on the phone and have him talk to you to set up an appointment to meet you in person.
by no_one_special on July 4th, 2009
Would you say life arising from inanimate chemicals unguided is jumping the gun as well?
Its a fair question. You accuse me of doing so, jumping the gun that is, why can you not apply it to yourself?
by no_one_special on July 4th, 2009
I'll say that NEITHER one of us is qualified to definitively answer that question. It's not the simple headstrong answer you were looking for, I surmise; but if the choice is between adhering to the scientific method and thus suspending unshakable belief, or making massive claims for the sake of satisfying delusions of intellectual grandeur...I'll go with the former.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 5th, 2009
I am not asking for a definitive answer. But like all humans we are able to look at evidence and form a theory based on it. By the way that is the scientific method. Look at evidence and make a theory based on the evidence. So you can go with the former and logically say, the evidence points to a Creator.
I am not trying to give you are hard time Anti. I am merely trying to show that this is not an open and shut case, as I used to believe and as many atheist believe. So I hope that you can at least be open to the possibility of the existence of a Grand Director since the evidence highly suggest it necessary.
by no_one_special on July 7th, 2009
Absolutely, I'm open.
.
Like I've said many times, my position is not "There is no God, PERIOD". That is a common misconception about the atheistic position made by both theists and agnostics. My position is more like:
.
1) The existing evidence for any divinity is purely circumstantial, subjective, and is often based at least minimally on faith. Beauty, complexity, probability, only point to mystery - not specific causes or specific deities.
.
2) Concluding the existence of non-specific divine force(s) does not circumvent this problem - It is just a quick fix to try to "explain away" the evidence. Belief can't be based on "what is known today", because belief in so many now-dismissed deities/forces has been based on "what WAS known, in those days".
.
3) If objective and non-circumstantial evidence pointing to a specific divine force was indeed found, then I would amend my current disbelief.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 8th, 2009
1)You say "evidence for any divinity is purely circumstantial, subjective, and is often based at least minimally on faith." But are not arguments against a Creator at the very least equal to faith? Namely "chance."
2)I agree with your astute observation, "Concluding the existence of non-specific divine force(s) does not circumvent this problem - It is just a quick fix to try to "explain away" the evidence."
But is the "quick fix to try to "explain away" the evidence" not the very way atheist try to use those explanation to disprove a God? I am not saying you do this but atheist in general.
And the God's that are dismissed now by what is known now does not argue against a God. Again not necessarily a specific God.
3) What would you consider objective and non-circumstantial?
by no_one_special on July 8th, 2009
1) But logically, there don't need to be specific "arguments against a creator" - just as you don't need arguments against Bigfoot, or against now-dismissed Gods such as Jupiter. When such a fantastical claim is made, it is invariably up to the claimant to prove what he says.
.
In a courtroom for example - an accused person isn't expected to prove their innocence; they just have to show that the claimant's case is too weak to accept.
.
http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FBurdenOfProof.htm
.
2) What quick fix is there is atheism? There is no "It exists because X 'created' it / It happened because it was X's will" in a non-theistic context. The quick-fix explanations are most common, and most forcefully presented, in the religious traditions supposedly inspired by the direct "word of God", particularly the Abrahamic faiths.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 8th, 2009
3) Objective and Non-circumstantial:
- Seeing X without specifically looking for X
- Seeing X TODAY (the testimony of ancient prophets doesn't prove anything except that they couldn't explain whatever they saw due to intellectual limitations / they could explain it, but preferred divine explanation / they were purposly fabricating a story)
- Many people seeing X
- Many people of different backgrounds seeing X (a Christian is more likely to accept miracles involving the Virgin Mary; a Hindu more likely to accept miracles involving Shiva; an uneducated person is likely to either one, or both)
- X should be a positive proof, not simply a lack of proof for an opposing idea
- Whatever X is, should be specific and damning evidence: "Beauty in nature" can be used to 'prove' the Judeo-Christian God, while lightning can be used to 'prove' Thor, and any number of other things can be used to prove any number of deities.
...
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 8th, 2009
As for believing in any God due to the inability of modern science to explain something - that's a fallacy. It is what Richard Dawkins refers to as the "Worship of Gaps":
.
Primitive people explained whatever they couldn't - nearly all things - by referring to divine forces
.
The problem is that as time has gone by, more and more previously-inexplicable things have been not only explained, but explained with a much greater specificity than older, divine explanations ever could.
.
As time goes on, and knowledge continues to improve - things are decreasingly unexplained or explained only with recourse to divinity. The believers who used to hold an intellectual monopoly are increasingly hiding in remaining 'gaps of knowledge'.
.
But what happens when THOSE gaps of knowledge are filled by proper explanation? And then the next gaps which are even smaller, are filled? Believers are trapping themselves due to their unwillingness to consider that God may simply be unnecessary.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 8th, 2009
1) Is chance not faith?
2) Is chance not the quick fix. And even that isn't much talked about.
3)As for "Seeing X TODAY (the testimony of ancient prophets doesn't prove anything except that they couldn't explain whatever they saw due to intellectual limitations / they could explain it, but preferred divine explanation / they were purposly fabricating a story)" end quote.
Noted geologist Wallace Pratt commented: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” He also observed that the order as described in Genesis for the origin of the oceans and the emergence of land, as well as for the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals, is in essence the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.
by no_one_special on July 9th, 2009
Consider: How did Moses—thousands of years ago get that order right if his source of information were not from the Creator and Designer himself?
by no_one_special on July 9th, 2009
1) Not if what is posited to have 'probably happened' actually could have happened within the laws of physics. When you add a divine element, you are necessarily adding another dimension/party/set of rules which supercedes the laws of physics. That requires a leap of faith unlike any taken in the naturalist position.
.
2) Perhaps for now...but as the LHC experiments and many others like it show - Chance alone isn't accepted as the "end of story". The theories are still being rigorously tested, and improved upon; it is an ongoing progress.
.
3) I am usually weary of ideas coming from individual scientists rather than the community as a whole, scientists working for or with energy companies, and especially scientists who worked close to or more than, a century ago. Mr. Pratt worked around the time of ths Scopes trial --- the climate of the day was clearly prejudicial toward nontheistic scientists, and even simply, nontheistic ideas. Also taking into account personal convictions - it's quite common for people to simply not apply the same standard of proof to their own religious faith, as they would apply to non-religious issues. Not even educated scientists are always immune to this sort of self-delusion:
.
"Tell me that there will be a flood tomorrow, and I ask 'Where did you hear this?' Tell me that an entire sea was split in half, defying the laws of gravity, over 2000 years ago - and I believe you"
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 9th, 2009
1) Good answer Anti. But since no one really knows if it could have happened withing these physical laws, including the scientist, is that not asking a bit of credulity?
2)Can you give an example?
3) Whether Mr.Pratt said that or not, the sequence is still correct. And that is what makes it relevant not so much that it came from him.
I won't tell that there will be a flood tomorrow. Nothing has been suggested that it would, so why would I?
And as for the Red sea splitting? I watched a great episode of "Naked Archeologist" where they showed that it can actually happen. And by winds like it states in the bible.
by no_one_special on July 10th, 2009
This thread is the longest thread in answerbag history.
Also, I will note - It was the Reed Sea, not the Red Sea. Small spelling difference, big difference in location. In early texts, written in Hebrew, the body of water crossed by the jews crossed was referred to as "Yam Suph", which translates into "Sea of Reeds".
by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on July 24th, 2009
@Sgt. Actually no I have had longer threads. I think my longest that came to a finish was with a guy who feels one cannot know truth. And I have ongoing ones that have been going on longer than this one. Reed Sea? I don't understand where you are going with that.
by no_one_special on August 11th, 2009
We should be happy that we can hold a long debate through as quick a medium as an internet forum...
.
Back in the day, Philosophers spent years, even decades, debating even less that what has been covered in ^this^ thread, simply due to the limited means of communication and transportation.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on August 12th, 2009
Well, I've never been to the Reed Sea, but I've a mate who is currently doing his masters in Archeology who has been in the area on a dig, and is very interested in this sort of thing - Apparently, the Reed sea "Parting" - the water level lowering enough that it can be crossed on foot(though chariots and the like would have trouble) - isn't exactly an every day occurrence, but it was far, far from unheard of. Unfortunately, it has long since dried up, and is thus no longer possible to observe.
by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on August 12th, 2009
190 comments, wow
by jibbyjabber on May 30th, 2010
Welcome to answerbag. Ask about anything, 5 to 10 comments. Ask about a religious - particularly Christianity related - topic, get your reading glasses, because you've a novel's worth of text ahead of you.
by Sgt Churba - Rational Response Squad on May 30th, 2010
We aim to please. :D
by no_one_special on May 31st, 2010