Biochem nothing short of divine?

[LadyJubilee8_18]

Not meaning to step on Atheists’ toes or to rub elbows with Supper Christians, but I got into an interesting discussion with my militant Atheist friend this evening. **disclaimer, I am religious, but I definitely respect everyone’s views on God**

We started talking about weather or not science negates the existence of God, and I feel that science only validates God’s existence. He suggests that life exists because chemicals naturally order themselves in the most stable state. After billions of years of evolution, this whole world got created…by accident. I disagree with that notion. Anyone who has studied the Citric Acid cycle knows that the chemical compounds in our body do not always go to the most stable state. And what are the chances, given all the possible outcomes that every chemical and every protein in our bodies (and in the world for that matter) would have randomly organized to produce what we have today? I would hate to be the person who has to do the chi-square test on that one. The more I study science, the stronger I believe in some kind of higher being. It feels like this order was created and the study of science only reveals to us what is already there. Nature is truly divine (In my opinion).

But what do you guys think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SitraAchra]

**disclaimer, I am religious, but I defiantly respect everyone’s views on God**

Freudian slip??

So LadyJubilee, are you saying you're a proponent of Intelligent Design [Creationism]? From your post it sounds like you are from what I read.

I think it's fine to believe that nature was created using rules brought by a higher power - however when people assume nature is perfect, that's where I draw the line. Every system in the human body could be more efficient. Why not have two hearts? Anyways, I believe science and religion are starkly separated because there is no empirical evidence that nature has been designed by anything.

However I am biased towards evolution, but abiogenesis is a b*tch to prove.

 

[abraxas]

So LadyJubilee, are you saying you're a proponent of Intelligent Design [Creationism]?

Whats with this whole Intelligent Design personally I see it as good ole evolution...

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

Whats with this whole Intelligent Design personally I see it as good ole evolution...

I also believe in evolution, but I don’t think its an accident that things evolved the way they did. I think some higher being (I’ll say God) gave each atom its chemical properties or set up the “big bang” and just let everything go. Maybe God pervades every aspect of life, and maybe (s)he does not, but I don’t think this detail is necessary to believe in God (if your belief is without the confines of organized religion). I’m not saying that nature is perfect, but it seems to do an excellent job of accounting for almost every variable. Evolution could just be one of God’s tools…

Besides as Aristotle pointed out, order does not come from disorder and life does not come from absence of life. (of course Aristotle used much better wording...)

 

[Medikit]

Whats with this whole Intelligent Design personally I see it as good ole evolution...

Intelligent design is regular creationism with a different label. I think you're thinking about Creationistic evolution. Creationistic evolution is interesting because it can shine some light on the punctuated equilibrium that we observe in the fossil record. Of course there are non-creationistic explanations as well.

 

[SitraAchra]

I also believe in evolution, but I don’t think its an accident that things evolved the way they did. I think some higher being (I’ll say God) gave each atom its chemical properties or set up the “big bang” and just let everything go. Maybe God pervades every aspect of life, and maybe (s)he does not, but I don’t think this detail is necessary to believe in God (if your belief is without the confines of organized religion). I’m not saying that nature is perfect, but it seems to do an excellent job of accounting for almost every variable. Evolution could just be one of God’s tools…

This is a lovely post IMO.

Besides as Aristotle pointed out, order does not come from disorder and life does not come from absence of life. (of course Aristotle used much better wording...)

I think it's beginning to cross the line when you bring up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics [no order from disorder] because the early earth could have been permissive to order - granted it's still in the air. But many creationists use this as a main argument against evolution, however the 2nd Law doesn't apply to a system like earth. Just throwing that out there

 

[getunconcsious]

I also believe in evolution, but I don’t think its an accident that things evolved the way they did. I think some higher being (I’ll say God) gave each atom its chemical properties or set up the “big bang” and just let everything go. Maybe God pervades every aspect of life, and maybe (s)he does not, but I don’t think this detail is necessary to believe in God (if your belief is without the confines of organized religion). I’m not saying that nature is perfect, but it seems to do an excellent job of accounting for almost every variable. Evolution could just be one of God’s tools…

Besides as Aristotle pointed out, order does not come from disorder and life does not come from absence of life. (of course Aristotle used much better wording...)

Very similar to my own beliefs, I'm kind of new-agey about the whole thing Until someone can make abiogenesis happen CONVINCINGLY (This means you, Stanley Miller!), I'd never adopt atheism. But I respect those who do, since no one can prove OR disprove God.

 

[hnbui]

Very similar to my own beliefs, I'm kind of new-agey about the whole thing Until someone can make abiogenesis happen CONVINCINGLY (This means you, Stanley Miller!), I'd never adopt atheism. But I respect those who do, since no one can prove OR disprove God.

what does being an atheist have to do with whether a person believes in evolution.

Also, you can't disprove faith with science, nor vice versa. Faith is spiritual while science is based on empricial laws.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

what does being an atheist have to do with whether a person believes in evolution.

Also, you can't disprove faith with science, nor vice versa. Faith is spiritual while science is based on empricial laws.

If you would read a bit closer, you would see that you and getunconscious are saying the same thing...

 

[hnbui]

If you would read a bit closer, you would see that you and getunconscious are saying the same thing...

my bad

but still what does being an athiest have anything to do with evolution?

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

my bad

but still what does being an athiest have anything to do with evolution?

I think some Christians just have a hard time believing in evolution because the idea kind of messes up the creation story. No Adam and Eve means no original sin means no need for Jesus coming etc etc. That’s my biggest problem with being Catholic, though I'm sure it can be worked out some way. To answer your question, being atheist to some people means that you put faith whole-heartedly into evolution (my friend feels this way) but there is not necessarily a correlation between atheism and belief in evolution.

 

[abraxas]

Until someone can make abiogenesis happen CONVINCINGLY (This means you, Stanley Miller!)

what about the miller experiment don't u agree with?

 

[getunconcsious]

what about the miller experiment don't u agree with?

Creating precursors of biomolecules from inorganic compounds is great...except that amino acids and monosaccharides and such can do absolutely nothing on their own. No one's even been able to make ribozymes from inorganic precursors. It proves nothing that amino acids can form from inorganics.

 

[SitraAchra]

what about the miller experiment don't u agree with?

Yeah I've always wondered - people shoot down the Miller/Urey experiment to try and disprove abiogenesis, but was the experiment really flawed? I've never heard a definitive answer. Sometimes I hear they used conditions that have been proven to not exist in early earth, while others agree with the experiment.

Can anyone shed light on this?

 

[abraxas]

Creating precursors of biomolecules from inorganic compounds is great...except that amino acids and monosaccharides and such can do absolutely nothing on their own. No one's even been able to make ribozymes from inorganic precursors. It proves nothing that amino acids can form from inorganics.

so basically your not bashing miller but the people who are misinterprating his findings... and why are ribozymes so important i would think the ability to form RNA would be the most conclusive evidence of abiogenesis.

 

[MedRower]

Very similar to my own beliefs, I'm kind of new-agey about the whole thing Until someone can make abiogenesis happen CONVINCINGLY (This means you, Stanley Miller!), I'd never adopt atheism. But I respect those who do, since no one can prove OR disprove God.

The great thing about science is that we're working towards getting an answer on abiogenesis. If the intelligent design people were in charge, it would already be case closed. Now that's worrying to me. Anyone else hear about how some people want to change the definition of science in Kansas? Same type of problem....

 

[Babooshka]

Anyways, I believe science and religion are starkly separated because there is no empirical evidence that nature has been designed by anything.

Sitra, I think your rules are unfair. Science is that which is empirically verifiable. In other words, that which is not empirically verifiable is not science. So, that which is known non-scientifically doesn't require empirical data. Coming about truths that don't make claims on time and space (i.e. philosophical, religious) don't require scientific data, to say otherwise is akin to moving the goalposts of evidence.

Ofcourse, by science I mean a refined scientific method born out of the enlightenment. In reality, I think any perception and inference is science, and thus philosophy is the science of sciences. But for the intents of this discussion, the first definition is more useful in that it draws seemingly sharp contrast between science/religion. When I mean "empirically verifiable", I mean that which is known through this refined scientific method to store data sets. In truth, no ideas could be known without a world around us (could you imagine anything without having any ideas about the world around you?). But this lengthy paragraph defining my ambiguous terms is not because I'm a sloppy writer, which I am, but because there's no difference between religion/philosophy/science except two are subsets of the other. Far out.

 

[MedRower]

Sitra, I think your rules are unfair. Science is that which is empirically verifiable. In other words, that which is not empirically verifiable is not science. So, that which is known non-scientifically doesn't require empirical data. Coming about truths that don't make claims on time and space (i.e. philosophical, religious) don't require scientific data, to say otherwise is akin to moving the goalposts of evidence.

Ofcourse, by science I mean a refined scientific method born out of the enlightenment. In reality, I think any perception and inference is science, and thus philosophy is the science of sciences. But for the intents of this discussion, the first definition is more useful in that it draws seemingly sharp contrast between science/religion. When I mean "empirically verifiable", I mean that which is known through this refined scientific method to store data sets. In truth, no ideas could be known without a world around us (could you imagine anything without having any ideas about the world around you?). But this lengthy paragraph defining my ambiguous terms is not because I'm a sloppy writer, which I am, but because there's no difference between religion/philosophy/science except two are subsets of the other. Far out.

Reality isn't fair. So, instead, why don't we go by what works, as best that we can tell. That is, being empirical.

 

[swifteagle43]

So many misconceptions you have

1. Scientists never argued that this was an accident. It is the state at which things exsist. It is not an accident but the way things are.

It is like dropping marbles to the floor and wondering why they do not float. There are variables at play which dictate that the marbles will fall. Hence we exsist due to certain chemicals at certain levels because of variables at play.

2. You know scientists back in the day used to think that Zues made thunder because it was to complicated to explain. Point is that we can not use god in logical basis of scientific explanations due to the fact that it clouds future progress of science. Saying GOD organized the variables that way would stunt research for people trying to further decipher the variables which make things the way they are.

3. There was a book written about this by a bio chemist. It was a bestseller for a long time. He made the same point. But the one place where the scientific community will surely seperate itself from you is when you use non-logical statements("the divine") to explain natural phenomina.



Defiantly
Swift

 

[Babooshka]

Reality isn't fair. So, instead, why don't we go by what works, as best that we can tell. That is, being empirical.

But, it doesn't work. As long as our questions are short and stumpy like, "What's that made of," or "How fast is that moving," then by all means use science. Science is the epistemological tweezer for nitpicking and precise poking. If we ask more interesting questions like "Why", our tweezers become obsolete. "Why" is the question that differentiates people from the rest of the animal kingdom, as long as we're satisfied with "how", then we're the ontological equivalents of machines churning out bland numbers. Ask "Why" and we'll face the Blues Screen of Death, Illegal Operation (hope our brains aren't Windows-based ).

Let's stick with science's domain, "How?". Keep asking the question and you'll end up without an answer. How am I typing? How are my phalanges twitching? How does mitochondria metabolize? How does the valence shell work?...How does the singularity turn into the Big Bang? Who knows. Give it a hundred years, we might figure out the answer that'll beg another question that'll go unanswered for thousands more.

 

[Sanctuary]

Not meaning to step on Atheists’ toes or to rub elbows with Supper Christians, but I got into an interesting discussion with my militant Atheist friend this evening. **disclaimer, I am religious, but I definitely respect everyone’s views on God**

We started talking about weather or not science negates the existence of God, and I feel that science only validates God’s existence. He suggests that life exists because chemicals naturally order themselves in the most stable state. After billions of years of evolution, this whole world got created…by accident. I disagree with that notion. Anyone who has studied the Citric Acid cycle knows that the chemical compounds in our body do not always go to the most stable state. And what are the chances, given all the possible outcomes that every chemical and every protein in our bodies (and in the world for that matter) would have randomly organized to produce what we have today? I would hate to be the person who has to do the chi-square test on that one. The more I study science, the stronger I believe in some kind of higher being. It feels like this order was created and the study of science only reveals to us what is already there. Nature is truly divine (In my opinion).

But what do you guys think?

I'm not quite sure why this post is in the pre-med allopathic forum? I guess I don't see the relevance. Furthermore, it's hard to imagine an undergraduate student being an expert of the citric acid cycle, and its relation to evolution and/or intelligent design. Althought I do think this conversation does warrant some merit, I just don't think this is the proper outlet.

Cheers.

 

[Babooshka]

Anyone who has studied the Citric Acid cycle knows that the chemical compounds in our body do not always go to the most stable state. And what are the chances, given all the possible outcomes that every chemical and every protein in our bodies (and in the world for that matter) would have randomly organized to produce what we have today?
But what do you guys think?

But there are metabolic precursors to the Citric Acid cycle that can be inferred to function as stepping stones for todays more complex chemical reactions. Surely the Citric Cycle is complex, but like a growing person, it didn't always have to be that way.

 

[MedRower]

But, it doesn't work. As long as our questions are short and stumpy like, "What's that made of," or "How fast is that moving," then by all means use science. Science is the epistemological tweezer for nitpicking and precise poking. If we ask more interesting questions like "Why", our tweezers become obsolete. "Why" is the question that differentiates people from the rest of the animal kingdom, as long as we're satisfied with "how", then we're the ontological equivalents of machines churning out bland numbers. Ask "Why" and we'll face the Blues Screen of Death, Illegal Operation (hope our brains aren't Windows-based ).

Let's stick with science's domain, "How?". Keep asking the question and you'll end up without an answer. How am I typing? How are my phalanges twitching? How does mitochondria metabolize? How does the valence shell work?...How does the singularity turn into the Big Bang? Who knows. Give it a hundred years, we might figure out the answer that'll beg another question that'll go unanswered for thousands more.

Differentiated from the rest of the animal kingdom? We're nothing special. i'd say we don't give enough credit to the rest of the animal kingdom (not in part the fault of religion, if you ask me)

Just curious, but has there ever been a satisfying, enduring answer to a 'why' question? What has religion solved? And yes, solve is a loaded term. but if you're asking the question why, clearly you care about the validity of the answer (or not?). isn't this a bit worrying?

With science, it may take "a hundred years," but at least you've got a concrete answer you can rely on, and if not, we've got a great method in science for finding it out.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

what about the miller experiment don't u agree with?

Does anyone know if L amino acids or D amino acids were produced in the miller experiment? It seems like both should have been produced (given the random experiments). I wonder how life got organized so that only L amino acids are used

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

So many misconceptions you have

1. Scientists never argued that this was an accident. It is the state at which things exsist. It is not an accident but the way things are.

It is like dropping marbles to the floor and wondering why they do not float. There are variables at play which dictate that the marbles will fall. Hence we exsist due to certain chemicals at certain levels because of variables at play.

2. You know scientists back in the day used to think that Zues made thunder because it was to complicated to explain. Point is that we can not use god in logical basis of scientific explanations due to the fact that it clouds future progress of science. Saying GOD organized the variables that way would stunt research for people trying to further decipher the variables which make things the way they are.

3. There was a book written about this by a bio chemist. It was a bestseller for a long time. He made the same point. But the one place where the scientific community will surely seperate itself from you is when you use non-logical statements("the divine") to explain natural phenomina.



Defiantly
Swift

I really disagree with this statement for several reasons.
Contrary to popular belief, I don’t feel that acknowledging the existence of God necessarily impedes the drive for scientific advancement. I feel that God used some method to create this world and science is just our way of putting the pieces together. Every time we deduce more about how life was created people shout, “See it was not God! It was (insert method here)!” but what created the particles to absorb the energy, and what created the molecules that are parts of these particles, and what created the atoms that arranged to become molecules, and how did the atoms know to arrange in a specific way, and what was it like when there was nothing? Ultimately, we can’t know because we have no concept of true nothingness – we have to start with something, but apparently God does not. Time is linear but life is always cycled, so whatever created this world was either not subject to the confines of time or saw the actual “start” of all the life cycles.

Despite the fact that ultimately, we are incapable of knowing I think we strive to know (through science) because we are naturally drawn to the divine (nature). In this view, it is our natural tendency to investigate, so science must move forward. Through investigation we get closer to the divine. Science in effect is the highest form of religious practice.

 

[jhugti]

But, it doesn't work. As long as our questions are short and stumpy like, "What's that made of," or "How fast is that moving," then by all means use science. Science is the epistemological tweezer for nitpicking and precise poking. If we ask more interesting questions like "Why", our tweezers become obsolete. "Why" is the question that differentiates people from the rest of the animal kingdom, as long as we're satisfied with "how", then we're the ontological equivalents of machines churning out bland numbers. Ask "Why" and we'll face the Blues Screen of Death, Illegal Operation (hope our brains aren't Windows-based ).

Let's stick with science's domain, "How?". Keep asking the question and you'll end up without an answer. How am I typing? How are my phalanges twitching? How does mitochondria metabolize? How does the valence shell work?...How does the singularity turn into the Big Bang? Who knows. Give it a hundred years, we might figure out the answer that'll beg another question that'll go unanswered for thousands more.

which is exactly why religion and the supernatural have no place in science.

first of all, your argument is circular because you presume that there must be a "why" of human life. the theory of evolution has convincingly demonstrated there is not a special "why" of human existence, only that of genes and their changes over eons. Only intelligent design/religion/God can offer a satisfactory explanation for our spiritual purpose on this earth because only religion presupposes (rather arrogantly) that there must be one.

in addition, ID is not a scientific explanation anyway. if the aim of theories such as evolution and ID is to explain the origins of organized complexity in the world, then they must actually do so. if we're just going to decide that God did it (ID people: "our explanation for complexity in the world is that there was an infinitely complex being already around. huzzah!" science people: "how did he/she/it get there?" ID: "oh we don't know, nor are we interested in answering such questions- the mysteries of life and such, you know..."), we may as well just say "life exists because it exists."

 

[Brain]

Whats with this whole Intelligent Design personally I see it as good ole evolution...

Oh boy. Not this debate again. I always say I won't get into it next time it comes up but I can't help myself. I wonder how long until this gets moved to the Lounge...........

Here it goes anyway. Intelligent Design cannot even remotely be compared to evolution. Think about it this way. The point of both ideas is to explain how complex being like ourselves came into existence. I personally consider a deity that could design us and know our every thought and action is also a complex being. Here is where Intelligent Design is inherently flawed: it requires the pre-existence of complexity to generate complexity. Evolution by natural selections does not require this.

As fas as the probability of us coming into existence being small, of couse it small. Most people think in terms of our life time. Consider that the universe has an unlimited number of worlds. Over infinite time, even events with very small probabilities will happen. If we humans were to live 100 million years, we could never cross a street because we would certainly be run over. Compare the probability of a deity forming versus us being generated by natural selection. Which do you think is smaller?

 

[kylahs]

Compare the probability of a deity forming versus us being generated by natural selection. Which do you think is smaller?

It is logically (and not just physically) impossible to apply statistics here. A deity by definition (at least in Western religions) resides outside the physical and is thus outside the realm of statistics.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

When I make this argument, I am trying to separate the concept of God from all the religious attributes that we assign to God. I think the question of God’s nature, whether or not God knows our every thought or action, what is moral vs what is amoral etc etc are all inconsequential given this discussion.

I believe that there had to be some “first cause” and I call this “first cause” God (for lack of a better term). We know that matter can not be created or destroyed, only recombined. This is how the physical world works. Because of this, the “first cause” or the creator had to be beyond the physical unless there is no such thing as nothing (i.e. there was never a state when nothing was in existence). Based on this assumption, there was no start and time must just be an infinite circle so that everyone and every thing is both the creator and the creation. This idea requires the assumption that there is no variation at any given point in the cycle because in order for a circle to be consistent, each point must lead to an unvarying product. If there is any variation what so ever, the path is helical instead of circular and helices have a beginning. This again brings up questions of fate and other such “religious” questions. I guess every theory requires some leap of faith so Atheism is just as likely as Theism. Maybe they are just two different ways of perceiving the same thing.

 

[criminallyinane]

I think it takes infinitely more courage to explore science and evolution, than to assume that a deity made all of this. I'm sure we'd all love it if a god existed and we all got to go party in heaven after we die, but it just doesn't make logical sense. Neither does intelligent design. Evolution does.

 

[stoic]

I believe that there had to be some “first cause” and I call this “first cause” God (for lack of a better term).

b/c we don't understand something, we're just going to automatically assume it can't be explained through any means other than "god." people have been doing this since the begining of time to explain things they don't understand, and time after time it turns out that there are perfectly good physical explainations. at some point, it would probably benifit us to stop using this catch all explaination.

 

[Scarletbegonias]

Compare the probability of a deity forming versus us being generated by natural selection. Which do you think is smaller?

I would say that it would be less probable that the universe was created by a deity. If some deity does exist, it is arrogant to even assume that it has human characteristics, describe it as we do humans, or that it is "in our image"

All we know is based on our perception as humans, which is limited by the functioning of our brain.

Philosophy does not equal science.

 

[brynn7]

All we know is based on our perception as humans, which is limited by the functioning of our brain.

Philosophy does not equal science.

sounds like the Copernican Revolution!!!!!!(any knowledge we have is dependent on our ability to perceive the world as human beings) have you studied Kant??? he is not an atheist. he believes that those things outside of the physical realm which exist outside of space and time cannot be proven. buuut they cannot be disproven either. he was mot as empirical as hume for example. he was the first person to actually address the idea that we as thinkers have limited and innate tendencies which guide our learning and interpretation of the world. we can never really know or even try to imagine a divine creator. but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. sorry..i kind of enjoyed my contemporary philosophy course. i will probably be made fun of or put down for this as usual....

my main reason that i wanted to post was this:...i was actually taught bio101 and genetics by a priest!!!! he would always say that god created evolution. he got around it that way i guess. but evolution is amazing...so who knows.

 

[kylahs]

sounds like the Copernican Revolution!!!!!!(any knowledge we have is dependent on our ability to perceive the world as human beings) have you studied Kant??? he is not an atheist. he believes that those things outside of the physical realm which exist outside of space and time cannot be proven. buuut they cannot be disproven either. he was mot as empirical as hume for example. he was the first person to actually address the idea that we as thinkers have limited and innate tendencies which guide our learning and interpretation of the world. we can never really know or even try to imagine a divine creator. but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. sorry..i kind of enjoyed my contemporary philosophy course. i will probably be made fun of or put down for this as usual....

Yep, Kant's philosophy is what comes to mind whenever I see threads like this.

my main reason that i wanted to post was this:...i was actually taught bio101 and genetics by a priest!!!!

Priests have contributed much to science. The Big Bang theory, for one. It was first proposed by a Catholic priest, and then confirmed by Hubble. And then we have Mendel in genetics.

 

[Scarletbegonias]

Definately, religion and science don't have to be mutually exclusive, but let's get one thing straight, they are built on some different assumptions, which mostly pertain to the empiracle and supernatural.

 

[swifteagle43]

I feel that God used some method to create this world and science is just our way of putting the pieces together. Every time we deduce more about how life was created people shout, “See it was not God! It was (insert method here)!”

I think your intentions are good but your statements are too bold for your thoughts.

You asserted earlier that biochemical functions are a direct result of god choosing to make those chemical act. While I agree with you on the *possible* exsistence of god I highly disagree with you that there is no plausible(and logical) reason for why those chemicals are the way they are.

I see what you are trying to say but once again I think your conclusion is bolder than your findings.

While god may have set up the whole system he does not play an active role in sustaining it(ex: limiting energy levels). That is what you are implying by asserting such a statement-at least to many.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

I think your intentions are good but your statements are too bold for your thoughts.

You asserted earlier that biochemical functions are a direct result of god choosing to make those chemical act. While I agree with you on the *possible* exsistence of god I highly disagree with you that there is no plausible(and logical) reason for why those chemicals are the way they are.

I see what you are trying to say but once again I think your conclusion is bolder than your findings.

While god may have set up the whole system he does not play an active role in sustaining it(ex: limiting energy levels). That is what you are implying by asserting such a statement-at least to many.

I specifically said that it is not necessarily true that God plays an active role in sustaining the system. I only believe that God at least set up the system (it is possible that (s)he has an active role, but that’s a different issue).
Please forgive the personification of God, I can't conceive of a better way to refer to the concept.

I guess it all depends on three things:
1) Is there such thing as nothing (if so, something beyond the physical had to create mater first)?
2) If there is no such thing as nothing, what is the nature of time? (Linear, circular, helical, oscillatory etc).
3) Does "infinity" presuppose some sort of interconnectedness?

If everything cycles in some way (i.e. no start or end) then time must be the regenerating force and is the ultimate creator. But there is still a question about why all matter is subject to certain physical properties.

 

[kylahs]

But there is still a question about why all matter is subject to certain physical properties.

And a question even more fundamental: why there is something rather than nothing.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

And a question even more fundamental: why there is something rather than nothing.

Yeah, science and religion (not organized religion, just the study of God, first creator, first cause whatever you want to call it) seem to be inexorably tied. It’s like how people study an artist’s work in order to find out more about that artist. One can get to know the creator by studying the creation. And it’s really interesting to think about.

 

[getunconcsious]

Oh boy. Not this debate again. I always say I won't get into it next time it comes up but I can't help myself. I wonder how long until this gets moved to the Lounge...........

I know, I agree. Hell will freeze over before anyone's mind changes. But posting here kills time, anyways.

(Totally off topic: Does ANYBODY have a finaid package from UTH yet? This is getting ridiculous...)

 

[kylahs]

Yeah, science and religion (not organized religion, just the study of God, first creator, first cause whatever you want to call it) seem to be inexorably tied.

Science and philosophy (the field which I believe generally matches what you describe above) is indeed intricately tied. Philosophy gives us the rules to science, like as to when the scientific method can or cannot be used and under what circumstances. Philosophy tells us there are certain things beyond the realm of science, and thus any scientific argument addressing such topics are meaningless.

It kind of reminds me of the difficulties science has in describing the universe prior to the Big Bang. That is because such descriptions are beyond the scope of science. Sure you can say such difficulties arise simply because there was no universe prior to the Big Bang, or in other words, there was nothing prior to the Big Bang. But then you have the problem of something coming from nothing. I'm curious as to how an atheist can be confident of his/her position in light of these serious problems.

Anyone?

 

[dragonmate]

Very similar to my own beliefs, I'm kind of new-agey about the whole thing Until someone can make abiogenesis happen CONVINCINGLY (This means you, Stanley Miller!), I'd never adopt atheism. But I respect those who do, since no one can prove OR disprove God.

The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who are trying to prove God's existance, not those that believe God doesn't exist. In other words, the default is that God does not exist...now prove that he does. All the things that happen in the universe can be explained by either God, some other mythical creature, or by pure coincidence. So we never really know that God is the one that is doing things around here until we physically hear or see him/her. I have nothing against those who believe in God...but there's a reason why religion and spirituality are based on faith...you must believe in something that is physically not here.
P.S.: I do not consider myself an atheist. I have a hard time believing that the complexities of our world resulted from an accident.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who are trying to prove God's existance, not those that believe God doesn't exist. In other words, the default is that God does not exist...now prove that he does. All the things that happen in the universe can be explained by either God, some other mythical creature, or by pure coincidence. So we never really know that God is the one that is doing things around here until we physically hear or see him/her. I have nothing against those who believe in God...but there's a reason why religion and spirituality are based on faith...you must believe in something that is physically not here.
P.S.: I do not consider myself an atheist. I have a hard time believing that the complexities of our world resulted from an accident.

I am not sure that believing that there is no God is default because since the concept of God is so difficult to prove or disprove, the statement, "There is a God now prove to me that there is not" is just as valid as the one you mentioned. Also, Atheism is just as much a faith as Theism. I have faith that there is a God and you have faith that there is not a God. Neither faith is more valid than the other.

 

[automaton]

GOD is a meaningless word. a fetish.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

GOD is a meaningless word. a fetish.

Um thanks for the meaningful input

 

[automaton]

suppose i say god exists. what does that mean?
suppose i say god does not exist. what does that mean?
what is god?
people talk about words without meaning.

spludge exists? spludge does not exist. spludge is all powerful. spludge is good. spludge created biochemistry? what is spludge? is what it is to be spludge to have done these things? what is that which does these things?

your mama.

 

[Babooshka]

Differentiated from the rest of the animal kingdom? We're nothing special. i'd say we don't give enough credit to the rest of the animal kingdom (not in part the fault of religion, if you ask me)

Just curious, but has there ever been a satisfying, enduring answer to a 'why' question? What has religion solved? And yes, solve is a loaded term. but if you're asking the question why, clearly you care about the validity of the answer (or not?). isn't this a bit worrying?

With science, it may take "a hundred years," but at least you've got a concrete answer you can rely on, and if not, we've got a great method in science for finding it out.

Well, I’m with you on the animal thing. Nevertheless, if I were to describe the human species to an alien race in the most concise terms, I’d say humans are the ones that ask why (opposed to figuring out how). No other animals do that like we do.

Of course religionists care about the answers, even though some brainwash themselves not to and call it “faith”. In the most encompassing terms, religions have answered the question of “why” by pointing to something that transcends the how-ness of materialism. The fact that we humans have an instinct to wonder and require meaning in our lives isn’t worrying in the least bit insofar as we satiate our soulful needs with something truly worthy instead of chasing relatively worthless questions like “how much does that weigh” and “how fast is that moving”.

As far as the track record of science goes, I agree that it’s systematically provided coherent data of the world and as future doctors we should appreciate that. I have a problem with the deification of the universe, to the point where the scientist’s only goal in life is figuring out interesting science problems, which are at best useful and at worst boring. The greatest scientists couldn’t differentiate science and religion. Newton was an astrologist that at one point considered space God’s sensory device. Euclid and the Pythagoreans thought rational numbers the handiwork of the eternal, and one of Einstein’s most famous quotes is, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” But this is sort of tangential, I’m not making any point about the validity of religion. My only point is that religion encompasses science, meaning there is no dichotomy.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

Well, I’m with you on the animal thing. Nevertheless, if I were to describe the human species to an alien race in the most concise terms, I’d say humans are the ones that ask why (opposed to figuring out how). No other animals do that like we do.

Of course religionists care about the answers, even though some brainwash themselves not to and call it “faith”. In the most encompassing terms, religions have answered the question of “why” by pointing to something that transcends the how-ness of materialism. The fact that we humans have an instinct to wonder and require meaning in our lives isn’t worrying in the least bit insofar as we satiate our soulful needs with something truly worthy instead of chasing relatively worthless questions like “how much does that weigh” and “how fast is that moving”.

As far as the track record of science goes, I agree that it’s systematically provided coherent data of the world and as future doctors we should appreciate that. I have a problem with the deification of the universe, to the point where the scientist’s only goal in life is figuring out interesting science problems, which are at best useful and at worst boring. The greatest scientists couldn’t differentiate science and religion. Newton was an astrologist that at one point considered space God’s sensory device. Euclid and the Pythagoreans thought rational numbers the handiwork of the eternal, and one of Einstein’s most famous quotes is, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” But this is sort of tangential, I’m not making any point about the validity of religion. My only point is that religion encompasses science, meaning there is no dichotomy.

I totally agree. I also wonder why every successful nation or community of people has had a concept of God. Some say that it's people's way of explaining the seemingly unexplainable, but why is God the way that every community has found? Almost all ancient societies had some form of religion, so if God is not real why is the concept so ubiquitous? It almost seems like man's natural tendency is to strive toward the divine. After all we could just not care to explain every concept or we could attribute these enigmas to something other than a divine being. We don't do this; no community ever has, they are all lead back to the divine.

 

[brynn7]

suppose i say god exists. what does that mean?
suppose i say god does not exist. what does that mean?
what is god?
people talk about words without meaning.

existence cannot be used as a predicate in constructing a synthetic judgement either a priori or a posteriori. exists = is. if you say something is because it exists, that is just circular reasoning. eh....philosophy makes my head hurt.

 

[stoic]

I totally agree. I also wonder why every successful nation or community of people has had a concept of God. Some say that it's people's way of explaining the seemingly unexplainable, but why is God the way that every community has found? Almost all ancient societies had some form of religion, so if God is not real why is the concept so ubiquitous? It almost seems like man's natural tendency is to strive toward the divine. After all we could just not care to explain every concept or we could attribute these enigmas to something other than a divine being. We don't do this; no community ever has, they are all lead back to the divine.

because we had to invent god as a way to live within rules that allowed civilzation to develop. so says freud.