Biochem nothing short of divine?

[LadyJubilee8_18]

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

Why couldn't we just use the law to force people to comply with rules? Follow the rules or die, that would make me do it. Besides, people are social beings anyway civilizations would have developed despite the concept of God.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tacrum43]

But I respect those who do, since no one can prove OR disprove God.

Descartes would disagree.

 

[Hoooba]

I refuse to believe that a complex human being originated from a couple of aminio acids in a bubble. Even the most simple aspect of a cell ( for example DNA replication) is way too complex to be the result of a random process.

I think the problem here is that this is a pre-med forum. We have been educated to think as scientists - i.e. there is a reason for everything and everything has to be proven. Myself, I fall into this trap often because of my science background as well as my research experience. I always think there is a reason for everything. However, this type of thinking is what hinders us from truly believing in god and searching for the scientific solution - i.e. Evolution.

Also, I feel that in most of my biology classes, the instructors have been biased in discussion evolution - they address evolution as if it is scientifically proven. The result is that most naive students take that for granted.

 

[Babooshka]

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.

The fact we empirically know that human beings invariably ask “why” by the very virtue of their existence doesn’t presume there must be an answer (that’s where philosophy kicks in and deduces there must be one, but that’s for another thread ). The impulse of religiosity and seeking meaning is at least very healthy and useful for us. Like the thirst and screwing, inherent impulses are apparatuses of health by design, regardless of whether or not there’s actual water or poontang out there! It’s evolution/God’s way of getting us to hit the ground running. So in lieu of censoring our very nature, let's do science by using all our tools.

 

[kylahs]

Descartes would disagree.

Do you buy Descartes arguments for the existence of God?

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

The fact we empirically know that human beings invariably ask “why” by the very virtue of their existence doesn’t presume there must be an answer (that’s where philosophy kicks in and deduces there must be one, but that’s for another thread ). The impulse of religiosity and seeking meaning is at least very healthy and useful for us. Like the thirst and screwing, inherent impulses are apparatuses of health by design, regardless of whether or not there’s actual water or poontang out there! It’s evolution/God’s way of getting us to hit the ground running. So in lieu of censoring our very nature, let's do science by using all our tools.

Well put

 

[DianaLynne]

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.

Here's a link to an interesting pro-abiogenesis website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

This reminds of the argument some cosmologists like to pull out when they are talking about how ever did the universe form with the physical laws that allow life to form. For example, if the proton happened to have just a little more mass, then atoms would never have been able to form. The argument is that since we're here talking about it, then obviously at least THIS universe has the right laws, so yes, it can happen.

 

[DianaLynne]

Do you buy Descartes arguments for the existence of God?

I think Descartes arguments for the existence of God depend on an a priori belief in God for them to work. I don't think that they would convince a skeptic.

 

[Mutt]

One can get to know the creator by studying the creation. And it’s really interesting to think about.

Great point!
Now, try and study why the creator couldn't get chromosomes to segregate correctly so that some people get lucky enough to be born intersexed, severely mentally ******ed, sterile/infertile and/or with multiple congenital malformations.

Recommended reading: Harold Kushner's "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People"

 

[kylahs]

I think Descartes arguments for the existence of God depend on an a priori belief in God for them to work. I don't think that they would convince a skeptic.

His arguments initially appear circular, but upon closer examination you realize that they are not. However, his arguments rely on premises that a skeptic (and many believers) would probably find problematic. So yeah, you won't go far in trying to convince a skeptic by mentioning Descartes.

 

[kylahs]

Great point!
Now, try and study why the creator couldn't get chromosomes to segregate correctly ....

my chromosomes segregated correctly. I think. And so did my two brothers' and two sisters'. And so did all my friends'. I think. Come to think of it, it's pretty rare that chromosomes do not segregate correctly.

I don't think there is a problem with the mechanism.

 

[DianaLynne]

my chromosomes segregated correctly. I think. And so did my two brothers' and two sisters'. And so did all my friends'. I think. Come to think of it, it's pretty rare that chromosomes do not segregate correctly.

I don't think there is a problem with the mechanism.

Try telling that to someone with a genetic disease like Down's... The point is that the mechanism isn't perfect, the editing process could probably use a little work.

 

[criminallyinane]

"People believe in God because the world is very complicated and they think it is very unlikely that anything as complicated as a flying squirrel or the human eye or a brain could happen by chance. But they should think logically and if they thought logically, they would see that they can only ask this question because it has already happened and they exist.

For example, some people say how can an eye happen by accident? Because an eye has to evolve from something else very like an eye and it doesn't just happen because of a genetic mistake. And what is the use of half an eye? But half an eye is very useful because half an eye means that an animal can see half an animal that wants to eat it and get out of the way, and it will eat the animal that only has a third of an eye or 49% of an eye instead because it hasn't got out of the way quick enough, and so the animal that is eaten won't have babies because it is dead. And 1% of an eye is better than no eye.

And people who believe in God think God has put human beings on the earth because they think human beings are the best animal. But human beings are just an animal and they will evolve into another animal, and that animal will be cleverer and it will put human beings into a zoo, like we put chimpanzees and gorillas into a zoo. Or humans will all catch a disease and die out, or they will make too much pollution and kill themselves. Then there will only be insects in the world and they will be the best animal." (The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time)

 

[kylahs]

Try telling that to someone with a genetic disease like Down's... The point is that the mechanism isn't perfect, the editing process could probably use a little work.

I understand that there are genetic diseases and that many of them lead to a lot of pain and suffering. But the previous poster wanted to use this as proof that God does not exist, or if He does exist, He is a bad designer. First, genetic diseases are relatively rare. They are rare in virtue of either the mechanism of evolution, or because God did a good job in the initial design of the mechanism. (or both)

To say that a defect in the mechanism (especially when the defect is rare) is proof God does not exist or that He is a bad designer is nonsense. We do not know where these defects came from. There are a myriad of environmental factors that could have contributed (e.g. drugs, alcohol, radiation, random mutations, a fall during pregnancy, something grandma was exposed to when she was 12, etc.).

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

Great point!
Now, try and study why the creator couldn't get chromosomes to segregate correctly so that some people get lucky enough to be born intersexed, severely mentally ******ed, sterile/infertile and/or with multiple congenital malformations.

Recommended reading: Harold Kushner's "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People"

Again I never said God specifically controlled each event in human history. I am merely arguing for the existence of God, not the nature of God.

 

[criminallyinane]

I understand that there are genetic diseases and that many of them lead to a lot of pain and suffering. But the previous poster wanted to use this as proof that God does not exist, or if He does exist, He is a bad designer. First, genetic diseases are relatively rare. They are rare in virtue of either the mechanism of evolution, or because God did a good job in the initial design of the mechanism.

To say that a defect in the mechanism is proof God does not exist or that He is a bad designer is nonsense. We do not know where these defects came from. There are a myriad of environmental factors that could have contributed.

But if god is really an omnipotent being as most people who believe in him think, then why would he make some people with genetic diseases at all? Couldn't he just make everyone's chromosomes work the right way? I understand that people think he made us with free will and that accounts for evil in the world, but how do you account for cancer, genetic defects, etc? Wouldn't a god-created system be immune to those imperfections? why not? if there really is an all-knowing being that can create us "in his image", why would we be so imperfect physically?

I kind of feel sorry for people who believe in god because so much of this idea of an all-knowing deity that created us just doesn't make sense.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

"People believe in God because the world is very complicated and they think it is very unlikely that anything as complicated as a flying squirrel or the human eye or a brain could happen by chance. But they should think logically and if they thought logically, they would see that they can only ask this question because it has already happened and they exist.

For example, some people say how can an eye happen by accident? Because an eye has to evolve from something else very like an eye and it doesn't just happen because of a genetic mistake. And what is the use of half an eye? But half an eye is very useful because half an eye means that an animal can see half an animal that wants to eat it and get out of the way, and it will eat the animal that only has a third of an eye or 49% of an eye instead because it hasn't got out of the way quick enough, and so the animal that is eaten won't have babies because it is dead. And 1% of an eye is better than no eye.

And people who believe in God think God has put human beings on the earth because they think human beings are the best animal. But human beings are just an animal and they will evolve into another animal, and that animal will be cleverer and it will put human beings into a zoo, like we put chimpanzees and gorillas into a zoo. Or humans will all catch a disease and die out, or they will make too much pollution and kill themselves. Then there will only be insects in the world and they will be the best animal." (The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time)

We all understand how evolution works, but thanks for the recap. Besides I don't recall anyone on this thread saying that humans are inherently better than other animals or that God favors humans. Furthermore, these are not the only two reasons to believe in God. In fact, considering the arguments made, it does not seem that they are even good reasons to believe since none of the believers deny evolution in favor of God.

I think it's funny how the Theist on this thread are being accused of choosing God because they somehow don't grasp science/ philosophy, while the Atheists are reiterating the same hackneyed reasons why God doesn’t exist. At least those who believe are following the logic produced...kind of like scientists.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

But if god is really an omnipotent being as most people who believe in him think, then why would he make some people with genetic diseases at all? Couldn't he just make everyone's chromosomes work the right way? I understand that people think he made us with free will and that accounts for evil in the world, but how do you account for cancer, genetic defects, etc? Wouldn't a god-created system be immune to those imperfections? why not? if there really is an all-knowing being that can create us "in his image", why would we be so imperfect physically?

I kind of feel sorry for people who believe in god because so much of this idea of an all-knowing deity that created us just doesn't make sense.

If evolution is one of God's tools (as suggested before) then mutations are necessary to produce change. Sometimes those mutations are beneficial and those individuals survive, but unfortunately some mutations are detrimental and result in the death of the individual. Free will has also caused many of the cancer cases or other such mutations (i.e. pollution, chemical weapons, etc). Besides, I'm not convinced that God is necessarily an omnipotent being; this detail is inconsequential with regard to the argument over God's existence.

I feel sorry for those who do not believe in God because Atheism does not make sense to me (how could something come from nothing while obeying the laws of physics?) and I have experienced many of the positive outcomes of belief in God. Even if God does not exist, just believing serves a beneficial purpose and it tends to give you hope.

 

[criminallyinane]

We all understand how evolution works, but thanks for the recap. Besides I don't recall anyone on this thread saying that humans are inherently better than other animals or that God favors humans. Furthermore, these are not the only two reasons to believe in God. In fact, considering the arguments made, it does not seem that they are even good reasons to believe since none of the believers deny evolution in favor of God.

I think it's funny how the Theist on this thread are being accused of choosing God because they somehow don't grasp science/ philosophy, while the Atheists are reiterating the same hackneyed reasons why God doesn’t exist. At least those who believe are following the logic produced...kind of like scientists.

Actually, what I posted is a quote. From a book.

 

[criminallyinane]

If evolution is one of God's tools (as suggested before) then mutations are necessary to produce change. Sometimes those mutations are beneficial and those individuals survive, but unfortunately some mutations are detrimental and result in the death of the individual. Free will has also caused many of the cancer cases or other such mutations (i.e. pollution, chemical weapons, etc). Besides, I'm not convinced that God is necessarily an omnipotent being; this detail is inconsequential with regard to the argument over God's existence.

But genetic mistakes don't fit into "intelligent design" very well, do they? What's intelligent about non-beneficial mutations?

Genetic mistakes do, on the other hand, follow quite logically from the evolutionary theories.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

But genetic mistakes don't fit into "intelligent design" very well, do they? What's intelligent about non-beneficial mutations?

Genetic mistakes do, on the other hand, follow quite logically from the evolutionary theories.

If you will recall (or just re-read) I never claimed that I believed in intelligent design, others who disagreed with my point of view put my ideas into the "intelligent design" category. The ideas that I have come from lots of soul searching and deliberation, I have not studied intelligent design enough to know if my beliefs fit that model. Isn't it strange when even Theists are capable of original thought? Again no one has argued against evolution.

 

[kylahs]

I understand that people think he made us with free will and that accounts for evil in the world, but how do you account for cancer, genetic defects, etc? Wouldn't a god-created system be immune to those imperfections? why not? if there really is an all-knowing being that can create us "in his image", why would we be so imperfect physically?

You mentioned that freewill is used to account for evil in the world, but why stop there? Freewill can also be the source of our physical imperfections. We can choose to stay in the sun for hours each day. But we'd likely to get DNA damage. Or we can choose to take certain drugs (like alcohol or cocaine) that lead to birth defects. Birth defects can arise from negligence or ignorance, which are both tied to freewill. Three women in FL recently gave birth to babies with severe defects. All three women worked in a farm where a highly toxic and known teratogenic pesticide is used.

If you accept the idea that freewill accounts for evil in the world, you should have no problem accepting that it can also account for our physical imperfections. This is not unreasonable, since clearly our day to day choices can affect our health.

But personally I'm satisfied with this answer: I don't know. Three simple words that we all need to say from time to time, or else we'd lose it.
I do not know why certain things are the way they are. But I do know, and I hope you see, that the points you brought up do not negate the existence of God.

 

[kylahs]

Even if God does not exist, just believing serves a beneficial purpose and it tends to give you hope.

I've wondered about this too. Is it really a good thing to believe in something that does not exist? Hope is nothing if it's baseless. If God does not exist, my life is essentially meaningless. I have no care for false hope.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

I've wondered about this too. Is it really a good thing to believe in something that does not exist? Hope is nothing if it's baseless. If God does not exist, my life is essentially meaningless. I have no care for false hope.

But if God/divinity/spirituality does not exist, then there is no after life and you will never know if your life was "meaningless" (though I don't think it would be even if you were wrong about belief). If God does exist and there is an afterlife of some sort (heaven, reincarnation, something) then you are screwed if you don't believe. (Pascal's wager, though Pascal used better wording )

Besides, there have been many times in my life when faith has been the only thing to get me through. One big reason why I believe is rooted in personal experience. In high school, I was trying to carbon monoxide poison myself while my parents were away. I went into the garage, got into my dad's car, and turned it on at 4:00pm knowing that my mom always gets home around 8:00pm. That day, my Mom got home at around 4:05-4:10 and saved my life. What are the odds? Stuff like that makes me believe.

 

[sacrament]

That day, my Mom got home at around 4:05-4:10 and saved my life. What are the odds? Stuff like that makes me believe.

I'm no statistician, but I'd put the odds at roughly twelve gazillion to one. Maybe twelve-and-a-half.

 

[tacrum43]

His arguments initially appear circular, but upon closer examination you realize that they are not. However, his arguments rely on premises that a skeptic (and many believers) would probably find problematic. So yeah, you won't go far in trying to convince a skeptic by mentioning Descartes.

I didn't find his arguments very convincing because they rely on this classification scheme that he makes up "by the light of knowledge" or something like that (meaning that it's self evident to a logical mind). I believe in God, but I don't think you can logically prove His existence. I think God wants us to believe because of faith, not because of a logical conclusion. It wouldn't mean much to believe much if it were because of a syllogism.

 

[kylahs]

But if God/divinity/spirituality does not exist, then there is no after life and you will never know if your life was "meaningless"

I'd never know that it was meaningless, but that does not help the fact that it was indeed meaningless.

That day, my Mom got home at around 4:05-4:10 and saved my life. What are the odds? Stuff like that makes me believe.

I'm sure you know that you can't use this stuff as an argument for the existence of God. But I understand where you're coming from. These things helped build your faith, and that is what is ultimately important. I'm glad you made it.

 

[kylahs]

I believe in God, but I don't think you can logically prove His existence. I think God wants us to believe because of faith, not because of a logical conclusion. It wouldn't mean much to believe much if it were because of a syllogism.

I agree 100%.
My belief in God is a direct consequence of my belief in Jesus. I trust Jesus. And Jesus emphasized (in the Gospels) over and over again about the importance of faith. God is not to be found in scientific or philosophical arguments, but in faith alone.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

I agree 100%.
My belief in God is a direct consequence of my belief in Jesus. I trust Jesus. And Jesus emphasized (in the Gospels) over and over again about the importance of faith. God is not to be found in scientific or philosophical arguments, but in faith alone.

I also agree. Didn't expect so much agreement from this tread

 

[GreekIsleSunset]

I also agree. Didn't expect so much agreement from this tread

Oh lord...................................jesus freaks.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

Oh lord...................................jesus freaks.

Oh lord........a soulless devil child














No, just kidding. No one is here to judge.

 

[sacrament]

No, just kidding. No one is here to judge.

I've been doing a fair amount of judging. Unfortunately I do not possess the authority to lock anybody up.

 

[GreekIsleSunset]

I spent 12 years in Catholic school and I can say with conviction that religion in general is hypocritical and is a waste of time. There are certain elements which are wonderful. But the majority of rules, regulations, doctrines, etc, are terribly annoying. If something cannot be explained or someone raises an interesting objection, the quickest explanation is "you have to believe". I think the closest "religion" that leads to a good life is the Buddhist path. Focus is on the self. There are no hierarchical leaders, and you never see monks on tv at 4am asking for donations. Really religious people are not good. Neither are people who lack any sense of spirituality. There needs to be a balance.


When I want to know if someone is a good match for dating the first question I ask is "are you religious"? If she says yes, I say "nice meeting you, goodbye". The best answer is "I am spiritual, not religious"

 

[taddpole]

I spent 12 years in Catholic school and I can say with conviction that religion in general is hypocritical and is a waste of time. There are certain elements which are wonderful. But the majority of rules, regulations, doctrines, etc, are terribly annoying.

While I understand your point- you have a skewed vision of one religion. I dont think that all religions are like that, and it is largely a matter of picking and choosing aspects of religions that you like and agree with. I am Jewish, and while I dont agree with EVERYTHING and I see its hypocrisy (sp?) I also think that it is the closest religion to what I do believe.......

On a different note, a good read is Genesis and the Big Bang, and also God and the Big Bang...they are both written by only one perspective and can only be taken at face value, it is still a very interesting perspective

 

[Babooshka]

Great point!
Now, try and study why the creator couldn't get chromosomes to segregate correctly so that some people get lucky enough to be born intersexed, severely mentally ******ed, sterile/infertile and/or with multiple congenital malformations.

Recommended reading: Harold Kushner's "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People"

Yikes, for such a simple question, it sure resided for long in this thread (2 pages?).

If there is a God and he is perfect, that which isn’t God is by implication not perfect. Ergo, if there is creation it must be flawed by its very nature. Your complaint that so many things go wrong in nature is a veiled complaint that existence isn’t perfect. But a perfect existence is impossible in a world of finitudes. So whether 1/5 or 1/1000000000 chromosomes fail to segregate is a matter of degree, imperfection being constant, there must be a variance of it. To me, your argument could be paraphrased, “We can’t draw perfect circles, how’s that for design?”

--Cheers

 

[Babooshka]

since no one can prove OR disprove God.

Hell, we can’t even prove whether or not we’re brains in vats and that the world around us truly exists. But hang-ups like proof are road blocks in coming about the truth. If we can hardly prove anything about existence, let alone to someone else, our standards have to be lowered. We can only know a thing in degrees. An engineer knows the keyboard in front of you more than you know it yourself. But for anyone to completely know what a keyboard is, one would need to know how every single graviton and proton particle interacting with the mass in front of you relates to the keyboard itself. The same goes with the rest of existence. Starting with the truism that you exist (cogito ergo sum), every deduction from then on about reality is known in gradient of certainty. That is to say, proof is overrated, because there’s no such thing. There’s only evidence we can know with less or more certainty.

 

[getunconcsious]

Hell, we can’t even prove whether or not we’re brains in vats and that the world around us truly exists. But hang-ups like proof are road blocks in coming about the truth. If we can hardly prove anything about existence, let alone to someone else, our standards have to be lowered. We can only know a thing in degrees. An engineer knows the keyboard in front of you more than you know it yourself. But for anyone to completely know what a keyboard is, one would need to know how every single graviton and proton particle interacting with the mass in front of you relates to the keyboard itself. The same goes with the rest of existence. Starting with the truism that you exist (cogito ergo sum), every deduction from then on about reality is known in gradient of certainty. That is to say, proof is overrated, because there’s no such thing. There’s only evidence we can know with less or more certainty.

Your avatar is SO disturbing!

 

[tacrum43]

Your avatar is SO disturbing!

Oh, no. See, Babooshka explained it's poetic in another thread. Why is a baby holding a gun it its mouth poetic? I don't know. But Babooshka says it is, and we wouldn't want to piss off an old Russian woman now would we?

 

[tacrum43]

I spent 12 years in Catholic school and I can say with conviction that religion in general is hypocritical and is a waste of time. There are certain elements which are wonderful. But the majority of rules, regulations, doctrines, etc, are terribly annoying. If something cannot be explained or someone raises an interesting objection, the quickest explanation is "you have to believe". I think the closest "religion" that leads to a good life is the Buddhist path. Focus is on the self. There are no hierarchical leaders, and you never see monks on tv at 4am asking for donations. Really religious people are not good. Neither are people who lack any sense of spirituality. There needs to be a balance.


When I want to know if someone is a good match for dating the first question I ask is "are you religious"? If she says yes, I say "nice meeting you, goodbye". The best answer is "I am spiritual, not religious"

Religion (and its associated church) is completely different from faith. Some people, even powerful people, within a church may not really have faith, and many people who don't go to a church regularly have lots of faith. I believe that God wants to have a personal relationship with each of us. Religion can be a good thing, but my advice is not to let other human's interpretations of what is right and not right get in the way of what God wants. Not that I am claiming to know that, I just know that religious leaders are certainly not infallible.

 

[Babooshka]

Your avatar is SO disturbing!

Oh, no. See he explained it's poetic. Why is a baby holding a gun it its mouth poetic? I don't know. But Babooshka says it is, and we wouldn't want to piss off an old Russian woman now would we?

Hey, it's birth staring at death. Yin and Yang. You don't have to be a post-menopausal (at least we can rule out one cause of my getting pissed) Russian lady to appreciate the juxtaposition.

P.S. I hope you really don't think me a meany, maybe I'm still sour over the Bolshevik revolution thing.

 

[Babooshka]

I agree 100%.
My belief in God is a direct consequence of my belief in Jesus. I trust Jesus. And Jesus emphasized (in the Gospels) over and over again about the importance of faith. God is not to be found in scientific or philosophical arguments, but in faith alone.

I say believe in Santa Clause, completely on faith. If you say yes, then may God have mercy on your soul. If instead you believe in something else (say Jesus) because of some other evidence (say, the Bible), then no longer are you believing only on faith, but on authority. The same goes with science and philosophy, the middlemen of every belief.

 

[tacrum43]

I say believe in Santa Clause, completely on faith. If you say yes, then may God have mercy on your soul. If instead you believe in something else (say Jesus) because of some other evidence (say, the Bible), then no longer are you believing only on faith, but on authority. The same goes with science and philosophy, the middlemen of every belief.

It takes faith to believe that the Bible is true. It is not proof, as it is not objective evidence that God exists or that Jesus is His son. To say that the Bible is true because it's God's word and that God exists because the Bible says he does is circular logic.

 

[Babooshka]

Whether you believe in faith, bible, church, someone's word or promise, there's always a 'because'. Even if you believe in faith, you've got to have a reason for that. At that point faith is no longer 100% faith, but an informed choice with might require some faith and reason, but not total faith. recycling my previous post.:

Hell, we can’t even prove whether or not we’re brains in vats and that the world around us truly exists. But hang-ups like proof are road blocks in coming about the truth. If we can hardly prove anything about existence, let alone to someone else, our standards have to be lowered. We can only know a thing in degrees. An engineer knows the keyboard in front of you more than you know it yourself. But for anyone to completely know what a keyboard is, one would need to know how every single graviton and proton particle interacting with the mass in front of you relates to the keyboard itself. The same goes with the rest of existence. Starting with the truism that you exist (cogito ergo sum), every deduction from then on about reality is known in gradient of certainty. That is to say, proof is overrated, because there’s no such thing. There’s only evidence we can know with less or more certainty.

 

[jhugti]

... Besides, I'm not convinced that God is necessarily an omnipotent being; this detail is inconsequential with regard to the argument over God's existence.

I feel sorry for those who do not believe in God because Atheism does not make sense to me (how could something come from nothing while obeying the laws of physics?)

(1) you keep shifting on what it is you actually believe regarding the existence of a creator. First, you claim you are noncomittal about the "nature" of God, and now this "God" is not even omnipotent. Describing the being you are proposing created this universe is NOT an inconsequential detail- if you don't lay down a solidly formed theory you give others no way to logically counter your claims. This is common among ID proponents- skeptics suggest reasons why ID is completely illogical and ID people counter by slightly twisting their vision of "God" so that the objections are rendered moot. You can go on doing this as long as you wish, since your theory doesn't have to make sense, doesn't need to be logically consistent, and doesn't need to have empirical evidence. After all, God works in "mysterious" ways...

Its fine to believe in anything you want- we live in a free country. But if you believe in an irrational being because it is comforting to you in times of need, admit that you are doing so. The reason people get frustrated and pissed off about this debate is that it eventually boils down to "faith", which is by nature irrational. (If it was rational, we wouldn't have to call it faith.) Admit it, and stop trying to use God as mechanistic explanation for natural phenomena. There is no evidence, and doing so only makes religion look trite and foolish.

(2) nobody is doubting that you can conceive of ways in which God COULD be involved in the natural world. God COULD be pushing along evolution, mutating genes, answering prayers, healing loved ones, and generally keeping an eye out for us.

Fine, but fairies COULD be the reason socks get lost in the wash too. Prove to me they are not. My point is that lots of things COULD be- just demonstrating that you could conceive in your mind of a supernatural being consistent with life as we know it (not that you, or anyone else has convincingly done so) does nothing to strengthen your case. What I, you, or anyone else thinks is completely immaterial to the truth. Until creationists have evidence for their beliefs that is neither childishly ignorant (2nd law), logically fallacious (Pascal's wager), nor deliberately misleading (too many to name- visit talkorigins.org) they have no business passing off such ideas as remotely scientific or logically defensible.

Again, believe what you want to believe, but don't muddy the waters of science with irrationality and blind adherence to doctrine.

(3) Your "critique" of atheism is weak. You say that since energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, the Universe could not have arisen spontaneously. So far so good. Then you make the gigantic leap to offering this as proof of God- as though the existence of a pre-Universe state was a nonissue somehow. Demonstrate to me that there is ANY evidence that the Universe at one time did not exist. Why would you assume that?


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus

 

[driedcaribou]

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

You are right that creationists that the 2nd law doesn't apply to a system like Earth because the Earth is an open system.

The 2nd law only applies to closed systems.

Evolution does not violate the 2nd law.

But neither does the existence of God.

Therefore we can all get along.

 

[criminallyinane]

You mentioned that freewill is used to account for evil in the world, but why stop there? Freewill can also be the source of our physical imperfections. We can choose to stay in the sun for hours each day. But we'd likely to get DNA damage. Or we can choose to take certain drugs (like alcohol or cocaine) that lead to birth defects. Birth defects can arise from negligence or ignorance, which are both tied to freewill. Three women in FL recently gave birth to babies with severe defects. All three women worked in a farm where a highly toxic and known teratogenic pesticide is used.

If you accept the idea that freewill accounts for evil in the world, you should have no problem accepting that it can also account for our physical imperfections. This is not unreasonable, since clearly our day to day choices can affect our health.

But personally I'm satisfied with this answer: I don't know. Three simple words that we all need to say from time to time, or else we'd lose it.
I do not know why certain things are the way they are. But I do know, and I hope you see, that the points you brought up do not negate the existence of God.

I don't think free will accounts for birth defects; genetic abnormalities; type 1 diabetes; MS; SLE; congenital heart defects such as the great arteries being switched (what in the environment could cause THAT?); etc, etc, etc. Nothing "negates" the existence of a god because to negate it, you need to first assume it is true. (I have never taken philosophy so I don't know if this is "real" logic, it is just MY logic.) I don't feel the need to negate the existence of god because it just seems obvious to me that there is no such thing.

 

[criminallyinane]

I've wondered about this too. Is it really a good thing to believe in something that does not exist? Hope is nothing if it's baseless. If God does not exist, my life is essentially meaningless. I have no care for false hope.

That is the problem I have with religion! How can you feel your life is meaningless because of a lack of the existence of god? I am certain there is no such deity, but there is a reason for you to be here, and that is to make the most of your life and help people, be happy, love, and perhaps procreate. I hate that religion teaches people that their whole lives are about this "god" fellow.

 

[atomi]

Not the entropy argument again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html

Or, for a more accessible argument, MC stephen hawking says:

"Defining entropy as disorder's not complete,
'cause disorder as a definition doesn't cover heat.
So my first definition I would now like to withdraw,
and offer one that fits thermodynamics second law.
First we need to understand that entropy is energy,
energy that can't be used to state it more specifically.
In a closed system entropy always goes up,
that's the second law, now you know what's up.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate.

Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so **** the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about,
you're now down with a discount."

 

[jhugti]

But if God/divinity/spirituality does not exist, then there is no after life and you will never know if your life was "meaningless" (though I don't think it would be even if you were wrong about belief). If God does exist and there is an afterlife of some sort (heaven, reincarnation, something) then you are screwed if you don't believe. (Pascal's wager, though Pascal used better wording )

Besides, there have been many times in my life when faith has been the only thing to get me through. One big reason why I believe is rooted in personal experience. In high school, I was trying to carbon monoxide poison myself while my parents were away. I went into the garage, got into my dad's car, and turned it on at 4:00pm knowing that my mom always gets home around 8:00pm. That day, my Mom got home at around 4:05-4:10 and saved my life. What are the odds? Stuff like that makes me believe.

(1) Sorry- not that easy. You disregard a number of crucial points in your simplistic view of Pascal's wager.

Pascal lived in a simple religious environment- you either believed in the Judeo Christian (J-C) God (specifically Roman Catholicism) or you didn't. If that was the way life really is, his logic would work just fine. Unfortunately, there are over 2500 different Gods/supernatural beings believed in by people on this earth. Even if we assume that one of these 2500 is correct (which is in NO way guaranteed), our absolute best shot at selecting the "right" God is is 1 in 2500. We can also introduce the infinite number of conceivable deities that people don't (yet) worship. For example, there could be a God that rewards people who most often step on sidewalk cracks. After all, God is incomprehensible... he can do what he wants.

This is what Pascal proposes:

(Option 1) God exists
a. you believe- hooray!
b. you don't- eternal pain, etc.

(Option 2) God doesn't exist
a. you believe- eh, whoops
b. you don't- eh, i was right


Real choices:

(Option 1) J-C God exists
a. you believe in J-C God- hooray!
b. you believe in God X- eternal pain, etc.
c. you believe in God Y- eternal pain
...
(on to infinity)
z. you don't believe in anything- eternal pain

(Option 2) God X exists
a. you believe in God X- hooray!
b. you believe in J-C God- eternal pain
c. you believe in God Y- eternal pain
...
(on to infinity)

There are infinitely many such options- you coudl makea box for every conceivable state of God-truth. Each such option has infinitely many beleif states, only one of which results in eternal happiness. All others (most atleast) result in eternal pain.

For a great number of these Gods, believing in other, false deities results in eternal damnation- like Christianity does for example. "Put no other Gods before me" and such. Thus, 2499 times out of 2500 (EVEN if you assume God exists as one of the religions we already practice on Earth) you suffer eternal damnation. (see chart above) It becomes clear that blindly believing is NOT a good bet.

There is also the oft-suggested theory of a creator who "rewards intellectual honesty, a God who rewards atheists with eternal bliss simply because they dared to follow where the evidence leads - that given the available evidence, no God exists!" (Gale, On the Nature and Existence of God: p345-354)

(2) I am truly glad that you were unsuccesful in your suicide attempt. It's tragic that so many young people looking forward to full lives feel forced to end their lives- I'm happy that you consider life worth living again.

However, I have to disgree with your interpretation of the events. You suggest that the odds of your mom returning when she did were so slim as to suggest that God played a role in saving your life. I am forced to ask, then, what this means for the many young people who DO succesfully commit suicide. Did God want them to die? He apparently wanted you to live, and therefore did something about it. Must I conclude that God wanted others to kill themselves? Don't you think it a tad arrogant to presume that you are SO much more special than the thousands of suicide victims each year that God himself elected to intervene?

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

“First, you claim you are noncomittal about the "nature" of God, and now this "God" is not even omnipotent. Describing the being you are proposing created this universe is NOT an inconsequential detail- if you don't lay down a solidly formed theory you give others no way to logically counter your claims.”

When I started this discussion, I was merely promoting discussion about weather or not some being beyond the physical (i.e. God) could have created the universe. I made it clear that I wanted to separate the concept of a creator from ideas of God that many religions teach- we were to speak of a very general view of God. Considering the purposes of the discussion, the nature of God is inconsequential. I was not being noncommittal at all; you are just frustrated because thinking of God without all the religious ideals will forces you to come up with new arguments as to why the concept of God is not logical.

“This is common among ID proponents- skeptics suggest reasons why ID is completely illogical and ID people counter by slightly twisting their vision of "God" so that the objections are rendered moot.”

Here again, you decided that I was an ID proponent when I never claimed to be. If you read back, I have not twisted my vision of God, I tried to keep the idea as general as possible. Again, in order for your claim that the concept of God is completely illogical to hold up, you have to attach certain beliefs to God’s existence. Once those other faith based beliefs are removed, you can’t be certain that the concept is logical or illogical. This is why Atheism is just as “illogical” as Theism. I choose one view while you choose the other. Atheism does not inherently make more sense than Theism and no one suggested the “mysterious” ways in which God works

“Its fine to believe in anything you want- we live in a free country. But if you believe in an irrational being because it is comforting to you in times of need, admit that you are doing so. The reason people get frustrated and pissed off about this debate is that it eventually boils down to "faith", which is by nature irrational.”

There are many other good reasons to believe in God, in fact lots of them are stated in this thread. To many it the idea of God is not irrational at all (I happen to be one of those people). I have no problem admitting that belief in God is faith based to some extent, but you have to understand that disbelief is equally faith based. If you can not come up with a logical reason why God does not exist (and you can’t) they you also have faith in your beliefs. If you are going to have the irrational belief that there is nothing beyond the physical because you can’t handle the possibility that science has some limits, admit that you are doing so. There is no evidence that God does not exist, so assuming that there is makes Atheist look trite and foolish.

“nobody is doubting that you can conceive of ways in which God COULD be involved in the natural world. God COULD be pushing along evolution, mutating genes, answering prayers, healing loved ones, and generally keeping an eye out for us.”

Again, you are taking this argument past its original intent- discussing the probability that God exists VS the probability that God does not exist. Could God have created physical order and then allowed the natural world persist on its own? Yes, that was stated before. And you do doubt that God COULD be involved in the natural world, if you were not why would you bother to make this cynical argument? You could conceive in your mind that a supernatural being is not involved in nature (not that you or anyone else has convincingly done so) but it does nothing to strengthen your argument. This is a very old argument and many of the world’s most astute thinkers have demonstrated that belief in God is not illogical. To dismiss these philosophies as childishly ignorant, logically fallacious, or deliberately misleading is admitting that you are simply closed-minded. Many very intelligent individuals have dedicated their lives to this debate and I do not intend to belittle their accomplishments as you have.

“Your "critique" of atheism is weak. You say that since energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, the Universe could not have arisen spontaneously. So far so good. Then you make the gigantic leap to offering this as proof of God- as though the existence of a pre-Universe state was a nonissue somehow. Demonstrate to me that there is ANY evidence that the Universe at one time did not exist. Why would you assume that?”

Again, with a little effort, you could have read the posts and seen that I allowed for the possibility that existence always was. There is no evidence that the Universe at one time did not exist just as there is no evidence that the Universe was always in existence. I freely acknowledged this concept (in fact, multiple times). When it comes down to it, we can not know. This is why I have faith just as you have faith. If you respect my faith, I have no problem respecting yours.