The argument over the existence of God

reply to post by Equinox99


sorry... but using ad populum doesn't work, it's a logical fallacy.... then you combine it with the other logical fallacy of the argument from authority because the mayans were good at astronomy...
yeah, that just doesn't make sense.

and as for saying "magic did it" because we don't have an answer yet, well, that's just ridiculous. until we have the right answer we just leave the question blank or put in the best answer according to the available evidence.

I am basing everything on history, not a hunch. The people before us believed there was a higher being, The Inca had Inti their God, The Mayans had Gods, Hindus had Gods, and etc. So all of those people were wrong? Mayans, they knew much of the universe, and we did not even see a telescope at their pyramids and other places, were their calendars wrong?

They were archaic civilizations and were all wrong. We have a lot more knowledge in cosmology alone that all the knowledge the mayans ever had, sorry.

I assume God made the universe because science is not going to find out the answer of how the universe started. You guys saying that There is no God because we have the Big Bang is wrong! what happened before the big bang? Ummmm we don't know but there is evidence!
Well, let me see the evidence you have of what happened before the big bang and I will stop coming and arguing with you guys.

It's unnecessary. There is no evidence that god exists and that it created the universe so what's the point in believing it? And why do you want to believe in it anyways? Even if a being made the universe 13 billion years ago doesn't mean he wants you to worship him or that you'll get eternal life.

So how do you guys know that the microwave background radiation did not come from years and years of the stars radiation outputs? Claiming Big Bang expanded from "heat" which came from nothing is sort of like a guess don't you think?

The radiation background is a left over from the big bang. The big bang theory predicted it's existence and it's temperature BEFORE we discovered and measured it. Also it's cooling over time (which was also predicted) which wouldn't happen if it was due to stars.

These are questions we will probably never ever know, so why dismiss everything?

Because there's no logical or rational reason to believe in something that no one has ever seen. god is just as real as santa and the pink unicorn.

I am not talking about evolution, I am talking about the fact that you guys automatically think that, because you don't know what started the universe, It was not God. That is my main point, how do you know God did not start the universe?

How do you know he did?

What if the Big Bang was true and God sought it through?

What if he didn't?
If you ask us these questions, logically it must be ok to ask you the same questions.

Just because science can not sense a God, does that make it automatically not there?

No but it also doesn't make a god real either.

Your analogy is a terrible one, because a one year old is still unable to think for him/herself.

Well thanks for not reading my post very well..
The analogy is just fine.
I even pointed out that it was theoretical and I know that a one year old doesn't think like that. IT WAS A THOUGHT EXERCISE.

Here is part of my quote
"The analogy is theoretical so please don't nitpick and say thats not how a one year old thinks. "

I know that and I am positive you know that, our society is more then a 1 year old, we understand everything from DNA, to weapons. We can see deep in the universe, and are able to understand how stars form.
So the comparison is much much different.

Again it was a thought exercise. If you can't understand the analogy, please let me know and I'll explain it a different way.

my thoughts on the evolution and proof of god argument is this

first of all i have a thourough brlief in the natural selection theory....because i do not believe it possible that i desended from an ape but i do believe that possibly there at some point was a very primative human.......that exsited pre cave man.........and i said man not ape because you must also bring into account the law of the jungle.....kill or be killed .....i do not believe humans were the top of the food chain automaticaly ...at some point we were at the bottom butt through natural selection the minds of the stronger of primative man learned how to over come being at the bottom of the food chane and raise to the top!

also on the argument that god exists....its a pointless debate because there is no way humanly nore spiritualy possible to either prove or disprove there is a god...personaly i believe that polytheism makes more sense when it comes to explaining the wotld around us ....i do not believe the an "almighty god" farted this world out of nothing....(excuse the context...no affense to anyone) it is also the same as the aegument of does the devil exist......which is also impossible to proove or disproove,
and further more if any one wants to bring biblical referance into this all i have to say is how many time has the bible been translated so that it can be usefull to the million and 1 denominations that are out there......the bible is just a well writen book,or to say it bluntly an evangelical tool to con and convert people of different belief systems from around the world into an international mega death cult! and i say death cult for the simple fact that christians and catholics have simalar idealisms........the worship of a martyr....wich is symbolicaly the worship of death.

reply to post by DarkSide


I was wondering what everyone who is all for evolution, think of entropy?
I mean that contradicts evolution don't you think?
Full Article

There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.

Physics and Evolution
another article

We know too little to say there is no God, really.

We barely explored space, not even the deepest trench of the ocean, we never been to earth's core, just speculated what's inside. We can't control the weather, we are at complete mercy of it, we open people up using knives and scissors and clamps as means of surgery, your dentist put WIRES on your teeth as means of adjusting your teeth alignment.

So knowing how LITTLE we know and how primitive we are, what makes you think we have the qualifications to say there is no GOD with any kind of certainty?

Because now we know how to get answers without resorting to a supernatural default. We are learning what really goes on in the universe.

When there is empiric evidence of a god -- any god -- then get back to me and I'll re-think my position.

But, like Richard Dawkins, I am almost certain there is no god. All the evidence in science points to its nonexistence, because it is not necessary for the universe to exist.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Because now we know how to get answers without resorting to a supernatural default. We are learning what really goes on in the universe.

When there is empiric evidence of a god -- any god -- then get back to me and I'll re-think my position.

The key word you mentioned is "learning" means uncovering, a knowledge INcomplete. Science is as much a default as religion, it's as much a crutch, if not more convenient.

Empirical evidence? When the day come, those who believe will rejoice, those who didn't won't matter.

It's easy to explain what a rock is, but try explain origin of conciousnes, love, hate. Faith is not for the shallow thinkers, on the other hand, science is shutting human eyes from spiritual advancement.

One word explains it, and it's the most misunderstood part of the whole picture...

faith.

Take a look at the nature around you. The brightly colored flowers, the multi-colored petals. Lions, giraffe, apples, papayas....is there a single thing in nature that you can call an Abomination?

Do you really think if we let "nature" runs wild from start with no design we will have those?

Try splash a bucket of paint on a canvas, that's no Monet. Nature is not random.

If God doesn't exist, than who is bowling when it thunders?

reply to post by chickeneater


Things dont' need to be abominable to be horrible or signs that -- if there WERE a designer -- would make it an incompetent tinkerer.

In humans, there's the appendix, bad knees poorly designed for bipedalism, cancer, heart attacks, down syndrome, ad naseum.

In the animal and plant kingdom, there are things that go on in the food chain that would be aptly found in Dante's Inferno. I just finished watching the entire series of Planet Earth. There is a family of fungus in the tropical rain forest, that specializes on one particular species of insect. Each different fungus in this family specializes in one insect. The spores go into the insects, and take them over, lodging in the brain and urging them to climb upwards (at least in one ant type). the ant then bites into a twig and dies, and the fungus puts out its fruiting bodies through its head, and sends out spores to infest the next ants in turn. It's a terrible way to die.

What about the wasps that lay their eggs inside of caterpillars, which are then eaten alive by the larvae? Isn't that fairly abominable?

I KNOW that if we let nature "run wild" from its very start we would have the diversity of life on the planet that we have now. I don't have faith, there are fossils that prove evolution, and the explosions in diversity that occur after each mass extinction.

Nature is not random. It selects the fittest for survival. There is a pattern underneath it all, but there is no god in it. Nature is not a canvas nor a bucket of paint. it is a living organism. Living organisms reproduce, change, grow and die.

Do yourself a favor, and watch this video. Try not to take umbrage at the title, I didn't name it. But it explains how evolution works, and why there is no necessity for a designer.

Educate yourself, for the love of FSM. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Originally posted by chickeneater
We know too little to say there is no God, really.

We barely explored space, not even the deepest trench of the ocean, we never been to earth's core, just speculated what's inside. We can't control the weather, we are at complete mercy of it, we open people up using knives and scissors and clamps as means of surgery, your dentist put WIRES on your teeth as means of adjusting your teeth alignment.

So knowing how LITTLE we know and how primitive we are, what makes you think we have the qualifications to say there is no GOD with any kind of certainty?

So does that mean we'll find god out there? It doesn't matter how far we seach, there's never going to be proof of him. We know alot more now than the people who thought there was a god...Even a child today might knows more than all their combine knowledge... The concept of god was created to try and explain things like thunder and rain. But now we know better (most of us anyways). If we're so primitive what makes you think we have the qualification to say there is a god? Sorry but we didn't create a religion that says there's no god...

Originally posted by chickeneater
The key word you mentioned is "learning" means uncovering, a knowledge INcomplete. Science is as much a default as religion, it's as much a crutch, if not more convenient.

One of the difference between science and religion is you guys never learn. Always going to be the same, i'm surpised you guys didn't kill those who thought the Earth orbited the sun, o wait! you did. THe concept of god was and still is based on lack of knowledge...

reply to post by AncientVoid

That there will never be any proof of God is a big statement. How do you know this? When we dont even know but a small fraction of how our own world works , much less the universe, how can you make a statement like that?. Just 150 years ago man just knew that we could not fly, now look at the advances that we have made. I would think in science , you would want to keep your mind open to all possibilities, not close it off by saying that there is no way...thats impossible. To me there isnt any reason that faith and science cant co-exist. But thats just my very humble opinion.

reply to post by chickeneater


um...
ok, evolution is a non-random selection of random mutations.
it isn't all just "random"
survival of the fittest certainly isn't a random process... it's actually a process based on what survives. if it was random all the animals would play russian roulette until they either die or reproduce

My Opinion

Why bother trying to prove or disprove a creator?

We'll all find out when were dead and buried, either we'll go to some sort of

paradise or our consciousness will blip out of existence.

But why worry about all that? have fun while your here.

anyway thats my opinion

OK HERE YOU GO!

1. God did not define how long his "day"s were. right?
2. science was put on earth by GOD
3. we DID evolve from something LIKE an ape (and it does matter where we came from in thoughts of medicine and ancestry)

Therefore, science and religion (Christianity) do go hand in hand with each other, because didn't GOD create Eve from Adam? Anthropologists believe that they have found that humans (homo sapiens) came to being because of a birth defect that mutated and bred. The "person" who had the birth defect was female about 110kya (thousand years ago).

Isn't it possible then that humans "man" did evolve from apish creatures? God never set a specific time span to a "day", and who said that modern day humans are what GOD refers to as "man"?

Welcome comments

Originally posted by lyndzxnacole0o7
2. science was put on earth by GOD

This is the main bit I have an issue with. If you want to buy this christianity stuff, that's cool and your perogative.

But, rather than tell us about myths like Noah etc (or mixing two fabrics, best method of slavery, etc), he/she/it might have outlined the scientific method for humanity in the bible. It took until the likes of the mortal Frankie Bacon to start formalising the scientific method.

Now that would have been useful, a 1500-x000 year headstart, might have missed out the 'dark-ages' altogether. Think where we could be now...

So, no, it was a man-made achievement, gods/godesses need not apply. According to the 'holy' books, gods were worrying too much about bedroom antics and people worshipping false idols.

[edit on 3-12-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


you never cease to amaze me with your answers that both beat me to the punch and explain things clearly and concisely with a moderate amount of good humor


it's clear that it was a group of highly intelligent mammals that created science (and that god thing too...)

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I hate to break it to you but most people in the world don't believe in evolution. Must not be very compelling 'scientific' evidence.



[edit on 6-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]