Gotta love the internet, a post like this go's up and immediately negativity follows. Generally fuelled by ignorance, but hey i'll respond
Trying to prove beyond a doubt that a God exists is a fundamental waste of time , there is even a message explaining the futility of it in the Bible itself. Though many of us still try to do it, even being religious I ask the question all the time.
Below I put some examples which might help you/others to stop focussing so much on thousand year old texts and wondering why they don't fit with modern society, and more on theorising about the existence of a higher power - which can be quite novel in a world of people who spend so much effort on trying to theorise its non-existence.
I have read a few scientific explanations for the below points, none of which can 'prove' anything (not to say they are trying to disprove the existence of a God, or that their validity would mean a God did not exist anyway). Either way I think there are enough examples like those below to prove the universe needed some form of control/order for our planet to have such minutely defined stability. For me that order is God.
1. If a deity was not controlling the movement of life in our universe how would the first organisms know they were going to die, and have developed the ability to reproduce? And if they evolved the ability to die, is that not history's biggest oxymoron?
2. With so many cultures in the world that are so physically and emotionally diverse living in the far reaches of the earth, all having developed in a biological sense to the same level at the same time; Did humanity evolve in multiple areas at the same time? Did they evolve from different creatures, or all from monkeys? How did humanity at such a primitive age find itself in the remote areas of the world, flourishing yet evolving (considerably) no further?
3. If evolution is a method of adapting to ones surroundings, why did fish ever see the need to walk? For a fish they would have no sense of land, no idea what was on it, and no real desire to go there? They function amazingly in their own environment, lethal hunters, pack mentality etc... And what, they replace gills, get new eyes, grow legs etc.. all at the same time? Diversity is the spice of life and there are definitely breeds who have bits and pieces of a land walking animal's anatomy, but would it not make more sense that such a range of creatures were created to populate all areas of the earth, utilising it to the fullest, ensuring a global ecosystem is sustainable?
4. Water, such a complex medium that supports life and is responsible for all of existence as we know it - created through chance alongside the first organisms who rely on it for their very survival? Hmm.
5. Also a fun fact for those who think the flood was a joke, there are many scientific accounts of things like tree trunks/animal bones fossilised through what would normally take millions of years of sediment layering...pointing upwards. Existence of magnetised rock which changes its polarity every cycle distributed through once again millions of years of sediment build up. Scientifically when looking at these examples it is clear there was a flood, no doubt, I guess the question is can you allow your mind to accept that one man on a boat with all the creatures we know of in present day did what we did to save humanity as we know it? We want to believe in superhero's and we all go nuts over stories of survival, yet when presented with something like this just laugh. Its an amusing concept in itself.
Think of how mundane and controlled western society is when it is stable, compared to life in the dark ages? It was a different world. And, if a God DID exist, and you got to see him and touch him and watch him turn water into wine, you would think it was possible then yes?
A final point of note is, in the Bible it does not explain the method God used to create the universe. There is nothing preventing him having used a 'Big Bang' approach, nothing preventing him from evolving creatures as he went about creating life. But creation would have been controlled, and would have had a purpose. This planet and humanity, definitely feels like it has a purpose, which is why we continue to search for it. The period of a 'day' was also not defined when the universe was created, so creating the universe in 6 'days' may have been 6 million years, but whether it was 6 days or 6 million years who cares?
In the end live your life, do your own research and make your own decision I just find myself constantly in amazement at how much control is inherent in nature. We need control, whether we like it or not, unfortunately because religion applies control without a physical manifestation of the 'controller' - humanity for whatever reason, continue to choose to ignore and abuse. Thus the constant struggle between what we believe and what makes sense will continue into eternity, or until we lose all records on religion and science defines everything, or until we all die, or until God returns etc...
If nothing else I hope this was an interesting read I apologise if there is bad spelling, grammar, whatever, not spending the time to check etc..
Completely not trying to start a war here with you, just my thoughts on your points =P
1. Confusion on this is understandable. When the first organisms came about (random fused elements that eventually, randomly combined and formed an 'organism') they died. And they died again, and again. This over the course of so many years I can't fathom. I'll also be using the term eventually a lot, because well I don't feel like googling a better term. But eventually one of the organisms came about, and had the ability to reproduce. I know I know "wtf someone had to have given them that", not so. If their is enough randomness this would have happened, at one point. Now THAT organism lived, and because it lived, that trait stayed with it. Giving every organism it produced the same trait. So on and so forth.
2. I'll first answer this with another question: If there was someone creating everyone, did they just make the pigmys in Africa like that, even before their was an Africa? (pangea, ya!)
No. We also did not evolve from monkeys, rather monkeys and humans are descendants of the same creature. We are diverse because of location. Having evolved and adapted, we changed. Why are some people black, some white, and so on? Just like the organism in the #1 of this post, their genes had a random evolution. Whose to say that eventually a black couple won't have a white baby? Well Because their genes are already set, and the chances of that are ridiculously small. but it could happen. The largest chance of this happening though, would be from the descendant we came from, back when our genes hadn't locked in what they viewed as the best to survive yet.
3. Fish's genes, and for that everything's genes, has never 'seen' the world. Never has an adaption (evolution, w/e) taken place because the cell knew the trees were really high, and they needed a longer neck. Instead, like I've already kind of stated, the genes use randomness. What doesn't work, get killed. That's how bad genes are weeded out. What does work, as random as it is, stays, because well it worked, and it's alive to reproduce. Snakes with two heads? You don't see that gene around very much, (or abnormality if you want to be specific), because it doesn't survive well.
4. There is no evidence at all that both water and the first organisms where made together. In fact it's more logical that water, as you said a complex medium, was created first, again through the eventual collisions of elements in space.
5. I defiantly agree there was a flood, BUT, since I'm not in any sort of scientific field, I will instead cite what I've already heard: The flood was localized in Europe, and there is evidence that this took place; Water damage and marks at the same altitude alongside various mountain ranges. So while I do believe there was a flood, it logically was not the entire world, as we just don't have that volume of water. even with icecaps melted. I instead think it was a flood in a large region in Europe. I'll find more concrete stuff later.
6. I can't really say if I'd believe him, I mean, have you SEEN tv magicians? (trolololol)
7. I agree, defiantly make your own decisions in life. As far as a controller, it really feels the opposite here. Yea we are a more stable society in all now, but that's our own doing.
PS, I've also been a supporter of if there was a God, he probably used the big bang. Just sayin. I mean if I was omniscient and omnipotent, I'd get pretty damn bored, and I'd probably make humanity and sit back and watch what happens.
With respect to OP, I consider myself either agnostic or as I recently looked up the definition for, deist. Any deity acknowledged my mankind is not worth believing because it would simply be a projection of the unexplainable onto an non-physical body.
How absurd is it? Space has literally traveled faster than time up to today at least. Maybe tomorrow it will be proven false. But for today, time and space must not exist.
Those neutrinos arrived at their destination before they even left.
Therefore, our language needs to evolve and so does our concepts on just about everything.
By traveled, I'm guessing you mean "Going from point A to point B, where B != A." But if it wasn't displaced at all, it didn't travel.
It did not travel. Because there is no time and no space.
"Space has literally traveled faster than time"
I'm just quoting you. You cannot say the quote and simultaneously use the argument that there is no time and no space. While I understand where you're coming from in epistemologically , you have to separate when you're claiming your basis of no-time/space and the "neutrinos arriving before they left." Or define "arriving" and "leaving." Are you trying to search for a verb that's not a function of time?
Nope! I already stated that language is insufficient to fully explain the concept. To argue over words like that isn't going to serve much of a purpose. An event happened that defies time and space. Our language exists within the bounds of time and space. Therefore, accurately explaining what happened is not going to really sound logical because language does not have the ability to do so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
You're making the fallacious assumption that Atheists are trying to prove anything. We are simply trying to show the lack of evidence in all notions of god. Disbelief is not a dogma, neither is skepticism (not in the philosphical sense), and your argument is invalid. We are not (as I pointed out in the OP more than once) attempting to prove a negative.
If you are trying to show the lack of evidence and ask people to prove their belief in God, you are only asking for an endless debate between disbelief and belief. I mean either my post still applies because you are asking someone to give an argument that is already bound to commit a fallacy. Being an atheist gives you this unfair position of leaving it up to someone else to prove their point or else your conclusion is true. If you are not saying that your conclusion is true and you are in fact just looking for proof, that you know know does not exist, your topic has little point.
Also, I was not presenting an argument, I was presenting information.
I don't want you to think I am trying to be rude or anything, I just think that arguing about religion is pointless. You are challenging their beliefs by asking them to prove something to you, and then you can choose to approve or deny it and then can only provide an equally unsound argument (If you choose to try to prove them wrong, which I know you said you are not doing, but in the event that you did.)
P.S. I am tired and cranky so If I come off as sounding mean or something, sorry
My general belief is that shit happens. My belief doesn't involve a god, but it does involve a spiritual belief; I believe that while things may happen, we can influence the outcomes of certain situations based on doing what is right for not only yourself, but for others.
Yes, that is almost verbatim what Karma is. I just feel that doing good things will produce good results. Our lives are random, but we have the power to make the lives of others around us better through even the smallest actions (giving blood, donating to a charity, etc.). I've never believed that I needed a religion to be a good person; sure, having a religion may give one a moral crutch to do good things, but I have come to believe that people can be good people even without that crutch. I am spiritually full and I'm perfectly happy. I just love seeing people happy and I feel that if I can make one person's day, then I've done my job.
If there is a god, I feel that they will look at my good actions and see that while I've never believed in their existence, they believe that my actions are just and that I sought to make the world a better place for others by imparting my goodwill onto others.
tl;dr I'm a goody two-shoes who doesn't believe in a deity
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Why would atheists care if some religious group wanted to place a cross on the 9/11 site? Why? Does it disrespect the dead atheists? How? They don't exist! And if you're atheist, you probably believe that when you die, you simply cease to exist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Faith is an existential choice made by believers to accept something as true without evidence.
Faith is akin to love, an irrational valuation of one person (or thing) above all others.
If you had evidence it wouldn't be faith, it would be science.
You cannot prove to someone else that your choice is correct; it is automatically validated by it being your choice, and your choice cannot validate that other person's choice.
Anyone who believes in a very specific God, like Jesus, based on evidence, is just a fool who has failed to correctly evaluate the empirical evidence (lol at the people who believe the events in the Bible actually took place on Earth based upon physical evidence).
Any belief in a very specific God, like Jesus, based on evidence, is not truly faith because if new evidence comes in that belief can change.
Az- Your view is gonna change so damn much in the coming years.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Dont worry no war haha, all your points above are the same as what I have read to be scientific explanations and definite possibilities (though once again, no proof hehe). In summary though, every explanation comes down to randomness, chance, luck.
Where I feel it all falls apart is not in the possibility of it happening, but the probability.
If this all happened by chance, what is the probability of each step occurring compared to failing? Perhaps 100 Billion failures would be required to finally have 1 successful step in evolution? 100 Trillion? A number we have not created a definition for yet? I mean by pure chance to spontaneously develop functioning reproductive capacity when it didnt even EXIST before, man...that number would hurt my head to think of.
This may seem like a lot but when we think about the timescales involved and the life cycles of these "creatures" it is possible to have that many. (However I think this is a valid bit of support for a controlling hand behind evolution... the very start of it all.)
With evolution we are also not talking about spontaneous development of anything but rather the gradual change over time of something. For cells to develop there needs to be the correct chemical makeup AND something to hold those chemicals close together to interact. We can produce both the chemicals and the barriers using modern science but not at the same time... ie two different experiments. We don't have the time to wait for both to develop together (which is partly your point) but if we think about the timescales involved (500 million years or so for the first cells to form)... then there is that possibility. So back to how does reproductive capacity develop... a possible theory... as the "cell" grows it gets bigger as it takes in more materials... it stretches the barrier... in most cells this will eventually cause the barrier to break... kinda like when you put more air into a bubble. Well one of these cells has a difference in the barrier that causes it to bulge in one area but not break. The entry into this bulge is small but big enough for things to push through... it grows... the hole where the bulge occured is repaired once the pressure goes and we now have 2 separate cells... is this the answer who knows -- its just a theory... I personally feel that this is where the hand of God steps in... taking chemicals and barriers and making them cells but thats just my thoughts.
Now then, imagine all those billions of trillions of zillions of failures, can you imagine how crazy that universe would be? There would be energy popping off in every direction, even if the world was billions of years old, it would still be experiencing billions upon trillions of failures every year...day...whatever. You would need to have that many failed attempts that it would outnumber the successful attempts, piling up dead organisms quicker then they would be eaten. The world would have quickly been filled with a rotting mess of dead, failed evolutions.
One word - decomposition
How would energy know that life was already in existence and it didn't need to, by chance, continue trying to create more life spontaneously? Every single step in evolution would continue to happen in parallel for all of existence, as it would have no control to make it understand that it can stop now, thats step is already complete.
It wouldn't but as you say the chances of it occuring successfully are minute such that it may occur only once... also once we do have something in existence then that thing in existence will compete with the newly evolved thing and only the most capable one of surviving would survive.
Evolution is still occuring today it is just that over the time line of the scientific observation we struggle to see this. Support for evolution can come from numerous areas -- take dogs for example... hundreds of different varieties yet all the same species... lots of variation... how did that variation come about - through specific breeding choices... humans have been at it for 1000's of years and they are all still the same species but given enough time those variations would eventually lead to animals that couldn't breed with one another and create a fertile offspring and therefore we would have a new species.
I don't see many random manifestations of life around me, or failed attempts at evolution, or anything which would indicate that such an unimaginable amount of chance was driving the development of life? While evolution may have been the method used, I just cant wrap my head around how that would have all happend by pure, uncontrolled chance?
4.2 billion species isn't enough randomness for you?
Failed attempts at evolution are just that failures... and the reason you don't see them walking around is because failure leads to death and no passing of genetic material to the next generation.
Your last sentence is one I can agree with. I can see how it could occur by chance but I don't believe it did... If it did then I believe that we should be seeing more life in the universe. I believe that there is a driving force behind this world and life ... in fact not just behind that but behind the fundamental laws of the universe itself.
As for proof of a God existing... I know the OP won't like this but you cannot prove something like this with empirical science... you can give support to ideas and beliefs but you can never 100% prove something...
If you don't believe me then ask yourself this question... can you prove to me that something will always fall towards the ground? Now the quick answer is yes ... but all it would take would be for something not to fall towards the ground to break that proof... it is why you test the null hypothesis in experiments... you show that the negative didn't happen therefore lending support to your positive supposition.
For the record I am a theist... I think I was supposed to say that at the start but thought I'd leave you in some kind of suspense
Dont worry no war haha, all your points above are the same as what I have read to be scientific explanations and definite possibilities (though once again, no proof hehe). In summary though, every explanation comes down to randomness, chance, luck.
Where I feel it all falls apart is not in the possibility of it happening, but the probability.
If this all happened by chance, what is the probability of each step occurring compared to failing? Perhaps 100 Billion failures would be required to finally have 1 successful step in evolution? 100 Trillion? A number we have not created a definition for yet? I mean by pure chance to spontaneously develop functioning reproductive capacity when it didnt even EXIST before, man...that number would hurt my head to think of.
Edit: Yay I was able to clip your post correctly!
Now then, imagine all those billions of trillions of zillions of failures, can you imagine how crazy that universe would be? There would be energy popping off in every direction, even if the world was billions of years old, it would still be experiencing billions upon trillions of failures every year...day...whatever. You would need to have that many failed attempts that it would outnumber the successful attempts, piling up dead organisms quicker then they would be eaten. The world would have quickly been filled with a rotting mess of dead, failed evolutions.
How would energy know that life was already in existence and it didn't need to, by chance, continue trying to create more life spontaneously? Every single step in evolution would continue to happen in parallel for all of existence, as it would have no control to make it understand that it can stop now, thats step is already complete.
I don't see many random manifestations of life around me, or failed attempts at evolution, or anything which would indicate that such an unimaginable amount of chance was driving the development of life? While evolution may have been the method used, I just cant wrap my head around how that would have all happend by pure, uncontrolled chance?
Oh it's definitively a ridiculous number to try to fathom when it comes to randomness, but my response to the question as to whether we see this chance around us or not would be, look at all the other planets. I by no means understand the universe, but my logic tells me that life and evolution is exponential*. The shear (?) number of planets that have no life (as far as we know), and / or have yet to develop life is huge. Earth got lucky, just far enough away from the sun yet just close enough, blah blah =P (Of course time could have been on our side, from what it looks like every galaxy is moving away from us, so maybe we are close to the center? idk).
*What I mean by that is eventually, when life or some definition of it comes around by chance, the chance of more life rises, just because it could spring off the original life. So here on tiny Earth, there's millions + of different species, quite possibly coming from just a couple randomly different organisms. Imagine how the universe would look like when there are whole solar systems, NAY!, galaxies populated.
Also, the sun will eventually burn out. While I'd love for some deity to float down and take us to a better place, I'm leaning on the side of 'wtf nasa, lets go to Mars already, eh?'
Edit 2: Wow bad edit is bad. Lol I edited into your quote >< Anyway, take 2.
No, the burden of proof does not lie on the atheist.
If you want proof, here's 50 simple ones that even a religious person should be able to grasp: http://godisimaginary.com/
Hit option 41, the flip a coin one, then on the right hand side hit bonus proof 1. Wtf, I didn't know the name Baal was a name from the bible? Crazy lol
Matter cannot be created without energy, and energy cannot be created... Only change forms. Simply put, science creates a paradox in which we should and cannot exist without a higher power. God may not be a being on a throne... He may not even have the capacity to be self aware... But science points to the fact that something sparked the universe/ multiverse/ big bang.
You can try to reply and question god's origin... But that logic is flawed. If he/it lies outside of the rules of realitivistic physics.. then time does not appt and no origin is required.
It is quite honestly more simple minded to claim there is no god than to worship the great pumpkin.
I was force-fed catholocism from a young age and it was only when I get older that I became an atheist because I started to ask rational questions about god (like how different religions believe in different gods, so if one group is right, the other must be wrong and vice versa). Why should my religion be "right" when it was simply the one I was instilled with?
Then I think about ancient/native peoples, every_single_native_group you can think about has a "Story" about their creation that involves gods of some type.
I think this boils down to the human desire to "fill in" the gaps of their own knowledge. Us humans have a hard time just accepting "we dont know yet... maybe in the future we will find the answer". Evolution is a newly discovered answer that wasnt available to these ancient people.
The merit of a rationally thinking scientific person is that he/she can "Accept" when they do not know the answer to something, they can also readily accept evidence that tells them a position contrary to what they currently hold.
Every atheist would immediately believe in god if the evidence existed. It does not.
Also to the guy who said that evolution is random and the chances of instantly creating things is extremely rare - evolution is NOT a random process, this is a common misunderstanding from people who do not understand the process. Evolution is a selection process where slight genetic random properties provide a reproduction benefit that is passed down. Most random mutations are actually bad for the organism, but bad mutations are not passed on. Likewise, the "eye" did not appear in full working form, it was built up over millennia, starting with simple "light sensitive" skin cells and gradually building up muscles/lense cells that gave greater and greater vision advantage.
Matter cannot be created without energy, and energy cannot be created... Only change forms. Simply put, science creates a paradox in which we should and cannot exist without a higher power. God may not be a being on a throne... He may not even have the capacity to be self aware... But science points to the fact that something sparked the universe/ multiverse/ big bang.
You can try to reply and question god's origin... But that logic is flawed. If he/it lies outside of the rules of realitivistic physics.. then time does not appt and no origin is required.
It is quite honestly more simple minded to claim there is no god than to worship the great pumpkin.
All you are saying is that we don't yet understand what the universe was like before the big bang. It must be possible for matter to be created, because matter "exists" right now. We only experience matter changing forms and being converted to energy, but somehow the matter got created in the first place. Our universe may be the result of a previous universe that collapsed back on itself, maybe there have been N universes prior to ours.
God is not a solution/answer to this mystery any more than ancient greeks blaming things on celestial movements.
Also to the guy who said that evolution is random and the chances of instantly creating things is extremely rare - evolution is NOT a random process, this is a common misunderstanding from people who do not understand the process. Evolution is a selection process where slight genetic random properties provide a reproduction benefit that is passed down. Most random mutations are actually bad for the organism, but bad mutations are not passed on. Likewise, the "eye" did not appear in full working form, it was built up over millennia, starting with simple "light sensitive" skin cells and gradually building up muscles/lense cells that gave greater and greater vision advantage.
slightly
I know you aren't directing this at me but still ... quotes from your argument
Evolution is NOT a random process...
Evolution is a selection process where slight genetic random properties...
There is a level of randomness to it just because the variations in the population occur randomly. However you are correct in saying that the process is selective... what it selects for is the best out of a random combination of traits for survival in that environment at that particular time.
In terms of the eye you are spot on (can expand further on this if people want).
Anyway no real argument just trying to help clear the muddy waters slightly.
Matter cannot be created without energy, and energy cannot be created... Only change forms. Simply put, science creates a paradox in which we should and cannot exist without a higher power. God may not be a being on a throne... He may not even have the capacity to be self aware... But science points to the fact that something sparked the universe/ multiverse/ big bang.
You can try to reply and question god's origin... But that logic is flawed. If he/it lies outside of the rules of realitivistic physics.. then time does not appt and no origin is required.
It is quite honestly more simple minded to claim there is no god than to worship the great pumpkin.
All you are saying is that we don't yet understand what the universe was like before the big bang. It must be possible for matter to be created, because matter "exists" right now. We only experience matter changing forms and being converted to energy, but somehow the matter got created in the first place. Our universe may be the result of a previous universe that collapsed back on itself, maybe there have been N universes prior to ours.
God is not a solution/answer to this mystery any more than ancient greeks blaming things on celestial movements.
In all this no matter how many universes there were you eventually have to come back to a beginning... at least as we understand time and space. Thus from a human perspective there has to have been something to kick start all of this... was it a divine creator... possibly (In fact I personally think so)... or was it something else... if so what is that something else?
I was force-fed catholocism from a young age and it was only when I get older that I became an atheist because I started to ask rational questions about god (like how different religions believe in different gods, so if one group is right, the other must be wrong and vice versa). Why should my religion be "right" when it was simply the one I was instilled with?
Then I think about ancient/native peoples, every_single_native_group you can think about has a "Story" about their creation that involves gods of some type.
I think this boils down to the human desire to "fill in" the gaps of their own knowledge. Us humans have a hard time just accepting "we dont know yet... maybe in the future we will find the answer". Evolution is a newly discovered answer that wasnt available to these ancient people.
The merit of a rationally thinking scientific person is that he/she can "Accept" when they do not know the answer to something, they can also readily accept evidence that tells them a position contrary to what they currently hold.
Every atheist would immediately believe in god if the evidence existed. It does not.
Also to the guy who said that evolution is random and the chances of instantly creating things is extremely rare - evolution is NOT a random process, this is a common misunderstanding from people who do not understand the process. Evolution is a selection process where slight genetic random properties provide a reproduction benefit that is passed down. Most random mutations are actually bad for the organism, but bad mutations are not passed on. Likewise, the "eye" did not appear in full working form, it was built up over millennia, starting with simple "light sensitive" skin cells and gradually building up muscles/lense cells that gave greater and greater vision advantage.
That guy would be me, and yes evolution is random. Randomly the gene will mutate and change, and if it helps the organism survive, it persists, and if it doesn't help, for the most part that organism will die and it won't get passed on. Pretty sure that's random, as you said ' slight genetic random properties'. If you want to get technical on the definition sure, but when i step back and see that an organism randomly (ok so there's actually no such thing as randomness in the entire universe, there is always an algorithm that someone can eventually make to predict anything) changes something about itself, that's random! randomrandomrandom
I was force-fed catholocism from a young age and it was only when I get older that I became an atheist because I started to ask rational questions about god (like how different religions believe in different gods, so if one group is right, the other must be wrong and vice versa). Why should my religion be "right" when it was simply the one I was instilled with?
Then I think about ancient/native peoples, every_single_native_group you can think about has a "Story" about their creation that involves gods of some type.
I think this boils down to the human desire to "fill in" the gaps of their own knowledge. Us humans have a hard time just accepting "we dont know yet... maybe in the future we will find the answer". Evolution is a newly discovered answer that wasnt available to these ancient people.
The merit of a rationally thinking scientific person is that he/she can "Accept" when they do not know the answer to something, they can also readily accept evidence that tells them a position contrary to what they currently hold.
Every atheist would immediately believe in god if the evidence existed. It does not.
Also to the guy who said that evolution is random and the chances of instantly creating things is extremely rare - evolution is NOT a random process, this is a common misunderstanding from people who do not understand the process. Evolution is a selection process where slight genetic random properties provide a reproduction benefit that is passed down. Most random mutations are actually bad for the organism, but bad mutations are not passed on. Likewise, the "eye" did not appear in full working form, it was built up over millennia, starting with simple "light sensitive" skin cells and gradually building up muscles/lense cells that gave greater and greater vision advantage.
That guy would be me, and yes evolution is random. Randomly the gene will mutate and change, and if it helps the organism survive, it persists, and if it doesn't help, for the most part that organism will die and it won't get passed on. Pretty sure that's random, as you said ' slight genetic random properties'. If you want to get technical on the definition sure, but when i step back and see that an organism randomly (ok so there's actually no such thing as randomness in the entire universe, there is always an algorithm that someone can eventually make to predict anything) changes something about itself, that's random! randomrandomrandom
Ummmm no you missed the point on this. There is a random component to evolution but this does not make the process of evolution random. Random component <> random process. The overall process steers the organism's DNA towards that which can reproduce more effectively, the overall process does not steer the organism in random directions, this is why we do not have eyes on our a$$ or teeth on our feet. The mutations may be random, but the process of selection ensures that only positive mutations are kept. Think of it like a "funnel" or "direction". The direction is focused by the organisms environment, which is why rapid environmental changes can wipe out species, and why all living things on earth are superbly adept at living in their native environment.
This process is so successful that there are computer programs called "genetic programming" that actually use the same technique to solve a problem. Take any given population of solutions to a problem, measure their "fitness", take the top 20% most fit solutions and "breed them", i.e. take components of each solution and mash them together (with a small % of random mutation thrown in for good measure), rinse and repeat. Eventually after so many generations you will have a bunch of good solutions to your problem. This is not a random process!!!
Completely not trying to start a war here with you, just my thoughts on your points =P
1. Confusion on this is understandable. When the first organisms came about (random fused elements that eventually, randomly combined and formed an 'organism') they died. And they died again, and again. This over the course of so many years I can't fathom. I'll also be using the term eventually a lot, because well I don't feel like googling a better term. But eventually one of the organisms came about, and had the ability to reproduce. I know I know "wtf someone had to have given them that", not so. If their is enough randomness this would have happened, at one point. Now THAT organism lived, and because it lived, that trait stayed with it. Giving every organism it produced the same trait. So on and so forth.
2. I'll first answer this with another question: If there was someone creating everyone, did they just make the pigmys in Africa like that, even before their was an Africa? (pangea, ya!)
No. We also did not evolve from monkeys, rather monkeys and humans are descendants of the same creature. We are diverse because of location. Having evolved and adapted, we changed. Why are some people black, some white, and so on? Just like the organism in the #1 of this post, their genes had a random evolution. Whose to say that eventually a black couple won't have a white baby? Well Because their genes are already set, and the chances of that are ridiculously small. but it could happen. The largest chance of this happening though, would be from the descendant we came from, back when our genes hadn't locked in what they viewed as the best to survive yet.
3. Fish's genes, and for that everything's genes, has never 'seen' the world. Never has an adaption (evolution, w/e) taken place because the cell knew the trees were really high, and they needed a longer neck. Instead, like I've already kind of stated, the genes use randomness. What doesn't work, get killed. That's how bad genes are weeded out. What does work, as random as it is, stays, because well it worked, and it's alive to reproduce. Snakes with two heads? You don't see that gene around very much, (or abnormality if you want to be specific), because it doesn't survive well.
4. There is no evidence at all that both water and the first organisms where made together. In fact it's more logical that water, as you said a complex medium, was created first, again through the eventual collisions of elements in space.
5. I defiantly agree there was a flood, BUT, since I'm not in any sort of scientific field, I will instead cite what I've already heard: The flood was localized in Europe, and there is evidence that this took place; Water damage and marks at the same altitude alongside various mountain ranges. So while I do believe there was a flood, it logically was not the entire world, as we just don't have that volume of water. even with icecaps melted. I instead think it was a flood in a large region in Europe. I'll find more concrete stuff later.
6. I can't really say if I'd believe him, I mean, have you SEEN tv magicians? (trolololol)
7. I agree, defiantly make your own decisions in life. As far as a controller, it really feels the opposite here. Yea we are a more stable society in all now, but that's our own doing.
PS, I've also been a supporter of if there was a God, he probably used the big bang. Just sayin. I mean if I was omniscient and omnipotent, I'd get pretty damn bored, and I'd probably make humanity and sit back and watch what happens.
Nope! I already stated that language is insufficient to fully explain the concept. To argue over words like that isn't going to serve much of a purpose. An event happened that defies time and space. Our language exists within the bounds of time and space. Therefore, accurately explaining what happened is not going to really sound logical because language does not have the ability to do so.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
If you are trying to show the lack of evidence and ask people to prove their belief in God, you are only asking for an endless debate between disbelief and belief. I mean either my post still applies because you are asking someone to give an argument that is already bound to commit a fallacy. Being an atheist gives you this unfair position of leaving it up to someone else to prove their point or else your conclusion is true. If you are not saying that your conclusion is true and you are in fact just looking for proof, that you know know does not exist, your topic has little point.
Also, I was not presenting an argument, I was presenting information.
I don't want you to think I am trying to be rude or anything, I just think that arguing about religion is pointless. You are challenging their beliefs by asking them to prove something to you, and then you can choose to approve or deny it and then can only provide an equally unsound argument (If you choose to try to prove them wrong, which I know you said you are not doing, but in the event that you did.)
P.S. I am tired and cranky so If I come off as sounding mean or something, sorry
Yes, that is almost verbatim what Karma is. I just feel that doing good things will produce good results. Our lives are random, but we have the power to make the lives of others around us better through even the smallest actions (giving blood, donating to a charity, etc.). I've never believed that I needed a religion to be a good person; sure, having a religion may give one a moral crutch to do good things, but I have come to believe that people can be good people even without that crutch. I am spiritually full and I'm perfectly happy. I just love seeing people happy and I feel that if I can make one person's day, then I've done my job.
If there is a god, I feel that they will look at my good actions and see that while I've never believed in their existence, they believe that my actions are just and that I sought to make the world a better place for others by imparting my goodwill onto others.
tl;dr I'm a goody two-shoes who doesn't believe in a deity
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Faith is an existential choice made by believers to accept something as true without evidence.
Faith is akin to love, an irrational valuation of one person (or thing) above all others.
If you had evidence it wouldn't be faith, it would be science.
You cannot prove to someone else that your choice is correct; it is automatically validated by it being your choice, and your choice cannot validate that other person's choice.
Anyone who believes in a very specific God, like Jesus, based on evidence, is just a fool who has failed to correctly evaluate the empirical evidence (lol at the people who believe the events in the Bible actually took place on Earth based upon physical evidence).
Any belief in a very specific God, like Jesus, based on evidence, is not truly faith because if new evidence comes in that belief can change.
Love either always is or never was.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-lashes-out-at-anti-911-cross-atheists-why-do-you-give-a-sht/
Az- Your view is gonna change so damn much in the coming years.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
This may seem like a lot but when we think about the timescales involved and the life cycles of these "creatures" it is possible to have that many. (However I think this is a valid bit of support for a controlling hand behind evolution... the very start of it all.)
With evolution we are also not talking about spontaneous development of anything but rather the gradual change over time of something. For cells to develop there needs to be the correct chemical makeup AND something to hold those chemicals close together to interact. We can produce both the chemicals and the barriers using modern science but not at the same time... ie two different experiments. We don't have the time to wait for both to develop together (which is partly your point) but if we think about the timescales involved (500 million years or so for the first cells to form)... then there is that possibility. So back to how does reproductive capacity develop... a possible theory... as the "cell" grows it gets bigger as it takes in more materials... it stretches the barrier... in most cells this will eventually cause the barrier to break... kinda like when you put more air into a bubble. Well one of these cells has a difference in the barrier that causes it to bulge in one area but not break. The entry into this bulge is small but big enough for things to push through... it grows... the hole where the bulge occured is repaired once the pressure goes and we now have 2 separate cells... is this the answer who knows -- its just a theory... I personally feel that this is where the hand of God steps in... taking chemicals and barriers and making them cells but thats just my thoughts.
One word - decomposition
It wouldn't but as you say the chances of it occuring successfully are minute such that it may occur only once... also once we do have something in existence then that thing in existence will compete with the newly evolved thing and only the most capable one of surviving would survive.
Evolution is still occuring today it is just that over the time line of the scientific observation we struggle to see this. Support for evolution can come from numerous areas -- take dogs for example... hundreds of different varieties yet all the same species... lots of variation... how did that variation come about - through specific breeding choices... humans have been at it for 1000's of years and they are all still the same species but given enough time those variations would eventually lead to animals that couldn't breed with one another and create a fertile offspring and therefore we would have a new species.
4.2 billion species isn't enough randomness for you?
Failed attempts at evolution are just that failures... and the reason you don't see them walking around is because failure leads to death and no passing of genetic material to the next generation.
Your last sentence is one I can agree with. I can see how it could occur by chance but I don't believe it did... If it did then I believe that we should be seeing more life in the universe. I believe that there is a driving force behind this world and life ... in fact not just behind that but behind the fundamental laws of the universe itself.
As for proof of a God existing... I know the OP won't like this but you cannot prove something like this with empirical science... you can give support to ideas and beliefs but you can never 100% prove something...
If you don't believe me then ask yourself this question... can you prove to me that something will always fall towards the ground? Now the quick answer is yes ... but all it would take would be for something not to fall towards the ground to break that proof... it is why you test the null hypothesis in experiments... you show that the negative didn't happen therefore lending support to your positive supposition.
For the record I am a theist... I think I was supposed to say that at the start but thought I'd leave you in some kind of suspense
Oh it's definitively a ridiculous number to try to fathom when it comes to randomness, but my response to the question as to whether we see this chance around us or not would be, look at all the other planets. I by no means understand the universe, but my logic tells me that life and evolution is exponential*. The shear (?) number of planets that have no life (as far as we know), and / or have yet to develop life is huge. Earth got lucky, just far enough away from the sun yet just close enough, blah blah =P (Of course time could have been on our side, from what it looks like every galaxy is moving away from us, so maybe we are close to the center? idk).
*What I mean by that is eventually, when life or some definition of it comes around by chance, the chance of more life rises, just because it could spring off the original life. So here on tiny Earth, there's millions + of different species, quite possibly coming from just a couple randomly different organisms. Imagine how the universe would look like when there are whole solar systems, NAY!, galaxies populated.
Also, the sun will eventually burn out. While I'd love for some deity to float down and take us to a better place, I'm leaning on the side of 'wtf nasa, lets go to Mars already, eh?'
Edit 2: Wow bad edit is bad. Lol I edited into your quote >< Anyway, take 2.
Hit option 41, the flip a coin one, then on the right hand side hit bonus proof 1. Wtf, I didn't know the name Baal was a name from the bible? Crazy lol
You can try to reply and question god's origin... But that logic is flawed. If he/it lies outside of the rules of realitivistic physics.. then time does not appt and no origin is required.
It is quite honestly more simple minded to claim there is no god than to worship the great pumpkin.
Then I think about ancient/native peoples, every_single_native_group you can think about has a "Story" about their creation that involves gods of some type.
I think this boils down to the human desire to "fill in" the gaps of their own knowledge. Us humans have a hard time just accepting "we dont know yet... maybe in the future we will find the answer". Evolution is a newly discovered answer that wasnt available to these ancient people.
The merit of a rationally thinking scientific person is that he/she can "Accept" when they do not know the answer to something, they can also readily accept evidence that tells them a position contrary to what they currently hold.
Every atheist would immediately believe in god if the evidence existed. It does not.
Also to the guy who said that evolution is random and the chances of instantly creating things is extremely rare - evolution is NOT a random process, this is a common misunderstanding from people who do not understand the process. Evolution is a selection process where slight genetic random properties provide a reproduction benefit that is passed down. Most random mutations are actually bad for the organism, but bad mutations are not passed on. Likewise, the "eye" did not appear in full working form, it was built up over millennia, starting with simple "light sensitive" skin cells and gradually building up muscles/lense cells that gave greater and greater vision advantage.
All you are saying is that we don't yet understand what the universe was like before the big bang. It must be possible for matter to be created, because matter "exists" right now. We only experience matter changing forms and being converted to energy, but somehow the matter got created in the first place. Our universe may be the result of a previous universe that collapsed back on itself, maybe there have been N universes prior to ours.
God is not a solution/answer to this mystery any more than ancient greeks blaming things on celestial movements.
slightly
I know you aren't directing this at me but still ... quotes from your argument
Evolution is NOT a random process...
Evolution is a selection process where slight genetic random properties...
There is a level of randomness to it just because the variations in the population occur randomly. However you are correct in saying that the process is selective... what it selects for is the best out of a random combination of traits for survival in that environment at that particular time.
In terms of the eye you are spot on (can expand further on this if people want).
Anyway no real argument just trying to help clear the muddy waters slightly.
In all this no matter how many universes there were you eventually have to come back to a beginning... at least as we understand time and space. Thus from a human perspective there has to have been something to kick start all of this... was it a divine creator... possibly (In fact I personally think so)... or was it something else... if so what is that something else?
That guy would be me, and yes evolution is random. Randomly the gene will mutate and change, and if it helps the organism survive, it persists, and if it doesn't help, for the most part that organism will die and it won't get passed on. Pretty sure that's random, as you said ' slight genetic random properties'. If you want to get technical on the definition sure, but when i step back and see that an organism randomly (ok so there's actually no such thing as randomness in the entire universe, there is always an algorithm that someone can eventually make to predict anything) changes something about itself, that's random! randomrandomrandom
Ummmm no you missed the point on this. There is a random component to evolution but this does not make the process of evolution random. Random component <> random process. The overall process steers the organism's DNA towards that which can reproduce more effectively, the overall process does not steer the organism in random directions, this is why we do not have eyes on our a$$ or teeth on our feet. The mutations may be random, but the process of selection ensures that only positive mutations are kept. Think of it like a "funnel" or "direction". The direction is focused by the organisms environment, which is why rapid environmental changes can wipe out species, and why all living things on earth are superbly adept at living in their native environment.
This process is so successful that there are computer programs called "genetic programming" that actually use the same technique to solve a problem. Take any given population of solutions to a problem, measure their "fitness", take the top 20% most fit solutions and "breed them", i.e. take components of each solution and mash them together (with a small % of random mutation thrown in for good measure), rinse and repeat. Eventually after so many generations you will have a bunch of good solutions to your problem. This is not a random process!!!
xD