There is no god. - Page 107

Skiy · 04-09-2008, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yariv

3 days away and 6 pages behind... maybe there is a god. I'd like to respond to most of the posts because most of them are good. I may be setting a record for length here... your girlfriend can tell you more about that

2percent, after you signed your real name I finally get your nickname - it's brilliant! the argument about 'if god wanted us to know he exists he'd show us, but instead he wants us to believe despite no evidence so that we have faith' (2%, page 101) can be applied to the flying spagetti monster and to santa claus the same as to god. and besides, how do you know this? if god shows no physical evidence, how do you know what you said to be true? you may say the bible. but if the bible is evidence of god's existence, and the bible is physical, then you're contradicting yourself. and to answer your question, science points 100% toward evolution, and evolution is not random at all. if you think it's random you need to read more about it.

Red, your post on page 101 is about the best thought out and written post from the belief side so far. you correctly call 'shenanigan' - I exagurrate and declare premature victory precisely to motivate guys like you to participate - guys that have a lot to say and know how to say it, but usually have no motivation to chime in, because in your own mind you also declare an early victory.

you agree, then, and I quote "that there is no direct, measurable, quantifiable evidence of God's existence." in that case, referring to the very first post on this thread ("god doesn't exist, prove me wrong") we can answer conclusively, with both sides agreeing, that we cannot prove god's existence. which doesn't mean god doesn't exist, just that we can't prove it. this is a major step for your side and I admire your courage, because it takes strong faith to admit this, which most believers don't have, which is why most are reluctant to concede this.

the suggestion that god purposely does not present himself but will if you open your heart to him is the same as 2% which I touched on above. it applies equally to santa claus and leprechauns. it is the quintessential example of a self-fulfilling prophecy or the placebo effect.

your accusation of a persecution complex or self fulfilling inferiority complex is (while interesting as simple freudian psychoanalysis) completely off the mark. I wasn't referring to the attitude of the atheist, but that of the theists, as evidenced in condescending posts like "get over it" and such. ask yourself, what would happen to a perfect presidential candidate if they came out tomorrow and announced that they are atheists... they'd share romney's fate. Kudos for saying this is an unchristian thing to do.

I sincerely don't understand your last paragraph. if I don't believe in god, I should ask him to come into my heart? this goes along with what others have posted to the tune of "if you listen he'll talk to you" or "if you have faith you'll have evidence". this is a complete bunch of bu!lsh!t. I have believed in god in the past, and he never talked to me. maybe I didn't believe hard enough? that's like saying that pray hard enough you'll win the lottery, and if you don't win it's because you didn't pray hard enough.

maybe you misunderstood what "I'm looking for" (U2). not looking for faith, thanks. my heart is fine, no need to change it (with a delusion). rather I'm looking for evidence. I see no reason to abandon logic and reason in favor of blind faith. maybe that's the question we should be discussing - what is the reason for people to abandon the need for evidence in favor of blind faith? do you do this in other aspects of your life? like dropping an alternate even though the forecast is bad?

to quote your post: "wherever you are sitting right now, take a moment and sincerely ask Him to change your heart. Hey, if He's not real, no harm no foul - but if it is time for you to find out about Him, He will answer you." (a variation on pascal's flawed wager.) what I would say to this is "wherever you are sitting right now, take a moment and contemplate the possibility that god doesn't exist. let me know what you come up with"... (don't come up with gaps though... that failed in the past)

judge, if the crackpipe is the wrong place to look for proof, what is the right place? are you saying there is physical evidence of god's existence, just not on the crackpipe? are you saying god talks to you? do you physically hear his voice? if so this is physical evidence of his existence, as long as you are truthful. are you the only one that hears it? do you hear any other voices?

Gabriel12, we're not trying convince anyone, just discussing whether we can prove god exists or prove god doesn't exist. this isn't about faith, it's about proof. by definition faith doesn't require proof (which makes faith illogical). we've defeated pascal's wager (which you refer to) several times by saying that it applies equally to belief in any god or gods, and in aliens, speagetti monsters and santa claus. you're suggesting that not-believing is faith, because it can't be proven. this is acceptable in philosophy, but not in logic. in logic no assumptions can be made unless there is a basis. if we can't prove santa claus doesn't exist, this doesn't mean we have faith in his non-existence. it means logically that we have NO REASON to believe he exists until evidence is shown that suggests or proves his existence.

bigman, people who don't believe in god or gods or supernatural forces are able to face the idea that there is no spirituallity or meaning or pupose beyond what we see and what we make for ourselves. one of the meanings we can manually add to our lives is to create a purpose for our lives, namely god. I accept this but no theists admit this. if you do not have the emotional capacity to face the lack of purpose and meaning, you create one for yourself to ease this. so I agree with half of what you said. you have to choose though because in the question of whether there is or isn't a god, there is no middle.

skiy, whether it's 49-51 or 80-20 is irrelevant because this is not a vote. when galilleo was the only person in western civilization to suggest the earth revolves around the sun, it was 99.99% to .01%, but the .01 was right. the 80% certainly have the right to practice their religion and no one should be interferring. but this reigion should have NO PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT over any other religion or lack of religion when it comes to the federal government, which is required by the constitution to "make no law respecting the establishment of religion." congressmen praying after 9/11 is their right (although they should deduct the time it took from their paycheck if they're paid by the minute

) but creationism taught in public school is a problem, regardless of how many people are christian. when the majority is wrong, being a majority doesn't make them less wrong.

flying145s, the odds of us being here in the form that we know is more staggering than you can imagine. you can call it an accident, I call it a succession of predictable and unpredictable occurances all of which follow the laws of physics. you're right - IT IS AMAZING! explaining it by "god did it" takes away the beauty. some of the occurences were accidental, some were not, but all followed physics. we used to not be able to explain any of it, back in the time the bible was written. now we can explain 95% of our universe (I'm making up the numbers, not important) with the 5% being known as gaps. how the first single cell organism (a collection of amino acids and proteins, all of which can be created in a lab today) started to self-multiply is not YET known. YET. how the universe looked before the big bang is also not YET known (actually it is the definition of the word BEFORE that is not fully understood in that question) none of this calls for an explanation outside of physics. it calls for more research and patience. red already addressed your irreducable complexity reference, and like he says, I wouldn't use that one.

ask yourself if god had any direct intervention in any of the decisions you made in your life. he certainly did NOT in my life. the chance that I'd be sitting at this chair, next to this computer, on this day at this time, corresponding with this set of people, all of which are pilots, on the same airplane, and go to the same web site to read this, is much much slimmer than winning the lottery. and yet here we are. god had nothing to do with it, at least in my case. is it an accident? not really. just statistically improbable, yet it took place.

skiy, just because aussie calls you bluff with 'majority rules' doesn't make him arrogant. smarter people than you or me are trying to solve the questions you mentioned such as the beginning of time, and they may or may not get it done. the same was true about the nature of lighting, 5000 years ago. people like you concluded that because lighting is impressive and we have no physical explanation for it, there must be a supernatural explanation. they then made one up (unless you can explain to me how people in different parts of the world came up with different supernatural explanations, and with different god/s). since then scientist fully explained how lighting works, fully disproving the supernatural explanations. the same could happen with the questions you raised. of course, you included spirits and sixth sense, for which there is no evidence of their existence, and hope, love, and faith, which are emotions and can be explained by psychology, not physics. I can accept that god is an emotion. this means he exists within you, like a dream or an imaginary friend. feel free to call me arrogant, we superior beings are used to it.

you also mention christmas and easter being federal holidays (again) as if that has any relevance. memorial day and labor day are atheist federal holidays. finally, your assumtion that atheism is empty of emotion is ignorant and arrogant.

using israel as an example to show that the u.s. govt is christian is silly, because the u.s govt is non-religious by constitution, and israel is clearly a jewish state, by declaration of independence... these are complete opposites. israel purposely made itself a jewish state (sunday is a weekday, jewish holidays observed by law, etc) and the us purposely made itself a non-religious country (see first amendment and article 6) the federal govt making days in which 70% of the population needs a day off anyway 'federal days off' shows an unrequired respect for christianity, not a willingness to be ruled by it. is the fact that we have saturdays off same as sunday an indication the government is jewish? if so, why are we neglecting muslims? we should have 3 day weekend starting friday, the muslim holy day. and while we're at it, beef should be banned in respect for hindus. incence burnt in the senate respecting budhists... the government is not muslim, it's not jewish, hindu, budhist, and belive it or not it's not christian. it shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. what part of this is hard to understand?

did i set a record for length? welcome to jamaica man.

It's because Hindus make up such a small minority that we shouldn't ban beef just like atheists being such a small minority. Big problem these days is that there is a small, but vocal and way to effective people in the US that have nothing better to do than try to establish rules and laws so no one gets their feelings hurt. It is partly the reason todays' schools are messed up. Dodge ball? Can't have that since it's unfair to the kids that go out first. Graduation prayer? Nope - those 1% in the crowd might have their special day ruined because perish the thought spirituality should fill the event. Boy Scouts' meetings allowed at the schoolhouse? - Nope - the transvestite-dwarf-eskimos support group need that room 24-7 because the Boy Scouts exclude atheists. Bleeding heart liberal also means lack of blood to the brain.

The nation's government shouldn't be calling out to God only in the worst of times like singing "God Bless America" in a time of crisis on the capital steps. I think God might be a little more pleased with an accepted presence in everyday federal life.

AviatorTx · 04-09-2008, 09:41 PM

..............

TheBills · 04-09-2008, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yariv

and to answer your question, science points 100% toward evolution, and evolution is not random at all. if you think it's random you need to read more about it.

Not true. 100%??? If that were the case religion would be trumped, and I think there is more evidence to prove against evolution. Many scientists can prove otherwise, yet they are rarely, hell never, recognized thanks to the media. It all comes down to faith in the end, which obviously you dont see but might be looking for, either way that is OK.

Yariv · 04-09-2008, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBills

Not true. 100%??? If that were the case religion would be trumped, and I think there is more evidence to prove against evolution. Many scientists can prove otherwise, yet they are rarely, hell never, recognized thanks to the media. It all comes down to faith in the end, which obviously you dont see but might be looking for, either way that is OK.

the media? forget the media. you show me one spec of science pointing to creationism and against evolution. show your sources. more evidence against evolution than for it? are you serious? it all comes down to faith in the end? I don't think so. science has nothing to do with faith. they are polar opposites.

2percent · 04-10-2008, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yariv

the media? forget the media. you show me one spec of science pointing to creationism and against evolution. show your sources. more evidence against evolution than for it? are you serious? it all comes down to faith in the end? I don't think so. science has nothing to do with faith. they are polar opposites.

2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia.

So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize any amino acid. Kevin Mc Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:

Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. ...However in the latest studies, it has been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.255

The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere on earth.

The American scientists J. P. Ferris and C. T. Chen repeated Miller's experiment with an atmospheric environment that contained carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapor, and were unable to obtain even a single amino acid molecule.256

3- Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized iron found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old.257

There are other findings showing that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere at that time was much higher than originally claimed by evolutionists. Studies also show that the amount of ultraviolet radiation to which the earth was then exposed was 10,000 times more than evolutionists' estimates. This intense radiation would unavoidably have freed oxygen by decomposing the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which oxygen was completely neglected. If oxygen had been used in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an environment where there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer either; therefore, the amino acids would have immediately been destroyed, since they would have been exposed to the most intense ultraviolet rays without the protection of the ozone layer. In other words, with or without oxygen in the primordial world, the result would have been a deadly environment for the amino acids.

4- At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic acids had also been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable.

Moreover, Miller's experiment also produced right-handed amino acids.258 The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidizing the useful molecules obtained.
Today, Miller too accepts that his 1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin of life.

All these facts point to one firm truth: Miller's experiment cannot claim to have proved that living things formed by chance under primordial earth-like conditions. The whole experiment is nothing more than a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids. The amount and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally determined to allow amino acids to originate. The amount of energy supplied to the system was neither too much nor too little, but arranged precisely to enable the necessary reactions to occur. The experimental apparatus was isolated, so that it would not allow the leaking of any harmful, destructive, or any other kind of elements to hinder the formation of amino acids. No elements, minerals or compounds that were likely to have been present on the primordial earth, but which would have changed the course of the reactions, were included in the experiment. Oxygen, which would have prevented the formation of amino acids because of oxidation, is only one of these destructive elements. Even under such ideal laboratory conditions, it was impossible for the amino acids produced to survive and avoid destruction without the "cold trap" mechanism.

In fact, by his experiment, Miller destroyed evolution's claim that "life emerged as the result of unconscious coincidences." That is because, if the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the conditions are specifically designed by conscious intervention.

Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled "Life's Crucible":

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."259

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth," the following comments appear:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.

That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.

In brief, neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.26

2percent · 04-10-2008, 02:57 AM

1.Bottom line is if this is what your basing your decision off of...
a. it is an amino acid
b. last time i checked its not alive ....
c. even if it was alive, if we give it the benefit of the doubt, did it just chill for a million years waiting on some thing to set it into motion

if I were to have a living cell in a dish with saline, poked a hole in the cell extracted the insides out of it...and put it in the saline.... would that cell ever come back to life? the answer is no.... but i would believe that way before i evolved from an amino acid...then to a single cell organism, then eventually to a fish sprouted some lungs, made my way into a monkey, got a little smarter stood up and then i started working on airplanes...still takes lots of faith even you admit there are gaps, and I say "HUGE ones" in the fossil records...again not here to make any one mad just defending my point and i have lots more...

TheBills · 04-10-2008, 03:34 AM

I know someone already posted this but ill do it again. I'm interested to see Ben Steins movie, which from what I can tell shows how Scientists, in the media world, are almost unable to express views or studies against darwinism. It is also sad that some people and the educational system have accepted this is 100% fact that evolution is how we came to be, when there is little evidence to support it at this point.
Ben Stein is EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

nixon · 04-10-2008, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBills

I know someone already posted this but ill do it again. I'm interested to see Ben Steins movie, which from what I can tell shows how Scientists, in the media world, are almost unable to express views or studies against darwinism. It is also sad that some people and the educational system have accepted this is 100% fact that evolution is how we came to be, when there is little evidence to support it at this point.
Ben Stein is EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

Are you really being serious? Your statement is arguing against your own point. Good entertainment for the rest of us though...

Lenzilla · 04-10-2008, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nixon

Are you really being serious? Your statement is arguing against your own point. Good entertainment for the rest of us though...

Actually, he's not. I think that what he is saying is that theist scientists don't get the media attention they should. I think he's saying there are are scientists that will dispute the evidence for evolution and don't get their say.

2percent · 04-10-2008, 10:00 AM

[quote=TheBills;226564]I know someone already posted this but ill do it again. I'm interested to see Ben Steins movie, which from what I can tell shows how Scientists, in the media world, are almost unable to express views or studies against darwinism. It is also sad that some people and the educational system have accepted this is 100% fact that evolution is how we came to be, when there is little evidence to support it at this point.
Ben Stein is EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed[/QUOTE

i haven't seen the previews until this link pretty interesting....Wink