There is no god. - Page 112

kidicarus5897 · 04-12-2008, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kailuaboy

absolutely NOT. He created Physics. He created the laws of nature. He created everything and anything you can and CAN NOT imagine.

again, NO!! What kind of god do you actually believe in?

I understand what you are saying (and I havent read the last 1000000 pages) and I hope no one says or said, that they are any wiser, or "enlightened" or more "spiritual" than anyone else. This thread should be to educate each other in the other persons views; and to properly debate the existence or non-existence of God. Not belittle someone simply for their status/career in life. Those who boast about their "so-called status", is a pathetic piece of crap.

at least you're not one to exagerate. kind of like walking on water........

2percent · 04-12-2008, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kailuaboy

I dont agree with ANY of it.

easy man you and I are together on this... i guess i need to be more spacific on the parts i agree on...

Fats Schindee · 04-12-2008, 02:34 AM

Wow. I agree... this is getting interesting! It is (and always has been) such a fundamental question that we deal with, it should surprise no one how emotional some of these responses can get. But remember that emotional often clouds reason (or, in some cases - it seems like - the ability to type or even read coherent English!

). Where to start...

Fats Schindee · 04-12-2008, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2percent

Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists...

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life...

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed...

This is the beauty of science... if flaws are found in a hypothesis or theory, the flaws are modified and retested, or the hypothesis or theory is discarded (even by the same scientist that did the original experiment and/or proposed the theory!) in favor of the next best explanation. This next best explanation used to be God in many cases, but is increasingly less so as time passes and we discover and test new, more realistic explanations...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2percent

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.

Look, it's obvious that you cut and pasted this from somewhere. When you're trying to argue a point and you use someone else's work, it's more credible (and just common courtesy to the original author) to cite your source. That way, others that are reviewing it can see where it came from (I'm not claiming you're trying to pass this off as your own ideas, but...). That's another beauty of the scientific process - peer-reviewed papers, subject to the educated scrutiny of others in the field. And I can tell from the last paragraph in this one (especially the highlighted parts), that this article isn't one of those. I'm interested to see the source on this one.

As to the bolded parts... just because you haven't confirmed that X didn't cause Z, it doesn't automatically confirm that Y did cause Z. And they then go on to talk about "prejudices that are totally unscientific". Did no one else catch the irony here? And I'm also interested to know what these claimed "unscientific prejudices" are for these evolutionists (also - generalize much? All evolutionists? Or just the one to whom this article was debasing?). And lastly, "obvious reality" of creation? Again, just because you can observe Z (in this case, Earth, humans, animals, the universe, etc.), and even are not able to confirm that X ("neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted") caused Z... this STILL doesn't mean you can confirm that Y (in this case, God) caused Z. Where is the obvious reality of creation? And once again, just because an old book says it happened DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. That last paragraph completely erases any vestige of scientific credibility the article may have otherwise had...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2percent

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

Again, this guy is also generalizing his conclusions to that of All of those studying the origin of life. I doubt they all got together and issued this unanimous edict. But I agree with his sentiment... It is hard to imagine
this origin of life. But it doesn't mean that it's not still possible, and that it didn't happen that way. It just has been proven yet (and who knows if it ever will? I'm not claiming that I know it did). It's also hard to imagine that God created life. But, again, this is still a possibility too. It's just a matter of what is more probable... and, even though the odds are so tiny of the big band/primordial ooze/evolution scenario having happened, it is still more probable (based on actual, observable reality, and the accumulated scientific knowledge [that builds upon and corrects itself] of thousands of years) than the creation scenario as set forth in the Bible.

stranger with candy · 04-12-2008, 02:42 AM

God is a homo.

stranger with candy · 04-12-2008, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2percent

spacific ...

specific... another college grad i bet.

2percent · 04-12-2008, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yariv

2%, termites aren't the only example of little change over millions of years. sharks are the same, as are armadillos, alligators and the best example - the cockroach. again, you show sign of not understanding evolution, despite your claim that you read up on it and understand it, even the difference between micro and macro. evolution is adaptation in response to changes in the environment. it's completely within the theory of evolution that if there are no changes in the environment affecting a species, that species won't evolve... very simple. certainly not a reason to believe species are the same today as when they were all created by god.

people, can we stop talking about the cramming of stuff down people's throats and about the reasons for posting on here? it's not interesting and not the subject of this thread. let's talk about whether god exists or not, and why you think so. no need to call anybody stupid or ignorant or to make generalizations. yes I know I've done it too. but let's have an intelligent debate instead.

I think we've had some progress recently. we heard from both sides that there is no physical evidence or god's existence. we heard faith compared to love and hope. can I say then that faith (and god himself) is an emotion? which means it exists within you? (and doesn't exist outside of you?) which is why we (those who believe) EACH have our own version of god? (which is probably similiar to someone influential in our lives like parents and grandparents?) and why different religions believe in different gods? and why god doesn't show himself unless you already believe in him? it all makes sense if god exists within you. any thoughts?

(anything in parentheses can be ignored)

you show sign of not understanding evolution, despite your claim that you read up on it and understand it, even the difference between micro and macro

i threw the termite thing out to get a response.. i didn't say i have a masters in evolution but i do have a good handle on it though... but thanks for the explanation makes sense.. now here is where it gets foggy for me.. i do believe in micro evolution.... but when your saying it goes crossing over into other things i just cant believe that... for example a goldfish will grow according to the size of tank that it is in... if you make the tank small enough and kept the fish in the environment long enough for some evolution to happen generational speaking i understand it will take a long time... but just cant fathom that fish turning into something else..1 it has to evolve or 2 it will go extinct...which is why i can't believe it and since human existance we haven't witnessed anything. .. and another reason is because my faith in the Bible. because it makes it so clear...

can I say then that faith (and god himself) is an emotion?

i guess that is one way of explaining it.. its his presents inside of knowing he knows your heart, your though, the bible talks about he though of you before you were born... but to limit God to an emotion.. you cant do that my emotions didn't create the world set physical laws like gravity in motion.. that is what i believe.. yes God causes emotions but he is not limited to them.. does that make any sense?

EACH have our own version of god? (which is probably similiar to someone influential in our lives like parents and grandparents?) and why different religions believe in different gods? and why god doesn't show himself unless you already believe in him? it all makes sense if god exists within you. any thoughts?

each of us has our own personal relationship with God...i would compare it to a parental relationship... that is totally open though, you cant hide anything from him, so you might as well talk to him about it.. unlike a literal set of parents..

it all makes sense if god exists within you.

it makes more sense if you have a walk with God.. not to say i understand everything but i guess that is what makes faith so comforting. you dont have to make gravity make sense on paper. so i guess what im trying yo say is it all makes sense through faith.. does that make sense....

people, can we stop talking about the cramming of stuff down people's throats and about the reasons for posting on here? it's not interesting and not the subject of this thread. let's talk about whether god exists or not, and why you think so. no need to call anybody stupid or ignorant or to make generalizations. yes I know I've done it too. but let's have an intelligent debate instead.

could not agree more... thanks

Fats Schindee · 04-12-2008, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabriel12

As far as Pascal's wager applying equally to aliens, santa clause, the boogy man, etc. Is there really a comparison of getting Christmas presents from a man in a red suit and going to Heaven or Hell? If you tend to think that these comparisons are about the same, then I think there seems to be something illogical to what reality is for you, but, then again, that is just my personal opinion.

Yet you believe in Heaven and Hell, which have no basis in reality whatsoever! I can't decide if this is just irony or flat-out hypocrisy...

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabriel12

yes, someone only believing based on pascal's wager doesn't necessarily mean that they have true faith in God, but sometimes, their beginning wager belief can help them become more knowledgable in their religion, which finding out the facts, can and usually does, bring them to a more dedicated faith that is no longer founded on a wager, but a true love for God.

I agree with you there (mostly - except for the part about facts. Religions often employ much hyperbole and storytelling, which obscure many facts that may or may not been there initially). But even if Pascal's wager does get someone to a true love for God, it still doesn't tell us anything about the evidence of his existence or not, which is what we are discussing here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabriel12

Not everyone needs this so-called proof that you seem to need. Even when shown many examples of proof, you won't believe. Is it out of stubborness? Is it out of wanting to not follow another? Don't know...you have your reason.

Again, it's not examples of proof we're being shown - it's examples of belief. And there's a difference. A big difference. HUGE. And many of the examples shown do prove to me why you believe in God, but they still offer no proof to his actual existence.

I don't believe in God... but not due to stubbornness or not wanting to follow another. I have no problem following someone or thing if I believe in what they or it stand(s) for. My reason is that it just doesn't make sense to me. The explanations science offers tend to make more sense in these types of questions. It doesn't explain everything, but there's no need to fill in the gaps with God, Allah, Vishnu, or the FSM. If there comes a time when it does make logical, reasonable sense to me by invoking a God, then I will probably believe in one. I know that's why I did when I was a little kid - it made sense to me then. But I also believed in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and that if I ate a watermelon seed a watermelon would grow in my tummy (and I spit those suckers out like there was no tomorrow!). Those also made sense to me then. Just like God makes sense to you now (I assume...).

I'm not trying to make it sound like I'm better than you or anyone else who believes, like some have claimed on here (not about me in particular - that I know of - but just Atheists in general), or that I'm more "enlightened". To take away the negative connotations of that term, I'd just say that we are "differently-lightened" (I know that sounds hokey and PC, but it's just for comparison's sake). We all have different backgrounds, upbringings, experiences, knowledges, and beliefs, obviously. So from all that I have stored in my brain, and the way I process it, it just doesn't make sense to me. From what you have stored in your brain, and from the way you process it, you come to a different conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabriel12

It seems to me that their are some educated people on here giving you [i]proof[i], but you discount them.

Again, see my above response regarding proof and belief. You should have highlighted It seems to me instead, that is more indicative of reality than what actually constitutes proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabriel12

So, maybe you just aren't affirmed enough in other areas of your life that you have to come to express forums to make you feel that you have accomplished something...? So, what have you accomplished and where will this, your accomplishment, lead you?

I'M GETTING REALLY GOOD AT TYPING!!!

No, seriously, I don't come on the pipe to feel I've accomplished something; I enjoy thinking about and discussing these universal, big-picture types of questions. Some people hate it because they know we can't figure it out exactly, so they don't want to waste their time with it. And I understand that (since I do believe that this life on Earth is the only one we have to live, and our time here is finite). But it's only human nature to question our existence. And our existence (as well as that of everything non-human) fascinates me to no end...

Fats Schindee · 04-12-2008, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nixon

Just out of curiosity, what technology has been developed that disputes evolution?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabriel12

Well, indeed the internet is one, being that more people are tuned into the internet, the irrational ideas on evolution are being seen by more and more. Therefore, just by spreading more and more accurate information, more people are looking into actual proof of evolution's disceptions. With more people disputing the claims that evolution is more than theory, less children are taught in the schools that this is fact anymore....which is what I was taught. The teachers weren't stressing evolution as theory, but as a fact that all were to believe.

Actually, I'd say that the ubiquity of the internet is having the opposite effect on our collective knowledge base... we're getting more and more erroneous, misinterpreted, or just made-up information available at our fingertips. And the sheer volume of websites out there make it hard for any constructive editing or actual fact-checking possible in most cases. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry (or Tina, Debbie, or Helen... can't exclude the ladies!) can post whatever the hell he or she wants online. And if it sounds good enough to someone reading it, they'll probably believe it. Much like a lot of the "irrational ideas on evolution" that are being spread around. Read a science journal or textbook - they're actually reviewed and edited by other knowledgeable people in the field... not by some random person with a computer, an internet connection, and some opinion or unsubstantiated information to spread.

Fats Schindee · 04-12-2008, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AviatorTx

Science still can't explain gravity. When it finally does, it wont be that science has changed, it means that science has progressed, and answered another question that it was unable to before. We used to think the world was flat. This is an example of how science has progressed.

Modern science if you can call it modern, is still it's infancy. I won't be around to see it, but I'll bet that 200 years from now, not only will it explain gravity, but it will have plugged most of the holes in the theory of evolution. By another 500 years, it will have most of this figured out. If there is a god... By then they will have a telescope that will photograph a pimple on his @$$.

Embrace science. IMHO, if there is a God... Science may someday be able to prove it's existence.

Well said! Especially that last sentence.