There is a God (Believe It) part deux...

[Finder]

since I am finding it impossible to follow on the other thread.

[razors edge]

1. Can you prove it?

[Zhade]

3. No one can.

No one can prove the other way, but that's meaningless - not being able to prove the absence of something is not as useful as being able to prove something that has been asserted to exist and yet has NEVER had any substantive non-subjective evidence to support the assertion that it exists.

[razors edge]

4. for myself,

i'll just wait till it happens then eternity sort itself out.

[Finder]

7. Well I am an atheist...I was just trying to start a second thread...

to this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=90266&mesg_id=90266


since I could not find new posts.lol

[stopbush]

2. Here's the default link for the armchair theologian

http://godisimaginary.com/

[Boojatta]

5. I don't believe in a God who knows the future.

For example, if God can do things, then God can change the state of things to make it conflict with what God knows will be the state of things in the very near future.

Perhaps there is a SuperGod who feeds to God information about the future and also intervenes to change back what God changed so that SuperGod will not be shown to be wrong?

[immoderate]

21. It's turtles all the way down.

--IMM

[varkam]

6. I don't.

I suppose that would make me a fool. :dunce:

[Finder]

8. Nah, I don't either...

but that 300+ thread is close to impossible to follow.

[Random_Australian]

9. You need to make use of the edit-find function.

:)

That's what I do!

[Random_Australian]

10. Why should I believe there is a God? I can create the world as it is

with the laws of physics, and that forms the null hypothesis.

Therefore you need either:

- Something inexplicable under the current models, but God-hypothesis resolves; OR
- Some explanation of how a God-hypothesis would simplify my understanding of the world (Good luck doing that with an infinitely complex bieng)

[Finder]

11. Hmm, I was trying to make things easier...

because the other thread was over 300 posts. Not sure what your other post re: edit-find meant.

[Random_Australian]

12. I was kick-starting this one.

edit-find is where you click 'Edit' then 'Find' then type in '322' and press enter, then work backwards until you hit a post you've seen before, reading as you go.

[Finder]

13. thanks...did not know about that...

hopefully tomcaleb pops over here.

[bananas]

30. But if you created the world, you would be god. QED nt

[beam me up scottie]

14. No. (part deux)

To me, people who claim non-belief is a choice are begging the question.

If belief in gods was never an option, if one never believed, it's not a matter of choice.

[Finder]

15. I used to be a believer....

but do not feel I chose to be one nor did I choose to stop believing. As I studied religion I found most of the reasons I had for believing simply were not true--rationally and historically. I suppose I could have chosen to ignore certain facts and remained a believer like many others but that is not me.

I still believe in feeding the poor, loving my neighbor, forgiving others because it is the right thing to do.

[peanutbrittle]

16. Is it possible?

Is it possible that the Earth in the context and a member of the ever expanding universe is a freak accident of that evolutionary universal process? Or is there something more?

The revelations, through the history of man in Science and Nature seem to dictate a mechanical evolutionary process in which the laws are set in stone. The complexities of these laws and processes are slowly being discovered through time. The mere existence and interaction of chemical elements in Science seem, to me, to point to evidence of there being something more. Over time there will be more discoveries in Science which will add to the human elements understanding of the complex nature of the universe.

The beauty in nature seems, to me, to be evidence of there being something more. Every time I look at a flower or my pet dog or cat I think of those as being a gift to humans. (Of course my opinion or belief)

If you believe then you have to believe that Earth was created as a nursery for humans who are apparently "created a little bit higher than the angels" but that we are still in our infant form until passing on from this earth to the next stage of being, a transformation of our material energy into a more spiritual type of light or universal energy as well as continuing our journey on to a next world of learning and acquiring the complex laws of the universe. For, "In my fathers house there are many mansions."

It is very difficult for me to not believe that within the huge universe that there are more worlds such as earth nor other elements so as far unknown to man that it would totally blow our minds if known at this stage of material existence.

For me, it is not hard to find it very plausible that there are laws of the universe that we, as material infant humans could not begin to understand, nor are we ready to receive that complete understanding and knowledge of all things universal.

Just some personal thoughts

[Evoman]

17. Just thought I would argue with you for a bit :)

"Is it possible that the Earth in the context and a member of the ever expanding universe is a freak accident of that evolutionary universal process? Or is there something more?"

Yes, it is possible.


"The revelations, through the history of man in Science and Nature seem to dictate a mechanical evolutionary process in which the laws are set in stone. The complexities of these laws and processes are slowly being discovered through time. The mere existence and interaction of chemical elements in Science seem, to me, to point to evidence of there being something more. Over time there will be more discoveries in Science which will add to the human elements understanding of the complex nature of the universe."

How exactly do the existence and interaction of chemical element point to evidence there is more? More to learn? More as in god? Can you specify what you mean?

"The beauty in nature seems, to me, to be evidence of there being something more. Every time I look at a flower or my pet dog or cat I think of those as being a gift to humans. (Of course my opinion or belief)"

Since many of those things were there before humans (flowers, for example) wouldn't it be more accurate to say that humans were a gift to flowers? You appreciate flowers and your pets because you were evolutionarily (not intelligently) designed to appreciate them. What about milkweed? Is that a gift. How about that flower that smells like rotting corpses? What about poison ivy? What about rabid dogs and cats?

"If you believe then you have to believe that Earth was created as a nursery for humans who are apparently "created a little bit higher than the angels" but that we are still in our infant form until passing on from this earth to the next stage of being, a transformation of our material energy into a more spiritual type of light or universal energy as well as continuing our journey on to a next world of learning and acquiring the complex laws of the universe. For, "In my fathers house there are many mansions."

The earth is not our "nursery". We are simply a product of evolution. The earth is not in existence to somehow care for us or hold us. The Earth and the universe do not particularly give a shit about you or any of us. It is not a nursery...if anything, its more like a battle-ground were we are trying to meek out an existence. I think we forget that since our lives have become so much easier. Moreover there is no evidence of a "universal energy" (unless you mean x-rays or gamma rays or nuclear energy, which I can't imagine you do). It is very doubtful we will ever evolve into energy forms...considering the people who are propogating right now. There are no creatures that we know of on earth who are made of energy, and it is quite unlikely that a four limbed primate would somehow become a creature made of energy.

"It is very difficult for me to not believe that within the huge universe that there are more worlds such as earth nor other elements so as far unknown to man that it would totally blow our minds if known at this stage of material existence."

There are, in all probablity, other planets like Earth out there. And many of them may, in fact, hold life. As to elements...mmm...I doubt it. Maybe new combinations of elements?

"For me, it is not hard to find it very plausible that there are laws of the universe that we, as material infant humans could not begin understand, nor are we ready to receive that complete understanding and knowledge of all things universal."

Likewise. We human beings are not evolutionarily designed to understand the very big, or the very small. We have evolved in a middle world, and have a middle world mind. There are many things that we will probably never understand, except for perhaps mathematically. Take quantum physics...its nearly impossible for our brains to understand it. When we think of atoms, we only use model approximations that are nothing like the real thing. We have limits....but maybe we can design machines to help us understand? who knows. Its interesting to speculate.

[peanutbrittle]

18. And this will be the never ending debate...LOL

A clash of beliefs

Science and nature, in my belief seem to point to intelligent design, yes. Intelligent design utilizing the process of evolution.

You state that "There are no creatures that we know of on earth who are made of energy" Semantics here,
as energy is very much involved in cell function and our living existence.
Metabolism, including taking in raw materials, building cell components, converting energy, molecules and releasing by-products. The functioning of a cell depends upon its ability to extract and use chemical energy stored in organic molecules. This energy is derived from metabolic pathways.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)#Properties_of_cells

I really don't believe that humankind has discovered all of the elements or combinations of elements in the vast universe. Agree to disagree

[Evoman]

19. How?

I fail to understand how nature and science point to intelligent design. All the research I've done (and I have done a lot...I am a biologist) has never pointed to intelligent design. Evolution has all but wiped out the need for "intelligent" design. There is no intelligence whatsoever.

And you know that I meant a creature made up entirely of energy....your being a bit disengious. A creature made up of energy and no matter may exist, I suppose. But I doubt human beings will ever evolve into anything like that. We need energy, but we are made up of matter.

[peanutbrittle]

20. Certainly not being in a position to debate you on the scientific

specifics of intelligent design v.s. evolution and as I can tell you are hungry for that debate with someone who may be as knowedgable in your field of discovery, I can generally say that the foundation of my beliefs are based on more simpleton terms. Such as, simply the ponderings of the complexities of the origins of life on our planet, the existence of DNA, the workings of the human mind and body (is spirit the third which makes us whole?)

Personally, it seems amazing to me though that the scientific community isn't more geared towards a leaning to intelligent design. But, again just my opinion from the mind of a simpleton.

[Evoman]

22. I cannot debate anybody who is knowledgable in my field

because there IS NO debate about evolution once you accumulate any type of knowledge about evolution. People who understand evolution and debate it, don't really understand evolution.

The foundations of your belief...what are the foundation of your belief. If it is based on your musings, do you think that your internal thoughts really have anything significant to say about the universe at large? I know mine don't. Thats why we have science. As to spirits or souls...they are also completely unnessecary constructs. They are not needed to explain humanity, emotion, intelligence or anything else we believe to be exclusively human.

The scientific community is not geared towards intelligent design because it is not necessary to explain the world. We follow occams razor whenever it is possible...and evolution, despite contrary belief, is way simpler than god is.

[peanutbrittle]

23. Have you read Turell?

Just curious what your thoughts would be regarding his arguments. The holes in evolution, sudden changes etc.

I have not read his work but looks interesting.

http://sciencevsreligion.net/

http://sciencevsreligion.net/american_problem_of_science_and_.htm

[immoderate]

24. Looks like hogwash.

I'm not a biologist or a scientist. So you might discount my reaction. However it looks like Turell doesn't understand what a theory is. Ho goes over all that in his first section.

In his second section he cites problems and puzzles that crop up in the efforts to understand how evolution apllies to the descent of life forms. He acknowledges that evolution exists, but that it has holes and gaps. His solution is to offer an explanation for which there is absolutely no evidence and has even greater holes and gaps.

He's looking for god, and as many have done, he finds him in the gaps.

--IMM

[Evoman]

25. It is hogwash..I have read enough of the spewings of Turell

Turell doesn't know what he's talking about...he makes many of the same arguments and mistakes that your typical Christian apologist makes. He doesn't seem to understand why a scientific theory is, and he is your typical "god of the gaps" finder. There are processes that are not well understood, but that does not automatically mean god is in those processes. I hate that there are so many people who read shit like this, but have never read a real book on evolution by a distinguished scientist. The reason their are so many people ignorant people on the subject, is because they read nothing but what other ignorant people have written about it.

[peanutbrittle]

26. You seem pretty well set in your stance

Do you think that any studies mixing science and religion are a waste of time? You think there will be no scientific / religious revelations in the future in the fields of metaphysics or religious phenomena?

This group is particularly interesting, seems to be a good forum for open minds and balanced discussion for both evolutionists and ID in the scientific and religious fields.

http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?id=9536

[Evoman]

27. Scientific studies of religion are well worth our time

but mixing...yes, it is a waste of time. I don't know if there weill be any scientific revelations of religious phenomena..but, based on the track record of religion being wrong on everything...I highly doubt it.

There is no balanced discussion between evolutionists and ID...evolution has some credibility in the form of geological, biological, genetic, and chemical evidence. ID has no credibility whatsoever. Debates between religious people and scientists are a joke. One side has evidence and reason, the other side consists of strawmen, false rhetoric, fallacies and an absence of facts.

I am well set in my stance, I suppose, as anybody else who values reason and evidence. If religious people would provide evidence or even, at the very least, some sort of reasonable argument for their beliefs, then I might change my mind. But they never do. Don't think that I'm not open minded...I have probably changed my views 10 times as your average person...when I get new evidence, or a convincing argument, I change and adapt my views readily. It is often those who accuse others of open minds who are the most close minded....after all, consider seriously: Is there any way that you would ever consider dropping your god or religion if someone gave you good evidence (of which there is plenty) or good arguments (of which there is plenty)? If you cannot say yes, then you have no reason to accuse me of being set in my ways.

[cyborg_jim]

28. Religion is obsolete

Two men standing on a hill shouting at each other what the universe is has never produced anything of use.

One man actually looking at the universe for answers about the universe is far more productive.

Religion has nothing to tell us about the universe - it can only tell us about ourselves.

[immoderate]

32. I think you don't understand science.

Science makes progress on observational verification of hypotheses. A good example is Hubble's observations of the red Doppler shift of stars and galaxies, that led to the theory that the universe is expanding. That led to the theory that the universe started with some single cataclysmic event. Scientists proposed that if that were so, then there should be some artifact of that event in the form of a radiation of a certain frequency that permeates the cosmos. Years later, that radiation was detected and confirmed the operable theories.

If at some point, some god hypothesis is inserted, then how could that be tested/verified? What you are proposing is a compromise between truth and bullshit. How can the result be anything but bullshit? When has bullshit ever led to truth?

Now what a fundamentalist theist might say (and, in fact they do say) is that god constructed this situation to fool us into thinking that there was a big bang and the universe if 15 billion years old. So now what do you do? How do you progress if you work on the principle that direct observation is false and superstitious nonsense is truth?

--IMM

[moggie]

29. The "scientific community" needs evidence

You say "it seems amazing to me though that the scientific community isn't more geared towards a leaning to intelligent design". The onus is really on the proponents of ID to come up with useful theories and experimental evidence which support ID: then, and only then, will scientists start to be won over. So far, however, the Discovery Institute has conspicuously failed to produce anything of value. Hmm, I wonder why?

[Random_Australian]

31. Let's get this thread happening!

"Is it possible that the Earth in the context and a member of the ever expanding universe is a freak accident of that evolutionary universal process? Or is there something more?"

A) Not a freak accident.
B) Does not look like there is something more - if anyone had evidence that what we see now will not be governed by laws like the ones we see now, they ought to step forward with that evidence.

"The revelations, through the history of man in Science and Nature seem to dictate a mechanical evolutionary process in which the laws are set in stone."

Aw, not really. But I'll let it pass.

"The complexities of these laws and processes are slowly being discovered through time"

Simplicities would be a better word for it.

"The mere existence and interaction of chemical elements in Science seem, to me, to point to evidence of there being something more"

That's odd. I can say that when I push on something it moves, and you say this is evidence that the 'pushing' mechanism is not doing it, it is something more is going on. I find this most curious - would you elaborate your point?

"Over time there will be more discoveries in Science which will add to the human elements understanding of the complex nature of the universe."

Ok, this sentence is right. But I put it in quotes anyway just to keep you on your toes! :P

Next: Would you fill in the brackets from your quote here: "If you believe () then you have to believe that Earth was created as a nursery for humans who are apparently "

"It is very difficult for me to not believe that within the huge universe that there are (...) other elements so as far unknown to man that it would totally blow our minds if known at this stage of material existence."

What? We've actually, really, found all the elements. I think you mean to use some other word, perhaps.


"For me, it is not hard to find it very plausible that there are laws of the universe that we, as material infant humans could not begin to understand, nor are we ready to receive that complete understanding and knowledge of all things universal."

Speak for yourself bucko - remember we're not all the same.