DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on April 24, 2008, 01:08:26 PM
-
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9083RK80&show_article=1
-
Dang ,...
...and I just bought a "support wildlife" plate last week.
-
Bullard, the plate's sponsor, isn't sure all groups should be able to express their preference. If atheists came up with an "I Don't Believe" plate, for example, he would probably oppose it.
=====================================================================
Now how does that make any consistent sense?
If people want the world to know what they believe in, why don't they just have a little sign made and put THAT on their car?
Why do people want to PAY the state of Florida extra money to put this (or any other message) on a license plate, when they can simply make a bumpersticker or sign that would say anything they wished with no court appearance needed at all?
-
Bullard, the plate's sponsor, isn't sure all groups should be able to express their preference. If atheists came up with an "I Don't Believe" plate, for example, he would probably oppose it.
=====================================================================
Now how does that make any consistent sense?
If people want the world to know what they believe in, why don't they just have a little sign made and put THAT on their car?
Why do people want to PAY the state of Florida extra money to put this (or any other message) on a license plate, when they can simply make a bumpersticker or sign that would say anything they wished with no court appearance needed at all?
I partly agree.
This would be a better money maker for the state if it were more inclusive.
What design would an agnostics plate display?
-
What design would an agnostics plate display?
============================================
How about a question mark?
Why should anyone wish to inform random strangers of one's beliefs, anyway?
Seriously, it unspeakably dimwitted to pay the state to have it devise a slogan and a license plate, when you are free to put any sort of slogan you like on your car for free.
I don't think there is any reason why anyone would want to do this, as (1) a slogan is not going to convert anyone to any point of view, and (2) it might tick someone off to the degree that they would damage your car because they disagree with your slogan.
-
>>How about a question mark?<<
That's a good idea. It would represent such folks perfectly.
-
i have personalized plates
bumper stickers tend to reek of trailer trash, especially more than one
i only put a bumper sticker on for presidential campaigns then it comes right off
so yes I'll have this on my back window for a couple of months this fall
(http://www.tedsta.com/mccain2008.jpg)
-
>>How about a question mark?<<
That's a good idea. It would represent such folks perfectly.
==================================================
It would represent anyone who is intellectually honest.
No one has any proof whatever that God exists. or exactly what "God" is.
There are a lot of opinions, but no one KNOWS. People who say they do are just lying to themselves.
I don't think many agnostics would choose to reveal their doubt on a license plate. What would the purpose of that be?
-
YOU are proof that God exists BO. AND that he has a sense of humor.
-
YOU are proof that God exists BO. AND that he has a sense of humor.
Please explain this "proof" - after all, his existence is also "proof" of evolution. And evolution, not requiring a supreme being, is the simpler explanation.
-
YOU are proof that God exists BO. AND that he has a sense of humor.
Please explain this "proof" - after all, his existence is also "proof" of evolution. And evolution, not requiring a supreme being, is the simpler explanation.
How is evolution a simpler explanation?
If I were looking at a statue erosion might occur to me as a simpler explanation for the shaped stone , since erosion would not require a sculptor. But somehow when I see a sculpture I suspect the stone had a sculptor inits history in spite of how this is not as simple as erosion.
(http://pah2.golding.id.au/images/MichaelangelosDavid.jpg)
(http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/909/50483723.JPG)
-
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_02/statues_468x413.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=494414&in_page_id=1770
-
>>And evolution, not requiring a supreme being,...<<
Does evolution explain the origin of life?
-
How is evolution a simpler explanation?
Many of the building blocks for life are self assembling.
-
Does evolution explain the origin of life?
Define "life."
-
How is evolution a simpler explanation?
Many of the building blocks for life are self assembling.
Oh so you beleive in spontainious generation?
When I see leggo blocks is suspect engineering too , self assembleing is a sophisticated feature , if you saw a machine assemble another machine would you consider that proof that machines need no engineers?
-
Spontaneous creation of life in an infinite universe over an infinite period of time is a simpler explanation than a Theistic one, because one need no have an explanation of where the Creator came from, and when, and why.
Saying he already WAS simply assumes that in some part of the Universe, the rules do not apply, to wit, that portion of the Universe which God inhabits, not subject to time or constant change like the rest of the universe. . That is more complicated.
-
Spontaneous creation of life in an infinite universe over an infinite period of time is a simpler explanation than a Theistic one, because one need no have an explanation of where the Creator came from, and when, and why.
Saying he already WAS simply assumes that in some part of the Universe, the rules do not apply, to wit, that portion of the Universe which God inhabits, not subject to time or constant change like the rest of the universe. . That is more complicated.
God might be larger and older than the Universe , we do not know that the Universe is infinate , neither scripture not science claims this. What God is made of is a total mystery ,what the Universe is made of is 60% a mystery.
If Amino acids like each others company and assemble themselves Christal formation is explained , not life.
-
God might be larger and older than the Universe , we do not know that the Universe is infinate , neither scripture not science claims this. What God is made of is a total mystery ,what the Universe is made of is 60% a mystery.
====================================
God might be an old man with a white beard dressed in Hebrew Rabbi's robes. God might resemble the Flying Spaghetti Monster or your mother, but what are the odds?
Most scientists agree that the universe, for all practical purposes, is indeed infinite, having neither center nor edges. It is made up of lots of empty space, matter and energy, some of each of which are of unknown forms.
Either God has always existed, or you will have to assume that he was created by something a lot more complex than life was. I don't see any alternative to these two hypotheses.
-
God might be larger and older than the Universe , we do not know that the Universe is infinate , neither scripture not science claims this. What God is made of is a total mystery ,what the Universe is made of is 60% a mystery.
====================================
God might be an old man with a white beard dressed in Hebrew Rabbi's robes. God might resemble the Flying Spaghetti Monster or your mother, but what are the odds?
Most scientists agree that the universe, for all practical purposes, is indeed infinite, having neither center nor edges. It is made up of lots of empty space, matter and energy, some of each of which are of unknown forms.
Either God has always existed, or you will have to assume that he was created by something a lot more complex than life was. I don't see any alternative to these two hypotheses.
The white matter of your brain resembles the flying spagetti monster quite a bit [ http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=white-matter-matters ] .
God is made of unknown stuff of unknown parts what little clues scripture gives us about his appearance don't strike me as important.
We have some sort of resemblance to God being made in his image , but I don't know that this means that we can expect him to be humanoid , or if this references our self awareness and cogent nature , I don't even know if this is important to know.
I also don't know what dark matter is made of , nor how many Brames may exist , yet I give Science some credence when they discuss these things , why not ? I can't contradict without understanding better than they do.
-
Define life?
Sounds like you can't answer the question.
Life ... you know. Life, the universe and everything. What is the first organism to have life as we know it, and how did it get here?
-
Define life?
Sounds like you can't answer the question.
Life ... you know. Life, the universe and everything. What is the first organism to have life as we know it, and how did it get here?
Who me?
Life ,in my experience, begins at 46.
-
No, not you.
46 huh? Then I just got started!
-
What is the first organism to have life as we know it, and how did it get here?
"Life" is a smooth progression from the near inanimate to intelligent. There are self-replicated organic acids that most would not consider life, but could be considered alive.
Again, you have to define "life" before I can answer the question.
-
What is the first organism to have life as we know it, and how did it get here?
"Life" is a smooth progression from the near inanimate to intelligent. There are self-replicated organic acids that most would not consider life, but could be considered alive.
Again, you have to define "life" before I can answer the question.
The first iteration of the progression you just mentioned.
-
The first iteration of the progression you just mentioned.
OK. Then I already mentioned it. And those have been demonstrated to form spontaneously in laboratory conditions.
-
If organic acids can replicate themselves, then that would be the key to more advanced forms doing the same.
Then you have to decide whether God chose this as his way of creating life, or that God is unnecessary and does not exist.
-
If organic acids can replicate themselves, then that would be the key to more advanced forms doing the same.
Then you have to decide whether God chose this as his way of creating life, or that God is unnecessary and does not exist.
God can exist whether he is necessacery or not.
Ford is not necessacery to Car , but there is still Ford Cars.
Simple forms replicate simple forms , why would more complex combinations carry advantage?
-
A question mark would be an appropriate symbol for Agnosticism, but would make no sense at all for an Atheist. If an Atheist questions the existence of God he is an Agnostic. An Atheist has concluded there is no God. That there is "probably" not a God is Atheist-leaning, but it is nevertheless Agnostic.
Obviously, the strongest logical position belongs to the Agnostic, followed by the Theist. The weakest logical position is Atheism. I cannot tell what might symbolize that, but it wouldn't seem to me to be a question mark.
-
The first iteration of the progression you just mentioned.
OK. Then I already mentioned it. And those have been demonstrated to form spontaneously in laboratory conditions.
Yes , and the result is life? Or an organic compound that just sits there ?
That the iteration is ongoing is important .
-
Yes , and the result is life? Or an organic compound that just sits there ?
Well, it replicates. And over a large number of replications, changes happen. And these changes sometimes also replicate themselves. And over billions of years, eventually you have a smooth ascension to more complex forms.
Like I said, you would have to define "life" for me to be able to point to the spot on that smooth climb and say "according to your definition of life, that's where it began."
However, that point might be different for others.
BTW, none of this precludes a God from being in the picture - it just does not require one.
-
Obviously, the strongest logical position belongs to the Agnostic, followed by the Theist. The weakest logical position is Atheism. I cannot tell what might symbolize that, but it wouldn't seem to me to be a question mark.
=================================
An agnostic simply is a person who has concluded that there may or may not be a God, since there is insufficient proof to reach a conclusion. This seems to me to be the only scientifically logical position. If we could set up a universe with a God and another without one, then we could observe both and compare them to the universe in which we exist. Since we cannot create universes, and do not live long enough to observe them even if we could, it seems that this experiment is impossible.
I know people who say they KNOW there is a God, because they say they converse with him regularly, but do not seem to be able to record his image or voice, this seems to be insufficient evidence. I also know people who claim that no God COULD exist because the universe is obviously not the work of any great logical mind. For example, would not a logical Deity have designed a system in which we would have an uneven number of months in a year. Planets could describe perfectly circular orbits rather that elliptical ones. Mayne pi could be a rational number.
I don't see how atheism is a more or less logical position than being a theist. Perhaps you could explain why you think there is a difference in more detail.
-
How old is the Earth?
At what point did live occur? By life, I mean something we all would consider to represent life. One celled organizims would be a start.
How did they form? What did they form from? Where did those materials come from?
-
For example, would not a logical Deity have designed a system in which we would have an uneven number of months in a year.
You're joking, right?
-
How old is the Earth?
Roughly speaking, 5 billion years.
At what point did live occur? By life, I mean something we all would consider to represent life. One celled organizims would be a start.
How did they form? What did they form from? Where did those materials come from?
The molecules needed for the basic amino acids were present in the early earth. Laboratory tests have shown that these molecules, with the addition of energy, spontaneously form amino acids. Other tests have shown that these acids will combine to form more complex structures, again with only the addition of energy. In addition, these acids are also found on meteorites, so even if they did not form spontaneously on earth, they would have been seeded here from space (most likely, a combination of both occurred).
Amino acids, in the presence of phosphoric acid and heat, will form "proteinoids" which are cell-like spheroids and can encapsulate RNA or DNA (which are also self-assembling from amino acids). These are your earliest "cells". The original self-replicating "cells" were likely RNA strands with proteinoid shells, very much like modern viruses.
And the original materials? From earlier stellar nova, which will "cook" the needed elements and simple molecules, then disperse them with massive explosions. Our solar system was formed from the remains of one or more stellar nova.
-
How old is the Earth?
Roughly speaking, 5 billion years.
At what point did live occur? By life, I mean something we all would consider to represent life. One celled organizims would be a start.
How did they form? What did they form from? Where did those materials come from?
The molecules needed for the basic amino acids were present in the early earth. Laboratory tests have shown that these molecules, with the addition of energy, spontaneously form amino acids. Other tests have shown that these acids will combine to form more complex structures, again with only the addition of energy. In addition, these acids are also found on meteorites, so even if they did not form spontaneously on earth, they would have been seeded here from space (most likely, a combination of both occurred).
Amino acids, in the presence of phosphoric acid and heat, will form "proteinoids" which are cell-like spheroids and can encapsulate RNA or DNA (which are also self-assembling from amino acids). These are your earliest "cells". The original self-replicating "cells" were likely RNA strands with proteinoid shells, very much like modern viruses.
And the original materials? From earlier stellar nova, which will "cook" the needed elements and simple molecules, then disperse them with massive explosions. Our solar system was formed from the remains of one or more stellar nova.
Remember there is with no organisation and no goal or guidence. These peices are not seeking each other , unless they are. They are made like Lego blocks with intent to fit together the very nature of these chemicals being so made implys planning. How often do Rolex watch parts form spontainiously in a deposit of ores? Why are watch parts less likely than the proteins and enzimes of life?
-
They are made like Lego blocks with intent to fit together the very nature of these chemicals being so made implys planning. How often do Rolex watch parts form spontainiously in a deposit of ores? Why are watch parts less likely than the proteins and enzimes of life?
Organic life is not like the parts of a watch.
Those self-replicating protein molecules are very much like the proteins that you are made of, however.
If the universe had been planned, it would be much less chaotic. Why would a sane creator come up with all the many varieties of cockroach, or AIDS, or smallpox or the Bubonic Plague?
I doubt that anyone would give out awards for human teeth, either. NOT a good design. Not even as good a design as those awful "crystal" cases CD's come in.
-
If the universe had been planned, it would be much less chaotic. Why would a sane creator come up with all the many varieties of cockroach, or AIDS, or smallpox or the Bubonic Plague?
A comfortable world in which Human beings never grow old or sick would be either Eden or Heaven ,These places are optimised for human enjoyment . Perhaps Earth is perfected for the purpose it is serving , perhaps Humankind is not Gods end product. And the development of what we will become requires our struggles.
I am not pretending to actually know this , I am speculateing for the purpose of showing that there are further purposes posssible for God than just to make man comfortable.
-
I don't see how atheism is a more or less logical position than being a theist. Perhaps you could explain why you think there is a difference in more detail.
An Agnostic has not concluded anything. He believes that there may or may not be a god, but that there is insufficient evidence to settle the question. To the question of whether there is a god, his answer is "I don't know." That is logically unassailable. In fact, an Agnostic can, without compromise, be converted to Theism by experiences that convince him of the reality of a god. It would be less logical, however, for an Agnostic to become Atheist, for reasons which the description of Atheism will clarify.
The Theist has concluded that there is a god. His position can be proved. Hold your fire, mates, because I did not say that it HAS been proved. In order to prove them premise that there is a god, the only requirement is the appearance of a god. If that is to happen once the Atheist and Agnostic positions are forever annulled (though again the Agnostic need only amend his position). Moses, Saul of Tarsus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and others all claim to have seen God face-to-face. If any or all of those claims are true, Theism is proved. That a very large percentage of the world choses to disagree with that logic in the absence of replicable, measureable experience only means that many do not accept the proof. But if they (the prophets) are all liars, drugged out or hallucinating, the potential future appearance (or an unknown past one) would still prove the existence of god, and settle the question. So Theism CAN be proved, whether or not that has, or ever will, happen.
The Atheist, last of all, has concluded that there is no God. His position, by its nature, cannot be proved. The lack of any appearance of a god does not negate the potential for an appearance next year, next century or while you had your back turned. In fact, even after death, if we could suspend the paradox for a moment and assume that even a dead Atheist might somehow observe his own, dead, self and determine that "Aha! I'm dead and no god appeared to pull me out of the grave and give me artificial respiration!" he could still not conclude that a god might, at some time arrive and do just that.
So in a nutshell, Agnostism is unassailable, Theism is theoretically provable, and Atheism cannot be proved. Because of the potential for proof, Theism is logically superior to Atheism.
-
Yes , and the result is life? Or an organic compound that just sits there ?
Well, it replicates. And over a large number of replications, changes happen. And these changes sometimes also replicate themselves. And over billions of years, eventually you have a smooth ascension to more complex forms.
Like I said, you would have to define "life" for me to be able to point to the spot on that smooth climb and say "according to your definition of life, that's where it began."
However, that point might be different for others.
BTW, none of this precludes a God from being in the picture - it just does not require one.
In a sense quartz cristals replacate as does any cristal . but do accidentally formed chains of amino acids inded replicate? Got a link for that ?I need to read up on that point.
-
So in a nutshell, Agnostism is unassailable, Theism is theoretically provable, and Atheism cannot be proved. Because of the potential for proof, Theism is logically superior to Atheism.
============================
Well, no. Theism is POTENTIALLY logically provable. Like POTENTIALLY a rat cold be turned into a rodentdroid, or an army of soldiers could be formed using yo yos as weapons.
You could only prove that the technology does not exist to do either of these things now.
A unicorn could appear and sh*t gold ingots. My house could be overrrun by griffins, or velociraptors.
-
In a sense quartz cristals replacate as does any cristal . but do accidentally formed chains of amino acids inded replicate? Got a link for that ?I need to read up on that point.
Formation of some amino acids from the environment typical of early earth was initially done in the Miller-Urey experiment (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html). Later experiments showed that all 20 amino acids can be created in this fashion.
Sidney Fox (University of Miami) conducted experiments that showed that amino acids will spontaneously form peptides and proteinoids in the '50s and '60s, however I can't find a specific link right now.
And proteinoids will spontaneously form microspheres with a selective membrane (similar to modern cells) when mixed with cold water. Again, this has been shown experimentally.
(http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/1116/images/protobnt.jpg)
Microspheres
-
http://link.abpi.net/l.
QUESTION OF THE WEEK
Last week's question concerned predicting intelligent life elsewhere in
the
universe. In a recent paper published in the journal Astrobiology,
Professor
Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia describes a mathematical
model
for the evolution of intelligent life. He asserts that four major steps
were
required before intelligent life evolved on Earth, starting from the
emergence of single-celled life to the development of human language.
Watson
asserts that the overall likelihood of intelligent life hinges on the
probability of each step occurring, which is very low. We asked if
scientists
could establish an accurate method to predict the presence of
intelligent
life in the universe. Thirty percent of you said yes and 70 percent
said no.
Here's more of what you had to say:
"While trying to estimate the likelihood of intelligent life may be fun
and may gain notoriety, the effort is purely speculative. We only have
real experience with carbon-based biology and employ human
interpretations of intelligence. With so many billions of stars and
planets for raw material, it would seem odd that ours might be the only
planet bearing intelligent life. Stipulating that evolution could
rarely
produce sentience, it also would seem unusual and unexpected that we
will
ever find life on another planet, let alone intelligent life. Some
outside
observers might wonder whether life on Earth is truly intelligent,
given
the propensity of the majority of the planet's "intelligent" population
for self-destructive behavior." Bob
"Science has failed to answer a most basic question... Where did the
matter
that the first forms of life were made from, come from? Did matter just
suddenly appear from nothing? When we answer that question, we'll then
know where the first bit of life came from also." Steve Jones
"To predict intelligent life, scientists need to have it first.
Intelligence indicates that creation came from a Creator, as Newton
famously explained with his in-home model of the (then known) solar
system. The Bible does not say God created life elsewhere in this
universe, but indicates otherwise. As for pure science, many others are
right in noticing that man on his own has yet to explain how life
"happened to be" on this one planet...and this is only a sample of one.
A
sample of one is a very dangerous result from which to extrapolate."
Paul Fleming
This week's question concerns the availability of low-cost broadband
service in the U.S. With the U.S. converting all TV broadcasts from
analog
to digital next February, the Federal Communications Commission is
auctioning the 700 MHz frequency band vacated by TV carriers to
wireless and
broadband communications providers. Critics have charged that large,
fee-
charging carriers such as AT&T and Verizon Wireless have won bids for
much of
the available spectrum. Recently, a Silicon Valley congresswoman
proposed the
winner of the next spectrum auction be required to offer free, wireless
broadband service to most of the U.S. population within a decade - an
idea
opponents charge would impose excessive regulations on the winning
bidder.
What do you think? Should the U.S. Federal Communications Commission
mandate availability of free broadband service? Yes or no? Submit your
answer and post your comments at:
http://link.abpi.net/1.php?20080429A12.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-
>>The molecules needed for the basic amino acids were present in the early earth.<<
How did they get there?
>>Laboratory tests have shown that these molecules, with the addition of energy, spontaneously form amino acids.<<
Why? Becuse they just do?
>>Other tests have shown that these acids will combine to form more complex structures, again with only the addition of energy.<<
Why?
>>In addition, these acids are also found on meteorites, so even if they did not form spontaneously on earth, they would have been seeded here from space (most likely, a combination of both occurred).<<
Again, why?
[snip a few more why's]
>>And the original materials? From earlier stellar nova, which will "cook" the needed elements and simple molecules, then disperse them with massive explosions. Our solar system was formed from the remains of one or more stellar nova.<<
Where did the earlier stellar nova come from? What caused the explosions?
-
>>The molecules needed for the basic amino acids were present in the early earth.<<
How did they get there?
The earth was formed from them. And before you ask, it was gravity that caused them to form a sphere.
>>Laboratory tests have shown that these molecules, with the addition of energy, spontaneously form amino acids.<<
Why? Becuse they just do?
Yup. The beauty of chemical bonding.
>>Other tests have shown that these acids will combine to form more complex structures, again with only the addition of energy.<<
Why?
Again, chemical bonding. Just like when you have hydrogen and oxygen gases mixed together, and add energy, you will have water formed.
>>In addition, these acids are also found on meteorites, so even if they did not form spontaneously on earth, they would have been seeded here from space (most likely, a combination of both occurred).<<
Again, why?
[snip a few more why's]
The same reason they would have formed on earth. Addition of energy with the right mix of base molecules causes a chemical reaction that forms them.
>>And the original materials? From earlier stellar nova, which will "cook" the needed elements and simple molecules, then disperse them with massive explosions. Our solar system was formed from the remains of one or more stellar nova.<<
Where did the earlier stellar nova come from? What caused the explosions?
When a sun begins to run low on nuclear fuel for fusion, gravity causes a collapse at the core, which heats up the sun. This causes the sun to cook the heavier elements, and eventually to explode. Stellar processes are all run by gravity.
-
Organic life is not like the parts of a watch.
In what way are they not?
-
>>The earth was formed from them. And before you ask, it was gravity that caused them to form a sphere.<<
Okay, the Earth was formed from them. I believe you. Where did the molecules come from?
-
>>The molecules needed for the basic amino acids were present in the early earth.<<
How did they get there?
The earth was formed from them. And before you ask, it was gravity that caused them to form a sphere.
>>Laboratory tests have shown that these molecules, with the addition of energy, spontaneously form amino acids.<<
Why? Becuse they just do?
Yup. The beauty of chemical bonding.
Any answer can ultimately lead to another question.
Chemicals that fit together just happen to fit together so well that they fall into place as self replicateing machines.
Why should this seem unlikely at all?
Machines that build themselves is a concept Human beings are trying to exploit , too bad we are finding this to be a difficult task.
-
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=experts-where-did-viruses-come-fr
-
Well, no. Theism is POTENTIALLY logically provable. Like POTENTIALLY a rat cold be turned into a rodentdroid, or an army of soldiers could be formed using yo yos as weapons.
Potentially provable to some. Already proven to others. I know God exists and have proved it for myself. Many have the same conviction. But leaving that aside, as it cannot be demonstrated in a manner sufficient for the forum, potentially provable is logically superior to unprovable. The former has hope of proof and the latter has none. No appeal to logic can be made to support atheism. Appeals can be made - and have been - to support theism. Anshelm's Ontological Proof was one such appeal. Descartes' analogy using the definition of a triangle is another. (I've forgoteen the specifics, but it was a pretty interesting argument). Nothing approaching those arguments can be attempted by the Atheist because there is no premise that does not begin with proving a negative. Atheism has no logical appeal and therefore must rely entirely on faith in the nonexistence of an unknown. It is really no more rational a thought process than any theistic belief, however improbable.
Atheists are reduced to demonstrating perceived contradictions in a particular doctrine - which would at best possibly disprove the doctrine - or simply insisting that something which cannot be proved cannot exist (which one might argue, paradoxically, means Atheism itself cannot exist). The Atheist can make no strong argument for Atheism. They must rely on the idea that belief in a diety without some sort of prove acceptable on THEIR terms is irrational. That is entirely subjective. The Agnostic can claim that, while anything is possible, no theistic argument has been proven to the point that it can be accepted. No argument need be made to support such a claim. Even if God revealed himself in his glory to the Agnostic, that Agnostic might claim, like Scrooge, that the evidence of his own senses might be suspect. The Theist can claim, and I do, that they have received sufficient proof of God's existence to know it as a fact.
I am reminded of a scene in "The King and I" where a young prince refuses to believe that a country could be larger than Siam, or that such a thing as snow exists. Though it was beyond the capability of Anna to prove to the Siamese that snow existed, she knew that it was a fact. The Prince was an A-snowist. Anna was a snowist. I am sure that there were others among the Siamese who were Agnostic on the subject of snow. The strongest logical position was the Agnostic. The weakest was a-snowistic. It turns out that the snowists were right.
-
Okay, the Earth was formed from them. I believe you. Where did the molecules come from?
Stellar nova.
-
For each and every one of the philosophical proof for the existence of God, there is a logical refutation of how this turns out not to be a conclusive proof after all. The Holy Mother Church spent centuries on this subject.
It boils down to belief. Either you believe, or you don't, or at least do not accept the belief structure given by some specific religion to be sufficiently convincing. But no one KNOWS for sure. Those who claim to know have simply succeeded in deluding themselves.
And of course, beliefs that (1) once a God created the Universe, (2) a God looks over mankind, summing up a total of point (he's keeping a list and doesn't need to check it twice, being a perfect being and all) he knows who's been naughty and knows who's been nice, (3) he communicates his instructions on extremely rare occasions with selected prophets, (4) he once had or always has had a son, who became a man for a rather short time, all are believable on an individual basis, since they deal with the nature of the Supreme Being as well as his existence. One can, I suppose, attribute the creation of the universe to natural causes and still believe in a Maximum Eternal Moral Authority.
One can even believe the Dystopian view that the Universe was created by an insane woman, which seems to make some logical sense. The most intersting of these seem to me to be the Church of Tina Chopp and the Church of the Subgenius. I think it is possible to believe in both Tina and Bob Dobbs simultaneously, just as one can be a good Buddhist and a good T'aoist simultaneously.
-
Chemicals that fit together just happen to fit together so well that they fall into place as self replicateing machines.
Yes, it has to do with the outer shell of electrons mostly.
It's a universal constant. If you want to know why the universe exists in this way so that it will happen in that manner, feel free to ascribe it to a creator or to the anthropic principle. Either explain it as well, and science cannot explain it (because it deals with existence, if any, prior to the creation of the universe; science can only explain the current universe).
-
Interesting article:
Scientist at Work | Francisco J. Ayala
Roving Defender of Evolution, and of Room for God
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: April 29, 2008
For a university professor, Francisco J. Ayala spends a lot of time on the road.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Chas Metivier
SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY Francisco J. Ayala says that belief in evolution does not necessarily rule out belief in God.
"Let us permit science to enrich our understanding and appreciation of creation. But also let science permit us to still gaze up at the stars and feel the presence of God."
An evolutionary biologist and geneticist at the University of California, Irvine, he speaks often at universities, in churches, for social groups and elsewhere, usually in defense of the theory of evolution and against the arguments of creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design.
Usually he preaches to the converted. But not always.
As challenges to the teaching of evolution continue to emerge, legislators debate measures equating the teaching of creationism with academic freedom and a new movie links Darwin to evils ranging from the suppression of free speech to the Holocaust, ?I get a lot of people who don?t know what to think,? Dr. Ayala said. ?Or they believe in intelligent design but they want to hear.?
Dr. Ayala, a former Dominican priest, said he told his audiences not just that evolution is a well-corroborated scientific theory, but also that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God. In fact, he said, evolution ?is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.?
[.............]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29prof.html?em&ex=1209700800&en=b8553f4d585213b4&ei=5087%0A
-
>>Stellar nova.<<
Where did it come from?
-
Where did it come from?
When a sun begins to run low on nuclear fuel for fusion, gravity causes a collapse at the core, which heats up the sun. This causes the sun to cook the heavier elements, and eventually to explode. Stellar processes are all run by gravity.
-
Chemicals that fit together just happen to fit together so well that they fall into place as self replicateing machines.
Yes, it has to do with the outer shell of electrons mostly.
It's a universal constant. If you want to know why the universe exists in this way so that it will happen in that manner, feel free to ascribe it to a creator or to the anthropic principle. Either explain it as well, and science cannot explain it (because it deals with existence, if any, prior to the creation of the universe; science can only explain the current universe).
I don't think that randomness explains the results we have equally well .
-
I don't think that randomness explains the results we have equally well .
=============================================================
If you wish to compare a divinely created universe with one that happened by random action, just take one of each and compare them.
Since this is impossible, all opinions about what the universe we live in is, is simply speculation, as in, "I don't think that a mudder will win at the Derby this year".
Except you don't even have an almanac with rain statistics to base your opinions on.
-
I don't think that randomness explains the results we have equally well .
The anthropic principle is not "randomness."
-
The anthropic principle is not "randomness."
Perhaps it might be helpful to explain how this differs from randomness.
-
Perhaps it might be helpful to explain how this differs from randomness.
The anthropic principle is a complex idea, but it boils down to "the universe works pretty much the way it does because if it didn't we wouldn't be around to observe it."
In other words, changing just slightly some of the universal constants (like the nature of chemical bonding that leads to self-assembling organic molecules) would render a universe that is devoid of life as we know it.
-
Perhaps it might be helpful to explain how this differs from randomness.
The anthropic principle is a complex idea, but it boils down to "the universe works pretty much the way it does because if it didn't we wouldn't be around to observe it."
In other words, changing just slightly some of the universal constants (like the nature of chemical bonding that leads to self-assembling organic molecules) would render a universe that is devoid of life as we know it.
Neatly sidestepping the idea that the requirements of life are rigorous and many factors have to be just exctly right for us to be as we are through random developments. Makeing our accidental development unlikely.
Whether an accident or not, there is no asking these questions untill we show up.
Does this mean that there is no potential for finding evidence of Gods action ? No matter how unlikely some portion of development might be , we know at this point that it went right.
-
Neatly sidestepping the idea that the requirements of life are rigorous and many factors have to be just exctly right for us to be as we are through random developments. Makeing our accidental development unlikely.
Of course, we don't know how many billions of other universes were created in which the conditions are NOT right for life as we know it.
-
>>When a sun begins to run low on nuclear fuel for fusion, gravity causes a collapse at the core, which heats up the sun. This causes the sun to cook the heavier elements, and eventually to explode. Stellar processes are all run by gravity.<<
Okay, where did this sun come from? Or, where did the nuclear fuel come from?
-
Okay, where did this sun come from? Or, where did the nuclear fuel come from?
Hydrogen and helium compressed to the point fusion begins via gravity.
-
Okay, were do hydrogen and helium come from?
-
Okay, were do hydrogen and helium come from?
The big bang.
-
This is really interesting. I didn't know half this stuff.
My 2 cents is this: Why do some people feel it's important to prove the existence of a creator or God?
Not saying we shouldn't contemplate it or try to figure things out. But really, belief depends on faith. Otherwise it wouldn't be belief.
Can one see an electron? I'm asking. I don't know.
There are lots of things we use in everyday life that we can't see. Radio waves are not visable. The effects are discernable but the waves are not something you can point to in the sky. (Unless I'm really behind.)
-
Can one see an electron? I'm asking. I don't know.
No. See this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect).
-
This is really interesting. I didn't know half this stuff.
My 2 cents is this: Why do some people feel it's important to prove the existence of a creator or God?
Not saying we shouldn't contemplate it or try to figure things out. But really, belief depends on faith. Otherwise it wouldn't be belief.
Can one see an electron? I'm asking. I don't know.
There are lots of things we use in everyday life that we can't see. Radio waves are not visable. The effects are discernable but the waves are not something you can point to in the sky. (Unless I'm really behind.)
You can see a billion electrons , scuff yur feet across the carpet and hold your knuckle near the doorknob you might get to see a flow of electrons . The motion of just one electron won't cause enough fuss for you to take note of it without a sensitive instrument.
The images, which were published online on April 28, 2007, in the Journal of Low Temperature Physics, show scattered points of light moving down the screen ? some in straight lines, some following a snakelike path. The Matrix it?s not. Still, the fact that they can be seen at all is astounding. ?We were astonished when we first saw an electron moving across the screen,? said Humphrey Maris, a professor of physics at Brown University. ?Once we had the idea, setting it up was surprisingly easy.?
Maris and Wei Guo, a doctoral student, took advantage of the bubbles that form around electrons in supercold liquid helium. Using sound waves to expand the bubbles and a coordinated strobe light to illuminate them, Guo was able to catch their movements on a home video camera.
http://www.physorg.com/news100354343.html
-
For each and every one of the philosophical proof for the existence of God, there is a logical refutation of how this turns out not to be a conclusive proof after all. The Holy Mother Church spent centuries on this subject.
That's right, but it was not my point. Atheists have no such theories because there is no way to even attempt to prove the theory that there is no God.
It boils down to belief. Either you believe, or you don't, or at least do not accept the belief structure given by some specific religion to be sufficiently convincing. But no one KNOWS for sure. Those who claim to know have simply succeeded in deluding themselves.
Or, they are correct and you refuse to believe it. You can't make a blanket claim that no one knows for sure, because it is entirely possible you are wrong. If Saul actually had the experience Luke relates in Acts, then he certainly knew for sure. If Joseph Smith did in fact talk to God, he knew as well. I have had undeniable personal revelation, and I know there is a God. You may say I'm deluded, and you may even be right. But at best, you can only call THAT an opinion. I may or may not know there is a God. You certainly do not know whether or not I know.
-
And the stuff of the big bang came from ....??
-
And the stuff of the big bang came from ....??
Issac Asimov wrote a good explanation once , it is unproveable but interesting.
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/5933084/used/Science,%20numbers,%20and%20I.
http://wayneholland.org/fourleafclover.htm
The chapter titled "Four Leaf Clover " is about the speculation that matter and energy can spontainiously come into being in pairs or fours with each bit produced haveing an opposite bit such that all of the produced matter is produced along with anti-matter net charge of the whole set is zero.
In this speculation at the moment of the big bang , at least four Universes were produced , they were massive and equal but two were positive in time two others were negative in time , two were of them were positive matter and two were negative matter , we are in the positive time positive matter universe , but the denisens of the other three would think the same as their universes ran off in the three other opposite directions.
He was not so strong on why this event would have ever occured tho.
-
I have had undeniable personal revelation, and I know there is a God. You may say I'm deluded, and you may even be right. But at best, you can only call THAT an opinion. I may or may not know there is a God. You certainly do not know whether or not I know.
==================================================================
How about Indians who have seen Lord Krishna, Ganesh or some other Hindu deity? People get visions all the time. Protestants see Jesus, Catholics see the Blessed Virgin, Buddhists, Hindus, Farsees and pagans see apparitions with surprising regularity. People claim to have been abducted by Grey aliens, probed, and returned. Everyone has to decide based on faith alone, what to make of such events, don't they. I can only admit that you have experienced something that YOU think is real and YOU think you 'know'.
If I see you stop fopr a stop sign, and you say you know you stpopped for it, then I can safely say that I agree that you 'know' this. Any other affirmations about what you 'know' are conjecture and you claiming to know what happened is valid for you to say, but not for me to affirm.
-
And the stuff of the big bang came from ....??
=========================================
Let us suppose you come into breakfast one morning and a large blob of something stick and green is on your kitchen table.
You naturally wonder how it came to be there.
(1) someone you know who had access to your house put it there.
(2) it was beamed down from the Kilingon Birg of Prey GaKSHewfala.
(3) it was created only minutes ago by the Supreme Being.
Which is the best hypothesis? All are possible (assuming that there are Klingons and they have a ship with that name). But what is the most likely?
In the case of material that exploded and went BANG!, after you say, "What the Hell was THAT!" you also have choices.
(1) It was of such a tiny size it was previously undetectable, but it was always in existence.
(2) It came from some other part of the Galaxy in some way we don't understand.
(3) It was created by the Supreme Being, again, for reasons we don't understand.
Occam's Razor is a principle that states that when various hypotheses are given, the least complicated is usually the best.
I would say that (1) is the best hypothesis. You can't prove this, but if it was created by a Supreme Being, then we have to account for a Supreme Bing that was either created or has always existed. It would be simpler for a small dense amount of matter had always existed than it would for a complex being to have always existed.
If the Supreme Being is one of your smarter entities, he would be aware that we would come to this conclusion, and would not be annoyed for being logical.
I cannot help but think that any God would admire us for applying Occam's Razor.
-
And the stuff of the big bang came from ....??
A singularity.
-
I cannot help but think that any God would admire us for applying Occam's Razor.
The Christian God certainly would, seeing as it was developed by the great thinkers of His church. William of Ockham was a Franciscan Monk. His expression of the ideal was "Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate [Plurality ought never be posited without necessity.]"
I agree that simplisity is good, but in the case of creation, assuming that an infinite God who has neither beginning or end decided one day to snap the universe into existance is simpler than the long process of accidental phenomena which just happened to result in what we have today. That is especially true when we consider the biodiversity we see on this planet and consider how that might be continued in the infinite possible amount of worlds like it throughout the universe. Just considering the universe on the level of galaxies, stars or planets raises enough questions and suggests an awful lot of amazing accidents. Explaining the whole thing by the "singularlity" of a creator is far simpler than searching for a Grand Unified Theory by looking at all of the forces, types and organization of matter, odd coagulations of stardust that make so many known and unknown things that float around our universe.
Much simpler to believe in " . . . unum Deum, factorum coeli et terra, visibilium omnium et invisibilum."
-
I`m probly wrong
but i don`t think there has been any real deliberate research trying to prove or disprove the existence of god.
-
>>A singularity.<<
And it came from?
-
And it came from?
Since it existed prior to the creation of the universe, it cannot be determined.
-
>>Since it existed prior to the creation of the universe, it cannot be determined.<<
In other words, God.
-
In other words, God.
Yes, or random occurrence. Take your pick. Either explain it as well, and it is outside the realm of science to explain it. Science can only explain the current universe, not anything outside of it.
I said this already.
-
I watch a show call The Universe every week on the Discover Channel. This week was about how the universe might end. during the course of the program they spoke about how they had recently discovered that things weren't slowing down as previously believed, but are actually speeding up. To me, this is another example of how things change. One day we know eggs are no good for you, they next we know they're great. One day we know the Universe is slowing down, the next it's speeding up. I'm not sure anybody really knows anything.
-
I watch a show call The Universe every week on the Discover Channel. This week was about how the universe might end. during the course of the program they spoke about how they had recently discovered that things weren't slowing down as previously believed, but are actually speeding up. To me, this is another example of how things change. One day we know eggs are no good for you, they next we know they're great. One day we know the Universe is slowing down, the next it's speeding up. I'm not sure anybody really knows anything.
Yes, I TiVo it.
There has long been a question of whether or not there is enough matter to pull everything back into a singularity (a hot death for the universe) or if there is not enough and the universe will continue to expand until the stars all go out (a cold death for the universe). Neither of those theories had solid evidence until recently.
-
I`m probly wrong
but i don`t think there has been any real deliberate research trying to prove or disprove the existence of god.
That depends on what you consider research, Kimba. In fact, much of human history has been involved with exactly that quest. Science and religion were not always separate entities. Science, however, used to take the existance of God as a sort of given, and the work of determining the make up and function of other entities was merely examining how God went about doing his work. From such a perspective, questioning the existance of God was unnecessary. Today, the concepts have separated themselves. Those who study the physical often deny or ignore the metaphysical, and so again there is no need for science to concern itself with the existance of God. Wise scientists have no interest - regardless of their faith - in proving or disproving there is a God.
There are those who try to prove the correctness of a particular religious belief - creation science comes to mind - but even if they were able to prove absolutely that everything the Bible says is supported by science, it would at best prove that keenly observant historians who passed on stories from thousands of years ago got the facts correct. There is a story in the Koran that God caused a city to be swallowed into the earth. For years it was considered a myth until the city was discovered, right where it was supposed to be, buried by an earthquake. Does this prove that Islam is true, or the Koran is the word of God? I don't think so. It's jsut that this event had a major impact on cultural memory, as one might expect. There is much evidence to support the idea of a great flood that at the very least inundated the middle east. Does this prove that Noah built an ark and saved two of every creature? Hallelujah! In South America a recent earthquake (apparently seismic activity is important in theological debate) uncovered some ruins that greatly expanded our knowledge of, IIRC, Incan history. Turns out there were two brothers fighting for control. Many people followed both brothers and there were wars and atrocities among them. If I were more willing to accept coincidence as evidence of divinity, I might say that this story rather handily matches Book of Mormon history. But I keep in mind that there have been an awful lot of sibling rivalries in history.
Now it may be that either the Koran or the Bible or the Book of Mormon did in fact describe exactly these events. I suppose it would be a little more remarkable if the Book of Mormon accurately described this Incan thing since Joseph Smith couldn't have known about it and if it was only history passed on through the ages that would still make Joseph's claims about the BofM true. But in reality, compelling as some evidence of ancient claims may be, they ultimately prove only the accuracy of oral traditions or the amazing nature of coincidence. Nothing in them proves there is a God, or that this God is the God of Abraham.
In reality, there is only one way to prove the existance of God and that is through the Holy Spirit. God seldom makes a big show unless it is absollutely necessary. The Bible exists only to give us a history and frame of reference of God's dealings with His people and what He expects of us. It is the Word of God to those who believe in Him, but it's just the user's manual for faith. Faith leads to knowledge, and each of us must experience that for ourselves. We cannot be collectively saved any more than we can be collectively fed. Each of us must eat our own bread and each of us must seek our own proof of God. In that regard, research into the existance of the Divine is ongoing, and will always go on.
-
There are those who try to prove the correctness of a particular religious belief - creation science comes to mind - but even if they were able to prove absolutely that everything the Bible says is supported by science, it would at best prove that keenly observant historians who passed on stories from thousands of years ago got the facts correct.
That's like trying to prove that "Gone With the Wind" is a true story by showing the Civil War happened pretty much the way it's written about in the book. The events described can be real, but that doesn't make it a true story.
-
That's like trying to prove that "Gone With the Wind" is a true story by showing the Civil War happened pretty much the way it's written about in the book. The events described can be real, but that doesn't make it a true story.
Exactly true, but since we know GWTW is fiction I can think of a better analogy. Lots of people get their history lessons from movies. They then take as "fact" any poetic license the film happens to take. As an example, there is a wonderfully dramatic scene in "Mary, Queen of Scots" where Elizabeth confronts Mary upon taking her prisoner. Ultimately, Elizabeth is impressed enough by Mary to say something like "If you ruled with your head instead of your heart you might be taking me prisoner." In fact, as I recall there are a couple of similar scenes. These are all very compelling theatrical devices, but in reality Elizabeth and Mary never met. Similarly, whether Elizanbeth;s half-sister and predecessor Mary Tudor (aka Bloody Mary) was indeed any more bloody than her contemporaries (including Elizabeth) cannot be adequately ascertained by an appeal to Hollywood.
And if you want some REAL fiction, try watching the musical "1776." A lot of effort was put into getting accurate historical quotes in some cases - especially the correspondence between John and Abigail. But on the other hand, John Dickinson and James Wilson get absolutely abused. If I were Wilson's descendant, I might sue!
-
Back in the mid 1950's an anthropologist colleague of mine, just out of college, was hired by the LDS Church to supervise a dig in Chaipa del Corzo, in Mexico. The Mormons have this theory that some of the American Indians are descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel (the ones that vanished during the Babylonian Captivity), who came to the Americas and settled in, but eventually the more pious among them were outnumbered by the more sinful members, who were polluted by other Indians, and eventually perished, leaving behind only the gold plates that Joseph Smith allegedly found with the help of the angel Moroni.
The LDS are always seeking to prove this rather farfetched theory to the scientific world, and hired my colleague to supewrvise the dig, rather than someone from BYU that would not be considered a credible source to the "Gentile" or non-Mormon world. Eventually they dug up some cylinder seals, which are pieces of pottery that have glyphs pressed into them which will leave a seal in wax or fresh clay with the name of the authority, author or priest. Cylinder seals are pretty common in societies in India, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica, but some authority mentioned that some of the characters pressed into one or two of the cylinders resembled cuneiform writing, such as one sees in Mesopotamia. The sponsors in Salt Lake went ape, and offered my friend a huge amount to bribe the locals to dig up more stuff at the site of the oldest pyramid, which was unfortunately directly under a the main church, built in the late 1500's, one of the oldest in the area.By then, he had married the oldest daughter of the Mayor and head PRI (Partido REvolucionario Institutional) boss, which gave him a lot of power as a respected anthropologist and authority
My friend was convinced that the resemblance of the images on the seals was a coincidence, and refused to destroy the colonial chuch to prove what he was by then convinced was a bogus theory. So far as I know, the Chaipa del Corzo Church is still, intact, sitting atop the remains of a 13th century pyramid.