Is God real?

[Bloopinator]

I'm just trying to figure out is God real? I find flaws with the idea of God. So God knows everything and can do anything? Wow, that God he's some guy.

Thats what makes god such an easy concept for the uninformed to accept.

For example;- something strange happens..what's the explanation?...Erm...I know..God did it.
Where do people come from?.....Erm..God did it?
Big Bang theory? Evolution?....could be rubbish but if they are proved they will become God's chosen method of creation.
What happens when you die?.....Easy....You go to heaven and live with God. But only if you behave yourself and are nice to him while you are alive (getting the hang of this now).

Hmmmm this isn't very satisfying. I've got some easy answers, but I don't have any proof. Oh well let's carry on asking questions and see where it gets us:-

What if something bad happens like a Tsunami wipes out hundreds of thousands of people or a virus kills millions...Who did that? Is god also responsible for that?.....Well he created the earth and the oceans and the weather and he created all the organisms on the Earth.....But why would a merciful God do that? Why would he create a deadly virus? Is he mad at us for misbehaving or not going to church? But what about the good people that die? God knows about them and he knows his virus will kill, deform or maim them..........???????

Hmmm god moves in mysterious ways but maybe I should start worshipping him anyway.........couldn't hurt to be on the right side after all. But which one? Which god are we talking about anyway? Is this the Christian god or is it the one worshipped by the Muslims, the Buddists or maybe the inhabitants of the Amazonian rain forest. How do I know which one is real?...Because the bible tells me so? Ok, but what about the books of the other religions? Are they wrong? Are all those hundreds of millions of people all worshipping the wrong God?......Hmmm maybe we should tell them? but what if they don't listen? Well maybe we should convert them to our religion whether they like it or not...it's for their own good after all.

Ok so we have a god and we think its the right one but where does god come from? How may gods are there anyway? Only one?...that doesn't seem right somehow...Could such a complex being be created out of nothing? If not, who created God? did he create himself or is he an orphan. Is that the reason he is alone? I don't know....Look at the universe, ther is an awful lot of groups. Groups of beings planetary bodies, nebulae, gasses, liquids, elements. Is anything in the universe completely unique..completely alone? Is it reasonable to suppose that the most complex being in the whole universe is completely alone? Shouldn't gods be a bit like everything else? i.e. If you accept that one exists, you have to accept that there could be an infinite number of them out there.

[Winslow]

You're all over the map on this one bloop. Maybe stick to one aspect or question about God for the thread.

I'll answer this question tho': It's polite to address people as sir or ma'am.

;)

[Bloopinator]

You're all over the map on this one bloop. Maybe stick to one aspect or question about God for the thread.

I'll answer this question tho': It's polite to address people as sir or ma'am.

;)
But I don't want to forget anything sir..you are a sir right?

[Winslow]

But I don't want to forget anything sir..you are a sir right?

Ever since I was 19, and I saw a swab after summer cruise.

[Beatnikman]

One of the most intriguing and perplexing things about God for me is his regular strategy of powerlessness. He could act ... but doesn't. And sometimes I don't have any idea why not. And sometimes he seems to supernaturally intervene in the lives of people whom I would consider unworthy (or at least less worthy than I would consider myself). And I don't get it.


I do, however, find a paralell between God's strategy and Superman's. Voluntary powerlessness is such a strange concept for me, yet we see it in Superman all the time. He could rule the world, he could topple unjust rules, he could throw every "bad" person into the sun.

But he doesn't.

I realize that this does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God, but it's been at least a somewhat helpful analogy in trying to understand why God does and doesn't do certain things.

[cactusmaac]

It's gratifying to see someone so young ponder the deeper questions in life.


What if something bad happens like a Tsunami wipes out hundreds of thousands of people or a virus kills millions...Who did that? Is god also responsible for that?.....Well he created the earth and the oceans and the weather and he created all the organisms on the Earth.....But why would a merciful God do that? Why would he create a deadly virus? Is he mad at us for misbehaving or not going to church? But what about the good people that die? God knows about them and he knows his virus will kill, deform or maim them..........???????

According to Judaism\Islam\Christianity, mankind has to stay on Earth and experience all manner of hardships because Adam and Eve disobeyed God and thus got kicked out of Paradise.


Hmmm god moves in mysterious ways but maybe I should start worshipping him anyway.........couldn't hurt to be on the right side after all. But which one? Which god are we talking about anyway? Is this the Christian god or is it the one worshipped by the Muslims, the Buddists or maybe the inhabitants of the Amazonian rain forest. How do I know which one is real?...Because the bible tells me so? Ok, but what about the books of the other religions? Are they wrong? Are all those hundreds of millions of people all worshipping the wrong God?......Hmmm maybe we should tell them? but what if they don't listen? Well maybe we should convert them to our religion whether they like it or not...it's for their own good after all.

Do good works and you should be fine whatever you believe in.



Ok so we have a god and we think its the right one but where does god come from? How may gods are there anyway? Only one?...that doesn't seem right somehow...Could such a complex being be created out of nothing? If not, who created God? did he create himself or is he an orphan. Is that the reason he is alone? I don't know....Look at the universe, ther is an awful lot of groups. Groups of beings planetary bodies, nebulae, gasses, liquids, elements. Is anything in the universe completely unique..completely alone? Is it reasonable to suppose that the most complex being in the whole universe is completely alone? Shouldn't gods be a bit like everything else? i.e. If you accept that one exists, you have to accept that there could be an infinite number of them out there.

Well no, not necessarily. Since there's only one copy of you who will ever exist, why is it such a stretch to have faith in the concept of one God?

[Callie]

I think it's wrong to assume that the uninformed reach for faith as an easy answer. Plus it's not really easy to say who is informed and who isn't. I feel that many religious people know exactly what they believe in. Some of the most fanatical people I know can quote entire sections of the Bible from memory. And some of the most brilliant people I know believe in a higher power. These are the people with years of biology, chemistry, and physics under their belt.

It sounds like you're on the fence. Perhaps you should spend some time exploring some of these faiths that you are pondering to figure out if one is right for you. Or none at all. Or heck, if you want, the Unitarians believe in everything and/or nothing at the same time. ;)

[Cotton]

I believe that God exists.

The reason is because if you think about it:

IF God is real and there's a Heaven, if you were a good person, then dying should be the best thing that's ever happened to you.

[Mike Smash!]

I personally do not believe in a god of any kind. I guess alot of my non-belief stems from some of the same sources (from lack of any evidence to huge leap one has to make to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent being that created the universe, scientific problems with many Bible stories (or stories from other faiths.), but in the end, it's an intangible non-scientific feeling that makes me an Atheist.

My heart tells me that there is no god and it just feels right to me. I largely view god, religion and scripture of any faith as I view other mythologies and fables. That there is a good bit of beauty and truth in much of it, but that it must be taken allegorically and it cannot be used as any sort of realistic or accurate historical document.

[Crinos]

I believe Futurama said it best:

"If you do things right, people will wonder if you've done anything at all."

Recently I was calling around to do my 20 hours of school observation for college. I wanted to get at my local Highschool, but they were unable to facilitate me. So I called the local central school (which is within walking distance of my moms place)m whom told me they'd get back to me.

While I was waiting I called other schools, but didnt get anywhere because the principals were always out or busy when I called. Much to my chagrin.

Then yesterday I get the call that I can use the central school for my observation.

So I didnt even need to call those other schools afterall.

I'm not sure if all this was the work of a higher intelligence, but I'd like to think it was.

[Mike Smash!]

I believe that God exists.

The reason is because if you think about it:

IF God is real and there's a Heaven, if you were a good person, then dying should be the best thing that's ever happened to you.There are quite a few suicide bombers that feel the same way.

I accept that I'm going to die someday and that dying is the most natural thing that a living thing can do, but I've also seen historically how the idea of an afterlife has been used by people in power to silence dissent or anger of people who put up with horrible conditions because they think there's a light at the end of the tunnel. The Dark Ages, for instance.

I think a healthy religious belief system needs a lot more than just a distraction from the fear of death.

[Bloopinator]

It's gratifying to see someone so young ponder the deeper questions in life.
Yeah I'm weird like that.


According to Judaism\Islam\Christianity, mankind has to stay on Earth and experience all manner of hardships because Adam and Eve disobeyed God and thus got kicked out of Paradise.
But why would God give us these flaws just so God could kick us out of a Paradise? God shouldn't be angry about that, God's the one who gave us these flaws so God should deal with it.

Do good works and you should be fine whatever you believe in.
But so many bad things happen because of the influences of religion what if people started attacking me or something because I what I believed in? Even if I did good works?


Well no, not necessarily. Since there's only one copy of you who will ever exist, why is it such a stretch to have faith in the concept of one God?
I never said the God's would be the same. I just said there could be different ones, with different thoughts about everything.
You still didn't respond to the first part of my thoughts.

[tricksterpup]

Yes, God is real, he called me a scumbag the other day.

[Paul McEnery]

I think it's wrong to assume that the uninformed reach for faith as an easy answer. Plus it's not really easy to say who is informed and who isn't. I feel that many religious people know exactly what they believe in. Some of the most fanatical people I know can quote entire sections of the Bible from memory. And some of the most brilliant people I know believe in a higher power. These are the people with years of biology, chemistry, and physics under their belt.

It sounds like you're on the fence. Perhaps you should spend some time exploring some of these faiths that you are pondering to figure out if one is right for you. Or none at all. Or heck, if you want, the Unitarians believe in everything and/or nothing at the same time. ;)
In my experience, that's less the case with biologists, somewhat the case with physicists, and quite a lot with chemists. Mind, that's from a few years back when I was a college chaplain.

The chemists were the ones most likely to have a literalist faith and simple belief in order.

Biologists tend to lose that rather early, as they get out of classification and into how evolution actually happens.

And of course, the whole point of physics is to make up all sorts of thinks in which to believe until we can prove otherwise.

[Bloopinator]

I believe that God exists.

The reason is because if you think about it:

IF God is real and there's a Heaven, if you were a good person, then dying should be the best thing that's ever happened to you.
That's not a reason, that's a theory. What if there was no God and there was no Heaven then how great would dying be?

[Bloopinator]

And of course, the whole point of physics is to make up all sorts of thinks in which to believe until we can prove otherwise.
Sorta like religion....is physics real?

[Crinos]

That's not a reason, that's a theory. What if there was no God and there was no Heaven then how great would dying be?

Well then it would be like sleeping forever. Not exactly how I'd like to spend eternity personally, in fact the prospect of non-existence terrifys me quite frankly, but I suppose it isnt as bad as eternity in hell or being reincarnated into a bug (At least thats my friend Fans sentiment about it.)

However there are too many things that work naturally in the universe for it all to be coincidence.

[Mike Smash!]

That's not a reason, that's a theory. What if there was no God and there was no Heaven then how great would dying be?No better or no worse.

Well, unless there was still a Hell. That would suck.

But I don't believe in either.

And it is really more of a sentiment and a justification than a reason. More of a "what if" than a "therefore".

I have a fairly shaky belief in an unorthodox form of reincarnation that doesn't involve any sort of guiding hand, because it feels right. I may not hold this belief forever, but the idea of just disappearing isn't that bad. I'd certainly take it over the possibility of eternal torment.

This is a debate of perception and belief in the intangible, anyways. None of us can make any statement with 100% certainly anyways.

[cactusmaac]

But why would God give us these flaws just so God could kick us out of a Paradise? God shouldn't be angry about that, God's the one who gave us these flaws so God should deal with it.

He gave us Free Will to decide how to conduct ourselves. Actions have consequences.


But so many bad things happen because of the influences of religion what if people started attacking me or something because I what I believed in? Even if I did good works?

You just have to put up with it. Life here isn't meant to be easy, fair or make sense.


I never said the God's would be the same. I just said there could be different ones, with different thoughts about everything.

Oh, OK. I last encountered the arguments for one God vs many gods about a decade ago, so I don't have much to say here.

You still didn't respond to the first part of my thoughts.

Didn't have anything to add.

[Phrozen]

The Dark Ages, for instance.


Religion was not to blame for the Dark Ages. In fact the Catholic Church did it's best to try and educate at least the upper class. In fact until the high middle ages the most learned place in Europe was a monastery. Read up on the history of the Benedictine Monks and the Church Reformers who came from that order.

You can blame the Dark Ages on the total collaspe of Roman infrastructure and the Germanic elites who were more interested in fighting each other then running a state. Basically, throughout lower middle ages Europe had to relearn what a government is.

[Cotton]

There are quite a few suicide bombers that feel the same way.

Yeah, but that's just like saying, "A lot of nutcases are suicidal." Crazy people have beliefs also, does that make everyone with this belief crazy?


I accept that I'm going to die someday and that dying is the most natural thing that a living thing can do, but I've also seen historically how the idea of an afterlife has been used by people in power to silence dissent or anger of people who put up with horrible conditions because they think there's a light at the end of the tunnel. The Dark Ages, for instance.

If the people in power used the idea of an afterlife to stay in power, that does not, however, prove that there is no afterlife. People in power would use just about ANYTHING to stay in power, it doesn't have to be an afterlife, it could be a scapegoat.


I think a healthy religious belief system needs a lot more than just a distraction from the fear of death.

I think so too.

[Mike Smash!]

Sorta like religion....is physics real?Well, they work in directly opposite ways.

Physics and science start with a question and work to eliminate possibilities to come up with the best possible answer, while even more people continue to eliminate even more possibilities to revise past theories and even past answers. Basically the more we learn, the more realize we have yet to learn. And while everything in science is a "theory", these theories are very well ground in collected data, require alot of proof and are refined. The Earth travelling around the sun is a "theory".

Religion is the opposite in most cases. It begins with the answer and works backwards to justify that answer with retroactive evidence and doesn't normally welcome further study to change, revise or eliminate past answers. Any gaps in the evidence are filled in with faith and "mysterious" ways.

[cactusmaac]

Religion was not to blame for the Dark Ages. In fact the Catholic Church did it's best to try and educate at least the upper class. In fact until the high middle ages the most learned place in Europe was a monastery. Read up on the history of the Benedictine Monks and the Church Reformers who came from that order.

You can blame the Dark Ages on the total collaspe of Roman infrastructure and the Germanic elites who were more interested in fighting each other then running a state. Basically, throughout lower middle ages Europe had to relearn what a government is.

The Dark Ages was a nice bit of PR put about by Protestants who wanted to dump on the old order.

[Phrozen]

The Dark Ages was a nice bit of PR put about by Protestants who wanted to dump on the old order.

Actually, by Reinessance Italian Humanists.

[Mike Smash!]

Religion was not to blame for the Dark Ages. In fact the Catholic Church did it's best to try and educate at least the upper class. In fact until the high middle ages the most learned place in Europe was a monastery. Read up on the history of the Benedictine Monks and the Church Reformers who came from that order.

You can blame the Dark Ages on the total collaspe of Roman infrastructure and the Germanic elites who were more interested in fighting each other then running a state. Basically, throughout lower middle ages Europe had to relearn what a government is.I didn't say any of that.

What I was saying was that people in power -- like in the Dark Ages -- have use that belief in an afterlife to keep people under them docile and not to demand more from them. Like the upper class during the Dark Ages,.

I did not, at any time, blame the Dark Ages on religion. Alot of knowledge that fell between cracks at that time was saved by both Celtic monks and Muslim scholars.

[Bloopinator]

You just have to put up with it. Life here isn't meant to be easy, fair or make sense.
How is it not here to make sence? We understand many things and things we don't understand we eventually understand. If we didn't understand things the world would come to almost chaos or maybe just chaos!

[Bloopinator]

Well, they work in directly opposite ways.

Physics and science start with a question and work to eliminate possibilities to come up with the best possible answer, while even more people continue to eliminate even more possibilities to revise past theories and even past answers. Basically the more we learn, the more realize we have yet to learn. And while everything in science is a "theory", these theories are very well ground in collected data, require alot of proof and are refined. The Earth travelling around the sun is a "theory".

Religion is the opposite in most cases. It begins with the answer and works backwards to justify that answer with retroactive evidence and doesn't normally welcome further study to change, revise or eliminate past answers. Any gaps in the evidence are filled in with faith and "mysterious" ways.
True. *ten characters*

[Xetal]

How is it not here to make sence? We understand many things and things we don't understand we eventually understand. If we didn't understand things the world would come to almost chaos or maybe just chaos!

There again if you understood it all, you could get promoted to godhood. Especially if you understood God while you were about it.

You either have faith in God or you don't. 'Proving' Him scientifically or logically makes you more than Him, so you can't do it - by definition. Other 'proofs' believers believe boil down to their faith - viewed logically or scientifically, anyway.

[Arrjay]

Okay Bloop.

I'm going to answer your question to the best of my ability.

Hopefully I will be able to do so without turning this entire thread into a flame war. When it comes to topics of religion I often have trouble with that. I will do my best to explain what my opinion of all this is without doing so. Yeah.

When I think about heavy stuff like this I try to think of what kind of real world effect it has. To do this I try to think of what it does for the individual and what it does for people as the massive group that we are. It's tough man. It really is.

For example, in terms of the individual it seems that religion provides a source of strength. Which is positive. That usually results in confidence for that person which is also positive and almost always attractive. That individual gains confidence and strength for their beliefs. It sounds great really.

Then I start to think about the effect that religion has on humanity as a whole. In truth, it starts a hell of a lot of war. Seriously. A heinous amount of people in history have been persecuted and generally experienced negativity on a grand scale because they didn't believe in the same thing as someone else. Which is pretty fucked up. This group of people believe in this god. That group of people believe in that god. They disagree and eventually defecation hits the oscillation and a whole bunch of people die because of something that neither party can actually prove. Which seems to be utterly ridiculous.

I seriously think that the only thing religion provides on a mass scale is war.

And a freakin' lot of it. Take a good look at history & you'll see it for yourself.

Do I believe that there is a god? Anywhere? Of any sort? Nope. Sorry.

So that you can make a solid, positive decision about this you'll need to investigate sources outside of CBR. You need to decide within yourself what you feel and I wish you the best of luck with that.

You're taking a good step in questioning things like this I think.

Cheers!

[Ant-Man]

Whether you "believe" in something or not, it does not change the reality of it's existaece or the truth. You may "believe" that if you jump off the Empire State Building in a head first plunge, that you will not smash into bloody pieces, but the truth is you will. You may "believe" that 2+2=5, but the truth is 2+2=4. God is the "creator" and man is the "created", so the "created" can not comprehend why the "creator" decides to do what he does. Our human pea-brains have no real comprehension of the true power of the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, God almighty himself. The entire Universe as we know it "screams" intellegent design. Simple science tells us that over time matter breaks down and corrodes, not gets bigger and better. So if the entire universe evolved over Billions of years, then that would mean that matter would have had to over time grow greater instead of break down, which is not scientiffically possible. And the mathimatical chances for evolution are about the same as you or I taking a bunch of pieces of metal shards from a junk yard, putting them in a shoebox, shaking the shoebox rappidly for billions of years, and then expect a fully functioning Rolex watch to be created in this process. In other words, it is not going to happen. If something as simple as a wrist watch can not be created by evolution, why would anybody believe the entire Universe and all life as we know it would be created by random evolutionary chance? It does not make good scientific sense? So in conclusion, whether you want to believe in God or not, it does not change reality in the slightest, and the reality is that God is more real than you or I are.

[Arrjay]

Whether you "believe" in something or not, it does not change the reality of it's existaece or the truth. You may "believe" that if you jump off the Empire State Building in a head first plunge, that you will not smash into bloody pieces, but the truth is you will. You may "believe" that 2+2=5, but the truth is 2+2=4. God is the "creator" and man is the "created", so the "created" can not comprehend why the "creator" decides to do what he does. Our human pea-brains have no real comprehension of the true power of the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, God almighty himself. The entire Universe as we know it "screams" intellegent design. Simple science tells us that over time matter breaks down and corrodes, not gets bigger and better. So if the entire universe evolved over Billions of years, then that would mean that matter would have had to over time grow greater instead of break down, which is not scientiffically possible. And the mathimatical chances for evolution are about the same as you or I taking a bunch of pieces of metal shards from a junk yard, putting them in a shoebox, shaking the shoebox rappidly for billions of years, and then expect a fully functioning Rolex watch to be created in this process. In other words, it is not going to happen. If something as simple as a wrist watch can not be created by evolution, why would anybody believe the entire Universe and all life as we know it would be created by random evolutionary chance? It does not make good scientific sense? So in conclusion, whether you want to believe in God or not, it does not change reality in the slightest, and the reality is that God is more real than you or I are.

In my opinion it comes down to one question:

Is there more evidence supporting the existence of a higher being or is there more supporting the idea that there is no higher being.

Evidence is key if only for the fact that assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.

[Bloopinator]

Simple science tells us that over time matter breaks down and corrodes, not gets bigger and better. So if the entire universe evolved over Billions of years, then that would mean that matter would have had to over time grow greater instead of break down, which is not scientiffically possible.
How do we know if it's scientifically possible? You said we have puny pea-minds, maybe the "creator" made it that way and our tiny pea-brained minds can't understand that. Also technically when things decompose or corrode it becomes dirt or something so if we left the world alone our planet might be bigger. Why can't that happen with an universe over the course of some Billion years?

And the mathimatical chances for evolution are about the same as you or I taking a bunch of pieces of metal shards from a junk yard, putting them in a shoebox, shaking the shoebox rappidly for billions of years, and then expect a fully functioning Rolex watch to be created in this process. In other words, it is not going to happen. If something as simple as a wrist watch can not be created by evolution, why would anybody believe the entire Universe and all life as we know it would be created by random evolutionary chance? It does not make good scientific sense? So in conclusion, whether you want to believe in God or not, it does not change reality in the slightest, and the reality is that God is more real than you or I are.
The difference between a Rolex and metal shards compared to us is that we're living. Over millions of years why can't our bodies change if we're living? On a different note do you think our perception of God is right?

[Bloopinator]

Okay Bloop.

I'm going to answer your question to the best of my ability.

Hopefully I will be able to do so without turning this entire thread into a flame war. When it comes to topics of religion I often have trouble with that. I will do my best to explain what my opinion of all this is without doing so. Yeah.

When I think about heavy stuff like this I try to think of what kind of real world effect it has.To do this I try to think of what it does for the individual and what it does for people as the massive group that we are. It's tough man. It really is.

For example, in terms of the individual it seems that religion provides a source of strength. Which is positive. That usually results in confidence for that person which is also positive and almost always attractive. That individual gains confidence and strength for their beliefs. It sounds great really.

Then I start to think about the effect that religion has on humanity as a whole. In truth, it starts a hell of a lot of war. Seriously. A heinous amount of people in history have been persecuted and generally experienced negativity on a grand scale because they didn't berlive in the same thing as someone else. Which is pretty fucked up. This group of people believe in this god. That group of people belive in that god. They disagree and eventually defecation hits the osciillation and a whole bunch of people die because of something that neither party can actually prove. Which seems to be utterly ridiculous.

I seriously think that the only thing religion provides on a mass scale is war.

And a freakin' lot of it. Take a good look it history & you'll see it for yourself.

Do I believe that there is a god? Anywhere? Of any sort? Nope. Sorry.

So that you can make a solid, positive decision about this you'll need to investigate sources outside of CBR. You need to decide within yourself what you feel and I whish you the best of luck with that.

You're taking a good step in questioning things like this I think.

Cheers!
I agreed with almost everything you said, and you didn't do that bad.

[AndyAnime]

Ah, the old "evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics" argument... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I consider myself something of a deist. That is, I believe there was a God who may have created the universe, but not in the way depicted in the Bible. I personally believe the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor for the development of human intelligence, and that God didn't so much "create" the universe as "program" it: He put some parameters in place, then metaphorically wound up the universe and watched it go.

Anyway, I think God doesn't intervene in human affairs much (if at all) because He thinks we can handle things ourselves if we put our minds to it. Things like hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes just happen, and it's not God's fault we build our cities and towns in places where they're likely to happen.

Really, I'm not so hot with words, and it's kind of hard for me to adequately explain my beliefs in message-board format.

[Ant-Man]

The difference between a Rolex and metal shards compared to us is that we're living. Over millions of years why can't our bodies change if we're living? On a different note do you think our perception of God is right?

If a fully functioning wrist watch can not evolve from a metal shard over billions or even millions of years, then how could an entire planet evolve from dust particles? And the human central nervous system, human brain, and even the human eye, is far more complicated in structure and function than a wrist watch is, so how could they have evolved from some kind of green slime? It takes far more faith to believe that the entire Universe evolved from nothing, than it does to believe that it was created by something.

[Mike Smith]

A few things from my view on the subject of God...

First, when trying to figure the nature of a universal God, be sure not to fall into invoking "The God of the Gaps." Often people look toward the supernatural, or the unexplained, as direct interaction from God. When our human knowledge can sufficiently explain such an event, it loses its mysticism and people disassociate God from it altogether, thus placing a limit on God. In ancient times this philisophical blunder occured when dealing with extremes in nature, and in modern times it has occurred with things live evolution, intricate knowledge in genetics, etc. People believe that since human knowledge can explain these events in a scientific fashion, it automatically dispels any mystical nature or purpose of these events which would give evidence to God. This way of thinking, in my opinion, is errant and largely the fault of modern religions/televangelists.

There is no reason why an overarching God could not have ordered evolution to occur via genetic mutation or environmentally coerced speciation. If it comes to it, there is no reason why God could not have began everything with "A Big Bang." Some modern religious scholars would have you think otherwise, but then again, that is falling into the trap of limiting God to a box (i.e., God of Gaps).

If you choose to have FAITH in a God as universal creator, remember that, necessarily, this God created all in the universe. Creating all in the universe entails every physical object you see, every molecule/protein/gene you can map or infer, every evolutionary chart, and each aspect of abstract ideas like "knowledge" or "universal theory of....__X__. These things are all encompassed by faith in a creator of all. This definition of God has been sullied by our religious squabbles with science. For years some leaders in religion have specifically tried to refute and dispel many scientific claims as false, as it sometimes runs headlong into a churches specific teachings/doctrine.

The problem with such events as that to argue against science is to argue a concept intrinsically tied in faith with another bound by empiricism. My specific belief system falls into Christianity, but as a scientist I always argue the Earth is billions of years old (not 5,000), evolution/speciation are probable events (especially on a "this point foward" concept), and things of that nature. On panels I have specifically debated many who argue otherwise, attempting to debase my claims as "He believes we came straight from monkeys, that monkeys will become people!" to "Carbon dating is scientific farce, the tools of evil"...? It's this type of teaching that causes people to lose faith, to see God as an antiquated "mystic system" of naming events not yet explained by human knowledge/science, when scientific theories become regarded as basic household knowledge (the Earth is not flat motif).

[MJC]

I've always said that if there is a god he/she/whatever would probably disapprove of organized religion.

[AndyAnime]

Couldn't have put it better myself, Mike Smith. :D

[Callie]

Apples and oranges, Ant-man.You're comparing inorganic substances to organic ones. I don't recall that metal parts reproduce themselves in any way. If they were capable of reproduction, I suppose they could have evolved into giant mecha by now...

[Arrjay]

Apples and oranges, Ant-man.You're comparing inorganic substances to organic ones. I don't recall that metal parts reproduce themselves in any way. If they were capable of reproduction, I suppose they could have evolved into giant mecha by now...

Heh. This post made me smile.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The short answer is, no, God is not real. Or, He is no more real than are unicorns, fairies, Zeus, Odin, werewolves or Superman.

[Ant-Man]

Apples and oranges, Ant-man.You're comparing inorganic substances to organic ones. I don't recall that metal parts reproduce themselves in any way. If they were capable of reproduction, I suppose they could have evolved into giant mecha by now...

What I am saying is that organic substances are far more complex and intricate in design than inorganic substances are. So if inorganic substances can't evolve into other things, how can organic substances?

[Dan Apodaca]

The short answer is, no, God is not real. Or, He is no more real than are unicorns, fairies, Zeus, Odin, werewolves or Superman.

And the long answer is that if you believe in subjective reality, God is as real as every person who believes in him. The irony, of course, is that most people who believe in God follow the principle of an objective reality.

I spent some time recently, going over some of my own thoughts about God and the possibility of an afterlife. Luckily, I had a friend who was willing to put up with my rambling and I got to articulate these thoughts aloud, which gave me better perspective on them. I basically ended up right where I started, which was that I don't believe in God because I just don't. I can't force myself to think one way or the other.

The point of all this is that I think it's good that you're getting out there and asking questions, Bloop. And especially good if you can do it without someone trying to convert you along the way. Whatever you find, feel, decide, make sure you are true to yourself.

[Ant-Man]

The short answer is, no, God is not real. Or, He is no more real than are unicorns, fairies, Zeus, Odin, werewolves or Superman.

Unicorns, fairies, Zeus, Odin, Werewolves and Superman, were created by humans, and God created humans, so God is one creative being would'nt you say?

[Dan Apodaca]

What I am saying is that organic substances are far more complex and intricate in design than inorganic substances are. So if inorganic substances can't evolve into other things, how can organic substances?

You said it yourself, they are far more complex and intricate. Complexity is usually a factor in progression, rather than simplicity.

Or to give an analogy, if you have yellow, orange, brown, and red paints, you can paint something that looks much more like a turkey than if you only have red paint.

[Dan Apodaca]

Unicorns, fairies, Zeus, Odin, Werewolves and Superman, were created by humans, and God created humans, so God is one creative being would'nt you say?

God's alleged creation of humans is not fact. That is your belief. The opposing argument would be that humans created God. Neither argument has been proven to be true yet.

[Mike Smith]

God's alleged creation of humans is not fact. That is your belief. The opposing argument would be that humans created God. Neither argument has been proven to be true yet.

Neither can be proven, short of God explicitly coming forward and saying "Hey guys, I'm God" then scientifically setting out showing of power. Then at that, you'd still have naysayers. So on both sides, with my former post about faith vs. empiricism...to Jeff's explicit statement that God can't exist, neither can be proven true. Both vantage points assume respective faith is true.

[Crinos]

Also, if the Pagan's are right then Zeus and Odin are real entities as well.

[MacQuarrie]

I've always said that if there is a god he/she/whatever would probably disapprove of organized religion.
That's good, because my church is about as disorganized as you can get.

[Paul McEnery]

God's alleged creation of humans is not fact. That is your belief. The opposing argument would be that humans created God. Neither argument has been proven to be true yet.
Um...

It is certainly the case that this universe was not intelligently designed. Therefore, whatever we mean by God, it cannot be the intelligent designer.

For those who take a Hindu view, the universe is the dance of an aspect of the One, both of which might take the name of God (that is to say, the aspect and the one). In which case, both humans and the idea of God are an emergent feature of the dance, which is an emergent feature of the One.

Given that our best physics at the moment supports both the idea of an original oneness, and the idea of emergent features of consciousness, it is very close to proof that God created the universe that created man that created God.

In any case, it's true. :p

[Dan Apodaca]

Um...

It is certainly the case that this universe was not intelligently designed. Therefore, whatever we mean by God, it cannot be the intelligent designer.

For those who take a Hindu view, the universe is the dance of an aspect of the One, both of which might take the name of God (that is to say, the aspect and the one). In which case, both humans and the idea of God are an emergent feature of the dance, which is an emergent feature of the One.

Given that our best physics at the moment supports both the idea of an original oneness, and the idea of emergent features of consciousness, it is very close to proof that God created the universe that created man that created God.

In any case, it's true. :p

The thing is, we're stuck in a situation of trying to prove magic with science.

Impossible.

So, until God shows up and says, "Bow!" we're not gonna be convinced. And until the believers face the eternal nothingness of death, they're not gonna be convinced. Of course, it'll be a moot point for them by that point, since they'll have no over-arching consciousness to realize the absence of existence.

[MacQuarrie]

Um...

It is certainly the case that this universe was not intelligently designed. Therefore, whatever we mean by God, it cannot be the intelligent designer.
That very much depends on what you consider to be an intelligent design for a universe.

If "intelligent design" means symmetrical, easily grasped, inherently matching up to all our expectations, and with the Earth sitting comfortably in the exact center, then, no, the universe is not intelligently designed.

If "intelligent design" means that everything necessary to make it all work is in place exactly where it needs to be, then we might draw a very different conclusion. See Dr. Hugh Ross' "The Fingerprint of God" for an extremely detailed and meticulously researched explanation of just how intelligently designed the universe is.

Now, to the argument that evolution violates the laws of Thermodynamics. That's true; evolution is in direct contradiction to the Law of Entropy. Also, given tthe fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful and die off in a single generation, the fact is that evoluton is statistically impossible. However, the evidence clearly indicates that it happened, and that it is still happening. When the impossible happens, we call that a miracle. Evolution is, in my opinion, evidence for the existence of God.

[Crinos]

Um...

It is certainly the case that this universe was not intelligently designed.

Huh?

The hell the universe isnt intelligently designed.

Ecosystems, predictable seasons, orbit, gravity, rotation of planets, the life and death cycle of living beings, decomposition.

Heck, you only have to look at the design of the human body to see intelligent design.

And you're going to tell me all of that emerged from pure chance? A coincidence?

No intelligent design my ASS.

[Arrjay]

Um...

It is certainly the case that this universe was not intelligently designed. Therefore, whatever we mean by God, it cannot be the intelligent designer.

For those who take a Hindu view, the universe is the dance of an aspect of the One, both of which might take the name of God (that is to say, the aspect and the one). In which case, both humans and the idea of God are an emergent feature of the dance, which is an emergent feature of the One.

Given that our best physics at the moment supports both the idea of an original oneness, and the idea of emergent features of consciousness, it is very close to proof that God created the universe that created man that created God.

In any case, it's true. :p

I love you Paul. Not in the same way that Priests love children but you know what I mean. After all it was you who said this:

I believe that the universe has (is?) an oversoul, and we are all facets of it. Then again, last night I decided that the universe might have a demon trapped in it, so we might be able to use quantum tunnelling through dimensions 5-10 to create fuel cells that give off more energy than they consume.

Yeah! Funny shit man. I love it.

[Ant-Man]

The point of all this is that I think it's good that you're getting out there and asking questions, Bloop.

I agree. Here is something for you to think about Bloop.

According to the "there is no god theory", you have to believe that you as a person, are no more than a random cosmic accident, nothing more than a hairless ape like ancestor, a mere animal, with no immortal soul. You have no real purpose on this Earth other than to drift through life aimlessly, doing self fulfilling, empty, self-serving acts, that seem pleasurable at the time, but keep you empty inside your heart, with nobody to ever hold you acountable for your wrongs, and therefore makes you no more important than any other animal walking or crawling on this Earth. And then you die off some day living for 70 years or more if you are lucky, with no hope of anything beyond this meaningless self-indulgent life, but an eternity in the grave.

According to the "there is a living God theory", you believe that you as a person were created in the image of God the creator, having an immortal everlasting soul, and that you are no accident, but are created by your creator for your own unique purpose in life that God the creator has destined for you to fullfill, and to fellowship with God daily in thought and prayer. You are also loved by your creator God so much that he came to this Earth to die for you, so that you might be saved from death, hell, and the grave, and to be an heir to the kingdom of God forever and for all eternity if you will just believe on him, you will be saved, John 3:1-21.

Now you honestly tell me which sounds like the better deal?

[Arrjay]

I agree. Here is something for you to think about Bloop.

According to the "there is no god theory", you have to believe that you as a person, are no more than a random cosmic accident, nothing more than a hairless ape like ancestor, a mere animal, with no immortal soul. You have no real purpose on this Earth other than to drift through life aimlessly, doing self fulfilling, empty, self-serving acts, that seem pleasurable at the time, but keep you empty inside your heart, with nobody to ever hold you acountable for your wrongs, and therefore makes you no more important than any other animal walking or crawling on this Earth. And then you die off some day living for 70 years or more if you are lucky, with no hope of anything beyond this meaningless self-indulgent life, but an eternity in the grave.

What's so bad about that?

There's no question of which is the better deal but the question remains as to which of these consequences is the more realistic. Honestly man. It's simple.

What you've written here reads like a sales pitch to me.

So yeah. Whatever.

[MacQuarrie]

The thing is, we're stuck in a situation of trying to prove magic with science.

Impossible.
Not at all. That's exactly what science does. It explains magic.

A flying man is magic. Science begs to differ.

A torch that produces light without heat, that can be extinguished and stuck in a pocket, then taken out and restarted without flint or tinder? Impossible. Au contraire, says science.

Vehicles that move by themselves, without a horse, faster and farther than the fastest horse can run? Magic.

A window that lets you see things happening long ago or far away (even on the moon)? Magic.

A box no bigger than your palm that can play music for hundreds of hours without repeating a song? Magic.

Buildings that touch the sky, with rooms that move up and down inside them to transport you effortlessly to the top? Magic.

Cutting a man open, taking out his heart, putting the heart of a dead man into his chest in its place, and having that heart beat again and the man rise up and live? That's serious juju. You need a powerful shaman for that. Or science.

The only thing that science does is explain magic. I have perfect faith that eventually they will answer this question. Unfortunately, people have a way of not hearing things they don't want to hear.

[Crinos]

One way of looking at it is this:

Its better to believe in god over not believing in god because if your right then you will be have a big payoff after death, and if your wrong then you wont exist anymore so it doesnt matter to you anymore.

On the otherhand, if you dont believe in god then you get relatively relatively little payoff after death if your right (you dont exist) and you stand to lose alot if you are wrong and god is real.

...Well I think thats how it went, I learned the theory in a philosophy class I took a few years back, but I'm not entirely sure if thats the way its supposed to go or not.

[Ant-Man]

What's so bad about that?

There's no question of which is the better deal but the question remains as to which of these consequencsis the more realistic. Honestly man. It's simple.

What you've written here reads like a sales pitch to me.

So yeah. Whatever.

Why do you think there is so much murder, war, and suicide, in the world today? It's because of the humanistic viewpoints that man is an evolved ape, with no soul, no divine plan in life, no love from the living God that created them, just an animal and not worthy to live if another man deems it so. No wonder young people take their lives in acts suicide by the thousands daily in this country alone. When children are tought that they are just accidents, with no soul or purpose, and that if they are lucky, somebody may love them some time in their life, it's a wonder we do not all blow our brains out or some other persons brains out some day. But if children were tought that God created them in his own image with an everliving soul, to have personal fellowship with God daily, and that you are loved beyond all love by you creator whether anybody else loves you or not, and that you have your own unique purpose on this earth to fulfill if you will seek it through prayer to God, then children would be taught to have good self esteem and that all human life is valuable because we are all created in the image of god, and are all loved equally by God. This sure would save a lot of lives in the world daily.

[Dan Apodaca]

Huh?

The hell the universe isnt intelligently designed.

Ecosystems, predictable seasons, orbit, gravity, rotation of planets, the life and death cycle of living beings, decomposition.

Heck, you only have to look at the design of the human body to see intelligent design.

And you're going to tell me all of that emerged from pure chance? A coincidence?

No intelligent design my ASS.

You ever heard of Jackson Pollock? He's a pretty famous and admired painter. There was a movie about him a few years back, starring Ed Harris. You might want to check it out.

Anyway, Pollock is known for paintings of his like these ones:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/pollack1.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/th_pollack2.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/pollack2.jpg)

Here's a picture of him at work. Notice the intricacies of the pieces. The patterns that emerge, created by space and texture. There are so many elements at play, all interacting with each other, that it seems impossible for this not to have been orchestrated by someone. And we know that it was, for we have Pollock to credit and we have evidence of his hand in the creation.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/pollack3.jpg

But, there's something else to consider. When you look at the paintings, try to imagine the process of making them. Do you imagine him focusing on each line, perfecting it and moving on to the next? Or do you imagine him launching paint at the canvas, with an element of randomness and unpredictability?

Luckily for us, it's a painting, not a universe, and we are thus able to get definitive answers. The truth is that Pollock utilized a degree of chance in his work. Obviously, he had some control over where the paint went (high, low, left, right,etc.), but much of the path and pattern of said paint was left up to chance. And odds are, if he had been more discerning as to where the paint went, the painting wouldn't have come out looking the way it did.

The point of all this is really just to use an example to illustrate how complexity is more of a natural progression of randomness than pre-meditation.

[Crinos]

Why do you think there is so much murder, war, and suicide, in the world today? It's because of the humanistic viewpoints that man is an evolved ape, with no soul, no divine plan in life, no love from the living God that created them, just an animal and not worthy to live if another man deems it so. No wonder young people take their lives in acts suicide by the thousands daily in this country alone. When children are tought that they are just accidents, with no soul or purpose, and that if they are lucky, somebody may love them some time in their life, it's a wonder we do not all blow our brains out or some other persons brains out some day. But if children were tought that God created them in his own image with an everliving soul, to have personal fellowship with God daily, and that you are loved beyond all love by you creator whether anybody else loves you or not, and that you have your own unique purpose on this earth to fulfill if you will seek it through prayer to God, then children would be taught to have good self esteem and that all human life is valuable because we are all created in the image of god, and are all loved equally by God. This sure would save a lot of lives in the world daily.

I thought all that bad stuff was attributed to the fact that humans are bat shit insane, stupid as hell, and by nature mean cantankerous fucks.

I mean, some of the most horrible attrocities in the history of our species have been carried out in the name of a higher power.

[Crinos]

You ever heard of Jackson Pollock? He's a pretty famous and admired painter. There was a movie about him a few years back, starring Ed Harris. You might want to check it out.

Anyway, Pollock is known for paintings of his like these ones:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/pollack1.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/th_pollack2.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/pollack2.jpg)

Here's a picture of him at work. Notice the intricacies of the pieces. The patterns that emerge, created by space and texture. There are so many elements at play, all interacting with each other, that it seems impossible for this not to have been orchestrated by someone. And we know that it was, for we have Pollock to credit and we have evidence of his hand in the creation.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/pollack3.jpg

But, there's something else to consider. When you look at the paintings, try to imagine the process of making them. Do you imagine him focusing on each line, perfecting it and moving on to the next? Or do you imagine him launching paint at the canvas, with an element of randomness and unpredictability?

Luckily for us, it's a painting, not a universe, and we are thus able to get definitive answers. The truth is that Pollock utilized a degree of chance in his work. Obviously, he had some control over where the paint went (high, low, left, right,etc.), but much of the path and pattern of said paint was left up to chance. And odds are, if he had been more discerning as to where the paint went, the painting wouldn't have come out looking the way it did.

The point of all this is really just to use an example to illustrate how complexity is more of a natural progression of randomness than pre-meditation.

So basically your argument against intelligent design, and against the multitudes of evidence to support it in the natural world, is a guy throwing paint on canvas.

You got moxie, I'll grant you that. :D

Oh, and I'm sorry, but I dont see a pattern in that artwork, all I see is a colossol, albeit pretty, mess.

[Mike Smith]

One way of looking at it is this:

Its better to believe in god over not believing in god because if your right then you will be have a big payoff after death, and if your wrong then you wont exist anymore so it doesnt matter to you anymore.

I think you're talking about Pascal's Wager from Blaise Pascal.

[Crinos]

I think you're talking about Pascal's Wager from Blaise Pascal.

Yeah thats it. Many thanks Mike.

[Dan Apodaca]

I agree. Here is something for you to think about Bloop.

According to the "there is no god theory", you have to believe that you as a person, are no more than a random cosmic accident, nothing more than a hairless ape like ancestor, a mere animal, with no immortal soul. You have no real purpose on this Earth other than to drift through life aimlessly, doing self fulfilling, empty, self-serving acts, that seem pleasurable at the time, but keep you empty inside your heart, with nobody to ever hold you acountable for your wrongs, and therefore makes you no more important than any other animal walking or crawling on this Earth. And then you die off some day living for 70 years or more if you are lucky, with no hope of anything beyond this meaningless self-indulgent life, but an eternity in the grave.

According to the "there is a living God theory", you believe that you as a person were created in the image of God the creator, having an immortal everlasting soul, and that you are no accident, but are created by your creator for your own unique purpose in life that God the creator has destined for you to fullfill, and to fellowship with God daily in thought and prayer. You are also loved by your creator God so much that he came to this Earth to die for you, so that you might be saved from death, hell, and the grave, and to be an heir to the kingdom of God forever and for all eternity if you will just believe on him, you will be saved, John 3:1-21.

Now you honestly tell me which sounds like the better deal?

So much bull, I can hardly wade through it. You've filled your "no God" statement with so many biases and generalizations that it invalidates itself.

I could take a whole post out arguing with your misconceptions about atheism, but I'm in a hurry to get out of the house. I will say, though, that for many, the lack of believe in God creates a strong belief in man.

[Night]

What if something bad happens like a Tsunami wipes out hundreds of thousands of people or a virus kills millions...Who did that? Is god also responsible for that?.....Well he created the earth and the oceans and the weather and he created all the organisms on the Earth.....But why would a merciful God do that? Why would he create a deadly virus? Is he mad at us for misbehaving or not going to church? But what about the good people that die? God knows about them and he knows his virus will kill, deform or maim them..........??????? . Now I don’t know God’s motives, but it seems that when all these bad things happen, people tend to rely and therefore communicate with God a little more. You see God tends to be more concerned with people’s eternal existence than their mortal one. Jesus often said that all this you see means nothing especially compared to eternity. Ok so we have a god and we think its the right one but where does god come from? How may gods are there anyway? Only one?...that doesn't seem right somehow...Could such a complex being be created out of nothing? If not, who created God? did he create himself or is he an orphan. Is that the reason he is alone? I don't know....Look at the universe, ther is an awful lot of groups. Groups of beings planetary bodies, nebulae, gasses, liquids, elements. Is anything in the universe completely unique..completely alone? Is it reasonable to suppose that the most complex being in the whole universe is completely alone? Shouldn't gods be a bit like everything else? i.e. If you accept that one exists, you have to accept that there could be an infinite number of them out there. The Universe itself is a complex entity; and by definition alone (unless you’re under the multiverse theory… but you can still group it all under one big complex entity). Typically the bigger and more complex something is the fewer there seems to be of them in any given area, if God is more complex than the universe and there’s only one universe. I seriously think that the only thing religion provides on a mass scale is war.

And a freakin' lot of it. Take a good look at history & you'll see it for yourself. Money, sex, skin color, freedom, family differences, slavery, taxes, land, salt, promises of youth and vitality… I think people will find a reason for war. Your statement smacks in the face of members of religions who dedicate themselves to feeding the hungry, meeting with the lost and alone, helping people with addictions, clothing the cold, and caring for those who mourn. Sure there are people who abuse religion for their purposes, people will abuse anything if it can get themselves a boost in the world; however, there are other people who sacrifice their own comfort to help another.

[Ant-Man]

You ever heard of Jackson Pollock? He's a pretty famous and admired painter. There was a movie about him a few years back, starring Ed Harris. You might want to check it out.

Anyway, Pollock is known for paintings of his like these ones:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/pollack1.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/th_pollack2.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/pollack2.jpg)

Here's a picture of him at work. Notice the intricacies of the pieces. The patterns that emerge, created by space and texture. There are so many elements at play, all interacting with each other, that it seems impossible for this not to have been orchestrated by someone. And we know that it was, for we have Pollock to credit and we have evidence of his hand in the creation.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/pollack3.jpg

But, there's something else to consider. When you look at the paintings, try to imagine the process of making them. Do you imagine him focusing on each line, perfecting it and moving on to the next? Or do you imagine him launching paint at the canvas, with an element of randomness and unpredictability?

Luckily for us, it's a painting, not a universe, and we are thus able to get definitive answers. The truth is that Pollock utilized a degree of chance in his work. Obviously, he had some control over where the paint went (high, low, left, right,etc.), but much of the path and pattern of said paint was left up to chance. And odds are, if he had been more discerning as to where the paint went, the painting wouldn't have come out looking the way it did.

The point of all this is really just to use an example to illustrate how complexity is more of a natural progression of randomness than pre-meditation.

And on the other hand, some paintaings are carefully planned out from the subject that is being painted, to the intital sketch breakdowns, to the detailed lighting effects, and the hours and hours of painstakingly attention to minute detail.

[Dan Apodaca]

Oh, and I'm sorry, but I dont see a pattern in that artwork, all I see is a colossol, albeit pretty, mess.

My point exactly.

[Crinos]

My point exactly.

Yes, because a piece of art that a MONKEY could produce is really a good model for the universe.

You know, if its true that all of the things which point to intelligent design; the seasons, the way animals and plants interact, the way living organisms work, the movement of the planets, if all these things are coincidence as you seem to think, then that means just one thing.

God makes coincidences happen :p

[Callie]

So if inorganic substances can't evolve into other things, how can organic substances?

By the mere act of reproduction. The environment weeds out many of the things that don't work. That which works gets handed down generation to generation.

However, it's apparent that we sit so far apart in our views that we cannot argue in any sort of logical fashion. So I will leave you to your blind faith of a deity and I will leave myself to believe in science.

And the entire argument of an empty life without faith in a higher power? You base this on nothing but your own misconceptions of atheism. Some amazing people in our history were atheists: Albert Einstein, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, Voltaire, Gloria Steinem, Tolstoy, a few American Presidents, supposedly even John Lennon. ;)

[Alex]

Being a member of a comic chat room, i am here to inform you that God is real, and i met Him.
He wouldn't let me record it, or take a picture, but take my word for it, he's real, and he can dance.

[Ant-Man]

However, it's apparent that we sit so far apart in our views that we cannot argue in any sort of logical fashion. So I will leave you to your blind faith of a deity and I will leave myself to believe in science.



Since God created science as we humans know it, then you must believe in God to believe in science.

[Callie]

If you want to believe that, be my guest. I don't believe in a higher power and certainly don't believe that any deity is responsible for science. IMHO it's a ridiculous notion to even conceive it.

If I had to, I'd be cool with Hermes. If I had to pick a religion to follow, I'd be pretty down with the Greek mythos. What's better than a pack of gods that gets kicks out of screwing with mortals? And the creation myth? Fantastic. A big black bird laid an egg in the midst of chaos. And from it hatched Eros, the god of Love. And Eros created Gaia (Earth) and Uranus (Sky). From them, came Cronos and a few others. Cronos liked to eat his kids.

[Mike Smith]

If you want to believe that, be my guest. I don't believe in a higher power and certainly don't believe that any deity is responsible for science. IMHO it's a ridiculous notion to even conceive it?

The certainty factor is always a question, but the question how is it ridiculous remains?

[Alex]

If you want to believe that, be my guest. I don't believe in a higher power and certainly don't believe that any deity is responsible for science. IMHO it's a ridiculous notion to even conceive it.

I kinda get that bit actually.

If there is a god, and he did create the universe, he created all the laws that rule it, and therefor, he creates physics, biology, chemistry, etc etc.

[Callie]

That is my belief. ;) Ant-Man believes very strongly that God created science and therefore exists. I do not believe in God and do not believe that any God is responsible for science. Therefore, the notion remains ridiculous to me to believe that because of science, a god must surely exist.

I have no concrete evidence and have no facts to prove it. For that, I must use faith that my ideas are right. It's the same for Ant-Man and that he must have faith to believe that his idea of God is right. We'll never see eye to eye, but it is interesting to discuss.

[xgeek52]

rabidfangirl is right...it's something none of us is ever going to agree on...we have our beliefs and those beliefs are our own... :cool:

[Ant-Man]

If you want to believe that, be my guest. I don't believe in a higher power and certainly don't believe that any deity is responsible for science. IMHO it's a ridiculous notion to even conceive it.


As I stated in an earlier post, what a person believes, does not change reality. The reality is that there is a living God, and just because you do not want to believe in him, it does not change the fact that he created you for a divine purpose, and he loves you just as much as he loves me and every other person on Earth. You are valuable beyond belief in the eyes of God, and just remember that even though you do not want to believe in him, he believes in you.

[Callie]

Without any actual proof, your idea of reality is equally as subjective as mine. Wouldn't it be interesting if we were both terribly wrong?

[Ant-Man]

Without any actual proof, your idea of reality is equally as subjective as mine. Wouldn't it be interesting if we were both terribly wrong?

I challenge you to read the chapter of John in the New Testement of the Bible with an open heart and mind, and then tell me that there is not a living God. I think that if you read it with an open heart, that you will see how real that God really is, and want to know him in a personal way.

[Night]

Some amazing people in our history were atheists: Albert Einstein, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, Voltaire, Gloria Steinem, Tolstoy, a few American Presidents, supposedly even John Lennon. ;)
Albert Einstein
* My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

* Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.

* God may be subtle, but He isn't plain mean.

* What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.

* God does not play dice with the world. For an atheist he seems to talk a lot about God. Einstein was at least an agnostic, which is really different from aetheism. That's not even going into general quotes of an existence outside what we deem real. One could probably say he was more interested in science than religion... Then there is of course my favorite
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

[DarkSoldier]

I personally do not believe in a god of any kind. I guess alot of my non-belief stems from some of the same sources (from lack of any evidence to huge leap one has to make to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent being that created the universe, scientific problems with many Bible stories (or stories from other faiths.), but in the end, it's an intangible non-scientific feeling that makes me an Atheist.
Regardless of whether or not God exists, he's not worth worshipping anyway.

In the Old Testament, God vindictively kills people left, right, and centre; he obliterated Aaron's kids because they offered him "strange fire."

The New Testament portrays him as a loving, all-powerful entity. He does not use his omnipotence to eliminate evil from the world. This is either because he is not omnipotent, and therefore not worthy of veneration, or not omnibenevolent, and just a dick.

[Mike Smith]

Regardless of whether or not God exists, he's not worth worshipping anyway.

In the Old Testament, God vindictively kills people left, right, and centre; he obliterated Aaron's kids because they offered him "strange fire."

The New Testament portrays him as a loving, all-powerful entity. He does not use his omnipotence to eliminate evil from the world. This is either because he is not omnipotent, and therefore not worthy of veneration, or not omnibenevolent, and just a dick.

You've limited the concept of God to the scope of religion. How would you respond to a person who believes in a creative force outside the bound of religion?

[Ant-Man]

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been created, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20.

The fool says in his heart "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile. Psalm 53:1.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Heck, you only have to look at the design of the human body to see intelligent design.


Anyone who looks at biology and sees intelligent design needs their eyes checked.

[Tages]

By the mere act of reproduction. The environment weeds out many of the things that don't work. That which works gets handed down generation to generation.

However, it's apparent that we sit so far apart in our views that we cannot argue in any sort of logical fashion. So I will leave you to your blind faith of a deity and I will leave myself to believe in science.

And the entire argument of an empty life without faith in a higher power? You base this on nothing but your own misconceptions of atheism. Some amazing people in our history were atheists: Albert Einstein, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, Voltaire, Gloria Steinem, Tolstoy, a few American Presidents, supposedly even John Lennon. ;)
Except Voltaire was a Deist and Tolstoy was a strong Christian. Also, no American president is confirmed to have been an atheist, though some historians suspect Lincoln was a closet nonbeliever.

Come to think of it, Einstein's religious views weren't so cut and dry either. His view was that he believed in God if by "God" one meant the wondrous natural universe, and he several times expressed admiration for Buddhism.

I don't think you've looked into this subject very hard.

[Tages]

Um...

It is certainly the case that this universe was not intelligently designed. Therefore, whatever we mean by God, it cannot be the intelligent designer.
Sure about that? The universe as a whole, if science and the Big Bang Theory as currently understood are true, should logically look like the contents of an exploded paint can, or vaguely spherical. Instead, from what we can tell, it's strangely disc-shaped.

Some things have yet to be explained.

[Tages]

You ever heard of Jackson Pollock? He's a pretty famous and admired painter. There was a movie about him a few years back, starring Ed Harris. You might want to check it out.

Anyway, Pollock is known for paintings of his like these ones:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/pollack1.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/th_pollack2.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/pollack2.jpg)

Here's a picture of him at work. Notice the intricacies of the pieces. The patterns that emerge, created by space and texture. There are so many elements at play, all interacting with each other, that it seems impossible for this not to have been orchestrated by someone. And we know that it was, for we have Pollock to credit and we have evidence of his hand in the creation.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/danapodaca/pollack3.jpg

But, there's something else to consider. When you look at the paintings, try to imagine the process of making them. Do you imagine him focusing on each line, perfecting it and moving on to the next? Or do you imagine him launching paint at the canvas, with an element of randomness and unpredictability?

Luckily for us, it's a painting, not a universe, and we are thus able to get definitive answers. The truth is that Pollock utilized a degree of chance in his work. Obviously, he had some control over where the paint went (high, low, left, right,etc.), but much of the path and pattern of said paint was left up to chance. And odds are, if he had been more discerning as to where the paint went, the painting wouldn't have come out looking the way it did.

The point of all this is really just to use an example to illustrate how complexity is more of a natural progression of randomness than pre-meditation.
A journalist (I forget who) once went to interview Pollock asked him how designed his paintings were. Pollock, who was nearly too drunk to stand, pointed across the room at the doorknob, and with a flick of his wrist hit it dead center with a gob of paint.

Bullseye.

[Sir Tim Drake]

One way of looking at it is this:

Its better to believe in god over not believing in god because if your right then you will be have a big payoff after death, and if your wrong then you wont exist anymore so it doesnt matter to you anymore.

On the otherhand, if you dont believe in god then you get relatively relatively little payoff after death if your right (you dont exist) and you stand to lose alot if you are wrong and god is real.

...Well I think thats how it went, I learned the theory in a philosophy class I took a few years back, but I'm not entirely sure if thats the way its supposed to go or not.

That's called Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager#Criticisms_of_Pascal.27s_wager). However, it's been argued that Pascal's wager is incomplete; Perhaps there are other options beyond the black-and-white dilemma of believing in God and being saved, or not believing in God and being damned. To quote the article I just linked to:

The wager does not account for the possibility that there is a God or gods who, rather than behaving as stated in certain parts of the Bible, instead reward(s) skepticism and punish(es) blind faith, or reward(s) honest reasoning and punish(es) feigned faith, or does not punish belief or disbelief at all.

[kmeyers]

Reality is what you make of it.

whether you believe in God, or not. You can choose your own adventure.

[tricksterpup]

Truthfully Which God are you talking about?? I see proof of my God all around me and she speaks wonders.
But I tend to follow this guy every where I go.
http://www.state.sd.us/state/gifs/sdanima.gif

[Mike Smash!]

Whether you "believe" in something or not, it does not change the reality of it's existaece or the truth. You may "believe" that if you jump off the Empire State Building in a head first plunge, that you will not smash into bloody pieces, but the truth is you will. You may "believe" that 2+2=5, but the truth is 2+2=4. God is the "creator" and man is the "created", so the "created" can not comprehend why the "creator" decides to do what he does. Our human pea-brains have no real comprehension of the true power of the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, God almighty himself. The entire Universe as we know it "screams" intellegent design. Simple science tells us that over time matter breaks down and corrodes, not gets bigger and better. So if the entire universe evolved over Billions of years, then that would mean that matter would have had to over time grow greater instead of break down, which is not scientiffically possible. And the mathimatical chances for evolution are about the same as you or I taking a bunch of pieces of metal shards from a junk yard, putting them in a shoebox, shaking the shoebox rappidly for billions of years, and then expect a fully functioning Rolex watch to be created in this process. In other words, it is not going to happen. If something as simple as a wrist watch can not be created by evolution, why would anybody believe the entire Universe and all life as we know it would be created by random evolutionary chance? It does not make good scientific sense? So in conclusion, whether you want to believe in God or not, it does not change reality in the slightest, and the reality is that God is more real than you or I are.The problem with the watch analogy is that it opens up the obvious retort: If God is perfect and perfection and precision cannot happen by random chance, then what or who created God?

[Mike Smash!]

Unicorns, fairies, Zeus, Odin, Werewolves and Superman, were created by humans, and God created humans, so God is one creative being would'nt you say?People once believed in all of those things. And people once believed that Odin created people.

I think you're having a problem seeing things from a point of view other than your own. Not everyone believe that God did create people. I don't, for one.

You don't believe in Odin or Zeus, but at one time people did, and they would have been just as dimissive of your God and call yours the created being.

[Mike Smash!]

I agree. Here is something for you to think about Bloop.

According to the "there is no god theory", you have to believe that you as a person, are no more than a random cosmic accident, nothing more than a hairless ape like ancestor, a mere animal, with no immortal soul. You have no real purpose on this Earth other than to drift through life aimlessly, doing self fulfilling, empty, self-serving acts, that seem pleasurable at the time, but keep you empty inside your heart, with nobody to ever hold you acountable for your wrongs, and therefore makes you no more important than any other animal walking or crawling on this Earth. And then you die off some day living for 70 years or more if you are lucky, with no hope of anything beyond this meaningless self-indulgent life, but an eternity in the grave.

According to the "there is a living God theory", you believe that you as a person were created in the image of God the creator, having an immortal everlasting soul, and that you are no accident, but are created by your creator for your own unique purpose in life that God the creator has destined for you to fullfill, and to fellowship with God daily in thought and prayer. You are also loved by your creator God so much that he came to this Earth to die for you, so that you might be saved from death, hell, and the grave, and to be an heir to the kingdom of God forever and for all eternity if you will just believe on him, you will be saved, John 3:1-21.

Now you honestly tell me which sounds like the better deal?Reality isn't based upon what the "better deal".

If I were to pick the best deal, I would believe that I was the chosen one and that I should rightfully rule the universe and when I die, I be reborn with the powers of Superman and live forever.

Reality isn't wishful thinking and it shouldn't be. The non-religious view of life may not have bells and whistles of the religious views you espouse, but that doesn't make it any less real or valid.

My view of the world may not pat me on the back and reassure me or have all of the bright lights, but it feels right to me and real.

And I'll take that feeling of authenticity over something that just makes me feel good.

[Mike Smash!]

Since God created science as we humans know it, then you must believe in God to believe in science.Because you believe God created science.

Can you please try to see something from another point of view?

What if I responded with, "Because Atheism is about reality and you are not an Atheist, you can't handle reality", don't you see how arrogant and self absorbed that sounds.

I don't believe in a god, but that doesn't mean that I don't see things like deep meaning, self sacrifice, beauty and grace in the world around me.

Based on what you're saying, I can't believe in carrots because God created them and I don't believe in God.

[Mike Smash!]

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been created, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20.

The fool says in his heart "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile. Psalm 53:1.Sorry, I wish I had scripture to call you a jerk in return, but I don't. And I don't even know you so I don't have the right, anyways.

[Mike Smash!]

Except Voltaire was a Deist and Tolstoy was a strong Christian. Also, no American president is confirmed to have been an atheist, though some historians suspect Lincoln was a closet nonbeliever.

Come to think of it, Einstein's religious views weren't so cut and dry either. His view was that he believed in God if by "God" one meant the wondrous natural universe, and he several times expressed admiration for Buddhism.

I don't think you've looked into this subject very hard.Jefferson was a deist almost to the point of Atheism. I've heard some of the same of Lincoln before too.

[Tages]

Jefferson was a deist almost to the point of Atheism. I've heard some of the same of Lincoln before too.
Not an atheist. Near the end of his life he began referring more and more to Providence in his personal letters.

[Mike Smash!]

Not an atheist. Near the end of his life he began referring more and more to Providence in his personal letters.From what I've read, even though Jefferson was the one who was attacked by the Religious Right of his day, it was Hamilton, who was the least enthused with organized religion.

[Paul McEnery]

The problem with the watch analogy is that it opens up the obvious retort: If God is perfect and perfection and precision cannot happen by random chance, then what or who created God?
Not at all. The problem with the watch analogy is that the watch was also created by evolution.

Evolution creates people who like things that make them look inevitable and central to creation, so they make things that look that way, then they turn them into metaphors.

Besides, as any zen scholar knows, taking on the role of the fool is the best thing you can do. That's what beginners's mind means.

[Paul McEnery]

Not an atheist. Near the end of his life he began referring more and more to Providence in his personal letters.
I work with Providence daily. Doesn't make me a theist.

[Paul McEnery]

As I stated in an earlier post, what a person believes, does not change reality. The reality is that there is a living God, and just because you do not want to believe in him, it does not change the fact that he created you for a divine purpose, and he loves you just as much as he loves me and every other person on Earth. You are valuable beyond belief in the eyes of God, and just remember that even though you do not want to believe in him, he believes in you.
Dude --

I know damn well there's a living God. I also know -- for a fact -- he didn't create me, and there's no divine purpose, at least not in the sense you intend.

Don't be a dick about this, or I'll have to dig up my proofs against deism and theism again.

[Paul McEnery]

Also, no American president is confirmed to have been an atheist.
And that's a plus?

[Paul McEnery]

Yes, because a piece of art that a MONKEY could produce is really a good model for the universe.

You know, if its true that all of the things which point to intelligent design; the seasons, the way animals and plants interact, the way living organisms work, the movement of the planets, if all these things are coincidence as you seem to think, then that means just one thing.

God makes coincidences happen :p
There is no such thing as an intelligently designed universe. There are proofs of this. But even if there were, which there aren't, this isn't one of them.

[Paul McEnery]

Being a member of a comic chat room, i am here to inform you that God is real, and i met Him.
He wouldn't let me record it, or take a picture, but take my word for it, he's real, and he can dance.
I've danced with God, and he stepped on my foot. Bastard couldn't even master the polka.

[Paul McEnery]

One way of looking at it is this:

Its better to believe in god over not believing in god because if your right then you will be have a big payoff after death, and if your wrong then you wont exist anymore so it doesnt matter to you anymore.

There's a lot of mass murderers through history who agree with you. I happen to regard their existence as a significant counter-example.

[Paul McEnery]

Huh?

The hell the universe isnt intelligently designed.

Ecosystems, predictable seasons, orbit, gravity, rotation of planets, the life and death cycle of living beings, decomposition.

Heck, you only have to look at the design of the human body to see intelligent design.

And you're going to tell me all of that emerged from pure chance? A coincidence?

No intelligent design my ASS.
Er, yes.

And it's demonstrable.

Pray God your ass isn't.

[Paul McEnery]

Ooh look! Two grown ups at once!

The thing is, we're stuck in a situation of trying to prove magic with science.

"Our method is science, our aim is religion." Not all evidence is available to the scientific method. However, all experience can be submitted to the scientific method. If your "magical" results can't be done repeatedly, you aren't doing them right.


That very much depends on what you consider to be an intelligent design for a universe.

If "intelligent design" means symmetrical, easily grasped, inherently matching up to all our expectations, and with the Earth sitting comfortably in the exact center, then, no, the universe is not intelligently designed.

If "intelligent design" means that everything necessary to make it all work is in place exactly where it needs to be, then we might draw a very different conclusion. See Dr. Hugh Ross' "The Fingerprint of God" for an extremely detailed and meticulously researched explanation of just how intelligently designed the universe is.

Now, to the argument that evolution violates the laws of Thermodynamics. That's true; evolution is in direct contradiction to the Law of Entropy. Also, given tthe fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful and die off in a single generation, the fact is that evoluton is statistically impossible. However, the evidence clearly indicates that it happened, and that it is still happening. When the impossible happens, we call that a miracle. Evolution is, in my opinion, evidence for the existence of God.
Hmm. I like your conclusion, although I wouldn't phrase it that way.

However, no.

We know what we mean by intelligent design. It means, exactly, Paley's watch. We know that intelligent design means building in optimal functionality. And if we want that, for the universe, it has to apply in all places at all times. The consequences of that are Newton's universe. Not only do we not live in Newton's universe -- I mean, we just don't! -- but we wouldn't want to. That's just a restatement of the steady-state universe, and that's one that has no life in it.

So no, it ain't an intelligently designed universe any more than my left bollock was designed according to a rational plan. That's not the way the universe grows. That doesn't mean it isn't wonderful (just as I like to think my left bollock is wonderful, and have occasionally found a nice woman who confirms my opinion).

The wonder and miracle of the universe is a consequence of emergent, er, thingamajig. And it is wonderful, and it is possessed of spirit. That's where the "fool in his heart" bit comes in. Once you've made contact with the spririt, your life doesn't turn back.

However, the spirit that infuses both this universe and the left bollock of me that is part of this universe is not the sky god beloved of pagans. What it is -- well, that beats the hell out of me. All I know is what I get out of interacting with it/her/him/whatever.

But the intelligent design argument is just hubris. We want "God" to be in charge of the universe like we used to be in charge of our Legos when we were kids. That is very much not this universe. Genes don't work like clocks. Minds don't work like clocks. Physics doesn't work like clocks. And, goddammit, clocks don't work all that well either.

The universe is a living system. That's the deal. Make your peace with it.

[Tages]

I work with Providence daily. Doesn't make me a theist.
Also God. And such.

Too tired now, but I'l dig up my favorite one later.

[Tages]

And that's a plus?
Absolutely not. But it's an error on her part.

[Wesley Dodds]

Heck, you only have to look at the design of the human body to see intelligent design.

And you're going to tell me all of that emerged from pure chance? A coincidence?

No intelligent design my ASS.

Unfortunately for the world, I've just been reading Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, and I'm itching for a good debate over evolution.

First up I have to point out the problem with the argument from design, from a logical point of view. David Hume disposed of it, actually. The problem is that the argument begs the question: that is, a premise includes the conclusion.

The earth was designed -- why? Because the earth reveals design. Now, you need to break up the "earth reveals design" premise and argue that the order in the universe is design -- why, as it so happens, is why people are always going on about alleged examples of "irreducible complexity" -- things that could not possibly be produced by evolution, so to speak.

Now. Am I going to say we got this way be chance?

An emphatic "NO!"

In fact, it's one of the most common misunderstandings about evolution -- blind chance led to all this?

It wasn't chance, it was natural selection. Mutation coupled with reproduction coupled with the universal fact of survival, of competing for limited resources. It's Malthus -- populations grow geometrically while food supply can only double with each generation (somebody with a fresher memory of Malthus than mine please correct me if I have that wrong).

That means no punctuated equilibrium, ala Gould -- large genetic jumps are extremely improbable. All change is incremental. A little bit at a time, over 100,000 years if need be, leading to the amazing diversity of life.

Gould, in Panda's Thumb mode, has a point -- sometimes evolution is revealed by ad hoc solutions. Rather than the Panda's Thumb, my favourite example is the human eye -- the ganglia in our eye are in fact in front of the photocells, slightly retarding our vision (only very slightly). The ganglia run over the retina, connecting at the blind spot -- a strange detail from an engineering point of view, that's for sure. It's not genetic necessity -- the octopus has its equivalent of the ganglia behind the retina.

Dawkin's tenative explanation for that is that for whatever reason the evolutionary step that would have put the wiring behind the retina led to a less advantageous intermediate. Evolution just can't jump ahead -- it's vanishingly improbable, easily many times greater than even the haemoglobin number. Evolution, always, is incremental.

But the end results are incredible. Now, I live in Australia -- we have some weird creatures (we've been an island since gondwanaland split up -- India rammed into Asia and South America into North America, but it's just been us here). But we also have some animals that look amazingly like animals in the rest of the world -- but with different lineages.

But you don't have to go to Australia for examples of convergent evolution -- the termite, for example, is closer to the ant, than the cockroach. Now, you could say that perhaps God likes to play with signature styles, but I say that the natural selection leads to amazing, remarkable order -- but not design.

We look at complex order and we see design because we're such good designers. We're drawing an analogy, so to speak, between the human labour behind a 747 and the order of the human body. That was designed, so this has to be too, right? Surely there's a celestial human (so much like us!) who did the same thing? When you see a watch, you don't assume that happened naturally, do you?

No, you don't, you assume design. You also assume the earth is flat. You assume demons or humours cause disease, and all sorts of other notions. As far as we can tell, evolution is how we got this way, the biblical account is wrong, and that God was at no point necessary.

That doesn't resolve the fundamental ontological question -- why is there something instead of nothing? I don't know and I don't think we can now, because the answer exists outside of all existence. But we know how life got this way from chemical interactions (another way of looking at it: primative metabolism) to the way we are now, with no purpose at any point -- only a process.

So, to summarise -- amazing, staggering examples of order and complexity (the echolocation of a bat, the swim bladder in a fish) -- but order is not design, and anyone who wants to claim that the order of the natural world is because of a creator must first show why the kind of order we have means design.

[Tages]

I showed Paul an article on Richard Dawkins a couple weeks back. I found his response hilarious.

But I hate that a debate on evolution can barely go three posts without someone bringing him in as some sort of unbeatable trump card.

[Wesley Dodds]

If "intelligent design" means that everything necessary to make it all work is in place exactly where it needs to be, then we might draw a very different conclusion. See Dr. Hugh Ross' "The Fingerprint of God" for an extremely detailed and meticulously researched explanation of just how intelligently designed the universe is.

Now, to the argument that evolution violates the laws of Thermodynamics. That's true; evolution is in direct contradiction to the Law of Entropy. Also, given tthe fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful and die off in a single generation, the fact is that evoluton is statistically impossible. However, the evidence clearly indicates that it happened, and that it is still happening. When the impossible happens, we call that a miracle. Evolution is, in my opinion, evidence for the existence of God.

If Dr. Hugh Ross is amazed at the order and staggering sophistication of the natural world, I agree with him. As I said in my last post, the world is amazingly ordered. But, frankly, if nature is the work of God, God is a weird guy (I don't mean that in a nasty way, read on) -- nature is a hideous place. Did God make spongiform encephalopothy? Psoriasis? Nature is full of beasties -- for me, to say that things happen for a reason or that it's somehow deserved is bad theology -- bad things happen to people, and it seems completely meaningless. To put God's "mysterious ways" behind the curtain is a "Wizard of Oz"-like cop-out.

Now, that's a bit of a mess and we'll never agree because it's so subjective, but I really do have to stand up to that point about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, for those who skipped high school physics:

The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic "force" (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law.

In English, that means that things are winding down -- the universe is heading towards entropy, or a state of universal death (to be melodramatic).

I think the fundamental reason this argument is raised against evolution is that physics and biology are about different things -- physics is about the simple, biology is about complexity. But a special kind of complexity -- not the meaningless complexity of a pile of rubble but the organised, apparently purposeful complexity of life.

To keep this coherent, I'll address some key points:

Now, to the argument that evolution violates the laws of Thermodynamics. That's true; evolution is in direct contradiction to the Law of Entropy.

No. In fact, if anything, it's the opposite -- life exists because we have a massive energy source, the sun, and we're burning through it much faster than it would take solar radiation to dissipate "naturally". If anything, life is the agent of the 2nd law of thermodynamics -- our complexity exists because we have all this free energy, and without it we would crumble into equilibrium with our surroundings.

Also, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful and die off in a single generation, the fact is that evoluton is statistically impossible.

No, the overwhelming majority of mutations are safe. They're just one or two genes. The reason for misunderstanding is that radical mutations are usually fatal -- which is why, as it so happens, punctuated equilibriumism is wrong. The reality is that there are a lot more ways (speaking on a genetic basis) of being dead than being alive -- making a large genetic jump is much liklier to lead to something dead, let alone something harmful. So, if you let tiny changes accumulate, you're safe. If you try to grow wings in one hit, you're dead.

Remember that biologists use "mutation" in the sense of DNA change, which can be small or large -- the John Wyndham, Jean Gray idea of mutation isn't widely accepted, for the reason you give.

[Wesley Dodds]

I showed Paul an article on Richard Dawkins a couple weeks back. I found his response hilarious.

But I hate that a debate on evolution can barely go three posts without someone bringing him in as some sort of unbeatable trump card.

I'm sorry, but as George Santayana, the great American philosopher, once said:

"Liberty is a harsh mistress. You cannot pick and choose what you like and dislike about her. Liberty will not change her principles for you, no matter how much you claim to love her. She will stand fast in her demands for total acceptance. If you can't receive her, she will recognize you as a false lover and leave you. And when you hear that door slam, it will take every tear in your eye, every ounce of blood in your veins, and all the nerve in your heart to win her back."

I'd change that to truth -- harsh mistress, can be loved, and she sets free those she loves.

Ah, I wish I could remember where I heard it phrased like that.

[Wesley Dodds]

But I hate that a debate on evolution can barely go three posts without someone bringing him in as some sort of unbeatable trump card.

Also, notice that I didn't go "Aha, Richard Dawkins!", or "Richard Dawkins says..." I didn't make any arguments from authority.

[Calybos]

As I stated in an earlier post, what a person believes, does not change reality. The reality is that there is a living God, and just because you do not want to believe in him, it does not change the fact that he created you for a divine purpose, and he loves you just as much as he loves me and every other person on Earth. You are valuable beyond belief in the eyes of God, and just remember that even though you do not want to believe in him, he believes in you.

The problem with that is, I can make the exact same argument:

"What a person believes, does not change reality. The reality is that there is no god; just because you want to believe in him doesn't change the fact that he's an invented concept, that we have no built-in 'purpose,' and that we have to look out for each other because nobody else is doing it for us. You are valuable beyond belief because you are unique in this world and there is no other life beyond this one... so regardless of what others believe, you have to first and foremost believe in yourself."

And since the same reasoning can be used to support opposite conclusions, that means the argument is worthless.

[Callie]

Tolstoy was a strong Christian

I don't think you've looked very hard either. Granted, upon further reflection, I realize that I included a few agnostics. I was pulling names out of my head from things I have read before. Hence the emphasis on writers and women's lib. ;)

I did a little more digging and can see how some can point to Einstein as religious and others to him as being non-religious. Einstein has several conficting viewpoints that point him as being neither a believer in organized religion nor a God at some points. There are conflicting quotes that have him reject the idea of atheism and proclaim himself an atheist.

As for Tolstoy, Tolstoy was definitely not a strong Christian. Heck, he was even excommunicated from his church. His fiction does not speak for his beliefs at all. He rejected the Christian teachings and was if anything a naturalist on religion. I would in retrospect place him in an agnostic or possibly deist category as he neither concludes he believes in a particular god, but does not outright reject the notion of a spiritual being either.

However, beyond the random mix of names that I listed in which I'm sure many will be happy to refute, the point still stands. It is possible to live a fulfilled life without belief in a deity. That not all people are empty and shallow and selfish without religious faith. It's not what you believe in life that matters; it's what you do in life that does. If someone is content to read scripture and go to church on Sunday always, what's to say that they are not li