Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 224 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
Today at 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 4 of 15 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 15 >
Topic Options
#12830 - 08/30/05 11:53 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
Marc P Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/27/05
Posts: 6
Loc: Gatineau, Qu?bec, Canada
Sorry for misquoting, I wrote that message before going to bed, actually in bed... I won't do that anymore!

A Lurker, you said: "I?m sorry Marc P, but they just DO NOT MIX."

Well many many people think as you do. I've just dug up an article on this very subject in my stack of "The Sciences" magazines from a few years back. Interesting reading where you have both sides of the debate.

You said: " The reason that they don?t mix ? ever - is that the METHOD itself of the search of the truth is so fundamentally different.... There may be scientists who are religious. But if they mix religion with their work, they are not adhering to scientific methods."

I totally agree with you on the fundamental difference about the method. What I'm saying is not that you should incorporate religious beliefs into scientific data or that you should use the core method of religion, which is "revelation" and oppose it to the scientific method, which is systematic skepticism. What I'm saying is that you can be an intelligent human being (even very intelligent), even a scientist and still have faith. The concept that you have to be stupid to have faith (I'm not saying you said this, but the idea was included in someone else's posts as a quote) is usually based on a stereotypical and simplistic concept of blind mindless faith that I referred to as "Mrs Smith's Sunday school classes".


You said: "And also; the comment of how little religious knowledge atheists have. Oh, please. This is just plain dumb. Why would an atheist not take interest in religious matters?"

What I was referring to (maybe not very skillfully) was the impression I get that when certain people (atheists or otherwise) refer to faith or religion, they seem to convey the idea (in my mind anyway) that to have faith and to practice religion, you have to blindly and mindlessly believe, for example, that the world was created in 6 days just as it is written in the Bible. Although some people of faith do believe this and many more did in earlier centuries, a very small proportion of them still do today. The bible creation stories were never intended as an empirically correct account of what went on at the time of creation. They are simply faith affirmations (basically, God is the origin of everything that exists) using what common knowledge was available at the time the texts were written (700 BC). By saying this, I'm not denying my faith, I'm simply using my god-given intelligence to better understand it and there's nothing "un-christian" about that.

You said:
"In reply to my post you said:
?Glad we're sticking to the issues and the science here!?

I'm just surprised at the level of personal insults here. I'm not saying that I didn't fan the flame a bit (my two first posts were written with my mind half awake... won't do that anymore!), but I don't see how personal insults contribute to debating the issue at hand.

Marc P.

Top
.
#12831 - 08/30/05 05:09 PM Re: Proof that God did not create life
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Marc P wrote:
"I get that when certain people (atheists or otherwise) refer to faith or religion, they seem to convey the idea (in my mind anyway) that to have faith and to practice religion, you have to blindly and mindlessly believe, for example, that the world was created in 6 days just as it is written in the Bible."

Not at all. But the minute you open it up to interpretation you are acknowledging that there are errors of fact. What scientific theory would stand if it were acknowledged to contain errors of fact?

Simply put ... if humans were "designed" then explain why human males have nipples?

Simly put ... if some sentient entity was helping our ancestors why didn't it bother to inform them about penicillin?

You just can't have it both ways.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12832 - 08/31/05 01:40 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
finchbeak Offline
Member

Registered: 07/29/05
Posts: 50
Loc: m=ρd
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Simply put ... if humans were "designed" then explain why human males have nipples?
A classic example. Gould wrote an article on this topic - and the related question of why females have clitorises - which he really wanted to title "Tits and Clits". His editors insisted that he change it, so he compromised with "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples".

An even better example: all terrestrial tetrapods are prone to choking. We have one hole (the pharynx) through which both food and air must pass before entering their separate tracts. It's vital that food must not enter the respiratory tract, and yet every time we swallow, we shove food right past the opening to it. That's a STUPID design. Yes, there is a flap of cartilage (the epiglottis) that closes the digestive tract off during those brief moments, but it doesn't work perfectly; people (and other terrestrial tetrapods) choke to death all the time. And anyway it wouldn't be necessary if only an intelligent design had been adopted from the outset. Insects have a much more intelligent design: numerous holes along the sides of their bodies (spiracles) for their respiratory system and a separate hole (the mouth) for their digestive system. There is no need for the two systems to intersect.
So why do we have this design flaw? Simply put, because our ancestors had it. We evolved from lancelet-like animals that used a "pharyngeal basket" for both digestion and respiration. We are stuck with a fundamental body plan that has the two systems in close proximity. Darwinian natural selection might get rid of this design if there were an alternative design to compete against it, but few such alternatives have happened to crop up.
Actually, there is one very instructive case where a group of mammals did happen upon an alternative body plan in which the digestive and respiratory systems have distinct, non-intersecting pathways. What's more, they have adopted a lifestyle that actually requires this separation, allowing them to catch food and eat it underwater without the danger of drowning. These are the cetaceans. Whales and dolphins can't breathe through their mouths because their mouth does not lead to their lungs. And, of course, they can't choke on food.
It's interesting to speculate about the relationship between the adaptation (blowholes separated from the digestive tract) and the aquatic lifestyle. Which encouraged which? Which came first? Even better is the fact that the early evolution of whales is exquisitely documented in the fossil record - one of the best, most complete, and most dramatic collections of transitional fossils we have.
A couple of excellent web sites:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/index.html

Can you tell that I really get excited about this topic?
I simply love examples of stupid design in nature; they're so instructive. Even better is to find examples of stupid design where different groups of organisms use different adaptations to solve the same stupid problems imposed by their common evolutionary heritage.

Of course, the example I am most intimately familiar with, after recent back troubles: anybody who believes in intelligent design has obviously never endured the utterly pointless agony of lower back pain. Thanks a lot, great designer!

Top
#12833 - 08/31/05 07:44 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
Anonymous
Unregistered


Talk about perfection and I have a long list.
But when someone told me that even the most perfect man made creation fails to sustain its beauty over time, I smiled at the Nature for sustaining the non-physical creation of Her's.
Perfectionist of physical reality call for unimaginable event to happen everytime and everywhere.
Sadly they fail to appreaciate the base desire of Mother Nature.Even there own theory is based upon Evolution which hardly cares for the survival stragies used by the then species.
Some call it stupidity if there are signs relating to nearest ancestor in chain but I call it a remider of my dearest and nearest brother.
And please give time to the Nature to improve and forget what needs to be forgotten.Thanks to her we no more lay eggs in the water.
Asking her to give you the PERFECT physical answer right now is like asking Her to populate the entire Universe with my dear friends now.
It doesnt work that way.
It takes time.
May be we will have two more hands tomorrow but only two legs.And then again you will complain.
Before you call someone stupid make sure that you are not.(it was just a joke)
:-))

Top
#12834 - 09/01/05 04:07 PM Re: Proof that God did not create life
Andy Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/28/04
Posts: 18
Loc: Latitude: 38.9748 Longitude 94...
Someone once said only a terrible engineer would run waste through a recreation area.

+2 cents(tounge:cheek)

Top
#12835 - 09/02/05 12:58 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
Lompta Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/25/05
Posts: 3
Actually, we are physically and mentally perfect. It's the only reason we exist. There is no real reason why we should exist at all. We have not found any organ that holds the soul. We have found how data is stored, but not why we live in the first place, not why anything doesn't simply cease to exist instantly. Only perfection could survive such an abyss of chaos. Anything that exists, therefore, as far as I can see, is perfect.

Top
#12836 - 09/02/05 04:53 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
Anonymous
Unregistered


Not one expect those who enjoy making love will agree with you.
It was joke.
Yes indeed this is this overall grand reality of happiness for every species. There are good times and there are bad times but overall Life remains good.And thats why they are alive.
Some say it is a complete nonsense to search for happiness outside as it is the function of your internal emotions which can be generated using internal belief.Think positive they say but how much they follow who knows.

Top
#12837 - 09/02/05 05:35 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Lompta wrote:
"Actually, we are physically and mentally perfect. It's the only reason we exist."

In about 120 years look me up and describe to me in great detail your personal perfection.

If you truly believe what you wrote I would suggest you seek out a competent psychotherapist. I'd hate to have you wake up some day and having concluded your lack of perfection seek the logical solution.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12838 - 09/10/05 04:16 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
Sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 09/09/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Virginia, USA
"It will prove, conclusively, that our DNA was created by purely natural processes and not by any intelligent or sentient being."

Actually I have it from good authority that God did not intend to make man, it was purely an accident, "And God repented that he had made man". (Genesis, the story of Noah)

I think it might have been some pea soup he spilled one day.

lol...
_________________________
Sparky

Top
#12839 - 09/10/05 05:56 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
An accident by a perfect creator? Say it isn't so.

ROFL.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12840 - 09/11/05 06:59 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"Only perfection could survive such an abyss of chaos."

This is a common logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance.

Top
#12841 - 10/06/05 11:46 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
Johan Offline
Member

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 35
Loc: Norway
Quote:
Proof that God did not create life
But who created the meteors etc? I have come to the conclusion that after you die there is nothing. No heaven or hell, and you won't float around here on earth either. Pretty sad thought maybe. So no saying hi to God in the "afterlife". Only thing I still can't fully accept is how it all began. This "something" today must have been "nothing" at an earlier stage. So DA Morgan, I would like to know how it all began. And while you're at it tell me the meaning of life too.
_________________________
Johan VS

-Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a raindance.

Top
#12842 - 10/06/05 02:25 PM Re: Proof that God did not create life
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
1. If we do not know a perfect answer to the question of how it all began, are we justified in using the argument from ignorance? "We don't know, therefore god."

2. There is no discernable purpose to life.

Top
#12843 - 10/06/05 09:35 PM Re: Proof that God did not create life
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Johan:

1. How it all began?
Don't know. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. Every current answer whether scientific, relgious, philosophical, or other is not correct. What science can tell us is precisely where it all was an actosecond after that point-in-time.

Now are you going to conclude that because no one knows the answer you must create a mythical creature and bestow upon it supernatural powers?

2. Purpose of life?
For me? For you? For amoeba? For zebra? Or would you like me to offer up an answer that applies to all life-forms in all galaxies in all possible universes?

For me? It is turning oxygen into carbon dioxide. The longer I can continue doing that the better.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12844 - 10/07/05 12:52 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
In case DA Morgan?s original post has been forgotten

Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050814170410.htm

If this work holds up it will be one of the most important and fundamental pieces of research in our life times.

It will prove, conclusively, that our DNA was created by purely natural processes and not by any intelligent or sentient being.

Use this to kick the cr.p of our your local religious nut-case. Oh yeah, they aren't rational beings, so perhaps you shouldn't try. They are the same people that used to burn witches and heretics.

--------------------
DA Morgan

Reply:
Before I went on to this extensive development of so many ideas for and against religion I made a reply on another topic, RELIGION AND THE BIG BANG, wherein I said that there did not seem to be any attack on religion here because there is no point. So, I was wrong. In spite of what may be a majority (fortunately not on this Forum?) of believers wishing to foster the growth of faith founded ideas there is still little purpose to use a potential scientific discovery to poke them in the eye. Anyway, what does such an argument prove? If I have a magic god wand I can change the DNA all I wish and put us all back with the fossils. There is simply no point no matter how much fun it may be. There is one area in astronomy that I find suggestive in Genius.

When some people attack the Bible, and I may do it some day, they argue that the creation part describes the creation of the UNIVERSE. I have never seen it that way. I see it as a reasonably good description of the start of the Solar System. Try changing the word God whenever used to ?gravity? or ?gravitation? and it is not to far from a depiction of the formation of the Solar System. Now, if you did not know anything about gravity God would provide a possible substitute for the authors back then. Now when Adam and Eve come along they have some thing a little heavier to work out.

I read every reply in this subject area and it was very informative, at times. Cheers.
jw

Top
#12845 - 10/07/05 11:21 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
I have given my own names to two subjects not covered by anything I have read:

1. infiniverse = this is a product of the belief that there is more than one universe, and more than one multiverse and more than one multi- multiverse and so on. the infiniverse is literally everything.

2. the golden laws = basically every single rule of science (known and unknown) that particles abide by to produce everything

It is true that nothing can exist without a physical form. to exist, something must have mass.
Religion states that a sentient being created everything out of nothingness. This is not possible; to create something, the being would already have had to be there, therefore contradicting the entire belief of creation since something that doesn't exist can't just appear, fully formed and sentient out of nothing. People can then argue, doesn't that apply for the multiverse aswell. The answer is yes, it does, the multiverse also could not have sprang out of nothingness. but, to believe that the infiniverse was there before life is much more logical because life is a product of the golden laws. people then say, who invented these laws. the answer is that these laws could not have been invented because intelligence is a product of the llaws.

Top
#12846 - 10/08/05 10:12 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Rob,

There seem to me to be a few assumptions here.

If an entity created this universe, then necessarily that entity would sit outside the realm of our direct experience.

It is like ants hatched in a plastic container.
They are sitting in a closed system.
They cannot know anything of what lies outside that system except by conjecture, (which by definition, is not knowing). The only way they can know what lies outside is if we open the container and break into their realm of experience.


This next part of the analogy is loose and is only used to explain the principle that there may be conditions outside our closed system that do not correlate to anything within it, or if they do are still unknowable.

If that container was suspended in thick, sticky goo, then the ants [experience of] physics would not correlate with that outside of the container where things float. How can they actually know that outside the container, objects are suspended in green goo?

When you postulate that -

It is true that nothing can exist without a physical form. to exist, something must have mass.


Well maybe in our experience, (although I did think that there were things that composed no mass and consisted of spin - but this is probably my ignorance, so please stick boot in here...if I am talking cr.p)

But the point remains that you are making an assumption that nothing can exist without mass outside of our closed physical system. I cannot see how you can possibly know this.

As for your second statement -

Religion states that a sentient being created everything out of nothingness.


You are on much steadier ground here, for instance, Christianity states that a sentient being created this universe out of nothing. It uses the Hebrew word 'bara' which is widely accepted to mean 'creation ex nihilo' in this instance.

You go on to state -

This is not possible; to create something, the being would already have had to be there, therefore contradicting the entire belief of creation since something that doesn't exist can't just appear, fully formed and sentient out of nothing.


Well yes, the sentient being would already have to be there, but the middle part of the statement -

?therefore contradicting the entire belief of creation


I hope you are talking about ?our beliefs about creation? and not saying 'contradicting what the whole of creation believes' - I'm just being facetious smile

Maybe you mean 'in contradiction to our current sum of knowledge that leads us to believe that...'

Well either way, you are applying principles that are formed within, and apply to a closed (or self contained) physical system.

You state -

something that doesn't exist can't just appear, fully formed and sentient out of nothing.


The Christian faith claims that God just exists. It says that God simply is. There is no reference to time here or any point where God came into existence. It recognises the difficulty of applying temporal terms to God?s existence and just accepts what it believes God says about himself ? ?I am?.

So no claim is being made that something does not exist and then just appears, fully formed and sentient out of nothing.

And again, if such a claim was being made, I repeat - you are applying principles that are formed within, and apply to a closed system.

You go on ?

People can then argue, doesn't that apply for the multiverse as well.


I cannot comment really on this ? I am ignorant of multiple universe theories.

You say ?

The answer is yes, it does, the multiverse also could not have sprung out of nothingness.


Here, you do seem to acknowledge that those of a religious bent and those of a purely scientific persuasion encounter some of the same issues when we think about what it means when our current experience of time doesn?t apply.

You say ?

?but, to believe that the infiniverse was there before life is much more logical because life is a product of the golden laws.


You seem to assume that life is only ever a product of universal laws. Well in our experience it is, but only in our experience of the closed system we sit within.

You say ?

?people then say, who invented these laws. The answer is that these laws could not have been invented because intelligence is a product of the laws.


I see the circular nature of this argument and why you reject the question, but your response is actually framed within another assumption ?

I believe that intelligence can only be a by-product of the laws of this universe.

Yes, within your frame of reference this is true. But only within the framework of what you know and this cannot include what lies outside of the closed physical system within which you live.


I do understand that it is as much of an assumption to say there is anything other than nothingness outside of this universe/multiverse, but it is enough to counter the claim that the way you state things is the only possible way it can be.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#12847 - 10/08/05 05:54 PM Re: Proof that God did not create life
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Blacknad,
The multiverse theory is based on the assumption that the creation of a universe is a naturally occuring thing. Therefore it should be happening all the time in different places. The theory also suggests that the universes cluster together into multiverses the same way stars and planets form galaxies. (Just so you know.)

About your example of ants in a plastic container;
I think you're implying that somewhere there is a set of rules different to our's which particles follow. (or there are different rules in many different places.) Let us look at numbers. there are many different rules numbers can follow. for example, you can keep multiplying a number by 2. the rule here is simple, and it is easy to predict what will happen in the future. Prime numbers also follow a set of rules, they just have not been found yet. My point is, numbers can have an infinite set of rules to follow. But these rules will all be based on simple, basic rules. For example, you can't add 1 to 2 and get anything other than 3. that is what i meant by 'golden laws'. So, to be able to create a set of new, working laws, something would already have to be there to create them. no matter which set of laws this 'something' came from, it too would be a product of the golden laws.

You said that you agreed that something can't be created of of nothing. Yet, you also said you do not know how i could possibly know that everything needs mass to exist. Well, let's use the example of numbers again. To get from 1 to Zero you would have to pass through an infinite amount of numbers.
e.g. 0.0(recurring)9871. With this in mind, it is impossible to ever get to zero. That is why I don't believe that there is anything without mass.
(by the way, the numbers were a representation for particles)

Top
#12848 - 10/09/05 02:44 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
Ric Offline
Member

Registered: 08/10/05
Posts: 44
Loc: Wisconsin
Things like this annoy me. If there is a "God"-- an omnipotent being who had the power to create the whole universe singlehandedly-- why wouldn't he have the power to create all the complexities we discover in it? Why can it not be that "God" created this process in which life was created? Why is it that this is proof that "God" did not create life? If he did exist, and did have the power he is supposed to have, surley he could create a process such as this? This "Natural process" is, after all, a part of the universe. I am not a religious person in any way. I am simply curious as to why people must have such a clear line devided between religion and science. Why does this prove that "God" did not create life?
_________________________
"The first Human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization." -Sigmund Freud

Top
#12849 - 10/09/05 03:26 AM Re: Proof that God did not create life
Dogrock Offline
Member

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 92
Loc: Ireland
If a person asks: Does God exists? And the answer is: God made you ask that question. It's circular logic, feeding on itself, it doesn't answer anything. Unless people can ask "does God exist" outside of God's influence, then the question is meaningless. So you can't say God created the complex world, but only when we found out about it ourselves, it's cheating of sorts. Still I think religious beliefs reflect the motivation for understanding everything. I only object if they say insist the earth is flat or such like against the obvious facts.

Top
Page 4 of 15 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 15 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.