http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
What do you think?
What do you think?
If you don't believe God exists
Open your heart, your mind, your soul. The truth's been in front of you all along.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
What do you think? |
You won't see the truth, will you? To you, I say this; we are tired. Exhausted from trying to help you, save you, acting as your signposts. I too am a man of science AND religion; yet our worlds are so different.
You clone living creatures, but it is religion reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is religion pointing out the fallacy of this reasoning.
And all the time, you proclaim religion and religious people are ignorant. But I ask, who is more ignorant? The man who claims to have all the facts yet does not accept what he does not see, or the man who doesn't know how it all works, but believes and sees a force we cannot control; cannot imagine; cannot comprehend, God.
We are reaching out to you. To everyone. And yet, the more we reach, the more you push away. 'Show me proof there is a God', you say. Look up! Look down! Tell me how there could not be a God! You ask 'what does God look like?'. I ask, where did this question come from? The answers are one and the same. Do you not see the wonders of God in your science? How can you miss Him! You proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom would have rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of heavenly bodies, and yet to fail to see God's hand in this? Is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? Have we become so spiritually bankrupt that we would rather believe in mathematical impossibility than in a power greater than us?
Whether or not you believe in God, you must believe this. When we as a species abandon our trust in the power greater than us, we abandon our sense of accountability. Faith...all faiths...are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable...With faith we are accountable to each other, ourselves, and to a higher truth. If religion is "flawed", then it is only because man is flawed!
If you could look at religion as I do...beyond the rituals, the traditions, the ceremonies, you would see something more. What you would see is something only you alone can find, and only if you truly search for it, because it won't be put in front of you on a plate.
Our world has been embraced in evil; look around you. Look at the news. This force, although mighty, is not invincible. Goodness can prevail. Listen to your hearts. Listen to God. Together we can step back from this abyss.
You clone living creatures, but it is religion reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is religion pointing out the fallacy of this reasoning.
And all the time, you proclaim religion and religious people are ignorant. But I ask, who is more ignorant? The man who claims to have all the facts yet does not accept what he does not see, or the man who doesn't know how it all works, but believes and sees a force we cannot control; cannot imagine; cannot comprehend, God.
We are reaching out to you. To everyone. And yet, the more we reach, the more you push away. 'Show me proof there is a God', you say. Look up! Look down! Tell me how there could not be a God! You ask 'what does God look like?'. I ask, where did this question come from? The answers are one and the same. Do you not see the wonders of God in your science? How can you miss Him! You proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom would have rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of heavenly bodies, and yet to fail to see God's hand in this? Is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? Have we become so spiritually bankrupt that we would rather believe in mathematical impossibility than in a power greater than us?
Whether or not you believe in God, you must believe this. When we as a species abandon our trust in the power greater than us, we abandon our sense of accountability. Faith...all faiths...are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable...With faith we are accountable to each other, ourselves, and to a higher truth. If religion is "flawed", then it is only because man is flawed!
If you could look at religion as I do...beyond the rituals, the traditions, the ceremonies, you would see something more. What you would see is something only you alone can find, and only if you truly search for it, because it won't be put in front of you on a plate.
Our world has been embraced in evil; look around you. Look at the news. This force, although mighty, is not invincible. Goodness can prevail. Listen to your hearts. Listen to God. Together we can step back from this abyss.
Well I read the earth part and well it just states that it is too much of a coincidence that the earth is perfect. Not a proof of god for me.
The water part states there is a "miraculous" system which distrubuts the water around the globe. But... just as the last it's not a proof of god.
2
For the brain part, its just a heap of hormones and electrons flying around what makes you "think". It doesn't show that god excist only that the brain is very special.
3
Well we can be the result of chance since the universe is really really big and there was plenty of time for us to randomly evolve to what we are now. (Bikerman, I'm still on that essay I'll be carefull for now)
4
But a lot of people don't believe in the western christian god but in other gods. So why does it prove that GOD exists and not Budha or Allah?
5?
wel that's not really and argument i never believed in god and i'm not pursuing answers to prove or disprove it. I'm open to the concept BUT for me there's no proof.
6?
Not really proof, maybe jesus was just a loonatic. I think nowadays most people would be declared that if they said "I am GOD!!!". And if jesus died so that al other people could be forgiven...
Why do there happen really really bad things who didn't do anything wrong?? Like babies on that horrible 2nd day of Christmas??
To me this whole text is just saying that eart excisting is very unlikely blabla. and a part is just ID al over again.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
The water part states there is a "miraculous" system which distrubuts the water around the globe. But... just as the last it's not a proof of god.
2
For the brain part, its just a heap of hormones and electrons flying around what makes you "think". It doesn't show that god excist only that the brain is very special.
3
Well we can be the result of chance since the universe is really really big and there was plenty of time for us to randomly evolve to what we are now. (Bikerman, I'm still on that essay I'll be carefull for now)
4
| Quote: |
| Does God exist? To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God. |
But a lot of people don't believe in the western christian god but in other gods. So why does it prove that GOD exists and not Budha or Allah?
5?
wel that's not really and argument i never believed in god and i'm not pursuing answers to prove or disprove it. I'm open to the concept BUT for me there's no proof.
6?
Not really proof, maybe jesus was just a loonatic. I think nowadays most people would be declared that if they said "I am GOD!!!". And if jesus died so that al other people could be forgiven...
Why do there happen really really bad things who didn't do anything wrong?? Like babies on that horrible 2nd day of Christmas??
To me this whole text is just saying that eart excisting is very unlikely blabla. and a part is just ID al over again.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| You won't see the truth, will you? To you, I say this; we are tired. Exhausted from trying to help you, save you, acting as your signposts. I too am a man of science AND religion; yet our worlds are so different. |
If you are tired then stop - I don't ask you to help me since I don't really believe you have any help to offer.
| Quote: |
| You clone living creatures, but it is religion reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is religion pointing out the fallacy of this reasoning. |
| Quote: |
| And all the time, you proclaim religion and religious people are ignorant. But I ask, who is more ignorant? The man who claims to have all the facts yet does not accept what he does not see, or the man who doesn't know how it all works, but believes and sees a force we cannot control; cannot imagine; cannot comprehend, God. |
| Quote: |
| We are reaching out to you. To everyone. And yet, the more we reach, the more you push away. 'Show me proof there is a God', you say. Look up! Look down! Tell me how there could not be a God! You ask 'what does God look like?'. I ask, where did this question come from? The answers are one and the same. Do you not see the wonders of God in your science? How can you miss Him! You proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom would have rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of heavenly bodies, and yet to fail to see God's hand in this? Is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? Have we become so spiritually bankrupt that we would rather believe in mathematical impossibility than in a power greater than us?
|
| Quote: |
| Whether or not you believe in God, you must believe this. When we as a species abandon our trust in the power greater than us, we abandon our sense of accountability. Faith...all faiths...are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable...With faith we are accountable to each other, ourselves, and to a higher truth. If religion is "flawed", then it is only because man is flawed! |
| Quote: |
| If you could look at religion as I do...beyond the rituals, the traditions, the ceremonies, you would see something more. What you would see is something only you alone can find, and only if you truly search for it, because it won't be put in front of you on a plate. |
If we were interested, we really do know exactly where to find you. So you'll see us if we change our minds. Until then, stop pushing your beliefs on others. One of the many major reasons people despise religious organizations...
I believe I'm stealing a quote that was posted on this forum: “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” --Stephen F. Roberts
I believe I'm stealing a quote that was posted on this forum: “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” --Stephen F. Roberts
| liljp617 wrote: |
| If we were interested, we really do know exactly where to find you. So you'll see us if we change our minds. Until then, stop pushing your beliefs on others. One of the many major reasons people despise religious organizations... |
Is that like a....threat?
Look friend, the same way every atheist here has a right to contradict everything HBP says, he has just as much a right to say it. It could be argued that you are pushing you're beliefs on him, since you decide to respond. You could actually dismiss the thought and go about your day.
Anyways I feel that people "despise" it once they start getting the God talk. Everyone knows what the God talk sounds like and it is usually met with a woeful sigh of here-we-go thoughts. Understand though, that a man who professes his religion unto you is trying to share his salvation with you. If you do not wish to believe in it then thats how it will be, but do not forget that he believes he is right, and in his heart he is reaching out to you.
Just to clear this up even more...every conversation that I have on this forum trying to prove he is real, though often fruitless, is because I have a great relationship with God. I want you to as well, because it will mean fulfillment in life and satisfaction in the after. You do not have to, but I'll try anyway, no matter how evidence-less I may be. Never though, would I push my religion onto someone else as a form of one-up-manship, or as an ego booster.
So back to the threat. HBP has done nothing wrong. If you decide to change your mind and find him, it will be not because of his postings, but because of your arrogant ignorance.
I didn't read any threat into it. I understood that he (liljp617) was saying - look if we want to convert to Islam we know where to find you and we'll ask.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I didn't read any threat into it. I understood that he (liljp617) was saying - look if we want to convert to Islam we know where to find you and we'll ask. |
Oh well I guess I missed the inference. Without the words "convert to Islam" it seems like a "if i wanted to right now, id find you" type statement.
my bad ill just..step back..here... in the shade.....
| Quote: |
| 1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
2. Does God exist? The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it. 3. Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations. 4. Does God exist? To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God. 5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him. 6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us. |
*ahem*
1. The teleological argument. Showed to be logically flawed by David Hume in 1776. Shown to be rationally unnecessary in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Try to keep up people.
2. See above.
3. See above. Repeating the same bad argument with different examples does not make it good.
4. Appeal to authority. But not even an intelligent appeal to authority. This appeal only works if you include "historical" geniuses like Newton. In 1700, it took a great leap of faith to believe that there was no god, because there was so much that seemed as if it could only be explained by a god. Yeah, but that was 1700, and it's past 2000 now. If Newton was alive today, it would be almost impossible to argue that he would have believed in a god the same way he did in 1700. Not to mention that numerous surveys have found that the most intelligent people today believe there is no god... so... yeah. ^_^;
5. Religious nonsense.
6. Religious nonsense.
That took five minutes. -_- Come on. Try harder.
| Brian_Bezzle wrote: |
| my bad ill just..step back..here... in the shade..... |
Is that like a... threat? ^_^;
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | ||
Is that like a....threat?
Look friend, the same way every atheist here has a right to contradict everything HBP says, he has just as much a right to say it. It could be argued that you are pushing you're beliefs on him, since you decide to respond. You could actually dismiss the thought and go about your day. Anyways I feel that people "despise" it once they start getting the God talk. Everyone knows what the God talk sounds like and it is usually met with a woeful sigh of here-we-go thoughts. Understand though, that a man who professes his religion unto you is trying to share his salvation with you. If you do not wish to believe in it then thats how it will be, but do not forget that he believes he is right, and in his heart he is reaching out to you. Just to clear this up even more...every conversation that I have on this forum trying to prove he is real, though often fruitless, is because I have a great relationship with God. I want you to as well, because it will mean fulfillment in life and satisfaction in the after. You do not have to, but I'll try anyway, no matter how evidence-less I may be. Never though, would I push my religion onto someone else as a form of one-up-manship, or as an ego booster. So back to the threat. HBP has done nothing wrong. If you decide to change your mind and find him, it will be not because of his postings, but because of your arrogant ignorance. |
I don't see how it's a threat in any way. I couldn't care less about his following of religion. I don't need to be told that he's doing me a favor, however, by telling me I HAVE to believe specific things for specific reasons and that I SHOULD do this or that regardless. My comment was not a threat in any way what so ever. It was meant as a statement of, "if I cared to divulge myself in some religious organization, I know exactly where to go and how to get there." If that's an insult then I guess we have different definitions of the word.
Anyway, no one here is contradicting what he is saying. The people disagreeing with him are doing so based on pure logic, reality, and scientific fact. That's not contradicting, that's opposing his views. Nothing more, nothing less. We're not telling him he can't believe in a god or that he's silly for doing so. We're not telling him belief in a god is wrong and that religion causes problems in society. We're telling him WE do not follow his beliefs, we do not follow his thought process because we have different mindsets, we do not want him to "save us," we do not want to be involved with his religion (or any religion obviously), we do not believe in his god. If he's going to openly start a thread basically demanding "you must believe this," I have every single duty and right to tell him, "no, I don't have to believe, just because you say so or your faith says so." What he's doing is clearly pushing his ways of life and belief on the forum members who read these discussions.
I don't have beliefs to push on him, therefore I can't push beliefs on him. I didn't mention a single thing in my post other than asking him to stop demanding we do specific things that are in accordance to his religion. I fail to see what I'm pushing. Perhaps you could enlighten me? You should also take into consideration that it is very rare (I haven't been here long, but I really haven't seen any yet) to see threads started by an atheist who declares those who follow religion should drop it immediately and follow their ways. Or an atheist who declares "you must do this, you must see how this is proven by science, you must follow the ways of science" etc. Yes, in the midst of debates, there is often exchange of scientific data. But I have never seen an atheist on these forums state that you should live your life one way instead of another, or you should forget religion and throw it away because I say so.
More than anything, the level of arrogance and egotism in his post is beyond my understanding. I really don't see where people get this idea that they have to "save everyone." You have your religion...fine. Why is it mandatory that you shove it in my face as if you're above me? He also inferred fairly clearly that without religion there is no morality among people...which is beyond wrong.
And as long as you keep trying to "save me" (code for push your beliefs on people who don't want them), I'll keep replying with fallacies in your arguments
I'm not contradicting you, I'm completely disagreeing with you and everything you say I SHOULD do with my life. I have no arrogance, I have respect for others that don't want to read my atheistic recruiting (don't know how to put it)...I expect the same respect from others. Call me naive if you wish, but I just see that's how the world should work. If you don't want me to disagree with you wholeheartedly and ask you to kindly keep your recruiting to a minimum, don't start threads with basic recruiting rhetoric. I'll gladly do the same for you. However, if you do start a thread of that nature, I have every right to reply with opposing ideas and fact. The responsibility of the thread starter is not equal to that of the replier.
And apologies toward others if you think I have spoken for you when I shouldn't have.
I know I haven't been on here for who knows how long. Its been pretty hecktic... hectic (spelling anyone?) in my day-to-day life. But, anyway, here goes.
HalfBloodPrince:
To YOU I say this. I cannot speak for Bikerman, but I'm sure he doesn't apprieciate this comment. You rant and rave about how he "insults" you for being a theist, but he is doing no such thing. He is simply showing you the flaws in the arguement you have choosen to use. However, you turn around and try to twist his arm into submission by saying that he needs to be "saved". Another threat of Hell. How nice (please note the sarcasm).
And as a side note, I'm a theist, so IF you read this and go on the assumption that I'm an atheist just because I defend him, then you are mistaken. I merely believe that you should not "force" someone to believe in something that don't want to believe in, by saying that they need to be "saved". I find that morally offense.
I believe that God is merciful enough that if someone chooses not to believe in him/her/it, or if they do not know of him/her/it, that he/she/i will forgive them. There CAN be morality without religion (IE I am a theist, but I have no defined religion, simply because no religion that I have found meets my particular views).
Back to the subject at hand. Whoever mentioned the telelogical theory (can't remember who) was "outdated", so to speak, is there a link you can provide, or did I just miss it? Because the only arguement that I can think of myself to go against the particular issues mentioned in the article is that evolution is technically a "proven" theory (and therefore discounts the DNA part), and probability cannot be dismissed from all this simply because energy/matter is naturally random, etc etc...
HalfBloodPrince:
| Quote: |
| You won't see the truth, will you? To you, I say this; we are tired. Exhausted from trying to help you, save you, acting as your signposts. |
To YOU I say this. I cannot speak for Bikerman, but I'm sure he doesn't apprieciate this comment. You rant and rave about how he "insults" you for being a theist, but he is doing no such thing. He is simply showing you the flaws in the arguement you have choosen to use. However, you turn around and try to twist his arm into submission by saying that he needs to be "saved". Another threat of Hell. How nice (please note the sarcasm).
And as a side note, I'm a theist, so IF you read this and go on the assumption that I'm an atheist just because I defend him, then you are mistaken. I merely believe that you should not "force" someone to believe in something that don't want to believe in, by saying that they need to be "saved". I find that morally offense.
I believe that God is merciful enough that if someone chooses not to believe in him/her/it, or if they do not know of him/her/it, that he/she/i will forgive them. There CAN be morality without religion (IE I am a theist, but I have no defined religion, simply because no religion that I have found meets my particular views).
Back to the subject at hand. Whoever mentioned the telelogical theory (can't remember who) was "outdated", so to speak, is there a link you can provide, or did I just miss it? Because the only arguement that I can think of myself to go against the particular issues mentioned in the article is that evolution is technically a "proven" theory (and therefore discounts the DNA part), and probability cannot be dismissed from all this simply because energy/matter is naturally random, etc etc...
There is no proof here. What I read here is not different from any other "evidence" of God's existence that I have read. What these people, who write these articles, fail to realize is that if the conditions necessary for life on Earth didn't exist, then we wouldn't exist. There are eight planets in our solar system, yet known life only exists on one. Keeping that in mind, I'll start from the beginning of this article.
I'll start off with this quote (it's much longer, but I just copied the first sentence down.) This is completely true. Earth is perfect for life. But how does this prove the existence of God? I already said it once: if the conditions weren't here then we couldn't exist. If God created us, then why would he create other planets that are useless for life? It's not a coincidence that we are on a planet that can sustain life; it's simply the fact that we could not have evolved on other planets, such as Mercury.
I have the same point as I did in the previous quote. If we didn't have water, we would not have evolved (at least the way that we did).
How does this prove the existence of God? Different species on this planet have different mental abilities. Someone had to be on the top. Imagine this: our species had brains ten times more powerful than we do now. Other inferior species had our brains. We would look down on those species that have the inferior mental abilities that we have now. My point is this: the brain had to evolve to some level. As long as we have such powerful brains, we can say the same thing that this quote said.
I hate using this argument, because it isn't my own, and it's overused, but it's the easiest argument to use in this situation. I can say the same thing about God. Where did "God" come from?
This goes back to natural selection. If something doesn't work, it dies.
This is the worse argument so far. People used to believe that the world was flat. Also, people have believed in many different Gods. If everyone in some ancient civilization believed in one God does it make that God exist? According to this statement, every God should exist. Religion has always been around and different people from different civilizations have believed in different Gods. It just so happens that one of the mainstream beliefs today happens to be in the belief of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic God.
This is assuming that every atheist tries to persuade people that God doesn't exist. I know many people, that simply don't care and don't spend anytime thinking about it. Besides, religion causes many of our social problems today. Religion causes violence and war. Wouldn't it make sense that people spend a lot of time discussing it, even if they don't believe in what it teaches? Many atheists want to get other people to give up their beliefs for the sake of ending stupid religion violence. If something causes so many problems, it is only natural that it is discussed a lot.
I'm God. I'm claiming to be God. Worship me. Are you going to believe that I am God now and bow down to me?
I haven't seen any of these miracles.
That sums up the entire article.
| Quote: |
|
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface.... |
I'll start off with this quote (it's much longer, but I just copied the first sentence down.) This is completely true. Earth is perfect for life. But how does this prove the existence of God? I already said it once: if the conditions weren't here then we couldn't exist. If God created us, then why would he create other planets that are useless for life? It's not a coincidence that we are on a planet that can sustain life; it's simply the fact that we could not have evolved on other planets, such as Mercury.
| Quote: |
|
Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it... |
I have the same point as I did in the previous quote. If we didn't have water, we would not have evolved (at least the way that we did).
| Quote: |
|
The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. |
How does this prove the existence of God? Different species on this planet have different mental abilities. Someone had to be on the top. Imagine this: our species had brains ten times more powerful than we do now. Other inferior species had our brains. We would look down on those species that have the inferior mental abilities that we have now. My point is this: the brain had to evolve to some level. As long as we have such powerful brains, we can say the same thing that this quote said.
| Quote: |
|
Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations. Where did human, animal, plant life come from? |
I hate using this argument, because it isn't my own, and it's overused, but it's the easiest argument to use in this situation. I can say the same thing about God. Where did "God" come from?
| Quote: |
|
Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. |
This goes back to natural selection. If something doesn't work, it dies.
| Quote: |
|
Does God exist? To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God. |
This is the worse argument so far. People used to believe that the world was flat. Also, people have believed in many different Gods. If everyone in some ancient civilization believed in one God does it make that God exist? According to this statement, every God should exist. Religion has always been around and different people from different civilizations have believed in different Gods. It just so happens that one of the mainstream beliefs today happens to be in the belief of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic God.
| Quote: |
|
Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him. I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded.... |
This is assuming that every atheist tries to persuade people that God doesn't exist. I know many people, that simply don't care and don't spend anytime thinking about it. Besides, religion causes many of our social problems today. Religion causes violence and war. Wouldn't it make sense that people spend a lot of time discussing it, even if they don't believe in what it teaches? Many atheists want to get other people to give up their beliefs for the sake of ending stupid religion violence. If something causes so many problems, it is only natural that it is discussed a lot.
| Quote: |
|
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. |
I'm God. I'm claiming to be God. Worship me. Are you going to believe that I am God now and bow down to me?
| Quote: |
|
What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. |
I haven't seen any of these miracles.
That sums up the entire article.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| Back to the subject at hand. Whoever mentioned the telelogical theory (can't remember who) was "outdated", so to speak, is there a link you can provide, or did I just miss it? Because the only arguement that I can think of myself to go against the particular issues mentioned in the article is that evolution is technically a "proven" theory (and therefore discounts the DNA part), and probability cannot be dismissed from all this simply because energy/matter is naturally random, etc etc... |
Sure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pages/teleological.htm#
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/barrow.html
PS - 'Hectic'
From the article:
One of the mistakes that creationists often make is in the assumption that complexity is indicative of good design. It's not. The hallmark of a good design is simplicity - a well designed object is one that is as simple as possible consistent with maintaining its functionality.
On these criteria, you cannot claim that the Earth is an example of good design if its purpose is to support human life. There's just too much wrong with it.
| Quote: |
| The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. |
One of the mistakes that creationists often make is in the assumption that complexity is indicative of good design. It's not. The hallmark of a good design is simplicity - a well designed object is one that is as simple as possible consistent with maintaining its functionality.
On these criteria, you cannot claim that the Earth is an example of good design if its purpose is to support human life. There's just too much wrong with it.
| jeremyp wrote: | ||
From the article:
One of the mistakes that creationists often make is in the assumption that complexity is indicative of good design. It's not. The hallmark of a good design is simplicity - a well designed object is one that is as simple as possible consistent with maintaining its functionality. On these criteria, you cannot claim that the Earth is an example of good design if its purpose is to support human life. There's just too much wrong with it. |
Id say that statement is incorrect. At least the "theres too much wrong with it" bit. If it wasnt for humans..Earth would be just fine. Probably better off dont you agree?
People just don't realise there is no scientifical proof for faith, but more important, there doesn't have to be. Faith is about believing, not proving.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Sure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pages/teleological.htm# http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/barrow.html |
Yes, it was probably me that mentioned it. Those articles probably outline the general objections to the argument. The sources for what i was talking about:
David Hume's Dialogues of Natural Religion is the first (that i know of) philosophical work that - step-by-step - deconstructs the teleological argument. It had been challenged before, sure, but Hume tore it to smithereens. Unfortunately for Hume, it was 1776. After he finished completely tearing the argument apart, he had to admit that he had nothing better to replace it with. He couldn't explain where life, the universe and everything came from. He knew the argument was lame, but since he had nothing else, he had no choice but to shrug and accept it.
But a century later, things changed. Science advanced to the point that it could give reasonable answers to those questions. It became possible to explain the universe without appealing to design and purpose. Even by the 1850s, it was becoming clear enough that a designer was not necessary (although, technically speaking, they were rather optimistic... toward the end of the nineteenth century they were powerfully humbled). Now, by 2008, we have scientists seriously studying the "theory of everything" (several candidates, in fact ^_^; ).
So, we have an argument that's logically flawed... and we have a reasonable alternative. Translation, game over for the teleological argument.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | ||||
Id say that statement is incorrect. At least the "theres too much wrong with it" bit. If it wasnt for humans..Earth would be just fine. Probably better off dont you agree? |
The earth would be fine since there's no one to say there's something wrong with it.
What is wrong with the earth "we" didn't do?
Earthquakes
Tornadoes
Tsunami's
just to name a few.
I think this article is ridiculous, why? Because it's something you can say about all kinds of things that humans don't control, for example: Oh the lava is so great, it's so pure and hot, even though sometimes it wipes masses, it's still awesome because it's God creation. I don't think there will be ever proof that God exists, that's what faith is all about, not knowing...
I do believe in God. In GOD, not the church, nor some priest that keeps telling me how to live and how to act. It's strange because God gave us free will, yet His representants (church) keep controling our lives...
If I wouldn't know a thing about Christianity or any other religion, for example, if I was a martian that came to planet Earth. From this sentence I would think that this whole religion is just one awesome excuse to start wars, hate and control other people.
Best example: Medieval times. I guess that's the worse thing about religion, but I guess it can't be all perfect, only God is...
There was somewhere a perfect quote, I can't remember it exactly, but it was something like
"The religion is the main cause for the humanity not to develop", or something like that.
I do believe in God. In GOD, not the church, nor some priest that keeps telling me how to live and how to act. It's strange because God gave us free will, yet His representants (church) keep controling our lives...
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| You won't see the truth, will you? To you, I say this; we are tired. Exhausted from trying to help you, save you, acting as your signposts. I too am a man of science AND religion; yet our worlds are so different.
|
If I wouldn't know a thing about Christianity or any other religion, for example, if I was a martian that came to planet Earth. From this sentence I would think that this whole religion is just one awesome excuse to start wars, hate and control other people.
Best example: Medieval times. I guess that's the worse thing about religion, but I guess it can't be all perfect, only God is...
There was somewhere a perfect quote, I can't remember it exactly, but it was something like
"The religion is the main cause for the humanity not to develop", or something like that.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| You won't see the truth, will you? To you, I say this; we are tired. Exhausted from trying to help you, |
and i am tierd and exausted from listening
| Klaw 2 wrote: | ||||||
The earth would be fine since there's no one to say there's something wrong with it. What is wrong with the earth "we" didn't do? Earthquakes Tornadoes Tsunami's just to name a few. |
Earthquakes are part of plate tectonics so they are an important part of Earth's development.
Tsunamis are usually byproducts of earthquakes and they help in forming the coastlines and rejuvenating beaches.
Tornadoes stir up minerals and seeds and spread them over very long distances so they actually help the Earth as well.
Nature has its way of keeping healthy, just sometimes it sucks for us. So I wouldnt say that those happenings are whats wrong with the Earth.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Nature has its way of keeping healthy, just sometimes it sucks for us. So I wouldnt say that those happenings are whats wrong with the Earth. |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | ||||||
The earth would be fine since there's no one to say there's something wrong with it. What is wrong with the earth "we" didn't do? Earthquakes Tornadoes Tsunami's just to name a few. |
Well, if most creationists hold the view that God created Earth specifically for humans, I think we can all agree that those aspects and others of the planet aren't exactly that great when they effect humans (which they so often do). It doesn't really make all that much sense that if the Earth was created to perfectly fit humans, that there would be countless numbers of aspects of the planet that destroy human life.
...remember, Adam and Eve were sent here as punishment; Heaven has none of these problems.
Yeah I wasnt really arguing that Earth was made specifically for humans I was just pointing out that Earth would be fine without us. Now if there may be any truth to what you all are talking about, perhaps God chose the best suitable planet instead of making the planet from scrap. Still no proof, but something else to think about.
| Quote: |
| Yeah I wasnt really arguing that Earth was made specifically for humans I was just pointing out that Earth would be fine without us. |
Actually, I believe that all other lifeforms on earth would manage better without humans than with us.
And about the site, it really gave me a laugh. Thanks for sharing. It scares me that people believe in it though.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Earthquakes are part of plate tectonics so they are an important part of Earth's development.
Tsunamis are usually byproducts of earthquakes and they help in forming the coastlines and rejuvenating beaches. Tornadoes stir up minerals and seeds and spread them over very long distances so they actually help the Earth as well. Nature has its way of keeping healthy, just sometimes it sucks for us. So I wouldnt say that those happenings are whats wrong with the Earth. |
I always fought that according to the bible the earth was created by god in one day.
So they don't need to create coastlines and stuff since it was already there.
Tornadoes also destroy nature and nature is going just fine without tornadoes.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
|
Yes why there are easier methods of "keeping nature healthy" you don't nede those features for that.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| ...remember, Adam and Eve were sent here as punishment; Heaven has none of these problems. |
1 question, these features also affect small kids and babies why are they punished?
And if it was made for us to be punished, why o why do you state it's perfectly made for us? It's one of them not both.
That's like giving a serial killer a life imprisoment in a cell (Which is infact the playboy mansion or something).
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Yeah I wasnt really arguing that Earth was made specifically for humans I was just pointing out that Earth would be fine without us. Now if there may be any truth to what you all are talking about, perhaps God chose the best suitable planet instead of making the planet from scrap. Still no proof, but something else to think about. |
What The F..
Sorry About That.
1. If god exists like in the bible is described, why would he choose a suitable planet???? SINCE HE CAN MAKE ONE!!!!
2. You are defending an site that claimes earth is made for us and then... you deny it... so they site is claiming that it was made for us then you say its not made for us... so... well no point in finishing this i think you can see it for yourself.
| Keran wrote: |
| I do believe in God. In GOD, not the church, nor some priest that keeps telling me how to live and how to act. It's strange because God gave us free will, yet His representants (church) keep controling our lives...
|
These two lines are a lot more sane than that whole article.
| Klaw 2 wrote: | ||||||||||||
I always fought that according to the bible the earth was created by god in one day. So they don't need to create coastlines and stuff since it was already there. Tornadoes also destroy nature and nature is going just fine without tornadoes.
Yes why there are easier methods of "keeping nature healthy" you don't nede those features for that.
1 question, these features also affect small kids and babies why are they punished? And if it was made for us to be punished, why o why do you state it's perfectly made for us? It's one of them not both. That's like giving a serial killer a life imprisoment in a cell (Which is infact the playboy mansion or something).
What The F.. Sorry About That. 1. If god exists like in the bible is described, why would he choose a suitable planet???? SINCE HE CAN MAKE ONE!!!! 2. You are defending an site that claimes earth is made for us and then... you deny it... so they site is claiming that it was made for us then you say its not made for us... so... well no point in finishing this i think you can see it for yourself.
These two lines are a lot more sane than that whole article. |
Well number one the bible says the heavens and earth was created in 7 days, not the earth in one. Number two the planet is a living being it evolves just as we do. Do you understand that the topography of the earth is not the same as one million years ago? that is due to nature taking its course. Tornadoes destroy and plant. They are a reason why the earth evolves.
Easier methods of keeping nature healthy?? Ok you show me the guidebook to creating and maintaining nature and then I'll believe some crazy ish like that.
About choosing a suitable planet, if you couldnt understand I was just stating another theory we cannot prove then sorry. Ill go with your unprove-able one. I wasnt claiming earth was tailor made for us so I finished my sentence and you can understand that.
I didnt post the site link. I pointed out that the Earth lives with or without us. I gave a scenario for earth being chose for humans. Its probably not true, I pointed that out. You...should remove the metal rod from your rear end and chill before you start arguing with me over some ish I said not even trying to argue with anybody. So post again that the Earth would be better off without tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes and I will tell you the truth again.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| ...remember, Adam and Eve were sent here as punishment; Heaven has none of these problems. |
Where does this come from? Adam and Eve were supposed to live in the Garden of Eden. Are you contending that the Garden of Eden was actually not on Earth? I didn't think that was the traditional interpretation of Genesis in Islam.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Where does this come from? Adam and Eve were supposed to live in the Garden of Eden. Are you contending that the Garden of Eden was actually not on Earth? I didn't think that was the traditional interpretation of Genesis in Islam. |
I think his wording may have been throwing you off but I'm pretty sure he just means that they were cast into "the real world" as punishment, I dont think hes suggesting eden was on another planet or anything.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
|
Well number one the bible says the heavens and earth was created in 7 days, not the earth in one. Number two the planet is a living being it evolves just as we do. Do you understand that the topography of the earth is not the same as one million years ago? that is due to nature taking its course. Tornadoes destroy and plant. They are a reason why the earth evolves. |
Yes okay everything was created in 6 days since the 7th is a resting day. And it was in steps first day light and second day something else etc. etc. and I But still if god is so powerfull why didn't he just make a perfect planet.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
|
Easier methods of keeping nature healthy?? Ok you show me the guidebook to creating and maintaining nature and then I'll believe some crazy ish like that. |
I cant think something up (besides the fact that nature would do fine without tornadoes etc.) god certanly would since he is so powerfull.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
|
About choosing a suitable planet, if you couldnt understand I was just stating another theory we cannot prove then sorry. Ill go with your unprove-able one. I wasnt claiming earth was tailor made for us so I finished my sentence and you can understand that. |
But why would he if he is god he only has to sneeze and there's a perfect new planet.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
|
I didnt post the site link. I pointed out that the Earth lives with or without us. I gave a scenario for earth being chose for humans. Its probably not true, I pointed that out. You...should remove the metal rod from your rear end and chill before you start arguing with me over some ish I said not even trying to argue with anybody. So post again that the Earth would be better off without tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes and I will tell you the truth again. |
Okay you gave and scenario and i misread it or something or rememberd it incorrectly.
Okay:
Earth would be better of witout tornadoes. Tornadoes do more harm than they do good.
And seismic activity is bad too at least if you want to believe what the bible says.
I Dont so I believe that seismic activity is good for nature otherwise this planet would be a just a big ball coated in water (ice more likely). And for land to form and stuff you need seismic activity. BUT those people who believe in the Christian god all believe the bible and the bible says:
That a about 6000 years ago earth was created so then seismic activity has no purpose. Since mountains and stuff were already there.
Yeah sorry about the wording; I meant that they were cast out of 'perfect' Eden into the 'not-so-perfect' world we experience for a reason. If Earth were to be made perfect like Heaven, well...then why have Heaven?
"Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Well number one the bible says the heavens and earth was created in 7 days, not the earth in one. Number two the planet is a living being it evolves just as we do. Do you understand that the topography of the earth is not the same as one million years ago? that is due to nature taking its course. Tornadoes destroy and plant. They are a reason why the earth evolves.
Yes okay everything was created in 6 days since the 7th is a resting day. And it was in steps first day light and second day something else etc. etc. and I But still if god is so powerfull why didn't he just make a perfect planet.
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Easier methods of keeping nature healthy?? Ok you show me the guidebook to creating and maintaining nature and then I'll believe some crazy ish like that.
I cant think something up (besides the fact that nature would do fine without tornadoes etc.) god certanly would since he is so powerfull.
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
About choosing a suitable planet, if you couldnt understand I was just stating another theory we cannot prove then sorry. Ill go with your unprove-able one. I wasnt claiming earth was tailor made for us so I finished my sentence and you can understand that.
But why would he if he is god he only has to sneeze and there's a perfect new planet.
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
I didnt post the site link. I pointed out that the Earth lives with or without us. I gave a scenario for earth being chose for humans. Its probably not true, I pointed that out. You...should remove the metal rod from your rear end and chill before you start arguing with me over some ish I said not even trying to argue with anybody. So post again that the Earth would be better off without tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes and I will tell you the truth again.
Okay you gave and scenario and i misread it or something or rememberd it incorrectly.
Okay:
Earth would be better of witout tornadoes. Tornadoes do more harm than they do good.
And seismic activity is bad too at least if you want to believe what the bible says.
I Dont so I believe that seismic activity is good for nature otherwise this planet would be a just a big ball coated in water (ice more likely). And for land to form and stuff you need seismic activity. BUT those people who believe in the Christian god all believe the bible and the bible says:
That a about 6000 years ago earth was created so then seismic activity has no purpose. Since mountains and stuff were already there."
basically, the only arguement for these destructive forces on earth that kill innocent people is that they are needed for the ecosystem to work properly. the problem with this arguement is that if God really is infinitely powerful, he could find a non destructive way to do the same thing. this argument cannot be countered
Well number one the bible says the heavens and earth was created in 7 days, not the earth in one. Number two the planet is a living being it evolves just as we do. Do you understand that the topography of the earth is not the same as one million years ago? that is due to nature taking its course. Tornadoes destroy and plant. They are a reason why the earth evolves.
Yes okay everything was created in 6 days since the 7th is a resting day. And it was in steps first day light and second day something else etc. etc. and I But still if god is so powerfull why didn't he just make a perfect planet.
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Easier methods of keeping nature healthy?? Ok you show me the guidebook to creating and maintaining nature and then I'll believe some crazy ish like that.
I cant think something up (besides the fact that nature would do fine without tornadoes etc.) god certanly would since he is so powerfull.
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
About choosing a suitable planet, if you couldnt understand I was just stating another theory we cannot prove then sorry. Ill go with your unprove-able one. I wasnt claiming earth was tailor made for us so I finished my sentence and you can understand that.
But why would he if he is god he only has to sneeze and there's a perfect new planet.
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
I didnt post the site link. I pointed out that the Earth lives with or without us. I gave a scenario for earth being chose for humans. Its probably not true, I pointed that out. You...should remove the metal rod from your rear end and chill before you start arguing with me over some ish I said not even trying to argue with anybody. So post again that the Earth would be better off without tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes and I will tell you the truth again.
Okay you gave and scenario and i misread it or something or rememberd it incorrectly.
Okay:
Earth would be better of witout tornadoes. Tornadoes do more harm than they do good.
And seismic activity is bad too at least if you want to believe what the bible says.
I Dont so I believe that seismic activity is good for nature otherwise this planet would be a just a big ball coated in water (ice more likely). And for land to form and stuff you need seismic activity. BUT those people who believe in the Christian god all believe the bible and the bible says:
That a about 6000 years ago earth was created so then seismic activity has no purpose. Since mountains and stuff were already there."
basically, the only arguement for these destructive forces on earth that kill innocent people is that they are needed for the ecosystem to work properly. the problem with this arguement is that if God really is infinitely powerful, he could find a non destructive way to do the same thing. this argument cannot be countered
God would want us to follow him. So why would he give us a brain to think for ourselves?
I agree with Klaw 2 on this one. This article is complete crap. Why on earth would god let such a terrible article be written?
There are many better ways to convince people into thinking God is real. But really, its called a faith for a reason. There's no real evidence there is/is no god.
I agree with Klaw 2 on this one. This article is complete crap. Why on earth would god let such a terrible article be written?
There are many better ways to convince people into thinking God is real. But really, its called a faith for a reason. There's no real evidence there is/is no god.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
|
Well, techincally tornados, earthquakes, blahity-blahity-blah are all for the purpose of setting nature back on course when it gets screwed up. The best example I can think of for this is the ice age, or for people who don't know much about that, then the movie The Day After Tomorrow. In order for us to live on this planet, it has to keep itself in check and naturally "realign" itself if need be, reguardless of the possible loss of a few lives (I'm not down-playing the worth of human life, just trying to list how things work). So you could essientially look at it as if the earth is sacrificing a possible few for the greater population.
In addition to this, natural disasters may or may not account for any great loss of life on an AVERAGE yearly basis (I don't know because I haven't looked it up). And it's common knowledge that our planet is GROSSLY over populated. So... yeah... If I need to drag that thought out further just let me know. I'd prefer not to as it may seem a bit insensitive.
PS Bikerman... Thanks for being my human dictionary, lol. Oh, and for the links too. I found the second more useful than the first though.
i dont think that Eden was a perfect place because
1.) if it was then it should never contained the serpent and the ToKoGaE which resulted to the fall of man.
2.) the GOD in the Bible never said that what was made was perfect, he only said they were "good"
the exile of Adam and Eve out of Eden only signifies that Man bearing sin(rebelliousness/disobedience) can no longer mingle with GOD who was signified as the Tree of Life, a life that came from GOD, because to contain GOD man needs to be sinless.
there's no such thing as a "perfect" place...though i believe that its rather subjective to have one...
1.) if it was then it should never contained the serpent and the ToKoGaE which resulted to the fall of man.
2.) the GOD in the Bible never said that what was made was perfect, he only said they were "good"
the exile of Adam and Eve out of Eden only signifies that Man bearing sin(rebelliousness/disobedience) can no longer mingle with GOD who was signified as the Tree of Life, a life that came from GOD, because to contain GOD man needs to be sinless.
there's no such thing as a "perfect" place...though i believe that its rather subjective to have one...
| laurenrox wrote: |
| Well, techincally tornados, earthquakes, blahity-blahity-blah are all for the purpose of setting nature back on course when it gets screwed up. |
If that were true, then they would not happen unless nature gets "screwed up". Is that true? Do tornadoes, earthquakes and so on only happen when nature is interfered with by an unnatural agency (eg, man)?
If they do happen without any non-natural intervention... then nature itself is flawed. Because if nature has to "fix itself" every so often without someone first "screwing it up", then it must be "screwing up" all by itself... hardly the sign of a well-designed system. It's one thing to build an error-correction system into nature... it's quite another to build an error-creating feature, too.
Of course nature is flawed; according to Abrahamic beliefs, humans are on Earth as a semi-punishment. Heaven's nature is perfect; you won't find tornadoes and earthquakes there. We're here as punishment and so there have to be flaws and obstacles in our way. After all, Earth is worse than Heaven but better than Hell.
You know whats my biggest grudge against the article, besides the fact that it assumes all non-believers need to be saved? Its the fact that the article begins with you all sould belive in a God and ends with my God is better than yours. And this was what that has ALWAYS kept me out of the way of religion and the believers.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Of course nature is flawed; according to Abrahamic beliefs, humans are on Earth as a semi-punishment. Heaven's nature is perfect; you won't find tornadoes and earthquakes there. We're here as punishment and so there have to be flaws and obstacles in our way. After all, Earth is worse than Heaven but better than Hell. |
if heaven is perfect and GOD is in it, why would he want to create man which is imperfect?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Of course nature is flawed; according to Abrahamic beliefs, humans are on Earth as a semi-punishment. Heaven's nature is perfect; you won't find tornadoes and earthquakes there. We're here as punishment and so there have to be flaws and obstacles in our way. After all, Earth is worse than Heaven but better than Hell. |
*eyeroll* ^_^;
So, if the world is perfect, then that is evidence that God created it.
But, if the world is imperfect, then that is evidence that God created it.
Nice.
By the way, you've opened up a whole new bag of worms by suggesting that the harshness of our world is a punishment for us. i mean a huge new load of problems that have to be accounted for. You really haven't solved anything. ^_^; You've actually made the situation worse. Traditionally, most theologians have been forced to argue that this is the "best possible world" - the position laurenrox was taking - because taking the alternative - the one you're advocating now - is extremely problematic.
This sounds like it harks back to dark-age theology. The notion that the heavens are perfect and unchanging and that Earth is a pestilential place - the 'subluminary sphere'.
| Indi wrote: | ||
If that were true, then they would not happen unless nature gets "screwed up". Is that true? Do tornadoes, earthquakes and so on only happen when nature is interfered with by an unnatural agency (eg, man)? If they do happen without any non-natural intervention... then nature itself is flawed. Because if nature has to "fix itself" every so often without someone first "screwing it up", then it must be "screwing up" all by itself... hardly the sign of a well-designed system. It's one thing to build an error-correction system into nature... it's quite another to build an error-creating feature, too. |
Sorry, not trying to taken an offensive stance, but you said, "If that were true...". What is it that you mean by "if"? Are you implying that it's not actually true or that you don't know if it is or not?
And in response to your question...
Just because we're not screwing up, doesn't mean that it's screwing itself up. Of course the Earth isn't perfect, but that's because the laws of physics, nature, and many others have to be abided by. The best possible way for that to be done is on the world we live now.
And I realized that this brings up the question, "Couldn't God just create a world without abiding by any laws of physics or nature? After all, this is God we're talking about..." Blah, blah, blah, you get the picture. Well, the only way I know to explain that is that things usually work best are often ordered and have restrictions of some sort (for example, if machines could come to life, it would suck if you had to feed your computer {the fact that machines aren't alive is a type of restriction, for now anyway}). Perhaps God is trying to teach us by giving us those restrictions.
Scenario 1:
Matter, which clearly does exist, has always existed in one shape or form. Things take billions of years to reach their present state. It's hard to imagine anything being truly eternal, but other than that it's not too far fetched.
Scenario 2:
A god that is utterly perfect and all powerful has always existed. Far more perfect and intricate and powerful than anything he has created. Yet this god has no creator. It has always existed as a perfect being. It didn't evolve. It didn't come to be. It has always been. Perfect.
Yet despite being perfect. Perfect, meaning that it was complete and needed nothing more. This god decides to create the universe. Which would suggest that it felt something was missing - not perfect. With a single word, the universe is born. Billions of galaxies with anything from millions to trillions of stars each. Dozens of planets orbiting each star.
This god then decides to completely ignore 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of its creation and focus on one planet. It creates a perfect species that represent the pinnacle of its achievements. This perfect species, despite being under this perfect god's direct care and attention, go immediately wrong. Like a carpenter blaming his wonky shelf for the Harry Potter books scattered all over his floor, god then not only blames them, but disowns the entire species. Perfect.
Matter, which clearly does exist, has always existed in one shape or form. Things take billions of years to reach their present state. It's hard to imagine anything being truly eternal, but other than that it's not too far fetched.
Scenario 2:
A god that is utterly perfect and all powerful has always existed. Far more perfect and intricate and powerful than anything he has created. Yet this god has no creator. It has always existed as a perfect being. It didn't evolve. It didn't come to be. It has always been. Perfect.
Yet despite being perfect. Perfect, meaning that it was complete and needed nothing more. This god decides to create the universe. Which would suggest that it felt something was missing - not perfect. With a single word, the universe is born. Billions of galaxies with anything from millions to trillions of stars each. Dozens of planets orbiting each star.
This god then decides to completely ignore 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of its creation and focus on one planet. It creates a perfect species that represent the pinnacle of its achievements. This perfect species, despite being under this perfect god's direct care and attention, go immediately wrong. Like a carpenter blaming his wonky shelf for the Harry Potter books scattered all over his floor, god then not only blames them, but disowns the entire species. Perfect.
"Scenario 1:
Matter, which clearly does exist, has always existed in one shape or form. Things take billions of years to reach their present state. It's hard to imagine anything being truly eternal, but other than that it's not too far fetched.
Scenario 2:
A god that is utterly perfect and all powerful has always existed. Far more perfect and intricate and powerful than anything he has created. Yet this god has no creator. It has always existed as a perfect being. It didn't evolve. It didn't come to be. It has always been. Perfect.
Yet despite being perfect. Perfect, meaning that it was complete and needed nothing more. This god decides to create the universe. Which would suggest that it felt something was missing - not perfect. With a single word, the universe is born. Billions of galaxies with anything from millions to trillions of stars each. Dozens of planets orbiting each star.
This god then decides to completely ignore 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of its creation and focus on one planet. It creates a perfect species that represent the pinnacle of its achievements. This perfect species, despite being under this perfect god's direct care and attention, go immediately wrong. Like a carpenter blaming his wonky shelf for the Harry Potter books scattered all over his floor, god then not only blames them, but disowns the entire species. Perfect."
why should a perfect god only make perfect things?
why do you assume that?
Matter, which clearly does exist, has always existed in one shape or form. Things take billions of years to reach their present state. It's hard to imagine anything being truly eternal, but other than that it's not too far fetched.
Scenario 2:
A god that is utterly perfect and all powerful has always existed. Far more perfect and intricate and powerful than anything he has created. Yet this god has no creator. It has always existed as a perfect being. It didn't evolve. It didn't come to be. It has always been. Perfect.
Yet despite being perfect. Perfect, meaning that it was complete and needed nothing more. This god decides to create the universe. Which would suggest that it felt something was missing - not perfect. With a single word, the universe is born. Billions of galaxies with anything from millions to trillions of stars each. Dozens of planets orbiting each star.
This god then decides to completely ignore 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of its creation and focus on one planet. It creates a perfect species that represent the pinnacle of its achievements. This perfect species, despite being under this perfect god's direct care and attention, go immediately wrong. Like a carpenter blaming his wonky shelf for the Harry Potter books scattered all over his floor, god then not only blames them, but disowns the entire species. Perfect."
why should a perfect god only make perfect things?
why do you assume that?
| videoguy wrote: |
|
why should a perfect god only make perfect things? why do you assume that? |
Firstly, edit your post so you're using quote codes. Otherwise you're breaking the site rules.
Secondly, the Bible/Torah claim these things. I'm not sure about the Koran though, I'll admit.
| achowles wrote: |
| Secondly, the Bible/Torah claim these things. I'm not sure about the Koran though, I'll admit. |
This always makes me laugh. I propose ideas based on the Quran, and yet people say "WELL, the BIBLE and the TORAH [ie. scriptures stated in the Quran to be inaccurate and proportionately man-made] said this, but I'm not sure about the Quran, the source that you are claiming this from."
| laurenrox wrote: | ||||
Well, techincally tornados, earthquakes, blahity-blahity-blah are all for the purpose of setting nature back on course when it gets screwed up. The best example I can think of for this is the ice age, or for people who don't know much about that, then the movie The Day After Tomorrow. In order for us to live on this planet, it has to keep itself in check and naturally "realign" itself if need be, reguardless of the possible loss of a few lives (I'm not down-playing the worth of human life, just trying to list how things work). So you could essientially look at it as if the earth is sacrificing a possible few for the greater population. In addition to this, natural disasters may or may not account for any great loss of life on an AVERAGE yearly basis (I don't know because I haven't looked it up). And it's common knowledge that our planet is GROSSLY over populated. So... yeah... If I need to drag that thought out further just let me know. I'd prefer not to as it may seem a bit insensitive. PS Bikerman... Thanks for being my human dictionary, lol. Oh, and for the links too. I found the second more useful than the first though. |
Do tornadoes "Reset" nature? HAHAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
No they don't, at least there's no proof. In many many eyes it only destroys. And firther why did that tree needed reseting? It was just standing there.
They don't reset anything if from tommorow there wouldn't be any tornadoes nature would just do fine. Even better than with tornadoes!
So not even to talk about other disasters. The same goes for them too.
| laurenrox wrote: |
|
Sorry, not trying to taken an offensive stance, but you said, "If that were true...". What is it that you mean by "if"? Are you implying that it's not actually true or that you don't know if it is or not? And in response to your question... Just because we're not screwing up, doesn't mean that it's screwing itself up. Of course the Earth isn't perfect, but that's because the laws of physics, nature, and many others have to be abided by. The best possible way for that to be done is on the world we live now. And I realized that this brings up the question, "Couldn't God just create a world without abiding by any laws of physics or nature? After all, this is God we're talking about..." Blah, blah, blah, you get the picture. Well, the only way I know to explain that is that things usually work best are often ordered and have restrictions of some sort (for example, if machines could come to life, it would suck if you had to feed your computer {the fact that machines aren't alive is a type of restriction, for now anyway}). Perhaps God is trying to teach us by giving us those restrictions. |
so you are first people say: nature is perfect so god exists.
and then you say nature isn't perfect so it needs resetting. By tornadoes etc. And it's not only you.
And what do ou mean with the machine's part. If god is so perfect why wouldn't he just rewrite the book with "laws of physics"? By just thinking after all he is so perfect.
And then you say its restricted why would god not restrict nature in a other way.
I believe in God, but I also believe in reason, and this link just seems like a jumble of logical fallacies to me.
| The-Ron-Man wrote: |
| I believe in God, but I also believe in reason, and this link just seems like a jumble of logical fallacies to me. |
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
| laurenrox wrote: | ||||
Sorry, not trying to taken an offensive stance, but you said, "If that were true...". What is it that you mean by "if"? Are you implying that it's not actually true or that you don't know if it is or not? |
Why would that make a difference?
| laurenrox wrote: |
| And in response to your question...
Just because we're not screwing up, doesn't mean that it's screwing itself up. Of course the Earth isn't perfect, but that's because the laws of physics, nature, and many others have to be abided by. The best possible way for that to be done is on the world we live now. |
But that is patent nonsense. It is trivial to think of ways the Earth could be "improved" to make it more suited to human life that don't require violating the laws of physics.
Let's go with earthquakes, for example. Most earthquakes are caused by tectonic plate motions relative to each other. Is that necessary? Hardly. Just look at Mars. Mars is either tectonically dead or has shakes we wouldn't even feel (we don't know for sure yet because if there are marsquakes, they are smaller than we have yet been able to detect).
Look what i just did! i just made the great 唐山 earthquake... superfluous. That's hundreds of thousands of lives i saved, if only had i been the guy in charge.
But wait! There's more!
No earthquakes means... no tsunamis (not counting tsunamis by meteor impacts, of course). Now look what i just did! i just made the 2004 tsunamis go away! That's another - what, 200,000? - people who i would have saved.
Oh, but wait, you say, what benefits does the Earth's tectonic activity have? Doesn't it prevent the creation of super-volcanoes like Olympus Mons? Why yes, it does. But... wait a minute... why do volcanoes happen at all (assuming the planet is tectonically dead)? Well, long story short, lots of pressure under the crust plus a weak spot means... volcano. Can this problem be solved without changing the laws of physics? Well, dur, of course. The easiest way is to have thousands or even millions of "relief valves" all around the crust to release the heat stress underneath. Basically... hot springs.
Well, hell, not only have i taken away earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes... i've also given the world a crapload of hot springs!
You see? The Earth is hardly a paragon of good design. Two or three simple ideas and a couple of minutes, and look what i've accomplished! And nothing i've suggested is ridiculous or even hard. Certainly none of it requires any contraventions of the laws of physics.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| And I realized that this brings up the question, "Couldn't God just create a world without abiding by any laws of physics or nature? After all, this is God we're talking about..." Blah, blah, blah, you get the picture. Well, the only way I know to explain that is that things usually work best are often ordered and have restrictions of some sort (for example, if machines could come to life, it would suck if you had to feed your computer {the fact that machines aren't alive is a type of restriction, for now anyway}). Perhaps God is trying to teach us by giving us those restrictions. |
Well, putting aside the false dilemma (because God could create a much better world without any need to violate the laws of physics or nature), let's consider the idea that - for whatever reason - God did the best he could do with some limitations he had that we don't know about. Is this a good idea? Rewording the same idea, you end up with: if anything in this world were different, it would be worse in some way or another. Do you buy that? Because i don't.
Let's take a look at your example: If machines could "come to life" - become biological organisms - then why not have them run on photosynthesis rather than cellular respiration? In other words, if a machine were to come to life, why have it function like a cow rather than like algae? Not only would it not require feeding (it could suck carbon dioxide and water right out of the air), it would help clean up the carbon dioxide we breathe out (which would shrink our ecological footprint), it would run on sunlight (clean power), and it could even produce foods we could eat (imagine picking a fruit off of the side of your computer to munch on while you work)!
You see? The problem is not that the idea of making machinery alive is bad - the problem is a lack of imagination in applying the idea. By bending your perception a little, you end up with a machine that is better than a machine that runs on cellular respiration and the way machines are now!
Now take on the world - is it the case that changing any aspect of the world will worsen it? Hardly. A tiny little stretch of the imagination shows that we could make it a whole hell of a lot better. And think laterally! What if the Earth really is as good as God could make it? Well then, why not make us better? Why don't we have gills? No one would drown if we did, and we already have the genetic coding for them - it's just not expressed normally - so it's beneficial, and it's possible... so why wasn't it done?
It has always baffled me, this argument that the Earth/universe/whatever is so "tuned" for human life that it provides evidence of divine plan. i look around and i don't have to look too deeply to see that that's just rubbish. Even mediocre imagination can give you a dozen ways that it could be made better with very little effort. i mean, why make us able to drown on a planet where 70% of the surface is water when a fix is trivial (for a god)? It's absurd!
| Indi wrote: |
|
Certainly none of it requires any contraventions of the laws of physics. |
Those pesky Laws of Physics. The person who invented them the way they are did a really bad job. Oh, wait!
I read it and I'm still an atheist. These "reasons" are not very convincing..
Yea, the reasons for god existing stink.
First, it says "Earth is so perfect, God must have created it!" But what about shear probability? The universe is huge, humans and our technology can not even see all of it. With something this big, is it so hard to imagine that there would simply, by chance, be one planet that is bit enough to have an atmosphere, and far enough from a star to not burn up but not freeze? Not if you ask me.
The article also claims that water is so perfect it must have been designed by a god. But water, H2O, is simply a molecule that happens to have a nice set of properties. H2O forms naturally, and rather easily, too, so of course there is a lot of it. Likewise, the properties of H2O that make it so useful are simply a result of the laws of physics (remember, physics can explain everything, even if we don't have the models to explain parts of things like chemistry with physics yet).
Remember, there may be multiple universes, there may have been universes before this one, and the universe is huge. With all that, it really isn't too hard to imagine you'd eventually get something like we have now. With nearly infinite chances, it is guaranteed that eventually you will eventually get something like the earth, humans, and all the other stuff we have now.
First, it says "Earth is so perfect, God must have created it!" But what about shear probability? The universe is huge, humans and our technology can not even see all of it. With something this big, is it so hard to imagine that there would simply, by chance, be one planet that is bit enough to have an atmosphere, and far enough from a star to not burn up but not freeze? Not if you ask me.
The article also claims that water is so perfect it must have been designed by a god. But water, H2O, is simply a molecule that happens to have a nice set of properties. H2O forms naturally, and rather easily, too, so of course there is a lot of it. Likewise, the properties of H2O that make it so useful are simply a result of the laws of physics (remember, physics can explain everything, even if we don't have the models to explain parts of things like chemistry with physics yet).
Remember, there may be multiple universes, there may have been universes before this one, and the universe is huge. With all that, it really isn't too hard to imagine you'd eventually get something like we have now. With nearly infinite chances, it is guaranteed that eventually you will eventually get something like the earth, humans, and all the other stuff we have now.
The article lost my respect during the first paragraph, in which it states that if Earth were any bigger, it would contain free hydrogen like Jupiter. Refer to the terrestrial planet Gilese 581c or 581d, which is larger than earth, but is not a gas giant. They don't have any time to put into science and proper research; I don't think they have any time to put into anything else, other than bullocks and drawing conclusions of sheer coincidences like some tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. In fact, I noticed a few more I feel invalid, but shall not list here.
I skimmed over the rest, and I laughed when I got to reason four. Just because a majority of people believe in it doesn't make it any more true. A few centuries ago we believed the Earth was the center of the universe and planets were stars (even further back, gods) that made loopy loops around in the sky. Copernicus was so scared of being persecuted for a correct idea that he had to release his book on the matter on his death bed, and Galileo reinterpereted to scriptures leading to his house arrest. Groupthink is a lame excuse.
There is not a single reason on that list that is exceptionally good on that list and I'm not even atheist --- I'm agnostic.
I skimmed over the rest, and I laughed when I got to reason four. Just because a majority of people believe in it doesn't make it any more true. A few centuries ago we believed the Earth was the center of the universe and planets were stars (even further back, gods) that made loopy loops around in the sky. Copernicus was so scared of being persecuted for a correct idea that he had to release his book on the matter on his death bed, and Galileo reinterpereted to scriptures leading to his house arrest. Groupthink is a lame excuse.
There is not a single reason on that list that is exceptionally good on that list and I'm not even atheist --- I'm agnostic.
| {name here} wrote: |
| There is not a single reason on that list that is exceptionally good on that list and I'm not even atheist --- I'm agnostic. |
Atheist agnostic - one who does not believe the existence of God(s) can be proved or disproved but does not believe in God(s)
 |