Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quadruple the irony . . . in dismissing the 13.8 billion years of evidence as belonging to "things that have so little to commend themselves to us empirically" (because "We don't know what it is . . . but it is not God").Don't you guys ever tire of deceptively comparing lack of evidence for what does NOT exist (Leprechauns, etc.) with lack of explanation for evidence of what DOES exist (13.8 billion years of "something").
I cannot really respond to "13.8 billion years ... therefore, god". I don't know how to. But of course, I'm going to try.
We can find ourselves existing and all it means is that we exist. We can exist for 10 days, 10 years, 10 centuries, 10 eons, and it still just means we exist. We can not know how we came to be, and it just means we don't know how we came to be.
Some day we may have a better idea, or even a clear idea of how or why. If we find your particular version of god there, fine. In the meantime, you're reading too much into it.
This is the irony . . . you just described 13.8 billion years of evidence of an inscrutable "something" that has all the power, scope and attributes of a God to absolutely everything that exists . . . and you ask "Where is the evidence for god?" There is no hole in the evidence . . . there is a hole in the explanation of the evidence. Science has not closed more and more holes in the evidence for the existence of God . . . it has provided more and more evidence OF God despite the ongoing hole in the explanation for the evidence. Atheists elevate our ignorance about the Source of this evidence as evidence for "We don't know what . . . but it is NOT God."
Quadruple the irony . . . in dismissing the 13.8 billion years of evidence as belonging to "things that have so little to commend themselves to us empirically" (because "We don't know what it is . . . but it is not God").Don't you guys ever tire of deceptively comparing lack of evidence for what does NOT exist (Leprechauns, etc.) with lack of explanation for evidence of what DOES exist (13.8 billion years of "something").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
MysticPhD what I don't understand is why you have to attribute everything to god.
Because that is the only descriptor that captures the scope, power and ubiquity of the evidence we currently have collected about it.
Quote:
If we had been sitting here 200 years ago when we knew very little about the universe we could attribute everything to god. The rain, drought, lightning, the sun, the moon, birth, death, growth, genius, disability, deformity, love, hate, war, floods, any manner of natural disasters, the movement of the stars in the sky and so on. We knew nothing so we filled in the gaps by calling it all god.
These days we have an explanation for nearly all of it. We understand weather patterns, climate change, plate techtonics, genetics, energy, gravity, electro-magnetism and other forces, the speed of light, evolution, atoms and so on.
You see that is the thing . . . we do NOT have an explanation for any of it. We have described how this inscrutable "something" works . . . sometimes in excruciating detail . . . but we have not explained IT at all. When you combine the God-like attributes of this inscrutable something and the lack of explanation about what it IS . . . the only reasonable label for it is God. Ignorance is no basis for denying the enormity of the evidence and the scope, power and ubiquity of it using "We don't know what it is. It just is . . . but it is NOT God."
Quote:
Yet you still want to call it all god.
The difference is that atheists have gone past the point where god is still a satisfactory explanation for plugging the gaps.
It's almost insulting to all we have discovered to keep attributing it all to god. Why are we bothering making any advances at all if god has control over our lives and everything we do? What really would be the point? Stephen Hawking et al would be most disappointed to find their work had nothing to do with them. It was all god.
I told you there are no gaps in the evidence, There are no gaps in the descriptions of what it does. There is only one big huge gaping hole in the explanation of what it IS! That is why it is God. There is too much evidence to ignore and sweep under the ignorance rug to support an anti-God bias provoked by the religious absurdities ABOUT it.
Quote:
By the way I made very clear in my last post that these words:"We don't know what . . . but it is NOT God." are not words that I would say so I don't know why you directed them at me as if they were.
Whether or not you would say them . . . they are an accurate characterization of your position with regard to the enormous evidence without any real explanation.
Quote:
And using the slap head emoticon doesn't make what you say sound any more plausible.
No . . . but it makes me feel better about repeatedly trying to explain to those who don't want to even try to understand the ridiculousness of their assertions.
Got proof? Or just an opinion. You say you are certain. That requires hard evidence. Please don't leave me with the sound of crickets...
We know that planets are formed from molecular clouds in interstellar space. Telescopes like the Hubble have actually photographed protoplanetary disks. This is how the earth was formed billions of years ago. Therefore, God has nothing to do with creating planets and did not create the earth.
Life on earth came about through natural processes called abiogenesis. Therefore, God had nothing to do with creating life. Humans evolved from non-human animals over hundreds of millions of years. Direct genetic evidence shows that humans are biologically related to all modern apes and other mammals. Therefore, God had nothing to do with creating humans.
A son is a male human child or descendant. Imaginary supernatural beings do not have sons who incarnate on earth. The entire concept is flawed and ridiculous.
...I will say that it is not logical to think that the universe and life just came to be by chance. Chance does not produce the laws of the universe, mathematics or the Code of DNA...
Yes, it does. Do you really comprehend what "infinity" means? Your statement is the one that is actually profoundly illogical.
Quadrillions of Universes. A quadrillion x pentillion x trillions of creations. We are here because we live in just one of the Universes that allows us to survive.
This Universe was not "created just for us." That is an astoundingly egotistical statement. We are here simply because we live in a Universe that happened to have the right conditions for "life" as we know it.
Trillions of other Universes that do not have the "right conditions" for life never produced life. And so there's no one there to ask that question.
Because that is the only descriptor that captures the scope, power and ubiquity of the evidence we currently have collected about it. You see that is the thing . . . we do NOT have an explanation for any of it. We have described how this inscrutable "something" works . . . sometimes in excruciating detail . . . but we have not explained IT at all. When you combine the God-like attributes of this inscrutable something and the lack of explanation about what it IS . . . the only reasonable label for it is God. Ignorance is no basis for denying the enormity of the evidence and the scope, power and ubiquity of it using "We don't know what it is. It just is . . . but it is NOT God." I told you there are no gaps in the evidence, There are no gaps in the descriptions of what it does. There is only one big huge gaping hole in the explanation of what it IS! That is why it is God. There is too much evidence to ignore and sweep under the ignorance rug to support an anti-God bias provoked by the religious absurdities ABOUT it. Whether or not you would say them . . . they are an accurate characterization of your position with regard to the enormous evidence without any real explanation.No . . . but it makes me feel better about repeatedly trying to explain to those who don't want to even try to understand the ridiculousness of their assertions.
MysticPhd I can't continue on this merry-go-round of nonsense with you.
There is plenty of 'explanation for it' as I have attempted to explain as concisely as possible in my previous two posts.
In addition, BigCityDreamer provided a link to a basic idiots guide to current explanations on how life formed on earth beginning with RNA. Here's an excerpt:
Quote:
From fossil evidence, it appears that life may have existed on Earth as early as 3.5 billion years ago. This suggests that life must have evolved sometime during Earth's tumultuous first billion years. How did life evolve? And what did early forms of life look like? Some scientists believe that the answers may be hiding in our cells, in molecules known as RNA.
It is impractical for us to sit here typing out encyclopedic answers about the origins of life on earth - the answers are complex and you have to do the research yourself - but basically current thought is that it began with RNA - a sort of precursor to DNA.
But you insist on continuing to put words in my mouth when I have twice explained that this is not my stance. I believe you are free to believe whatever you like. It would be nice to be shown the same courtesy. I therefore have to end my conversation with you in this thread here, as I am not one for repeating myself ad infinitum about stuff I didn't say.
I answered the OP as best I could. I hope I was polite about it. My beliefs are based on the evidence presented to me through scientific research as the best explanation of life's origins so far. God as far as I'm concerned does not fit into it. That's not being anti-god that's just saying there are valid explanations. Notions of god are just not required.
If the OP would like to question me further I will oblige as best I can.
Romani is not interested in anything other than the endless Christian doctrines. Nor are jimmiej, Vizio, nor any other frightened Christian acolyte.
It's obvious when you see the usual unthinking quotes from some has-been Christian internet site, such as "How can an "explosion" produce life?" and "How can pre-molecules produce working molecules?" or "How can amino acids possibly form into ever more useful molecules? It's too complex, and THEREFORE there's God in Heaven! What more proof do you need?".
Meantime, back in the lab, we've now done just that. What? Impossible you say.
So.. what's the correct phrase here? Oh yeah: "Nyah nyah!"
Your dedicated and insistent lack of imagination, of no honest openness to even more complex ideas than we limited-IQ humans can muster up right now in our ongoing evolution, or that yes, perhaps our original DNA or even some more advanced life forms, were planted here by other beings.
For whatever reason, the Christian "faithistás" simply will not allow such thoughts into their heads.
Life on earth came about through natural processes called abiogenesis. Therefore, God had nothing to do with creating life. .
A speculation, not even a theory. And even if abiogenesis is so how do you know that God did not set the process up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astron1000
Quadrillions of Universes. A quadrillion x pentillion x trillions of creations. We are here because we live in just one of the Universes that allows us to survive.
Truth be told we have no evidence that there are any other universes beyond our universe. Some THINK there may be others, but it is mere speculation.
Funny how some atheists have beliefs not based or real evidence.
It's very simple. If you don't believe that the universe was created, how do you believe life began? Furthermore, how do you explain the phenomenon of life?
We could, Frankenstein-like, construct a human body. Science has advanced to that point, and even if we couldn't grow organs, we could harvest parts from other bodies. Yet, no matter how perfect our construction, we could not impart life to the body.
The physical and chemical makeup of a person one second prior to death is exactly the same as the physical and chemical makeup of that same person one second after death. Yet there is a huge difference - that being "life".
We can keep people physically alive on machines for a long time (perhaps indefinitely)... people with zero brain activity... but that doesn't qualify as life when, upon turning off the machine, the person's body would be totally incapable of self-sustainment and the person would die.
"Big Bang" theory explains how the universe was created. And even if you want to believe that, somehow, an explosion managed to create the orderly universe we know today, it doesn't explain life.
So tell me how you believe life began and what your evidence is to support your conclusion (if there is any).
The usage of the notion "emergence" may generally be subdivided into two
perspectives, that of "weak emergence" and "strong emergence".
Weak emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is
reducible to its individual constituents. This is opposed to strong emergence,
in which the emergent property is irreducible to its individual
constituents.
Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result of the
interactions at an elemental level. Emergence, in this case, is merely part of
the language, or model that is needed to
describe a system's behaviour.
Strong emergence says that if systems can have qualities not directly
traceable to the system's components, but rather to how those components
interact, and one is willing to accept that a systemsupervenes on its components,
then it is difficult to account for an emergent property's cause. These new
qualities are irreducible to the system's
constituent parts. (Laughlin 2005) The whole is
greater than the sum of its parts
In other words, living systems have properties than nonliving systems don't have even though living systems are made entirely of nonliving components. For example, living systems evolve and nonliving systems don't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no hole in the evidence . . . there is a hole in the explanation of the evidence. Science has not closed more and more holes in the evidence for the existence of God . . . it has provided more and more evidence OF God despite the ongoing hole in the explanation for the evidence. Atheists elevate our ignorance about the Source of this evidence as evidence for "We don't know what . . . but it is NOT God."
