Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[KFunk]

I believe that i god, or some sort of deity, does exist. Obviously, there is no 'concrete' evidence to support such a theory, because thats what faith is all about. However, to those of you who advocate evolution (macroevolution), i have my doubts. Practically all the 'evidence' for evolution is questionable.

I typed this a while back in another thread, but I figure that it's relevant now:

"We have observed the evolution of simple organisms - the strong example is that of bacteria and antibiotic resistance. Another example is dog breeding where humans, acting as a selective environmental pressure, select certain characteristics which they desire in the breed. The first is evolution by natural selection, while the second is evolution by artificial selection] In other words, evolution is not just based on past records - it has been observed.

Also, observation aside, evolution is to be expected (in statistical terms) given our knowledge of genetics:

1. Individuals are genetically similar to their forebears (they share a lot of traits).
2. Individuals with successful traits (in terms of reproduction and survival) are more likely to pass on their genes.
3. Hence traits/genes which are beneficial in a given environment tend to become dominant (in a population living in that environment) over time."

 

[ccc123]

I can't be stuffed to type of a whole thesis, but some key evidence agaist evolution include:

1. Macroevolution fails to explain how the universe actually came about. Pro evolution scientists have argued they can't explain how living things occured, just what happened afterwards. But if they can't explain the first step, how can they explain the 2nd or the 3rd step?

2. The evolutionists who do attempt to explain the origins of the universe claim it exploded from nothing (The bid bang) This is a contradiction because it defies the 1st law of theodynamics.

2. Much of the 'evidence' for evolution can be disregarded. The embryo sketches, for instance, have been declared fake (even though this is still identified as 'evidence' at school)

3. Macroevolution suggests living things came from the non-living. But living things can't just spontaniously arise from nothing. Abiogenesis was disregarded as a scientific theory ages ago.

4. The complexity or the DNA structure suggests some sort of designer. How can it be believed that such a complex design was generated randomly. Craetionists tend to belive that this complex structure was designed. Evolutionists, conversely, claim that the complexity emerged over time. However, the 2nd law of theodynamics contradicts this, indicating that time is the enemy of complexity. An analogy here would be a photocopier, producing millions of copies. The more copies that are produced, the worse the quality of the copy. Similarly, DNA would be more likely to lose genetic information and complaxity not gain it. Evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred, although they attempt to explain it through natural selection and mutations. BUT:

5. Mutations and natural selection do not show gain in genetic information, but merely rearrangement or loss of what is already there. Mutations destroy genetic information, often producing creatures more handicapped than the parents. Natural selection, meanwhile, simply weeds out unfit creatures.

"Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them."

Basically, the bottom line is, i just think there are way to many loopholes in evolution, and thus conclude that there is some sort of God/creator.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

1. Macroevolution fails to explain how the universe actually came about. Pro evolution scientists have argued they can't explain how living things occured, just what happened afterwards. But if they can't explain the first step, how can they explain the 2nd or the 3rd step?

The book "How TV's work" explains how TV's work, but to you that wouldn't be good enough because it doesn't explain where the electrons for the power came from?

2. The evolutionists who do attempt to explain the origins of the universe claim it exploded from nothing (The bid bang) This is a contradiction because it defies the 1st law of theodynamics.

Not from nothing, read up on the big bang some more. Also as far as laws go, in the realm of say the singularity at the end of a blackhole or whatever, science accepts the laws are probably radically different but that it's unlikely we'll ever know them.

2. Much of the 'evidence' for evolution can be disregarded. The embryo sketches, for instance, have been declared fake (even though this is still identified as 'evidence' at school)

Much of the evidence for evolution isn't faked sketches (which along with every other fake were discovered by 'evolutionists') it's the existance of fossils, radio carbon dating (along with other dating techniques), dna similarities etc.

3. Macroevolution suggests living things came from the non-living. But living things can't just spontaniously arise from nothing. Abiogenesis was disregarded as a scientific theory ages ago.

Yes, it suggests that living things came from the non-living. We share some similarities with non-living entities... however this isn't exactly evolution as we commonly talk about it in biology, darwin's evolution began on the premise that life existed on earth.

Abiogenesis isn't one particular theory... it is a field of study... unless you mean the idea that life came into existance was disreguarded? lol

4. The complexity or the DNA structure suggests some sort of designer.

Compexity does not suggest design unless you want to be circular in your logic.

How can it be believed that such a complex design was generated randomly.

Evolution is not random.

However, the 2nd law of theodynamics contradicts this, indicating that time is the enemy of complexity.

No it does not indicate that "time is the enemy of complexity" and this is a silly point because our planet is fed energy by the sun. As for the general idea that complex things cannot come from disorder? Tornado's, lightning etc

5. Mutations and natural selection do not show gain in genetic information, but merely rearrangement or loss of what is already there. Mutations destroy genetic information, often producing creatures more handicapped than the parents. Natural selection, meanwhile, simply weeds out unfit creatures.

I've read about how this works recently, I believe it has something to do with these duplicated genes...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

There.

Basically, the bottom line is, i just think there are way to many loopholes in evolution, and thus conclude that there is some sort of God/creator.

But did you even begin your search for the 'evolutionist' response to these apparent loopholes?

 

[ccc123]

Lol. Points taken, Not-that-bright. But still:

*Time is the enemy of complexity! As genetic material is passed on, parts are gradually lost. New genetic material cannot just generate spontaniously. Evolutionists try and explain this with their mutations and natural selction, but it just makes no sense, because while mutations may result in the loss or rearrangement or genetic material, new material cannot be created. Iv'e read the link *shrugs hopelessly* but still maintain that even if mutations can add genetic info, its still unlikely there would be as many such cases so as to result in a whole new species.

*Isn't it a bit ridiculous that macroevolutionists claim everything originated from a common ancestor? As said before, a moth may adapt to its environment, but it will always be a moth.


*You admit that evolutionists claim living material arised from non living material. How is this possible? All iving things must generate from living things. By the way, as far as i know abiogenesis is a theory that states living material can spontaniously arise from inanimate matter. Correct me if i'm wrong.

meh, i have no idea if i'm making any sense. Looking foward to you picking apart my argument again not-that-bright

 

[Tulipa]

You criticize the theory of evolution and the people who believe in it but put forward no proof for God and still believe in him?

Is that not hypocrisy?

Also, you can't just argue that because one solution is apparently questionable, that is proof for your belief in a God?

Why can there only be two reasons for how the universe was created? Why not more?

 

[HotShot]

I dont understand the relationship between GOD and evolution. I know there exists one between Christanity and evolution - but not with god.

Evolution does show anything in regards to existence of GOD, although it may disprove the Bible - but bible is not proof of GOd's existence.

 

[KFunk]

I can't be stuffed to type of a whole thesis, but some key evidence agaist evolution include:

1. Macroevolution fails to explain how the universe actually came about. Pro evolution scientists have argued they can't explain how living things occured, just what happened afterwards. But if they can't explain the first step, how can they explain the 2nd or the 3rd step?

2. The evolutionists who do attempt to explain the origins of the universe claim it exploded from nothing (The bid bang) This is a contradiction because it defies the 1st law of theodynamics.

2. Much of the 'evidence' for evolution can be disregarded. The embryo sketches, for instance, have been declared fake (even though this is still identified as 'evidence' at school)

3. Macroevolution suggests living things came from the non-living. But living things can't just spontaniously arise from nothing. Abiogenesis was disregarded as a scientific theory ages ago.

4. The complexity or the DNA structure suggests some sort of designer. How can it be believed that such a complex design was generated randomly. Craetionists tend to belive that this complex structure was designed. Evolutionists, conversely, claim that the complexity emerged over time. However, the 2nd law of theodynamics contradicts this, indicating that time is the enemy of complexity. An analogy here would be a photocopier, producing millions of copies. The more copies that are produced, the worse the quality of the copy. Similarly, DNA would be more likely to lose genetic information and complaxity not gain it. Evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred, although they attempt to explain it through natural selection and mutations. BUT:

5. Mutations and natural selection do not show gain in genetic information, but merely rearrangement or loss of what is already there. Mutations destroy genetic information, often producing creatures more handicapped than the parents. Natural selection, meanwhile, simply weeds out unfit creatures.

Basically, the bottom line is, i just think there are way to many loopholes in evolution, and thus conclude that there is some sort of God/creator.

(1) The theory of evolution isn't designed to explain the universe - it's primary aim is to explain the diversity and forms of biota.

(2) That bad evidence exists does not imply that all the evidence is bad. In fact there exists a lot of very good evidence. I ecnourage you to try and argue against the role of evolution in the development of antibiotic resistance in microbes. Also, as far as I know the big bang doesn't contradict the 1st law - gravitational potential energy is negative and so as matter is created and spreads out, the gravitational potential between them cancels out their mass energy (or, at least, this is my basic understanding).

(3) I don't see why they couldn't... the line between living and non-living is a fine one, especially given that we are constructed from 'non-living' matter. For an example of non-living molecules which are, nontheless, self-perpetuating check out prions. You find yourself faced by the same game here - the molecule which most successfully survives/replicates is the one which continues on... perhaps it later reacts with something to change its shape, making it more successful, and so on.

(4 & 5) I think that you're misusing the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In its most basic form the 2nd law asserts that "over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system which is isolated from the outside world". Two important things to note - this is an 'over time' statistical tendency, and the earth is not a closed system. It is quite easy to answer the question "where does the earth system get all of its energy?" --> the sun. Using your terminology the sun could be deemed the source of 'complexity' of life on earth.

Most importantly, you cannot conclude 'a creator exists' from 'I cannot understand how the universe could exist without a creator'.

 

[ccc123]

You criticize the theory of evolution and the people who believe in it but put forward no proof for God and still believe in him?

Is that not hypocrisy?

Also, you can't just argue that because one solution is apparently questionable, that is proof for your belief in a God?

Why can there only be two reasons for how the universe was created? Why not more?

No, its not hypocritical. The burden of proof should be on the evolutionists, not the creationists, because creationism is based on faith. Furthermore, evidence against evolution is evidence for creationism (such as the complexity of the universe suggesting some sort of designer i.e a god)

And i didn't say there were only two theories about the origins of the universe, just taht evolutionists reasoning is improbable. All i was saying is that evolution and creationism are the two main theories that attempt to explain the origins and principle of life. Sure, there are probably many theories....but there's no point addressing them all. The reason i addressed evolotion is because its the theory that opposes the existance of God (which, i believe is what this thread is about...)

 

[KFunk]

Isn't it a bit ridiculous that macroevolutionists claim everything originated from a common ancestor? As said before, a moth may adapt to its environment, but it will always be a moth.

You admit that evolutionists claim living material arised from non living material. How is this possible? All iving things must generate from living things. By the way, as far as i know abiogenesis is a theory that states living material can spontaniously arise from inanimate matter. Correct me if i'm wrong.

Check out the 'prion' link in my above post to see an example of a fuzzy line between living/non-living. The problem which your semi-rhetorical question, regarding how a living can come form the non-living, is that there isn't a clear cut off between the two things. This is fairly similar to a classical Greek 'heap' puzzle, which roughly follows thus:

If you add a grain of sand to a grain of sand you do not have a heap. If you add another grain to these two grains you will still not have a heap.... and so on, ad infinitum. A grain of sand cannot make the difference between a heap and a 'non-heap'. However, with the addition of enough sand you do indeed have a heap. Is there a critical point where one grain does make the difference? or do we meet contradiction?

How do we get out of this mess? --> we take issue with the way in which the question is phrased by denying the notion of heap/non-heap as a binary category, i.e. we assert that there is a spectrum of 'heapness'. Likewise you could look at life in terms of molecules and specific functions and ask whether adding/removing any one of these thigns makes the difference between life and non-life in a given case. Most likely you will run up against the same heap problem. Once it is realised that the distinction between living and non-living is quite unclear at the level of prions, viruses, and bacteria it seems more reasonable to assert that certain molecules/molecular complexes could slowly advance along the spectrum of life .

 

[KFunk]

No, its not hypocritical. The burden of proof should be on the evolutionists, not the creationists, because creationism is based on faith.

I strongly disagree with such a principle. In particular, you can have faith in some being 'G' who is such that 'G cannot be shown to not exist'. Using your principle, it is rational to believe the following:

If X is such that 'X cannot be shown to not exist' then X exists.

Let your mind go wild on this one. Think up any thing which is rediculous but which, nonetheless, is consistent with itself and the universe (e.g. undetectable cherubs which cause us to experience love). Would you really endorse such a dodgy principle?

 

[Tulipa]

No, its not hypocritical. The burden of proof should be on the evolutionists, not the creationists, because creationism is based on faith. Furthermore, evidence against evolution is evidence for creationism (such as the complexity of the universe suggesting some sort of designer i.e a god)

Do you not see how that doesn't make sense? Examine Kfunk's posts above but also, why can't I just believe in evolution because I have faith in it? Just because with current scientific examination, there's no proof for it, doesn't mean that will be the way forever. I could have faith in evolution because I believe science will develop towards a proof.

See how that works?

 

[linda27]

whoa this is a huge discussion!! i think the mere fact that everyone seems to question the existence of God points to the fact that He does exist - we were made "by God, for God" - we aren't complete until we have a relationship with our creator, that's when we can have hope and purpose and meaning. its like reading the instruction manual.

i'm a Christian and i believe that God exists, not because i can prove it but because i was told its true, i belive its true and i've never found it to be otherwise. that's the idea - if it were proven it wouldn't be a mystery and we wouldn't need to have faith at all. God's knowledge and ways are higher than ours - it would be concerning if we could know and understand everything about life and the world - it would show that there is nothing else greater than what we experience. but there's heaps of clues out there to show that God is there - just take a close look at your thumb, someone must have designed it!!:wave:

 

[Ennaybur]

whoa this is a huge discussion!! i think the mere fact that everyone seems to question the existence of God points to the fact that He does exist - we were made "by God, for God" - we aren't complete until we have a relationship with our creator, that's when we can have hope and purpose and meaning. its like reading the instruction manual.

i'm a Christian and i believe that God exists, not because i can prove it but because i was told its true, i belive its true and i've never found it to be otherwise. that's the idea - if it were proven it wouldn't be a mystery and we wouldn't need to have faith at all. God's knowledge and ways are higher than ours - it would be concerning if we could know and understand everything about life and the world - it would show that there is nothing else greater than what we experience. but there's heaps of clues out there to show that God is there - just take a close look at your thumb, someone must have designed it!!:wave:

So let me get this straight, your points are:
- people talk about 'god' therefore it exists
- you believe in god not because you can prove it but because you were told it
- you don't want to prove it, because you think the point of god is to be 'mysterious'
- you attribute what we see around us to god.

1)Everyone thought the earth wasn't round. It was proven to be false. The majority is right point doesn't hold.
2) Well that's logical (sarcasm). To put simply, if you were born into a mulsim, jewish, hindu, buddist etc family you would hold those views. That makes you contribution irrelevant to this thread as you have merely been brainwashed from birth
3) You NEED faith because there is absolutely NO way you can prove God's existance. like NTB stated earlier, pick anything as irrational, illogical and fantastic as you'd like. Now it is true and it is reasonable because you want it to be mysterious. FSM is true.
4) Ever heard of Darwin's theory of Evolution?

edit: spelling

 

[Not-That-Bright]

whoa this is a huge discussion!!

I find the topic to be a good medium for intellectually stimulating conversation ^__^

i think the mere fact that everyone seems to question the existence of God points to the fact that He does exist

How? Consider how many people question the existance of other supernatural creatures (santa, elves, loch ness monster). Another issue is that people question different conceptions of what 'god' is so you can't even claim that somehow amazingly all these people have the same idea.

- we were made "by God, for God"

So says you.

- we aren't complete until we have a relationship with our creator, that's when we can have hope and purpose and meaning.

I already have hope and purpose and meaning as much as I imagine any sane person can. Do you really think by 'believing' in God you reach some greater level of understanding?

its like reading the instruction manual.

Even if God exists we have no way of knowing the bible is an accurate representation of his wishes or a communication from him at all.

i'm a Christian and i believe that God exists, not because i can prove it but because i was told its true,i belive its true and i've never found it to be otherwise.

Do you hold other fantastic ideas (i.e. Magical Pixies that shoot people in the arse and make them fall in love) to the same standard of proof? I doubt you do - therefore you're hypocritical in your logic.

that's the idea - if it were proven it wouldn't be a mystery and we wouldn't need to have faith at all.

That's a plausible way to explain why if God exists we still can't prove him, but it really gives us no reason to imagine he actually does exist.

God's knowledge and ways are higher than ours - it would be concerning if we could know and understand everything about life and the world - it would show that there is nothing else greater than what we experience.

It wouldn't concern me to find out there's nothing 'greater' than what we experience because all I know is human experience... I mean I challenge you to explain what these greater experiences are while being stuck in human experience, you can't, so while you imagine that you desire to reach these higher experiences you're just desiring for something you've created in your boring human mind. I also wonder what you mean by 'greater' do you mean 'happier' ? Is life really that bad for you?

but there's heaps of clues out there to show that God is there - just take a close look at your thumb, someone must have designed it!!

Why must someone have designed it? Your premise supports its own conclusion.

 

[sam04u]

I think this hypothetical explains the situation.

Two brothers of equal intelligence look over at a sculpture or a formation which has been sculpted from a piece of ice or just some snow. The first brother says he knows that a magical ninja did it, whilst the second disagrees. The second thinks it's just a natural formation and has nothing to do with ninjas. The first claims he has met the ninja, and feels his presence, whilst the second disagrees. The first then asks the second to prove it wasn't the magical ninja, but he can not. Therefore the first says "If you can't prove he doesn't exist, you can't explain how the formation came to be. Then there is no better explanation than the magical ninja, which I claim I've met."

So the second brother says "It could be a natural formation. Just like the things we see on earth, like rocks, sand and even stalactite and crystal." So the first brother asks, "Well how did a piece of Ice that big even get here?" The second brother again has no answer. He replies "You really believe a ninja did it?" The first brother says "Do you have a better explanation?" He responds "No, I just don't believe it!".

"Habeeb it!" Says the first brother. "Else, you'll wind up being punished by the Magical ninja for not acknowledging it was his creation. He believes that Ice Sculpturing is a Bang and I wrote that he said it here in my diary."

2 Years Later...

The first brother killed the second for disrespecting the Magical Ninja. The Ninja returns and sayeth unto him. "For your belief in me you shall be rewarded the Sharingan."

The second brother dies, and that's the end of him. His life without hope ends, without hope. A hopeless life which is empty of imagination, where only the bleak reality he has created destines him to eternal blackness.


Which brother are you?

(Created by Sam04u. Feel free to post this in different "Does God Exist" discussions.)

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Two brothers of equal intelligence look over at a sculpture or a formation which has been sculpted from a piece of ice or just some snow.

This is already going to be stupid because we know how sculptures get formed, we know humans do that... we do not know that there's a creature that can start the universe.

Therefore the first says "If you can't prove he doesn't exist, you can't explain how the formation came to be. Then there is no better explanation than the magical ninja, which I claim I've met."

If you can't disprove an explanation in any way then I don't see how you could ever say there's a better explanation unless you start with the axiom that some explanations are automatically shit, in this category we usually place 'magic'.

Which brother are you?

If I saw an ice sculpture I would say someone created it... this does not extend to natural things because we don't know how they can be made, we have no analogy... that's the question we're trying to solve.

 

[sam04u]

This is already going to be stupid because we know how sculptures get formed, we know humans do that... we do not know that there's a creature that can start the universe.

"sculpture or a formation"

If you can't disprove an explanation in any way then I don't see how you could ever say there's a better explanation

An alternative and more logical explanation

If I saw an ice sculpture I would say someone created it...

How about something that looked like it could have been sculpted, but you had no way of knowing?

this does not extend to natural things because we don't know how they can be made

Exactly, we have no way of knowing. But we also have no way of knowing whether it is natural or not, since we have nothing to compare it too. The two viable explanations it was created, or it's a natural formation. (The analogy is not supposed to biased.)

we have no analogy... that's the question we're trying to solve.

What do you mean? An analogy of the unknown and unexplainable. Something which looks like it could either have been sculpted or formed naturally fits into this category. Right?

 

[Josie]

I think this hypothetical explains the situation.

Two brothers of equal intelligence look over at a sculpture or a formation which has been sculpted from a piece of ice or just some snow. The first brother says he knows that a magical ninja did it, whilst the second disagrees. The second thinks it's just a natural formation and has nothing to do with ninjas. The first claims he has met the ninja, and feels his presence, whilst the second disagrees. The first then asks the second to prove it wasn't the magical ninja, but he can not. Therefore the first says "If you can't prove he doesn't exist, you can't explain how the formation came to be. Then there is no better explanation than the magical ninja, which I claim I've met."

So the second brother says "It could be a natural formation. Just like the things we see on earth, like rocks, sand and even stalactite and crystal." So the first brother asks, "Well how did a piece of Ice that big even get here?" The second brother again has no answer. He replies "You really believe a ninja did it?" The first brother says "Do you have a better explanation?" He responds "No, I just don't believe it!".

"Habeeb it!" Says the first brother. "Else, you'll wind up being punished by the Magical ninja for not acknowledging it was his creation. He believes that Ice Sculpturing is a Bang and I wrote that he said it here in my diary."

2 Years Later...

The first brother killed the second for disrespecting the Magical Ninja. The Ninja returns and sayeth unto him. "For your belief in me you shall be rewarded the Sharingan."

The second brother dies, and that's the end of him. His life without hope ends, without hope. A hopeless life which is empty of imagination, where only the bleak reality he has created destines him to eternal blackness.


Which brother are you?

(Created by Sam04u. Feel free to post this in different "Does God Exist" discussions.)

Based on your hypothesis, I would be perfectly correct in stating that the hill outside my house was created by the magical snot fairy, because the magical snot fairy came to me in a dream and told me so, and if you can't tell me that's not true, that proves my point?

I'm off to go kill my sister.

P.S I'd rather be the brother who doesn't believe in magical ninjas who tell you to kill people.

 

[sam04u]

Based on your hypothesis, I would be perfectly correct in stating that the hill outside my house was created by the magical snot fairy

Nope, because an alternative and more logical explanation exists.

 

[Ennaybur]

A more logical explaination of your story would be that a sculptor made the statue?