Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[BradCube]

But reiterating the catch once again, the meaning/information is not intrinsic to the DNA. The structure of DNA on which we hang our meaning is, of course, intrinsic but the meaning we lay upon this is not. Humans are exceptionally skilled at finding isomorphisms in their environment, and this is exactly what we find in the case of DNA: a rough structural mapping of DNA onto amino-acids/proteins. There is no abstract/logical feature of the DNA molecule itself which tells us about amino acids and proteins, it is simply that we have learnt that the latter are generated by the former in the right kind of environment and have learnt to 'interpret' DNA in terms of its functional biological products and to translate between the two 'languages'.

We have to be careful, however, not to take the 'language'/'code'/'blueprint' metaphor too far because, at the end of the day, it is we who imbued the molecule with this added meaning (even if it is molecular biological processes that account for why DNA has the structural and chemical features that it does). It is important to note that not all forms of information have to be created by someone intelligent. Take, for example, electromagnetic radiation that we interpret as bearing information about distant galaxies or other stellar objects. There is no space demon out there sending us these coded messages (that is, unless the astrophysicists are keeping me in the dark on this issue). Rather, we have learnt to relate patterns in electromagnetic radiation with certain facts about stellar objects. In this case, as with DNA, it is our human capacity to identify isomorphisms and thus to establish meaningful relationships between different concepts that creates information (that is, of the meaningful sort... the structural aspects will of course remain independent of us).

Does this help you make sense of what I'm trying to say?

Yes and no. I'm still kind of lost. Is there anywhere you can direct me for further reading on the topic? At the moment, I feel like I'm just wasting your time asking you to re-iterate again and again.

The message I think I'm getting from is is that since we are the meaning ascribers, we cannot hold that what we recognize as information actually is meaningful at all (since by definition, that meaning comes from us). On one hand I can understand this, but on the other I am left at odds since if I doubt my own meaning has any value, then I can essentially doubt everything I know or have come to learn. Does this follow?

Also, "electromagnetic radiation that we interpret as bearing information" is a different form of information than that of language which I am proposing.

 

[Felix Jones]

one cannot prove whether god exists or not. it is a matter of just believing that there exists a force, a being far graeter than our minds cannot comprehend fully, nor understand it. sometimes this is the challenge god has presented us. if your argument is that god does not exist, then i can surely assume that you do not believe in prophets, saints and the whole lot. then i ask, why would people e.g. prophet mohammed (peace be upon him) and jesus go through all that pain and suffering when thay have nothing to gain??? also the quran, when read in arabic is a piece of poerty and beuty, considering that prophet mohammed (peace be upon him) was not educated, how was he to make that all up?? and how was jesus resurrected back again? how do you explain the miracles they performed, be it from noah, jesus, Mohammed etc.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

one cannot prove whether god exists or not. it is a matter of just believing that there exists a force, a being far graeter than our minds cannot comprehend fully, nor understand it. sometimes this is the challenge god has presented us. if your argument is that god does not exist, then i can surely assume that you do not believe in prophets, saints and the whole lot. then i ask, why would people e.g. prophet mohammed (peace be upon him) and jesus go through all that pain and suffering when thay have nothing to gain??? also the quran, when read in arabic is a piece of poerty and beuty, considering that prophet mohammed (peace be upon him) was not educated, how was he to make that all up?? and how was jesus resurrected back again? how do you explain the miracles they performed, be it from noah, jesus, Mohammed etc.

Let me just preface all my answers by saying there is nothing I would like more in the world than for there to be an afterlife.

a - Then how do you choose which of the many gods to believe in? They are all "a force greater than our minds".
b - How do you reject other supernatural entities which are not Gods but can be equally postulated as "beyond our minds"?
c - Jesus/Mohammed went through the pain and suffering because they believe in it, just like how the 9/11 Hijackers believed they were doing the will of God.
d - I don't want to get into the construction of the quran... It's a bullshit laden topic.
e - The miracles were never performed.

 

[KFunk]

Yes and no. I'm still kind of lost. Is there anywhere you can direct me for further reading on the topic? At the moment, I feel like I'm just wasting your time asking you to re-iterate again and again.

The message I think I'm getting from is is that since we are the meaning ascribers, we cannot hold that what we recognize as information actually is meaningful at all (since by definition, that meaning comes from us). On one hand I can understand this, but on the other I am left at odds since if I doubt my own meaning has any value, then I can essentially doubt everything I know or have come to learn. Does this follow?

Also, "electromagnetic radiation that we interpret as bearing information" is a different form of information than that of language which I am proposing.

But what reason do you have to doubt your own meaning? If meaning is simply generated through the act of ascription then you can mean 'whatever the hell you want'. I don't really see why you have a problem here. For example, take a stop sign. There is nothing intrinsic to its structure which conveys the message "Stop moving!". Is the meaning we ascribe to it arbitrary? Yes, pretty much. Is this a problem? I don't see why it should be.

And yes, I agree that electromagnetic radiation is different from language. EM radiation already exists and we ascribe meaning to it, whereas language is created with meaning in mind from the outset. What I was saying in my previous post is that the linguistic analogy is taken too far with DNA which, ultimately, is more like EM radiation. Roughly it's a situation like this:

We know that some circumstance/event/structure/whatever 'A' leads to some further thing 'B', e.g. movements of the tectonic plates lead to tremors, supernovas lead to certain patterns of radiation release, certain infections lead to specific patterns of microscopic cell pathology... and so forth.

In these cases we can, more or less, use the inference rule 'If B is detected, infer A' ---> i.e. we have learnt to interpret the 'signal' (B) in terms of its causal origins (A). DNA is a lot more complex than the above cases but it follows a similar pattern:

We see DNA. We see amino acids composing proteins. We realise that DNA "codes" (the linguistic metaphor appears already!) for the sequence of amino acids in proteins and manage to work out the correspondance between the two. We then learn to interpret proteins in terms of the underlying DNA structure and vice versa. Any "meaning" that is in DNA is meaning that we put there ourselves. Taken in the absence of all other knowledge, knowledge of the structure of DNA does not tell you about proteins. Meaning does not even enter the picture until we engage in the intellectual synthesis of various facts. Basically I think you've fallen prey to the long running metaphor of 'bluprints', 'codes' and 'translation' which runs rampant through DNA discourse.

 

[Slidey]

I'm guessing by month your exaggerating and referring to the week of discussion we've had on this topic?

No, check this thread. We've literally been at it (evolution/god/intelligent design mostly) for more than a month.

Either way, I'm not trying to put myself in a position where I deem every other answer as false. It's just that as of yet, I haven't found reasoning enough to change my current thoughts - this could very well simply be because I haven't had enough time to get through the information and links people have posted.

It's kind of arrogant of me to assume that you will just suddenly change, too. But from my perspective I can see how the pieces all potentially fit together through science, whilst any recourse to intelligent design always produces more problems than it solves.

Can't deny that. We all come to the table with our own bias but I try not to let this get in the way of reasonable and logical debates.

Not really. Personally I couldn't give a damn if it was intelligent design or nature (science); whatever it is it must be true, though. I was a devout Catholic till about the age of 12, and I became agnostic (atheist, essentially) when I was 14. I didn't turn away from god because it was easy, trust me; I'd have liked nothing more than for god to have existed. So to be honest, I wouldn't consider myself particularly biased. In fact, I believe many scientists pride themselves on the objectivity and impartialness of science.

 

[_dhj_]

To topically paraphrase Pilate, what is truth?
Jesus replied that he was…

How can fundamental truth exist without a creator? The only alternative is to view yourself as god, and make your life a struggle to force others to submit to your superiority. Your will to power/dominance/conquest becomes the only meaning to life. A lot of people probably subconsciously understand this, but are too dim to grasp that it requires stepping up and abandoning every conviction other than the conviction that all you want is power for its own sake.

If "fundamental truth" does not exist without a creator, how does will to power/dominance/conquest become the only meaning to life? By implication there must be either no meaning at all or a number of different meanings existing without reaching the "fundamental" or universal level.

I think you mean (correct me if I'm wrong) will to power is the dominant or intrinsic human instinct and religion is somehow required to curb that instinct in individuals by introducing the alternative - will to act morally. If that is the case there's still a relationship of dominance/subjugation whereby "fundamental truth" must subjugate or overpower the intrinsic will to power/dominance/conquest. If that subjugation must occur in every individual how does it not reinforce the notion that subjugation/dominance is the "fundamental truth"?

 

[SashatheMan]

one cannot prove whether god exists or not. it is a matter of just believing that there exists a force, a being far graeter than our minds cannot comprehend fully, nor understand it. sometimes this is the challenge god has presented us. if your argument is that god does not exist, then i can surely assume that you do not believe in prophets, saints and the whole lot. then i ask, why would people e.g. prophet mohammed (peace be upon him) and jesus go through all that pain and suffering when thay have nothing to gain??? also the quran, when read in arabic is a piece of poerty and beuty, considering that prophet mohammed (peace be upon him) was not educated, how was he to make that all up?? and how was jesus resurrected back again? how do you explain the miracles they performed, be it from noah, jesus, Mohammed etc.

I would say mohammed gained a lot of being a prophet. He had many wives, he had power, he had war booty , he managed to spread his personal ideologies onto others, he had a lot going for him.

 

[bohemianindian]

Who can really know??? I respect all people with and without 'faith' as long as it does NOT prevent them from being able to do what they want. All major religions have fundamental concepts that are for the betterment of humanity and should be respected as such. It is when we look towards those who wish to have strict adherance to certain values that problems are created.
that's all i have to say

 

[Iron]

If "fundamental truth" does not exist without a creator, how does will to power/dominance/conquest become the only meaning to life? By implication there must be either no meaning at all or a number of different meanings existing without reaching the "fundamental" or universal level.

I think you mean (correct me if I'm wrong) will to power is the dominant or intrinsic human instinct and religion is somehow required to curb that instinct in individuals by introducing the alternative - will to act morally. If that is the case there's still a relationship of dominance/subjugation whereby "fundamental truth" must subjugate or overpower the intrinsic will to power/dominance/conquest. If that subjugation must occur in every individual how does it not reinforce the notion that subjugation/dominance is the "fundamental truth"?

I guess that the religious response would be that the moral act is embedded in the conscience, but usually overridden by man's nature. The Church would see its role as bringing man into line with the original truth engraved in his heart.
To embrace God as the source of all truth is to surrender all futile individualistic instincts.
It's subjugation to truth, rather than power.

 

[_dhj_]

I guess that the religious response would be that the moral act is embedded in the conscience, but usually overridden by man's nature. The Church would see its role as bringing man into line with the original truth engraved in his heart.
To embrace God as the source of all truth is to surrender all futile individualistic instincts.
It's subjugation to truth, rather than power.

I agree with the notion that the moral act is "embedded in the conscience". But it is individuals alone that at any point in time are carriers of our conscience. Of course, conscience ought to influence individual actions. The question is from where does conscience originate? I see no reason why it must originate from the divine source. Conscience exists in each individual, but its content varies among each of us. Clearly, it's not static, but evolves throughout human history. If it were otherwise, one wouldn't need to "reinterpret" parts of the bible. However, it's religion and the fictional gods that need to readjust themselves to reflect the current content of human conscience. Human conscience isn't derived from them.

 

[quixote studios]

I agree with the notion that the moral act is "embedded in the conscience". But it is individuals alone that at any point in time are carriers of our conscience. Of course, conscience ought to influence individual actions. The question is from where does conscience originate? I see no reason why it must originate from the divine source. Conscience exists in each individual, but its content varies among each of us. Clearly, it's not static, but evolves throughout human history. If it were otherwise, one wouldn't need to "reinterpret" parts of the bible. However, it's religion and the fictional gods that need to readjust themselves to reflect the current content of human conscience. Human conscience isn't derived from them.

Consider the source of the divine: humans. The gods are gods and not myths because we actively attribute to them the status of gods. Hence conscience does originate from the divine; Homo Divus.

@ will to power: I don't think it's (just) the desire to dominate society. Rather, it's the desire to impose your own will upon yourself. You're rejecting the morals and values that society dictates and creating your own conscience. Basically you're medically certified psychopath.

dont understand

Religion: it is not individual power that you are surrendering to, but collective, fundamental "truth"

 

[Iron]

I agree with the notion that the moral act is "embedded in the conscience". But it is individuals alone that at any point in time are carriers of our conscience. Of course, conscience ought to influence individual actions. The question is from where does conscience originate? I see no reason why it must originate from the divine source. Conscience exists in each individual, but its content varies among each of us. Clearly, it's not static, but evolves throughout human history. If it were otherwise, one wouldn't need to "reinterpret" parts of the bible. However, it's religion and the fictional gods that need to readjust themselves to reflect the current content of human conscience. Human conscience isn't derived from them.

Controversial stuff. Personally, I'm persuaded that mankind has held the same basic standard of fairness throughout all times and places, and that is conscience (read: the golden rule [do unto others...])

 

[Iron]

Meh, we're easily manipulated to fear the unknown. I'm not sure i'd say that that fear is inherent.
CASE IN POINT
Commie-Nazi propaganda (re fascist beasts, sub-human slavs, corruptive jews.. - all led to/legitimized very real atrocities which wouldn't've otherwise occured)

 

[speedydevviie]

Why do people have to be so sure? How do you know that your parents love you? You trust them and love them back. Or in any relationship.. no one knows for sure!!!

I guess some people need to see the scars in his hands to believe. But i honestly think that if any of you gave God a chance, and believed in him.. you wouldn't turn back. You wouldn't turn back for all the world.
So the world is full of bad things and there is pain and suffering left right and centre. I am not being naive and saying all this when i have never experienced any suffering.
It is because of my siffering that i know that God exists. When i am weakest, He is strongest in me.

I'm up for criticism and comments!

 

[Iron]

Why do people have to be so sure? How do you know that your parents love you? You trust them and love them back. Or in any relationship.. no one knows for sure!!!

I guess some people need to see the scars in his hands to believe. But i honestly think that if any of you gave God a chance, and believed in him.. you wouldn't turn back. You wouldn't turn back for all the world.
So the world is full of bad things and there is pain and suffering left right and centre. I am not being naive and saying all this when i have never experienced any suffering.
It is because of my siffering that i know that God exists. When i am weakest, He is strongest in me.

I'm up for criticism and comments!

Martyr of the day goes to speedydevviie folks! Lets give her a big round o applause as she says hellooo to the lions

 

[michael1990]

This is still going on lol.


Who cares if he exists. When we die will find out?

 

[KFunk]

Why do people have to be so sure? How do you know that your parents love you? You trust them and love them back. Or in any relationship.. no one knows for sure!!!

I guess some people need to see the scars in his hands to believe. But i honestly think that if any of you gave God a chance, and believed in him.. you wouldn't turn back. You wouldn't turn back for all the world.
So the world is full of bad things and there is pain and suffering left right and centre. I am not being naive and saying all this when i have never experienced any suffering.
It is because of my siffering that i know that God exists. When i am weakest, He is strongest in me.

I'm up for criticism and comments!

The same old reply ("roar", by the way):

Suppose I said to you "give cupid a chance... I know he just seems like some silly old mythological construct, and I know that loving relationships regularly errupt in hostility, but just give him a chance and I'm sure that you will come to believe". You might then say "That's all well and good, but do you have reasons which would support rational belief in cupid?"

This is all I/we ask of you. Provide a statement to the tune of 'evidence X supports the existence of god and this is why I am a theist'. Intuitions are all well and good but they have this bad habit of being wrong (proportionally, versus evidenced claims). Will you get mauled by the merciless pack that haunts this thread? Most probably. Only the brave survive (observe Bradcube).

 

[ur_inner_child]

This is still going on lol.


Who cares if he exists. When we die will find out?

I already deleted another one of your "this thread is still going on lol" comment a few pages back.

Please take a hint and add some substance to your posts.

 

[veloc1ty]

This is still going on lol.


Who cares if he exists. When we die will find out?

I'm pretty sure the regular participants in the debate are progressing past the simple question of the existence of god, it encapsulates and impacts so many facets of life, debate is endless (though not useless).

 

[BradCube]

But what reason do you have to doubt your own meaning? If meaning is simply generated through the act of ascription then you can mean 'whatever the hell you want'. I don't really see why you have a problem here. For example, take a stop sign. There is nothing intrinsic to its structure which conveys the message "Stop moving!". Is the meaning we ascribe to it arbitrary? Yes, pretty much. Is this a problem? I don't see why it should be.

And yes, I agree that electromagnetic radiation is different from language. EM radiation already exists and we ascribe meaning to it, whereas language is created with meaning in mind from the outset. What I was saying in my previous post is that the linguistic analogy is taken too far with DNA which, ultimately, is more like EM radiation. Roughly it's a situation like this:

We know that some circumstance/event/structure/whatever 'A' leads to some further thing 'B', e.g. movements of the tectonic plates lead to tremors, supernovas lead to certain patterns of radiation release, certain infections lead to specific patterns of microscopic cell pathology... and so forth.

In these cases we can, more or less, use the inference rule 'If B is detected, infer A' ---> i.e. we have learnt to interpret the 'signal' (B) in terms of its causal origins (A). DNA is a lot more complex than the above cases but it follows a similar pattern:

We see DNA. We see amino acids composing proteins. We realise that DNA "codes" (the linguistic metaphor appears already!) for the sequence of amino acids in proteins and manage to work out the correspondance between the two. We then learn to interpret proteins in terms of the underlying DNA structure and vice versa. Any "meaning" that is in DNA is meaning that we put there ourselves. Taken in the absence of all other knowledge, knowledge of the structure of DNA does not tell you about proteins. Meaning does not even enter the picture until we engage in the intellectual synthesis of various facts. Basically I think you've fallen prey to the long running metaphor of 'bluprints', 'codes' and 'translation' which runs rampant through DNA discourse.

Aahha! So the analogy is flawed and we cannot therefore use the analogical method? Well this makes a lot more sense then. If you don't believe that the language found in DNA is comparable or accurate in analogy with our own language, there lies a large component of my confusion.

I suppose then I would ask how the "code" (or whatever we want to call it) has come to be? Now I realize that we have had a small amount of discussion regarding amino acids etc but essentially I am asking how non repetitious patterns can form from natural causes. For example, in electromagnetic radiation we find information in the form of patterns that can be mathematically expressed. From my reading however, no such patterns exist in DNA "code". Does this get brought back to evolution? If so, would someone be able to simply describe how evolution would work in these cases when life cannot be passed on, and the DNA in it's current state has no use. If this has already been stated, please re-direct me back again