More proof that life was not designed by a god

[KTULU IS BACK]

if I ask "why are we here," from a scientific viewpoint you can supply the answer to "how" life came to be, but that doesn't necessarily answer the philisophical question I'm posing.

And I'm asserting that the philosophical question you're posing is based on a fallacy of assumption. Because of your monotheistic cultural bias, you begin with the assumption that existence has a purpose like an intelligent agency would assign to things. This is human-centric thinking and also hints at why the gods of all the religions act pretty much like human beings but with superpowers. They're capricious and jealous and they feel love and hate, etc.

That's why religion still exists because no matter how far our science has come, it still hasn't answered many of the questions people have in that regard.

Religion still exists because it forces its traditions on children.

I hate to use cliche but the absence of evidence in favor of something is not evidence against it.

I disagree with that cliche, though. We all thought Rumsfeld was a liar when he used it. Why? Because if you don't have evidence and your argument isn't that great, it's safe to say that you're wrong.

It is a viable philosophy to believe in only what you can see before you.

That's not my philosophy. I'll believe anything that MAKES SENSE. Magical super powered cosmic intelligences don't make any sense at all.

It's not something that can be gained rationally.

Yeah, I agree, belief in God is completely irrational.

A law gives a definite description of some phenomenon and has been proven true within the scope of the law.

1. if this were correct, laws would never get updated in light of new information, but this has been happening since Newton

2. evolution has been proven true, so if you really want, you can call it a law, but you'll confuse biology textbook publishers.

Newton's Laws are laws because they are absolutely true within the bounds of Newtonian physics.

a tautology

and for centuries, people assumed newton's laws should hold in all circumstances, but then quantum physics showed this was incorrect

but we're just griping about nomenclature now

Just the functioning of things to begin with.

I knew you weren't going to offer any specifics. You're giving an argumentum ad ignorantum. You're uncertain about things, so you jump to the conclusion that a MAGICAL SUPER BEING did it all. It's just silly.

So many variables had to come together in a very precise way for life to even deleop the way it did in the first place.

And there are about 70 sextillion stars in the universe with billions of planets orbiting them. Why is it surprising at all that life would form?

you roll that many dice, you're gonna win a few billion rounds.

For instance, scientist recently created a very basic form of life.

i remember that, they actually didn't really make any "life." but the press always exaggerates the hell out of new research.

Athiests jumped at the chance to use that prove there was no God.

1. Atheists. Atheists.

2. Name these people who jumped at this chance.

Now statistically, it is possible that over the trillions of years the universe has existed

are you sure you're a physics guy?

the universe is a mere 13.7 billion years old

and out of all the trillions of planets out there, life could have randomly sprung up on a few without any planning. That's a reasonable assertion. However, given the complexity of the system behind the creation and maintaining of life that is necessary for it to become what it is on Earth, I think it's also reasonable to say that there was an architect behind it all.

so you admit it's possible for life to arise naturally

then you say maybe also it was MAGIC

i think that's an unreasonable assertion. it's unreasonable because you already said it was unnecessary, you can't give any specifics at all here, you admit to simply being overwhelmed by the complexity, and you're asserting a completely unfounded and (by definition) illogical conclusion

then consider how many waves of mass extinction the planet has suffered

if an architect is maintaining the life here, he's doing a shitty job

to begin with, his creations maim and slaughter each other just to survive

then a meteor hit and killed some of his best shit

this idea that anybody is watching out for the life on this planet is just plain worthy of ridicule after you honestly look at what goes on here

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

I also disagree that the Old Testament and New Testament should be treated the same. The New Testament represents a new approach by God. In the Old Testament, there was a lot of hard core punishing of people for their sins. The New Testament does away with that and uses Jesus' sacrifice to deal with the sinful nature of Man. That doesn't mean that the Law has been done away. It also doesn't mean that those who cling to sin won't eventually be punished. It does however mean that we don't go stoning people for commiting sins. We urge them to sincerely repent and strive to overcome their sinful nature.

The New Testament is worse.

In the OT, maybe God would have you slaughtered by his chosen people, maybe he'd give you a plague, maybe he'd kill every first-born son in your town..... but after that, you were straight because there was no eternal damnation. There was no everlasting Hell fire in the OT.

In the NT, sweet baby Jesus is the first to deliver the message about burning in a lake of fire for all eternity if you don't accept him as the new boss.

and everybody seems to think it was nice of god to sacrifice his son for us. really? it was nice to have a supposedly perfectly innocent man brutally beaten and then murdered by an extremely painful method?

how is it moral to suggest that an innocent person should be punished for other peoples wrongdoings, also?

and mega LOL at the idea that an omniscient thinker is going to bring a "new plan" into play

ridiculous

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

reject him and allow their souls to burn in Hell's Eternal Fire.

yeah its not a good policy

fortunately, god and hell don't exist

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

i get the feeling this is not the type of person who we can have a real conversation with lol

 

[The Lonious Monk]

And I'm asserting that the philosophical question you're posing is based on a fallacy of assumption. Because of your monotheistic cultural bias, you begin with the assumption that existence has a purpose like an intelligent agency would assign to things. This is human-centric thinking and also hints at why the gods of all the religions act pretty much like human beings but with superpowers. They're capricious and jealous and they feel love and hate, etc.

This is understood. As I said before, belief in God is a matter of faith not logic. I never said that logic dictates that God exists, so there is no fallacy. All I've said is that nothing has proven that God doesn't exist and based on my experiences, I believe he does. I will say that all belief in a higher being is not the same. There is a difference between analyzing the complexity of the universe and asserting that there appears to be a design at play and seeing lighting and believing there must be a man in the clouds throwing it.

Religion still exists because it forces its traditions on children.

That's not true. Children often rebel against what is force on them. Just because you're raised in the church doesn't mean you'll continue with it in life. Actually, most people who are raised in the church leave it for a peiod and then come back meaning that it is more that draws them to it than just having it forced on them at a young age.

I disagree with that cliche, though. We all thought Rumsfeld was a liar when he used it. Why? Because if you don't have evidence and your argument isn't that great, it's safe to say that you're wrong.

How can you disagree with it? It's a logical fact. Just because you can't prove something exists, doesn't mean that they don't. The presence of atoms were predicted way back in Ancient Greece, but it was a long time before it could be proven to any degree of certainty. At that time, people could have and did make the same argument against atoms that you do against God. "If they do exist, show me proof." None was given at that time, but as we now know, atoms do exist.

That's not my philosophy. I'll believe anything that MAKES SENSE. Magical super powered cosmic intelligences don't make any sense at all.

Well that's one way to think. However, you have to acknowledge that you are a being of limited knowledge and intelligence. We all are. There are likely a lot fo things that wouldn't make sense to you. That doesn't mean those things don't exist.

1. if this were correct, laws would never get updated in light of new information, but this has been happening since Newton

2. evolution has been proven true, so if you really want, you can call it a law, but you'll confuse biology textbook publishers.

The nature of the laws are very seldom updated. The scope that the Laws cover are. Newton's Laws haven't changed since their initial formulation. However, we now know that they fall apart when talking about things that are very small, very large, or moving at very high speeds. Therefore the laws are limited to Newtonian Physics. Even in this regard though, they haven't really been disregarded in the cases where they don't apply. The Correspondance Principle shows that when the proper boundary conditions are applied all those other laws such as those for Relativity condense back into Newton's Laws.

Evolution as a theory hasn't been proven true. Aspects of the Theory have been proven true. As I said before, Theories often incorporate Laws into them. In Biology, it's different because Laws aren't used quite as much as in Physics since most laws are built on mathematical formulation and biology as a subject makes far less use of math than physics.

a tautology

and for centuries, people assumed newton's laws should hold in all circumstances, but then quantum physics showed this was incorrect

but we're just griping about nomenclature now

Again, this is not simple nomenclature. There is a difference betwee theories and laws. It's not as simple as saying people assumed that Newton's Laws should hold in all circumstances. It was a known fact that Newton's Laws held in all circumstances that could be measured at the given time. Modern physics produced new circumstances that weren't predicted under the grounds of Newtonian physics. In other words, Newton's Laws couldn't have been assumed to apply to quantum conditions because quantum conditions weren't known during the formulation of Newton's Laws. Again Newton's Laws have not changed, the scope under which they apply has just been better defined. As laws they stand as strong as they always have.

I knew you weren't going to offer any specifics. You're giving an argumentum ad ignorantum. You're uncertain about things, so you jump to the conclusion that a MAGICAL SUPER BEING did it all. It's just silly.

No that's not what I have done. Again, I'm not saying that "I see lightning and I don't know what it is, so I say a man in the clouds is doing it." What I'm saying is that Universe operates like a well oiled machine. In the same way a car is designed to work in the way that it does, to me, the Universe appears to work in just such a manner. As if it was designed to do so. I'm not asserting that it has to be that way. I'm asserting that it is possible and seems very likely to me. I believe what I do, but I don't close my mind to other possibilities and I'm not some religious zealot that closes his mind to anything that clashes with my beliefs. If I was, I definitely wouldn't have gone into physics.

And there are about 70 sextillion stars in the universe with billions of planets orbiting them. Why is it surprising at all that life would form?

you roll that many dice, you're gonna win a few billion rounds.

I already acknowledged. Still, there are a huge amount of variables at play, when you start cutting things down, you'll see that a planet like Earth is pretty rare. Yeah there are sextillions of stars, but some of those variables that you cut away, such as actually having planets orbit in a range that could support life as we know it cuts that number by a high percentage. Then having said planets have an atmosphere that can support life as we know it cuts it by another high percentage. It's not as easy as rolling dice because not every star has an equal chance of supporting a planet that can sustain life. There may be 70 sextillion stars out there but if it's shown that 99% aren't even viable candidates than the size of that number is meaningless. I'm not saying that's the case, just making a point. That said, I don't believe that life is even unique to Earth. I'm just saying that life turning out the way it did is a miracle whether you believe it to be a divine one or a scientific one.

i remember that, they actually didn't really make any "life." but the press always exaggerates the hell out of new research.

1. Atheists. Atheists.

2. Name these people who jumped at this chance.

People on this board and others. Hell, when the findings were presented someone created a topic that was basically titled "Scientists create life, religion is finished."

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

gonna hafta read that later

getting too tired to have a respectful conversation

you seem like a cool cat tho

 

[The Lonious Monk]

are you sure you're a physics guy?

the universe is a mere 13.7 billion years old

I meant billions for the age. I was typing without proofreading. But lol @ you trying to use a mistaken stat to question whether or not I'm a physics guy. I don't know how much you know about physics, but knowing the exact age of the universe is hardly some kind of number that everyone in physics deals with. My work was in solid state and quantum physics not cosmology. Still, it was a mistake on my part, I'll cop to that.

so you admit it's possible for life to arise naturally

then you say maybe also it was MAGIC

i think that's an unreasonable assertion. it's unreasonable because you already said it was unnecessary, you can't give any specifics at all here, you admit to simply being overwhelmed by the complexity, and you're asserting a completely unfounded and (by definition) illogical conclusion

I accept all possiblities that are not proven wrong. Whether you like it or not, the possiblity of a grand designer has not been proven wrong. And constantly throwing out the word magic is silly. Magic is really just a term given to things that are done that we can't understand. If we took our Technology back 10,000 years, people would call it magic. It's just as likely that there could be some Technology or understanding of the universe that we do not have that allows someone to do something that seems magical to us. That's beside the point though. As I said, this point is moot. I understand what the limit of human knowledge is with respect to the universe. I also have a decent (far from the best) understanding of the universe's complexity. Again, I don't say there must be a God because there is so much I don't know. I say I believe there is a God because of the stuff I do know. You can feel free to disagree. That's cool. I don't fault you for that.

then consider how many waves of mass extinction the planet has suffered

if an architect is maintaining the life here, he's doing a shitty job

to begin with, his creations maim and slaughter each other just to survive

then a meteor hit and killed some of his best shit

this idea that anybody is watching out for the life on this planet is just plain worthy of ridicule after you honestly look at what goes on here

I never said I believed God was maintaining life here. I'm a Deist not a Theist. I believe God or some higher power designed the universe and all the processes and machinations within. I don't believe he micromanages the universe. I believe it functions as it was designed to on its own.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

gonna hafta read that later

getting too tired to have a respectful conversation

you seem like a cool cat tho

lol I feel you. These responses are getting too long. We can agree to disagree on the God thing. I understand your view point and I believe you understand mine even if you don't respect it. That's about as far as we can go on that.

If you want to continue the debate on theories vs laws, feel free to though because I know you'll have something to say about that.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

hey you know what, parallel, in light of your last *peculiar comment* toward me...I think I'll pass on posting those links.

So please, just disregard that offer of mines.

I obviously brought some truths here, that rubbed a few members the wrong way. I won't try to defend that, I can only apologize for offending anyone.

Still, as you likely know from being in online msg. boards-------presenting facts and truths, are an exercise in futility once personal attacks start, so...

Peace, King

You're being a little too sensitive there chief. He was just asking you to provide information to prove your case. Information from the net is fine as long as it won't lead to his computer getting hacked or hit with a virus ie. unphishy links.

 

[Ol Jay's]

Please my friend, don't let my name cause you to think it puts me above God's truth. My login name nor my belief that Jesus returns somewhere around 21 December 2012----is irrelevant to God's truths which I speak on here. I am but a mere imperfect man.

Peace

so 12-21-2012 is just about the return of jesus, thats weird cuz if the mayan calender ends 12-21-2012 then that would tie into the idea that december 22 is the lowest point of the sun and in which for the next 3 days the the sun suddenly arose again thus the idea of god's sun (god's son), Jesus was born december 25, umphf....

 

[The Lonious Monk]

good idea...and learning to *read more carefully* could help you out some as well...as I clearly said he went to Hades, not Hell.

His soul/spirit went to the “paradise” side of sheol/hades. He then removed all the righteous dead from paradise and took them with Him to heaven. Unfortunately, in many translations of the Bible, translators are not consistent, or correct, in how they translate the Hebrew and Greek words for “sheol,” “hades,” and “hell.”

I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make here. You tell him he should read more carefully because you said Jesus went to Hades and not Hell, and then in your own post you acknowledge that in the Bible Hades and Hell are the same thing and the difference is really just a matter of translation style.

And you were being sensitive. You brushed him off in response to him simply asking you to provide links to back up your claims. Even his post before that which you referenced wasn't that bad.

 

[judahxulu]

good idea...and learning to *read more carefully* could help you out some as well...as I clearly said he went to Hades, not Hell.

His soul/spirit went to the “paradise” side of sheol/hades. He then removed all the righteous dead from paradise and took them with Him to heaven. Unfortunately, in many translations of the Bible, translators are not consistent, or correct, in how they translate the Hebrew and Greek words for “sheol,” “hades,” and “hell.”

Hades and sheoul are two vastly different concepts that do not correspond. Translations are inconsistent by design; not by accident. You can sometimes transliterate words purely, less often translate them but you can never understand the idea and context of those words without knowing the original language. Yall can never reconcile a Hebrew messianic personage with a Greco-Roman imitation. It doesn't mix. The only thing you will have left to do when it is apparent to your rational mind that it doesnt make sense is resort to emotionalism and the "I just believe" card.

 

[tri3w]

Hades and Hell, are two very different places. Hades is a waiting place, for the dead, until the 2nd coming...whereas Hell, is where souls will burn, for eternity.

No my friend, you are incorrect again. I wasn't being sensitive, I simply responding to (-) aura, that you seem to had missed, or unfortunately ignored, just to make that false claim at me.

I wasn't even referring that Great member, when he posted this at me:

now if you can find a positive gesture here, then I guess you're right, I'm being sensitive...but if you can't?

well...I think you know the rest

Peace

i understand what u sayin But i think do just wanted info..........i think that was a Genuine question homie

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Hades and Hell, are two very different places. Hades is a waiting place, for the dead, until the 2nd coming...whereas Hell, is where souls will burn, for eternity.

Please show proof of this. Hades isn't even a Hebrew term. It's the Greek word for the afterlife. Hell and Hades are used interchangeably in the Bible based on translation scheme. Show me where the Bible distinguishes between Hades and Hell and makes the definitions that you're claiming. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've never heard the claims you're making and I want to see what you're basing them on.

No my friend, you are incorrect again. I wasn't being sensitive, I simply responding to (-) aura, that you seem to had missed, or unfortunately ignored, just to make that false claim at me.

I wasn't even referring that Great member, when he posted this at me:

now if you can find a positive gesture here, then I guess you're right, I'm being sensitive...but if you can't?

well...I think you know the rest

Peace

Are you serious? You put that quote as the thing that you think was negative enough for you to not even want to continue the convo and you wonder why I call you sensitive? Real talk and no offense intended, if that's all it takes to deter you from holding a debate on here, you should find another forum other than the IC. If you think that was negative you won't last long here.

 

[judahxulu]

Peace judahxulu

I never heard of an "I just believe" card nor heard of Emotionalism, but I'll welcome any correct labels you ever wanna apply to me, my brother. And I also don't know what "Sheoul" means, and it doesn't really matter to me, as long as he's equating it to Hades. I just put it there because I didn't think it would have been fair for me to separate it from the author's placing it with "Hades" there, because I definitely know what Hades is.

And that is where Jesus descended to, after Resurrection, even if not to take any souls back with him...but for sure to preach to them, the way to Eternal Life.

Peace

Sheoul and hades are not the same. It does matter that they are not the same because Yeshua was Hebrew, not a Greek. Hebrews and geeks do not have similar ideologies, nor do they worship the same. Sheol is not a place of punishment. Also, the doctrine of dying and going to heaven is not biblical or in tune with the Hebrew roots of all bible translations. People in the Bible who were taken to "heaven" were still alive i.e. Enoch. The only way to understand the New Testament in context and separate the wheat from the chaff ideologically is to a.) accept and realize that paul does not fit the regular pattern of biblical patterns b.) Pauls personal agenda had more influence on his writings than YHWH. c.) Pauls writngs preceded and influenced the canonical gospels and not vice versa d.) you cant even understand it halfway without looking at a non-christian translation of the first Aramaic version of the new testament (or learn Aramaic and study it that way).

 

[musicology1985]

This is understood. As I said before, belief in God is a matter of faith not logic. I never said that logic dictates that God exists, so there is no fallacy. All I've said is that nothing has proven that God doesn't exist and based on my experiences, I believe he does. I will say that all belief in a higher being is not the same. There is a difference between analyzing the complexity of the universe and asserting that there appears to be a design at play and seeing lighting and believing there must be a man in the clouds throwing it.

That's not true. Children often rebel against what is force on them. Just because you're raised in the church doesn't mean you'll continue with it in life. Actually, most people who are raised in the church leave it for a peiod and then come back meaning that it is more that draws them to it than just having it forced on them at a young age.

How can you disagree with it? It's a logical fact. Just because you can't prove something exists, doesn't mean that they don't. The presence of atoms were predicted way back in Ancient Greece, but it was a long time before it could be proven to any degree of certainty. At that time, people could have and did make the same argument against atoms that you do against God. "If they do exist, show me proof." None was given at that time, but as we now know, atoms do exist.

Well that's one way to think. However, you have to acknowledge that you are a being of limited knowledge and intelligence. We all are. There are likely a lot fo things that wouldn't make sense to you. That doesn't mean those things don't exist.

The nature of the laws are very seldom updated. The scope that the Laws cover are. Newton's Laws haven't changed since their initial formulation. However, we now know that they fall apart when talking about things that are very small, very large, or moving at very high speeds. Therefore the laws are limited to Newtonian Physics. Even in this regard though, they haven't really been disregarded in the cases where they don't apply. The Correspondance Principle shows that when the proper boundary conditions are applied all those other laws such as those for Relativity condense back into Newton's Laws.

Evolution as a theory hasn't been proven true. Aspects of the Theory have been proven true. As I said before, Theories often incorporate Laws into them. In Biology, it's different because Laws aren't used quite as much as in Physics since most laws are built on mathematical formulation and biology as a subject makes far less use of math than physics.

Again, this is not simple nomenclature. There is a difference betwee theories and laws. It's not as simple as saying people assumed that Newton's Laws should hold in all circumstances. It was a known fact that Newton's Laws held in all circumstances that could be measured at the given time. Modern physics produced new circumstances that weren't predicted under the grounds of Newtonian physics. In other words, Newton's Laws couldn't have been assumed to apply to quantum conditions because quantum conditions weren't known during the formulation of Newton's Laws. Again Newton's Laws have not changed, the scope under which they apply has just been better defined. As laws they stand as strong as they always have.

No that's not what I have done. Again, I'm not saying that "I see lightning and I don't know what it is, so I say a man in the clouds is doing it." What I'm saying is that Universe operates like a well oiled machine. In the same way a car is designed to work in the way that it does, to me, the Universe appears to work in just such a manner. As if it was designed to do so. I'm not asserting that it has to be that way. I'm asserting that it is possible and seems very likely to me. I believe what I do, but I don't close my mind to other possibilities and I'm not some religious zealot that closes his mind to anything that clashes with my beliefs. If I was, I definitely wouldn't have gone into physics.

I already acknowledged. Still, there are a huge amount of variables at play, when you start cutting things down, you'll see that a planet like Earth is pretty rare. Yeah there are sextillions of stars, but some of those variables that you cut away, such as actually having planets orbit in a range that could support life as we know it cuts that number by a high percentage. Then having said planets have an atmosphere that can support life as we know it cuts it by another high percentage. It's not as easy as rolling dice because not every star has an equal chance of supporting a planet that can sustain life. There may be 70 sextillion stars out there but if it's shown that 99% aren't even viable candidates than the size of that number is meaningless. I'm not saying that's the case, just making a point. That said, I don't believe that life is even unique to Earth. I'm just saying that life turning out the way it did is a miracle whether you believe it to be a divine one or a scientific one.

People on this board and others. Hell, when the findings were presented someone created a topic that was basically titled "Scientists create life, religion is finished."

wow. it is interesting to see a formally trained science brother build on spiritually. this brings new dimensions to the discussion.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I don't want to influence your thinking. I'm not here to do that.

I just speak truth, and hope that you can appreciate it.

So on that note, I will list different sources for you to ponder and consider which ever suits your thought processes. Such as, at the link here:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...uzATv7fXRCgAAAKoEBU_QHScn&fp=d2eda4910a7445ea

You should find quite a few legitimate breakdowns there, that may explain it in a way you can possibly appreciate better than you appreciate what I bring here.

From one of the sources you just listed:

So the essential difference between hades and hell is that hades is generally associated with death and the grave while hell is generally associated with burning and punishment. For all practical purposes in our lives here on Earth there is possibly no real major distinction between the two. They are both characterized as places we don't want to go.



I can't say you're wrong with your assertion, but the matter is certainly one that's up for debate and doesn't have a clear cut answer.

 

[kids in america_]

How does evolution disproves a ‘god’? I thought evolution itself alone does not deal with the origins of life.

 

[tri3w]

come on now, tri, I'm sure you can agree...it's not normal, to heckle/mock a member's login name, then straight-faced ask them about posting links to help you get correctly informed.

Plus since its obvious that I wound up posting one up, any way...is this looking even more peculiar, that I'm still asked about that?

the IC is Funny like that.........i still believe that was a genuiine Question though

 

[tri3w]

How does evolution disproves a ‘god’? I thought evolution itself alone does not deal with the origins of life.

it doesnt, but People try to make it sound like it does.........