Is there a GOD?

[Sdajii]

I'm apparently one of the scurriers going back to the Bible then- not necessarily to gain insight into Superstring Theory, or evolutionary processes mind you! With every advance in science, more questions crop up, and that's great- we should never give up the pursuit. I am intruiged though by the number of theories that insist a being of greater intelligence cannot possibly be involved- almost as a starting point. Meanwhile we place our faith in 10 dimensional models because they might fit with what we know now- this still requires faith mind you. And who knows, there might actually be 10 dimensions. But, beyond the notion of God, whose abilities extend way beyond ours, creating the universe, I cannot reconcile the fact that lifeless sub-atomic particles, no matter how many dimensions they exist in, chose to come together to form atoms, which then bond in a structure that gave rise to intracellular matter, which "randomly" came together with other neccessary intracellular matter to form a cell, which then suddenly became a living, replicating entity. For as far as we can break down the components that comprise sub-atomic matter, we're still left with the huge question of why they come together so precisely if they've been blown apart after a big bang.

Riiiiiight. So, you can't swallow the idea that very simple forms of life could come from self replicating molecules which were created randomly from simple chemicals, but, you can happily accept that something a zillion times more complex and incredible, with literally magical powers, could somehow pop up in the same way, and then create the simple thing (normal life without magical powers). Yeah... your idea is a lot more convincing! Good idea, take something you consider to be too extreme to believe, and instead believe something a zillion times more extreme. Nice one! Religion strikes again! :

 

[Client]

I am an atheist and can say that if there is a God, then he shows a favour only for those, who work hard and do not rely on God.

 

[Agentm]

........

 

[jonojpsg]

Nucleosynthesis

QUOTE]

Read the article yourself ffs spooly :nono:

Nucleosynthesis has nothing to do with abiogenesis - you can't tell me that amino acids came together into proteins and hence oh my goodness, it's alive simply because the subatomic particles had an affinity for each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

This doesn't sound particularly confident to me, especially since they quote the Miller-Urey experiment which has been soundly debunked.

 

[Tink]

....

Celebrating xmas and easter is a sin!

I have to laugh at this one

What does this say -- CHRIST MAS

No religion in that one

 

[bulldoza]

......The God of the current main religions is absolute pure myth. It's indisputable. Bible bashers should just stop and give up......

I think the debate/dispute will continue until the 'Second Coming' and subsequent end of time because there is no 'hard evidence' that proves or disproves the existence of God. But there are 'degrees' of proof.

I have commented earlier on why I believe God has deliberately not given us 'hard evidence' of His existence.

For me personally, the Bible and my experiences in life are sufficient proof for me to be convinced that God exists and I am not trying to change anyone's views here.

 

[Hedders]

Riiiiiight. So, you can't swallow the idea that very simple forms of life could come from self replicating molecules which were created randomly from simple chemicals, but, you can happily accept that something a zillion times more complex and incredible, with literally magical powers, could somehow pop up in the same way, and then create the simple thing (normal life without magical powers). Yeah... your idea is a lot more convincing! Good idea, take something you consider to be too extreme to believe, and instead believe something a zillion times more extreme. Nice one! Religion strikes again! :

I agree- my hypothesis seems "magical" to us, which is what it would seem if there happened to be a being of greater capabilities than the human brain. My point is that secular science's end point is the same- you still have to have faith that the final piece of the puzzle, which always remains an hypothesis, holds true. A zillion times more extreme? You're kidding. A belief that random particulate matter combines in such a fashion as to suddenly start generating life forms is no less a magical notion, but I fear I'm wasting my time debating this- clearly religion has "struck again" for you, so I'm assuming nothing I say will constitute a respectable difference of opinion. In the absence of a counter theory without a hypothetical ending though, you're in no position to consider the relative odds of one theory over another. I concede that neither am I, but that's hardly the point of faith, no matter what you believe. And so every theory requires faith. Getting back to the original question for a moment- is there a God? I believe there is. Can I prove it beyond reasonable doubt? No. Has science been able to disprove the existence of God? No. None of us believe in things that give us all the answers.

Like Bulldoza I'm not trying to change anyone's beliefs. I'm not even saying my beliefs are more scientifically plausible.

 

[Sdajii]

I have to laugh at this one

What does this say -- CHRIST MAS

No religion in that one

It's a pagan winter solstice festival with a Christian name and a few small label changes to make it fit the Christian theme. Incidentally, Jesus was born in the northern warm season, not the middle of winter (or if Jesus was not a real person, the fictional Jesus according to the fictional story in the bible was born in the warm season, not winter).

Evergreen trees were being decorated with candles and shiny bits of metal at the winter solstice hundreds of years before Jesus was around. It's the darkest time of year and it was a way of encouraging back the sun/sun god. Evergreen trees were used because they were seen as something which resisted the cold (as opposed to deciduous trees which drop their leaves/ "die off" during winter), candles were used because of the burny, hot flames, and glittery bits of metal were used because they are shiny like the sun, fire, heat, etc. That's why people still put tinsel and candles on evergreen trees in late December.

The original version of Christmas (celebrated long long before Jesus was born) involved gluttonous eating and general indulgence.

When trying to convert the pagans, the Christians had trouble, partly because they didn't want to give up their much loved traditional festivals, so they were relabeled with Christian themes.

Easter is a fertility festival. Eggs and rabbits are symbols of successful reproduction, the whole lot is directly taken from customs being celebrated long before Jesus was born, let alone died.

The bible is very clear about it being extremely sinful to take part in the customs of heathens and 'rival' gods. Christmas has a new label slapped on it, but with Easter they didn't even bother going that far! It is no wonder that the few Christians who follow the bible would not dare to celebrate Christmas or Easter, and if you are a Christian, have a look into it, it's not some crazy conspiracy theory, it's very well documented that these are not at all Christian customs, and it's not particularly difficult to find out about it.

 

[bulldoza]

Hi Sdajii - that is an interesting opinion you have in #1408

You still haven't answered the qusetion I posed to you yesterday, that I have seen anyway, and so giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn't see it, here it is again.

Well, this is a new one - even for me.

What Bible or any other reference can you post to support your statement "Celebrating xmas and easter is a sin! "

I also disagree with your unconditional generalisation - "The people who actually follow the bible are called crazy even by the majority of the folks who claim to be Christians!"

Your statements come from post #1329

 

[explod]

NASA Research Reveals Major Insight Into Evolution of Life on Earth08.19.09 Molecular biologist James A. Lake from the University of California at Los Angeles' Center for Astrobiology.
Humans might not be walking on Earth today if not for the ancient fusing of two microscopic, single-celled organisms called prokaryotes, NASA-funded research has found.

By comparing proteins present in more than 3000 different prokaryotes - a type of single-celled organism without a nucleus -- molecular biologist James A. Lake from the University of California at Los Angeles' Center for Astrobiology showed that two major classes of relatively simple microbes fused together more than 2.5 billion years ago. Lake's research reveals a new pathway for the evolution of life on Earth. These insights are published in the Aug. 20 online edition of the journal Nature.

This endosymbiosis, or merging of two cells, enabled the evolution of a highly stable and successful organism with the capacity to use energy from sunlight via photosynthesis. Further evolution led to photosynthetic organisms producing oxygen as a byproduct. The resulting oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere profoundly affected the evolution of life, leading to more complex organisms that consumed oxygen, which were the ancestors of modern oxygen-breathing creatures including humans.

"Higher life would not have happened without this event," Lake said. "These are very important organisms. At the time these two early prokaryotes were evolving, there was no oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. Humans could not live. No oxygen-breathing organisms could live."

The genetic machinery and structural organization of these two organisms merged to produce a new class of prokaryotes, called double membrane prokaryotes. As they evolved, members of this double membrane class, called cyanobacteria, became the primary oxygen-producers on the planet, generating enough oxygen to alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere and set the stage for the evolution of more complex organisms such as animals and plants.

"This work is a major advance in our understanding of how a group of organisms came to be that learned to harness the sun and then effected the greatest environmental change Earth has ever seen, in this case with beneficial results," said Carl Pilcher, director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., which co-funded the study with the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Va.

Founded in 1998, the NASA Astrobiology Institute is a partnership between NASA, 14 U.S. teams and six international consortia. The institute's goals are to promote, conduct, and lead interdisciplinary astrobiology research; train a new generation of astrobiology researchers; and share the excitement of astrobiology with learners of all ages.

The institute is part of NASA's Astrobiology Program in Washington. The program supports research into the origin, evolution, distribution and future of life on Earth and the potential for life elsewhere.

For more information about the NASA's Astrobiology Program and the institute, visit: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov.

 

[derty]

Read the article yourself ffs spooly :nono:

Nucleosynthesis has nothing to do with abiogenesis - you can't tell me that amino acids came together into proteins and hence oh my goodness, it's alive simply because the subatomic particles had an affinity for each other.

Spooly put up the nucleosynthesis link as response to Hedders claim that subatomic particles would not be able to form atoms without God's help. There was no intention to link it to abiogenesis.

 

[Sdajii]

Hi Sdajii - that is an interesting opinion you have in #1408

You still haven't answered the qusetion I posed to you yesterday, that I have seen anyway, and so giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn't see it, here it is again.



Your statements come from post #1329

Are you asking me to explain why I say that people call genuine Christians crazy, or why the bible says it's a sin to carry out heathen customs like celebrating Christmas and Easter?

The bible is very clear about it being a sin to observe other gods or the practices of other belief systems, even going as far as saying you should avoid learning about them (it is years since I have opened a bible and can't give you a reference, sorry. I'd look it up, but it's just not that important to me).

If you look at the people who genuinely follow the bible (as any real Christian should), they are nuts. These days most people, including most Christians, will think you are crazy even for things like condemning homosexuality or suggesting that a woman should agree to obey her husband during wedding vows. If you think it is a sin to celebrate xmas or Easter, most people will think you're silly. If you get into all the zillion other bits and pieces the bible demands of you, obviously you're going to get more and more crazy-looking in the eyes of regular people (think Jehovah's witnesses, etc). Actually, I can't think of any large Christian sect which properly follows the bible. The ones which try to (Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc) either take very strange interpretations (eg Pentecostals) or have found a silly excuse to make amendments (eg Mormons). Jehovah's witnesses are the most faithful to the bible I can think of off the top of my head, and I think it's fair to say that most people think Jehovah's witnesses are crazy. I would agree, but I think they are less crazy than people who claim to be Christian and blatantly act in a way which their own holy book says will send them to Hell.

 

[Hedders]

None of these hypotheses insist that a greater intelligence/God/creator cannot be involved. It's just that they do not require one to be involved.


Most of these hypotheses are theoretical and are a result of mathematical deduction from existing equations and hypotheses. People take the maths to new places and the results predict the behaviour of space and time and it's constituents. When the predictions of the equations and models fit with empirical observations these hypotheses begin to become theories that are continually modified and they in turn better explain the universe or they begin to break down. For people like you and me who cannot understand the equations and derivations there is a degree of faith involved. But for the physicists who do the work there is no need of faith, there may be assumptions, but no faith.

The formation of atoms (fusion) is not by choice, atomic nuclei do not want to come together. They need to be made to come together and that requires intense heat and pressure, like is found in the interior of suns. Our Sun currently is fusing hydrogen nuclei together to form helium nuclei. The energy within the Sun overcomes the force of electrostatic repulsion and once forced close enough together the very powerful but incredibly short range Strong Nuclear Force locks the protons and neutrons together.
As for the creation of organic molecules (carbon based/linked molecules) certain atoms have affinities for each other and easily create bonds. There are a multitude of naturally occurring organic molecules that have been identified within the solar system and within interstellar dust clouds. A sea rich in elements under a free-oxygen-less atmosphere with added heat will readily form simple and complex organic molecules. Once you start adding periods of 100's of millions to billions of years to the equation the probability of forming very complex molecules becomes very high and likely.

For you, you cannot see how matter can organise itself without the intervention of a creator. For me it is simply that one is not required.

As I stated before sub-atomic particles, atoms and molecules come together due to affinities and in some cases requiring the addition of significant energy. The four main forces that are stable currently in the universe are gravity, the electro-magnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. These all act at different distances with different strengths in different ways and hold the matter in the multitude of stable forms we see it in today.

Nothing was blown apart in the big bang, the energy that resulted from the big bang began to form particles that we today are familiar with as matter only after the universe had cooled sufficiently for protons and neutrons to remain intact. Following this cooling the universe was mainly composed of hydrogen (75%) and Helium (25%) - all the heavier elements have had to have been created since then within the cores of suns and as a result of supernovae.


Evolution (by means of natural selection) does not claim to be an answer in itself. It merely provides the mechanism for simpler life to become more complex and diversified.

Why do they need to be preserved? Are you saying that you believe that there is a higher purpose for life? Or that life requires a higher purpose to have meaning? That all sounds like a very anthropogenic construct.

Life does not need to be preserved. It perseveres. Those organisms that can persevere, do. There does not need to be any more to it than that.


The addition of a creator/god along with imposed meanings and purposes just unnecessarily complicates a process that with current scientific knowledge simply does not require one. The science doesn't preclude a God, he just isn't necessary.

Thanks Derty- fantastic post. I don't profess to understand the mathematical models involved in Superstring theory (despite studying pure maths and nuclear science amongst other things at uni!). I guess my reason for considering God necessary in my own belief system stemmed partly from my observations that many assumptions are made in both maths and nuclear science. As logical as many of the assumptions appear to be, I felt that there was always a need to believe in things that couldn't be explained. Taking an example you brought up- atomic particles, atoms and molecules have an affinity with one another. I guess where we might differ is that I'm unable to rest with the notion that they just do possess this inherent affinity, that energy creates orderly behaviour for no reason other than it does. You're right in saying we don't need a belief in God to help us in scientific research, but for me God doesn't complicate the issue.

As for a higher purpose in our lives, I guess I do believe that there's more to it than existing if that's what you're referring to. Otherwise I'm not sure why we are built with such a passion for knowledge and a sense of who we are- why we feel the need to expend energy on things beyond matters of survival.

Thanks again for your comments

 

[bulldoza]

...... (it is years since I have opened a bible and can't give you a reference, sorry. I'd look it up, but it's just not that important to me).

That's ok Sdajii - I couldn't find any references to support your statements.

 

[Sdajii]

That's ok Sdajii - I couldn't find any references to support your statements.

Oh for Pete's sake, if you have any familiarity with the bible you'll know there is no shortage of god's message of jealousy and warnings to stay away from other gods or the practises of other doctrines. If you want to stick your head in the sand to avoid seeing what you don't want to see, you're as bad as a, well, you're a Christian I suppose.

 

[explod]

That's ok Sdajii - I couldn't find any references to support your statements.

Try Jeremiah 10:1-5

I will do a bit of research and see what others I can find in the next day or two. Have not had my bible out for about 30 years. It is a keepsake as my Dad was sincere and he brought it for the family, his signature is on the invoice at the front. Lost him 40 years ago, beat up by WW2.

 

[bulldoza]

Sdajii - I simply disagree with your opinion that celebrating Christmas and Easter is a sin and I asked for references that prove that it is.

You're entitled to your view just as I am to mine and I am entitled to ask what evidence you have to support your beliefs just as others have asked me what evidence I have to support mine.

 

[bulldoza]

Try Jeremiah 10:1-5

I will do a bit of research and see what others I can find in the next day or two. Have not had my bible out for about 30 years. It is a keepsake as my Dad was sincere and he brought it for the family, his signature is on the invoice at the front. Lost him 40 years ago, beat up by WW2.

Thanks explod - Well, at least one positive outcome has arisen from the discussion over the last few days - at least one person has brushed off the dust from their Bible and opened it up

I fail to see how that passage proves celebrating Christmas and Easter is a sin.

What is your interpretation of that passage?

 

[explod]

Sdajii - I simply disagree with your opinion that celebrating Christmas and Easter is a sin and I asked for references that prove that it is.

You're entitled to your view just as I am to mine and I am entitled to ask what evidence you have to support your beliefs just as others have asked me what evidence I have to support mine.

In short it was regarded as a pagan rite till about 200AD those guiding Christianity then found in effect (if you cant beat em join em) so they created scripture to facilitate the story into harmony for Christians. There is as others have said above lots of evidence the scriptures have been made up as they have gone along to keep everthing dandy in order to control the believers.

A big reason why many of us are believers no more.

 

[explod]

Thanks explod - Well, at least one positive outcome has arisen from the discussion over the last few days - at least one person has brushed off the dust from their Bible and opened it up

I fail to see how that passage proves celebrating Christmas and Easter is a sin.

What is your interpretation of that passage?

Time does not permit now, unlike the computor search engines, it takes time to work back through the big book, so will get back as I uncover.