Thread: The Probability of a God

God is supposably the creator of all things. He is omnipotent and is an etearnal being. He has a consciousness and is highly intelligent.

Obviously, a consciousness and intelligence points out that God is a creation. So what made God? Some would argue that God is his own creation, which is very illogical. If God made himself. Then what he has managed to is, create himself out of nothing! Well, we can easily say that nothing comes from nothing, so God couldn't create himself. So what made God? Another God? Even greater than the one that created the universe (he must've been greater to create a creator of the universe)? Obviously, this is backward thinking. We assume a God to evade a difficult question which needs time to be answered. What is the origin of the universe and the purpose of our lives? Some assume a God just because they feel it's right or that they find that only God can give purpose to their/our lives. Personal need or opinion doesn't make anything true when it's not confirmable.

Gods' existence is impossible, which leaves this question:

If you believe in a God, please tell me... What is the probability of a God?





And here's just a though on what the purpose of our lives might be. The question "what is the purpose of life?" with two answers.

What is the purpose of life? There are different opinions upon the matter, but as far as I've discovered, the question has many times been misunderstood. Even with a God, our life wouldn't actually have a purpose because God must have a reason for us that gives us purpose. But then again, that only proves that there is none. The purpose of our lives is to serve God or do his will. What purpose is it in that? Love? But does love give purpose to us? No, we want to be important. Only by importance can we get purpose. Can we get importance through love? Yes we can. Through love we can show mercy and compassion which means a lot to other living things. Through love we get importance, and through importance we get purpose. But when you think about it, you don't need God to give purpose to life. Love alone is enough to give purpose to, as Dawkins said in 'The Big Question - Why Are We Here', "... an otherwise purposeless universe." Love is the purpose of our lives, with our without God. By love we can help life to survive, and therefore we become important. I answered the question differently in another forum in which I will quote here:

There is NO purpose in life, none. There's only purpose in what gives US purpose. In a larger scale there can't possibly be any purpose in life, there's just life and that's all. I really don't like it when people misunderstand the meaning of the question "What is the purpose of life?" They somehow always answer the other question "What is the purpose of life for me?" which is something very different...

I find that true, but when I see the effects of compassion to other living animals and plants as well as to our own kind, our love actually gives the purpose of our lives. We could almost work as the protectors of life, the guardians if you like. And we give purpose to our own existence in an otherwise purposeless universe.

By now you've probably figured out that I'm an atheist

I'm not sure if I should've put this topic up in "Philosophical Discussion" instead.

Your logic only applies within the context of the 'rules' of this Universe. Other Universe's may have differing rules that permit entities to create themselves in the 'past'. Consequently your logical proof of God's non-existence is flawed.

Prove there are "other universes".

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Your logic only applies within the context of the 'rules' of this Universe. Other Universe's may have differing rules that permit entities to create themselves in the 'past'. Consequently your logical proof of God's non-existence is flawed.

Your assumption that other universes may allow the existence of God is also flawed. Trying to find an excuse for Gods existence doesn't prove him real. If there were a universe that allowed God to create himself, how would he be able to interact with our universe? And who says that there is only one God in that universe? What you're suggesting is highly unlikely if I might say.

on a personal level i tend to agree with you that there probably is no god, but that's just my personal conviction

however, should there be a god, i think his characteristics are likely to be beyond our capability to explain them - hence mere human logic won't help you

think a bacterium trying to imagine what it's like to be a human being

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Your logic only applies within the context of the 'rules' of this Universe. Other Universe's may have differing rules that permit entities to create themselves in the 'past'. Consequently your logical proof of God's non-existence is flawed.

Your assumption that other universes may allow the existence of God is also flawed.

1) In what way flawed?
2) It is not an assumption, it is an if statement.
[quote="Obviously"]

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Trying to find an excuse for Gods existence doesn't prove him real.

You really need to try harder at the precise meaning of what is written. I am not trying to find any excuse. I am not trying to prove God real - I doubt this can be done within the context of current scientific or philosophical knowledge.
I am simply demonstrating that a context can be envisaged that negates your hypothetical refutation of the existence of God.

Originally Posted by Obviously

If there were a universe that allowed God to create himself, how would he be able to interact with our universe?

Why not, if this Universe (misnomer recognised) were a subset of that Universe.

Originally Posted by Obviously

And who says that there is only one God in that universe?

Strawman.

Originally Posted by Obviously

What you're suggesting is highly unlikely if I might say.

I agree completely, but its proability is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if it is possible it wholly negates your argument.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

1) In what way flawed?
2) It is not an assumption, it is an if statement.

I find it flawed in the way that you assume something problematic instead of a solution. I just personally see no meaning in God.

I just find the if statement rather impossible. That we should think that there's something we can't comprehend that has created the universe. It just doesn't add up in my opinion. Of course, that's my opinion...

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

You really need to try harder at the precise meaning of what is written. I am not trying to find any excuse. I am not trying to prove God real - I doubt this can be done within the context of current scientific or philosophical knowledge.
I am simply demonstrating that a context can be envisaged that negates your hypothetical refutation of the existence of God.

I can prove the existence of the flying spaghettimonster or something else just by saying we can't comprehend it and it's beyond our world etc. I guess that's a strawman, but it proves a point.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Why not, if this Universe (misnomer recognised) were a subset of that Universe.

Of course, you can think that way. But if you're going to believe it, why not prove it? And if you can't prove it, why believe it?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Obviously

And who says that there is only one God in that universe?

Strawman

What does strawman mean really? If there is one God, there's a possibility that there's more.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I agree completely, but its proability is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if it is possible it wholly negates your argument.

Everything's possible if it's something we don't know 100%. But I find it to be a way of stretching the boundries of what is really possible. Almost crossing the line from logic to fantasy. A creator doesn't answer anything really. It evades the question (the origin of the universe) with its problamatic existence. That's how I see it.

Originally Posted by marnixR

on a personal level i tend to agree with you that there probably is no god, but that's just my personal conviction

however, should there be a god, i think his characteristics are likely to be beyond our capability to explain them - hence mere human logic won't help you

think a bacterium trying to imagine what it's like to be a human being

It's easy to compare it that way, but we shouldn't forget that we are humans. We are creative and imaginative. We can think logical as well as illogical. We have a consciousness that makes us capable of understanding many things. We seem to be able to do many things. Aren't we underestimating human capability to understand all that we understand when we compare an ant, without consciousness to care, to comprehend how it is to be human?

i don't seem to have such a high opinion of human consciousness as you appear to : in comparison with the rest of life on earth you may be right that we're top dog, but in terms of the universe we're like a chicken rooting around in the backyard, thinking it knows everything there is to know about the world

Oh wow. A topic to discuss the existence of God. And here I thought I'd never see anything new...

Originally Posted by Obviously

God is supposably the creator of all things. He is omnipotent and is an etearnal being. He has a consciousness and is highly intelligent.

Woop, hold up...wait. Before you get started, which derivation of "God" are you going after here? 'Cause there's like 40-thousand versions of "God" in the flip'n world. You've already started to wander off from my own viewpoint of "God."

Are you implying that all "God"s are the same? Or are you generalizing? And if you are generalizing, you are going to avoid trying to state "facts" which may or may not pertain to all perspectives on the subject of "God," correct?

Just checking...

Originally Posted by Obviously

Obviously, a consciousness and intelligence points out that God is a creation.

Does it? Only created things can have consciousness and intelligence? I've never heard that argument before. Can you cite your source(s)? So far we've only encountered consciousness and intelligence in living creatures that we can poke with sticks. That doesn't define the rule, however. Or is this an opinion? If the later, okay. We'll take it as a hypothetical for the sake of the argument.

Originally Posted by Obviously

So what made God?

What? Or who? I'm assuming that you're taking the context that God exists and therefore had to be created.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Some would argue that God is his own creation, which is very illogical.

A tricky issue if you keep to only one perspective of understanding. Using such a mindset, it is also illogical for the universe to exist without having a center. On that note, where did the universe come from? What created it?

Problem is, if you assume that the universe was created, then it had to have been creating by someone or some-thing. The logic only leads to ask where the creator is, and who or what created the creator. And who created that creator. And so on, and so forth, on and on...

It's turtles all the way down, Mr. Russell.

Originally Posted by Obviously

So what made God? Another God? Even greater than the one that created the universe (he must've been greater to create a creator of the universe)? Obviously, this is backward thinking.

Yet you're still leaning on a line of logic that leads directly into an infinite regression model. (This applies to both the subject of God's origin, and the origin of the universe, under the "logic" that everything in existence must be created.)

Originally Posted by Obviously

Personal need or opinion doesn't make anything true when it's not confirmable.

From our current abilities of understanding and capability, neither science nor association can prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, the only thing we have left is that of the conscious mind. We can probe the idea of God with hypothesis, debate, and theory, but we cannot poke a god with a stick. Such is the definition of the very subject in question.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Gods' existence is impossible...

Is it? :?

I suppose if you follow your line of logic and assume that only things created can exist, and avoid the subject of an infinite regression, then it logically follows that God can't exist within those defined parameters. Doesn't do much for the universe, either. My my, how complex...

Originally Posted by Obviously

which leaves this question:

*eheim* The question. The question is, why does a proclaimed atheist seek out approval that he or she is right? Is not the mind of an atheist, being firm in the belief of no God, a bias against theory? Doesn't the openness to an alternative preclude certainty?

Originally Posted by Obviously

If you believe in a God, please tell me...

I can't. I can't, because there's nothing I can do or say to prove to you that God exists. It's not within physical or verbal power. I can't show you a picture of God, I can't bring you a sample, I can't detect his gravity. I can describe God to you, but what is there to say that would make you, or anyone, believe, based on words alone? Such an idea has been discussed in depth before in this forum.

Originally Posted by Obviously

What is the probability of a God?

Hmm...

If God wasn't created, then the probability according to your hypothetical is zero. However, such logic also causes damages in other sectors of science (assuming this is in the sector of science, too).

However, if God was created, then according to your hypothetical, we get total disaster, once again.

Originally Posted by Obviously

I'm not sure if I should've put this topic up in "Philosophical Discussion" instead.

It fits right in, here. Mind you don't step in the hocky and watch out for the evangelists.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Prove there are "other universes".

Some scientists are already thinking along those lines. If we perceive the galaxy according to standard physical models, a multiple-universe theory is a bit of a stretch. If we follow other avenues of physics, such as string-theory or M-theory, there is the possibility that this universe is only one of many.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Your assumption that other universes may allow the existence of God is also flawed.

According to who? What are your sources? Is this personal opinion? Should we take that as a hypothetical for the rest of your argument below, or are there some rationals for us to accept that on?

Originally Posted by Obviously

Trying to find an excuse for Gods existence doesn't prove him real.

(I'll avoid the loose use of the word "excuse" for now.)

Trying to find an excuse against God's existence doesn't prove him false.

Originally Posted by Obviously

If there were a universe that allowed God to create himself, how would he be able to interact with our universe? And who says that there is only one God in that universe? What you're suggesting is highly unlikely if I might say.

You may say it, but based on what?

If we take the hypothetical approach and assume that there is a possibility that God exists without creator, then there is a probability that there is only one God. However if we assume that God exists and that he was created, then there are many Gods, because each would have to have a creator.

What is the nature of the universe, and the nature of interaction between this universe, and the possible existence of others? If other universes exist, and there are Gods, does the nature of the subject itself define that these Gods or God must be responsible for the creation of that universe, and therefore have the ability to understand and interact with that universe on such a scale that other universes are within his grasp, too?

Originally Posted by marnixR

i don't seem to have such a high opinion of human consciousness as you appear to : in comparison with the rest of life on earth you may be right that we're top dog, but in terms of the universe we're like a chicken rooting around in the backyard, thinking it knows everything there is to know about the world

True. In the scale of the universe, or even just our galaxy, we are not only insignificant, but statistically non-existent. So small is our touch on the universe that our very presence is irrelevant.

As a so-called "top dog" species, though, we are pretty inferior. But that's something for an off-topic discussion.

Woop, hold up...wait. Before you get started, which derivation of "God" are you going after here? 'Cause there's like 40-thousand versions of "God" in the flip'n world. You've already started to wander off from my own viewpoint of "God."

Are you implying that all "God"s are the same? Or are you generalizing? And if you are generalizing, you are going to avoid trying to state "facts" which may or may not pertain to all perspectives on the subject of "God," correct?

Just checking...

As far as I've understood, what I meansioned there is at least what God is. Intelligent, conscious and omnipotent. Or else he wouldn't be a God, right? Sorry if I've misunderstood what a God is otherwise, it's just the way I've understood it so far.

Does it? Only created things can have consciousness and intelligence? I've never heard that argument before. Can you cite your source(s)? So far we've only encountered consciousness and intelligence in living creatures that we can poke with sticks. That doesn't define the rule, however. Or is this an opinion? If the later, okay. We'll take it as a hypothetical for the sake of the argument.

We humans have a brain. If something happens to the brain we could die. When we die we loose our consciousness. Presumably the brain is the reason we have a consciousness, therefore consciousness is a creation of some sorts.

What? Or who? I'm assuming that you're taking the context that God exists and therefore had to be created.

I explain further on...

A tricky issue if you keep to only one perspective of understanding. Using such a mindset, it is also illogical for the universe to exist without having a center. On that note, where did the universe come from? What created it?

Problem is, if you assume that the universe was created, then it had to have been creating by someone or some-thing. The logic only leads to ask where the creator is, and who or what created the creator. And who created that creator. And so on, and so forth, on and on...

It's turtles all the way down, Mr. Russell.

I didn't assume the universe was "created" in that sense... and I get to another perspective later. I would rather say "we don't know yet" when answering the question about the origin of the universe, instead of assuming a God is the reason for it all.

Yet you're still leaning on a line of logic that leads directly into an infinite regression model. (This applies to both the subject of God's origin, and the origin of the universe, under the "logic" that everything in existence must be created.)

Well, why not? To think that God just suddenly appeared from nothing and started creating things out of nothing doesn't really make sense, does it? That's why I'm choosing what makes most sense and try to show that it's really not that logical either. In my opinion...

From our current abilities of understanding and capability, neither science nor association can prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, the only thing we have left is that of the conscious mind. We can probe the idea of God with hypothesis, debate, and theory, but we cannot poke a god with a stick. Such is the definition of the very subject in question.

I just wish to discuss the need for God. The universe can exist without a creator, at least, you should have an open mind to the possibility. As for God, I find him rather impossible, but again that's just my opinion in the discussion.

Is it?

I suppose if you follow your line of logic and assume that only things created can exist, and avoid the subject of an infinite regression, then it logically follows that God can't exist within those defined parameters. Doesn't do much for the universe, either. My my, how complex...

Truly it's better to say "we don't know yet" than assume a creator, which presumably would need a creator himself to be able to exist, and so on... you can't say God is the reason for everything, because God is a problematic existence. You'll just be evading the question or problem, "what is the origin of the universe." You truly don't answer anything with God...

*eheim* The question. The question is, why does a proclaimed atheist seek out approval that he or she is right? Is not the mind of an atheist, being firm in the belief of no God, a bias against theory? Doesn't the openness to an alternative preclude certainty?

Why am I not allowed to put the existence of God into questioning? Is it wrong to question things nowdays? I don't assume I'm ritght, I'm just saying that as far as I understand it, Gods existence is very improbable and problem evading indeed.

I can't. I can't, because there's nothing I can do or say to prove to you that God exists. It's not within physical or verbal power. I can't show you a picture of God, I can't bring you a sample, I can't detect his gravity. I can describe God to you, but what is there to say that would make you, or anyone, believe, based on words alone? Such an idea has been discussed in depth before in this forum.

God is descrived through emotions. Why not question our emotions? Can our brain really fool us to believe such things? Yes, it can. The brain is the ultimate simulator, just think about all the things you think you see, hear, smell, feel and taste when you're asleep. Why not question yourself as well as the probability that God only exists because you think he does?

Hmm...

If God wasn't created, then the probability according to your hypothetical is zero. However, such logic also causes damages in other sectors of science (assuming this is in the sector of science, too).

However, if God was created, then according to your hypothetical, we get total disaster, once again.

I see God as the damage factor here, saying "God did it" and just go with it until it gets disproven. For me, that's a way of giving up, "God did it. That's it."

It fits right in, here. Mind you don't step in the hocky and watch out for the evangelists.

Sure, I took to account that this could develop into a long discussion. But I really don't mind discussing it.

Some scientists are already thinking along those lines. If we perceive the galaxy according to standard physical models, a multiple-universe theory is a bit of a stretch. If we follow other avenues of physics, such as string-theory or M-theory, there is the possibility that this universe is only one of many.

Yes, but as far as I know, that hasn't been confirmed yet. But the possibility is there, I can agree with that.

According to who? What are your sources? Is this personal opinion? Should we take that as a hypothetical for the rest of your argument below, or are there some rationals for us to accept that on?

Calling what I think is flawed, you get the same opinion from me that your thinking is flawed. Why not focus on why I think it's flawed?

(I'll avoid the loose use of the word "excuse" for now.)

Trying to find an excuse against God's existence doesn't prove him false.

Only problem is, there is no excuse from the non-existence of God. I just argue how highly unlikely a God must be. You're free to argue against of course...

You may say it, but based on what?

If we take the hypothetical approach and assume that there is a possibility that God exists without creator, then there is a probability that there is only one God. However if we assume that God exists and that he was created, then there are many Gods, because each would have to have a creator.

What is the nature of the universe, and the nature of interaction between this universe, and the possible existence of others? If other universes exist, and there are Gods, does the nature of the subject itself define that these Gods or God must be responsible for the creation of that universe, and therefore have the ability to understand and interact with that universe on such a scale that other universes are within his grasp, too?

I was just pointing out possibilities. But there's a problem assuming God's the creator of our universe, we would have much more to explain than what we started with. We need to explain God and his interactions with other universes. I find God to be a problematic existence, not solving anything.

True. In the scale of the universe, or even just our galaxy, we are not only insignificant, but statistically non-existent. So small is our touch on the universe that our very presence is irrelevant.

As a so-called "top dog" species, though, we are pretty inferior. But that's something for an off-topic discussion.

I was just saying that our comprehension is yet to be tested further. And to assume we can't comprehend is yet to be discovered. But we can also point out the possibility that one day we will understand a lot more.




Some people seem to misunderstand my intention here. I wish to discuss the probability of God. I'm not evil just because I can see a universe without God. Don't assume I'm arrogant or something just because I don't believe in a God, and that I express why. I just want a normal discussion within this topic.

Originally Posted by Obviously

God is supposably the creator of all things. He is omnipotent and is an etearnal being. He has a consciousness and is highly intelligent.

John 1:3: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Being that God is a eternal being, why would it warrant that God must be created? Something which is created is usually an finite being or finite-infinite being. Would it not beg the question to say that God is a creation when the word creation by it's own definition means that it began? I don't consider my objection very powerful by the way, as I am trying to get your position cleared up. Though I find arguments like these rather unconvincing that God is impossible. In fact, I find it absurd...

By now you've probably figured out that I'm an atheist

Meh, I figured that out when I first starting reading it but you as an atheist must have an uncaused cause just as the theist. The debate should be wether your uncaused cause (the universe) is more justified than the Christian world-view.

The big bang brought about such creations such as earth and human life, that it is even more unlikely that there was no intelligence that caused it. I believe this life is too incredible to be an accident of nature.

Originally Posted by macguy

Originally Posted by Obviously

God is supposably the creator of all things. He is omnipotent and is an etearnal being. He has a consciousness and is highly intelligent.

John 1:3: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Being that God is a eternal being, why would it warrant that God must be created? Something which is created is usually an finite being or finite-infinite being. Would it not beg the question to say that God is a creation when the word creation by it's own definition means that it began? I don't consider my objection very powerful by the way, as I am trying to get your position cleared up. Though I find arguments like these rather unconvincing that God is impossible. In fact, I find it absurd...

Well, if he has a consciousness, then he can't be etearnal. Because consciousness points out that he must have some structure to ba able to have a consciousness. In other words, God is a creation. I wouldn't find that absurd. I don't see why God does not need to be explained properly.

By now you've probably figured out that I'm an atheist

Meh, I figured that out when I first starting reading it but you as an atheist must have an uncaused cause just as the theist. The debate should be wether your uncaused cause (the universe) is more justified than the Christian world-view.

I admit I don't know how it all began. A theist would probably say God is the reason for the origin of the universe. God is a to simple and problematic explanation I think. That's what I'm trying to point out.

Originally Posted by Amaya

The big bang brought about such creations such as earth and human life, that it is even more unlikely that there was no intelligence that caused it. I believe this life is too incredible to be an accident of nature.

The big bang theory isn't actually that unlikely. But even with the big bang theory, how do we explain what caused it?

God said let there be light, and BANG there was light.
A lot of people who believe in God think science is based on lies... I think science explains how God done what he done.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Well, if he has a consciousness, then he can't be etearnal. Because consciousness points out that he must have some structure to ba able to have a consciousness. In other words, God is a creation. I wouldn't find that absurd. I don't see why God does not need to be explained properly.

Since when does consciousness mean he can't be eternal? It's spelled eternal not etearnal by the way... To me this argument is simply a non-sequitur because this is simply an assumption on your part and has nothing to do with reality (again, begging the question). Using your logic, God must have been created since he can create because us humans also create. That is ridiculous...Again, my objection to your argument still stands because an eternal conscious has to be shown as impossible. You're just assuming what you set out to prove.



1) God is conscious
There is no disagreement here but let's just make some things clear before I further evaluate your argument.

A conscious being by definition is something that is aware of his/her own existence and the things and has an awareness of what's going on around them. So for a God to exist, it must be conscious because to be "unaware" of it's existence is basically for such a being to not exist. You of course are probably aware of this (pun intended) but this will further clarify where I disagree with you on.

2) Consciousness points out that God is created
Here is where I disagree as this doesn't follow from your first premise. It is as I stated a non-sequitor and is simply question begging. You don't defend the premise that a conscious being means that one is created. You never even demonstrate why it's not even possible for a eternal consciousness. This doesn't point out anything.

3) Therefore God must have been created...

Not if you assume the premise to begin with...

Don't get the wrong impression, as I am not ridiculing you, but the argument itself.

Originally Posted by macguy

Again, my objection to your argument still stands because an eternal conscious has to be shown as impossible.

Doesn't it show to be impossible by its existence? Nothing comes to be from nothing with a consciousness and omnipotence. Obviously, I think God needs to be explained if he's the way he is.

Originally Posted by macguy

1) God is conscious
There is no disagreement here but let's just make some things clear before I further evaluate your argument.

A conscious being by definition is something that is aware of his/her own existence and the things and has an awareness of what's going on around them. So for a God to exist, it must be conscious because to be "unaware" of it's existence is basically for such a being to not exist. You of course are probably aware of this (pun intended) but this will further clarify where I disagree with you on.

Consciousness is a complex thing. You shouldn't ignore that fact. How did the conscious come to be? It couldn't always have been there.

Originally Posted by macguy

2) Consciousness points out that God is created
Here is where I disagree as this doesn't follow from your first premise. It is as I stated a non-sequitor and is simply question begging. You don't defend the premise that a conscious being means that one is created. You never even demonstrate why it's not even possible for a eternal consciousness. This doesn't point out anything.

Sorry. Well, I hope with this response you see what I mean.

Originally Posted by macguy

3) Therefore God must have been created...

Not if you assume the premise to begin with...

Don't get the wrong impression, as I am not ridiculing you, but the argument itself.

Complex things evolve to that state of complexity. Therefore I cannot agree that God can be eternal. Sorry for my misspelling of "eternal" by the way

Originally Posted by macguy

You're just assuming what you set out to prove.

I don't think so. And I don't quite see how you would think that either.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Consciousness is a complex thing. You shouldn't ignore that fact. How did the conscious come to be? It couldn't always have been there.

The conscious in humans came to be by one who had a conscious to begin with.God is not the fact of things existing but rather the basis for the existence of all things. St. John of Damascus correctly says, "God does not belong to the class of 'existing' things; not that he has no existence but that he is above existing things, even above existence itself...”.

God is above existence of all the things He created, which means that His existence is the ultimate basis for THEIR existence. Therefore everything that God created is contingent on His existence. This is what it means to be "higher" above the class of existence itself which we assign in this world. Why couldn't conscious have existed forever in such a ground being? We are talking about the greatest possible being here which is God... Why can't a eternal conscious exist? You're not give any reasons other than it's "complicated" and "couldn't" have always been there.

Complex things evolve to that state of complexity. Therefore I cannot agree that God can be eternal. Sorry for my misspelling of "eternal" by the way

Hehe no problem, that's why we have forums to help us out in our grammar usage. In fact, most of my logic and reasoning was mainly derived from forum usage which I encourage others to do the same.

So from nothing evolved something? Is That your philosophy? I don't understand how complexity means that God cannot be eternal. Are you saying nothing can be eternal? Please explain.

Originally Posted by Obviously

As far as I've understood, what I meansioned there is at least what God is. ...it's just the way I've understood it so far.

What I was trying to get you to see, was that you were making a statement, rather than laying down the foundation for your hypothetical. If you don't define your point of view, you risk offending others, starting flame wars, or boiling through pages of argument over details you don't care about in relation to the angle you want to look at. That is especially critical in a forum section such as this one. You have many people here, with many different beliefs. The proper approach is to open up with your assumptions, and avoid "preaching truth." If you setup the guidelines at the beginning, anyone who wanders off that path is easily identified as either lost, or trolling.

Personally, I like to use the phrase "If we assume..." which identifies that I am picking a particular subject or line of logic, and that I am not necissarily trying to state any solid fact. For instance, "If we assume that tomorrow the world ends..." sounds better as a topic starter than "Tomorrow the world is going to end."

With me?

Originally Posted by Obviously

We humans have a brain. If something happens to the brain we could die. When we die we loose our consciousness. Presumably the brain is the reason we have a consciousness, therefore consciousness is a creation of some sorts.

How do you know we lose consciousness when the brain dies? Talked to any dead people lately? Since this is a discussion concerning God, could that also include the presence of such things as souls? And if so, does that not possibly indicate that we may not lose consciousness when we die? Of course, we can't tell. The only way to find out is to nix yourself.

You can go ahead, but I'll pass for now.

Originally Posted by Obviously

I didn't assume the universe was "created" in that sense... and I get to another perspective later. I would rather say "we don't know yet" when answering the question about the origin of the universe, instead of assuming a God is the reason for it all.

Again, you're assuming that when someone says "God created the universe," they're giving up. I think you'll find yer a bit off the mark there. Faith is not a logic failout. Perhaps religion is, though.

If you take my own personal hypothetical viewpoint on the subject, I believe that everything we see and can understand, everything that exists, was in some way created by God. From the physics to evolution to life, on through. Since none of it precludes the existence of a God, we cannot say one way or the other that the existence of rocks or trees or people means that there is or isn't a god at work. The physical universe is a non-relevant point in the argument, because it can go both ways. It holds that the universe could have not been created by God, or that it was created by God because such an entity would have the ability to do so. If it were impossible for one side of the argument to be true, then it might be useful, but unfortunately neither side can win by using the universe as evidence.

When you ask someone "Why is the sky blue," and they reply "I don't know. That's the way God made it," it doesn't mean they don't believe there can be any physical function behind the reason for the sky being blue. They simply do not care to know the details. The statement can still be logically true, if there is a physical method being blue skies, and God created those methods. Some...only care that it's there. Others find the methods. Doing so does not diminish (nor does it support) the idea that it was made possible by God.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Well, why not? To think that God just suddenly appeared from nothing and started creating things out of nothing doesn't really make sense, does it? That's why I'm choosing what makes most sense and try to show that it's really not that logical either. In my opinion...

I mean no offense when I say this, but I'm starting to wonder if you are stuck in a mental rut. Why are you so certain that the only things that can be, must be linear? That there must be a beginning and an end? A start and a finish?

Take for instance: time.

Time may have a seemingly linear function, but time is something we can only understand and think about if we put it into the context of observation, as a simple linear incrementor. When we look at time, we say that this year is 2007, and the next will be 2008; and we know it is 2007 because previously it was 2006. Unfortunately, time is not that simple. We know that time is more than simply forward increments and historical recollection. The frame of reference can shift anywhere. In fact, there's nothing to prevent time from being absolutely circular, or, infinite (although infinite properties are inherently difficult to conceive). In the circular context, time is entirely relative. There is no beginning or end. The only reason we can state that it is 2007 is because of an arbitrary designation that it has been 2007 years since some point of time, which is only fixed in time because we percieve it to be so.

The universe problem is somewhat the same. If you assume that the universe is not infinite and that it did have a start, then what happens to the model when you roll back to the point in time right before the beginning of the universe? Is that even logical? If it is logical, what does that say for the realm in which "the beginning" exists? If it's not logical, well...this thread falls apart because it proceeds that the universe was not created but rather always was.

Originally Posted by Obviously

I just wish to discuss the need for God. The universe can exist without a creator, at least, you should have an open mind to the possibility. As for God, I find him rather impossible, but again that's just my opinion in the discussion.

As should you have an open mind to the possibility that God does exist. It's nice to see you've come out and stated that you are having an opinion, and not trying to force-feed a logic on us all.

On that note, why do you believe there has to be a "need" for God, for him to exist? Does not science opperate perfectly well, whether you believe in God or not? If I am taking something apart to understand how it works, does it really matter that I know who made it or not? Perhaps from a conscious standpoint it does, but for the matter of understanding its function, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Truly it's better to say "we don't know yet" than assume a creator, which presumably would need a creator himself to be able to exist, and so on... you can't say God is the reason for everything, because God is a problematic existence. You'll just be evading the question or problem, "what is the origin of the universe." You truly don't answer anything with God...

That's a bit of a round-about view. Do I believe that God is making it rain right now? That God is making my walls white, my monitors work, or that he is responsible for my soda spilling over? No.

And I don't agree. God is not a problematic existence. In fact, although God is mysterious to me, his existence is probably the most simple thing I can think about. It's much more complex to ponder the relative implications of multiple dynamic dimensions around us. Do I believe that there could be other dimensions and all the quirkyness of quantum physics, string theory, M-theory, and the rest? Sure. Absolutely. But if you ask me, tackling those problems, is far more problematic than tackling the problem of God.

I have never said that something is the way it is simply because of God. If there is something out there, I want to know how it works. I want to poke it and figure out its reason. But I can't in all honesty say that everything I am capable of understand is all that exists. If you ask me what doesn't make logical sense, it's the statement that we humans are omnipotent, and that we know or can know all there is to know.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Why am I not allowed to put the existence of God into questioning? Is it wrong to question things nowdays? I don't assume I'm ritght, I'm just saying that as far as I understand it, Gods existence is very improbable and problem evading indeed.

I'd agree with you that anyone refusing to acknowledge science and the workings of the universe is bonkers, and that saying so is running away is in some ways running from the issue at hand.

However I do not agree with you that believing in God implies denial of science.

Originally Posted by Obviously

God is descrived through emotions. Why not question our emotions? Can our brain really fool us to believe such things? Yes, it can. The brain is the ultimate simulator, just think about all the things you think you see, hear, smell, feel and taste when you're asleep. Why not question yourself as well as the probability that God only exists because you think he does?

Yes, but can I have you explain your emotions and from that prove or disprove to myself the existence of God? Is not your testimony just as subjective to my beliefs and will as the testimony of my own conscience? The disadvantage you have is that I may not implicitely trust you, while I have a higher probability of trusting myself. What I rationalize among my lobes is my own self. That doesn't mean it helps, though. As many in here know, I am the eternal fence-sitter on the subject of God.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Sure, I took to account that this could develop into a long discussion. But I really don't mind discussing it.

There's no such thing as a short discussion in this forum category.

If you're lucky enough to get intelligent debate, it will go on for a while.

Most often, however, you get a bunch of religious zealots or beligerant atheists who just bicker at each other for days on end, saying nothing and wasting electricity. They never have any rational or food for the topic. They only run around calling people idiots for not believing in their viewpoint. You wouldn't believe the childish behavior...(or maybe you would... )

Originally Posted by Obviously

Why not focus on why I think it's flawed?

I think that's the point I was trying to make. You just made a statement, without backing it up in any way. We want to know your reasoning, otherwise it's meaningless to us.

Originally Posted by Obviously

I was just pointing out possibilities. But there's a problem assuming God's the creator of our universe, we would have much more to explain than what we started with. We need to explain God and his interactions with other universes. I find God to be a problematic existence, not solving anything.

Actually, I think the only question the existence of God brings up, is the question of meaning. As in, what is the meaning of existence? Life? The universe? In the absence of God, these things have no meaning, because all we are left with is the bland mechanical operations of a methodical universe. However, WITH God, we can allow the possibility that there is some kind of purpose. Otherwise, it may be safe to assume that God would not have created the universe if there was no reason for doing so.

Of course, if you view the subject of the existence and placement of God, with the assumption that everything is linear, then you are always going to have a problem. If you beleive that all things must have a beginning and end, then you are confronted with the problem of explaining God's beginning and end. However, if you get away from the idea that things are permanent and start exploring other realms of existence, you might find that the subject gets a lot easier. (I didn't say simpler, just easier.)

Originally Posted by Amaya

God said let there be light, and BANG there was light.
A lot of people who believe in God think science is based on lies... I think science explains how God done what he done.

Me too.

Originally Posted by Obviously

It couldn't always have been there.

How very linear of you.

Okay...why not? Why couldn't something always exist? What says that all things must have a beginning or end? Why?

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by macguy

You're just assuming what you set out to prove.

I don't think so. And I don't quite see how you would think that either.

Actually, macguy is right, in a way. You came into this thread to explore the "need" for God in science, but you have several times made statements that hint that you've already made up your mind. If you are trying to accertain the answer to a question, you can't accept an answer, then ask for the answer.

What I was trying to get you to see, was that you were making a statement, rather than laying down the foundation for your hypothetical. If you don't define your point of view, you risk offending others, starting flame wars, or boiling through pages of argument over details you don't care about in relation to the angle you want to look at. That is especially critical in a forum section such as this one. You have many people here, with many different beliefs. The proper approach is to open up with your assumptions, and avoid "preaching truth." If you setup the guidelines at the beginning, anyone who wanders off that path is easily identified as either lost, or trolling.

Personally, I like to use the phrase "If we assume..." which identifies that I am picking a particular subject or line of logic, and that I am not necissarily trying to state any solid fact. For instance, "If we assume that tomorrow the world ends..." sounds better as a topic starter than "Tomorrow the world is going to end."

With me?

I understand what you are telling me. And yes, if it is the case that I should be more specific on why I say what I say, I'll try formulating myself differently.

How do you know we lose consciousness when the brain dies? Talked to any dead people lately? Since this is a discussion concerning God, could that also include the presence of such things as souls? And if so, does that not possibly indicate that we may not lose consciousness when we die? Of course, we can't tell. The only way to find out is to nix yourself.

You can go ahead, but I'll pass for now.

I don't suppose anyone can talk to the dead, nor prove they can. So I just assume our consciousness is connected to our material structure, our body. I assume our body creates our consciousness, and if so, you see what I'm getting at.

Again, you're assuming that when someone says "God created the universe," they're giving up. I think you'll find yer a bit off the mark there. Faith is not a logic failout. Perhaps religion is, though.

If you take my own personal hypothetical viewpoint on the subject, I believe that everything we see and can understand, everything that exists, was in some way created by God. From the physics to evolution to life, on through. Since none of it precludes the existence of a God, we cannot say one way or the other that the existence of rocks or trees or people means that there is or isn't a god at work. The physical universe is a non-relevant point in the argument, because it can go both ways. It holds that the universe could have not been created by God, or that it was created by God because such an entity would have the ability to do so. If it were impossible for one side of the argument to be true, then it might be useful, but unfortunately neither side can win by using the universe as evidence.

When you ask someone "Why is the sky blue," and they reply "I don't know. That's the way God made it," it doesn't mean they don't believe there can be any physical function behind the reason for the sky being blue. They simply do not care to know the details. The statement can still be logically true, if there is a physical method being blue skies, and God created those methods. Some...only care that it's there. Others find the methods. Doing so does not diminish (nor does it support) the idea that it was made possible by God.

But they do care that their answer, God, is enough. So God takes away the curiousity of the mystery instead of seeing it as a challange worth solving. I wouldn't presume everyone is like that, but some are.

I mean no offense when I say this, but I'm starting to wonder if you are stuck in a mental rut. Why are you so certain that the only things that can be, must be linear? That there must be a beginning and an end? A start and a finish?

Take for instance: time.

Time may have a seemingly linear function, but time is something we can only understand and think about if we put it into the context of observation, as a simple linear incrementor. When we look at time, we say that this year is 2007, and the next will be 2008; and we know it is 2007 because previously it was 2006. Unfortunately, time is not that simple. We know that time is more than simply forward increments and historical recollection. The frame of reference can shift anywhere. In fact, there's nothing to prevent time from being absolutely circular, or, infinite (although infinite properties are inherently difficult to conceive). In the circular context, time is entirely relative. There is no beginning or end. The only reason we can state that it is 2007 is because of an arbitrary designation that it has been 2007 years since some point of time, which is only fixed in time because we percieve it to be so.

The universe problem is somewhat the same. If you assume that the universe is not infinite and that it did have a start, then what happens to the model when you roll back to the point in time right before the beginning of the universe? Is that even logical? If it is logical, what does that say for the realm in which "the beginning" exists? If it's not logical, well...this thread falls apart because it proceeds that the universe was not created but rather always was.

I see time as eternal, actually. Or relative as you say. I think it's very possible that the universe has a beginning, because it needs one. But nothing can change, alter or manipulate time in any way. The way I see it, time's just a word, and therefore God can't defy that. His existence requires him to be real, if you get what I mean. Time, being just a word isn't actually a real thing. This is from my point of view, I am open to other possibilities if you care to explain them :wink:

As should you have an open mind to the possibility that God does exist. It's nice to see you've come out and stated that you are having an opinion, and not trying to force-feed a logic on us all.

On that note, why do you believe there has to be a "need" for God, for him to exist? Does not science opperate perfectly well, whether you believe in God or not? If I am taking something apart to understand how it works, does it really matter that I know who made it or not? Perhaps from a conscious standpoint it does, but for the matter of understanding its function, it doesn't.

I just think it's fair to estimate the probability of a thing, and afterwards explain it, if it's possible to explain properly. God could have various explanations, but none of them seem to give any specific sense. They just assume how the existence of God is possible, and I wish to question that if I may. Science do work as it should, with or without God, because the scientific method requires it to work. But the existence of God seem very improbable, as I've stated before, with all do respect. I do not wish to offend anyone by questioning God.

That's a bit of a round-about view. Do I believe that God is making it rain right now? That God is making my walls white, my monitors work, or that he is responsible for my soda spilling over? No.

And I don't agree. God is not a problematic existence. In fact, although God is mysterious to me, his existence is probably the most simple thing I can think about. It's much more complex to ponder the relative implications of multiple dynamic dimensions around us. Do I believe that there could be other dimensions and all the quirkyness of quantum physics, string theory, M-theory, and the rest? Sure. Absolutely. But if you ask me, tackling those problems, is far more problematic than tackling the problem of God.

I have never said that something is the way it is simply because of God. If there is something out there, I want to know how it works. I want to poke it and figure out its reason. But I can't in all honesty say that everything I am capable of understand is all that exists. If you ask me what doesn't make logical sense, it's the statement that we humans are omnipotent, and that we know or can know all there is to know.

But isn't God TOO simple? With him as an answer, you don't need to speculate anything at all. And that is a problem in my point of view. He is a problematic existence because he solves the problem with an assumption. God solves it without a very plausible explanation for himself. And he becomes a problem since we can't explain him proberly, just half-properly. I don't think we should assume something we claim to not be able to comprehend. That's how I see God as a problem if you understand what I mean.

I don't see humans as omnipotent. Only capable of deep understanding and comprehension.

There's no such thing as a short discussion in this forum category.

If you're lucky enough to get intelligent debate, it will go on for a while.

Most often, however, you get a bunch of religious zealots or beligerant atheists who just bicker at each other for days on end, saying nothing and wasting electricity. They never have any rational or food for the topic. They only run around calling people idiots for not believing in their viewpoint. You wouldn't believe the childish behavior...(or maybe you would... )

I know the childish behavior very well, if you must know ^^ I've been like that myself. And I'm doing my best not to say "I'm right and you're wrong." I hope I've managed to do that well enough

Forgive me if I might seem arrogant at times, I really don't mean to express myself that way. I just sometimes forget that people might see me as arrogant if I don't explain why I'm making my statements.

I think that's the point I was trying to make. You just made a statement, without backing it up in any way. We want to know your reasoning, otherwise it's meaningless to us.

Again, terribly sorry for not formulating myself in a manner more appropriate so I don't get misjudged. And I see now that I might have misjudged the response given to me.

Actually, I think the only question the existence of God brings up, is the question of meaning. As in, what is the meaning of existence? Life? The universe? In the absence of God, these things have no meaning, because all we are left with is the bland mechanical operations of a methodical universe. However, WITH God, we can allow the possibility that there is some kind of purpose. Otherwise, it may be safe to assume that God would not have created the universe if there was no reason for doing so.

Of course, if you view the subject of the existence and placement of God, with the assumption that everything is linear, then you are always going to have a problem. If you beleive that all things must have a beginning and end, then you are confronted with the problem of explaining God's beginning and end. However, if you get away from the idea that things are permanent and start exploring other realms of existence, you might find that the subject gets a lot easier. (I didn't say simpler, just easier.)

In my first post I proposed this as an answer:

What is the purpose of life? There are different opinions upon the matter, but as far as I've discovered, the question has many times been misunderstood. Even with a God, our life wouldn't actually have a purpose because God must have a reason for us that gives us purpose. But then again, that only proves that there is none. The purpose of our lives is to serve God or do his will. What purpose is it in that? Love? But does love give purpose to us? No, we want to be important. Only by importance can we get purpose. Can we get importance through love? Yes we can. Through love we can show mercy and compassion which means a lot to other living things. Through love we get importance, and through importance we get purpose. But when you think about it, you don't need God to give purpose to life. Love alone is enough to give purpose to, as Dawkins said in 'The Big Question - Why Are We Here', "... an otherwise purposeless universe." Love is the purpose of our lives, with our without God. By love we can help life to survive, and therefore we become important. I answered the question differently in another forum in which I will quote here:

There is NO purpose in life, none. There's only purpose in what gives US purpose. In a larger scale there can't possibly be any purpose in life, there's just life and that's all. I really don't like it when people misunderstand the meaning of the question "What is the purpose of life?" They somehow always answer the other question "What is the purpose of life for me?" which is something very different...

I find that true, but when I see the effects of compassion to other living animals and plants as well as to our own kind, our love actually gives the purpose of our lives. We could almost work as the protectors of life, the guardians if you like. And we give purpose to our own existence in an otherwise purposeless universe.

It isn't to stupid, is it?

Originally Posted by Amaya

God said let there be light, and BANG there was light.
A lot of people who believe in God think science is based on lies... I think science explains how God done what he done.

Well, it remains to bee seen, if we'll be able to discover it.

How very linear of you.

Okay...why not? Why couldn't something always exist? What says that all things must have a beginning or end? Why?

I find that things that have a form of existence must have an beginning. But as I said, I don't find "time" as an existence, only a word to understand the course of actions. So I wonder why something that exist, in a form of existence, could always exist.

Actually, macguy is right, in a way. You came into this thread to explore the "need" for God in science, but you have several times made statements that hint that you've already made up your mind. If you are trying to accertain the answer to a question, you can't accept an answer, then ask for the answer.

My apologizes for my statements. I should've formulated myself differently so that I don't seem arrogant.

Originally Posted by Obviously

God is supposably the creator of all things. He is omnipotent and is an etearnal being. He has a consciousness and is highly intelligent.

Obviously, a consciousness and intelligence points out that God is a creation. So what made God? Some would argue that God is his own creation, which is very illogical. If God made himself. Then what he has managed to is, create himself out of nothing! Well, we can easily say that nothing comes from nothing, so God couldn't create himself. So what made God? Another God? Even greater than the one that created the universe (he must've been greater to create a creator of the universe)? Obviously, this is backward thinking. We assume a God to evade a difficult question which needs time to be answered. What is the origin of the universe and the purpose of our lives? Some assume a God just because they feel it's right or that they find that only God can give purpose to their/our lives. Personal need or opinion doesn't make anything true when it's not confirmable.

Gods' existence is impossible, which leaves this question:

If you believe in a God, please tell me... What is the probability of a God?

My brother i am afraid that you have misunderstood the concept of GOD. Having consciousness and intelligence doesnt proove that he is created. But by having the absolute intelligence and consciousness tells that it is a quality of only God, no creature can be like that.
Your inteligence and consciousness is not absolute, but it is weak. Like that are all the humans.

And god said...let there be excessively lengthy and boring ad-nauseum topics!

The 11th commandment.

Dont make jest of God and His messenger. But think about the signs of God that he may show you the right path.
Here is a quotation From Holy Qur'an, Surath 18, Ayath 100 to 110.

100. And We shall present Hell that day for Unbelievers to see, all spread out,-

101. (Unbelievers) whose eyes had been under a veil from remembrance of Me, and who had been unable even to hear.

102. Do the Unbelievers think that they can take My servants as protectors besides Me? Verily We have prepared Hell for the Unbelievers for (their) entertainment.

103. Say: "Shall we tell you of those who lose most in respect of their deeds?-

104. "Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they thought that they were acquiring good by their works?"

105. They are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of Judgment, give them any weight.

106. That is their reward, Hell, because they rejected Faith, and took My Signs and My Messengers by way of jest.

107. As to those who believe and work righteous deeds, they have, for their entertainment, the Gardens of Paradise,

108. Wherein they shall dwell (for aye): no change will they wish for from them.

109. Say: "If the ocean were ink (wherewith to write out) the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean be exhausted than would the words of my Lord, even if we added another ocean like it, for its aid."

110. Say: "I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your Allah is one Allah. whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.

Think about these veerses of Quran.

Originally Posted by basim

Dont make jest of God and His messenger. But think about the signs of God that he may show you the right path.
Here is a quotation From Holy Qur'an, Surath 18, Ayath 100 to 110.

100. And We shall present Hell that day for Unbelievers to see, all spread out,-

101. (Unbelievers) whose eyes had been under a veil from remembrance of Me, and who had been unable even to hear.

102. Do the Unbelievers think that they can take My servants as protectors besides Me? Verily We have prepared Hell for the Unbelievers for (their) entertainment.

103. Say: "Shall we tell you of those who lose most in respect of their deeds?-

104. "Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they thought that they were acquiring good by their works?"

105. They are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of Judgment, give them any weight.

106. That is their reward, Hell, because they rejected Faith, and took My Signs and My Messengers by way of jest.

107. As to those who believe and work righteous deeds, they have, for their entertainment, the Gardens of Paradise,

108. Wherein they shall dwell (for aye): no change will they wish for from them.

109. Say: "If the ocean were ink (wherewith to write out) the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean be exhausted than would the words of my Lord, even if we added another ocean like it, for its aid."

110. Say: "I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your Allah is one Allah. whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.

Think about these veerses of Quran.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you claiming that your God will throw every unbeliever, regardless to if they've been good or bad, in Hell? If that's the case then I would call your God cruel and unjust... you don't convert me by scaring me. Just so you know...

My brother i am afraid that you have misunderstood the concept of GOD. Having consciousness and intelligence doesnt proove that he is created. But by having the absolute intelligence and consciousness tells that it is a quality of only God, no creature can be like that.
Your inteligence and consciousness is not absolute, but it is weak. Like that are all the humans.

I guess we disagree in some extent then.

But before anything else comes up. I want to ask, what makes God a god? How do you define God? Is he omnipotent, conscious, eternal and intelligent or would you disagree? Maybe there's more to be added?

Just curious...

I also wonder if my view upon the purpose of life perhaps belongs to the "Philosophical Discussion" forum instead? If it need further discussion of course.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you claiming that your God will throw every unbeliever, regardless to if they've been good or bad, in Hell? If that's the case then I would call your God cruel and unjust... you don't convert me by scaring me. Just so you know...

Try not to think of hell as a pit of fire.
Think of it as being out of step with a path, or being slightly unfocused.
Remember, these words were written with literary value along side extreme enthusiasm...

God is, as MarnixR has been saying, something entirely incomprehensible by human knowledge. For example, think of a fly moving towards a lightbulb.
This fly has no idea what it is moving towards –it knows nothing of Thomas Edison, of the excited thermally equilibrated protons, of the chemical properties of Tungsten which compose the filament, or that it has been turned of 8 times that day.

Call it an easy escape if you’d like, but you simply have to except that God’s existence is not worth arguing about, because of this very reason(whether it be true or untrue) God’s mystery is fundamental in his reputation

Originally Posted by Nikolas_Miller

Originally Posted by Obviously

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you claiming that your God will throw every unbeliever, regardless to if they've been good or bad, in Hell? If that's the case then I would call your God cruel and unjust... you don't convert me by scaring me. Just so you know...

Try not to think of hell as a pit of fire.
Think of it as being out of step with a path, or being slightly unfocused.
Remember, these words were written with literary value along side extreme enthusiasm...

Isn't Hell a place where you burn in eternity? It would be unjust to throw good people down there no matter how you try to justify it.

What is Hell if not a pit of fire or a horrific place of punishment for eternity for humans who have lived evil lives?

God is, as MarnixR has been saying, something entirely incomprehensible by human knowledge. For example, think of a fly moving towards a lightbulb.
This fly has no idea what it is moving towards –it knows nothing of Thomas Edison, of the excited thermally equilibrated protons, of the chemical properties of Tungsten which compose the filament, or that it has been turned of 8 times that day.

Call it an easy escape if you’d like, but you simply have to except that God’s existence is not worth arguing about, because of this very reason(whether it be true or untrue) God’s mystery is fundamental in his reputation

"God is God. You can't understand him so don't even try."

I understand the reasoning in what your saying, but for me it sounds like what I wrote above. But if so, then I won't bother discussing God, as there is no meaning in discussing something "uncomprehensible" as you said.

I'm only suggesting that this is a dead horse, thats all.
You will debate that God doesn't exist because "who created God?"
Others will debate that God does exist because "its too hard to understand."

stalemate.
done.

You're right of course. I just find it rather, if I might say, ridiculous to assume a God, then afterwards the only way to explain him is that you cannot comprehend him. For me, that is a logical fallacy.

With my opinion out of the way, I'll say you're free to believe what you want as long as it doesn't go as far as creationism

god uncomprehensible?

the reasoning good people might go to hell is simple. loyalty.
satan wasn't loyal to god, so god gave him his own kingdom to have dominion over.
from a fundamentalist view, the reasoning for heaven, was to create a place where god could get souls to fight a final battle with satan.

then theres the catholic beliefs. where jesus would come down from the heavens riding on a white horse to fight gog of magog on the fields of apocalypse.

Originally Posted by dejawolf

then theres the catholic beliefs. where jesus would come down from the heavens riding on a white horse to fight gog of magog on the fields of apocalypse.

Do you know anything about Catholicism?
wait nevermind, dont respond to that.
Catholicism does not = barbaric belief.
your thinking of Evangelicals

Originally Posted by Obviously

Isn't Hell a place where you burn in eternity? It would be unjust to throw good people down there no matter how you try to justify it.

It is sad that such hate-fire has been taught and I wish I knew where this idea came about. Hell isn't a place of torture as is normally depicted in drawings etc but is rather a place of eternal separation from God and we shall experience shame here. This is according to Christianity...but I think much of this had to do with the late fundamentalists who had a disliking for intellectualism and threw everything away that evolution brought. Hell would be a rather good scare tactic but Jesus never did such things.

What is Hell if not a pit of fire or a horrific place of punishment for eternity for humans who have lived evil lives?

Good thing it isn't...

Originally Posted by Obviously

You're right of course. I just find it rather, if I might say, ridiculous to assume a God, then afterwards the only way to explain him is that you cannot comprehend him. For me, that is a logical fallacy.

God must've been fond of uncertainty as He's given to us for keeps. The uncertainty principle comes to mind... I don't agree that we cannot comprehend God but neither do I believe that we can fully comprehend Him. Since we were made in the image of God, I believe we have some limits to this comprehension.

I can comprehend God just fine. He is the race of aliens that planted us on this planet. They occasionally come back to see how their experiment is going, but that's all we are. Shaved rats in a cage waiting for the probe and the day of the great harvest. ...duh

Okay, excuse me if I make myself sound like a jackass. I didn't read the entirety of the thread, mostly because I'm lazy. However, I will attempt to throw my two cents in.

This thread is an argument about an infinite regress paradox. On the side of thesim, the way to escape this regress is to invoke the name of "God."

Some may wonder where this leaves atheism. As Douglas Adams said in his speech at Cambridge before he died: "If theists can argue, and be considered valid, that God has always existed, then why can't the same be said of matter an energy?" (That's coming from my memory, so don't consider it a direct quote, in case I missed a word or two.)

However, infinite regress aside, the probability of a "god" can be discussed quite easily.

In all probability, "God" does not exist. The fact is, the vast majority of evidence points out that any god/dess in any form has never existed. (I will, of course, furnish evidence if asked.)

Asking the questions, who created God is illogical.
like if i ask what kind of child did my brother gave birth to?, that is illogical.
The question doesn't arise, because everyone know that a man cannot give birth to a child. Like that there is no Question of God being created. If we say God is created then it is not a God. By definition God is uncreated, but He created the creatures. He is independent of everything but we are depending on Him.

The God is uncreated. We would never worship to any thing which is created.

Originally Posted by basim

We would never worship to any thing which is created.

sure about this one ? quite a few people think that man created god in his own image, not the other way around

Mathematically speaking.........(quoting my own manuscript, p 359, available for download)..........God is a mathematical certainty:

(p 359, from the top)

This is the tough one.
We began by assuming that our perception was separate to reality, that modern science is correct in not involving a theory of perception into space and time. We then said time that doesn’t pass, as observed, well, we would watch it and watch it and watch it, if indeed there is no time associated to our perception, as science would believe in not including our perception in theories of time. We then also said that in being aware of infinite space; well, if space permeates everything, and we have to involve our perception in that, but clearly can’t, technically, in not being able to define the limits of space for us to be aware around of, then it is nothing space. In both counts, zero space as infinite space, and zero time as infinite time.
Then we said the purpose that faced us was for that scheme to gobble up our perception, for us to INCORPORATE into that reality our perception, for our perception to be labeled with that reality we have all come to accept care of modern science.
Some would argue that in then applying that scheme to our perception, involving our perception with that scheme, we are invalidating it. Because in involving our perception in time that doesn’t pass, our perception would not pass either, and thus we also would have no perception. But we ARE aware, we have a perception. Thus, the way to accept that is that we are “immortal”, we are as immortal as time itself, that we are the process of time moving, and thus in moving with and as time, we would not register its passage. The same exists with the way to be aware of all space, of infinite space, we would have to be OMNIPRESENT, all space. In being omnipresent, yet not being aware of time passing, in having no boundaries, in being un-definable, we are as nothing, space is as nothing. Or even on another scale, if our perception is omnipresent, space would be the thing that is rendered as NOTHING.
And this is the difficult thing to present, the OMNIPRESENT IMMORTAL PERCEPTION CONSTRUCT that PERCEIVES reality for what has been described here. It’s a tad transcendental, but that’s what this is, a science of transcendental numbers.
It’s worthy of sharing, the TRUTH of reality.
Basically, combining the zero-infinity space-time scheme with perception creates the OMNIPRESENT IMMORTAL construct. That’s what this theory has actually achieved, in theory.
To people, the omnipresent immortal as the 0_infinity code would not be observable, even though the body is a construct of space-time, even though it is "matter", it is ALSO perception.
Instead of getting lost in that dialogue, because 1000's of ideas begin to surface in presenting an idea like that, like bubbles surfacing indicative that we are sinking and trying to breathe under water.........."zero" and "infinity" describe horizons in reality we can never reach, but in theory "can". I think the 0 and infinity "horizon" is like God, the unreachable, the thing always too far ahead, but of course the structure that makes laws of space-time “laws”.
What I have found in playing with 0 and infinity with space and time is that there is a type of ORDER that permeates space and time, suggesting that certain features, codes, laws of space and time will, in all probability, NEVER CHANGE, and in NEVER CHANGING, THEY represent the IMMEDIATE, the ZERO, that can never be described, and the infinite........the forever continuation of the forces, that also can never be described as proof.
Science ARGUES that they find FACTS relevant to FORCES they believe are set in stone. An ultimate science will eventually and ideally prove that our old customs of faith are actually related to the ultimate science.
Please return to the book exercises if you were instructed to come here by your doubts.
Technically, the theory, the mathematics, accepts that the "concept" of God is valid: it doesn't explain what God is though, because for the theory it is way too difficult...........the theory, this theory, only introduces the idea of the "omnipresent immortal" (it says it is valid, the concept), which is why the concept of God, no matter how intricate the theory, will always rest with religion. There is no way I would explain God, and it has nothing to do with bravery............I just can't............God is a "classified" thing, I have found. The theory is, in saying that, not "anti-God", but a "reassurance" that there can exist a mathematics "favorable" to faith/religion. I wouldn’t have done it otherwise.

(I apologize for the length of this post before hand. You can safely skip the first paragraph should you wish.)

steamSystems, I fail to see how your post proves god as a mathematical certainty. The things is, your using infinity (my grasp of higher mathematics is limited, social sciences are more my shtick, so forgive me if I misunderstood) to prove the existence of god. x->infinity, x=omniprescence etc. We cannot comprehend this, thus, x->infinity can't be concieved, therefore god exists. I hope that was what you were driving at in your post, the sentence structure you used kind of threw me for a lulu, so once again, forgive me if that's incorrect.

Now, back to what I was saying. What you presented is a mathematical attempt to prove the a priori existence of god, or the ontological argument. For the readers of this thread who don't know what that is, allowing me to explain.

Okay, the ontological argument was created by a man named St. Anslem in 1078, and basically goes like this:

It is possible to concieve of a being who is so perfect and so great, nothing greater than it can be concieved of. Even an atheist can concieve of this, though, even by theists, the existence of something of that power existing on earth would be denied. However, by definition, if something like that doesn't exist on earth, it is therefore less than perferct, so now we have a contradiction and, whaddya know, God exists. Allow me to put the argument in the language of kidnergartners, where this idiotic argument belongs:
"I can prove God exists!"
"I doubt that."
"Imagine the best thing ever, more perfect than anything else."
"Okay, now what."
"Is that perfect thingy real?"
"No, it's in my imagination."
"Well then, it isn't perfect, because if it was it wouldn't exist in your imagination. God exists, I win, neener neener."

Stupid, I know. The philosopher Douglas Gasking used the ontological argument to prove the nonexistence of god. (Albeit in a comedic manner)

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous thing imaginable.

2. The merit of any craft is its a) intrinsic value and b) the ability of the creator.

3. The greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The greatest disability of a creator would be nonexistence.

5. Therfore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive of a greater being- one who created everything while not existing.

6. God therefor, would not be a being of which nothing greater can be concieved, because an even greater creator would be a God which did not exist.

Ergo:

7: God does not exist. Q.E.D. (Thanks to Richard Dawkins for reprinting the above in The God Delusion for my handy reference.)

I think possibly beyond the ontological argument, the dumbest way I've read of God trying to be proven mathematically is an attempt to use Bayesian Theory. Which is entirely subjective, an unable to use objective view point in order to do so.

Then, there is the "mathematical" Pascal's wager, which is just as ridiculous as the ontological argument and Bayesian Theory God-proofs.

Pascal's wager is essentially this: There is a 50/50 chance of God's existence. Now, if he does exist, and you don't believe him, you will burn in hell for all eternity. If you chose to believe in him, and he doesn't exist, you lose nothing. If he does, you gain eternal paradise.

This is simple to dismiss. Using Pascal's wager, it is more intelligent to bet on the existence of no god than the existence of one. Afterall, if the god that exists is say, Baal, and not Yahweh, then you lose anyway.

I read your welcome message, and in trying to sift through your bias, you seem to have taken some type of bait..........you didn't read what I presented closely.

I simply stated that there exists a mathematical code that suggests that anyone who wants to stretch their mind to the zero and infininte (not airy fairy, but mathematical) limit, then mathematics ALSO suggests the possibility of a God.

I am not contending faith driven or even fairy-styled statements of a perfect being.........real or imagined. I am discussing the logic of our perception and how it is possible in the first place we can conceive of such a concept, of a will, to cast our thougts to such limits, either with fancy words or more constructive developments of words and sentences aroused by mathematical intrigue.

It is also hazardous to comment on a quote on page 300 or so of something without having glanced at the preceding pages.

It is very rude to take a snippet of a person's post and then head down a corridor of atheism..........which technically is a form of occultism.

As for the need for God in science, well, you limit possibilities...........even introductions to possible new fonrtiers...........you also tell billions of people in history that they were wrong........that this planet, god-forbid, represents a string of MAJOR historical faux-pas.........

If there is an after-life, atheists would come last compared to those who at least had some type of belief. To want an after-life is a desire....to want to continue living.........it is a hallmark of this thing called society........to have the general and grand structure continue on when we have passed on. But people like you would seem to take it down with your own passing.

Not only that, when the proverbial hits the fan owing to the atheist style social management ideals that could look beyond the own lifetime of that generation, it is people like you who run around screaming, like being dispossessed of your right to stay in the mental ward you had become quite complacent with.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Mathematically speaking.........(quoting my own manuscript, p 359, available for download)..........God is a mathematical certainty:

(p 359, from the top)

This is the tough one.
We began by assuming that our perception was separate to reality, that modern science is correct in not involving a theory of perception into space and time. We then said time that doesn’t pass, as observed, well, we would watch it and watch it and watch it, if indeed there is no time associated to our perception, as science would believe in not including our perception in theories of time. We then also said that in being aware of infinite space; well, if space permeates everything, and we have to involve our perception in that, but clearly can’t, technically, in not being able to define the limits of space for us to be aware around of, then it is nothing space. In both counts, zero space as infinite space, and zero time as infinite time.
Then we said the purpose that faced us was for that scheme to gobble up our perception, for us to INCORPORATE into that reality our perception, for our perception to be labeled with that reality we have all come to accept care of modern science.
Some would argue that in then applying that scheme to our perception, involving our perception with that scheme, we are invalidating it. Because in involving our perception in time that doesn’t pass, our perception would not pass either, and thus we also would have no perception. But we ARE aware, we have a perception. Thus, the way to accept that is that we are “immortal”, we are as immortal as time itself, that we are the process of time moving, and thus in moving with and as time, we would not register its passage. The same exists with the way to be aware of all space, of infinite space, we would have to be OMNIPRESENT, all space. In being omnipresent, yet not being aware of time passing, in having no boundaries, in being un-definable, we are as nothing, space is as nothing. Or even on another scale, if our perception is omnipresent, space would be the thing that is rendered as NOTHING.
And this is the difficult thing to present, the OMNIPRESENT IMMORTAL PERCEPTION CONSTRUCT that PERCEIVES reality for what has been described here. It’s a tad transcendental, but that’s what this is, a science of transcendental numbers.
It’s worthy of sharing, the TRUTH of reality.
Basically, combining the zero-infinity space-time scheme with perception creates the OMNIPRESENT IMMORTAL construct. That’s what this theory has actually achieved, in theory.
To people, the omnipresent immortal as the 0_infinity code would not be observable, even though the body is a construct of space-time, even though it is "matter", it is ALSO perception.
Instead of getting lost in that dialogue, because 1000's of ideas begin to surface in presenting an idea like that, like bubbles surfacing indicative that we are sinking and trying to breathe under water.........."zero" and "infinity" describe horizons in reality we can never reach, but in theory "can". I think the 0 and infinity "horizon" is like God, the unreachable, the thing always too far ahead, but of course the structure that makes laws of space-time “laws”.
What I have found in playing with 0 and infinity with space and time is that there is a type of ORDER that permeates space and time, suggesting that certain features, codes, laws of space and time will, in all probability, NEVER CHANGE, and in NEVER CHANGING, THEY represent the IMMEDIATE, the ZERO, that can never be described, and the infinite........the forever continuation of the forces, that also can never be described as proof.
Science ARGUES that they find FACTS relevant to FORCES they believe are set in stone. An ultimate science will eventually and ideally prove that our old customs of faith are actually related to the ultimate science.
Please return to the book exercises if you were instructed to come here by your doubts.
Technically, the theory, the mathematics, accepts that the "concept" of God is valid: it doesn't explain what God is though, because for the theory it is way too difficult...........the theory, this theory, only introduces the idea of the "omnipresent immortal" (it says it is valid, the concept), which is why the concept of God, no matter how intricate the theory, will always rest with religion. There is no way I would explain God, and it has nothing to do with bravery............I just can't............God is a "classified" thing, I have found. The theory is, in saying that, not "anti-God", but a "reassurance" that there can exist a mathematics "favorable" to faith/religion. I wouldn’t have done it otherwise.

I'm maybe a bit confused on this one, so I have questions.

If I'm understanding this correctly, you're describing a non-physical being whom is omnipresent. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm just wondering how that being could create anything physical at all? It's like a being that's just there but doesn't do anything (as far as I've understood).

How do we know that the non-physical being doesn't perceive our world as we perceive its?

And how do we know that the non-physical affects the physical world or vica versa. Perhaps they both affect eachother? Then, what evidence supports that the non-physical is capable of things like being etearnal or something? Arn't the chances high that the non-physical world is built up like the physical world? And that both worlds has their origin from something neutral? Is there a non-physical world at all?

Many questions here, but forgive me if I misunderstood the whole thing

Wow.

I thought it was clear.

Let's see,

"In theory............"

You happy with that.

What about "if".

Maybe I should have started with "Once Upon a Time"?

Not depending on your level of confusion, um, of which I have no understanding of or care for (because that's the point of this forum, to turn away from the otherwise confusing world and share ideas relevant to sensibility), I will add the following: "Once Upon a Time there was world that had a belief that one day things would be made KNOWN in "truth" and not just "faith". And so a faith sought that Holy Grail using Knights of a particular order of purpose to discover that truth in following hints registered as obvious enough to be FACT in their travels............"..........

Oh.........hang on.............who are you again?

Or, should I say, "did I answer your question in almost understanding "you" the person?"

(Once again, I must apologize in advance for what is going to be a very lengthy post.)

steamSystems, I apologize for not understanding what you read. In fact, I apologized in advance for any confusion:

(my grasp of higher mathematics is limited, social sciences are more my shtick, so forgive me if I misunderstood)

I stated at the beginning of my last post, after reading what you presented, it struck me as a mathematical attempt to prove the existence of god a priori, which, in my opinion, is a very infantile arguement.

It immediately brings me to think of Bertrand Russell. Teapots anyone?

I read your welcome message, and in trying to sift through your bias,

Now, I thought I did a good job of it, but my welcome post was supposed to be highly sarcastic, in fact, it was supposed to be comedic.

I'll go ahead and quote myself again, specifically from my welcome post:

Sardonic/sarcastic wit is my favourite. I say this because a lot of that sort of thing comes across in my posts. Don't be offended if I treat you sarcastically, I treat everyone that way, and I'm usually not trying to be offensive.

I was not trying to offened you. If you were, I apologize. If I meant to offend you, I would have ad-homed you, which is not good forum etiquette, and something I avoid like the plague. Once again, my welcome post was supposed to sound overly biased and saracastic for comedic effect. I apologize again for failing in that regard.

It is also hazardous to comment on a quote on page 300 or so of something without having glanced at the preceding pages.

I can only assume that the document of which you speak here is your dissertation that contains this supposed mathematical proof of god. How can I respond to anything BUT what you posted when I do not have access to your entire dissertation? You did not provide a link for download, and I am much too lazy to do a Google search for this document, especially when I don't even know what it's called. So, I worked with what I had.

a corridor of atheism..........which technically is a form of occultism.

Well, now we're back on topic. I have a problem with this statement, and it is this: what exactly makes atheism a form of occultism? Is it the fact we don't believe in the Christian God? Or any gods at all? Remeber, your equally as atheist as I in regards to Wotan or Zeus, I just go one god further. In all honesty ALL religions are a forum of occultism. People just don't like to call something a cult when lots of people believe it.

I'm going to make the assumption that you are Christian. I would like to kindly remind you that Christianity was considered a cult until Constintine decalred it the official religion of Rome. He only did that to stop civil unrest in his country.

Atheism is not a cult. As Sam Harris so elegantly put it in The End of Faith "There should not have to even be a word for atheism. Atheism is just the noise polite people make in the face of religious zeal."

As for the need for God in science, well, you limit possibilities...........even introductions to possible new fonrtiers...........you also tell billions of people in history that they were wrong........that this planet, god-forbid, represents a string of MAJOR historical faux-pas.........

In fact, it seems to me that the presence of "God" in the scientific community is hampering scientific research more than helping it. Here are a few cases in point, out of thousands:

Galileo was sentenced to house arrest by the VATICAN for proposing that the cosmos did not revolve around the earth. As the Vatican said, it was blasphemous to even entertain the notion that everything else revolved around "God's" chosen creation.

A little more modern: Religous fundamentalists, the Vatican included, are forcing American society to bury stem cell research, one of the single most promising developments in medical science ever. Why? Because, according to it's opponents, life is a miracle, and you are killing one of God's creatures, even if the child has not been born. Thus, you are committing a horrible sin, even more so since you are killing a child.

Here are some facts about what is used in stem cell research:

Human stem cells used for research are culled from a blastocyst, a small collection of cells in the process of mitotic division which leads to the eventuality of a human child. How many cells are in a blastocyst? 70-100. For the sake of comparison, a fly's brain contains roughly 100,000. You may very well have killed more cells than a blastocyst contains when you scratched yourself this morning. When a blastocyst is destroyed, you can rest assured that the blastocyst feels nothing when harvested for stem cells. Anyone who puts the intrests of a blastocyst before the needs of say, a small child with a spinal cord injury, has had their moral judgement seriously impared by nothing less than their religious faith in "God."

Would you care to tell me exactly how God helps science? How he opens new frontiers? Truthfully, religious fundamentalism in science is the equivalent of a flat-earth society.

You also mention that saying god does not exist tells billions of people that they were wrong about their beliefs. I may be misunderstanding the point your making, but numbers are irrelevant when proving the existence of god. If the case is how many people believe in god, then there are lots of them: Allah, the Judeo-Christian gods, the Shinto kami, and the bodhistavas of Hinyara Buddhism just to name a few.

I terms of evolutionary psychology, religion has a quite understandable purpose for existence. I mentioned it in the "How did religion get started" thread, and I don't wish to repost all of that here.

Not only that, when the proverbial hits the fan owing to the atheist style social management ideals that could look beyond the own lifetime of that generation, it is people like you who run around screaming, like being dispossessed of your right to stay in the mental ward you had become quite complacent with.

I don't understand what this means, owing to its poor grammatical structure, but this seems to me like an ad-hominem against all atheists. It's funny, I think, that you feel an atheist could not govern society, when societies run by the religious have done the most harm to the world. Events like...The Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11 and 7/7, the Iraq war (Bush is quoted as saying God wants him to be the president, and wanted him to invade Iraq. Sound military judgement, I know.) and countless other monsterous things have been committed. More pain, death, and suffering has been committed in the name religion than any other cause. Nearly every scientific advance made in society, was made WITHOUT the aid of religion. I also don't know what you mean by your mental ward analogy. It would seem that you feel I am lacking in the sanity department just because I don't believe in god. Well, I'll have you know I'm perfectly sane. However, there are quite a few people from the faithful club that are not sane. Like.....Jeffery Dahmer.

As Douglas Adams said:

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are faeries at the bottom of it too?"

"infantile argument"?

"a-priori"?

You know, on a good day I would agree with you...........a-priori beckons greater pursuits.

As wiser chaplains of scientific understanding, today, we are always at liberty to review the a-priori gum we have been fed for 1000's of years, right?

Yet, it is difficult to have any sensible argument with those mindless to the "great achivements of history", including why most of what some regard as the great works of ancient history were turned to pillars of salt........flavors for something else to come.

"infantile argument"?

"a-priori"?

Yes, I find the ontological argument for the existence of god quite infantile. Both empirically and philosophically. Of course, as you said, we are still allowed to examine the ontological argument, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still not a sound argument. Especially considering you can use its own fallacies to disprove the existence of god, as Hasking did rather hilariously.

I don't know what you mean by blind to historical achievements. I will admit, religion has provided some stellar music, especially from Beethoven. Many of our more meaningful advances, however, were for the sake of humanity, not the sake of religion. I will concede, however, that there are a share of historical odds and ends that may not have arisen if it were not for religion. On that same token however, many of those historical occurences were not neccessarily a good thing.

No.

You missed my point "person with better idea".

I agree with the use of your brain on the level of the awareness that an "a-priori" was a childish thing..............

I mean, "where do you buy you jeans from, right.........somewhere, some place, more important to modern day" yes?

I am lost though, in this world of yours...........

You depend on so much of the a-priori .........yet you seem to skate on thin ice.........according, as you will, to your feedback?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Wow.

I thought it was clear.

Let's see,

"In theory............"

You happy with that.

What about "if".

Maybe I should have started with "Once Upon a Time"?

Not depending on your level of confusion, um, of which I have no understanding of or care for (because that's the point of this forum, to turn away from the otherwise confusing world and share ideas relevant to sensibility), I will add the following: "Once Upon a Time there was world that had a belief that one day things would be made KNOWN in "truth" and not just "faith". And so a faith sought that Holy Grail using Knights of a particular order of purpose to discover that truth in following hints registered as obvious enough to be FACT in their travels............"..........

Oh.........hang on.............who are you again?

Or, should I say, "did I answer your question in almost understanding "you" the person?"

Yes, I did notice the "in theory" thing. That's why I came with questions...

Geez... I did say "correct me if I'm wrong" and such. Even acted kinda humbled...

So did I deserve a response like that? :/

Originally Posted by streamSystems

No.

You missed my point "person with better idea".

I agree with the use of your brain on the level of the awareness that an "a-priori" was a childish thing..............

I mean, "where do you buy you jeans from, right.........somewhere, some place, more important to modern day" yes?

I am lost though, in this world of yours...........

You depend on so much of the a-priori .........yet you seem to skate on thin ice.........according, as you will, to your feedback?

You extreme use of metaphor has left me slightly confused. I will respond to what I could drag out of that, though.

I do not depend on a-priori arguements. The entire time I've been addressing YOUR arguement, which seemed to me to be a-priori. So I responded appropriately.

However, you seem to not understand that, and reply with some extremely odd metaphors about where I buy my jeans from. How am I skating on thin ice when I've only replied to what you've put forth?

Would you care to clarify, without strange jean metaphors, exactly what you just said?

I came to think about something...

If God is of another world (the non-physical)...



If we cannot comprehend him, can he comprehend us?

If not... (if he could comprehend us, why can't we comprehend him?)

If we can't determine the existence of God, can he determine that we exist?

If he can determine that we exist, why can't we determine that he exists?



With all these questions out of the way... Does God exist? Probably not...

Originally Posted by marnixR

sure about this one ? quite a few people think that man created god in his own image, not the other way around

Yeah sure. A true Worshipper of God will not associate any partners With the God. God is the one God.
Those who associate partners with God are idols worshippers. they make no sence in worshiping. they are worshiping to nothing but things made by them selves, which can neither benefit them nor harm them.
But the true God is pure. No one can see Him but He is all seeing.

Originally Posted by Obviously

I came to think about something...

If God is of another world (the non-physical)...



If we cannot comprehend him, can he comprehend us?

If not... (if he could comprehend us, why can't we comprehend him?)

If we can't determine the existence of God, can he determine that we exist?

If he can determine that we exist, why can't we determine that he exists?



With all these questions out of the way... Does God exist? Probably not...

My brother you are comparing yourself with the God.
God is Far superior than us. Whom we call God is not a person like us.
He is the one God and There is Nothing like Him.

Originally Posted by basim

Originally Posted by Obviously

I came to think about something...

If God is of another world (the non-physical)...



If we cannot comprehend him, can he comprehend us?

If not... (if he could comprehend us, why can't we comprehend him?)

If we can't determine the existence of God, can he determine that we exist?

If he can determine that we exist, why can't we determine that he exists?



With all these questions out of the way... Does God exist? Probably not...

My brother you are comparing yourself with the God.
God is Far superior than us. Whom we call God is not a person like us.
He is the one God and There is Nothing like Him.

Well, you're probably right. But I still see God as a problematic existence. Whatever challenge is thrown against him, he is "beyond" the challenge.

Originally Posted by basim

My brother you are comparing yourself with the God.
God is Far superior than us. Whom we call God is not a person like us.
He is the one God and There is Nothing like Him.

If there is only one God how come every society has or had a god in some sort of way.

There is not one known society that hasen't had a god. viknigs, pikts, aztecs, romans you name it every one has had a god. How can you then be so sure that there is only one God.

And every one of these belifes are believe to be the ultimate and perfect one at the given time.

Originally Posted by Pikkhaud

If there is only one God how come every society has or had a god in some sort of way.

Those societies have also had their fair share of pixies, gnomes, fairies, leprechauns, etc, without ever proving these things actually exist. God, angels, devils, spirits and what have you are at least equal to imaginary beings in their authenticity, proof & verification. I think the probability of God existing is also on par with the probability of the aforementioned illusory creatures existing.

Originally Posted by Obviously

God is supposably the creator of all things. He is omnipotent and is an etearnal being. He has a consciousness and is highly intelligent.

If you believe in a God, please tell me... What is the probability of a God?

The probability of God the creator of life is very high:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10 million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138

Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140

Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Originally Posted by Obviously

God is supposably the creator of all things. He is omnipotent and is an etearnal being. He has a consciousness and is highly intelligent.

If you believe in a God, please tell me... What is the probability of a God?

The probability of God the creator of life is very high:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10 million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138

Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140

Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31

Complexity evolves. Take a look at Natural Selection and discover the awful truth that animals didn't happend by chance *shock*

If you actually cared to look deeper into creationism claims, you'll find that all of the "evidence" they put forth are false.

I can recommend videos by cdk007 to help you understand the stupidity of creationism within evolution...

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator.

So, just because something is complex, it has to have a creator? Well, obviously then, something intelligent enough to create that has to have a creator by that logic. So what created God? What created God's creator? You now have an infinite regress paradox from which there is no escape.
The arguement from irreudicable complexity is a weak one.
Picture a mountain. On one side, there is a sheer cliff, impossible to climb. On the other, a gradual, easy to climb slope to the summit. At the summit rests something etremely complex, say... a dog. Now, is it more probable that the dog leapt to the top of the mountain, or walked up the slope? Creationism is nothing more than leaping up the cliff face. To fill in science's blank spots with an arguement of irreducible complexity is ignorant, and encourages future ignorence. It is no more than saying: "This is so complex, we can't currently explain it. Great! now we'll fill that blank spot with God. So don't even try to explain how this complex thing works. Let's just remain ignorant. Don't even bother questioning it again."

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].

Creationists never quote what comes immediately after this. Darwin destroys the arguement immediatly after stating it. Darwin goes on to explain how things evolve gradually, and even so, it is extremely difficult to have the right conditions to cause fossilization. I don't have my copy of Origin on hand, but I'll look it up soon. Darwin, you should know, was an atheist.

Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that th

ese gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---

Either that man is an idiot, or he did not live to see those gaps filled. Case in point: Archaeopteryx. Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by basim

My brother you are comparing yourself with the God.
God is Far superior than us. Whom we call God is not a person like us.
He is the one God and There is Nothing like Him.

How do you know ?

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Originally Posted by Obviously

God is supposably the creator of all things. He is omnipotent and is an etearnal being. He has a consciousness and is highly intelligent.

If you believe in a God, please tell me... What is the probability of a God?

The probability of God the creator of life is very high:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10 million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138

Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140

Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31

Complexity evolves. Take a look at Natural Selection and discover the awful truth that animals didn't happend by chance *shock*

If you actually cared to look deeper into creationism claims, you'll find that all of the "evidence" they put forth are false.

I can recommend videos by cdk007 to help you understand the stupidity of creationism within evolution...

Natural selection is an animal adapting to changes in its environment. Dormant genes become active. The animal becomes a different breed of the same species. example; crickets and fish that live in caves lose their eys and become white. That is the adaptation that survives best in caves. Natural selection has never been observed to cause a species to change into a totally different species. To extrapolate a species adapting to its environment and try to use this mechanism to explain the origin of all species is error and bad science.
.Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290

"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291

"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293
Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---
Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November 1978:?
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory."
Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Summary: Based on the fossils that are found, the theory of evolution can't be true. It cannot explain the origin of the many species.
[The missing link, transitional forms to support the theory are not found!!]

Based on the fossils that are found, the theory of evolution can't be true. It cannot explain the origin of the many species.
[The missing link, transitional forms to support the theory are not found!!]

You seem to have completely ignored my last post. There are THOUSANDS of different transitional fossils. Take a look at Archaeopteryx for an example.

Natural selection has never been observed to cause a species to change into a totally different species.

Yes, it has. One need only look at the fossil records. And, guess what, all life on earth started as single cell organisms. Somehow, I doubtt that humans are just a giant walking amoeba. NATURAL SELECTION caused an EVOLUTION that CHANGED COUNTLESS ORGANISMS INTO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SPECIES. I can't put it in any simpler terms. I'm sure however, you'll just completely ignore me anyway. Just like you ignored Achaeopteryx.

The fossils show evidence that all of the species were originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.

The fossil record shows no such thing. Once again: ARCHAEOPTERYX is one example of NUMEROUS transitional fossils that show evolution.

Here, I'll explain something about how fossils work. The Law of Superposition states that, in geological layers of rock, what is on the bottom is older, and the top is younger.

Make a sandwich. Okay, now when you made that sandwich, did you build each layer serperately, or did the sandwhich just magically appear there? Unless you violated every known law of science, you built it layer by layer, just as the fossil record is in layers. THERE IS MORE THAN ONE LAYER IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. THE FOSSILS WE HAVE DID NOT JUST MAGICALLY APPEAR THERE.

Why is this? The earth is OLD. 4.1 billion years old. No doubt, you'll tell me that it is only 6,000, as the Bible says. Here's a fun fact: the Sumerians invented glue six thousand years ago.

People who try to use the fossil record to disprove evolution have no idea what they are talking about. They are psudeo-scientists at best.

"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status"

ARCAHEOPTERYX!!!!!!!!

I would advise that you begin to check you sources more carefully. You understanding of even the most rudimentary palentology findings is painfully limited. You cannot use natural selection to disprove evolutionary theory. Your half-baked attempts at doing so, using "evidence" supplied by "scientists" who either a) Are idiots or b) Will not acknowlege the existence of transitional fossils out of sheer stubborness and religious zeal for creationism are, quite simply, ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Swordsmith

Based on the fossils that are found, the theory of evolution can't be true. It cannot explain the origin of the many species.
[The missing link, transitional forms to support the theory are not found!!]

You seem to have completely ignored my last post. There are THOUSANDS of different transitional fossils. Take a look at Archaeopteryx for an example.

You seem to have ignored my quotes by experts on the subject that say there are no transitional forms.
A transitional form is a small change. Many transitional forms, small increments of change, would be needed for reptiles to become a bird. Archeopterix does not qualify as one of these small increment transitional changes. It is a species unto itself.

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].

You see what Darwin calls an intermediate link. "finely-graduated organic chain". Archiopterix is not that.
Darwin himself admits the missing links and says it is against his theory. See the quote above.

Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---

Once again, Archaeopteryx is one of many transitional fossil forms. Note that when Darwin wrote the origin of species, much of the geological map was entirely unknown, thus it was a matter of course to accept that there is a gap in much of the theory, only because many transitional fossils had not been discovered.

As I said before, your "experts" are more than likely denying the existence of transitional fossils because they are blinded by their faith. Much like Michael Baehe, who tried to prove Archaeopteryx was a hoax. He is now one of the most discredited scientists in the biological community. Either that, or your sources are very VERY old, from a time when there weren't many transitional fossils discovered. Archaeopteryx is the best example of a transistional fossil to date, and it shows a very minute change.

Remember as well, fossilization is a very hard thing to make occur, because conditions have to be specific. If a transitional animal died somewhere it could not be fossilized, we obviously will not have access to it's fossil. Also keep in mind the Law of Superposition and my sandwich analogy.

The flat out denial of the presence of transitional fossils is ridiculous, as I said before. Here's a picture of Archaeopteryx, although I doubt you'll bother to look at it.



The fossil structure of this creature clearly shows the begging evolutions from a flightless reptile to bird. Once again TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS EXIST.

I don't know how I can make this any more clear. If you'd like sources from sources that are ACTUALLY credible, then I'll provide them.

In fact, here's one now, it is an ENTIRE LIST OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED. What's more, it's INCOMPLETE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

Here's a link about the wonderous fossil known as Archaeopteryx:

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

That link even discredits the idea that Archaeopteryx is a hoax.

I suppose I'm getting my hopes to high in assuming you'l even bother to read it. After all, when arguing the case for creationism, it is easier to ignore evidence for evolution and half quote the origin of species to get what you want.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

You seem to have ignored my quotes by experts on the subject that say there are no transitional forms.
A transitional form is a small change. Many transitional forms, small increments of change, would be needed for reptiles to become a bird. Archeopterix does not qualify as one of these small increment transitional changes. It is a species unto itself.

I am not calling you stupid. But what you said is profoundly ignorant.
Evolution was accepted when we had hardly any fossil record at all and when we had absolutely no genetic evidence. It does not depend on the fossil record to be the dominant theory in biology. It would be even if we had no fossils.
That said, we have a pretty magnificant fossil record that shows overwhelming support for evolution. Every fossil we find can potentially raise question marks about evolution but none of them do - they all fit perfectly in the structure predicted by evolution (A nested hierarchy).
Not only do they fit into that structure, but the dates always corrospond to what evolution predicts.
Now what you call a "transitional form" is nothing more than a goalpost-moving mess. What the hell are you expecting? You are expecting fossils BELOW the species level. You are expecting fossils of an actual organism that first displayed some mutation. What you are asking is not only impossible and unreasonable, but completely unnecessary.
Please do some reading:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning

so these are your authorities ? Darwin, who made a pretty good stab at things for the mid 19th century, but has since been improved upon (unlike the bible, in sicence you have to read up on more recent publications to get the drift of more recent developments) and a retired mechanical engineer (tbh the "doctor" epiteth in front of anyone's name doesn't impress anyone except creationists) who for all i know has less expertise in evolutionary theory than i have

it's no good quoting someone of 2 centuries ago saying there are no intermediates when those gaps have been filled in by now

Originally Posted by Swordsmith

Once again, Archaeopteryx is one of many transitional fossil forms.

Where are the 50 or so small transitional forms needed to lead to archeopteryx from reptiles? You think a pair of full reptiles had sex, and laid an egg and out came archeopteryx? That did not happen.

Example: Dogs were developed by breeding from wolves. The Mexican chee wowa (don't know how to spell it) is a very small nervous dog. Many small increment changes in many breeding attempts by breeders led to the small mexican dog. Two wolves did not all of sudden breed and there came out a chee wowa. That did not happen. Genetic changes don't happen that dramatically. It is the same way with archeopteryx. 50 or so intermediate links would be needed to gradually lead up to archeopteryx, going from reptiles, if evolution was true. Those small intermediate links are not found. Likewise 50 or so small intermediate links would need to lead from archeopteryx to birds. They are not found.
Reptiles did not all of a sudden lay an egg and out came archeopteryx. Genetics don't change that quick. Where are the small links that supposedly led up to it, if evolution is true?!
In Darwin's day it was a new theory and the search for the SMALL CHANGE links had just begun. They still hoped to find them and it kept the theory alive. Now, after over 100 years of searching it is accepted that the links will never be found. They haven't found any. The theory that God created the species independently of each other matches the fossils better than the theory of evolution.

you've just proven Richard Dawkins's point : give a creationist a missing link between 2 animals and now you have 2 gaps instead of 1 !

also, you're talking about changes that happen on a human time scale - say 100 years - a small change * 100 years doesn't achieve anything

on the other hand, a small change * 1,000,000 years is plenty to explain speciation - you obviously haven't come to grips with geologic time scales

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Now, after over 100 years of searching it is accepted that the links will never be found. They haven't found any. The theory that God created the species independently of each other matches the fossils better than the theory of evolution.

you obviously haven't kept up with recent findings of bird fossils in China - the distinction between birds and dromaeosaurs is now so blurred that no palaeontologist denies that birds are dinosaurs

the only reason you can maintain that no transitional fossils have been found is that you are totally ignorant of the facts !

WTF, guys. Take the debate over the Theory of Evolution somewhere else. Especially if yer just gonna bicker.

you mean to say i should let ghostxxxx get away with spreading ignorance as a substitute for science ?

Dude look at your own example. Take a wolf then look at the difference between a great dane, a wolf, and a chihuaha. If man can produce that much difference in 15,000 years or whatever, what do you think is going to happen in one million years? Or 100 million? Or a BILLION? Do you grasp the difference in time scales we're talking about here?

Originally Posted by marnixR

you mean to say i should let ghostxxxx get away with spreading ignorance as a substitute for science ?

I mean you should make a thread for discussing the Theory of Evolution, and stop hijacking this one.

I'm certain that your fellow combatants will follow you if they wish to do so.

Excuse me

Would you stop for a moment?!
Haven't you thought-one day- about yourself?
Who has made it?
Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer?
Have you seen a wonderful,delicate work without a worker?
It's you and the whole universe..

Who has made them all ?!!l
You know who ?.. It's "ALLAH",prise be to him
Just think for a moment
How are you going to be after death ?!
Can you believe that this exact system of the universe and all of these great creation will end in nothing...just after death
Have you thought, for a second, How to save your soul from Allah's punishment ?
Haven't you thought about what is the right religion?!
Here you will get the answer


http://www.anashed.net/flash/lastb_reath.swf
http://www.todayislam.com/
http://www.islam-guide.com
http://www.sultan.org

Originally Posted by sherif003

Excuse me

Would you stop for a moment?!
Haven't you thought-one day- about yourself?
Who has made it?
Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer?
Have you seen a wonderful,delicate work without a worker?
It's you and the whole universe..

Who has made them all ?!!l
You know who ?.. It's "ALLAH",prise be to him
Just think for a moment
How are you going to be after death ?!
Can you believe that this exact system of the universe and all of these great creation will end in nothing...just after death
Have you thought, for a second, How to save your soul from Allah's punishment ?
Haven't you thought about what is the right religion?!
Here you will get the answer


http://www.anashed.net/flash/lastb_reath.swf
http://www.todayislam.com/
http://www.islam-guide.com
http://www.sultan.org

If you look more closely you'll see that everything evolved.