Comments for God: The Failed Hypothesis »
Posted By RickyDawkins 1 year, 7 months ago in News"How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist", by Victor J. Stenger. Well folks, I guess this settles it...
Read Full Story at colorado.edu »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 446 of 447 Comments
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is empirical fact that unnecessary suffering exists in the world.
An omniscient God would be aware of this unnecessary suffering.
An omnipotent God would have the power to eliminate or alleviate at least some of the unnecessary suffering.
An benevolent God would have the desire to eliminate or alleviate at least some of the unnecessary suffering.
It follows that a God with the attributes of the omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God does not exist.
----
The laws of physics look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God.
----
God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.
----
If God exists, then he is perfect.
If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
But the universe is not perfect.
Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
Reply-
Neutral
engineer1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand your argument but disagree. Two sexes with the complexities couldn't come naturally,
Birds with their method of flying and the complexity of the aerodynamics couldn't come naturally.
God helped in the design but allowed for flaws. It's a hard concept to believe, but there are so many things which could have not occurred with out help. A supreme being of some sort if you don't want to say God.
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't understand what you mean when you say "couldn't come naturally". Science tells us that the earth formed billions of years ago, from star dust. Mind-boggling complexity is readily achievable through evolution and selection (and time), this is a proven fact.
I find it impossible (as you do?) to believe that everything we see just came from "nothing".
I don't mind discussing the concept of God (obviously), however I just don't see any reason to buy into a random tale.
Did He just come from nowhere?
Isn't this something you need to at least consider?
I would love to hear your answer (dodge) to this question:
Who/What created your hypothetical Supreme Being?
Please explore this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-bi...
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ricky: The incontrovertible empirical fact, which would hold up under honest court examination, is that Jesus Christ arose from the dead. He said that He was one with God the Father. He takes precedence to your false science.
Evolution starts with a false premise that evolutionists want to believe so strongly, that they "see" evidence that isn't there.
You postulate that the concept of God is "a random tale," but you know better. There is a long record, which you may reject it's truth, but you know it's not random.
Then your practice is to ask many crafted leading questions, but they have different answers than you would accept, unless you had your eyes opened to the truth:
" Did He just come from nowhere? Isn't this something you need to at least consider? I would love to hear your answer (dodge) to this question: Who/What created your hypothetical Supreme Being?
First you poison the well, expecting a "dodge." Cont'd>>
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user19 Replies
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user3 Replies
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, maybe you missed it, you're posting on a PUBLIC board which makes anything you post open for anyone to comment on, especially when its way off base. Maybe you can indulge us all and explain how my comment was inappropriate to the tissue when it illustrated the point very clearly. But then again when all you can post are strawman arguments I wont expect too much.
Reply -
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No problem, but you came into a reply giving a contribution that didn't apply.
I have no problem interacting with others, but it helps to be on the same page. Not even those with whom we initially give reply are always on the same page. So, no big thing.
WMD's being in Iraq are not established history, but current events that are in controversy. So, not too good in making a point, but seems more like a political statement, that has missed the target. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, although I think that the war was inevitable, since Saddam admitted to plans to develop WMD's, I consider GWB was a bit hasty in the conflict. We should have had better understanding of the age old conflicts of the area & had strategy to avoid the pitfalls in which we found.
BTW, a Commander of troops from our neighborhood has recently brief the Pentagon that we are kicking the insurgent's butts & great progress is being made in Iraq. The troops are ready to stand down as soon as they have notice.
HooRah! -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, I believe the justification for the war was he HAD WMD and was planning on using them not he was thinking about making them. If that is the case we should turn our atttention alittle SouthEast and plan for the invaion of Israel since they seem to not only be planning but not fessing up to having them either.
"BTW, a Commander of troops from our neighborhood has recently brief the Pentagon that we are kicking the insurgent's butts & great progress is being made in Iraq. The troops are ready to stand down as soon as they have notice"
ROFLMAO, and pixie fairie dust has been found to cure cancer.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Rev. Silverghost, thank you for your input. (i apologize for poisoning the well, btw)
So, what of those billions of us who have never been informed of Christ's existence?
When i say random, i mean in other words... why is your idea of God any more real than my idea of God (a flying hamburger, since flying pasta may offend you)?
To me, its just a random fairy tale, like that of Mohammed, or Tom Thumb. Sure you can say its "true" all you like, but its still just ideas, nothing concrete.
Reply-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What else do you not believe about established history?"
The part when the sun stoped his movement arround the earth. =P
Come on, I know that you are Christian, but do you really thing that there is "incontrovertible empirical" evidence that Jesus indeed arose from the dead? I know that you believe is true, and I wouldn't want you to think otherwise. But as far as I know there is more evidence for the divine origin of the image of the virgin of Guadalupe than for the resurection of Jesus.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanx, Ricky, for that. I was a little slow getting my continuation before your reply.
"What of those billions of us who have never been informed of Christ's existence?" The answer is in my continuation below, given by King David. Also Paul gave answer to that in Romans 1. The testimony of God is in each individual, but we corrupt it, worshiping the creation, rather than the creator.
Maybe "random" is not an appropriate term. To you, it is an idle tale. But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.
It goes beyond "just ideas." -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Rev:
Maybe "random" is not an appropriate term. To you, it is an idle tale. But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.....
Would the Bible be one of these proofs??I am serious here?
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course, HB, it is a part of history & archaeological data, just the same as hieroglyphic tablets, graphics on cave walls, etc.
Two British archaeologists, towards the beginning of the 20th C., set out separately in attempts to discover finds that would disprove the Bible. As they searched, they only discovered confirming material. When these colleagues met, they were astonished at the similar results of confirmation. One became a preacher.
Other finds have confirmed Biblical accuracy, but I know of no valid claims to disproof. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.
archaeological finds?? I don't think so.
A Jesus story that has been verified by eyewitnesses & handed down through the centuries-
When Jesus walked on water John rushed up to him & said Lord tis a true miracle what you just did.
Jesus looked at him & replied " Miracle?? Step on the stones, John!"
Reply
-
-
Neutral
lvrofwolves1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RickyDawkins-When i say random, i mean in other words... why is your idea of God any more real than my idea of God (a flying hamburger, since flying pasta may offend you)?
this is for you ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cont'd>> Secondly, the answer to your only true question here, Biblically, is that God is Eternal, He wasn't created.
I know that doesn't fit under your "science" microscope, but you aren't able to fit many other questions there either. Yet there is sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus Christ as the one who paid for our sins.
You admit that there is imperfection in man & the universe, but you wish to set yourself up as judge to how that happened.
Your not that old to have been there! LOL
God did create a perfect world & you know enough Scripture to realize that He said that. Yet you purposely leave out the decision of man to disobey God, thus causing the degeneration that you see in the world & universe.
But King David said: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament (atmospheric earth)." He goes on to say that God's creation declares this truth to all people on the earth. Evidence. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ahh, good, Hannibal! I'm glad you know the story about Jacob.
My Question for you: Did you ever wrestle with your child or someone else's? Although you could completely overcome the child, did you smash it? It there was some purpose in the struggle to teach something, would that be necessarily strange?
Because there is an unexpected outcome, doesn't say the teacher was wrong. There were other factors with the incident with Jacob. -Rev. S
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"God did create a perfect world & you know enough Scripture to realize that He said that. Yet you purposely leave out the decision of man to disobey God..."
Yet in this perfect world roamed another of God creations, Lucifer, who tried to be as high as God himself and was cast down and became Satan, who was the one who convinced Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life and on an on....
So my question is how was it a perfect world if this snake oil salesman was allow to roam free?
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wasn't addressing you, saying, "you know enough Scripture," but Ricky.
However, you do know a little about Scripture it seems, but I don't have experience knowing how much you know.
God had created Lucifer, the Chief of the angels, as a perfect being, but he chose to rebel. The Scripture shows that God puts limits on Satan, but also uses his antics to effect his purposes in man.
There was a free choice for Adam, whether to obey God in Eden or not. Satan was an instrument that allowed the test, in which Adam failed.
But God provided the way to forgiveness & reconciliation, through Christ. -Rev. S
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Evolution starts with a false premise that evolutionists want to believe so strongly, that they "see" evidence that isn't there".
What is this "false premise" you speak of? You speak of leading questions than pose strawman arguments.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
God's Holy Word says that people would rather believe a lie than the truth which He has revealed.
A geologist, whom I personally know & who was a former archaeological museum curator, realized 1 day that he supported his calculations for ages of bones by circular reasoning, which is false science. In subsequent studies, He realized that all existing evidence demonstrates sudden appearance of life, which has been confirmed by many other credited scientists.
There is no extant evidence for gradual appearance of life, therefore the theory of evolution rests upon a false premise. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK, so lets say the evidence demonstrates sudden appearence of life(I think I know where you're going, but I really want to know more about this), so how many creations there were? Because the fosil record demonstrates species "appeared" at diferent times, doesn't it?
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No. There was only one creation. I appreciate your kind questioning, Coati.
There are sedimentary deposits that give evidence to floods or great movements of earth surface. Yet the lowest stratum obviously came first. On those lower strata, complex life forms exist.
God created different species that had capacity within their genetic code to develop different varieties of that same species, but not new species. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK, "complex" animals as trilobites can be found in the lower stratus, but still reptiles, are first found in superior strata, dinosaurs and birds in an even superior strata, and mammals in another superior one, and noticing that T-Rexes, Trilobites, and Dimetrodonts aren't found in the same layer so it's obvious that they didn't coexist between each other and with us.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bones do not appear in the fossil record of life until 500 or so million years ago, even though we have evidence of life existing 3.8 Billion years ago, that's at least 3 Billion years before bones evolved. My question is, how do you define "sudden"?
Evolution does not address the appearance of life, just that life is related and it has been changing and adapting ever since that appearance. Your misconception of evolution is the only false premise.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A recent argument from evolutionists is that they are not addressing the appearance of life, but the history of the movement states otherwise.
If there were billions of years involved, there would have been a different experience for astronauts when they landed on the moon. They expected many feet of cosmic dust to have collected, but they only found less than an inch, indicating a young moon.
Scientists don't always follow scientific procedure in processing their theories. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Darwin's famous book is called, "Origin of Species", not Origin of Life. What do you mean by 'recent'?
The moon dust argument? LOL Apparently you didn't get the memo that even the Christian website, "answers in genesis" has given up on that tired argument.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4...
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanx Smithi: I considered this, as did the author at AIG, "a common and apparently valid argument for a recent creation." Since both sides should go back to the drawing board for new data, I will relinquish the inaccuracy of the old claim & wait to see fresh data. But see that the culpability is on both sides:
"Interestingly, Snelling and Rush's research found that anti-creationist critics, in their haste to demolish the argument, had used figures which err greatly in the opposite direction...and arrive at a figure for moon-dust influx only about one-twentieth of that which should have been correctly concluded from the literature they consulted. 2"
"Creationists as well as evolutionists need to be prepared to re-examine arguments as new and better data emerges."
That's good to know. Thanx 4 the link. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're welcome Silver. I rarely, if ever, agree with AIG but I had to share this link and I do agree with your last quote. We all must be prepared to re-examine arguments when presented with new and better data. That is the bedrock of both scientific inquiry and plain old common sense. My hat's off to both you and AIG for admiting to the inaccuracy and commiting to stop the spread of incorrect data and misinformation, on at least this one point.
The culpability isn't on "both sides", instead it belongs with anyone who would knowingly use incorrect data in an attempt to support their argument. It should be noted the 'anti-creationists' cited are Calvinist Theological Evolutionists.
Here's a link about how the original mismeasurements, made from material collected on Earth were made and how they were called "the best measurements", even though far more accurate data, collected from space, was widely known.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: Technically, I was concerned with using the term, "culpability," but it certainly does apply to those who willingly present false data to bolster their position. I try to distance myself from that attitude in myself or others.
Thanx 4 the new link. I'll have top check it out later...in a rush. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think if you look into it you will find the evidence for a 'young Earth' is quite lacking and the evidence of an Earth with an age of 4.6 Billion years is very compelling. As is the evidence of evolution.
With that said, I don't see how evolution or a 4.6 Billion year old Earth should be a problem for a believer in an all powerful god. I am confident that with enough time religions that include dogma that runs contrary with evolution or an ancient Earth will go the same as those whose dogma includes a flat Earth or a Sun that orbits the Earth.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: In my experience, the kind of Christians that believe in a young earth, also know enough to agree with Christopher Columbus, who defied the flat earth die hards. He saw that in Isaiah 40:22, it spake of the circle of the earth. When he look across "flat" waters, he could see the arch of the horizon, confirming in his mind that the Scriptures indicate a round earth. So, he dared to sail the Atlantic.
The kind of people with whom I associate, seriously study the Scriptures, not taking man's philosophies over what God said. God said that He created the Heaven and the earth, animals, plants & man in 6 days. The language has been studied for accuracy of meaning & the Hebrew for day in this case means a 24 hour period.
We seek to honor valid scientific discovery & processing of theories, but honor God 1st in what He says, believing that He doesn't make mistakes. We haven't seen Him proven wrong. Cont'd>>
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Silver- I know that I am not as familiar with your bible as you, but I do know there are a number of references to a flat Earth with an orbiting sun, not to mention that "circle of Earth" can still imply a flat Earth as it say's 'circle' not sphere.
Now, if you are moved by the word the circle into thinking your god was telling us of a round Earth all along, what do you make of these lines from Genesis? 1:11 And God said, Let the Earth bring forth grass... 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth...1:24 And God said, Let the Earth bring forth the living creature...
I have come across Christians who believe the above lines refer to evolution in much the same way you believe Isaiah 40:22 refers to a spherical Earth.
IMHO, the bible is long enough and vague enough, that lines can be found to support any position, but that's another matter.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: There are no references to a flat earth in the Bible. The only "difficulty" is wording such as: "The sun rises...", being a problem of communication. This is the way we speak: The sun rises, sets...the stars come out, etc.
As far as Columbus was concerned, he believed that God was talking of a spherical earth, the Hebrew, "khoog," meaning circle or circumference. He saw the roundness of the horizon.
As you quoted Gen. 1:20: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth..." The next verse (context!): "And God created..." Again, v.24: "Let the earth bring forth..." Next verse! "And God made..."
The contention that the Bible is "vague" is dispelled by "Come now & let us reason together, saith the Lord..." Isaiah 1:18.
To "support any position" is a fallacy of proper interpretation, which can be also dispelled, but "that's another matter," I agree. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cont'd>> That is not to say that we can't be wrong on certain issues. Yet when God says something plainly & someone comes along & defies that plain statement, we have a problem agreeing with that thinking.
The Bible speaks of the hidden things of God. Sometimes appearances are there to conceal the truth from those who don't wish to honor Him or haven't quite come that far to understand. The geologist of whom I spake earlier, had ultimately realized that he & his colleagues had used circular reasoning in dating earth's fossils & it's strata. This is after a Christian repeatedly asked him how he established the age of these items. He finally admitted to himself the false basis on which he relied.
There are a large group of highly credited scientists who do not agree that the earth is billions of yrs old. In my studies, looking at what both sides of this issue say, I agree with the young earth position. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Yet when God says something plainly".
If any god were capable of such a thing, no bible would be needed. Even if you imagine your god wrote the original, you have to realize it has been subjected to a bit of human editing, to say the least.
The half life of radioactive elements is not based on circular reasoning.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-eart...
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: "If any god were capable of such a thing, no bible would be needed." This doesn't seem to bear logic. The Bible is communicating what God said. As it states, "Thus saith the Lord..."
"Even if you imagine your god wrote the original, you have to realize it has been subjected to a bit of human editing, to say the least." I don't rely on imagining (mysticism), but that the Bible claims God's authorship, as Peter, Paul, John & Jesus Christ maintained in the N.T., often referring to O.T. passages as well. The Bible speaks of God's preservation of the Scriptures, which has been accomplished.
Editing is only accomplished in unfaithful modern translations, but not in the KJV, for which we have the preserved original words in extant manuscripts to compare.
I appreciate the link. While Chris Stassen has a studied reasoning, he does indicate that other scientists disagree. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I did some research earlier today on the origin of life, specifically spontaneous generation, where the first organic life form arose from inorganic chemicals. It took a while to find an article from an evolutionist that tackled the question of how that first single-cell life emerged. At the end of that rather lengthy and very detailed study, the author (I'm sorry, I'm now at a different computer and can't remember his name, I'll get it tomorrow) said most research papers end with conclusions. However, this one must end with assumptions. We can only ASSUME that first self-replication organic life form was the result of random acts of nature on inorganic chemicals, and so on. I'll provide the exact quote and link tomorrow.
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you notice, I said nothing of the origin of life, just that it has been evolving for at least 3.8 billion years, which is the age of the oldest known Earth rocks. Earlier evidence, including the evidence of how life originated are lost to the ages. In short we don't know how life originated on Earth and likely never will, however, I personally fail to see the reasoning that magic should be inserted when faced with an unknown.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The reason you won't find "evolutionist" scholarly papers about the origin of life is pretty simple. Evolution has nothing to do with it. It is a study of observable evidence of changes through natural selection. Evolution makes no claims whatsoever about the origin of the first single cell organism. A more appropriate area of research would be the creation of new life in the laboratory.
Craig Venter, the DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals, The implications of creating a new life form are staggering to say the least.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/TenWays/story?i...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/g...
Allegedly what is holding up the official announcement is the "patenting" of the new life form. (Can a lifeform be patented? etc.)
Reply-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Evolution makes no claims whatsoever about the origin of the first single cell organism. ? ?
The whole concept of evolution begins with that first single cell organism. Without it, evolution would not be possible. Scientists just have no reasonable explaination of how that first organism came to be.
Reply-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The link I referred to and a quote: http://www.discovery.org/a/3209
"At the conclusion of a long essay, it is customary to summarize what has been learned. In the present case, I suspect it would be more prudent to recall how much has been assumed:
"First, that the pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive; second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine; third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose; fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides; fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry.
"These assumptions are not only vexing but progressively so, ending in a serious impediment to thought."
David Berlinski, the author most recently of Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (Modern Library), is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Macro-evolution is evolution at the 'speciation' level, i.e. the appearance of new species.
I suggest you investigate the 'Nylon Bug' which is a new species of bacteria that feeds on nylon waste. I'd also suggest you look into 'ring species'. Both are examples of macro-evolution.
The distinction between 'macro' and 'micro' as it applies to evolution is largely artificial. Micro-evolution naturally proceeds to macro-evolution after the amount of changes between populations of organisms is so great that individual members of the genetically distinct populations can no longer interbreed.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SU: The distancing from the position of spontaneous origin of life is a recent phenomenon among the beleaguered evolutionists, because they have no credible answer to its veracity, aside from having been there, when it supposedly happened. -Rev. S
Reply -
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The whole concept of evolution begins with the first KNOWN single celled organisms, evidence for which is found in the oldest known Earth rocks of 3.8 Billion years old. Only creationists think that life began as a fully formed cell as we know them today.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If this is true, at least there is a plausible basis for assumption of a first self-replicating life form.
There is no basis to assume magic, the supernatural, or any of the religious stories are more than folktales used to indoctrinate and pass on folklore.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Evolution is proven each flu season, with each new pesticide and herbicide that needs to be devolped, it is proven by the DNA in each and every one of your cells that tells us something of the history of billions of years of life and lifes relations.
You can pretend that a paternity test isn't proof of paternity but it won't keep you from having to pay child support. Why? Because genetics is hard evidence that has proven to be very accurate to the degree we trust it to decide matters of life and death. Tests similar to paternity tests show that all life is related, just as Darwin predicted before anything was known of the field of genetics.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: That is microevolution, which is why some scientists call it a "new strain." Some may dare to say that it is a new species, but that is arbitrary.
The so-called "nylon bug" is still a bacterium, it has not developed into another organism.
"All life is related..." They have the same Creator. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BigBadJohn6661 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
God is supposed to be all powerfull and can do anything and every thing. He is supposed to know everything, past, present and future. When he made me, he knew if I would go to heaven or hell. If he knew I would go to hell then there would be no way I could make it to heaven (why continue to create me, why didn't he stop right there). To say otherwise would mean he doesn't know everything. We are supposed to be god's children and they say he loves us but if we don't do as he says, he will send us to a place called hell where we will suffer and burn forever. This would mean that god is a sadistic, perverted being. No parent could say they loved their children and then punish them like that.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You and I agree on nearly everything, but you are way off base on this.
The complexity of aerodynamics and the shape of a birds wing are both dictated by physics. If the laws of aerodynamics were anything other than what they are, a bird's wing would be shaped differently.
Many creatures on Earth don't have two sexes. Some switch sexes if there aren't enough of the other sex to go around.
You have the right to your opinion, of course.
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Natural selection has caused a trade off between attracting mates and getting preyed upon. If you assume something other than reproductive success is optimized, many things in biology would make little sense. Without the theory of evolution, life history strategies would be poorly understood.
The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one -- the appeal to fair play. "Shouldn't we present both sides of the argument?," they ask. The answer is no -- the fair thing to do is exclude scientific creationism from public school science courses. Scientists have studied and tested evolution for 150 years. Within the scientific community, there are no competing theories. Until creationists formulate a scientific theory, and submit it for testing, they have no right to demand equal time in science class to present their ideas. Evolution has earned a place in the science curriculum. Creationism has not.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-bi...
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Plants evolved from ancient green algae over 400 million years ago. Plants and fungi (in symbiosis) invaded the land about 400 million years ago. The first plants were moss-like and required moist environments to survive. Later, evolutionary developments such as a waxy cuticle allowed some plants to exploit more inland environments. Still mosses lack true vascular tissue to transport fluids and nutrients. This limits their size since these must diffuse through the plant. Vascular plants evolved from mosses. The first vascular land plant known is Cooksonia, a spiky, branching, leafless structure. At the same time, or shortly thereafter, arthropods followed plants onto the land. The first land animals known are myriapods -- centipedes and millipedes.
Vertebrates moved onto the land by the Devonian period, about 380 million years ago. Ichthyostega, an amphibian, is the among the first known land vertebrates.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-bi...
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
..cont
Dinosaurs evolved from archosaur reptiles, their closest living relatives are crocodiles. One modification that may have been a key to their success was the evolution of an upright stance. Amphibians and reptiles have a splayed stance and walk with an undulating pattern because their limbs are modified from fins. Their gait is modified from the swimming movement of fish. Thus, they must stop every few steps and breath before continuing on their way. Dinosaurs evolved an upright stance similar to the upright stance mammals independently evolved. This allowed for continual locomotion. In addition, dinosaurs evolved to be warm-blooded. Warmbloodedness allows an increase in the vigor of movements in erect organisms. Splay stanced organisms would probably not benefit from warm- bloodedness. Birds evolved from sauriscian dinosaurs. Cladistically, birds are dinosaurs. The transitional fossil Archaeopteryx has a mixture of reptilian and avian features.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Two sexes with the complexities couldn't come naturally, Birds with their method of flying and the complexity of the aerodynamics couldn't come naturally".
What is your evidence of supernatural intervention for wings or multiple sexes? Are male nipples one of those flaws that's 'allowed' for?
Reply -
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
Neutral
joey-evans1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I just say here is some mud make me a man because my god did."
Gee wiz!
That's a pretty tall order...."make you a man", well if your dad and mom couldn't do the job, maybe you should join the army? I heard that they will make a man out of you.
Just sayin'
JOEY EVANS
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is mostly correct, but not entirely correct. It assumes that a 'god' fits the definition of an intercessory, personal god. It is indeed possible that a being that would be indistinguishable from a 'god' may very well exist in the universe.
However, it is a true that the intercessory, personal God of the Bible can not be true, if we are assured that this God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent.
Reply -
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ricky
A least one counter argument I can think of is that these arguments against the existence of God all have in common a humanizing of God, in other words attributing to God the actions and reactions that one would expect or anticipate of a rationale human endowed with the same attributes. But God can not be described or understood in human terms, divinity by it's nature transcends human experience or understanding.
Now I recognize that is not overly satisfactory, because it basically trumps all manner of argument, however some real world parallels do exist.
Reply-
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Physics and physical reality on a quantum level is exceeding strange, particles popping in and out of existence, seemingly in two places and no places at the same time. Physical realities that can be altered by the mere act of observation. While these seeming impossibilities are true at a quantum scale, they are not true, or at least not observable at a human scale.
So does quantum physics exist? Did it exist before we had the tools to observe it, or it's effects. Perhaps all we lack are the tools with which to observe and measure God?
The best argument I can muster for the existence of God is purely empirical. Look into the eyes of an infant and realize that 9 months earlier she was two rather insignificant and independent cells. There is certainly something miraculous and divine there.
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, not miraculous.
No, not divine.
Amazingly complex and wonderful, yes.
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/12/from_two_...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/hagf...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/the_...
Reply-
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ahh, but you haven't seen her eyes. As you might guess this is very recent personal experience.
Slightly more seriously I am aware of the actual biological mechanisms, at least in passing. However the dry science of cellular division, operating in a vacuum, leaves me somewhat cold when the facing the spark of life that shows in someone's eyes rather than a mass of protoplasmic blobs merrily swapping enzymes like some well ordered miniature petrochemical plant.
Reply-
-
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Snarky.
What sort of a rational argument is that.
First you trot out some drivel about virgins
Second you attempt to ascribe said belief to me
Third based on your manufactured premise, and the self evident (to you at any rate) foolishness of the premise, you wrongly generalize (in a passive aggressive voice) that all my positions are equally wrongheaded and can therefore be dismissed.
The arguments in the article all boil down to.
Postulate the existence of God, whose very existence and nature is beyond our comprehension.
Place God in a position where God has to make some sort of decision or take some sort of action.
Expect that decision or action to be human in nature.
Infer from the apparent lack of decision or action that God does not exist.
Why would you expect God to act in a human matter? That does not fit with the initial premise.
Despite your claims to the contrary there is no consistent logic connecting your arguments.
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But why can't you imagine a world without God? Why is that so difficult?
I don't think that our world is "cold" or that love is "just swapping enzymes". Life is wonderful.
Just pretend for a moment that God does not exist. Do you feel different? Of course not. Because it (Jesus/Mohammed/Zeus/Joseph Smith) was just an idea in your head.
(btw, i didn't mean to seem passive aggressive, i was short on time, so i may have been terse)
I have noticed that simply mentioning the concept of Atheism causes people to think I am attacking them. Perhaps I feel the similar effect, that I am being attacked when somebody mentions Faith/God.
Reply-
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't have a problem conceptualizing existence without God. I also don't have a problem with the co-existence of God and science or God and evolution. I don't see the two, the scientific and the spiritual, as mutually exclusive.
In at least one sense a belief in the existence of God is the same as a belief in the non-existence of God. Neither position can be proven or disproven with absolute certainty. Both positions rely on a belief or on faith.
I didn't think that you were attacking me personally, I just didn't think that the arguments presented were particularly compelling.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
eddie1071 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Ricky, I have sort of noticed that your submissions do have a tendency to be in assault of religion. Why do you suppose that is?
For someone who can see the grand design of the universe, you seem to have a deep seated fear that you might be wrong. Is this true?
_If you can see the truth, then you certainly should be able to look at our fellow human, and see the traits of our ancestors so clearly in their features, and their actions.
_If this is obvious, then why would you deny the need for a greater being to give them comfort?
_Why does a dog that has been beaten by a cruel master stay? It is all they know.
Yet There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
What kinds of advances could be accomplished by beings that have been in this universe far longer than we?
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Science must finally be freed from the shackles of religion.
Did you hear about the tree with 8,000 rings?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKL...
Wow, an 8,000 year old tree!!!
So how can the Earth be less than 6000 years old, as I was taught in Sunday School?
---
(crickets chirping)
Reply-
Neutral
crghss1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't remember being told the earth is "6000 years old" in Sunday school.
Your supposed argument it aimed only at Christianity. That doesn't mean there is no God. There are thousands of religions over the history of man not just Christianity.
How has religion shackled Science? We have airplanes, computers, discovered that universe is expanding and that it has an origin. How have we been shackled by religion?
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"How have we been shackled by religion?"
It hasn't been. Or at times it has been briefly.
However if you look at the influence even one Saint (such as St Ignatius, founder of the Jesuits) had on society and education in general it seems to make up quite a bit for those brief moments where science had been briefly "shackled."
Reply-
Neutral
ind061 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The comments on this very string claiming evolution to be "based on a false premise" (and thereby not just disagreeing with the theory, but saying that it is fundamentally WRONG, with no attendant proof)would be but one instance of the ongoing and never-ending battle between religious dogma and science.
Don't be so daft as to presume that such a struggle never existed!
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The number of people who believe in Creation over Evolution is thankfully a small minority and not representative of most Americans, much less a good majority of Christians. Even the Catholic Church, which most people who are anti-religious rail against has not only embraced evolution, but has embraced the need to care for our earth in the face of global warming.
The struggle exists, but the reality of the struggle today is that no one religious organization has enough power to overcome the scientists. Well. Excepting for BushCo's insane "evangelicals."
The problem is that Religion, especially Ignatius, in a lot of ways formed the educational basis by which scientists came into being. So one could easily argue that without the Church, science wouldn't exist or would be hundreds of years behind where we are now. You could also argue a little of the opposite, though. It's a quandry ;)
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The number of people who believe in Creation over Evolution is thankfully a small minority and not representative of most Americans, much less a good majority of Christians."
FALSE.
"60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week."
"Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who rarely attend religious services.
Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opini...
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The number of people who believe in Creation over Evolution is thankfully a small minority and not representative of most Americans, much less a good majority of Christians."
FALSE.
"60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week."
Uhhh... false, by your own statements. Of the most hardcore of the hardcore Christians, 60% believe in creationism. Of weekly church going Christians (which is not a majority, only 55% of Christians even attend church once a month) its not even a technical majority though not a minority either. Now, show me a relevant statistic that refutes that point of Dionys, if you can.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thank you for pointing out the hole in his logic, Mdiar. As I said, there will always be extremists denying this or that. Just like for the Holocaust or for Global Warming (or for God, or Evolution, et cetera).
They do not, and we really must remember this, represent the majority of Americans or even mainstream Christianity.
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"They do not, and we really must remember this, represent the majority of Americans or even mainstream Christianity."
But, you wouldn't want us to remember something which is likely FALSE, would you?
Most recently, in Gallup's February 19-21 poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism.
45 percent of Americans. Is that what we consider a "small minority"?
Ouch, i think the dogma just bit me!
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creat...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"45 Percent of Americans believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so".
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creat...
Which indeed contradicts this (blind?) assertion by Dionys:
"The number of people who believe in Creation over Evolution is thankfully a small minority and not representative of most Americans, much less a good majority of Christians."
Reply -
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Uhhh... not false. (Please click the link to read the ENTIRE poll.)
"Although most scientists subscribe to the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the origin of human beings, a recent Gallup poll shows that the American public is much more divided in its own beliefs. Americans choose "creationism" over "evolution" when asked which of these two terms best describes human origin..."
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creat...
Reply -
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Most recently, in Gallup's February 19-21 poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism.
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creat...
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry, was in a hurry as to a class so I really only had the opportunity to read what you said and type out a very fast reply. Firstly the poll you used originally is out of date. Its not most recently though, a similar poll was taken in 2007 of May by Gallup. Overall 52% believed in some form of evolution, be it God guided or not guided. The number of pure creationists had dropped to 43% as well:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Crea...
(the results are about halfway down the page for that particular question type that you posted)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
okay, i didn't really go to sunday school except once or twice. However that doesn't change the fact that many, many people believe in young earth creationism.
"Your supposed argument it aimed only at Christianity."
Christianity is a big target. The various Fundamentalist Christians organizations are the main culprits pushing the Bible dogma into science and politics and human rights.
"How have we been shackled by religion?"
These atrocities are a bi-product of religion:
Anti Women's Rights (abortion clinic protests)
Anti Gay (legislation)
Anti Contraception (contributing to overpopulation, famine)
Anti Research (stem cell)
Anti Evolution (scopes monkey trial, dover)
Reply
-
-
Neutral
eddie1071 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
An 8000 yr. old tree, That makes me think that science will find a way to apply it to humanity.
But that said, I hope that it will be after we make a global conscious awakening about how the population must be regulated and kept in check.
It is very sad to say that the greatest multipliers are the ones with the lowest intelligence. It is strange, but in many ways their ignorance is causing a wave of rejection of those who are intelligent.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think we've pretty much defined our terms on this. The word "God" implies a male sentient being, which is omnipotent and omniscient (benevolent is questionable, IMO, based on ancient folklore). "God's" gender is specifically used by believers to exclude females, for example.
If you want to talk about another force of some type, without the personal and supernatural trappings, then that is not the protagonist "God," and that is a very different discussion.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The "question of evil" has been in theology for hundreds of years. Stenger's done nothing more than pour over old theological and philosophical texts and rehashed everything done to "disprove" God. If you don't believe in God, fine. No amount of "proof" will ever convince you. If you do believe in "God," fine.. It's unlikely any amount of disproof will convince you.
How about Quarks? You find any yourself yet?
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If you do believe in "God," fine.. It's unlikely any amount of disproof will convince you."
I disagree. I think the cat is out of the bag, and that is why the overwhelming attack by creationists and other ancient religious groups is occurring.
It's becoming so obvious that even people without any scientific background are starting to wake up and question religious belief. And finally there are organizations where they can go and be with like-minded people and not be attacked for questioning the folklore, and they realize they can have fellowship, a sense of what religious people call "spirituality," and do good works together and not believe in fairy tales!
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A good deal of religions welcome the questioning of religious belief with open arms. Often people find that questioning their beliefs and understandings of the Divine strengthen rather than weaken their belief or faith tradition.
I'm all for people doing good works together, but honestly looking at most of the threads and attacks on Religion from those that have "found Science" or Atheism or the Flying Spaghetti Monster it seems like all those people want to do is rant and rave about the evils of religion rather than go out and do good in the world.
It seems to me that religion is doing a lot more good in the world in terms of serving the underserved, the marginalized, the poor, the starving than the non-religious world.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If by "religious," you mean organized groups, that's one thing. But if you mean those who believe without evidence, that's quite another.
Unitarian-Universalists, and other groups that do not "worship a deity" have no dogmatic belief, and extensively serve the underserved, etc. just like other "churches" do.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ricky Dawkins is not a man-god. He's simply someone who took the time to look closely at nature and the living things in it, and not take things at face value. Of course, then again, that's what Jesus and Buddha did, too. But only Jesus claimed to "be" a god.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user3 Replies
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All your arguments are for naught, because they presuppose you know the nature of God.
I come back to the basic premise of this argument. It is equally preposterous to say that:
1 - In the beginning God created all that there is.
2 - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded.
Both make no earthly sense to human understanding.
So all that we really know is that how this all came to pass is currently beyond human understanding. Even Albert Einstein concluded this to be so.
Science or religion or both meeting on common ground may someday answer it. But the only honest answer today is, "I don't know."
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Seems like you may have never progressed beyond 6th grade reading level. What do you think "it exploded." means.
There is irrefutable evidence of there having been a big bang. But what we do not understand is WHY was there a big bang. Why would there be nothing, and then that nothing turn into a singularity of infinitely small size and infinitely high density and explode to make everything including all the laws of the physics by which it works. What laws control the explosion of nothingness?
Creation doesn't just cover "In the beginning." It goes back to "Before the beginning." Our understanding does not go to before the beginning. So be careful to actually think things through before you toss around the charge of willful ignorance. It often bounces back to stick to you.
Reply-
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Popular dissemination of science usually follows quite a ways behind what the most creative scientists are actually thinking about and working on (takes time for the rest of the scientists to catch on and pass it along to public consciousness).
Fact is, the questions you pose ARE being thought about by scientists. I was intrigued to see that a recent international conference on string theory (not my field) included sessions on what came before the "big bang".
Reply
-
-
Neutral
quiescence1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
midleft - The Big Bang theory, irrefutable as it may be, does not extend to the moment of creation. The laws of physics break down at this point, which is why science does not, and cannot, describe the origin of the universe -- science only describes its evolution. The matter of creation is within the purview of religion, not science, and ET's opinion on the matter is therefore as valid as anyone else's.
BTW, the Big Bang theory has not existed for hundreds of years, much less been "irrefutable". The "irrefutable" evidence of the big bang was published in the 1960's. In the decades prior, it was a hotly debated subject among physicists.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, quiescence, as noted above, scientists are already formulating theories about what came before the "big bang" and how the bang occured. If they succeed, then the religious responses will move back another layer. What is true about your statement is that science is in flux.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You statement, "2 - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded." is inaccurate. A supermassive singularity is hardly 'nothing', neither is a collision of 'branes'. The only philosophies that posit the universe cane from 'nothing' are religious ones.
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So where did the something come from.
Did it spontaneously generate. Had it existed infinitely. None of it fits our finite understanding. Sorry, but the simple truth is that the God explanation is just as logical as any other :Before the beginning" explanation, which is which is simply to say that none of them fit our finite understanding.
And for the record, nowhere here have I claimed that the only possible answer is God. All I have said is that NONE of us actually know how the Universe came to be. Whichever of the before-the-beginning postulates you choose, if you are intellectually honest with yourself, you must admit that you accept it on faith, not physical evidence.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The difference between science and religion is that scientists have already formulated the problem of "what came before" and are working on its solution. (Some)religion already claims to know the answer - mostly those religions that tend to be authoritarian and dogmatic.
For a scientist, formulation of what is NOT known is not a defect, but an inspiring challenge.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ppiittuu1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...God would have the desire to eliminate ... some of the unnecessary suffering."
- you are conceding that god would allow, to some extent, suffering? if so,
"...benevolent God does not exist."
- so why does it follow?
"If a being is perfect ... whatever he creates must be perfect."
- why?
"But the universe is not perfect."
- what would be the attributes of a perfect universe?
"The laws of physics look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God."
- how do you know that. we'll never know - we don't have another universe to compare with since we live in a God filled universe."
if one asserts that only the natural can be described and proven, and since god is supernatural, then by definition trying to prove that god exists is not possible.
TA-DA!! how do you like that!? sometimes i amaze myself :-)
Reply -
Neutral
Muleskinner1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course this discussion is a fruitless intellectual circle jerk :o)
Man is the only animal who is aware of his own mortality. He devised religion to help him cope with that awareness.
The bible is/was mostly a collection of folk tales & legends around Mesopotamia. It has been deciphered & re-deciphered over the milenia by countless men with all their prejudices & personal interpretations. It went un-recorded for @ 400 yrs. Can you imagine what happened to the actual original meanings? The dead sea scrolls gave us an idea of this. Aside from all the translation barriers. The Bible, as we know it, was written by men.
Evolution is a demonstrable scientific phenomenon. But you will never demonstrate it to the satisfaction of creationists. Because, by (some) definition, faith is a belief in things that cannot necessarily be demonstrated, seen or proven.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
lvrofwolves1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Victor J. Stenger is a professor of physics, not biology, nor geology. His arguments are illogical, one-sided views & too numerous to answer in this forum.
I would rather converse with Ricky, which I have, to make individual points of discussion. Otherwise it would be too unwieldy. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We have gotten along amicably, even though we have differing views. I think that your gaining in the patience area, as I think I am, as well. The forum helps me, but I have to rely upon God, OR watch out, Ricky! LOL
Jesus said to His disciples after 3 yrs training: "Ye have need of patience." It's somewhat of an illusive quality. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Victor J. Stenger is a professor of physics, not biology, nor geology. His arguments are illogical, one-sided views & too numerous to answer in this forum. "
You forgot to mention he's not a professor of logic, philosophy or theology either. If he doesn't want Theology professors telling him about Physics, perhaps he shouldn't intrude on their parallell understanding of the universe.
Reply -
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Silver, you are correct that the "science" that needs to be applied here is mathematical logic rather than physics. Many scientists (not just physicists) are required to include mathematical logic in their studies.
If you wish to assert that Stenger is "illogical" then please provide us with a logical proof of that assertion.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm frankly amazed that people really don't see the difference between religious belief and scientific hypothesis, or understand the very specific nature of scientific method and argument based on "scientific" evidence as opposed to courtroom arguments.
There seems to be a complete disconnect for some people, whether from fear, total cultural indoctrination to religious opinion, or whatever.
Reply
-
-
rdy2rckComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive11 Replies
-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
These are not scientific arguments, but philosophical arguments based on the author's total misunderstanding of the concept and purpose of God. None of the arguments are new. Every one of those arguments can and has been refuted (albeit not in the space allowed by propeller).
Reply-
Neutral
lvrofwolves1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are MANY purposes for a God, all man made purposes, some are good some are not, just as it's been throughout time.
And for what purpose would a God make man? he was bored? he needed his own creation to worship him?, and where in the world did he come up with the idea to create everything?
In whose image was Eve (woman) created?
Reply -
-
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive15 Replies
-
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ricky- I always enjoy these submissions, makes a person think and I know I ask myself alot of the question in the artical every day, I'm trying to find the truth and science can explain alot. I have an uncle who spent alot of time in university and had a major position with our provincial government as one of it's top engineers, and I asked him once why he believed in God, His answer to me was something he always told his kids when it came to education. he said that the man who knows how does the work and the man who knows why bosses the jerk, I asked him what that had to do with religion and God, his reply was that science can explain how nearly everything happens and in some fields even why, but in most cases in cannot explain the why.
He asked why people were here and why we have our five senses he asked why certain chemicals are released in our bodies to produce pleasure so that we do certain things, or pain so that we don't do other things. (continued)
Reply -
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He asked whe there were two sexes, most of the questions he had were about man and life and the old question why are we here and why have we developed to the state we are at and he said until he had the answer why to these questions he would continue to believe, and I think that it is the same with alot of us, knowing how is good, knowing why is better.
Enjoyed the artical and comments as always, Thanks.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But isn't the "god argument" simply a way of saying I don't know why and therefore will not ask any questions of those (other humans) who tell me they do know.
It seems much more attractive and challenging to adopt the view that there are many things we do not know (and will never know in our own lifetime), but can have great fun trying to find out.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
People that often offer the argument that all out there is far too complex to have happened on 'its own' fail to realize the kind of math and physics as well as chemistry and biology one needs to be properly equipped to deal with such problems. You cannot begin to describe something as far too complex and unlikely to be the long term product of time until you have actually invested a decent fraction of lifetime in understanding how math can offer answers to such questions by properly evaluating probabilities. Indeed the nature of physical law is such that through mathematics one can eventually describe why things are what they are and how fast they can converge to the state we find them today. Until one proves they can handle such calculations they are unqualified to claim the world cannot be the result of physical law alone. For example modern humans are going back to 2000 generations 50k years ago in Africa. During this time races emerged! What can happen in 100000 generations then?
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The cardinal mistake people that discard modern science's explanations about the origin of the world is that they fail to grasp the vast period of time involved.
When you talk about 4.5 billion years you are actually dealing with 1.6 trillion days . If the natural cycle for the planet is the day you have 1.6 trillion such days (well at current rotation rates) . Can you realize how immense this number is? You know that the cycle of a small organism is only a few days. Forget about humans. Focus on something primitive that has cycle of a few days. That primitive thing then has available sequence of hundreds of billions of generations to evolve. If only something small happens occasionally there are so many generations involved that a lot of things can eventually happen from beginning to end to make something change properties in a dramatic way. Life essentially is an evolving complexity where over time originally impossible things become progressively likely.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Originally you have something very simple that with substantially large number of trials over time can attain through seemingly random procedures (chaos) properties that are advantageous for further steps to be taken at faster pace now. So what is originally impossible becomes over time through the emergence of an intermediate step highly likely. Through randomness the system eventually develops structure that enables the emergence of properties that enhance further directions of evolution. What was earlier unlikely now becomes very plausible and in turn this further enables other structure to develop that will itself facilitate further development in other direction that were previously unattainable from the first level of organization. So through vast repetition and randomness certain properties that are advantageous emerge that survive further replication and eventually lead to exponential enhancement of probability to over time attain further complexity .
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I like to think the emergence of modern life as a series of steps . The first step takes a huge amount of time to happen because it has small probability. Once it happens though the structure that emerges is so advantageous that immediately open the door to further possibilities that now require usually far less time to materialize through trial and error. So step 2 takes less time (less number of generations). Step 3 then comes even faster etc.
I like to imagine the following example. Say you are single prisoner in a big tanker in the middle of the ocean. You are placed inside an empty tank that has in the roof a small opening. There is no ladder for you to get out of the tank. However you have a hook available to you and a long chain . you can combine the hook and the chain and throw it towards the opening and hope it sticks there and becomes entangled so that you can hold on to it and climb out. It may take 1000 trials for it to happen but eventually it will! The hook will stick.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So with patience you finally get out of the tank. You now find yourself outside in the deck of the ship. You can move around and do a lot more things that you could do earlier before you used the chain to climb out. What are those things? You explore, you look for places to go in the ship and now you have a lot more tools available to you in the deck to make easier your exploration. Finally you get to the control room and you find all kinds of manuals about how to operate the engine and start the ship moving. Eventually in a series of steps that progressively take less and less time you finally reach the point you can start the ship and are no longer the hopeless prisoner in the middle of the ocean...Through time and effort you finally have climbed the ladder of complexity and reached a place where the ability to do things is vastly superior than the one you had in the bottom of the tank hours ago...Time and effort is the answer to observed complexity.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
pismo1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Paradox of Omnipotence
"Either God can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift."
I've heard this argument before. The statement itself is a paradox. None of these statements prove God doesn't exist just as there are is no proof he does exist. I do believe God wrote the laws that govern the universe, but I also understand this is not proof. Just a belief.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poor God. If He was just a LITTLE bit smarter, he'd see that He was fixing it in such away that made it look like He didn't exist. He should have planned better. How COULD He have made such a HUGE mistake that only a finite human being can see? :)
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You've hit on an important point here: If God created the universe, He created it with every appearance that He, Himself is entirely unnecessary. Some who call themselves 'faithful' seem uncomfortable with the notion that there is no empirical evidence for God. But then, why should there be? If there was all this 'solid evidence' for belief, then faith itself would have no meaning.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think it falls somewhere in the middle, but toward the religious side.
I have "spiritual" feelings sometimes, at least in some sense of the word. Perhaps "mystical" or "mysterious" would be better terms for someone such as myself, who remains convinced that science can explain any phenomena of human experience. For example, if I saw a pool of water form in the desert, I would suspect that it was an optical illusion caused by heat waves radiating off of the hot sand.
Reply -
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think spirituality is a constellation of things that many people have been persuaded to believe are somehow the result of something supernatural, when in fact, they are very natural and just the chemicals doing what they do as a result of evolution.
I don't think the argument is circular. I think there is no evidence for a biblical or koranic or other supernatural sentient uber-being, and those who have developed beliefs in one based on indoctrination endlessly resist having to look at reality because of the way indoctrination works on the human brain.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is up to the person making a positive statement to provide evidence. I cannot prove there is NOT an invisible purple elephant named Fluffy standing behind you, if you claim there is. Just because I can't prove Fluffy doesn't exist, doesn't automatically mean he does!
Certainly there is the possibility of an intangible spirit/soul, and I have no problem with your personal belief therein. However, if you assert that I or anyone else must accept that souls exist, then it is most certainly up to YOU to provide supporting evidence.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
quillyregnold1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You would think in this day and age, people would have gotten past the great book of Fiction. I have read the bible...awesome Read! So is Pet Cemetery but I we don't bury our pets nor our people on Indian Burial Grounds hoping they will come back to life. Lets assume the bible is true, why don't most people follow the old testament??? Wouldn't it be the most accurate, since it was written first??
Ahh that is logic, which has nothing to do with religion. I hate religion, it is the cause of most if not all war. Jesus was a carpenter at best David Koresh at worst. Do you really believe there is an invisible man that lives in the sky, that not only made us and our planet...But can hear and see everything we do.?? They lock people up in the nut-house for less moronic beliefs!!! The most hilarious thing about religion is people mock, Moonie's, Maharishi's, Hari-Chrishna's as cults....Christian's: Hypocrites, Naive, disgusting! I use your own words..who died and made you all GOD?!??!?!
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Lets assume the bible is true, why don't most people follow the old testament??? Wouldn't it be the most accurate, since it was written first?? "
I thought you said you read the Bible? If you're asking questions like this then you really must have just read one of those children's picture book versions.
How much more or less crazy is it to believe in invsible particles that live in the sky, that made us and our planet and can hear and see everything we do?
Reply-
Neutral
quillyregnold1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow Dionys,
I don't know what kind of hardcore drugs could make me believe in invisible particles that could actually hear and see me. However...if you have any extra you are willing to part with, you most defiantly have a buyer!!
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, was not my intention...or my fault. You see I have things called "thoughts"!! Therefore, I didn't get brainwashed into the whole invisible man in the sky/gifted carpenter son gig. I do like carpenters, but don't feel they are any more special than lets say a plumber....probably more talented than a landscaper.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Modern particle physicists state that the mere act of observing the state of, say, a quark's spin affects the result. What is that, if not 'sensing' something and reacting to it?
Is it somehow less crazy to believe in minute particles that you have never, ever seen and the proof of existance for which you depend on experts in the field than to believe in a God for which some depend on experts in the field for as proof?
Reply-
Neutral
quillyregnold1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Dionys,
You changed your question, last time you asked:
How much more or less crazy is it to believe in invsible particles that live in the sky, that made us and our planet and can hear and see everything we do?
I assume you know longer believe in the invisible particles that can hear and see everything we do?? Or did you just realize that asking someone to believe in dust that not only hears...but can see as well shows how truly nucking futs you have become??? Run out of meds???
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And yet, when attempts are made to remove it, it just returns in other forms. Maoism, Shintoism, etc. are just evolving beliefs that suit those in power at the time and continue to feed the need.
People crave receiving "the answer" from someone else, are indoctrinated to want this as small children when their minds are easily shaped, and enough people recognize this that they bank on it through TV evangelism, etc.
The Pope, the Taliban, and the Southern Baptist Conference are all just different forms of people keeping folklore alive for the purpose of social control and keeping the priesthood in a position of power. And they use fear and intimidation, in the form of shame, threats, and actual punishment or death to keep it locked in people's brains.
Boys grow up to strap on bombs and blow themselves up for it; women submit to polygamy as breeder slaves so their husbands can find glory in heaven.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
crghss1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"it is the cause of most if not all war"
So religion caused the American Revolutionary War, The Civil War, The Spanish American War, WWI and WWII, The Korean War and Vietnam? I can't find a cause from religion in any of these wars.
"I hate religion"
So who runs the soup kitchens. Who volunteers at Habitat for Humanity, Who helps New Orleans rebuild, over two years later I might add.
Atheist like you? Hardly.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
crqhss,
yes atheists like us do those things. Unitarians, Secular Humanists, Brights, and other agnostic, atheist, or non-dogmatic groups do the same types of "good works" and share fellowship just like "religious" people do.
What religious people don't seem to realize is ethics, altruism, etc. occur with or without their "faith." Such acts are human, not religious.
Reply -
Neutral
quillyregnold1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Awww crghss,
My aim was not insult you, just "enlighten" you. Just so you know, you can be a kind hearted, giving individual with out being in a cult. Being a bible-thumper doesn't give you the monopoly of being a good person. I can give you an example of this. It is a FACT that southern states are clearly more prone to Christianity, yet in the Civil War the South fought to keep black folks as SLAVES. Wow, you're right Christians are much better people that everybody else. Thank for clearing that up! I am sure African Americans will be happy they have people like you on their side!
The wars I listed, you don't believe any of these were do to religious beliefs. C'mon Man! Didn't we fight in these wars for our beliefs?
I think you would have been a good candidate to live in Jonestown! It has been my personal experience that people who call themselves Christians are usually the most hypocritical, intimidating, propagating people I have ever met.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
truthiness1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
well ricky, that was amusing to read. however, as a scientific proof it was flawed on the face of it. you can't "prove" something if you can't test it. since even those who believe in God don't expect to be able to use their five senses to interact with it...
it is also flawed from a theological standpoint. you are only attempting to disprove one particular deity, not all. the God of the Hebrews, for example, does not fit you proof as they do not worship a kind and gentle god. they worship a god who deals out a harsh reality and expects you to survive it by following his teachings, and if you don't follow his teachings then you suffer.
This is not a god which offers a better existence, this is the god of existence.
this god, of the jews, also is a reluctant god. Moses had to convince him to accept the Hebrews as his protected people. God finally assented and required a Covenant of laws they would have to obey; the Pentateuch (five books of Moses or Torah or Old Testament)
Reply-
Neutral
truthiness1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
there is a branch of judaism called Kabbalah (unfortunatley assoc. with Madonna). This is a type of mysticism which believes their is a soul in everything and that soul is a facet of the creator who gave up its existence as a singular "soul" to acuse creation. it did this so that it could experience suffering, and desire, and love, etc. all of which it could not experience in its "perfect" form which had no need of anything more (inherent contradiction noted)
Reply-
Neutral
truthiness1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
then there is the Hindus and the Jainists and the Animists, and ....
well anyway, my point is there is no proving anything on this subject until you can prove how things actually did start. Which, in our lifetimes, is unknowable.
and the big bang or an einsteinian bosun particle, or a matter anti-matter thrown out of balance does not cut it, because you are still left with the question, "Where did that come from?"
A question a religious person doesn't have to ask because they have faith in a creator. Just as an atheist has faith in no creator.
Neither a lack of evidence nor conflicting stories is evidence of something not existing. It's not particularly strong evidence that there is something either. Which brings us back to where we started.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What you are really saying is that a "religious person" has stopped exploring his universe and stopped asking questions. He has grown tired and simply accepts the "answer" that some other (human being) tells him is right.
Perhaps we should try this experiment. Lets raise a number of children in a way that they never hear a single word about a monotheistic (jewish, christian or moslem) god. How many of them do you suppose would come up with anything like those particular faiths claim to be truth?
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
truthiness,
The "religious" people here have been arguing for biblical creationism from a fundamentalist Christian perspective (or it's shape-change, intelligent design), and everyone knows that.
We all know that we can apply the word "god" more like a "force of nature," etc., but that's a different conversation. This conversation concerns the god represented in Paulist doctrine, which is a male sentient being that is also the man Jesus of Nazarath.
This doctrine is used to justify all sorts of actions that continue to be used to dominate people--not just give them that "sense of the presence."
Reply-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, not really. I believe that religions should be taught about in social science classes, but not any particular religious dogma instilled in the students. I mean all religions should be taught, including Atheism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Taoism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Jainism and basically all the major religions. Like it or not its a major part of society around the world and understanding it helps us understand other cultures.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
ranchhandComment removed: Retracted by user22 Replies
-
Neutral
wildman65571 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh gad, it Bertrand Russell again.
These kinds of arguments were first invented by Dr. Russell at the end of the 19th Century. At the same time, he was trying to place mathematics on a firm foundation with his Principia Mathematica.
Well, thirty years later Godel, the greatest mathematician in the 20th century, destroyed Principia Mathematica (and the no God Proofs) with his incompleteness Theorem which states that an argument is either complete or logically consistent but not both.
These arguments hold no water because they are incomplete. You can't logically prove something doesn't exist in all the Universe because logic is incomplete.
Reply -
-
Neutral
ranger855_991 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If God could be examined by human wisdom then He would not be the creator of all things for His ways are beyond our comprehensive little minds. For instantance: How does a brown cow eat green grass and give white milk....hmmmmm only God can do and create such things that we can't understand.
Ranger855
Reply -
Neutral
ranger855_991 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If God had not given to man the powers of reason, thus higher intelligence than animals and freewill to serve Him, then we would be nothing more than living as robots, animals have insticts to survive but man has a brain to think, reason, and also to choose to belive in HIm who created us.
Ranger855
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
An interesting, but overall failed, attempt. The problem with the experiment is because the very concept of a God is outside of our understanding. Being outside of our understanding suitable controls cannot be created to conduct an experiment upon which actual proof can be derived. Until an actual experiment can be conducted within the true nature of God is known we can't really determine a thing. The only way upon which a hypothesis or theory can be ultimately proven or dis-proven is through real experimentation. Until that point it is best said that not enough evidence exists at this time to either prove or disprove the existence of any God. All this ultimately does is show a failed understanding of God, not the actual lack of existence of such a being. Essentially you fall into the same arrogance as religion, the belief that you understand the attributes of God when no one does.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, for those who may argue I don't understand the scientific method, I understand it perfectly well. I just believe the final conclusion of this shouldn't be "God" doesn't exist. It should be the "fundamentalist God" doesn't exist. To prove God doesn't exist would require more evidence. Think of it like this:
Science is our attempt to understand the methodology of God.
Religion is our attempt to understand the nature of God.
Clearly, as I've known for some time, the most fundamental definition of God is incorrect. That's why we still have philosophers trying to figure out God's nature.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Earplug1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RickyDawkins, I'm impressed, this is averaging 10? comments an hour.
Here are my points in brief, while restating yours.
"It is empirical fact that unnecessary suffering exists in the world." Biologically speaking, I don't know what the use of "suffering" is. But death maintains balance in animal populations and even increases selection - applicable to humans? no too unethical
"An omniscient God would be aware of this unnecessary suffering." Yes
"An omnipotent God would have the power to eliminate or alleviate at least some of the unnecessary suffering."
Yes
"A benevolent God would have the desire to eliminate or alleviate at least some of the unnecessary suffering."
1)If god is omnipotent/ all powerful/ all encompassing then we can also assume that this rage of emotion for example is beyond our average max of 3,000 and to personify God even more benevolence is a only a minuscule fraction of his/her(?) character.
Cont...1/4
Reply -
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have yet to see in the article convincing self consistent arguments against the existence of God. Not all logical steps the author takes to form conclusions are in fact without problems of their own .
Based on scientific principle of economy there is no necessity to postulate the existence of God to explain the natural world we experience. This is the ultimate argument against the existence of God in my own eyes. It is an argument of economy. As long as there is no need to postulate the existence of God it makes no sense to assume it . But this itself doesnt prove that God doesnt exist. However if one starts designing and assigning properties to God according to the trends of all religions one quickly comes into trouble. By that i mean that all the ways God is introduced across all religions have internal self consistency problems. This does not prove that God doesnt exist but it certainly proves that the ways he is introduced are problematic.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You can see the properties God is assigned as an evolving phenomenon. Originally the properties are those of vast capacity and range of abilities. They are designed to explain the complexity of the natural world in a simplistic way. As human civilization evolves the version of God evolves too. He is no longer malicious and vindictive. He becomes a God of positive optimistic intentions that embraces mankind and its promise and demands from it virtue in order for the totality of human society to experience social progress . He starts to forgive and offers salvation with change in behavior. He becomes a pragmatic God that accepts the possibility of errors in human conduct and expect remorse and improvement as the answer to those challenges. He becomes optimistic in that sense and places emphasis on future behavior on the eventual recovery of virtue and its implications on the world. There is something now more important than the original sin , the effort to correct and produce good.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can you then realize what is going on? The notion of God improves in parallel to human civilization. It is a reflection of our emerging awareness. The better we get the better our God becomes. He is made to represent the best about what is possible to comprehend and even the best of what isnt. He becomes a reflection of our ultimate most optimistic future. Our God has become eventually our own target of virtue. The ultimate objective of mankind becomes to attain wisdom, self knowledge, to rise above self centered narrow minded centers of attention and embrace a broader version of prosperity. Our God has indeed become better over time. And why? Because we have created him to guide our social organization this way . We needed a set of rules to justify social conduct that maximizes common utility and the notion of God provided that to us in the absence of analytical broadly available and understood scientific reasoning. The more we understood the better he became. And masses followed!
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
God became our intuitive game theoretical guide to social conduct well in advance of the mathematical development of such theories. Why do we need a society that people behave in what we have come to describe as ethical manner? Why have we defined crime to be what it is? Because we have come to realize that a certain set of activities in human society have negative short and long term impact to social structure. We condemn violence, we reject overly aggressive behavior that threatens the existence of others. We have postulated ethics to be such so that our social structure can benefit from the respect of those ethics. We condemn killing, stealing, corrupting negatively influencing the prosperity of others etc because we do understand than in a broad game theoretical way we can indeed maximize global utility by behaving this way, the virtuous way . We have indeed defined virtue to maximize broad utility.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The love for others has become a critical virtue. The protection and mentoring of kids, the assistance of the weaker members of the society , the rejection of broad self centered behavior , the emergence of altruism or humanism of a caring for all its members society, those are all results of the way we have built over time our code of ethics. We built that way our ethics in order to secure with their application the elevation of human society and the maximization of progress. We realized that through cooperative behavior more can be achieved than through self centered hostile rich activities. You can indeed today arrive at those conclusions about what is ethical or not based on higher level of thinking that is facilitated from the analytical understanding of the world. The more one is educated the easier it becomes to understand justify and even on occasion question our ethics (clearly they too have to be evolving) .
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We have what it takes today through our available education and scientific approach to understand and expand our ethics, to improve our world. Although this is possible we still fail to apply the rational conclusions about conduct to everyday life. Hence all the problems we witness globally. Can you then imagine what the notion of God has offered the simple, primitive, non educated human being? Can you maybe now become aware of the ancient necessity of the notion of God? What else can drive a primitive uneducated human being towards a direction of conduct that proves profitable for the broad society? The example of a virtuous God illuminates human organization over time. This is the true value of this concept. We created the concept of God to offer our societies structure, relative peace and facilitate this way the emergence of rational thinking. Without the security relative peace and structure offer ancient societies it would have been impossible to develop science, art, culture.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You can only develop those when you experience a low stress environment. Common religions provided that setup. In that sense the notion of God has been one of substantial utility for mankind. It has over time become more important to follow what God represents rather than the questioning of his existence. We as a society have evolved to the point that we rely more on the ethical implication of the existence of God than the existence itself. We have matured to the point that we allowed ourselves to develop the scientific method and fully explore its potential . We have introduced the age of reason to human experience. We have become vastly self aware. We have explored natural world and we have explained so much . All because relative peace societies existed under the umbrella religions offered over thousands of years. Modern science is indeed the offspring of religion. And there is no conflict, no war , no antagonism.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You can only respect your ancestors. They offered you the capacity to exist and be who you are. You may disagree with their approach on their understanding of the world, with the embrace of dogmatic positions found common in all religions. But you have to rise above that . You have to embrace with profound respect what religion has offered you today. It has brought you to the age of reason. It has allowed you to mature and graduate to a higher level of thinking. One that demands proof, that still searches for the truth but now refuses to postulate it and rather demands a rational self consistent convergence to it. We as human civilization have to find the strength to embrace science and its capacity, we have to see the age of reason as the next step in our evolution of awareness. I refuse to see religion as my enemy. It is my past , it is my heritage, it is what brings me to rational free thinking eventually.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am able today to disagree with the dogmatic imposition of truth common in all religions. I refuse to accept ancient myths about the way the world came to be. I refuse to close my eyes to reason. And my demand for the truth is now higher than ever before. Light , more light is what society needs. Light that now science , broad education and culture can provide. It is this light that brings you closer to the truth , closer to prosperity , closer to wisdom , that finally achieves the optimistic goal of every religion , to improve human society and enrich our experience.As a scientist i have yet to see any rational demand in our theories and laws about natural world for the existence of God. My impression that it stands today simply as a man made concept of unrealized future practical utility is based on economy.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I remain open to the possibility of a proof of the existence of a higher intelligence but i have yet to see the necessity for it in my studies. I have personally constructed arguments that demonstrate the contradictions inherent in the postulation of God as presented by religions as well as the myth of afterlife etc , arguments that further enhance the impression that indeed those are all man made concepts in the absence of analytical reasoning, concepts that emerge in societies of limited understanding of the natural world and facilitate their progress towards awareness as explained above. This however is not a proof on no existence, it is simply a proof that the postulated arguments provided by religions are contradictory. Furthermore i will allow the possibility that science doesnt hold all the answers but i have yet to see any clue that this statement has a lower bound of plausibility above zero.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So far the scientific method has not failed to provide answers over time. I have not available a proof that such a higher being doesnt exist other than a hint supplied by economy of reasoning. I do however embrace with broad appreciation the optimistic constructive role that the man made concept of God has offered my civilization. I realize that i will find my answers more likely in the scientific method than any other approach . Until this proves wrong i will not trust what others postulate dogmatically and without demands for self consistency. For that reason i find today the founding principles of all religions as simplistic. In the complex world we live in they can no longer provide answers to our most important questions. Like the parents that brought you up we need to offer religions our gratitude but at the same time demand more and expect more from the application of the scientific method.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do not expect the majority of mankind to embrace science that way immediately and elevate it to the place of profound respect and devotion they now hold for religion as the ultimate generator of the truth. This will take time and broad education. But it will eventually occur. Until then i offer this to all religious people; I extend a hand of cooperation and friendship, i offer peace and awareness based on rational thinking , i offer justice and prosperity founded on principles of logic and analytical thinking, i offer not a world without emotions and cold logic but a world with prioritized higher , stronger more inspiring emotions under the guidance of the age of reason.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ThoughtfulPerson1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe you must separate the concept and belief in a God, from the stories and myths of organized religion. While I doubt the possibility of the existence of a "God," even more so I doubt organized religious gropus. If you follow the stories of the Christian Bible there are some really questionable beliefs and "events." One of the most telling for me, is the story of Cain and Able. Now keep in mind that supposedly Adam and Eve, and sons Cain and Able were all there were at that point in time. So, after Cain killed Able, and was sent out, he married. Who did he marry if they were the only people? Seems to me like more of an interesting "family history," rather than a history of life on earth. Of course I also have many problems with the beliefs of organized religions, and there "God." I simply cannot believe that a supposedly loving and caring God would allow many of the things that have happended in history to happen.
Reply -
Neutral
ALL4IT1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We need to define "God" first.
Is God a conscious entity? What we understand for consciousness is the sum of the constant interaction of millions of neurons, receiving information from other neurons and sending its unique impressions and feedback to others. Then what could make a God conscious of its own existing?
One could argue that God's mastery of "GOODNESS" is nothing but the result of knowing all the truth in contrast to us humans who can barely grasp a small portion of the whole.
Life could be just a side effect of the existence of God. God could also be the result of the evolution of life. Could have been created by us animals as a result of our existence and not the other way around (not only as the archetype needed to make sense of ourselves and our groups)
Too broad a field for speculation, but in any case, the biblical God has as good a chance to exist as Thor or Zeus. Probably they have never been.
Reply -
Neutral
smartsweetheart1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I knew already many of these arguments and I can follow them and agree with them intellectually. But, with all my heart, I hope, that God does exist. That´s what my experience teaches me day by day and this hope guided me through all my life. What has helped me very much, was the bet of Blaise Pascal: If god does not exist and you believed in him, what have you lost? Not much! But, if god does exist and you did not believe in him, you have lost everything. So, it is not against all reason to believe in god!
Reply -
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But what is the point of "proving" that god exists, as if some empirical (or philosophical) pinpointing could forever settle the matter?
Humans will always search for something "bigger" than themselves through which some promise of transcendence, immortality, comfort, freedom from fear and a sense of purpose can be had.
Of course that "something" is within rather than without--up there, in a fleecy heaven. But never mind....
Reply -
Neutral
rdb19601 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While it is possible to scientifically prove that something does exist, it is not possible to prove scientifically that something does not exist. Just reading the first few paragraphs, there were a number of glaring flaws in the logic. The author of this piece should get a life and try to spend his time on something more constructive.
Reply -
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
Origin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Its astounding to me that in the year 2008 AD, approximately 13000 years since organized civilization began, that man is still debating this topic. Science has brought us deep understanding of the world around us. We now know how many things we attributed to GODS is just nature in all her glory. Through our immense ability to reason we have logically deduced a basic idea of existence. There are more unanswered questions and the mysteries of the universe are still well hidden. HOWEVER, Religion IS anti Logic, anti-humana and anti-life. Faith is the most brilliant and successful population control method.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really? I'd suggest you read about this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
He seemed to make the fusion quite well even "beating" Einstein if you will. At least when it came to the big bang theory, Einstein was always a fan of the "steady state" championed by Hoyle.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Origin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Religious people, lacking the inner knowledge and courage to BE themselves, strive to make sense of this world. Heroes of invention take all the responsibility and pain out of life. "Put your life in God's hands" means like a computer without a person, we are incapable of any meaningful actions on our own. The great LIE of the soul, assures those who are downtrodden that they will be reward at some other time. Brilliant.
The truth is religious people are mystical fascist, who know the "truth" yet have no proof. They rely on intimidation, name calling and fear to prove their case, like all good fascists do. Logic makes sense, Man's invention of God no longer does. Remember, when Jesus says love thy neighbor? Turn the other cheek? It is for god to judge, etc.. Most christians DONT do that and fight for god like they are fighting for their favorite football team. It's time for humanity to move on. Please.
Reply -
Neutral
Origin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Religious people, lacking the inner knowledge and courage to BE themselves, strive to make sense of this world. Heroes of invention take all the responsibility and pain out of life. "Put your life in God's hands" means like a computer without a person, we are incapable of any meaningful actions on our own. The great LIE of the soul, assures those who are downtrodden that they will be reward at some other time. Brilliant.
Reply -
Neutral
Origin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The truth is religious people are mystical fascist, who know the "truth" yet have no proof. They rely on intimidation, name calling and fear to prove their case, like all good fascists do. Logic makes sense, Man's invention of God no longer does. Remember, when Jesus says love thy neighbor? Turn the other cheek? It is for god to judge, etc.. Most christians DONT do that and fight for god like they are fighting for their favorite football team. It's time for humanity to move on. Please.
Reply -
Neutral
Origin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Its astounding to me that in the year 2008 AD, approximately 13000 years since organized civilization began, that man is still debating this topic. Science has brought us deep understanding of the world around us. We now know how many things we attributed to GODS is just nature in all her glory.
Reply -
Neutral
Origin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Through our immense ability to reason we have logically deduced a basic idea of existence. There are more unanswered questions and the mysteries of the universe are still well hidden. HOWEVER, Religion IS anti Logic, anti-humana and anti-life. Faith is the most brilliant and successful population control method. Religious people, lacking the inner knowledge and courage to BE themselves, strive to make sense of this world.
Reply -
Neutral
Origin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Heroes of invention take all the responsibility and pain out of life. "Put your life in God's hands" means like a computer without a person, we are incapable of any meaningful actions on our own. The great LIE of the soul, assures those who are downtrodden that they will be reward at some other time. Brilliant.
Reply -
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While most religionists today may not believe that the earth is a flat surface resting on the back of an enormous turtle which swims through the firmament, they cling -- to varying degrees -- to religious notions about how the universe operates. Angels, for instance, have never been detected or examined in a scientific inquiry; but a shocking percentage of Americans (about 65% according to some surveys), believes that these supernatural "pais" exist, running errands for god, or helping people in time of need. This whole belief system constitutes a throwback to earlier times in human history, when the world was "enchanted", populated with mystical and religious entities of all sorts. It's existence today is a shadow land of arcane beliefs which co-exist with our more enlightened views about the universe. For most people, their view of the world rests with one foot in the present, and the other deep in the past.
http://www.atheists.org/evolution/index.html#top
Reply-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned7 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As scientific knowledge has expanded, it has confronted numerous religious doctrines and beliefs. To varying degrees, religionists have been uncomfortable with these new revelations. The more" fundamentalist" types -- that is, those who seek Absolute Truth in the pages of holy books such as the bible or Koran -- are left in a bit of a bind. How do they reconcile their beliefs and theistic interpretations with a growing body of scientific evidence?
One of the more curious artifacts of this murky realm of supernatural belief is so-called Scientific Creationism, a Quixotic quest to balance the fundamentalist interpretations of the Judeo-Christian bible with the findings of modern science. Decades after the famous "Monkey trial" which debated the pros and cons of evolutionary discovery, we are still repeating this argument in the nation's public schools.
http://www.atheists.org/evolution/index.html#top
Reply
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
Neutral
heavenbound1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quoted as written by Ray Comfort, author of the EVIDENCE BIBLE.
1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.
3. At a time when it is believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earths free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7)
Reply-
Neutral
Origin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Explanations;
1. They are unrelated. In order to "answer" people's doubts, organized religion has always used the concept of the realm of the invisible. Doesnt matter whether we are talking mono or poly theism.
2. Simple trial and error. Observations dont prove god exists.
3. the bible also says that man built a ship and put 2 of every creature on it. that means he captured all that exists, like the elephant, the lion, the kangaroo, the cobra, the scorpion, etc..
Reply
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
Neutral
heavenbound1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Continued ...Quoted as written by Ray Comfort, author of the EVIDENCE BIBLE.
4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the eath is round:"It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reffernce to a flat disk, as some skeptics maintain, but to a shpere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the erth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspried Christopher Columbus to sail around the world ( see proverbs 3:6)
Reply-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberate, Simplicius, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicius"
It was politics more then any real scientific disagreement. Also, a round earth was established scientific fact since before Christ's birth.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For more reading on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
Ancient man also had a pretty good idea of the size of the Earth, though Columbus was using flawed equations for his voyage to Asia. Its a common myth that Columbus wished to "prove" a round world and that he was afraid of falling off, but quite false. He, and his crew, knew the world was round. In fact virtually all sailors did, you can see Earth's curvature on the open sea.
Reply -
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Also you have this of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Heaven, you are incorrect in this. While ancient man DID know the world was round, this was established scientific fact long before Columbus and he knew that the world was round via the Islamic culture to the East (at least that is what he based his equations on for size). A pity he didn't use the science of Eratosthenes, he was almost perfectly correct in the third century BC. Then again maybe he used the scriptures as a sort of "confirmation" of the science.
Reply
-
-
eyesopenComment removed: Abusive
-
Neutral
Popeye20001 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not religious, but I am an engineer. The hypothesis offered is something of fuzzy logic. I'll give an example:
given x=y
therefore xx=xy
therefore xx-y^2=xy-y^2
therefore (x y)(x-y)=y(x-y)
therefore divide both sides by (x-y)
therefore (x y)=y. If x=1 therefore y=1
thus 1 1=1
so if I were to end this fuzzy logic structure like the author of this article.
then since 1 1 cannot equal 1, god does not exist.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Like the author this example of course introduces a step that is prohibited. You divide by (x-y) which due to the x=y is 0 . This step is not proper. Everything else past this point is not secure as conclusion .
For example the author at some point talks about virtue as something that is property of a being that has suffered ie says ' But virtue involves overcoming pains and danger-Indeed, a being, can only be properly said to be virtuous if it can suffer pain or be destroyed. ' .
And then of course a rational observer of the argument steps in and asks why? Why is virtue defined that way? It is nt in fact. A virtue for example can be defined to be the ability to be self sufficient and not require too much from your environment to feel happy. In that sense there is no suffering involved or danger. Virtue can also be the ability to understand your lack of proper education at a point in time and demand from yourself to further work to acquire that knowledge. No pain involved again!
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
heavenbound1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
continued ....Quoted as written by Ray Comfort, author of the EVIDENCE BIBLE.
5. God told Job in 1500 B.C. "Can you send lightnings, that they may go , and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35)
The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement - that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instananeous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn't discover this until 1864 when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing". (Modern Century Illustrated Ecyclopedia)
Reply -
Neutral
heavenbound1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quoted as written by Ray Comfort, author of the EVIDENCE BIBLE.
6. Job 38:19 asks,"Where is the way where the light dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light ( electronic radiation) has a "way", travelling at 188,000 miles per second.
7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "when the morning stars sang together..."
8. "Most cosmologists ( scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree that Genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth" (Time, Cec. 1976)
Reply -
Neutral
heavenbound1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quoted as written by Ray Comfort, author of the EVIDENCE BIBLE.
9. Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scienists "discovered" them. "The wind goes towards the south, and turns about unto north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to it's circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
10. Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1-2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C. "In the beginning (time) God created (power), the Heaven (space)and the
earth (matter).. And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters." The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the universe.
Reply -
Neutral
heavenbound1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quoted as written by Ray Comfort, author of the EVIDENCE BIBLE
11. The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body's mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled", and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."
Reply -
Neutral
heavenbound1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quoted as written by Ray Comfort, author of the EVIDENCE BIBLE
12. All things were made by Him (see John 1:3), including dinosaurs. Why then did the dinosaur disappear? The answer may be in Job 40:15-24. In this passage, God speaks about a great creature called "Behemoth." Some commentators think this was a hippopotamus. However, the hippo's tail isn't like a large tree, but a small twig. Folllowing are the characteristics of this huge animal: It was the largest of all the creatures God made; was plant-eating ( herbivorus); had it's strength in it's hips and a tail like a large tree. It had very strong bones, lived among the trees, drank massive amounts of water, and was not disturbed by a raging river. He appears impervious to attack because his nose could pierce through snares, but Scripture says, "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him." In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.
Reply -
Neutral
heavenbound1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quoted as written by Ray Comfort, author of the EVIDENCE BIBLE
13. Encyclopedia Brittanica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent.
Reply -
Neutral
heavenbound1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
continued...Look at specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease:"And when he thathas an issue is cleansed of his issue, then he shall number to himself seven days of cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under "running water".
Reply -
Neutral
heavenbound1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quoted as written by Ray Comfort, author of the EVIDENCE BIBLE
14. Luke 17:34-36 says the Second coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.
15. "During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the diease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to "bad air" or "evil spirits". However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved un-told millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this medical law: "The laws against leprosy in Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation", ( A History of Medicine).
Reply -
Neutral
heavenbound1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quoted as written by Ray Comfort, author of the EVIDENCE BIBLE
"Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God.
With all these truths revealed in Scripture, how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world's religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc) that contains scientific truth. In fact they contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank Hanegraff said, "Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence."
Reply -
Neutral
heavenbound1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" If God is perfect, why did He make an Imperfect creation?"
Answered by Ray Comfort the author of the Evidence Bible.
The Bible tells us that the Genesis creation was "good". There was no sin and therefore no suffering or death. Why then did God give Adam and Eve the ability to sin, knowing full well that they would sin and bring death and pain to the human race? Some believe that if Adam had been created without the ability to choose, then he would have been a "robot". A father cannot make his children love him; They choose to love him because they have free will. Others point out tahat humanity would never have seen the depth of the love of God, as displayed in the cross, uness Adam had sinned, and that fact could be one reason why God allowed sin in the world.
Reply -
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This evidence for the non-existence of God is compelling. However, when you study the reality of quantum mechanics, of how a particle of light can be in two different places at the same time (creating the notion of parallel universes), and SINCE it is believed the whole universe sprang from something "smaller than a proton" (contradicting the notion that nothing can escape from black hole), well, all these reasons for why God doesn't exist can possibly RATTLE a God believer's faith, but, ceertainly not destroy it. Quantum mechanics, bat wings, pteranodon, Venus Fly-Traps, Dark Matter and the "Law of Entropy", keep God fat and sassy.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This evidence for the non-existence of God is compelling. However, when you study the reality of quantum mechanics, of how a particle of light can be in two different places at the same time (creating the notion of parallel universes), and SINCE it is believed the whole universe sprang from something "smaller than a proton" (contradicting the notion that nothing can escape from black hole), well, all these reasons for why God doesn't exist can possibly RATTLE a God believer's faith, but, certainly not destroy it. Quantum mechanics, bat wings, pteranodon, Venus Fly-Traps, Dark Matter and the "Law of Entropy", keep God fat and sassy.
Reply -
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are absolutely right when you say Christianity is a fairy tale. Jesus rising from the dead or walking on water are tales in the exact same realm as Rumpelstiltskin turning straw into gold. The problems start when the fairy tale believers assert the tales are fact by which the rest of us must run our lives. I don't care that someone worships his front door knob, for example. If that person claims to gain spiritual sustenance from it, who are we to comment. But as the response to your post shows, the same persons who "sunk" your story are the same collection of right wingers that regularly defend the Iraq war and Bush. They go so seamlessly from defending Christianity to defending Bush that one might think Bush and Christianity are one and the same.
And that may explain much of the blowback to your story. You've posted a treatise meant for students of theology, logic and philosophy that is being read and commented on by rabble eager to establish God as politics.
-anon
Reply -
Neutral
vor1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If the Bible is correct we are all products of incest.
Where did man ever get the idea that he would learn the truth of his creation? Of course the whole idea spread from fear. "If we can just learn why we are here that will explain everything". Of course man of that era thought that a thunderstorm was directed from a p.o.'d God. They were ignorant, unaware. That's not to condemn ancient man it's just fact. Superstition ran wild.
It's the same reason anyone believed Joseph Smith's bizarre tales in the first place. The Holy Land was not that different from the "burned over district" of NY that Mormonism rose from. Superstition, confusion, and fear can make human beings do some bizarre things. Create some bizarre explanations. It was Mormonism that taught me, that no matter how bizarre the belief may be, with the proper manipulation man can be made to believe anything. There are currently an estimated 12 million Mormons in the world.
Reply -
-
Neutral
PainGoddess1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that part of our evolution is that we outgrow superstition and belief in invisible forces. Just like we no longer really believe that the earth is the center of the universe. The sun is not a god, the moon is not a goddess etc. Eventually we will outgrow this version in all of its horrible manifestations for logic and understanding of ourselves and the universe around us. Or it will conquer human thought and freedom and we will be slaves to it. When the sun consumes our little planet our ignorance will keep us from knowing why.
Reply -
-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
By the way through my point of view and given the high standards i want to place myself on such an attempt for a proof the article itself deserves a sink. However the discussion that emerged does not and this is the reason i refuse to vote either way. I applaud the discussion and dislike the web page because i find its logic faulty at several occasions.
Using modern science one can easily show the internal inconsistencies at philosophical and even at elementary level for the properties most religions assign to God and the special relationship they place between him and the humans. One can produce using modern biology and earth history a plethora of arguments against the versions seen in all main religions. However this ability to show inconsistencies doesnt extend to the full proof that there cannot be an entity of superior intelligence that is behind the structure of cosmos. After all our trajectory in time as humans is one that ultimately produces for us such Goldlike properties.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So far there has never been a branch of science that has hit fundamental obstacles that can only be eliminated by postulating something like intelligent design. We continue to advance and explain things without the need for an external hyper natural influence. I fully expect eventually we will get an answer about how life starts on the planet and we will replicate the process in the lab. I think the emergence of intelligence life is an inevitable endgame of the level 2 star systems in the universe. It has very small but nonzero probability. It is also very likely we are the first to succeed or that we are separated by enormous distances or that they are so far advanced that they hide themselves realizing that the ultimate emergence of self awareness in the universe stems from one's own discovery of origin unaltered by external wisdom. I do indeed think that a very advanced civilization has no need to exploit others that are inferior.Any difference is in millions or billions of years.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We as a species eventually become the God our ancestors imagined. We attain wisdom and capability to alter our environment and produce what was before impossible. In the way people see God as described by religions as a vast eternal and wise entity modern science has found no necessity in order to explain nature.
I suspect further understanding quantum mechanics will explain why the universe is how it is (by that i mean why the laws are what they are at the very fundamental level). Right now the only philosophical corner where the arguments for the existence or not of God survive are at the level of the origins of the physical law itself. Modern physics has eventually answers about everything you experience given the law structure. Galaxy/solar system formation , emergence of life are all within understanding based on natural law and mathematics. Recently there has even been speculation from string theory about why the universe has the laws it has that further pushes the limits.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Personally i do not expect that this recent effort by string theory will produce a correct answer. I instead expect that we need to better understand quantum mechanics and reformulate the way we study nature (re-evaluate the notion of space time and find something profoundly deeper behind what i view as an illusion for our senses , the illusion of space and time) before we can design a proper theory of everything. I think pretty soon modern theoretical physics will hit a wall that will make necessary such reformulation but will not demolish our theories about big bang and emergence of structure. Only the fine points will be affected and maybe we will gain insight in why what we see as laws of nature are in the end inevitable choices for it all to be self consistent. The laws are what they are or we wouldnt exist and by that i mean even the universe itself not just intelligent life. In that sense there is no need for someone to design it all.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There simply is no choice when the solution must be self consistent.But we are not there yet,we have a lot more work to do to convince ourselves there is no need for an external intelligent agent.
People search for God as an entity of ultimate wisdom. Science instead studies nature as the generator of all the remarkable things we witness and experience.
The very fact we are alive and think about it all is a miracle to me, a miracle of logic. A miracle about how it all becomes possible and beautifully inevitable. Most look for higher intelligence hidden from us. But i say the intelligence is not hidden. It is all around you available to witness and understand. Because in my eyes the ultimate collection of wisdom and self awareness is the evolving universe itself. The set we are all parts of is the metaphorical elusive GOD, nature itself is the entity you are searching for, its internal self consistency and gradually emerging complexity its explosive capacity for what has yet to be ...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
truthiness1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(my theory) the primary difference btwn pagan faiths and western religiona which replaced them is the purpose of the myth.
pagan religions attempted to describe the workings of the world in a way that could be taught to the next generation through an oral tradition. by providing anthropomorphic metaphors for the varied concepts an adult needed to understand they were able to educate their children in a way that helped them make sense of the world.
do you really think that the Romans, inventors of indoor plumbing and republican government, believed the sun was pulled across the sky in a giant chariot? when you were a child did you really believe a giant stork carried newborn babies to their parents?
the abrahamic traditions attempted to not only explain life, but to give it meaning. while all faiths have creation myths, this was the first to suggest that the world was created for humanity. Which is why people cling so fiercely to modern religion.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First of all, the majority of people do NOT cling to the "abrahamic" traditions because the majority of people do not belong to those faiths.
Second, the idea that the world was created for humanity pre-dates the abrasmic traditions.
Zoroastrianism
The Zoroastrian story of creation has Ahura Mazda creating 16 lands, one by one, such that each would be delightful to its people....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_belief
Your "reasoning" sounds like narcissism to justify yourself.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
chuck-the-canuck1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the major difference between the Christians and the non-believers is that non-believers have no stake in the truth. It isn't important for me to be right. I don't need to be right. My belief system doesn't hinge on whether the earth is 4 billion or 4 thousand years old. My belief system doesn't hinge on whether god created the world and everything in it in 6 days or aliens cooked us up in a microwave. It doesn't matter to me if Darwin is right or wrong.
It's the system of true believers that hinges on the details. For them is all or nothing. Either they are absolutely right or it is all smoke and mirrors. Tough system to defend given the biblical "facts" they are forced to work with.
Given that, why does this debate go on? A simple analysis of the" facts" should suffice. Here's the rub, some people are unwilling to accept the implications of the "facts".
And so it goes.
Reply -
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
lvrofwolves1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
truthiness1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
according to the metaphor, life is balance. baaelzebub (lucifer), Lord of the Flies, represents chaos and temptation.
the abrahamic traditions teach that one of the greatest gifts humanity has is free will. if there is no other choice to make, than you cannot excersize free will.
just as the Yin and Yang in Eastern tradition represents the universal balance between chaos and control, so does the existence of Elohim and Baaelzebub (God and Lucifer) in the West.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, seeing as how entropy is a form of loss of energy that can be used, a sort of "chaos" and if Lucifer is meant as an embodiment of chaos... maybe there is something to be thought of in the analogy? Then again I'm not a scientist.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is not the Jesus that history recorded. He didnt start wars. He didnt lead violent conflicts. He embraced the weak and offered love to kids and demanded ethical responsible conduct from the average citizen and died offering love and forgiveness. True those are the properties Christians needed him to have to facilitate the emergence of the new religion. However historical, archaeological research has failed to prove otherwise. You can add Christ to the ancient philosophers that offered with personal example and teachings a proper altruistic way to construct the society of humanism and enlightenment that we are all so proud to be citizens of today even if at least in principle and not yet in perfect reality . Jesus improved the world he came into. It is the eventual leaders of all religious movements that finally betray the founder and enslave the movement to the power thirsty hands of political leaders that history however always punishes in the most enduring of ways!
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.