Does God Exist?

[cyborgxxi 0]

Both evolution and creation are full of fallicies and neither can be "proven" correct because in science nothing can be proven or disproven. Things can be presented in a logical way that seem to be generally correct but there is always a chance that they can be shown incorrect. Being at an international christian school I have heard many of the arguments for creationism and more than a few for evolution. Neither has much proof behind it. I believe in a Creator who designed the world with intelligence hence the Intelligent Design theory.

Why can't we just all be respectful of each other's belief's and quit complaining that one is right and the other is wrong? Neither side currently has enough proof to back themselves up, so just forget about convincing others. And by the way, I'd have to say that Darwin's theory is (currently, anyway), more rational than the creationist's theory. So you saying that it's "also stretching the imagination" is only true for you. It doesn't apply to everyone else, so that's not a valid argument.

I agree with the first part of your statement here. I think that we definitely should be very respectful of other's religions because it is their right to believe whatever they wish. I also agree that neither side really has enough proof to scientifically "prove" their theory correct. However I have to disagree that Darwin's theory is more rational because as it is it has some major fallacies that make it quite incredible. The main one I can think of now is how is it that no evolution is happening today. But that is another topic. Creationism also stretches imagination quite a bit. Creationism takes the beginning of the world and describes it as being made by a single all-powerful being. This is hard to believe because of the popular argument "IF God is real, show him to me." No one can do that so therefore people count that off as an unlogical belief.

Err... I disagreed with what Graffiti is saying. Evolution is NOT a religion, and evolution CANNOT be compared to creationism. Unless you are saying biology is not a science. Evolution is one of the bedrock of biology. Lots of research in biology dealing with DNA has got to do with the evolution theory.

I agree with what Graffiti said because I think he is right that you cannot accept evolution as science and make creationism a religion. However, I prefer to think in terms of the Intelligent Design rather than creationisn because I also think that many creationists are just religions fanatics. I really disagree that Evolution is on of the bedrocks of biology because I think that biology is made up of many things and that Creationism and Evolutionism are just parts of this science NOT basis.

my humble opinion

-Cyborgxxi

[abartar 0]

Every culture has had its gods. The ancient agrarian cultures had their fertility gods; the Greeks and Romans had their pantheon; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have their one god of all. At all times and in all places people have thought that there is more to life than the material world around us.Belief in a God or Gods, it seems arises naturally the world over. It seems that there is some element common to all human experience that causes us to look for something transcendent on which to build our lives. Generally speaking, if we have an innate desire for a thing then that thing both exists and is good for us. The natural instinct to look to the transcendent, therefore, which is made evident by the fact remarked upon above that every culture of every time has had some form of religion, suggests that there might well be something transcendent out there to be found. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” something is God. However, the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved. The Bible even says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists.If God exists, then we are accountable for our actions to Him. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. I believe that is why evolution is so strongly clung to by many in our society - to give people an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.As nations turn their backs on God, living as if He does not exist, sin abounds—political corruption, lying, slander, public displays of debauchery, violent crime, abortion, theft, adultery, drug-taking, drunkenness, gambling and greed of all kinds. Economic woes follow as taxes increase and governments borrow money to pay for bigger and bigger police forces, jails, and social security systems to patch up the problems.There is some unknown beyond which science and human thinking stops. We leave all our actions to this something unknown. This unkown is the super power which we belive is there and as we name is GOD.

[yeh 0]

Not to be insulting or anything, but I must say that mentioning in a forum religion is near pointless. Sure, at Xisto you were lucky every person who posted here was respectful, but I doubt that would be the case elsewhere. Religion is about what people believe, and insulting other people's beliefs (as you are blatantly doing here by claiming that believing in science is pointless) isn't so great. Just live and let live. At the end of the day, a single forum post isn't going to change anyone's opinion at all, but might incite a good amount of flame wars. God is one of those super sensitive topics....

Well, I am basically a person that only kinda mind my own business. Not very much actually gets my attention. Don't quite like to get into debate with people since I am basically, well.... lazy!! Hehe...
However, there is a trend to push religion into science, into economics, into education and etc. and that is something that kinda gets my attention. I actually believe in a higher being but not quite sure whether there is only one God or multiple Gods. I am definitely not affiliated to any particular religion.

Now, back to what Graffiti said. Hehe...

The Darwinian process, by which i refer to an apparent contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics, only works under controlled circumstances, in laboratories. Assuming that our world was formed through evolution, that definitely was not a controlled environment. As soon as that primitive life form would have evolved, it would have died.

Now, what makes you say that as soon as a primitive life form evolved, it would have died? SARS virus have evolved from some primitive virus found in birds. In fact, there is a huge effort amongst health care professionals to check the spread of H5N1 virus. Now, are you saying they are all wrong and wasting precious government resources since once the H5N1 virus mutates into something that threatens us, human beings, it would just die off, so there is no need to worry? By the way, if we were to throw out evolution and instead adopt creationism, what are we to do with the SARS virus? Are you saying that God created the virus to kill human beings? And please... don't tell me that only those that don't believe in God died from SARS...


And then, there is the moral argument as to why God must exist, or need to exist for society to function. Graffiti and abartar argued that, but Graffiti goes on to say that wars and persecution had been done in the name of God. That is exactly my point. The argument that society would corrupt without God is kinda pointless since there are tonnes of examples of society getting corrupt with God around. Abartar goes on to make the link between economics and the corruption that results from the non-existence of God.

As nations turn their backs on God, living as if He does not exist, sin aboundsâpolitical corruption, lying, slander, public displays of debauchery, violent crime, abortion, theft, adultery, drug-taking, drunkenness, gambling and greed of all kinds. Economic woes follow as taxes increase and governments borrow money to pay for bigger and bigger police forces, jails, and social security systems to patch up the problems.

My question now, is, tell me how many teocratic states in the world today that is rich? I mean, those states are ruled by people who believed in God, so there shouldn't be any corruption and their economies should be in excellent condition. I would really like to know. At the very least, it can changed my perception of teocratic states.

[foolakadugie 0]

Evolution cannot really be compared to creationism. Evolution does not provide an explanation of how everyhting started. It just proposes that species/sub species change over time. Evolution does not necessarily debunk creationist religions. One can believe in both evolution and creationism (christianity for example).Evolution is a fact. It has been proven and there are countless examples to back it up. I am not saying that we all came from monkeys, but it is a fact that animals can evolve over generations many generations. Cetain types of diseases evolve quite rapidly, many times due to their sloppy genetic encoding during replication, resulting in many mutations, which over time lead to new characteristics. The Incan people who lived up in extremely high altitudes developed larger hearts and lungs which helped them breath in high altitude/low oxygen. There are many many other examples. As for me, I guess I would be considered agnostic. I don't have enough information to come to any definite conclusion so I choose not to commit to a specific theory.As Arbitrary said these discusions tend to go no where in online forums and it tends to be a touchy subject.This forum is full of many different people from diverse backgrounds, cultures, beliefs and places and that creates a wonderful opportunity to learn from each other. I would rather celebrate and our differences, rather than argue over them.

Edited September 21, 2006 by foolakadugie (see edit history)

[cyborgxxi 0]

As Arbitrary said these discusions tend to go no where in online forums and it tends to be a touchy subject.This forum is full of many different people from diverse backgrounds, cultures, beliefs and places and that creates a wonderful opportunity to learn from each other. I would rather celebrate and our differences, rather than argue over them.

I love watching these topics grow

Anyway,

And then, there is the moral argument as to why God must exist, or need to exist for society to function. Graffiti and abartar argued that, but Graffiti goes on to say that wars and persecution had been done in the name of God. That is exactly my point. The argument that society would corrupt without God is kinda pointless since there are tonnes of examples of society getting corrupt with God around. Abartar goes on to make the link between economics and the corruption that results from the non-existence of God.

I don't quite believe that belief in God and corruption necesarily go hand in hand. I believe that corruption exists all the time whether in the government or in the church. Also many wars are fought in the name of God or gods because people like to fight and it's any excuse to fight. I think that the real problem is not belief in God but the lack of morals as discussed in the Bible. If everyone followed the Ten Commandments as best they could then evil in the world would significantly decrease. Whether or NOT they followed God. I believe that God wishes us to follow him but to do that means to follow the laws he set down and many christians today fail to do even that.

[Grafitti 0]

Evolution cannot really be compared to creationism. Evolution does not provide an explanation of how everyhting started. It just proposes that species/sub species change over time. Evolution does not necessarily debunk creationist religions. One can believe in both evolution and creationism (christianity for example).
Evolution is a fact. It has been proven and there are countless examples to back it up. I am not saying that we all came from monkeys, but it is a fact that animals can evolve over generations many generations. Cetain types of diseases evolve quite rapidly, many times due to their sloppy genetic encoding during replication, resulting in many mutations, which over time lead to new characteristics. The Incan people who lived up in extremely high altitudes developed larger hearts and lungs which helped them breath in high altitude/low oxygen. There are many many other examples.

As for me, I guess I would be considered agnostic. I don't have enough information to come to any definite conclusion so I choose not to commit to a specific theory.

As Arbitrary said these discusions tend to go no where in online forums and it tends to be a touchy subject.
This forum is full of many different people from diverse backgrounds, cultures, beliefs and places and that creates a wonderful opportunity to learn from each other. I would rather celebrate and our differences, rather than argue over them.

Yeah. I'd just like to point out that what you just cited is adaptation, not evolution. Otherwise if we say that adaptation is the evolutionary process, then anyone who goes to a gym is in an evolutionary transitional stage because their muscles are growing so that they can lift more.
Evolution would be, say, a canary becoming an eagle so that it wouldn't get eaten by the eagles. Proof for evolution would be a case of species transformation. Even just one case would give it some sort of basis.

[foolakadugie 0]

Yeah. I'd just like to point out that what you just cited is adaptation, not evolution. Otherwise if we say that adaptation is the evolutionary process, then anyone who goes to a gym is in an evolutionary transitional stage because their muscles are growing so that they can lift more. Evolution would be, say, a canary becoming an eagle so that it wouldn't get eaten by the eagles. Proof for evolution would be a case of species transformation. Even just one case would give it some sort of basis.

No these are examples happening over generations and generations, not to one specific oraganism but a group of organisms. When a organism adapts, that is specific to that individual oragnism in it's lifetime. Lifting weights doesn't change your genetic code. I am talking about actual changes in their genes. My examples may not show an enite species changing into another but in an isolated area that group changes over time, not enough to become another species, but they did change noticeably and if given more time they cold evolve further.

[BitShift 0]

I just wanted to say this.I read somewhere that a group of mathmeticians got together and they did statistics on a bunch of these theories and there probability of happening.From what I understand, the probability of life being created WITHOUT a God, is equal to filling the entire universe with blind men with a rubix cube, and having them all solve it simultaneously.I don't know about you guys but the chances of life ever having started without a God is practically ZERO.You can argue and debate all you want over this but in my opinion God exists.

[yeh 0]

I just wanted to say this.
I read somewhere that a group of mathmeticians got together and they did statistics on a bunch of these theories and there probability of happening.

From what I understand, the probability of life being created WITHOUT a God, is equal to filling the entire universe with blind men with a rubix cube, and having them all solve it simultaneously.

Well, just out of curiosity, could you put the link to the theory that you mentioned? I am not that interested in disecting that theory now, but who knows in the future? It could be a Sunday morning and I might have nothing else better to do... hehe....

[Grafitti 0]

My examples may not show an enite species changing into another but in an isolated area that group changes over time, not enough to become another species, but they did change noticeably and if given more time they cold evolve further.

But logically, then now we should not have lifeforms grouped into the classifications that they are in. there would be mass confusion, and everything would be still evolving. It's too much to assume that they would all evolve at the exact same rate, so how come we don't see transitional lifeforms running around?

[foolakadugie 0]

Humans have, for the most part, removed themselves from evolution. I am not saying they don't change, but we have sort of removed ourselves from natural selection, which is one engine of evolution. Our classifications have changed and we are still adding new species to our list. They have just found some new species recently. Even so, most classifications aren't evolving at rapid rates. It would take a very long time for most groups to evovle noticeably. Also, the classification "species" still allows for some differences with in it. Small differences don't completely remove an organism from the classification. Things are still evolving, but it takes a long time for this to happen. species like bacteria are much more rapid in the process because they reproduce at much faster rates. I never said that they all evolve at the same rate. The changes mainly take place in a place with certain conditions. Like I said, the Incas, lived high up in the mountains for a very long time, so eventually there hearts and and lungs became larger because they were in that very specific environment. So those who were born with larger heats and lungs, were suited to live in those conditions and those who didn't, were less likelly to live.

Edited September 22, 2006 by foolakadugie (see edit history)

[mitchellmckain 0]

Does God exist?

 

I am a Christian and if this thread had been started in the religion section, I would have said yes God exists and I would have pointed out some classical proofs such as in Aristotle's Metaphysics and Charles Sanders Pierce's "Negelected Argument for the Existence of God". However, this thread was started in the Science section and I am a physicist as well as a Christian. As a scientist I must say that God is not objectively observable and therefore within the framework of a scientific discussion, God does not exist.

 

The sciences test theories by making objective observations. Physics in particular simply describes the mathematical relationships between measurable quantities. Can we set up circumstances where objective observations of God can be made? Is there anything about God which is measurable?

 

Ok, lets step outside of science now and dive into that lost topic of philosophy called metaphysics, which is defined as the study of the nature of reality. So in metaphysics we can ask the question, do things which are not objectively observable exist? Are they real? It is said that God is spirit, and the interesting thing about this, in this discussion, is that everything decribed as a spirit or as spiritual shares this characteristic of not being objectively observable or measurable. I find this contrast quite significant. On the one hand we have things described in physics which must be objectively observable and measurable, and on the other hand we have spiritual things which are apparently not objectively observable or measurable.

 

So this suggest the metaphysical question of whether there could be an aspect of reality which lacks this characteristic of being objectively observable. But this is directly related to scientific question. Is the description of the world by science complete? Interestingly enough this is a question that has been answered in physics without such a answer even being sought. In quantum physics it was found that the best description of behavior of the elementary particles of which everything is composed was a probabalistic one. Einstein and others found this unacceptable and proposed that quantum physics was mere incomplete and that there must be hidden variables of which we are not yet aware which are the cause of these apparently random results of measurement. John Stewart Bell derived and inequality which must be obeyed if the following assumptions were to hold:

 

1) That the results of a quantum measurement are determined by unknown variables. (determinism)

 

2) Causality is restricted to the speed of light according to the special and general theories of relativity. (locality)

 

3) A measurement cannot produce more than one result at a time, fore there is a reality apart from observation. (realism or counterfactual definiteness)

 

The failure of Bell's inequality means that one or more of these premises must fail. The vast majority accepts the failure of #1 in the Copenhagen interpretation. A small group however accepts the failure of #3 in Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation. None of the physics community really accepts the failure of #2, for that would bring almost all of modern physics tumbling down, implying all the logical contradictions of time travel and more. There are a few who play around with the idea of non-locality and David Bohm's interpretation to see if anything fruitful comes of it, but success in invalidating #2 is really unthinkable. Some have explored something called decoherence which promises some advances in the area of measurement theory but it is impossible that it can change the fundamental issues.

 

The fact of the matter is that no matter how stubbornly determinists resist the failure of number 1, numbers 2 and 3 are established features of the physics world view and the physics community will not abandon them even if they have to accept that physics is not a complete description of reality. So putting all three premises together produces a clear message and that message is not the failure of determinism but only the failure of determinism if you insist on thinking that the physical description of reality, which consists only of measurable quantities and the mathematical relationships between them, is a complete description of reality.

 

 

 

God is simply the most logical explanation for everything. Take evolution, for example. It's not that evolution is scientific. Evolution is a religion, just like Creationism. Both of them, nobody was there to see it, so we don't know for sure. But the creation/God theory makes a lot more sense scientifically than the big bang. That's not necessarily addressing the full topic of belief in God, but i think it can be applied to a lot of these arguments.

 

But God is not an acceptable scientific explanation for anything. God is not observable or measurable in any way and so, as far as science is concerned, unknowable. But that which is unknowable cannot be an explanation for anything. Evolution is a scientific theory and it is a good scientific theory for it describes a process that is observable and has been observed. "Creation science" is religiously motivated rhetoric, because no matter what "scientific" studies are done in its name it searches for evidence to support its theory (as lawyers and salesment do) rather than seeking to test the theory with observations (as scientists do). But Creationism is something else entirely because it talks about a God who is a spirit and therefore outside the ream of scientific discussion, and since the physical world view is not a complete one, the truth of the theory of evolution does not invalidate Creationism.

 

Creationists are simply asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking whether evolution is correct they should be asking whether evolution is the whole story. But Christians can only ask such a question if they give up on the mythology of a world created by magic in seven days and a first man and woman created by necromancy as an animated golem of dust and a reanimation of someones body part.

[Grafitti 0]

Creationists are simply asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking whether evolution is correct they should be asking whether evolution is the whole story. But Christians can only ask such a question if they give up on the mythology of a world created by magic in seven days and a first man and woman created by necromancy as an animated golem of dust and a reanimation of someones body part.

But what creation and evolution differ on is in who was behind it, and in the process. Creation argues that man was created fully formed, and was brought to life from dust. Evolution argues that man evolved, and originated by himself from dust. Basically, gave himself life. Since spontaneous generation has been proven false, that adds the same "mythology" aura of magic to the evolutionary process, as "in the beginning of the big bang", life formed from dust.

Humans have, for the most part, removed themselves from evolution. I am not saying they don't change, but we have sort of removed ourselves from natural selection, which is one engine of evolution.Our classifications have changed and we are still adding new species to our list. They have just found some new species recently. Even so, most classifications aren't evolving at rapid rates. It would take a very long time for most groups to evovle noticeably. Also, the classification "species" still allows for some differences with in it. Small differences don't completely remove an organism from the classification. Things are still evolving, but it takes a long time for this to happen. species like bacteria are much more rapid in the process because they reproduce at much faster rates. I never said that they all evolve at the same rate. The changes mainly take place in a place with certain conditions. Like I said, the Incas, lived high up in the mountains for a very long time, so eventually there hearts and and lungs became larger because they were in that very specific environment. So those who were born with larger heats and lungs, were suited to live in those conditions and those who didn't, were less likelly to live.

And why would we have removed ourselves from evolution, if it makes us get better? Why did we all of a sudden decide that we were perfectly fine, and didn't need anything else? Why aren't secretaries evolving a third hand to type with? What about the amazon indians, who live in the jungle. wouldn't a tail be an asset? why haven't they started growing one? And just because we discover new species, doesn't mean that they weren't there before. we just never found them. Because if evolving was such a lengthy process, it's inconcievable that say, 200 years ago we didn't see them because they weren't there, and that 200 years later, they've all of a sudden evolved into this new species. why aren't there any transitional forms of it? even if they were the weaker ones, and got killed off, where are their bones? My point is, if they are evolving, there should be lots of halfway-there animals. Or at least remains of them.

[mitchellmckain 0]

Humans have, for the most part, removed themselves from evolution. I am not saying they don't change, but we have sort of removed ourselves from natural selection, which is one engine of evolution.

 

Humans have removed themselves from the evolution only in the classical sense, of indidual organisms competing with one another for survival. This however is a natural stage in the development of life on this planet. Numerous times before, like in the development of multicelular organisms, individuals band together in communities, protecting the weaker members, to initiate a new stage in evolutionary development. The protection of individuals by the community create a new source of variation of the individual and you get a specialization of the roles of the individual in the community which make communal techniques or "technology" possible. Evolution then becomes evolution of the community.

 

 

But what creation and evolution differ on is in who was behind it, and in the process.

 

NO! Scientists merely describe an observable physical process. Because of the failures of Bell's inequality scientists cannot rule out the involvement of non-observable causes, but because science is restricted to observable causes only, they cannot discuss this possibility either.

 

 

Creation argues that man was created fully formed, and was brought to life from dust.

 

Endless are the disagreements of Christians about the details of their faith and the interpretations of the Bible. The only consensus among Christians about creation is that God is ultimately responsible for the existence of life and all the living creatures on this planet. Christians inform their interpretations of the Bible by the input of science all the time. For example, it is well know that the composition of the human body is not consistent with the compostion of dust, therefore many Christians interpret the word "dust" to mean matter. Other Christians, understanding the theory of evolution, likewise make this their interpretation of the word, "formed". It is clear that the story in Genesis is not, in any way shape or form, intended to be a scientific text, but a religious text for the purpose of pointing out the role God in our existence. Genesis is obviously not a "Creation for dummies" book telling us how God created everything, but only a story written in praise of God telling us that God created everything. Just because the Bible does not mention God creating the uncountable galaxies that fill the sky above us does not mean that God did not create them, don't you think? Just because the Bible does not mention the Grand Canyon, the elements of the periodic chart, or the earth's magnetic fields, does not mean that God did not create them either.

 

 

Evolution argues that man evolved, and originated by himself from dust. Basically, gave himself life. Since spontaneous generation has been proven false, that adds the same "mythology" aura of magic to the evolutionary process, as "in the beginning of the big bang", life formed from dust.

 

NO! Evolution only describes a process of how the genetic code of a population of living organisms can change over time. Living things have the capacity to learn. They can learn new ways to live, which includes both how they behave and their actual physical structure, for evolution describes a learning process that stores the information of successful biological form in the genetic code. But learning does not occur in a vacuum and the fact that living things learn does not mean that there is no teacher. There is a difference between the theory of evolution and the atheists who uses evolution as their philosophy to explain the origin of living things. The atheists have such good propaganda going that they have convinced half of Christianity that they have science on their side, misleading these Christians to reject the validty of science.

 

The debate between evolutionary atheists and creationists is like the following argument about of the origin of tomatoes in a grocery store. The atheist says that these tomatoes are a product of chance and the natural laws of physics - appearing before us in the store by predictable mathematical laws. The creationist says that their perfect and uniform roundness is clearly a product of design, and so these tomatoes must be designed and manufactured in factory. Both are obviously nonsense. The tomatoes are the product of tomato plants. They were not designed or manufactured. They grew by themselves and we could make a time laped photophy motion picture to prove it. But what that movie fails to show are the farmers who water and nuture the plant to keep it healthy and growing. Ultimately, the tomatoes are in the grocery store because of the farmers who grew them, but the farmers did not design or manifuacture them. The fact of the matter is that design and manufacture are the process of the creation of dead things not the living, and likewise the role of God in the creation of living must be seen in a similar manner as one who nurtures, cares for, prunes, raises, shepherds, and teaches. This is acually a more suitable creation philosophy for Christianity than the magical creation of Young Earth Creationists which is a philosophy more suitable to Deists who believe that God created the world like a giant (dead) clockworks, set in motion and left it to take care of itself. So I believe instead in a God who is intimately invoved in the lives of his creatures guiding their learning and development according to His plan and desire.

 

 

Why aren't secretaries evolving a third hand to type with? What about the amazon indians, who live in the jungle. wouldn't a tail be an asset? why haven't they started growing one?

 

Because evolution is reality not wishful thinking. In stories and myths you can cook up any god, angels and demons your heart desires, but things in real life are not driven by wishes. The fact that there are secretaries, learning skills like typing and word processing, and coping with unique problems like carpal tunnel syndrome, is an example of evolution. Secretaries will evolve to deal with their unique problems not with biological development which is the old technique used in the classical evolution of the individual (far to slow to be of use to secretaries anyway), but with medical technology which is part of the process of the evolutionary development of the community. Edited September 24, 2006 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[yeh 0]

Creationists are simply asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking whether evolution is correct they should be asking whether evolution is the whole story. But Christians can only ask such a question if they give up on the mythology of a world created by magic in seven days and a first man and woman created by necromancy as an animated golem of dust and a reanimation of someones body part.

Very nicely said, mitchellmckain. I think before you start replying to Graffiti, maybe you should ask him to define life. After reading his countless posts, I am beginning to think that his definition of life might not involve bacteria and other simpler organisms. After all, maybe all he/she wants to show is that we, humans, cannot just evolved but be created by some higher being, supposedly God. And no one can reasonably satisfy him because the only evidence that someone can produce would be fossils and Graffiti can always insist that the fossils has nothing to do with modern humans.