I just finished reading Dawkins "The God Delusion", in which he talked about the correlation between level of education and atheism. i.e., more scientific/technical/educated populations have more atheists (that explains why there are so few atheists in U.S., just look at the educational system).
So lets have a poll. I know there are lots of educated people on this board. Are you an atheist? I'll start. I have always been an atheist (luckily born to non-religous parents), and have always found it incomprehensible that other people can bring themselves to believe there is some supernatural being in the sky responsible for our existence, despite an overwhelming lack of evidence to support that belief.

It's a shame that millions of children every year are brainwashed into the belief system of their parents.

Religion should be for over 18 only.

I clicked agnostic.

In my experience there are very few genuine atheists. Some give the game away by using (and living by).....the harder I work the luckier I get...what goes round comes around..etc and etc.

I certainly agree with you as to education but only if you are talking about formalised religion. A lot of medical specialists are in the "I don't really know" area.

Acceptance of some type of "outside force" is also very common with salesmen, and especially higher level salesman who seek out business as opposed to waiting for a customer. In the case of America a lot of religion is not due to lack of education but because their whole business enviroment is far more sales orientated than other countries.

Personally, I think both the Bible and evolution are just ways of each side trying to explain things and I am not sure which requires the greatest faith. Actually a lot of people think they believe in evolution when in reality they believe in species adaptation through natural selection. The Peppered Moth is always a good example. If England changed to solar power then eventually the light coloured moth would again be the prevalent colour.

As a side note one of my interests is dinosaurs and reptiles, so have been well down this path before:D

Mike, there are so many things in your post that I disagree with that I don't even know where to begin.
In my experience there are very few genuine atheists. Some give the game away by using (and living by).....the harder I work the luckier I get...what goes round comes around..etc and etc.

Well, you are talking to a genuine atheist right now, and no, I don't believe that what goes around comes around.
Personally, I think both the Bible and evolution are just ways of each side trying to explain things and I am not sure which requires the greatest faith.
You do not need one iota of any sort of faith to understand evolutionary theory. That is a tragic misunderstanding that can easily be remedied by studying the subject. There are many great books on the subject, several by Dawkins himself in fact. In these books you will not find anyone asking you to take anything on faith. You will only find the evidence that lead us to our current understanding of evolutionary theory. Contrast that with the Bible. Yes the Bible is a historical document, but that in and of itself does not make anything that is written within the Bible true. You need a ton of faith to believe even a single page in the Bible, because there IS no evidence to go on.
Actually a lot of people think they believe in evolution when in reality they believe in species adaptation through natural selection.
The basis of evolutionary theory IS natural selection. What are you trying to say?

I undertstand something of a big bang, what came before that? Do these books have an answer, or at that point do we go back to faith?
I agree with you that this whole business would be a lot easier if science could answer those questions - what was before the big bang? Where did matter come from? But I disagree with your (il)logical conclusion - if science can't explain it, it must be supernatural. Isn't it possible that it is not supernatural, but that science has just not gotten that far yet? There are many things that were historically considered supernatural, but were later understood to be natural phenomena, explicable by science. Isn't it at least possible that the origins of the universe fall into this category?

Even if you think my "possibility" is unlikely, isn't the existence of god even more unlikely? After all, if you want to use god to explain the origin of the universe, then where did god come from?

I clicked Atheist but if god appeared I would change my mind. As has already been said I have seen no convincing evidence that there is a god and I have seen a lot throughout life to convince me ot the truth of the statement that without religion good people do good things and bad people do bad things but with religion good people can do terrible things.

I have read "The God Delusion" and also "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens which I personally think is a better book.

I have read "The God Delusion" and also "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens which I personally think is a better book.

I haven't read that one - I will check it out. Thanks for the rec.

Alisa,

I wasn't expecting much agreement:D

Well, you are talking to a genuine atheist right now, and no, I don't believe that what goes around comes around.

I did not say there were no genuine atheists but many who claim to be atheists are not so.....they might not believe in God or a god but at the back of their mind there is something.

You do not need one iota of any sort of faith to understand evolutionary theory. That is a tragic misunderstanding that can easily be remedied by studying the subject. There are many great books on the subject, several by Dawkins himself in fact. In these books you will not find anyone asking you to take anything on faith.

The major probem with evolution is for a complete change of a species. For example, if we take the case of Chimp (or your choice) through to Man that is quite easy to see. The change from chimp to man does not involve eons of time where the transitional species would be totally vulnerable. But try getting from lizard to snake. Evolution becomes its own enemy because part of the basis of evolution promotion is the huge span of time involved.

While the bible bashers like to talk about a lack of transitional fossils they are also on firm ground. By definition transitional fossils should be a very large proportion of the fossils found but that is very far from the case.

You will only find the evidence that lead us to our current understanding of evolutionary theory. Contrast that with the Bible. Yes the Bible is a historical document, but that in and of itself does not make anything that is written within the Bible true. You need a ton of faith to believe even a single page in the Bible, because there IS no evidence to go on.

It is worth remembering that Dawin's original theory was in the area of species adapation, not the "for real" evolution. Evolution and the Bible both have one thing in common...they both look like reasonable explanations. A to evidence in the Bible I don't really agree with that because the Bible's evidence come because of holes in evolution.

Actually a lot of people think they believe in evolution when in reality they believe in species adaptation through natural selection.

The basis of evolutionary theory IS natural selection. What are you trying to say?

Not really. Natural selection is more about species adaptation with the Peppered Moth being the classic example. In fact there is an interesing one that has been developing in recent years with rattle snakes and is a by product of the Amercan Rattle Snake round up:) What is happening is the prevalence of rattle snakes that can't rattle is increasing. Of course the reason being that the rattle snake's rattle which serves as a warning to cattle, horses etc becomes its undoing with rattle snake round up.

Rabbits don't become immune to Myxomatosis or the Calici virus. Rather some individuals are immune and they are the ones that survive and breed.

True evolution is supposedly caused by mutations that go onto breed etc and etc. and the mutations are well adapted to the environment and is not related to natural selection. As an example we know that x% of births result in deformed children. Siamese twins etc and whatever. Currently, without human intervention noe of them would survive. However if the environment changed then such deformed children might be ideally suited for that environment. This, if that was the case and we came back in a few hundred years time them such children/adults would be common. Natural selection would only have served to increase their number but was not initially responsible.

So science cannot explain it, neither can religion, So you put you faith in science ignoring its failings?

No, science does not require me to have faith. Let me break it down:
1. Science has not yet come up with a theory to explain the origin of the universe. No faith is required to "believe" this statement.
2. It is within the realm of possibility that there will eventually be a scientific theory to explain the origin of the univierse. No faith is required to "believe" this one either. Just stating a possibility.
3. God created the universe. Need lots of faith for this one, because there is no evidence for it. If God exists, where is he? Where did he come from?

(3) is not the only alternative to (1). (2) is a more reasonable alternative to (1) because it does not require any faith. It only requires patience.

[QUOTE=Alisa;695231]

Isn't it possible that it is not supernatural, but that science has just not gotten that far yet? There are many things that were historically considered supernatural, but were later understood to be natural phenomena, explicable by science. Isn't it at least possible that the origins of the universe fall into this category?

QUOTE]

This a very valid point but it is also a point that puts true evolution into the "faith bin with the bible". Remember that "science" has been horribly wrong many times. Consider the great Isaac Newton. His laws of gravity are worthless once big distances come into play. Thus NASA has to use Eintein to put those robots on Mars:D

Full acceptance of evolution ranks right along with the "born again" Christians and the Bible.

No, science does not require me to have faith.

Scienc does require you to have faith. What evidence do you have that there are electrons buzzing around a nucleus.

3. God created the universe. Need lots of faith for this one, because there is no evidence for it. If God exists, where is he? Where did he come from?

The evidence is that currently there is no other explanation.

As where is God etc. that is self solving if you take the position that God exists as the all powerful etc. Trying to figure out where God is or why He does this or that is like your pet ant or pet lizard trying work why you do what you do or come and go.

True evolution is supposedly caused by mutations that go onto breed etc and etc. and the mutations are well adapted to the environment and is not related to natural selection. As an example we know that x% of births result in deformed children. Siamese twins etc and whatever. Currently, without human intervention noe of them would survive. However if the environment changed then such deformed children might be ideally suited for that environment. This, if that was the case and we came back in a few hundred years time them such children/adults would be common. Natural selection would only have served to increase their number but was not initially responsible.
I would not agree with you 100% in separating Evolution and Natural Selection. My understanding is that random mutations will only survive if they are advantageous to the individual so they will be favoured by Natural selection. According to what I have read the vast majority of mutations are either neutral or disadvantageous to the individual.

The neutral changes will survive in the gene pool mostly unnoticed. The disadvantageous ones will not survive many generations and die out.

What one has to remember is the vast time scales of these changes. Most changes are hardly noticable from one generation to the next. It is the cumulative effect over many generations where the change becomes significant

For example if you had a mouse that was 1mm bigger than its parents and this was repeated at each generation It would take only 10 Thousand generations before it towered over an Elephant.

Mike375,
You sound like an intelligent person, but I think you fundamentally misunderstand the issue. Science will never be able to prove that evolutionary theory is true. In fact, science does not even seek to prove that it is true. In the scientific method, nothing can be proven, only disproven. Yes, evolutionary theory is far from complete. That is why scientists are still hard at work putting the puzzle together, filling in the holes, and questioning their previous assumptions. Yes, they have been wrong before- that is why they are always looking at new evidence, and discarding or modifying their theories when they are contradicted by new evidence. In fact, there is a famous line that you may have heard. When asked what evidence would disprove evolutionary theory, Haldane answered, Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.

Now lets take your statment, Evolution and the Bible both have one thing in common...they both look like reasonable explanations.

Evolution looks like a reasonable explanation. It explains quite a lot. Yes, there are holes, as I discussed above. That is the nature of a scientific inquiry. But there is currently no evidence that directly contradicts evolutionary theory. (no-one has ever discovered fossil rabbits in the Precambrian).

The Bible does not look like a reasonable explanation. I cannot even begin to fathom why you made this statement. What is reasonable about it? It doesn't even agree with its own self!

Finally, just because there is a hole in evolutionary theory, doesn't mean we need god to fill it. That is the point I was making in response to Paul's post. Just because science hasn't gotten that far doesn't make god a more reasonable explanation.

I would not agree with you 100% in separating Evolution and Natural Selection. My understanding is that random mutations will only survive if they are advantageous to the individual so they will be favoured by Natural selection. According to what I have read the vast majority of mutations are either neutral or disadvantageous to the individual.

That is basically what I said.

The neutral changes will survive in the gene pool mostly unnoticed. The disadvantageous ones will not survive many generations and die out.

Agree

What one has to remember is the vast time scales of these changes. Most changes are hardly noticable from one generation to the next. It is the cumulative effect over many generations where the change becomes significant

But how do you get from lizard to snake. The eons of time is the killer. To get from lizard to snake will mean the "transitionals" that are perhaps 30% to 70% of the way there will have survive for eons of time is a completely vulernable state.

For example if you had a mouse that was 1mm bigger than its parents and this was repeated at each generation It would take only 10 Thousand generations before it towered over an Elephant.

But at the end it would be just a big mouse. Of course what would (and we are surrounded by this) is that it would reach a maximum size that was limited by its body build. The problem being that volume/weight increases as the cube but cross sectional area of the mucles/bone increases as the square.

But how do you get from lizard to snake. The eons of time is the killer. To get from lizard to snake will mean the "transitionals" that are perhaps 30% to 70% of the way there will have survive for eons of time is a completely vulernable state.
I am not a specialist in that field so I can't give you a definitive answer but it is easy to see how with very small changes from generation to generation how the changes could have occurred. I have read of creatures which appear snakelike but have residual legs which are only used during mating to grip the partner. as legs got smaller I imagine th creature moved more and mor ein snake like manner. To go deeper I would need to do more research but I know this and similar topics have been discussed at length in his books by Dawkins.

One point made by him is that if you could assemble generation by generation going back at time you would never see a sudden change. All the changes are very small and don't jump out at you.

Has my logic failed me??
Yes your logic has failed you. That is why I did not bother to respond to your last post.
So whats you point, you are a science basher , no better than a bible basher.

I am not bashing science, I am explaining the scientific method, which you really ought to understand before engaging in arguments like this.

Are you an atheist? I'll start. I have always been an atheist (luckily born to non-religous parents),



It's a shame that millions of children every year are brainwashed into the belief system of their parents.


:rolleyes:

Not sure how far I want to get involved with this thread, but seeing as I'm the only person to have selected the last option in the poll, it would seem amiss for me not to say something!

I've not read Dawkins, though I have some intention of doing so at some point. I can't argue against his theories if I haven't read them.
You may well find that amongst people of faith (I'm speaking as a Christian, but not on behalf of all Christians) there are a wide number of different viewpoints on the Creationist/Evolutionist spectrum. However, I think MOST Christians would agree that whether or not you take the story of Genesis chapter 1 as a literal truth, or whrther you interpret it more liberally, it is difficult to look at the wonders of this world, on both the largest and smallest level, and believe that it all happened through a chance happening.

I also hope all Christians would agree that there are several things within their faith it is far more important to agree upon than the Creation story (like the fact Christ came to Earth as God's only Son to die for our sins and take the punishment we deserved).

Alisa,

Firstly, you will see from my posts that for me the jury is still out.

You sound like an intelligent person, but I think you fundamentally misunderstand the issue. Science will never be able to prove that evolutionary theory is true. In fact, science does not even seek to prove that it is true. In the scientific method, nothing can be proven, only disproven.

Not so, just the opposite. Science proves things to be true.


Yes, evolutionary theory is far from complete.

Thus full acceptance requires faith????



Now lets take your statment,
Quote:
Evolution and the Bible both have one thing in common...they both look like reasonable explanations.

Evolution looks like a reasonable explanation. It explains quite a lot. Yes, there are holes, as I discussed above. That is the nature of a scientific inquiry. But there is currently no evidence that directly contradicts evolutionary theory. (no-one has ever discovered fossil rabbits in the Precambrian).

Let's take the IndoPacific (saltwater) and Nile crocodile. Both have no natural enemy yet both are heavily armoured but the armour is of no value protecting them from each other. Why are they still that way after at least (on latest evidence) a 110 million years. Like all reptiles they can go for very long periods of time without eating. However, they have one of the most efficient hunting systems of all predators and in adddition a digestive system that allows them to consume the entire animal. Why is that still the case.

The Bible does not look like a reasonable explanation. I cannot even begin to fathom why you made this statement. What is reasonable about it? It doesn't even agree with its own self!

It is reasonable for a couple of reasons. Firstly, like evolution (but more so) it provides and explanation that looks reasonable. Like the chimp to the man, it looks OK.

Secondly, would you agree that the difference between us and chimps is absolutely huge, in terms of what we can do, yet we are very close on a physical basis. So I ask you, what would an animal be like that compared to us was like us compared to a chimp. If one believes in evolution then surely that person must believe that there are animals/beings that are way above us. Perhaps they are the gods.

Finally, just because there is a hole in evolutionary theory, doesn't mean we need god to fill it. That is the point I was making in response to Paul's post. Just because science hasn't gotten that far doesn't make god a more reasonable explanation

But there are not just a couple of small holes in evolution, the holes are huge and it requires great faith to fully accept evolution.

How do get from fish to archosaur then to snake. What about theopod to bird, now that is some change. For starters you need to change the animal from having very powerful bag legs and almost non existant front legs to an animal that has all its power in the fore quarters. You need some very heavy duty faith for that little exercise.

Atheism is not a belief system. I checked option 2 in my own poll. I don't THINK there is a god, but if he appeared tomorrow, I would change my mind. I don't think there is a god, because I don't see any evidence of one. If there were evidence, I would happily change my mind. There is no belief involved in this world view.
I said "luckily" because my parents did not impress ANY belief system upon me (their own or anyone else's). In fact, my parents are not atheists (they believe all that new agey nonsense about higher powers and spirits and whatnot).

Paul, A slick debating point! However just because Alisa's parents were nor religious does not mean they brainwashed her into being aan atheist. They perhaps just didn't do religion and so she was free to make up her own mind

I agree. We'd need evidence for that or belief. Or a bit of both.

;)

Not so, just the opposite. Science proves things to be true.

As I said to Paul, you really should have a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method before engaging in this discussion. By definition, a scientific theory CAN NOT be proven, it can only be DISPROVEN.
Thus full acceptance requires faith????
Who said anything about full acceptance? Evolutionary theory is the best explanation right now. If and when rabbits turn up in the Precambrian tomorrow, I reserve the right to change my mind.
Let's take the IndoPacific (saltwater) and Nile crocodile. Both have no natural enemy yet both are heavily armoured but the armour is of no value protecting them from each other. Why are they still that way after at least (on latest evidence) a 110 million years. Like all reptiles they can go for very long periods of time without eating. However, they have one of the most efficient hunting systems of all predators and in adddition a digestive system that allows them to consume the entire animal. Why is that still the case.

This is a classic example of a hole in evolutionary theory. My question to you is, does the existence of this hole make the existence of god more likely? If so, why?

It is reasonable for a couple of reasons. Firstly, like evolution (but more so) it provides and explanation that looks reasonable. Like the chimp to the man, it looks OK.
Huh? How does it look reasonable? A god just appeared from nothing and created the entire galaxy from nothing? In seven days? How is that reasonable?

Secondly, would you agree that the difference between us and chimps is absolutely huge, in terms of what we can do, yet we are very close on a physical basis. So I ask you, what would an animal be like that compared to us was like us compared to a chimp. If one believes in evolution then surely that person must believe that there are animals/beings that are way above us. Perhaps they are the gods.
I disagree with your implication that the difference in abilities between humans and chimps is somehow out of keeping with the physical differences. Moving on, it sounds like you are attempting (very badly I might add) to make the ontological argument. But you haven't finished it up. So what if I can imagine something way above us. That doesn't mean it exists.

I am not a specialist in that field so I can't give you a definitive answer but it is easy to see how with very small changes from generation to generation how the changes could have occurred. I have read of creatures which appear snakelike but have residual legs which are only used during mating to grip the partner.

The python and boa family of snakes have what are usually called spurs and look somewhat like the last remnamts of rear legs. Of course an opposing view is that they are not the last remnants but in fact a very stage of legs that failed. This last explanation is in fact very feasible. The reason being that one of the reason the snake is the most successful predator and by very far) is due to the very elongated body that is free from any protrusions.

There are also legless lizards however they are "snake like" and in fact are vastly different.

as legs got smaller I imagine th creature moved more and mor ein snake like manner. To go deeper I would need to do more research but I know this and similar topics have been discussed at length in his books by Dawkins.

Big problem. As the lizard gradually loses it legs how does it move. Let's just consider a couple of changes it has to make to get to a snake and see if you can work out how it could survive for millions of years while these changes are occurring. Firstly the whole skull jaw structure needs to change. So somewhere in between it will spend eons of times with a jaw structure that is useless. Next, it has to virtually get rid one lung and grow the other lung to be very long. To accomodate this it needs to greatly lenghten its body. By the way, snakes have very long bodies but very short tails. There is no need to even discuss the huge problems of not just changing the whole jaw/skull structure but introducing the fang/venom system. What exactly does it do while its spend eons of time is a useless state


One point made by him is that if you could assemble generation by generation going back at time you would never see a sudden change. All the changes are very small and don't jump out at you.

And that is the problem. The animal has to spend millions of years in a useless state.

You may well find that amongst people of faith (I'm speaking as a Christian, but not on behalf of all Christians) there are a wide number of different viewpoints on the Creationist/Evolutionist spectrum.

I think this is also true of people who have rejected Faith. If you hear two evolutionists debating this they do not all agree on a single interpretation of the theory. Thats why it is so fascinating for some of us.

There does seem to be a major split between the US and western Europe. Most Western European Clergy do not support the old view that the world was created on 22nd October 4004 BC at 6 in the afternoon while it seems that a significant number in the USA do believe in a recent creation even if they might not accept the exact date. Some of them explain away scientific evidence of an older earth as having been planted by God to test peoples faith

seeing as I'm the only person to have selected the last option in the poll, it would seem amiss for me not to say something!

I agree, thank you for posting.
it is difficult to look at the wonders of this world, on both the largest and smallest level, and believe that it all happened through a chance happening.

Yes, but evolutionary theory does not ask you to believe that it all happened through chance. I think you would find Dawkins' thoughts on this subject very interesting. He has a whole chapter on it in the God Delusion, but for a more detailed exploration of this particular issue, you should read the Blind Watchmaker, which is much more about evolution and much less about god.

By definition, a scientific theory CAN NOT be proven, it can only be DISPROVEN.

Disagree. All science seeks to prove. I can prove a car engine won't run on water.

Thus full acceptance requires faith????

Who said anything about full acceptance? Evolutionary theory is the best explanation right now. If and when rabbits turn up in the Precambrian tomorrow, I reserve the right to change my mind.

But again, that puts you back in the faith bin. As you said....Evolutionary theory is the best explanation right now.....in your opinion


This is a classic example of a hole in evolutionary theory. My question to you is, does the existence of this hole make the existence of god more likely? If so, why?

No, not at all. For me, disproving evolution does not prove the bible. I leqaave that think to the faithfull of the churches of evolution and God.

Huh? How does it look reasonable? A god just appeared from nothing and created the entire galaxy from nothing? In seven days? How is that reasonable?

Firstly, if there is a God then by definition He does not just appear from nothimng or nowhere. If there is a God then it is no big deal to create the universe in 7 days. Actually that sounds a bit slow. If someone accepts that there is God then all the rest follows is far more solid than what follows a declaration of evolution.

I disagree with your implication that the difference in abilities between humans and chimps is somehow out of keeping with the physical differences.

You can't be serious. Man can land on the moon, he cam make computers etc and etc.

[B]Moving on, it sounds like you are attempting (very badly I might add) to make the ontological argument. But you haven't finished it up. So what if I can imagine something way above us. That doesn't mean it exists.

No not at all. I am simply raising what are very big holes in evolution. You on the hand are reacting in exactly the same way as do the bible bashers when holes in the bible are pointed out.

I believe there are elements of truth in both but that is a long way from either being satisfactory evidence of how lizards get to snales etc and etc.

Yes, but evolutionary theory does not ask you to believe that it all happened through chance.

What then, by design:D

The whole of evolution is based on chance.

Yes, but evolutionary theory does not ask you to believe that it all happened through chance.

What then, by design:D

The whole of evolution is based on chance.

Natural selection does not make random choices. Only beneficial/neutral changes are passed on.

Natural selection does not make random choices. Only beneficial/neutral changes are passed on.

But what is beneficial depends on the environment. One of the promotional ideas for evolution is that a countless number of mutations occur but only very few of them keep going. Thus a the success of any particular mutation is dependent on the evironment at the time and hence it is chance.

But I would still like someone to give a scenario of how you get from fish to archosaur to snake. Lizard to snake is a real stopper:D And of course the bible has some equally good brick walls to run into:D

I did not check the bottom choice because although I believe in God I don't believe that my God is the only God. I believe there is a God and I believe that God represents himself differently to different peoples. I agree with Paul, a person does not have to believe completely in the teachings of his/her religion or that of the Bible.

As a junior in a parochial high school in the United States where I received a good education, I was taught by my religion teacher, Father Ross that the Old Testament was to help people understand God. Essentially the Old Testament was a series of stories to teach right and wrong. The New Testament is the truthful part of Bible.

Free will is what makes many different religions and interpretations of those religions.

Personally I don't understand how a person can look up into a beautiful sunny sky or the delicate wing of a dragonfly and not see God.

Personally I don't understand how a person can look up into a beautiful sunny sky or the delicate wing of a dragonfly and not see God.


I don't understand your statment. When I look up at the sunny sky (substitue any wonder of nature), I revel and wonder in it's beauty. But I certainly don't see god. (see my prior posts, if I really did see him I would change my vote). I think you are expressing fascination in the beauty and complexity of nature. I share the same fascination. But that has no bearing on whether god exists or doesn't exist. The beauty of a sunny sky isn't any greater if god exists, or any less if he doesn't.

By definition, a scientific theory CAN NOT be proven, it can only be DISPROVEN.

Disagree. All science seeks to prove. I can prove a car engine won't run on water.

I can't tell who actually said the 'disagree' line but whoever it was has a fundamentally flawed idea as to what science is. The first sentence above is entirely correct.

Science is based on hypothesis testing. No hypothesis is ever 'proven' in an absolute sense. A hypothesis can be tested and if it 'passes the test' then you can only say that you failed to disprove the hypothesis. If it fails the test then ythe hypothesis has been 'disproven'.

Proof is an absolute term. Science cannot prove anything. Instead, oncae a hypothesis has been repeatedly tested over time, and has survived enough challenges, you can say that the hypothesis is generally 'Accepted'. At some point, an accepted hypothesis becomes thought of as a fact, but that does NOT mean that it is proven.

As an example, for centuries everyone 'knew' that all swans are white. Hundreds of thousands of swans had been observed over hundreds of years by thousands of observers. Descriptions of the species in textbooks invariably described them as a white bird.

Then an explorer went to Australia / New Zealand and discovered that there are, in fact, black swans. In one observation, the centuries-long accepted 'fact' that swans were white was falsified. It is exactly that same potential for an unexpected observation to royally mess-up your paradigms and factual theories about anything that leads scientists to be careful about claiming something to be fact. In reality, the decision as to when to accept a theory as a 'fact' is an entirely subjective one and has the potential to embarass whoever makes that decision too swiftly.

As to the generally accepted theory of evolution....

Evolution comprises two parts:
Natural selection.
Creation of novel traits.

Natural selection does not make random choices. Only beneficial/neutral changes are passed on.

Natural selection does not encourage good survival traits. It is simply more likely to remove organisms from the gene pool which have bad survival traits more often than organisms with 'good' survival traits.

This is an important distinction. Natural selection creates nothing new. It only removes 'inferior' organisms from the gene pool.

If a forest is clear-cut and turned into pasture, natural selection does not take a forest-reliant bird and give it traits that it didn't already have in order to help it survive in a pastoral environment. Generally, massive environmental disturbance leads to massive extinction of specialized animals. We see it all the time wherever environments change massively. There's no speculation involved.

Now I don't think you'll find anyone who will disagree that natural selection occurs and is real, tangible, and measurable.

So, natural selection alone does not bring about the change of a fish into a squirrel. However much that a shark who is plucked out of the ocean and dumped into the forest might wish to produce offspring with squirrel features (quad-chambered heart, lungs, fur, claws, bones etc), it just can't pass on what it doesn't posses the genes for.

So conflating natural selection with the idea of one type of animal (species) turning into an entirely different type of animal (another species) over time, even over hundreds of generations, is a badly incomplete argument. (And that's leaving aside the reality that the 'species' concept is a purely human-imagined philosophical construct. As humans, we like to compartmentalize the world in our minds even when the world itself does not fall nicely into such tidy 'boxes'.)

The REAL issue for evolution of 'species' comes about from the questionas to where NOVEL traits arise during the process. Traits must exist before natural selection can act on them. Where do they come from?

The usual ideas put forward are
-mutation (random changes in the genome caused by cosmic rays, weird chemicals, whatever)
-genetic drift (by random chance a new combination of genes occurs that has not occured before that causes a new expression of an existing outward trait)
-founder effects (essentially an argument that a certain amound of inbreeding accelerates genetic drift and over a short number of generations natural selection operates more severly by allowing the increased likelihood that recessive traits will be expressed more often than in a large population)

Of these, really, the only one that actually creates something entirely NEW in the DNA pool of the 'species' is mutation.

I don't think you'll find too many folks saying that mutations don't exist, or aren't real, or aren't tangible.

Evolutionary theory is really just that a combination of natural selection acting on an existing genetic pool plus mutations = changes in organisms over time viewed through a anthropogenic filter called the 'species' concept.

Is this convincing? No question to my mind that Nat Sel is real. No question that mutations can randomly create new traits.

However, mutations occur in a number of forms. Some result only in very minor changes in the DNA and others cause massive changes in large sections of the DNA at a time. Generally, small changes in DNA result in relatively minor changes in the outward expression/appearance (phenotype) of an organism. Wholesale changes in DNA usually result in quite marked differences.

None of this means that these changes will be actually beneficial to the organism. Usually, in a complex system like a living organisms, random changes result in a breakdown. Try randomly rearranging 10 components in your car's engine and see how often you end up with an improvement in gas mileage. In medical terms, many mutations have been described. Very few of them result in a benefit to the organism. (Sickle cell anemia is perhaps an exception to that rule although even that can be debated).

So, let's think about evolution in the long term. For organisms to survive and adapt to a changing environment they need to have a tendency to mutate. On the other hand, if you mutate, your fitness almost always goes down and natural selection will wipe you out. So, there is intense selective pressure to NOT mutate when the envirnment is reasobaly 'stable', but if your species does not mutate quickly and often when an environmental disruption occurs you'll likely be wiped out by natural selection in a short period of time...

what to do, what to do...?

Now. Line this up against the fossil evidence. The is strong evidence that massive disruption (asteroid impact etc) leads to massive extinction events of many species. Followed shortly thereafter by massive diversification of the critters that did manage to survive then a long period of relatively stable community structure. The timescales involved for this diversification (or adaptive radiation as it is called) are incredibly short
in geological terms.

This pattern had leads many evolutionists to abandon the classic darwinian idea of slow change over immensely long timeframes because it just doesn't match with the fossil record. On the other hand, classic darwinian advocates mock their opponents with their inability to explain how organisms evolve so rapidly in short time periods, then stay essentially unchanged for millions of years thereafter. They point to the clearance of the Amazon and ask why the forest songbirds aren't evolving before our eyes when their habitat dissappears? Why would the evolution of NEW traits occur rapidly in short bursts but then stop for long periods of time?

I think both sides raise excellent questions that we currently cannot answer.

And for full disclosure, yes, I do believe in God. And yes, I think we were created (in a sense). However, I also believe that trying to interpret the mechanism of creation from the bibilical account are doomed to failure. I think the closest anyone has come to labelling my school of thought is to say I believe in the 'finely tuned universe' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe) theory of creation. That is, God created the material universe so carefully that it could only 'unfold' in a certain way (God not being limited by the hysenberg uncertainty principle after all ;)). All the rest of the details about evolution and how we came to be is interesting, but not remotely an issue to be concerned about in terms of challenging my faith. Which is the difference between science and faith. Scientific theories can be proven false, or accepted as true until some contradictory observation comes along. Faith cannot be objectively tested (proven false).

And for the record, no, I don't believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old. And yes, we quite probably did 'evolve' biologically. But there's an awful lot of questions that remain unanswered, and pieces of evidence that are seemingly contradictory. And history has shown that the currently accepted theories of science will probably be mocked in the universities in the new few hundred years.

And let me just clarify before anyone accuses me of somehting I didn't say: the Fine tuned universe theory is NOT scientific. It is not testable. It is entirely a matter of faith.

That doesn't mean, however, you have to be illogical, irrational, uneducated, or stupid to believe it. Or, IMO, to believe in God. Unfortunately, it just seems that way when you listen to fundamentalists and Republicans ;)

And I did not check the bottom option simply because, while I believe in 'God', I expect that my inner conception of what 'God' is like is undoubtedly far too limited to be accurate enough to say that it is the only true 'God'.

Finally, someone who understands the scientific method!
And someone who has the energy to explain the theory of evolution on an internet forum for programmers!

you said:
Faith cannot be objectively tested

Obviously, that is true. However, don't let confuse the issue. Nobody is talking about testing faith. If there is a god, if he exists, then that is an objective fact, and CAN be objectively tested. The failure of any religion to provide any evidence whatsoever for the existence of god cannot be excused by saying you can't test for the existence of god. If he exists, yes you can.

If "your own personal god" exists only in your mind, and you accept the fact that he doesn't exist in any real way, that is fine. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say, it's only in my head, so you can't test it, but at the same time he really exists.

Bravo Craig :)

But that has no bearing on whether god exists or doesn't exist. The beauty of a sunny sky isn't any greater if god exists, or any less if he doesn't.

Agree, the sky is beautiful with or without the belief that God exists. However, my faith in God makes me feel good when I see intricacies and beauty in nature. I feel the existence of God.

If there is a god, if he exists, then that is an objective fact, and CAN be objectively tested.

I see. So provide me one observation/test that you can perform that would disprove, once and for all, that there is a God?
You can't say, it's only in my head, so you can't test it, but at the same time he really exists.


Nonsense. God can exist, and my conception of God can also be wrong. These are not mutually exclusive possibilities. Just because I can accept that my conception is potentially flawed, doesn't mean I can't believe there is a God in actual, factual reality.

Okay, can science explain where life came from? Life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?

And for full disclosure, yes, I do believe in God. And yes, I think we were created (in a sense). However, I also believe that trying to interpret the mechanism of creation from the bibilical account are doomed to failure. I think the closest anyone has come to labelling my school of thought is to say I believe in the 'finely tuned universe' theory of creation. That is, God created the material universe so carefully that it could only 'unfold' in a certain way (God not being limited by the hysenberg uncertainty principle after all ). All the rest of the details about evolution and how we came to be is interesting, but not remotely an issue to be concerned about in terms of challenging my faith. Which is the difference between science and faith. Scientific theories can be proven false, or accepted as true until some contradictory observation comes along. Faith cannot be objectively tested (proven false).
An interesting argument but one I cannot agree with or be pesuaded by. Whichever side you take in this debate it is clear that of course we live in a universe that supports life. It could have come about by coincidence or by Divine intervention. In no way is this any sort of evidence of the existance of a god.

Where did human, animal, plant life come from?

Bacteria drfting in space

Where's the I'm a realist option?:confused:

Okay, can science explain where life came from? Life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?
Good question. I cannot answer that question (there are some hypotheses floating around, which Rich alluded to, but nothing with enough evidence to ascend to the level of a theory). BUT, the lack of a current scientific theory cannot be used as evidence that god exists. That is just laziness - I can't figure this out, so god must have done it. If all scientists thought that way, we would have no scientific discoveries. No, scratch that, we wouldn't have any scientists if we all thought that way. We would be too lazy to wonder about anything - why bother trying to explain anything if we can just say, oh that? God did that.

Where's the I'm a realist option?

What is a realist? Or I guess I should ask, what is the difference between a realist and an atheist, or a realist and a theist?

Amino acids can occur a-biotically (no life involved) in very specific situations. Proteins are just chains of amino acids. Small chains of amino acids can form naturally as a result of chemical reactions. Prions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prions) are essentially just complicated proteins but they are considered an organism or 'life form'. It's a small step from Prions to viruses, and archaebacteria and Dick Cheney.:p

This is a classic example of humans viewing the world through a filter of anthropogenic labels: Life and Non-Life. The reality is that there is a continuum between completely inanimate matter through chemicals that show some characteristics of living organisms (but aren't in the opinion of most scientists), though to organisms that seem almost like inanimate matter (George Bush's brain ;)), through to sentient life forms.

There's a lot of ridiculous improbabilities to be swallowed when following this chain of logic but, conceptually, it's possible. And since evolutionary theory cannot be falsified by any particular observation, and life exists now and had to come from somewhere, it must have happened this way despite the odds against it.

If you wish to read a good book (hard to find now) that looks at some of that detail there's one called 'Not Proven' (by Rolph Gruner) which is basically a discussion of the underlying assumptions/philosophies implicit in evolutionary theory and looks at the issue as to whether it is really as devoid of the need for faith as its proponents argue. Incidentally, this book does not advocate creationism, it only compares the philosophical underpinnings of creationism versus that required for evolution and, I think, presents fairly a convincing argument that there's little difference in those underpinnings.

An interesting argument but one I cannot agree with or be pesuaded by.... In no way is this any sort of evidence of the existance of a god.


Sorry Rabbie. I did not intend that to be an attempt to convince or sway you in any way. I did not intend for it to be viewed as evidence FOR the existence of God. (and I don't believe there's any such possible evidence or argument I could make that would do that). I was simply trying to expand the frame of the debate so that people can understand that it is possible to believe in God (by faith) without sacrificing IQ or willingness to embrace scientific method. The central premise to this thread was that belief in God was, somehow, reserved for the ignorant and uneducated plebs of the world.

I truly hope the OP is wrong on that matter since I do believe in God AND have a Masters degree in Biology, and have picked up a few tricks about Access on this forum, so I like to think I'm reasonably educated and not entirely stupid. And I'd hate to think I'd have to start voting republican now ;)

It could have come about by coincidence or by Divine intervention

Exactly. So it is a matter of choice (faith) to believe whichever way you feel is right.

What is a realist?

One who doesn't believe in fairy tales

So provide me one observation/test that you can perform that would disprove, once and for all, that there is a God?

I don't have to. Your side has never provided even one percent of one iota of evidence that there IS a god.


presents fairly a convincing argument that there's little difference in those underpinnings.

Are you kidding me? The philisophical underpinning of evolutionary theory is a methodical continuous search for and analysis of evidence. The philisophical underpinning of theists (christians and others) is to state that there is a god and that is just the way it is. How can you compare the two?

How is it possible to "believe" in something which does not exist?

One who doesn't believe in fairy tales

How does that differ from an atheist? An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the fairytale that there is a god.

How does that differ from an atheist? An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the fairytale that there is a god.

Yes but atheism is seen as evil by the bible punchers who need a fairytale to justify their existence of course it also includes secularism which I don't subscribe to

Sorry Rabbie. I did not intend that to be an attempt to convince or sway you in any way. I did not intend for it to be viewed as evidence FOR the existence of God. (and I don't believe there's any such possible evidence or argument I could make that would do that). I was simply trying to expand the frame of the debate so that people can understand that it is possible to believe in God (by faith) without sacrificing IQ or willingness to embrace scientific method. The central premise to this thread was that belief in God was, somehow, reserved for the ignorant and uneducated plebs of the world.

I truly hope the OP is wrong on that matter since I do believe in God AND have a Masters degree in Biology, and have picked up a few tricks about Access on this forum, so I like to think I'm reasonably educated and not entirely stupid. And I'd hate to think I'd have to start voting republican now ;)

Exactly. So it is a matter of choice (faith) to believe whichever way you feel is right.
Craig, to clarify I did not feel that you were trying to influence my beliefs so no apology was necessary. My personal position in this debate has been reached after a lifetime of examining the options so I can understand and respect your position.

I don't have to. Your side has never provided even one percent of one iota of evidence that there IS a god.

Um. Alisa, you're the one claiming that it is objectively possible to TEST whether there is a God or not. I say there isn't and I invited you to demonstrate or describe such a test to prove your point. So you're right, no one can make you do so. But your thesis isn't likely to win me over if you don't.

If I claimed it were possible to scientifically prove there was a God then you'd be well within your rights to ask me to demonstrate it. I made no such claim. I believe by faith. I will state it again, I do not believe it is possible to scientifically confirm, nor deny, the existence of God.

Please remember that God exists outside of the laws of physics and time. He's omniscient, omnipresent, and unimpressed by attempts to force him to do anything he doesn't already want to do. The bible also says he doesn't want us to test him to validate our faith. We're not talking about a lab rat here. Makes him a hard target to pin down experimentally don't you think?

Are you kidding me? ...How can you compare the two

No, I'm not kidding but I'm not going to go down that road right in detail now.

In short: The scientific method is objective. The choice of which underlying philosophy of science and, therefore, interpretation of the results of that method are mostly subjective. If you are sincerely interested in this topic then I suggest you read that book that I mentioned earlier and come back to me with your thoughts.

However, I've invested enough energy and time in this thread to make my original point (or so I believe) and I really do not intend to continue to debate this onward ad-nauseum. In my experience people just start getting upset and grumpy about this topic pretty quickly.

I have no wish to convert you from your beliefs about the existence of God, just to hope that you'll allow me MY belief in God without slandering me as an ignorant yokel for doing so. Fair enough?

Craig, to clarify I did not feel that you were trying to influence my beliefs so no apology was necessary. My personal position in this debate has been reached after a lifetime of examining the options so I can understand and respect your position.

Ah....good. Don't want to be seen as an annoying, preachy type. :) And I can certainly understand and respect your position also.

Unless you would vote for Bush/McCain, in which case I'm all for chemical neutering ;)

BUT, the lack of a current scientific theory cannot be used as evidence that god exists. That is just laziness - I can't figure this out, so god must have done it. If all scientists thought that way, we would have no scientific discoveries. No, scratch that, we wouldn't have any scientists if we all thought that way. We would be too lazy to wonder about anything - why bother trying to explain anything if we can just say, oh that? God did that.

Not everyone is a an evolution or religious zealot. Disproving the existance of God does not prove evolution to me. Disproving evolution does not prove the existance of God to me.

But if you are going to be scientific about all this, that is disprove, then God or gods are currently the only reasonable explanation for the universe. Taking the position of an atheist would have to be about the most unscientific position ever taken.

Let's consider the basic problem. Firstly we assume The Big Bang is the answer. But of course where did the Big Bang come from. Thus to believe in the Big Bang and atheism while having not even the slightest theory on Before the Big Bang makes the position of an atheist look ridiculous unless being an atheist is about faith.

Can you give even the smallest piece of science to cover Before the Big Bang. Just a microscopic piece will do. Of course you can't. Thus for you to be an atheist requires faith and lots of faith on your part.

Consider also that the God or gods side of town has been consistently the same for all known time. But the scientific side of town contiunally has to change its position as each new development unfolds. Thus based on the last couple of thousand years evolution will be just a passing phase.

Thus the faith you require is quite incredible. Firstly, you have not even the smallest piece of science to cover Before the Big Bang. Secondly, you have a rigid belief in evolution even though history clearly demonstrates that the theory of evolution will be replaced.

Alisa:
You gave yourself away when you failed to captialize God.

Regardless of your beliefs, every style book in the English language requires a capital "G" when writing that word.

Where did we come from? What was the origin of the Big Bang? Did we materialize from matter in space? (in that case where did space come from).

A Supreme Being said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT". And there was light.

Until science comes up with a better explanation, that's good enough for me.

BTW, has anyone ever considered that evolution was part of the Divine Plan?

Several years ago, Peter O'Toole starred in a film called "Creator". He was a biologist with a strong belief in God.

At one point he had to make a presentation to a foundation to get funds to continue his research. He began "We are on the edge of a breakthrough in cellular biology and God had agreed to give us the answers we seek for just under 5 million dollars".

There is always the possibilty that God exists and is revealing the secrets of the Universe to us when he thinks we are ready to handle them.

Can you give even the smallest piece of science to cover Before the Big Bang. Just a microscopic piece will do. Of course you can't. Thus for you to be an atheist requires faith and lots of faith on your part.


Where did your god come from then?

Where did your god come from then?

I am agnostic.

But I think to be an atheist requires more faith than does believing in God or gods.

I am inclined to think there is an "outside force" that influences different things that happen to us but I think whatever it is it is only like the branch manager. It may even be some form of telepathy as I have certainly seen/experienced many things that cause me to believe in some type of force but I have never seen anything physical as such. In other words I am from the school of...the harder I work the luckier I get...what goes round comes around.....etc and etc.

I might add that..the harder I work the luckier I get... appears to mainly apply where work is seeked or canvassed for. In other words when the person initiates work as opposed to just doing more of what is handed to them.

Unless you would vote for Bush/McCain, in which case I'm all for chemical neutering
;) I am happy to confirm that if I was entitled to vote in the US elections it would not be for the Republicans - <sigh of relief at not being neutered>:D

interseting little discussion...

my take on this is -

you cannot prove one way or the other whether god exists or doesn't - but something must of started life(the universe off)..if we take the Big bang theory (which sounds good to em) - what caused it - and the answer to that question just leads to another - what caused that .....

so it becomes an never end question all the way down

if at some point there was nothing ,then why did the process start ...

religion in itself is not a bad thing ( a set of values that people try to live to is a worthwhile cause in itself ..) its the presumption that their view and their belief is the only one - this is open to abuse by priests, vicars -religious leaders of all faiths .

where as a set of values without a leader is a safer route to take ...
problem with this is greed steps in and someone will make a religion out of this

so while I have a problem beliving in a god - i don't have a problem following the 10 commandments as a set of rules .(might bend them occasionally)

if at some point there was nothing ,then why did the process start ...



Because it's always been there

I am happy to confirm that if I was entitled to vote in the US elections it would not be for the Republicans - <sigh of relief at not being neutered>:D

Can you persuade your cousins to vote correctly this time?;)

It may even be some form of telepathy as I have certainly seen/experienced many things that cause me to believe in some type of force but I have never seen anything physical as such.

The mind can certainly play tricks, even more so when under stress and engaged in mass hysteria

Can you persuade your cousins to vote correctly this time?;)No persuasion needed. The only cousins who have US citizenship always vote Democrat or Liberal. The very rightwing partner of another won't be voting because he regards McCain as a dangerous left-winger.

The very rightwing partner of another won't be voting because he regards McCain as a dangerous left-winger.

Like Bliar you mean? oops silly me that bunch are more right wing than the Tories:mad:

Can you give even the smallest piece of science to cover Before the Big Bang. Just a microscopic piece will do. Of course you can't. Thus for you to be an atheist requires faith and lots of faith on your part. If you read "A short history of time." By Stephen Hawkins it will explain why this question is meaningless.

I don't need faith not to believe in something that there is no evidence for. All I am saying is "I don't believe in the eistance of a supernatural being". For the record I don't believe in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy either.

I do however believe that "the harder I work the luckier I get" based on a combination of experience and common sense. I have found that if I don't put the work in then I don't get the results. I don't think this points to external reward system. By the way the original quote was by Gary Player after a reporter had suggested he had some lucky shots in a tournament. He actually said "The more I practice the luckier I get" and it was widely interpreted at the time as a put down of the reporter.

I'm intrigued by Alisas view, she claims to be based upon evidence but acknowleges there is no evidence that God does not exist. Others just have faith.

So those into evidence have none, and those into faith have some.

Faith wins.

To win the debate as an evolusionist it is necessary to confine the debate to a time no earlier than the first appearance of life. If the debate (as in this thread) is allowed to go back to the Big Bang the evolusionist is out of the game. Also, the evolusionist alway loses if they get sucked into the Bible vs Evolution because the pro "intelligent creation" crowd can just dump the Bible. The existance of an all powefull all knowing god does not depend on the accuracy of the Bible.

The thing that really flattened the anti God side of these type of debates was the introduction the Big Bang because it puts a mark on the time graph and all science drops out of the game when they hit that mark on the graph. As soon as you back before the Big Bang the evolusionist now plays in the pro God people's court because either require faith pre Big Bang.:)

I don't need faith not to believe in something that there is no evidence for. All I am saying is "I don't believe in the eistance of a supernatural being". For the record I don't believe in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy either.


But there is good scientific evidence that the tooth fairy and Father Christmas don't exist and , ie it was your dad .

So that is not similar to a disbelief in God at all.

[b]
I don't need faith not to believe in something that there is no evidence for. All I am saying is "I don't believe in the eistance of a supernatural being". For the record I don't believe in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy either.



There is one huge difference between pre Big Bang and Father Christmas. In the case of Father Christmas we know that someone buys presents and during the night sticks them at the end of the bed.

But pre Big Bang.....There are only two possible answers

1) Scientific. If so what is it. Can you even make something up. Could you do a science fiction story perhaps...a bit hard. OK, so you reject an all powerful god which only leaves a faith in science. If the science community came up with an answer then how do you know it is the true answer? Faith? In fact if we look ar science down through the centuries one would need a lot of faith.

2) A god....Well there is no doubt that an all powerful and all knowing god can pull this trick out of his bag but another excercise in faith.

Somethig to perhaps consider. In the last 50-100 years the advances in science have been nothing short of amazing. Yet even so there is not even close to a scientific explanation for the unverse. Is it possible that there is no scientific explanation.

By definition, a scientific theory CAN NOT be proven, it can only be DISPROVEN.

????????????

What does disproven mean scientifically?

Because it's always been there

kills my arguement - but I find it hard to belive that .. there must be a beginining ?? ( it might just be me though lol) a natural cycle - a beginning and an end ....

Also, the evolusionist alway loses if they get sucked into the Bible vs Evolution
bit like this thread, but what about the other religious books?

The problem with any discussion about god(s) is that it ends up being a discussion about religion. I do not know if a God exists, nobody does, but I do have a problem with all of the religions I have come into contact with, and if there is a correct one out there then this all powerful all knowing merciful etc etc God should learn to communicate better.

Brian

kills my arguement - but I find it hard to belive that .. there must be a beginining ?? ( it might just be me though lol) a natural cycle - a beginning and an end ....

Only for science...not for God.

The single biggest hole for science is that science can't deal with a start from nothing but it also can't deal with no beginning because that means infinity. This is the fundamental reason why a god is the most reasonable possibility.

sure Mike - but who made God ???
taking my linear mind track -begining and end - then what was there before God ? - if we say that god was always there - then thats just a vague as the universe has always been there ?

neither is a good answer - which in my "mind set" leaves us no further along that we were before ..

if we knew how things happened at trhe beginning then it would answer this rather tricky question ..
we cannot rely on acient books - cos our level of knowledge now is higher than 2-3 thousand years ago (well i hope anyway)

In ancient times, when a sailor required a chart, the chartmaker would enter the caption for unexplored regions "Beyond here there be dragons".

I think the pre Big Bang era is the home of the dragons.

At some point science will probably come up with an explanation as to what was there before the Big Bang. Until then, watch out for the dragon's tail.

bit like this thread, but what about the other religious books?

The problem with any discussion about god(s) is that it ends up being a discussion about religion. I do not know if a God exists, nobody does, but I do have a problem with all of the religions I have come into contact with, and if there is a correct one out there then this all powerful all knowing merciful etc etc God should learn to communicate better.

Brian

then you should vote for my - as I would always give a clear message - ( well perhaps not)

taking Brians example a few steps further - lets look at J.C - i am sure that his desciples were true to his teaching - but it does become chinnese whispers after a while - people leave bits out - then the bible was written what say 200-300 years after JC death and we know that the authors were rather selective in what went in..
Womens role in the early church has been belittled - where as recent revolations in various tombs have changed the view on this Mary M - has been changed from being a whore to being JC compainion .

in the end the bible has been bastardised by men and used as an excuse for all sorts of B. Sh*t arguement - ,
that does not mean all christians are idiots or male pigs - just that you cannot rely on the bible to any real depth as a true histroical document -

why are their only 5? gospels ?( I hope i got that right ) - why isn't there 12 or maybe 11 given the circumstances

There is one huge difference between pre Big Bang and Father Christmas. In the case of Father Christmas we know that someone buys presents and during the night sticks them at the end of the bed.

Just because that happened in your (and my) case doesn't disprove that there is a real Father Christmas. Just because we don't know anyone who actually got a present from him is not proof he doesn't exist.. I am afraid this puts him and God on just the same footing. There are plenty of false gods around and plenty of religions which have tailored their view of god to match their requirements.


Using the principle of Occam's Razor the case for God is not as strong as you would suggest.

I did not come to my position easily. It took a long time before I was prepared to face reality and live life without a divine comfort blanket. It is much easier when you lose a loved one to have the comfort of the thought of an afterlife but that does not make it true - unfortunately.

sure Mike - but who made God ???

Gary, if an all powerful god is accepted than that is not in the equation.

taking my linear mind track -begining and end - then what was there before God ? - if we say that god was always there - then thats just a vague as the universe has always been there ?

Again, if God is all powerfull etc then He is not bound by any natural laws as He created them in the first place. It would be like a very scaled up version of young childred trying figure out or comprehend some of the actions of his father.

if we knew how things happened at trhe beginning then it would answer this rather tricky question ..

But with God there is no beginning.

we cannot rely on acient books - cos our level of knowledge now is higher than 2-3 thousand years ago (well i hope anyway)

Don't need old books. Consider...there are only two possibilities

1) There was a beginning which of course must mean it would begin from nothing. Science can't play in that court and so is eliminated

2) There was no beginning. Science is out of the game on that one as well.

Thus in either scenario we need a god that is like God:D It is the only logical explanation. Since it is God then He will not have such limitations as "beginnings or endings"

Thus in either scenario we need a god that is like God:D It is the only logical explanation. Since it is God then He will not have such limitations as "beginnings or endings"
In that case Mike why did you originally click "Agnostic". Your position seems clear that you do not doubt the existence of God. I agree that the categories in the poll could have been better worded. I clicked the second Atheist one because I felt the first one was for people "who had made their minds up so don'confuse me with the facts"

Just because that happened in your (and my) case doesn't disprove that there is a real Father Christmas. Just because we don't know anyone who actually got a present from him is not proof he doesn't exist.. I am afraid this puts him and God on just the same footing.

Not so. There are millions and millions of cases like yours and mine where our parents put the presents at the end of the bed. There may well be a Father Christmas but in millions or billions of cases he is not the deliverer of the presents. A totallly different situation to the God/science deal.

There are plenty of false gods around and plenty of religions which have tailored their view of god to match their requirements.

Agree. But irrespective of whether they promote theism or monotheism they have the common ground that a god or gods are the top end of town.:)

Using the principle of Occam's Razor the case for God is not as strong as you would suggest.

Per my previous post to Gary a god that is God like is the only explanation that has no exceptions, failures or whatever. Science is out of the game. Each of the possibilities elimiate science.

I did not come to my position easily. It took a long time before I was prepared to face reality and live life without a divine comfort blanket. It is much easier when you lose a loved one to have the comfort of the thought of an afterlife but that does not make it true - unfortunately.

Belief in a creator does not necessarily go hand in hand with a belief in an after life, that is a religious issue.

In that case Mike why did you originally click "Agnostic". Your position seems clear that you do not doubt the existence of God. I agree that the categories in the poll could have been better worded. I clicked the second Atheist one because I felt the first one was for people "who had made their minds up so don'confuse me with the facts"

Because in the general context of the thread I am agnostic.

Although a god that is Godlike is to me the only logical explanation for the universe I have no idea if He relates to us, if there is an after life etc and etc. I have no idea whether he helpled the lizard to become a snake. etc

I'll have to think on your views -not quite sure they have sunk in-

sure Mike - but who made God ???


Exactly, one either has to accept that the universe has always been there or that god has, the former is more logical, what can't be proven at this moment is that the Universe has been in a state of perpetual flux for all time and that we may well be in its final fling, it's still more plausible than the bearded man dogma

The single biggest hole for science is that science can't deal with a start from nothing

It didn't start from nothing but a huge ball of plasma

It didn't start from nothing but a huge ball of plasma

And of course...where did or how did the big plasma come about.

Exactly, one either has to accept that the universe has always been there or that god has, the former is more logical, what can't be proven at this moment is that the Universe has been in a state of perpetual flux for all time and that we may well be in its final fling, it's still more plausible than the bearded man dogma

To accept the universe as having always been there (without a god) defies all science which only leaves a god with God like abilities. On the other hand, to deny the existance of a god would introduce infinity to science which would mean you just about have to throw everything out. Does the universe have boundaries. If so what is on the othe side of the boundaries.

If the universe has been there forever then each of us is as close to the beginning as was the sun 5 billion years ago. For the univerese to extend to infinity means our position in the universe is the same as a gallaxy deemed to be 10 billion light years from us.

To accept some scientific declaration as an explanation requires a leap to faith that is beyond description and doubly so when history teaches us such theories or declarations are only temporary.

And of course...where did or how did the big plasma come about.

.

From the previous collapse of the galaxy


To accept the universe as having always been there (without a god) defies all science which only leaves a god with God like abilities.


Infinity is more comprehendable than the existance of a magic god



Does the universe have boundaries.
Nope, I've already pointed out infinity


For the univerese to extend to infinity means our position in the universe is the same as a gallaxy deemed to be 10 billion light years from us.

You'll have to expand the logic on that one

To accept some scientific declaration as an explanation requires a leap to faith that is beyond description

You mean like tv and radio were a century ago, like landing on the moon was 50yrs ago etc., etc

From the previous collapse of the galaxy

This one has no end because it will always be ...what was before, where it come from....

Infinity is more comprehendable than the existance of a magic god

But the problem with infinity is the science breaks down. We have the ridiculous situation that if we tavel at close to the speed of light for 20 billion years our position in the universe has not changed. Same deal with time. If the universe ends tomorrow or in 10000000000000 billion years time in either case the age or duration of the universe has been the same.

Nope, I've already pointed out infinity

That puts you on the pro god side.

Quote:
For the univerese to extend to infinity means our position in the universe is the same as a gallaxy deemed to be 10 billion light years from us.

You'll have to expand the logic on that one

Because irrespective of whether you are on earth or a planet in some "distant" galaxy your distance with reference to the universe is the same.

Quote:
To accept some scientific declaration as an explanation requires a leap to faith that is beyond description

You mean like tv and radio were a century ago, like landing on the moon was 50yrs ago etc., etc

No more like different theories, Newton on gravity Vs Einstein. What the science of the world decreed as being the most powerful explosive before the atom was understood.

There are two things that we do know. Firstly, the gap between us and a chimp is a 1000 times and more greater than the chimp and lizard yet physically we are much closer. It is reasonable to assume that there are life forms above us and there is no reason to think that the exponential improvement would not continue. Thus it is logical to assume that there are beings or a being that relegates us to less than a virus and the capabilities of such a being or beings would be beyond our wildest imagination. Of course it is also obvious that such being or beings would have no interest in us and so religion and after life etc are not in the picture.

However, once we introduce a system that is infinite in size/distance and time then science is not in the picture. There is no logical extension of our sciences. Thus it requires a huge leap in faith.

There are two things that we do know. Firstly, the gap between us and a chimp is a 1000 times and more greater than the chimp and lizard yet physically we are much closer. It is reasonable to assume that there are life forms above us and there is no reason to think that the exponential improvement would not continue. Thus it is logical to assume that there are beings or a being that relegates us to less than a virus and the capabilities of such a being or beings would be beyond our wildest imagination. Of course it is also obvious that such being or beings would have no interest in us and so religion and after life etc are not in the picture.

This is a rather controversial statement. Richard Dawkins - an eminent Evolutionist and Professor at Oxford University - has stated that all mammals are more closely related to each other than to reptiles. We are closer to Chimpanzees than to any other mammal and have about 97&#37; of our DNA in common.

This is a rather controversial statement. Richard Dawkins - an eminent Evolutionist and Professor at Oxford University - has stated that all mammals are more closely related to each other than to reptiles. We are closer to Chimpanzees than to any other mammal and have about 97% of our DNA in common.

Exactly my point. Only a slight change produces an enormous difference in the results and it is exponential to the extreme.

I use to be a reptile keeper. In the brain power department if they are a 1 the chimp, dog etc would be lucky to make a 3 and we would be 10 million on the same scale yet physically the chimp is 97% of us.

Now someone might argue that my rating of a 3 for a chimp is not correct if a reptile is a 1. Great, we will give it a 1000, still a long way from 10 million.

So what is the life form like that compared to us is like us compared to a chimp. It would be amazing.

PS

A question for you Rabbie.

We make a replica of the earth and for both earths all man made things are removed. machinery, farming you name it. We leave one earth to reptiles and one earth to chimps, gorillas and the other top end of the animals.

We come back for a vistit in 500 years time. What differences will we see. Perhaps some evidence that on the chimp's earth they used a stick to get ants and a rock to crack a nut or two. What other evidence would see that would demonstrate they are 97&#37; of us and a million times in front of the reptile.

then you should vote for my - as I would always give a clear message - ( well perhaps not)

taking Brians example a few steps further - lets look at J.C - i am sure that his desciples were true to his teaching - but it does become chinnese whispers after a while - people leave bits out - then the bible was written what say 200-300 years after JC death and we know that the authors were rather selective in what went in..
Womens role in the early church has been belittled - where as recent revolations in various tombs have changed the view on this Mary M - has been changed from being a whore to being JC compainion .

in the end the bible has been bastardised by men and used as an excuse for all sorts of B. Sh*t arguement - ,
that does not mean all christians are idiots or male pigs - just that you cannot rely on the bible to any real depth as a true histroical document -

why are their only 5? gospels ?( I hope i got that right ) - why isn't there 12 or maybe 11 given the circumstances

4 Gospels. Also, the books (letters) that are contained in the New Testament are not anywhere near 200 to 300 years after Jesus Christ death. Everyone of the letters were written by the very men that walked and talked with Jesus Christ. I would find it hard to believe that these men could write their letters to various churches, after they were dead. Lastly, you have made statements as to what the Bible does contain, but in my opinion you have misquoted what it does say. Have you read it good enough to come up with these views yourself? A womans role, in Jewish customs of that era, was lower than a dog. The writings of the New Testament gave instructions to men to "love their wives as Christ loved the church." (see the New Testament for an example to what this could mean) Mary M. was a whore, until she met Jesus, then she became a disciple of His, so I guess both are true. I really don't want to dive into this conversation but could not help stepping in when it seems Jesus and the Bible get misrepresented. That's not to mean I'm asking anyone to believe what it says I'm just saying if your going to quote it, then let's at least have some accuracy.

Mary M. was a whore, until she met Jesus, then she became a disciple of His,

That's the modern day Catholic version of events though, isn't it?:confused:

We have the ridiculous situation that if we tavel at close to the speed of light for 20 billion years our position in the universe has not changed.

That's because the Universe is expanding at the same rate due to the big bang

We have the ridiculous situation that if we tavel at close to the speed of light for 20 billion years our position in the universe has not changed.

That's because the Universe is expanding at the same rate due to the big bang

How can the universe be expanding if it is infinite?

If you take the position as you have and which I agree with that the universe is infinite and has always been there, then you are already dumping science. All science on the size of the universe, how it came to be and how long it has existed must suspend the idea of infinite size and infinite time.

On the other hand if if you take the position that the universe had a beginning and is finite then science also falls over.

HEY MIKE,

I've always considered this concept incredibly complicated. But, there is one fact that noone can deny, and it's been proved by the scientists. The speed of light.

I didn't believe all of the scientific crap until I understood that fact. It took me forever to figure out why light that was a long ways away exists in a different point in time. As in, a star that we can see that's 500 million light years away is obviously shining the way it was 500 million years ago, because the light has taken 500 million years to reach our eyes (hence, the star is 500 LY's away from us).

But, answer me this then (if the above is true):

If one of our telescopes can see a star that is 4 billion light years away, and scientists tell us that the universe is only 4.5 billion years old, why do the scientists tell us that we are looking at that star the way it was 4 billion years ago? If the universe is only 4.5 billion years old, and we are supposed to be looking at that star the way it was 4 billion years ago, it could not possibly be 4 billion light years away because the universe has been expanding during the past 4.5 billion years. If the big bang is true, that means that this star that is supposedly appearing to us as it was 4 billion years ago, should not be that far away, because in that point in time, the universe would only have been 500 million years old (.5 billion years old, that is), and obviously smaller than it is today (how much smaller? Nobody really knows exactly).

How about that logic? Prove that! :)

Adam,

It gets much better than that.:)

Big Bang is 13 billion years ago but the width of the universe in light years is much bigger than 13 billion light years.:eek::D

Not a bad article here, the first couple of paragraphs will do it.

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

So the galaxies could expand from each other without the limitation of the speed of light being imposed.

But your close in galaxy at 4 billion light years raises another question. The fact that it can be observed means it is travelling slower than C, much slower at that distance. If it was >=C then the red shift would mean it could not be seen. Closer in galaxies are moving away slower and galaxies further out are moving faster. So, where did they come from. From what position could they be created so as to be going so slow. Did they miss the Big Bang boat. Was there another Big Bang on the back lot:D

As a side note the Big Bang is not a theory about how the universe started, it is all about that one trillionth of a second later and on. S Hawking said science can't go back further than that because all science ceases to exist.

Steven Hawking was great, wasn't he? :rolleyes: He is certainly intelligent, but a little strange if you ask me. :D

I understand how I was wrong now...thanks for the article. Catches one's interest!

I have no idea how the idea of 'C' works though. What is it? Is it a speed? The speed of light? What's the red shift? I don't get it...

The red shift is light's version of the Dopler Effect and sound waves.

The sound of car or train coming at very high speed and how the fequency changes as the car or train passes you and what you hear as it is leaving you.

The further out the galaxy the fasting it is moving which lengthens the wave length of the light so "red" starts to appear. If it was coming at us then blue would start to dominate.

The red shift which is credited to Hubble is the basis of the expanding universe and Big Bang. Hubble was the bloke that gave the correlation between receding velocity, distance and amount of red shift.

The more one tries to learn about this stuff the more a god with God like abilities becomes the default position. However, just as the scientists do, that position needs to be suspended if you want to keep learning about it.

How can the universe be expanding if it is infinite?

.
Because there's nothing to stop it growing, there is of course another dimension

Because there's nothing to stop it growing, there is of course another dimension

If it is infinite and can grow then the definition of infinite needs to be changed.

Alternatively you have to redefine "universe" to mean something like the local area as billions of light years. That is the only way it can be done because in an infinite universe you can't reference your position againt the universe boundaries. Relative to the universe the earth and the gallaxy billions of light years from earth are both in the same position.

Thus....Because there's nothing to stop it growing, there is of course another dimension can only be discussed or analysed if the idea of an infinite universe is suspended.

If it is infinite and can grow then the definition of infinite needs to be changed.


Well ok then the known galaxy exists within a space that is infinite


you can't reference your position againt the universe boundaries.

There are no known boundaries


Relative to the universe the earth and the gallaxy billions of light years from earth are both in the same position.


That depends on where you look at it from

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike375
If it is infinite and can grow then the definition of infinite needs to be changed.

Well ok then the known galaxy exists within a space that is infinite

That is what science does, at least that is the current situation. There is no choice if study is to continue. It is in fact the same as IIF([Field]=0,Null,1/[Field]). The IIF does not change the fact that [Field]=0, it just says "look we can't play the game when everything is to be considered, thus to continue in the game we must pretent that [Field]= 0 does not exist. We know it exists but unfortunately we don't have God's mobile phone number:D

Quote:
you can't reference your position againt the universe boundaries.

There are no known boundaries

And hence everything has the same position when related to the universe itself.

That depends on where you look at it from

The view you have is not altered by your position. The view you have of the moon is determined by your position but the moon is not the universe. You can move closer to the moon or further away and you know that because it can be measured. But you can't change your position within the universe.

1/[Field] is much closer to this discussion than first appears. We can do different things to handle [Field]=0 so as to let us continue, but no matter how we do it in every case we have to ignore [Field]=0. You may do it in a way that is far better than me and your way might be deemed as the latest and best way......but you still need to ignore [Field]=0

And so it is with the universe. It is like travelling in a train and then the tracks stop. We then need to jump on the God bus if we want to go further. And contrary to what many people think the Vatican was one of the early strong supporters of Big Bang and for the simple reason Big Bang does one big thing.

It established that science agrees that the tracks come to a stop and the God bus needs to be boarded if one wishes to travel further and it also establised at what point we have to change from the train to the God bus.

Of course it is highly unlikely that the driver of the God bus has the long beard and white robes. And I still believe that most who claim to be atheist are not fully atheist. They are in relation to the Bible (and whichever else), the man with the beard etc.

But to be fully atheist a person needs to come up with an alternative to the God bus when the train tracks stop.:) And if they can then of course that will dpend on faith.

But to be fully atheist a person needs to come up with an alternative to the God bus when the train tracks stop. And if they can then of course that will dpend on faith.

I disagree. An atheist is some one who does not believe in the existence of any god. I am afraid a lot of people do not buy into your oft repeated premise that you consider because there must have been something before the big bang this in someway proves the existance of a supernatural being to start things off. Just because we cannot at present know what was before the "big bang" does not prove your premise.

I am afraid a lot of people do not buy into your oft repeated premise that you consider because there must have been something before the big bang this in someway proves the existance of a supernatural being to start things off.

It is not about proof but rather the most reasonable option at present. Can you present any other option that is not supernatural.

Just because we cannot at present know what was before the "big bang" does not prove your premise.

Well what option do you select over supernatural?

If you completely rule out the supernatural I assume that is because you have an alternative suggestion.

[QUOTE]I am an atheist, but if god appeared before me tomorrow I would change my mind"[QUOTE/]

surely that is what all atheist would have to select? IF a 'God' lets say like Raiden from Mortal Kombat came down to earth I would find it hard to beleive that people would still refuse to beleive in God, so the voting system is floored. As people have already sed, Dawking 'The God Dillusion' is a good book in tackling the atheist question. And as Rabbie sed the lack of understanding of what happened before the big bang suggests in no way that it was a supernatural event thus the existence of God, however due to our current knowledge this doesnt disprove his/her/it's possible existence either, therefore this argument is never going to go anywhere. Ultimately I guess it comes down to opinion and I do not beleive in the existence of god purely because from and educated standpoint this seems to be the most illogical solution.

I know that their is some particle accelerator in Geneva, well a couple miles underneath it, where they hope to prove prove the big bang theory etc and I know this was built and turned of April/May time 2007 but I have not herd anything since, anyone know of any findings from it?

for anyone interested:

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html

this is the site for that particle accelerator, it doesnt get turned on till later this year apparently! Oh and it has an electromagnet 7 stories high.... awsome!

The fact that the natural laws cannot explain before the big bang makes it by definition supernatural. So some supernatural force must be responsible.

Clearly many differing views of what the supernatural force or God is, and to dismiss any of these ideas when holding none yourself seems dumb, and arrogant at the same time.

What is the definition of the God you do not believe in?
Two hundred years ago the idea of Radio or Television would have seemed to be only possible by Magic or Supernatural forces. We now know better. Just because we currently don't know what happened before the big bang does not make it supernatural.

As a sane person I know what I believe in. As for gods I don't believe in - there are so many it would take longer than my likely life time to define them all.

I think up to now we all on boths sides of this debate have managed to conduct it with a certain amount of respect for each others views so I don't think it is helpful to call people dumb or arrogant.

Two hundred years ago the idea of Radio or Television would have seemed to be only possible by Magic or Supernatural forces. We now know better. Just because we currently don't know what happened before the big bang does not make it supernatural.

A big difference today is that our knowledge is right at the core, nuclear fission. But we are as far from an explanation of the universe as we were 1000s of years ago. Even Hawking has said all science ceases once you go back to a point in time that is one millionth of a second after the Big Bang.

As for gods I don't believe in - there are so many it would take longer than my likely life time to define them all.

Which god is as irrelevant as which brand of evolution. In fact it remains a mystery to me why so many people associate a belief in or lack of belief in evolution with atheism.

Can you present any other option that is not supernatural.


Well what option do you select over supernatural?



Yes, it's always been there

Which god is as irrelevant as which brand of evolution. In fact it remains a mystery to me why so many people associate a belief in or lack of belief in evolution with atheism. And to me. I know many non atheists who beleive in Evolution. I suspect the connection you refer to originates with fundamentalist Christian creationists.

I'd prefer to have a definition and maybe think about it a little before dismissing it (or do you have a finite list of definitions of God, and are more than half way to death?)


That is your choice which I respect. Please don't insist I have to make it as well.

If you check my profile you will see I am well past the halfway mark:D.

In answer to the question What came before the big bang, well time as we know it is a property of our universe.

Therefore the correct answer is 'there is no such thing as before the big bang'

Yes, it's always been there

That is also one of my options and for a simple reason. "Always being there" is in the same boat as supernatural.

Big Bang does not support Always There because Big bang is not about "stuff" expanding into space but the space itself expanding and taking everything with it. Of course that brings up the problem of what did space expand into:)

"Always being There" indirecly supports the Bible and for two reasons. Firstly, the Bible does not really portray a god that is all powerful and all knowing. Just consider how much of the Bible concerns God/Jesus setting tests for man. In fact the requirement for Jesus to be on earth is about an imperfect creation. Events such as The Flood do not go hand in hand with an allow powerful all knowing God, more a superman deal. As to Genesis it is quite possible that is referring to the solar system.

Secondly, if the universe has always been there then that means there was an infinite amount of time for the god portrayed in the Bible to have evolved.

In answer to the question What came before the big bang, well time as we know it is a property of our universe.

Therefore the correct answer is 'there is no such thing as before the big bang'

Hawking http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang."

Wow, a lot has been said since the last time I read this thread. I am amazed at how civil everyone has been (knock on wood). On the other hand, it is not amazing at all that after over 100 posts in this thread, not a single credible argument has been presented for god's existence. These are the arguments I have seen presented so far:

1. Argument: We don't know how the universe started. Therefore, I choose to believe god created the universe.
Response: Our ignorance of the origins of the universe is not evidence that god created the universe. It is evidence of our ignorance.

2. Argument: I can't comprehend how you can live with not knowing how the universe started. Therefore, believing that god didn't create the universe requires as much faith as believing that he did create the universe. Therefore, you can't refute my arguments which are based on faith because you have faith too.
Response: Accepting our ignorance about the origins of the universe does not require faith. It simply requires a reality check. Your choice to believe that god created the universe is not evidence that god created the universe.

3. Argument: I can't comprehend (x) aspect of evolutionary theory. Therefore, god did it.
Response: Your inability to comprehend evolutionary theory has no bearing on its validity. Furthermore, the absence of evolutionary theory would not provide evidence for god's existence.

4. Argument: I feel happy when I think about my belief in god.
Response: I feel happy too, no belief in god required. Your feelings when you think about god are not evidence that god exists.

5. Argument: I don't need to prove that god exists. I have faith that he exists.
Response: Your choice belief that god exists is not evidence that he exists. If he really did exists, there would be evidence in that direction.

6. Argument: God really does exists, but he is in a different dimension than us, so therefore we can't see any evidence that he exists, because he is keeping his existence hidden from us.
Response: If there really was a god, wouldn't he want us to know that he existed? Why would he be hiding? In any case, lack of evidence for god's existence is not evidence that he exists.

7. Argument: Atheist, you prove to me that he doesn't exist.
Response: The scientific method is based on gathering evidence. Because there is not a speck of evidence for god's existence, there is nothing to disprove.

Did I miss anyone?

Secondly, if the universe has always been there then that means there was an infinite amount of time for the god portrayed in the Bible to have evolved But no evidence that he has evolved.

But no evidence that he has evolved.

Let's jump forward from the Big Bang because Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, NASA all drop at that point. Perhaps they need to consult Alisa.

I am still waiting for someone to describe to me how a lizard gets to a snake and survives the millions of years while it is from 30% to 70% of the way there. Someone on the thread quoted Richard Dawkins as saying if we went back through time in extremely small steps we would never notice anything as the change is so gradual. That makes the problem worse.

Consider that living today are almost no transitional type lizards/snakes. In fact offhand I can't think of one species of lizard that has a jaw structure even remotely like a snake and I can't think of one snake species that has a jaw structure remotely like a lizard. Thus they don't survive. So how did the evolution occur when the transitional type can't survive. If we believe Richard Dawkins there would have been literally thousands of forms to get from lizard to snake. Given they have to be able to survive for millions of years to get from lizard to snake then we should see heaps of them today, but we don't. In fact Richard Dawkins is indirectly telling us that for each species of snake and lizard there will have been 1000s of "in betweeners". Given their sheer weight of numbers and the fact that they could have survived for millions of years (according to evolutionists) we should see more of the inbetweeners today than actual snakes and lizards. But just the opposite is the case. Also note that legless lizards are only like snakes in superficial appearance.

Now I am certainly being selective with lizard/snake but even so it is not just some one off. There are more species of reptile than mammal and they are about 50/50 split for lizard and snake.

Now we come to a fork in the road. If as the evolutionists say, the lizard evolved to the snake, then it looks like a lot loose talk when you try and fill in the details. Or, have the evolutionists got it wrong and the snake did not evolve from the lizard. Well if that is the case then it is a pretty heavy duty mistake:D Let's keep in mind here that the lizard style archosaur was the first bloke after the amphibian so we are not talking about an animal type that is off to one side of the evolution deal.

I think any reasonable person without prejudice would agree that lizard gradually evolving to a snake is a very shaky looking deal. If you were making something in Access and the way you were doing it looked as shaky as Lizard to Snake, then you would back track real quick and look for an alternative.

So what is the alternative to evolution. What we do know for sure is a supernatural being can handle lizard and snake with a click of his/its fingers.

Given the size of the universe then surely there are froms of life that are way way above humans. Evidence is all around you for the involvement of a supernatual being or beings. In addition it is also logical unless you believe in all the universe there is nothing above a human.

Mike375, you said:
So what is the alternative to evolution.
You are still rehashing the argument I summarized as argument 3 on my list. Even if evolutionary theory did not exist, that would still provide no evidence of your statement that:
What we do know for sure is a supernatural being can handle lizard and snake with a click of his/its fingers.

How do we know for sure? That is a rhetorical question. Obviously we don't know for sure, some people are just brought up to have faith that this is so.
On another subject, I have been meaning to ask you, how come your name has a red square next to it, while everyone else seems to have a green square?

1. Argument: We don't know how the universe started. Therefore, I choose to believe god created the universe.

Response: Our ignorance of the origins of the universe is not evidence that god created the universe. It is evidence of our ignorance.

No, those who see a supernatural answer in the absence of any other type of answer do not restrict themselves to a zealot type belief.

2. Argument: I can't comprehend how you can live with not knowing how the universe started. Therefore, believing that god didn't create the universe requires as much faith as believing that he did create the universe. Therefore, you can't refute my arguments which are based on faith because you have faith too.

Response: Accepting our ignorance about the origins of the universe does not require faith. It simply requires a reality check. Your choice to believe that god created the universe is not evidence that god created the universe.

And your belief that God did not create the universe is not evidence that he did not create the universe. However, at the present time a supernatural is the only thing that we know of that could create the universe.

3. Argument: I can't comprehend (x) aspect of evolutionary theory. Therefore, god did it.

Response: Your inability to comprehend evolutionary theory has no bearing on its validity. Furthermore, the absence of evolutionary theory would not provide evidence for god's existence.

I don't remember that argument being put forward. Could you give the post numbe ror numbers as I don't remember that being said.

4. Argument: I feel happy when I think about my belief in god.

Response: I feel happy too, no belief in god required. Your feelings when you think about god are not evidence that god exists.

I missed that argument as well.

5. Argument: I don't need to prove that god exists. I have faith that he exists.

Response: Your choice belief that god exists is not evidence that he exists. If he really did exists, there would be evidence in that direction.

The evidence surrounds you but you prefer to reject it. What single piece of evidence to you have that a supernatural did not create the universe. I guess if you were living at Newtons time you would take his gravity laws as 100%

6. Argument: God really does exists, but he is in a different dimension than us, so therefore we can't see any evidence that he exists, because he is keeping his existence hidden from us.

Response: If there really was a god, wouldn't he want us to know that he existed? Why would he be hiding? In any case, lack of evidence for god's existence is not evidence that he exists.

Again, I don't remember that argument being presented. As to your response to you really believe that you can accurately work out the motivations, actions of a supernaturat that could created the universe. Can an ant work out what or why you do something. In addition you are assuming if there is a supernaturat he/it is concerned about us.

7. Argument: Atheist, you prove to me that he doesn't exist.

Response: The scientific method is based on gathering evidence. Because there is not a speck of evidence for god's existence, there is nothing to disprove.

Not a speck of evidence for a supernatural's existence? I think the universe is good evidence that the probability of a supernatural is high. I am sure there is another alternative but you and some others seem to want to keep it a secret:)

Mike375, now you are just trying the exhaustion strategy. i.e., if I just repeat the same meaningless responses enough times, the atheist will give up and go away.
But, to answer the part of your post that actually was a question:
You have put forth argument number 3 in almost all of your posts. I understand that you cannot comprehend that the process of natural selection could lead to the evolution of different species over time. However, your lack of comprehension is not evidence that god exists.
As far as argument number 4, sandy said:
Agree, the sky is beautiful with or without the belief that God exists. However, my faith in God makes me feel good when I see intricacies and beauty in nature. I feel the existence of God.

As far as argument number 6, craig said:
Please remember that God exists outside of the laws of physics and time. He's omniscient, omnipresent, and unimpressed by attempts to force him to do anything he doesn't already want to do.

You are still rehashing the argument I summarized as argument 3 on my list.

Well you were pretty big on the Bible/evolution early in your thread. Also, as I explained in my previous post we needed to come forward from big bang becasue even Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies and NASA are stopped at that point.

Even if evolutionary theory did not exist, that would still provide no evidence of your statement that:
Quote:
What we do know for sure is a supernatural being can handle lizard and snake with a click of his/its fingers.

A supernatural could handle lizard to snake with a click of the fingers. I think what you are trying to say is that evolution failing to get lizard to snake does not mean a supernatural was at the steering wheel. I don't disagree with that, but what is the alternative. Why do you regard a supernatural as impossible.

You appear to be the counterpart (and I know you have lots of company, in the millions) of the religious zealot. They utterly refuse to investigate or consider anything that is not devine intervention.

You should be able to work out the red square yourself.

Let's jump forward from the Big Bang because Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, NASA all drop at that point. Perhaps they need to consult Alisa.

Why do we have to believe that what todays Scientists say is correct, after all the experts once thought the Earth was flat.

Brian

[QUOTE=Mike375;695939.

You should be able to work out the red square yourself.[/QUOTE]

Alisa

It is part of the reputation system on the forum, somebody obviously thought Mike talked a load of rubbish.

Brian :D

But at least he talks and the system is c£$p anyway

Mike375, now you are just trying the exhaustion strategy. i.e., if I just repeat the same meaningless responses enough times, the atheist will give up and go away.

No, I answered your questions and also asked for the post numbers.

But, to answer the part of your post that actually was a question:
You have put forth argument number 3 in almost all of your posts. I understand that you cannot comprehend that the process of natural selection could lead to the evolution of different species over time.

Natural selection is not the basis for evolution, it is mutations. Natural selection changes the prevalence of colours, height etc and etc but without mutations you won't have a change in the species. Peppermoths. Natural selection provides the best chance for the mutation to continue.

As far as argument number 4, sandy said:
Quote:
Agree, the sky is beautiful with or without the belief that God exists. However, my faith in God makes me feel good when I see intricacies and beauty in nature. I feel the existence of God.

I don't think that was an argument, just a light hearted post.

As far as argument number 6, craig said:
Quote:
Please remember that God exists outside of the laws of physics and time. He's omniscient, omnipresent, and unimpressed by attempts to force him to do anything he doesn't already want to do.

Well God is a supernatural so all of the above is true if God exists.

Your response seems to be unrelated.....Response: If there really was a god, wouldn't he want us to know that he existed? Why would he be hiding? In any case, lack of evidence for god's existence is not evidence that he exists.

I think what you are trying to say is that evolution failing to get lizard to snake does not mean a supernatural was at the steering wheel. I don't disagree with that, but what is the alternative.

The alternative is to simply admit that we don't know the answer. Scary I know.

You appear to be the counterpart (and I know you have lots of company, in the millions) of the religious zealot. They utterly refuse to investigate or consider anything that is not devine intervention.


I disagree. If I were the counterpart of a religous zealot, I would have checked option 1 on my poll. People who chose option 1 are in my opinion just as irrational as those who chose option 4 or 5 - they base their opinion on belief and faith rather than evidence and reason. I actually checked option 2, because if evidence that god actually does exist surfaces, I will be the first to change my opnion. However, until that day, I will continue to challenge the assumption that god or supernatural powers are the default answer whenever we don't understand or can't explain something.

I see now - I thought maybe you had your own special category of reputation, I didn't realize that red= bad.

Natural selection is not the basis for evolution, it is mutations.
Natural selection provides the best chance for the mutation to continue.


You have it a little twisted. Just reread Craig's first post on the subject, I think he did a great job and I don't feel like being redundant.

As far as the others, if you read the whole original posts you will understand.

You have it a little twisted. Just reread Craig's first post on the subject, I think he did a great job and I don't feel like being redundant.


From Craig's post

Of these, really, the only one that actually creates something entirely NEW in the DNA pool of the 'species' is mutation

somebody obviously thought

Shouldn't that be plural?:confused::D

Shouldn't that be plural?:confused::D

You blokes are picking on me. You know how sensitive and easily offended I am:D

I think any reasonable person without prejudice would agree that lizard gradually evolving to a snake is a very shaky looking deal. If you were making something in Access and the way you were doing it looked as shaky as Lizard to Snake, then you would back track real quick and look for an alternative.

See this link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/281.shtml)for information about the Slow Worm which is a legless lizard. Where do you think it came from?

[QUOTE=Mike375;695829] "Always being there" is in the same boat as supernatural.

[QUOTE]

No it isn't

I find it a part of the natural human arrogance to argue that all that is currently not understood can and will be eventually understood by the human mind.

How patterns like cosmic orbits or binary fission have come to be in a function and form we can perceive as patterned should provoke awe. But the arrogance of the human mind convinces some that we are not simply a product of these patterns but a possible understander of their origins.

The requirement of evidence for something to exist is an arbitary human law arrogantly presuming that all required evidence can be perceived by the human mind.

A caveman could not possibly understand how a car came into being but can perceive its form and function. The form and function of the car is there by design. We are all bombarded by universal form and function and yet some dismiss it as mere chance. Why then do humans find the products of chance so easy to perceive?

Atheists simply stand on the shoulders of giants and refuse to acknowledge their existance. IMO.

By the way, Alisa, your line of argument is flawed from the very beginning as you attempt to argue from authority and ad hominem. To suggest that your argument is superior because atheists are more intelligent is fallacious. Your argument is sound or not regardless of the intelligence of others.

See this link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/281.shtml)for information about the Slow Worm which is a legless lizard. Where do you think it came from?

As I posted earlier the legless lizards are only superficially like snakes. They are as the name says, a lizard without legs. When I kept reptiles one type I had were legless lizards. The big problem from lizard to snake is the skull/jaw structure.

The legless lizard is probably convergent evolution. That is where two unrelated species develop similar traits becuase of the environment.

By the way, Alisa, your line of argument is flawed from the very beginning as you attempt to argue from authority and ad hominem. To suggest that your argument is superior because atheists are more intelligent is fallacious. Your argument is sound or not regardless of the intelligence of others.
There have been others on the other side of this debate who have also used similar arguments to claim there is a supernatural explanation. The requirement of evidence for something to exist is an arbitary human law arrogantly presuming that all required evidence can be perceived by the human mind.
I feel it is not unreasonable to see evidence before believing something. I do not see this as arrogance. I feel that repeatedly using the word Arrogant about those who disagree with you could be interpreted as arrogance itself. We have tried on both sides in this debate to keep this on a friendly level. Don't lets get abusive to each other.

[QUOTE=Mike375;695829] "Always being there" is in the same boat as supernatural.

[QUOTE]

No it isn't

Stephen Hawking and others might disagree with you.

There have been others on the other side of this debate who have also used similar arguments to claim there is a supernatural explanation. I feel it is not unreasonable to see evidence before believing something. I do not see this as arrogance. I feel that repeatedly using the word Arrogant about those who disagree with you could be interpreted as arrogance itself. We have tried on both sides in this debate to keep this on a friendly level. Don't lets get abusive to each other.

Perhaps you would like to point out a specific example?

Perhaps you would like to point out a specific example?Try post 141 for starters. And perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of 140

[QUOTE=Rich;695982]

Stephen Hawking and others might disagree with you.

They're welcome to, but being British I wouldn't call them arrogant, neither am I standing on their shoulders:rolleyes:

I feel it is not unreasonable to see evidence before believing something. I do not see this as arrogance.

What evidence have you seen with the Big Bang etc and etc and etc.....

Try post 141 for starters. And perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of 140

Post 141 is a good example.

As for your other comment.

My use of the word 'arrogance' refers to a human trait not to an individual. I didn't call any individual arrogant. Just the human condition.

The human requirement to understand all, whether by theists or atheists is arrogant, IMO. It assumes we have the capacity to do so.

What evidence have you seen with the Big Bang etc and etc and etc.....

The expansion of the Universe

What is it about post 141

The expansion of the Universe

How have you observed the expansion of the universe.

The human requirement to understand all, whether by theists or atheists is arrogant, IMO. It assumes we have the capacity to do so.

I think without that requirement we would still be in caves, also the fact that we have it does not mean that we think we can understand everything, I've failed enough exams to KNOW I can't.

Brian

What is it about post 141

"Always being there" is in the same boat as supernatural.

"Always being there" is in the same boat as supernatural.

I thought it was the reference to Hawking meant that he was standing on the shoulders of Giants.

Brian

I thought it was the reference to Hawking meant that he was standing on the shoulders of Giants.

Brian

Well yes that could be an option, but then I came to my conclusion long before Hawkins arrived on the scene:confused::D

I think without that requirement we would still be in caves, also the fact that we have it does not mean that we think we can understand everything, I've failed enough exams to KNOW I can't.

Brian

Where would the inspiration come from without the possibility of success?

I thought it was the reference to Hawking meant that he was standing on the shoulders of Giants.

Brian

Interesting that I am accused of standing on Hawking's shoulders while carrying the case for the supernatural.

How have you observed the expansion of the universe.
The red shift of distant galaxies is pretty strong empirical proof that the universe however created is expanding. The fact that the furthest away parts are moving faster suggests the rate of expansion is slowing down.

Where would the inspiration come from without the possibility of success?

Curiousity

Interesting that I am accused of standing on Hawking's shoulders while carrying the case for the supernatural.

I didn't accuse you Mike but just tried to understand what was special about 141.
Personaly I don't trust the eperts on either side of the debate, but find it intriguing that a believe or not in God comes down to how we think the "whatever" began.
I personally haven't a clue if a supernatural being exists, just like everybody else who is alive or has lived, mainly its religion I don't believe in the rest I'll find out when i'm dead.

Brian

Curiousity

Subscribing yourself to a belief system, whether theism or atheism is a little more that curiosity don't you think?

the rest I'll find out when i'm dead.

Brian

or not, as the case might be;)

The red shift of distant galaxies is pretty strong empirical proof that the universe however created is expanding. The fact that the furthest away parts are moving faster suggests the rate of expansion is slowing down.

But have you observed it yourself.

As a side note why do the galaxies further away that are moving faster mean the expansion is slowing down.

Subscribing youself to a belief system, whether theism or atheism is a little more that curiosity don't you think?

No it was curiousity that caused me to actually investigate the facts instead of swallowing the subscribed brainwashing and then of course I arrived at the logical conclusion

Brian,

You will find a lot of people who think there is a chance of the supernatural are in fact not at all religious. Just the opposite.

But don't you think it is kind of funny that carrying the case for the supernatural and using Hawking and Co as a backup for the case:D

No it was curiousity that caused me to actually investigate the facts instead of swallowing the subscribed brainwashing and then of course I arrived at the logical conclusion Be careful Rich. Dan-cat will think you are being arrogant for not agreeing with him:)

You will find a lot of people who think there is a chance of the supernatural are in fact not at all religious. Just the opposite.

A fact missed by many :)

No it was curiousity that caused me to actually investigate the facts instead of swallowing the subscribed brainwashing and then of course I arrived at the logical conclusion

Where did you get the "facts" from that you investigated?

Brian,

You will find a lot of people who think there is a chance of the supernatural are in fact not at all religious.

Yes and their usually called cranks.....................

Where did you get the "facts" from that you investigated?

Many books and not just one

By the way, Alisa, your line of argument is flawed from the very beginning as you attempt to argue from authority and ad hominem. To suggest that your argument is superior because atheists are more intelligent is fallacious. Your argument is sound or not regardless of the intelligence of others.


When did I attempt to argue from authority or ad hominem? Despite many posts implying the contrary, I didn't attack anyone's intelligence, or their political beliefs. If you are refereing to the original post, I was simply restating one of Dawkin's conclusions for the benefit of those who hadn't read the book. I wasn't saying it was a fact, and I wasn't saying it to attack anyone in particular.

Yes and their usually called cranks.....................

No they are just the opposite. The cranks are those that insist it can only be divine intervention for everything in life and those who insist that any creature above man can't exist. The latter has always puzzled me with the evolutionists.

Brian,

You will find a lot of people who think there is a chance of the supernatural are in fact not at all religious. Just the opposite.


By that I assume(always dangerous I know) that you enjoy hair-splitting. I suspect that 500 years ago you would have been arguing over the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin:).

From your previous posts in this thread I know that you are not a supporter of organised religion so I would not doubt the accuracy of your post

When did I attempt to argue from authority or ad hominem? Despite many posts implying the contrary, I didn't attack anyone's intelligence, or their political beliefs. If you are refereing to the original post, I was simply restating one of Dawkin's conclusions for the benefit of those who hadn't read the book. I wasn't saying it was a fact, and I wasn't saying it to attack anyone in particular.


Perhaps I misunderstood.

Could you please explain what Dawkins correlation between level of education and atheism has to do with your poll?

No they are just the opposite. The cranks are those that insist it can only be divine intervention for everything in life and those who insist that any creature above man can't exist. The latter has always puzzled me with the evolutionists.

So you're now suggesting that God is a creature?:confused:

But have you observed it yourself.
No but i have read the peer reviewed literature.

As a side note why do the galaxies further away that are moving faster mean the expansion is slowing down. Because they show the expansion speed at a previous time. The evidence shows that the red shift at a certain distance is roughly constant. See Hubble's work for confirmation of this.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

Could you please explain what Dawkins correlation between level of education and atheism has to do with your poll?

ok, I will. I read the book, came to work, and wrote a post about how I can't get Microsoft's stupid tree view to scroll automatically while dragging an item (btw, if you know the answer, can you please respond to that post? It is in the VBA section). Anyway, I was sick of working on that, so I thought hey, lets see what the percentage of atheists is on this board, just for fun? I don't have any international figures for comparison, but I know that less than 5% of U.S.-ers self identify as atheist. The results of my poll so far indicate that there are probably more atheists on this board than there are in the general population of the U.S., although it is hard to tell for sure because lots of people on this board are not from the U.S.
So that's it. I was just bored and thought it would be a good way to waste some time. It wasn't meant to insult anyone's intelligence. And also, why would I bother arguing with you all if I didn't think you were intelligent?

By that I assume(always dangerous I know) that you enjoy hair-splitting. I suspect that 500 years ago you would have been arguing over the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin:).

From your previous posts in this thread I know that you are not a supporter of organised religion so I would not doubt the accuracy of your post

The reason for it is simple. Any supernatural that can handle or play a part in the universe is not likely to have some personal interest in man.

As to the Bible/Koran I somethimes think there is truth there but all that is written would indicate a low horsepower supernatual.

But to totally deny the potential for a supernatural (or more than one) is to lock out potential answers while at the same time making a declaration that no other being in the universe is higher than man. Remeber that chimp is 97% of our DNA but look at the enormous difference between chimp and man.

No they are just the opposite. The cranks are those that insist it can only be divine intervention for everything in life and those who insist that any creature above man can't exist. The latter has always puzzled me with the evolutionists.
As someone who believes in Evolution and who has studied the literature I can assure you that there are many evolutionists who don't not regard Mankind as the ultimate pinacle of evolution. In fact if you read Dawkins you would find he claims that it was a religious fallacy to claim that man was the ultimate "made in the image of God". You really should read him. You might learn a little more.

So you're now suggesting that God is a creature?:confused:

Well I am inclind to think any supernatural will be life like and thus a creature of sorts. Can't tell you what one looks like:D

but look at the enormous difference between chimp and man.

What difference?:confused:http://www.looptvandfilm.com/blog/bush_chimp_address.jpg

[QUOTE=Mike375;696052]
As to the Bible/Koran I somethimes think there is truth there but all that is written would indicate a low horsepower supernatual.

QUOTE]

Perhaps one of His underlings has been left in charge and the reason we are in a mess is that It has forgotten to apply the Service Pack.

Brian

As someone who believes in Evolution and who has studied the literature I can assure you that there are many evolutionists who don't not regard Mankind as the ultimate pinacle of evolution. In fact if you read Dawkins you would find he claims that it was a religious fallacy to claim that man was the ultimate "made in the image of God". You really should read him. You might learn a little more.

I am aware of what he says.

Thus if we use Dawkins then the universe should contain beings above and beyond man. How far above.....is there a limit?

No but i have read the peer reviewed literature.
Because they show the expansion speed at a previous time. The evidence shows that the red shift at a certain distance is roughly constant. See Hubble's work for confirmation of this.\

Got it.....need 10 characters

ok, I will. I read the book, came to work, and wrote a post about how I can't get Microsoft's stupid tree view to scroll automatically while dragging an item (btw, if you know the answer, can you please respond to that post? It is in the VBA section). Anyway, I was sick of working on that, so I thought hey, lets see what the percentage of atheists is on this board, just for fun? I don't have any international figures for comparison, but I know that less than 5% of U.S.-ers self identify as atheist. The results of my poll so far indicate that there are probably more atheists on this board than there are in the general population of the U.S., although it is hard to tell for sure because lots of people on this board are not from the U.S.
So that's it. I was just bored and thought it would be a good way to waste some time. It wasn't meant to insult anyone's intelligence. And also, why would I bother arguing with you all if I didn't think you were intelligent?


Great response :D

If you re-read your original post though. It does come across as a bit prejudical against people who would disagree with your position doesn't it?

If that wasn't your intention then fine, sorry. My bad.

Thus if we use Dawkins then the universe should contain beings above and beyond man. How far above.....is there a limit?


Not necessarily. I think you are using the concept of "above and beyond" from a human perspective. From the perspective of natural selection, the only "above and beyond" that matters is surviving long enough to reproduce, and reproducing successfully. Everything else is completely beside the point. So what you are saying is, are there beings that survive and reproduce "better" than us. Probably. But so what. The entire concept only applies to natural begings, not SUPERnatural beings, which is what you claim god is.

The reason for it is simple. Any supernatural that can handle or play a part in the universe is not likely to have some personal interest in man.

As to the Bible/Koran I somethimes think there is truth there but all that is written would indicate a low horsepower supernatual.

But to totally deny the potential for a supernatural (or more than one) is to lock out potential answers while at the same time making a declaration that no other being in the universe is higher than man. Remeber that chimp is 97% of our DNA but look at the enormous difference between chimp and man.Thanks for your reply. I still don't see how you reach the conclusion that eliminating the possibilty of the supernatural means that I believe that nothing in the universe is higher than man. Since I only know of Life on earth I cannot have a definite opiniion on how advance these life forms may be. Even considering life here on Earth I can think of creatures that are faster than Man or bigger than Man or stronger than Man Even if you consider bacteria like MRSA able to kill man despite being much much smaller.

By the way since I posted in answer to you that a chimp has 97% shared DNA with us I scarcely need reminding of this :rolleyes:

If you re-read your original post though. It does come across as a bit prejudical against people who would disagree with your position doesn't it?


Please accept my apologies, that was not my intention.

Great response :D

If you re-read your original post though. It does come across as a bit prejudical against people who would disagree with your position doesn't it?

If that wasn't your intention then fine, sorry. My bad. A gracious reply from you too. I hope that we can argue these things without falling out.:)

A gracious reply from you too. I hope that we can argue these things without falling out.:)

Yep lets keep trying. This has been a great thread so far. :)

I hope that we can argue these things without falling out.
Me three. Otherwise, who will help me when I am stuck on my project?

I am aware of what he says.

Thus if we use Dawkins then the universe should contain beings above and beyond man. How far above.....is there a limit? It may well do. As has already been said the universe is a vast place and we have not explored much of it yet so we just don't know yet. Is there a limit? probably not given sufficient time.

Alisa

I can only base the following on Ausralia.

In the professions atheism is much less common with the highest earners. For example, medical specialists that are staff specialist are far more likley to be atheist than the private practice specialists. Yet the highest academic qualifications are usually found with the private practice specialists.

It is rare to find atheism in high earning sales and especially where the sales are canvassed for.

Atheism is most common in occupations that are salaried and when the person has a degree of academic qualications and doubly so if those qualifations don't provide a lot of opportunities for higher incomes.

I suspect the reason for the above is when a person pushes very hard they simply turn up more things that seem to be unexplainable. They often go to the brink of disaster but some helping hand from nowwhere just seems to catch them in time.

It may well do. As has already been said the universe is a vast place and we have not explored much of it yet so we just don't know yet. Is there a limit? probably not given sufficient time.

Could I link in to my use of 'arrogance' here?

Just because man covers a certain amount of space/time in exploration what makes him think that he has the tools (ie human brain) to perceive the required evidence to reach the correct conclusion?

It may well do. As has already been said the universe is a vast place and we have not explored much of it yet so we just don't know yet. Is there a limit? probably not given sufficient time.

Well given there has been billions and billions of years and across billions and trillions "territory" could a being or beings be far enough above us to become supernatural.

Alisa

I can only base the following on Ausralia.

In the professions atheism is much less common with the highest earners. For example, medical specialists that are staff specialist are far more likley to be atheist than the private practice specialists. Yet the highest academic qualifications are usually found with the private practice specialists.

It is rare to find atheism in high earning sales and especially where the sales are canvassed for.

Atheism is most common in occupations that are salaried and when the person has a degree of academic qualications and doubly so if those qualifations don't provide a lot of opportunities for higher incomes.

I suspect the reason for the above is when a person pushes very hard they simply turn up more things that seem to be unexplainable. They often go to the brink of disaster but some helping hand from nowwhere just seems to catch them in time. Is it possible that Atheists in for example Sales tend to hide their atheism for fear of putting up barriers between them and potential buyers. After all many people who claim to be members of organised religions do not make much public show of their beliefs so it is relatively easy not to advertise your position in public.

Mike, interesting correlations you point out.
Although I have to say, I think it is much more to the point that if you are born to Christian parents you will probably be a christian and think that the Islamic god is false, and if you are born to Muslim parents, you will probably be a muslim and think that the christian god is false. If there is a god, everyone agrees that there is only one. After all, I don't hear anyone claiming that the universe was created in a partnership between two gods, who later decided to hate eachother and unleash different parts of the human population on each other to carry out their hatred . . .
Well given there has been billions and billions of years and across billions and trillions "territory" could a being or beings be far enough above us to become supernatural.

The "becoming" you speak of is a natural process, and can only result in natural beings. There is no transition whereby if you evolve enough you become supernatural.

Well given there has been billions and billions of years and across billions and trillions "territory" could a being or beings be far enough above us to become supernatural. In my opinion any being that has advance for above us would still be natural and not supernatural even though their technology might look to us to be supernatural. This is exactly the same as our advanced technology might appear to be supernatural to a person two hundred years ago

The "becoming" you speak of is a natural process, and can only result in natural beings. There is no transition whereby if you evolve enough you become supernatural.

But what gives us the authority to say this when we are so far below this state. As a caveman is to Silicon valley.

Could I link in to my use of 'arrogance' here?

Just because man covers a certain amount of space/time in exploration what makes him think that he has the tools (ie human brain) to perceive the required evidence to reach the correct conclusion? I am sure that if he has problems Woman will be only too happy to help:). Seriously human progress can be seen as a series of wrong conclusion sthat have been successively corrected and refined as we get closer to the truth.

As a caveman is to Silicon valley.

You just answered your own question. Supernatural is a name that humans call things we don't understand. In your example, a caveman in silicon valley would surely think that computers, etc. are supernatural. But that doesn't mean they ARE supernatural. In fact, historically, there are many many instances in which things that were first thought to be supernatural turned out not to be. In contrast, there has never once been a non-supernatural phenomenon, i.e., somthing we CAN explain with science, that later turned out to be supernatural.

But what gives us the authority to say this when we are so far below this state. As a caveman is to Silicon valley.Do we actually need authority for this. If so who from?

The "becoming" you speak of is a natural process, and can only result in natural beings. There is no transition whereby if you evolve enough you become supernatural.

You don't know that.

As I have said to Rabbie, just consider the huge jump between us and chimps and they are supposed to be 97% of DNA likeness.

If so who from?

God.......................

In contrast, there has never once been a non-supernatural phenomenon, i.e., somthing we CAN explain with science, that later turned out to be supernatural.

But this is my point. Why would they ever turn out to be supernatural to us if we don't have the required tools to perceive the supernatural? The phenomena you refer to just remains unexplained and as we have all admitted the gulf between explained and unexplained is vast.

In short, what makes us think that the human brain is the tool for the job?

You don't know that.

As I have said to Rabbie, just consider the huge jump between us and chimps and they are supposed to be 97% of DNA likeness.

So we are supernatural then:cool:

You don't know that.


Again, I am supposed to prove the negative? There is no evidence anywhere that shows that natural eventually progresses to supernatural given enough time. In fact, there is no evidence that the supernatural exists. Period. The only evidence we have is that humans are too ignorant to explain everything in the universe, or the origin of the universe. That is not evidence that can be used to support the existence of the supernatural.

Do we really care?

If some believe in a fairy tale about a god type person - so what?

If others think it's all bo**ocks - so what?

The problem occurs when one god type believer thinks his/her god is better than another, therefore the 'lesser' god person must be killed.
So, being that most religious people don't accept any other faith as being 'bona fide' - the chances of religious conflict are very high indeed.
No - I'm wrong - the chances of conflict under a 'religious' banner are very high indeed.

The Yanks should build a mosque on ground zero - that'll stop another 11/9 attempt. Or maybe build a runway?

Col

In contrast, there has never once been a non-supernatural phenomenon, i.e., somthing we CAN explain with science, that later turned out to be supernatural.

But that is because it is never admitted. Also, just because something was done by a supernatural does not mean it can't be explained by science.

Do we actually need authority for this. If so who from?

If we are sticking to the model that we require evidence to believe in something, then yes. If not then we enter the realms of faith

But that is because it is never admitted.
Really? Just what are you refering to here? What is it that science claims to be able to explain, that is actually supernatural?
Also, just because something was done by a supernatural does not mean it can't be explained by science.
Then what exactly is your definition of supernatural?
I guess I should have asked that question a long time ago, it might of saved some pages on this forum.

So we are supernatural then:cool:

Relative to ants etc., yes.

The ant's instincts, senses tell it that there is no rain about and so no need venture out and collect food. Then a man turns up with a firehose.

Again, I am supposed to prove the negative? There is no evidence anywhere that shows that natural eventually progresses to supernatural given enough time. In fact, there is no evidence that the supernatural exists. Period. The only evidence we have is that humans are too ignorant to explain everything in the universe, or the origin of the universe. That is not evidence that can be used to support the existence of the supernatural.

Just how much of the universe have you visited.

Do we really care?

If some believe in a fairy tale about a god type person - so what?

If others think it's all bo**ocks - so what?

Yes we care! Disclaimer: what I am about to say is not meant to personally insult anyone on this forum. End Disclaimer
Religion is the root of all evil. Without religion, we would have no wars. I believe it has already been said on this forum, but I will say it again. With or without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

Then what exactly is your definition of supernatural?
I guess I should have asked that question a long time ago, it might of saved some pages on this forum.

Actually you were asked earlier in the thread.

A supernatural is someone/something that is above us and with the ability to do things for which we have no explanation.

Again, I am supposed to prove the negative? There is no evidence anywhere that shows that natural eventually progresses to supernatural given enough time. In fact, there is no evidence that the supernatural exists. Period. The only evidence we have is that humans are too ignorant to explain everything in the universe, or the origin of the universe. That is not evidence that can be used to support the existence of the supernatural.

We as humans create/design. Our designs are poor copies of nature. We base our designs on all phenomena. Yet we refuse to entertain the possibility that what we base our designs on are designs themselves instead they are just based on chance. Why? Because of lack of evidence that we assume we should be able to currently perceive.

instead they are just based on chance
Who said anything about chance?

A supernatural is someone/something that is above us and with the ability to do things for which we have no explanation.

Hence, by definition, if we have an explanation, it is not supernatural. Which brings me back to my original question:
What is it that science claims to be able to explain, that is actually supernatural?

Yes we care! Disclaimer: what I am about to say is not meant to personally insult anyone on this forum. End Disclaimer
Religion is the root of all evil. Without religion, we would have no wars. I believe it has already been said on this forum, but I will say it again. With or without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

I think you may be blurring the line between organized religion and spirituality.

But it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

Including an all powerful god that allowed his son to be killed as a lesson in obedience

Who said anything about chance?

You believe that the creation of all phenomena was contrived?

Yes we care! Disclaimer: what I am about to say is not meant to personally insult anyone on this forum. End Disclaimer
Religion is the root of all evil. Without religion, we would have no wars. I believe it has already been said on this forum, but I will say it again. With or without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

So what's being done about it? make religions illegal?
No - the USA uses force under the religious banner and makes things tons worse for the rest of the world. Nice one.
Christianity is better than Muslim? is it? who knows.
Millions have been slain under the christian banner over the centuries. Is it any better than any other religion?

(alot of) Christian priests seem to be child molesters anyway - is that a good advert for religion? Maybe it's ok to molest a child if a bishop can do it

Col

Hence, by definition, if we have an explanation, it is not supernatural. Which brings me back to my original question:

No, I said have the ability to do above and beyond what we can do. You can explain an elephant all day long but he is still suopernatural compared to you when it comes to strength.

As Hawking said, the Big Bang might have been creation.

You can explain an elephant all day long but he is still suopernatural compared to you when it comes to strength.

No he is not. We can explain perfectly well why an elephant is stronger.

So what's being done about it? make religions illegal?

Prohibition never stopped anyone from doing anything.

But it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

Love makes good people do bad things. Shall we prohibit that too?

Prohibition never stopped anyone from doing anything.

Education works well though

No he is not. We can explain perfectly well why an elephant is stronger.

That is what I said but the explanation does not change his strength.

Love makes good people do bad things.

Such as ?:confused:

Education works well though

Agreed. Although, with the I.D. movement in the U.S., not too well.

Such as ?:confused:

Kill people.

Mike, when I asked you what supernatural was, you said
A supernatural is someone/something that is above us and with the ability to do things for which we have no explanation.


I can't believe I actually feel the need to state this twice in my LIFE, but we can EXPLAIN an elephant's strength, therefore, it is NOT supernatural.

Such as ?:confused:

Shakespeare is inundated with examples. ;)

Kill people.

People don't kill due to love

Shakespeare is inundated with examples. ;)

I don't use him or that era as a yardstick

Love makes good people do bad things.
That is a very interesting point. Both love and religion lead to an irrational state of mind, that sometimes results in violent actions. I think the important distinction is that love is an indivual emotion while religion is a group emotion. When you have thousands or millions of people that all get irrational TOGETHER the results are much more destructive than what happens in, say, a love triangle gone wrong. It is like comparing the crusades to a scorned woman who murders her husband. Hardly on the same scale of importance.

But the scorned woman murders out of hatred not love

That was a slip of the tongue or speed typing:D

Having said that it would normally not be explainable but the key point is it/he/she could do what we could not do.

Consider a hypothetical. We have a superman who can rub his hands togther with such speed and pressure the friction gets them up to 2000*C. He can melt steel with his hands, burn trees down and whatever.

He is residing down in the jungles in Sth America and the natives relate stories about him, which of course you totally disbelieve. However, one day you get to meet it/he/she and see what it does. Now you can explain it was friction which can generate with his hands. But if you never met it you would spend forever looking for another solution.

But the scorned woman murders out of hatred not love

Love is the trigger. Could be love that is not returned. Unrequited love can develop to a crime of passion

Love is the trigger. Could be love that is not returned. Unrequited love can develop to a crime of passion

It's not love, like I said hatred, revenge etc., not love

However, one day you get to meet it/he/she and see what it does. Now you can explain it was friction which can generate with his hands. But if you never met it you would spend forever looking for another solution.
You are making my argument for me, even though you don't realize it. Let me change your story a bit to help you understand. Replace the supernatural being in your story with anything that scientists can't currently explain (pick one: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, how snakes evolved into reptiles, whatever). In your story, "one day you get to meet it". It the real world, that is called collecting evidence and developing a scientific theory that explains whatever it is that was previously not understood. Now you can explain "it" (whatever "it" was)! But if you never did the research to figure it out, you would have spent your whole life assuming that god did it, and would never come any closer to understanding anything.

It's not love, like I said hatred, revenge etc., not love

But love is the trigger. Ban love and end crimes of passion:)

You are making my argument for me, even though you don't realize it. Let me change your story a bit to help you understand. Replace the supernatural being in your story with anything that scientists can't currently explain (pick one: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, how snakes evolved into reptiles, whatever). In your story, "one day you get to meet it". It the real world, that is called collecting evidence and developing a scientific theory that explains whatever it is that was previously not understood. Now you can explain "it" (whatever "it" was)! But if you never did the research to figure it out, you would have spent your whole life assuming that god did it, and would never come any closer to understanding anything.

No one is suggesting that research is not done. But what you are saying is that the explanation can never be...it was superman....Therefore if it is superman you will reject it

No one is suggesting that research is not done. But what you are saying is that the explanation can never be...it was superman....Therefore if it is superman you will reject it


On the contrary, I am suggesting that if the explanation truly was supernatural - it was superman - then research would show that to be the case. Like I said before, scientific research in the past has never come to that conclusion about anything before. I am not saying that it never will, however, I think it is extremely unlikely that it will.

I also think it is very interesting that those with "faith" often claim that not only can we not prove that god exists, but that we shouldn't seek to prove or disprove his existence, and even go so far as to say he is "hiding" his existence from us, and the LACK of evidence for his existence is then paradoxically construed as evidence FOR his existence.

But lets consider this. Say some researcher published an article tomorrow saying that he was able to measure some aspect of god's influence on the world. Do you think the faithful would refute that evidence as energetically as they refute all of the scientific evidence for evolution?

On the contrary, I am suggesting that if the explanation truly was supernatural - it was superman - then research would show that to be the case. Like I said before, scientific research in the past has never come to that conclusion about anything before. I am not saying that it never will, however, I think it is extremely unlikely that it will.

And because while ever there is no explanation it will never be conceded that a supernatural could be involved.

I also think it is very interesting that those with "faith" often claim that not only can we not prove that god exists, but that we shouldn't seek to prove or disprove his existence, and even go so far as to say he is "hiding" his existence from us, and the LACK of evidence for his existence is then paradoxically construed as evidence FOR his existence.

That is from the religious end of town. As to "hiding His existence" that relates to the faith issue. Remember that with Christianity the ticket to Heaven is not by good deeds.


But lets consider this. Say some researcher published an article tomorrow saying that he was able to measure some aspect of god's influence on the world. Do you think the faithful would refute that evidence as energetically as they refute all of the scientific evidence for evolution?

They would treat it the same way as the evolutionists would treat the Bible bashers doing the same thing from their end.

I think the important distinction is that love is an indivual emotion while religion is a group emotion.

I think you'll find that the concept of love is an integral part of most religions. Arguably the tool used to justify the destruction you speak of.

Religion itself is not an emotion. It taps into a shared emotion.

And because while ever there is no explanation it will never be conceded that a supernatural could be involved.

I will concede right here right now that there is a theoretical possibility that the supernatural COULD be involved. Does that make you happy?
However, given that there is no evidence to date that anything supernatural has ever existed, much less a god, I think the odds are beyond vanishingly small that the supernatural is involved.
In any case, even if you do believe in the supernatural, that is no excuse to stop looking for other explanations. I think that too often people use the supernatural explanation to obstruct scientific inquiry (look no further than the intelligent design movement, which seeks to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools). If religous people truly believe that god exists, then it makes no sense to obstruct scientific research, because science only seeks to discover the truth.

I am hoping, assuming, that points 2-4 are not being attributed to me so I will refrain from commenting on them or your responses (much as I would like to I just don't have the time).

Point 1.
Your 'response' in point 1 is to an argument that I never put forward and isn't even present in the preceding line. I never said that it was proof that God exists. This is especially egregious since I've made the point, many times, that I was not offering that as objective evidence of the existence of God and further, and that I believe that no such evidence exists, or is even possible to obtain. You appear to be consistently missing the point I'm trying to make and focussing on potential arguments that I have never made on this thread.

Point 5
The same thing for point 5. The contention that you're responding to makes no claim about this being proof of anything. It is a statement of faith only. Yet you react as if this were somehow presented as 'evidence'. It was not.

Point 6,
Your response appears to be a demand that I speculate about the motivations of a being who could create the universe, who exists outside of space and time, and who I can't even remotely qualify to speak for as a representative. So, I decline to do so.

That said, I'm not exactly sure how your questions about God's motivations actually are intended to rebut the logic of my argument, so I begin to hope that maybe you are beginning to see that I'm right about that. If they are intended as a rebuttal of some kind, then it's either very obtuse, or a misdirection used when no relevant, logical counterpoint to my proposition came to mind.

Point 7

Carl Sagan (a fairly famous atheist himself) once wrote that 'Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence'. Yet you keep referring to the lack of evidence as a reason that you believe that there's no God. I think Carl encapsulated the logic perfectly but you can feel free to believe otherwise if you like. Science can only fail to disprove something, rather than prove something. So, why can't you recognize that the same inherant logical issue exists for anyone wanting to 'prove' the existence of God versus someone wanting to 'dis-prove' the same? The former is both impossible and logically incompatible with scientific method, while the latter is logically consistent with scientific method, but is also impossible since God exists beyond space and time. And whatever God's motivations might be, they are not a relevant riposte to this logical proposition.

General

You keep demanding 'evidence for'. I say none exists. I further say that no human test can ever prove, nor disprove, God's existence. You contend otherwise, yet offer no example of such a test to disprove me. Why? If you're right you should be able to cut me off at the knees with a single devastating example that I can't explain away with a rationale for how it fails to definitely dis-prove God's existence.

You repeatedly demand the impossible (proof for the existence of God) to advance an argument that I have never made, and that I don't think can ever reasonably be made. I have no interest in tilting at windmills. Especially windmills not of my choosing and irrelevant to the question at hand.

Science can only describe/explain phenomena that exist within the limitations of space and time. Beyond those limits, science cannot go except in speculation. That's reality, as I see it. If you disagree then fine. Show me where I'm wrong. My rationale: God, if he exists, created space and time. He isn't limited by them. Science can NEVER get a handle on God. He's beyond the scope of our very existence. He's not some clever fellow playing harps on a cloud who we can send a plane up to photograph; he's not some cowardly alien 'hiding' behind Alpha Centauri; he's GOD.

Now, before you respond again that I'm not offering you any evidence, let me be very clear. I am not trying to offer this as evidence for the existence of God.

I am only explaining to you, as carefully as I can, that science cannot prove, nor disprove God's existence. Science does not even operate at the level where you could find such evidence (beyond space and time). Where science stops, philosophy and religion start. Using scientific evidence (limited by physics, space and time) to argue either for or against the existence of God is therefore a nonsensical proposition.

It's like the game pieces in Monopoly trying to explain the game's existence solely by interpreting the rules of the game itself. The existence of the game itself is incontrovertible but the why is a mystery to the game pieces. From within the game itself, the flow of time brings about a progression of events that are dictated by certain game rules. The rules themselves can be quantified and measured, but the ultimate point of the rules and the game's existence is far larger than the sum of the rules, however inexorable and unchangeable they appear to be after the game has been manufactured and sold. The idea of there being a game creator isn't anywhere to be seen in the rules themselves, but we know it remains true nonetheless (because WE are not limited by our frame of reference as the game pieces are).

In the parallel question of God's existence, the game rules are parallel to the rules of space and time (physics, chemistry, etc), we are the game pieces with the limited frame of reference arguing about it all, and God is the creator of the game.

I believe in God. That is a choice I made when I was a teenager (I also had a non-religious upbringing incidentally). You are welcome to choose otherwise, as you wish, with my best wishes for whatever choice you make. I am not out to convert you, or even to make you sypathetic to my viewpoint on the matter. Yet I've seen the same evidence that you have, maybe more. I think I've demonstrated a fair understanding of evolutionary theory and have presented well-reasoned, logical arguments as to why my choice is really not that big a deal for reconciling with the lessons of science. I've also formed an opinion on where the limits of science are, and I have come to an opposite view as to the existence of God as you. Why does that seem to challenge you so greatly? Science is a wonderful tool. But it is not, and never will be, able to answer all the questions about the 'why' questions we will always continue to have.

I think that faith is a choice that people make in the absence of compelling contrary evidence. We have no evidence at all as to whether the universe came about somehow as a result of design, or by accident, or something else. I believe in God and I think it's design. You don't believe in God and say it must be 'extra-cosmic accident' or 'something unknown'. You will not even entertain the possibility of a God being the real explanation. The point is, your initial assumption about God shapes your interpretation of the facts. Neither explanation can be tested. Neither explanation constitutes proof of anything: and I've never claimed otherwise.

My faith does not contradict any of the findings of science, and nor should it. Likewise, none of the findings of science contradicts my faith in God's existence even if, occasionally, they force me to redefine my understanding of the world around me and my interpretation of the bible.

In fact, about the only thing on this thread that makes me a little nervous is that I appear to be on the same side of an argument as Mike375! :eek: :D


Say some researcher published an article tomorrow saying that he was able to measure some aspect of god's influence on the world. Do you think the faithful would refute that evidence as energetically as they refute all of the scientific evidence for evolution?

Well, if you understand my position at all, then you'd know that both the scenario, and the idea that I am somehow attacking evolutionary theory, are both quite ridiculous. I share your opinion that science is a laudable tool for discovery that should never be obstructed. I am embarassed that some people of faith react in fear to the idea of learning something unexpected and new. :(

I find it a part of the natural human arrogance to argue that all that is currently not understood can and will be eventually understood by the human mind

I think folks who object to Dan_Cat's word 'arrogance' in this context are over-reacting a bit. Perhaps a less perjorative substitute would help, like 'hubris'?
Humanity tends to have a rather high opinion of itself despite all the evidence to the contrary. I concur with dan_cat here.

I will concede right here right now that there is a theoretical possibility that the supernatural COULD be involved. Does that make you happy?

Yes it does for your sake as now your intellect will not be restricted to only one corner of the room. :)

However, given that there is no evidence to date that anything supernatural has ever existed, much less a god, I think the odds are beyond vanishingly small that the supernatural is involved.

Don't think so, just the opposite. The mysteries get deeper as time goes on. I am 60 and have been interested in both astronomy and evolution since I was a kid. In fact when I was at the catholic school I got my father to buy me Darwin's book. My father was not into the religion but my mother's brother just refused to hear about the book. Simply not on the agenda. Sound familiar?

In any case, even if you do believe in the supernatural, that is no excuse to stop looking for other explanations.

I don't "believe in it"......it is a default position. I would prefer it not to be there because I don't like the idea of answering to a god. All evidence to me points to something supernatural being involved or having been involved. For example, I started as kid with all lights green on evolution. Later when I started to keep reptiles (plus other animals, their food:D) it raised issues to me with evolution.......that is no excuse to stop looking for other explanations you say. Just the opposite. But I don't close my mind to a supernatural influence.

I think that too often people use the supernatural explanation to obstruct scientific inquiry (look no further than the intelligent design movement, which seeks to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools).

That is a religious/politcal issue. And remember that the evolution end of town want all reference to God removed so both sides are equally guilty.

If religous people truly believe that god exists, then it makes no sense to obstruct scientific research, because science only seeks to discover the truth.

See previous reply.

I am sure you have seen the line.....Faith can't be put in a test tube. That's why it shouldn't be put in a science class room.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

Could you please explain what Dawkins correlation between level of education and atheism has to do with your poll?

I would agree with Dan. I must have misunderstood also because I thought you would referring to anyone who believed in a supreme being (and is a poorly educated American:D)

In fact, about the only thing on this thread that makes me a little nervous is that I appear to be on the same side of an argument as Mike375! :eek: :D



These long threads can be dangerous:D

As to educated people and God, the three cardiothoracic surgeons who started Australia's heart transplant unit were all deeply religious.

I am hoping, assuming, that points 2-4 are not being attributed to me so I will refrain from commenting on them or your responses (much as I would like to I just don't have the time).

Craig, I did not want to quote your whole post, due to it's length but I wanted to compliment you on a very well said post.

As to educated people and God, the three cardiothoracic surgeons who started Australia's heart transplant unit were all deeply religious.

What is the difference between a Consultant Surgeon and God?

God doesn't think he's a Consultant surgeon.

As for love - love does not inspire people to invade and kill thousands in another country. Religion does.

Col

Love makes good people do bad things. Shall we prohibit that too?
Lets keep calm guys. All I ask for is the freedom not to believe in what I consider to be a fairy story - Father Christmas seems a better bet if I have to believe in something. :D However I feel the same freedom should be extended to everyone to believe what they feel is true but they should not be allowed to force their views on other people. Organised religions(or Love) should not be banned but they should not be allowed to preach hatred and encourage people to be violent to other people.

I suspect that the problem with organised religions is that they are primarily human organisations and have all the faults of human organisations.

I have seen God!

I have seen God!Looks like you have managed to close this thread quite effectively

I have seen God!

I found Jesus - he was hiding behind our sofa all the time. Soon sent him packing.

Col

I found Jesus - he was hiding behind our sofa all the time. Soon sent him packing.

Col
I didn't know he was missing!

Science can only describe/explain phenomena that exist within the limitations of space and time. Beyond those limits, science cannot go except in speculation. That's reality, as I see it. If you disagree then fine. Show me where I'm wrong. My rationale: God, if he exists, created space and time. He isn't limited by them. Science can NEVER get a handle on God. He's beyond the scope of our very existence. He's not some clever fellow playing harps on a cloud who we can send a plane up to photograph; he's not some cowardly alien 'hiding' behind Alpha Centauri; he's GOD.

Yes. It is the hubris(:p) of the human mind to think that this concept can be totally hammered into our frame of perception.

The requested evidence can only be perceived if you enter the mind of God. We are far below the required standard but hold delusions of grandeur because of our ability to be aware of ourselves and thus question our own held place in space and time.

This ability to question is no evidence that we hold the capacity to know all.

Yes. It is the hubris(:p) of the human mind to think that this concept can be totally hammered into our frame of perception.

The requested evidence can only be perceived if you enter the mind of God. We are far below the required standard but hold delusions of grandeur because of our ability to be aware of ourselves and thus question our own held place in space and time.

This ability to question is no evidence that we hold the capacity to know all.
Evidence for what:confused: If it is evidence for the existence of God then surely you are begging the question if you have to enter his mind to see the evidence.

This thread has been interesting but inconclusive. I doubt if anyone has changed their position as a result of it. Posts like 253 from Pauldohert are impossible to refute without being disrespectful of him and so do little to advance the debate.

I have seen God!

I have seen God! Paul as a concerned friend I would advise you to speak to your priest (you did say you were a catholic)

Evidence for what:confused: If it is evidence for the existence of God then surely you are begging the question if you have to enter his mind to see the evidence.

It is not my position to require evidence of God to justify the possibility of it. That is the thread starters. My position is, is that it is incorrect to deny the possibility of a thing that by definition is beyond your scope of comprehension.


This thread has been interesting but inconclusive.

I would like to think that Dawkins suggested correlation between spirituality and lack of intelligence can now be taken with a pinch of salt. :p