Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[psyche]

You're shitting me right? Our planet was born with trees, plant life and an oxygen rich atmosphere.

learn2geologyandphysic.

Within the Earth Sciences the time period you are referring to is known as the Hadean, it spanned from 4.5 to 3.8 billion years ago. During this time our solar system was still forming, more than like in a huge cloud of gas and dust around our sun. There are conflicting views on the composition of this early atmosphere - whatever the case levels of atmospheric oxygen around 1% were too low to sustain an ozone layer, without which there would have been little protection from solar radiation.

Yeah yeah yeah, I know. But this is the period of when Earth was still being "born" (in the sense of the word), right? so of course it would have been extremely chaotic, if we talk about this in relation to God or a "Creator", in my opinion, I think this is the time when He/It/Flying Spaghetti Monster would have still been testing, and perfecting the conditions on Earth - 'getting it ready' so to speak..

Ah, and for the record Earth is not in a perfectly circular orbit. Like the rest of the planets in our solar system Earth follows a elliptical orbit around our Sun.

Yeah I know, that's why I said nearly perfect

[Arnifix]

I think

No you don't. Shut up. Idiot.

[Dr Woomanchu]

Where did matter and energy come from then, hmmmmm?

They're actually different forms of the same thing. I don't know where they came from, if indeed they came from anywhere. Where did whatever your creator is made out of come from?

I'm still trying to figure out why your creator is exempt from all the questions we ask about this universe.

Also it is not proven that human emotions and morals are solely evolutionary adaptions or are developed entirely within the brain.

It is proven in that there is lots of evidence for emotions and morals being products of brain function, but there is no evidence at all for otherwise. It is not proven in the same way that it is not proven that our emotions don't reside in a 6th dimensional hypercapsule with an undetectable link to our puppet bodies.

When available evidence clearly explains a process, proven is a good enough word, even given nothing at all can be proven absolutely.

As I've said previously, I have no issues with this universe having been made by an entity of some sort, but it's an interesting idea, not the "truth".

Oh really. So how exactly do you know it's not the "truth"?

Well anything anyone can imagine could be the "truth", but to have any sort of communication there needs to be some sort of basis for considering arguments made.

Personally I tend to treat things that there is no evidence for as ideas, then give weighting for various ideas based on what we know, the elegance of the ideas, and how they fit in the picture of the universe we've managed to build so far.  You've presented no argument at any point to give your ideas of "truth" any greater weighting than any other idea someone can come up with.

Why should I believe your truth? Why not the truth of the Roman Gods, or the truth of L Ron Hubbard, or Buddha, or Dawkins?  You scoff when anyone suggests you're wrong, but you don't apply the same criteria you apply to the arguments you disagree with, to your own position.

[Simon_NZ]

Yeah yeah yeah, I know. But this is the period of when Earth was still being "born" (in the sense of the word), right? so of course it would have been extremely chaotic, if we talk about this in relation to God or a "Creator", in my opinion, I think this is the time when He/It/Flying Spaghetti Monster would have still been testing, and perfecting the conditions on Earth - 'getting it ready' so to speak..

You're not very good at this, why would a omniscient and omnipotent being need to test anything?

What you're saying even contradicts the book of Genesis. 'God' did not test anything, it simply was.

Hey Woohoo:love:

[ThaFleastyler]

I've purposely stayed quiet during the "Psyche Era" (as I believe the last week or so will come to be known), because of several reasons, one of which is this:

Psyche, these guys have made valid point after valid point, which you have merely disclaimed based on your own thinking. What makes your thinking better than theirs? Nothing, to put it bluntly. Again and again you have gone to old standbys - the latest of which being the Argument for Causality ("everything has a cause; the Big Bang is a thing, thus it has a cause") which has been dismissed earlier in the thread. Again and again you have dismissed others opinions because you seem to think that your opinion is superior to theirs. As the others here have put it, you base your opinions on what you think and what you believe, then assume that you are correct.

Wht makes it worse is that you have behaved badly in this thread - you've consistently spat back unnecessary one-liners; you've used almost every logical fallacy known to man to try and prove your position - the most common of which seems to be ad hominem attacks, which really just diminish how much people take you seriously; you've whined and cried foul repeatedly, including PMing me twice to ask why I neg repped you, when in fact I had done no such thing; and you've ignored the directive of other, more senior members to post respectfully and with proper backing to your stance.

It says much that posters from both sides of this topic have basically said the same things to you over and over. Now, take a deep breath and have a think about where you are going with your stance in regard to this thread. Your thoughts and opinion are valued, but not your seemingly-arrogant method of relating those thoughts and opinions.

[psyche]

No you don't. Shut up. Idiot.

/ignore list'd

They're actually different forms of the same thing. I don't know where they came from, if indeed they came from anywhere.

Well, we actually do know where they came from. They came from a point of singularity of the Big Bang (theoretically)

Where did whatever your creator is made out of come from?

Dunno, give me a moment while I ask him...

I'm still trying to figure out why your creator is exempt from all the questions we ask about this universe.

What do you mean? It's probably the sole reason we ask questions about the universe in the first place.

You've presented no argument at any point to give your ideas of "truth" any greater weighting than any other idea someone can come up with.

That's why it is just a DISCUSSION

Why should I believe your truth? Why not the truth of the Roman Gods, or the truth of L Ron Hubbard, or Buddha, or Dawkins?  You scoff when anyone suggests you're wrong, but you don't apply the same criteria you apply to the arguments you disagree with, to your own position.

Believe whoever you want, whoever you believe to be the most credible, I could not care less...

You're not very good at this, why would a omniscient and omnipotent being need to test anything?

What you're saying even contradicts the book of Genesis. 'God' did not test anything, it simply was.

Genesis can probably be interpreted in different ways, it's very difficult to believe that God would just snap his fingers and things start appearing, it is more believable that God would have used the principles and laws of nature and the universe that it has carefully created to put things into motion and make sure it's creation worked correctly.. if you see what I mean...

Thefleastylers, I think you would find I have been trolled and harrassed by several people in this thread merely for sharing my ideas and opinions, so I have kinda lost my patience a bit but I have taken note of what you said. When it comes down to it, these are just my ideas and speculations based on the evidence that I have been learning about, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything I am mainly just interested in the discussion

so god could create Everything - the universe and complicated laws of physics and chemistry but when it comes chucking together a lump of chemicals to make earth he finds it difficult?

You're asking me to try and understand the mind of God...?  :/ that was just an idea really, I wasn't basing it on anything solid, it's more likely due to the Earth still going through it's early formation according to the laws of nature, I mean... if everything in the universe is a very complex set of well-defined working laws, it's going to take a while for everything to start working harmoniously from the moment of creation, for the laws of nature to establish and start working effectively, things like that take time they don't just happen instantly.

[cobra]

^ but flea, he is on your team

[cobra]

 it's very difficult to believe that God would just snap his fingers and things start appearing,

i agree

it is more believable that God would have used the principles and laws of nature and the universe that it had created to put things into motion and make sure it's creation worked correctly.. if you see what I mean...

so god could create Everything - the universe and complicated laws of physics and chemistry but when it comes chucking together a lump of chemicals to make earth he finds it difficult?

[Simon_NZ]

So if your god isn't omniscient and omnipotent what is he?

Sorry, I'm having problems following your logic.

[cobra]

Sorry, I'm having problems following your logic.

that's your first mistake, you should try to follow his vague feelings tainted by upbringing , there is no logic here

[psyche]

So if your god isn't omniscient and omnipotent what is he?

Sorry, I'm having problems following your logic.

I never said he wasn't? If it is the source of everything, the very laws of the universe, then of course God is omniscient and omnipotent.

I don't see why it has to be just MY God either, if it is indeed the Creator of everything, then theoretically it is, by assocation, everyone's God, right?

Cobra, such a tool... back to ignore list with yee!

[Retardobot]

I don't see why it has to be just MY God either, if it is indeed the Creator of everything, then theoretically it is, by assocation, everyone's God, right?

Only if God is proven to exist beyond questionable doubt.

[psyche]

Only if God is proven to exist beyond questionable doubt.

Who knows, maybe the very first primeval atom that set off the event of the Big Bang was created by a super-intelligent alien race, and the universe is their experiment, we are but a miniature zoo for their entertainment. Or perhaps we are but one small universe inside a huge Multiverse. Though that would probably challenge the theory of the Big Bang. Maybe we are in only one of many alternative realities, and anytime someone makes a conscious decision a quantum flux in the universe splits off into a seperate reality that is the result of the alternate decision that may have existed.


Ultimately, the existence of everything came from nothing, to put it in simple terms. Now, it's going to require something amazingly incomprehensible to explain exactly how that could happen, a scientific explanation just can't cut it.

Ngati Grim mentioned the Large Hadron Collider, which seeks to recreate the conditions, sometime in the next 1000 years or so, that lead to the Big Bang. The funny thing is, it's goal is only to study the conditions of the Big Bang, not how the 'primeval atom' came to exist, or where it even came from, there's just no way of explaining that. An interesting thing, after watching a documentary about the Big Bang, about how in the first few of moments from the creation of the atom, and I quote: 'light burts out from within the darkness', which when you think about fits in well with the book of Genesis:

1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Coincidence? Maybe. I find that pretty powerful though. Remembering the Bible was written a long time ago when we knew nothing about the creation of the universe, a lot of people thought the universe had just always existed back then. It's things like this that are probably one of the reasons a lot of modern scientists are beginning to believe in God, or already do, even if some of them won't openly admit it, otherwise risking their reputation and career. And of course some of the very pioneers of science were deeply religious, or had their own beliefs about God themselves.


I think this person pretty much summed up my feelings:

Mara Alexander, Alexandria, Virginia
With a Ph.D. in the social sciences, I'd find it more surprising that scientists don't believe in a God or organizing principle of some sort. What we pursue is "truth," with the underlying belief that there is order in the universe if only we can discover it. I don't know that I especially believe in a berobed deity sitting up in Heaven, or in a literal version of the Bible, but I certainly do believe in a higher power of some sort.


and although i'm not a Christian or religious in any way, and I have yet to read the Bible and learn all about this Jesus character, I have to admit I am interested to, from what i've seen there are lots of amazing, influential, thought-provoking scriptures and stories beneficial to mankind in there that are well worth reading, a lot of it backed up by historical evidence (of course there will always be debates about inconsistencies, literal interpretations ect. ect.)

/long post is long

[psyche]

Only if God is proven to exist beyond questionable doubt.

That is the crux, isn't it.

Who knows, maybe the very first primeval atom that set off the event of the Big Bang was created by a super-intelligent alien race, and the universe is their experiment, we are but a miniature zoo for their entertainment. Or perhaps we are but one small universe inside a huge Multiverse. Though that would probably challenge the theory of the Big Bang. Maybe we are in only one of many alternative realities, and anytime someone makes a conscious decision a quantum flux in the universe splits off into a seperate reality that is the result of the alternate decision that may have existed.


Ultimately, the existence of everything came from nothing, to put it in simple terms. Now, it's going to require something amazingly incomprehensible to explain exactly how that could happen, a scientific explanation just can't cut it.

Ngati Grim mentioned the Large Hadron Collider, which seeks to recreate the conditions, some time in the next 1000 years or so, that lead to the Big Bang. The funny thing is, it's goal is only to study the conditions of the Big Bang, not how the 'primeval atom' came to exist, or where it even came from, there's just no way of explaining that. An interesting thing I noted, after watching a documentary about the Big Bang, about how in the first few of moments from the creation of the atom, and I quote: 'light burts out from within the darkness' *, which when you think about fits in well with the book of Genesis:

1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Coincidence? Maybe. I find that pretty powerful though. Remembering the Bible was written a long time ago when we knew nothing about the creation of the universe, a lot of people thought the universe had just always existed back then. It's things like this that are probably one of the reasons a lot of modern scientists are beginning to believe in God, or already do, even if some of them won't openly admit it, otherwise risking their reputation and career. And of course some of the very early pioneers of science were deeply religious, or had their own beliefs about God themselves. From what i've heard a lot of scientists that research, study and learn about how everything works, firmly believe they are discovering the work of God, or at least a higher entity that clearly must have inconceivable knowledge, that we simply cannot comprehend, to make everything so sophisticated and complex, yet chaotic at the same time, and make it all work.

Imagine how the world of science felt when they discovered the Big Bang, that yes indeed - the universe was created and came into existence at some point. That right there is almost EVIDENCE of God, to say that yes, we were created, we were given the gift of life and the gift to EXIST. For some that must have been like a damn-near revelation, but now of course the atheists, that don't want to believe in or have anything to do with God, are going to shit themselves and scurry to come up with all kinds of solutions and explanations, "the reason we exist comes down to purely coincidental luck", "We evolved from something, from something, from something from.... nothing. All purely by chance and the 'science' of natural selection" ect.


and although i'm not a Christian or religious in any way, and I have yet to read the Bible and learn all about this Jesus character, I have to admit I am interested to, from what i've seen there are lots of amazing, influential, thought-provoking scriptures and stories beneficial to mankind in there that are well worth reading, a lot of it backed up by historical evidence (of course there will always be debates about inconsistencies, literal interpretations ect. ect.)

*note: the light was in fact, an immense burst of radioactive light and energy, according to scientists. Also note, the  Big Bang is still only in the stage of theory.

/long post is long

[Simon_NZ]

A Ph.D. in the social sciences? how is that relevant to what is a fundamentally scientific discussion.

That's like a graphic designer telling me about plate tectonics.

[KiLL3r]

but I think I'm going to ignore you from now, you seem to have formed some kind of conclusion on life, and believe that you have the answers to everything so I don't see any need to continue discussing/arguing any of these subjects with you. Not sure why you are even bothering to look at this thread in the first place tbh..

Wow!  Woohoo wrote one of the best post in this tread which i felt he wrote straight from the heart and you slag him off as ignorant and close minded.

:disappoin you have a lot to learn about people.

[psyche]

A Ph.D. in the social sciences? how is that relevant to what is a fundamentally scientific discussion.

That's like a graphic designer telling me about plate tectonics.

How's this then..


John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA)

"We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."


George Greenstein (astronomer)

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"


Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics):

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."


Tony Rothman (physicist):

"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."


Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist):

"Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."


Lord Kelvin [William Thomson] [1824-1907]
Physicist, Laws of Thermodynamics, Absolute temperature scale, inventor

"With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms creative power."

"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us...the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words."



Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
Mathematician, Physicist
Inventor of calculus
Law of universal gravitation
Newton's three laws of motion:
1) Law of inertia 2) Force=mass*acceleration 3) Principle of action and reaction
Published "Newton's Prophecies of Daniel"

"This thing [a scale model of our solar system] is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"


Johannes Kepler [1571-1630]
Astronomy/Laws of Planetary Motion

"I had the intention of becoming a theologian...but now I see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy, for 'the heavens declare the glory of God.'"

"[God] is the kind Creator who brought forth nature out of nothing."

"Knowing God without knowing our own wretchedness engenders pride. Knowing our own wretchedness without knowing God engenders despair."


Barry Parkert
Cosmologist

"Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."


Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia):

"The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."


George Ellis
British astrophysicist

"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

[benlav]

I can't believe you guys bother posting in this thread. All that is going to happen, is you'll all end up raging at one another.

Is like arguing about the "end" of the universe, and what's on the other side of the end of the universe.

what's the point? other than to argue...

[Simon_NZ]

Wow, a list. For starters Hawkins is agnostic.

Anyway, none of this matters - religion is slowly, but surely dying. Go into first year physics, chemistry, biology or geology class at University and ask who doesn't believe in evolution, who who thinks the earth is 4000 years old, who believes in god. You will get some people - but ultimately they will drop out, or just make shitty scientists and end up working at a council in a trivial role.

[Simon_NZ]

Anyway, my time here is over.

[cardossius]

"God was a scientist"

End quote

[Tiwaking!]

I've purposely stayed quiet during the "Psyche Era"

Having survived through the Hannibal4Life and krasher era, I think this era is most definitely the worst and deepest pit of ignorance we have all come to face. Definitely a competitor for the Dark Ages.

Are you a greater and more knowledgable mind than Copernicus, Newton Darwin and Einstein?

Yes! For starters: God does play dice. Secondly, Einstein didnt believe in Black Holes. Newton believed in Alchemy. Copernicus believed that the Church wouldnt persecute him for his ideas.

For your information, the concepts of God and evolution can logically co-exist.

Right up until they cant

That's why it is just a DISCUSSION

No. This is not.

You are trying to table ideas which have long, long, LONG ago been disproven.

It is the equivalent of saying that the Dark Ages were good for humanity. The only thing the Dark Ages were good for was for the arabs who took up all the discarded ideas of the past and forged what we now rely on for science.

[Black Heart]

Wow, a list. For starters Hawkins is agnostic.

i just read the first chapter fo the god delusion he seems FULLY atheist in that. EDIT: LOL hawkins not dawkins!

wheres my love ?

psyche you haven't yet explained how god can exist. if we have to be designed then the god concept must also, as it's far more complex and awesome than the meat sacks filled with arrogance beleiving the universe is totally jsut made for them to look at.

Actually the fact we exist is proof there is no  almighty god, because humans have too many flaws to have ever been made by a perfect being.

[psyche]

Wow, a list.

And that's a only very small fraction of them. Would you like to see more?

For starters Hawkins is agnostic.

Thanks for that enlightening bit of information.

Anyway, none of this matters - religion is slowly, but surely dying. Go into first year physics, chemistry, biology or geology class at University and ask who doesn't believe in evolution, who who thinks the earth is 4000 years old, who believes in god. You will get some people - but ultimately they will drop out, or just make shitty scientists and end up working at a council in a trivial role.

So to you, the opinion of some first year students are more credible than that of some of the greatest scientific minds in modern and recent history? You are kinda clutching at straws a bit now, aren't you?

None of this matters? What the hell is that supposed to mean? I don't know where you heard religion is dying, but it isn't - and a growing number of scientists around the world are starting to openly admit they believe in God or a  'Supreme and intelligible Creator', or already do, or consider it a very real possibility as evidenced by the above quotes not including the many I haven't listed. As I've already said, evolution and God can logically co-exist, whereas evolution without God or some kind of supreme Creator, doesn't work, because if you follow it right back to the end of the spectrum, you can't logically or scientifically evolve something from nothing, can you?

As an atheist you need to explain how your belief that everything came from nothing by extreme coincidence would work, and start asking yourself those questions, otherwise why would you be an atheist?

Again I will quote Lord William Thomson Kelvin..

"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us...the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words."

It's difficult for a scientists to openly admit that they believe in God, because it undermines their credibility in the eyes of the scientific community due to the stigma attached to it.

Having survived through the Hannibal4Life and krasher era, I think this era is most definitely the worst and deepest pit of ignorance we have all come to face. Definitely a competitor for the Dark Ages.

So there must have been a delusional atheist era too? or is that still going..

Right up until they cant

Which is what...? :sly:

No. This is not.

What the f*ck is it then? If we call it an argument all we're going to acheive is bickering like idiots and acting like a child like Arnifix, instead of actually discussing. Think about it.

You are trying to table ideas which have long, long, LONG ago been disproven.

Oh really? I didn't realise the big bang theory, the theory of the primeval atom, the expanding universe theory and other theories had all been disproven. Incredible!

i just read the first chapter fo the god delusion he seems FULLY atheist in that. EDIT: LOL hawkins not dawkins!

He is, he is a 'fanatical' atheist, in the most extreme, and quite possibly has an agenda behind his motivations. His book sucks aswell, and most of his theories have been debunked or don't receive much acknowledgement afaik. He follows the ideas of Darwinism, yet Darwin himself eventually admitted there was no way his theories could logically work, and that the complexity of nature and the universe had to have been designed by something. For some reason everyone jumped on the idea of evolution and started praising it as the most amazing discovery in science, but in Darwin's own words:

“I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”

psyche you haven't yet explained how god can exist. if we have to be designed then the god concept must also, as it's far more complex and awesome than the meat sacks filled with arrogance beleiving the universe is totally jsut made for them to look at.

I already explained this to you, many many pages ago, I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing for your benefit because you are too slow to keep up.

Actually the fact we exist is proof there is no  almighty god, because humans have too many flaws to have ever been made by a perfect being.

I addressed this concept in one of my earlier posts. I don't think many people believe God is ABSOLUTELY perfect (though I could be wrong), when you really think about it how can something be perfection? Something can always be improved in some way. But I'd say pretty damn close to perfection, imo, if it has the ability to create a complex universe for life to live. Assuming one does believe in God, the fact that everything may not have gone to plan, I don't think that's something we can fault the Creator for, considering it still gave us the privilege to exist in the first place, and especially if it is true that we brought our own demise upon us.

[KiLL3r]

wow you seriously look like an idiot and a hypocrite with that post.

we have tried being patient with you but you dont seem to get it. You can quote your "intelligent scientists" all you like but their opinions doesnt change ours. Just because someone smarter than you has the same beliefs as you do it doesnt give your argument ANY credibility.

Also how does Lord William Thomson Kelvin count as a modern scientist he died in 1907! a lot has changed in 100 years.

And why is it difficult for a scientist to admit they belive in god? The scientific community isnt some sort of atheist gang that dismiss scientist believers as any less entitled to an opinion.

And no you havnt explained how god can exist yet the universe is incappable of existing in the same way. By your current reasoning that everything has to have been created by your own logic then that means God/Superior Being whatever has to have had a creator as well. And if thats true then he/it is hardly a superior being let alone a god!

And i seriously hope you answer the red coloured part with a serious intellectual answer and not just dodge the question as you have done this entire thread with "im cant be bothered" or "i already have" when you blatantly have not.