If you believe that God created the Universe, why do you suppose he did it? Was it for the benefit of us humans, or was there another purpose? Did he create the stars simply for our viewing pleasure? If so, it seems a bit over the top considering the size of a single star compared to our Earth (more about that shortly), the hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy, and the hundreds of billions of galaxies in our universe (each being made up of hundreds of billions of stars) – nearly all of which we can’t even see. It would have made more sense to put small bright orbs in the heavens – which is what the ancients believed the stars to be.
If our Sun represents less than one billianth of one billianth of the total number of stars in the universe – virtually a single grain of sand on a long beach – then how big is our Earth relative to the Sun? If you think of the Sun as a basketball, the Earth would be about the size of the head of a pin. With a little imagination, you can get a feel for just how miniscule our corner of the universe really is.
What fraction of time has this unimaginably small spec we call Earth been home to humans? The universe itself is about 14 billion years old. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old – about a third of the time the universe has been around. But how long has the Earth been home to us humans? Oxygen first appeared in the Earth’s atmosphere about 2.5 billion years ago. Bacteria appeared only about 600 million years ago. Land plants appeared only 400 million years ago, followed by the first land animals around 300 million years ago. The genus, Homo, appeared only 2.5 million years ago. If these are the humans of Genesis, then the Earth has been home to humans not 1% of the time that the Earth has been around, not 0.1% of the time, but about 0.05% of the time. To give you a perspective, 0.05% of a year is about an hour and a half.
However the first species of the genus Homo were nothing like us modern humans. They looked more like modern Gorillas than modern humans. Homosapiens, our species, have only been around for about 200,000 years. That’s only about a thousandth of the time that the genus Homo has been around. Once again, to give you perspective of what a small fraction of time homosapiens have existed: one thousandth of 0.05% of a year is about 5 seconds.
But it gets even worse. Most of Earth is hostile to human life. The ocean covers about 70% of the Earth and is uninhabitable. The land that makes up the remainder of the Earth’s surface is no paradise either. Tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic activity, droughts, extreme temperatures, hurricanes, and tornadoes are some of the geological dangers that constantly threaten human life. In addition to geological hazards, humans also face deadly non-biological hazards, like plagues which wipe out a significant part of the human population from time to time.
Not only is there no compelling reason to believe that the universe was designed in the first place, there is overwhelming evidence that the universe was not designed for us humans. There is only a tiny corner of the universe we can see. Nearly all of that tiny fraction of the universe is hostile to human life. And even the tiny spec of the tiny fraction that supports human life, has only been a hostile home to humans for a tiny fraction of time.
End note:
How big is a billion anyway? If you are reading this on a computer with a decent monitor (say 1280 x 768), then there are nearly a million pixels on your screen. On a good monitor, you won’t be able to see an individual pixel with your naked eye – try looking at a portion of the screen through a magnifying glass and you will see the pixels. To see a billion pixels, your monitor would have to be a thousand times larger (which means 32 times taller and 32 times wider – 32 x 32 = 1024)! You can measure the width and height of your monitor and multiply the width by 32 and the height by 32 to see how big a billion-pixel monitor would be. That’s one one billion pixels. Now imagine that this single pixel you are viewing through a magnifying glass were actually super-sized billion-pixel monitor (32 time wider and 32 times taller than your computer monitor) – all stuffed into the space of a single pixel of the original billion-pixel super-sized monitor. A single pixel on that monitor would be a billionth of a billionth the size of your original full-sized monitor.
RSS - Posts
January 6, 2009 at 12:28 am |
…and, if Jesus physically rose from the dead 2000 years ago and travelled in a straight line at the speed of light toward the nearest edge of our galaxy when he ascended, he’d still have another 22,000 years to go before he cleared our galaxy.
(Happy New Year BTW!)
January 6, 2009 at 1:15 am |
Excellent point!! Plus, as Jesus approached the speed of light, he would become as flat as a pancake (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_contraction). Maybe that’s where the idea of communion wafers came from?
:))
January 23, 2009 at 9:37 am |
howdy,
I’m not seeing how you’re connecting the vast age or the immense size of the universe (or any other cosmological/biological/geological observation) with the explicitly theological question which this post begins with…
…it’s a bit as silly as the assumption (which is almost certainly tongue-in-cheek) that Jesus a) must have (obviously) been intending to exit our galaxy, and b) that he obviously must have traveled at the speed of light (which must be the standard speed for saviours?) :) (though, I’ll give you a 7/10 for the communion wafer joke) :D
Rather than ruling out divine purpose, the improbability of our very existence (which has many insisting – quite interestingly – upon the existence of ‘multi-verses’) can quite easily be used to appeal for it.
January 26, 2009 at 1:02 am |
Dale,
Glad you liked the joke :)) I was just being silly.
The point isn’t that the universe is vast. The point is that there’s so much of it (virtually all of it) that not only is of no benefit to us, but is hostile to human life (and all other life with the possible exception of certain extremophiles).
While I don’t believe that there is a God (and therefore it follows that I don’t believe in a divine purpose), that is not what I am arguing here. I’m arguing here that the belief that God created the universe for us is inconsistent with the evidence.
I’m wondering how you estimate the probability of our existence? For that matter, what is your estimation of the probability that a God (one and only one) exists? After all, God (as I believe you envision him) is all we are and infinitely more. Whatever the probability you estimate for the existence of exactly one God, if we are improbable for some set of reasons, than it seems that the existence of one (and only one) who is infinitely more than us (and even capable of creating us) would be still more improbable for the same set of reasons.
January 26, 2009 at 5:11 am |
cheers, A3,
first, it’s not “the evidence (TM)” which points this way or that way – but is our interpretation of the what we observe…
second, I think you’ll find that most believers in a Creator would not say that God created the universe only for humans (and for humans only, etc.). It would stand to reason that a Creator who did not create things would not be very much of a creator. So, seeing the act of creation of following (of necessity) directly from the creative attribute of God would be another perspective.
The fact that we seem to automatically need/want an ‘explanation’ for it seems to indicate that we (perhaps at both intuitive and rational levels?) sense that the probability is not great. Do you know of any scientists who say that the probability is likely/good/high/etc., or that our existence needs little/no explanation?
That’s Dawkins-style reasoning, and (no offense!) I find it bizarre. Any ‘God’ deserving of the capital ‘G’ would be a single necessary being, i.e. the ground for all existence/being, and not a created entity. The question ‘who would have made God, then’ only requires a few more seconds of causal logic to arrive at the notion of a prime/first cause/mover, etc.
But I’m still curious how you make the move from cosmology (or biology/geology) to the very philosophical (actually theological) judgment?
And what’s more, I’m not even sure what it is you’re asserting about the universe. How would we know how ‘human friendly’ the universe is? Is it not quite friendly? Drawing attention to the fact that humans couldn’t live in most of the universe ignores the other fact that we live/survive/philosophise/critically think/etc rather well in one part of it.
January 29, 2009 at 5:08 am |
(TM) <– :))
I contend that the best interpretation is that the universe was not created solely for us.
I think that’s true. However that doesn’t seem to be the case with most evangelical Christians, at least not in my personal experience.
Neither you nor I nor professional scientists nor anyone else can guess at what the probability is or even if the probability is great or small. The reason we can’t guess is that we only have a single data point: our universe. We don’t know of various universes of which only some percentage produces intelligent life.
I’m sure there’s an answer in there but I couldn’t find it. You commented earlier about the relative improbability of our existence, and my question was about how you assess the probability. In particular, how do you conclude that the existence of a God that creates a universe and life is more probable than the existence of a universe that produces life?
I haven’t actually made that move yet. So far I’ve merely pointed out an inconsistency between a belief about the purpose of the universe with the observable evidence about the universe.
I’m asserting that it doesn’t appear to be created solely for man.
I think I follow your line of reasoning: a billionth of a billionth of a billionth is infinitely greater than zero and is therefore great. ;)
January 29, 2009 at 6:26 am |
I don’t believe in God, but I do believe spelling matters.
“billianth” -> “billionth”
Besides that knock to your credibility, your target audience of believers will reject your reasoning because according to them, it is well known that the earth is 6000 years old.
Personally, I don’t get too up in arms about the claim of a 6000 year old earth. Once you swallow the idea of an all-powerful God, why not not plant all that evidence 6000 years ago? My next question to a believer would be: since God is all powerful, I propose that he started the universe 6 seconds ago, and set up all the initial conditions including the memories in your head. If you can’t distinguish between 6000 years and 6 seconds (and you *cant* because God is so good he gets all the details right), the how to tell the difference between 6000 years and X billion years?
January 29, 2009 at 7:43 am |
@ Jim Battle,
Yes, but you missed the more obvious spelling/grammar error: the post title. “Did God created…” (no offense, A3!)
A3,
Yes, so how do you make your judgment about purpose based only on this universe?
The reason I have no hesitation talking about the ‘improbability of our existence’ is because we feel the need to explain life. We are amazed to be here. For all we know, inanimate rocks got all hot-and-bothered, made soup, somehow (nobody is even close to knowing) began to self-replicate (HUGE leap, there), and eventually are self aware of their own self-awareness. A universe characterised (so Dawkins says) by ‘blind, pitiless indifference’ somehow gave rise to life that can see, have compassion and strive to make a difference. This is the kind of thing that causes people to write books with titles called ‘Climing Mount Improbable‘. Apparently, it’s rather amazing to a few people, and at least a few of us think it all needs an explanation. :)
I think by your very raising of the notion of inconsistency you have already made a move… How?
Great for our existence, at least!! And I don’t hear many complaints from anywhere else in the universe! :D
January 29, 2009 at 7:44 am |
edit: “…and eventually gave rise to organisms that are self aware…”
January 30, 2009 at 2:20 pm |
Jim,
Thanks for the correction. Welcome to the blog!
January 30, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
Dale,
I don’t need to compare our universe with other universes to make this type of observation about our universe. For example, I don’t need to know anything about what other universes might be like, or if they even exist, to observe that our Sun is less than a billionth of of a billionth of the star population in our universe.
I understand that you feel that our existence is improbable, though as I pointed out earlier, we don’t have the wherewithal to even hazard a guess as to the probability of our existence. For all we know, life is the inevitable outcome of a universe. Similarly for all we know, life may be extremely unlikely.
You seem to be making the point that the likelihood that a God would exist who creates a universe and who creates life, is greater than the likelihood that life would naturally arise from a universe (please correct me if this is not the point you want to make). However, we have no clue how likely it is that a God would exist (for that matter, we don’t even know if a god or gods exist). Since we also have no clue how likely it is that life would naturally arise, then we have no basis on which to claim that one is more likely than the other.
There is one catch: you seem to be saying that the reason you feel that life and consciousness is an unlikely is because of how wonderful and complex life is. Do you think that God is as wonderful and as complex as life and consciousness?
I guess the question baffles me a bit. I should realize that to someone who cannot fathom a universe that was not created by God, questions relating to the cosmos are inextricable from questions relating to God. Howerver, as one who is not convinced that the universe can only exist if a god creates it, I am able to consider the cosmos and the logical coherency of various beliefs about the cosmos, without regard to the basis for those beliefs; that is, whether the beliefs arise from observing physical evidence, from philosophical thought, or from theological thought.
It’s obvious you haven’t seen enough Seinfeld or South Park reruns! :))
January 31, 2009 at 10:52 am |
A3,
Yes, but you still haven’t at all shown what those cosmological fractions (or decimals) have to do with a metyaphysical/philosophical/theological concept such as ‘purpose’.
First, I don’t think it’s just me that feels that our existence is improbable. Again, where do titles like ‘climbing mount improbable’ from from?
Second, I’m fully happy with your parallel ‘for all we know’ statements. Indeed, as long as we don’t know what other natural universes are (or might be) like, we can’t really compare, can we? What we can do, however, is look at the one natural universe we DO know a few things about, observe its conditions, and the natural process that would have have led up to our existence. And based on this, we can think about how probable or improbable we think we are…
…which would lead us (logically) to yet another dual ‘for all we know’ statement, because we don’t know -upon multiple re-runs of the cosmological play- how many times the universe would (sooner or later) churn out biology; let alone biology as complex as you. :)
Some might say that complex biology such as humans is fully and totally inevitable in our universe. Others would say that complex biology such as humans can only be accidental in our universe.
Neither one knows – because this is the only universe we truly know about, and this is the only ‘run of the cosmological play’ we know about!
So, restricting our ‘probability analysis’ to this universe and this ‘run of the cosmological play’ would seem to be more fruitful than speculation about other universes or runs of the play.
I don’t think I’ve ever compared the likeliness of a God to the likeliness of a life arising naturally, so no I don’t think that’s what I’m meaning to say.
All sorts of tangents I could take here (like the subjectivity of ‘wonderful’ or even ‘complex’ – compared to what?). But to clarify for you – in my view, creator and creation are distinct enough that I wouldn’t need to bring that into my analysis of whether life and consciousness emerging in our natural universe is unlikely or not.
So… will you please (finally) explain how you’ve arrived at your conclusion regarding the ‘logical [in]coherency’ between the cosmos and the notion of purpose?
What you seem to be failing to recognise is that in the very process of ‘considering’/judging such coherence/incoherence, you yourself are engaging in philosophical and even theological thought.
I’m just wanting to see how you make that judgment, that’s all :)
February 1, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
Dale,
It seemed to me that you were putting forward a theory of the existence of God based on your personal feeling that our existence is improbable, and I was interacting with that proposal. Possibly I misunderstood your proposal – possibly you were putting forward a theory of the existence of God based on the personal feelings of the majority. Are you also implying here that if the majority feels a particular way, then conclusions based on those feelings are not subject to criticism because the feelings are shared by the majority? If you are not saying that, if the conclusion is still subject to criticism regardless of how many people share the feelings which underpin it, then is my criticism unjustified for a different reason? And if my criticism is not unjustified, then do you agree with my criticism of the conclusion that based on feelings that our existence is unlikely, there must be a divine creator?
I agree. It appears we have reached an important consensus here: we agree that we cannot talk about probabilities of the universe being the way it is because we can only observe one “run of the cosmological play” (nice metaphor by the way!). It follows than that regardless of whether we believe that a divine creator exists, the basis for that belief cannot depend upon comparison of the likelihood of our existence without one.
I think that implicitly you have, and here is how: if you conclude that a divine creator must exist to create us because it is unlikely that we can exist without one, then it follows that in your estimation, the likelihood that a divine creator exists is greater than the likelihood that we exist without one. Without the implicit comparison of the likelihood of each scenario, the observation that our existence is unlikely would have no influence on your opinion regarding the existence of a divine creator.
I would be glad to try again. Generally speaking, if there exists any part of the universe which has no direct or indirect effect on us in any meaningful way, then it follows that we are not the object of any purpose of that part of the universe (at least not of any accomplished purpose). More specifically, if God created the universe, then he created that part of the universe for another purpose; that is, he did not create it for our benefit.
If that part of the universe (described above) is say, 1% by some measure, then 1% of the universe does not exist for our benefit – our benefit is not its purpose. If that part of the universe is a very large percentage, say 1/(a billionth of a billionth), then 1/(a billionth of a billionth) of the universe does not exist for our benefit.
You are correct: I fail to recognize that ;) Since I don’t dispute the belief that the universe exists solely for our benefit on any theological grounds, but rather based on logical grounds, then I also reach my conclusion based on these logical grounds and not on theological grounds. I do however think that my logical conclusion is apropos to theological discourse in which one can indeed propose theological conclusions. For example, one might conclude that God intended to create the universe for our benefit but failed to accomplish his intention. One might also conclude that God created the entire universe but he only created a minuscule part of it for our benefit. One might even conclude that many gods cooperated to create the universe and one of these gods, lets call him YHVH, created his tiny part of it solely for our benefit. However, I am not presenting any of these arguments. I’m presenting an argument that a theory that God created the universe solely for our benefit is not tenable.
February 1, 2009 at 11:08 pm |
A3,
Yes I think you have (perhaps do to my poor wording). You refer to two things: the probability of our existence, and the probability of God’s existence. I’m not (at least here) meaning to treat them at the same time. It may be helpful to distinguish as well how these are different KINDS of discussion. Thinking about how likely we are to have arisen in OUR universe will involve mental activity within disciplines such as cosmology, biology, logic(a subset of philosophy), etc. However, thinking about how likely the existence of a God is will involve activity within disciplines such as philosophy and theology (note: cosmology is not listed here :) ).
Now, a person CAN choose to attempt to argue that cosmology (or biology or geology or poetry or…) ‘points to’ the existence of a God. THIS is what causes sparks to fly. I’m committed to keeping the disciplines distinct (whereas some people -i.e. the discovery institute, etc.?- seem to wish to actually redifine science to be theological science [i'm not up to speed on these groups, though, so I'm only repeating what I've heard]. But what you seem to be doing in this post, A3, is the same thing only from the other side. Like the ID groups, you’re trying to use science to make a theological point – only the theological point you’re making is negative rather than positive.
So by that logic, did the moon instantly become purposefully created for humans the moment we set foot on it? Where are you reading this un-bendable philosophical/theological law stating that (a) purposeful creation must always be narrowly anthropocentric, and that (b) humans must have direct contact with all things purposefully created? What an interesting theological/philosophical position you have! :)
Yes, and not Christian either :)
February 2, 2009 at 4:50 am |
…for what it’s worth, ole Dawkins is one example of an atheist who unhesitatingly agrees that humans are ‘improbable’ – as he says here in a discussion with Alister McGrath.
February 4, 2009 at 12:52 am |
Dale,
My comments were prompted by your earlier statement: “the improbability of our very existence … can quite easily be used to appeal for [divine purpose].” Were you saying that others may use this as an appeal but that you do not?
a) I actually have not been arguing that purposeful creation must be anthropocentric ;) I’ve been arguing all along (please see my comments above!) that the universe does not appear to have an anthropocentric purpose, which is quite distinct from the claim that the universe does not have a purpose.
b) I am also not arguing that humans need have direct contact with a thing for it to be purposefully created (please see above!). I am arguing however that (as I said above) “if there exists any part of the universe which has no direct or indirect effect on us in any meaningful way, then it follows that we are not the object of any purpose of that part of the universe (at least not of any accomplished purpose).”
and b’) what an interesting theological/philosophical position you have created on my behalf! :)
Many Christians hold that it is the Christian position. Fundamentalist Christians who hold that the creations stories in Gen 1 & 2 are literally true, and that the cosmos was created solely for man, often accuse other Christians of not holding Christian beliefs if they don’t accept what “God said.” It seems to me that the Church held this view for ages and has only relatively recently abandoned it.
I’ve heard this clip – I really like McGrath. I also agree that humans are improbable. However, the probability of a particular species does not inform us about the probability of life in general arising in the universe, or even intelligent life. Our inability to know if life is improbable does not prevent us from affirming that a particular species, or for that matter a particular individual, is extremely improbable.
February 4, 2009 at 10:22 am |
A3,
I think the word solely would not be used (let alone emphasized) by even evangelical-with-a-capital-E type Christians.
February 4, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
You have a really interesting blog, and I have put you on my list of blogs I follow through Bloglovin’.
I first, until like half a year ago, didn’t at all believe in the existence of God, any spirit of life. I don’t know when the change came exactly, but now I kind of believe in God. I’m a protestant, I don’t really go to church that often and I wouldn’t depend too much on the biblical textures. But I can’t believe that our universe was created out of NOTHING, because as we all know, from nothing comes nothing. I believe that God created the start of the universe, not for necesarily our purpose but for the purpose of the greater, the ALL.
Would be happy for a reply. :)
May 31, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
There are many credible theories trying to explain “the first cause” hawkins has one about clashing dimensions (or something) but again to assume theres a god just because this question is sofar unanswered seems ridiculous, many would respond with “what created god” and most christians would say “hes always existed”
but as you have said nothing can come from nothing so its sort of a self defeating argument.
btw. I respect the fact that you changed(even though not to atheism) in your belief as many seem unable to do this even when faced with resounding proof that there wrong.
May 31, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I changed my belief? What?
The idea of a God always being around and the big bang molecule coming from nothing have the same principle that something came from nothing. They are both ridiculous.
But so is the idea that everything has always existed.
Every “creation” theory is preposterous.
If Christians roll the lucky die and get the right number ONCE, God then exists and can make everything else happen.
If Atheists roll the lucky die and get the same number ONCE, they still have to roll for all the amino acids, the placement of the Earth, our solar system type, all factors that lead to us typing this discussion.
May 31, 2009 at 10:27 pm
My post was a reply to leonards post, i said nothing about you changing your beliefs.
There are theories out there that dont say that the first molecule came from nothing, hawkins has one about clashing dimensions(or something) thats quite popular.
I dont know why you stated that “the idea that everything has always existed is stupid” as its not a belief i hold.
The whole thing about rolling the die and god being an easier and more conveinent theory, doesnt make it right. For example if my socks keep disappearing and i dont know why, inventing a sock elf that steals them would be conveinent and explain it easily, but this of course doesnt make it so. (it amazes me that this is how you validate your belief in a deity)
June 3, 2009 at 12:58 am
Sorry for the initial misunderstanding. : )
May I ask where the clashing dimensions came from?
We think everything has to have had a beginning. But this means something came from nothing. The Big Bang and Creationism both depend on this. The notion that something came from nothing is quite ridiculous, but the only viable explanation left for “something can’t come from nothing”. We find that everything has already existed absurd as well.
I would ask that you don’t refer to the idea of God always existing as ridiculous and stupid, you have the same problem.
June 3, 2009 at 3:40 am
I think the theory suggest that dimensions like our 3 dont come from anywhere they just are ..like time, but i dont pretend to be an expert on the subject if your interested theres stuff about it on the web.
The Big Bang doesnt depend on something coming from nothing, thats just theist propaganda, there are many theories as ive said that are grappling with this
but its not exactly an easy subject when the laws of known physics probably wouldnt apply to a pre big bang event.
Well i dont have the same problem as you because i dont think the universe has always existed, i believe it was created at the big bang.
You stated in an earlier post that you though that the idea of god and the universe always existing was ridiculous, where do you think god came from then. (this isnt an attack im just trying to clarify your opinion)
June 3, 2009 at 4:03 am
You do depend on something coming from nothing. The universe starts with the Big Bang? Where’d that come from? Go through your last response and switch out “the big bang” with “God”. They are the same theory, just a different noun/cause. Mine’s intelligent design of a God and yours’s is random chance.
All “beginning” of the universe explanations are illogical is my point. You can not get rid of one just on the basis that it’s a ridiculous idea, they are all ridiculous. You have to have evidence. The “morale” of the story is please don’t say the idea of God is a bunch of made up myths and is wrong and then use that as evidence for why you believe the equally unproven notion of Big Bang.
June 3, 2009 at 6:34 am
No Atheist claims that nothing caused the big bang, most just dont claim to know. There are many theories regarding what caused the big bang ive already mentioned the one about the clashing dimensions.(dimensions arent made they just are ..like time)
Intelligent designs says (if im not mistaken) that the universe is so well designed that it must have been created by a intelligence….well ok but why your particular god? why not allah or one of the hundreds of other gods that man has invented over the years?
The evolution of intelligent life was not random chance but natural selection
Didnt think it would ever happen, but i agree with you, most creation theories(ie what caused the big bang) are far fetched and this is why i dont make massive assumptions (like theres a god)
The same encyclopedia i linked before had this to say about the big bang
“It is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation”
So to say that its has just as unproven as God is …well..wrong.
The worst thing about these discussions is that you now see me as an enemy and will view any reasoning or argument i put to you as wrong on principle simply because it came from me,
I dont have a problem with the concept of a devine supreme being who created the universe, as its just as possible a theory as many out there but because there is no proof i believe what has the most scientific evidence..ie evolution,big bang etc
If say there was a creator why do you think your right over all the other religions of the world? perhaps the greeks where right and there is lots of gods like zeus and appolo etc. What makes you right and the other religions wrong?
June 4, 2009 at 10:46 pm
My religion gives me all the answers I need, and satisfactory ones too. If you’re satisfied with your answers, ok.
To create matter (and make a big bang) something as physically empty as time cannot clash with something else that empty (dimensions, sorry) and make something. The dimensions need something in them to clash at all. Air going against another gust needs something in it to make a substance. Need a substance to make a substance.
I don’t like massive assumptions much either, like, some dense particle exploded from nowhere and made everything.
Most accurate and comprehensive? Arbitrary words, it is not accurate, and if it, someone please update me and answer my three questions, and it is not comprehensive, it doesn’t answer everything, like my three questions. One (or a group) man wrote your encyclopedia (fallibal, God isn’t re-checking what he wrote), he got his facts from a bunch of different people (fallible, the more people not being checked by God the worse), and he’s human so he’s biased. Of course he’s going to say it’s accurate and comprehensive, what do you expect?
I’m not sure if I answered why my God was right. The only religions are think that are even still in the contest are Hinduism/ Buddhism, and the monotheisms. Absolute truth must spread, which these 5 do, so all native culture animism (and Greece, didn’t spread enough to stay alive) and such don’t matter, no one else believes them unless you are raised in it. The Big 5 get converts every day. Hinduism if I remember correctly says we all need to join back with other living souls in some mindless conjuction, but doesn’t tell us how we got split up in the first place. Our bodies were made for recieving pleasure, so Shiva wouldn’t make us so we have to forsake wordly pleasures, so Buddhism seems out to me.
The three monotheisms talk about Jesus, so Jesus is a factor in this contest. In my mind, the Jews predicted something. It happened, but they didn’t want to believe it. So Christianity comes about, and Jews are left behind. Islam agrees with the God, but ironically says that the Jews were having it wrong the entire time, and God did nothing about it. Doesn’t sound how they portray Allah to me.
Mine’s right. Of course. : P
Right, NOW of all times you’re the enemy, so I’m going to shoot down everything you say. When I “attack” you with logic and reasoning, you don’t attack that (I’ll argue you can’t), you just attack other theories that are connected to what I believe and try to undermine them. If I can give a rational explanation for why you’re wrong, then say something that we both agree is true and see if I shoot it down. I’ve agreed with you on stuff before.
I say the Big Bang has no evidence. (You say the universe is spreading apart. You say galaxy A is moving from us, but how do you not know it’s just being pulled by galaxy B? Galaxies are inevitably coming to us, due to gravity) Evolution doesn’t make sense because of my three questions. Evidence A supports problem A, but Evidence B is missing, and doesn’t support problem B. Problem A is supported, and is an answer, but answer A and problem B don’t make a fact. It doesn’t matter if you have evidence A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z, if evidence B is missing, the other evidence’s cause becomes faulty. Just because there’s enough evidence for you doesn’t mean there is for me.
June 5, 2009 at 4:14 pm
You say that somthing as physically empty as time cannot clash with some thing else that is as empty,.. just because you say it cannot doesnt make it so.
The theory deals with stuff outside our law of physics and just because you dont understand its finer principles(like i dont) doesnt mean its not perfectly valid. Steven Hawkings (smartest man alive) is working on this, i would imagine he wouldnt be working on it if it was as simple as you tried to make it out.
Regarding the religions ..well their all wrong and your right …cos you say so
(Surprise, surprise)
Jews are all going to hell simple cos they dont think jesus was the promised messiah….unlucky for them i guess.
and finally (im trying to make these posts smaller) The galaxies are moving apart from each other and not just pulling each other about because
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Hubble.27s_law_and_the_expansion_of_space
I dont pretend to understand all of it but at some point you got to conceed that the people dealing with this, know their stuff and arent just making it up to ruin your day.
I touched on your view on evolution in another post saying that just because there is a problem with a certain aspect of evolution that is still being worked on it doesnt undermine the rest of the huge amount of evidence we have for it.
June 5, 2009 at 11:25 pm
I’m going to copy you, switching a few words. Well, sort of.
You say that somthing as impossible as God is wrong, … just because you say it cannot doesn’t make it so.
God deals with stuff outside our laws of physics and purpose, just because you don’t understand His finer principles( I don’t) doesn’t mean He’s not perfectly valid. This has been believed for 2000 years, I would imagine they wouldn’t have believed it if it was as ridiculous as you try to make it out.
Both are valid, I just find no matter+no matter=matter (it’s like 0+0=1) not making sense. Sure, there’s junk I don’t know, maybe he’ll (Hawkings) prove it right someday.
I find my religious logic sound (assuming any of the 5 are possible), I gave you… theoretical evidence for how the other 4 are wrong. It’s not JUST because I say so, I backed up what I said. There’s a difference between telling kids 2+2=4 and telling them AND showing them. Jews hate Jesus, if I asked if they wanted to spend eternity with Him, they would say no, and if the few said yes, I would ask them why, and they would offer reasons no different then why they wanted to be with me or you.
I don’t doubt that they know what they’re talking about, I think YOU don’t know what you’re talking about. Telling me that they look at some galaxies and see some of them expanding doesn’t mean they see ALL the galaxies expanding. And if you’re not expanding, you’re contracting. Find me an article that says “ALL galaxies”. I’ll look at it, make sure it’s not some biased college student, and a respectable website, and I’ll concede on THAT point.
There, is that condition for concession to ridiculous?
June 6, 2009 at 1:32 am
Athiest nor i ever state god is so impossible so its wrong …theres just no evidence.
God may very well deal with stuff outside our laws of physics
(as a god i’d sort of expect it) but again …theres not evidence he exists let alone deals with the laws of physics.
If i spent years studying the bible for gods finer principles i would still doubt the validity of the idea because a lack of evidence in god in the first place.
And the bible has been believed for 2000 years without evidence because the christian faith doesnt need it.
My point is that your religion and science are very different organisations so for example
most scientists believing evolution is more valid because they need verifiable proof whereas christian beliefs are based on faith.
(dictionary.com)
“Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”
So you cant use the same arguments for scientific theories as you would for religious dogma
Regarding hawkins and the dimensions stuff.. Agreed, how matter came from dimensions etc i dont understand but i got faith;) hawkings does.
“@ jews/jesus spending eternity with him paragraph”
Just as you gave your theoretical evidence im sure they would give similar evidence, but none of the religions (in my opinion) has any factual evidence to prove that there religion is the true religion so how are us lost sheep to see the way?. (rock, paper, scissors?)
Regarding your asking for me to link evidence that ALL the galaxies are expanding….>.< you do realise there are billions(over 100billion according to Wikipedia) of galaxies…..
But believe it or not i found an encyclopedia that actually says ALL galaxies..lolz
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/198347/expanding-universe
(its in that first paragraph)i cant believe they actually redshift measured every galaxy but its stated pretty plain and simple there.
June 6, 2009 at 3:54 am
You (most people) need evidence before you can become a Christian who “doesn’t need evidence”.
I’m satisfied with my proof. And you left out like 5 other definitions of faith on dictionary.com
If you have proof you can argue scientifically, why is a perfect book not proof?
Stick me and a Jew in a room and watch us go at it, and if you were so inclined to choose a religion you’d choose there. And even their book says Jesus is the Messiah, they just don’t want to admit it. : P
I’m assuming your link gave me an incomplete article, the first word wasn’t capitalized and it was ONLY one paragraph. And I didn’t see an all inlusive word.
By and by, if the first particle was so dense, (it would be denser then a black hole, black holes are made out of it) how could anything possibly explode and fly away? Wasn’t the first particle by defintion a black hole? Don’t black holes suck up energy and convert it to mass? Any energy would be gone before it could do anything.
June 6, 2009 at 7:36 pm
(dictionary .com)
“Proof: Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.”
So basically its all down to what you call evidence and how much you need(evidence) to believe something.
I dont see the bible as evidence as its simply a book stating what it thinks happened and then states that its right. There are many books on evoultion that explain how it happens then state that its right….neither are evidence.
For me evidence is stuff like fossil records, experiment result’s and what can be seen happening. If for example noah’s ark was found and carbon dated to authenticate it, i would class this as evidence.
I dont see ID as evidence because its reasoning can be used to explain anything….
The universe is here and complex so god must have created it.
so why not…
Planes keep going missing over the bermuda triangle so aliens must keep abducting them.
This is nothing but asumption and means little without evidence to back it up.
Jews are jews simple cos they dont want to admit jesus was the messiah >.<
Do you really believe this? im sure jews would disagree and say you think he was the messiah just because you couldnt be bothered to wait for the real messiah.
This is the statement i was refering to
"The development of general relativity and its application to cosmology by Albert Einstein, Wilhelm de Sitter, and other theoreticians, along with the detection of extragalactic redshift by Vesto Slipher, led to the realization in the 1920s that *ALL* galaxies are receding.
You asked for an article stating that all galaxies where expanding(above).
That wasnt from a biased source(its from an encyclopedia)..
There was only 1 paragraph because it was a sub link from a bigger topic, not that its size should matter.
You said if i could meet these conditions, you would concede that the universe is expanding…im still waiting however
Regarding your last paragraph
What black holes do, they do according to our universes laws of pysics. What caused the first particle and its state deals with stuff outside our laws of physics dealing with infinite tempretures and densities beyond that of mere black holes.
We have agreed in previous posts that most creation theories make little sense (to us) but just because we have a lack of understanding its not a good reason to ignore that which we do have proof for (like the expanding universe)
June 6, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Let’s get to some evidence for the Bible being God inspired, how old can we agree the book of Isaiah is?
The complexities I have a problem with are the pairings of A’s, T’s, G’s, and C’s.
Jesus filled all the criteria for the Messiah.
Right, you JUST met the criteria. I’m not going to concede BEFORE that. Although I personally believe some galaxies are pulling together, for this discussion I will say they are all moving away from each other.
What was the significance of this again?
Right, so we don’t understand it, we go to what has the most evidence, we know where we go, on and on.
June 6, 2009 at 9:13 pm
To prove that the bible is God inspired you would first need to prove there is a god to inspire it, and the evidence is pretty thin on the ground and the bible cant be used as evidence for God til its first proved its god inspired.(ouch my brain)
Im sure there are scientific websites out there that will explain the pairings for you as im no authority on the subject.
“Jesus filled all the criteria for the messiah”
I dont doubt you believe this and im in no postion to deny it as an athiest but apparently the jews disagree and no doubt have reasons why they disagree.
Thank you for conceding this point
(i respect (genuienly) that you could concede this, as it means our talks are not a waste of time)
The significance is that what atheists hate about religion is the purveying of ignorance and when theists deny the big bang as a whole they deny facts like that the universe is expanding.
It also ties in to a large degree with the greater big bang theory so we cant argue the theory til we have excepted the facts.
June 10, 2009 at 3:44 pm
You wouldn’t need to prove there’s a God first. If there’s a post, do you really need to prove that there’s a Durzal before you accept the post’s authenticity? Does that hurt your brain?
I need to find some more passionate Jews.
What did I concede too? Let’s check this real quick. Oh, wait, the expanding. I am for the purposes of this post, though I privately belive some are pulling together.
Expected the facts? What?
June 10, 2009 at 7:55 pm
The fact that i post on this blogg proves i exist ..however.. the fact that moses wrote the bible doesnt prove a God exists..(i hope you see the difference)
And the fact that your having to resort to verbal trickery to try and win arguments just goes to show how poor your argument is.
“Excepted the facts?What?”
I was pointing out that the expanding universe ties in to a great degree with the Big Bang (Theory) and that it would be impossible to argue the theory until we had “excepted the facts”
(ie an expanding universe)
June 11, 2009 at 4:52 am
Moses cannot make an irrefutable religion (as far as no contradictions) by himself, he’s only human. That’s my point.
What verbal trickery?
Speaking of verbs, do you mean “accepting”, not “excepting”?
June 13, 2009 at 10:09 pm
No moses cannot create a irrefutable religion on his own.. and he didnt. There is no religion that can prove Gods existence so none of them are irrefutable.
Verbal trickery.. Trying to argue that because you cant prove i (durzal) exist thats no reason to ignore my posts as though thats some sort of reasoning to validate the bible as evidence..lame(almost as bad as pointing out grammar or spelling mistakes to try to win an argument)
Yes i meant Accepting >.<
(expect more as im not gonna start checking over my posts for mistakes.. especially the long ones)
June 15, 2009 at 6:27 am
No, there are contradictions I’ve heard in Muslim text, so it is refutable, it has mistakes. The Bible doesn’t have problems, so didn’t have heavy human interference, therefore God interference, therefore God likes it better, therefore God becomes happy.
No, I was using the existence of your posts as an analogy. I think that you were saying that just because there’s a Bible didn’t mean God wrote it, so I was saying that just because there’s a post doesn’t mean Durzal wrote it.
June 15, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Many would disagree with you that the bible doesnt have any problems(this you know)
“So didnt have heavy human interference”
So you admit there was some human interference.
“therefore God interference”
Wow, what a lovely assumption..but it means little in the real world.
“therefore God likes it better”
Lol again wow, This is.. faith, right.
“therefore God becomes happy”
LOL Really, this is alot like ID all assuption no facts to back it up.
If you wanna be taken seriously in debates you need to do better than this.
Well it was a poorly reasoned analogy as the fact that i wrote the post proves i exist whereas the fact that moses wrote the bible proves he exists…NOT A GOD.
February 5, 2009 at 1:54 pm |
Leonard,
Welcome to the blog!
Personally, I consider it a very good thing that you are going back and forth in your beliefs. It tells me that you are critically evaluating what you believe and not just accepting the beliefs of others blindly. I’ve also gone back and forth many times during my life.
Regarding your comment about the universe coming from nothing. First, we should consider an interesting fact: we actually do see things coming from nothing on a regular bases. Matter and antimatter pairs appear out of nothing on a regular bases. In fact, black holes finally evaporate as these matter/antimatter particle pairs appear right at the black hole’s event horizon and one of the particle pairs falls into the black hole and the other escapes. So it isn’t true that something cannot come from nothing – it’s only true that familiar things that we encounter in our daily lives do not come from nothing. Another interesting thing to consider: superstring theory proposes that there are 11 dimensions (10 spacial dimensions and one time dimension). At any time, 3 of the 10 spacial dimensions are expanded while the other 7 are contracted (they contract to the size of Plank’s constant – and this minimum size of the contracted dimensions limits the maximum size of the 3 expanded ones). The “Big Bang” then was actually the expansion of the 3 dimensions with which we are familiar. The expansion and contraction of dimensions may have always existed.
I completely agree that the notion that our entire universe could come from nothing is fantastic! And the proposal that the process that could create the Big Bang (expansion and contraction of the 10 spacial dimensions) is just as fantastic. However, it is even more fantastic that an intelligent creator, capable of creating such a universe, could come from nothing or that he could have always existed. The reason that it is more fantastic is because as wonderful as the universe is, such a creator would be even more wonderful – yet we would me making the same claims about this more wonderful being: that he came from nothing or he always existed.
Your thoughts?
February 5, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
Hi A3,
Most believers in an ex nihilo creator of all things think He is, in fact, pretty fantastic. :)
February 6, 2009 at 2:57 am |
:)
February 7, 2009 at 9:48 am |
As an atheist I imagine you don’t believe in aliens or crop circles either.
February 7, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
Hi, patok,
Welcome to the blog!
I definitely believe in crop circles – I’ve seen the pictures.
I also believe in aliens – I believe that matter has the same property throughout the universe as it does here on Earth, which means that we should expect life to evolve anywhere that the conditions are favorable for a long enough period of time.
Oh, I should mention: I don’t believe that the crop circles were created by extraterrestrials or that we have been visited by little green men.
I’m curious though: why do you feel there is a connection between the belief that there is no god or gods, with skepticism about crop circles or aliens?
February 8, 2009 at 2:17 am |
So you believe in extra-terrestrial aliens…how do you think they came to be without God?
You say little green men have not visited…OK, but what about alien visitors that are not green? Do you think it is impossible that aliens could visit us?
February 8, 2009 at 2:31 am |
A, In reading your blog I see you think life anywhere arises out of primordial ooze through a type of spontaneous generation. The explanation seems to be the result of a rather abortive and narrowly focussed trip back through the causation chain….but OK, for the purposes of the present discussion lets say thats how it happened.
What about my second question… if you think human-like creatures exist elsewhere in the cosmos (do you think this?) then why could they not visit us? Are you claiming interplanetary and/or interstellar travel is impossible. Or perhaps you agree they could visit but just haven’t yet.
February 8, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
patok,
I think they came to be in the same way that life on Earth came to be.
I think we may have been “visited” by the fossils of nanobacteria that hitched a ride on the Tataouine meteorite.
I don’t think it is impossible that aliens could visit, but I think it is unlikely. The distances between us and other living planets would most likely be too great for the trip, and the chances of other intelligent civilizations capable of space travel existing at the same time we happen to exist (humans have only been around some 200,000 years – depending on what you consider “human”) is also unlikely. Finally, we have no reason to believe that life inevitably leads to intelligence required for space travel, and that intelligent lifeforms are automatically compelled to travel.
No, I don’t think this. But regardless of the form of any extraterrestrial life that may exist, I don’t think any have visited us because they probably can’t: they are likely to be far enough away that the trip would take millions of years, and they are unlikely to exist at the same time as we exist.
You never answered my question: why do you feel there is a connection between the belief that there is no god or gods, with skepticism about crop circles or aliens?
February 14, 2009 at 8:52 pm |
I am curious about your calculations to support the contentions that-
1) “they probably can’t visit”. People ‘probably’ could not visit the moon in 1500. It was thought to be impossible by most. Yet a mere 469 years later we reached the moon. Assuming some intelligent species could be several billion years older…and equally more advanced than our own it seems illogically limiting to assume they could not have developed greater capabilities than our own.
2) that the trip would take “millions of years”. So? They could be billion of years more advanced. A million years may be within a lifetime for them. They may have no problem committing to multigenerational missions. They almost certainly would have technologies that would make the trip shorter than we could imagine…even if 300km/s were a universal speed limit.
3) “they are unlikely to exist at the same time as we exist”. There are presumably trillions of planets capable of supporting life. What is your number? What percentage of these have life according to your calcs? What percentage have intelligent life? For how long to think intelligent life can persist with the domain to which it spreads before becoming extinct? It would seem you must have estimates for each of these in order to draw the conclusion that it is unlikely they exist at the same time as we do. Please share your estimates and the rationale behind them. I am very curious.
It seems logical to me that if one doubts God based on a ‘lack of evidence’ then one must doubt alien life for the same reason. There are many eyewitnesses to the Jewish-Christian God…many who personally claim to have interacted. You dismiss these claims as bogus. The direct evidence for aliens is no stronger than for God,and much weaker according to many. Yet you deny the existance of God while claiming intelligent alien life is almost a certainty.
February 16, 2009 at 11:24 pm |
Hi, Patok,. Thanks for the follow up discussion, and also for your response to my questions!
It is true that in the 1500s, we thought that we could probably not visit the moon. Until the 1500s, we thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. Physics was in its infancy then and we had no idea what the moon actually was. Today, we know much more about the moon and the rest of our universe. And the maximum speed in the universe – the speed of light – is fundamental to our understanding of physics. So even if we were to assume as you propose that there are intelligent species that are several billion years older than us (though not too many billion years older – the universe is less than 14 years old!), they would still be bound by the basic laws of physics and would therefore have to overcome the great gulfs of space (millions of light years) between their home planet and ours – which means that they would take millions of light years to reach us.
That said, I see no compelling reasons to assume as you propose that other intelligent life is likely to be billions of years older than us, do you?
It sounds to me like you suggesting that because we were wrong about the possibility of visiting the moon in the 1500s, then we are probably wrong today about everything else, including the likelihood of alien visits to Earth. If this was your point, could you explain why you make this assumption? Or if this is not your point, could you explain how the beliefs about the moon in the 1500s should inform us today about the likelihood of aliens having visited the Earth?
True, that is possible (that is, it is possible in the sense that we cannot prove that it is impossible). But why should we consider that it is likely to be the case? Do you agree that it is wrong to believe that something is likely simply because it is possible?
I’m presuming that a visit is unlikely based on the vast distances between the Earth and other habitable planets, and also based on the unlikelihood that the nearest civilizations are contemporaneous with ours. In that case, it doesn’t matter how many intelligent civilizations might exist throughout the universe, it only matters how many intelligent civilizations exist within reach of a visit, and when those planets might have formed and might have given rise to life.
SETI has failed to detect any signals that appear to be unnatural in origin. Given our understanding of electromagnetism and how fundamental it is to the understanding of physics, it seems reasonable that a life form which develops the capability of space travel would also be capable of harnessing and utilizing electromagnetism – which we would be able to detect. If these electromagnetic signals do exist somewhere in space, they either have not yet reached us, or they have come and gone before we developed the technology to detect them. Even if you presume that travel at the speed of light is somehow possible, we would still expect that the electromagnetic signals, traveling at the speed of light, would exist before speed-of-light space travel was possible, and would therefore have reached us before the extraterrestrial travelers.
Then regardless of the number of intelligent civilizations there may be in the universe, there seem to be none right now in our vicinity.
Discovery of terrestrial planets is still in its infancy. My guess is that stars similar to ours form in similar ways, which would mean that planets similar to ours can form for the same reasons ours did. So I would guess that stars like our sun have a decent chance of having some rock-based (as opposed to gas-based) planets. Of all the rock-based planets in the universe, only some would be carbon-based planets, and only some of those would have life – and only some of those would have intelligent life capable of space travel during the time of our existence.
Whatever the chances of a visit are (and they seem small given the barriers), we don’t have any evidence that one has actually occurred.
You seem to be proposing that doubting God based on lack of evidence is somehow consistent with doubting aliens based on lack of evidence. Is this your point? If it is, I don’t think the analogy applies. For one thing, the body of evidence for either hypothesis, that God exists or that aliens exist, is a different body of evidence that should be evaluated independently on the merit of each. One may well conclude quite reasonably that there is not enough evidence to support a belief that God exists while there is enough evidence to support a belief that aliens exist.
You said that “one must doubt alien life for the same reason”, that is, by lack of evidence. However, there is evidence that the laws of physics do not change from one point in the universe to the next. If the laws of physics do not change, then matter behaves the same way here as it does anywhere. If matter can react in such a way as to produce life here, then it is reasonable to assume that it reacts in the same way anywhere that conditions are similar. We have evidence that conditions are similar elsewhere in the universe.
At the same time, I doubt the existence of God (or gods) based on lack of evidence for gods in general, and also based in the implausibility of the existence of any specific gods that I have heard described to me so far.
Are you proposing that evidence based on “eyewitnesses” is as reliable as physical evidence about the universe? I know of no compelling reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian tradition is founded on reports by eyewitnesses, do you?
February 18, 2009 at 5:09 am |
I would like to reply to your points but I can not select them from the screen and I do not wish to retype them. So I will address only a few points here.
Question: why do I think alien life could be billions of years older than ours?
Answer: If the big bang was 14-16 billion years ago yet out planet formed 4 billion years ago there is a huge period of time post-big bang where conditions were suitable for solar system formation elsewhere in the cosmos. Countless systems would have formed billions of years before our own…unless you think we are somehow special in time…I don’t think that is your argument. So will you agree that a system like ours could have formed 5 billion years after the big bang? If so the life spawned from that system may have existed for many billions of years longer than on earth. If you think about the speed with which mammals gave rise to humans then a series of species with billions of years head start on humans could have achieved incredible things.
I asked you for numbers but you provided none for any of your assertations. I am data-driven in my conclusions and ever open-minded if the facts support an idea. No matter how many times you assert a viewpoint I can not accept it without understanding the mathematics supporting the logic. Go ahead and try me with whatever model you have, my math is quite advanced. I hope you are not like Al Gore…screaming about the immorality of climate scientists who would dare question anthropogenic global warming when he himself has no chance of ever comprehending the mathematical models upon which all the predictions are built. My guess is Big Al has never solved a partial differential equation, let alone understood how they are employed in climate models. Saying distances are vast again and again does nothing to convince me.
You mentioned the need for carbon-based life to get intelligence. That seems very narrow-minded. Look at the periodic table, what have you against silicon? There are any number of elements and compounds that can form ordered structures. According to your logic you should be open to defining life origins as any ordered structure capable of self-replication or replication of another structure that in turn regenerates the original. I have worked with a number of the main players in the field of artificial life and they would not be so constrained in their definition.
The Judeo-Christian God is absolutely based on eye-witness accounts. The Bible speaks directly of the eyewitness accounts of men interacting with God to provide supportive evidence. Jesus performed miracles in front of witnesses to garner credibility. Without that credibility people would not have taken him seriously. How did you ever conclude the religion was not based on eye-witness accounts?
Do you dismiss these eyewitness accounts?
If so why?
Do you dismiss all eyewitness accounts on all subjects?
Do you believe that ice-sheets in Greenland are shrinking? Do you believe that antartic ice is increasing or decreasing? Where does your evidence come from…eyewitnesses (very very few) who tell you a story that you then believe.
February 18, 2009 at 5:24 am |
One other for the moment…
what exactly do you find implausible about the gods who were described to you?
Since the Christian God has by far the most followers just focus on that one. I can only deal with specifics so please list precise examples of the things you know of God that you find inconsistent with reality (the physical universe as you know it). From what you have said I sense you may be looking at god-believers with blinders on (or maybe not).
February 19, 2009 at 12:28 am |
Patok,
Sorry you had trouble copying the text. Thanks for making the effort to interact with one of my questions anyway. Here are the others I asked – I’ve numbered them here so you can refer to the number when responding, in case you still have trouble copying and pasting:
1) It sounds to me like you suggesting that because we were wrong about the possibility of visiting the moon in the 1500s, then we are probably wrong today about everything else, including the likelihood of alien visits to Earth. If this was your point, could you explain why you make this assumption?
2) Or if this is not your point, could you explain how the beliefs about the moon in the 1500s should inform us today about the likelihood of aliens having visited the Earth?
3) But why should we consider that it is likely to be the case? Do you agree that it is wrong to believe that something is likely simply because it is possible?
4) You seem to be proposing that doubting God based on lack of evidence is somehow consistent with doubting aliens based on lack of evidence. Is this your point?
5) Are you proposing that evidence based on “eyewitnesses” is as reliable as physical evidence about the universe? I know of no compelling reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian tradition is founded on reports by eyewitnesses, do you?
Yes, I agree that they could have.
I don’t think it follows that intelligent life which may have existed billions of years before we appeared is still extant. That assumes that species exist for billions of years, or at least that species exist long enough to acquire the ability to seek out and evacuate to a new home planet before the home planet becomes uninhabitable, due to changes in its sun’s output for example. Based on our experience here on Earth, we know that a solar system is a dangerous place where large asteroids can hit planets and cause much of plant and animal life to go extinct. Also based on our experience, before a civilization has the ability to evacuate a home planet, it is likely to have the ability to destroy itself via war, or it is likely to use up available resources and starve.
I think I’ve explained already that my belief that we have not been visited is due to a lack of evidence of any visitations. I do admit to making a qualitative judgment that other intelligent life would not likely exist at the same time we do and near enough to make space travel possible for the reasons already stated. Do you believe that qualitative judgments are baseless?
I’m interested in your self description as “data-driven”, and in your reluctance to accept assertions that do not have a basis in calculation. Since you have made assertions regarding the likelihood of intelligent life existing billions of years before we appeared, then based on your dependence on mathematical models for supporting any assertions, I presume that you have worked out one or more models to support your assertion, is this the case? If so, would you be willing to share your calculations with me? I’m sure my mathematical skills are nowhere near what yours are, but I’ll do my best to understand.
Note that even though you and I may differ in our willing to be convinced by evidence and reasoning (I am quite willing, however you indicated reluctance), I like you am also quite willing to be convinced by mathematical formulations.
I would agree with this definition of life, however I’m not convinced that silicon can give rise to it. We know that silicon and carbon have the same number of valence electrons, but we also know that the properties of carbon and silicon are not the identical. We have evidence that carbon-based life exists, but I’m unaware of any evidence for silicon-based life. For one thing, oxidized carbon is a waist product of carbon-based life, which is readily disposed through respiration. Oxidized silicon however is solid because it organizes itself into a lattice in which each silicon atom is surrounded by four oxygens. Solids are not as readily disposed of. There are other problems as well – the “handedness” (left-hand and right-hand “shapes”) of carbon based enzymes gives them their ability to recognize and regulate processes in the body. Silicon does not show handedness for many analogous compounds.
Possibly I wasn’t clear – when I said that I know of no compelling reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian tradition is founded on reports by eyewitnesses, my point was that there seems to be no compelling reason that the reports on which the Judeo-Christian tradition is founded are eyewitness reports. But that said, I think you bring up an interesting point: which parts of the Bible do you propose are eyewitness reports?
I draw my conclusions based on the implausibility that the accounts are from eye witnesses. For one thing, the accounts do not themselves claim to be eyewitness accounts. For another, the gospels that describe the miracles are anonymous; the point of the gospel stories seems to be to convey a set of theological beliefs rather than to accurately recount historical events. They were written anywhere from 35 to 90 years after the miracles would have taken place – in which case they would have been written from oral traditions.
Generally speaking, I doubt that the stories are eyewitness accounts. I would have to consider each on a case-by-case basis to react to it specifically.
This may be a good place to ask my question regarding how your “data-driven” disposition which you described earlier applies to your assertions that the accounts in the Bible are eyewitness reports. Do you hold these assertions without any mathematical model, or do you have a model that you could share?
I don’t rely on eyewitnesses for all of my beliefs. Just out of curiosity, what did I say that made you believe that I do?
I believe that the ice-sheets in Greenland are shrinking, and that antarctic ice is increasing. My evidence comes primarily from news sources and scientific articles, as well as a basic knowledge of various branches of science and history.
What do you believe about the ice-sheets, etc., and why do you believe it?
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the “blinders”, maybe you could unpack that a bit for me.
One example of something I find implausible about the Christian God is that one of his primary concerns is that humans believe that he exists. Failure to believe is met with damnation, yet belief is not a willful act, it is rather an ungovernable response.
Certainly, different Christians have different views about the nature of God, so I am responding to the views I hear most often expressed. If your views are different, I’d be happy to consider them independently.
March 22, 2009 at 5:55 pm |
1) It sounds to me like you suggesting that because we were wrong about the possibility of visiting the moon in the 1500s, then we are probably wrong today about everything else, including the likelihood of alien visits to Earth. If this was your point, could you explain why you make this assumption?
MY POINT WAS THAT PEOPLE LIMIT THEIR VIEWS OF WHAT IS ‘LIKELY’ TO WHAT IS LIKELY BASED ON TECHNOLOGY THEY CAN CONCONCEIVE OF IN THEIR PRESENT DAY. THE FACT PEOPLE IN 1500 HAD NO CLUE OF WHAT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE IN THE NEAR FURTURE (JUST A FEW HUNDRED YEARS HENCE) CAUSED THEM TO BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY LIKELY WAS, IN FACT, UNLIKELY. THEY WERE WRONG. WE WOULD BE JUST AS WRONG TODAY TO MAKE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES OF INTELLIGENT SPECIES THAT HAVE BEEN EVOLVING/DEVELOPING FOR 10,000 TIMES LONGER THAN HUMANS.
2-3) THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO VERY LITTLE IDEA ABOUT WHAT IS POSSIBLE IN OUR EMBRYONIC EVOLUTIONARY/TECHNOLOGICAL STATE. THEREFORE I DO NOT KNOW WHAT LIKELIHOOD TO AFFIX TO ALIEN VISITORS BECAUSE I DO NOT PRETEND TO BE ABLE TO CONCEIVE OF THEIR TECHNOLOGY. I ACCEPT PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS SUCH AS SPEED OF LIGHT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A POSSIBLE IMPEDIMENT TO INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL. HOWEVER, I DO NOT THINK A MILLION YEAR TIME FRAME FOR A JOURNEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A PROBLEM…WE SIMPLY HAVE NO IDEA IF ALIEN LIFESPANS OR INCLINATIONS WOULD RENDER THIS A PROBLEM.
4) YES, IN PART. IT WOULD BE HARD TO ACCEPT THAT ALIENS COULD EXIST BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITHOUT ALSO ACCEPTING THAT GOD COULD EXIST BASED ON SIMILAR EVIDENCE AND LOGIC.
5) PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IS RELIABLE (E.G. PTOLEMIC MODEL FOR MOTION IN THE HEAVENS) BUT THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT EVIDENCE IS SUBJECT TO REVISION THAT CAN OVERTURN THE FUNDEMENTAL PHYSICAL MODEL THAT EVIDENCE SUPPORTS (COPERNICUS).
I know of no compelling reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian tradition is founded on reports by
eyewitnesses, do you?
IT IS BASED ENTIRELY ON PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO BE EYEWITNESSES WHO COMMUNICATED THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH GOD TO OTHERS USING THE AVAILABLE MEDIA OF THEIR DAY (ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN MEANS). THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE ‘PROOF’ BASED ON EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF ANY EVENT FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL, FROM ANY PRE-PHOTOGRAPHIC TIME, WHO IS NO LONGER LIVING. MANY PEOPLE WILL NOT EVEN ACCEPT THAT MAN LANDED ON THE MOON, THAT MUSLIMS CARRIED OUT 9-11, OR THAT JEWISH TEMPLES EVER EXISTED IN JERUSALEM DESPITE OVERWHELMING PHYSICAL AND EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE. IT IS HARD TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE FOR ANY EVENTS FROM BIBLICAL TIMES THAT IS BETTER DOCUMENTED BY PHYSICAL AND EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS THAN THOSE RECORDED IN THE HEBREW BIBLE. THE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF IN THE BIBLE HAVE BEEN USED TO LOCATE ENTIRE LOST CITIES…PROVIDING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TODAY. IS YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF INTERACTIONS WITH JESUS OR GOD ARE FLASE BUT SOME OF THE OTHERS ARE TRUE? AND ON WHAT DO YOU BASE THIS DISCRIMINATION?
I HOPE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DISMISS EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE OF GOD BASED SOLEY ON THE BELIEF THOSE ACCOUNTS MUST BE INACCURATE BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAITH THERE IS NO GOD. THAT WOULD BE TO HOLD BELIEFS THAT RUN AGAINST THE EVIDENCE BASED ENTIRELY ON FAITH IN AN UNPROVEN CONCEPT. TO DO SO WOULD MAKE YOU A HYPOCRITE GIVEN WHAT ATHEISTS ASSERT ABOUT BELIEVERS. NOW I COULD SEE HOW AN AGNOSTIC COULD CHOOSE TO IGNOR THE RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE AND SAY ‘I JUST DON’T KNOW OR CARE’ BUT IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND HOW AN ATHEIST CAN BE DISMISSIVE OF EVIDENCE YET ASSERT HE ‘KNOWS’ GOD DOES NOT EXIST BASED ON OTHER ‘EVIDENCE’.
If so the life spawned from that system may have existed for many billions of years longer than on earth. I don’t think it follows that intelligent life which may have existed billions of years before we appeared is still extant. That assumes that species exist for billions of years, or at least that species exist long enough to acquire the ability to seek out and evacuate to a new home planet before the home planet becomes uninhabitable, due to changes in its sun’s output for example.
ARE YOU CONTENDING THAT OF THE BILLIONS OF CIVILIZATIONS THAT MAY HAVE EVOLVED IN THE COSMOS THAT NONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE HAD THE CAPACITY TO OUTLIVE THE HUMAN SPECIES (OR IS ITS DECENDENT SPECIES) ON EARTH? I SEE NO REASON FOR SUCH A LIMITATION ON LIFE GIVEN THE ADAPTABILITY OF INTELLIGENCE. IT ALSO SEEMS YOU ARE EXCLUDING INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL AS A CAPACITY OF INTELLIGENT LIFE…I DO NOT DO SO.
I do admit to making a qualitative judgment that other intelligent life would not likely exist at the
same time we do and near enough to make space travel possible for the reasons already stated. Do you believe that qualitative judgments are baseless?
I THINK THEY HAVE AS MUCH BASIS AS STATEMENTS IN 1500 THAT TRAVEL TO THE MOON WILL NEVCER BE POSSIBLE.
I’m interested in your self description as “data-driven”, and in your
reluctance to accept assertions that do not have a basis in calculation.
I HAVE NO SUCH RELUCTANCE. ASSERTATIONS DO NOT HAVE TO BE MATHEMATICAL FOR ME TO ACCEPT THEM. QUALITATIVE IS OK. QUALITATIVE IS ALSO DATA…OR AT LEAST CAN PROVIDE MEANINGFUL COLOR TO SIMPLISTIC NUMERICAL DATA.
Note that even though you and I may differ in our willing to be convinced by evidence and reasoning (I am quite willing, however you indicated reluctance)
THIS IS A MISTAKE. I AM NOT RELUCTANT TO USE PURE REASON. I AM VERY OPEN TO POSSIBLITIES. I AM NOT THE ONE PUTTING LIMITATIONS ON THE ABILITIES OF ALIENS. IF I WERE TO DO SO FOR THE REASONS YOU DO SO I WOULD JUSTIFY IT BY MATHEMATICAL REASONING. WHEN I LOOK AT THE NUMBERS OF POSSIBLE INHABITABLE PLANETS AND THE TIME SINCE THE ALLEGED BIG-BANG THEN ANY POSSIBILITY THAT INTELLIGENT LIFE EVOLVED ELSEWHERE MEANS THERE ARE VAST OPPORTUNITIES FOR TECHNOLOGIES TO HAVE DEVELOPED FAR IN EXCESS OF WHAT WE COULD IMAGINE ON EARTH TODAY WITH OUR TINY 200,000 YEAR OLD INTELLIGENCE.
MORE LATER.
March 29, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
Hi, patok088
Thanks for making the effort to address my questions! I feel that we will have a much more interesting and productive conversation when each of us is willing to allow ourselves be pressed by the other.
I think this is true that people think this way, and I think they should. Do you advocate instead that people should base their views on that which they cannot conceive? Should they accept anything as “likely” simply because they cannot disprove it?
In your mind, does the fact that people in the 1500s were wrong about travel to the moon justify a conclusion today that we are likely to be wrong in our belief that we have not been visited by intelligent extra-terrestrial life?
You seem to be saying just that, since you then go on to say that:
Why are we more correct to presume that such a species that lives 10,000 times longer than humans exists?
Recall that this question you are answering here (above) is part of a discussion where I asserted that aliens probably can’t visit because of time and space constraints. I also observed that our attempts to detect intelligent extra-terrestrial life has failed thus far. Could you interact with that observation as well?
If you agree that you simply don’t know if this million-year journey is likely or not, then were you wrong earlier to argue in favor of a likely visit from extraterrestrials, based solely on this fact that you don’t know that it is impossible? In other words, I’m simply asking my original question (#3): “Do you agree that it is wrong to believe that something is likely simply because it cannot be shown to be impossible?”
Thanks for this candid answer to (#4). I’ve given reason to believe that aliens exist: a) the fact that physics seems to be the same regardless of location in the universe, b) the formation of stars and planets similar to our own seems to be a common occurrence in the universe, c) it follows then that similar conditions that were conducive to the formation of life on our planet would act the same way on similar planets.
But what is the evidence which leads us to believe that God exists? You have proposed that “eye-witness accounts” exist which would be sufficient evidence, however you have not given me reasons to believe that there are any credible eye-witness accounts that provide evidence for the existence of God. Are there any that you know of?
I wasn’t able to find where your response (#5 above) was an answer to my question #5 which was this: “Are you proposing that evidence based on “eyewitnesses” is as reliable as physical evidence about the universe? I know of no compelling reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian tradition is founded on reports by eyewitnesses, do you?” I’ve noticed that you continue to assert this claim, and I am hoping that you will finally present a basis for the claim.
I’m still hoping as I requested in a previous post that you will provide some specifics so we can discuss them. For example, I’m guessing you would not consider the Genesis story to be an eye-witness account (would you?) since there were no human eye witnesses around. I am also guessing that you would not consider the stories about some of Jesus’ private moments to be eye-witness accounts (would you?) since no one was there but Jesus. So if you are not claiming that the entire Bible is based on eye-witness accounts, then can you provide one or two specific accounts that you do consider to be eye-witness accounts which we might examine more closely?
Let’s take care not to confuse real settings with real stories. Fictional stories both modern and ancient, with the exception of certain genres like sci-fi for example, very often play out in real settings, locations that really exist. The existence of a real setting is no indication of a true story.
Your hope is well placed; if I am presented with evidence of credible eye-witnesses that testify of evidence of a god, then I will reconsider my position regarding the existence of God. Conversely, may I hold you to the same standard: that your belief that the eye-witness accounts are true is independent of any a-priori belief that God exists? And therefore, you would believe any claims of miracles in the Bible only if the account can be reasonably attributed to a credible eye witness?
The bible is certainly full of stories about people who witnessed many events such as the miracles of Jesus. But why should we accept these stories as fact? In other words, why should we believe that these stories about these eyewitness are true stories?
Yes, I would also find it hard to understand how an atheist could be dismissive of evidence and also claim to “know” that God does not exist too. If you ever notice me doing this, please be kind enough to point out where I did it.
No.
Nor do I.
It seems to me that here again, you are concluding that we should believe that we are probably wrong about visitations by intelligent extraterrestrials based on our observation that people in the 1500s were wrong about travel to the moon. If this is a principal point of your argument, then it is important that you show how this conclusion about alien visitation follows.
I’m glad to hear you say this now since earlier, you said “No matter how many times you assert a viewpoint I can not accept it without understanding the mathematics supporting the logic.”
Here are a few other comments I’d made earlier but I didn’t notice where you interacted with them yet. Again, I’ll number them in case you have trouble copying and pasting:
You said earlier:
6) Did you agree with my explanation about why silicon life seems unlikely?
You also said earlier:
7) I explained that it doesn’t follow that even if we concede that systems like ours might have formed 5 years after the Big Bang, and even if we concede that some of those systems could have been home to intelligent life, then because of the reasons I’ve sited, it doesn’t necessarily follow that intelligent life which may have existed billions of years before we appeared is still extant. Nor does it follow that if they are extant that they are likely to have visited us. Did you accept my explanation?
Thanks again for the responses!
March 31, 2009 at 3:18 am |
Good Lord, why are all the good posts all filled up? I feel like anything I might say might be irrelevant and already stated.
I will say though that if you want to debate with mainstream Christians, you can’t use facts that they don’t agree with, otherwise all they will do is attack the “facts”, generally.
But yes, God made giant stars for our viewing pleasure. : )
And nobody say black holes are a product of sin, or I’ll beat the digital crud out of you.
April 2, 2009 at 10:07 am |
Aetheist,
it seems you are failing to grasp some concepts from my abbreviated form of writing. An example: you make a claim about belief in certain capabilities/limitations of extraterrestrial life based on references to physically quantifiable criteria. I see no reason to accept your claim (which seems counter-intuitive to me) because you have provided no actual numbers to back-up your claim. You were the one arguing for the existance of a limitation based on physical realities (I am open-minded on the issue)…it is therefore reasonable to expect you would establish the supporting evidence for your belief in the limitation with the calculations you used to arrive at it. If you have never actually done the calculation then your reason to hold your position is unsupported. Please do not ask me to just ‘have faith’ and blindly accept that you have actually done the calculation.
You jump from my statement about requiring mathematical evidence for a limiting assertion (a limitation you based on a mathematical arguement) to a general belief that I am closed to non-mathematical evidence. Your leap in logic is unsupported and wastes my time by necessitating a reply in order to continue the conversation. In particular, you extract a line from my response to you on the above subject and set it next to my general comment that “I am open to non-mathematical evidence” and try to use it as a ‘gottcha’. Saddly, I do not know if you are just being playfully silly in this action or if you actually do not recognize the difference in the contexts of the statements. If its the former then please stop wasting time (I am here to learn, not engage in semantic jousts). If its the latter then please read more carefully and check your logic before responding.
Maybe it is my word choice but there are many other places where your response indicates you did not understand my points (the eyewitness thing is a prime example). Possibly this is because you did not follow the logic, tried to interpret what I said from a narrow prejudiced point if view and missed the actual message, or were misled by my failure to explain every implication of my point in explicit detail. Since I do not have time to write a treatise let me try a different approach…simple questions…
1) Are you an Atheist?
2) Do you believe there is no god as the term Atheist implies?
3) What is the nature of the Christian God according to your understanding of Christian belief? What is it and what does it do…this thing you do not believe in?
4) What about the nature of God do you think is impossible, if anything? Examples include prayerful communication, afterlife/heaven/oneness with God after death, Jesus’s life and resurrection, Jesus’s miracles, God’s caring for mankind, God’s vastly superior intellect-knowledge, God’s role in creation of the Earth and its life, etc…
5) Why do you believe those things are impossible or are not extant?
6) Please contrast your beliefs in no god based on your faith there is no god with other’s beliefs in religious practices based on their faith in God. Feel free to contrast your evidence for your belief with Christian believer’s evidence for their beliefs.
7) Do people in the Bible say they communicated with God?
8) Can you give examples of eyewitness accounts from individules living thousands of years ago that are more direct or credible than those in the Bible?
9) Do you dismiss all accounts from other people if you did not witness them yourself?
10) If you accept accounts of others why do you do so? On what criteria do you choose to believe some and discount others?
April 5, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
Hi patok,
Are you abandoning your initial assertion that we have been visited by intelligent extraterrestrials? It’s hard for me to tell. The reason I ask is because of your apparent reluctance to interact with my followup questions & comments about your assertion.
I get the sense that you may be content to simply make assertions and then ignore or perhaps abandon the discussion that may follow if it becomes to uncomfortable for you. If that’s simply your way of interacting with people, I’ll accept it and I’ll try to relate to you as best I can. All the same, I’m happy to answer your questions:
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) I have offered a response here, however I don’t know if you saw it since you have not yet interacted with my response.
4) My earlier response here addresses this question as well.
5) I don’t think it is impossible.
6) I can sum up my reasons for belief that God does not exist: I am willing to be convinced by compelling evidence that God exists. So far, I haven’t seen compelling evidence. I don’t pretend to know why others believe what they do, so it’s difficult for me to contrast my reasons for belief with reasons others may have. If you could be more specific about a particular reason to believe in God, possibly yours, I’ll try to contrast it with my own reasons for my beliefs.
7) Yes
8) I may be able to. But to do that, I’ll need the clarification I asked you for earlier: “which parts of the Bible do you propose are eyewitness reports?”
9) No
10) Some things I take into account are credibility, reasonableness, stability, ulterior motives, integrity, etc, of the person making the claim. Also, I take into account the plausibility of the account (more extraordinary claims require more extraordinary evidence) and independent corroboration.
April 15, 2009 at 4:06 am |
A,
I do not know if the Earth has been visited by intelligent extraterrestrials. My contention is that your assertation that we have not been visited is hard to understand given your belief that millions/billions of intelligent civilizations must have arisen elsewhere. The reasons you have given for believing that though extraterrestrial intelligence exists it has not visited strike me as irrational thus far. Your reasons indicate a very narrow and limited acceptance of what may be acheived by an intelligent species even given essentially infinite time. Neither I nor Stephen Hawking affix such artificial constraints on the abilities of intelligent beings.
Sometimes the arrogance of a man is reflected in his own refusal accept that things he thinks are impossible for him may not be impossible for others. The understanding of physical laws has been revolutionized many times in recorded history. Each time it has enabled technological developments previously inconcievable or considered impossible.
3) I do not find your previous explanation very illuminating. The only aspect you clearly addressed was that you do not think God would concern himself with us. To me that is an empty arguement. Certainly humans are very concerned with their creations (gardens, pets, etc). In fact, if a dog does not show love to its owner there is a very good chance it will be abandoned or destroyed. If humans are made in the image of God then is it not logical to think God may derive pleasure from our response to Him, and feel hurt if we turn our backs on Him? What makes you think such emotions are not part of God’s nature? The Bible says that God does have emotions.
4) I disagree that you have answered this. Perhaps you could comment on each of the elements I named in 4 and say which you believe and which you reject.
5-6) So you think God is possible but you refuse to believe. You think aliens are possible and you choose to believe. Why the difference? Is there any power that Christians for God that you would deem impossible for aliens? If not, then how does your position differ from that of a Christian? You both believe in extraterrestrial intelligences capable of powers beyond modern day humans.
7-8) Perhaps you can explain what constitutes eyewitness testimony from someone thousands of years ago. Apparently you do not accept someone saying “God said to me…”
10) What makes an account plausible from thousands of years ago? What makes the Biblical accounts implausible to you?
June 4, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
I just wanted to comment about some of your point
Firstly if there are many intelligent lifeforms out there (as im sure there probably are) then the likelyhood of a visit is slim. The reasons are as follows:~
They would have to be far more advanced than us to master faster than light travel, and many civilisations would be wiped out before they became this technological advanced…
also
Even if they did manage to master (lets call it warp” warp speed then they would have had to do so in the relativly short period of time that humans have been about..
as well as be lucky enough to come across us in this rather big galaxy.
Its not at all surprising that we have (as far as we know)not been visited, we just havent been round long enough im afraid.
I also wanted to comment about believing in ET life and not believing in god and why the difference.
Well as we have rather obvious proof/evidence(us) that life happens then its not a huge assumption to suspect that life could exist else where ……whereas there is just as much evidence for god as there is for leprechauns(none).. so i choose not to believe in a god (nor leprechauns)
June 4, 2009 at 10:22 pm |
Wait, wait, question, why are the odds so great of ET randomly occuring but not an all powerful God? Right, I argue He’s always been around, but, why not?
I also saw King Theist’s tough questions for atheist video (forgot the number) on Youtube.
Basically-
We ask, “the odds are to great for life to come spontaneously” and you say “they had a billion years, it’s not as bad as you think.”
We say, “the Earth is in such a perfect position to support life, God must have done it”, to which you respond “no, life just formed there according to the conditions OF Earth.”
Then we say, “then why out of all those roles didn’t life evolve to meet Jupiter’s conditions? Or at least many of planets we have found.”
June 4, 2009 at 11:13 pm |
Btw the belief in “ET” isnt a atheist ideaology, im sure many(me) find it quite likely though, the reason for this is we have proof/evidence that life occurs… (on earth) so as the universe is sooo vast the likelyhood of other planets that are “earth like” is very high..this im sure you’ll agree with, but you wont agree that life will start on these planets as science believes it did on earth… and again atheists like me dont see any evidence of a god so dont give the idea the same sort of credibility.
Regarding the why not life on jupiter thing your right to say “why no life there then as evolution should use what its has available”
there could quite possibly be life on jupiter but as its gravity is x1000 and other extremes its wouldnt be life anything like what we would imagine and we would quite possibly not even recognise it as life. Due to jupiter being only gas (i think) any life would be gaseous and very hard to identify, thats why we dont bother looking at such planets but are interested in mars and the moon(europa) that orbits jupiter(its got water all over it).
Just out of interest if life was found on mars ie microbial what would your explaination of this be, would it be explainable from a biblical point of view.
June 5, 2009 at 4:21 am |
Yes, I’m quite aware that ET isn’t just for atheists, no one is confined to religous stereotypes. It does not matter how much evidence you have if you cannot explain how amino acids link in the right order by themselves.
Really, just out of, pure random interest. Let’s pretend I say no. You then gleefully anounce of an article about finding fossilized micro-organisms on Mars, and accuse that the Bible is wrong because I’m wrong. Which is wrong. It does not matter what the Christians you meet say whether or not something is Biblical, you need to read it yourself and decide whether it is Biblical.
But right, just out of interest, you want to know my opinion. Ya, it’s “allowable” by the Bible. Kind of helps how we have found some fossilized micro-organisms.
Do you see a confliction?
June 5, 2009 at 3:39 pm |
You say
“it doesnt matter how much evidence we have because we havent been able to explain how ammino acids link up”
do you really believe its sensible to ignore the vast amounts of evidence in evolutions favour simply because scientists are still working on individual problems. Just because a certain process of evolution is as of yet unexplained, this doesnt in anyway justify ignoring the evidence we do have.
I was just interested in your views on if it was inline with the bibles teachings, in your opinion.
Personally I dont see anything in the bible that would conflict with ET but then i would have though if god created ET life it might have been mentioned as a footnote at least.
June 5, 2009 at 11:11 pm |
Did I say that? It doesn’t seem like I would use the word “we”, I would say “you”. Whatever. Maybe I did.
Working on individual problems? My side gives ALL of its answers, while yours gives MOST, with some problems that I can’t even conceive of a way to solve, which is why I ask them. Maybe I’m overlooking something…
Why would I go for the one that gives me SOME over the one that gives me ALL? And if no one can even create a logical explanation, then it does undermine the whole thing, evolution depends on very few things, one chink gone and it might all as well be gone.
It doesn’t HAVE to be in a footnote.
June 6, 2009 at 12:29 am |
Well your answers only need one question ie “is there a god” if you believe in a god then you can just explain all problems that way…but the problem is atheists/scientists dont see any evidence for god (atheists dont see the bible or ID as evidence)
As (i think) we agreed earlier, evolution has been shown to happen(fruit flies was the best example i found) so just because how the first amino acids came to be is still being worked on(for example) its no reason to pretend evolution doesnt happen cos we know it does. I know many christians who have no problem with evolution as they dont feel that evolution and christianity are mutually exclusive.
I also wouldnt advise writing off evolution because you can’t conceive how a part of it would happen, i have had the same sort of experience with evolution like i thought…how did the first sea animals become land animals as it would require fast forming of lungs to adapt to land.
I did a bit of research and found this weird fish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
My point is that there are many bizarre animals that can explain our evolutionary past and 99% of all animals that have ever existed no longer exist so there is even more in the fossil records.
June 6, 2009 at 3:43 am |
If rationally that atheists do NOT take ID and written documents that have no error and claim of God as proof, then rationally I’m not an atheist.
We never agreed on whether evolution happens or not. At least, let me clarify so we don’t assume anything really bad in the future. Finch beaks can get bigger. Dogs can grow more hair. Cat nervous systems can change.
What cannot happen are raptors growing wings, frogs starting to give live birth, and right, fish cannot eventually evolve lungs and go on land.
Right, lungfishes exist. But how do you get there? I asked of how reproductive organs can change and make new species (lizards egg laying to mammalian live birth) and someone (I think Damain?) gave me a video that said that was bull, plenty of things exist that are missing somethings compared to others. You don’t need live birth, you don’t need eggs, you don’t need two parents, you don’t need many things, and it would show various animals that had two or three abnormalities.
As if this is proof they evolve.
Lungfish. I think we can all agree they started with gills. STARTED, with gills. How do you get to lungs too? What sort of genetic mutation has a lungfish have a small irregular sac in its stomach? We’ll assume this sac has no connection to the outside world, it’s um, it’s…
Well I don’t know, where would it start growing a to-be-lung? It can’t breathe oxygen yet, so the lung has no use… And has no reason to spread. Wouldn’t this mutation be recessive, and you would need two such lungfish getting the mutation to spread it?
June 6, 2009 at 4:00 am |
XD
I just read the very top, about the pixels.
Right, so if we get this supernice moniter, (that’s either huge or really dense) and we get about 5-7 more of them, imagine one little pixel being green (on a black background). If you chose a pixel at random, that green pixel represents life starting randomly.
June 6, 2009 at 5:44 pm |
Your pointing out of what parts of evolution you agree with is helpful thanks for that.
perhaps i can build on this..
Most of the rest of the post was about the lungfish so i did some reading about them and found out some of the stuff you had questions about.
They did have gills first..agreed
They developed sacs to carry oxegen or(swim bladders) to help regulate there depths (like a submarine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swim_bladders
this can be seen in other types of fish (apparently)
Only the lungfish species adapted to take oxygen from the air stores in their swim bladders, the reason this mutation was positive was because there are often low levels of oxegen in its habitual waters and it was helpful when particulary active or when spawning which is suppose to be a noisey business because they breath air thoughout during the spawning ritual.(dirty fish)
This link explained it rather well
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/fish/lungfish-info.htm
Just becasue you or i dont understand/know a certain aspect of evolution doesnt mean its not perfetly valid or hasnt been perfectly explained. (like the lungfish)…Please try not to disregard evolution due to a lack of knowledge/understanding on a particular issue.
June 6, 2009 at 8:20 pm |
You’ve already said that about understanding evolution. Any time you say “dont disregard it just cause you dont understand it” I will say “Don’t disregard God.”
You’ll then say “God has no evidence” and I’ll say “He does.” And that’ll go on and on.
June 6, 2009 at 8:38 pm |
I would point out i dont disregard god out of hand as there are many MANY unexplained phenomenon… but your right that i dont believe because a lack of evidence as unexplained phenomenon doesnt constitute evidence in my book.
I agree that we are unlikely to convince each other here.
We can stop arguing on this thread if you wish.
but i am interested to know your opinion on the lungfish stuff i got for you, as you claimed in an earlier post that fish “couldnt evolve lungs and go on land” has your opinion changed?
June 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I thought I had responded to this post. I guess it didn’t save it or something.
No, fish cannot go on land. What use is a half fin half leg? Well, we could say that they were like seals with gills.
Well, then again, if you were to have something other than a fin for any length of time, you’d be out swam and eaten.
Wouldn’t it be advantageous to have both gills and lungs? Why would one go out?
June 10, 2009 at 7:31 pm
“What use is a half fin half leg?”
Well as you say seals seem to find them quite useful.
Seals do have something other than a fin and they seem to be doing ok(though im sure they get outswam/eaten sometimes.
It would only be advantageous if they were actually needed but if some sort of lungfish variant sharted spending more time hunting out of the water then its gills would no longer be a advantage.
then
It may have become more of a disadvantage due to its gills getting infected in an ill suited(not water) enviroment.(This is just one possible reason why gills could have been abandoned by evolution)
You didnt say anything about if you now believe that lungs could have evolved in lungfish, as i gave you the links about swim bladders and how it was a possitive evolutionary trait due to low oxegen in its habitual water.
June 11, 2009 at 4:49 am |
But it seems ridiculous for two of them to happen to have the same gene for lung mutation, AND I don’t see how this mutation affected their reproductive DNA. Whatever DNA they got at birth would’ve spread.
But you are a flipper fish who can’t go on land yet, you’re going to be outswam. Seals are still around cause they can go on ice, these supposable fish couldn’t. Seals don’t go out to open sea.
June 13, 2009 at 10:52 pm |
You dont seem to understand the basic principles of evolution and natural selection so im not surprised you dont understand it, you wouldnt need 2 to mutate for this mutation to spread, if it was an advantageous trait then if the mutated fish bred some of its offspring might have the trait and some might not but if it helped them to survive then the mutated offspring would thrive and spread the trait whereas the non mutants would be more likely to die(it would take millions of years to breed the new trait into the whole species)..to get ginger hair you dont need to have 2 parents with ginger hair.
Regarding the reproductive dna
Your gonads produce your current genetic code they dont have some original stored in the testicles and copy that>.< If your genetic code mutates then you pass that on, in your sperm.
These are supposed fish remember so who are you to say what they couldnt do, if these fish evolved to have fins that have more arm/leg characteristic then it would be for a good reason.
The lungfish is an example of this
"Lungfish are one of a few bony fish that are able to control their fins as land animals control their limbs."
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/fish/lungfish-info.htm
This would i assume help them to navigate in their rocky/muddy habitual waters.
If these fish mutated in a bad way that got them killed/outswam then they wouldnt pass on that crap mutation.
June 15, 2009 at 6:35 am
>.>
Don’t you need two recessive genes for a recessive gene to show? Both parents have to have the ginger hair gene, not necessarily HAVE ginger hair. Punett (whatever spelling) squares are what I’m getting at.
I suppose that the recessive genes could meet back up… but that would take a long time to make the descendants of the offspring genetically different, besides that recessive, in which case it might have vanished by then…
All parts of my body have my genetic code, the gonads are the ones that pass the code on. My arm DNA could say that I’m a three horned lizard with no arms or eyes (in which case I would have no arms, so I guess no arm DNA… nvm, you know what I mean), but my offspring aren’t going to have that, because the sperm are getting the message from the gonads that I’m a no-horned 2 armed being. Insane crap can happen to the whole rest of you, as long as the gonads are fine, the kids will look like you did at birth.
Fins/arms aren’t good for swimming. Pure fin is better than half arm/fin, hence we have the orca/seal thing. These half fin/arm won’t survive as seals did, because they aren’t on land yet, no lungs, because there is no advantage to the lung yet.
There’s no reason to randomly grow a lung so you can use your new arms, and there’s no reason to grow an arm so your lung can have a purpose. The new organ needs a purpose, or else it makes no difference in survival.
And because the fin/arm slows them down, they can’t spread it, they keep getting eaten. Same with half arm/wing.
July 4, 2009 at 12:08 am
No you dont need 2 as long as the gene or allele is dominant it will spread(unless its a useless mutation) and this is based on random chance.
If the trait or gene is dominant and advantageous this will speed up its spread but it would as you say take a long time and nobody is arguing with this point. Evolution isnt a fast process.
Im in no way suggesting that if your arm get exposed to radiation and your dna gets mutated you would pass this arm mutation on to your kids.
Mutation in organisms that reproduce sexually happens at cell division due to copying errors if you are born with these errors(bad or good) you pass them on to your kids as this mutated genetic code IS your original DNA.
You didnt understand how mutations can affect the reproductive DNA of the fish, i hope this explains it.
I would add that you can pass on mutations that happen after birth (cell division) but it would require mutation of the reproductive DNA.
A fin would be a better for swimming than a arm/fin but if your habitual waters are rocky, swampy having fins that are great for open swimming wouldnt be a lot of help but arm/fins that could help you navigate rocky swampy waters would be better so any mutation on that front would flourish.
I know organs and limbs would not randomly grow without a purpose.
Here are the purposes that would help survival. (again)
The lungfish has evolved a lung to help breath when its habitual waters are stagnant and for times of increased activity.
The lungfish are one of a few bony fish that are able to control their fins as land animals control their limbs, this enables them to better navigate their often muddy waters.
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/fish/lungfish-info.htm
I didnt say anything about growing an arm so your lung can have a purpose or vice versa.
You keep trying to suggest that a arm/fin would get the creature that has it killed but there are alive animals like the lungfish that have these attributes and they are doing fine as these adaptions help them in there unique habitual enviroments.
June 13, 2009 at 7:50 pm |
Atheist,
are you Durzal?
If not, can I assume your failure to respond to my post for 2 months means you are convinced of my point and we are now in agreement?
Though I do not know the exact nature of God it seems that the Christian God, all His powers, the afterlife, his messengers are all consistent with an extraterrestrial intelligence possessing technology similar to modern humans in some areas (e.g. booming voice from the sky, liquid transformation, vigin birth, communication through dreams), moderately superior to our current intelligence (e.g hearing silent prayer, remote awareness of movements of living beings, reanimating recently deceased mammals), or significantly advanced to our own (e.g. interstellar travel, continuation of consciousness in another media after corporeal death). Therefore, it would be extremely narrow-minded and human-centric for someone to argue for the existance of alien life yet deny the Christian God…they are fully consistent…logic would even deem they could be one and the same. I believe most Christians would agree with this premise after a short conversation.
June 13, 2009 at 11:34 pm |
No im not Atheist, but im glad to answer in his stead
The reason its not narrow-minded to believe in the possibility of life on other planets and not to believe in a god is..
The evidence to prove that life happens is rather obvious (check a mirror) so its not a great leap to assume that life could have spawned on other planets as it did on earth.
Whereas
There is absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever to prove the existence of any God of any religion. Just as there isnt any for leprechauns or fairies (which i also dont believe in)
I hope you see the difference in credibility!!
I do however believe that they (god/aliens) could be one and the same thing, by this i mean advanced aliens who have visited and set off these religious beliefs due to there very presence. (not that they where actual god though)
I was shocked when reading genesis about god putting adam into a deep sleep to retrieve a rib and then healing his wound without scars..This to me reeks of alien intervention as why would a God go through this rather modern day surgery, when he could simply have said it and made it so as he did with light?
June 14, 2009 at 1:32 pm |
Hi, patok. No, I am not Durzal. I have simply gotten busy lately, and also sufficiently frustrated with your unwillingness to interact with my statements and questions that I have simply saw no point in considering our conversation. Of course you are still (and always!) welcome on this blog and we’ll talk again!
July 12, 2009 at 6:09 am
Atheist,
If you re-read my initial posts and responses without prejudice I suspect you will find that your questions were addressed. Of course if you re-asked a previously answered question I did at times direct you to the initial answer. I was not meaning to be rude but rather efficient.
June 14, 2009 at 9:56 pm |
Certainly God could have said, and “poof” he could have made Eve. It would have been no problem, However, the answer lies with bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh < also consider this was their marriage–of the "one flesh" so to speak.
Ever wondered why Eve, after partaking of the forbidden fruit, was not punished immediately–rather it was not until Adam ate the forbidden fruit, that both of their eyes were opened, and the "one flesh" although they had different punishments, were both punished at the same setting.
June 14, 2009 at 10:07 pm |
I dont see what point your trying to make here….
If God wanted to make Eve “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” he could have just done it, my problem was why he had to put adam to sleep and heal his scar afterwards as God was (supposedly) capable of just making it so, so why would he go through a procedure of this nature?
June 15, 2009 at 6:38 am |
It has some symbolic value that the descendant of my wife came from the flesh of my descendent, God doesn’t need to be a factory cranking out machines with pure “perfection”.
And He’s a show-off.
June 15, 2009 at 3:17 pm
So he went though this surgical procedure for symbolic reasons?
I can see the symbolism in flesh of my flesh and what have you, but there doesnt seem to be a need for the operation when he could have just made eve, flesh of adams flesh
June 15, 2009 at 2:58 am |
obviously we have a merciful God. I would not care to be awake when someone took a rib from me–happy gas is really nice.
June 15, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
Again you miss the point..
God didnt need to cut him open and take a rib as he could have just made eve bone of adams bone and flesh of adams flesh with out the surgery.
So i wonder why he when through this rather modern day surgery?
Perhaps the surgical procedure had some sort of symbolism as Xela suggests, though it seems rather alot to presume.
July 3, 2009 at 1:26 pm
In a sense He seems to me a little vain and extravagent, but there’s nothing wrong with that.
July 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
“He seems to me a little vain and extravagent”
So from this part of Genesis you have concluded that your God is “vain and extravagent” fair enough..
Not exactly what i’d expect from a divine being
(more like a gay hairdresser)
but i guess you gotta explain it someway so that you can still believe in a God.
July 12, 2009 at 6:54 am |
God claims to be an entity (or collection of entities) with superior intelligence to humans, superior technological capacity to those living centuries ago, the ability to exist beyond the boundries of our solar system, and harboring emotions. Why exactly does the fact God may use a ‘process’ to accomplish something surprise you? God does not claim to be a magical fairy even if you wish to think of Him in that way.
Perhaps contemplating what is written about the nature of God with an open and critical mind will lead you to a revelation. Consider: You have already implied that alien life is obvious. You have also stated that alien visits may have prompted religious beliefs. Terraforming and seeding life on planets would be child’s play for such advanced interstellar travelers. So I ask you, is there any reason to think that this extraterrestrial intelligence (God) did not intend to provide useful guidance to whatever intelligent organisms evolved out of the ecosystem that He/They had initiated? Do you think humans will not provide guidance to the intelligent beings (either DNA or microprocessor-based) we may one day create? To me it is obvious humans would set down ‘divine laws’ for their creations. Such laws are necessary to keep primitive intelligent beings safe and to keep them acting as we would like (in our image).
Durzal, God does not claim to be a fairy. Some narrow-minded people who do not read the Christian religious texts may choose to mock God by saying He is of the same nature as a fairy. However, what God has claimed for Himself and asked of his creations, according to my current understanding, is not inconsistent with what we ourselves would do if we were sufficiently intelligent and technologically advanced to accomplish the acts of God (as described in the Bible). Please keep in mind we now have the ability to perform some of the described miracles ourselves after only 2000 years of technological innovation. An intelligence that has had billions of years longer to evolve and learn would obviously appear God-like to humans. It would, in fact be God, fully consistent with all God claims and all He asks of us. It would be the height of arrogance (or narrow-mindedness) to acknowledge alien life yet dismiss God (and all who claim to have interacted with Him) as an impossible fraud.
July 12, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Well it wouldn’t surprise me if God used a process like setting up how our weather patterns work for example, but as in genesis God was doing his supposed creating it does surprise me that he would need to go through this elaborate procedure, why not simply create eve of adams bone and flesh of his flesh etc as he had with adam in the first place.
Its like me being quite capable of making a cup of tea but choosing to dance naked around the milk before pouring it, thats why its surprising, as there is little need for it.
Yes, if we created Ai we would endevour to give it a set of laws but they wouldnt be divine laws as we are mearly humans (regardless of how we may be seen by our creations) and the same for ET seeding our planet, if this happened or Et helped guide our evolution this doesnt make them Gods it simply makes them advanced aliens.
And again yes we do have the ability to recreate many so called miracles and yet this doesnt make us Gods, it doesnt matter how many millions of years a species has been evolving or how intelligent they are ..this doesnt make them Gods.
If they did give us a set of standards (laws) to live by it would be written into our genetic code and not written in a book or purveyed by a religion set up by men.
Your right it would be narrow minded to dismiss God, which is why its a good thing i dont, i simply see no evidence whatsoever to corroborate such an outlandish idea.
Also id point out i dont acknowledge alien life(advanced or not), i just see it as quite likely, less likely however that they have had anything to do with our planet.
July 12, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Sorry also need to point out that i never said that God was of the same nature as a fairy.. I said that there was exactly the same amount of evidence to support the existence of fairy’s as there was for a God ..that being none.
Im as likely to spend my time mocking God as i am to spend it mocking leprechauns or fairy’s.
I may however mock those who believe in such things.
August 21, 2009 at 4:10 am |
I could believe in God no matter how many holes there could be! Just look at your evolution theory!
But we’re still debating that.
Is the wise God who likes to show off worse now that He likes to show off? Does God’s existence depend on what you think He should be like?
August 21, 2009 at 7:16 pm
There isn’t anything for you to have holes in, you would need evidence of some sort first.
So your saying your Gods, Vain, Extravagent, and now.. A Show Off.
It amazes me they lengths you will go too and the rediculous excuses you will come up with in order to avoid admitting parts of the bible make little sense.
July 16, 2009 at 12:04 am |
Durzal,
why would laws given by a superior intelligent being or species to its creation not be the same as ‘divine’ law in the lexicon of the recipient. Please explain what would be different?
How would we not consider the laws (e.g. 10 commandments) presumably given to us by a superior being/species to be divine? What is the difference between an extraterrestrial intelligence called God and one called something else?
I think you are getting hung up on your own pre-conceived notion of ‘a god’ rather than examining the nature of God in His own words. That is leading you to wear blinders when it comes to understanding God’s role in creation and history. For example, you say why wouldn’t a god just wrinkle his nose and ‘poof’ everything he wished would be in existance. You ignor the fact God never claimed to have such powers. God clearly took time and effort to create us, that is why He required a period of rest after many long ‘days’ (eons?) of work (presumably employing physical processes) to accomplish the task.
July 16, 2009 at 4:36 am |
Nothing would be different to the recipients (creations) they may see the laws as holy or divine as they would be in awe of their creators, this of course doesnt mean the laws actually would be divine as divinity suggests more than just a good set of rules, no matter who gives them to you.
Well you sort of answered your own question by saying “PRESUMABLY given to us by a superior being/species”
the fact is theres no evidence that the 10 commandments were written/inspired by a God nor that there is even a God in the first place, thats why i dont consider them divine.
You can call aliens (advanced or not) anything you like but suggesting that these supposed aliens are the christian God suggest more than just advanced aliens as the mainstream christian faith would see their God as greater than a mere smart alien, no matter your veiw on the subject.
Im afraid i dont have a pre-conceived notion of a God of any religion as i dont believe in Gods but i do understand the mainstream christian notion of their God and its not aliens.
“You ignore the fact that god never claimed to have such powers”
What are you on about, the christian God never claimed anything AT ALL as there isnt any text in the bible that was supposed to have been written by God personally, its was all written and interpreted by men and as you interpret it one way(aliens) other theists will interpret it differently.(hardly a solid foundation for understanding creation and history)
Before i would consider what roll a God might have in creation and history i would first need some evidence that a God existed in the first place.
July 16, 2009 at 9:48 pm |
Durzal, to your points:
What is your definition of divine and how does it differ from a ‘very good set of laws’ given to a species who holds their creator ‘in awe’?
Would you not be awed by your creator if you actually saw him (or had whatever else you want as proof of his existance) and realized his IQ was, say, 1000x greater than you own? What would it take to awe you? Does anything in the universe awe you?
‘Presumably’ was for your consumption. I don’t mean to confuse you, I was just trying to speak to you on your level.
Be careful not to pre-judge the open-mindedness of Christians. You seem to have a very closed mind when it comes to what Christians think of God. Perhaps you should go out and discuss with a few and you’ll see that they do not think God is an old-bearded guy on a cloud in the sky who blinks his every whim into existance. Rather they believe what the Bible says, that he is an entity with vastly superior intelligence, of unknown physical description, who is both a creator and a steward, and who chooses at times to interact with and tend to his creations. Further, he offers his creations the ability to join him after corporeal death. There is no hard bias among Christians about what material or intellectual form(s) constitute God. Green alien, crystalline growth, organized electric disturbance in the cosmos, George Burns, all are easily accepted by Christians. Go ahead, talk to a few in an open, non-sarcastic, deep manner, and you may gain a new well-founded respect for their reasoning.
People often say physicians are a practical, not unreasonable group. Do you find it surprising that physicians have one of the highest rates of belief in the Christian God of any occupation?
July 16, 2009 at 11:32 pm |
Well “divine” to me means something that is associated with a God, and my definition of a God is a supreme being and the creator of the universe not a species of really intelligent aliens.
Divinity suggests the involvement of a God and there is no evidence for a God whatsoever.
Ive seen my creators many times i call them mum&dad if however you are refering to what started the first ammino acids then i guess i wouldn’t be very awed by a collection of chemicals in the primordial swamp.
You ask me if i would be awed by a hypothetical x1000 more intelligent creator if the evidence was there to support such an idea…I daresay i would be awed, however the point is, the evidence isn’t there.
Yes i am awed by some things, im constantly awed by people believing in a God without a shred of evidence whatsoever to support it.
Well if “presumably” was just for my benifit then that would suggest that you actually have some proof that the 10 commandment were God inspired, lets see it.
Well i freely admit that i dont know the detailed beliefs of every christian but its certainly not the belief or teachings of mainstream christianity that God is or could be a species of advanced aliens.
Im afraid i have to suggest the same course of action for you , perhaps you should go out and talk to some mainstream christian and im sure you will discover that most believe their God to be Supreme/Omnipotent and not merely a smart species of aliens.
Your right that a high % of (US) physicians believe in a God of some sort and most believe in miraculous intervention, whereas most often when the level of education rises religious conviction and the belief in the miraculous decreases.
This anomaly i would put down to the nature of the work, saving people lives and watching people die every day would in my opinion lead to a deeper need and receptivity to religion, this is rather obvious i would have thougth.
July 20, 2009 at 8:03 am |
Ok then,
you say divine is associated with God and not an intelligent alien. Again I ask you to tell me the difference. If you can not see how an intelligence vastly superior than that of the human would not be interpreted by humans as a ’supreme being’, and in effect truly be one for us, then you need to revist logic101. If that same being was responsible for creating our world, terraforming a suitable environment, and seeding it with life of its creation, then it is hard to undrestand how this would not rightly be called a creator. It is also hard to see how anyone could not understand that men thousands of years ago would consider this technologically advanced, hyper-intelligent being to be omnipotent. In fact, for all intents and purposes He would be all those things.
You might also like to know that scientist across the board are more prone to belief than say, lawyers. Of course I think it would be obvious that lawyers have a self interest in avoiding belief in anything that could provide a true foundation for right and wrong. So is their relative decision to not believe anything merely a convenient denial to facilitate their machinations in the amoral world of the atheist?
July 20, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
Well as i said before my definition of a God is a supreme being who created the universe and everything in it, whereas you dont acredit your advanced aliens with(unless im wrong) creating the universe in which they live, so theres a big difference right there.
If you dont see that things “interpreted by humans” or “considered by men” as supreme, don’t actually make them supreme, then i would advise you also to revisit logic 101.
(I consider myself a hunk, doesnt make it so im afraid)
If these hypothetical advanced aliens did seed our planet(terafoming etc) then they could accuratly be called our creators, however i would suggest you refrain from calling them Gods as God (for most) implies the creator of the universe/souls/heaven and hell etc and i dont think this is what you are trying to imply.
A much greater percentage of scientist’s of all fields do not believe in a God to those who do believe.(even in the US)
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Whether more scientists believe than lawyers or any other select group is besides the point.
You suggest that none belief is some decision people make to suite their own agenda’s..this is wrong,
I dont believe because when i look at the world and the big questions i see no need for a deity or any evidence whatsoever to support such an idea….why then, would i believe?
You also suggest that atheist’s are amoral>.<
What would make you think this?
If you didnt fear a God would you roam the streets raping and killing?..Of course not..Dont be silly!!
I dont need to believe in your God(or aliens) to know how to behave well (nor does belief in a God mean you will either)
There are plenty of people, aboriginal's for example who have never believed (heard of in some cases) your God and they dont go around offing each other, the reason for this is that screwing each other over is a evolutionary dead end, whereas teamwork and helping your fellow man isnt.
This is all rather simple if you bother to think about it for more than 3seconds with an objective eye.
July 25, 2009 at 10:26 pm |
No time for a full reply now but I will make two points:
1) Steven Gould is buried, not only literally but also scientifically. His theories and critisims are discredited. Do not believe anything that he has touched…his conclusions were driven by his desires, not by science. Case in point..he was famous for saying the phrenologists skewed their data to make it look like negroid peoples have smaller brain capacity. He even said how he thought they did it and he mocked them for it. Along comes MRI and guess what…like it or not the phrenologists were accurate and Gould was proven to be either a complete fool or a corrupt liar. No one with any information would cite Gould today.
2) Morals in the absence of a supreme intellect are defined by the individual. If moral codes were only devised by men then each man of reasonable intellect could ask “Why would I take my moral orders from some other man? I understand his agruments but I disagree. I have just as much right as anyone to decide what is right.” Hitler did this, Stalin, Mao, all the mass murderers. They defined morality as they saw it. Because these occultists/atheists saw no greater moral authority than other men, as soon as they convinced themselves they knew better they were free to act. And act they did. Was what they did moral? Well who is to say it was not? God could but you deny His words have relevance. You could say it was not but that is meaningless. Your thought processes and deductions are no more valid than their’s in the absence of an objective truth.
July 26, 2009 at 12:16 am
I picked the Steven Gould website because it was the first in the list..
Here are 3 others
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/scientists-who-believe-in-god-faq.htm
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/survey.one.in.three.scientists.believe.in.god/23833.htm
Take your pick…(or google it yourself)
Two of the above are christian websites
The fact that the majority of scientists dont believe in God is pretty well known, ive never come across a christian who would feel the need to argue otherwise.
(mind you, most christians dont believe their God is aliens)
Yes morals(without a God) are defined by men and some people decide that they shouldnt have to live by these man made rules, these people are called criminals.
Hitler was a Theist, he believed in a God and claimed to be a catholic, so thinking what you think is right and being a mass murderer is hardly solely a atheist affair.
I would add that christians with their supposed “supreme intellect” morals were responsible for the crusades/salem witch trials/rwanda genocide and many many more.
(was what they did moral?)
These supposed “supreme intellect” morals havent stopped believers from doing what they interpret to be right have they?
You suggest that occultists and atheists are in some way the same >.<
Occultists follow rituals and have belief systems, Atheists do not believe in a God and do not have a belief system. They are the complete opposite.
I dont deny Gods words are relevant, why would i, as i see no evidence of a God in the first place. Gods supposed words where written by men and this would explain why man made morals(laws) and those purveyed by christianity are about as effective as each other for keeping the populace out of trouble.
The thought processes and deductions(laws) of an entire society are however more valid than the individual.
To accept morals as "supreme" you would of course need evidence that a God created them….and you have none.
August 19, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Just doing a quick bump post incase patok is lost.
August 21, 2009 at 3:25 am
Durzal,
a few facts need to be pointed out:
1) Most scientists I know believe in God even if not all of them attend services. I have attended funerals for a number of scientists who have died. Interestingly, all of them were religious services. I do not know of a single scientist who does not raise their children with religious training. You may say they are following religious practices for the sake of their children but I do not think you have evidence to back that up.
2) Men who define their own thoughts as the highest moral code are not called criminals unless they break a law. Many are called philosophers, lawyers, sociopaths, communists, tyrants, philanderers, pedophiles, or President Obama. Sure, some are criminals, but if they are correct and morals do not come from a supra-human source then they are just as moral as anyone else…maybe not under your definition…but then that is just your meaningless definition so no one has to consider it seriously.
3) Hitler hated Christianity, he was not a Catholic, his quote was “Christianity is the invention of a sick mind”. Hitler blamed Christianity for making his Nordic people passive. He was an occultist socialist who removed all the crosses from over the babtismal fountains and replaced them with symbols of the state. I think it is fairly clear you have not studied the religion of the Nazi state.
4) Crusades were a counter-attack against an invading genocidal arab invasion. Christian pacifism kept the civilized world from turning to violence to defend itself for hundreds of years as arab armies subjugated and destroyed North Africa, the Levant, and much of Europe. One can only look at the on-set of the crusades as a long over-due defencive campaign. Unfortunately, they did end up fighting among themselves at times out of ignorance.
You will have to provide some evidence that Rwandan fighting between hutus and tutsi had anything to do with Christianity. I do note that the biggest mass murders in history were all atheists and or occultists who specifically rejected Christian morality.
5) Knowing or even believing there is an objective morality does not mean people will always follow it. People are not robots and believing one failed morally is the genesis of guilt. That is why sociopaths and atheists can do such horrers…they feel no guilt.
6) For morals to have any value they must come from something higher than yourself. When one (like Hitler) KNOWS the masses have made a mistake then one has the moral authority to make a change, no matter how brutal doing so may be… if one gets his moral authority from men. Democracy is not infallible…see Hitler, Hamas election, or the hero’s reception given today to the Lockerbie bomber upon his arrival in Libya. The UK has no compassion for the thousands of family members who deserve justice, only for murderous terrorists. It seems the atheist UK defines its own insane man-made morality.
August 21, 2009 at 4:33 am
Why does the majority of scientists not believing in God (according to Durzal) matter? This is seeming suspiciously like a “higher class” attempting to hijack the thinking of the “lower class” with all their fancy words and processes. I have heard rumors that the higher scientists of Galileo’s time believed the sun orbited the earth, whilst the common man knew what was the truth, Greek philosophers had proved it earlier. Why the higher class still believed sun orbiting, I have no idea. In some cases even, corrupted Christians will do this same thing, by claiming they have higher knowledge and use it on the masses, namely I say the Catholic church.
I am merely pointing out what I think is a historical pattern, with those with “higher” knowledge control the common man. Both sides generally do it I think, but, my point is, who cares how many people believe one thing or another? This doesn’t change how true anything is. In my mind, it adds no evidence how many more people believe the idea that lacks evidence.
August 21, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Patok,
1) Its quite possible that every scientist YOU know is religious, this is beside the point, just because every scientist YOU know, believes in a God doesn’t change the fact that the majority of scientist don’t believe in a God.
(Check the my last posts links)
2) True, one persons morale deductions are just as valid as another person’s but one persons deductions are not as valid as a whole societies (many individuals) morale deductions (laws)
But of course nobody has to consider societies laws seriously…As long as you don’t mind going to jail.
3) On March 23 1933 Hitler addressed the Reichstag. “The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (Catholicism/Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. … We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people.” He described his religious status: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
Hitler wasn’t what you would call a mainstream catholic, though he claimed to be. Whatever his actual religious sentiments or plans for the future of the Catholic Church, he did believe in a God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler’s_religious_beliefs#God.2C_racism_and_anti-Semitism
Many theists claim Hitler was an atheist…they are wrong.
4) You point out that the reason the crusades happened was because another group of theists (Muslims) was attacking and trying to convert people, this surely gives weight to my earlier statement that theists do bad things even with supposed supreme (God Given) morals.
Id also add that if the crusades were something that Christians should be proud of why would Pope John Paul 2nd be apologising for it.
94-95% of Rwandans are Christian of some denomination, so that, is what the Rwandan genocide had to do with Christianity,
It blows away your belief that somehow believers will behave better because of an “objective truth”.
5)Well as I have explained above believers like in the crusades,rwandan genocide,salem witch trials are just as capable of committing horrors whether they feel guilty about it or not.
Suggesting atheists don’t feel guilt is retarded….at best>.<
Do we all consort with the devil and have tails too? .Please!
6) Our morals are defined by our culture and upbringing that in itself is a higher source than that of individual deductions. (As I have already explained)
First off the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber was a Scottish decision it had nothing to do with the rest of the United Kingdom, so get your facts straight.
Also the decision to release him on compassionate grounds was not taken by the Scottish people it was taken by one man, just one!! Yet you’re quite happy to sit there and right off Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom (for some reason) as uncompassionate scum.
How very Christian of you.
August 21, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Xela ..welcome back
First off
The majority of scientists not believing in God is not ..According to Durzal
..its a fact.
However, the reason its matters is.. patok was posting saying “You might also like to know that scientists across the board are more prone to belief that say lawyers”
And i was pointing out that whether lawyers or other select groups are less inclined to believe than scientists is beside the point as the vast majority of scientists dont believe in a God (even in the US)
I do agree though that a lesser percentage of theists in science doesn’t in any way provide evidence that they are correct. My posting of links regarding less belief in scientists was purely to educate patok.
August 21, 2009 at 7:01 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler’s_religious_beliefs#God.2C_racism_and_antisemitism
Patok use this link or write it in like its shown, the last one i gave you seems to go to adolf hitlers info page on wikipedia instead of to the specific texts i was referencing.
It should give mein kampf quotes like this
“What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race…so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe…Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence.”
August 22, 2009 at 1:07 am
Try this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs
(the single quote was causing the problem)
September 27, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Again, just posting incase Patok is lost.
October 27, 2009 at 12:24 am
Been 2 months, just posting to bump the thread incase Patok is lost.
July 21, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
Sorry, Durzal – looks like the “spaminator” got you. Let me know which (if any) of the duplicates you’d like me to remove.
July 21, 2009 at 9:58 pm |
Delete them all except for the 2nd one (5:49pm one) there all basically the same anyway.
July 21, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Done!
If you ever get swallowed by the spam filter (and this goes for anyone who posts here), don’t hesitate to contact me by email, webmaster@AskAnAtheist.org to let me know. This blog links to my site (www.AskAnAtheist.org) where you will find my email address, in case you forget what it is.
This blog gets an enormous amount of spam, nearly all of which is detected and filtered. Unfortunately, that makes it nearly impossible to notice any legit posts which are mixed in with the loads of real spam.
August 21, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
Hi patok.
I know scientists who do not believe in God and who do not raise their children to believe in God. Based on scientists I know personally, and what I’ve read from scientists that talk about their spiritual beliefs, there seems to be greater numbers of atheist, agnostics, and deists than there are in the general population. And I almost never hear a scientist say that the Bible, including creation stories, etc, is the divine Word of God. (see Project Steve).
I think moral codes, including those in the Bible were indeed devised by men. That is precisely the reason I think that the moral codes of the Bible are not above our scrutiny.
At times, Hitler expressed hatred for Christianity. He also embraced it at time. Here is a level-headed discussion about Hitler’s beliefs: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian
The Crusades indeed began in response to the conquest of Muslim conquest of Syria. However, I don’t see any reason to classify the conquest as genocidal, do you? I don’t see how the fact that the first campaign of the Crusades began as a defensive movement can be used to justify the brutality of the other campaigns against “pagans” and “heretics”. Possibly you could explain how you feel that it can (if indeed you feel it can).
Which events are you referring to? And how to you feel that atheism or occultism was the basis for the events?
When you say that sociopaths and atheists can do horrors and feel no guilt, do you mean only those are both atheist and sociopath, or do you also include atheists who are not sociopaths and sociopaths who are not atheists?
I think that is true. The values that are formed by various social groups like Western society as a whole, Eastern society as a whole, Christian societies, Buddhist societies, and philosophical groups, for example, have a greater value than the morality of any individual within the group.
October 29, 2009 at 3:41 am |
Atheist,
you think that morality exists.
Do you think some moral codes are superior to others?
How do you decide?
October 31, 2009 at 12:37 am |
Hi, Patok.
Yes, I think that morality exists (as you can see from my post immediately above). In my opinion, some moral codes are superior to others. I decide based on my personal sensibilities.
November 11, 2009 at 8:42 am |
Exactly.
As I said before, Hitler thought the same thing. He was perfectly moral according to his sensibilities. Therefore, morality is so relative in an world of atheists that it is meaningless. Morality has no meaning if it does not stem from a higher intelligence than a typical man.
November 11, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Patok,
Your assessment, that morality as I have described it is meaningless, is inconsistent with what we observe. We observe that the vast majority of the population in a given society agrees by and large on what constitutes moral behavior. This agreement is the moral authority which dictates how people in the society must behave. The morality is commonly expressed as a body of law.
As you point out, we observe other sources of moral authority as well. Some societies accept a particular ideology as their authority. Hitler’s ideology is an example of this, as is radical Christian ideology, as is radical Muslim ideology. When we judge the morality of a particular ideology as either superior or inferior, our judgment is always relative to what we personally deem to be moral. We can judge Hitler’s ideology and radical Christian ideology to be inferior by the same criteria.
November 3, 2009 at 8:28 pm |
you need to learn your grammar little girl.
November 3, 2009 at 10:36 pm |
Lol, yes “Did God created” its been pointed out already.
Frankly, crap grammar and the occasion spelling mistake will happen, as we are all human.
It amazes me that people will point these out in some hope that this will suffice as a valid counter argument.
Petty insults also just highlight how poor your argument is….. Is that really all you have?
November 3, 2009 at 10:37 pm |
Me.
November 15, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
First of all why does Patok say; “The Judeo-Christian God is absolutely base on eye-witness accounts.”?
What witness’s? All the witness’s in the Bible are all dead. They are not subjective to any cross examination. So any testimony in the Bible would have to be supported by some other creditable piece of evidence for it to be used as evidence. Other wise it is nothing but hear-say. For example; biblical scholars think that it was Moses that wrote the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) and yet if you read past the part that says Old Testiment in the very first book, in the very first chapter, in the very first verse it says; “In the beginning God created Heaven and the Earth”. So then is Moses your witness? Was he there when God created Heaven and Earth? If not, then WHO?
Patok, here’s something for you to think about.
Knowledge and wisdom are the subjects to the nobility of truth, so if thy caution thyself not to be the FOOL and thy have a boastful tongue, then let it be that which rest upon thy head the Crown of Truth.
For intergity of the wise is found in truth, so where shall it be found in that of the FOOL?
Base your beliefs on truth as oppose to basing your truths on beliefs.
November 16, 2009 at 6:28 am |
I am new to this site..I do believe in Science and do believe in facts over “faith”…I have a question I wanted to throw out there because I really want some opinions ( I live in the bible belt and my interactions outside my family are usually pretty big bible thumpers)..tonight my boyfriend asked me if I believed anything in the bible, I said no, personally I think the bible is a bunch of fables..so his response was..You don’t believe any of the people in the bible like Jesus, Moses ect..were not real people? And I am not sure how to answer that..Sure there was a guy named Jesus someone wrote about or a man named Moses who was a good person..but do I believe they were extra “special”..no!! But I guess my question is..how do you all explain your not believing in the bible and if you do believe in certain parts..how?? Sorry if this is going in many directions….thanks!!
November 16, 2009 at 11:35 am |
Hello Carrie
My non belief in the bible or any other religious texts comes down to a lack of any evidence whatsoever to support the idea of a deity to which these texts subscribe.
I do believe that the bible has some good moral lessons (as well as some god awful ones) but it can’t be taken literally when it flies in the face of common sense and things we have a hell of a lot more evidence for.
The bible was written at a time of limited
understanding of how things work, for example we know that you can’t rebuild a species with a gene pool as small as two, so Noah’s arks is rather complete nonsense or not to be taken literally.
I would never deny there was a Jesus of Nazareth as I believe this is backed up by historical records but common sense doesn’t allow me to believe he was the son of a god, nor that he could walk on water or turn water into wine.
Perhaps in another 2000 years people will have further embellished the story to include him being able to fly and melt solid stone with beams from his eyes(its just as likely).
Stories are always embellished with each retelling and its just a case of engaging some common sense.
Hope this helps, feel free to ask for any further explanations on anything I’ve said.
November 17, 2009 at 12:34 pm |
Howdy Carrie
I agree with Durzal that the Bible does have some wisdom in it, but just as my last post had pointed out that it is based on speculation. A person can not be a witness if they were not there when an event had occured, and yet Christians must have faith that these events had happen and except them as being truth. Being agnostic I base my beliefs on truth not superstition. Superstition is the belief in the super natural.
Does science know all the answers? No. They are naive in some areas of knowledge, but they are not ignorant.
They are objective, but not doubtful. They weigh their evidence with what they know is truth. This is what is know as being objective. Christians and other religions feel as though they have the truth and are doubtful to any evidence that might contradict their faith. This is what is know as being ignorant. To be naive is to be innocent, but to be ignorant is to be guilty.
When Charles Darwin wrote his famous book On the Origins of Species in 1859, he didn’t know of any evidence to prove his hypothesis, but just two years later in 1861 the Archaeopteryx was found. This is what is known as a transitional fossil (missing link)
that suggest that some dionsaurs had evolved into birds. This is substantiated proof, not circumstatial proof like testimonies from dead or missing witness’s. Also evolution has since been sustantiated by other known sciences and proof like DNA. What other religion has this kind of evidence to support it as being truth?
If the Bible or other religious book is the “Truth”, and/or “Word of God(s)”, to someone them ask them this; How do you KNOW?
As Jesus had said: “The wise man builds his house (beliefs) upon the rock (truth), and the fool builds his house upon the sand (deception and lies)”.
In other words do you base your beliefs on truth, or do you base your truths on beliefs?