Did God created the universe for us?

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.

181 Responses to Did God created the universe for us?

  1. Damian says:

    …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!)

  2. The Atheist says:

    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?

    :))

  3. Dale says:

    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.

  4. The Atheist says:

    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).

    Rather than ruling out divine purpose…

    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.

    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.

    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.

  5. cheers, A3,

    I’m arguing here that the belief that God created the universe for us is inconsistent with the evidence.

    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.

    I’m wondering how you estimate the probability of our existence?

    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?

    For that matter, what is your estimation of the probability that a God (one and only one) exists? …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.

    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.

  6. The Atheist says:

    first, it’s not “the evidence (TM)” which points this way or that way – but is our interpretation of the what we observe…

    (TM) <– :))

    I contend that the best interpretation is that the universe was not created solely for us.

    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.).

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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?

    But I’m still curious how you make the move from cosmology (or biology/geology) to the very philosophical (actually theological) judgment?

    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.

    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.

    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. ;)

  7. Jim Battle says:

    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?

  8. @ Jim Battle,

    I don’t believe in God, but I do believe spelling matters.

    Yes, but you missed the more obvious spelling/grammar error: the post title. “Did God created…” (no offense, A3!)
    A3,

    We don’t know of various universes of which only some percentage produces intelligent life.

    Yes, so how do you make your judgment about purpose based only on this universe?

    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?

    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 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 think by your very raising of the notion of inconsistency you have already made a move… How?

    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. ;)

    Great for our existence, at least!! And I don’t hear many complaints from anywhere else in the universe! :D

  9. edit: “…and eventually gave rise to organisms that are self aware…”

  10. The Atheist says:

    Jim,

    Thanks for the correction. Welcome to the blog!

  11. The Atheist says:

    Dale,

    Yes, so how do you make your judgment about purpose based only on this universe?

    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.

    … talking about the ‘improbability of our existence’ …

    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 think by your very raising of the notion of inconsistency you have already made a move… How?

    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.

    Great for our existence, at least!! And I don’t hear many complaints from anywhere else in the universe! :D

    It’s obvious you haven’t seen enough Seinfeld or South Park reruns! :))

  12. Dale says:

    A3,

    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.

    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’.

    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.

    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.

    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… However, we have no clue how likely it is that a God would 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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    …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.

    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 :)

  13. The Atheist says:

    Dale,

    First, I don’t think it’s just me that feels that our existence is improbable.

    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’m fully happy with your parallel ‘for all we know’ statements…Neither one knows – because this is the only universe we truly know about…

    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 don’t think I’ve ever compared the likeliness of a God to the likeliness of a life arising naturally…

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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’.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  14. Dale says:

    A3,

    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 –

    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.

    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.

    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! :)

    I’m presenting an argument that a theory that God created the universe solely for our benefit is not tenable. (emphasis mine)

    Yes, and not Christian either :)

  15. Dale says:

    …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.

  16. The Atheist says:

    Dale,

    …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…

    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?

    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! :)

    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! :)

    Yes, and not Christian either :)

    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.

    Dawkins is one example of an atheist who unhesitatingly agrees that humans are ‘improbable’

    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.

  17. Dale says:

    A3,

    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 think the word solely would not be used (let alone emphasized) by even evangelical-with-a-capital-E type Christians.

  18. Leonard says:

    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. :)

    • Durzal says:

      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.

      • Xela777 says:

        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.

      • Durzal says:

        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)

      • LordXela777 says:

        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.

      • durzal says:

        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)

      • LordXela777 says:

        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.

      • durzal says:

        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?

      • LordXela777 says:

        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.

      • Durzal says:

        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.

      • Xela777 says:

        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?

      • Durzal says:

        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.

      • LordXela777 says:

        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.

      • Durzal says:

        (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)

      • LordXela777 says:

        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.

      • Durzal says:

        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.

      • LordXela777 says:

        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?

      • Durzal says:

        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)

      • Xela777 says:

        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”?

      • Durzal says:

        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)

      • Xela777 says:

        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.

      • Durzal says:

        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.

  19. The Atheist says:

    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?

  20. Dale says:

    Hi A3,
    Most believers in an ex nihilo creator of all things think He is, in fact, pretty fantastic. :)

  21. patok says:

    As an atheist I imagine you don’t believe in aliens or crop circles either.

  22. The Atheist says:

    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?

  23. patok says:

    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?

  24. patok says:

    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.

  25. The Atheist says:

    patok,

    So you believe in extra-terrestrial aliens…how do you think they came to be without God?

    I think they came to be in the same way that life on Earth came to be.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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?

  26. Patok says:

    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.

  27. The Atheist says:

    Hi, Patok,. Thanks for the follow up discussion, and also for your response to my questions!

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

  28. Patok says:

    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.

  29. Patok says:

    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).

  30. The Atheist says:

    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?

    So will you agree that a system like ours could have formed 5 billion years after the big bang?

    Yes, I agree that they could have.

    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. 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 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 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.

    …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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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?

    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.

    Do you dismiss all eyewitness accounts on all subjects?

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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).

    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.

  31. patok088 says:

    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.

  32. The Atheist says:

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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:

    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.

    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?

    I DO NOT KNOW WHAT LIKELIHOOD TO AFFIX TO ALIEN VISITORS BECAUSE I DO NOT PRETEND TO BE ABLE TO CONCEIVE OF THEIR TECHNOLOGY…WE SIMPLY HAVE NO IDEA IF ALIEN LIFESPANS OR INCLINATIONS WOULD RENDER [a million-year journey] A PROBLEM.

    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?”

    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.

    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?

    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 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.

    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).

    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?

    THE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF IN THE BIBLE HAVE BEEN USED TO LOCATE ENTIRE LOST CITIES…PROVIDING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TODAY

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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’.

    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.

    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?

    No.

    IT ALSO SEEMS YOU ARE EXCLUDING INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL AS A CAPACITY OF INTELLIGENT LIFE…I DO NOT DO SO.

    Nor do I.

    I THINK THEY HAVE AS MUCH BASIS AS STATEMENTS IN 1500 THAT TRAVEL TO THE MOON WILL NEVCER BE POSSIBLE.

    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.

    ASSERTATIONS DO NOT HAVE TO BE MATHEMATICAL FOR ME TO ACCEPT THEM.

    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:

    You mentioned the need for carbon-based life to get intelligence. That seems very narrow-minded.

    6) Did you agree with my explanation about why silicon life seems unlikely?

    You also said earlier:

    If so the life spawned from that system may have existed for many billions of years longer than on earth.

    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!

  33. Xela777 says:

    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.

  34. patok088 says:

    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?

  35. The Atheist says:

    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.

  36. patok says:

    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?

    • Durzal says:

      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)

  37. LordXela777 says:

    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.”

  38. Durzal says:

    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.

  39. LordXela777 says:

    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?

    • Durzal says:

      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.

  40. Xela777 says:

    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.

  41. Durzal says:

    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.

  42. LordXela777 says:

    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?

  43. LordXela777 says:

    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.

  44. Durzal says:

    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.

  45. LordXela777 says:

    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.

    • Durzal says:

      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?

      • LordXela777 says:

        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?

      • Durzal says:

        “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.

  46. Xela777 says:

    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.

    • Durzal says:

      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.

      • Xela777 says:

        >.>
        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.

      • Durzal says:

        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.

  47. patok says:

    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.

    • Durzal says:

      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?

    • The Atheist says:

      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!

      • patok says:

        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.

  48. lisabee says:

    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?

    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.

  49. Durzal says:

    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?

    • Xela777 says:

      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.

      • Durzal says:

        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

  50. lisabee says:

    my problem was why he had to put adam to sleep and heal his scar afterwards

    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.

    • Durzal says:

      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.

  51. Durzal says:

    “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.

    • Patok says:

      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.

      • Durzal says:

        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.

      • Durzal says:

        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.

    • Xela777 says:

      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?

      • Durzal says:

        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.

  52. Patok says:

    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.

  53. Durzal says:

    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.

    • Patok says:

      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?

  54. Durzal says:

    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.

  55. patok says:

    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?

  56. Durzal says:

    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.

    • Patok says:

      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.

      • Durzal says:

        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.

      • Durzal says:

        Just doing a quick bump post incase patok is lost.

      • patok says:

        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.

      • Xela777 says:

        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.

      • Durzal says:

        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.

      • Durzal says:

        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.

      • Durzal says:

        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.”

      • Durzal says:

        Again, just posting incase Patok is lost.

      • Anonymous says:

        Been 2 months, just posting to bump the thread incase Patok is lost.

  57. The Atheist says:

    Sorry, Durzal – looks like the “spaminator” got you. Let me know which (if any) of the duplicates you’d like me to remove.

    • Durzal says:

      Delete them all except for the 2nd one (5:49pm one) there all basically the same anyway.

      • The Atheist says:

        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.

  58. The Atheist says:

    Hi patok.

    Most scientists I know believe in God…

    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).

    …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 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.

    Hitler hated Christianity…

    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

    Crusades were a counter-attack against an invading genocidal arab invasion…

    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).

    I do note that the biggest mass murders in history were all atheists and or occultists who specifically rejected Christian morality.

    Which events are you referring to? And how to you feel that atheism or occultism was the basis for the events?

    …That is why sociopaths and atheists can do such horrers…they feel no guilt.

    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?

    For morals to have any value they must come from something higher than yourself…

    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.

  59. Patok says:

    Atheist,
    you think that morality exists.
    Do you think some moral codes are superior to others?
    How do you decide?

  60. The Atheist says:

    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.

    • Patok says:

      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.

      • The Atheist says:

        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.

  61. kristie says:

    you need to learn your grammar little girl.

  62. Anonymous says:

    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?

  63. Eupraxsophy says:

    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.

  64. carriehill27 says:

    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!!

    • Durzal says:

      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.

  65. Eupraxsophy says:

    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?

  66. I read this a while back – thought I’d post in this thread:

    “If it is maintained that anything so small as the Earth must, in any event, be too unimportant to merit the love of the Creator, we reply that no Christian ever supposed we did merit it. Christ did not die for men because they were intrinsically worth dying for, but because He is intrinsically love, and therefore loves infinitely. And what, after all, does the size of a world or a creature tell us about its “importance” or value?
    There is no doubt that we all feel the inconguity of supposing, say, that the planet Earth might be more important than the Great Nebula in Andromeda. On the other hand, we are all equally certain that only a lunatic would think a man six-feet high necessarily more important than a man five-feet high, or a horse necessarily more important than a man, or a man’s legs than his brain. In other words this supposed ratio of size to importance feels plausible only when one of the sizes involved is very great. And that betrays the true basis of this type of thought. When a relation is perceived by Reason, it is perceived to hold good universally. If our Reason told us that size was purportional to importance, then small differences in size would be accompanied by small differences in importance just as surely as great differences in size were accompanied by great differences in importance. Your six-foot man would have to be slightly more valuable than the man of five feet, and your leg slightly more important than your brain – which everyone knows to be nonsense. The conclusion is inevitable: the importance we attach to great difficulties of size is an affair not of oreason but of emotion – of that peculiar emotion which superiorities in size begin to produce in us only after a certain point of absolute size has been reached.”
    C.S. Lewis, Miracles (1947), 56

  67. […] have never quite understood what some are on about when they point to the vast size of the universe as some kind of evidence that we are […]

  68. Durzal says:

    “I have never quite understood what some are on about when they point to the vast size of the universe as some kind of evidence that we are insignificant, and that any notion of human significance is ‘anthropocentric’ (human-centred)”

    ???
    The question was “Did God Created(lolz)the universe for us”
    I believe the question asks, if theists believe God created the universe for us why would he create such a hostile environment for us?, are the stars for our viewing pleasure? all of them? even the ones(most of them) we can’t even see?

    Regarding human significance, I don’t believe that the universe being huge means we are insignificant, I believe all life no matter how small is significant and worth preserving,
    However,
    The only beings that see the human race as significant is us(maybe our pets) and so I would say that human significance is very much human centred.
    If a huge comet was to crash into us and wipe out all life on earth, would the universe care? would it weep for us? would the laws of physics reverse in upon themselves?
    No, the universe would tick along just as it did before us and will do after us, caring very little for the fate of the ape-men of planet earth.

  69. The Atheist says:

    Cheers, Dale. Good to have you back! On behalf of guys everywhere, I’d like to thank C.S. Lewis for his treatise about why size doesn’t matter :)

    However, the size vs. importance argument misses the point since I don’t say that the size of the universe relative to the Earth or the things in it are indicators that the Earth, and therefore we, are insignificant by virtue of our size. I say nearly the opposite: since only Earth which is a minuscule part of the universe is the only spot that seems beneficial to us, but the rest of the universe seems hostile to us, or is at least of no consequence to us, then it follows that the rest of the universe does not exist for our benefit. That is, it doesn’t seem to be created for our benefit. I’m very glad that you are still wrestling with the question though!

  70. A3,
    Time for a comment.

    Although I think the size ‘problem’ is implicit in your argument, I’ll grant that your main point is that most of the universe seems un-beneficial to us. One actually not look further than our own small ‘pale blue dot’ (h/t Carl) to observe that (as you mention in your post) most of the earth’s surface is water, which is not ‘friendly’ for us.

    As I probably pointed out somewhere in the foray of comments above (it’s been a while), the biblical tradition does not include any sense that the every single bit of time and space in the universe is “for” humans. The ancient writer/community behind the creation poem in Genesis 1 seems to have a clue that the both the sky and the waters are not ‘for’ humans, but rather are the abode of flying creatures and sea creatures of all kinds. No doubt, then, that deep space is ‘for’ the seemingly infinite number of glorious, mysterious and amazing nebulae, galaxies, black holes, supernovae, stars and all the rest – most of which we probably will never even know about! Must every single human being have known and appreciated every single particle/subparticle in the universe? Where was that ever suggested?

    The biblical tradition is that the creator creates out of the creators sheer creativity – a creator that does not create is… (you know how to finish the sentence)

    So, whilst there is an unashamed, and ‘scandalous’ ‘anthropocentric’ particularity inherent to Christianity – due to the fact that we hold that God united himself to creation in general and human nature in particular in the person of Jesus Christ – this does not at all imply that humans are (or even could be) the only things the universe (or creation in general) was created ‘for’.

  71. The Atheist says:

    Dale,

    I agree that the Bible doesn’t say anything about time and space being for humans. In fact the Bible doesn’t seem aware that a universe per se exists outside of the Earth, the Sun, other stars (presumably just the visible ones), and the moon. And even then, I expect that following the Canaanite traditions, the early scripture writers understood the Earth to be the center of all existence, and the extra-terrestrial “lights” to be features in the dome of the sky. They believed that these lights were put in place for signs, seasons, days and years, for people on Earth. The Earth itself was given to humans for them to have dominion over it, and all creatures on it.

    It’s easy to see why many modern-day Christians who read and believe these accounts infer that the Earth and we humans are center-stage in the divine play since the accounts were written by people who likely held the same anthropocentric view. This view is also consistent with the later stories of how God’s only Son died for humans and not for other creatures elsewhere in the universe. It follows that humans must be the center of God’s attention, and by extension, the reason for the Earth which is the center of all creation.

    You asked a couple of questions so I want to make sure I answer:

    Must every single human being have known and appreciated every single particle/subparticle in the universe?

    No. Those particles still could be for humans if they are of some benefit to some of them. However, they could not be for humans if they have no effect on any of them.

    Where was that ever suggested?

    As far as I can tell, it was suggested only by your question. :))

  72. I’ve no problem with the ancient writers not knowing about stars unknown to them – in other words being ancient writers :)

    And as far as the Bible is concerned, God is at centre-stage of the divine play :)

    I don’t mean to deny any so-called ‘anthropocentric’ aspects to biblical faith, however (as I indicate in the last paragraph of my last comment). However even with humans having a unique, particular and specific role within the entirety of creation, this doesn’t mean that Jesus’ sacrificial death for humans (and his resurrection) is irrelevant for the rest of creation – indeed, the biblical witness is that God’s union with Nature in general and human nature in particular in the person of Jesus Christ is a redemptive union, for both human nature and nature in general. All creation is to be redeemed. We need not go into the more biblical/theological discussions about what it would mean or look like for nature to be redeemed – suffice to say that biblically, Jesus is not only concerned with human redemption.

  73. The Atheist says:

    It sounds like we don’t really disagree that the judeo-christian tradition is a basis for a self-centered view, but that the observed universe is not.

    But I’d be interested to know where you find support for believing that Jesus isn’t concerned only with human redemption (as as you say, we don’t have to go into a discussion about it – but I’m just curious about any biblical support for that belief).

  74. After pushing back against the term ‘self-centered’, by another reference to the god-centredness of judaeo-christian tradition (JCT), I’d then want to say that the JCT and the observed universe equally admit a ‘both/and’ tension between the particular and universal, the one and many (a la Plato), the human and non-human.

    First, particular/universal in JCT:
    From the opening creation poem, through to the political/apocalyptic Revelation, non-human creation has a consistent role in both creation and redemption – two key themes of the bible. Contrary to some anti-physical images of humans being swept away (a la ‘rapture’) to heaven leaving the earth (and presumably the rest of the universe) to waste away or burn, the picture is instead physicality-redeeming. Human and non-human creation both (a la Romans 8, Colossians 1, etc.) await a re-creation, a NEW creation, a liberation into a new glorified-yet-still-‘physical’ (more-than-physical, not less) state. Jesus is the ‘first-fruits’ of this new kind of redeemed/glorified physicality. The whole creation awaits its liberation, Paul says. It’s both/and. I’ll cut short the sermon :)

    Second, particular/universal in universe:
    Briefly, not only can we see that humans are particular in the universe in complexity and rationality and other abilities, we also should not forget that (as far as our observations go) we are the only ones naming galaxies, wondering at sub-atomic phenomena, or for that matter, making complaints about anthropocentricism. There is a both/and here too. :)

  75. Imran says:

    I have a very simple question. Do you know anything about Satellites? It takes hell lot of precision to launch a satellite. And then also it stays for 30, 50 or let say 100 years. A satellite needs someone to create it, someone to maintain it, Every small system need some maintenance. But somehow you can imagine that the whole universe where moon is rotating around earth, earth around sun, sun in our galaxy and so on (which i guess is definitely much more complex then a satellite), is created without anything????????? Then all I can say is that either i don’t have that extra dimension of intelligence that you possess or you are just trying to fool yourself.

    • Durzal says:

      I also have a very simple question. Do you know anything about The evolution of the planets?
      The solar system wasn’t created “without anything” but through gravity acting on matter over huge amounts of time.
      If you are referring to the big bang and the first cause etc then there are many theories this way and that, none of which saying it was “created without anything”

      If you believe that something so complex such as the universe demands a direct creator then I would imagine you would agree that God (who unless he is less complex than the universe he created) is even more complex and so would also demand a creator. (I imagine you will think your God is somehow special and doesn’t apply to this reasoning, but why?)

      You don’t lack any extra dimension of intelligence just an education on certain topics.

      What would I have to gain by trying to convince myself there is no God in spite of evidence to contrary, the idea of an afterlife and paradise sound fabulous, unfortunately I have to live in the real world and face facts, one of these being there is no evidence of any sort for the existence of a God of any religion.

      • Imran says:

        Let say I assume that one of these theories about evolution is true (although it is far far from proven in both life and universe cases). Then we come to the question how was matter created? Now as you said if we believe in God then the similar question comes who created God. Lets say there is no God. So then either you need the time to be infinite in past or you would require another dimension to explain the creation of matter (Remember science does not explain why gravity exists it only explains the laws it is following). It means even if you don’t believe in God you need something infinite or something that cannot be imagined by us humans. Isn’t it right? So you are ready to “believe” in something beyond human brain’s capabilities but you are sure about one thing that God does not exist. Even if the science in future explains a lot of things we would be required to believe in something beyond our imagination.

        Secondly what about the maintainance thing that I asked. Do you know any small system that can go on and on without maintainance? But somehow the hugely complex universe is running for billions of years (i know that other smaller systems are also complex). As far as the many theories are concerned, I think being a scientific person you know very well that many of these are assumptions which may and may not turn out true in future.

        I believe in the fact that we would be going to answer to our Creator one day. You have every right to believe in the opposite but when you people would face him, you would not have any time to regret what you did. But then again it is your choice.

        • Durzal says:

          Scientific theories are an explanation that scientists try and prove wrong and the longer the theory lasts the more credible it is in the scientific world, The Theory of Evolution and the Evolution of the universe have nothing that contest them(at all), Human Biology would not make sense without Biological Evolution.

          With regards what created matter and the universe, there are scientific theories that offer explanations to this in quantum mechanics/string theory, these subjects im no expert in and so don’t profess them as my beliefs.

          I’m quite ready to except there may be things that are outside our comprehension and I have not said at any point that im
          “sure about one thing that God does not exist” however… there just isn’t any reasoning, logic or evidence of any sort to support the existence of a God of any religion.

          A cat is a small biological system that goes on and on without maintenance, it dies after a while but so then might the universe.

          Science does not make assumptions you must mean “theories” these theories are tested and tested over time and the longer the theory lasts without being proven wrong the more credible it becomes, this is how science works!

          Of course you believe in a creator of who you will have to answer to one day, but… why do you believe this?…. what evidence do you have that makes you believe this?
          Even if we didn’t have science providing theories to the big questions like what created matter or the universe, not knowing how matter or the universe came to be doesn’t provide evidence of a supreme being, let alone one who gets personally involved with human beings and judges them at death.

          • Imran says:

            The explanation and theories in quantum mechanics are too vague. No one has performed any experiment to prove that. E.g. they try to explain that their is a membrane in another dimension that can be the reason for gravity. Now clearly you cant prove this wrong but can you prove it to be right? No.

            I dont understand how human biology makes sense with evolution either. As there are many fundamental questions that evolution does not answer. like e.g how did it evolve from asexual to sexual reproduction? how did the first wings appear? There are many others but I dont intend to make it an evolution vs creation debate. In my opinion evolution(if true) does not contradict creation as God might have created like that. But the point is these theories are too weak to base our conclusions on. Secondly all these theories have one very basic assumption that what we are observing now can be extrapolated to billions of years. And I guess this a very weak assumption.

            A cat does not survive without maintenance. It needs a mother whose belly it uses for early survival and then in the beginning of its life it also needs her to take care. And somehow we can accept that all these complex evolution processes (let say we accept them to be true) just started without anything or any being.

            The existence of Creator is a belief thing. If he would have been in our dimension or he could be something imaginable only then we can prove it scientifically. As you said that you are ready to accept something not comprehensible by us humans, then how would science prove that?

            I clearly see the magnitude and complexity of the universe and its objects that make me believe in God. As far as religion is concerned its a secondary step that comes only if someone accepts the existence of God. Dont take it as missionary talk. I am just writing my idea and belief and trying to understand your logic :).

  76. The Atheist says:

    That is a simple question. We know from nature that the advent of complexity does not necessarily require intelligence. For example, we can see how the natural process of evolution can produce complexity. Even a snowflake is very complex, yet it forms without any designer. Of course if we think that all complex things need a designer, then we must also think that a Creator who is complex enough to have the intelligence to create a universe must Himself have a creator.

  77. The Atheist says:

    Hi, Durzal, good to see you! Sorry about repeating some of your answers – I lost my network connection while I was in the middle of writing my response. By the time I got connected again and hist the “post” button, you had already answered! :)

  78. Durzal says:

    A3, can you delete the one above as the writing is squashed and would be unbearable to read for Imran, (and no problem repeat as much as you like its nice to see us on the same wavelength)

    Nobody said that the theories that explain how the universe/matter was created are proven.. just that there are scientific explanations out there that are plausible.

    I have explained in other threads about a change from asexual to sexual reproduction
    https://askanatheist.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/atheists-cant-explain-origin-of-life/#comment-13914
    and wings have also been covered further down the linked thread in a debate with someone who didn’t have a great understanding of biological evolution.

    I agree that the fact evolution happens does not mean there is no God, I often wonder why religious persons argue against the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution.

    Do you have any reasoning or evidence to believe that what we observe with regards evolution in nature today should not be the case with evolution in the distant past of future?
    Why would successful traits not be passed on and weak traits die out in organisms in the distant past. The assumption surely would be to think things would operate differently that they do in nature today.

    Biological evolution started with abiogenesis and the evolution of planets started with the big bang.(not nothing)
    Good point on the cat, how about a flower then? or a star?

    I except the possibility of things beyond our comprehension, but this does not lead me to make wild jumps to supreme beings as there is no evidence whatsoever for such a thing let alone a supreme being that is personally involved with human beings of planet earth, surely to believe this you must have some sort of evidence first, not knowing why this or that happens does not give us an excuse to make up a solution that is based on no evidence of any kind, why not a giant bunny called barney that pooped the earth into creation? ..its just as valid as it is also based on no evidence of any kind.
    If a complex universe must require a creator then an even more complex God must also require a creator by the same definition. Do you believe in a God Creator? If not why does such complexity not require a creator in this instance?

    Why does this (God) complexity require no creator and why do you believe it without any evidence at all whereas you don’t believe evolution because you feel it is too much assumption or lacks evidence to support it? Why the double standards?

  79. Durzal says:

    Btw Imran what religion do you follow if you dont mind me asking?

  80. Imran says:

    I am a Muslim and just for the info it would be good to know whether you are born in Atheist family or converted from some other religion.

    I would read the thread you mentioned and then I can give my opinion. but as I mentioned I have no problem with evolution if i have enough evidence to support it.

    Flower is also not a system without any maintenance. It is on a plant needs a supply of water etc. and then dies. Stars also got somehow created and then die as well. the star is working only as long as the supply of hydrogen etc. is there. Any system you would mention would be a product of another system most likely. Now I know that evolution also says something similar. So lets look at the big bang. planets started with big bang but then what caused big bang. there are theories about that but every explanation (if true) would lead us to another point earlier than that and then we need explanation of that. So we can say point B is reason for A, C for B and so on. Until what point? we need another dimension, which means we need to go out of this time boundary. So once you are out of time boundary then God is also explainable. Because then he did not start with time.

    As I said early the believe in God is not a thing that I can prove scientifically. It is based on simple logic for this complex system to be governed by someone and as far as I am concerned I can see his message in our holy Book Quran. According to my understanding that book cannot be written by some human. just explaining my belief.

    Now why do I believe in this and dont except evolution? As I said earlier I am not against evolution and I do agree to some part of it about changes happening in species. I have doubts about many things (some might get clear after reading what you mentioned or with time) but I do consider it as a possibility. I dont accept it as a 100% thing as yet because most of the things are explained with the word “somehow”.

    Now th reason to me for people thinking evolution and creation as conflicting is because both sides try to use it to prove other wrong. Many atheists try to use it to prove that life can exist without God and many creationists try to find flaws in the theory to prove life cannot exist without God. Both in my opinion are wrong.

    • Durzal says:

      Well I wasn’t born into a atheist family I think my mother believes in God as she said she believe that bad people will be punished after death but she does not subscribe to a religion as she says they are all man made and man run and have nothing to do with God (she knows people who were subject to abuse by the catholic church and describes the nuns in this case as evil and wicked people) My father say something along the lines of “well in the past people didn’t know a lot and so God was an answer that would explain everything, these days science has provided us the knowledge that explains these things.
      I never had any teachings one way or the other on God or religion as they said they wanted me to decide for myself and not push anything they may believe or not believe onto me.
      I actually went to school and sung about God every morning which gave me an impression of God as an old man in the sky with a big white beard and orange dungaree’s (for some reason) I think I used to associate him as a gardener because of one of the songs I liked (hey, I was young)

      Well although the flower need a source of water it finds this itself and so it is sort of self maintaining (like the universe could be) and the fact that is dies I don’t see as relevant as the universe may die at some point (it just has a longer life span than the flower) Again the universe just like a star could have been somehow created and die, what created the universe is the million dollar question, unfortunately you or I don’t have any evidence to say one way or the other.

      If we go into another dimension outside time God might be explainable but then again so might the giant bunny rabbit called barney that pooped the universe into creation, you can’t just try and explain things who’s existence we don’t have any evidence for simply because that’s the way you would like or because that’s what fits into your religious viewpoint.

      There is no evidence that the universe needs to be governed, if you have some I’d love to see it.
      You could argue that the universe needs a first cause but the first cause could be a infinitely complex intelligent OR natural phenomenon OR something entirely outside causality altogether(or something beyond our comprehension).
      Many religions have a holy book and many claim theirs is the written word of God but before I worry myself about which religion is right I would first need some evidence, logic or reasoning that provides evidence for the existence of a God in the first place and the fact that God might be explainable in a dimension outside time isn’t evidence.

      I also wonder why if there was a supreme being (creator of all time, energy, space and matter), why he would give a damn or not if we pray to him or not, drink alcohol (in your case) or eat certain types of animal.
      It all seems a little silly that the creator of all energy time space and matter would demand or care about praise from the tiny organisms called human beings of the planet earth.

      Btw, I hope nothing I say here you find offensive, I have a mocking debate style and mean no offence, its just the way I try and get points across.

  81. Imran says:

    No, you did not offend me. I don’t generally get offended with this stuff. Now back to discussion :).

    First of all the point you mentioned about your father that in old days we needed God and now due to science we dont (something like that). I know this is not your argument but I listen to this very often so I woul like to comment. I dont get how science has changed the God thing. Science has made us realize the complexity and enormous magnitude of universe. it explains the laws of universe and considering evolution to be true it explains the diversity of life. Now one thing is for clear whether you believe in God or not that science does not expain the origin of all these phenomenas. Theories exist but nothing concrete yet. So, I dont see the point that due to science now we know that God is not there.

    As for flower, it is not a self contained system. it is part of the plant whic provides it with a system for gettin water and food. Now the plant might have grown from a seed or grafting or the other methods we know. So, its a sequence of systems and when one stops working the next one also and so on. Now we can also look at a computer for example. A computer can be started and let say I run a program in it that runs for 10 years. Now after five years if someone looks at this computer, should he/she conclude that it is a self contained system? All the systems we see around need some backup supply, maintainance or are dependant on some other system.

    Well as for the big bunny is concerned :), the point is that i believe that all this huge system needs someone. I am not claiming anything on his appearance or shape etc. There needs to be someone. Now whether he looks like a bunny (as you are arguing) or something else is not clear. But there has to be someone to run the system. To me it is impossible to have a hugely complex system that created without anything. And just for an example there are things like big bang and forces between planets that are mentioned in holy books (Quran for example as I know it). This was mentioned at a time when humans believed earth to be the centre of universe and stars not to be that huge. To me this is a clear sign of a divine message. Not for you although, but then its your belief.

    As far as the restrictions in different religions are concerned, many of the restrictions seem logical to a big part of world. Like alcohal consumption as you are aware of the problems arising due to drunk people’s violence etc. Then the whole concept of religion is a test. why God needs it, I don’t know. But he asked us for that, and I have no choice other than obeying. BTW in my opinion it is the fact that people want freedom in everything that takes them away from God. Man by nature does not accept supremacy of any other thing.

    Just for a thought on restrictions I have a question for you. What about the sexual relationship between a father and daughter, a mother and son, between sisters or brothers and so on. I mean in the immediate family. there can be different cases like both father and daughter are willing to do. Or one is willing and second reluctant and later they both start enjoying so everything is ok. Do you think it is ok or not? Well just to clarify, I am against it :).

    • Durzal says:

      He or I never said that “due to science now we know that God is not there” just that things that we used to explain away with “God did it” we now have scientific answers for.
      You said theories exist but nothing concrete yet but there is nothing concrete (hell there’s nothing at all) that points to a supreme being as this just raises further questions, does it not?

      Well I was sort of including the stem, leaves in with the flower, however the flower analogy is becoming tiresome so ill move to the point of the analogy and say that if “All the systems we see around need some backup supply, maintenance or are dependant on some other system.” then why would an infinitely complex system (God) not need any of these things, why is your God outside this argument.
      Its just like the question earlier that you failed to answer why does a complex universe always need a creator but not an even more complex God?

      Again in the next paragraph “I believe that all this huge system needs someone” but not the huge complex God itself, but why not?

      I have not read the whole Quran though I was impressed with the creation story it seemed more complex than the bibles account of creation and less raw, at some point I will endeavour to get further and perhaps I will also be astounded by its insights at such an early time, I do doubt however that it will lead me to make such a huge jump to a supreme being that involves itself personally with the organisms of planet earth.

      I know coming from a (I assume) religious family you will always put a God at the beginning of the first cause argument because it fits in with your religion and what you’ve always been taught but even atheists who say the big bang was created by quantum fluctuations and state that a pre big bang universe would be in a quantum state and therefore outside causality seem to forget that even a universe in a quantum state needs a cause (and so does a God) personally I think a much more sensible and lets face it honest answer is “we don’t know” and there’s nothing wrong with this as the alternative is just making wild assumptions.

      I think you need to look at the likelihood of a supreme being (creator of all energy, time, space and matter) feeling the need to test human beings for some reason.
      Why he needs to do it would come after confirming that’s its at all likely and firstly finding some evidence for a God in the first place.
      I think I read somewhere that not drinking alcohol is also something to do with not having “a hazed mind” when in a Mosque (praying) again you didn’t answer before but why would a supreme being need or want people praying to him, I can think of no reason beyond human characteristic like ego.
      You DO have a choice Imran I don’t subscribe to a religion and so far no bolts have lightning have hit me, if there are things stopping you its isn’t a God.

      I’m also against it Imran (incest) because its leads to gross genetic deformities and madness and therefore is bad for society, again I would suggest looking at the likelihood that a proposed supreme being (creator of all time, energy, space and matter would care who is sleeping with who on planet earth.(would he care for all animals or just homosapiens).

  82. Imran says:

    Well, I think I answered but maybe it was not clear. My point is that at least we agree that( if God does not exist) when we would know about big bang then we would need to know what caused big bang, Let say that is thing B then C would be the cause of B and so on. It will have no end. So, what you are saying is that a system as complex as Universe with so precise laws (like gravitational etc.) just stayed there itself. So keeping the constraint of time to me it is impossible that things existed from infinity. For me we definitely need to go out of time bound at some point. So we have to have something out of this time bound and that to me is the God.

    Lets say it like this. If there is a God and it does not fit in science then he does not exist? Is our science that mature that it can cover something out of time bound? No it is not and whether there is God or not we need to go out of time bound for sure. And you can believe that it can be without a supreme being and to me simple logic negates it. Such precise systems cannot be a result of random events. Now your question that who created God then? is based on being in the time domain. We agree that scientifically both of us don’t know what is the cause (in my case God) and in your case some physical reasoning. But that is where the path of belief comes which you choose not to go on.

    Now why he needs to care about our affairs? I clearly said that I dont know. What I believe is that he surely exists and then these are his demands from us. As you know (i assume) that generally all religions take life as a test. So in test you have some rules and that does not necessarily means that God needs these things. We also believe that humans are the superior creatures compared to others. It is part of the test. I know you dont accept this :) . BTW in Islam alcohol is forbidden for all cases. It is stated something like that “Alcohol has some advantages but the disadvantages are far more than the advantages, so it is forbidden”.

    Why I asked this question of incest (thanks for telling me the term. I did not know it)? Because if we believe that evolution is true and there is no God then there should be no problem in such relationships as these happen frequently in animals without any harm. human is just another evolved animal. Why is it bad for society? These restrictions have just religious basis. Just like the case of gays and lesbians. It used to be considered bad but now in many countries it is being accepted more and more. It is also religiously considered bad. Same is true for incest. Technically there is no reason for it to be considered bad (without the belief of God). You might say that you dont like this thing but you cant be against it. I am totally aware that this does not prove anything about God existence but dont you think where the society would lead with all this freedom thing and the belief of having no one to answer to at the end of life?

    • Durzal says:

      I understand what you mean when you say “So we have to have something out of this time bound and that to me is the God” however a quantum universe prior to the big bag would be outside time as causality breaks down at the subatomic(quantum) level, however even then we would have to ask what created or where did this quantum universe come from?
      A God created it you may say, but again, where did this God come from?
      If you answer well because its outside time he can always have existed then so could the quantum universe in the first place… so there doesn’t seem to be any need to add a supreme being to the equation.
      Arguments on the “First Cause” will most likely be an eternal standoff as there is simply no way to know or even make an educated guess as physics, logic or reasoning as we know it on planet earth possibly are not the same or don’t even apply pre big bang and because of this I make no grandiose assumptions (Like a God) regarding the first cause argument.

      No, if there WAS a God then he would exist, regardless of if science had an explanation for his/her/its existence or his/her/its creation, the point is that there is no evidence OF ANY KIND to support the existence of a God.

      If simply logic for you negates a universe without a God then does this simply logic supply you with an explanation for what created your God? Even a quantum universe that would operate outside time or a God that operates outside time need an explanation for their existence.

      I don’t believe such precise systems (like human beings for example) came about by random events but through natural processes (like evolution).

      I choose not to go on the path of belief as “belief” or “faith” are for me just believing something with no evidence.

      So God cares about our affairs to tests us? why though? For what reason? You say you don’t know! does this not seem silly to you? If God made us with failings is he not ultimately responsible for our actions?.
      With regards humans being superior to animals do you have a superior sense of smell to a dog, a superior set of eyes than an owl.. no.. evolution favoured intelligence in our case.

      Errr incest or Inbreeding in animals do cause harm.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
      its bad for society because
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Results
      I think common sense explains the reason there are man made laws against incest (see links above)

      I’m not against homosexuality at all as it has no detrimental effects on society, I often wonder why people (Christians) think God made us all (presumably Homosexuals as well) and then has a problem with the way he created them.

      Well I don’t fear being judged at the end of my life and I am a free as a bird to drink(alcohol), eat what I like or even pursue a homosexual relationship should the need strike me….. and….. so far as I’m concerned I’m an upstanding member of society, I give blood, I’m on the Anthony Nolan bone marrow register, I give to cancer research, pay my taxes, work for the police, have never been on benefits, respect my parents, etc etc
      I think you’ll find that if someone is raised well they need not be brainwashed with religious teachings to make them a good person.
      I am a good person because I choose to be not because I fear being judged if I don’t.

  83. Imran says:

    The first cause is definitely not very clear thing to argue scientifically. But donT you think when you question who created God that keeps you in time bound? Anyway I conveyed my point to you and heard yours. Both of us can think about all the questions and the arguments and their logic and then make decisions.

    For the Inbreeding, yes it has harmful effects, but why does the animals in wild have it very commonly? From evolutionary point of view homosexuality is also harmful as people are not reproducing. But still they do. Evolution does not say that harmful things cannot be done. It says that the stronger and better would survive and others would slowly vanish. And my question was not whether it should be done or not. It is whether it is moral or not?

    And for you being a good person (well I believe what you are saying :) ) is because you chose it to be like that but there are many who dont. Many get excessive drunk and then it is not in their control. Many steal etc. And as long as they are safe themselves from harmful effects, they are not doing anything bad as no God and only evolution eliminates morality. It is survival of the fittest.

    • Durzal says:

      Imran im off for a week on holiday and dont have time to give a full response right now, I’ll get back to this in about a week as although we seem to be coming to a natural end of our discussiion there are a few points I still wish to make, cya soon.

    • Durzal says:

      I don’t question who created God at all because there is no evidence to support the existence of God at all, saying “the universe is complex so a God must have created” it is sort of like saying “my socks keep going missing so a sock elf is stealing them” although this would explain the mystery there is no evidence for such an idea.

      Animals do inbreed and it is not good for the species but generally the instinct to mate is generally stronger than the tendency to avoid mating with siblings, this is probably because evolutionary speaking if there is a lack of partners evolution favours offspring (genetically diverse or not) to none.
      There is a good genetic understanding of homosexuality in evolution, generally speaking genes in families that affect males and make them homosexual make the females of that family more fecund which more than makes up for the possibility that the male will not reproduce and sometimes the males does.

      Well morals are just as I see it what society deems right or wrong so society sees incest as morally wrong and so do I.
      Homosexuality was seen as morally wrong for many years mainly due to religious sentiments however as society has grown up we cannot now blame someone for the way that they were born.

      Of course many choose not to be good and so do many Muslims choose not to be good, and Christians, and Buddhists and atheists etc.
      Not believing in a God does not make you a bad person and believing in one does not mean you will be a good person either, there are bad and Good in both.

      • Imran says:

        Well lets say it like this. Someone put another pair of socks in your room. But since you cannot say who he was so somehow the socks got created. Imagine a small box with vacuum. This is closed to nothing that I can imagine although it is also not nothing. So would you believe me if I say that in billions of years a singularity will occur and a universe will be created from this “nothing”.

        I am not saying that Religious people are good and others bad. I am saying when there is acceptance of God then you can define right and wrong. Otherwise you can’t. You are accepting some rules of society. What if I don’t? How would you say I am wrong with my thinking?

        • Durzal says:

          Yes, somehow the socks got created or put it into the room but nobody can say it was a sock elf, fairy or god as there is no evidence to support this.
          An explanation that provides no evidence to support it isn’t really an explanation at all, its mere speculation.

          Quantum mechanics actually states that things of this nature can happen due to quantum fluctuations, for instance in and area or space (vacuum) there is still energy and energy levels fluctuate at a quantum level and thus energy levels can rise to the point that an electron (mass) is created along with its partner anti-electron and then the energy is dissipates and the anti electron and electron cancel each other out.
          Given billions or trillions of years science would say this(a gravitational singularity) is quite possible, given an infinite amount of time I imagine it would be a certainty.(though i’m no scientist)
          Besides why would putting a vacuum in a box and over billions of years having an infinitely intelligent supreme being appear within it, from “nothing” be a better explanation.
          Double standards as always.

          Of course you are saying that religious people are good and non religious are bad if you say that only those accepting god will be able to define right from wrong.
          How are you not saying this? Surely not being able to define right from wrong makes you bad?

          I would only presume to say you are right or wrong in your thinking given a specific topic.

  84. andrew k says:

    You both have answers, but only one of you is actually starting with a question.

    Beginning with the conclusion, then explaining everything to fit that conclusion, is what brainwashing is all about.

  85. Durzal says:

    Btw Imran, sorry for taking so long to respond, things have been crazy at work this last 2 weeks.

    P.s. It might be better to reply here to avoid the text being squashed.

  86. Imran says:

    Having energy is not like having nothing. This means you assume that energy was already there. At the end you also only believe that somehow it got created. Science does not give an explanation. You choose to go for something without God. I dont understand that for God you need to have proof but for the so-called scientific theories (which do not have any proof) you accept them. Doesn’t it just show a matter of choice to choose whether God is there or not? Why I believe in God is based on simple logic. For your belief you need at some point the creation of something out of nothing (impossible scenario). I see that only random fluctuations (even if energy was there somehow) cannot create a sophisticated system like universe even in trillion years. But somehow for you it is very simple to say it somehow got created. Just for a check can you see how many times the word “somehow” is used in these scientific theories. I believe in science that has basis not on fairy tale science.

    I have said it many times that whichever way you go you need to go out of the bound of time. And as far as I know science cannot explain out of time. So how on the basis of this incomplete science you conclude that there is no God. Its again the same thing that if God does not come in science parameters then he cannot be there. Thats like considering science to be perfect. How logical is this that mere random events resulted in this whole universe and life? This question to myself gives me the answer that supreme being is a necessity. I guess you avoid this question from yourself.

    I am not saying religious people are good. I am saying that having no religion does not leave any definition of good and bad. Its only relative definition. And if I consider something good which you consider bad then you cannot say why I am wrong.

    • Durzal says:

      Well you said Vacuum so I assumed you meant like space which isn’t really empty at all, but nothing i.e. a perfect vacuum is (and I’ll quote wikipedia) ” if every single atom and particle could be removed from a volume, it would still not be “empty” due to vacuum fluctuations, dark energy, and other phenomena in quantum physics. In modern Particle Physics, the vacuum is considered as the ground state of matter.” So “Nothing” isn’t really possible according to science.

      I don’t choose to go for something without God. There just doesn’t seem to be a need or any evidence for a supreme being who’s existence would raise more questions than it would solve.

      Scientific Theories are based on testability. A theory gains credibility by trying to refute and falsify it, the longer it holds up to scrutiny the more credible it is i.e. The Theory of Evolution :- like 160 years old and very credible.
      I demand proof and understanding of everything I believe and when I am asked what do you believe created the universe I don’t answer “quantum fluctuations” I would probably say I don’t know as I’m not a quantum theorist.

      I explain scientific theories to those theists who for some reason state things like, that science claims the universe was created from nothing(or a singularity from nothing), which is complete nonsense. Do I believe ALL scientific theories are definitely true? of course not.

      Imran, do a quick check of my text above or on any post I have ever written on this website and find me somewhere that I have said or concluded that there is no God, all I have ever said is there is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of a God whatsoever.
      Again your far from the first theists to claim that the evolution of the universe/planets, abiogenesis and the evolution of life are all just random events, but matter adhering to the pull of gravity, elements bonding into more complex compounds and organisms adapting to their environments through survival of the fittest are not random.

      Before I would see if God falls into the parameters of science I would need some sort of evidence to support the existence of a God in the first place.

      It would not be logical to say the universe/life came to be as it is through random events as you say, and that’s why science doesn’t say this. The creation of the universe pre big bang is well understood see Evolution of planets, theory of evolution and abiogenesis (not random)

      I would imagine that the reason a supreme being is a necessity in your case is because when you got to the age were you start asking the big questions your religion provided you with an answer that fit in nicely with what you had been taught since you were a baby, if you take religion out of the equation then people generally will seek to answer the big questions with what facts we know and what we can derive from these facts.
      Unfortunately a supreme being that created everything but has no evidence to support its existence and no explanation for its creation are generally in these circumstances not top of the list for answers.

      You keep going on about going out of the time boundary to explain God but if God can be created out of time and therefore not need a creator then so could the universe be created in this out of time boundary and so not need a creator by the same definition, you want to add the God part I imagine because it fits in with your religion but there’s simply no reason to do so.

      Imran not having a religion does not leave one void of a definition of right or wrong, those without religion simple have their own definition of right or wrong based on the law of the land their own understandings and upbringing.

      I didn’t really get that last bit, you said “If you think something is good and I think its bad then I can’t say why your wrong” why couldn’t I?

      Sorry for the long reply, if I missed any questions please re-ask.

  87. Imran says:

    So you are assuming that energy, vacuum or something has to be always there as “nothing” is not possible. So may I ask how did this “something” came into existence. Of course you would say you dont know but then how do you call this to be based on science? You assume that the something existed from infinity. It is just as much a belief as believing in God. And for me believing in God is much more sensible as there is a huge system running and for me at least it cannot just stand for billions of years out of mere luck.

    How do you say that these scientific theories are not based on pure randomness. Don’t you the theories regarding origin of life? Are they anything else than randomness? For biological evolution natural selection is based on random mutations influenced by environment. Fine but for all this to first take place one needs a proper system of DNA. How does it come into being? any theory that is not based on randomness for this? Vacuum fluctuations produce electrons and ant-electron as you mentioned. This is not a random event? And now we have electrons and anti electrons how did the atoms got created? are there theories without “somehow” for this? At some point all these theories go to this magical word “somehow”. Most of these theories for the beginning of these things are nothing more than fairy tales.

    No religion does make it void. What you are saying is that majority dictates the morals. So if tomorrow majority says cannibalism is ok then it would be right. Something good and bad is all relative. On what basis can you say e.g. that serial killers are wrong. Dont we have serial killers in animal kingdom from which we evolved? It is just nature then. How can you say that rapists are wrong? It is survival of the fittest. How can you say war is wrong? It is again survival of the fittest.

  88. Durzal says:

    Well I would say this “something” I.e. phenomenon that happen in a vacuum are a result of the creation of this universe and came into existence when the universe did.
    I don’t think that phenomenon that happen within a vacuum in this universe have “existed from infinity” just from when the universe was created.
    Again Imran, so its not sensible for a huge complex system to exist for billions of years out of mere luck ..but a God (even more complex) can exist for billions of years out of mere luck and have no explanation for its creation, and that’s perfectly sensible?

    A) “any theory that is not based on randomness for this?”
    Yes, its called abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    Your getting a bit confused Imran electrons being created and destroyed as well as other sub-atomic particles are a feature of quantum mechanics uncertainty principle.
    The creation of atoms is a good question, science says that after the big bang the universe was extremely hot, as the universe expanded and cooled down it began forming matter through electrostatic attraction.
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
    and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law#Electrostatic_approximation
    I’m no expert on this topic but it doesn’t say “somehow”
    If you actually think that science says it happened “somehow” on a given topic that’s probably an indication that you need to do some research.

    So all these scientific theories, theorised by some of the worlds greatest minds and offer explanations that are in line with all scientific laws.. are fairy tales…but belief in a supreme being, which offers absolutely no evidence whatsoever for its existence and absolutely no evidence or reasoning for its creation is somehow better..how?
    Offer me any evidence for the existence of a God, any that isn’t “well its so complex so a god must have created it” because this isn’t evidence, its assumption (at best).
    Trying to pock holes in scientific theories (forgive me) you barely understand is also not evidence for a God.

    You actually have a good point there if tomorrow I woke up in a world were cannibalism was ok by the majority then it would be ok by me as it doesn’t hurt anyone, some cultures even practise this I believe, Obviously this is not something I would practise myself as I have been raised not doing so and we live in a free country.
    Serial killers I can say are wrong as I would never wake up in a world were people have decided that its ok to kill each other as this harms the people and those they love. In the animal kingdom killing other animals to eat/survive are ok, serial killers don’t kill for these reason.
    Rape is an interested one as animals will mate with another without permission and sometimes with force but as human being have evolved socially to the point were by we are consensus of other peoples feelings and so do not do onto others what we would not want done to us (most of the time) and that’s why its wrong.
    Not all wars are wrong, wars are sometimes necessary to remove dictators from power or to gain freedom, Its wrong that in this day and age it should be necessary to remove people abusing their people.

    Well the majority does sort of rule, that’s how society works, if I woke up in a world tomorrow where being gay was outlawed I would strongly disagree with it as it does no damage to society and hurts nobody but if that was the law decided then I would accept it but not agree with it.
    I don’t really see how this has anything to do with you stating “I am saying when there is acceptance of God then you can define right and wrong” as I although I don’t accept a supreme being of any religion, I can still define right and wrong by my own upbringing and reasoning.

    If I have missed any questions, again please re-ask.

  89. Durzal says:

    Sorry, I should have said conscious not consensus >.<
    (the spell check got me)

  90. Anonymous says:

    Well I think you are confused now. As far as I know I am very clear that I “believe” that there has to be God. You are the one talking about the requirement of scientific evidence for God. Now may I ask the scientific evidence of this “something” that came into existence “somehow” when the universe was created? It is just like an assumption that you are having. Science as much as I know does not give any concrete result for what was before big bang and how did it really happen. If you can present me some theory that says this in a proven way then I would accept it. You are assuming that “something” was always there. If you are not than “nothing” means not even vacuum. Then what is the scientific evidence that you have for this change from nothing to big bang?

    I don’t say that the work of these “big brains” is useless. But have you read the article that you sent me as link. Did you read that it mentions “hypothetical conditions” for early earth? Did you read this sentence?
    “In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).”

    Did you read that they make many assumptions for the beginning of life? That is exactly what I meant. Science is a changing thing. Some hundred years ago the “big brains” of that time considered the earth to be the center of the universe which proved to be wrong (and somehow the Holy book Quran, that I believe in, mentioned about revolving of earth 1400 years ago :) ). There are many things that scientists believed at certain points of time but these proved to be false. I do appreciate scientists work and also look at their theories as possibilities but just by putting a theory and then believing it like a fact is what I dont agree with. All the scientific theories (including the links you sent) at best give the explanation after a certain initial state. Before that state these theories have assumptions or hypothesis. And based on that you are 100% sure that there is no need of a supreme being (I am not saying that you disagree with the possibility of god. only the need).

    Has the science given any explanation (that is not hypothetical) about the gravity? It just explains the laws of gravity not the reasoning. Have you thought that if this system was an ungoverned system then how much is the probability of the survival of earth for billions of years considering there are such a large number of planets, stars meteors etc. ?

    As for morals, so you agree that it is “majority is authority” that rules. Rules are the accepted norms of a society. That means if I am able to do something wrong for my personal pleasure without getting noticed then I am right and it is ok. You are defining right and wrong by your upbringing, as you said. So different upbringing would result in different right and wrong. It may lead to chaotic rules. e.g. Gays. You say it does not harm society. It does. As if it is normal in a society then my children would find it normal and there is more probability of them turning gay. You say that you have no problem. IT would be a problem for you when you would not prefer your own children to be gay but they might turn out. For the moment most of the societies have rules with basis from religions. If one day we have society without this basis then you would see where the morals are gone. It would be the law of jungle then. BTW just giving an example. I read in news that a young boy was drunk and he abused a girl, got punishment for 3 years, but dont even realize by now that he did something. You said that you are responsible in drinking. But when we talk about freedom of everything then these are the results. And if you have no definition of absolute morals then where would you draw the line?

  91. Imran says:

    It was not “anonymous”. It was me :). just a mistake

    • Durzal says:

      So you believe in God but you admit you have no ” requirement of scientific evidence for God”

      but in the next sentence you ask for the scientific evidence for “the something” (I guess you mean matter) that came into being somehow ( I guess you mean electrostatic attraction) when the universe was created, and then claim that without this evidence it would just be an assumption…… but somehow that’s not the case for your belief of a god without a shred of evidence.

      I have tried to make clear that when I’m asked what created the universe, I offer my understanding of sciences explanations, I don’t for a moment propose that science has concrete evidence for the creation of the universe and so I (just like you) should not be making grand assumptions like quantum fluctuations or God.

      You asked for a explanation for how DNA (RNA) came into existence that isn’t random and I have provided you a clear link that shows experiments (Urey-miller) that have produced the building blocks of life in a well understood way that isn’t random.
      Of course its “hypothetical conditions” how could it not be? Do you really expect exacting conditions of an early earth environment some 4 billion years ago for experiments before you will take notice, you demand a great deal from science and apparently nothing for belief in a god.
      Its a typical ploy of theists to demand from science absolute certainty like this from events that took place millions or billions or years ago and then try and use this to discredit the theory, just like the supposed “missing link” in evolution.

      I have said I see no need for a God to explain the post big bang universe as things are pretty well understood after the big bang.
      What was before the big bang or what created it is pretty much all speculation, as any cause in turn demands a cause so adding a God just leads to what cause this God.
      If going out of time means God doesn’t need a cause then we can just say the universe doesn’t need a cause by the same definition.
      Tell me where the need for adding a God into the equation is necessary and we can explore the possibilities.

      I believe Isaac Newton came up with the (universal) “law” of gravitation.
      The “reasoning” unless I’m mistaking your question would be the General theory of relativity by a Mr Albert Einstein which describes the bending and curvature of space time in the presence of matter, this being the reason for gravity’s effect.
      General relativity is a pillar of modern physics and it is not hypothetical.

      Planets are rather tough and although the earth has been hit by many meteors and comets it has not been hit with anything big enough to destroy it, do you suppose a god is preventing this and just lets the little ones in?
      Billions of years is absolutely nothing compared to the age of the universe, the earth has been about 4.5 billions years which is tiny compared to the age of the universe, its like standing on a golf course for ten minutes and claiming a god is protecting you because you didn’t get hit by a golf ball.

      Err no, I said nothing about if you did something wrong and didn’t get caught then somehow your right and it is ok, where on earth did you get that from?
      Yes different upbringings do result in different results (shock) Bad upbringings (religious or not) produce people with bad definitions of right or wrong and vice versa for good upbringings.

      You say ..“Gays. You say it does not harm society. It does. As if it is normal in a society then my children would find it normal and there is more probability of them turning gay”
      Ohh dear, ohh dear, this is one of my main problems with organised religion, it teaches ignorance like people can turn gay. How can someone turn or choose to be gay?
      Did you turn heterosexual? Did you choose to be straight? no of course not!
      10% of sheep are homosexual did they choose to be gay or turn that way?… no, that would be absurd. Homosexuality is down to genes, if society banned homosexuality and burned people at the stake for it, it would still happen as people cannot help they way they are born.
      Rightly or wrongly I would disappointed with my offspring being gay mainly because I would want to have grandchildren and also because I know that there are a lot of ignorant people our there ready to persecute gay people and life’s hard enough as it is. I have a cousin who is gay and he went through hell at school, nobody deserves that.

      Islam or Christianity are not the origin of a basis for modern day rules of what’s right or wrong. The ancient Egyptians had the same basic set of rules for what was right or wrong and so do indigenous tribes who have probably never even heard of Islam or Christianity and don’t follow any religion you would recognise.
      These indigenous tribes (some actually live in the jungle) don’t go around offing each other as working together is advantageous and killing each other is an evolutionary dead-end, its common sense.
      I don’t need a religion telling me murder is bad to hold in the murder rampages …do you?

  92. Imran says:

    It is clear from your answer that you (and the science) dont have any concrete explanation of things before big bang. So then how do you differentiate my belief in God from your belief of no God? I mean to say that then according to your logic both are believing in something we dont know about. So lets assume that we show someone a computer and he caanot think about how it is created. So should he think that it is created somehow without someone?

    As for my reasoning, I think I have written it many time and you dont agree with that so no need to write it again.

    Another amazing argument that is also very common from Atheists is that 4-5 billion years is much small compared to the time of universe. Well wikipedia says Big Bang took place some 4-5 billion years ago. Do you know anything more than that. So either here you believe again in something incomprehensible or since you dont know anything beyond big bang so compared to that 4-5 billions is a large time. And also forget comparing it to the time of universe. we know that there are a lot of planets and stars etc moving around at very fast speeds. What is the probability of earth not colliding something bigger than earth in 4-5 billion years? And how many explosions would result in a system of things revolving around each other without the intervention of outside force?

    The Urey-miller experiment shows creation of constituents of DNA and neither DNA nor life and that also based on some big assumptions on the early state of earth. As for the science theories are concerned, i give you an example. You know that one of the methods of calculating age of fossils measures the amount of a radioactive isotope of carbon. Now this method has some basic assumptions. First of all the amount of this element was comparable to the amounts in living organisms these days and secondly the rate of reduction in the amount was not influenced for the billions of years. Now a little error in these assumptions could change a lot about the fossil evidence. Theories keep on changing but somehow you believe that all the theories that we have perfectly explain the post big bang period.

    My question is why gravity exists. Not the rules it follows. I dont think exact reasoning for that exists. As far as I know Einstein’s theory describes the relationships accurately compared to the Newtonian laws. It does not explain why gravity exists.

    I am really surprised how you can so easily claim that Homosexuality is a genetic thing and not a choice. I have heard this comment form other atheists as well. If this is true then why in the Army and in the Jails people turn to homosexual behaviour? Why are there many cases of priests in Christianity (who are not allowed to marry) of homosexuality. Even one atheist told me that there was an experiment performed on rats. They put much more males compared to females and then many turned gays.

    I did not say about Islam or Christianity. I said religious background and generally these tribes and even the egyptians had some kind of religious beliefs. Although most of the modern societies have rules under Islamic, Christian, Jewish and other religious beliefs.

    • Durzal says:

      The difference Imran is that non-belief is the default position, we don’t believe every single possibility until somebody proves it false. (did you believe in the loch ness monster until somebody proved it false?).
      What we do is speculate on possibilities and only start believing them once we have some evidence for that possibility, and there is no evidence for a god.

      The computer is a faulty and misleading analogy as there is plenty of evidence to the fact that computers are designed and made by human beings. This analogy stems from what you have said before that complex things needs a creator, but your reasoning (as before) fails to provide an answer as to why this God (even more complex) does not need a creator, (once again) why is your God outside of this reasoning.

      Imran I have just as many times explained how your reasoning is all pretty much assumption and wishful thinking and you have failed to come up with any counter arguments.
      Your original post….. “But somehow you can imagine that the whole universe where moon is rotating around earth, earth around sun, sun in our galaxy and so on (which I guess is definitely much more complex then a satellite), is created without anything?????????”….. states that complexity needs a creator, I have pointed out that your God (also being complex) would also need a creator by the same definition and you have failed to provide any sort of credible explanation for this, and now….you don’t want to write about it any more. (I wouldn‘t want to defend your argument either).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

      I actually didn’t explain this in the best way, having read my post. Below I have linked from wikipedia the age of the universe and earth some 13.75 billions years for the universe and 4.54 billions years for the earth. The reason the earth has not been around for the full 13.75 billion would be precisely for the reason you have identified that the universe for the first 5-6 billions years would be massively chaotic but as the universe expanded and cooled the matter would due to the expansion be in less and less contact with other bodies of mass until gravity could do its work and solar systems could form relatively safe from huge impact, you also have to consider that anything bigger that the earth moving towards our planet would be massively effected by the suns gravitation pull.
      The answer to your question is, the sheer size of the galaxy/universe, we have more to fear from hyper and super novas than from planetary impacts but even supernovas that happen quite often have not effected us as we are a very very small chunk of rock in a very very very very large universe.

      The explosion is not responsible for planetary orbit, gravity is….but
      even if we didn’t know this, making up an outside force that has no evidence to support its existence is not the answer, is it?
      The ancient Greeks did not know why the sun went across the sky so invented the sun god Helios that transported the sun across the sky in his chariot… this is what you are doing.

      Abiogenesis offers a (not random) process by which life can arise. (which is exactly what you asked for) amino acids are just the first step in abiogenesis, if your actually that interested then look into it further.
      You next go on about how it is based on some big assumptions… I would say there is a hell of a difference between an assumption and an educated guess based on the evidence we do have.

      No, Imran, I never said “that all the theories that we have perfectly explain the post big bang period” I actually said “things are pretty well understood after the big bang”
      I will once again say what I have said before I do not believe that all scientific theories are 100% correct, I have never said this and I never will. We do however have a very good understanding of post big bang universe.

      Why gravity exists is a good question and has its answer I believe in String Theory, its force(and why it exists) is down to the graviton strings vibration pattern. (although the graviton is at this point only a theoretical elementary particle/string)

      Topic homosexuality:
      Firstly I would say that I would love to see any evidence you have to suggest that homosexual activity is any more or less prominent in the army than it is in the public domain, I would imagine that’s a bit of a myth though I could be wrong. If it is more prominent homosexual then men could be joining to meet other men, it would be a good place to meet I guess, but gays can join the army that doesn’t mean they are turned gay there, I wonder what you feel the reasons would be for turning gay in the army.
      Regarding jails I’m going to assume you mean men raping other men, firstly …this is not homosexual behaviour…its rape… men in homosexual relationships don’t rape each other. Raping another person is about power, dominance and inflicting emotional hurt on to another person and this is why it happens in jails. (and on men as there are no women about).
      You must mean catholic priests, I’m not aware of a higher percentage of homosexual men in the clergy than in the public domain, please link where you got this from. I do very much hope your not referring to paedophile priests as paedophiles are nothing to do with homosexuality.
      LOL, I loved the rat one, so if you where put into a room packed with more men that women would you at any point get the urge, I doubt it.
      Come on Imran be sensible, who the hell would CHOOSE to be gay its hardly a fun choice.

      I don’t doubt that most cultures have some sort of belief system but some don’t, and even those that don’t, don’t go around raping and killing each other as the norm.
      I would say that these basic rules for human being are not set up by religions or gods but through common sense… who the hell would join a religion that condoned rape murder and thievery.
      You said,
      “I am saying when there is acceptance of God then you can define right and wrong”
      And I say,
      If you have an ounce of common sense then you can define right or wrong, (God or not)

  93. Imran says:

    Now I am going on a holiday for a week. Would reply when back.

  94. Imran says:

    So I am back :)

    First let me write about homosexuality.
    About priests you can see this wikipedia link.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests

    You say that rape cannot be termed as homosexual behaviour. how come? Rape is about power but why would one do sex with same gender person if he does not enjoy it. Only to show power?? No the urge for sex means that the availability of only men in jails make them use their power for their sexual desires.

    And this I really don’t get. Many people say that homosexuality is a genetic issue. Only talking about science, as far as I know Science has no conclusion over this issue yet. So why do you people only accept what you like and regard it as genetic issue?

    Now come back to God.

    How is computer a wrong analogy? I am saying if you show this to someone who does not know anything about it being made by a human. Then what should he conclude? That it just was made by some sequence of random events in billion years? Would that make sense?

    My original question in this forum:

    So let me ask what does the science explains that makes you people to believe that all this is possible without a God?

    So science says that electromagnetic fluctuations result in production of matter and this could explain matter being produced. First of all how was vacuum created?

    Then if the big bang took place without anyone then I guess there should be frequent big bangs taking place in the middle of all this universe. As anywhere there is vacuum and when for once it was a certainty in a huge number of years then why did it happen only in one place in this huge vacuum. Logic says that it should happen again and again in different places. But as we know from science that universe is expanding and there was only one big bang. Why only one?

    Have you ever thought that moon always has the same face towards earth? How much probable it was at big bang that the three pieces Sun, moon and earth somehow after the explosion came in trajectories that ended up in in these rotations. Do you know that it takes a rocket or space shuttle to fly at a very precise speed at tangent to the orbit to launch a satellite. But somehow you are ready to believe that all these revolutions (and remember this is a very small part of a very tiny solar system) came into existence without someone intelligent out there? Are you really sure about it? I think common sense asks for something or someone intelligent out there but you dont want to accept someone supreme.

    Does science tell you the size of the universe and till when it would keep expanding. How was this huge vacuum came into existence in one place.

    You and me both know very well that we have to go beyond our capabilities of thinking and imagination. You always ask who created God and I always ask if there is no God then who created vacuum or whatever is the first thing that science gives a theory about? For both of us to answer we need to go beyond our imagination. Once you go beyond imagination how can you use the same logics out in the other dimension? There are two viewpoints between us.

    1. There is someone beyond my imagination who created this universe and is running it. That someone is out of time bound.

    2. Second is Somehow the vacuum and space came into existence. Somehow the energy came into existence. somehow the big bang happened. Then somehow this big bang was so organized that we have these galaxies, stars, planets etc. Somehow this is all self governed. Somehow it does not need maintenance. Somehow there were conditions created on our planet that accidentally caused the life to originate and then evolution led the way which again is ungoverned and out of all this we have a wonderfully working system today.

    For me common sense cannot accept the second option but for you it is more logical.

    And as far as I know scientist are not yet able to produce life from non-living things. They are only able to demonstrate the formation of these amino acids. If I am wrong tell me.

  95. Durzal says:

    Sorry for the long wait for a reply I have been very busy at work recently.

    The link regarding homosexuality in priests is interesting
    “several studies suggest that there are higher than average numbers of homosexual men (active and non-active) within the Catholic priesthood and higher orders”
    although its not concrete, I don’t actually find it that hard to believe this could be true.
    What about this though makes you think straight men are joining the catholic clergy and then somehow turning gay?
    Is it not at all possible that Catholics who happen to be gay are not more drawn to become priests because they themselves believe being gay is wrong and decide to take a life of celibacy?

    You can’t term rape as homosexual behaviour just as you wouldn’t term rape as heterosexual behaviour. Its a crime that is committed by people of all sexual preferences.
    Men in jails rape other men because there are no women about in a jail for men (funnily enough). You can enjoy the sensation of sex regardless of if you find the person attractive of not, people enjoy the sensation of sex daily with sex toys, their right hand etc and one would assume they are not physically attracted to the plastic sex toy or their right hand.

    “The consensus of the behavioural and social sciences as well as the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality is a normal human sexual orientation.[3] It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects”.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

    “Homosexual behaviour is also widely observed in animals” and this is why I regard it as a genetic issue, unless you believe animals are also choosing to be gay?

    Again Imran be sensible, who the hell would CHOOSE to be gay its hardly a fun choice.

    Back to God
    (How is computer a wrong analogy)

    If you only gave the person information about the computer like “That it just was made by some sequence of random events in billion years” then they would no doubt not believe it, as this would be a terrible explanation. If you took the time to explain the evolution of the computer and the evidence you had for its creation over billions of years then it might well make sense to them.

    Your original question in this forum:
    “So let me ask what does the science explains that makes you people to believe that all this is possible without a God?”

    Science does not need to explain anything to me to make me think that all this is possible without a God as there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God in the first place.
    Science also does not need to explain anything to me to for me not to believe in leprechauns or fairies as there is no evidence for their existence either.
    The question is what evidence does your religion give you that there is a God.

    “So science says that electromagnetic fluctuations result in production of matter and this could explain matter being produced. First of all how was vacuum created?”

    Well I don’t rightly know Imran, does this mean that without a shred of evidence to support the notion we can claim a God created it?…. Just for a laugh lets say yes.. but then …How was God Created?
    And then you will go on about God being created out of time bound and I say the vacuum could be created out of time by the same reasoning and so there is no need to add a God to the equation…sound familiar?

    Big Bangs: There might just be frequent big bangs, the universe is some 13.75 billions years old, thats a long time for human being but on a quantum scale it may be very tiny, its possible there could be another big bang tomorrow or in another 50 billion years for all we know.

    “Have you ever thought that moon always has the same face towards earth?” Well No, but its no great mystery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

    Well first off its such a gross simplification to say “that three pieces came in trajectories that ended up in these rotations” and if this is your understanding of the evolution of our solar system then it is little wonder you don’t think it likely. You have to consider that these object are massive and so have a much stronger gravitational effect upon each other than the earth does on a satellite, and given the size of the universe and the great many moving astronomical bodies it isn’t hard to imagine than given enough time large masses (like the moon) could move into a synchronous orbit instead of perhaps colliding or flying past.

    Common sense would lead me to not propose “something or someone intelligent out there” without a shred of evidence for this “someone or something” especially in cases (like this) when there is no need for a magic solution.
    I would love to accept the idea of a supreme God Imran (seriously) paradise and all that sound lovely but I can’t ignore that there is absolutely no evidence or reasoning to support the idea, I have to face facts.

    I disagree, I would say our view points are more

    Imran: There is someone beyond my imagination who created this universe and is running it. That someone is out of time bound.

    Durzal: Something caused the big bang , the big bang created our universe with the laws of physics we know, the universe evolved within these laws of physics and life is the inevitable outcome of these laws of physics given enough time.

    I wouldn’t ask you to accept the second option (you gave) as it nothing like what I’ve said or what science states on these topics.

    Amino acids:
    You are correct they have been able to produce amino acids (the building blocks of life) as I understand it the process of these amino acids forming into something you would constitute as life would take many millions of years, but the field of abiogenesis attempts to show how it could have happened not actually to create life.

  96. Imran says:

    No problem for the late reply. I can understand that you might be busy.

    So you agree that sexual pleasure can be obtained by different means. but you dont agree that homosexuality is a choice. how come? If its about sexual pleasure then a guy can get attracted to another guy as he would get sexual pleasure. same for girls. Isn’t it possible? I know two people from my friends circle who were homosexual but due to the fact that society does not allow homosexual relationship they got married to girls and now they are having a good life. So if homosexuality was a gene problem how can they be satisfied with their marriages? and you can see in wikipedia link that there is no consensus yet of it being a genetical thing.

    God:
    Science is never complete. People had different understandings of universe some hundred years ago and many explanations have changed now. So based on something that is not complete in itself you believe that there is no God. This first needs the assumption that God comes in the bounds of science as we know it now. Are you so sure about science??????????? As far as I know we are still very limited about even our own solar system.

    The evidence that my religion gives is first based on common sense for someone to control the system and then in the writings of Quran (as I am muslim). As there are many things written in it which were not known at that time. One example is big bang, second is gravitational force etc. This makes me believe the presence of God.

    For the tidal locking not being mystery. When did I say that it is not a phenomenon that is not understood. I am saying that you believe that this just somehow happened. For big bangs I dont see the reason for no more big bangs in this period of 12 something billion years. As you need this so called singularity to happen. So given the vast space and time it should also be a certainty just as you always say for other things that given this much time it should be a certainty.

    I disagree with you statement and modify it as follows :)

    Imran: There is someone beyond my imagination who created this universe and is running it. That someone is out of time bound.

    Durzal: Somehow first space,time matter got created, then somehow something caused the big bang , the big bang created our universe with the laws of physics(that also got created somehow. not only laws of physics but also chemistry and biology) we know, the universe evolved within these laws of physics and life is the inevitable outcome of these laws of physics given enough time.

    • Durzal says:

      Sorry again for the long wait for a reply, still busy.

      Why does the fact that pleasure can be obtained by different means somehow equate to you that homosexuality is a choice? I don’t see the relevance.
      A person could get sexual pleasure from a vacuum cleaner Imran this doesn’t mean he will become attracted to vacuum cleaners or choose one over a woman.

      Your friends that were homosexual but due to the fact that their society does not allow homosexual relationships they got married to girls; well it sounds to me that they did what they had to avoid being persecuted by this society, perhaps they are not happy with their marriage Imran, perhaps they are living a lie to satisfy their parents and family, its actually fairly common. If they are truly happy sexually in their marriage it’s quite possible they are bisexual.

      Imran you continue to ignore this question, so again. Why considering the persecution homosexuals suffer do you think anybody would choose to be gay?

      On God:
      Imran, I keep saying it and you are not listening, I do not and have never stated that there is no God, just that there is no evidence or reasoning to support the existence of a God.

      Imran I don’t need to be “so sure about science???????????” as for me there is no evidence for the existence of a God.
      Would I need to be “so sure about science???????????” to not believe in the Easter bunny or fairies? Of course not!!! As there is also no evidence for leprechauns, fairies, the Easter bunny or any of the countless hundreds of Gods man has dreamt up over his time on this planet.
      It’s not the job of science to try and disprove things for which we have no evidence.

      So this common sense says to you that something (God) must be controlling the system but it provides no explanation of where this something came from, it also doesn’t seem to provide any point where it is needed, or can be fit into the equation without raising even bigger questions.

      “Do not the rejecters see that the heavens and earth were a unit joined together then we split them apart (21:30).”
      “And the sky we built it with might and We cause the ‘expansion’ of it (Koran 51:47).”
      I have looked on the net and it appears this is the text Muslims feel refers to the big bang, The problem with text like this is that is so very very vague and could be interpreted a thousand different ways.

      Yes Imran tidal locking did just happen and the “somehow” was explained in the previous link.
      Well can you see a reason why there should be a big bang in this chosen period of time? Given an eternity quantum mechanics would say the probability would become a certainty, 12 billion years is however not an eternity.

      Our beliefs:
      Imran: There is someone beyond my imagination who created this universe and is running it. That someone is out of time bound.
      I accept this is what you believe but it is based it seems purely on faith and biased reasoning.

      Nope sorry Imran, you don’t seem to understand what I believe or the correct sequence of events proposed by science.
      The big bang is where space, time and matter (the universe) got created as we know it; including the laws of physics, (chemistry and biology come under the laws of physics at their most basic level) The only somehow is what caused the big bang.

  97. Tile Bathroom…

    […]Did God created the universe for us? « Ask an Atheist[…]…

  98. Imran says:

    Sorry for a late reply but I was quite busy.

    Why do you believe that homosexuality is a genetic thing? Just because you want to accept it like that. because what I know is that this thing is not yet proven. Some studies are there but nothing conclusive.

    What about the fact that the society hates gangsters, considers them bad but still they keep on doing what they like. What about the students who dont study and their parents and teachers keep on saying bad things, tell them that they are useless but still they remain bad. Humans have tendency to resist to what we are told (which in my opinion is also one reason for atheism). We dont like the things told to us by others.

    For the reasoning of God, if you are happy to consider the whole universe as a mere coincidence then what other reasoning would compel you to believe in God? The whole universe is a wonderful system and believing that it just got created with some singularity (that science has no idea of what it is) in itself is quite silly. You can say that time, matter, physical laws etc. got created all together with big bang or say that somehow they got created one after the other. It does not make any difference. The main point is that you and the science have no idea of how it got created but still it is very easy to say “somehow it got created”. Science is not able to predict the weather correctly after three days but somehow we are able to estimate the early earth conditions quite accurately that happened billion years ago. A meteoroid fell i Russia around 1910 and there are some eye witnesses as well to this event but the estimate of science for size varies from like 50m to 1000m in diameter. But somehow the same science is too accurate for billion of years :). The only difference is that who would prove these theories wrong as we dont have enough information and evidence. I am not saying that science is doing a bad job. It is becoming better and better and I do believe in scientific knowledge but not blindly. I dont understand people who base their beliefs on such half knowledge.
    I dont see any theory or explanation from science that can tell that given an infinite amount of time “nothing” can result into “something”. This obviously tells me that something has to be out of time bound as an initiator, which you reject as a reasonable argument.

    BTW what is so vague about the text in Quran that you mentioned? If Quran is saying that the universe is expanding and all the things were one unit, what are the possible different meanings that you can take out of it? And who do you think told the Prophet Muhammad about this knowledge that was only available many hundered years later.

    In my opinoin believing in God makes us answerable to someone, makes us some form a lesser being and not all of us can accept something superior. That is human nature.

    • Durzal says:

      No problem, I think we can stop both stop apologising for the long wait for reply’s as we both appear to be busy, just reply when you can and so will I.

      Why do I believe that homosexuality is a genetic thing?
      Well.. I don’t believe it’s all genetics I would say part genetics and also what level of testosterone or oestrogen a person is subjected to whilst in the womb. My objection is to your belief that a person can choose or turn gay, you still haven’t managed to come up with any sensible reasoning why someone would choose to be gay(given the rather obvious persecution) or.. What on earth could turn someone gay?
      Did you choose to be straight? No!!, it’s an absurd notion; tell me how it’s not.

      Well gangsters are rather glamorised even nowadays youths become a part of a gang because (A) they want to be seen a big man and get respect and once your involved it’s hard to turn back or (B) they just come from broken homes and a gang gives them a sense of belonging. There is also a lot of money to be made… these are reasons

      Kids not doing their homework,… this is because it’s boring and will never be as fun as modern warfare 3 or battlefield 3 again this is a reason.
      And the reason.. for atheism (though I don’t really consider myself one in the strictest sense of the word) is that without an upbringing within a religion there is absolutely no reasoning to support the idea of a personal God, paradise/heaven.

      Reasoning for God:
      Saying “somehow it got created” in my opinion is a great answer, as it is honest, better to say “I don’t know” than to make things up.
      You can’t really compare weather forecasting and planetary formation. It’s like saying “how can we perform heart transplants and we can’t do the same for the brain” It’s a completely different field with planetary formations you can look at what would happen to a giant ball of magma over time and what chemicals would be release in the most broadest of terms and just follow the chemistry whereas weather forecasting is all predictive.
      I get the analogy but its poorly reasoned, like with the size of the meteorite it’s all down to the information we do have, if the meteorite was very dense (which we don’t know) then it could be very small and create a big crater or very big but very light and have the same effect due to its mass hence science in this case has to approximate a large scale to accommodate the lack of detailed information. However there are things like the age of the universe that although they happened a long time ago we can be (relatively) sure about as we have the information to do so.

      I don’t base my lack of a belief in a God on (the apparent) half knowledge of Science but in the complete lack of any evidence or reasoning to support the existence of a God.

      Imran you are obviously just not reading my post as I don’t “reject the out of time bound initiator” idea but this out of time bound Initiator could be a Quantum fluctuation which has been theorised in quantum mechanics or… It could be your God.. (or something else entirely)… but to use your terminology
      “I don’t understand people who base their beliefs on such half knowledge”
      I don’t follow a religion that worships a quantum fluctuation as it would be based on nothing.

      “Do not the rejecters see that the heavens and earth were a unit joined together then we split them apart (21:30).”
      “And the sky we built it with might and We cause the ‘expansion’ of it (Koran 51:47).”

      Read it again Imran it says Sky not universe.
      And not “all things were one unit”, just the heavens and earth were a unit joined together.
      I can see how you can make the jump and if I was born into your religion I probably would too.
      If the Prophet Muhammad knew about the big bang and the billions of galaxies within the universe each containing billions of stars I would imagine he would have given us a better account of this information than this.

      From the bible: [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:- Isaiah 40:22…The Christians say “Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God stretches or expands out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” and or so I’m told Christianity is about 600 years older than Islam so how did they know?… They didn’t it’s just a small piece of text in a very big book used to try and explain things for which it wasn’t intended.

      You’ll just have to take my word for it Imran I can accept anything that has a basis in sound logic or reasoning.

  99. Anonymous says:

    Hmmm all seem decent smart let’s evolution exist little theory s are not guesses let tel something about evolution it’s not evolution if u make something evolve come no such thing evolution humans making things seem like they evolve ur government hiding earth actually really young not old and they can’t even measure the age of earth science worthless let tell ur government likes messing DNA of animals anyways mindless people take chip that makes you be free all diseases but end god luck hope dum people don’t fall for governments trap alien created ous say thanks ur pope anyways take ur chip so u can be able buy food survive end ur going to hell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: