The "Is there a god?" thread

[Amsel_]

I was going to type out another unnecessarily long reply, but then I noticed that the thread was archived.
You win this time, non-worn out keyboard keys.

But to answer the question: [spoiler=spoiler]yeah[/spoiler]

[momuuu]

The problem with the argument is that the source is some biased guy in a youtube video. Those numbers sound arbitrary.

Video is basically makes up a ridiculous concept of abiogenesis that has nothing to do with any legitimate theory the tries to wow you with big numbers and how complicated cells are.

Well if you say this is just big numbers and this doesn't suggest an intelligent design you ought to suggest a way that we could have got here without a God.

Something to do with 70 trillion stars, some 10 billion years and a chance to form organic materials that is significantly larger than 1 in 10^164.

Actually just think about it. There are about 10^47 water molecules on earth. In the universe there are presumably about 10^22 earthlike planets and then there have been 10^10 years to pass with a year being about 3*10^7 seconds (a second being a reasonable scale for chemical processes)

So combine that and we actually find a number of water molecules that existed on habitable planets in the universe for a second: 10^88. Of course this doesnt seem quite exact, but it gives some estimate of the size of the universe.

[chris1089]

Could you explain how you think water molecules turn into life without a God?

[Radix_Lecti]

To be more precise building 1 complex protein string out of molecules and then ordering a number of them to create RNA. I believe it's around 200+ of them in a specific order then a number of RNA strings to create living DNA. And the assumption is made it must be sequenced all at once in an oxygen-free atmosphere to give that spark of life.
(Which btw. even under ideal lab conditions failed to produce living DNA)

The counter-arguments you gave show you misunderstood this. You try to refute the improbability of life's natural emergence with your existence as proof, which means the main argument: improbability of that (ID) - still stands. I'll get around looking up the scientist's name.

Btw Rikipu refers to another theory the Watchmaker's theory= life is too perfect and does not mutate as Darwinian theory prescribes, instead mutations die off once they are less perfect. This is an interesting observation of us humans not evolving anymore.

[momuuu]

Could you explain how you think water molecules turn into life without a God?

It was just for an estimate of the scale of the universe. Its important to be aware of how many particles make up this universe and how huge the universe is.

[chris1089]

I don't think this supports your argument. This doesn't explain how life got here without a God. All this does is beg the question how the universe got here without a God?

[momuuu]

I don't think this supports your argument. This doesn't explain how life got here without a God. All this does is beg the question how the universe got here without a God?

And that begs the question how God got there without God.

[chris1089]

That doesn't understand the idea that God is eternal, omniscient and omnipotent for starters.

[momuuu]

If something can be eternal without requiring further explanation then something can theoretically also simply pop into existance and start existing.

[chris1089]

No, this is not logical. God does not conform to the space-time continuum of everything else. If God did then God wouldn't be God.

[momuuu]

In the end there's a lot of things we don't know yet or won't ever know, and there might be things that can't be explained intuitively to us or that do not follow the 'logic' of every day life, but those aren't definitive arguments. I don't see how a universe simply starting to exist from some point is any more weird than a universe having existed eternally. Actually I think I prefer the universe simply having a starting point over it having existed eternally, that seems like the most clean way to look at it. You can believe in a middleman of god, but it doesn't really make anything less arbitrary except that you're adding a factor that's not necessary. The universe came into existance for one reason or another, life was formed at leasted once and most estimates indicate that it may have formed many times. The rest is pure speculation.

I must say I find the concept of God in itself not very unlikely in the light of explaining the universe. It'd be satisfactory that there is a God that created the laws for the universe and might have manipulated some random chances (although I am starting to dislike the latter). It's just that any religion comes with dozens and dozens of very far fetched claims that all have to be adjusted a lot for the religion to be consistent with the universe as we know it. If you combine that with the fact that there's definitely a driving force to simply come up with a religion and follow a religion then I judge it als a bunch of fairy tales. But you may judge otherwise and that'd be entirely subjective. However, trying to checkmate a non-god description is ultimately logically impossible, and I believe any argument can be reversed or just proven wrong.

[momuuu]

No, this is not logical. God does not conform to the space-time continuum of everything else. If God did then God wouldn't be God.

So why can't a universe simply pop into existance while a creature can simply not conform to the space-time continuum of everything else? Neither of these statements have any proof . We've never seen any of these things happen once and there's nothing in our life that indicates any of the two is impossible.

(actually it's possible for a virtual particle pair to pop into existance out of nowhere, while I don't think there's ever been anything measured that doesn't conform to the space-time continuum, but oh well that doesn't really have that much weight).

[chris1089]

In the end there's a lot of things we don't know yet or won't ever know, and there might be things that can't be explained intuitively to us or that do not follow the 'logic' of every day life, but those aren't definitive arguments.

so rather than trying to explain how the universe got here without a God, you are claiming no-one can know. Well I claim God made the Universe. I don't see how a universe simply starting to exist from some point is any more weird than a universe having existed eternally.I never claimed the universe existed eternally. Actually I think I prefer the universe simply having a starting point over it having existed eternally, that seems like the most clean way to look at it. I agree. You can believe in a middleman of god, but it doesn't really make anything less arbitrary except that you're adding a factor that's not necessary. The idea that an all powerful God not limited by any constraints makes the creation of this Universe far less arbritraty than "it happened by chance but I don't know exactly what caused it."The universe came into existance for one reason or another, life was formed at leasted once and most estimates indicate that it may have formed many times. The rest is pure speculation.See my point to your first sentence.

I must say I find the concept of God in itself not very unlikely in the light of explaining the universe.Quite right, in fact I think it's certain. I have found no other explanation at all. It'd be satisfactory that there is a God that created the laws for the universe and might have manipulated some random chances (although I am starting to dislike the latter). It's just that any religion comes with dozens and dozens of very far fetched claims that all have to be adjusted a lot for the religion to be consistent with the universe as we know it. If you combine that with the fact that there's definitely a driving force to simply come up with a religion and follow a religion then I judge it als a bunch of fairy tales.So your problem is not with the existence of a God but religions? But you may judge otherwise and that'd be entirely subjective. Well I care about your soulHowever, trying to checkmate a non-god description is ultimately logically impossible, and I believe any argument can be reversed or just proven wrong.No some arguements are true.

[momuuu]

Haha I need to reconsider if I will bother with this stuff. It has gotten boring to discuss with atheist claiming they have proof for the absence of god or theists having proof god exists.

[momuuu]

Okay Ill have a go at it for now. Why is it a problem that the universe came into existance?

[HUMMAN]

Btw Rikipu refers to another theory the Watchmaker's theory= life is too perfect and does not mutate as Darwinian theory prescribes, instead mutations die off once they are less perfect. This is an interesting observation of us humans not evolving anymore.

We dont evolve becuase impact of atural/artificial selection upon us is decreased. Even someone with no legs, chronic health conditions can spread his/her genes. Another reason cultural and technological improvements are increasing exponantially that there is no way genetic evolution can compete with. However in the future, there can be artifical genetic modification on people.

[Jam]

The problem with the argument is that the source is some biased guy in a youtube video. Those numbers sound arbitrary.

Video is basically makes up a ridiculous concept of abiogenesis that has nothing to do with any legitimate theory the tries to wow you with big numbers and how complicated cells are.

Well if you say this is just big numbers and this doesn't suggest an intelligent design you ought to suggest a way that we could have got here without a God.

The video does not criticize any real hypotheses for the origin of life, instead it creates a false model that all the molecules found in a cell today have to pre-form and bump into each other and so go from no life to a fully formed cell like we see today, not even a proto-cell. This is like arguing that the earth could not have formed naturally because what are the odds that all the atoms would bump into each other to form the geological features we see today. What are the odds that a planet would form from atoms in space bumping together so that all the rocks are in the right places and the coastlines in the right shape as they are today? Pretty crazy odds right? Therefore cosmology is nonsense and planets cannot form from debris and gasses in space. Or another analogy, what are the odds of winds blowing the way they are right now? In order for the winds to blow 'correctly' every single molecule of gas the in the atmosphere must start moving in the correct direction with the correct velocity all at the same time. What are odds of that happening? Therefore God must be controlling the winds... Clearly this is not reasonable, these processes occur due to cause and effect of physical laws acting on initial conditions, not random chance. So the real question is is there an explanation step by simple step of the origin whereby each step in the process is plausible. I don't have to suggest a way because God is not the default explanation until proven otherwise, the default is that we don't have a proven explanation of abiogenesis. So perhaps you should provide a complete history and explanation for creation by God which is backed by evidence since this is the standard you impose on non-religious explanations.

[momuuu]

Jam can you edit your sig? You are not confusing me this time around.

[Jam]

Jam can you edit your sig? You are not confusing me this time around.

Damn I'm losing my touch.

[saveyourskill]

You guys should just go watch "Rationality Rules" on youtube. He debunks all of the arguments.

[chris1089]

The video does not criticize any real hypotheses for the origin of life, instead it creates a false model that all the molecules found in a cell today have to pre-form and bump into each other and so go from no life to a fully formed cell like we see today, not even a proto-cell.
I don't understand what you mean. Obviously you have to get from A-Z somehow
This is like arguing that the earth could not have formed naturally because what are the odds that all the atoms would bump into each other to form the geological features we see today. What are the odds that a planet would form from atoms in space bumping together so that all the rocks are in the right places and the coastlines in the right shape as they are today? Pretty crazy odds right? Therefore cosmology is nonsense and planets cannot form from debris and gasses in space. Or another analogy, what are the odds of winds blowing the way they are right now? In order for the winds to blow 'correctly' every single molecule of gas the in the atmosphere must start moving in the correct direction with the correct velocity all at the same time. What are odds of that happening? Therefore God must be controlling the winds... Clearly this is not reasonable, these processes occur due to cause and effect of physical laws acting on initial conditions, not random chance.
I can't answer this yet as I don't understand your initial premise, however I suspect straw man
So the real question is is there an explanation step by simple step of the origin whereby each step in the process is plausible. I don't have to suggest a way because God is not the default explanation until proven otherwise, the default is that we don't have a proven explanation of abiogenesis. So perhaps you should provide a complete history and explanation for creation by God which is backed by evidence since this is the standard you impose on non-religious explanations.

No God is the default explanation. Mankind has believed God created the universe from the beginning of history. Atheism is a modern phenomenon.
Don't give me "people are Atheists now because they understand science and people didn't beforehand. Firstly because there are loads of PhD scientists who are Christians. Secondly, you just told me that

we don't have a proven explanation of abiogenesis.

So why don't you try and explain how DNA developed, how molecules gained life and how the universe got here without a God?

[Goodspeed]

That doesn't understand the idea that God is eternal, omniscient and omnipotent for starters.

This is such a cop-out. Why can't the universe be eternal then?

[chris1089]

Haha I need to reconsider if I will bother with this stuff. It has gotten boring to discuss with atheist claiming they have proof for the absence of god or theists having proof god exists.

I'm glad you realised this.

Okay Ill have a go at it for now. Why is it a problem that the universe came into existence?

For an atheist? This assumes the burden of proof is on me to disprove there isn't a God, whereas I think the burden of proof is to disprove God's existence. Although this is extremely unlikely without a God, and I mean to the extent that it is mathematically impossible, I will admit this isn't 100% a problem for an Atheist. What I do think is a greater problem is how you get from molecules to life.

That doesn't understand the idea that God is eternal, omniscient and omnipotent for starters.

This is such a cop-out. Why can't the universe be eternal then?

This is taken out of the context I said it in, which was discussing how DNA could have developed without the external influence of God. The discussion never referred to why the universe can't be eternal.

[chris1089]

You guys should just go watch "Rationality Rules" on youtube. He debunks all of the arguments.

I've seen some of his video titles and watched one just now. All he seems to do is pick out flaws with ideologies I for one wouldn't agree with, Islam, or point out logical fallacies in poorly worded or designed videos, as though they are created by professors in philosophy who are the best, most logical advocates of an idea. I'm pretty sure I can pick pieces in most 6 year olds arguement, but even when I am right, I will probably make errors when debating with a philosophy professor. Just because he debunks poorly presented arguements, arguements that aren't that relevant or arguements that aren't the best doesn't mean that all these arguements, or all arguements from the same worldview are false. Additionally, he doesn't appear to offer any explanation in it's place. In the video I watched he just cited "evolution" without trying to explain it and leave himself vulnerable to logical fallacies.

[Goodspeed]

.