Ye Religion Thread

[DaHanG]

I think he discounts solid evidence of god


Such as?


life itself

Everything except the spark of the bacterium-like life 4 billion years ago is explained through our modern understanding of the theory of evolution, which is an extremely economical, elegant, simple theory where apparently no supernatural intervention is required.

The theory of evolution doesn't explain  how and why the molecules, necessary for life to form, exist.  And there is no solid theory based on fact, that remotely explains how the molecules needed for life are around, in the form life needs, or how they exist at all.

Yet you feel obliged to give God a free pass on exactly the same problem on 'how and why' he exists. And God is FAR more complicated than a molecule.  You honestly don't see an inconsistency in your logic?

We do not know exactly why the first complex molecule ever formed which then brought about life, although everything after this initial step is explained. One may then say: there must be something that accounts for this complex molecule.

Default theory: a complex molecule emerged from a simple, natural history of events.
Alternative theory a: a more complex entity accounts for the molecule.
Alternative theory b: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.
Alternative theory c: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.

If the goal is explaining complexity, then introducing a complex creator ultimately explains nothing. We should await the evidence for any theory other than the default theory before we accept one of them.

[Whirlingdervish]

the purpose of the universe is an important question to ask imo, although Dawnin's completely ignores it, perhaps because science cannot test such a quesion.

Dude, do you not understand the difference between your personal opinion and things that have proof to support the assumption that they exist?

Other than your personal belief that their must be some reason for the universe, can you provide any other example of anything that forces us to postulate a "purpose" for the universe to have, in order to explain that example's existence?


The fact that you believe in a purpose for the universe can be explained away by many things other than the universe actually having a purpose. (you could be stupid, delusional, self centered, insane etc...)

Your assumption that it does have a purpose isn't based on anything but purely bogus observations of your own where you didn't remove your personal beliefs before analyzing the data, like: "to you, it looks so complicated that it should have a purpose" , and "to you, the world is perfect".

Darwin's theory of fitness and natural selection being the driving force behind evolution has nothing to do with your back-asswards claims that you think the world is somehow perfect or that it needs to have a purpose to exist (based on a general lack of quality information about it and it's workings) because he doesn't postulate a "purpose" for the universe, since there is no observable evidence that it has one, and he doesn't assume that anything is even capable of being perfect.

Science is about creating simple theories and making sure they support the observable data (if they don't you go back to the drawing board).

It is NOT about making shit up based purely on personal beliefs and then cherry picking examples, out of context, from the natural world, sugar coating them, and then using them to back your outrageous claims.

That's why Darwin doesn't use a mythical construct like a god or a purposeful universe in his theory.

btw, some news from this mornin:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080513/wl_uk_afp/britainreligionsciencejewseinstein;_ylt=Au3JN.onN6gBUAmWJZxmD3r9xg8F

[DaHanG]

If survival of the fittest is absolutely true, why are there plenty of other primates existing today?

 

[Whirlingdervish]

If survival of the fittest is absolutely true, why are there plenty of other primates existing today?

Because they are better adapted to living in jungles than we are and than our ancestors were, and evolution isn't an instantaneous process where the unfit all die off at the same time.

Give it about 20 years, when we've managed to foul the world up a bit more, and destroy the habitats that they are well adapted to living in, and there will be less primates.

Contrary to popular belief "survival of the fittest" does not imply that we are descended of the primates that currently exist in the world today.

A more reasonable assumption would be that at some time in the past, humans and the rest of primates shared a common ancestral species that diverged into newer species depending on the location they lived in, and the conditions of those locations..

If the world were covered in jungles we'd be more like orangutans, even if we didn't necessarily evolve from them..

[|iR|Focalor]

If survival of the fittest is absolutely true, why are there plenty of other primates existing today?

 

What I was suggesting was not that if evolution were true that other primates would not exist. I was suggesting that man is not an ape at all. We may have similar physical and social features, but there are plenty of other animals who share similar features and are not the same species. Your own opinions notwithstanding, evolution is still only a THEORY, not fact. Until it is unconditionally proven to be fact, it is not wise to consider it so. That would cloud judgment and perception regarding further research. Being so narrow minded is not the position to take when on a quest for the truth.

[DaHanG]

If survival of the fittest is absolutely true, why are there plenty of other primates existing today?

 

What I was suggesting was not that if evolution were true that other primates would not exist.

That's why I made the face.

Your own opinions notwithstanding, evolution is still only a THEORY, not fact. Until it is unconditionally proven to be fact, it is not wise to consider it so. That would cloud judgment and perception regarding further research. Being so narrow minded is not the position to take when on a quest for the truth.

I still find it amazing people can't figure out the difference between:

- theory in every day language: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge

- theory in science (from wiki): In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

edit* p.s. Evolution is both theory and fact.

[metaL]

true, as there are 2 chief meanings behind the word evolution.

[deft]

I'm amazed you're still alive reaper.

[zndkw1n]

Like some wiseman called George W. Bush said: "The jury's still out on evolution."

PS. Creationism and intelligent design are bullshit.

[|iR|Focalor]

Like some wiseman called George W. Bush said: "The jury's still out on evolution."

PS. Creationism and intelligent design are bullshit.

Everyone please remember...

[ReCycled]

Well its all relative anyway.....

[zndkw1n]

finally, some sense here.

[reaper]

Dawkins describes his childhood as "a normal Anglican upbringing", but reveals that he began doubting the existence of God when he was about nine years old. He later reconverted because he was persuaded by the argument from design, an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design or direction—or some combination of these—in nature. However, he began to feel that the customs of the Church of England were absurd, and had more to do with dictating morals than with God. Later, when he better understood the process of evolution, his religious position again changed, because he felt that natural selection could account for the complexity of life in purely material terms, rendering a supernatural designer unnecessary

edit: my italics

we don't have to assume god is true, because people believe in god, but life sure seems to persuade some people that god exists - even Richard Dawkin's.  A good question is, at this point,  is how good is Dawkin's argument.

 

Default theory: a complex molecule emerged from a simple, natural history of events.
Alternative theory a: a more complex entity accounts for the molecule.
Alternative theory b: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.
Alternative theory c: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.

that is really an interesting theory, but it does not resolve purpose, design, or order (replace god when need in his morals section of the book, and you can make a case from the other perspective).

the simple explanation and natural history of events could invovle a god.  saying it's just a simple beginning at this point, explains things about the same way god explains things.

it seems you are inventing a billion universes, or from a "bang" cars and life assemble themselves, with no explanation as to why this supreme ball of energy/matter exists, and realizes itself in such a lucky manner. through good reason we can see we know little about the complete picture of the universe (which is a big part of life, at least under your belief).

theoretically we can simulate life with an adaptive computer virus, how important is understanding what happens before the virus replicates and advances, is an important part of life's explanation.  how realistic is this simulation?  we don't have a strong case in any direction, which is why we don't know the truth.

god does not get a free pass, we just need more information before your theory can have the strength you think it does.

 

[deft]

So dumb.

[DaHanG]

we don't have to assume god is true, because people believe in god, but life sure seems to persuade some people that god exists - even Richard Dawkin. 

If life persuades some people that god exists, that holds absolutely no merit in either direction on the truth of the matter. Miss Cleo persuaded people that cards can predict the course of events in one's life, the sun appearing to orbit the earth in the sky persuaded people that the sun orbits the earth. All that matters is evidence, not personal interpretation.

Richard Dawkins wrote the God Delusion. He is not persuaded by the argument from design.

Default theory: a complex molecule emerged from a simple, natural history of events.
Alternative theory a: a more complex entity accounts for the molecule.
Alternative theory b: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.
Alternative theory c: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.

that is really an interesting theory, but it does not resolve purpose, design, or order .

There are 4 theories stated above. As whirling said, why must there be a purpose? Why must design or order be fully understood before we reject superstitious, baseless claims?

the simple explanation and natural history of events could involve[sic] a god.  saying it's just a simple beginning at this point, explains things about the same way god explains things.

A simple beginning does not make additional claims lacking evidence that only add complexity to the problem of not understanding.

it seems you are inventing a billion universes

I'm being accused of inventing...

 

or from a "bang" cars and life assemble themselves

I'm glad you are persuaded by the pre-Darwinian book Natural Theology by William Paley from 1802.

with no explanation as to why this supreme ball of energy/matter exists, and realizes itself in such a lucky manner. through good reason we can see we know little about the complete picture of the universe (which is a big part of life, at least under your belief).

If you have trouble comprehending the existence of a 'ball of energy/matter', just imagine the trouble of an all-powerful conscious intelligence that exists within nothingness. It somehow decides what this 'ball of energy/matter' will do. Then think of the additional claims of this conscious intelligence answering prayers, having a preference of a particular day in which people pray, having a preference about how people run their private sex lives, and how it voluntarily breaks the laws of physics to alter events on one small planet, in an average solar system of the milky way galaxy, etc.

theoretically we can simulate life with an adaptive computer virus, how important is understanding what happens before the virus replicates and advances, is an important part of life's explanation.  how realistic is this simulation?  we don't have a strong case in any direction, which is why we don't know the truth.

We know how the computer virus got there. Humans created it. We understand this. But how did begin to humans come about? From simple beginnings on Earth about 4 billion years ago. We (followers of modern science) also understand this.

god does not get a free pass, we just need more information before your theory can have the strength you think it does.

We also need more information about the Pink Unicorn before we start weighing the strength of opposing theories.