Ye Religion Thread

[DaHanG]

Because it's a better answer than any other answer so far.  Why should I assume a complex functioning universe is here because people talk about random chaotic big bangs they know so little about and still provide no answer to the complex structure of things like living organisms?

Once again, the theory of evolution through natural selection explains it.

I will reiterate your previous statement: "No, that statement applies to all of humankind."

That is not an evidence based statement at all.

It's a common sense based statement. If someone knew how the universe began, he or she would demonstrate how this knowledge was obtained and everyone would have access to this knowledge. This has not happened, so I can say without penalty that no human knows how the universe began. (I'm speaking of course about the unknown details about the big bang).

[Robot]

Once again, you misunderstand what I'm saying, you have said you don't know how the first living organisms came about.  The evolution of life is not the genesis of life.

And you misunderstand the second one, because we're talking about why the universe is structured the way it is, and you're just referring how it was created.  You really need to think more about what "how" means here.  When we speak about "how", we think about what natural means we could use to achieve something, but if God is supernatural and creates the universe by such supernatural means, then "how" is out of the picture.

[DaHanG]

Once again, you misunderstand what I'm saying, you have said you don't know how the first living organisms came about.  The evolution of life is not the genesis of life.

You simply weren't clear, complex living organisms to me sound like multi-cellular organisms, not single-celled organisms that came about during the creation of life. I don't deny that I don't know how the first living organisms came about. In fact, I was explicit saying we (as humans) do not know. I fail to see your point.

And you misunderstand the second one, because we're talking about why the universe is structured the way it is, and you're just referring how it was created.  You really need to think more about what "how" means here.  When we speak about "how", we think about what natural means we could use to achieve something, but if God is supernatural and creates the universe by such supernatural means, then "how" is out of the picture.

"How" is out of the picture? I personally would like to know who made God. Invoking God didn't solve much for me.

[quadz]

When we speak about "how", we think about what natural means we could use to achieve something, but if God is supernatural and creates the universe by such supernatural means, then "how" is out of the picture.

Deus ex machina.  But why bother?

We do have scientific data now backing up the big bang theory to within a few moments of the event.  At this point it's like a jigsaw puzzle where the overall picture is looking pretty clear despite a few missing pieces.

So do we really need to invent a hypercomplex supernatural entity (whose origins we're so-conveniently barred from asking about) just to fill in the remaining pieces?

Where did the singularity come from?  Why did it explode?  We don't know... But how does it help to say, it was some supernatural magic being that created it--and you're not allowed to ask how or where that being came from!



Regards,

quadz

[Robot]

"where the overall picture is looking pretty clear"

How is that?  You're still missing the obvious pieces of the origin of matter in the big bang and the origin of primordial organisms that are so complicated...

I never said it's a bad thing to ask how god came about, but this question would only matter under the assumption it is like a physical living organism that can be created and destroyed.  How do you know it isn't an ever lasting non-physical entity?

[quadz]

"where the overall picture is looking pretty clear"

How is that?

[Robot]

Okay, so once again, you don't answer the two questions I asked.  DaHanG doesn't know how life or matter came about, do you?  I don't even understand what you believe regarding the origin of matter because you keep talking about big bang all alone giving rise to complex structure and life (which I still don't understand how).  Do you believe that matter and energy in the universe has always existed?  I'm very puzzled what you believe here.

And your second response is not much different from asking me "What's the point of a universe?  Why bother?".  Why would you expect me to answer that?  We're here to do what we're programmed to do, and we do it of course because we have no choice!  In a way, the good direction from our programming is our God.  I don't go seeking to find a creator, that would seem to be a waste of time.  I'm happy to believe intelligent design is responsible for life though.  I hope people look for signs that evolution doesn't just go by a long process of "random mutations" and natural selection.  I would hope whatever was responsible for primordial life made sure it would go in a reasonable direction.

[Jman-CRU]

Proof of God's existence

1. Cosmological Proof: All motion needs an object and a source, something in motion and something that started motion.
The object in motion can start new motion itself, but the number of objects in motion can't be infinite. So there's got to be
a first source of ALL motion, not moving itself - a prime mover.

2. Causal Proof: Any effect has a cause. The number of causes can't be infinite. So there's got to be a first, uncaused cause
which is not an effect.

3. Contingency Proof: There are things in existence that are not "necessary". They could as well not be in existence. No thing,
no object in existence is "necessary" just because of itself and for itself. The reason for those things being in existence is, it is
"necessary" because of some other thing, object. They are in existence thanks to something else. The number of things necessarily
existing because of something else can't be infinite. There's got to be a first being that is "necessary" because of itself, not
existing thanks to something else.

4. Hierarchical Proof: There's a number of more or less good, true and beautiful things in this world. Values and qualities are arranged
in a hierarchy. The good, truth and beauty can't be infinite, perfection can't be infinite. So there's got to be something absolute being the
cause and ultimate standard of all.

5. Teleological Proof: The order and complexity of the universe indicates a purpose and implies the existence of a controlling, governing,
guiding being.

Thomas Aquinas


In connection with Big Bang theory, the cosmological argument goes like this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause. - God.

D

[DaHanG]

DaHanG doesn't know how life or matter came about, do you?

I don't, and neither do you. What's your point?

And your second response is not much different from asking me "What's the point of a universe?  Why bother?".  Why would you expect me to answer that?  We're here to do what we're programmed to do, and we do it of course because we have no choice!  In a way, the good direction from our programming is our God.  I don't go seeking to find a creator, that would seem to be a waste of time.  I'm happy to believe intelligent design is responsible for life though.  I hope people look for signs that evolution doesn't just go by a long process of "random mutations" and natural selection.  I would hope whatever was responsible for primordial life made sure it would go in a reasonable direction.

Ok, now I know I need not try to convince you of anything. Even the most religious scientists (Francis Collins for example) will eagerly say God does not need to be involved in the evolutionary process. You insist he does. For what reason? I don't know, probably a lack of understanding of the effectiveness of the theory. Saying God did is much easier than understanding I guess.

 

[reaper]

maybe god didn't invade the evolutionary process, but he can choose to, if god exists.

and you guys talk like not knowing how a ball of matter that is nothing explodes into life, isn't a big deal.  you have to know that, to know where things came from. so it's back to "god of the gaps".

[Robot]

DaHanG, I didn't really say God needs to be involved in the evolutionary process, intelligent design doesn't just refer to God creating life or guiding evolution, it can also refer to an intelligent process (without a God) dictating evolution.

[DaHanG]

DaHanG, I didn't really say God needs to be involved in the evolutionary process, intelligent design doesn't just refer to God creating life or guiding evolution, it can also refer to an intelligent process (without a God) dictating evolution.

And that hypothesis is just as unhelpful, because it doesn't explain the intelligent designer (whatever your preference of title you give that designer may be).

[Robot]

And once again, I will reiterate that the evolution of life is not the genesis of life.  So of course it's not going to be helpful because you're talking about something else.

[DaHanG]

And once again, I will reiterate that the evolution of life is not the genesis of life.  So of course it's not going to be helpful because you're talking about something else.

Read again, the genesis of life is precisely what I'm talking about. I said your theory of an intelligent designer "doesn't explain the intelligent designer". This clearly involved the creation of life itself, not the evolutionary processes that follow.

[Whirlingdervish]

ok, the only new trend that I'm noticing in the last 3 pages, with the exception of Jman's beautiful post, is that some people feel that IF there is a single gap in what science can currently explain and what random circumstances that humans can currently recreate, then the entire system should be thrown aside as it is "flawed" in some way, and we should revert to the most basic, illogical and uninformed methods of explaining those things that are complicated beyond casual "understanding".

this is not a logical conclusion, just as it is not a logical conclusion to assert that any given creator would not need a creator of their own.

There is absolutely NO REASON to throw aside the collection of verifiable non-fiction recorded knowledge that has been gathered over the course of our entire existence as a species, because there are a few things that we don't YET know.

This opinion strikes me as being born of self-centered ideology, that says if we don't know NOW, (and of course WE are more important and complicated than anything else, past or future) then nobody will ever be able to find the answer because it is beyond comprehension by the most important being ever, barring God. (who has to exist, otherwise we'd never be humbled by the immensity of anything and Good wouldn't exist.)