God and religion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by che_rish

If there was no Creator, then life must have started spontaneously by chance.

---

I don't think spontneously is the correct word. This all happened over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by che_rish

Evolutionists admit that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros.

---

I wouldn't doubt that. But what are the chances of amino acids - the building blocks of proteins - being created. far less. These are simple molecules that scientists have been able to create under simulated "natural" conditions. These then join to create proteins - again, far more likely. Proteins replicate themselves, mutate to form different proteins, etc.

I'm not saying it is unlikely, but it is not impossible, and in my opinion, happened.

Statistics can be used to "prove" anything. Just have a look at the post I added to the universe thread you mentioned earlier where a mathematician claimed he had proved that god existed. (EDIT: here is the link. you may need to register... it's a reputable site)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeb

I wouldn't doubt that. But what are the chances of amino acids - the building blocks of proteins - being created. far less. These are simple molecules that scientists have been able to create under simulated "natural" conditions. These then join to create proteins - again, far more likely. Proteins replicate themselves, mutate to form different proteins, etc.

---

Okay... but where did those molecules come from?

LOL!!!

Oh my god man, I've seen so many forums with AT LEAST one of these religious posts. They always have the most replies. Now it's time for my opinion.

You ever notice how people say things like "God wants this" and "God feels this way"? This is especially true at church. Well, why don't they just say they're God themselves? Why do people speak for him? Why doesn't God just come down and tell us what the **** he wants? Why doesn't God preach at church instead of the THING he created, which knows NOTHING because God does not personally enlighten us?

If God wanted to be loved and trusted so much, why does he hide? Why does he allow all of these horrible things to happen? Why are people suffering after Hurricane Katrina? Why do wars occur? If man is unable to control himself (hence government, politics, corruption, need for justice between those of the same race/species), why doesn't God destroy us or control us?

Also, consider the bible for a second. It's a book. Who made this book? Human beings. You go to the store and you buy a book printed and typed by a company controlled by human beings. Human beings, those whom are capable of deception and lies, created what we now call the Bible. You can't trust words typed by Man. To make it even more hilarious, who doesn't know that the bible and religion isn't some form of control created by the government? No one can prove that the government didn't secretly mandate SOME form of changes to the bible to maintain the "ideal society".

This is the same thing as building a beautiful new car and then leaving it out in your yard for 100 years and letting it rot, rust, and ruin. You made it, you love it, but you don't show it... You do absolutely nothing for it. God made us and he claims to love us, according to the text. I don't know about you guys but if I had 10 billion children I would at least come visit once a week and pay child support and all that good stuff. If my children were in a hurricane, I would most definitely rescue them. I wouldn't just sit back and say "Oh look, a hurricane... people are dying and suffering. I guess I'll just sit here and watch!"

I personally used to believe in God until I noticed that life wasn't really any different with or without his love. Who is to say what happens after death? No one lives to tell what happens after death. Trying to imagine how life began, either by God or evolution, is equally impossible. This is quite possibly a subject which human beings were never meant to be able to comprehend. The world is scared, and when we're afraid we put our comforts and faith into our imaginary preferences, or in the preferences taught to us as we were raised.

Hence, God is not the creator of Man, but Man is the creator of GOD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by che_rish

Okay... but where did those molecules come from?

---

God I love google (I couldn't resist ;))

Anyway, check out the miller/urey experiment.

MrDoomMaster - spot on. Just have a look at Scientology. A science fiction writer created it! The King James bible, which I believe (although I may very well be wrong here - please correct me if I am) the Church of England works from, and it was re-written by King James to allow him to divorce his wife of the time!

How many crackpot cults start up, and get followers? All it takes is a few of these followers to have children, or convince a few more people before a cult becomes a mainstream religion. All it takes is luck and chance.

eading

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cilu

Oh, so now we are directing the discussion towards the soul.

I'm currious to know how did you get to this conclusion.

You know, God and the soul are just two teories that tries to explain the world. A theory is based on elements known to us at a certain moment of time. As we learn more new theories appear that reject or generalize the old ones. A good theory is one that makes predictions that can be verified. If the prediction can't be verified, or conflict with the actual results, the theory is faulty. Theory never advances by proving anything is actually true, but rather by leading to predictions that conflict with observable data. All we can ever hope to do is to falsify a theory; then we move on to the next one.

So, I'm really curious if someone can make predictions based on the God theoy or Soul theory that can be verified.

---

I'm sorry if I drifted from the original topic..:wave:

When I said the world is a perception as our senses interpret it, there are three scenarios, lets say the world we leave in as Matrix.

1- Everything In Matrix doesn't exists, there is no spoon. so whats left of this world? what is the thing we call "myself" is?

2- What we see in the Matrix exists in the real sense but not as we perceive it. this means matrix lies to us of the original matter, the simplest example would be color, if we see Matrix as colourful, then outside matrix, colour might not exists.. But why did Matrix lie to Us?

3- Everything we see in the Matrix exists, Matrix doesn't lie to us, "there is a spoon". but is everything shown by Matrix is really all there is? its not a lie but its possible that its hiding something..

with this, i have to say that we are too dependent on the matrix, we know nothing but what the matrix feed our senses. so isn't it an intellignce designer, a creator out there setting out the rules?

if evolution theory, which based on mere chance and coincidence could be accepted as scientific fact, why woudn't this be a scientific fact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Payne

if evolution theory, which based on mere chance and coincidence could be accepted as scientific fact, why woudn't this be a scientific fact?

---

Evolution is a theory. God is a theory.

Through experiments we can help to reinforce a theory - such as was explained earlier about quarks. Quarks were proposed as an explanation to certain behaviours during experiments. Further experiments were then developed that reinforced that a quark existed. In the same way, the miller/urey experiment goes some way to reinforcing evolution theory.

Show me an experiment that goes some way to prooving the existence of god - not statements that use concepts that also can't be proven such a souls. Concepts such as God can explain things like the universe and ourselves, but to date I haven't seen anything that prooves or even goes to reinforce the concept. People used to explain things they didn't understand by claiming it was "Magic". Now we know how to explain these things and know there is no such thing as magic.

Hi Zeb, maybe I just don't understand exactly what you're trying to say here:

Quote:

---

I wouldn't doubt that. But what are the chances of amino acids - the building blocks of proteins - being created. far less. These are simple molecules that scientists have been able to create under simulated "natural" conditions. These then join to create proteins - again, far more likely. Proteins replicate themselves, mutate to form different proteins, etc.

---

But that's alright. So tell me, you don't believe God exists, huh? Btw, I will try and see those links you gave. I just have a deadline to make so I don't have the time right now, nor will I be around for awhile here at CG. :)


Hi MrDoomMaster! I was about to say the same thing earlier:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDoomMaster

Why doesn't God just come down and tell us what the **** he wants? Why doesn't God preach at church instead of the THING he created, which knows NOTHING because God does not personally enlighten us?

If God wanted to be loved and trusted so much, why does he hide? Why does he allow all of these horrible things to happen? Why are people suffering after Hurricane Katrina? Why do wars occur? If man is unable to control himself (hence government, politics, corruption, need for justice between those of the same race/species), why doesn't God destroy us or control us?

---

Or better yet, Why doesn't God do anything about it?

This is the reason I actually understand why people have given up on God because of the things you said. Very well said, actually. ;) And those are just some of the reasons why people have rejected belief in God.

Quote:

---

Also, consider the bible for a second. It's a book. Who made this book? Human beings. You go to the store and you buy a book printed and typed by a company controlled by human beings. Human beings, those whom are capable of deception and lies, created what we now call the Bible. You can't trust words typed by Man. To make it even more hilarious, who doesn't know that the bible and religion isn't some form of control created by the government? No one can prove that the government didn't secretly mandate SOME form of changes to the bible to maintain the "ideal society".

---

Now, I'm not sure if its true in the case of Koran or other religious books, but I do know that the Bible attempts to answer those questions you've raised (as I've quoted above). Simply put, the Bible is the book I know that claims it is "inspired" of God and that it offers answers to the questions about life and about "God" and that through this book God enlightens us himself.

But I do admit that because of what religion in general failed to do, plus how throughout history religious leaders has behaved contrary to what the Bible says, people don't want to trust on the Bible anymore... aside from those things you also mentioned.

Also, many of them have been turned away by Christendom’s failure to present the true God of the Bible. As the French writer P. Valadier stated: "It was the Christian tradition that produced atheism as its fruit; it led to the murder of God in the consciences of men because it presented them with an unbelievable God." Isn't this true?

I believe that when we are willing to look at the matter objectively rather than be swayed by preconceived ideas, we find that any objections can be overcome in a reasonable manner. The answers are there, if only we are willing to search for them.

Right now, I'm currently examining the Bible for myself and comparing it with facts, not what religion says I should believe in. I am examining the Bible and really looking at it.

But what basis is there for believing the Bible? First of all, it should be noted that down through the ages, probably no other book has been more unjustly criticized, abused, hated, and attacked than the Bible. Yet, it has survived all of that and turned out to be the most widely translated and circulated book on record. That in itself makes the Bible an outstanding book. And I found abundant proof, convincing evidence, that the Bible is a book inspired of God and worthy of our belief.

Now I know what I just said will raise more questions and/or objections, and will ask me to show those proof and/or evidence. ;) But I'm not even going to do that in this thread. Aside from the fact that I don't have the time right now, it should also be on another thread solely about the Bible.

Anyways, have a good day y'all! :wave:

Hi Che_Rish,

Yeah, I don't believe in God, or any higher power. But, I do believe in being good to people, helping people, etc. You don't have to believe in a god to know what is right and what is wrong :)

The point I was making above is that the chances of atoms just happening to arrange themselves to form a protein is impossible (or close enough). But the chances of the building blocks (amino acids) being created is very possible. Then those joing to form mono-peptides (i think that is the right term) is again, very possible. Then these joing to form proteins is very possible.

I think that it's great that you, and any like you, actually do look into your faith, instead of just taking it for granted. How much has progress been held back in the past because of people being set in their ways?

Just remember though, the concept of god is also a pre-conceived idea, so if you want to think objectively, you need to keep this in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeb

Just remember though, the concept of god is also a pre-conceived idea...

---

I can't help it.. I have to login again and just have to ask: What do you mean that the concept of God is also a "pre-conceived" idea? How is this so? :confused:

Quote:

---

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
To form (an opinion, for example) before possessing full or adequate knowledge or experience.

---

Quote:

---

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University:
preconceived adj : (of an idea or opinion) formed beforehand; especially without evidence or through prejudice; "certain preconceived notions"

---

Hmmm. Based on the above definitions, I think I know what you mean. :D Thanks Zeb, I'll keep that in mind. :)

Ciao!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by che_rish

I believe that when we are willing to look at the matter objectively rather than be swayed by preconceived ideas, we find that any objections can be overcome in a reasonable manner. The answers are there, if only we are willing to search for them.

---

The concept of god is a preconceived idea. [edit - too slow!!]

... I hope no-one thinks I'm attacking or anything here. I'm just giving my thoughts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, as long as they don't hurt other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeb

Evolution is a theory. God is a theory.

---

Well, strictly speaking, evolution is only a theory for how the higher life forms developed. If we're talking about particles and matter - atoms, molecules etc - the other main theory is the Big Bang.

Neither God nor the Big Bang are yet proveable but my money would be on the Big Bang because we've been trying to prove the existence of God for thousands of years without success. On the other hand, the Big Bang theory was only formulated a few decades ago - but already we've found evidence of its aftermath and some of the theory's predictions are already starting to be discovered. We can even tell when and where the Big Bang would have occurred. But what we can't say for certain yet is IF it occurred or WHY it occurred.

Seeing what happens in this thread, I get a better understanding of the expression "over night" (while I am sleeping... :D).

Cherish, are you copy/pasting from articles on web? If so, please post the links also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cherish

That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe!

---

Not true. According to quatum physics there can be any number of atoms in the universe, as many as we need. Virtual particles can appear at any time, any place. They where actually used by Stephen Hawking to explain why black holes loose matter and after a long, long time vanish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cherish

A most intriguing fact about these laws, however, is that in them there are certain factors whose values must be fixed precisely for the universe, as we know it, to exist. Among these fundamental constants are the unit of electric charge on the proton, the masses of certain fundamental particles, and Newton’s universal constant of gravitation, commonly denoted by the letter G. On this, Professor Davies continues: “Even minute variations in the values of some of them would drastically alter the appearance of the Universe. For example, Freeman Dyson has pointed out that if the force between nucleons (protons and neutrons) were only a few per cent stronger, the Universe would be devoid of hydrogen.

---

The universe is govern by 6 numbers/constants. Any slightly variation of any and the Universe would have looked different. (see the book Jest Six Numbers-The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe by Martin Reese).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Reese

There are various ways of reacting to the apparent fine tuning of our six numbers. One hard-headed response is that we couldn't exist if these numbers weren't adjusted in the appropriate 'special' way: we manifestly are here, so there's nothing to be surprised about. Many scientists take this line, but it certainly leaves me unsatisfied. I'm impressed by a metaphor given by the Canadian philosopher John Leslie. Suppose you are facing a firing squad. Fifty marksman take aim, but they all miss. If they hadn't all missed, you would not have survived to ponder the matter. But you wouldn't just leave it at that-you'd still be baffled, and would seek some further reason for your good fortune.

Others adduce the 'tuning' of the numbers as evidence for a beneficent Creator, who formed the universe with the specific intention of producing us (or, less anthropocentrically, of permitting intricate complexities to unfold). This is in the tradition of William Paley and other advocates of the so-called 'argument from design' for God's existence. Variants of it are now espoused by eminent scientist-theologians such as John Polkinghorn; he writes that the universe is 'not just "any old world," but it's special and finely tuned for life because it is the creation of a Creator who wills that it be so'.

If one doesn't accept the 'providence' argument, there is another perspective, which-though still conjectural-I find compellingly attractive. It is that our Big Bang may not have been the only one.

[Reese, Martin. Just Six Numbers-The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe (Basic Books, 2000) p.148-150

---

But according to the lastest theory in physics the Universe we live in just one of the zillions out there (a theory developed by Stephen Hawking and Martin Reese). Some our like ours, other are totally different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeb

Through experiments we can help to reinforce a theory - such as was explained earlier about quarks. Quarks were proposed as an explanation to certain behaviours during experiments. Further experiments were then developed that reinforced that a quark existed. In the same way, the miller/urey experiment goes some way to reinforcing evolution theory.

---

Exactly, and another prediction was Dirac's anti-particles, which were used to explained some experimental results. A decade later physicists produced clear evidence for the existance of antiparticles, and Dirac received a Nobel prize. Another good example of theory predictions that were later verified by experiments comes from Murray Gell-Man, the Nobel winner who put order in the collection of elementary particles that were known in the '60s. He grouped them in some charts, like Mendeleev chart of atomic elements, but like Mendeleev chart, Gell-Man's charts also had holes. He predicted that there should be some particles with certain properties. Obviously, years later, all the particles were found. BTW, Gell-Man introduced the quarks theory also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDoomMaster

Hence, God is not the creator of Man, but Man is the creator of GOD.

---

Well said. The God theory was the best people had for milleniums to explain the world. However, this theory lacks of predicting verifiable results. On the other hand, other theories do that, so the trend is that people give up the old theory of God and accept new ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeb

But, I do believe in being good to people, helping people, etc. You don't have to believe in a god to know what is right and what is wrong

---

I think this should be our new religion. ;)

Cilu. it has to be said that Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist - with the emphasis on "theoretical". He has a reputation for being big on concepts but rather short on analysis and mathematical proof.

Hawking put forward the theory of multiple universes because it was the only way to reconcile his other theory that matter (or "information" as he tends to call it) would simply get "lost" when it entered a black hole. This conflicted with one of the oldest foundation stones of physics - that matter is simply transferred or converted into something else. It cannot be lost altogether.

If Hawking's theory was right, it had huge ramifications for science. The future could never be predicted from the past - and unless we were there, we couldn't even be certain that the past was like the present. Hawking devised a new theory that there were multiple universes, half of which contained black holes and half of which didn't. The ones that didn't contain black holes somehow re-made the information that the other ones lost. This was widely considered to be baloney by most other physicists. Hawking famously made a bet with a rival physicist, John Preskill, which he recently lost after a brilliant Argentinian mathemetician (Juan Maldacena) came up with a mathematical proof that matter/information could not be lost, even in the extreme gravitation of a black hole.

However - we digress.... :)

Einstein was basically a theoretical physicist too (after all, he imagined all the experiments that led to the relativity theory), and he was mainly right. Hawking goes with bold were no man has gone before. And it's inevitable that mistakes are done. But learning from mistakes they can find better answers.

As for the bet between Hawking and Preskill/Thorpe it's funny that the later did not so easily concede winning the bet, for they did not quite understood why Hawking admited he was wrong for 30 years. ;) And I believe there still are physicists that believe Hawking was right. ;)