Jump to content

What is your favorite proof for God?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Everyone needs to believe something, I believe I'll have another beer...

If someone is skeptical to use a wider interpretation of evidence, it may be because "evidence" isn't something you can just "feel differently about" without repercussions. The evidence of fraud by a

If given eternity a monkey can re-create the complete works of Shakespeare on a type writer or so that's the theory. Daft theory really. Why a monkey ? Why not a snail ? Or an amoeba ? And why a ty

 

 

So yes, there has been much more than plenty of time for evolution to have got us to where we are now.

 

 

Do you honestly believe that ?

 

A very, very slim chance IMO. 14 billion years since the Big Bang, with life on this planet only for the last 4 billion. We've only evolved enough to be able to string a few sentences together in the last few thousand.

 

So it took 10 billion years for life to even appear.

Another 4 billion for it to evolve into intelligent life.

 

If it took 10 billion years to even get the right mix to spark it off. Then 4 billion is nowhere near long enough for it to even survive in the first instance and then manage evolve.

 

Lets imagine one cell (or a whole load of them) sparks into life, then die, 1 microsecond after they're produced. Then it's back to square one (i.e wait another 10 billion years or so for the spark to happen again).

 

You may argue that it took 10 billion years for the conditions to become right and all it needed then was a spark (from somewhere, and as of yet only guessed at). Fair enough, but even if that did happen, then they've still got to survive. And even if they did manage to survive, then they've still got to evolve to where we are today.

 

Isn't it just much more likely that that something we can't explain (bearing in mind there's plenty of things we can't explain), just designed and created 'everything' for another reason we can't explain ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe that ?

 

I do, very much so, no doubt...

 

A very, very slim chance IMO. 14 billion years since the Big Bang, with life on this planet only for the last 4 billion. We've only evolved enough to be able to string a few sentences together in the last few thousand.

 

So it took 10 billion years for life to even appear.

Another 4 billion for it to evolve into intelligent life.

 

If it took 10 billion years to even get the right mix to spark it off. Then 4 billion is nowhere near long enough for it to even survive in the first instance and then manage evolve.

 

Lets imagine one cell (or a whole load of them) sparks into life, then die, 1 microsecond after they're produced. Then it's back to square one (i.e wait another 10 billion years or so for the spark to happen again).

 

You may argue that it took 10 billion years for the conditions to become right and all it needed then was a spark (from somewhere, and as of yet only guessed at). Fair enough, but even if that did happen, then they've still got to survive. And even if they did manage to survive, then they've still got to evolve to where we are today.

 

Isn't it just much more likely that that something we can't explain (bearing in mind there's plenty of things we can't explain), just designed and created 'everything' for another reason we can't explain ?

 

None of the above rant has any basis in reality what so ever, you keep assuming straw men so your desire to debunk evolution makes sense but if you remove the false assumptions evolution makes more than just sense, it is simply put the way things work. Your false assumptions only serve to make your argument weaker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe that ?

 

A very, very slim chance IMO. 14 billion years since the Big Bang, with life on this planet only for the last 4 billion. We've only evolved enough to be able to string a few sentences together in the last few thousand.

 

So it took 10 billion years for life to even appear.

Another 4 billion for it to evolve into intelligent life.

 

If it took 10 billion years to even get the right mix to spark it off. Then 4 billion is nowhere near long enough for it to even survive in the first instance and then manage evolve.

 

Lets imagine one cell (or a whole load of them) sparks into life, then die, 1 microsecond after they're produced. Then it's back to square one (i.e wait another 10 billion years or so for the spark to happen again).

 

You may argue that it took 10 billion years for the conditions to become right and all it needed then was a spark (from somewhere, and as of yet only guessed at). Fair enough, but even if that did happen, then they've still got to survive. And even if they did manage to survive, then they've still got to evolve to where we are today.

 

Isn't it just much more likely that that something we can't explain (bearing in mind there's plenty of things we can't explain), just designed and created 'everything' for another reason we can't explain ?

Basic chemistry can show how life could get started without needing rare events to occur.

 

Watch this video:

 

It gives a good explaination of how life could have got started without rare events. Also, as explained in the video, the origin of life and evolution are different things. Evolution only is relevent once you have replicating systems, before that it is just chemistry.

 

Cells didn't spontainiously appear as you seem to think (it is a straw man often given because they don't really understand why is meant by abiogenisis). A gradual process that can even be shown to occur (and has been shown to occur) in the labrotory as well as in real environments.

 

The requierment for life to appear is that enough complex chemistry can occur with complex atoms. In the early universe there wasn't much in the way of carbon, nitrogen and even oxygen (but there was a lot of hydrogen). In stars, Hydrogen is fused into heavier, more complex atoms (like helium, lithium, berilium, boron, carbon, nitrogen oxygen and so forth).

 

This takes time to produce large amounts, and then it is still locked up in the star, so these stars have to fuse their available material (which polutes the star) and cause it to go super nova and spread it's material through out the galaxy it is in. This could take several generations of stars to build up enough material (the carbon, nitrogen and oxygen) to allow enough complex chemistry to occur to produce life.

 

It also would ahve taken a bit of time for the hydrogen gas clouds to form galaxies, and then form the first stars (and then the subsiquent stars). Based on the physics, this would ahve taken around 10 billion years, so this fits with the time as well.

 

Just because you don't understand the processes and thereby know the times it would take to do so, does not mean you can claim there wasn't enough time for life to have got started.

Link to post
Share on other sites

God is the un-created source of all creation. God doesn't have a creator. This is why He is God. :D

 

needimprovement,

 

Please answer a question for me if you would be so kind. Why are you here? It is fairly obvious that you are a firm believer in your god and religion so why come to a science forum to discuss it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A gradual process that can even be shown to occur (and has been shown to occur) in the labrotory as well as in real environments.

 

 

So we can create it in the laboratory ?

 

Could God have done something similar ?! It sounds more plausible to me than a multitude of extremely unlikely events happening in a relatively short timespan. It's much more likely given how it easy it seems to be !

Edited by The Clairvoyant
Link to post
Share on other sites

So we can create it in the laboratory ?

 

Could God have done something similar ?! It sounds more plausible to me than a multitude of extremely unlikely events happening in a relatively short timespan. It's much more likely given how it easy it seems to be !

Your personal incredulity and completely subjective arbitrary assignment of likelihood is not exactly a compelling argument against the empirical one you're here now challenging.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect it seems very compelling considering none of them has been able to disprove my point. ;)

 

 

Your "point" had been shown to be false many times in this forum clairvoyant, funny how your name doesn't seem to say much about your ability to see this... Not to mention you need to show evidence of your assertion, it's not up to us to disprove your "point"

Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect it seems very compelling considering none of them has been able to disprove my point. ;)

Yeah... Disprove the existence of purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies. You just don't get it, do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we can create it in the laboratory ?

Every stage of the development of living systems as described in that video has been replicated in the laboratory, so the answer here is: Yes B)

 

Could God have done something similar ?! It sounds more plausible to me than a multitude of extremely unlikely events happening in a relatively short timespan. It's much more likely given how it easy it seems to be !

If it can be done without the need for God, then why introduce Him?

 

Remember, these are not chance events, so your argument here is invalid. These events are selected for due to the laws of physics and chemistry. Also, the vast amount of material that woudl be involved in this makes even these "extremely unlikely events" rather common.

 

As the events are not unlikely, and there is a massive amount of material involved, then it is actually a highly likely event.

 

We know the conditions for this to occur exist, black smokers (volcanic vents) on the sea floor produce the chemicals needed and also set up convection curents (as described in the video). The chemicals involved have a preference to react in the way described and will form the structures as described.

 

Once you have competition between the pre-organisms and the contents of those pre-organisms are also subject to that selection, then you will get a form of evolution occuring. They are not "living" at that point, but they are just a couple of steps away form it and the atributes that give these pre-organisms an advantage drive them towards being living systems (eg: Information contained in the internal structures, internally driven replication, metabolism, activly seeking out needed materials and other resource, etc).

 

With this, you will also find that there is no "line in the sand" that needs to be crossed to turn these pre-organisms into living organisms, it will be a gradual development and through out it you won't be able to point to one and say this is not alive, but the one that came fom it is alive. But you will be able to look back over many "generations" and see that it have now become recognisably alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "point" had been shown to be false many times in this forum clairvoyant, funny how your name doesn't seem to say much about your ability to see this... Not to mention you need to show evidence of your assertion, it's not up to us to disprove your "point"

 

1. No it hasn't

2. You little joker !

3. No, I don't. The thread asks for what is your favourite proof. I've said what it is, a few haven't agreed and have tried to disprove it with responses littered with 'coulds', 'woulds' and 'if's'.

4. If you don't agree then it is up to you disprove it, but you can't, and probably never will be able to in our lifetime. Therefore, no need to keep wasting your time really.

 

This thread could be just a few posts long, but some of you just have to try and disprove those replying to the actual thread title ! Go for it, but let's face it you won't be able to !

 

Yeah... Disprove the existence of purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies. You just don't get it, do you?

 

Purple unicorns and fairies blah, blah, blah, yawn, yawn, yawn. Not one adult of the Earths population believe in them (well, maybe one or two) but most of the population do believe in something. "God" is a very popular something. Don't use the daft Unicorns and Fairies analogy as it gives scientists a bad name. It makes it appear that your tunnel visioned and have a closed mind.

 

I get it, you don't. Why's that ?

 

Every stage of the development of living systems as described in that video has been replicated in the laboratory, so the answer here is: Yes B)

 

 

If it can be done without the need for God, then why introduce Him?

 

Remember, these are not chance events, so your argument here is invalid. These events are selected for due to the laws of physics and chemistry. Also, the vast amount of material that woudl be involved in this makes even these "extremely unlikely events" rather common.

 

As the events are not unlikely, and there is a massive amount of material involved, then it is actually a highly likely event.

 

We know the conditions for this to occur exist, black smokers (volcanic vents) on the sea floor produce the chemicals needed and also set up convection curents (as described in the video). The chemicals involved have a preference to react in the way described and will form the structures as described.

 

Once you have competition between the pre-organisms and the contents of those pre-organisms are also subject to that selection, then you will get a form of evolution occuring. They are not "living" at that point, but they are just a couple of steps away form it and the atributes that give these pre-organisms an advantage drive them towards being living systems (eg: Information contained in the internal structures, internally driven replication, metabolism, activly seeking out needed materials and other resource, etc).

 

With this, you will also find that there is no "line in the sand" that needs to be crossed to turn these pre-organisms into living organisms, it will be a gradual development and through out it you won't be able to point to one and say this is not alive, but the one that came fom it is alive. But you will be able to look back over many "generations" and see that it have now become recognisably alive.

 

 

I understand all this, but my favourite proof is that 'there hasn't been enough time' . It may well be 'highly likely' but not in the timespan !

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it hasn't

<...>

No, I don't.

<...>

Purple unicorns and fairies blah, blah, blah, yawn, yawn, yawn.

Hmmm... Well... Now that you put it that way, I suppose I am forced to reconsider my position. Thank you for being so eloquent and articulate, and for really driving to the core of the issue in such an academic fashion.

 

 

Not one adult of the Earths population believe in them (well, maybe one or two) but most of the population do believe in something. "God" is a very popular something.

Harry Potter is pretty popular, too. Doesn't make him any more than a work of fiction. I'll just close by reminding you that an appeal to popularity is an logical and argumentative fallacy, and proves nothing but the weakness of the position you're here attempting to defend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Potter is pretty popular, too. Doesn't make him any more than a work of fiction.

 

But I can prove that Harry Potter does exist: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/6402124/Real-life-Harry-Potter-taunted-about-his-name.html

Here is a whole slew of them: http://www.abebooks.com/docs/harry-potter/biographies.shtml

Not a work of fiction at all, so your argument comes crashing down...

Edited by Severian
Link to post
Share on other sites

But I can prove that Harry Potter does exist: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/6402124/Real-life-Harry-Potter-taunted-about-his-name.html

Here is a whole slew of them: http://www.abebooks.com/docs/harry-potter/biographies.shtml

Not a work of fiction at all, so your argument comes crashing down...

You're a smart man, Severian, so I really shouldn't have to spell this out for you... but I will.

 

The onus is not on me to provide evidence that god does not exist. The onus is on those who claim he does to provide evidence supporting that claim.

 

The ball's in your court. I never claimed Harry Potter existed. I demonstrated that he's popular too, and yet his popularity does not elevate him beyond a mere work of fiction.

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think it fairly obvious that the popularity of beliefs in God does not alter the likelihood of His existence.

 

For example, consider the Jewish god (i.e. the one that Jews, Christians and Muskims worship). Before Christ, believers in the Jewish god were a significant minority in the world, outnumbered by believers in the Roman pantheon of gods. Does that mean that the Roman gods were more likely to exist then, while the Jewish God is more likely to exist now?

 

You could generalize and just argue that the popularity of any belief in any God or gods implies that some form of god exists. But you can't be so hasty; historically, conceptions of god were vastly different, with different characteristics, different rituals, and so on. They can't easily be lumped together.

 

More importantly, popular belief brings no assurance of accuracy. Just a few hundred years ago, the popular belief was that sanitation was unimportant during surgery; a dirty saw was not a problem. Being popular did not prevent patients dying from infections.

 

The Clairvoyant, a question for you: suppose we accept the premise that current physics cannot explain the development of life in the time the universe has existed. Why does this imply the existence of God, rather than some principle of physics we have not yet discovered? It's possible that physics will change and be able to explain life, as it learns more about the universe.

 

It does not suffice to demonstrate that current science is inadequate. You must also demonstrate that God is necessary, rather than just improved science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand all this, but my favourite proof is that 'there hasn't been enough time' . It may well be 'highly likely' but not in the timespan !

Ok, lets look at the time frame for it.

 

The Urey/Miller Experiment was conducted around 50 years ago. The experiment ran for 1 week and produced around 10% to 15% of the carbon into organic compounds. This was in around 500 cc (0.5 litres) of material.

 

Now Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago, and life was definitly around 3.8 billion years ago. This gives us 0.7 billion years or 3,640,000,000 weeks.

 

The Earth's oceans contain around 137,000,000,000,000 cc (137,000,000,000 liters) of material.

 

So, if in 1 week and in just 0.5 litres of material they could produce around 10% to 15% organic compounds form the available carbon, then in the 3,640,000,000 and 137,000,000,000,000 litres of material it could certainly produce more of it.

 

Based on the work by Dr Jack Szostak, then the organic compunds needed to kickstart life would have been abundant (and were present in the Urey/Miller experiment) and would occur fairly quickly (Dr Szostak's experiments would not have taken billions of years to perform).

 

In other words, based on the scientific evidence, there is far more than enough time for life to have got started.

 

And again, lets put this into perspective. Just say that in the Urey/Miller experiment there was just a 1 in a trillion chance that a replicating system could form. So in the 0.5 litre over 1 week, there is only a 1 in a trillion chance that the replicating structure Dr Szostak described formed (the chances of this are a lot better, but I am just using these number to show that even at extremely long odds then the sheer amount of material and time invloved is enough).

 

This gives a 2 in 1,000,000,000,000 chance per litre/week of the structure forming.

 

Ok, now lets plug in the number from Earth:

 

498,680,000,000,000,000,000 in 1,000,000,000,000 litre/weeks.

 

In other words a 498,680,000 to 1 odds in favour of life forming. With those odds, it seems a greater long shot that life couldn't start. And remember, this is with the numbers in your favour (you would need an error of around 500 million more in your favour to bring it to a 50/50 chance. Also, due to the experiments by Dr Szostak, the odds are more likely billions in favour of life (and not if favour of your position).

 

Sory, but this completely disproves your "Evidence for God" that life didn't have enough time (or it the odds were against it).

 

If this is your best evidence for God, then you will have to, in the face of this evidence, say that your evidence is pretty weak at best (and virtually non existant if being realistic).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a smart man, Severian, so I really shouldn't have to spell this out for you... but I will.

 

The onus is not on me to provide evidence that god does not exist. The onus is on those who claim he does to provide evidence supporting that claim.

 

That depends on the statement made. If you make a statement "God exists!" or "God does not exist!" you should back them up with evidence. On the other hand if you say "I believe God exists!" or "I don't believe God exists!" then the statement is one of belief and not fact, requiring no further proof.

 

But that isn't really pertinent to the point I was making.

 

The ball's in your court. I never claimed Harry Potter existed. I demonstrated that he's popular too, and yet his popularity does not elevate him beyond a mere work of fiction.

 

On the contrary, you claimed that Harry Potter does not exist, in an attempt to imply that God does not exist by association. I provided you with proof that Harry Potter does in fact exist, so your initial assumption is wrong. Your argument is mud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On the contrary, you claimed that Harry Potter does not exist, in an attempt to imply that God does not exist by association. I provided you with proof that Harry Potter does in fact exist, so your initial assumption is wrong. Your argument is mud.

Sorry, but no. You really ought to read more closely. Here is what I said. The quote from my above post is evidence that you are yet again mistaken.

 

Harry Potter is pretty popular, too. Doesn't make him any more than a work of fiction.

 

 

Maybe the third time's the charm?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but no. You really ought to read more closely. Here is what I said. The quote from my above post is evidence that you are yet again mistaken.

 

So you are claiming that your post was intended just to point out the fallacy of the implication? Yeah right, we all buy that...

 

Aren't you ashamed of such intellectual dishonesty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.