Is God real post your thoughts!

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

... -.-

 

 

 

Point still stands, can it really be that all that happened randomly? without any mistakes in positioning? with everything balanced as it is? Could that really be "just luck?"

 

 

 

yes it could, Ill try to address your questions as best I can, realize I believe in god but still hold what Im about to say as true.

 

 

 

1. well fatalism aside, as random as everything is theres nothing that states our conciousness couldnt have evolved in a similiar species(thinner frame if warmer planet, more hair if colder etc. Indeed, the odds of this exact world developing are very very tiny, but then again the odds of some intelligent life developing somewhere in the universe are pretty good. If there is some intelligent life and it manages to make it to the advanced "level" we are at it makes sense for this type of debate to occur. Just consider the scale of the universe, earth is nothing next to it so why should we assume our intelligence is somehow amazing relative to what else may be out there?

 

 

 

2. what makes you think there are a lack of mistakes?

 

 

 

3/4 see point 1

 

 

 

True, but it is highly unlikely. I guess to me it just seems more reasonable to believe in a God or some other form of higher intelligence and power. And maybe there are some types of mistakes in the universe? I said what i said because of how balanced it seems, and from what I've heard from different professors and teachers, some small detail gone wrong could have a massive impact and ruin this balance...thats what i meant.

[/hide]

 

 

 

tryto gave the best explanation I believe, one thing to see is that whether or not god caused it, we are in what amounts to great conditions for life on this planet. Since we are here we observe some signifigance in the fact we made it here when we realize most planets dont have life. I forget the principle, but humans try to force patterns on things that dont have them because we seek out order.

[Zierro]

But anywho, one thing that i think is important, is to just plainly take a look, a deep look at the world in which we live. Why is it, that we are the only inhabited planet in this solar system, as far as we know? why is it that THIS particular world just so happened to have what was needed to sustain life? Could it all really just be a coincidence, or luck even? Think about how everything is so tightly interwoven, how ecosystems balance themselves out, how many species there are, the smallest units of life, how things we can't even see are constantly acting upon us and the world daily. Lastly think about life of humans in general. How we have advanced. Now, when you look at this, you may realize that humans have infact greatly advanced in all ways conceivable. But looking even closer, one can see how we got here, which is simply, thinking. There had to be some intelligence before we could move away from straw houses and whatnot, and build economy's and empires. Intelligence had to be involved for just us to advance the little that we have. Now how then can you say that the world itself evolved, all on its own without any intelligent help whatsoever. What if we as humans didn't have the intelligence we do have, would we have evolved? Then how can a world that doesn't have that intel evolve all on it's own. Therein i believe most will find an answer looked for, yet not expected. Thats what i have to say. Hope i said it correctly and in a way you may which sheds new light on the big picture.

 

 

 

You don't understand evolution.

 

 

 

Couldn't one argue that the concept of evolution itself had some divine mind work behind it?

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

But anywho, one thing that i think is important, is to just plainly take a look, a deep look at the world in which we live. Why is it, that we are the only inhabited planet in this solar system, as far as we know? why is it that THIS particular world just so happened to have what was needed to sustain life? Could it all really just be a coincidence, or luck even? Think about how everything is so tightly interwoven, how ecosystems balance themselves out, how many species there are, the smallest units of life, how things we can't even see are constantly acting upon us and the world daily. Lastly think about life of humans in general. How we have advanced. Now, when you look at this, you may realize that humans have infact greatly advanced in all ways conceivable. But looking even closer, one can see how we got here, which is simply, thinking. There had to be some intelligence before we could move away from straw houses and whatnot, and build economy's and empires. Intelligence had to be involved for just us to advance the little that we have. Now how then can you say that the world itself evolved, all on its own without any intelligent help whatsoever. What if we as humans didn't have the intelligence we do have, would we have evolved? Then how can a world that doesn't have that intel evolve all on it's own. Therein i believe most will find an answer looked for, yet not expected. Thats what i have to say. Hope i said it correctly and in a way you may which sheds new light on the big picture.

 

 

 

You don't understand evolution.

 

 

 

Couldn't one argue that the concept of evolution itself had some divine mind work behind it?

[/hide]

 

 

 

yes, but just as easily as someone could argue that it is just luck.

[Zierro]

Fortuity implies nothing more than "that's just the way things are". But I suppose you're right about that being precisely analogous to the existence of god.

[tryto]

But anywho, one thing that i think is important, is to just plainly take a look, a deep look at the world in which we live. Why is it, that we are the only inhabited planet in this solar system, as far as we know? why is it that THIS particular world just so happened to have what was needed to sustain life? Could it all really just be a coincidence, or luck even? Think about how everything is so tightly interwoven, how ecosystems balance themselves out, how many species there are, the smallest units of life, how things we can't even see are constantly acting upon us and the world daily. Lastly think about life of humans in general. How we have advanced. Now, when you look at this, you may realize that humans have infact greatly advanced in all ways conceivable. But looking even closer, one can see how we got here, which is simply, thinking. There had to be some intelligence before we could move away from straw houses and whatnot, and build economy's and empires. Intelligence had to be involved for just us to advance the little that we have. Now how then can you say that the world itself evolved, all on its own without any intelligent help whatsoever. What if we as humans didn't have the intelligence we do have, would we have evolved? Then how can a world that doesn't have that intel evolve all on it's own. Therein i believe most will find an answer looked for, yet not expected. Thats what i have to say. Hope i said it correctly and in a way you may which sheds new light on the big picture.

 

 

 

You don't understand evolution.

 

 

 

Couldn't one argue that the concept of evolution itself had some divine mind work behind it?

 

 

 

 

 

But then you would be arguing that god is nearly mindless, very imprecise, very slow, very wasteful, and works through brutal and violent methods. If you argued that, you would be arguing that god is sadistic and illogical.

 

 

 

If god wanted to create humans, and he is truly a god, he wouldn't have to work through evolution. If he did, then he chose probably the worst possible way. Evolution takes a very long time, and is brutally violent. You would be arguing that god took hundreds of millions of years to get his goal, and that he expended a serious amount of wasteful effort through it, by working this way.

 

 

 

Then, there's the fact that evolution is still happening. Are we the end result of gods plan? Or is that still to come? Or did it occur a while ago? We're different than people a mere 2000 years ago, and people a mere 2000 years from now will be different than us. Perhaps god wants the humans that will evolve 10,000 years from now. Or perhaps we liked the humans 3000 years ago, and now he's disappointed that we've changed through evolution.

 

 

 

Of course, then there's the matter that you'd have to prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

Why did god not fill the earth with oxygen before or right after life began to grow, instead of waiting for around the Cambrian? If he had, sentient beings would likely have grown much faster. Why did he not prevent the dinosaurs from evolving? That would have yielded mammals much faster. Why did god not make piety a part of natural selection, by making it so that animals that displayed traits evocative of piety more likely to survive?

[Zierro]

But then you would be arguing that god is nearly mindless, very imprecise, very slow, very wasteful, and works through brutal and violent methods. If you argued that, you would be arguing that god is sadistic and illogical.

 

 

 

And what alternatives are there? Tell me how you think the perfect world or the perfect god would work. Let me guess, a world without suffering...? Am I correct?

 

 

 

If god wanted to create humans, and he is truly a god, he wouldn't have to work through evolution. If he did, then he chose probably the worst possible way. Evolution takes a very long time, and is brutally violent. You would be arguing that god took hundreds of millions of years to get his goal, and that he expended a serious amount of wasteful effort through it, by working this way.

 

 

 

You're assuming that there's no purpose of evolution at all. I wouldn't know the purpose being a human being and all, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Oh wait. Burden of proof. I forgot... every opinion we have must have scientific proofing backing it up. I guess I can't say my favorite color is black anymore. I don't understand why you think the burden of proof implies that absolutely nothing has a chance of existing, until it can be proven. The reason I don't take a liking to this is because when we're philosophizing about what is "proven" you will always have the ability to keep asking for an unduly amount of evidence. Doesn't work with metaphysics though.

 

 

 

Trying to prove something dealing with metaphysics is like trying to send a kiss through a messenger.

[tryto]

But then you would be arguing that god is nearly mindless, very imprecise, very slow, very wasteful, and works through brutal and violent methods. If you argued that, you would be arguing that god is sadistic and illogical.

 

 

 

And what alternatives are there? Tell me how you think the perfect world or the perfect god would work. Let me guess, a world without suffering...? Am I correct?

 

 

 

That is not the subject. That is a non sequitor and a red herring. An all powerful god, assuming he wanted a certain species, would have absolutely no problem simply poofing us or them out of nothingness. You need to show why he would choose a somewhat sadistic, wasteful, and time consuming process instead of simply creating ex nihilo. You need to explain why he took millions of years instead of 1 second to create us, if that is what he intended. You think that he played some role in evolution, but that makes no sense. Survival of the Fittest. That is not influenced by god, and makes perfect logical sense. How would a god "create" the concept of natural selection? Is the default that those who are unfit find it easier to find sex partners, survive, and procreate? I don't think so.

 

 

 

If god wanted to create humans, and he is truly a god, he wouldn't have to work through evolution. If he did, then he chose probably the worst possible way. Evolution takes a very long time, and is brutally violent. You would be arguing that god took hundreds of millions of years to get his goal, and that he expended a serious amount of wasteful effort through it, by working this way.

 

 

 

You're assuming that there's no purpose of evolution at all. I wouldn't know the purpose being a human being and all, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Oh wait. Burden of proof. I forgot... every opinion we have must have scientific proofing backing it up. I guess I can't say my favorite color is black anymore. I don't understand why you think the burden of proof implies that absolutely nothing has a chance of existing, until it can be proven. The reason I don't take a liking to this is because when we're philosophizing about what is "proven" you will always have the ability to keep asking for an unduly amount of evidence. Doesn't work with metaphysics though.

 

 

 

This is an argument. We are debating. If you want to make a point, you need to show why it could possibly be true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you said that you prefer black, then then that is not an extraordinary claim, and it is simply an opinion. However, if you said that black is the best colour for everyone, and is objectively the best, you had better back it up. Otherwise, I would simply say "No, blue is better in every way." I wouldn't have to back it up, as you didn't either. That is why you cannot make bald assertions without backing it up.

 

However, that's okay. If you don't want to backup your arguments in the real world, with physical proof, then I simply call bs, I don't back it up, and we have ourselves a good ol stalemate. If you don't want to conform with logic and reasonable rules of argument, guess what? You don't have an argument. You have a bunch of people making bald statements. The purpose of a logical argument is to prove a statement for everyone. By simply asserting your points with no backing it up, others will do so as well, and you have no argument. The purpose of the logical argument is to convince someone, and you cannot do that without proving your statements true. You don't like being asked for evidence about your bald assertions because you don't have any.

 

 

 

Let's try something new. A god does exist. I am god. I will not offer any proof, because we are dealing with metaphysics. Oh look, I won the argument, because you asking for proof is unduly hard on me, and you cannot offer any argument against it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Stop ignoring many of my salient points, and please tell me why god would choose to work through evolution instead of working ex nihilo. Respond to my whole post.

[Zierro]

And how does that apply to something unfalsifiable and unprovable?

 

 

 

That is not the subject. That is a non sequitor and a red herring. An all powerful god, assuming he wanted a certain species, would have absolutely no problem simply poofing us or them out of nothingness. You need to show why he would choose a somewhat sadistic, wasteful, and time consuming process instead of simply creating ex nihilo. You need to explain why he took millions of years instead of 1 second to create us, if that is what he intended. You think that he played some role in evolution, but that makes no sense. Survival of the Fittest. That is not influenced by god, and makes perfect logical sense. How would a god "create" the concept of natural selection? Is the default that those who are unfit find it easier to find sex partners, survive, and procreate? I don't think so.

 

 

 

Looks like you're the one ignoring points. I'll ask again. Since the burden of proof is on you to show how the universe can be a much better place than it currently is, why not enlighten me?

 

 

 

That's another thing I hate about the burden of proof. No actually, it's not the logical fallacy I have beef with. It's the poor appliance of the fallacy, and how it can easily be flung on either party for an advantage. Is it up to me to prove god can exist, or is it up to you to prove god can't exist? Let me reword that: Is it up to you to prove that things are just based on pure luck (a universe with the lack of god)? If you can't prove that there is some sort of contradiction or proof out there, showing that the idea of god is impossible, then that can also be easily denied. All that's required is a simple rewording and both will be positive claims.

[killerbeer0]

Wow. Tryto has really thought about it...

 

 

 

I agree, can't really add anything...

[tryto]

And how does that apply to something unfalsifiable and unprovable?

 

 

 

That is not the subject. That is a non sequitor and a red herring. An all powerful god, assuming he wanted a certain species, would have absolutely no problem simply poofing us or them out of nothingness. You need to show why he would choose a somewhat sadistic, wasteful, and time consuming process instead of simply creating ex nihilo. You need to explain why he took millions of years instead of 1 second to create us, if that is what he intended. You think that he played some role in evolution, but that makes no sense. Survival of the Fittest. That is not influenced by god, and makes perfect logical sense. How would a god "create" the concept of natural selection? Is the default that those who are unfit find it easier to find sex partners, survive, and procreate? I don't think so.

 

 

 

Looks like you're the one ignoring points. I'll ask again. Since the burden of proof is on you to show how the universe can be a much better place than it currently is, why not enlighten me?

 

 

 

Whatever, I'll reply to your red herring. Hmm, let's see. Assuming that there is a god...humans could be faster, stronger, smarter. There could be plants growable that are both more nutritious, healthy, and easier to grow. Sickness and diseases, along with natural disasters could be gone, and in fact, humans could be immortal. Since there's a god, this could be alleviated with making humans not require food, or by making energy and space limitless. Earth could have twice or even a billion times the current carrying capacity. Perhaps a bisolar system of two revolving stars would be better, creating twice as much light energy to be used. Humans could have been given Maxwell's, Einstein's, Tesla's, equations, or god could reach down from the skies and hand us a quantum theory of gravity, along with plans for a FTL starship, probably based off an Alcubierre drive. If this god wanted humans to know of him or his teachings, he could implant the bible or whatever in everybody at birth, or perform miracles. He could tell us the meaning of life(if there is one), or alleviate poverty, war, or human suffering. He could eliminate discrimination and crime. Since this is an omnipotent god, he could always eliminate any foreseeable problems that could crop up with any of these.

 

 

 

That's another thing I hate about the burden of proof. No actually, it's not the logical fallacy I have beef with. It's the poor appliance of the fallacy, and how it can easily be flung on either party for an advantage. Is it up to me to prove god can exist, or is it up to you to prove god can't exist? Let me reword that: Is it up to you to prove that things are just based on pure luck (a universe with the lack of god)? If you can't prove that there is some sort of contradiction or proof out there, showing that the idea of god is impossible, then that can also be easily denied. All that's required is a simple rewording and both will be positive claims.

 

 

 

Let's apply this to the current difficulty. I make no positive claims. You definitly have made one, and are unable to back it up. You said that god influenced evolution. I provided evidence why a logical, sane god would not do such a thing, and humbly asked you to provide evidence for why you think so. You then start raging against a logical concept. You silly aunicornists and aleprechaunsatthebottomofthesea should stop poorly applying a logical concept! You make a positive claim about the lack of something! You are trying to make me prove a negative, and that is why you do not understand the fallacy. If I make a positive claim, I prove it. I back up evolution, cosmology, the big bang, and physical theories with proof. You accept my proof or others of evolution, then attempt to tack on another positive claim on it.

 

 

 

 

Looks like you're the one ignoring points. I'll ask again. Since the burden of proof is on you to show how the universe can be a much better place than it currently is, why not enlighten me?

 

 

 

I did not reply as it was a red herring, and not salient to the discussion. In either case, you are displaying hypocritical tendencies, criticizing me for what you have done. Now I have replied to it. I will not respond until you tell me why a god would choose evolution instead of ex nihilo creation, ex nihilo creation being smarter, faster, and better. How could a god create the fact that the fittest are more likely to reproduce? Did god create the fact that a two headed coin will always land heads, or the fact of the Fibonacci sequence? Would it make sense that a two headed coin will usually land tails? Of course not, and neither would saying that the fitter are not more likely to reproduce.

[Zierro]

It's not a red herring. You are saying that god is doing things the wrong way and I asked what you would think the right way is. I'd just like to state that I'm saying everything is as perfect as it can be. For example, you might think a world with death is bad, but if you look at the big picture, a world with overpopulation is even more bad. Death is the lesser of the two evils, therefore it's the most perfect things can be. (IE: The right way.)

 

 

 

Whatever, I'll reply to your red herring. Hmm, let's see. Assuming that there is a god...humans could be faster, stronger, smarter.

 

 

 

If we were faster, stronger, and smarter than we presently are, then you could still argue that we should be faster, stronger, and smarter because there is still more room to improve unless you mean we should be infinitely fast, strong, and smart which doesn't make much sense to me. That would mean that those terms didn't even exist to us.

 

 

 

If we were infinitely fast, we wouldn't be able to experience the joys of stopping to smell the roses. We also wouldn't be able to have races. If we were infinitely strong, we wouldn't need to workout and become inspired by the progress we made. We also wouldn't be able to have competition - since we'd all be the same, and competition is a beautiful thing if you ask me. It's the little things that make life what it is. Life is not a mission if that's what you're thinking.

 

 

 

There could be plants growable that are both more nutritious, healthy, and easier to grow.

 

 

 

The same applies to this. You can always tell me things can be better and you will never stop, until they are infinite. Can infinity even exist?

 

 

 

Sickness and diseases, along with natural disasters could be gone, and in fact, humans could be immortal.

 

 

 

What is good about immortality? To be honest with you, I don't want to live forever. Of course I see the bright side in immortality as well as mortality, but my point is that you're just using your subjective opinions. Some people see mortality as an already perfect thing.

 

 

 

Since there's a god, this could be alleviated with making humans not require food, or by making energy and space limitless.

 

 

 

A world without food? I disagree. Food is one of the many reasons I think god could exist. Something so appealing to our taste buds seems too good to be derived from luck.

 

 

 

Earth could have twice or even a billion times the current carrying capacity. Perhaps a bisolar system of two revolving stars would be better, creating twice as much light energy to be used.

 

 

 

Copy and paste: The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

 

 

 

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

 

 

 

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

 

 

 

Humans could have been given Maxwell's, Einstein's, Tesla's, equations, or god could reach down from the skies and hand us a quantum theory of gravity, along with plans for a FTL starship, probably based off an Alcubierre drive.

 

 

 

So everything should be handed to us? In the perfect world, we wouldn't be able to feel the joys of our own personal triumphs and successes? How does that constitute as perfect world at all?

 

 

 

If this god wanted humans to know of him or his teachings, he could implant the bible or whatever in everybody at birth, or perform miracles.

 

 

 

And perhaps the separation between those who believe and those who don't believe is good? I know you're going to be asking for proof, but before you do, where is your proof that having non-believers in the world is a worse thing than a world full of all believers? My guess would be that it's a test, that it would be a contradiction to freewill, that the debate of his existence helps humanity achieve a better understanding of the world, or that god enjoys a world of skepticism. In your definition of a perfect world, this debate wouldn't exist. And honestly, I enjoy these types of debates and I think you do too or else we wouldn't be doing them.

 

 

 

He could tell us the meaning of life(if there is one), or alleviate poverty, war, or human suffering. He could eliminate discrimination and crime. Since this is an omnipotent god, he could always eliminate any foreseeable problems that could crop up with any of these.

 

 

 

Ah, the concept of suffering always seems to pop up with these arguments. Think of a battery. There is a positive and a negative side and each has it's own role to make the battery have a use. Well, that's how I see life. It has it's ups and downs, and without either one there wouldn't be much of a point to it at all.

 

 

 

How do you describe hot as? The opposite of cold. How do you describe up as? The opposite of down. How do you describe good as? The opposite of bad. Without the other, the other one wouldn't even exist. Bad is necessary for good to exist. That is why we have suffering and bad things like that.

 

 

 

Let's apply this to the current difficulty. I make no positive claims. You definitly have made one, and are unable to back it up. You said that god influenced evolution. I provided evidence why a logical, sane god would not do such a thing, and humbly asked you to provide evidence for why you think so. You then start raging against a logical concept. You silly aunicornists and aleprechaunsatthebottomofthesea should stop poorly applying a logical concept! You make a positive claim about the lack of something! You are trying to make me prove a negative, and that is why you do not understand the fallacy. If I make a positive claim, I prove it. I back up evolution, cosmology, the big bang, and physical theories with proof. You accept my proof or others of evolution, then attempt to tack on another positive claim on it.

 

 

 

Saying that the universe is completely random is a positive claim. Let's look at cause and effect shall we? The effect is evolution, life, the current world, and where we are today. You are telling me that there is no cause. That doesn't make logical sense. The existence of the universe doesn't conform to the concept of cause and effect. Bring up the big bang if you want, but that brings up a new question. What caused the big bang? You see, you made a ridiculously illogical claim as well that requires an unduly amount of evidence. Yet I'm the one making hypocritical arguments?

 

 

 

So, how about you prove that there can be an effect without a cause, inside the boundaries of logic of course. I'm glad I'm not faced with that sort of challenge, since god claims to be outside of our logical grasp. :P

 

 

 

I did not reply as it was a red herring, and not salient to the discussion. In either case, you are displaying hypocritical tendencies, criticizing me for what you have done. Now I have replied to it. I will not respond until you tell me why a god would choose evolution instead of ex nihilo creation, ex nihilo creation being smarter, faster, and better. How could a god create the fact that the fittest are more likely to reproduce? Did god create the fact that a two headed coin will always land heads, or the fact of the Fibonacci sequence? Would it make sense that a two headed coin will usually land tails? Of course not, and neither would saying that the fitter are not more likely to reproduce.

 

 

 

My argument was that god made reproduction - or more specifically: life - possible at all. My apologies for directing it towards evolution as a whole.

[dpattle]

And how does that apply to something unfalsifiable and unprovable?

 

 

 

That is not the subject. That is a non sequitor and a red herring. An all powerful god, assuming he wanted a certain species, would have absolutely no problem simply poofing us or them out of nothingness. You need to show why he would choose a somewhat sadistic, wasteful, and time consuming process instead of simply creating ex nihilo. You need to explain why he took millions of years instead of 1 second to create us, if that is what he intended. You think that he played some role in evolution, but that makes no sense. Survival of the Fittest. That is not influenced by god, and makes perfect logical sense. How would a god "create" the concept of natural selection? Is the default that those who are unfit find it easier to find sex partners, survive, and procreate? I don't think so.

 

 

 

Looks like you're the one ignoring points. I'll ask again. Since the burden of proof is on you to show how the universe can be a much better place than it currently is, why not enlighten me?

 

 

 

Whatever, I'll reply to your red herring. Hmm, let's see. Assuming that there is a god...humans could be faster, stronger, smarter. There could be plants growable that are both more nutritious, healthy, and easier to grow. Sickness and diseases, along with natural disasters could be gone, and in fact, humans could be immortal. Since there's a god, this could be alleviated with making humans not require food, or by making energy and space limitless. Earth could have twice or even a billion times the current carrying capacity. Perhaps a bisolar system of two revolving stars would be better, creating twice as much light energy to be used. Humans could have been given Maxwell's, Einstein's, Tesla's, equations, or god could reach down from the skies and hand us a quantum theory of gravity, along with plans for a FTL starship, probably based off an Alcubierre drive. If this god wanted humans to know of him or his teachings, he could implant the bible or whatever in everybody at birth, or perform miracles. He could tell us the meaning of life(if there is one), or alleviate poverty, war, or human suffering. He could eliminate discrimination and crime. Since this is an omnipotent god, he could always eliminate any foreseeable problems that could crop up with any of these.

 

 

 

That's another thing I hate about the burden of proof. No actually, it's not the logical fallacy I have beef with. It's the poor appliance of the fallacy, and how it can easily be flung on either party for an advantage. Is it up to me to prove god can exist, or is it up to you to prove god can't exist? Let me reword that: Is it up to you to prove that things are just based on pure luck (a universe with the lack of god)? If you can't prove that there is some sort of contradiction or proof out there, showing that the idea of god is impossible, then that can also be easily denied. All that's required is a simple rewording and both will be positive claims.

 

 

 

Let's apply this to the current difficulty. I make no positive claims. You definitly have made one, and are unable to back it up. You said that god influenced evolution. I provided evidence why a logical, sane god would not do such a thing, and humbly asked you to provide evidence for why you think so. You then start raging against a logical concept. You silly aunicornists and aleprechaunsatthebottomofthesea should stop poorly applying a logical concept! You make a positive claim about the lack of something! You are trying to make me prove a negative, and that is why you do not understand the fallacy. If I make a positive claim, I prove it. I back up evolution, cosmology, the big bang, and physical theories with proof. You accept my proof or others of evolution, then attempt to tack on another positive claim on it.

 

 

 

 

Looks like you're the one ignoring points. I'll ask again. Since the burden of proof is on you to show how the universe can be a much better place than it currently is, why not enlighten me?

 

 

 

I did not reply as it was a red herring, and not salient to the discussion. In either case, you are displaying hypocritical tendencies, criticizing me for what you have done. Now I have replied to it. I will not respond until you tell me why a god would choose evolution instead of ex nihilo creation, ex nihilo creation being smarter, faster, and better. How could a god create the fact that the fittest are more likely to reproduce? Did god create the fact that a two headed coin will always land heads, or the fact of the Fibonacci sequence? Would it make sense that a two headed coin will usually land tails? Of course not, and neither would saying that the fitter are not more likely to reproduce.

 

 

 

Alrighty...point blank period, He wouldn't. There is just no reason whatsoever to justify him doing so. Also, saying God is real(as i do believe), it should be noted that it's not his fault the world is how it is. Ofcourse he could easily eradicate all wrongdoers and make the world perfect, but then we'd all be living in fear...all of us that weren't gone that is, b/c i kno i'm not perfect enough to live on a perfect world, and most people most likely aren't. It was either let us have choice and do as we please, or make us mindless fearful robots with no choices of our own and no variety.

[dpattle]

[hide=]

It's not a red herring. You are saying that god is doing things the wrong way and I asked what you would think the right way is. I'd just like to state that I'm saying everything is as perfect as it can be. For example, you might think a world with death is bad, but if you look at the big picture, a world with overpopulation is even more bad. Death is the lesser of the two evils, therefore it's the most perfect things can be. (IE: The right way.)

 

 

 

Whatever, I'll reply to your red herring. Hmm, let's see. Assuming that there is a god...humans could be faster, stronger, smarter.

 

 

 

If we were faster, stronger, and smarter than we presently are, then you could still argue that we should be faster, stronger, and smarter because there is still more room to improve unless you mean we should be infinitely fast, strong, and smart which doesn't make much sense to me. That would mean that those terms didn't even exist to us.

 

 

 

If we were infinitely fast, we wouldn't be able to experience the joys of stopping to smell the roses. We also wouldn't be able to have races. If we were infinitely strong, we wouldn't need to workout and become inspired by the progress we made. We also wouldn't be able to have competition - since we'd all be the same, and competition is a beautiful thing if you ask me. It's the little things that make life what it is. Life is not a mission if that's what you're thinking.

 

 

 

There could be plants growable that are both more nutritious, healthy, and easier to grow.

 

 

 

The same applies to this. You can always tell me things can be better and you will never stop, until they are infinite. Can infinity even exist?

 

 

 

Sickness and diseases, along with natural disasters could be gone, and in fact, humans could be immortal.

 

 

 

What is good about immortality? To be honest with you, I don't want to live forever. Of course I see the bright side in immortality as well as mortality, but my point is that you're just using your subjective opinions. Some people see mortality as an already perfect thing.

 

 

 

Since there's a god, this could be alleviated with making humans not require food, or by making energy and space limitless.

 

 

 

A world without food? I disagree. Food is one of the many reasons I think god could exist. Something so appealing to our taste buds seems too good to be derived from luck.

 

 

 

Earth could have twice or even a billion times the current carrying capacity. Perhaps a bisolar system of two revolving stars would be better, creating twice as much light energy to be used.

 

 

 

Copy and paste: The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

 

 

 

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

 

 

 

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

 

 

 

Humans could have been given Maxwell's, Einstein's, Tesla's, equations, or god could reach down from the skies and hand us a quantum theory of gravity, along with plans for a FTL starship, probably based off an Alcubierre drive.

 

 

 

So everything should be handed to us? In the perfect world, we wouldn't be able to feel the joys of our own personal triumphs and successes? How does that constitute as perfect world at all?

 

 

 

If this god wanted humans to know of him or his teachings, he could implant the bible or whatever in everybody at birth, or perform miracles.

 

 

 

And perhaps the separation between those who believe and those who don't believe is good? I know you're going to be asking for proof, but before you do, where is your proof that having non-believers in the world is a worse thing than a world full of all believers? My guess would be that it's a test, that it would be a contradiction to freewill, that the debate of his existence helps humanity achieve a better understanding of the world, or that god enjoys a world of skepticism. In your definition of a perfect world, this debate wouldn't exist. And honestly, I enjoy these types of debates and I think you do too or else we wouldn't be doing them.

 

 

 

He could tell us the meaning of life(if there is one), or alleviate poverty, war, or human suffering. He could eliminate discrimination and crime. Since this is an omnipotent god, he could always eliminate any foreseeable problems that could crop up with any of these.

 

 

 

Ah, the concept of suffering always seems to pop up with these arguments. Think of a battery. There is a positive and a negative side and each has it's own role to make the battery have a use. Well, that's how I see life. It has it's ups and downs, and without either one there wouldn't be much of a point to it at all.

 

 

 

How do you describe hot as? The opposite of cold. How do you describe up as? The opposite of down. How do you describe good as? The opposite of bad. Without the other, the other one wouldn't even exist. Bad is necessary for good to exist. That is why we have suffering and bad things like that.

 

 

 

Let's apply this to the current difficulty. I make no positive claims. You definitly have made one, and are unable to back it up. You said that god influenced evolution. I provided evidence why a logical, sane god would not do such a thing, and humbly asked you to provide evidence for why you think so. You then start raging against a logical concept. You silly aunicornists and aleprechaunsatthebottomofthesea should stop poorly applying a logical concept! You make a positive claim about the lack of something! You are trying to make me prove a negative, and that is why you do not understand the fallacy. If I make a positive claim, I prove it. I back up evolution, cosmology, the big bang, and physical theories with proof. You accept my proof or others of evolution, then attempt to tack on another positive claim on it.

 

 

 

Saying that the universe is completely random is a positive claim. Let's look at cause and effect shall we? The effect is evolution, life, the current world, and where we are today. You are telling me that there is no cause. That doesn't make logical sense. The existence of the universe doesn't conform to the concept of cause and effect. Bring up the big bang if you want, but that brings up a new question. What caused the big bang? You see, you made a ridiculously illogical claim as well that requires an unduly amount of evidence. Yet I'm the one making hypocritical arguments?

 

 

 

So, how about you prove that there can be an effect without a cause, inside the boundaries of logic of course. I'm glad I'm not faced with that sort of challenge, since god claims to be outside of our logical grasp. :P

 

 

 

I did not reply as it was a red herring, and not salient to the discussion. In either case, you are displaying hypocritical tendencies, criticizing me for what you have done. Now I have replied to it. I will not respond until you tell me why a god would choose evolution instead of ex nihilo creation, ex nihilo creation being smarter, faster, and better. How could a god create the fact that the fittest are more likely to reproduce? Did god create the fact that a two headed coin will always land heads, or the fact of the Fibonacci sequence? Would it make sense that a two headed coin will usually land tails? Of course not, and neither would saying that the fitter are not more likely to reproduce.

 

 

 

My argument was that god made reproduction - or more specifically: life - possible at all. My apologies for directing it towards evolution as a whole.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Wow...long, but very nice. Couldn't have said most those things better myself...and i doubt i'd have had the time to. lolz. :lol:

 

This one was my fave:

 

Copy and paste: The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

 

 

 

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

 

 

 

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

 

 

 

I've heard that somewhere, and wanted to quote it before but i couldn't remember where. nice though. =D> :thumbsup:

[mmmcannibalism]

we could be an immortal and perfect in all ways race that could not reproduce on a planet without inclement weather. We can debate what perfect entails, but clearly we are below it in some way(immorality, cancer etc.).

[dpattle]

we could be an immortal and perfect in all ways race that could not reproduce on a planet without inclement weather. We can debate what perfect entails, but clearly we are below it in some way(immorality, cancer etc.).

 

 

 

But in order to do that, there would have to be no "wrong" aka sin. and in order to accomplish that, free will will infact have to be taken away. The fact of the matter is if there's free will, there will always be someone who abuses it, and with it, that will no longer be a "perfect" world.

 

 

 

Yes this perfect world can happen, but it takes certain people, in a certain environment, with a certain mindset. Don't say God could have created this because if he just created it right of the bat, then there would be no free will again because there would be no choice between good and bad. It can get somewhat complicated explaining on a forum, but thats the main idea of Christianity. That God put us here and gave us free will, that way he can take those who choose to do right, with him to somewhere that is perfect, and where the people who would make in "not perfect" wouldn't exist. Hence the second coming of Jesus.

[airp0w]

Yes. The bible. Sketch comedy.

[Rebdragon]

trytu, I believe you'd understand God better if you were to think of him more as your parent rather than in the traditional sense of a perfect omnipotent being.

[Zierro]

Something else I would like to add comes off of Bruce Almighty starring Jim Carey. People pray and pray for ridiculous things so Bruce answers all of their prayers. Ironically, answering those prayers just made the people more upset. For example, tons of people prayed that they would win the lottery. Bruce answered all of their prayers - they all won the lottery - but at the consequence of having the sum of the prize money distributed amongst all of the winners. So as a mere human, it's quite a challenge to tell me how god could have done things 'better'.

[venomai]

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. (1) If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. (2) Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

 

 

 

(3) The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

 

Where did you get this? Most of the above is, quite frankly, a load of bull.

 

 

 

(1) Size is not the only factor to influence atmosphere. Europa, which is smaller than Mercury[1][2], also has an atmosphere[3]. Mind you, even with its thin atmosphere, and even at such a distance from the sun, it's very possible that life exists in Europa's deep oceans (extremophiles).

 

 

 

"Weve spent quite a bit of time and effort trying to understand if Mars was once a habitable environment. Europa today, probably, is a habitable environment. We need to confirm this but Europa, potentially, has all the ingredients for life and not just four billion years ago but today." [4]

 

 

 

Had Earth been 'larger', life still could have sustained. Had Earth been ten times larger, like Jupiter[5], then perhaps life would not have sustained. Do you see the problem with this comparison, though?

 

 

 

(2) Not surprising, considering that we have only observed a tiny fraction of the hundreds of billions of planets in our own galaxy.

 

 

 

(3) We (humans) may burn up or freeze, but that does not mean that life would be impossible. Many forms of life have been found living in extremely harsh conditions (extreme heat, extreme cold). As has been mentioned, bodies outside of this range (such as Europa) can potentially still harbour life.

 

 

 

With that said, we are not talking about a fraction of a difference in position. The "habitable zone" is quite wide, and we have even observed exoplanets in it[6].

 

 

 

 

All this data may be "perfect" for human life as we know it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that complex life (perhaps even human life) would not have still evolved on Earth (or any other planet) had things been slightly differet.

 

 

 

 

 

"What matters is not whether there is anything unusual about Earth; there is going to be something idiosyncratic about every planet in space. What matters is whether any of Earths circumstances are not only unusual but also essential for complex life. So far weve seen nothing to suggest there is." [7]

 

 

 

"...The anthropic alternative to the design hypothesis is statistical. Scientists invoke the magic of large numbers. It has been estimated that there are between 100 billion and 300 billion planets in our galaxy, and about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Knocking a few noughts off for reasons of ordinary prudence, a billion billion is a conservative estimate of the number of available planets in the universe. Now suppose the origin of life, the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA, really was quite a staggeringly improbable event. Suppose it was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets. ... But here we are talking about odds of one in a billion. And yet ... even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have arisen on a billion planets of which Earth of course, is one." [8]

 

 

 

Furthermore, Dawkin's above argument assumes that there is only one universe. If the multiverse and/or cyclic universe theories are correct, which they very well may be, the chances of complex would be infinitely higher.

[Zierro]

Venomai, can you prove that earth is not the only planet with life? Flinging the burden of proof sure is convenient. I foresee you bringing up how you were only talking about the possibility of life instead of the actual existence, but that works for god as well. My intentions are not to prove god, but to prove the possibility and show that the idea of god isn't as illogical as many of you try to make it out to be.

 

 

 

And going back into context, I'd like you to give me a geographical model/description of this "perfect planet" that god could have made. After all, Tryto was trying to tell me how god could have done a better job.

 

 

 

Not surprising, considering that we have only observed a tiny fraction of the hundreds of billions of planets in our own galaxy.

 

 

 

The burden of proof is on you to show me that there are planets out there that have the right gases which can sustain life. This reminds me very much of how you ask for proof of god, even though he is beyond our logical grasp. Just because you can't provide unduly evidence that doesn't automatically mean it's untrue. Can we come to an agreement here?

[mmmcannibalism]

we could be an immortal and perfect in all ways race that could not reproduce on a planet without inclement weather. We can debate what perfect entails, but clearly we are below it in some way(immorality, cancer etc.).

 

 

 

But in order to do that, there would have to be no "wrong" aka sin. and in order to accomplish that, free will will infact have to be taken away. The fact of the matter is if there's free will, there will always be someone who abuses it, and with it, that will no longer be a "perfect" world.

 

 

 

Yes this perfect world can happen, but it takes certain people, in a certain environment, with a certain mindset. Don't say God could have created this because if he just created it right of the bat, then there would be no free will again because there would be no choice between good and bad. It can get somewhat complicated explaining on a forum, but thats the main idea of Christianity. That God put us here and gave us free will, that way he can take those who choose to do right, with him to somewhere that is perfect, and where the people who would make in "not perfect" wouldn't exist. Hence the second coming of Jesus.

 

 

 

If we arent perfect now, why would taking us up into heaven make us perfect without removing our free will? Also, if god is all powerful then why would he be incapable of producing a race of entirely virtuous people with free will? If I recall accurately, Jesus had the choice to not be crucified when he was praying at the garden(I forget name). Whether or not he was god, Jesus was an all around good person. If Jesus had free will and was a "perfect" moral person then god can create said type of person and therefore could create a race of them.

 

 

 

Venomai, can you prove that earth is not the only planet with life?

 

 

 

of course we cant prove it, the point is if there are a billion billion planets and the odds of life developing on a given planet are one in a billion probability says there are about one billion planets with life. Assuming the billion billion planet number is correct, for earth to be the only planet with life the odds of some form of life developing would most likely have to be near 1 in one billion billion. Even so, its still quite possible there are 2 planets with life.

 

 

 

Secondly, the idea of a life sustaining zone is only accurate in the confines of what we know life can form in. There is no law stating that there isnt a second "life zone" for another type of life.

[dpattle]

we could be an immortal and perfect in all ways race that could not reproduce on a planet without inclement weather. We can debate what perfect entails, but clearly we are below it in some way(immorality, cancer etc.).

 

 

 

But in order to do that, there would have to be no "wrong" aka sin. and in order to accomplish that, free will will infact have to be taken away. The fact of the matter is if there's free will, there will always be someone who abuses it, and with it, that will no longer be a "perfect" world.

 

 

 

Yes this perfect world can happen, but it takes certain people, in a certain environment, with a certain mindset. Don't say God could have created this because if he just created it right of the bat, then there would be no free will again because there would be no choice between good and bad. It can get somewhat complicated explaining on a forum, but thats the main idea of Christianity. That God put us here and gave us free will, that way he can take those who choose to do right, with him to somewhere that is perfect, and where the people who would make in "not perfect" wouldn't exist. Hence the second coming of Jesus.

 

 

 

If we arent perfect now, why would taking us up into heaven make us perfect without removing our free will? Also, if god is all powerful then why would he be incapable of producing a race of entirely virtuous people with free will? If I recall accurately, Jesus had the choice to not be crucified when he was praying at the garden(I forget name). Whether or not he was god, Jesus was an all around good person. If Jesus had free will and was a "perfect" moral person then god can create said type of person and therefore could create a race of them.

 

 

 

Yes, but see Jesus was born into sin. That was the whole point. If he just came down from heaven perfect without experiencing what people go through, there would have been no point. God can take us to heaven because he's not taking all of us, just those that love him and want to follow him and do good even when they can do bad. The way i see it, this world is just a test, to see who chooses to be good. the point i was trying to make here is that if God just "created" us perfect, then there would be no free will, by letting us experience that will, we then have the choice to do right, and are then more likely to be perfect on our own...if i stated that correctly.

[mmmcannibalism]

If Jesus was human, perfect, had free will, and was born that way then it is possible for a human to be those. If it is possible for god to create one human with all of those ideal qualities then nothing is stopping him from having created all humans that way. Even if Jesus was also god, why would god not be able to divide himself infinetly to create a flawless species. Remember, just because humanity is flawed doesnt mean life has to be.

[dpattle]

If Jesus was human, perfect, had free will, and was born that way then it is possible for a human to be those. If it is possible for god to create one human with all of those ideal qualities then nothing is stopping him from having created all humans that way. Even if Jesus was also god, why would god not be able to divide himself infinetly to create a flawless species. Remember, just because humanity is flawed doesnt mean life has to be.

 

 

 

Then we wouldn't be "us" we would be Him?.. I don't see a point to that. And i think you missed one crucial part here, Jesus was also God. Yes he was human, and lived a perfect life, but only because God helped him. That's another important aspect to it, any human can live a perfect life, they just need to accept God and ask him to help them. That's why we say people should "claim Jesus(or God) as their savior. He saves you from the wrongs of this world. Lastly, remember, that while we were not created by God dividing himself as you put it, we were created in his image, and some even look at is as we're "little gods" of our own over this planet. He gave it to us to use our superior intellect to control, watch over, and protect...as corny as it sounds. lolz.

[mmmcannibalism]

Then we wouldn't be "us" we would be Him?.. I don't see a point to that.

 

 

 

Just as much point as there is to living on a planet that god is going to destroy when he decides to judge his own creation.