Is God real post your thoughts!

[fastortoise]

Here is my new view on why Christians do not accept evolution in their reality:

 

 

 

The promise of having an eternal life in Heaven is what drives Christians to keep their belief. By believing in God, who gave them souls, they will reunite with their lost ones in heaven and party indefinitely. Humans are the sole species to go to heaven, according to them. They think humans are better than any other animal or species and that only they can live eternally in the kingdom of heaven, because that's how god 'made them'.

 

 

 

Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. It simply provides a mechanism that explains why there is so much species diversity. Since we still do not know how life originated, God is still a possibility. Evolution just shows that instead of God crafting each individual species, he could have simply created a simple cell and let the natural process of evolution do the rest.

 

 

 

So, why would Christians be so adamant on rejecting evolution if it does not disprove the existence of their God? It is because evolution proves that humans are not unique, that they are animals just like pigs, dogs, monkeys, ect. Christians are disturbed by the fact that humans are so closely related to monkeys/apes and that is reason enough to reject evolution. If they believe that God gave them souls that carry on living in heaven, he must have crafted each species individually or else all species would have souls and join everyone else in heaven, which goes against evolution.

 

 

 

To tie everything back to the topic, I think that this 'debunk' in God's 'power' was huge in disproving the existence of a god. The idea that evolution and heaven cannot co-exist really upset a lot of religious people, as scientists slowly unravel the god-illusion.

[Hobgoblinpie]

Show me an actual picture of god, and then I'll believe he/she/it is real.

 

 

 

Most religions don't believe you can actualy "see" God anyway--and before using that as an argument, remember that a fundamentalist could (and I think some of them actually do) say, "Show me an actual dinosuar, and then I'll believe evolution is real."

 

 

 

If you're saying you need a picture, what if it were a hoax? If you mean you actualy want to see God...that's not going to happen; you have to use other evidence to support your beliefs.

 

 

 

I'm using that as an example to show that god doesn't exist. Photographs are one of the main ways of proving something (as is most visual evidence that hasn't been tampered with). Since no-one can get a picture of god, he therefore does not exist (It's a pretty weak argument if I'm honest, but it shuts up bible bashers).

[Alg]

I'm not sure you can get a picture of gravity either, and most people never will see the air around us.

[Hobgoblinpie]

I'm not sure you can get a picture of gravity either, and most people never will see the air around us.

 

 

 

But you can't deny that gravity doesn't exist. Everyone knows that if something is thrown in the air, it will come back down again, providing the simple backbones to the concept.

[Alg]

I'm not sure you can get a picture of gravity either, and most people never will see the air around us.

 

 

 

But you can't deny that gravity doesn't exist. Everyone knows that if something is thrown in the air, it will come back down again, providing the simple backbones to the concept.

 

My point being that just because something can't be photographed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Hobgoblinpie]

I'm not sure you can get a picture of gravity either, and most people never will see the air around us.

 

 

 

But you can't deny that gravity doesn't exist. Everyone knows that if something is thrown in the air, it will come back down again, providing the simple backbones to the concept.

 

My point being that just because something can't be photographed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

 

 

I know, I said it was a weak argument.

[Dizzle229]

Ofc there's a God, the fact that anything exists is proof of that. Evolution is what created humans and every species ever, and the planets and stars themselves have a scientific origin.

 

 

 

I believe that God created existence, as a base. Creationism is impossible because obviously that would mean that EVERYTHING has only existed for about 6,000 years. I think that God created existence, but not us, not the world, all of that was nature. Were the laws of science created by God? I think so. On purpose? I don't know.

 

 

 

That's the next big thing. What is God? Obviously it's not some bearded guy sitting on a cloud, so what? I think that God is something scientific. Something that can be explained. Obviously it's very complicated and it could be millions of years before we develop even a basic understanding of it, but that's what I think.

 

 

 

Questions to answer:

 

 

 

-Is it sentient?

 

-Does it know it created anything?

 

-Is it living, or is it some kind of force or energy?

 

-If it's sentient, does it even care about us?

 

-So God created the universe, where did God come from? Perhaps there's something more? What that something is we can't even begin to fathom.

 

-Can it create at will, or is creation something caused by it?

 

 

 

I know that religions have a list of rules, commandments, traditions, all because "God wants it." But how could we know that? We couldn't, which is leads me to the bottom line of my opinions.

 

 

 

I think God exists, but religions religions are wrong because they couldn't possibly have based these "facts" on anything.

 

 

 

I leave you with this.

 

 

 

[20Rice04]

Here is my new view on why Christians do not accept evolution in their reality:

 

 

 

The promise of having an eternal life in Heaven is what drives Christians to keep their belief.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- WRONG.

 

 

 

There are several factors and saying that is just stupid, you cannot generalise why over 1billion people believe in something. The fact is that they may be driven by several things- money, greed, power or hey even maybe the ocassional person wants to live a better life. So I've just unrolled your entire arguement at the root. Then there're the other 5billion people on the planet, maybe about another 4.5billion of them also follow religion?

 

 

 

But here's the fact of the matter- IMO, and I cannot stress that enough,- ALL RELIGIONS ARE WRONG. They';re merely a form of control in order to fight. Because we're human, and we like to fight :) Although some of the mdo have some bloody good ideals- at the end of the day they cannot explain God.

 

 

 

Now, this is why personally I believe in God. the Golden Ratio shows a consistent pattern throughout the universe. If there was nothing but chaos then there would be no grounds for this argument. However there is seemingly method in every form of madness, mostly the Golden Ratio. It's found EVERYWHERE. It links EVERYTHING, one subject to another, no matter how diverse. It's something we're not even conscious of anymore. Ity kind of just appears. Now call me perceptive, but if everything is linked in such a manner then maybe this Golden Ratio is "God's signature" if you like. :) Just a thought. But hey, let' be honest. You live then you die, what happens in between is immaterial, don't live to another person's set of values, live to your own.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

Here is my new view on why Christians do not accept evolution in their reality:

 

 

 

The promise of having an eternal life in Heaven is what drives Christians to keep their belief.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- WRONG.

 

 

 

There are several factors and saying that is just stupid, you cannot generalise why over 1billion people believe in something. The fact is that they may be driven by several things- money, greed, power or hey even maybe the ocassional person wants to live a better life. So I've just unrolled your entire arguement at the root. Then there're the other 5billion people on the planet, maybe about another 4.5billion of them also follow religion?

 

 

 

But here's the fact of the matter- IMO, and I cannot stress that enough,- ALL RELIGIONS ARE WRONG. They';re merely a form of control in order to fight. Because we're human, and we like to fight :) Although some of the mdo have some bloody good ideals- at the end of the day they cannot explain God.

 

 

 

Now, this is why personally I believe in God. the Golden Ratio shows a consistent pattern throughout the universe. If there was nothing but chaos then there would be no grounds for this argument. However there is seemingly method in every form of madness, mostly the Golden Ratio. It's found EVERYWHERE. It links EVERYTHING, one subject to another, no matter how diverse. It's something we're not even conscious of anymore. Ity kind of just appears. Now call me perceptive, but if everything is linked in such a manner then maybe this Golden Ratio is "God's signature" if you like. :) Just a thought. But hey, let' be honest. You live then you die, what happens in between is immaterial, don't live to another person's set of values, live to your own.

[/hide]

 

 

 

If your going to quote someone, you shouldnt break the quote down to the point it loses context. Tortoises post was very well thought out and in interesting view of why many religions have a big problem with evolution by natural selection. Your explanation of why people keep their beliefs was horribly topical and simplistic, completely ignorning the subtle aspects of faith. Yes, all religions are most likely wrong.

 

 

 

Actually, a large amount of your golden ratio stuff is going to fall under the anthropic principle; but I dont have the sources available to show you.

[venomai]

But here's the fact of the matter- IMO, and I cannot stress that enough,- ALL RELIGIONS ARE WRONG.

 

You know, there are a number of religions that describe the divine in the same manner that you would -- what with the golden ratio and all being "god's signature."

 

 

 

On that note, though, the golden ratio does not appear "everywhere" -- or really anywhere that one would not expect to find it.

 

 

 

"[if] you count the number of petals in most flowers you will find that the answer is a Fibonacci number. For example, an iris has 3 petals, a primrose 5, a delphinium 8, ragwort 13, an aster 21, daisies 13, 21, or 34, and Michaelmas daisies 55 or 89 petals. All Fibonacci numbers.

 

[...]

 

Although many of these observations were made a hundred year or more ago, it was only recently that mathematicians and scientists were finally able to figure out what is going on. It's a question of Nature being efficient.

 

 

 

For instance, in the case of leaves, each new leaf is added so that it least obscures the leaves already below and is least obscured by any future leaves above it. Hence the leaves spiral around the stem. For seeds in the seedhead of a flower, Nature wants to pack in as many seeds as possible, and the way to do this is to add new seeds in a spiral fashion.

 

 

 

As early as the 18th century, mathematicians suspected that a single angle of rotation can make all of this happen in the most efficient way: the Golden Ratio (measured in number of turns per leaf, etc.). However, it took a long time to put together all the pieces of the puzzle, with the final step coming in the early 1990s. [...]"

 

 

 

The full article: Good stories, pity they're not true - MAA Online

 

 

 

This article details many more misconceptions about the golden ratio.

 

 

 

What, exactly, is so divine about the golden ratio? (Aside from, of course, a plethora of unsupported myths, something which nearly all theistic systems seem to have in common.)

[fastortoise]

Here is my new view on why Christians do not accept evolution in their reality:

 

 

 

The promise of having an eternal life in Heaven is what drives Christians to keep their belief.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- WRONG.

 

 

 

There are several factors and saying that is just stupid, you cannot generalise why over 1billion people believe in something. The fact is that they may be driven by several things- money, greed, power or hey even maybe the ocassional person wants to live a better life. So I've just unrolled your entire arguement at the root. Then there're the other 5billion people on the planet, maybe about another 4.5billion of them also follow religion?

 

So by believing in a god, I would gain money and power? Perhaps you've read my post wrong, since this quoted part of your argument seems to be about the reasons why leaders found religions, not why people believe in a god, which does not apply to my post in any way.

 

 

 

And no, my argument that eternal life after death being the main reason why people believe in god is not stupid. There may indeed be other factors to believing in an god, but it is the comfort and ease the belief of an afterlife that is at the core of all blind faith.

[Bloodkay]

 

And no, my argument that eternal life after death being the main reason why people believe in god is not stupid. There may indeed be other factors to believing in an god, but it is the comfort and ease the belief of an afterlife that is at the core of all blind faith.

 

 

 

Indeed, humanity's primal fear is the unknown and what we don't understand (the unknown). And what bigger unknown is there than death? Religion offers A comfort in knowing that there's something for us after we pass away.

 

 

 

Still doesn't change the fact that I don't believe in any God or Deity. Oh well.

[Zierro]

It's a question of Nature being efficient.

 

 

 

How can a concept with no autonomy be responsible for efficiency?

[AlperBacon3]

I believe in God as a Chistian. To be honest no ONE knows what or where we go when we die. But to all those people who don't believe in God wouldn't it be a nice thought thinking you will be free from all when you die, and live in happiness in Heaven. And even though I believe in one God, I know that so many other non-Christian religions believe in absolute creators. And think, something had to create the Earth, or the big bang, or plants and animals, or any that may have happened had to come from somewhere. ( Hence GOD is real!)

[warri0r45]

It's a question of Nature being efficient.

 

 

 

How can a concept with no autonomy be responsible for efficiency?

 

 

 

Nature is clearly autonomous. So is evolution.

[meol]

I believe in God as a Chistian. To be honest no ONE knows what or where we go when we die. But to all those people who don't believe in God wouldn't it be a nice thought thinking you will be free from all when you die, and live in happiness in Heaven. And even though I believe in one God, I know that so many other non-Christian religions believe in absolute creators. And think, something had to create the Earth, or the big bang, or plants and animals, or any that may have happened had to come from somewhere. ( Hence GOD is real!)

 

Oh, of course it'd be nice to blindly believe in an after-life. It'd end with all my existentialist angst and fear of death. :lol: However, I just can't (and don't want to) force myself to believe the concept of God like that. If there is a God, he made me an atheist.

[Zierro]

It's a question of Nature being efficient.

 

 

 

How can a concept with no autonomy be responsible for efficiency?

 

 

 

Nature is clearly autonomous. So is evolution.

 

 

 

Horrible word choice, my mistake. My point is that I don't see how it's possible for something to be naturally efficient. Efficiency kind of implies that there is some sort of mind work taking place.

[warri0r45]

It's a question of Nature being efficient.

 

 

 

How can a concept with no autonomy be responsible for efficiency?

 

 

 

Nature is clearly autonomous. So is evolution.

 

 

 

Horrible word choice, my mistake. My point is that I don't see how it's possible for something to be naturally efficient. Efficiency kind of implies that there is some sort of mind work taking place.

 

 

 

Not necessarily, if a natural process exists that optimises biological form and function. That process is natural selection.

[fastortoise]

disregard this post :thumbdown:

[Zierro]

Not necessarily, if a natural process exists that optimises biological form and function. That process is natural selection.

 

 

 

I fail to see how something so successful can be natural though. Life is so conditional and circumstantial that it baffles me how I have the ability to type this very sentence. It seems much more likely that natural evolution wasn't such a perfect system.

 

 

 

I forget the term but it's something along the lines of "everything eventually fails". Evolution (natural) seems to be the opposite of this.

[EdgedThesis]

Not necessarily, if a natural process exists that optimises biological form and function. That process is natural selection.

 

 

 

I fail to see how something so successful can be natural though. Life is so conditional and circumstantial that it baffles me how I have the ability to type this very sentence. It seems much more likely that natural evolution wasn't such a perfect system.

 

 

 

I forget the term but it's something along the lines of "everything eventually fails". Evolution (natural) seems to be the opposite of this.

 

 

 

Natural organisms are so successful because everything that wasn't is already dead.

 

 

 

The failures are constantly sloughed off the population, and so, the gene pool. And so populations become more and more optimized as time goes on.

 

 

 

Of course it isn't perfect. We depend on random mutations to stomach environmental changes. But it does work, and in the long run does create very efficient biological machines.

[Zierro]

By successful, I'm not speaking of the ones who survive the process - I'm speaking of the process itself. Why does this process exist and not one that would have wiped every living organism out eras ago, one that wouldn't allow this sentence to be typed up?

 

 

 

Let's say life was practically made out of nothing, but now how would you explain it's ability to perpetuate when there are tons of other possibilities which could have been our reality (or lack of reality since we wouldn't exist)?

[EdgedThesis]

Because it doesn't make any sense for dead, unsuccessful organisms to pass on their genes.

 

Maybe on another planet in another solar system, where heritable traits are passed on only through the bleeding fluids of the dead, another system exists. It would've, as you said, just wiped out the population. And organisms who passed on traits more efficiently would've arisen. Randomly.

 

Huh: an evolution of an evolutionary process.

 

 

 

Natural selection is the phenomenon in which things with the ability to survive do so, and pass on what they can.

 

Because of an always narrowing gene pool (bad heritable traits are discarded with by death, good ones are not), populations tend to get better at surviving their circumstances.

 

 

 

The evolution of consciousness is something that still escapes me. I think it's just an emergent phenomenon--the culmination of millions of years' worth of small changes.

 

 

 

We decided to hunt, and to do so in packs. Those with forward facing eyes had better depth perception and could communicate better with others. Anything different died.

 

Simple language became a big part of social interactions. Those who could not speak could not communicate. They died.

 

Those of us who could strategize and react better to changing terrains and situations were well adapted to life. Those with less developed brains... died.

 

 

 

^This is extremely rough, and probably wrong in many places-- but just shows how our current state could have come about.

[warri0r45]

Not necessarily, if a natural process exists that optimises biological form and function. That process is natural selection.

 

 

 

I fail to see how something so successful can be natural though. Life is so conditional and circumstantial that it baffles me how I have the ability to type this very sentence. It seems much more likely that natural evolution wasn't such a perfect system.

 

 

 

I forget the term but it's something along the lines of "everything eventually fails". Evolution (natural) seems to be the opposite of this.

 

 

 

Evolution by natural selection isn't perfect, though. It's constrained by what it has to work with. For instance, mammals probably can't evolve a new optic nerve to eliminate our blind spot because of the way the nerves are hooked up to our photoreceptor cells. Instead, evolution has chosen to make the nerves themselves more transparent to light. We could have used a mollusk optic system, but that's not how it turned out.

 

 

 

Another point I would make is that life and the biological systems that make it up can and do go wrong - take any number of genetic diseases like lysosomal storage disorders, cystic fibrosis or huntington's disease, for example. All natural selection does is allow the best of an average lot to reproduce more, hence the optimisation of the system.

 

 

 

The final point I'll make is that different studies have shown that computer programs can evolve complex functions by random variation and natural selection. [1][2] The second link is particularly interesting.

[20Rice04]

Let's all convert to scientology :D