|
Debate 10: God
|
| The Hat of Love |
Posted on 06/11/2012 12:56:31
|

ShawnPeezy

Posts: 9035
Joined: 31.07.11
|
When you said 'the big bang is incorrect' that implied quite strongly that you did think it was incorrect. Again, it's not an explosion, it's an expansion.
What you're saying is that it's impossible to create matter at all. This seems illogical because looking around I can see a few matters. Where does this matter come from? If it can not be created then how does it exist? Apparently, you say, from God - can God create matter then, despite the laws of physics apparently saying no. I can see the answer here being 'Yes and therefore it's the only logical explanation' but of course it isn't. As the universe stands matter can not be created or destroyed but at the beginning of the universe physics as we know it didn't exist as such so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that all matter came into being in a single fixed point.
As for the exact answer, I'll see if I can find something out later.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
 |
| |
|
|
| Joshkl2013 |
Posted on 06/11/2012 13:03:56
|

Numpty

Posts: 1443
Joined: 26.05.12
|
Physics remain constant with or without matter.
And I do believe the big bang is incorrect, but I was responding to your "if the bible is incorrect" statement.
And I see what you mean about the inconsistency of that. Maybe both of our theories/beliefs are wrong, but, no matter how much "evidence" we throw around, it's still going to be a stalemate. That's why I said that.
That's the problem with debates on this subject- no ones opinion changes either way.
I wanna be like RAZ!!! [ZÅ]Paradox

Need a shotgun to protect you while you snipe? Call
1-800-SHOTGUN today!
Need a nuke? Call 1-800-NUKE-ALL
Take advantage of this limited offer now!
Offer expires in 3..2..1...

 |
| |
|
|
| ninja |
Posted on 06/11/2012 13:10:54
|

Super Admin

Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
jaygee wrote:
Ok Mr Sophisticated Athiests, can you prove God doesn't exist?
Joshkl2013 wrote:
And there's the problem. This shit is like a stalemated game of chess; neither will submit, and the game ends inconclusively due to lack of evidence on either side.
The trouble here is, it's not up to the atheist to prove God doesn't exist. A classic demonstration of this is Russell's teapot. It would be pointless paraphrasing Bertrand Russell's argument, so I quote:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Replace the teapot with any figment of the imagination, and the argument still stands. Consider God and you'll see that the burden of proof lies not with the atheists but with the theists who propose the existence of God.
Joshkl2013 wrote:
Also, you can believe in the bible, and evolution too. God said put all the animals on the Arc, but, if you take every specie alive today, the mass wouldn't fit if you put ONE in the Arc, much less TWO.
Animals evolve, plain and simple. For example, if you take a goldfish and breed it in the dark for several generations, It will turn pale and will lose its eyes. There are many proofs of evolution. The human mind evolves also. Every subsequent generation of any animal in a non-constant enviornment will change! And this is one major flaw with the church: they are unwilling to accept evolution, even though the Bible never says it isn't true!
The only difference in 'Christian' evolution is the lack of a belief in the big bang (which I can prove wrong). When compared to that, creationism is much more likely. God created species. These species split into more species. We have evidence of animals going extinct through history. If God created them all, Noah would have needed hundreds of Arcs.
Hmmm .... I wonder why the story of Noah's ark doesn't stand up. Maybe it didn't actually happen. In fact, maybe most (all?) of the Bible is fiction. What I have read of the Bible (in particular Genesis) didn't really convince me. I confess I haven't leafed through every page of the colossal book myself - but many have, and I hear there are too many contradictions to make most of the content plausible.
I'm afraid I fail to see how you can agree with both creationism and evolution (I assume we're both considering Darwinian evolution, that is by natural selection). They seem to be two contrasting and incompatible theories on the origins of life on Earth. Creationism proposes that God, a supernatural being, designed and created the world - this is also called intelligent design.
Evolution proposes that the complex organisms on our planet, such as humans, evolved over a long period of time from much much simpler organisms by a process known as natural selection.
There's a big difference.
In fact, creationism doesn't really solve the problem. God presumably is a highly complex being given that he can design and create the whole world. Who then created him with his divine specifications? It must have been an even more complex being - a meta-God? We find ourselves in an infinite regress of complexity, rather than actually solving anything.
Joshkl2013 wrote:
The Big Bang is incorrect:
Everything "started at a single point of matter." This is false. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Some scientists say: "it was created from energy, as energy could turn into matter!" True, but energy cannot be created not destroyed, also. The matter for the big bang HAD to have been created. We know God didn't create this, for Genesis 1:1 says, "God created the Heavens and the Earth."
So, say we have this mass of super dense matter. No bloody clue how it got there, but it's there. It would NOT explode. According to physics, a body at rest stats at rest unless acted on by an outside force. You MUST have an outside force, for it would be constant, for an object that dense could not explode, implode, or create its own energy due to its own enormous gravity. Another "magical matter dot" would have to crash into it.
Thanks for reading this, wrote it myself, PM me any questions you have.
Physics isn't my area of expertise, so don't take my word as Gospel (pun intended). However, the big bang theory seems a logical answer to the question of our expanding universe and how it came about. Again, I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect that simple Newtonian motion - to which you allude - doesn't necessarily hold true at the time we're talking of.
Interesting too that you use the Bible as 'evidence' when in your last post you basically implied that we can't believe a word of it.
I see no real argument proposed for God's existence - only (weaker) alternatives to already well-established scientific theories.


My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| Joshkl2013 |
Posted on 06/11/2012 13:29:00
|

Numpty

Posts: 1443
Joined: 26.05.12
|
Well.. I'm just gonna talk about how I believe both in divine creation and evolution here.
I believe that god did greate animals (says he created beast in genesis), and yet it doesn't say he created all of them. I do not believe in macroevolution (cells to human), rather, microevolution (Cells to better cells or monkeys to better monkeys.) Things do evolve over time (natural selection), but I dont believe on as grand a scale as proposed today. I think Darwin thought the same, also (microevolution) as he was a monk.
I wanna be like RAZ!!! [ZÅ]Paradox

Need a shotgun to protect you while you snipe? Call
1-800-SHOTGUN today!
Need a nuke? Call 1-800-NUKE-ALL
Take advantage of this limited offer now!
Offer expires in 3..2..1...

 |
| |
|
|
| ninja |
Posted on 06/11/2012 13:37:54
|

Super Admin

Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
Joshkl2013 wrote:
Well.. I'm just gonna talk about how I believe both in divine creation and evolution here.
I believe that god did greate animals (says he created beast in genesis), and yet it doesn't say he created all of them. I do not believe in macroevolution (cells to human), rather, microevolution (Cells to better cells or monkeys to better monkeys.) Things do evolve over time (natural selection), but I dont believe on as grand a scale as proposed today. I think Darwin thought the same, also (microevolution) as he was a monk.
Darwin was not a monk, to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps you're thinking of Mendel - the 'founder' of genetics? In any case, there is little significance of scientists' public religious faces. In the times of Mendel and his contemporaries, being associated with religion was the best way to get the resources needed to carry out research. I don't this makes them necessarily believers in God.
May I ask why you prefer "microevolution" over "macroevolution"? The latter seems more appealing in my eyes, rather than patching together ideas that you like the sound of in two completely different theories.
I'd also be interested to hear what your thoughts on the origin of God are.


My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| Joshkl2013 |
Posted on 06/11/2012 13:52:03
|

Numpty

Posts: 1443
Joined: 26.05.12
|
Yep. Meant Mendel. Sorry, it's been a few years since I had AP Bio...
I believe in God. It seems more logical than the big bang. I also believe in evolution, and since I believe god created animals (basic ones at least, if not all of them), and animals evolve. This is easily proven.
Also, with Noah's Arc, almost every nation/religion has a story about a massive flood. Might not be relevant, but it's certainly a bit of proof for Noah's Arc.
I wanna be like RAZ!!! [ZÅ]Paradox

Need a shotgun to protect you while you snipe? Call
1-800-SHOTGUN today!
Need a nuke? Call 1-800-NUKE-ALL
Take advantage of this limited offer now!
Offer expires in 3..2..1...

 |
| |
|
|
| ninja |
Posted on 06/11/2012 14:06:35
|

Super Admin

Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
Joshkl2013 wrote:
Yep. Meant Mendel. Sorry, it's been a few years since I had AP Bio...
I believe in God. It seems more logical than the big bang. I also believe in evolution, and since I believe god created animals (basic ones at least, if not all of them), and animals evolve. This is easily proven.
Also, with Noah's Arc, almost every nation/religion has a story about a massive flood. Might not be relevant, but it's certainly a bit of proof for Noah's Arc.
Yes, well like I said I think Mendel's main reason to join the monastery was for his research.
You just state "I believe in God." - there doesn't seem to be any reason behind this. Isn't this just because you've been told it's the truth? Does it really make logical sense? What exactly is "easily" proven - that God created animals? I'd be very interested to see your proof, given that noone has even yet managed to proof that this creator even exists himself, let alone brought other things into existence.
Most religions sprouted from the same origins. People love to share (& copy) ideas. It's hardly surprising that similar stories turn up across literature. "Let's think of a dramatic story of destruction ... I know - a huge flood". Noah's Ark is absurd, if you ask me. Groups of animals are somehow collected from all over the world (this would take ages, which the authors probably didn't realise since they knew only of the size of the Earth in terms of where they lives), then there is an unexplained flooding which kills all organisms. Presumably it also kills the simple microorganisms which were too small to collect. I wonder how these simpler organisms are still around today - they wouldn't have evolved from humans, that's for sure ...


My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| The Hat of Love |
Posted on 06/11/2012 14:07:51
|

ShawnPeezy

Posts: 9035
Joined: 31.07.11
|
Few things. I disagree with you that God is more logical than the scientific alternative(s). What God is is more easy - he is a simpler explanation that allows us to adequately fill in gaps in our knowledge. I would rather we just admitted that we don't know instead of having to resort to explanations like 'it was God' because the real answer isn't certain.
Second, yes, it is easily proven that animals evolve. It is also proven that microorganisms existed long before macroorganisms. So, what, did God create bacteria, etc. a few billion years back and then get bored several hundred million years later and decide to create a lizard?
Thirdly, no, it's not a bit of proof, it's a bit of credibility (arguably). When did this massive flood occur? At what point did all but four or five of the human race and a few animals drown? And why is there no evidence for this? It's because, as Ninja and I have said, it's a story and it didn't happen.
Lastly, ark*. Arc is to do with circles =3
And Ninja, I like that teapot argument. I'll start searching.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
 |
| |
|
|
| ninja |
Posted on 06/11/2012 14:13:00
|

Super Admin

Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
I'm glad you approve, Hat. I stumbled upon it in Dawkin's "The God Delusion", which I'm reading at the moment. I'd recommend it to anyone who's enjoyed reading or discussing this thread, theist or not.


My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| Joshkl2013 |
Posted on 06/11/2012 14:21:35
|

Numpty

Posts: 1443
Joined: 26.05.12
|
Ark. Now I feel stupid lol.
Earlier I did say something the lines of Maybe we're both wrong
Like I said, it's a stalemate and neither of us will concede. You guys did bring up a bunch of good points, I'll research them. The teapot one was good.
Also, I'd like to see your proof that microorganisms existed first, other than "macro organisms are made of them".
I wanna be like RAZ!!! [ZÅ]Paradox

Need a shotgun to protect you while you snipe? Call
1-800-SHOTGUN today!
Need a nuke? Call 1-800-NUKE-ALL
Take advantage of this limited offer now!
Offer expires in 3..2..1...

 |
| |
|
|
| The Hat of Love |
Posted on 06/11/2012 14:35:13
|

ShawnPeezy

Posts: 9035
Joined: 31.07.11
|
http://www.astrob...liest-life
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
 |
| |
|
|
| Joshkl2013 |
Posted on 06/11/2012 14:53:40
|

Numpty

Posts: 1443
Joined: 26.05.12
|
Carbon dating is off. Half lifes vary greatly over time, and additional amounts of substances can be weathered away.
http://www.angelf...ating.html
*EDIT*
Made link clickable.
Edited by Joshkl2013 on 06/11/2012 15:05:15
I wanna be like RAZ!!! [ZÅ]Paradox

Need a shotgun to protect you while you snipe? Call
1-800-SHOTGUN today!
Need a nuke? Call 1-800-NUKE-ALL
Take advantage of this limited offer now!
Offer expires in 3..2..1...

 |
| |
|
|
| The Hat of Love |
Posted on 06/11/2012 15:44:40
|

ShawnPeezy

Posts: 9035
Joined: 31.07.11
|
Here is a more accurate and complete demonstration of what I'm saying: http://en.wikiped...ry_of_life.
And bear in mind carbon dating is not the only method used.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
 |
| |
|
|
| ZA Luna |
Posted on 06/11/2012 16:01:23
|

I got a big blue star for posting. i must be special

Posts: 1723
Joined: 16.11.10
|
Joshkl2013 wrote: Also, the proofs that the space time foam guy posted are something taught in basic physics. If something explodes evenly, due to physics, the spin equals zero. The big bang SHOULD have exploded evenly and with constant velocity, making a ring of stars/planets instead of a randomly distributed one.
Two things here
A. According to the theory, it didn't explode, it expanded.
B. It wouldn't just pop out as stars and planets automatically. And the gravity of the stars and planets that were formed whenever after attracts thing in their orbit. I don't think it would have ever been a perfect ring even if it did 'explode'
Something weird
I recall watching some educational movie in science where they said dolphins and whales evolved from dog like creatures that lived near the shore and ate fish. I remember thinking "What the hell? That doesn't even make sense!" and now even after studying it more in-depth in biology it seems forced
 |
| |
|
|
| ledapus |
Posted on 06/12/2012 08:28:51
|

Senior Member

Posts: 423
Joined: 05.11.11
|
There is loads of proof relating to evolution etc and hardly anything relating to God. Only thing religion has to backup their arguments is a bible. Back in the days when the bible was written there were alot of superstitions aswell such as witches etc so therefore it would have been incredibly easy for someone to think up an easy story like a "magical man in the sky" who created all life all of a sudden. Not to mention the fact that over the years the stories in the bible have been warped.
Scientists have come to conclusions with evidence that is far more logical and conclusive as a pose to something thats only evidence is a book written years ago by superstitious people trying to desperately think of a random reason as to how the earth was created.
-Xfire: ledapus-
-Xbox Live gamertag: Ledapus-
LEDAPIE FOR THE WIIIIINNNNNNN!!!!!!!

 |
| |
|
|
| Joshkl2013 |
Posted on 06/12/2012 10:48:52
|

Numpty

Posts: 1443
Joined: 26.05.12
|
In the Bacteria-Are-Reallt-Old link, they did use carbon dating, which is surising based on how inaccurate it is.
I wanna be like RAZ!!! [ZÅ]Paradox

Need a shotgun to protect you while you snipe? Call
1-800-SHOTGUN today!
Need a nuke? Call 1-800-NUKE-ALL
Take advantage of this limited offer now!
Offer expires in 3..2..1...

 |
| |
|
|
| The Hat of Love |
Posted on 06/12/2012 11:15:36
|

ShawnPeezy

Posts: 9035
Joined: 31.07.11
|
It was inaccurate based on a single biased article that you posted, Josh.
The first living things on Earth are thought to have been single-cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure). The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself, with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old. By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.
Fossils, carbon, iron and sulphur dating and molecule biomarkers.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
 |
| |
|
|
| ninja |
Posted on 06/12/2012 11:56:23
|

Super Admin

Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
You say that the God approach "seems more logical". You think it's unlikely that life happened to come about on Earth and that it evolved into what we can experience today.
You'd be right in thinking that the chances of life coming into existence on any particular planet are pretty slim. But there are billions upon billions of planets and we're talking on a huge time scale, so it was bound to happen. Evolution itself isn't even effected by chance, so you can't really say it's unlikely.
But the real question to ask is ... is the God 'explanation' more likely? No.
Josh, let's indulge you for a minute and pretend that God does in fact exist and that he created the world in 6 days or whatever.
Now, 6 days really isn't a very long time to do such a vast amount of things. Clearly, according to Genesis, he had a timetable worked out: Day 1: Distinguish light and dark. Day 2: Separate land from water ... etc. Let's assume also that this was actually possible.
Any being capable of planning and carrying out this huge project must clearly be highly complex and therefore improbable. In fact, extremely improbable. The chance of such a complex existence far out-weights any number you could put on the improbability of life on Earth.
Far from solving the problem, creationism makes it worse.


My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| ZA BrickSquad |
Posted on 06/12/2012 11:59:24
|
ShawnPeezy

Posts: 5303
Joined: 12.05.11
|
How are we humans going to prove where we really originated from one day? |
| |
|
|
| The Hat of Love |
Posted on 06/12/2012 12:02:57
|

ShawnPeezy

Posts: 9035
Joined: 31.07.11
|
So you think because we can't prove anything yet we should just go along with the God story?
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
 |
| |
|