POLL: Is there a God ??
- Thread starter megablue
- Start date
You are conflating different meanings of "design." There's design as pattern, which could have a designer or could arise at random. Then there's intentional design.
Just because you see a pattern, doesn't mean there was a designer. And even when a designer is involved, that doesn't make the designer God.
- Most experts agree that our species, Homo sapiens (Latin for “wise men”), is the ninth and youngest human species.
- The lives of the other eight species tell a story of how humans slowly evolved away from the other apes, developing the ability to walk, eat meat, hunt, build shelters, and perform symbolic acts.
- Our ancestors probably pushed our closest relatives, the Neanderthals, to extinction. Wise guys finish last.
Homo sapiens is #9. Who were the eight other human species?
There were at least eight other human species, some of whom existed for far longer than we have. Who were they?
bigthink.com
While there is only one surviving species of human (Homo sapiens), scientists have identified and classified numerous extinct species of early humans, often referred to as "archaic humans" or "hominins". The exact number is debated, but most scientists recognize 15 to 20 distinct species in the broader human lineage, according to The Smithsonian's Human Origins Program.
No. I'm not. You're inferring that.
Brilliant. Thanks for that definition and deflection.
Lol. Of course not. Just becsuse you see a pattern that looks like long term evolution doesn't mean there was long term evolution. Even when genetic variation happens, it doesn't mean it's evolution.
Here is just one piece that addresses the question of how many species of species of humans have existed. There have been more than one, but scientists and experts debate the exact number of known species that have existed.
- Most experts agree that our species, Homo sapiens (Latin for “wise men”), is the ninth and youngest human species.
- The lives of the other eight species tell a story of how humans slowly evolved away from the other apes, developing the ability to walk, eat meat, hunt, build shelters, and perform symbolic acts.
- Our ancestors probably pushed our closest relatives, the Neanderthals, to extinction. Wise guys finish last.
Homo sapiens is #9. Who were the eight other human species?
There were at least eight other human species, some of whom existed for far longer than we have. Who were they?
While there is only one surviving species of human (Homo sapiens), scientists have identified and classified numerous extinct species of early humans, often referred to as "archaic humans" or "hominins". The exact number is debated, but most scientists recognize 15 to 20 distinct species in the broader human lineage, according to The Smithsonian's Human Origins Program.
Just curious how many total communities of different humans and how many total humans of each different kind did they find? They hadn't found many complete skeletons nor iirc any complete dna as of the early 2000s.
I've invented a god that I think could be real. Here's the short version...
Minds are epiphenomena of collective neural action in brains that are sufficiently large and complex.
We accept that minds exist because we have them. But proving their existence isn't easy.
You can't point to a mind. But you can make it go away and come back by shutting down and reviving relevant neural pathways or brain regions.
What does that have to do with a god?
If minds are epiphenomena of brains, it's an easy step to imagine that a god could be an epiphenomenon of collective minds.
When the mind decides it wants to watch a TV show, it tells the brain to grab the remote. It's not the individual neurons that want to watch TV. It's the mind. But the neurons obey the mind (usually).
When God wants to go to war, or burn witches, it tells its collective of minds to declare war, impose a draft, or round up women and build stakes. When God wants universal health care, it tells its collective minds to vote the right people into office.
The more individual minds agree, the stronger the God. Rebellious minds weaken God, and must be fought.
Today, America's God is struggling, perhaps diseased, thanks to virulent polarization.
Mathematics, genetics, astronomy, biology. I mentioned them before.
Now you. The science behind abiogenesis and macro evolution?
Yeah, Dawkins attempted the “it just looks like design” argument. Very scientific.
Lay 10 pennies out in a circle, half heads up, half tails up.
Now throw those same 10 pennies up in the air and see how many times they come up in the same pattern as the one you laid out.
so what is ID? Is it literally creationism with Adam and Eve and world is 6,000 years old and all that? Or is it that god was the one that started evolution? Or what exactly?
If you believe in God as the creator of everything, you should use your God-given ability to reason, and consider not only the first few sentences of the bible, but also the God-given fossils, geologic record, and all that we can see of the cosmos to inform your understanding on these matters. You don't have to start from scratch, either. There is literature on these subjects thoughtfully written by people who have dedicated their lives to the use of their God-given ability to reason and build upon the hypotheses and conclusions of those that came before them.
You can believe that there is a creator, and you may be right. As far as I know, science doesn't have any explanation for the very beginning of everything. But to reject centuries of hard work, research, discovery and innovation in favor of an extremely literal interpretation of a paragraph written thousands of years ago takes some serious blinders.
JMO, of course.
You can believe that there is a creator, and you may be right. As far as I know, science doesn't have any explanation for the very beginning of everything. But to reject centuries of hard work, research, discovery and innovation in favor of an extremely literal interpretation of a paragraph written thousands of years ago takes some serious blinders.
JMO, of course.
What is to refute? Conjecture that things that appear to be designed are not? LOL
No offense intended, but there have now been two videos linked recently to this thread that will generally educate you.
Much of that hard work was done by and because of people who believe in God. The idea that the belief is inconsistent with science is just simply not accurate.
I think people are complicated and can have beliefs and also practice science, but the belief is separate from the science. Belief is not scientific.
I will disagree that belief and science are not compatible. Science does not counter belief.
Last edited:
Don’t care or have inclination to watch a video, just curious what exactly it is you believe.
Well, I believe that the science supports design, and those two short videos are consistent with my belief - kind of why I posted them.
For as long as we have records, humans have come up with "God" as the explanation for things we don't understand.
The seldom-mentioned but underlying reason why religion opposes science - and especially evolutionary science - is that science keeps coming up with explanations that don't require God.
The seldom-mentioned but underlying reason why religion opposes science - and especially evolutionary science - is that science keeps coming up with explanations that don't require God.
Just because God is not required, doesn't necessarily mean God doesn't exist.
But if God isn't required, and if you cannot "prove" His existence beyond pointing to the dwindling number of things attributed to God that science is always whittling away, then why believe in God?
I mean, you can if you want to, but why?
I did you the courtesy of watching this.
I liked the criticism of the multi-universe "explanation" for why our universe seems fine-tuned.
The rest was basically several people saying "I don't believe it could happen without God" and occasionally saying they made calculations showing only God can be the answer.
Not convincing.
Disappointing that Stephen King buys into this. Perhaps that's why Shawshank Redemption was the only good movie based on his writings.
This would be a poor reason to ignore the scientific evidence of design.
This ^^ is a faith conclusion.
We will wait for someone, anyone, to prove God is not required. Then, this point might be good for discussion.
If God exists, what would be the purpose of denying that?
Wow. Thanks. I guess
That is a faith-based explanation that does not solve the problem of God.
Do you believe in abiogenesis? The science behind Design is far more convincing.
Meh
Big part of the problem here is semantics. Some people conveniently misunderstand or misrepresent the word "science" as an umbrella term covering anything they deem "sciency" (e.g., space, DNA, bubbling test tubes, white lab coats), or even more simply the opposite of religion, while others are referring to a very precise, systematic methodology used in the search for knowledge via hypotheses, experimentation, data analysis, documentation. The latter version absolutely counters some beliefs, and but also confirms some. It exists purely to test beliefs.
Simply saying DNA is more complex than computer programs (two sciency things!), is not evidence for God.
In fact, I would argue there is no evidence for God. Nor is there evidence of the absence of God. The idea of God can't be tested because it has always been and will always be a gap filler between knowledge gained by science, whether true or not.
There is plenty of evidence that refutes the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, though.
Simply saying DNA is more complex than computer programs (two sciency things!), is not evidence for God.
In fact, I would argue there is no evidence for God. Nor is there evidence of the absence of God. The idea of God can't be tested because it has always been and will always be a gap filler between knowledge gained by science, whether true or not.
There is plenty of evidence that refutes the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, though.
One of the strange, unquestioned beliefs shared by major religious franchises is that creating a universe is somehow hard or tricky - requiring an amazing pre-existing being of unbelievable powers, talents and intelligence. God-like, one might say.
But is that true?
Consider this simile. Imagine the time before the "creation" of our universe to be like a supersaturated sugar solution in a beaker. Clear, uniform, blah. Then a mote of dust appears in the solution, or a tap on the beaker, or little jiggle. And suddenly the crystals spread like mad, changing everything.
Imagine the existence of a field. Call it the Higgs field, maybe. There's nothing else. Just the field. Maybe it stretches vast distances in all directions. Maybe it's compacted into something approaching a mere dot. It's uniformed and undisturbed like the supersaturated solution. Until it isn't. Then there's a tiny disturbance. A mere itch. A light sneeze. And bam! the universe explodes into existence.
The universe coming into existence - with all its exquisite laws of nature, it's humbling array of galaxies, its life - doesn't require an super-powerful super-intelligence.
If you want to call the creator of the universe "God" then God may be nothing more than a light sneeze.
I'm no expert on abiogenesis, but it makes sense. I see nothing convincing about ID Just claims and deflections, not explanations that can be tested or subjected to rigorous logic.
Consider these 2 arguments:
1. Life and the universe are so incredibly complex that it must have taken God to bring them into existence.
2. Life and the universe are so incredibly complex that it must have taken a really long time for them to come into existence.
We have evidence of "a really long time." We have no evidence of "God."
You posted the video and asked several times for people to watch. So I did. And responded honestly. You know, like reasonable people sometimes do in what used to be called "civil society."
I wasn't expecting effusive thanks, but if you respond like you don't care, why should anyone else?
But it is evidence, just not conclusive proof, which is what you actually mean: namely, there is no proof for God, nor is there proof of His absence.
The evidence is everywhere.
Setting aside that both "aguments" are logically fallacious; having evidence of "a really long time" is not evidence against God bringing them into existence.
You are/were just being arrogantly dismissive, condescending, what they repeatedly accused me of incidentally... but you are guilty, and consciously so.
Which doesn't boterh me in the slightest; you are free to type as you will. But you should care for your own sake, completely separate whatever some people you may or not like post on the interent
Before you can compile evidence for the existence or absence of God, you need a stationary definition of God. Good luck on that.
Do the Greek gods exist? Well, they supposedly live on Mt Olympus. Looking there could find them . . . or fail to find them.
It's harder to rule people or make money off them with refutable gods. Which is probably a big part of the reason why the surviving religions, and their gods are so hard to pin down.
I'll give you the benefit of doubt.... In what way are the arguments fallacious?
Here they are again, so you don't have to scroll back to find them:
1. Life and the universe are so incredibly complex that it must have taken God to bring them into existence.
2. Life and the universe are so incredibly complex that it must have taken a really long time for them to come into existence.
In what way does the conclusion(s) you gave follow from the premises?
I think people confuse science as a chemistry experiment (unless, of course, they are trying to support abiogenesis and then science becomes what-if and magical soups). Mathematical probably is an application of science. Observation is a factor of science. Understanding how things work and then realizing probabilities vs improbabilities is a process of science. Recreating the Big Bang is not going to happen. That does not mean the theory is not scientifically founded.
The theory states there is scientific evidence for design.
None. But flip that around and you get to the question most people like me wonder about:
If God doesn't exist, what's the purpose of insisting he does?