Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
///ajd said:
But it does add more than the independent summary.
He goes onto consider the link between entropy and the idea that replication in itself is potentially a way of dissipating energy. He then goes onto make the link that RNA replication could itself be just an extension of that law. Hence the replication of RNA and DNA could be linked to thermodynamics.
Its sounds so simple, and obvious. Yet to be proven but already seems intuitively very plausible.
I'm still interesting mainly in the theological implications. Do you have a view on that?
As has already been said on this thread, even if the concept was proven to be true then it would not ever answer every question as to why we exist, why matter exists, why the universe exists and why a God could not have had a hand in it.He goes onto consider the link between entropy and the idea that replication in itself is potentially a way of dissipating energy. He then goes onto make the link that RNA replication could itself be just an extension of that law. Hence the replication of RNA and DNA could be linked to thermodynamics.
Its sounds so simple, and obvious. Yet to be proven but already seems intuitively very plausible.
I'm still interesting mainly in the theological implications. Do you have a view on that?
I hoped that, because you'd started a new thread, this was going to be a meaningful scientific debate, after all there are many religion/theism threads already going that you could have just added to.
There seems to be a consensus that science cannot disprove the existence of any god. I tend to agree, although I'm happy to be proved wrong. However, essentially is doesn't really matter. If Sheila Thompson pressed the button to start the big bang then so be it. What has she done in the subsequent 13.7 billion years?
What can be disproved, and has been at times, are the claims of various religions.
All religions are man-made. Many are developments of previous ones.
The various bibles have been proved wrong many times but adherents choose to ignore the evidence and carry on saying how nice it all is. A bit like mum, when her 'boy' is caught doing something really nasty by the police who claims he is innocent even after the evidence in presented in court and the lad pleads guilty. He is, after all, good at football. I find that understandable.
It is the same with religion. Once the claims are destroyed and various tracts from their bibles proved to be nonsense, we get a claim that they feel so good when they believe so how can it/they be wrong.
The fact is, and it is seen on PH god forums as well as in the wide world, that for most adherents, they pick and choose what to believe, so in essence each has his or her own religion.
So while it is easy to disprove each individual religion, it is impossible to go around to all of them and point out the faults each time.
And what is the point? Let people believe what they want to believe. If it is that they are the chosen ones, then this artificial elevation in worth without effort has a lot going for it. If they want to believe that god will smite some undefined group, then the feeling of relief alone might be worth belief. However, there are risks attached, as we see on a weekly basis.
If one group feels superior then there is always the risk that they will treat others an inferior.
If one studies the evolution of various religions, especially that of christianity, then one is confronted by the overwhelming evidence that it is a cynical construct, used as a political weapon from the first council. Then go onto the holy roman empire and we see the cynicism of Constantine trumped many times.
The history of the rcc disproves many of the religion's claims.
My feeling is that in the old days, blokes didn't have sheds as such. So rather than pottering around, they invented a Friday/Saturday/Sunday club.
But, of course, ridiculing a specific religion and pointing out the contradictions, the lies and the terrible history will not change the minds of those who suggest they believe in it because they have their own one, with the contradictions ignored, explained away with tortured logic, or suggesting that faith requires you believe in 'it'.
So whilst we cannot disprove a god, we can disprove religions, but only to those who will listen.
There is no difference between those who believe in the (a?) cargo cult and christianity. Apart from, of course, the chances of the second coming being much greater for the former and people actually having seen the miracles they claim.
As I say, why bother. For people to be convinced by evidence they have to be able to listen and take on board facts. Logic can be useful as well. All those dinosaurs, and so little room on the ark.
My main beef against religion is that the nutters have access to children's minds.
And the fact that my taxes go to support them.
What can be disproved, and has been at times, are the claims of various religions.
All religions are man-made. Many are developments of previous ones.
The various bibles have been proved wrong many times but adherents choose to ignore the evidence and carry on saying how nice it all is. A bit like mum, when her 'boy' is caught doing something really nasty by the police who claims he is innocent even after the evidence in presented in court and the lad pleads guilty. He is, after all, good at football. I find that understandable.
It is the same with religion. Once the claims are destroyed and various tracts from their bibles proved to be nonsense, we get a claim that they feel so good when they believe so how can it/they be wrong.
The fact is, and it is seen on PH god forums as well as in the wide world, that for most adherents, they pick and choose what to believe, so in essence each has his or her own religion.
So while it is easy to disprove each individual religion, it is impossible to go around to all of them and point out the faults each time.
And what is the point? Let people believe what they want to believe. If it is that they are the chosen ones, then this artificial elevation in worth without effort has a lot going for it. If they want to believe that god will smite some undefined group, then the feeling of relief alone might be worth belief. However, there are risks attached, as we see on a weekly basis.
If one group feels superior then there is always the risk that they will treat others an inferior.
If one studies the evolution of various religions, especially that of christianity, then one is confronted by the overwhelming evidence that it is a cynical construct, used as a political weapon from the first council. Then go onto the holy roman empire and we see the cynicism of Constantine trumped many times.
The history of the rcc disproves many of the religion's claims.
My feeling is that in the old days, blokes didn't have sheds as such. So rather than pottering around, they invented a Friday/Saturday/Sunday club.
But, of course, ridiculing a specific religion and pointing out the contradictions, the lies and the terrible history will not change the minds of those who suggest they believe in it because they have their own one, with the contradictions ignored, explained away with tortured logic, or suggesting that faith requires you believe in 'it'.
So whilst we cannot disprove a god, we can disprove religions, but only to those who will listen.
There is no difference between those who believe in the (a?) cargo cult and christianity. Apart from, of course, the chances of the second coming being much greater for the former and people actually having seen the miracles they claim.
As I say, why bother. For people to be convinced by evidence they have to be able to listen and take on board facts. Logic can be useful as well. All those dinosaurs, and so little room on the ark.
My main beef against religion is that the nutters have access to children's minds.
And the fact that my taxes go to support them.
"A new theory could answer the question of how life began – and throw out the need for God."
Ye Gods
even late in on the thread, it has to be said (or repeated maybe): that's a shocker.
It's the God-Of-The-Gaps religious nonsense that belongs more in medieval times when science was equally under-developed compared to today. Can't explain something? Hey Presclot! It must be God.
As that first statement above from the article is nonsense, anything following from it is heading the same way.
It's possible that a new theory may explain more completely how life began, but that will have no impact whatsoever in terms of proving the existence or otherwise of a God. Science can address questions about the origin of the universe or of life which begin "how?" but is incapable of answering such questions beginning "why?".
To disallow people from asking both types of question is arbitrarily and artificially restrictive whether you're a believer or not. The so-called war between science and religion being peddled by the journo and others is a phoney war.
Ye Gods
even late in on the thread, it has to be said (or repeated maybe): that's a shocker.It's the God-Of-The-Gaps religious nonsense that belongs more in medieval times when science was equally under-developed compared to today. Can't explain something? Hey Presclot! It must be God.
As that first statement above from the article is nonsense, anything following from it is heading the same way.
It's possible that a new theory may explain more completely how life began, but that will have no impact whatsoever in terms of proving the existence or otherwise of a God. Science can address questions about the origin of the universe or of life which begin "how?" but is incapable of answering such questions beginning "why?".
To disallow people from asking both types of question is arbitrarily and artificially restrictive whether you're a believer or not. The so-called war between science and religion being peddled by the journo and others is a phoney war.
Troubleatmill said:
That bit is known.
In about 5 billion years we will be wiped out be either.
a/ Our sun going supernova
b/ The Andromeda galaxy colliding into ours
We are well and truly fecked - unless we can work out a way to get out of this galaxy.
But don't lose sleep over it
OT, but:In about 5 billion years we will be wiped out be either.
a/ Our sun going supernova
b/ The Andromeda galaxy colliding into ours
We are well and truly fecked - unless we can work out a way to get out of this galaxy.
But don't lose sleep over it
a) The sun will not produce a supernova - it's not nearly big enough. What it will do is turn into a red giant, at which point it will fry the earth, before eventually ending up as a white dwarf surrounded by a pretty nebula.
b) a collision of galaxies isn't reckoned to have much effect at a solar-system level. There's so much space between stars that almost nothing will actually "collide". A few suns may get chucked out of the galaxy, a close pass by another system might dislodge some comets which might eventually hit us.
Astronomy matters.
Derek Smith said:
There seems to be a consensus that science cannot disprove the existence of any god. I tend to agree, although I'm happy to be proved wrong. However, essentially is doesn't really matter. If Sheila Thompson pressed the button to start the big bang then so be it. What has she done in the subsequent 13.7 billion years?
What can be disproved, and has been at times, are the claims of various religions.
All religions are man-made. Many are developments of previous ones.
The various bibles have been proved wrong many times but adherents choose to ignore the evidence and carry on saying how nice it all is. A bit like mum, when her 'boy' is caught doing something really nasty by the police who claims he is innocent even after the evidence in presented in court and the lad pleads guilty. He is, after all, good at football. I find that understandable.
It is the same with religion. Once the claims are destroyed and various tracts from their bibles proved to be nonsense, we get a claim that they feel so good when they believe so how can it/they be wrong.
The fact is, and it is seen on PH god forums as well as in the wide world, that for most adherents, they pick and choose what to believe, so in essence each has his or her own religion.
So while it is easy to disprove each individual religion, it is impossible to go around to all of them and point out the faults each time.
And what is the point? Let people believe what they want to believe. If it is that they are the chosen ones, then this artificial elevation in worth without effort has a lot going for it. If they want to believe that god will smite some undefined group, then the feeling of relief alone might be worth belief. However, there are risks attached, as we see on a weekly basis.
If one group feels superior then there is always the risk that they will treat others an inferior.
If one studies the evolution of various religions, especially that of christianity, then one is confronted by the overwhelming evidence that it is a cynical construct, used as a political weapon from the first council. Then go onto the holy roman empire and we see the cynicism of Constantine trumped many times.
The history of the rcc disproves many of the religion's claims.
My feeling is that in the old days, blokes didn't have sheds as such. So rather than pottering around, they invented a Friday/Saturday/Sunday club.
But, of course, ridiculing a specific religion and pointing out the contradictions, the lies and the terrible history will not change the minds of those who suggest they believe in it because they have their own one, with the contradictions ignored, explained away with tortured logic, or suggesting that faith requires you believe in 'it'.
So whilst we cannot disprove a god, we can disprove religions, but only to those who will listen.
There is no difference between those who believe in the (a?) cargo cult and christianity. Apart from, of course, the chances of the second coming being much greater for the former and people actually having seen the miracles they claim.
As I say, why bother. For people to be convinced by evidence they have to be able to listen and take on board facts. Logic can be useful as well. All those dinosaurs, and so little room on the ark.
My main beef against religion is that the nutters have access to children's minds.
And the fact that my taxes go to support them.
You ask what is the point, but then do provide the answer. Poluting children is one of the issues. Whether it be indoctrinating against homosexuality, equality of the sexes, or promoting the killing of infidels, these are things that are no longer tolerable in my opinion, in society. What promotes these frankly sick ideas? It all points in one direction.What can be disproved, and has been at times, are the claims of various religions.
All religions are man-made. Many are developments of previous ones.
The various bibles have been proved wrong many times but adherents choose to ignore the evidence and carry on saying how nice it all is. A bit like mum, when her 'boy' is caught doing something really nasty by the police who claims he is innocent even after the evidence in presented in court and the lad pleads guilty. He is, after all, good at football. I find that understandable.
It is the same with religion. Once the claims are destroyed and various tracts from their bibles proved to be nonsense, we get a claim that they feel so good when they believe so how can it/they be wrong.
The fact is, and it is seen on PH god forums as well as in the wide world, that for most adherents, they pick and choose what to believe, so in essence each has his or her own religion.
So while it is easy to disprove each individual religion, it is impossible to go around to all of them and point out the faults each time.
And what is the point? Let people believe what they want to believe. If it is that they are the chosen ones, then this artificial elevation in worth without effort has a lot going for it. If they want to believe that god will smite some undefined group, then the feeling of relief alone might be worth belief. However, there are risks attached, as we see on a weekly basis.
If one group feels superior then there is always the risk that they will treat others an inferior.
If one studies the evolution of various religions, especially that of christianity, then one is confronted by the overwhelming evidence that it is a cynical construct, used as a political weapon from the first council. Then go onto the holy roman empire and we see the cynicism of Constantine trumped many times.
The history of the rcc disproves many of the religion's claims.
My feeling is that in the old days, blokes didn't have sheds as such. So rather than pottering around, they invented a Friday/Saturday/Sunday club.
But, of course, ridiculing a specific religion and pointing out the contradictions, the lies and the terrible history will not change the minds of those who suggest they believe in it because they have their own one, with the contradictions ignored, explained away with tortured logic, or suggesting that faith requires you believe in 'it'.
So whilst we cannot disprove a god, we can disprove religions, but only to those who will listen.
There is no difference between those who believe in the (a?) cargo cult and christianity. Apart from, of course, the chances of the second coming being much greater for the former and people actually having seen the miracles they claim.
As I say, why bother. For people to be convinced by evidence they have to be able to listen and take on board facts. Logic can be useful as well. All those dinosaurs, and so little room on the ark.
My main beef against religion is that the nutters have access to children's minds.
And the fact that my taxes go to support them.
CrutyRammers said:
OT, but:
a) The sun will not produce a supernova - it's not nearly big enough. What it will do is turn into a red giant, at which point it will fry the earth, before eventually ending up as a white dwarf surrounded by a pretty nebula.
b) a collision of galaxies isn't reckoned to have much effect at a solar-system level. There's so much space between stars that almost nothing will actually "collide". A few suns may get chucked out of the galaxy, a close pass by another system might dislodge some comets which might eventually hit us.
Astronomy matters.
Learning all the time a) The sun will not produce a supernova - it's not nearly big enough. What it will do is turn into a red giant, at which point it will fry the earth, before eventually ending up as a white dwarf surrounded by a pretty nebula.
b) a collision of galaxies isn't reckoned to have much effect at a solar-system level. There's so much space between stars that almost nothing will actually "collide". A few suns may get chucked out of the galaxy, a close pass by another system might dislodge some comets which might eventually hit us.
Astronomy matters.
CrutyRammers said:
b) a collision of galaxies isn't reckoned to have much effect at a solar-system level. There's so much space between stars that almost nothing will actually "collide". A few suns may get chucked out of the galaxy, a close pass by another system might dislodge some comets which might eventually hit us.
Astronomy matters.
Depends on who loses in the galactic game of conkers.....Astronomy matters.
///ajd said:
Rather than debate the science, I'm more interesting in the theological implications if it is proven. It is quite a big gap to close for the theists.
God is not needed to explain how anything in the universe came about, including the universe itself, and is neither proved nor disproved by mankind struggling to make some sense of any of it, and succeeding, or failing (at least temporarily). The fact that some people past or present invoke a particular flavour of God when their understanding reaches a limit and fails is a human problem not a theistic one. When that understanding progresses, it's a human success not a Godly failure.WinstonWolf said:
According to the bible two penguins waddled from the pole to the middle east to get on an ark.
Now that's a whole heap of bulls
t right there unless you wish to state otherwise?
...and then waddled back. And quite how the kangaroos got over the sea to Australia is beyond me. Now that's a whole heap of bulls
t right there unless you wish to state otherwise?CrutyRammers said:
WinstonWolf said:
According to the bible two penguins waddled from the pole to the middle east to get on an ark.
Now that's a whole heap of bullst right there unless you wish to state otherwise?
...and then waddled back. And quite how the kangaroos got over the sea to Australia is beyond me. Now that's a whole heap of bulls
t right there unless you wish to state otherwise?Look, the penguins swam, and joined together to form raft like structures upon which the kangaroos rode. The penguins dropped them off in Australia on the way, it was a bit of a detour but what can you do when you're the designated driver? Maybe the kangaroos will pay the favour back one day when some penguins need help to get over some large-ish bumps in the ground?
SilverSixer said:
Look, the penguins swam, and joined together to form raft like structures upon which the kangaroos rode. The penguins dropped them off in Australia on the way, it was a bit of a detour but what can you do when you're the designated driver? Maybe the kangaroos will pay the favour back one day when some penguins need help to get over some large-ish bumps in the ground?
I don't mean any criticism, but there are many more dangerous dangers with literal belief in any gospel or dogma. The farcical suggestion of a direct line from some vicar to the disciples is a basic tenet of catholicism which allows, in the minds of those for whom this is important, the misogyny. Judaism declares followers to be the chosen ones.
Christians know that the only route to their god is via their belief. No one else is in with a shout.
Islam, now where do we start?
We can forget the ark. No one really believes it, even, perhaps especially, those who profess to do so.
One god-fearing chap is on YouTube saying he's knows everything because he's read his version of the bible. Yet he mentions animals going in two by two. The most cursory reading of the first book of Moses shows this to be wrong. They are playing mind games, and deliberately.
Mind you, penguins sitting of a raft of kangaroos jumping over Ayres Rock is a lovely image to have in your mind.
Derek Smith said:
I don't mean any criticism, but there are many more dangerous dangers with literal belief in any gospel or dogma. The farcical suggestion of a direct line from some vicar to the disciples is a basic tenet of catholicism which allows, in the minds of those for whom this is important, the misogyny.
Judaism declares followers to be the chosen ones.
Christians know that the only route to their god is via their belief. No one else is in with a shout.
Islam, now where do we start?
We can forget the ark. No one really believes it, even, perhaps especially, those who profess to do so.
One god-fearing chap is on YouTube saying he's knows everything because he's read his version of the bible. Yet he mentions animals going in two by two. The most cursory reading of the first book of Moses shows this to be wrong. They are playing mind games, and deliberately.
Mind you, penguins sitting of a raft of kangaroos jumping over Ayres Rock is a lovely image to have in your mind.
There are people still searching for the ARK.Judaism declares followers to be the chosen ones.
Christians know that the only route to their god is via their belief. No one else is in with a shout.
Islam, now where do we start?
We can forget the ark. No one really believes it, even, perhaps especially, those who profess to do so.
One god-fearing chap is on YouTube saying he's knows everything because he's read his version of the bible. Yet he mentions animals going in two by two. The most cursory reading of the first book of Moses shows this to be wrong. They are playing mind games, and deliberately.
Mind you, penguins sitting of a raft of kangaroos jumping over Ayres Rock is a lovely image to have in your mind.
WinstonWolf said:
According to the bible two penguins waddled from the pole to the middle east to get on an ark.
Now that's a whole heap of bullst right there unless you wish to state otherwise?
With floods, tsunamis, ancient submerged cities, rising sea levels, mini ice ages I can imagine that something like 'Noah' could very easily have happened.Now that's a whole heap of bulls
t right there unless you wish to state otherwise?But perhaps on a scale that wasn't global and not quite as literally as the story suggests! Look at the impact the tsunamis, the New Orleans floods, our own recent floods have had on us, whole communities wiped out or displaced. In time it has been misinterpreted or embellished. Listen, the NK Kims have all kinds of fantastically exaggerated stories about them but that doesn't mean they didn't or don't exist.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff