Is there a god/Allah/Supreme being?
Discussion
vixpy1 said:
Look at the action of chance around us, then imagine this chance creating all the different bones, flesh and functions of animals and the complex cells of plants..... I think not.
And what makes you think that these things are complex? To us maybe, but on the scale of the univers, the earth is a little pot of mould. What are the chances of a univers being created, with such complex things as suns, planets, their orbits, the rings around saturn, all the different moons, and that is just out own solar system. There are other things out there that are going to be even more complex, that does not mean that dave the Supreme being made them. IF he did make us, do you really think he would give a flying fook if we built a temple, or statues, or said silly repetetive prayers every week? I think not. Do you think Scientist A worries about his little peices of mould giving him credit, and about their morals, and how he will smote, (what a great word!
) them for blasphemy, but not for gencocide, and such things? get a grip! life was not so hotch potch when it started. It was a wee little microbe, or an enzyme, that evolved, over billions of years... into different things, due to enviroment... Its not really such a difficult concept, and a little more beliveable that a bloke we've never seen built it in 6 days, and took sunday off... AlexH said:
Just as the religious types can't prove God does exist, the atheists can't prove he doesn't...so AFAIC that leaves us agnostics taking the most sensible position in the middle.
.
Very honest if you happen to not think about your existence.
Do you want me to prove that 6'invisible rabbits run the universe and have sold the Earth franchise to alien reptiles?
Proving the non-existance of something non-existant is not viable. So please stop being silly.
vixpy1 said:
Look at the action of chance around us, then imagine this chance creating all the different bones, flesh and functions of animals and the complex cells of plants..... I think not.
There may well be millions of other Universes with differing physical laws, but if only one has physical conditions condusive to intelligent life, it surely follows that that's the Universe we'll observe? We may well be in a minority Universe, but there is no way we can observe any of the others, so we're stuck here trying to figure this one out.
If there IS a supreme being, then why is our Universe observed to be expanding? Why would a creator create something that continued to evolve? In fact, why would a creator create ANYTHING capable of evolution, full stop? That would seem to contradict the whole "supremeness" concept a tad.
If you were a supreme being, why would you stick your prize creation on a small planet orbiting an average star, loitering two thirds out on a spiral arm of one of BILLIONS of other galaxies containing BILLIONS of other equally ordinary stars? We've already inferred the existence of 250 or so extrasolar planets in our own galaxy, so we know planet formation is a regular occurence. Why should we be at all special? It just doesn't make any sense to me. Humanity has been around for such a short time in cosmological terms (and will be survived by life on Earth and the cosmos as a whole by billions of years) that ascribing ANY importance to our existence seems totally pointless. If we're the ultimate creation, why bother with 5 billion years of cosmic existence before the Earth even formed, then another few billion years before basic life, let alone intelligence, popped up? Seems like slight overkill to me!
plotloss said:What's the use of that - I hate fish
...and he turned water in wine and created 5000 loaves and fish to feed the people
No - it would be nice to hope we could have our lives all over again, or something mystical, but I'm afraid it's a case of "dust to dust".
...although you never can tell these days, with TonyGod Blair and his Mad Hatters...
Anyone who's not convinced of the complete lack of need for any kind of supreme being - go and read some Richard Dawkins. Once you've absorbed, say, The Blind Watchmaker - whether you agree with what he says or not - we'll at least have got rid of all the poxy arguments god-botherers normally come up with.
There is a common misconception that religion (or more to the point any ideas relating to a supreme creator) is nullified when evolution is thrown into the mix, or when other such scientific discoveries along with plausible and conclusive theories emerge.
I, though more agnostic than anything else, believe that scientific pursuits (and the products of them, such as Darwinian Evolution) can completely co-exist and even complement religious beliefs.
Take evolution for example. It is, some would say, a contradictory alternative to the Adam/Eve tale. Note however, that most biblical scholars do not take biblical texts literally - they draw instead from the messages and basic principles expounded in those texts. Back then, people told stories to convey ideas. Nothing should therefore suggest that we should read the Genesis tale literally.
So with this in mind, what if Darwinian Evolution is merely the mechanism in which the supreme creator functioned to create man? What if we merely discovered how "He" did it, as opposed to finding a reason to disbelieve him?
Look folks, if it was clear cut, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the world wouldn't be divided. There is no proof for either camp (and lots of evidence for both), and as yet there are still lots of unexplained phenomena. Until the day comes that our scientists can explain absolutely everything (and that will also be the day that we know for sure whether "God" exists - for science can prove as well as disprove the existence of a creator), we have to accept that people resort to other means to explain things that science cannot. Science may one day will, but don't necessarily assume that the explanation science derives will be different from the ones our friends-in-faith have held on to for years.
D
I, though more agnostic than anything else, believe that scientific pursuits (and the products of them, such as Darwinian Evolution) can completely co-exist and even complement religious beliefs.
Take evolution for example. It is, some would say, a contradictory alternative to the Adam/Eve tale. Note however, that most biblical scholars do not take biblical texts literally - they draw instead from the messages and basic principles expounded in those texts. Back then, people told stories to convey ideas. Nothing should therefore suggest that we should read the Genesis tale literally.
So with this in mind, what if Darwinian Evolution is merely the mechanism in which the supreme creator functioned to create man? What if we merely discovered how "He" did it, as opposed to finding a reason to disbelieve him?
Look folks, if it was clear cut, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the world wouldn't be divided. There is no proof for either camp (and lots of evidence for both), and as yet there are still lots of unexplained phenomena. Until the day comes that our scientists can explain absolutely everything (and that will also be the day that we know for sure whether "God" exists - for science can prove as well as disprove the existence of a creator), we have to accept that people resort to other means to explain things that science cannot. Science may one day will, but don't necessarily assume that the explanation science derives will be different from the ones our friends-in-faith have held on to for years.
D
andy mac said:Sadly the only two believers I've watched dying both lost their faith in the final stages.
Any relevent arguments from believers? Or is the can't disprove it pretty much the only one as of yet/ C'mon... I would love to know, as religion and the belief of a supreme being fascinates me, and I'd like to see the other side!
That's not to say that there isn't a majority who sustain their faith. I guess you have to wait your turn before you really find out, so it's pretty difficult to speculate on this one.
in my post i was simply stating that i did not believe that the universe, life and all that are down to chance. I believe the universe, life and everything were planned. Call it a science experiment, buy what? I don't know, but experience in life has taught me that the world and/or universe is simply not that lucky.
Hmmm don't agree with the idea that a lack of evidence either way makes the sensible line to take that of the agnostic
As I see it the agnostic is merely putting off a decision because he feels he doesn't have enough evidence either way, and god remains a possibility.
An asthiest is convinced there is no God because the weight of evidence suggests it is a possibility so small as to be for all practical purposes unworkable.
Imagine a bathtub full of water. All the molecules of water could, at any given minute, and completely by random chance decide to move in the same direction at once. Should this happen all the water would achieve a momentum to carry it out of the bathtub and onto the floor. In reality this can't happen, but only because it represents a statistical probablitiy so small as to be thought impossible.
Such is God consigned to the impossible for me.
As I see it the agnostic is merely putting off a decision because he feels he doesn't have enough evidence either way, and god remains a possibility.
An asthiest is convinced there is no God because the weight of evidence suggests it is a possibility so small as to be for all practical purposes unworkable.
Imagine a bathtub full of water. All the molecules of water could, at any given minute, and completely by random chance decide to move in the same direction at once. Should this happen all the water would achieve a momentum to carry it out of the bathtub and onto the floor. In reality this can't happen, but only because it represents a statistical probablitiy so small as to be thought impossible.
Such is God consigned to the impossible for me.
planetdave said:
Proving the non-existance of something non-existant is not viable. So please stop being silly.
Until Australia was discovered, everyone considered that all swans were white...no other ones existed, because we hadn't encountered them. Then lo and behold, Western explorers set foot in Austalia and find black swans. Which didn't exist. You may not like the scientific reasoning here, but I'm sorry to tell it stands up whether you like it or not.
mrwomble said:
Anyone who's not convinced of the complete lack of need for any kind of supreme being - go and read some Richard Dawkins. Once you've absorbed, say, The Blind Watchmaker - whether you agree with what he says or not - we'll at least have got rid of all the poxy arguments god-botherers normally come up with.
I bloody hate to be having to state the God-botherers take on this (although if this thread was about how great God and religion is I'd probably be stating the atheists side...Devil's advocate if you'll pardon the pun!), but alot of people have gotten alot of strength from the idea of god, religion and an afterlife throughout difficult times. The effect it can have on people facing or experiencing bereavement or even death themselves should not be underestimated...the hope, no matter how small, that one may see a loved one again in the hereafter...I, for one, wouldn't mock that or the comfort it may bring. I would regard those people as having a 'need'.
Julian64 said:Imagine a universe full of matter. All the molecules of the matter could, at any given minute, and completely by random chance decide to interact with each other in a particular fashion all at once. Should this happen the matter would form an amazing cohesion that eventually creates life on this earth. In reality this can't happen, but only because it represents a statistical probablitiy so small as to be thought impossible.
Imagine a bathtub full of water. All the molecules of water could, at any given minute, and completely by random chance decide to move in the same direction at once. Should this happen all the water would achieve a momentum to carry it out of the bathtub and onto the floor. In reality this can't happen, but only because it represents a statistical probablitiy so small as to be thought impossible.
vixpy1 said:
in my post i was simply stating that i did not believe that the universe, life and all that are down to chance. I believe the universe, life and everything were planned. Call it a science experiment, buy what? I don't know, but experience in life has taught me that the world and/or universe is simply not that lucky.
With all due respect vixpy1, your concept of "luck" cannot conceive the size of the numbers that you need to take into account. Let's say there are 100 billion solar systems of all types in our galaxy. Now take a value of total galaxies that we can observe, which is currently postulated to be 125 billion. That makes possibly 12,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems if all galaxies are similar to ours (some are larger and some smaller though, so may even out)... What infinitesimal chance can we put on the chance of life appearing in just one of those systems? No idea... But simple chance could easily acount for life. In its most simple state, life is not that complicated and the nature of our replicating DNA ensures that it will change and mutate over time, leading to more complex life...
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff