Were did God come from?

[DSE 5]

Quote

I've seen your other posts.

As for the rest, it doesn't really need it. There are psychological phenomena which contribute to a belief in God, but I don't think it follows that we've labeled a part of ourselves as such. The need and belief is internal, the object of our obsession is not necessarily so.

The definition of an observer is still wide open in quantum mechanics.

As for prayer, it does not work, it has been tested and that is the hard science. To still say it works after a fashion you'd have to subscribe to the many infinitely bifuricating universes and your particular stream of consciousness navigating through one space-time-line as and you self-select a particular meta-outcome as an observer (as infinite versions of us would constantly do), then prayer might be a mechanism of choice. I find the theory attractive but by no means compelling but "prayer" as the mechanism absolutely uninspired and in particular looking back in time all outcomes stemmed from the same prayers, so you're left to conclude that choice is an illusion or simultaneous minds exist in different prayer/thought states as you progress. It frankly becomes messy and downright silly unless you conclude that free will is an illusion. Now that's just one theory, but one to which you're drawn at the outset but the same train of thought leads to a self-refutation I think.

God is not in the gaps here.

P.S. to clarify; in the process prayer itself becomes an entirely introspective thing and the outcome matching the effort of the internal mind and nothing else, since science demonstrates that prayer does not work. Hence the only refuge is in something as yet immeasurable. Simultaneously there is an internal prayer or non-prayer that leads to other undesired outcomes. You see why I conclude it becomes rather silly.

Whoooosh!

[dorbie 0]

P.S. this is only a refutation of prayer as a mechanism, not of observation as an infinitely branching individualist process that may not be simultaneously universal in all frames of reference (except for the Observer's universe), which I personally think is compelling. It still says nothing about what an observer is, in fact it hints at fractal observation potentially at all scales.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Whoooosh!

It's a simple thought, explaining it is the tricky part.

Smoke me a kipper.....

[bigtexan 0]

I know this one... oh me me.. me ...

Ok, it's like this; it's a bit hard to follow but your efforts will be rewarded.

See, if you think real hard about it.. you probably remember something about... say .. atoms.. yea, those things. See where made of em; and the stuff that makes them by simple deduction. (Arguments with this statement?)

Next, since were made of these atoms, and we know were made of these atoms (and the stuff that atoms are made from by 'very' simple deduction (have to keep it simple for those religous folks) .. this is important .. becasue if we don't know what atoms are made from does it really matter? since we know they have to be made of something so lets just stop at atom and resolve not to go any deeper, like quarks, gluons, or just plain simple energy as in E=mc2) .. ok, back to my though ..

were made of atoms and we know were made of atoms so .. is it not so that that 'atoms know they make up people who are now thus aware of the atom itself and thus the atom is aware of itself .. ummmm

interesting..

it's like the atom grew up and became aware of itself.

So .. where did god come from.. well since were made in his image .. god came from atoms .. or just pure energy .. or whatever..

it's like energy is a dark driver .. finding a way to take charge of it's own destany .. maybe all this life around us is energy trying to find an outlet?

just my random thought for the day .. (actually a theory .. now how to make predicitions to validate it?)

loves.

[bigtexan 0]

amen

[Royd 0]

Quote

And we use pure logic to defend the non-existence of a God.

The logic of the evolutionist says that life developed itself. Once it started, it simply adapted to the conditions around it and began to improve itself until it is what it is today.

Haven't all of the other planets in our solar system been here as long as Earth?

By your logic, life should be able to start itself on any or every planet regardless of what we humans consider to be unsurvivable conditions.

Don't you find it strange that Earth has such complex, integrated life systems, each one depending, in some degree, upon the other, yet all of the other planets have nothing but atmospheric storms occurring on their surfaces?

[tkhayes 348]

planets in OUR solar system yes, but we also have a good idea what OUR forms of life need to survive and live. Earth did not always have these conditions and will not have them forever - we already know that.

We have no idea if Mars, i.e. had life at some point, but some day we will probably find out.

And I expect there are hundreds of thousands of other planets out there with life forms. Most we will never meet or know about - but it is pretty arrogant of mankind to asume that we are the 'only ones' - the 'chosen ones'

What a crock.

Stand on Pluto, look back at Earth and then tell me that Earth looks ANYTHING different from all the other dots out there. And you are telling me that God made ALL THAT UNIVERSE around you to satisfy that little blue dot over there in the distance. (paraphrased from Carl Sagan)

again, what a crock.

TK

[Royd 0]

Quote

planets in OUR solar system yes, but we also have a good idea what OUR forms of life need to survive and live.

By the "pure logic" of the evolutionist, life should be able to create itself and adapt to the heat of Venus or Mercury, the barren landscape of Mars or the violence of the surface of Jupiter. It has had the billions of years to get the job done, yet it has not happened.

Life as we know it could not exist on Earth if our orbit was 10,000 miles closer or farther away from the sun.

As it is we are wringing our hands over a couple of degrees in temperature change.

All conditions had to be absolutely perfect for life to exist on this planet.

In all of the planets of all of the solar systems of all of the galaxies, our little chunk of rock and water is the only one that we can prove has what it takes to do the job.

Coincidence? I think not.

[beowulf 1]

You really need to work on your logic. It is seriously flawed.

[Royd 0]

Quote

You really need to work on your logic. It is seriously flawed.

Thanks for the heads up.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

By the "pure logic" of the evolutionist, life should be able to create itself and adapt to the heat of Venus or Mercury, the barren landscape of Mars or the violence of the surface of Jupiter. It has had the billions of years to get the job done, yet it has not happened.

Not so. Again, we know what OUR life needs and we are familiar only with OUR life. Someday we will explain more of it.

And do you know for sure today that NO LIFE exists on Venus? We tend to look for life that exists only in our narrow parameters. Some other sulphur or acid based lifeforms may very well exist or may have in the recent past. (say millions of years ago)

Remember, we are but a sliver in time, in the history of the universe. To expect that all forms of life would simultaneously exist, or at least exist during OUR sliver of time is naive.

Again, we have no idea (yet), if and when forms of life existed even on our own planets. But someday we probably will be able to definitively determine that. We just cannot right now.

Let's say that we find some evidence of microorganisms on the planet Mars in say 100 years? Does religion (Christianity) then completely fall on its face? According to what I was taught in my church and all the Bible studies that Idid, that yes, Christianity would collapse.

Of course, the religious zealots will find a way to twist it again into something that it is not using faith, but no science or 'logic'

TK

billions and billions of stars and planets across an infinite universe. Assume that we are the only lifeform that God made in his image? Get real!

[JackC 0]

Quote

In all of the planets of all of the solar systems of all of the galaxies, our little chunk of rock and water is the only one that we can prove has what it takes to do the job.

Coincidence? I think not.

I've highlighted the important bit for you. Liquid water exists over a very small temperature scale so planets and moons in an orbit that can maintain a temperature within this scale are the likeliest candidates to be capable of bearing life similar to our own. The reason this is the only planet we can prove hosts life is the next nearest candidate is 20 light years away and I don't know anyone who can see that fecking far.

If you want to criticize science go right ahead but please, at least have the courtesy to criticize science for what it actually is.

[Royd 0]

Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In all of the planets of all of the solar systems of all of the galaxies, our little chunk of rock and water is the only one that we can prove has what it takes to do the job.

Coincidence? I think not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

I've highlighted the important bit for you. Liquid water exists over a very small temperature scale so planets and moons in an orbit that can maintain a temperature within this scale are the likeliest candidates to be capable of bearing life similar to our own. The reason this is the only planet we can prove hosts life is the next nearest candidate is 20 light years away and I don't know anyone who can see that fecking far.

If you want to criticize science go right ahead but please, at least have the courtesy to criticize science for what it actually is.

Life,as we define it needs water to survive.
Either evolution dictates it own parameters or all conditions have to be in place to start with. You can't have it both ways. Remove one element from the equation and it all goes down the tube.

Maybe, deep down, all of these global warming scientist/ athiests know that they are at the mercy of powers that they have no control over. Que sera sera.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

The logic of the evolutionist says that life developed itself. Once it started, it simply adapted to the conditions around it and began to improve itself until it is what it is today.

Haven't all of the other planets in our solar system been here as long as Earth?

By your logic, life should be able to start itself on any or every planet regardless of what we humans consider to be unsurvivable conditions.

Royd, you are a scientific illiterate. Please stop trying to tell us what evolution 'should' mean, you just show up your lack of knowledge.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

As for prayer, it does not work, it has been tested and that is the hard science.

The scientific consensus, based on peer-reviewed studies, is that prayer does not work? Got a source?

[JackC 0]

Quote

Either evolution dictates it own parameters or all conditions have to be in place to start with. You can't have it both ways. Remove one element from the equation and it all goes down the tube.

If you're just going to make things up, there's really no point in carrying on is there.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Royd, you are a scientific illiterate.

Nice PA.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

In all of the planets of all of the solar systems of all of the galaxies, our little chunk of rock and water is the only one that we can prove has what it takes to do the job.

Coincidence? I think not.

Royd, we can currently only 'see' a tiny percentage of the closest, biggest planets out there. Of those planets that we can detect we cannot see whetherb or not life exists on their surfaces. Saying that earth is the only planet we can prove has life is therefore absolutely meaningless.

As for it being interesting that we just happen to exist on a planet seemingly designed for our own existence, well, I'll leave you with this quote from Douglas Adams.

Quote

imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

As for prayer, it does not work, it has been tested and that is the hard science.

The scientific consensus, based on peer-reviewed studies, is that prayer does not work? Got a source?

here's one study as reported:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Royd, you are a scientific illiterate. Please stop trying to tell us what evolution 'should' mean, you just show up your lack of knowledge.

Just giving you occasion to revel in your intellectual superiority.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Quote

Royd, you are a scientific illiterate.

Nice PA.

Why? It's not a PA to tell someone they con't speel, why should it be a PA to tell someone they don't know anything about the science they are posting about. Do you think Royd has even the slightest grasp of evolutionary biology?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Royd, you are a scientific illiterate.

Nice PA.

Why? It's not a PA to tell someone they con't speel, why should it be a PA to tell someone they don't know anything about the science they are posting about. Do you think Royd has even the slightest grasp of evolutionary biology?

Which poster DOES have any credibility in discussing evolutionary biology?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As for prayer, it does not work, it has been tested and that is the hard science.

The scientific consensus, based on peer-reviewed studies, is that prayer does not work? Got a source?

here's one study as reported:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

In which scientific, peer-review journal was that study published?

[souleh 0]

Life could have evolved elsewhere - it probably has (going along the lines of an infinite universe). We're not special, it's just that in order to be asking these questions we must have been one of the lucky ones.

Our planet could quite easily have (as you say) been a few 10s of thousands of miles outside our current orbit and no life would exist. Perhaps we'd then be on another planet, in a different galaxy, asking ourselves the same question about life elsewhere?

'buttplugs? where?' - geno

[Royd 0]

Quote

Royd, we can currently only 'see' a tiny percentage of the closest, biggest planets out there. Of those planets that we can detect we cannot see whetherb or not life exists on their surfaces. Saying that earth is the only planet we can prove has life is therefore absolutely meaningless.

We have defined life by the confines of our little planet, and for it to continue all conditions must remain as they currently exist.

Once again, we are freaking over a small swing in temperature.

Think about the odds of all conditions being perfect for life, as we define it, to exist in any other solar system.

This star is too big, that one is too small, the planet's orbit isn't perfect, there's deadly gas on the surface or there's a 50,000 mile wide hurricane with 400mph winds blowing around.

Either we limit ourselves to the definition of life as we know it or we accept the possibility of other forms which are beyond our current comprehension.

Something more ethereal, shall we say?