Welcome to Gaia! ::

*~Let the Fire Fall ~* A Christian Guild

Back to Guilds

 

 

Reply Debate and Discussion
is their really a god? Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6 7 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

is their a god
  there is
  none
View Results

penguin30071

PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:48 pm
Sage~of~Water
Yes there is a God.
Bad things happen to the best of people all through history. The first things people that have just become Christians should realize is that God loves us. No matter how horrible things get God is with us. Now I do agree with Fushigi na Butterfly.
Why do bad things happen to His people? Well, some theologians belive that He does it to punish us for our sin and for drifting away from him.
This is my veiw on this subject, and there is always hope in the darkest of hours for God is there with you... I understand how you feel angry and frusterated but we all get doubts about certain things.

Most I agree with, but........I think that the reason you get into crap is because it's stuff the Devil throws at you that, in the end, makes you stronger. Trust me, when you get through this, you be near unshakeable.

Peace in A-Town up!!!!

P.S.- Protect the penguins!!!!!!!  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:02 am
Fushigi na Butterfly
First off, does that even make sense? That would be like saying that humans "evolved" before chimps (or whatever it is we're supposed to have come from. (oh yay, now I sound like an idiot -_-)). It's like ... devolving. Is that a word? I hope so. -_-;

Well, firstly, you should provide some evidence for the claim that there were terrestrial plants present in the Cambrian era. Currently, the consensus is that terrestrial plants first appeared in the Ordovician period, which post-dates the Cambrian.

Secondly, if terrestrial plants had appeared in the Cambrian period, then that would be cause for a revision of the evolutionary timescale, not a negation of it. If we were to find terrestrial plants in the Cambrian era, then that would tell us that they had evolved earlier than we had previously thought and that our out evolutionary time line needed to be corrected to account for these new data. In short, they would prove that our knowledge of the evolutionary process was incomplete, not that the evolutionary process hadn't occurred.

Fushigi na Butterfly
Just most? Not all? What about certain genetic disorders? Those are just mutations too, aren't they? They weren't always there, it might not even be in the family. But suddenly, a gene gets all whacked out and does something weird and you have a baby with a disorder. It's all the same. Two-headed snakes and babies with disorders- random mutations, neither of which would probably survive "in the wild".

It is estimated that, in humans, about 3 harmful mutations occur out of 175 otherwise neutral mutations every generation [1]. It is true that most mutations with dramatic effects are harmful, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of mutations have little to no appreciable effect.

As to genetic disorders, not all of them are caused by genetic mutations. Down syndrome, for example, is the result of an individual having an extra chromosome 21, and Klinefelter's syndrome is the result of a male having two X chromosomes (making him an YXX male). In the case of genetic disorders that are the result of a mutation, most are carried on recessive genes, meaning that for a person to inherit the disorder he would have to inherit two defective, recessive genes, an unlikely scenario (unless, of course, the disorder is X-linked and the afflicted individual is a male, in which case he would only have have one defective, defective, recessive gene on his X chromosome). The fact that we never see deleterious mutations carried on dominant genes is actually a strong proof for natural selection and evolution: Since the offspring of a carrier of a deletorious mutation carried on a dominant gene would invariably inherit that disorder, they would be quickly selected against (which assumes that the original carrier would even survive to reproduce, which would not be a given). Disorders carried on recessive genes survive only because they usually don't affect their carriers and their offspring, but rather surface only occasionally.

Fushigi na Butterfly
Did they?

Fushigi na Butterfly
Again. Could have. Maybe. Did they?

In truth, I'm a bit puzzled by your questions. The very fact that these systems exist tells us that they evolved. Ours is to attempt to figure out how. Here's how it probably worked for flowers and bees:

Insects existed well before flowering plants (flowering plants showed up about 150 million years after insects). When flowers did show up, some insects almost certainly found that they were a good source of food. Some flowers proved particularly adept at spreading their pollen (and, by extension, their genes) via these insects, and so you wind up with some flowers heading down an entomophilic (pollinated by insects) evolutionary path.

And for predators and prey:

The evolution of predation is most likely very simple. At some point way back in evolutionary history, some organisms (single cellular, most likely) found that it was more expedient to get their energy from other organisms than it was to collect it through other (most likely autotrophic) means. Because the first predators' prey were almost certainly single-celled autotrophs, there were few to no constraints placed on the prey's food source and as such over-population was a negligible problem. In other words, the predators needed the prey, but the prey had little use for the predators. This system of predation evolved right along with the involved organisms, of course. Once certain prey organisms became non-autotrophic and limitations were placed on the growth of their populations, then they became dependent on their predators to keep their numbers in check.

Secondly, this is primarily a 'meta' version of the irreducible complexity argument (IC), which has been thoroughly refuted. The fact that evolution can explain how these systems might have come about proves that the existence of obligate relationships in nature is not a phenomenon that is so 'complex' that it can only be explained by a designer -- evolution can explain it perfectly well.

Fushigi na Butterfly
No.

I believe the question that Mechanism meant to ask is 'Isn't jumping to the conclusion that God created us, quite literally, from dust and in our present form a bit hasty?' There's no good reason, as far as I can see, to discount the possibility of divinely guided evolution.

My apologies if I seem rude here. I know that I'm certainly coming across as didactic (which I know irritates some people), but I hope that I don't seem combative to boot.

1. Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.  

Tarrou


Mechanism

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:07 am
Cometh The Inquisitor
Interestingly enough, there is no actual reason for gravity. It exists anyways, though.


Reason to believe, not cause of existence.
I have very good reason to believe that gravity exists; I feel it.

=================================================

Fushigi na Butterfly
First off, does that even make sense? That would be like saying that humans "evolved" before chimps. It's like ... devolving. Is that a word? I hope so.

Eh, "evolution" is a misleading term. Humans are not better than bacteria, we're simply more complex.
It's quite possible for simple organisms to come about through the evolution of a complex organism.
And devolution is indeed a word. I think.

Fushigi na Butterfly
Just most? Not all? What about certain genetic disorders? Those are just mutations too, aren't they? They weren't always there, it might not even be in the family. But suddenly, a gene gets all whacked out and does something weird and you have a baby with a disorder. It's all the same. Two-headed snakes and babies with disorders- random mutations, neither of which would probably survive "in the wild".

Those are just mutations that happened to affect important function. Most mutations are so insignificant that you'd never notice them. DNA is a huge molecule, and usually there are many parts that are redundant, or that are never used.  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:08 am
Cometh The Inquisitor
People really don't know why stuff exists for things like physics (E.I. space-time, Newtonian Physics, all them other schools of physics...). All we know is that they DO exist, and build our knowledge upon this fact.

Well, we know why they exist on one level (gravity is mass curving space time), but on another level, no we don't. It's sort of like the various answers to the question 'Why is the water boiling?' On one level, it's just a function of pressure. On another, it's boiling because I turned the stove on underneath it. And on yet another level, the water is boiling because I happen to want to make a cup of tea. It's true that we don't know that outer-most level of why? when it comes to the universe -- the one you're talking about -- but we do know some of the lesser, more techical whys?, such as gravity.  

Tarrou


penguin30071

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:55 am
Mechanism
Fushigi na Butterfly
Well, to think that we are here by mere chance is just ... eerie, and mind-boggling. It's hard to comprehend. It just makes more sense that there is a God that created everything.

False dilemma, Fush.
Nonexistence of a god does not imply that we're here by chance. In fact, the events which led to our existence are a result of natural processes and patterns. It's more than likely that life will occur in a universe of this magnitude.
Anyway, even assuming that the world as we know it was caused by something, is this thing necessarily intelligent? Is it necessarily humanlike? Is it necessarily YHWH?

Fushigi na Butterfly
There is only one possible combination of amino acids that gives life. One in The chance of 100 amino acids aligning in exactly the right order is one chance in one
followed by 158 zeroes or something similar.

Nah. Basically, each protein has a different combination of amino acids, and there are many thousands of different proteins within one species. the proteins in modern organisms are very complicated, but not necessarily so. The minimum requirement for abiogensis is a self-replicating molecule; theoretically, some fairly simple organic RNA and DNA molecules can do this. It has been shown that organic molecules do form quite naturally in an environment like what the early Earth's probably was.

Fushigi na Butterfly
The first identifiable life is found as fossil evidence in the Cambrian layer of rock, supposedly 500,000,000 (five hundred million) years old. That are no known fossil evidences in the two layers underneath. There have been billions of fossils found in this one layer alone and all have been of a highly complex nature. No one has found any fossil evidence of a development of life from a single cell ...

This is for a very simple reason.
Single cells don't fossilize well.

Fushigi na Butterfly
It is now known that complex plants existed in the Cambrian Period, which, on the evolutionary time scale, 200 million years or so before even simple land plants are supposed to have evolved.

Yah? Your point?

Fushigi na Butterfly
Evolutionists claim that mutations are the changes that account for the changes in species, yet scientists know that about ninety-nine out of one hundred mutations produce inferior creatures, such as the two headed snake, that "wouldn't last in the wild." If this is true, then the fossilized remains of these ninety-nine unsuccessful mutations should be found among fossils, as well as the successful ones found so abundantly. The fossil record reveals no fossil remains of known mutations.

Actually, the vast majority of mutations have no real effect.
Quick note, most evolution occurs when the environment changes and variations which are already present become more frequent, not when variations just happen to make an organism fitter.

Fushigi na Butterfly
The bee and the flower both had to appear at precisely the same time or the earlier would not be able to survive.

Eh, not really.
Prototype flowers that used other pollinators, and prototype bees, that got food from other sources, could have easily existed.

Fushigi na Butterfly
The hunted animal and its predator, the hunter, had to "evolve" at
precisely the same time, or either the world would be over- populated by the hunted animal, if it "evolved" first, or with large quantities of fossils of the hunter if it "evolved" before its food supply "evolved."

Most predators prey on many different types of animal, and likewise for prey; those few species which are very specialized and only have one prey could've evolved via a prototype species that had a different prey.

Fushigi na Butterfly
So those are just some arguments against evolution. If we didn't evolve, what other option is there? And the reason it seems that bad things happen and that God isn't there is because of sin. We have free will; we aren't puppets. God isn't going to control us. With the example of 9/11- sure, God could have stopped that. But He gave those terrorists the same free will He gave everyone, and they chose to use it for bad.

Eh, firstly, you hardly disproved evolution.
Secondly, jumping to the conclusion that YHWH created us is a bit hasty, dontcha think?

Anyway, sorry for my quick reply. I'm sure you could get much more thorough answers for your objections from talk.origins or similar.
Up until right about now.....I kind of liked Mechanism.  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:48 pm
penguin30071
Sage~of~Water
Yes there is a God.
Bad things happen to the best of people all through history. The first things people that have just become Christians should realize is that God loves us. No matter how horrible things get God is with us. Now I do agree with Fushigi na Butterfly.
Why do bad things happen to His people? Well, some theologians belive that He does it to punish us for our sin and for drifting away from him.
This is my veiw on this subject, and there is always hope in the darkest of hours for God is there with you... I understand how you feel angry and frusterated but we all get doubts about certain things.

Most I agree with, but........I think that the reason you get into crap is because it's stuff the Devil throws at you that, in the end, makes you stronger. Trust me, when you get through this, you be near unshakeable.

Peace in A-Town up!!!!

P.S.- Protect the penguins!!!!!!!




Well of course the devil tosses stuff your way and some of it God gives you as a test of your faith!

My father has either M.S* or brain tumor, our insurnace is to high and it wouldn't cover the many cat-scans and blood tests that would be needed to be done. Yes, it is very hard to see your dad not being able to use some of his limbs. You would say it really isn't directed at me or my family... but it is. It is horrible to see your father go through horrid depretion because of what he has.

So, yes the devil throughs stuff your way but MY point was that God is right there with you through and through. As Christ said,"I will never leave thee nor forsake thee..."


* M.S. is an illness which hits your nervous system, it is where your muscles slowly die and you cannot use them, and later down the road you die a pain ful death.


Your in Him,

Sage  

Sage~of~Water

850 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Member 100

ioioouiouiouio

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:30 pm
Tangled Up In Blue
Well, we know why they exist on one level (gravity is mass curving space time), but on another level, no we don't. It's sort of like the various answers to the question 'Why is the water boiling?' On one level, it's just a function of pressure. On another, it's boiling because I turned the stove on underneath it. And on yet another level, the water is boiling because I happen to want to make a cup of tea. It's true that we don't know that outer-most level of why? when it comes to the universe -- the one you're talking about -- but we do know some of the lesser, more techical whys?, such as gravity.

Well, my point was kinda like, we know the water boils at a certain temperature (degrees celsius), but what that temperature? We know gravity is caused by curvatures in space-time, but what we don't know is 'why does space-time exist? how did it come to be?' (Heck, we really don't know that space-time exists, but it is something that explains the that 'What DOES exist' and other theories put to it.)

To Mechanism: You feel it, so it exists? Thats a rather ego-centric ideology.  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:10 am
penguin30071
Up until right about now.....I kind of liked Mechanism.

...Thank you.
Why don't you now?  

Mechanism


swakikiki

PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:49 pm
Cometh The Inquisitor
Yes, there is a God.

When we ask ourselves 'How could God let all this bad stuff happen?' we are suffering from a lack of faith. Not 'Faith' as in the religeous sense, but faith in God like a parent has faith in their child. the 'You can do it! I know you can!' type of Faith. God has a plan, and, when things look dark, just remember that it will all work out in the end. It may not be while you are alive, but it will happen.


does it mean that if you don't have a strong faith it is synonymous of having no god question does faith really justify your stand about the existenceof a supreme being question  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:21 pm
I don't see how anyone can truly believe Nature, in all the complexity and variety and interrelativity, is just a coincidence of science. The universe seems to me to declare the magnificence of a supremely intelligent and powerful Being. And why would such a Being create all this and then just walk off and abandon it? Such a magnificent creation implies an equally magnificent purpose. So I have to say yes, there is a God. Now as to the identy/personality/purpose of said God, that is for another thread. xd  

Faith Fairy
Crew

Blessed Fairy

8,275 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Dressed Up 200

ioioouiouiouio

PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:46 pm
swakikiki
does it mean that if you don't have a strong faith it is synonymous of having no god question does faith really justify your stand about the existenceof a supreme being question


Faith is really all the proof we have of a god. I mean, Atheistic Science explains the universe just as well as Christianity. Christianity, however, is a more complete version of Atheistic Science. Remember, true faith is the pinnacle of intelligence.

as for my 'faith' bit. I was pointing out the logical fallacy you used (or one commonly used by those who use your arguements). "there is all this evil in the world, therefore there is no God'. This is a logical fallacy because, if there was a God, then all the evil in the world is in accordance to his plan.  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:52 pm
Faith Fairy
I don't see how anyone can truly believe Nature, in all the complexity and variety and interrelativity, is just a coincidence of science. The universe seems to me to declare the magnificence of a supremely intelligent and powerful Being. And why would such a Being create all this and then just walk off and abandon it? Such a magnificent creation implies an equally magnificent purpose. So I have to say yes, there is a God. Now as to the identy/personality/purpose of said God, that is for another thread. xd

-A "coincidence of science"? Would you explain what you actually mean?
-Complexity doesn't necessarily imply god.
Note, using god as an explanation of complexity doesn't work well unless you can explain the complexity which is god presumably has.
=============================================

Inquisitor
Remember, true faith is the pinnacle of intelligence.

I disagree.
If 'intelligence' means 'the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge' and 'faith' means 'trust or belief without evidence':
One is more likely to acquire useful knowledge if one believes only things which have evidence; if prescence of evidence did not increase the chance of something being true and useful, it wouldn't be considered evidence.
That is, if one has no 'faith', one is more likely to acquire useful evidence which can be applied.

Cometh The Inquisitor
Faith is really all the proof we have of a god.

I think that faith is a type of belief, not an evidence.

Cometh The Inquisitor
I mean, Atheistic Science...

Science is science.
Whether or not someone is a theist makes no difference to their science.  

Mechanism


Faith Fairy
Crew

Blessed Fairy

8,275 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Dressed Up 200
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:28 am
Mechanism
Faith Fairy
I don't see how anyone can truly believe Nature, in all the complexity and variety and interrelativity, is just a coincidence of science. The universe seems to me to declare the magnificence of a supremely intelligent and powerful Being. And why would such a Being create all this and then just walk off and abandon it? Such a magnificent creation implies an equally magnificent purpose. So I have to say yes, there is a God. Now as to the identy/personality/purpose of said God, that is for another thread. xd

-A "coincidence of science"? Would you explain what you actually mean?

I mean a coincidence where science is used to describe the components (atoms, forces, energy, etc.) but the cause of how it all came together just this way is considered simply a happenstance. The arguement I have heard is that a large enough set of appropriate materials and forces will eventually result in all the coplexity of life and physics. That seems much more implausible to me than that a Force with intelligence actually figured it all out and made things the way they are.  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:31 am
Faith Fairy
I mean a coincidence where science is used to describe the components (atoms, forces, energy, etc.)

-How something is described makes absolutely no difference to what it is.
-The word 'coincidence' is a bit iffy; technically, it's everyday usage is far from it's technical meaning (two things happening at the same time).
It seems that you mean 'an unlikely event', and of course: there's not much reason to believe that an unlikely event will occur.
However, the formation of complexity our universe is not an unlikely event.

Faith Fairy
The arguement I have heard is that a large enough set of appropriate materials and forces will eventually result in all the coplexity of life and physics.

Ah. Well it's important to understand that time is not the only factor involved.
The laws of physics, being what they are, are key;

With the laws of physics being what they are, complexity and even life is prettymuch guaranteed to happen sometime somewhere.

Faith Fairy
That seems much more implausible to me than that a Force with intelligence actually figured it all out and made things the way they are.

Aye, but how do you explain the existence of that Force? Surely it must have quite a lot of complexity in order to be intelligent; How did that occur?  

Mechanism


Curium

PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:51 am
I believe God exists, and I also believe that bad things happen to test our faith in God. If life was always peachy and nice and wonderful, then I'm sure most people would stand their ground and stay with their beliefs. I believe God tests us with harsh times to root out those who aren't true believers, or maybe to strengthen the faith of those who are. ((But that's just my take on it, and I know not everyone believes what I believe.))  
Reply
Debate and Discussion

Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6 7 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum

Customize your own avatar now!

Have an account? Login Now!