Does God exist?

If I told you that the device you're using right now to read/post on this website created itself from nothing after an explosion at a factory you would say I'm affected with madness. But of course, how can a small, complex, well organised device which is made perfectly for us to use be made by chance and without any intelligent designer. It's absolutely stupid to say such a thing. But when I say that the Universe and everything in it, with all its beauty and incredibly complex systems which is beyond human comprehension but so perfectly designed and precisely regulated and provides for every one of our needs, was created by an All-Powerful Being, Who is Sustaining this Universe every moment, Who is Most Gracious and Merciful, you say I'm crazy?

 

This thread isn't about evolution. Evolution is a fact. If you do not understand it that is your problem as it is still the truth.

 

You don't really know you'll find out when you die

 

Not entirely true. With the view that I hold about afterlife ( there is none ) you just don't exist and can't really experience anything. You won't "know" anything.

 

He's not talking about evolution.

 

He partially is.

 

More like abiogenesis and natural laws of Physics.

 

Pretty sure he's talking about intelligent design. He believes evolution exists, but that's it was guided by God.

I find it odd that no prophet/messias/whatever ever mentioned something like that untill scientists found out about evolution.

It's like someone disputing a ban, and as more and more evidence shows up, keeps trying to avoid it and find explanations for it, however far-fetched those may be.

Tl;dr I don't believe in an omnipotent creator of the universe.

 

More like that and evolution. Regardless his argument is I don't understand this and this and this and therefore god. He is reducing humans to nothing. That is insulting.

 

Definitely. "God of the Gaps", so to say. But he's simply choosing so because he doesn't believe in his other option that he's obviously aware of: the theory of abiogenesis, as he has made clear in the first couple sentences of his paragraph. He's not focusing on any vague references to evolution. While evolution may be true, abiogenesis is not so certain.

People have different viewpoints on things, which will coax all existing evidence to supporting evidence for their beliefs. For example, the presence of large gravitational forces in space yields many different interpretations. Scientists: "Dark Matter". Christians: "God". Pastafarians: "Flying Spaghetti Monster". Such is the case with the person who posted. While you may think that his idea of a God creating the entire universe is silly, he thinks that the idea of abiogenesis is silly. Both of you have your "evidences". You're essentially both committing the same "crime", so to say.

 

God and dark matter are not on the same level. You can not claim god did something unless you can prove he or she or it exists. No one has come close to doing that in thousands of years so until someone does I will dismiss it. Scientific hypotheses are thought up by viewing the world around us and then are tested. If they are wrong, they are changed. If they are right, they are tested more and more until it becomes apparent they are true. Scientists have shown that under certain conditions many basic building blocks of life can be formed through entirely non-organic processes. Just because we do not know exactly how abiogenesis worked now does not mean we will not in 10 years. Simply giving up and saying I have faith god did has no merit. Prove to me god exists and then prove to me that he created life. Until you have evidence for those things your beliefs have no merit and shouldn't be believed.

 

The example wasn't meant to be taken literally. I'll give you another example so the point is more clear. Take the DNA molecule. The essence of all living things. The code for protein synthesis. Now look at two different viewpoints:

Scientists: "Wow, the DNA molecule is extremely complex! This just goes to show you how lucky we are to be alive! It must've taken billions of years of random events to create such a spectacular molecule. Just shows why it would be hard for us to find life on another planet!"

God Advocate: "Wow, the DNA molecule is extremely complex! This just goes to show you how it requires an intelligent designer to be made! After all, it is a code - just like how binary is a code (and required a designer), DNA is a code, and requires a designer as well! Just goes to show why we can't find life on other planets - our planet, Earth, is special!"

Flying Spaghetti Monster Advocate: Pretty much the same as above.

You see, "evidence" can be coaxed into many different viewpoints. Which one is the correct one? We do not know.

You will never get proof for the existence of God, or for the validity of evolution. But what you will get is evidence for both. However, as I stated before, evidence is easily coaxed by the observer, so in the end, your viewpoint is your viewpoint. To change it is a major feat.

I understand where you're coming from - I agree, we should never just 'stop' and not try to discover more. But what I'm saying is that this does not have to occur in the absence of God. And when I say 'God', I do not necessarily mean the Christian God. It could be any higher being. For example, we could discover more - the Higgs Boson, evolution, etc. but in the end, the atheist will just say this is more evidence that God is not needed, whilst the theist will say, "I'm beginning to understand how God created everything around us now."

There is no proof for abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not about the creation of building blocks - it's about the creation of life through random processes. By saying we were able to make building blocks through natural processes and claim that abiogenesis is most likely true is analogous to saying that a factory which produces only the parts of a car can actually produce a functional car without some intervention. It just doesn't work like that. Building blocks need their 'builder'. The emergent property states that the sum is greater than the parts due to interactions. What causes these molecules to interact?

And if you're referring to the Miller-Urey experiment, text books tend to hide the fact that this experiment actually goes against the theory of abiogenesis. Whilst the experiment only produced 'building blocks' (and not any complex molecules, such as DNA), it produced a 'racemate' mixture of left handed and right handed amino acids. All organisms to date are homochiral (with rare exceptions such as the cell walls of certain bacterium) - we all have left handed amino acids. The problem is, right handed amino acids are toxic to life, so all the Miller-Urey experiment showed was how hard it could be for abiogenesis to be true. Chirality poses a big problem for abiogenesis.

Harold Urey even admitted after the experiment that all this experiment showed was the chance of abiogenesis being true are even more slim than before: "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."

But again, scientists should never stop to see if abiogenesis is true. At the time being, however, those who are saying that it will be proved true are committing a "Science of the Gaps" fallacy, putting faith that science will prove that this theory is true one day. What if it wasn't true though? Do you just wait longer because it's your only "hope"? Or perhaps we can understand that maybe saying "I don't know" isn't so bad - after all, science is only limited to our senses and understanding.

 

tl;dr version = science for theistic mindsets is the explanation of "how" whichever creator created the universe. You're dodging the fucking question of truth. It's not a matter of if it's true to you or not, it's a matter of how/which god did it. ( which in itself is an unprovable claim )

You also claim that "You will never get proof for the existence of God, or for the validity of evolution." I'm sorry but no. Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. If you are truly adamant on the falsehood of evolution then go prove it. If you are able to prove it wrong then you will be set, you will receive prizes, grants ( if you wish to further expand your competing theory ), and most importantly be noted in history forever. Oh, wait, no one has yet.

Is it only strange to you that religion operates on the mode of were 100% correct until were proven wrong and in that case we will re-interpret our religion or just make the claim that it isn't meant to be taken literally. Science, however, operates on the claim that something is true until proven wrong or there is a better, more plausible explanation. Go ahead, play that game because you're argument is ever fleeting.


Edit;

"I don't know" isn't so bad - after all, science is only limited to our senses and understanding."

1. hypocrisy at its finest.
2. Science is not limited to our senses, we've been using the electromagnetic spectrum to observe the universe for decades now. If anything science reveals senses that were previously unknown.

 

I already said that I believe in evolution before (specifically representations of the theory being only concerned with biological life). However, evolution was a larger theory before - it included 'chemical evolution', which is the essence of abiogenesis. If you're telling me abiogenesis is a proved theory, then there are many prizes/grants for you as well. But it's not, as we've clearly seen that nobody has been awarded these prizes for creating life (through random, natural processes) in the laboratory. Why don't YOU go prove it to me now?

Funny how you bring the topic of religion. First, I never mentioned religion. Second, science does similar to what you are saying religion does - theories are edited (which is analogous to reinterpretation of scripture, as scripture is vague and cannot be changed anyways) when things in them are proven false, or less likely to be true. Just like evolution - it used to include the process of chemical evolution (abiogenesis) as well, but once that was deemed hard to prove, it was removed to make evolution appear more valid. But they never removed the idea of abiogenesis. They just moved it away from evolution, to make evolution appear more true. Sounds like evolutionists had their mindset that their theory is 100% true since the beginning, and don't want any other theories bogging its validity down.

1. False judgement at its finest. You're probably assuming I'm Christian and have a 100% mindset of how the world was created. I'm not, and I don't. I don't know how the world was created. In any case, focus on the argument, not the person arguing.

2. Read clearly - senses and understanding was what I said. Anything that defeats our mode of understanding will not be included in science. An old example of this is acupuncture. In some cases it works, but scientists have a hard time explaining why it works with our conventional modes of understanding. The Chinese don't - they explain it with 'qi', a concept silly to most scientists' understanding.

 

I did not reference abiogenesis at all nor do I make any claims pertaining to it. Evolution as it's currently defined does not include abiogenesis. If you want to nit pick along my words which "used" to mean things then go right ahead but it's not a logical way to debate.

"Religion -The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

Yes, I did bring up religion as it CLEARLY pertains to this argument.

They removed abiogenesis from a theory because it was hard to prove and lacked evidence?

you're digging yourself into a hole here.

WERE 100% RIGHT SO WERE GOING TO REMOVE STUFF THAT WE DON'T THINK IS RIGHT/CANT BE PROVEN BY EVIDENCE.

I'm not judging you, I'm judging the statement you made. I honestly couldn't care less what you believe. Once again,

"I don't know" isn't so bad - after all, science is only limited to our senses and understanding."

A scientist with any validity doesn't EVER approach something saying "I know everything about X". You're trying to throw science under the bus here saying that claims are made and supported without any validity when in fact religion is the breeding ground for that type of behavior, not science.

Read clearly - I was only speaking about senses.


edit; if anything science broadens our understanding.

 

I do not believe Darwin ever had any idea how life began. Just because we do not know now does not mean we will not know in the future. I do not understand why this is such a hard concept. Shouting GOD DID IT when science does not yet know makes no sense. You say scripture needs to constantly be reinterpreted? Well, why? Because of science. What good is it if it has been shown to be wrong again and again and again over the last thousands of years? None. It is useless.

 

No, I want you to follow through with my argument. SuF kept referring to evolution as if it included abiogenesis in it, so I stuck with that definition. Now I'm clarifying to you that I never meant evolution in the sense of biological life only when I tested its validity.

Not really. My point is that we don't know how the universe was created, how life first began, etc. I only brought God into the topic to show how two different mindsets will view evidence.

Sounds like you brought religion up because it's an easy concept to attack. Essentially putting words in my mouth, then attacking them.

Pretty much. It used to be included in evolution (chemical evolution, or the origin of life). Later, it became more clear that abiogenesis is NOT included in evolution. They would give just a few small paragraphs dedicated to abiogenesis, of course referring to the Stanley-Murrey experiment (but not indicating its flaws and how it actually makes abiogenesis seem less likely), and then clearly state that abiogenesis is NOT a part of the evolution theory according to the biologist (and current) definition.

And I'm saying you judged my statement wrong.

Agreed. A scientist does not ever say they know everything. But the people reading their theories do. In the end, rarely any of us debating are scientists.

And I never said science makes claims without any validity. It's just that 'evidence' can be viewed so differently by different observers that sometimes this validity is questionable.

Okay, so? You were debating against the argument that I initialized. I'm the one that said science is limited to our senses and understanding. You only addressed the senses part, which is not wholly what my claim is concerned with. I only included senses because one of the fundamental steps in the scientific method is observation, which generally begins with us observing natural phenomena with our senses. However, it could also include, for example, using devices to measure electromagnetic waves. But still, then it just falls into the category of understanding. It could never include 'qi', for example.

It broadens our understanding, yes. But I'm not using understanding in this form. I mean understanding in the sense of how we think, what tools we have to think, and/or human logic. Not knowledge.

No, Divine_God said scripture needs to be constantly reinterpreted. I'm not arguing here for scripture. So save your arguments. No point arguing against something that was put into my mouth.

And yes, that's great to say that 'science does not know'. But face it, people DON'T do that. Those who have already chosen their mindset will keep having hopes that, for example, abiogenesis will be proved true. This shows faith in science - "Science of the Gaps". Just because you don't know, doesn't mean you have to say science WILL prove it in the future. Maybe the theory is essentially false. Maybe the topic is something that our current mode of science cannot prove (acupuncture). And just because you don't know, doesn't mean you have to say it's God. But you should be openly willing to accept either idea if you're able to "correctly" interpret given evidences for either one's validity.

 

Well I mean I can't touch or see God.

 

Then you have no evidence for him and you shouldn't believe in him.

 

Often times, existence can be inferred.

I would summarize the classic deistic watchmaker argument in the following way:
1. The universe looks designed
2. Therefore, the universe is designed
3. A designer can thus be inferred

The issue, of course, lies in equating the appearance of design with actual design.

Life is complex; however, its intricacies are due to a natural process, namely, evolution, rather than some sort of conscious design. The earth looks well-suited for life: it has the correct climate, distance from the sun, composition, etc. Given how vast the universe is, though, plenty of similar planets are bound to exists through mere happenstance.

Bananas look designed (as Ray Comfort is eager to point out). Do they prove God exists? No. However, bananas exhibit the appearance of design for a very good reason: we designed them for ourselves. Ray Comfort, although certainly not the most intelligent man around, was correct in inferring a designer from a banana's appearance of design. Bananas were designed. Dogs are cute, sociable, helpful, and loving toward humans. They appear to be designed, and they were: dogs, like bananas, were created through artificial selection.

An appearance of design therefore can (and only can) translate into actually being designed. But where does this leave us?

The universe looks designed, and it very well might be designed. A multiverse, on the other hand, could explain some (but not all) of the apparent design of the universe. The issue with this is that we don't yet know if a multiverse exists. This leads the deist into the awkward position of agnosticism: even if he thinks it's very likely that the universe was actually designed, he is forced to wait for further evidence of the universe being formed by natural processes to adjust his level of certainty.

tl;dr Possibly, and we might be a bit less certain in the future.