Does God exist?

[Shadow*91]

agian your falling back on inteligent design which basically says that the world is ordered in such a perfect way for life that a god must've created it. but thats not evidence for god, thats you believing that god had to have set up this stuff for us. why is it impossible for you to believe that all of these things, that life happened to begin by just a mere coincidence?

 

[Napalmbrain]

Well of course there's entropy in a sense, but within it is order. I learned the word entropy in 9th grade in biology class, and it wasn't like we were taught that it is a concept that doesn't exist, but through it does not cause chaos.

As for the water cycle, I didn't claim that it's divine it itself, I did claim however that its precision and existence alone is an evidence that God exists. To exist in such a fashion, even the air we breathe with all the necessary components, these were all designed for life to exist. Pure oxygen is poison, keep that in mind.

The way you talk about it, I'm not quite sure you fully understand what entropy is. Entropy doesn't cause disorder- it is disorder. Or more specifically, it's a measure of the disorder in a system. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the total entropy in any closed system always increases (i.e. things generally get more disordered over time- this is why ice melts).

Note (while we're on the subject): Beware of the ridiculous creationist argument which tries to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to argue against evolution- the Second Law only applies to closed systems, and the Earth is not a closed system (of course, Earth receives energy from the Sun).

I really don't see how the water cycle is proof of God. It happens because of the laws of physics, and it's not very precise at all- there are floods and droughts all the time. The fact that our planet supports life proves nothing. Until we explore the Universe and get a better idea of how common life is, it's impossible to say how special Earth is.

agian your falling back on inteligent design which basically says that the world is ordered in such a perfect way for life that a god must've created it. but thats not evidence for god, thats you believing that god had to have set up this stuff for us. why is it impossible for you to believe that all of these things, that life happened to begin by just a mere coincidence?

Actually, if there is one thing I can agree with Turk on, it's that life beginning by mere coincidence is pretty absurd. But whereas Turk invokes God, I'd prefer to wait until someone figures out a natural mechanism by which life can arise (before someone makes the same old mistake again, evolution is not about the origin of life, only what happens after it gets there).

 

[Shadow*91]

i think it was just a coincidence. when the settings for life finally came about some random event created the first single cell organism and from there, evolution took over. the only thing wrong with this, is we can't figure out the random event that caused that organism, but i see no reason to say god. we just don't know enough yet

 

[navarre]

i think it was just a coincidence. when the settings for life finally came about some random event created the first single cell organism and from there, evolution took over. the only thing wrong with this, is we can't figure out the random event that caused that organism, but i see no reason to say god. we just don't know enough yet

As someone who's keen on science, I'm not too fond of 'coincidences'. Ohh, an enzyme denatures in heat, must be coincidence, or ohh, the reactivity of the halogens decreases going down the group, must be a 'coincidence'. Thank God most people have seen sense and don't attribute things they don't understand to mere 'coincidence', or else the world would be a very bleak place indeed.

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

Well of course there's entropy in a sense, but within it is order. I learned the word entropy in 9th grade in biology class, and it wasn't like we were taught that it is a concept that doesn't exist, but through it does not cause chaos.

As for the water cycle, I didn't claim that it's divine it itself, I did claim however that its precision and existence alone is an evidence that God exists. To exist in such a fashion, even the air we breathe with all the necessary components, these were all designed for life to exist. Pure oxygen is poison, keep that in mind.

The way you talk about it, I'm not quite sure you fully understand what entropy is. Entropy doesn't cause disorder- it is disorder. Or more specifically, it's a measure of the disorder in a system. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the total entropy in any closed system always increases (i.e. things generally get more disordered over time- this is why ice melts).

Note (while we're on the subject): Beware of the ridiculous creationist argument which tries to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to argue against evolution- the Second Law only applies to closed systems, and the Earth is not a closed system (of course, Earth receives energy from the Sun).

I really don't see how the water cycle is proof of God. It happens because of the laws of physics, and it's not very precise at all- there are floods and droughts all the time. The fact that our planet supports life proves nothing. Until we explore the Universe and get a better idea of how common life is, it's impossible to say how special Earth is.

agian your falling back on inteligent design which basically says that the world is ordered in such a perfect way for life that a god must've created it. but thats not evidence for god, thats you believing that god had to have set up this stuff for us. why is it impossible for you to believe that all of these things, that life happened to begin by just a mere coincidence?

Actually, if there is one thing I can agree with Turk on, it's that life beginning by mere coincidence is pretty absurd. But whereas Turk invokes God, I'd prefer to wait until someone figures out a natural mechanism by which life can arise (before someone makes the same old mistake again, evolution is not about the origin of life, only what happens after it gets there).

Thanks for that insight on entropy in detail, but I did have a good idea on what it was in terms of chemistry (I'm not implying that you wasted your time trying to explain it, it definitely did have its purpose).

Also, we have searched so much already and have found no life capable of living on any planet as of yet. This doesn't prove that life cannot exist at all, but it says something about earth's abundance of life and thus it being special.

And yes, the water cycle existing in itself to me is something God has created for humankind to benefit from. The existence of different layers of gases about the Earth's vast atmosphere to me, has not been coincidentally arranged. And while a few meteors do pass, for instance, this does not disprove that it is indeed flawed and thus not from any God. These protective layers (we can get into great detail if desired) cannot be defended by evolution, the need for night and day which is met (except for a small portion of the world which still does not disprove what I'm saying) is also not existent by mere coincidence. In fact, I see it as being carefully planned by an all-knowing and all-powerful creator (we'll continue the discussion on the paradox too, if needed, because it does demand an answer).

 

[Napalmbrain]

Also, we have searched so much already and have found no life capable of living on any planet as of yet. This doesn't prove that life cannot exist at all, but it says something about earth's abundance of life and thus it being special.

Some lifeforms are capable of surviving rather extreme conditions, including the deep sea, beneath the ice caps, deep underground, the cores of nuclear plants, and even in a vacuum. If life on Earth is this tough, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to find it anywhere else once we're able to go to other planets.

And yes, the water cycle existing in itself to me is something God has created for humankind to benefit from. The existence of different layers of gases about the Earth's vast atmosphere to me, has not been coincidentally arranged. And while a few meteors do pass, for instance, this does not disprove that it is indeed flawed and thus not from any God. These protective layers (we can get into great detail if desired) cannot be defended by evolution, the need for night and day which is met (except for a small portion of the world which still does not disprove what I'm saying) is also not existent by mere coincidence. In fact, I see it as being carefully planned by an all-knowing and all-powerful creator (we'll continue the discussion on the paradox too, if needed, because it does demand an answer).

Let me tell you about something called the anthropic principle. It's a simple concept, but frequently misunderstood. Basically, we humans have to have originated in an environment suitable for us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Of course, this principle holds regardless of whether God exists or not, so essentially, the fact that Earth supports life doesn't prove anything regarding God. Even if the odds of life arising naturally are say, a quadrillion to one, those lifeforms that do arise are obviously going to do so in an environment suited to them.

You give the water cycle and the atmosphere way too much credit. Like I said before, there are floods and droughts all the time, which is of course a disruption in the water cycle. And the atmosphere doesn't stop the really overwhelming events, like large meteorites (like the one of that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, or the Tunguska Event in 1908) or powerful solar flares (like the one that knocked out power in eastern Canada in March 1989). Basically, the water cycle and the atmosphere are certainly helpful, but by no means perfect. Night and day are due to the Earth's rotation and nothing more. There is nothing special about it.

And by the way: you can't defend the naturalistic view of the atmosphere with evolution, because it has nothing to do with evolution. In fact, since I keep seeing creationists make the same old mistakes about evolution, I'm going to make a list here of everything which evolution is not:

1. Evolution is not "just a theory". In science, a theory is basically a testable model to explain observations and scientific laws. Note that theories never become laws.

2. Evolution is not abiogenesis. It doesn't explain how life began, only what happened after it got there.

3. Evolution is not the Big Bang. They are entirely different theories.

4. Evolution does not happen by chance. Genetic mutations happen by chance, but natural selection weeds out good mutations from bad ones.

5. Evolution does not happen overnight, and it does not happen in sudden big leaps. If you think some chimp gave birth to a human baby, you have completely the wrong idea.

6. Evolution is not still being debated in the scientific community. It's been accepted by pretty much every serious biologist for decades.

7. Evolution is not a deliberate attempt to undermine religion.

8. Evolution does not justify the actions of Hitler, Stalin, etc. We are, after all, a social species.

9. Evolution is not disproved by gaps in the fossil record. To claim so is a bit like saying that Jefferson never existed because we don't know where he was on one May weekend when he was 15.

10. Evolution is not a religion.

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

Also, we have searched so much already and have found no life capable of living on any planet as of yet. This doesn't prove that life cannot exist at all, but it says something about earth's abundance of life and thus it being special.

Some lifeforms are capable of surviving rather extreme conditions, including the deep sea, beneath the ice caps, deep underground, the cores of nuclear plants, and even in a vacuum. If life on Earth is this tough, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to find it anywhere else once we're able to go to other planets.

And yes, the water cycle existing in itself to me is something God has created for humankind to benefit from. The existence of different layers of gases about the Earth's vast atmosphere to me, has not been coincidentally arranged. And while a few meteors do pass, for instance, this does not disprove that it is indeed flawed and thus not from any God. These protective layers (we can get into great detail if desired) cannot be defended by evolution, the need for night and day which is met (except for a small portion of the world which still does not disprove what I'm saying) is also not existent by mere coincidence. In fact, I see it as being carefully planned by an all-knowing and all-powerful creator (we'll continue the discussion on the paradox too, if needed, because it does demand an answer).

Let me tell you about something called the anthropic principle. It's a simple concept, but frequently misunderstood. Basically, we humans have to have originated in an environment suitable for us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Of course, this principle holds regardless of whether God exists or not, so essentially, the fact that Earth supports life doesn't prove anything regarding God. Even if the odds of life arising naturally are say, a quadrillion to one, those lifeforms that do arise are obviously going to do so in an environment suited to them.

You give the water cycle and the atmosphere way too much credit. Like I said before, there are floods and droughts all the time, which is of course a disruption in the water cycle. And the atmosphere doesn't stop the really overwhelming events, like large meteorites (like the one of that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, or the Tunguska Event in 1908) or powerful solar flares (like the one that knocked out power in eastern Canada in March 1989). Basically, the water cycle and the atmosphere are certainly helpful, but by no means perfect. Night and day are due to the Earth's rotation and nothing more. There is nothing special about it.

And by the way: you can't defend the naturalistic view of the atmosphere with evolution, because it has nothing to do with evolution. In fact, since I keep seeing creationists make the same old mistakes about evolution, I'm going to make a list here of everything which evolution is not:

1. Evolution is not "just a theory". In science, a theory is basically a testable model to explain observations and scientific laws. Note that theories never become laws.

2. Evolution is not abiogenesis. It doesn't explain how life began, only what happened after it got there.

3. Evolution is not the Big Bang. They are entirely different theories.

4. Evolution does not happen by chance. Genetic mutations happen by chance, but natural selection weeds out good mutations from bad ones.

5. Evolution does not happen overnight, and it does not happen in sudden big leaps. If you think some chimp gave birth to a human baby, you have completely the wrong idea.

6. Evolution is not still being debated in the scientific community. It's been accepted by pretty much every serious biologist for decades.

7. Evolution is not a deliberate attempt to undermine religion.

8. Evolution does not justify the actions of Hitler, Stalin, etc. We are, after all, a social species.

9. Evolution is not disproved by gaps in the fossil record. To claim so is a bit like saying that Jefferson never existed because we don't know where he was on one May weekend when he was 15.

10. Evolution is not a religion.

The reason I brought up the 'naturalistic view of the environment' is exactly because this is a proof that cannot be defended by evolution. It is a system in which no human being could recreate and is given to all who dwell the earth. If we were lacking clouds, we might still be able to live, but we have an organized system in which a water cycle conveniently exists for us. If you say that we're not able to live without such a vital system, then you're saying that this one thing could be responsible for the whole existence of life. If one thing alone (or a weakest link, if you will) can change the course of whether life exists at all or not, then you're saying that it's just a coincidence that everything came together which happened to be designed for life to live, and if we were lacking just one of those basic things we wouldn't be around to discuss it.

If the only way you can believe that God exists is by seeing Him with your eyes and other senses, then you will never find Him (I sound like a Christian now but it's true). I am very well aware of the anthropic principle. It is because of the science that exists around us that we exist, creationists have never denied this claim nor pointed at 'miracles by God' and accredit deliberate miracles for our existence. God existing and creating everything is plausible, though you may not view it as such. You say that science can explain everything, and nobody is denying that science does not exist. However, the formation and organized system in which we live (which includes that science) has led many to believe such as myself that an intelligent being exists who created it all, one who has no beginning or end. When I get back from class, I will tell you a little something about evolution (which I've always known doesn't necessarily undermine religion).

 

[AndThen?]

i think it was just a coincidence. when the settings for life finally came about some random event created the first single cell organism and from there, evolution took over. the only thing wrong with this, is we can't figure out the random event that caused that organism, but i see no reason to say god. we just don't know enough yet

As someone who's keen on science, I'm not too fond of 'coincidences'. Ohh, an enzyme denatures in heat, must be coincidence, or ohh, the reactivity of the halogens decreases going down the group, must be a 'coincidence'. Thank God most people have seen sense and don't attribute things they don't understand to mere 'coincidence', or else the world would be a very bleak place indeed.

Don't think that some kind of divine intervention is any more scientific than coincidence, haha. The concept of randomness is seen often in the scientific world...

Mutation, for instance, is a very "random" process. The fact that there are all those babies born with several limbs in India has a lot to do with coincidence, not some divine intervention (like some Hindu folk like to believe)... just like the development of life on Earth is what I believe to be very much a coincidence, not the result of some divine intervention (like some Christian folk like to believe).

The fact that life developed on Earth could very well have to do with coincidence. That's not to say that the Earth is particularly special: astrobiology is just about determining how often this coincidence should occur.

 

[Napalmbrain]

The reason I brought up the 'naturalistic view of the environment' is exactly because this is a proof that cannot be defended by evolution. It is a system in which no human being could recreate and is given to all who dwell the earth. If we were lacking clouds, we might still be able to live, but we have an organized system in which a water cycle conveniently exists for us. If you say that we're not able to live without such a vital system, then you're saying that this one thing could be responsible for the whole existence of life. If one thing alone (or a weakest link, if you will) can change the course of whether life exists at all or not, then you're saying that it's just a coincidence that everything came together which happened to be designed for life to live, and if we were lacking just one of those basic things we wouldn't be around to discuss it.

I think you're falling into the trap of a false dichotomy. You assume the only two options are 'God' or 'coincidence', but to me neither seems very satisfying as an answer, because both options are untestable and unparsimonious. Instead, I prefer natural mechanisms which can explain things without invoking either of the two above options (like natural selection, for example).

I am very well aware of the anthropic principle. It is because of the science that exists around us that we exist, creationists have never denied this claim nor pointed at 'miracles by God' and accredit deliberate miracles for our existence. God existing and creating everything is plausible, though you may not view it as such. You say that science can explain everything, and nobody is denying that science does not exist. However, the formation and organized system in which we live (which includes that science) has led many to believe such as myself that an intelligent being exists who created it all, one who has no beginning or end. When I get back from class, I will tell you a little something about evolution (which I've always known doesn't necessarily undermine religion).

I think a deist God (a non-interventionalist creator of the Universe) is at least somewhat plausible, albeit with no proof to support his/her existence, but I find the Abrahamic God (the God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i) highly implausible. When I try to fit the assumptions of those religions with everything I know about science and logic, everything gets messy and contrived. For example, why doesn't God do 'obvious' miracles anymore? Why only send prophets to the Middle East? And why would a supposedly benevolent God choose such a brutal and wasteful method as evolution to create humans?

If the only way you can believe that God exists is by seeing Him with your eyes and other senses, then you will never find Him (I sound like a Christian now but it's true).

Let me guess, I have to have 'faith'? But the thing is, I need a reason to have faith.

While direct manifestation of God would certainly be convincing enough, it's not the only thing that would make me believe. I would also be convinced by if I were to witness a genuine, scientifically impossible miracle, especially if induced by prayer (for example, an amputee regaining their lost limb), or to discover a religious text containing an accurate prophecy or scientific foreknowledge (note that it would have to be clear, specifc, and non-trivial).

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

The reason I brought up the 'naturalistic view of the environment' is exactly because this is a proof that cannot be defended by evolution. It is a system in which no human being could recreate and is given to all who dwell the earth. If we were lacking clouds, we might still be able to live, but we have an organized system in which a water cycle conveniently exists for us. If you say that we're not able to live without such a vital system, then you're saying that this one thing could be responsible for the whole existence of life. If one thing alone (or a weakest link, if you will) can change the course of whether life exists at all or not, then you're saying that it's just a coincidence that everything came together which happened to be designed for life to live, and if we were lacking just one of those basic things we wouldn't be around to discuss it.

I think you're falling into the trap of a false dichotomy. You assume the only two options are 'God' or 'coincidence', but to me neither seems very satisfying as an answer, because both options are untestable and unparsimonious. Instead, I prefer natural mechanisms which can explain things without invoking either of the two above options (like natural selection, for example).

I am very well aware of the anthropic principle. It is because of the science that exists around us that we exist, creationists have never denied this claim nor pointed at 'miracles by God' and accredit deliberate miracles for our existence. God existing and creating everything is plausible, though you may not view it as such. You say that science can explain everything, and nobody is denying that science does not exist. However, the formation and organized system in which we live (which includes that science) has led many to believe such as myself that an intelligent being exists who created it all, one who has no beginning or end. When I get back from class, I will tell you a little something about evolution (which I've always known doesn't necessarily undermine religion).

I think a deist God (a non-interventionalist creator of the Universe) is at least somewhat plausible, albeit with no proof to support his/her existence, but I find the Abrahamic God (the God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i) highly implausible. When I try to fit the assumptions of those religions with everything I know about science and logic, everything gets messy and contrived. For example, why doesn't God do 'obvious' miracles anymore? Why only send prophets to the Middle East? And why would a supposedly benevolent God choose such a brutal and wasteful method as evolution to create humans?

If the only way you can believe that God exists is by seeing Him with your eyes and other senses, then you will never find Him (I sound like a Christian now but it's true).

Let me guess, I have to have 'faith'? But the thing is, I need a reason to have faith.

While direct manifestation of God would certainly be convincing enough, it's not the only thing that would make me believe. I would also be convinced by if I were to witness a genuine, scientifically impossible miracle, especially if induced by prayer (for example, an amputee regaining their lost limb), or to discover a religious text containing an accurate prophecy or scientific foreknowledge (note that it would have to be clear, specifc, and non-trivial).

Do you consider yourself an Agnostic, a Deist, or neither? (I think you're unsure whether or not God exists, let alone a caring one). And yes, if not coincidence, then God. I see it as God, many see it as mere coincidence, and others claim the fact that everything is scientifically occurring and thus the reason behind them is in science alone. While I agree with the latter to an extent, I don't believe that these came from nothing. The totality of human experience has led to a universal truth accepted by all: You cannot get something from nothing. Since there is something, there had to have been a beginning, or something that was always there. Some people call it the Universe, but even the universe needed a creator. An already-existent being, God, exists for eternity and is that "first cause" as you keep referring it to as.

And I told you I only FELT like a Christian; unlike Christians, I know very well that you can't just tell people to have faith--it doesn't make sense. Sincerity? Yeah right. Works for that person? Not usually (very rarely). Telling someone to 'have faith' is generally a Christian tactic but what most of them somehow don't realize is that this statement is for the most part absolutely meaningless.

 

[Napalmbrain]

Do you consider yourself an Agnostic, a Deist, or neither? (I think you're unsure whether or not God exists, let alone a caring one). And yes, if not coincidence, then God. I see it as God, many see it as mere coincidence, and others claim the fact that everything is scientifically occurring and thus the reason behind them is in science alone. While I agree with the latter to an extent, I don't believe that these came from nothing. The totality of human experience has led to a universal truth accepted by all: You cannot get something from nothing. Since there is something, there had to have been a beginning, or something that was always there. Some people call it the Universe, but even the universe needed a creator. An already-existent being, God, exists for eternity and is that "first cause" as you keep referring it to as.

I suppose I'm best descriibed as agnostic atheist- I don't "know" for certain whether any God exists, but I see no reason to believe that one does (especially not a caring one), so I don't.

What caused the Universe and why it supports life is indeed a very question. To be honest, I don't know the answer. But neither God or chance are very satisfying answers- 'chance' is too absurd, and 'God' is unparsimonious. I favour the concept of infinite parallel uniiverses, each with their own physical constants and laws of physics (by the anthropic principle, it's inevitable that we'd be in one of the universes which allows for life). But this is just what I think, I don't accept it as certain just yet. You can apply the same reasoning to explain why our planet is conductive for life, except in that case we already know there are many planets out there.

 

[dan99iel]

Oh my Napalmbrain... You're just so full of logic and brains!

Anyway. I'm basically a believer in a Deist God, although I'm also a Christian. Sometimes I have faith, other times I don't. It's just like: Why should I have faith? I need some proof. I guess it's just because I'm strange like that. When I'm being myself I'm a believer in god, but when it comes to science I'm more questioning.

Time to deal with the points discussed:
The reason I believe in a Deist God is because we exist. A universe exists. A reality exists. How is there no god if there is a reality? There must have been something before nothing.

The reason I don't believe in Creationism is that it's kind of silly. Over the course of a week everything just popped up? Trillions and trillions of planet were created, why only have Earth be inhabited by humans? Also, why doesn't the bible mention anything about God creating the particles (If you believe in the Particle Theory that is, but I don't really) or the very fabric of our reality? How about the atmosphere or the vacuum of space? It's too simple. I don't even think that god had an idea of what would happen. He probably was unaware that the little bits of bacteria would one day become us, humans.

I believe human life was made by chance. It was simple luck that our planet, a planet out of trillions and trillions had the right conditions for life. Everything had to be perfect. Of course, the case for life sustaining properties was inevitable. Eventually things had to match up. This also means that there is probably more intelligent life forms out there. Earth was special, but not one of a kind. There is a high chance that there are more Earth like planets out there.

Why is Christianity the correct religion? There have been many other main religions of time periods where they believed that their gods were the ones that existed. What makes us think that we are right? I'm sure that one day in the future, Christianity will be a religion of great anger. It has caused a lot of hate around the world, and by that time they will have their own main religion where they are correct and all others are wrong. If, in their eyes, Christianity was wrong, then what was the point in it? Sometimes I feel like my church is blindly wandering around, happy believing in something with barely any proof of existence. To say "Have Faith" is not enough. Chances are that Christianity will be scrapped to the side eventually. Just because it's seen as correct now doesn't mean that it will be tomorrow.

Anthropic principle is almost undeniable. The water cycle isn't conveniently here, I'm sure it's on other planets as well. Did God pay them a visit too? If the water cycle didn't exist then we wouldn't, hence because we exist the water cycle does. Also, for God to exist, we have to exist to believe in him because he is a body of faith. If we didn't exist, he wouldn't either. That means our existence isn't proof of God, but that Gods existence is proof of ours.

 

[Napalmbrain]

You seem intelligent on the whole, although I don't understand why you don't believe in particles. They've been established as fact for over a century now. You can even use something called a scanning tunneling microscope to observe and manipulate individual atoms.

 

[dan99iel]

Oh, I didn't mean I don't believe in particles haha. I meant that I believe in String theory instead of Particle theory. And, thanks for the kind-of sort-of compliment.

 

[Napalmbrain]

Oh, I didn't mean I don't believe in particles haha. I meant that I believe in String theory instead of Particle theory. And, thanks for the kind-of sort-of compliment.

Ah, I see. Personally I'm not sure what to make of string theory and M-theory- the basic idea is neat, but from there everything gets so complicated I have trouble understanding it.