Author Topic: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]  (Read 10941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1938
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2011, 07:27:16 PM »
Hi, I'm the anonymous poster, actually I just sent this email to the moderator and they posted it for me and invited me to sign up so I have, especially since so many of you responded to the post.

Welcome to the forum, TruthSearcher.

Quote
Anyway, I get the feeling that you guys generally think God is an imperfect pathetic sadist.

It would be if it existed, yes. That is because the nature of the universe, from cosmology to viruses, is not in keeping with a creator who is supposedly (as the monotheistic religions claim) all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving. Rather, most of the universe is inhospitable to all forms of life we currently know of. On the one life-bearing planet we definitely know, living things are constantly struggling and competing, trying to outwit, outfight and most of all outbreed each other before they die.

The universe as we know it is more reasonably explained by the lack of a creator, and so far there is not one scrap of evidence for such a being. That being the case, the creator hypothesis can be disregarded until such evidence is presented.

Quote
So based on this opinion of him you say he doesn't exist because you don't want such a God to exist, but your opinion of him doesn't change the truth regarding his existence or non existence.   Who cares what you think the creator should be like, or what kind of creation they should have made, lets just look at the evidence, for example, life comes from life (we all know this to be currently true), so until someone shows this scientific law to be false then we should be thinking that the first living cell must have come from a living being regardless of how hopeless we think that being is.
   

Agreed: it's not our opinion of the various creator myths that matters, it's the evidence. And as I and others here have already said, there is currently no evidence to support that the universe, or any observed part of it, was deliberately created.

Quote
Please be aware that our opinion of "God" has a huge bearing on how we conduct research and we need to be open and honest about how it affects our research.

Scientists conducting research need to be aware of their prejudices so it doesn't influence their work, agreed. That's what peer-review is for: hundreds if not thousands of other pairs of eyes critically examining new research, new theories, new evidence. It's an imperfect system, but its success in improving the human condition is unprecedented in history.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Online kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1322
  • Darwins +432/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2011, 08:49:14 PM »
Hi, I'm the anonymous poster, actually I just sent this email to the moderator and they posted it for me and invited me to sign up so I have, especially since so many of you responded to the post.

Welcome to the Forum, TruthSearcher.

Anyway, I get the feeling that you guys generally think God is an imperfect pathetic sadist.

Which one?  Bes, an Egyptian protector-god, seems like an OK guy even if he is a bit odd looking.  Renenet is nice, since she makes it her mission to look out for mothers during childbirth.  They're just not very good at it,[1] is all.  Zeus is a major asshat, but Prometheus is pretty cool if you ask me.

So based on this opinion of him you say he doesn't exist because you don't want such a God to exist

I haven't counted, but quite a few of the posts in response stated that our opinions of a god and desires for it to exist/not exist are quite irrelevant to the question of its existence, including my post.  Could you respond to those please?

, but your opinion of him doesn't change the truth regarding his existence or non existence.

Agreed.  Likewise for your opinion of him.

Who cares what you think the creator should be like, or what kind of creation they should have made,

Arguments about this sort of thing come in response to the claim that the creator/creators is/are omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and infallible.  Such claims may be tested against the actual facts of the Cosmos.  If you do not claim that your god is perfectly loving and good, or all-powerful, or infallible[2] then those sorts of arguments would not apply against your god-concept.

lets just look at the evidence,

This is a bit premature.  First, you need to specify what you mean by "God."  The term is notoriously vague, used by different sorts of theists to represent everything from an anthropomorphic[3] person to an impersonal Something like the Force, to an even more nebulous "Ground of Being."  We cannot analyze evidence as being for or against "God" until we agree on what "God" is supposed to be, in the same way that I could not ask you to look at the evidence for quasion particles, without first telling you what a quasion particle is supposed to be.

for example, life comes from life (we all know this to be currently true),

Not always.  Let's say I take a multivitamin pill.  The pill is just inert chemistry.  Yet some of that pill will become incorporated into my tissues as "life."  Life, from non-life!  For that matter, if you look at "life" close enough, you'll find that it's chemistry all the way down.  All the DNA, enzymes, proteins, lipids, etc. are chemical substances made out of the same atoms as everything else.  "Life" is a pattern integrity, like a wave or an eddy in water.  There is no magic boundary between "life" and "non-life."  Just as the eddy is made of water, which all starts and ends as "non-eddy" water, I am a pattern integrity that persists because of continuous flows of non-"life" matter passing through (the air I breathe, the food I eat, the dumps I take, etc.).

Furthermore, a number of different experiments have shown that complex chemical components of "life," like enzymes, proteins, and lipids, can self-assemble (just like snowflakes) under simulated early-Earth conditions.

Furthermore, we can point to viruses and ask: are they alive?  They don't eat, they don't reproduce themselves, but they do carry genetic information, they evolve, and they can parasitically reproduce themselves by hijacking cellular machinery.

Furthermore, is (your concept of) God alive?  Does he eat?  Metabolize?  Reproduce?[4]  If he doesn't do these things, then he's not "alive" in the sense we mean when we talk about life.  Thus, your "life only comes from life, therefore God exists" argument fails.  If your god is in some sense alive, then you still have not solved the mystery of the origin of life; you have just punted it to an inaccessible god-realm and proclaimed it to be insoluble.

Furthermore, any god that can be referred to as a "he" (or a "she") has to be at least as complex as a bacterium, or maybe a flatworm.  If s/he goes around designing and creating Cosmoses, accurately and simultaneously perceiving the thoughts (prayers) of millions or even billions of people, and so on, then s/he must be inconceivably complex.  Any highly complex entity is improbable to the degree of its complexity.  If its component parts are re-arranged at random, there are many, many ways the result could be a different entity, or just a gooey mess, and very few (arguably only one) that it could end up as that particular entity.  For example, if my atoms got randomly scrambled in a Star Trek transporter accident, I would almost certainly end up as a pile of chemical jello.  The odds that a random shuffling would come up as me, or, say, a 26-year-old Indian woman[5] with a talent for violin and extensive knowledge of molecular biology, would be infinitesimal.   

so until someone shows this scientific law to be false then we should be thinking that the first living cell must have come from a living being regardless of how hopeless we think that being is.

Unless the "living being" it was supposed to have come from is vastly more improbable (as a result of its vastly higher complexity) than the first living cell.  In that case, the proposed "living being" has even more of the stuff (complexity, life) that we're ostensibly scratching our heads over and doubting could just exist on its own. 

We already have evidence for things like self-organization of complex molecules and structures (e.g. lipid envelopes capable of serving as proto-cell walls), autocatalytic reactions and so forth that form the building blocks of cells.  Any self-replicating molecule or "first living cell" (the only requirement to get a process of natural selection started) is far less complex (thus, far less improbable) than any god or Sufficiently Advanced alien who could design one in a lab.  Thus, it follows that the earliest living cell is more likely to "just happen" or "just exist" than the god or the alien.  Thanks to the discovery of the process of natural selection, we now know that the primitive cell/first self-replicating molecule is a far more probable explanation for intelligent personal beings, than the other way around.

Please be aware that our opinion of "God" has a huge bearing on how we conduct research and we need to be open and honest about how it affects our research.

Agreed.  However, you should also cultivate this same awareness.  For example, you have just assumed that the agency responsible for the existence of the first cell is a single, male god.  There is no reason to make this sort of assumption at the outset.  How do you know it's not a committee, or a Goddess?  You have a particular "God" that you favor, and you're just dropping him in, because you favor him.
 1. No better than random chance + placebo effect.
 2. I.e., a god could be perfectly good, but not have the power to create perfection, or make a mistake in trying to implement perfect goodness, or be all-powerful/infallible, but indifferent or capricious.
 3. Well, technically this sort of theist would claim that we are theomorphic, i.e., "made in the image of God."
 4. Being a he, apparently so: otherwise, what use would he have for male genitalia?
 5. Apparent age; how old she looks.  Her real age counts off from the end of the transport that created her.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2011, 12:25:58 AM »
Hi,

nogogsforme, I don’t think any of us like how our bodies break down and I gather we all have an interest in living forever, is it possible that the creator made our bodies to break down and die for a reason?   I know I don’t want to live forever in this god forsaken world of suffering, so death frees us from this world to one where, hmmm we’d have to ask someone who has been there to find out what it’s like after death, only they could give us a report of their observations.

Truth OT, yes it is very subjective equating the “creator” to one of the “gods” of the world’s religions , but its interesting and my current theory makes sense to me, but I want to test it still just to make sure, but you’re right, our opinion of the creator’s characteristics is insignificant.

Emily, have you written a list of all the “gaps” left by the theory of evolution, I’d like to see that list, it would be quite long.  A good one is how did gender and sex evolve, so make sure that’s on your list.

Alzael, can you refer me to a single case where life arose from non-living matter?   Call the statement what you like it doesn’t change the fact that all research has shown that life only comes from life.

ParkingPlaces, I agree that religious people have done terrible things, but that doesn’t bare on whether a creator exists or not, it just shows that we humans are not very nice.

Irish, thank you for your kind warning.

Kin hell, yeah, the whole universe is evidence, it just depends on how you look at it, whether you want there to be a creator or not.

I don’t like the idea of a creator either because the thought of hell is just abhorrent to me and I really hope the bible is wrong on that one.

Keep the reasons why you don’t want there to be a creator coming, this is good stuff.

Also, is there anyone here who truly wants there to be a creator, but can’t allow themselves to believe it because the evidence points them to a creator-less universe?  I’m just curious.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2011, 12:34:21 AM »
Alzael, can you refer me to a single case where life arose from non-living matter?   Call the statement what you like it doesn’t change the fact that all research has shown that life only comes from life.

I'm not Alzael, but I'll bite.  Life arises from non-living matter all of the time:  Non-living matter is metabolized by living things and turned into living matter.

Non-living matter -> living matter.

What do you think it is about living matter that, in your view, makes it unable to come about from non-living matter?  What's so special about it?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2011, 12:55:59 AM »
I know I don’t want to live forever in this god forsaken world of suffering, so death frees us from this world to one where

Then why not kill yourself?  I'm not making threats but I am asking in a genuinely honest manner.  If you think living is so bad and that there is a better place to go to (heaven) then why not just go there?  Have your death free you from this world, as you said.

Quote
A good one is how did gender and sex evolve...

Done: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxysZmNsyDk]

Quote
Alzael, can you refer me to a single case where life arose from non-living matter?

The chicken nuggets and french fries I ate from McDonalds are currently being digested and metabolized into parts for my body.  In other words the non-living "chicken" nuggets and fried potatoes are being metabolized into life.  In general the proteins will be broken down for building blocks to form more proteins, the lipids will be stored for energy and form the cell walls in reproducing cells, building blocks for nucleotides will take some of the material, the sugars and starches will both be used for energy and stored in my muscles, certain ions from the food will be used by my neurons to fire ... basically.

Quote
Irish, thank you for your kind warning.

You're welcome.  It can get rather crazy with multiple posts coming at you all at once.

Quote
Kin hell, yeah, the whole universe is evidence, it just depends on how you look at it, whether you want there to be a creator or not.

The universe doesn't work like that.  There is objectivity in the universe which doesn't care what I want the world to be like.  The universe is what it is regardless of what I think or want of it.  There either is a god or there isn't.  My wants have nothing to do with that.

Quote
Also, is there anyone here who truly wants there to be a creator, but can’t allow themselves to believe it because the evidence points them to a creator-less universe?  I’m just curious.

Again, it doesn't matter what I want regarding the universe and how things work.
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2011, 01:02:52 AM »
TruthSearcher may object to our "eating" examples on the basis that the food being eaten was once alive itself.  Rather than hash that out, I'll give another example:  Photosynthesis.  Simply put, plants absorb atmospheric CO2, water and sunlight and turn it into living matter.  CO2 is non-living, and does not necessarily come from living things.  Heck, volcanoes expel CO2.  Sunlight is very obviously non-living, as is water.

I hope that example serves.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2011, 01:09:58 AM »
^ I concur.  Something can be said for the water also.  It is certainly not living and does not necessarily come from living things.  In addition, it completely lacks carbon.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 01:15:13 AM by Irish »
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6620
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2011, 01:15:07 AM »
ParkingPlaces, I agree that religious people have done terrible things, but that doesn’t bare on whether a creator exists or not, it just shows that we humans are not very nice.

My point is that if people are acting like that because they think there is a god and there isn't, then a whole lot of people are dying for reasons that don't exist. I, for one, would like to put a stop to these excuses for killing. Yes, people kill each other for other reasons as well, but all the muslims that got blown up today while on a holy pilgrimage, by other muslims, might have been a bit better off if were were all atheists.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1938
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2011, 02:01:41 AM »

Also, is there anyone here who truly wants there to be a creator, but can’t allow themselves to believe it because the evidence points them to a creator-less universe?  I’m just curious.


I want a lot of things. Some of them I can get with effort (my poetry published, a better job), some I could maybe obtain but it would take more effort than I'm willing to exert (a flying car, a black belt in tae kuando), and some are flat-out impossible (shaking Anwar Sadat's living hand, exploring the sea in the form of an orca), regardless of how much I want them.

But in terms of believing in a creator, it isn't a question of want. For me to believe in a creator, there would have to be evidence, TruthSearcher. I didn't choose to be an atheist; it was the lack of evidence for god and the contradictions of my religion (fundamental Protestant Christianity) that eroded my faith.



Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11137
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2011, 02:08:32 AM »
A creator of the universe with a purpose for every life form, effectively ending free will?
Nope.

A creator of the universe that does not interfere in anything?
Such a being would be irrelevant, so it really doesn't matter to me.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2011, 04:54:47 AM »
Anyway, I get the feeling that you guys generally think God is an imperfect pathetic sadist.  So based on this opinion of him you say he doesn't exist because you don't want such a God to exist, but your opinion of him doesn't change the truth regarding his existence or non existence.

Wrong. You asked if I wanted a creator to exist or not. I told you I do not because it would be a sadistic prick and I would hate it. Nowhere in the question did you ask why I don't believe in a creator/god. Yet you are taking my answer to your question and applying it to a second question you never asked.

Why don't I believe in a god? Well, I don't believe in a god because I can't. I'm a skeptic and I demand evidence and rational arguments before believing a claim to be true or even plausible. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a god. That's why I don't believe.
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2011, 05:20:53 AM »
Alzael, can you refer me to a single case where life arose from non-living matter?   Call the statement what you like it doesn’t change the fact that all research has shown that life only comes from life.

No, it shows that you have little idea of what you are talking about. As I said, you need to learn about what you're talking about before you start actually talking.

First off, we're already creating life from non-organic matter ourselve http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915091625.htm

While we're on the subject, try studying abiogenesis, which is the study of how life originated on Earth. Amino acids, which are the basic building blocks of life, form through natural chemical reactions. The process was recreated in the Miller-Urey experiment and in similiar experiments which attempted to recreate conditions at the earliest points of history. The amino acids then organize themselves into proteins, the construction of which is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins.

Scientists have largely believed that life came from non-organic materials for centuries, it's not a modern idea. In 1665 Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism, followed by Anton van Leeuwenhoek in 1676. Both men put forth such life had to be spontaneously generated from non-life. Their reasons for thinking this were wrong, but the idea of the phenomena has been around since then and before.

In 1871 Darwin suggested the idea in a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".

 It wasn't until Oparin in 1924 who wrote the "Origin of Life" that the idea was refined into the more modern version that we use today. Most of todays theories on the origin of life use Oparin as a starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Seriously, just google abiogenesis, or iron-sulfur world theory, or just read a book. If you want I can go on and list all of the other ways that you're absolutely and obviously wrong. But the bottom line will remain that you're not only wrong, you're easily demonstrable as being wrong. A fact which you could have realized if you had just typed "life from non-organic" into your search bar and read one of the top three results.

If you're going to try and call yourself "TruthSearcher", and be taken seriously at all, you have to at least put in the effort of a ten second google search to ensure that your claims are accurate. Unless you meant the name to be applied ironically.

Kin hell, yeah, the whole universe is evidence, it just depends on how you look at it, whether you want there to be a creator or not.

No, it doesn't.

Keep the reasons why you don’t want there to be a creator coming, this is good stuff.

People haven't been giving you reasons why they don't want there to be a creator, for the most part. They've been giving you reasons for why there isn't a creator. What we want has nothing to do with it, as has been pointed out several times already. You simply seem to be ignoring that in favour for something that you want to hear.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 05:31:27 AM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Online kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1322
  • Darwins +432/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2011, 08:54:55 AM »
A thought just occurred to me regarding the question of whether we "want" there to be a creator/creators: the "yes" and "no" answers given so far all rely on the unspoken premise that a created Cosmos would be All About Us.  Positive answers such as, presumably TruthSeeker's, would express desire for (TS's preferred singular, male) creator, because that creator would love TruthSeeker, provide meaning and purpose for his/her life, a guarantee of a pleasant afterlife, and so on.  Negative answers hinge on the idea that observable flaws in the human body and Earthly environment (with respect to human, and perhaps also animal life) indicate that any creators would be malevolent and sadistic.

However, there is no reason at all to assume that a created Cosmos would be All About Us at all.  Only the tiniest fraction of the Cosmos (a small fraction of the surface of one infinitesimal planet) is inhabitable by us, or even accessible to us.  The entire rest of the visible Cosmos--hundreds of billions of galaxies, and if any of the multiverse cosmologies is true, uncountable numbers of other Cosmoses--have nothing to do with us at all, for all practical intents and purposes.

From this it follows that if the Cosmos and/or multiverse is a created artifact, we are not the purpose of its creation.  We could be like bacteria living on one of the doorknobs in the Large Hadron Collider thinking, "Hey!  This place is fine-tuned to provide a place where we can live!  It must have been made for us!" or "Every now and then, toxic substances[1] rain down on us from above!  The creator must be a malevolent sadist who slaughters us for fun!"

If the Cosmos is a created artifact, it makes a great deal more sense to go with the premise that it isn't All About Us, and its purpose would be just as unfathomable to us as the LHC's purpose would be to bacteria.  In this case, the creators could represent an amazing discovery.
 1. Cleaning agents sprayed on the doorknob by cleanup people.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2011, 09:35:32 AM »
^^ I admit to having addressed the question from a human-centric point of view. Putting things into perspective there's no reason to assume that, if a creator of the universe/multiverse existed, it would give a flying fuck about humanity or that we would play any role in its purposes.

The image that came to my mind when you compared us to bacteria was that of being in my kitchen, ready to cook some pasta. Effectively, I 'intelligently' create an environment for the purpose of cooking my pasta (a pot with boiling water). By bringing the water to a boil, I am killing literally billions upon billions of bacteria.

Does that make me a cruel, sadistic prick? From the point of view of the bacteria ... I guess it does. Am I a cruel, sadistic prick when I kill a spider that's in my home? From the point of view of the spider, fuck yeah I am.

So I guess if an intelligent creator of the universe exists and if it had any particular purpose for creating the universe, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the tiny bacteria living on an tiny spec within this vast environment (i.e. humanity and this planet).

Would I want such a creator to exist? The answer is still "no".

Does it make a difference whether no god exists or a god with no interest in our affairs exists? Probably not. The portion of humanity that's fucked would be fucked either way.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 09:37:34 AM by plethora »
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6620
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2011, 10:33:18 AM »
Does it make a difference whether no god exists or a god with no interest in our affairs exists? Probably not. The portion of humanity that's fucked would be fucked either way.

Someday, when the big asteroid or nearby supernova goes off, we'll all be fucked.  The happy happenstance of being living beings that haven't been wiped out by our inhospitable universe is only temporary. I would think more people would enjoy that fact rather than getting all wrapped up in the imaginary.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2011, 10:38:52 AM »
Quote
So I guess if an intelligent creator of the universe exists and if it had any particular purpose for creating the universe, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the tiny bacteria living on an tiny spec within this vast environment (i.e. humanity and this planet).

In light of this scenario, what reason would us "bacteria" have for assuming that the creator/designer/makers of the cosmos or multiverse even realize that we exist and are an accidental product of their/its design?

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #45 on: December 07, 2011, 10:49:50 AM »
Someday, when the big asteroid or nearby supernova goes off, we'll all be fucked.  The happy happenstance of being living beings that haven't been wiped out by our inhospitable universe is only temporary. I would think more people would enjoy that fact rather than getting all wrapped up in the imaginary.

I don't know PP, bacteria can be pretty resilient. Being that we are aware of such possibilities, we can adapt take measures to avoid the certain demise such circumstances would bring. Hell, before it's all said and done mankind my in fact be the "God" of this cosmos.

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2011, 11:07:35 AM »
In light of this scenario, what reason would us "bacteria" have for assuming that the creator/designer/makers of the cosmos or multiverse even realize that we exist and are an accidental product of their/its design?

None at all. We just have a natural tendency to assume such things because we are mentally evolved to think within our own scale.
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2011, 11:15:49 AM »
Hi, I'm the anonymous poster, actually I just sent this email to the moderator and they posted it for me and invited me to sign up so I have, especially since so many of you responded to the post.
Anyway, I get the feeling that you guys generally think God is an imperfect pathetic sadist.
per how the bible describes his actions.  Do you think genocide is good? Killing children for what their parents did is good?  How perfect is it to fail repeatedly at straightening out humanity?  He is supposedly omniscienc but can’t see how he fails through out history?   
Quote
So based on this opinion of him you say he doesn't exist because you don't want such a God to exist, but your opinion of him doesn't change the truth regarding his existence or non existence.
A well based opinion of him. Oh and also the complete lack of evidence for any supernatural or any god, even yours.  That sure does change the truth.   
Quote
Who cares what you think the creator should be like, or what kind of creation they should have made, lets just look at the evidence, for example, life comes from life (we all know this to be currently true), so until someone shows this scientific law to be false then we should be thinking that the first living cell must have come from a living being regardless of how hopeless we think that being is.
Nope,  we don’t need to think a god did anything.  Fail.  Or should we think that Vishnu created everything.  Now now, please do show how you can show it’s only your god, Christian.  If you can’t you fail again.
Quote
Please be aware that our opinion of "God" has a huge bearing on how we conduct research and we need to be open and honest about how it affects our research.
Oh like how it affects the claims of research by creationists, who don’t do any and who consistently lie, use superseded information and blatantly misquote people.  The research that says that prayer is worthless?  Again, the total lack of evidence of any kind for any “god”? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5675
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2011, 05:14:39 PM »

Emily, have you written a list of all the “gaps” left by the theory of evolution, I’d like to see that list, it would be quite long.  A good one is how did gender and sex evolve, so make sure that’s on your list.

It is on my list. But honestly the answer might already be known but not to me. I will admit to having a basic understanding of evolution. But even if the answer isn't known doesn't mean it wont be known in the future. That's what science (and a scientific theory) is all about - gaining knowledge.

There is nothing wrong with there being gaps in evolution, or abiogenesis, or big bang cosmology if you are honest about it. Even if there are gaps, unlike you, I am not going to claim some metaphysical lifeform created us. That's where your logic is flawed. You asked for someone to point it out to you, and I tried.

You even saidso yourself.

o cares what you think the creator should be like, or what kind of creation they should have made, lets just look at the evidence, for example, life comes from life (we all know this to be currently true), so until someone shows this scientific law to be false then we should be thinking that the first living cell must have come from a living being regardless of how hopeless we think that being is.   


There you have it. Your flawed logic. Just because science hasn't formed life from non-living matter (even though you've been shown in this thread by others that it has) you insist on filling the gap left open by science with 'god did it'. There... flawed logic.

There is an interesting series of videos on youtube by biologic cdk007.
http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007#grid/user/0696457CAFD6D7C9

It starts with abiogenesis to genes and the brain. It's worth checking out.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline kevinagain

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
  • Darwins +8/-0
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2011, 05:37:20 PM »

. . .  A good one is how did gender and sex evolve, so make sure that’s on your list.


hi truth-

the parasite theory is a new and interesting take on the evolution of sexual reproduction. here's a popular summary of the snail research published in the Am Nat.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090706171542.htm

the role of parasites in plant and animal ecology is currently undergoing a paradigm shift, as people discover that parasite-host relationships have been vastly underrated.

added

looking for the am nat piece

this ought to be it:

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ansrp/potamopyrgus_antipodarum.pdf

take a look and let me know what you think.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 05:41:29 PM by kevinagain »

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #50 on: December 07, 2011, 11:47:45 PM »
kcrady, Azdgari,  and Irish, when you refer to a pill being metabolised, or chicken nuggets or photosynthesis you have living things, humans and plants, making living things, so it confirms the law “all life is from life”.   Azdgari, life is special because it always comes from life.   But the big question is the first living cell appearing 3.2 billion or so years ago, there was no other living thing around, so it had to come alive all by itself, this has never been observed anywhere, not even in a lab.

Can you refer me to the lab report on the self assembling proteins, I’d like to read it, thanks.

And sorry about my references to the creator as a single male god, (ie “he”) that’s just habit, which comes from years of research, but I don’t want to force my opinions on people.   In reality the key question isn’t how we define the creator, the question is, does science indicate that one is required for us and the universe to exist.  I’d like to see that list of gaps in the theory of evolution, maybe we all should have a combined effort at it, with our combined brain power we should come up with a fairly comprehensive one.

Irish, why don’t I kill myself?  good point and most christians don’t even realise what I’m about to say, but the only reason, and I mean ONLY reason God doesn’t whisk them up to heaven when they ask Jesus to save them is because he wants them here to help others get saved too, if they were all whisked away there’d be no one to spread the word.  But sadly most christians don’t get this concept and live self serving lives.

Nice video about the possible evolution of sex, but it all falls over at step 4, because the first cell to evolve the need for gametes to reproduce will die without reproducing because it will never have a mate to reproduce with, so that “mutation” in the cell will never get passed on.

Lucifer, why do you assume that a creator means the end of free will?

Alzael, Miller-Urey didn’t create life from non living matter they just made some amino acids.   Any more recent lab trials that you want to refer me to?   Its good you say “scientists have largely believed”,  because that’s correct it’s a belief.   Yes there are many abiogenesis theories, but none have produced life from non-living matter in the lab or in the real world.   The conditions on earth are perfect for life and the ingredients are all available, but every time we look we find only life forms that have come from pre-existing life.   There are gazillions of locations on earth where life could spontaneously generate, but it doesn’t, and it hasn’t in the lab either, so as far as we know “all life is from life”.    But again if you know of a report that shows otherwise please tell me about it.

Emily, why is a metaphysical life form not an option for you?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #51 on: December 08, 2011, 12:02:39 AM »
kcrady, Azdgari,  and Irish, when you refer to a pill being metabolised, or chicken nuggets or photosynthesis you have living things, humans and plants, making living things, so it confirms the law “all life is from life”.

In the case I later brought up re: photosynthesis, the material in question is actually not from life at all.  The material is from non-life.  Life is just re-arranging it.  If life can re-arrange it, why can't something else?

Azdgari, life is special because it always comes from life.

Very circular and uninformative, TS.  I asked what it is about life that you believe causes it to always come from life.  I know that you believe it always comes from life.  That wasn't what I asked.  Did you read the same question that I wrote?

But the big question is the first living cell appearing 3.2 billion or so years ago, there was no other living thing around, so it had to come alive all by itself, this has never been observed anywhere, not even in a lab.

This is not an accurate respresentation of the hypothesis in question, any more than "the first homo sapien appeared out of nowhere around 250 to 400 million years ago" accurately represents the supported and accepted theory of human descent.  Can you see why?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #52 on: December 08, 2011, 12:29:33 AM »
... the only reason, and I mean ONLY reason God doesn’t whisk them up to heaven when they ask Jesus to save them is because he wants them here to help others get saved too, if they were all whisked away there’d be no one to spread the word

My emphasis added for point

Why doesn't God or Jesus come and spread the word?  That would literally change the world overnight.  I, along with millions of other atheists (I assume) would become Christians overnight if shown the tiniest real evidence of the existence of God.

Quote
Nice video about the possible evolution of sex, but it all falls over at step 4, because the first cell to evolve the need for gametes to reproduce will die without reproducing

I don't understand. The text of the video says:

"Step 3. Simple multi-cellular organisms evolve (colony of 1 cell type), where each cell is capable of sexual reproduction."

"Step 4. Multi-cellular organisms evolve specialized cells for reproduction (gametes).

What do you find confusing?  Many of us here have a range of degrees or interests in biology so we can describe things pretty well.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 12:31:18 AM by Irish »
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1938
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #53 on: December 08, 2011, 01:17:00 AM »
  But the big question is the first living cell appearing 3.2 billion or so years ago, there was no other living thing around, so it had to come alive all by itself, this has never been observed anywhere, not even in a lab.

Are you following the links people are giving you? Because not all the abiogenesis theories I'm familiar with state that cells had to come first; some theories have self-replicating proteins developing before cells. Here's another link; wikipedia is hardly the end-all reference but it's not a bad starting point...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis



 
Quote
In reality the key question isn’t how we define the creator, the question is, does science indicate that one is required for us and the universe to exist.

Indeed. And so far the answer is: no. Current cosmology adequately explains the origins of the universe without recourse to a creator.

Quote
I’d like to see that list of gaps in the theory of evolution, maybe we all should have a combined effort at it, with our combined brain power we should come up with a fairly comprehensive one.

Why don't you list what you think are the gaps? Then we can address them. The thing is, TruthSearcher, people have been trying to shoot down the TOE since Darwin started popularizing his version of it. It's been 150+ years since then and no one has managed to do so. Instead, discoveries in zoology, genetics and geology have only confirmed and refined the TOE.

Quote
Yes there are many abiogenesis theories, but none have produced life from non-living matter in the lab or in the real world.

Yet. A key point was reached recently. While this is not, as the researchers themselves admit, "creating life from scratch", the implications are promising for further work in the field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life

Quote
The conditions on earth are perfect for life and the ingredients are all available, but every time we look we find only life forms that have come from pre-existing life.   There are gazillions of locations on earth where life could spontaneously generate, but it doesn’t, and it hasn’t in the lab either, so as far as we know “all life is from life”.    But again if you know of a report that shows otherwise please tell me about it.

Again, because so far no one has built a self-replicating protein entirely from non-living materials is not proof that it can't be done. And why is it surprising that we don't observe abiogenesis still happening in nature? The microbial world is, like the rest of the biosphere, some 3+ billion years old; any spontaneously forming amino acids, let alone proteins, would be swiftly metabolized by something else.

Life is chemistry; enormously complex and still incompletely understood, but far from incomprehensible. What is the quality that you think stops us from comprehending and replicating it?

Quote
Emily, why is a metaphysical life form not an option for you?

Could you define what "metaphysical life" is and provide some proof of it?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 02:10:40 AM by wright »
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline free

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Darwins +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We didn't land on Mt Sinai, Mt Sinai landed on us!
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #54 on: December 08, 2011, 11:07:02 AM »
Lucifer, why do you assume that a creator means the end of free will?

I'll take a stab at this one.  Assuming a creator is infallable, free will necessarily doesn't exist.  An infallable creator knows what will happen and how it will happen; if it exists it knows exactly how I will drive home from work tonight, down to the traffic and cars next to me.  What if I decided to stop at the bank on the way home, well then the creator would have known that already and I wouldn't have actually been making a choice.  If what you do is known before you 'decide' to do it, it wasn't a choice.  If you think you can change your mind, well that was known already too and it thus not a choice. 

An infallable God would definitely remove any freewill, your life would be mapped!  What you think you will choose is already choosen.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11137
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #55 on: December 08, 2011, 11:08:40 AM »
Lucifer, why do you assume that a creator means the end of free will?

A creator of the universe with a purpose for every life form, effectively ending free will?

Bold mine.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #56 on: December 08, 2011, 11:59:40 AM »
Personally, though, I think my favorite design "feature" of the human body is the fact that the openings for the esophagus and the trachea are located right next to each other, so that we can conveniently choke on our food.  Brilliant.

Sheesh, that's your fault.  Your swim bladders were only for occasionally gulping air so you could regulate your buoyancy while living in the water.  If you want to go and use them all the time for breathing oxygen you do it at your own risk.


Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #57 on: December 08, 2011, 12:10:17 PM »
Nice video about the possible evolution of sex, but it all falls over at step 4, because the first cell to evolve the need for gametes to reproduce will die without reproducing because it will never have a mate to reproduce with, so that “mutation” in the cell will never get passed on.
In high school biology we learned that lots of single celled organisms have both sexual and asexual reproduction.  Also, originally they reproduced without a male and a female.  They exchanged genetic material equally.  The process of opening up each other's cell walls looks about like the process by which a single celled organism engulfs and eats another.  Someone put it this way, "We are a case of incomplete digestion."

Regarding life in general, mammals have genetically determined gender.  Other lifeforms have gender set by some prenatal conditions such as temperature or chemistry.  Many can change gender as well even in adulthood.  That includes vertebrates as high as fish.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 12:13:49 PM by Historicity »