whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => MailBag => Topic started by: naemhni on December 06, 2011, 06:26:10 AM

Title: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: naemhni on December 06, 2011, 06:26:10 AM
Dear Author of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees,
 
I have only just started to read some of the sections on your website and thought you would be a good person to chat to because I have been seeking someone who can prove to me that my logic is flawed and that my faith in the creator of the universe is worthless and delusional.
 
However, I read the section on Intelligent Design and immediately note that you have basically said, the human body doesn’t work “perfectly” therefore it evolved.   You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.   The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.
 
Anyway, if you are interested in pointing out the flaws in my logic, please respond.
 
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?
 
Sincerely,
 
[name removed]
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Historicity on December 06, 2011, 06:36:26 AM
they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.
But that's exactly what you'd expect from evolution.  I can't see how that's evidence, much less proof, of the existence of God.

Sorry, #2629, that's an antilogism.  You have stated the evidence against your case and declared it as evidence for it.

Quote
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?
I can't figure this one out.  I mean, what if I wanted the 12 Olympian Gods to create and administer the universe?  Would that cause them to exist?

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: hickdive on December 06, 2011, 06:43:35 AM
This is a new twist, hoorah!

So your creator makes a universe, just so. Puts a rocky planet in orbit round a star at just the right distance, not too hot, not too cold. Blends an atmosphere with
just the right mix of gasses and the tops it all of with humans with their lousy eyes, appendix, hips for walking upright on females etc. etc?

The flaw in your logic is that a creator would have purposely created imperfection, which, if they existed would hardly make them worth worshipping.

Of course, you could argue that humans and animals, coming relatively late in the biblical genesis week and might just be the friday afternoon lemons, put together after a liquid refreshment or two at lunchtime.

Would I want there to be a creator? It depends...

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: plethora on December 06, 2011, 08:41:53 AM
Quote
You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.   The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.

The existence of living things that work well enough to live and procreate is not evidence that a god exists. That's just evidence that said living things can and do exist.

Evidence for evolution is abundant enough to be considered a fact. There's DNA ancestry, the fossil record, comparative anatomy, real time observable evolution of bacteria from one species to another across millions of generations in the lab, etc.

You may believe a perfect god created imperfect beings ... but you have no evidence for that.

Quote
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

No. Because if this world were the result of a creator's design, then that being would be the most incompetent, evil, sadistic prick in the universe and my hate for it would be immeasurable.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kcrady on December 06, 2011, 08:53:35 AM
Dear Author of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees,
 
I have only just started to read some of the sections on your website and thought you would be a good person to chat to because I have been seeking someone who can prove to me that my logic is flawed and that my faith in the creator of the universe is worthless and delusional.
 
However, I read the section on Intelligent Design and immediately note that you have basically said, the human body doesn’t work “perfectly” therefore it evolved.

It doesn't work as well as it would if it had been designed by intelligent engineers, even Sufficiently Advanced aliens.  It is filled with evolutionary kludges rather than elegant, foresighted designs.

You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.

Before we can "prove to you that your logic is flawed," you've got to have some.  This is just an unsubstantiated assertion.  First of all, what sort of "God" are you talking about?  It's not possible to analyze any proposed logical connections between the structure of Life, the Universe, and Everything and "God" as long as "God" is a cognitive blank/moveable goalpost that can mean anything from a vague and undefined "Ground of Being" to a specific Invisible Magic Person like Zeus or Yahweh.

 If you consider "God" to be an Invisible Magic Person who can design and create things,[1] and the level of organization necessary for the existence of biological replicators (and hence, an evolutionary process) represents evidence for IMP's creating it, then the even greater level of organization necessary for the existence of an IMP would also require one or more "creators," for the IMP, and so on.

When confronted with the question, "Where does order and complexity come from?" theism just punts the question into some inaccessible "spiritual" realm and says "It [my creator du jour] was always there!"  This is a non-answer.  Naturalistic theories of cosmic and biological evolution actually explain how order and complexity can emerge from the ultimate simplicity of omnisymmetrical spacetime.

The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.

Tell that to the countless people throughout the ages who have had a woman they loved [daughter, sister, wife] die in childbirth, a death of slow agony, because the evolutionary kludge of a pelvis just baaarely big enough (and sometimes not quite big enough) to admit the passage of a large-brained human head, or any of the other "design" malfunctions that can happen (hemorrhaging, etc.). 


By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

"What's true is already so.  Owning up to it won't make it any worse."  In other words, whether I "want" there to be a creator/creators or not is irrelevant.  Either such entities exist, or they don't.  That you ask the question suggests that you think believing that something exists just because you want it to is not a mark of small-child immaturity or questionable sanity.  Wishing Doesn't Make It So.
 1. Rather than, say, a process or trajectory of cosmic and biological evolution a la Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, or a sublime equation that could fit on a T-shirt, or a synergetic integration of all known and unknown generalized operating principles of Universe or some such.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Hatter23 on December 06, 2011, 08:54:12 AM
Dear Author of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees,
 
I have only just started to read some of the sections on your website and thought you would be a good person to chat to because I have been seeking someone who can prove to me that my logic is flawed and that my faith in the creator of the universe is worthless and delusional.
 
However, I read the section on Intelligent Design and immediately note that you have basically said, the human body doesn’t work “perfectly” therefore it evolved.   You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.   The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.
 
Anyway, if you are interested in pointing out the flaws in my logic, please respond.
 
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?
 
Sincerely,
 
[name removed]


Flaws in your logic? OK let us start. If the human body was designed by a perfect designer, what purpose would flaw serve? Particularly, why would there be inactive genes, known colloquially as junk DNA, that match with reptilian species in a creation that happened to arrive complete and its present form? Why would there be transitional fossils of various extinct species?

The flaw in your logic is called circular reasoning, or begging the question.

Now you might state, as many ID/creations advocates do, that order cannot arrive from chaos. It can and I will allow you to demonstrate it to yourself in a limited form via a deck of cards. Shuffle a deck of cards seven times. According to mathematicians, seven is what is required to introduce maximum chaos into a 52 card deck.

Now look through it, remove any runs of three(or more) and three(or more) of a kind. Shuffle it again and remove the series again. You will notice a pattern here. You several runs and matches, creating order, order out of chaos. This is a very simplistic demonstration of how it can happen...but yes every sperm is a shuffle....you think of every animal that has ever had a chance to propagate during the millions of years the earth has existed and that's septillions and septillions of shuffles.



Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kcrady on December 06, 2011, 09:13:42 AM
yes every sperm is a shuffle

[sings]
Ev-e-ry sperm's a shuuuuf-llle
Ev-e-ry sperm is greaaaat
Wheee-never a sperm is waaa-sted
the frequency of its alleles is reduced in the population...
[/singing]

Hmmm, that just doesn't scan as well.  Have I just discovered the Argument From Monty Python Music Argument for the existence of God? 
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: free on December 06, 2011, 09:31:09 AM
I think to answer the original question, is that atheists don't have a horse in the race so to speak.  We have no dogmatic sense of loyalty to any method of the origins of the universe or any phenomena that occur in it.  If there is a creator (big if) and it could be supported with actual evidence (not blind faith), the majority of us would become theists.  We aren't trying to prosecute anyone for their witch-craft, we are seekers of truth.  We challenge everything.  We use discourse, evidence and reason to support what we believe.  If we are challenged and fail we will adapt our views to the new evidence.  If there isn't a creator (small if), we aren't justified.  All that means is that we accurately assessed a situation that was later supported further. 

The question is a silly one to ask.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kin hell on December 06, 2011, 09:48:38 AM
Dear Author of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees,
 
I have only just started to read some of the sections on your website and thought you would be a good person to chat to because I have been seeking someone who can prove to me that my logic is flawed and that my faith in the creator of the universe is worthless and delusional.

Why have you been seeking that proof?
 Do you need your doubts confirmed?
I suspect you already know, and all your following illogic is just a symptom of a desperate need not to give up a security blanket.
That illogic has already been addressed below by those far more capable than I, but I wonder if you will be honest enough to allow their replies any real time and effort, or will your understandable, but baseless, fears of a godless existence disallow true rational appraisal?
 
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: jaimehlers on December 06, 2011, 09:53:29 AM
To answer the last question first, whether I want there to be a creator or not has no bearing on anything.  Disbelieving in a real entity doesn't make it imaginary, and believing in an imaginary entity doesn't make it real.  So it serves no real purpose to 'believe' in a creator without hard evidence to show that there is one.  Still, it's a person's own time and energy to spend, if they so choose.  Just understand that to an atheist, worshiping a creator without evidence is a complete waste of time.

As for the complexity of life, the only thing that argument really says is that life is too complex even for God to get it right.  Which defeats the purpose of believing in God's omnipotence and omniscience, since an all-knowing being would know how to make life perfect, and an all-powerful being would be able to do it.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Nick on December 06, 2011, 09:54:57 AM
Id like it if there were gold at the end of rainbows but it still does not happen...where is that goose of mine?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 06, 2011, 10:03:47 AM
Whether I want there to be a creator is irrelevant. If I did, I would have already made up some story line that requires one, like you have. I prefer to look at the universe as it is, not as I wish it were. If I could have it any way I wanted, I would first wish away the myriad ways that humans suffer and cause suffering. And then i'd go to work on the natural sources of pain and death, like disease and earthquakes and such.

Since it is just wishing, and has no basis in reality, you religious types have to carefully explain away the more obvious flaws of this "creation" by letting your god allow suffering, etc. via some other made up mechanism, like the devil and/or original sin. (Or in your case, come up with the unique excuse that he did good enough when he made us).This allows you to account for the various inconsistencies in life. You know, the ones you don't like in a universe created by an all-loving being.

And it must be awkward. Just as you think you have everything figured out, along comes another christian who ostensibly agrees with you, and you find that their story is a bit different that yours. To them, their world makes sense because they've interpreted a bible passage differently or their interpretation of the many bible/science dictomies is different. But you both believe in a similarsounding god and you quite often cut them some slack. (Unless they think the earth orbits the sun or something. That's a stake-burning!)

I prefer existing in a world where I am allowed to be amazed by new discoveries than one where I think I have all the answers and have to, too often, try fit actual information into a version of reality that doesn't allow for such things. I much prefer my sense of awe and wonder about new discoveries over how christians, and especially the fundamentalist ones, have to react. Which is to groan in dispair and mutter "Oh shit!"

There may be over 300 sextillion stars in the universe, and you are a member of a group that thinks a god put us in orbit around just one of them, and after making it all  just for us. Wow.

That's 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. He could make all that and still not be able to prevent 25% of the men on this planet from getting a hernia in their lifetime, whether they are christian or not?

Not only am I glad there is no creator, I am also glad I haven't deceived myself into thinking there is.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: RaymondKHessel on December 06, 2011, 10:15:35 AM
Do I want there to be a creator? lol... What a strange question to ask somebody. 20 bucks says there's some kind of cheezy Christian angle here; some kind of "gotchya" follow-up no matter what a person answers.

I honestly, truly don't care. It's not something I think about. Do you want there to be genies in lamps? Do you want to meet Bugs Bunny in person? I'm willing to bet you don't spend much time thinking about such things. Same thing with me and gods. An anthropomorphic "creator" is an absurdism that just doesn't blip on my reality radar.

As an aside, why would the universe care what I want anyway? I *want* my face on the one dollar bill. I *want* world peace. I *want* to wake up every morning next to a beautiful 5'8 140 lb Cello-playing Polynesian stripper with a PHD in Quantum Mechanics and a minor in Gangsta Rap.

You can't always get what you want. Mick Jagger. Wise man.

Wanting is all fine and good, but I don't waste time "wanting" stupid, nonsensical shit, like being besties with Bigfoot or getting a ride on a unicorn. Likewise, I don't go around wishing for invisible sky daddies to fill in the gaps of my knowledge, or looking for intangible, invisible, silent, cosmic father figures to go crying to with my problems. That's what books and friends are for.

If a "creator" existed somewhere, I fail to see how it would affect me anyway. Considering it would have never taken the time to say "Hi!" and introduce itself to the world at large, or otherwise make any impact on the world whatsoever, let alone use it's cosmic super powers to improve the world, it might as well be some random French guy working in some office park in Quebec. It/His existence would be utterly meaningless to me, it makes no difference to me whether or not it would exist.

Of course, these answers won't satisfy a Christian. They want an answer that specifically addresses Yahweh specifically, in all his big fat fumbling genocidal crybaby glory.

In which case, I'll go with both A.)"Yes, oh deary me, I SO want there to be an Eternal and all-knowing Foreskin Collector to love me and look over me and to torture people FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER if they're what I preceive as bad!"

and B.)"No, I don't want there to be a creator because I don't want to bend a knee to anybody, and I just want sin and sin and sin and never pay for it! DERP YAY!"

There ya go. Text book retard answers, hand-delivered to all the little retards in retardville. Being as you TOTALLY nailed a blasphemous, godless heathen with this totally original and ingenious philosophical question, you may now proceed to give glories and noogies and pat each other on the backs and buttocks.Yay! Altar boy molestation celebration begins promptly at six, out by the dumpsters behind the Circle K. Praise Him!   &)
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Omen on December 06, 2011, 10:24:29 AM
someone who can prove to me that my logic is flawed

What's you're argument?

Quote
and that my faith in the creator of the universe is worthless and delusional.

Non-sequitur, poor use of logic doesn't mean you're delusional.  Worthless is a qualification that really has no applicable meaning here.  Either it is valid or it is not, mistakes are not worthless in that we learn from them.

Quote
You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.

There is nothing to miss because there is not a valid argument presented in this statement.  Effectively, you're presenting a non-sequitur that uses a qualification for complexity without explanation or validation to make an unwarranted conclusion.  Plus, ID proponents themselves claim 'perfection', pointing out what is less than perfect undermines their qualification.  Design is obviously not done by an omnipotent omniscience super being, but instead a series of blind non-random selective processes reliant on random variation.
 
Quote
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

Neither, either information exists to support a position or it doesn't.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Nam on December 06, 2011, 10:41:10 AM
I love it when people say, "You missed the point!" -- as if they know the entire truth of everything, yet, always, in another breath, they state they do not.

-Nam
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: velkyn on December 06, 2011, 12:14:42 PM
However, I read the section on Intelligent Design and immediately note that you have basically said, the human body doesn’t work “perfectly” therefore it evolved.   You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.   The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.
so you're god can't make things better?  not much of a god is it? 
Quote
Anyway, if you are interested in pointing out the flaws in my logic, please respond.
see above.
Quote
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

Ah, I'm seeing the usual theist attempt to accuse the atheist of wanting no god since that would put a damper on the babt-eating. 

However, if there was a god that was worth following, sure I'm down with that god.  I enjoy playing clerics in D&D where gods are useful beings taht actually do things.  With the lack of evidence for your god, it doesn't seem that it exists at all, much less does anything worthwhile.     

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: wright on December 06, 2011, 02:08:26 PM
Dear Author of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees,
 
However, I read the section on Intelligent Design and immediately note that you have basically said, the human body doesn’t work “perfectly” therefore it evolved.   You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.   The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.
 
Anyway, if you are interested in pointing out the flaws in my logic, please respond.
 
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?
 
Sincerely,
 
[name removed]

"so minor they are negligible"? Seriously? Smallpox, AIDS, guinea worms, SIDS... kcrady already covered what can go wrong with childbirth... all "negligible"? Spoken by someone who almost certainly has never been touched by any of the above! Pull your head outta your ass, already!

As to your last question, I'm with plethora: any "designer" of the universe as we know it is either utterly unconcerned with the well-being of living things, or a sadist.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: naemhni on December 06, 2011, 02:23:57 PM
"so minor they are negligible"? Seriously? Smallpox, AIDS, guinea worms, SIDS... kcrady already covered what can go wrong with childbirth... all "negligible"? Spoken by someone who almost certainly has never been touched by any of the above! Pull your head outta your ass, already!

It really is ridiculous.

I remember reading one of Richard Bach's books a while back, where he talks about something that he used to do quite a bit: barnstorming throughout the midwest, selling rides in his biplane.  He related the story of one woman who wanted a ride but wasn't sure whether the plane was safe.  He told her that the plane was built one year before he was born and was still going to be going strong long after they were both dead.  And the biplane, obviously, was designed and built by puny humans, not an omnimax being.

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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: dloubet on December 06, 2011, 02:25:39 PM
Contrary to what theists insist, I think it's the lack of a creator that allows our lives to have any meaning. If there's a creator god, then everything we do is just busy-work. If there isn't a creator, then the things we uncover about the universe are genuine discoveries, and not just the pointless rote answers in the back of the textbook.

So to answer the question at face value, no, I would not want there to be a creator.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Emily on December 06, 2011, 05:55:14 PM
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?


It all depends. I notice you didn't capitalize creator so it might imply a non-personal figure. If this is the case then I don't care. If there is a god  (with a lower case 'g',) then what difference does it make if there is a creator or not. In my mind the deists are the closest ones to showing good evidence for the existence of their god, simply because (even though deism falls somewhere on the god of the gaps scale) their creator comes the closest to existing, and even then it's pretty far off.

As for a creator of the universe is concerned. I don't want there to be one. I find that it takes away the excitement of discoveries regarding how the universe originated, how this ball of rock that we live on formed, and how life formed and evolved. Personally it's no fun to simply point the finger as some all-mighty creator, whether it be the god of the bible or a non-personal god. If it's the god of the bible then he gets no respect from me because of how he appears in his holy book and I don't want to acknowledge him as the creator because he has done a horrible god; and if it's a non-personal god then I'd love to party with it on a Friday night, but still would be upset when he begins bragging about his greatest creation. (If it's the non-personal god I am sure he was drunk when it created everything. Because, as beautiful as the universe and all that is in it is, he sure did a horrible job considering how the universe wants to kill us. Then again, YHWH must've been really hammered too.)

But I don't care if there is one. I just don't want there to be certain ones, because some have such an over-inflatted ego the world would be better if they just didn't exist at all.

-Em
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: TruthSearcher on December 06, 2011, 06:01:18 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.

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.   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.   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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: nogodsforme on December 06, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
My intelligently designed arthritic knees are talking to me today. And the intelligently designed miscarriage and high-risk pregnancy I had make me so happy that we humans are not just some evolutionary accident, but the carefully planned result of a kind and caring super-being.....
 
"God made us good enough to reproduce."

Is that the new Republican campaign slogan? So all we humans have to do is
1) survive until age 16 or so
2) f@ck
3) make a baby
4) squirt it out and
5) die?

So much for the argument that having no god belief takes all the meaning out of life. &)

PS My opinion of god has no bearing on how I do research, conduct my life or do anything else. Just like my opinion of Batman, Darth Vader or Wonder Woman have no bearing on any of that. Because god (like Batman, Darth Vader and Wonder Woman) does not exist. However, I do wish that Batman existed, because he is hawt.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Truth OT on December 06, 2011, 06:06:53 PM
Quote
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

I would love for there to be a creator. And I'd really like it if one day I woke up and realized that the creator was me and though I'd been sleeping od the job for a while, I had the power to fix everything and right all wrongs!

or

I could settle for there being a being that perhaps created the universe and was more powerful, intelligent, fair, and loving than any man has ever been that knows specifically about and cares for me who also has a vested interest in my happiness and wellbeing. Such a being would be unspeakably cool from my perspective.

Nevermind, this is kinda selfish and short-sighted. Who'd really be this self-centered and desire to make up a God to suit their own personal likes and biases at the potential expense of anyone that had a different perspective or different likes?.............................
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Truth OT on December 06, 2011, 06:12:40 PM
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.   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.   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.

Welcome friend!

Say I was to grant you that a creator does in fact exist. How is it that you can objectively and definitively equate such a being with what you believe your particular God to be? Remember that your opinion of God not only has no bearing on whether such a being exists or not, but additionally, your opinion on that being's qualities and charactoristics is equally as insignificant.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Emily on December 06, 2011, 06:13:39 PM
Welcome to the site.

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.   

and this is where your logic is flawed. It's called a god of the gaps argument, which basically states that because of a lack of evidence for how life can come about through a non-living compound, there must be a god until it is proven that live can. Which doesn't really make sense because, of course, we can counter your argument with how this creator came about.

And those scientists in the the field of abiogenesis are currently working on finding out how life did originate through a natural process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Alzael on December 06, 2011, 06:15:06 PM
Anyway, I get the feeling that you guys generally think God is an imperfect pathetic sadist.

Depends on the god. The Christian god, absolutely. That would be because he is.

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.

That's about what everyone has said, yes. Though it is not based on the opinion that god is a sadist. It is based on reality. Reality doesn't care what we want to believe.

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

No we don't. You're actually just making that up.

so until someone shows this scientific law

Not a scientific law. A "scientific law" has a specific meaning. You clearly don't know what that meaning is, so don't go around using the term.

Furthermore there is nothing scientific about what you just said. It was made-up and stated out of igorance of biology. Please learn what you're talking about before you make claims.

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.

No, we should think that only if the evidence leads us to such a conslusion. Which so far it doesn't. Or at least it points to other ideas as being more likely.

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.

No it doesn't. Or at least it shouldn't. If your opinion of god affects your research then, quite frankly, you're not a very good researcher.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 06, 2011, 06:40:08 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.

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. 

We think the god that christians worship is a douche bag. Well, not really, because we like douche bags better than that. But it's true, the dude the christians worship doesn't come across as too nice a guy if one uses standards not concocted by those hard up for a trip to heaven.

What we really think is that there is no god. That makes it a lot easier to be critical of those who disagree. Because most of us have no idea why they believe such things. Not in the face of all the rapidly increasing knowledge about our world and the universe.

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.   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.

We care when we are ostracized and told that we are hated more than most other sorts of people. We care when we are forced by circumstances to either participate or go out of way to not participate in religious activities that we disagree with. We care when we know that religion has been and is a huge source of friction between peoples. People die over this stuff regularly, and none of it can proven to be even kinda-maybe true.

Science looks at where the research takes them. You seem to think that life has to come from life, while science is looking at other explanations, which seem more likely than this god guy. And you can't have it both ways. Gobs of christians come here and tell us god is not living in our plane of existence, so as a source of life, he wouldn't count. And of course we always ask where a god would come from. How someone can not imagine how something could have come from nothing (not what actually happened, as per science, but christians always insist that is what science is claiming) but think that a god could always have been is beyond me.

From my perspective as an atheist, it takes rather impressive mental gymnastics and lots of personal tomfoolery to actually believe something for which there is no evidence other than a few stories from some long dead people. I would think that jc telling the crowd he would be back in their lifetime and then not following through would be enough to discourage the masses, but nope, that's just something else to be hopeful about.

The whole story is about hope, both here on earth and in the afterlife. And the irony is that hope has led millions to early graves, other millions to participate in atrocities that no human should ever experience, and dooms further millions to one or the other fate in the future. The many many religions of the world, often at odds with their non-brethren brethren, should in an of themselves make it obvious that each one is a fairy tale.

I assume you don't believe in any of the hindu gods. How hard is that. Do you have to do any soul searching before you reject vishnu as a probable deity? I doubt it. And using exactly the same process (which goes like this: "You gotta be kidding me!"), I reject the christian god just as easily.

Once christians start living longer, better lives, have fewer health issues, freely share their wealth with others and start dying with smiles on all their faces, I might sit up and listen. In the meantime, I have no reason whatsoever to take either their or any other god stories seriously.

Well, maybe Odin, but even he is a little iffy  ;D

Edit: Fixed quoting error.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Irish on December 06, 2011, 06:54:17 PM
Hi TruthSearcher,

I see that you have joined us here and I am glad that you have.  Seeing that you have the ability to stand up for your beliefs is a good thing about you.

My post here is simply a warning.  You are going to get many responses in quick secession, considering that there are far many more who oppose your stance than support it.  Don't hesitate to slow the conversation down to answer questions at your pace.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kin hell on December 06, 2011, 07:22:10 PM
  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.

OK then 

 
Have you even one shard of evidence of the existence of any god (let alone yours) that doesn't, in the end, just come down to your personal feelings?

If you cannot offer the slightest independently verifiable evidence of such a god, then is it not just your "opinion of god" that allows you to believe?

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: wright 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kcrady 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: TruthSearcher 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Azdgari 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?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Irish 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Azdgari 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Irish 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: ParkingPlaces 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: wright 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.



Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: One Above All 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: plethora 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Alzael 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 (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 (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.

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kcrady 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: plethora 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: ParkingPlaces 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Truth OT 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?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Truth OT 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: plethora 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: velkyn 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”? 
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Emily 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kevinagain 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 (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 (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ansrp/potamopyrgus_antipodarum.pdf)

take a look and let me know what you think.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: TruthSearcher 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?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Azdgari 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?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Irish 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: wright 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 (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 (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?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: free 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: One Above All 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Historicity 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.

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Historicity 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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kevinagain on December 08, 2011, 12:17:23 PM
hi truth.

i posted a link on sexual reproduction that you apparently have overlooked.

some mollusks can reproduce sexually or asexually, depending on the environmental advantages. there's no reason to require a hopeful monster in the evolution of sex. both methods can occur side by side, and do, today, right now.

requiring gametes and sexual reproduction to occur successfully all at once, full-blown, is something isn't required in nature.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Historicity on December 08, 2011, 02:42:59 PM
some mollusks ...
Fish, Kevinagain, fish can do it.  If you have a tank of guppies and you remove all the males after a while one of females starts acting macha and bullying the other girls.  Then she changes her sex organs over to male and becomes a guy.

For some reptiles it's the temperature at which the eggs were brooded.  In some seasons of the year the eggs will be born all female and other seasons, male.


From the expanded lyrics to the theme song for Cheers:

      Roll out of bed, Mr. Coffee's dead;
      The morning's looking bright;
      And your shrink ran off to Europe,
      And didn't even write;
      And your husband wants to be a girl;

      Be glad there's one place in the world
      Where everybody knows your name,
      And they're always glad you came;
      You want to go where people know,
      People are all the same;
      You want to go where everybody knows your name.

If he's an amphibian or below, that's possible.

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kevinagain on December 08, 2011, 02:52:32 PM
chickens too. take out the ovary of a hen and the remaining undifferentiated gonad can become a functioning testis.

what i was interested in was the fact that in these particular snails, sexual reproduction can occur alongside asexual reproduction, and therefore therefore there's no penalty for evolving variation in the system. it's an example of how the advantages of sexual reproduction can be added to a perfectly satisfactory pre-existing asexual system with no penalty.

truth was asking for an explanation of how sex could have evolved. the snails and their parasites provide one possible scenario, in which there's nothing lost and much to be gained by adding it.

added
i hate having to fix grammar
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kcrady on December 09, 2011, 01:21:03 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”.

The point we were making is that there is no difference between "living matter" and "non-living matter" from the perspective of the matter itself.  "Living matter" is simply matter participating in a set of self-perpetuating chemical reactions.  Since life is a process of chemistry, there is nothing that forbids its simplest form from self-organizing under the proper conditions.  This does not require an intelligent person any more than snowflakes require tiny snowflake faeries fashioning each one with little chisels.

Even if abiogenesis is wildly improbable, given the size and age of even the visible Cosmos (not to mention whatever might exist outside of our light-cone), there are worlds enough, and time.  No matter how improbable it might be, it is far more probable, by many orders of magnitude, than the incredibly intricate assembly of component parts necessary to form any sort of thinking, designing person.  Persons just seem easy because we look at Universe through person-colored glasses.

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

You haven't come close to demonstrating the "always" part of your claim.  All you've got so far is that scientists have not replicated abiogenesis in a lab--yet.  To make your absolutist claim stick, you have to be able to prove that they can't ever replicate abiogenesis, because abiogenesis is physically impossible, like perpetual motion machines. 

Is your creator "life?"

If yes, and "life always comes from life," then what life did "he" come from?  And where did that life come from?  If you want to say, "No, he was always there, he's eternal," then you have an example of life (presumably the very biggest, specialest, life-y-est life form there is) that does not come from life, and your claim that "life always comes from life" fails.

If no--i.e., "he" is something Other, a different category of being than "life" as we know it (i.e., he does not have a metabolism, doesn't reproduce, isn't composed of matter/energy, exists "outside of space and time," etc.)--then once again, we have an example of life coming from non-life, and your claim fails.

Since even your own model does not support the claim that "life always comes from life," we have no reason to accept that claim.  Since a self-replicating molecule is so much simpler and more parsimonious than any hypothesis involving intelligent persons, it has the status of a default explanation.

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.

Likewise for Invisible Magic Persons of any sort (gods, devils, djinn, nature-spirits, etc., etc.).  Likewise, for Magic itself.  In fact, every single thing we have ever come to understand about reality has turned out to be: Not Magic.  Thunderstorms can happen without requiring the existence of a Zeus or Thor.  Microorganisms and viruses are sufficient to explain disease without demon-possession or malign spells cast by the little old lady down the street.  And so on. 

There was a time when virtually everything, from the movement of the celestial bodies to weather to fertility to victory or defeat in battle, was thought to be caused by one Invisible Magic Person or another.  Then we developed the tools to start making a systematic effort to understand how reality works.  IMP-based explanations for things were supplanted by natural explanations for things over and over and over again, in an unbroken string of scientific discoveries, for 400 years.   Based on this track record, we have every reason to expect that abiogenesis will also turn out to have a natural explanation, especially since we already have some of the puzzle pieces. 

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

Respond to the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis you've already been given with enough technical mastery to indicate that you're operating on a par with the professionals in the field, then we'll start looking up published papers and "lab reports."  BTW, can you provide any published papers or lab reports about cells (or anything else) being created by magic?  Please include the relevant equations showing how the magical being(s) work, and how whatever they're made of interacts with matter/energy and time.  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.

You are trying to persuade us that your views are correct, aren't you?  Assuming that your "years of research" is not equivalent to "I learned it in Sunday School and believed it ever since," you can presumably demonstrate that there's only one god, that it's male, and that it is specifically (your understanding of) the Christian god.  Since no other theologian has been able to accomplish this feat,[1] you should at the very least expect to be hailed as the greatest theologian in the history of Christendom, even if you don't win a Nobel Prize.[2]


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.

There you go again--just assuming that "the creator" is going to be a singular entity.  Most major design projects (e.g. a new airliner, rocket, city, car, computer operating system, whatever) are the result of teamwork, we have no reason to assume a single creator even if we had evidence for creation.  If a proposed creator is modeled as a semantic-thinking, language-using person, then it makes more sense to assume it is a member of a civilization, than to suppose that it modified itself to have a capacity for language and invented a language for itself when, in its original state, it would not have the concept of "other person" much less any actual examples to talk to.

As to the question of whether science requires creators to explain the existence of the Cosmos or us, the answer, according to the community of trained, qualified, and practicing scientists, is "no."  If you know so much more than them, and your ideas are better validated than theirs, where's your trophy case full of Nobel Prizes?  Once again: any personal being is far, far, faaaaaaaaaaaaar more complicated than a self-replicating molecule[3] or early cell.  If we have to pick one or the other as more likely to "just happen," the molecule or cell wins hands down.

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.

I note your complete disinterest in the vast tracts of understanding that the theory of evolution has filled in, and the literal mountains of evidence in its favor.

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.

So, your proposed creator can design and create more than a hundred billion galaxies and innumerable -illions of worlds, but he can't advertise himself to the population of one little planet without humans to do it for him?  Really?  Isn't Yahweh supposed to have myriads of angels at his command?  "Angel" comes from a Greek word meaning "messenger."  What does he have messengers for, if not to "spread the word?" 
 1. Otherwise there would be a great deal more agreement among religious people on the nature of the divine, and among Christians themselves about what Yahweh is like, what he wants people to believe, etc..
 2. If you have actual data supporting your conclusions about the existence and nature of the divine, I cannot see how you could fail to win at least one Nobel Prize, if not several.
 3. We know examples of these exist: DNA and RNA.  We just don't know what the earliest, simplest self-replicating molecule would have been.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 09, 2011, 02:36:54 AM
All you've got so far is that scientists have not replicated abiogenesis in a lab--yet.  To make your absolutist claim stick, you have to be able to prove that they can't ever replicate abiogenesis, because abiogenesis is physically impossible, like perpetual motion machines.

I am probably missing something but I have a question. If we have never observed living material spring spontaneously from non-living material what reason do scientists have to be looking for that result in the first place? Seems counter intuitive to the whole scientific process to me.

 

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: One Above All on December 09, 2011, 02:43:10 AM
I am probably missing something but I have a question. If we have never observed living material spring spontaneously from non-living material what reason do scientists have to be looking for that result in the first place? Seems counter intuitive to the whole scientific process to me.

There are two options here:
Either life has always existed since "before" the Big Bang or life came from non-life. Considering that, in the beginning, atoms hadn't even been formed, I think it's safe to say that the latter is true.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 09, 2011, 02:49:21 AM
There are two options here:
Either life has always existed since "before" the Big Bang or life came from non-life. Considering that, in the beginning, atoms hadn't even been formed, I think it's safe to say that the latter is true.

Couldn't we assume that living matter was present in the singularity that produced the Big Bang?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: One Above All on December 09, 2011, 02:51:09 AM
Couldn't we assume that living matter was present in the singularity that produced the Big Bang?

After the singularity, there weren't any atoms. Living matter requires complex molecules.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 09, 2011, 02:52:28 AM
After the singularity, there weren't any atoms. Living matter requires complex molecules.

What expanded?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: One Above All on December 09, 2011, 02:53:19 AM
What expanded?

From what I understand, the "edge" of the universe.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 09, 2011, 03:00:25 AM
From what I understand, the "edge" of the universe.

I am tired and getting lost in thought.

Since we don't know exactly what happened waaaaaaaay back when, it's all just conjecture past a certain point, no? I'm okay with the thought that living material has always existed at some level or the other. I am also okay with the thought that something came from nothing. But it still doesn't answer my question of why scientists would actively try to achieve results for something that we have no solid indication is possible. I mean, why not just fire up the old cold fusion experiments while we are at it? 
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: One Above All on December 09, 2011, 03:02:04 AM
Since we don't know exactly what happened waaaaaaaay back when, it's all just conjecture past a certain point, no?

We know that living matter most certainly did not exist back then. The temperatures were too high for even protons, neutrons and electrons to form. No protons, neutrons or electrons=No atoms=No molecules=No living matter.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kcrady on December 09, 2011, 03:06:00 AM
I am probably missing something but I have a question. If we have never observed living material spring spontaneously from non-living material what reason do scientists have to be looking for that result in the first place? Seems counter intuitive to the whole scientific process to me.

First of all, there is no such thing as "living material."  A carbon atom in your brain is no different than a carbon atom in a rock.  When asking how the chemical process we call "life" got started, it makes no sense to say, "It was started by an even more complicated and inexplicable process of life!"  That isn't an answer.  The only alternative left is, "It got started as a result of other, simpler processes."  And so, scientists set out to discover what those processes might have been.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 09, 2011, 03:12:05 AM
We know that living matter most certainly did not exist back then. The temperatures were too high for even protons, neutrons and electrons to form. No protons, neutrons or electrons=No atoms=No molecules=No living matter.

One last question before I retire and please forgive my ignorance. How do we KNOW this?

Edit
@ kcrady

Your comment about "living material" is just far too heavy for me to contemplate or respond to at the moment. The last part I get however.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: One Above All on December 09, 2011, 03:25:13 AM
One last question before I retire and please forgive my ignorance. How do we KNOW this?

E=mc2
If we can separate electrons from their atoms and even "force" nuclear fission with our limited resources (a speck of a speck of a speck (...) of a speck of dust compared to the universe), imagine what would happen if all the energy of the universe[1] were in the same place. Virtually nothing could form there.
First it had to cool down quite a bit, then quarks and other subatomic particles appeared, then protons, neutrons and electrons formed, then hydrogen atoms formed, then stars, then heavier elements, then planets, then what we call life.
 1. And I mean all of it; even matter itself had been converted into energy.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Azdgari on December 09, 2011, 09:46:56 AM
Your comment about "living material" is just far too heavy for me to contemplate or respond to at the moment. The last part I get however.

You were the one who used the words "living material".  Presumably you meant something specific by those words.  What did you mean when you used those words?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: jtk73 on December 09, 2011, 11:06:37 AM
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
I have a very important question for you.  Why would a god forsake this world? Why would a god deliberately create a world of suffering (assuming a benevolent god)? I could understand the concept of a powerful entity that creates a universe that has (or will develop) a planet or planets that have (or can develop/sustain life) and then just leaves the universe to live out its "life"

BUT why would a god create a universe, one habitable planet, humans that the god supposedly loves (I am of course assuming that you believe that this god loves us) and then FORSAKE us and this planet? Please don't reply with anything about "the fall" or "sin". According to christian doctrine - the god created us. So if the god finds flaws with us or is offended by something that we do, think or say - whose fault is that?

If I design and build a birdhouse with a guillotine right inside the door and it cuts the head off of every bird that pokes its head in the door, whose fault is that? Do I blame the birdhouse? Do I blame the birds?

Also, on this topic of suffering. Yes, I am aware that there is suffering in the world but do you honestly suffer every minute of every day? Do you never have a happy moment in your life? I know that I don't suffer every minute every day. *Please don't misunderstand. I know that there are people in the world that suffer nearly every minute of every day (starving children in 3rd world countries, ...)

Quote
Keep the reasons why you don’t want there to be a creator coming, this is good stuff.
I keep seeing you post this statement or something equivalent and it is really annoying me. I don't know if you really feel this way or if you are just trying to piss people off.

I, and I think most of the people on this forum, don't actively want there to NOT be a creator. I know that I don't sit around brooding and thinking "I DO NOT want a creator to exist!". There is a huge difference between discussing the flaws and incompetence of the christian god (or god of the bible) and actively hoping/wishing that god does not exist. I don't NOT want there to be a creator but I see no evidence for any gods/creators existing and a god/creator that provides no evidence that it exists and does not interact in human lives (or this world) in any demonstrable way is irrelevant and might as well not exist.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: nogodsforme on December 09, 2011, 06:40:39 PM
Not the creator god of any major religion, that's for sure! Psycho and mean and petty and mostly absent, sort of a sadistic, sexually abusive, conservative deadbeat dad? No thanks!

I can imagine the kind of creator I would like there to be, if there had to be one. A wise, cool and groovy laid-back kumbayah kinda dude/dudette who makes sure everyone has musical talent, enough to eat, a body that works and doesn't break down until you are ready to go, and the ability to let each living creature live out his/her/its life with a cheerful "ciao, li'l buddy" at the end.

Sort of a cross between Gandhi, Yoda, Bob Marley and Grandmother Willow from Pocahontas. If he looks like Robert Downey Jr, that wouldn't hurt.... With a big dose of the Prime Directive -- non-intervention into human affairs, unless we really start to get crazy and try to destroy the earth or something.

That seems pretty simple and straightforward. No eternal judgments, no weird tests, no human or animal sacrifices, no sins, either original or plagiarized. People and cultures would be able to work out their own laws and customs as they saw fit, with one caveat: "don't hurt nobody".

My creator person would make it so any time one person intentionally and with malice aforethought hurt someone else or damaged any part of the earth, the same exact pain or damage would snap back at them. Don't enslave someone, if you don't want to find yourself being made a slave, too.

That's it. The warning "don't hurt nobody" would not require any overlong sacred texts or endless lists of laws. It would just be the Golden Rule, inscribed in the reality of the world. Since every child would have experienced the "snap back" from an early age, you would not need to have "thou shalt nots" listed anywhere. It would be internalized that if you hurt anyone, you get hurt, too.

And every ten years or so check in to remind all of us that we did not have to worship or pray or anything, just don't hurt nobody. And party on! :laugh:
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Irish on December 09, 2011, 07:18:44 PM
Truth...

... 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.


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.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: TruthSearcher on December 12, 2011, 07:10:19 PM
Azdgari, as far as we know life has never come from non life without the help of existing life, why? One explanation is that life itself is too complex to arise without the help of existing life. 

Irish, if Jesus came back again how long do you think he would last before he was killed again, he wouldn’t last 3 years, I’d give him 3 months at the most before someone would knock him off.   Yes he’s a nice guy, but he also exposes peoples motives and hearts immediately and we humans don’t like being exposed for who we really are, especially world leaders, so they’d get rid of him quick smart.   That wouldn’t prove to anyone that God existed.  Or what if he resurrected himself and stayed around with invincibility, some might believe in God then.   But, if he did that, but stayed the nice guy (who, yes, exposes people’s hearts) but doesn’t force anyone to be silent, or be removed, then imagine the chaos that would surround him, the people who don’t like him would try and stop anyone from getting to him (since they can’t kill him).   So then he would have to move away from the blockade, but they’d find him again and set up their blockade again, it would really be a waste of time.   He’s much better off letting people write down what he said and did the one time and leaving us to sort it out for ourselves.   There is one other option, he could stay, but not as the nice guy, but as one who executes his power to silence and remove people setting up blockades, but then he has to be fair, so he would have to judge all of us, oh woops, we’d all be found guilty, we’d all come under judgement and we’d all be removed, sounds like a kind of apocalypse doesn’t it.   He’s said he’ll come in all his power one day, but is giving us time to believe his words first.   

Free will is extremely important in all this, the freedom that death brings also comes with consequences, if we have freely given up our will to God already, then God is free (ie we’ve given him permission) to make us into a new person (when we die, or when he comes back in judgement), who is perfect, who can hang out with him in heaven, but if we haven’t given up our will to God already, then he isn’t free to make us into a new person, he has no right to change us, he doesn’t force himself upon us, so he will leave us alone and not change us, leave us as we are, and what are we?    If God takes away the good gifts he’s given us, what are we and what are we left with?   And that is what we’ll have for all eternity, our free will, but no light, no food, no friends, just our free will.

Sorry this explanation is really bad because its so brief, but you hopefully get the gist.   The bible is much better at explaining it.

Regarding the video, it is a problem in that the first cell to evolve such that its only method of reproduction is with gametes wouldn’t be able to pass on this “mutation”.

Wright, self-replicating proteins haven’t been observed to come about independent of pre-existing life either and current cosmology has no explanation for star or planet formation, gravity isn’t strong enough to force a cloud of gas into a star, just like our atmosphere doesn’t squash down to earth, gravity is quite weak and cosmologists know it.   A very large force is required to push a cloud of gas into a what we now see as stars, but such a force hasn’t been discovered yet.

free, just because the creator knows what will happen doesn’t mean we don’t have free will, he still lets us do whatever we want

Lucifer, yes your clarification helps, but it is possible for a creator to have a purpose for us, but leaves us free to follow it or not, so we’d still have free will.


Kevinagain, yes but many organisms do now require gametes so at the point they mutated to require it, that mutation wouldn’t have been passed on because there’d be no one to mate with.

Kcrady, no sorry I don’t know of any lab reports on cells being created by magic, or by a creator, but one can see that its possible to have the once off instance by the creator’s choice as an explanation, but a natural explanation means that it can and should happen again and be repeatable, so far it hasn’t been seen to be repeatable, so it is left in the realms of the special once off explanation.

Seeing an angel wouldn’t prove the existence of god, it would just freak everyone out, it wouldn’t be helpful at all.

jaybwell32, scientists look for the natural explanation for the existence of life because they don’t want there to be a creator, its a very normal thing to do, and we all do it at some level

jtk73, sorry the “god forsaken world” was just an expression, I don’t believe it is literally god forsaken.    The suffering question is very closely linked to the free will question, we have free will, which means we can harm each other and bring suffering, so why did the creator make us with free will?

nogodsforme, so when someone does hurt somebody how do you see the “snap back” actually working, would the “snap back” cause us physical pain, how much?  Would we still be able to work and earn a living and eat, or would the pain be too much to do that, which means we’d die (hmm sounds like capital punishment), but then if it wasn’t painful enough we’d ignore it and keep on hurting people, so at what point does your theory actually work?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: wright on December 12, 2011, 07:15:43 PM

Wright, self-replicating proteins haven’t been observed to come about independent of pre-existing life either and current cosmology has no explanation for star or planet formation, gravity isn’t strong enough to force a cloud of gas into a star, just like our atmosphere doesn’t squash down to earth, gravity is quite weak and cosmologists know it.   A very large force is required to push a cloud of gas into a what we now see as stars, but such a force hasn’t been discovered yet.



So... much... fail.

Ok, if you're this willfully ignorant, it isn't worth having a discussion with you.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: velkyn on December 13, 2011, 09:20:58 AM
He’s much better off letting people write down what he said and did the one time and leaving us to sort it out for ourselves.
  Oh yes, we see this when  Christians kill and hate each other all certain that they and only they know what this god “really” meant. 

Quote
Free will is extremely important in all this, the freedom that death brings also comes with consequences, if we have freely given up our will to God already, then God is free (ie we’ve given him permission) to make us into a new person (when we die, or when he comes back in judgement), who is perfect, who can hang out with him in heaven, but if we haven’t given up our will to God already, then he isn’t free to make us into a new person, he has no right to change us, he doesn’t force himself upon us, so he will leave us alone and not change us, leave us as we are, and what are we?    If God takes away the good gifts he’s given us, what are we and what are we left with?   And that is what we’ll have for all eternity, our free will, but no light, no food, no friends, just our free will.
wow, one more Christian who has evidently never read his magic book.  Your bible never claims free will and indeed repeated indicates that this god is not interested in free will.  It’s hysterical that you want to claim free will and then say we’ve “freely given up our will” to this god of yours.  Which is it? 

Your god forces itself on people just to show off (see the Pharoah and Job’s family) and intentionally makes sure that some people will never be able to accept this god (see JC’s explanation on why he uses parables).  We also have Romans (chapter 9 since I’m sure you are quite ignorant of it) where various bible characters again never had a chance, and where your god intentionally creates people who are only for being destroyed according to its whim.  Then again, we have a lovely bit in Revelation where this god of yours, intentionally damns people who were perfectly fine up until he allows the “beast” out of the “pit” to corrupt more souls. This after your god kills all “evil” people *and* allows JC to rule over the earth and the good people left.   

And your explanation is really bad since it ignores your own religion and makes up baseless nonsense, as all Christian “explanations” do.   

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kcrady on December 13, 2011, 10:50:40 AM
Azdgari, as far as we know life has never come from non life without the help of existing life, why? One explanation is that life itself is too complex to arise without the help of existing life.

And an omni-complex personal being is even more so.  That means its existence is even more improbable than abiogenesis, by a long shot. 

Irish, if Jesus came back again how long do you think he would last before he was killed again, he wouldn’t last 3 years, I’d give him 3 months at the most before someone would knock him off.   

>snip<

He’s much better off letting people write down what he said and did the one time and leaving us to sort it out for ourselves.

Your problem here is twofold: First, you assume that a (supposedly) super-intelligent being isn't any smarter than you are.  Second, you want "there to be a creator" so bad that your biases are clouding your ability to think of other possibilities.

Consider Diogenes of Oenoanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Oenoanda).  He was a Greek philosopher who carved a treatise in stone.  Jesus could surely have done the same thing and (if he really is an omnipotent superbeing) seen to it that his inscription was preserved.  That would have solved all manner of controversies and schisms in the early Church, and provided Christians with an uncontroversial "New Testament."  That would certainly have been a huge improvement over leaving it to ordinary humans to write the "New Testament," so that others have to just take their word for it that they're representing Jesus and revealed doctrine correctly.  A stone inscription carved by Jesus' own hand would also prevent the whole issue of textual corruption over time, which resulted from the flawed human process of copying, re-copying and re-re-copying fragile parchment and papyrus scrolls over the centuries.

If I were "the creator," I could think of an even better method of "spreading the word:"  I could create certain plants and fungi that, when ingested, would open the doors of spiritual perception, so that my beloved children could experience me and the spiritual realm(s) directly.  I could see to it that such species of plants were available all over the world, wherever humans lived.  Since no one but "the creator" could have made such plants (i.e., they can't be forged or otherwise faked by humans), my children would not be left wandering among a sea of false religions and sects, having to guess at random (or just based on where and when they were born) which of them, if any, is true.  This method would bypass status-seeking human clergy with venal motives to corrupt the divine Message for their own power and profit.  Then, just to be sure, I could encode a backup copy of my Message into the digits of pi.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: nogodsforme on December 13, 2011, 12:42:38 PM

nogodsforme, so when someone does hurt somebody how do you see the “snap back” actually working, would the “snap back” cause us physical pain, how much?  Would we still be able to work and earn a living and eat, or would the pain be too much to do that, which means we’d die (hmm sounds like capital punishment), but then if it wasn’t painful enough we’d ignore it and keep on hurting people, so at what point does your theory actually work?

I haven't thought it through that far-- this is for the all-powerful, all-knowing, its-all-good creator person to work out! I think I was going for the idea that everyone wants life to be fair, and there should be some payback-- that is the whole concept underlying heaven and hell. Some kind of justice in an unjust world.

I want the justice to happen immediately, not after you die;  and in proportion to the damage done, not eternal punishment for lying, stealing or getting into a fist fight. And certainly not punishing anyone for having the wrong ideas or thoughts! Only if you act on it and hurt someone.

Intent would have to be taken into account, so if you are a doctor doing surgery, that would not hurt you. Only if you do something with the intent to do harm-- that way mentally handicapped people and children would not get the same level of "snap back". How's that?

I haven't thought enough to get into animal rights and eating meat....maybe the creator could just have a certain number of animals die peacefully so we could eat them?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Traveler on December 13, 2011, 12:54:16 PM
Azdgari, as far as we know life has never come from non life without the help of existing life, why? One explanation is that life itself is too complex to arise without the help of existing life...

And yet you'd have us believe that an infinately complex being (god) existed without the help of existing life. This is such a monstrous failure of logic that I don't even know where to begin. Anyone who creates anything knows that you start at the beginning, with the simplest of elements. You build on that until you have your final, complex thing. Try software programming and you'll understand what I mean. At the mechanical level, you have switches that can be either on or off. That's then abstracted into 0s and 1s. From there we build assembly language, and then an operating system and languages. Now we can finally build our applications, which is what the user finally sees.

And that's massively simplified. Ipad apps don't simply *poof* into being. They must be built from the ground up, with those little switches that are either open or closed. On or off. 1 or 0.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Samothec on December 14, 2011, 01:55:29 AM
No.

I take great comfort in the evidence against a god/creator because I KNOW that such a being would have to be a loving, cruel, sadistic monster - with that love being shown to us in our suffering. The ultimate abusive parent. No benevolent being could have made this universe; there are far too many sources of pain and suffering in it for an omnipotent and omniscient being to exist. A benevolent, omnipotent being would have to be an idiot and thus could not be the creator.

Why else would some of us need psychoactive pharmaceuticals to approach normal behavior? The evidence is overwhelmingly against a benevolent creator - only a malevolent creator could exist. And if you read the Bible without preconceptions you see a malevolent God: "original sin" was a set-up, Cain was rewarded for killing Abel, and the Great Flood just to name a few at the start.

I also have more personal reasons for which I am glad I am an atheist. And if you knew them you would be glad I am an atheist also.


Regarding abiogenesis and other evolution aspects: read some of Dawkins' books. He explains things very well including one theory that finds a potential source of abiogenesis in the geothermal smokers of the ocean depths. Sorry, I don't recall which book at the moment - and I'm too tired to go finding which ones to suggest starting with.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: TruthSearcher on January 18, 2012, 12:28:18 AM
Wright, maybe I worded that a little wrong, if you have a cloud of gas (ie spread out from a “big bang”) then gravity won’t cause the cloud to become any more dense, it will just stay a cloud or become less dense, gravity isn’t strong enough to overcome the gas pressure within the cloud.

Velkyn, just because I or you interpret the bible differently doesn’t mean there is no creator, just because someone doesn’t like the bible doesn’t mean there is no creator, what we need to do is let science lead us where it will and as far as I can tell it leads directly to a the conclusion that there must be a creator, I don’t want there to be a creator, but who am I to oppose what science so clearly shows.

Kcrady, yes obviously the existence of a creator is improbably, but we have to seriously take what we have in science and if it leads to a creator then so be it.

If Jesus carved his writing in stone it wouldn’t solve the problem of interpretation, so we’d still be in the same boat, and the same goes for fungi that opens spiritual perception, we’d still all argue with eachother, but again regardless of what we believe or how badly we interpret the bible or any other history book, it still doesn’t change the truth and science points to a the truth that for us to exist as we do there must be a creator.

nogodsforme, do you really want justice to happen immediately?   If you were to face  the creator of the universe right now what do you think they’d say?   Have you ever said something to someone to intentionally hurt them?   I know I have.

Traveler, you building with simple beginnings implies a “builder”, completely proving that complexity requires greater complexity to exist resulting in infinite complexity, some call that a creator, my understanding of science tells me that the creator must have infinite complexity, information, energy, and order.   Thats just from following the laws of science.

Samothec, your reasons are based in religious interpretation, not in science, what does science tell you?

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Azdgari on January 18, 2012, 12:55:38 AM
If Jesus carved his writing in stone it wouldn’t solve the problem of interpretation, so we’d still be in the same boat,

Nah, we'd have a huge leg up, in that we'd have writings from Jesus himself.

Are you saying that there would be no benefit to having first-hand information from Jesus?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: magicmiles on January 18, 2012, 01:13:59 AM
"so minor they are negligible"? Seriously? Smallpox, AIDS, guinea worms, SIDS... kcrady already covered what can go wrong with childbirth... all "negligible"? Spoken by someone who almost certainly has never been touched by any of the above! Pull your head outta your ass, already!

It really is ridiculous.

I remember reading one of Richard Bach's books a while back, where he talks about something that he used to do quite a bit: barnstorming throughout the midwest, selling rides in his biplane.  He related the story of one woman who wanted a ride but wasn't sure whether the plane was safe.  He told her that the plane was built one year before he was born and was still going to be going strong long after they were both dead.  And the biplane, obviously, was designed and built by puny humans, not an omnimax being.

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.

Where would you re-locate them?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 18, 2012, 02:22:41 AM
Truthsearcher, it's easy to have all the answers when you get to make them all up. With no corroborating evidence.

Saying that science points to a creator means that you are interpreting things a bit differently than those that are coming up with the very answers you cite. Their math says that the gasses do clump up. Why do your hopes trump the math? Is a mere statement from you supposed to put a wet blanket on tons of scientific work?

I'd just like to know how this works. Your opinion being more valuable than actual study and research. Your conclusions being more valid than those that did the studies.

Your habit here of providing short little responses to long and serious posts indicates an unwillingness to deal with lots of information. I wrote a long post that responded to things that you had said and you honed in one one irrelevant detail that you carefully misinterpreted. You diss quickly and get out. Is that perhaps why you haven't bothered to give us anything but your opinion on things like life (it had to come from life because that's the only thing that makes sense to you. Hence it is true). Because that's as far as you've gotten, think-wise?

Your opinion that the human body, being good enough, is proof that a god was involved is like someone saying "I've got a dollar, so I'm pretty close to being a millionaire". There is no resemblance between the claim and reality. Twenty-five percent of all men get hernias because of weak walls in the abdomen and all you can say is "See, we were designed!" People die every year from choking on food because the both food and air go in the same opening and you probably say "Hey, that confirms a god fer sure!" If it were just atheists and other heathens who suffered from these problems, you might have a point. It's not. You don't.

If all you have to offer is your opinion, and you aren't in the mood to provide any more than that, you might find another hobby.

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Samothec on January 18, 2012, 02:24:08 AM
Samothec, your reasons are based in religious interpretation, not in science, what does science tell you?
bold mine

Whose butt did you pull that idea (in bold) out of?

My reasons are based on my personal observations, science and an objective reading of the bible.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: naemhni on January 18, 2012, 10:37:10 AM
I remember reading one of Richard Bach's books a while back, where he talks about something that he used to do quite a bit: barnstorming throughout the midwest, selling rides in his biplane.  He related the story of one woman who wanted a ride but wasn't sure whether the plane was safe.  He told her that the plane was built one year before he was born and was still going to be going strong long after they were both dead.  And the biplane, obviously, was designed and built by puny humans, not an omnimax being.

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.

Where would you re-locate them?

Not sure, but dolphins and whales seem to do okay.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: velkyn on January 18, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
Wright, maybe I worded that a little wrong, if you have a cloud of gas (ie spread out from a “big bang”) then gravity won’t cause the cloud to become any more dense, it will just stay a cloud or become less dense, gravity isn’t strong enough to overcome the gas pressure within the cloud.

Velkyn, just because I or you interpret the bible differently doesn’t mean there is no creator, just because someone doesn’t like the bible doesn’t mean there is no creator, what we need to do is let science lead us where it will and as far as I can tell it leads directly to a the conclusion that there must be a creator, I don’t want there to be a creator, but who am I to oppose what science so clearly shows.
Well, TS, as soon as you put attributes on your "creator" I can show it doesn't exist.  It is only by making your god so vague that it means nothing that you can claim any thing at all.  But I'm pretty sure you don't mean some attributeless force, you only hide behind the idea, whilst trying to ignor the evidence that your particular god doesn't exist at all.  Science is indeed about following the facts, not some lies and assumptions by theists.   the "renaissance" was started by people trying to find god in nature and realizing that the ignorant explanations in the bible didn't match reality.  God fell into the cracks and has yet to come out, them getting smaller each year.    You are such a pathetic liar too.  Oooh "I don't want there to be a creator".  BS.  If you really didn't, you'd actually know the science that you attack.  But you don't, you repeatedly show that you are not interested at all in what sciene shows and you lie when you say that science shows a creator.  You can't even support that lie in your willful stupidity, you just spew what some ignorant creationist has told you.

And wow, more ignorance about gravity.  Way to go with that and the lies that you understand science at all.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: velkyn on January 18, 2012, 11:59:22 AM
where would you re-locate them?

of course, an excellent answer by Pianodwarf.  Cetaceans have a good system.  Insects have their spiracles not associated with their mouths (would need more oxygen in the atmo to make it work well for human sized critters).  Let's see... Puppeteers have two heads complete with mouths and with tracheas so one head can breath and the other eat.   lots of ways to avoid the problem.  I'd also go with having the fun sex parts seperate from the waste removal area.   But hmmm, I'm guessing there's some ridiculous Christian thing on how that positioning was from the "fall" or god is a prude or some such nonsense.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: magicmiles on January 18, 2012, 02:52:50 PM
nope. I gave it some thought myself and just didn't know how it could work, assuming we weren't removing or adding bits.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: velkyn on January 18, 2012, 02:54:00 PM
nope. I gave it some thought myself and just didn't know how it could work, assuming we weren't removing or adding bits.

well, if you are the god you claim to believe in, there should be no problemsin doing any of the above.  right?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: magicmiles on January 18, 2012, 03:01:44 PM
assuming their is a better design, I guess not.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Historicity on January 19, 2012, 07:32:00 PM
I want my vitamin C back.  Most mammals can make their own vitamin C but the common ancestor of primates was living in a fruit filled jungle and never noticed the loss.  Humans are the only primates stuck with getting scurvy.

I want my chlorophyll back.  What we commonly call plants are descendents of eukaryote single-celled animals.  There are some sugars in animal cell walls but the plant ancestor had the mutant sugar cellulose which is nearly indigestible.  It gave up mobility for wooden armor.  The animals cells, with the exception of a few like the paramecium gave up chlorophyll.  I want my chlorophyll to soak up the sunlight in Florida.  I want to produce some of my own oxygen so I can hold my breath longer.  It's easy being green.

I want my lateral line back.  It's a little known fact that most fish, not just the electric eel, produce electric charges.  They communicate lots of chirps and noises and detect nearby objects in the dark.  People think telepathy and psi powers should come from the brain.  No, we need a transmitting and receiving organ and in fish that was a line down each side of the rib cage called the lateral line.  Evolution dropped that because air can't conduct.  I want my lateral line back but with a high enough frequency[1] so I won't stumble so much in the dark and I can detect people and so on.

I want a 4th optical pigment.  I want to be able to see the difference between a true yellow and a mixture of red and green.  While we're at it, I want to be able to see as far into the ultraviolet as a bee does.  That will require a 5th pigment.  There must be all sorts of stuff I'm missing without that.

 1. Just 20 to 60 khz -- I'm not asking for much.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Samothec on January 20, 2012, 12:29:50 AM
I want my vitamin C back. ...
I want my chlorophyll back. ...
I want my lateral line back. ...
I want a 4th optical pigment. ... That will require a 5th pigment. ...

These are all very cool ideas. I'm personally not sure about my skin having a green tint but if it helped me tolerate sunlight better, cool. I'm wondering if the lateral line might cause any problems with our electronics though - or vice versa.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: TruthSearcher on February 14, 2012, 02:14:09 AM
Azdgari, if we had Jesus writings carved in stone today, we’d still argue over whether what we had was really written by Jesus, so n we wouldn’t have a leg up.   You know there are more than 24,000 ancient manuscript portions of the new testament writings in museums/universities and churches today, and we still argue over the correctness of the text, so one in stone wouldn’t help much.

ParkingPlaces, call my answers made up or whatever you like, it doesn’t change the science that I’m pointing you too, you just don’t like what I’m doing, and I fully expect this opposition, do you think I’ve never experienced this kind of opposition before? ?   The assumptions associated with the math of the first star forming is the most interesting part, do you agree with them all?

My main point is, do you want there to be a creator, to get everyone thinking about their motive for believing the evolution theory.   Isn’t it valid to question our motives behind what we believe, or hope for.  Many “hope” there isn’t a creator because the idea of hell is just absolutely abhorant (I hate it myself and I hope there isn’t one, but as far as I can tell its real).   You’ve said you’re an atheist because religious people do hideous things, but can you see my point that regardless of what religious people do it doesn’t change the truth regarding the existence of a creator, can you agree with that?

Your suggestion that only atheists should suffer from problems like hernias suggests then that Christians should live forever, however I don’t see why anyone would want to live forever in this very broken down world, that would be a disaster and illogical assuming the creator wants us to have the opportunity to change us into perfect people after we die, if we have given him the right to do so, otherwise he leaves us on our own after death, if that is what we want now, for him to leave us along, then he will continue to leave us alone after we die, he doesn’t force himself on anyone.

Samothec, the only reason you gave was religious, so I went with it, so what is the biggest piece of evidence you think proves there is no creator?   On religion though you suggest that the pain and suffering in the world is proof there is no loving God, so you’d like God to remove death from this world is that what you want?

Velkyn, I say I don’t want there to be a creator because I don’t want there to be a hell, and that is not BS, I really don’t want there to be a hell, I assume you don’t want there to be a hell either?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Azdgari on February 14, 2012, 08:17:41 AM
Azdgari, if we had Jesus writings carved in stone today, we’d still argue over whether what we had was really written by Jesus, so n we wouldn’t have a leg up.   You know there are more than 24,000 ancient manuscript portions of the new testament writings in museums/universities and churches today, and we still argue over the correctness of the text, so one in stone wouldn’t help much.

Oh, you're right in that we wouldn't have a leg up in confirming their source.  But we would have a leg up in that we'd have something that supposedly was written (or rather, carved) by Jesus himself.

Right now, with the New Testament, we don't have the words of Jesus at all.  The NT doesn't even claim to be written by Jesus.  At the very best, it is the writings of others, about Jesus.

That's the leg-up that supposedly-original Jesus-writings would give us.  They'd be something that at lease could be argued to come from the horse's mouth, so to speak.  We don't even have that right now.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Traveler on February 14, 2012, 09:32:44 AM
Many “hope” there isn’t a creator because the idea of hell is just absolutely abhorant (I hate it myself and I hope there isn’t one, but as far as I can tell its real).   You’ve said you’re an atheist because religious people do hideous things...

I can only speak for myself here, but the concept of hell is so absurd it certainly has no impact on my belief whatsoever. And I know very few, if any, atheists who are atheists because religious people do hideous things. It's just one hypocrisy that stands out in our minds. I've never believed in god. I don't hope to believe in god. And by the way, a belief in a creator does most certainly not necessitate a belief in the christian god or in hell. There are many other creator-concepts out there, many without a hell concept. In fact, many christians don't believe in hell.

Quote
Samothec, the only reason you gave was religious, so I went with it, so what is the biggest piece of evidence you think proves there is no creator?   On religion though you suggest that the pain and suffering in the world is proof there is no loving God...

Again, only speaking for myself here. Its not a question of proving there is no creator. It's logically impossible to prove a negative. The issue is that there's absolutely no proof, no credible evidence, that there is a creator.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 14, 2012, 10:12:07 AM
ParkingPlaces, call my answers made up or whatever you like, it doesn’t change the science that I’m pointing you too, you just don’t like what I’m doing, and I fully expect this opposition, do you think I’ve never experienced this kind of opposition before? ?   The assumptions associated with the math of the first star forming is the most interesting part, do you agree with them all? {/quote}

What I don't like is people speaking about something they know nothing about. Especially when it's important and relevant to their lives. And if you don't like the math of how stars form, I would suggest you come up with a new formula that explains either how they actually did form or the disproves the current scientific thinking. Your simple statement that the math doesn't work out says nothing to me other than that you are suspicious. Are you capable of specifics?

Quote
My main point is, do you want there to be a creator, to get everyone thinking about their motive for believing the evolution theory.   Isn’t it valid to question our motives behind what we believe, or hope for.  Many “hope” there isn’t a creator because the idea of hell is just absolutely abhorant (I hate it myself and I hope there isn’t one, but as far as I can tell its real).   You’ve said you’re an atheist because religious people do hideous things, but can you see my point that regardless of what religious people do it doesn’t change the truth regarding the existence of a creator, can you agree with that?

I agree. Either there is a creator or there is not. What I hope or want or wish for is irrelevant when compared to reality. I am not an atheist because I fear hell, nor am I an atheist because of seeing believers do unacceptable things. I am an atheist only because I have seen no evidence whatsoever that ANY of the creation myths out there or ANY of the god stories out there hold water. None. Nada. Zip.

{quote]Your suggestion that only atheists should suffer from problems like hernias suggests then that Christians should live forever, however I don’t see why anyone would want to live forever in this very broken down world, that would be a disaster and illogical assuming the creator wants us to have the opportunity to change us into perfect people after we die, if we have given him the right to do so, otherwise he leaves us on our own after death, if that is what we want now, for him to leave us along, then he will continue to leave us alone after we die, he doesn’t force himself on anyone.

Sorry. I tend to think that if someone is going to be a believer in a true god who loves them, said god might give them some perks. I didn't imply that christians should live forever (which would take the fun out of the heaven story) but that they should live a bit better. Health-wise or otherwise. They don't. I am not aware of any statistical advantage they have over other religions or atheists.

The general description of what it's like to be a christian involves having a giddy feeling because you think some invisible being loves you and the ability to tell others they are going to hell with an authoritative voice. And perhaps the ability to listen to Rick Santorum without throwing up. I hope I'm wrong about the last one.

That's not enough for me. Especially since there is not a god. Christian or otherwise. You say there is. With equal assuredness. At least one of us is wrong. Perhaps we both are and the Hindu's are right. Or some other religious group. But every single religion requires some type of belief and some type of faith because not a single one can come up with anything concrete. And with nothing concrete, I'm not going to pay a bit of attention. Because of that, religion makes no sense to me. And it has to before I'm going to give any thought to converting.

If there is a god, he made me that way, and screw him for making me unable to swallow the tale. If there isn't, no hard feelings.

Edit: left out a word
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: velkyn on February 14, 2012, 11:03:50 AM
Azdgari, if we had Jesus writings carved in stone today, we’d still argue over whether what we had was really written by Jesus, so n we wouldn’t have a leg up.   You know there are more than 24,000 ancient manuscript portions of the new testament writings in museums/universities and churches today, and we still argue over the correctness of the text, so one in stone wouldn’t help much.
Which should tell you something about a book that is claimed to be divinely written. You are left with some choices.  Does this god not care that no one understands it?  IS this god too stupid to get its message across?  Or does this god simply not exist?
Quote
ParkingPlaces, call my answers made up or whatever you like, it doesn’t change the science that I’m pointing you too, you just don’t like what I’m doing, and I fully expect this opposition, do you think I’ve never experienced this kind of opposition before? ?   The assumptions associated with the math of the first star forming is the most interesting part, do you agree with them all?
  What science, TS?  You’ve not shown any actual evidence which is what science is based on.  You are amazingly ignorance in real science, TS, evinced by your ignorances about gravity, the BBT, etc.  I’m sure you’ve used the same nonsense before and were simply too desperate to cling to your religion to actually learn anything about the science that you ignorantly attack.   

Quote
My main point is, do you want there to be a creator, to get everyone thinking about their motive for believing the evolution theory.   Isn’t it valid to question our motives behind what we believe, or hope for.  Many “hope” there isn’t a creator because the idea of hell is just absolutely abhorant (I hate it myself and I hope there isn’t one, but as far as I can tell its real).   You’ve said you’re an atheist because religious people do hideous things, but can you see my point that regardless of what religious people do it doesn’t change the truth regarding the existence of a creator, can you agree with that?
  Oh and the usual theists attempts to claim that atheists only want to disbelieve theistic myths since they don’t like hell.  Your claims that hell is real (and just how can you tell?) is such a pathetic revenge fantasy. Ooh those mean ol’ atheists disagree with me so I hope they are tortured for eternity.  How childish and petty.  There is no evidence for your god.  Get it?  None.  No evidence for your god or Allah, or Tezcatlipoca, just petty little people who want to feel special.  You have no evidence for a creator so there is no reason to assume there is one because humans have made one up.
Quote
Your suggestion that only atheists should suffer from problems like hernias suggests then that Christians should live forever, however I don’t see why anyone would want to live forever in this very broken down world, that would be a disaster and illogical assuming the creator wants us to have the opportunity to change us into perfect people after we die, if we have given him the right to do so, otherwise he leaves us on our own after death, if that is what we want now, for him to leave us along, then he will continue to leave us alone after we die, he doesn’t force himself on anyone.
IF this world is so bad, why don’t I see hordes of Christians volunteering for dangerous, but helpful, jobs, like removing landmines, TS?  You all whine and complain about this world, but none of you seem to want to leave it as soon as you can.  Such hypocrites.  I’m guessing that your supposed faith that this heaven exists isn’t so strong after all.  And I do love how you so piously claim that your god doesn’t force himself on anyone, when your own bible belies this claim.  It also is pretty funny considering how badly so many Christians want to do exactly that, force their religion on everyone.
Quote
Velkyn, I say I don’t want there to be a creator because I don’t want there to be a hell, and that is not BS, I really don’t want there to be a hell, I assume you don’t want there to be a hell either?
I know that there is no hell.  I don’t need such pathetic baseless superstions.  I don’t believe for a moment that you don’t want there to be a hell.  All I see is a scared greedy theist who needs a god, a heaven and a hell.   You’ve done your best to claim that there is “really and truly” tht there is one, that you supposedly can tell it’s real.  Well, dear, show evidence that this hell is real.  If you can’t, then you do seem to need a hell to be real since all you have is your baseless claims that it is.  To need  a god that is petty and violent, that is no more than a powerful brat, that’s rather sad. 
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Samothec on February 15, 2012, 05:06:45 AM
Samothec, the only reason you gave was religious, so I went with it, so what is the biggest piece of evidence you think proves there is no creator?   On religion though you suggest that the pain and suffering in the world is proof there is no loving God, so you’d like God to remove death from this world is that what you want?

The reason I gave was not religious. I left religion behind long ago but still believed in a creator separate from any religion and tried to understand that creator. That search lead me to where I am today.

Pain & suffering: disease, cancer, natural disasters, fragile bodies, childhood death, giving birth killing the mothers – do you really need me to go on? Eliminating those things would not eliminate death, just the causes of early death. If the creator was loving, benevolent and competent those things would not exist to start with.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Anfauglir on February 15, 2012, 08:45:16 AM
My main point is, do you want there to be a creator, to get everyone thinking about their motive for believing the evolution theory.   Isn’t it valid to question our motives behind what we believe, or hope for. 

Sure is.

Makes me wonder why you are seemingly so keen NOT to believe in evolution?  Could it be that you've made your mind up for a creator because you want there to be one, rather than because the evidence really points that way?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: shnozzola on February 17, 2012, 04:48:17 PM
My main point is, do you want there to be a creator, to get everyone thinking about their motive for believing the evolution theory.   
Truthseeker, open your mind up to the idea that everything created has been created through evolution – everything.  It’s actually much more interesting and wild that way than with a creator.

 My motive is only the truth, and when you stand back, and begin to see things from a universal view instead of a human view, you realize the power of simple, never stopping, totally random, evolution – in some kind of fantastic way it is much more cool than needing a creator.  It has no purpose and it has all been luck.  And here we are.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Ivellios on February 18, 2012, 12:17:59 PM
My main point is, do you want there to be a creator, to get everyone thinking about their motive for believing the evolution theory.   
Truthseeker,

Ah, not to nit-pick... actually, yes, to nit-pick. We're 2 seperate people.

I know it was an honest mistake. Our names are too close.  :-\
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: shnozzola on February 18, 2012, 12:24:49 PM
Yes - I'm very sorry   :-[-  a suppose we'll never see truthSEARCHER again - not really searching.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: orpat on February 29, 2012, 02:54:26 AM
You can not wan't.

You can hope there was.

You can hope he still exists.

Or you can live up to the fact-No one was.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Hatter23 on March 01, 2012, 09:36:34 AM
You can not wan't.

You can hope there was.

You can hope he still exists.

Or you can live up to the fact-No one was.


Yes, no one was the "creator" there is no evidence for it.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: BaalServant on March 01, 2012, 03:06:14 PM
You can not wan't.



Why would you make Ba'al cry with such a bold misuse of the apostrophe? 

Also, who is 'he,' and why would any 'he' be any more likely to exist than any other?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: GodlessHeathen on March 01, 2012, 09:52:55 PM
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

Nope, don't care one way or the other. If there is a God, he does not care enough to make his presence known, so why should I care whether he exists or not? I simply take the default position that he does not.

To paraphrase Tweedledee, in answer to the question, Do I want God to exist? "He may if he chooses. I've no objection. Contrariwise!" (Borrowed from Lewis Carrol's Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 4)
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: TruthSearcher on March 15, 2012, 02:09:39 AM
Azdgari, the NT claims to quote Jesus a lot, so we do have a claimed source from the horses mouth so to speak.  They also claim to be eyewitnesses of the things Jesus did.   Big claims.

Traveler, so you say there is no evidence for a creator, but what about all the evidence that indicates evolution hasn’t happened, see below?

ParkingPlaces, yes I’m suspicious, specifics, try this circular reasoning from Astronomy...  ‘Astronomers don’t know for sure how the universe made its first stars, but they do have a reasonably good guess. (As you can imagine, there’s no way to observe the formation of the first generation of stars, so all the work is based upon theoretical considerations.) The best scenario has molecular hydrogen playing the role of the cooling agent. If the clouds from which stars formed were some four to five times denser in the early universe than they are today, then enough collisions between hydrogen atoms would have taken place to create a lot of molecular hydrogen. The big question is: Were the first galaxies that much denser? Obviously the overall density of the universe was much higher back in the early days, but no one knows whether the star-forming clouds were this much denser.  Most astronomers would say that the fact that stars do exist tells us that the density was higher back then, because otherwise there would be no stars … Nowadays, of course, nature has found a simpler, easier way to cool the clouds (with water), so that’s what she uses.’    Talking Back, Water, water (almost) everywhere, Astronomy 27(6):16, 1999.

So, if you don’t mind the idea of hell or what christians do, then why don’t you question the theory of evolution more closely?

Velkyn, if you did some research into the % of people in aid organisations who are hristians you will find a lot are doing helpful jobs like removing land mines.   “none of you seem to want to leave it”... how many Christians do you actually know?   There are about 2 billion of them on the planet.    And you can’t say you know there is no hell because you haven’t died yet, you just hope there is no hell, just like I hope there is no hell.

Samothec, why does suffering exist yes, its a big question, but bigger still is why do we die, why don’t we live forever?

Anfauglir, there is just a lot of things that point to evolution not happening, that’s all.

Here are a few of them...

“Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles."  "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.
“the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities.  One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.
"major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity."  "The principal 'types' seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization.  No intermediate 'grades' or intermediate forms between different types are detectable."  Koonin, Eugene V. Biology Direct, Vol. 2:21, pp. 1-17.
All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". 
Every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction.  This is what the theory of evolution predicts, but it is not observed anywhere.
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous.  Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."  Darwin 1859, pp. 279–280
The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found in the fossil record.
Gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures and complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges) called the Cambrian Explosion and then again between them and fish.
Dragonflies appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed. 
Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form.   "We now know that the transition into true birds -- physiologically and metabolically -- happened well after Archaeopteryx." --October 2009. American Museum of Natural History News Release.
"Different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.  We've just annihilated the tree of life...Biology is vastly more complex than we thought.”  Lawton, Graham. 21 January 2009. Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. New Scientist Magazine, Issue 2692.
Microbes, insects, plants, and animals do not fit a "tree of life" with linear descent.  There is no pattern to their similarities and differences because each one is a uniquely designed, complete creature.
Wings would have had to evolve completely independently four times: in insects (with multiple different types of wings), flying reptiles, birds, and bats.
Evolutionists think bioluminescence evolved independently 40 to 50 separate times. --Haddock, Steven H.D., 2010. Annual Review of Marine Science, Vol. 2, pp. 443-493.
A photographic study of growing vertebrate embryos was conducted in 1997 that found that Ernst Haeckel’s drawings were so far from reality that they could not have been done from the actual embryos. Richardson, Michael K., Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, pp. 91-106.
"Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks, many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a vestigial organ."  W. Parker. August 12 2009, Journal of Evolutionary Biology.
The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. Are only variation in the gene pool, not evolution
There are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.
There is much variation in bacteria and fruit flies.  There are many mutations.  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain bacteria or always remain fruit flies.  Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening.
Parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.  Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. 
Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. 
All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. 
The theory of Evolution violates The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) which says that natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder.  This is always observed in nature.  It prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance
The theory of Evolution also violates The Law of Biogenesis.  Established by Louis Pasteur, it simply says that life only comes from life.   Chemicals never fall together and life appears. 
The famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment only produced some amino acids. 
Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature.  To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.
DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. 
The smallest known genome (Mycoplasma genitalium) has 482 genes.  Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes.  Everything about the cell is stunningly complex.  Plants and animals contain a great variety of cells.  The human body has about 210 different types of cells.
Cells are made of proteins.  Proteins are generally 50 to 2000 amino acids long.  The temperature and chemical concentrations must be right for a protein to fold correctly, and many proteins get help from special proteins called "molecular chaperones".  Chaperones can keep proteins separated from each other while they are folding, prevent mistakes in folding, and even unfold mistakes to give the protein a second chance to get it right.  After helping one protein fold, a chaperone will go help another one fold.  Science News, December 1, 2007, Vol. 172, p. 342
"The complexity of living organisms is staggering."  Alberts, Bruce,  2008. Molecular Biology of The Cell, 5th edition. Garland Science, New York.
The basic things necessary for a cell to function are:
    Replication, recombination, and repair
    Transcription
    Cell cycle control, mitosis, and meiosis
    Defense mechanisms
    Cell wall/membrane biogenesis
    Signal transduction mechanisms
    Intracellular trafficking and secretion
    Translation
    Post-translational modification, protein turnover, chaperones
    Energy production and conversion
    Carbohydrate transport and metabolism
    Amino acid transport and metabolism
    Nucleotide transport and metabolism
    Coenzyme transport and metabolism
    Lipid transport and metabolism
    Inorganic ion transport and metabolism
    Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport, and catabolism
Darwin wrote in chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species that "natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being... If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within its variation boundaries, and minimize the accumulation of mutations.  These include:
    A proofreading system that catches almost all errors
    A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system
    Photoreactivation (light repair)
    Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 - methylguanine methyltransferase
    Base excision repair
    Nucleotide excision repair
    Double-strand DNA break repair
    Recombination repair
    Error-prone bypass36
Harmful mutations happen constantly.  Without repair mechanisms, life would be very short.  The mechanisms not only remove harmful mutations from DNA, they also remove all mutations, so evolution can’t happen.
The theory of evolution cannot explain how gene regulatory networks came to be.
"The theory is in trouble because it insists on locating the driving force solely in random mutations."  Prof Richard C. Strohman, March 1997, Nature Biotechnology.
"We do not know how the transition to digitally encoded information has happened in the originally inanimate world; that is, we do not know where the RNA world might have come from."  Vasas, Vera,  January 26, 2010. PNAS, Vol. 107, No. 4, pp. 1470-1475.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Azdgari on March 15, 2012, 07:33:30 AM
Azdgari, the NT claims to quote Jesus a lot, so we do have a claimed source from the horses mouth so to speak.  They also claim to be eyewitnesses of the things Jesus did.   Big claims.

Which is not the same as having something that was allegedly crafted from the hand of Jesus himself.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Hatter23 on March 15, 2012, 07:40:47 AM
Samothec, why does suffering exist yes, its a big question, but bigger still is why do we die, why don’t we live forever?

2009.

Telomere damage, through various environment exposures including unavoidable cosmic radiation. That and accident.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: velkyn on March 15, 2012, 09:47:19 AM
Azdgari, the NT claims to quote Jesus a lot, so we do have a claimed source from the horses mouth so to speak.  They also claim to be eyewitnesses of the things Jesus did.   Big claims.


TrtuhSearcher, spreading lies doesn’t’ make them come true.  I see you are back to spewing nonsense and being too lazy or afraid to do your own research.  They weren’t eyewitnesses.  Nothing indicates this and we have directly contradictory claims about events. 

There is no evidence of a creator and wow, you are quite a failure in the lies you post about evolution. 

The Big Bang Theory fits the observed universe.  It’s predictions have always worked.

There is no evidence of your god, a hell, a heaven, etc.  Evolutionary theory is supported by evidence.  The same science that supports it?  You use it everyday and have no problem with it at all.  You trust it because it has earned your trust.  You only become a hypocrite when this science shows your religion to be garbage. 


Velkyn, if you did some research into the % of people in aid organisations who are hristians you will find a lot are doing helpful jobs like removing land mines.   “none of you seem to want to leave it”... how many Christians do you actually know?   There are about 2 billion of them on the planet.    And you can’t say you know there is no hell because you haven’t died yet, you just hope there is no hell, just like I hope there is no hell.
  I was a Christain and I know many many Christians.  And I love when Christians claim how many of them there are.  You like to claim that there are so many of you but when it comes down to it, most of those you don’t agree with and don’t consider True Christians.  TruthSearcher, are Roman Catholics Christians?  Evangelical Protestants?  Mormons? Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Christican Scientists?  Seventh Day Adventists?  The Family?  And I know that there is no hell because there is no evidence for your magic god to have created it.  Why should I believe in a hell or even entertain the idea that it’s real since everything else in your bible has been shown to be nonsense?  No evidence for your god, any of the essential events in the bible, etc.  Your religion is just as ridiculous as Wicca, Islam, Hinduism, etc. 

We die because physics and chemistry work that way. 

As for your claims against evolution, can you explain what they say in your own words.  I see just a list of quotes presented in no context.   Take that first one.  Wow, two sentences from one paper, not even contiguous.  Here’s the paper: http://eebweb.arizona.edu/nachman/Suggested%20Papers/Lab%20papers%20fall%202010/Burke_et_al_2010.pdf

Now here are the paragraph that have the two sentences:
Quote
Our work provides a new perspective on the genetic basis of adaptation. Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually
reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for,600 generations. Consequently, the probability
of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations, a finding which in turn should motivate efforts to discover why this is seemingly the case.
  Nothing here saying evolutionary theory is wrong.  Indeed, in the abstract it says that evolution occurs
Quote
Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast1–3. Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development. Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult 20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes. On the basis of 688,520 intermediate-frequency, high-quality single nucleotide polymorphisms, we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation between a pooled sample of five replicate populations selected for accelerated development and pooled controls. On the basis of resequencing data from a single replicate population with accelerated development, as well as single nucleotide polymorphism data from individual flies from each replicate population, we infer little allele frequency differentiation between replicate populations within a selection treatment. Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.”
  Again, it seems that creationists, who are desperate for any evidence for their god, have made a common mistake, lying.  They try to present the fact that we do not understand everything about evolution yet, as that we do not understand it at all and nothing supports it.  Experiments like this support the concept that environment selects for favorable attributes, in this experiment, the environment (humans) has selected for fast development.  This study was to see if changes sweep through sexually reproducing population as they do through asexually reproducing populations.  They are different and indeed they aren’t the same.  Here is a real biologist explaining the paper and explaining why creationists are such poor liar. 

Let’s try another one. 
Quote
"Different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.  We've just annihilated the tree of life...Biology is vastly more complex than we thought.”  Lawton, Graham. 21 January 2009. Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. New Scientist Magazine, Issue 2692.
What?  Darwin was wrong? Victorian science in 1859 wasn’t as advanced as ours in 2012?  Gee, it seems that creationists can’t quite get their minds around that science has changed since Darwin.  Whodathunk that 200 years of research let to changes? &)  Here is the usual creationist stupidity to attack superseded information.  Why yes, biology is more complex than we thought, and again, this article still doesn’t show that evolutionary theory is wrong.  The “tree of life” is now quite a lot like a “bush”, and yep scientists say that, with evolution still intact and no it does not show that each creature is “uniquely designed”.  More creationist lies.  How unsurprising. 


Quote
Microbes, insects, plants, and animals do not fit a "tree of life" with linear descent.  There is no pattern to their similarities and differences because each one is a uniquely designed, complete creature.
nice little plagiarism there, TruthSearcher.  You should watch what you cut and paste.  Here’s the original creationist nonsense: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Always good to see that creationists never change their spots. 
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Samothec on March 20, 2012, 03:44:49 AM
Samothec, why does suffering exist yes, its a big question, but bigger still is why do we die, why don’t we live forever?

You are the believer so the questions are for you to answer: "why does suffering exist?" and "why do we die, why don’t we live forever?"

My answers should have been obvious: there is no god to stop the suffering which is a natural part of life; and we evolved and have the natural lifespan determined by our heritage.

It is only when god enters the picture that suffering and death do not make sense. It means that either god does not exist or that god is malevolent. A benevolent god would not have created this world.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Add Homonym on April 04, 2012, 08:55:55 AM
Velkyn, I say I don’t want there to be a creator because I don’t want there to be a hell, and that is not BS, I really don’t want there to be a hell, I assume you don’t want there to be a hell either?

I know what you are saying, but we may be living in that hell.

You are against evolution, but why? Genesis says that the sun was created on the 4th day, and that night and day were created on the first day. The genesis story gives no hint that the person writing it knew anything about how the universe really formed, or had even a clue about what causes day. He put water above the sun. He put the sun in the upper atmosphere, where the fowls can fly. The bible is bereft of scientific truth. You know why?

Scientific knowledge is something that you cannot fake. It takes thousands of years of human intellect to mash our way out of the ignorance box that we were born into. There is no magic way of intuiting what created us (and how), because it does not talk to us. The only way to find out, is to make very large telescopes, and computers and have very large institutions funding them.

Biblical prophesy is also something which Christians resort to. Prophesy is something you also cannot really fake in great detail (ahead of time). I can prophesy that one king will come after another, and one kingdom will be greater than another, but I cannot fake the dates of earthquakes and volcanoes. If God wanted to show us that he was real, he would give the dates of tsunamis, volcanoes and meteorite strikes. But... he doesn't.. because these dates cannot be faked. So, what, we are supposed to believe a few lame, vague prophecies that may have been written after the events?

You are showing signs of accepting Christianity because you think it's the only one on offer. Many other religions have hells. The Christian Genesis story shows beyond any doubt, that the OT is bereft of real knowledge, so why would you then attack evolution? To bolster your belief in something that cannot be true?

If I were you, I'd take a close look at Galatians, and wonder why Paul was so sure that Jesus implied that you should not to follow the law, when James was so sure you should. Now, I can't be certain that Galatians is not just another fake book. It's tempting to believe that it was written by someone who was there at the time. But all that early writing could have been constructed by later writers. Paul can never quote Jesus, even when he is making an argument that you should not follow the law. Why is that? Why can Paul never quote Jesus, when Jesus is such a treasure trove of quotes? Why can John never quote Jesus? Surely an eye-witness should have got one quote right?

The most logical answer is that the quotes had not been invented, yet. It is possible that the epistles do, in fact, pre-date the creation of the quotable Jesus.

Jesus was not enough of an authority to convince the people he knew, to abandon the law. Surely he should have been more impressive than that? Surely he would not need a false prophet (Paul) to sort that out? And yet we have the gospel of Matthew, telling us to keep strictly to the law, as a way to get to heaven. Somehow, a book which is inconsistent with grace, is staring you in the face, but you cannot see it. How, and why, was it included in Christianity? And why the fuck did Paul not know any quotes from it?

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: nogodsforme on April 04, 2012, 03:18:39 PM
If God wanted to show us that he was real, he would give the dates of tsunamis, volcanoes and meteorite strikes. But... he doesn't.. because these dates cannot be faked. So, what, we are supposed to believe a few lame, vague prophecies that may have been written after the events?
[bold mine]
Damn straight. Whenever religious prophecies get specific, they are wrong. How many times have religions predicted the exact date of the end of the world in the past 2000 years? And how many times have they been right?

Wouldn't it be a wonderful witness to the glory of the lord if it said in the bible to evacuate the coastal areas on X date (the day before last year's big tsunami) in Japan? Everyone in the world would become Christians immediately, praising the one true god for his foresight and thoughtfulness. The bible would actually be a useful document.

Oh, yeah, I guess that shows that an all-knowing god had nothing to do with the bible. The people who really wrote the bible didn't know about tsunamis, or about Japan, for that matter.

The people back then thought that natural disasters were random acts of a vengeful god or demon--nothing to be done but sacrifice some innocent living thing and pray that you don't get in god's way when he is in one of his moods.

Now we have scientists who can actually tell us the dates when a hurricane or whatever is going to hit land, or when a volcano is going to erupt, when to evacuate, and how to be safer during various natural disasters.

So much for the all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent diety.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Boots on April 07, 2012, 10:43:44 AM
Welcome to the forum, TS.

Allow me to take this one gem from the huge list of gems you provided on the previous page (I simply don't have the time or wherewithal to handle more than that):

"There is much variation in bacteria and fruit flies.  There are many mutations.  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain bacteria or always remain fruit flies.  Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening."

Kindly read this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

you are spewing lies.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: jeremy0 on April 15, 2012, 02:34:19 AM
However, I read the section on Intelligent Design and immediately note that you have basically said, the human body doesn’t work “perfectly” therefore it evolved.   You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.   The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.
I have flaws in my dna.  I won't lie.  It is most likely due to mutations brought about by centuries of drinking and drug abuse..
However, if people were to be so kind, I could live a perfectly happy life even with my flaws.  The fact that I have flaws actually disproves god, because why would god create such a flawed person?  Also, one of my flaws is debilitating.  It was caused by social trauma when I was growing up developing my brain...  I don't believe any sort of god would have planned for people to live this way.  And no, I don't disbelieve because I might hate god.  I find it very difficult to hate anything, and people have given me more than enough reason to do just that...

Quote

By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?
I would like there to be a creator.  That way, I could live again.  However, if what makes me 'me' is simply a matter of 'chemistry', then I may indeed live again anyway, without knowing it.  Therefore to me, it doesn't really matter if god exists or not.  It would be nice if a good god existed, but looking at people, eh, I'd rather take my chances at being a fish sometime down the road...
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Historicity on April 21, 2012, 06:43:30 PM
I have flaws in my dna.  I won't lie.  It is most likely due to mutations brought about by centuries of drinking and drug abuse..


How about centuries of coal mining?  Soft coal releases radium into the air.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: nogodsforme on April 22, 2012, 09:32:26 PM
I have flaws in my dna.  I won't lie.  It is most likely due to mutations brought about by centuries of drinking and drug abuse..


How about centuries of coal mining?  Soft coal releases radium into the air.
And brain damage from lead. Don't forget about all the lead we have absorbed from leaded gas and lead paint over the years. It's a wonder we humans can find our collective way to the bathroom. :P
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: jeremy0 on April 22, 2012, 09:33:41 PM
..what's this 'bathroom' you speak of?  I've been peeing on the side of buildings..   :-[
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: nogodsforme on April 22, 2012, 10:34:10 PM
..what's this 'bathroom' you speak of?  I've been peeing on the side of buildings..   :-[

What are these 'buildings' you speak of? I've been peeing in a feelthy cracked cup.

And if you get that reference, we be buds. :D
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: jeremy0 on April 22, 2012, 10:37:56 PM
..Gawd I love cartoons..
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Witchtripper on May 08, 2012, 10:43:19 PM
Everything "God" didn't make the "Devil" did.  ;)
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: freakygin on May 08, 2012, 11:25:49 PM
Everything "God" didn't make the "Devil" did.  ;)

It's the Devil who created poppy plants, so human can make coke.  :o
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kin hell on May 08, 2012, 11:48:11 PM
Everything "God" didn't make the "Devil" did.  ;)

It's the Devil who created poppy plants, so human can make coke.  :o

?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: naemhni on May 09, 2012, 07:27:32 AM
Everything "God" didn't make the "Devil" did.  ;)

It's the Devil who created poppy plants, so human can make coke.  :o

Coke comes from coca leaves.  Poppy plants are the source for opium, morphine, and heroin.  Not that it makes much of a difference for purposes of this discussion, that is.  I'm sure Satan made both of them.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: nogodsforme on May 09, 2012, 09:54:20 PM
How many coca and poppy plants did Noah take on the Ark? :laugh:
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Ivellios on May 10, 2012, 08:31:38 AM
None, just like wheat, barley and all other plants, they always survive being submerged for 150+ days... either that, or the coca and poppy were all they brought.  :P
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: jeremy0 on May 14, 2012, 05:35:26 PM
No, 'getting drunk' back then was an acronym for 'stoner!!'  So Noah must have brought at least one poppy plant and coca plant so he could remain sane during his 150+ day float with his inbreeding kids and nagging from the wife..   ;D
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: nogodsforme on May 14, 2012, 10:30:27 PM
They must have needed to be high the whole time.

Considering the amount of stinking waste the animals and people were producing in that sealed-up, dark, hot hellhole of a boat. Plus they were being tossed around 24-7 like Dolly Parton's boobies on a zero gravity see-saw. :P

How come they don't have a Noah's Ark Barf Bucket Adventure Ride and Petting Zoo at one of those Christian amusement parks? I would be happy to help design it. ;D :angel:
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kin hell on May 14, 2012, 10:41:14 PM


How come they don't have a Noah's Ark Barf Bucket Adventure Ride and Petting Zoo at one of those Christian amusement parks? I would be happy to help design it. ;D :angel:

too late, they already have.

http://www.ratemyvomit.com/?action=ssp&pid=2205&cat=2 (http://www.ratemyvomit.com/?action=ssp&pid=2205&cat=2)
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: nogodsforme on May 14, 2012, 10:47:26 PM
If I click on that link, will I regret it or will I be happy?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kin hell on May 14, 2012, 10:50:12 PM
If I click on that link, will I regret it or will I be happy?

it is just a positive motivational re-inforcement of why taking a back seat in life doesn't garner the rewards one might wish for.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: nogodsforme on May 14, 2012, 10:52:11 PM
If I click on that link, will I regret it or will I be happy?

it is just a positive motivational re-inforcement of why taking a back seat in life doesn't garner the rewards one might wish for.

I see. So, I will not look. Thanks, anyway. :o
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: kin hell on May 14, 2012, 11:04:26 PM
cowardly custard
pie in the sky
then pie in the face
no gods needed
for transmutation
I reject your
eject full
salutation
duck!
you cowardly custard   ;)
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: TruthSearcher on November 28, 2013, 12:53:51 AM
Hi, sorry I've been away for a while.

So, the question remains, are any of you someone who wants there to be a creator but just can't find any evidence that one exists so you are forced to be an atheist?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Nam on November 28, 2013, 03:22:46 AM
Hi, sorry I've been away for a while.

So, the question remains, are any of you someone who wants there to be a creator but just can't find any evidence that one exists so you are forced to be an atheist?

You have 8 posts, who cares?

-Nam
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: wright on November 28, 2013, 03:45:10 AM
Welcome back, TruthSearcher. There's no need to apologize; life has any number of more urgent and pleasant things to offer than this forum.

That said, it's been over a year since this thread was active. Posting on a topic that's been dead for more than a month or so is considered "thread necromancy" and discouraged. Feel free to start a new one on the same topic, or find a current one to comment on.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: magicmiles on November 28, 2013, 04:03:35 AM
Hi, sorry I've been away for a while.

So, the question remains, are any of you someone who wants there to be a creator but just can't find any evidence that one exists so you are forced to be an atheist?

You have 8 posts, who cares?

-Nam

You have 8 good posts out of about 10,000. You're practically forum equals.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Nam on November 28, 2013, 04:38:48 AM
Hi, sorry I've been away for a while.

So, the question remains, are any of you someone who wants there to be a creator but just can't find any evidence that one exists so you are forced to be an atheist?

You have 8 posts, who cares?

-Nam

You have 8 good posts out of about 10,000. You're practically forum equals.

Yet 179 plus in karma. Must be 8 of the best posts ever.

-Nam
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: magicmiles on November 28, 2013, 03:31:37 PM
Hi, sorry I've been away for a while.

So, the question remains, are any of you someone who wants there to be a creator but just can't find any evidence that one exists so you are forced to be an atheist?

You have 8 posts, who cares?

-Nam

You have 8 good posts out of about 10,000. You're practically forum equals.

Yet 179 plus in karma. Must be 8 of the best posts ever.

-Nam

You made a snotty response, I thought I'd respond with one you might actually find amusing. It's not easy trying to work out what you do and don't find amusing.

Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: median on November 28, 2013, 03:47:11 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.

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.   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.   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.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what science states regarding life. There is no "law" regarding how life may or may not have arisen. Evolution is the explantion for the diversity of life after it got here. Abiogensis is an hypothesis regarding life's origins. Now, the burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. Instead of just pretending to know "it had to have come from an intelligent designer" you should admit that you don't know, just like those in the science field do when they do not have enough information, and go do some actual science. Oh, but whoops that's right, there is no demonstrable evidence for some 'creator', and an argument from ignorance fallacy does not get you to "God did it" in any logical way. It is irrational to make such claims. Thus, admitting you don't know is the only honest option. But of course, that probably makes you very uncomfortable doesn't it? Still, superstition (or claiming a mystery to solve another mystery) is futile.

Doesn't that just suck when we don't know things?

Why do you get to just pretend that you know the answer when you don't?
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Nam on November 28, 2013, 04:53:03 PM
Hi, sorry I've been away for a while.

So, the question remains, are any of you someone who wants there to be a creator but just can't find any evidence that one exists so you are forced to be an atheist?

You have 8 posts, who cares?

-Nam

You have 8 good posts out of about 10,000. You're practically forum equals.

Yet 179 plus in karma. Must be 8 of the best posts ever.

-Nam

You made a snotty response, I thought I'd respond with one you might actually find amusing. It's not easy trying to work out what you do and don't find amusing.



I'm a hard guy.

-Nam
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Hatter23 on November 29, 2013, 05:56:02 AM


I'm a hard guy.

-Nam

TMI, and keep it in your pants.
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: Nam on November 29, 2013, 03:48:13 PM


I'm a hard guy.

-Nam

TMI, and keep it in your pants.

Make me. I can whip it out if I want.

-Nam
Title: Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 29, 2013, 04:27:10 PM
Hi, sorry I've been away for a while.

So, the question remains, are any of you someone who wants there to be a creator but just can't find any evidence that one exists so you are forced to be an atheist?

What I want is absolutely irrelevant. Either there is a creator or there isn't. I assume there isn't. Others, anxious for specific outcomes, appear to imagine that one exists.

If I was powerful enough to make that decision for the entire universe, I'd go with the status quo. Someone with all the answers would be too hard to deal with.