My inability is because I see no valid evidence. Seriously, just look all around you, how the hell is that by chance? The usual mistake. 'Chance' is not the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design; natural selection is.
The world is perfect for life because life is a product of the world. Had the world been different then life would have taken a different form or would not exist. The mistake you are making is to assume that life came first and then the world was made to support life, whereas it is the opposite, which would be perfectly consistent with an evolutionary perspective. Also, if we follow your reasoning that something so complex must have been designed by something incredibly more complex (i.e. a god), then you must concede that such a god would have to have been designed and created, correct? And where does that line of thinking ever end? If you assert that God was not created then you destroy your own claim that something complex must be designed and created.
Indeed. Interestingly, this goes some way to characterizing the position of the pantheist. That nature, in all of it's wonderful complexity, is God. Almost every atheist believes this by default, although they typically wouldn't use the word God to describe nature. Theists of course feel that the explanation has to be supernatural, but being that God is supposedly an ever greater source of order and complexity, not only have they recreated the same problem they are seeking to resolve, they've made it worse.
Yes, good point. And instead of arguing from the perspective of greater and greater complexity and instead take the opposite approach, ever increasing simplicity - then we see how a mass of extremely simple fundamental particles could form into an incredible number of combinations that could eventually result in complexity. Essentially that is exactly how we see everything around us evolve, long term and short term.
If only theists would really read the last two posts, one by Rav and the other by Chris, then they would see the light. The light was there all along; they were just looking in the wrong direction.
If one requires a basis, of God, for the eternal uncaused ‘IS’, that ‘simple’ stuff, then one must all the more require a basis for this ultimate complexity of a Creator who does planning, thinking, moving, and designing—or else drop the requirement for the initial and lessor basis altogether. One cannot have a cake and eat it, too, being inconsistent by doing an analysis half-and-half, shoving away the answer, for then a stop sign goes up that is not an answer, but just a larger question.
Cris, Circular. That is a pointless observatin as it goes without saying. Do you agree then, that such a complex being would be capable of informing humans of it's existence? So you agree that the idea of infinite creations is logically incoherent? jan.
Rav, What evidence do have for this? From my perspective, consciousness is not a supernatural agent, although it can operate in mysterious ways. God is undoubtedley percieved as greater, but not different to ourselves. So, in essence there is no greater source of order and complexity. jan.
That's a first. Every theist, and I mean every single one I've discussed this with, has actively revered God as its own individual entity, separate from us both in form and physical location.
It seem to me you are leaving out the more interesting replies. Many religionists (Theists) would disagree with you, because their sacred writings are just as 'reliable', 'truthful', as your own, any yet their religion is mutually exclusive from your own. Islam, Judaism, Hindism, all have their sacred books, that are on as sound a foundation as your own. Even Buddhism, in some of its forms, relies on sacred writings for truthful revelations about god(s). By their reasoning, you lose.
Yes Sciwriter. And you know what the funny thing is? Religion itself was a form of naturally selected social evolution. It's all evo baby!
How the hell am I going to reply to all these? LOL, I better start now... P.S. I'll be updating this post until I've answer everything relevant. So will he provide me evidence? Your going to just take someone's word because they call themselves a Bible scholar? Your no worse than the religious people who do that. I think you missed the last few words. It hangs upon NOTHING, meaning it doesn't hang. Can you hang on nothing? It's a figure of speech used a lot in those days... If your going to make an illustration, you need to compare it to something. I don't understand what this is compared to Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Are you saying someone already made the universe and destroyed it, so the universe just "dealt the cards", again? LOL That's what I've been saying. So your saying the universe can roll the dice infinite amount of times, right? Yes, I suppose this is possible, but the chances are so astronomical. I guess, as I said before, it's possible! But I keep coming back to the bottom of this post... That's an easy one. We are only very fragile and die easily because of sin, but you can see the foundation of our body. Any reputable scientist can see that our body was made to regenerate and live forever, yet they can't understand why cells just start to die off and we age. God designed all of us, Adam and Eve with free will. They could do whatever the heck they wanted. Would you feel powerful as a king if all of your subjects were robots programmed to bow down to you? (in fact, robots are never meant to be "ruled over" for this very reason, who needs to rule over them when you can tell them what to do?) That's not faulty design. He also didn't create us with physic abilities to see into the future. Eve couldn't have known everything that would happen. God warned Adam, Adam told Eve, she didn't listen. All you have to do is look at an example with a kid. Do they always do what you tell them? If you tell them NOT to eat a cookie before dinner, and they go and eat it when your not looking, is that faulty behavior? That's ONLY disobedience, and if we couldn't disobey, we wouldn't have free will Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Eve thought she knew better than God. What proof is there that we are evolving? Or do you guys conveniently say we've stopped evolving now? Do we walk more straight up now than in 1909 or something? ROFL, I swear I typed this before you posted this: Oh, I was thinking last night. So, I supposed some of you guys believe in the big bang theory? So where did all that energy come from? lol ANYTHING You guys come up with just won't work. SOMEBODY had to create SOMETHING. ANYTHING that does ANYTHING has to be CREATED. I know what you guys are gonna say, "Who created the creator?", well isn't it easier to believe in an almighty being, and where he came from is beyond human comprehension, because he "programmed" us that way? Either God or some other creator, we've been created. I really would like to see how you guys take this one. Don't make me laugh xD As I've said above, where did the simple particles come from? LOL Dudes, you'll NEVER be able to make sense of it! You keep trying to catch thin air. It just isn't there. And to think Evolution was adopted by millions... they are no less the same as people who believe in religion. They go with the flow. If another popular idea sprang up that proved naturual selection wrong, you guys would all jump on THAT bandwagon. What about Darwin's original theories? That has all been dumped to the wayside and only take the fundamental ideas. Then after that, they have another idea. If I'm not mistaken, evolutionists used to believe we came from monkeys. Now I've read someone on this very site that only quackjobs believe that anymore. Lol, your religion changes much more than ours, just to suit what you guys are learning of the universe. Now I've gotten into an evolution debate, which wasn't really what I came here for. I want proof of the Bible, not evolution, which is silly Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But, I don't really mind it. How is it that I have answers for almost everything the evolutionists say, but less for when it comes to the Bible? Makes me think there is a creator but the Bible wasn't inspired by him... Nevertheless I must do the research. Again scriptures and stuff from Janus58 and others would be helpful when I compile this info. A point I forgot: God / the Creator created time, remember, for us to comprehend what's going on. He doesn't have to live by the rules he has set for humans Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
garbonzo, Are you claiming that only our original physiology was perfect but that our minds were not? That doesn't make any sense. Either our whole being is perfect or we are not perfect. You claim we were made perfect which must mean we cannot make a mistake since that implies an error and something perfect cannot err. The key issue with Eve eating the fruit is that she did not know it was wrong to do so, she was perfect (you said so), so to make a mistake (i.e. to sin) would be impossible. The catch-22 here is that the fruit is from the tree that gives the knowledge of good and evil, i.e. provides the ability to know the difference between right and wrong. It was only AFTER she ate the fruit that she knew it was wrong. If we had truly been created perfect then the ability to reason and understand the implications of disobedience would have been crystal clear, and we would not have chosen the incorrect path, i.e. a perfection cannot make a mistake. The deliberate withholding of vital information by God is essentially moral corruption and entrapement. Someone who is perfect and who has been provided with accurate information could not possibly have made an error. Since Eve apparently made an error then she was clearly not made perfect, and hence her design was flaswed, i.e. God is flawed, or God deliberately tricked her for his own despicable reasons. Either way this demonstrates that the case for a creator god is utter nonsense. Why would children disobey if they fully understood the full implications of their actions? Children are not perfect because they lack either appropriate information or their abilities to reason are pooly developed, so your anology is seriously flawed. You are also trying to suggest that somehow blind authoritarianism is superior to reasoned thought, it isn't. Unless an authority can adequately explain and justify an appropriate action then it has no moral right to command and should be ignored.
garbonzo, How would that be possible? Any action, whether by a god or whoever would require the passage of time to be able to complete the action. I.e. it is impossible for anything to occur unless time exists. It is therefore impossible for a god to create time since that would require time to exist to perform such an action. If there was a point where time did not exist then how could a god proceed from the before condition (no time) to the post condition (time exists) without time existing in the first place? Any action you claim that God performs involves a before and an after condition, i.e. time has passed. It is not possible for time to be created, time has always existed otherwise we could not be here. In this sense God would be compelled to obey the same laws as humans.
garbonzo, Provide a case where something has been created? You will find from physics that all our observations show that nothing is ever created or destroyed but is merely transformed between matter and energy, and the totality of everything is always preserved. BBT does not say that the universe was created or came from nothing, all it says is that at a point in the past the universe was much more dense than it is now.
The timescales are in the realm of millions of years for significant changes to occur. There is a vast wealth of information on human evolution on the web and in science textbooks. For those who take the time to understand science the facts are not disputable. There also endless threads on these forums that cover evolution in exhausting detail. If you are truly interested then you will take the time to study. The topic is significant and cannot be meaningfully covered with a short sound bite here.
Jan, Nonsense. It is simple cause and effect. Theists would have us believe that effect precedes cause. Apparently not since theists believe the opposite so it had to be said. Yes and a good case here for the non existence of gods. If such things did exist then not only would they be able to communicate with us but the level of clarity of such communications would be so high that there could never be any doubt they exist. Since there is not even a scrap of evidence for any communications then that leaves us little doubt that such fantasy objects are non existent. Good point, thanks. Yes a good summary of what I said. And I assume you of course agree that even the first iteration of a god is also unnecessary to explain the universe, as Steven Hawking explains so nicely in his latest book.
