Why I don't think god exists

Hi caixinth.

maybe you missed my point. I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, and I also believe your predictions about the future are wrong. Technology happens in spikes.

Anyway. Maybe you dont understand that my goal isnt to be like you. I have my own opinions. And no matter how much you whine, i wont let you put words in to my mouth. EG my feelings about stuff, etc. You know what I'm talking about.

And one more thing. You read all these articles, but do you get the jist of them. Learning is much more than reading.

But I do agree with you that these 'believers' dont want to touch evolution, and believe me. I've tried to deal with them before. I mean F***, its pointless, other than the fun you get out of that satisfaction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You believe in evolution? Im sorry, I assumed from your intial and very religious post that you were a creationist. You believe in God but not in creation? This sounds strange, but is that kosher?

edit: btw, I have studied various fields of science, and i am well read in many scientific topics. I promise you i am doing more than just getting the jist of those articles. I took the quotes i did not because i thought they we're representative of their source material but because they described the four prophetical views i was discussing.

on less defensive note, i am genuinely interested in hearing the particulars of your personal ideology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that all makes perfect sense. im a f****** idiot. Elbaz i am sincerely sorry. I am a clod.

 

*Originally posted by Xelios
When you get cut, it does not heal instantly. Simple as that.*

1. When do I get cut? I can't remember, and I know you have no clue.
2. You are merely assuming that, anyway.
3. I have gotten ill, or injured in the past, but the results are very different from what you experience.
4. Healing is instantaneous.

*you could be right and we may find we can never alter it, though I doubt it. My point was that the only limit to what we can acheive technologically is time.*

I assume that the principle you are using is that with an infinity of time, even a troop of baboons could achieve anything.
Of course, you should realize that some things are more likely to happen at the farther reaches of infinity, than near to our time.

*And just to clarify for you, when you put the piece of wood in front of your flashlight, you are not stopping the light, only changing it's trajectory.*

Hmm. Really?
If the wood is exactly perpendicular to the light beam, then the light would have to stop and reverse direction, wouldn't it?
At the point where it stops, the speed would be zero.

*I will not respond to any other one of your statements because there is nothing to respond to. *

So, you're admitting that changing the speed of light might be more complex than causing it to travel through a different medium?

*Originally posted by daktaklakpak
You don't think light speed changes in different medium?*

That's nothing.
I just demonstrated how to slow the speed of light to zero, with no lab equipment and no exotic materials.

*Originally posted by Elbaz
But I do agree with you that these 'believers' dont want to touch evolution*

Sure, we do.
Just come up with some evidence.

*The two are compatible, and deal with entirely separate things.*

Seeing as both deal with starting from nothing and ending up with a universe, they deal with exactly the same subject.

 

No. When a photon hits a solid object, the electrons in that object absorb the photon. The electron then emits a new photon in a different direction than the original (I'm not going to go into how you to determine what direction it will take). As you can see, no where in the sequence of events is the original photon stopped. It simply flies along in a straight path until it is absorbed by an electron. This is similar to a drop of water falling into a cup of water. The drop never stops moving, it simply keeps moving until it is absorbed by the other body of water. It then disperses and ceases to be a drop, but is then indistinguishable from any of the water surrounding it.

If light did stop, it would disappear as it has no rest mass. An object with no mass cannot exist.

I'm not even going to bother continuing your whole "healing is instantaneous" statement, because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Cainxinth. I should be sorry, I judged you wrongly. You are a really learned person. Anyway, James R is right, sortof. You see, we see creationism, in my religion at least, as symbolic. Its mostly the christians who are apt to take it literally. Mendel for example was a devout christian and for the most part he didnt believe in evolution. Like adam and eve eating the apple is symbolic of the purpose of our existence, to control nature and everything.


Also, about the light thing. I'd just like to point out that scientists havent yet actually proven photons. Like they've been looking with particle accelerators but havent yet found them. Although they probably do exist especially with all these other theories put into play, photons are not definite so lets not jump into them.

Oh and by the way, xelios is right. This is why metals have a shiny lustre.

BTW, even though this may have no relevance, Something without mass can exist, just not now in our perception, to correct xelios. I mean look at it theoretically, nothing can travel at the speed of light becuase everything has to much mass, and time is all relative to the speed of light or whatever. You could get very close, but look at it as getting halfway there each time you boost power, you could do it forever. So light doesnt have mass now, because then it could not travel fast enough to be light. I'm having a hard time explaining myself, I'll try to explain myself tomorrow.

Anyway, back to evolution. Tony1 says he want to debate evolution if we can get proof. Well tony1, look at any animal and you will see, now where is your proof for creationism. Do you still want to debate? You know very little about evolution, why dont you look into it? There is no harm in trying to make sense of the world around you. Thats how I see it.

 

*Originally posted by Xelios
When a photon hits a solid object, the electrons in that object absorb the photon. The electron then emits a new photon in a different direction than the original (I'm not going to go into how you to determine what direction it will take). As you can see, no where in the sequence of events is the original photon stopped. It simply flies along in a straight path until it is absorbed by an electron. This is similar to a drop of water falling into a cup of water. The drop never stops moving, it simply keeps moving until it is absorbed by the other body of water. It then disperses and ceases to be a drop, but is then indistinguishable from any of the water surrounding it.*

I definitely appreciate the humor implicit in your complete rewrite of the laws of physics.
You have just proven that reflection does not exist.
I also appreciate the humor involved in your idea that a photon doesn't stop even though it is absorbed by an electron.

*I'm not even going to bother continuing your whole "healing is instantaneous" statement, because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. *

What's even more obvious is that you have no idea.
I'm not talking about the "normal" recuperative powers of the body, I'm talking about healing as promised by God.

Since you don't believe in God, you have no clue about that kind of healing, plus you won't experience it.

*Originally posted by Elbaz
Well tony1, look at any animal and you will see, now where is your proof for creationism.*

Animals aren't proof of evolution, they're proof of creation.

The existence of animals exactly proves creation since the Bible says that there are different kinds of animals, and when I look around, I see different kinds of animals.

Evolution says that I should see just one kind of animal with some differences, and I don't see that.

 

I'd reccomend some perception glasses tony1.


And xelios, your right I guess.

i heard on the tv a few days ago they were looking for actual photons in a particle accelerator but couldnt find them. I was playing on the comp at the same time though, but I must have misheard the tv.

Neways, there is absolutely no point talking about evolution with tony1 cause he doesnt have a clue what it is. Along with science and almost anything academic. Dont even bother with that guy.

 

*Originally posted by Elbaz
Neways, there is absolutely no point talking about evolution with tony1 cause he doesnt have a clue what it is.*

Quite a statement from a guy whose total argument for evolution is, "Look at an animal."

 

quite a statement from a jackass, tony1

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All living creatures nowadays have stemmed off of 4 main sea creatures eons ago. Look into it. There is overwhelming proof.

You have such an ego, I wouldnt be surprised if you kissed your own ass.

 

tony1....

tony1, you have no clue about how quantum physics works. What I just explained is reflection. Also, the photon does not stop in the sense that you would understand it. A photon is a duality particle, meaning it can take on particle or waveform "shape" at the same time.

In a particle sense, yes, the photon would stop when it is absorbed. But, in a waveform sense (which is the form it takes when it is absorbed by the electron) it merely "blends in" with the rest of the electron. It simply ceases to exist as the moment it is absorbed and the energy it contained is transferred to the electron. The electron then emits another waveform in the form of a photon. The color it reflects depends on the frequency of the wave-photon it emits.

This is how reflection works. A particle bouncing off another is only a very simplified version, aimed at people who don't have an in depth understanding of quantum physics.

 

Cainxinth..why would you assume that to believe in God we must dismiss evolution?
The continuose evolution of the creation is one of the most amazing and wonderouse asspects of our existance. The intricate details and precision workings of how nature alters and transforms to changes around it is by far one of the most powerfull arguments that there is in fact a much more powerfull and intelligent source and not just a fluke or accident that brought us in to being. Everyday we find that things we thought seemed useless or harmfull are in a much larger picture very small parts of a very detailed puzzle that is perfect in it's purpose. Could such detail be an accident? Not one hair out of place in the scheame of things a fluke?
Finding "truth" isn't about believing what you have been told, by churches or by science, but by searching your own soul, useing your own ability to reason and find the common thread and seeing what is most reliable. I don't view scientists as all deluded nor christians as all irrational. Many men have searched and found the same truths to hold in any argument or arena. Foregoing all the variouse definitions of "God" and "faith"...it holds true that what we now are we weren't at some point, we can not even begin to comprehend the many secrets and wonders of the universe and life, SOMETHING had to move in order to alter what was and begin what wasn't, we all seek the truth and in order to find it we must first realize we dont know all the facts. If you can in fact make a reasonable assumption based on what we are sure of, then one finds "I Am" to be more than just possible, but necesary. It matters not if you define it as Christian Faith or scientific theory...In order to have a reaction of any kind, one first needs an action. I propose to you that the action is the action science seeks to define and the existance that men call "God".

 

Taken, thank you for thoughtful response. It was a welcomed substitute to Tony1’s badgering.

Modern day computer scientists are using evolutionary processes in algorithms that mimic nature’s method of natural selection. They start with nothing other than criteria and slowly evolve into a finished product. For example:

Every major investment firm in the world uses some form of evolutionary computer algorithms to help them make decisions. Here’s how: an algorithm randomly generates a million set of rules for making investment decisions based on permutations of a few basic rules like buy low, sell high, and invest strongly in companies with high price to earnings ratios. Each rule has its own “triggers” for buying and selling stocks based on available financial data. Each rule set is considered an organism, and these “organisms” are let loose on real financial data to make virtual stock buying and selling decisions. Their success rate is recorded and after a set generation time (normally under an hour) the bottom 90% of the organisms are killed off. The remaining 10% with the best success rates are then permutated into another set of one million organisms. This process is then repeated over and over again for as many as 100,000 virtual generations until you are left with a virtual organism that has a better success rate at stock management than any human being. Barclays Global Investors alone puts $95 billion dollars into the capable hands of one these organisms every day.

This is a vast simplification of the very process that science overwhelmingly believes led to the development of humankind. Simple organisms interacted with specific criteria in mind, namely eat, drink, sleep, shit, and above all else f***. The organisms most successful at this survived to create the next, slightly mutated generation. The process repeated itself for millions of generations over billions of years and after all that evolution, all that mutation, and increasing complexity we have…well us. It was no fluke; it was a long, arduous process.

As you can see, I don’t think that something came out of nothing, and yes everything I’ve stated in the paragraph above is all an elaborate assumption, but frankly, it’s a damn, damn good one. Its such a solid assumption in fact that virtually every scientists, scholar, and student worth his salt subscribes to it. Evolution is not fact, its still theory, but I’d be hard pressed to find another theory that is closer to being recognized as a law.

 

I would agree with your assumption that something did not come out of nothing. I also hold that the original Biblical text, as opposed to the english translation, does not propose that something came out of nothing. But in fact that El "fashioned" the earth, in other words, he took what was and reshaped it and created the earth from it...it speaks of a cataclysmic event, violence, water, and a faceless mass. Even in the event you have only the english translation to go by, we still know there was in fact "something"...Elohim in the text is plural. So what is El and who are Elohim? I do not to believe El was a "man" nor was He in any earthly form, or even a form recognizable to the human mind. El was just what we are told thru the divinely inspired scriptures:
"I Am that I Am"..Omnipotent...Life...Power....Existance itself...the begining and the end....unchanging, eternal, self-existent.

I would also like to point out that statistically the percentage of scientists who attend church regularly is the same as the percentage of non-scientists who attend church regularly. They have not disproven the Divine existance to themselves, but actually have made it more relevant to themselves and far less irrational than most Christian doctrine has eluded it to be.

 

I don’t think evolution discounts the existence of god. I think evolution is proof that human intelligence could have been created without an intelligent creator. Evolution is an inherently unintelligent process, its automatic, systematic, and slow but it can get the job done, and I believe it has.

My rationale for the non-existence of god is in the first post of this thread.

 

Under the most pesimistic circumstances...I would still find it difficult to accept that something so complex and yet so absolutely perfect in its every detail could possibly be a happy accident. That to me is far more irrational and unbelievable than the existance of a power and force beyond our perception that catapulted this miraculouse existance in to being. The argument lies in our definition of what that power is and our terminology in describing it, not really in it's existance.

 

That is where our opinions diverge. I don't think life on earth was luck or an accident. i think it was likely to occur here. The reason we have life on earth among other things is because it is a good size, containing the right elementary materials, in a solar system relatively removed from cataclysmic cosmic activity, and is an excellent distance from a good sized sun.

Here’s an excerpt from SETI on the subject:

"'Life as we know it' requires liquid water. It is the medium within which terrestrial biochemistry occurs. Water can exist in its liquid state only under a certain range of temperature and pressure conditions. This constrains the mass and orbit of an "Earth-like" planet. If a planet is too small, its gravity will not be able to hold a sufficiently dense atmosphere. Much of the atmosphere may "evaporate" into space or be blown into space by the impact of large asteroids."

"If a planet is too large, its gravity may hold too much atmosphere for terrestrial biochemistry to occur. Under the intense pressure of a dense atmosphere, liquid water may exist, but at a very high temperature. Although there are examples of terrestrial organisms that live in hot springs and in the ocean floor hydrothermal vents, it's not clear whether they originated there or adapted to the extreme temperature environment. While we can't rule out the origin of life on a large planet, we know that life can evolve on a planet like the Earth."

We live on a very rare thing in this universe, a planet that has all the right conditions for life as we know it.

 

There comes the action=reaction question. The earth has not always existed. By what means was the change driven? Would it not require a force, a power, an energy? Did that force, power, energy act unknowingly and create a happy accident that just happened to be poetry in motion, infalible and wonderouse beyond our imaginations? Or was that Power, Force, Energy...the sustainer of life, the existance... the substance of life... that men later would refer to as God?