What if God evolved?

[Mint_Sauce]

What I don't get is why religious people think humans are somehow all powerful. They look at the world around them, find it's so amazing and confusing to them and suddenly say, "Oh my! This is all so confusing to me and my brain that there must be SOMETHING that created this!" Well, maybe what you see really isn't intelligent in the slightest. Sure, humans find it very confusing and amazing that it's all so perfect in its "design". Why do you think your brain is a good benchmark for what is and isn't complex?

Did it ever cross your minds that perhaps our brains weren't "designed" or evolved to work out all this stuff?

I'm basically saying the only tool we have to figure this stuff out is our brain which I believe was never designed to do so. The complexity of everything could be infinite and probably is "relative to what we understand", our brains probably don't even scratch 0.000001% of the surface of how everything is actually "operating".

Seriously, thinking that somehow humans are so amazing that your god created all this and left a book and his human son to die on a cross etc etc blah blah to me is laughable. The universe is massive, beyond our comprehension and somehow you religious folk have centered it all around yourselves and your one god, on our tiny planet. But wait - there's loads of gods made up by many different people who all think they're right...

So, basically - live and have a good life and when you die just accept that's it and if it's not then great (hopefully). If God did exist and was half decent he will look at the person you are, not what you believe. Surely he would take favor on those that were good without beliefs rather than those who only acted good or thought they should suck up to get a better deal at the end of it?

By the way, I don't believe in any gods incase you couldn't guess..

Ok, that's me done.

 

[Combat squirrel]

You've posted a picture of dormant E.Coli from an unvetted web site and used it as proof? Flagellum is 'bacteria' that 'propels' E.Coli and yes, I mean E.Coli I just really couldnt be bothered to type it over and over again .

Furthermore, your post makes no sense. I have based my arguments on text from the bible as have the people here arguing against God. The point you seem to be missing is that if the Bible is a load of tosh, why create an argument against God from it in the first place? You say you've not seen any evidence of a God, so you should be able to provide evidence that God does not exist, yet you cant. The circle continues.

Picture source is Rocky Mountain Laboratories, NIAID, NIH, this is peer reviewed and accepted.

My post makes perfect sense, its simply blown holes all over your argument, and iv witnessed E.Coli myself in real life in real time, they don't have flagellum (at least certainly non I could see), obviously you only have my word for that, but Id be happy to take you to a lab and show you the exact same thing

So now we have established that,

PLEASE READ PREVIOUS POSTS IN THIS THREAD

WHY ?

Iv already said something along the lines of:

'Taking someone's only evidence, and showing that evidence against them is a highly powerful way of convincing someone to take a look at there only 'evidence' again'

Basically I can find MAJOR flaws in your argument FROM YOUR ONLY evidence, doesn't that worry you ? My quotations from the bible are simply to show its 'line of thinking' are not very moral, but a good point in showing someone that its a very nasty piece of work.

So that MAJOR inconvienience for you (in your only 'evidence') is abit of a annoying thing id imagine.

That with actually looking outside the book at the world around is an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence you should take a look at

 

[squiffy]

Faithless, your responses are not scientific at the least.

Some basic scientific observations:-

What tests have shown that God has done all of those things? Exculding anything written in the bible.

(The alternative theory is that biological systems took huge, unseen leaps from simple to complex without any guided process or forward-looking instructions.)

Are you paying attention? Evolution takes millions of years. Of course you don't see a fly evolving into a elephant. Is that proof that evolution is false? Of course not.

 

[Faithless]

Picture source is Rocky Mountain Laboratories, NIAID, NIH, this is peer reviewed and accepted.

So now we have established that,

PLEASE READ PREVIOUS POSTS IN THIS THREAD

WHY ?

Iv already said something along the lines of:

'Taking someone's only evidence, and showing that evidence against them is a highly powerful way of convincing someone to take a look at there only 'evidence' again'

Basically I can find MAJOR flaws in your argument FROM YOUR ONLY evidence, doesn't that worry you ? My quotations from the bible are simply to show its 'line of thinking' are not very moral, but a good point in showing someone that its a very nasty piece of work.

So that MAJOR inconvienience for you (in your only 'evidence') is abit of a annoying thing id imagine.

That with actually looking outside the book at the world around is an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence you should take a look at

I repeat, as I understand it is late. You have cited DORMANT E-coli.

You have provided no evidence to support your claim which is far worse than 'my only evidence' , which actually leads to a greater chance of there being a God than providing no evidence what so ever. Surely the fact that you can provide no evidence what so ever to suggest there is undeniably no God equally worries you?

The thing is CS, you state we are arguing, which I dont think we are, but OK. Secondly, its not a case of I dont want to discuss this topic, I do, but we are just going to go on and on and on. Would you ever admit that we both have different beliefs and rather than try to change the other persons views we just let them get on with it, or will you always push the 'I won 'cos he left the argument 111!!!111' mode of thought?

 

[Faithless]

Faithless, your responses are not scientific at the least.

What tests have shown that God has done all of those things? Exculding anything written in the bible.

What tests have shown 100% accurately and fundamentally that God has not done these things?

 

[squiffy]

Would you ever admit that we both have different beliefs and rather than try to change the other persons views we just let them get on with it, o

Science has no belief, it has facts.
Religion has beliefs, which cannot be proven to be as fact, like proving any childs fairytale is actually true. But of course God just happens to be invisible and doesn't show himself, which is convienent.

 

[tang0]

But of course God just happens to be invisible and doesn't show himself, which is convienent.

What about when his son appears in doors and on pieces of toast ?

hahahahahaha

 

[squiffy]

What tests have shown 100% accurately and fundamentally that God has not done these things?

What tests have shown 100% accurately and fundamentally that God has done these things?

Has appeared on national TV saying "eee I'm damn proud of kittens they're so cute"

 

[Combat squirrel]

I repeat, as I understand it is late. You have cited DORMANT E-coli.

You have provided no evidence to support your claim which is far worse than 'my only evidence' , which actually leads to a greater chance of there being a God than providing no evidence what so ever. Surely the fact that you can provide no evidence what so ever to suggest there is undeniably no God equally worries you?

The thing is CS, you state we are arguing, which I dont think we are, but OK. Secondly, its not a case of I dont want to discuss this topic, I do, but we are just going to go on and on and on. Would you ever admit that we both have different beliefs and rather than try to change the other persons views we just let them get on with it, or will you always push the 'I won 'cos he left the argument 111!!!111' mode of thought?

I found my quote for 'bible evidence'

Again ill say the same thing, im taking quotes from a book that the person I am debating with believes in, so its using there own evidence to counteract there own arguments, a very difficult thing for anyone to argue with, do you understand that now ? Correct I dont believe in that book, so its not taking much of my time or effort to take there evidence and simply show it to them, they did there research showed it to me, I said, what does this part of your research mean ? usual reply is, 'im not talking now' or 'darn it just have faith!' i.e. backed into a corner with nothing more to say as they have nothing else they can say

As for E.Coli ill definently be back in this thread tomorrow when I have read up to a stupid degree of understanding of this life form and also talked to my uni professor tomorrow, when I viewed them they were 'alive' I still did not see flagellum, ill run all this by my professor at uni tomorrow and get back to you (this is called going out and finding the facts )

As for evidence of E.Coli SO FAR, its a lot more than you have provided for the bible, common sense in there somewhere in you must see this ?

Im not arguing with you good sir, this is a debate, I occasionally use the word 'argue' to state to differing sides of opinion, so nothing is ever aimed at anyone personally

Im not aiming for a 'I win cuz he left argument' im aiming for some common sense to be spread throughout the human race

Till tomorrow good OCUK forum members, let the debate continue and perhaps even some reprocducable logical factual evidence from a 'religous sort' in benefit of there point (this hasnt happened to date in many years of talking about this, so im not expecting it really to tomorrow, based on statistics of course )

 

[Faithless]

Science has no belief, it has facts.
Religion has beliefs, which cannot be proven to be as fact, like proving any childs fairytale is actually true. But of course God just happens to be invisible and doesn't show himself, which is convienent.

To you, but maybe to religious people he does, although not in physical form. The facts of science (a lot of them) can be widely challeneged with a Creator approach IMO.

Just as a footnote, here is an interesting story, its not meant in any way to annoy you, but it is 100% accurate from the chap who it happened to.

A pastor of a local church to me was shopping in Asda. As is his duty, at the checkout he got chatting to the lad at the checkout and was mentioning Jesus, God and one of these Alpha courses. The lad was Cantonese and had a very local dialect unique to his region. He spoke very very little english.

He decided that he'd give church a shot, and came a long. On the Sunday, he approached the pastor and spoke to him in his native cantonese. The pastor did not have a clue what this guy was saying to him and asked him to speak english. The lad was confused, as just two days earlier, the same pastor had spoken to him, not only in cantonese, but in his local dialect.

In actual fact, the pastor spoke to him in english that day at the checkout, its just that what this guy heard was his own native tongue.

Quite thought provoking for me

 

[Combat squirrel]

To you, but maybe to religious people he does, although not in physical form. The facts of science (a lot of them) can be widely challeneged with a Creator approach IMO.

Just as a footnote, here is an interesting story, its not meant in any way to annoy you, but it is 100% accurate.

A pastor of a local church to me was shopping in Asda. As is his duty, at the checkout he got chatting to the lad at the checkout and was mentioning Jesus, God and one of these Alpha courses. The lad was Cantonese and had a very local dialect unique to his region. He spoke very very little english.

He decided that he'd give church a shot, and came a long. On the Sunday, he approached the pastor and spoke to him in his native cantonese. The pastor did not have a clue what this guy was saying to him and asked him to speak english. The lad was confused, as just two days earlier, the same pastor had spoken to him, not only in cantonese, but in his local dialect.

In actual fact, the pastor spoke to him in english that day at the checkout, its just that what this guy heard was his own native tongue.

Quite thought provoking for me

And just before I go to bed, prove that ever happened or is it just a nice story ?

 

[phykell]

Prooving God exists without the use of faith Can we? Yes Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer...

ID is just a theory right now that's all, but then you have faith, despite your forum name.

. The presence of intelligent design proves the existence of an intelligent designer, which is simply cause and effect. In our search for proof of God's existence, we could examine the various claims of supernatural occurrences, determine whether or not these are legitimate experiences, and build a case for the existence of the supernatural, which would be a step towards identifying a supernatural Creator God. Or we can just apply what we already know and search for signs of intelligent design within creation itself.

Whether or not *a* God exists is one thing, but what I believe is almost certain is that the God described by the Bible doesn't exist.

In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry, and genetics, the proof of God (a god) is all around us!

The absence of God seems much more prevalent than his presence. Why is that exactly?

In addition, things cant evolve (why dont monkies and chimps still evolve?), even the slightest alteration to a molecule in an atam would cause it to be nullified, therefore can we assume it must have been created whole rather than evolved?

You're kidding surely? Are you really saying things no longer evolve? Are you saying that creatures can't even adapt to their environment?

Does God exist?

He either does, or he doesnt. God may not be provable through mathematical formulae or properties of science, but the evidence of an Intelligent Designer is clearly all around us.

Yet that doesn't even nearly begin to prove that the God of the Bible exists.

Based on our knowledge today, I believe that atheism is a much bigger leap of faith than theism.

I'm afraid God's absence is his undoing.

To the other posters in this thread who drone on about a God full of hate, who promotes murder, rape, genocide, etc, the following may be a useful read, and rather than just quoting the reference (assuming you are unlikely to have a Bible) I'll quote the entire passage

Rather than allowing them to "drone on" perhaps you can offer a reasonable reply rather than quote some passage from the bible which is open to wild and rabid interpretation.

To be honest, I've read that passage you quoted (pointless to be honest) and it's utter rubbish IMO. It doesn't address the claim that the God it talks of is unnecessarily vengeful, spiteful and sadistic. It doesn't address the claim that God should take responsiblity for the errors he created within humans. It doesn't address the entrapment of the Garden of Eden and entrapment it most certainly was. God gave Adam and Eve everything they could ever want but he placed a tree in the centre of the GoE and then forbid them to taste its fruit. Obviously not satisifed God then allowed the serpent to tempt Eve. Forgetting the "facts" that a supposedly omnipotent had to a) ask them where they were (because they were hiding) and b) ask them why they were no longer naked, do you really think Adam, Eve and all their progeny deserved the punishment they got? Perhaps the benevolent God of the Bible should have explained to them exactly what would have happened if they ate of the tree, perhaps we'd all be in paradise still rather than paradise lost.

That clearly somes up a clear and concise argument in my opinion.

And IMO, the God of the bible is vengeful, merciless and even sadistic. Sending plagues upon people, permitting the first born son of all those families to die by the sword through his inaction. He knew this would all happen yet he only saw fit to play with our fate as though we were nothing to him. Indeed, the God of the Bible is petty, jealous and unfeeling, allowing his creation to suffer - do we all deserve this? Do the children born with hideous deformities or those who aren't even born alive, do they deserve their lot in life due to original sin?

I have two bibles by the way.

 

[Faithless]

ID is just a theory right now that's all, but then you have faith, despite your forum name.

Rather than allowing them to "drone on" perhaps you can offer a reasonable reply rather than quote some passage from the bible which is open to wild and rabid interpretation.

To be honest, I've read that passage you quoted (pointless to be honest) and it's utter rubbish IMO. It doesn't address the claim that the God it talks of is unnecessarily vengeful, spiteful and sadistic. It doesn't address the claim that God should take responsiblity for the errors he created within humans. It doesn't address the entrapment of the Garden of Eden and entrapment it most certainly was. God gave Adam and Eve everything they could ever want but he placed a tree in the centre of the GoE and then forbid them to taste its fruit. Obviously not satisifed God then allowed the serpent to tempt Eve. Forgetting the "facts" that a supposedly omnipotent had to a) ask them where they were (because they were hiding) and b) ask them why they were no longer naked, do you really think Adam, Eve and all their progeny deserved the punishment they got? Perhaps the benevolent God of the Bible should have explained to them exactly what would have happened if they ate of the tree, perhaps we'd all be in paradise still rather than paradise lost.

Whereas to me, this passage sums you up to a tee, and that is not meant in any hurtful remark towards you, its just that to me, and my views, you are a prime candidate for the type of person that passage talks about.

 

[Sleepy]

Quite thought provoking for me

The problem with anecodotal evidence like this is that its impossible to verify. To you it gives one message but to others it implies a very different event. Now these understandings of whats occurred are mutually exclusive but cos they do not readily lend themselve to independant observation the reality of what occurred will never be established to everyones satisfaction.

 

[Vonhelmet]

What about when his son appears in doors and on pieces of toast ?

hahahahahaha

Strange Catholic ideas != normal Christianity.

</tangent>

Phykell - ID doesn't even really qualify as scientific theory as it is non-falsifiable.

 

[j98]

With all due respect, that's like learning christianity from Fred Phelps, or Islam from Abu Hamza.

Excuse me?! Is there anybody alive who feels physically threatened by Dawkins' ideas?

Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion' to try and force his own personal beliefs onto others, and in the process has acted exactly like those who he criticises...

By "force his own personal beliefs" do you mean "encourage people to think for themselves"? Do you consider that a negative thing?

 

[Dolph]

Science has no belief, it has facts.

I'm sorry, but that's totally, utterly wrong. Science does not deal in facts, certainly not with regards to the kind of issues we're discussing in this thread. Science is a method of developing a predictive model to predict results based on emperical observations. A scientifically correct model does not give any 'facts', it simply gives accurate predictions. Your belief that science gives facts (beyond the dataset and the models that give them) comes from you having faith in the scientific method being a provider of truth, and that following the scientific method will reveal truths, which is not something science has ever been able to claim, and is indeed something that good scientists will not claim. It's part of the reason that scientific theories (which are the closest things to facts from a scientific viewpoint) are constantly under review, and can be altered should new data present itself requiring a new model for more accurate prediction. Nowhere in the process does anyone claim the model to be factually accurate (ie This is what happens) rather than predictive (This is the simplest mechanism that matches the data)

Religion has beliefs, which cannot be proven to be as fact, like proving any childs fairytale is actually true. But of course God just happens to be invisible and doesn't show himself, which is convienent.

Even if you wish to put your faith in science as the provider of truth, there is nothing in the scientific method that can disprove the existance of a creator, again due to the limits of the process and the methods employed. Claiming otherwise is an act of belief again on your part.

There's nothing wrong with your beliefs, but don't assume that they are any more valid than anyone else's beliefs, simply because you've decided to put science on a pedastal that it's not meant to occupy.

 

[Dolph]

Excuse me?! Is there anybody alive who feels physically threatened by Dawkins' ideas?

Replace the word Atheist with Christian (or any other religion) in one of Dawkins' rant essays/books then tell me it looks like the work of a rational man

By "force his own personal beliefs" do you mean "encourage people to think for themselves"? Do you consider that a negative thing?

Dawkins doesn't encourage people to think for themselves, he encourages people to think like him, normally while stating that everyone who doesn't is mentally diseased or difficent for not thinking like him.

He is not a purveyor of rational, logical thinking, he's a man with his own strong personal beliefs (principally about the value of the scientific method) who demands other people have to think like he does or they are crazy.

We had a fairly substantial thread in Speaker's corner about Dawkins, religion and science which is quite a good read, and covers most of the points I'd make if we carried on the argument, so I'll suggest reading that through and coming back with any queries

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17641951

Dawkins is an excellent scientist in his field, and clearly a clever man, but being good at science doesn't make him qualified to talk about philosophical matters (which is what this kind of subject is) and he seems unable or unwilling to seperate science from his beliefs in a meaningful way. It would be fair to say that Dawkins, at least from his writings, expresses faith in the scientific method to provide 'the truth' (as I said above), which is not something science was ever meant to provide.

 

[Scrutinize]

Science has no belief, it has facts.

To be fair a lot of science is based on human assumptions which fit or make the theory or model. Even scientists will not say a lot of the theories are 100% factual. To say science is “fact” is a dangerous assumption and assumption even scientists won't uphold.

Quick example, remember in GSCE physics, you are taught the force of mavity was a constant. From A-Level physics its not.

It is one thing to "test" a theory or, apply a theory to a test and get an outcome that appears correct, and its another to pass it all off as 100% fact, this is not saying that the "test" results won't be positive or show something to work. Why do you think you have to build error calculations into experiments in science and maths.

More relevant to this debate is the Big Bang theory. Although it is believed to be possible and they build working models to demonstrate it etc there are two problems understood but accepted by the theorists.

1)The design of the model and understanding of how it works is based on Human comprehension and knowledge that even scientists recognise as limited, although the model currently appears to fit the design.

2)It is still much argued where the matter/energy came from for the Bang in the first place, and this cannot be agreed or factually proven, instead it is accepted.

3)In light of 1 and 2 scientists who believe in the BB apply their logic and reason to it and accept it as a “best fit” or “most likely” occurrence which is a perfectly reasonable and sensible thing to do.

Tectonic plates can move quite quickly, like a tortoise on red bull, hence why we get earthquakes.

So before I go any further in my debate, to answer some points raised about us religious sorts.

Yes, I am a Christian, I believe in the Bible, That God created everything and I believe that Jesus was the son of God who died on the cross for our sins. I believe this rationally and whole heartedly and I have no reason to deny it or be ashamed about my beliefs. The same you guys are happy to say there is no God and stand by your belief of this.

I am of a logical scientific mind (but I am more than happy for you to debate this ), with my first degree in science and my second was in engineering, hence why my posts so far have tried to establish a reasoned argument and asked questions.

I would also like to point out that I take the bible on face value but in context. I don’t choose to believe bits of it as to me this makes no sense. The reasoning in my mind for this is that, if it is possible to believe in some of it (which I do) then there is no reason to not believe in all of it (again which I do). The reason I have posted this is because I want to address the following post from a personal point of view in places rather than in a generic sense.

What I don't get is why religious people think humans are somehow all powerful.

I personally don’t. There is a difference of opinion and firm distinction between different religious people and groups. And a lot of the ones I know don’t believe humans are all powerful. However, there is segregation even within the Christian Religion/faith where, in some aspects of the religion Man is seen to be able to forgive peoples sins in confession, which I disagree with.

They look at the world around them, find it's so amazing and confusing to them and suddenly say, "Oh my! This is all so confusing to me and my brain that there must be SOMETHING that created this!" Well, maybe what you see really isn't intelligent in the slightest. Sure, humans find it very confusing and amazing that it's all so perfect in its "design". Why do you think your brain is a good benchmark for what is and isn't complex?

Again I don’t, I have never been confused by creation. I am amazed by it yes, but confused no.

Did it ever cross your minds that perhaps our brains weren't "designed" or evolved to work out all this stuff?

Yep totally, and this works for both science and religion.

I'm basically saying the only tool we have to figure this stuff out is our brain which I believe was never designed to do so. The complexity of everything could be infinite and probably is "relative to what we understand", our brains probably don't even scratch 0.000001% of the surface of how everything is actually "operating".

Indeed. Although, could it be so simple as we do have the opportunity to understand it or rationalise it? This is a genuine question, in essence a null hypothesis, as I can't factually answer that and I doubt anyone could.

Seriously, thinking that somehow humans are so amazing that your god created all this and left a book and his human son to die on a cross etc etc blah blah to me is laughable. The universe is massive, beyond our comprehension and somehow you religious folk have centered it all around yourselves and your one god, on our tiny planet. But wait - there's loads of gods made up by many different people who all think they're right...

Do you mean “humans are so amazing” in the sense religious people are of the opinion that it is “us and God”. The two most prevalent religions in the World, Islam and Christianity both believe in 1 God and that Jesus existed. Christians see Jesus as literally the son of God and Muslims see him as a man.

So, basically - live and have a good life and when you die just accept that's it and if it's not then great (hopefully). If God did exist and was half decent he will look at the person you are, not what you believe. Surely he would take favor on those that were good without beliefs rather than those who only acted good or thought they should suck up to get a better deal at the end of it?

This is a very controversial topic amongst religions and certainly amongst Christians is an important one. I would like to deal with this from a biblical perspective as a Christian.

If you are to believe the new testament, people who only act good and claim to be a Christian although their heart and desires are not Christ-like (metaphorically) are in reality probably not a Christian in the true definition of the term. So this person will be in the same position as a non Christian. There is a big difference between being of “Christian values” and living as a proper Christian with the faith and belief. This is why I asked Phykell the following question and his answer was very insightful, it was a genuine question and wasn't meant to be loaded.

This raises an interesting question which got me thinking. Is it better not to believe sincerely in the existence of God like your self, or to think you believe in it with an insincere heart (for want of a better term)?

IMO, it is better to be true to yourself and try to live a good life, respecting others and harming none.[n] If you are not a true believer, if you go to church every Sunday despite leading a sinful life otherwise, your God will know anyway so[/b]better that you develop your own sense of ethics and argue your case with your God on judgement day. That's what I plan to do!

That was a great answer m8 and it is often the reason why Christians are seen or shown up in such poor light or as hypocrites.

By the way, I don't believe in any gods incase you couldn't guess..

Ok, that's me done.

LOL Your honesty and sincerity is appreciated.

 

[gjrc]

i hate all religion...

god cant evolve as he doesnt exist