Some thoughts on the existence of God

[jfuh]

Your original assertion seemed to be that humans are just a mass of chemicals. That assertion contains errors and is too broad and general to be accurate. Granted, there's no proof either that God exists based on love but what you said wasn't very, "exact" either.

Ok now that is flat out lieing again. I suggest you go back to your very original argument in the first post. See what you wrote? Let me quote you.

What kind of, "scientific" proof could anyone conjure up that would explain the awkwardness, the insecurity, the confusion, and all of that illusory stuff?

I pointed out your errornous logic and your ignorance of the science behind the nature of human emotions. You provide absolutely nothing except false allegations that chemistry is not fully understood. You now seem to retract that false claim and instead say:

Granted, there's no proof either that God exists based on love but what you said wasn't very, "exact" either.

So now you've both retracted your argument as well as completely tossed out your orginal rational that.
1. God is love.
2. There is love
And the conclusion
3. Since there is love, there is god.
So can you dispense with the lies and admit that you erred?

Now with part two of your new premise in attacking my "original assertion". As if I had ever changed grounds on this at all.
Now your argument is to discredit my position and claim now that it's up in the air and there is no conclusion to the existance of god.
I have not up to this point even begun to argue for nor against the existance of a god. All I've argued thus far is the fallacy through ignorance that you have presented in explaining love.
You still have not pointed to the least bit of any errors associated with my reasoning nor answered the questions that I had provided that relate directly to the understanding of my premise.
Your logic is completely flawed and false on the basis that I have disproved your first premise of God is love.

 

[CaliNORML]

I would not so much say love, although it is a good ideal; I would say "God" is compassion, as I do not have to "love" anyone to practice it with all I met. I see "love" as only reserved for a few none united in all things, selective, is the word I guess. Compassion is universal, unjudgemental, non biased, and, all encompassing.

KMS

 

[Rev.]

Personally, I am one who believes that science proves the existance of God quite well.

Check out that Periodic Table. Ever notice the pattern in the numbers? The increasing complexity of the elements? Did you know scientist discovered the last few elements because they were able to use math to predict what the characteristics of that element would be so they could recognize it when they found it? Have you ever once thought what the statistical possibility is that it all "just happened" out of thin air? Or do actually beleive the theory that the elements "evolved" and became increasingly complex.

What about biology. You do know that evolution only involves adaptation to specific environmental conditions. It has never involved increasing the complexity of an organism...because to become INCREASINGLY complex violates the Law of Entropy which says everything is moving to a state of increasing DISorder. Nature does not move in the direction of the simple becoming more complex over time...in thousands of years of recorded history when have we actually seen that take place? If aomeba can evolve to become more complex organisms, why do aomeba still exist? Why haven't we been able to observe ANY evolution in the aomeba population? Hemaphroditic organisms do NOT "evolve" to become two gender specific organisms...think about this! If a hemaphroditic organism produced a female offspring, what would it mate with in order to continue the gender specific trend?

It takes just as much faith to believe what science promotes as truth as it does to believe that an "Intelligent Being" created it all for his purpose by his design.

 

[Thinker]

Oh, antibiotics? LOL! My own medical doctor rarely perscribes antibiotics because they don't work in all cases

I very much doubt this is true.

Some people die after an operation to address appendicitis. Therefore that
operation "doesn't work in all cases". Would you be happy if your doctor refused
to operate on you for that reason? You would rather be left to die?

... and {because} they also lower your immunity over time.

That is an argument for not giving them for a long time, not abandoning them
altogether.

 

[Thinker]

Personally, I am one who believes that science proves the existance of God quite well.

Check out that Periodic Table. Ever notice the pattern in the numbers?

That's why it's called the periodic table.

The increasing complexity of the elements? Did you know scientist discovered the last few elements because they were able to use math to predict what the characteristics of that element would be so they could recognize it when they found it?

Yes, the periodic table is useful.

Have you ever once thought what the statistical possibility is that it all "just happened" out of thin air?

Yes, many times. It is not difficult to see how everything could derive
naturally from a number of fairly simple laws. Believing that some entity made
it all happen with a simple "fiat lux" simply shifts the problem back to the
unknown origin of that hypothetical entity.

Or do actually beleive the theory that the elements "evolved" and became increasingly complex.

A single water molecule is a fairly simple thing. Get a lot of them together
when it's cold and they manage all by themselves to create an extremely
complex thing: a snowflake.

Your basic mistake is to leap from your inability to understand how complexity
can arise from simplicity to a conclusion that it cannot happen without the
intervention of a supernatural force.

What about biology. You do know that evolution only involves adaptation to specific environmental conditions.

If you mean that the environment drives selection, then yes.

It has never involved increasing the complexity of an organism

Read the many threads here that show you are wrong.

...because to become INCREASINGLY complex violates the Law of Entropy which says everything is moving to a state of increasing DISorder.

You are simply regurgitating nonsense spouted by ignorant people.

Try doing a little research before you repeat this claim. A good place to start
is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

Nature does not move in the direction of the simple becoming more complex over time...in thousands of years of recorded history when have we actually seen that take place?

The fossil record is full of such examples.

If aomeba can evolve to become more complex organisms, why do aomeba still exist?

You clearly misunderstand evolution. When Organism X breeds, most of the
offspring will be just like X, but some will be slightly different. You now have
a mixed population: most are X, but some are a little different. Over time the
differences get larger, until you have a population of Xs and Ys. If both fit
the environment, they will probably remain like that. If Ys manage to breed
better than Xs we'll get more and more Ys and the Xs could die out. If Xs are
better, the Ys could die out.

Your question is just like asking: as I am derived from my grandparents, why
are they still alive?

Why haven't we been able to observe ANY evolution in the aomeba population?

Evolution takes time. Still, we HAVE observed evolution in viruses and other
organisms that have very high reproduction rates.

Hemaphroditic organisms do NOT "evolve" to become two gender specific organisms...think about this!

Why not? Because you say not?

If a hemaphroditic organism produced a female offspring, what would it mate with in order to continue the gender specific trend?

Once again you misunderstand evolution. You don't start with one thing and
"pop" it becomes something else. Sex could have evolved from gene sharing.
Try reading this: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4960

It takes just as much faith to believe what science promotes as truth as it does to believe that an "Intelligent Being" created it all for his purpose by his design.

Absolutely not. Science presents evidence that is checked and either
accepted or refuted. Errors get corrected and we progress. Belief in god, on
the other hand, accepts no error and smothers thought, with "god did it"
being the answer to everything.

 

[George_Washington]

It depends on what kind of science you are in. If you are in physics or quantum mechanic this view have nothing to do to your abilities.

Really? I seem to recall Einstein said creativity was more important than knowledge. If creativity means nothing in physics, than how do you explain two people that graduate from the same University, get the same grades, and one turns out more successful than the other? It would seem to me that creativity has something to do with it.

 

[George_Washington]

So now you've both retracted your argument as well as completely tossed out your orginal rational that.

I meant there is no proof that emotions are an extension of God in the, "scientific" sense of the word (since you wanted to bring up Biology). But then again, I believe I had said that we are far beyond fully understanding ourselves, much less science or biology. So I think the proof that love is an extension of God goes beyond science, to a deeper source.

1. God is love.
2. There is love
And the conclusion
3. Since there is love, there is god.
So can you dispense with the lies and admit that you erred?

Now with part two of your new premise in attacking my "original assertion". As if I had ever changed grounds on this at all.
Now your argument is to discredit my position and claim now that it's up in the air and there is no conclusion to the existance of god.
I have not up to this point even begun to argue for nor against the existance of a god. All I've argued thus far is the fallacy through ignorance that you have presented in explaining love.
You still have not pointed to the least bit of any errors associated with my reasoning nor answered the questions that I had provided that relate directly to the understanding of my premise.
Your logic is completely flawed and false on the basis that I have disproved your first premise of God is love.

I think you look at things as being too cut and dry.

 

[jfuh]

I meant there is no proof that emotions are an extension of God in the, "scientific" sense of the word (since you wanted to bring up Biology). But then again, I believe I had said that we are far beyond fully understanding ourselves, much less science or biology. So I think the proof that love is an extension of God goes beyond science, to a deeper source.
I think you look at things as being too cut and dry.

You brought up the science:

What kind of, "scientific" proof could anyone conjure up that would explain the awkwardness, the insecurity, the confusion, and all of that illusory stuff?

The science was provided, there is no grey in science, everything is cold, hard, fact.
If you didn't mention that science tidbit, which you should now clearly see is false, then this would've been a metaphysical debate which I would've taken a different approach.
But here's my take on god.
God exists in your heart, so if you say god exists good for you. If some one else says god doesn't exists, good for them. There's absolutely nothing that prooves unquestionably that god exists or doesn't exist.

 

[jfuh]

Personally, I am one who believes that science proves the existance of God quite well.

Check out that Periodic Table. Ever notice the pattern in the numbers? The increasing complexity of the elements? Did you know scientist discovered the last few elements because they were able to use math to predict what the characteristics of that element would be so they could recognize it when they found it? Have you ever once thought what the statistical possibility is that it all "just happened" out of thin air? Or do actually beleive the theory that the elements "evolved" and became increasingly complex.

Never took quantum mechanics huh?

What about biology. You do know that evolution only involves adaptation to specific environmental conditions.

Not true at all

It has never involved increasing the complexity of an organism...because to become INCREASINGLY complex violates the Law of Entropy which says everything is moving to a state of increasing DISorder.

Fallacy of juxtaposition, nothing in biology violates thermodynamics, increasing complexity does not violate either.

Nature does not move in the direction of the simple becoming more complex over time...in thousands of years of recorded history when have we actually seen that take place?

Ever seen a virus before? How do you know you've caught one if you can not see it then? Ever seen an atom? How do you know those are the building blocks of mater? E=mc^2, that being the case then that means Atoms are really energy blocks so what's energy? Seen it before? How do you know it exists. Ignorance doesn't mean anything rev. Nature not moving towards complexity is a completely flawed claim meant to misslead. Where did all the elements come from? Fusion, does fusion occur naturally? certainly look no further then that bright yellow ball in the sky.

If aomeba can evolve to become more complex organisms, why do aomeba still exist?

Wrong, the amoeba did not evolve to become more complex organisms.

Why haven't we been able to observe ANY evolution in the aomeba population?

We certainly have.

Hemaphroditic organisms do NOT "evolve" to become two gender specific organisms...think about this! If a hemaphroditic organism produced a female offspring, what would it mate with in order to continue the gender specific trend?

I suggest you read what evolution is before you continue on this line of making a fool of yourself.

It takes just as much faith to believe what science promotes as truth as it does to believe that an "Intelligent Being" created it all for his purpose by his design.

No, science requires no faith. You can observe it, you can predict it, you can experiment with it, you can proove it. Intelligent being that can never be prooven nor observed requires faith.

 

[George_Washington]

You brought up the science:

The science was provided, there is no grey in science, everything is cold, hard, fact.
If you didn't mention that science tidbit, which you should now clearly see is false, then this would've been a metaphysical debate which I would've taken a different approach.
But here's my take on god.
God exists in your heart, so if you say god exists good for you. If some one else says god doesn't exists, good for them. There's absolutely nothing that prooves unquestionably that god exists or doesn't exist.

Well, yes I brought up science. I do not believe that science can really explain the depth of human emotions. I'm just not sure where you're really going with this. I cannot prove my statement in a scientific sense, that's what I meant. But I don't think that means what I said didn't contain possible truth. Like I've said, I don't just base my opinions on subject matters just on what current scientists have to say. Why should I? Are they infallible? Are we not learning new things every day? I think science is a very noteworthy thing but that doesn't mean I don't have faith in things.

Look, science is not just all about cold, hard fact. I am not a scientist by any means but I'm not dumb about the subject matter either. I received good grades in my science classes in college. I didn't take biology in college so my knowledge is probably pretty rusty on that. But what I'm saying is, certain things in science are relative to space, time, and other instances. Newton's Laws, which were thought to have been absolute, were later discovered not to work on the quantum level. So where are the cold, hard facts there? There are certain things in science that we know more conclusively than others, such as we know that lenses can help people see better. But even that field is changing as we speak.

Furthermore, I do not believe there is any absolute evidence that emotions are only caused by chemicals. If that were the case, then how do you explain why people act the way they do without any plausible explanation? How do you explain how, for example, people with severe disabilities have produced extraordinary things? How do you explain how Beethoven was able to create such astounding music with being deaf? We can look at peoples' brains and make, "guesses" but they're really just that, guesses. The truth is, some people are just so profoundly gifted that their talent surpasses our ability to locate it.

 

[Thinker]

Furthermore, I do not believe there is any absolute evidence that emotions are only caused by chemicals. If that were the case, then how do you explain why people act the way they do without any plausible explanation?

We have computer systems where each and every instruction is known and yet
we cannot predict their behaviour. Even the motion of something as simple as
three bodies moving under mutual gravitational attraction can only be predicted
by simulation.

It is not surprising then that something as complex as the human brain quite
naturally generates behaviour that is inexplicable.

One's inability to see how or why something works does not provide evidence
for the supernatural.

 

[talloulou]

I was thinking to myself the other day that the most obvious proof that there is a God is the simple notion of love. I have announced on here before that I am Catholic, which I am, but I am speaking more of the basic belief in a higher power rather than an endorsement of mine or any other particular faith.

Think about it: The concept of love appears to be the strongest force in the Universe. Love is what has motivated people to go to war, steal, cheat, lie, kill, and more. It reminds me of that Beatles song, "All you need is love..."

What kind of, "scientific" proof could anyone conjure up that would explain the awkwardness, the insecurity, the confusion, and all of that illusory stuff? Who could really explain the whole experience of love and how it hurts when you're not with that other person? Who could possibly explain how somebody can love another person for what they are or almost are and no matter what they do or say? The very concept of love is highly irrational yet also, highly logical.

This powerful force known as love, I think, really proves that there are forces that exist greater than ourselves and even than the entire Universe. I think if we were really to give up our faith in love, feelings, and God, we would be denying ourselves a lot of happiness.

Heck if you found love and it reinforces your belief in God....God bless ya. Your post gets a little too Lennon/Yoko goofy in a few spots but hey love is intoxicating just like cheap wine. :rofl