POLL: Is there a God ??
- Thread starter megablue
- Start date
The larger point is that you can create very low probability events at home with simple experiments. Looking at life and saying "wow amazing" and then concluding a designer exists is often presented here, and is a leap of logic.
No it has nothing to do with equal probabilities -- it has to do with looking at each instance as independent events.
Which woudl be a poorly reasoned argument.
It could be that such a sequence of independent events is so improbable, that it would be impossible.
You have no evidence in favor of the existence of god, in fact, everyone is born not believing. Most children are indoctrinated into the belief from their indoctrinated parents. Kids also believe in Santa until they're told he isn't real. If only it also worked for believing in a fairy man that exerts suffering on people and demands they believe he died for them to gain access to heaven.
What's worse is that His "Word" is so wildly translated and mistranslated and there are so many factions of Christianity that this supreme being couldn't even make sure people knew without a doubt what's true and what isn't.
God conveniently stopped interacting directly with people using his magic in ancient times too. Come on God, surely you understand seeing is believing?
Why god do you allow for children to be raped by people while also giving children childhood cancer? It makes sense, I guess, because you murdered babies in Egypt and had others mauled by bears before. But to me, a mere mortal, not even I would allow that sort of repulsive behavior to exist.
Sin exists because an apple was eaten. Children are brutally raped and murdered and people starve and wars happen and people are robbed and mass shootings happen because a piece of fruit was eaten. It's almost like it doesn't make sense because, well, it doesn't.
I believe I have overwhelming evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, in my own experience, I would say beyond any doubt whatsoever.
But I have also said I can't make a clever argument, or devise some experiment, and prove His existence to you. I would win a nobel prize if I could.
The reality is, God doesn't make Himself known like that. I don't find it remarkable that you atheists deny Him, and then you never see Him, only see "evidence" against Him. That's what I would expect, and when I think back to the way I was myself as an atheist, I had many of the same thoughts. I could, and did, rationalize Him as being improbable too, just man's creation as a fantasy or wishful thinking.
Thanks for stopping by, now move along pilgrim.....
Take it to church, they'll gladly listen to your struggle, for a small fee of course.
The only thing certain, is if there is a god, he sure as shit isn’t a cowboys fan.
I must have missed the part where anyone said the human body was immortal? The body wasn’t designed by God to live forever, as for me, I’m just passing thru.
I have a challenge for you. Start right now and pray every single day that your kids, your spouse and your parents die. If you have a problem with that, you aren’t as much of an atheist as you think.
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
The Dude made that happen. The Dude. His Dudeness. Duder. El Duderino, if you’re not into the whole brevity thing, man!
No need for prayers, your God has already killed one of my kids....
Six months old suffered for two years until death (subdural hematoma) ....what was his sin?
I guarantee you I'm atheist as anyone can be.
Last edited:
I’m so sorry to hear that man, truly.
I know you won’t understand this but that baby is in the presence of the Almighty, running and playing without any pain or sickness. The only thing that would make heaven any sweeter for that baby is if you would join him there.
Hating God and not believing in him are 2 different things and I sense you believe deep down and when the time is right, God will show himself to you in a way that there’s no other explanation.
If you are as atheist as you claim, you should have already prayed that your other children and wife dies, because what will it hurt if he doesn’t exist?
There is no evidence that this is true.
What sense have you received from me that deep down....I believe?
Let me tell you, I don't believe your claim of God. Even if a God exist, I see no reason to worship such a jealous, selfish, vindictive, cruel, and unjust God.
Evolution is not a theory for the creation of life. And, the chances of spontaneous reproducible life is exponentially more remote than winning the lottery twice.
Here is the ridiculous part of attempting to assess the probability of spontaneous life, let alone life that reproduces and later evolves: you are starting from an understanding that life exists. So, you know we are a planet of life and, therefore, you are predisposed to believing life happens. It’s all around us so it must not be improbable.
Once you exclude design, even though life from the DNA level up has the appearance of design, your faith must go to something spontaneous. And, as much as the prideful deny it, it takes faith.
Once you exclude design, even though life from the DNA level up has the appearance of design, your faith must go to something spontaneous. And, as much as the prideful deny it, it takes faith.
So evolution doesn't indicate that consciousness emerged/ evolved?
If you take a deck of cards and lay them out, the probability of the card sequence in that exact order is:
1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000.
Yet it would have just happened. The point is extremely improbable events occur. Even if the probability of life is almost "impossible", don't see how that is evidence for a single creator idea. It could be multiple creators, something beyond our comprehension, or simply an improbable event occurring.
Which is what I said in the beginning; that's all you achieve in "your" objection. You are just saying that improbable events happen, nothing more. It answers nothing; certainly says nothing about the origin of conscoiusness, or what it even is. Consciousness is not something we can even properly define, much less definitively say that random chance could be an explanation. When a poster says he sees God in the birth of the child, that's just the inverse of the atheist seeing nothing but random chance, or just some evolutionary deterministic process.
It is a data point, insufficient on its own to logically conclude that a single designer exists, yes.
But when you start stacking multiple improbable events, many of which are so improbable we can't even calculate how improbable and are indeed completely clueless about their fundamental nature, each of which is necessary for the outcome that we perceive, namely the miracle of life itself and the "appearance" of design, you get an even more exceedingly improbable event, impossible even.
This makes the improbability of it all evidence for a Creator, not against.
And speaking of logic, you have no reason whatsoever to trust (i.e, put faith in) your logic absent a Creative source. If you categorically deny one, which is what you do by suggesting evertying is the result of cance, that it is just an improbable event occurring, then you are saying that logic itself must be resultant of random processes, i.e. an irrational source. Logic itself cannot have an illogical foundation, be resulltant of random chance processes, if you are going to claim it rational. You are in the same place you are with your probability objection to life's origin, handwaving away an explanation for logic too, then patting yourselves on the back for being logical instead of "magical." "It just is: it just works, but we don't know why and can't know why."
To that end, the evidence for a Creator is so overwhelming, I personally would even go so far as to say it is a logical necessity, that many atheists have abandoned their idea that God, and belief in Him, is irrational and have instead replaced it with various speculations like simulation theory. We must live inside a more advanced civilization's computer, they're forced to speculate, which is precisely what they accuse religion of doing, just making up a god. They aren't entirely wrong there, incidentally. Man makes up gods in his image because he desires things to be on his terms and he wants control.
A single mind as the Creator, independent of His creation, is the simplest solution, and therefore the most likely. From that understanding, the next logical question is, "what is His nature?" The Bible answers that and nothing else. Everything else is man made religion or philosophy and empty.
Life. Life. Evolution does nothing to explain the creation of life.
Your “event” theory does not explain the creation of life. You are simply saying it exists therefore it happened. I admire your faith.
When you say what I "achieved" -- first of all I was responding to a poster who claimed that because life is amazing, therefore there has to be God. You even say above that this is not sufficient to conclude a single designer exists.
Abiogenesis I think is a theory of the origins of consciousness. I'm not saying it is right, wrong or anything -- just that it is a theory of how life came about, and as such could be viewed as an independent event with a probability, and is thus comparable to other independent events. While such odds may be impossible to assess, or even viewed as "impossible", unto itself that is not evidence for creation. We've established that improbable events occur all the time, or it could simply be that the beginning of life is beyond our comprehension.
Is life on Earth truly improbable? There are 20 sextillion planets in the known universe-- that the conditions for life could occur on one planet may not be so improbable?
Abiogenesis I think is a theory of the origins of consciousness. I'm not saying it is right, wrong or anything -- just that it is a theory of how life came about, and as such could be viewed as an independent event with a probability, and is thus comparable to other independent events. While such odds may be impossible to assess, or even viewed as "impossible", unto itself that is not evidence for creation. We've established that improbable events occur all the time, or it could simply be that the beginning of life is beyond our comprehension.
Is life on Earth truly improbable? There are 20 sextillion planets in the known universe-- that the conditions for life could occur on one planet may not be so improbable?
Last edited:
The existence of other planets actually says nothing about the probability of life existing elsewhere, and nothing about the probability that it occurred here by chance. It could only do so provided we actually found it and determined it wasn't of the same origin as ours.
Disagree -- if certain conditions were needed for life to evolve biologically, then the more planets the better the odds those conditions appear on at least one planet.
I'm not an expert on the terminology-- what I am referring to are the biological explanations/theories for how life evolved from non-life, and then onto intelligent life.
What I am saying has nothing to do with the mechanisms of how life occurred -- it has to do with the logic of tying improbable biological events to evidences for creation -- doing so implies that the choice is binary -- either creation or biological -- when it seems the third option is simply that the explanation is beyond our comprehension. Moreover, improbable events occur all the time -- if in hindsight the necessary biological events were wholly improbable -- so what? Doesn't seem to imply much about creation.
The problem with the creator argument is where did the creator itself come from, as I mentioned a few pages ago. A biological explanation seems plausible -- is life occurring on one planet out of trillions on trillions of planets so improbable? Even if your view is that no biological processes could have created life from non-life -- then could it have been the work of a creator or creators? Maybe, but refer back to the problem with the creator argument -- the other possibility is that the explanation is simply beyond our comprehension.
Last edited:
That is a leap in logic.
You need to find it elsewhere to say anything about likelihood (probability) from conditions. That is fundamental to what is meant by the mathematical property, probability, because once you have found it independently arisen elsewhere, then and only then can you say something about the probability of it occurring throughout the universe as independent events. Simply findingthe conditions is insufficient to increase the probability without such a reason, or a similarly mathematically justifiable one.
And we do actually have certain methods we could use to find definitive evidence of life elsewhere, like from the gas composition of such planets could tell us there must be plants, which is possible to determine by analyzing the light coming from its star, nevermind we would be able to detect advanced life very easily. Yet, we have no such evidence. We look, constantly look, and find nothing. If life were anything but infinitely improbable, so as to be effectively impossible, the Universe would be teeming with it. Life would essentially be in every direction we looked.
A god that would need to be himself created is no God.
This is again something fundamental, and indicative of the very real reality that is unbeknownst to you (general) I stated earlier, that all atheistic objections are nonsensical. They say nothing. The moment you are saying God needs a first cause is the moment we are not talking about the same thing. The Creator is outside of space/time, which He created and which we "know" had a beginning, so is therefore not bound by it. This is another demonstrable
This is what truly doesn't make sense:
A creator is a very human notion -- especially the Biblical creator -- for he/she/it to be outside of space/time --- yet for you to be able describe he/she/it -- the same entity outside of space and time -- in such a simple way is nonsensical. Saying it is outside of space and time is to say that it is beyond our comprehension and cannot be comprehended or described as a king would be.
God is beyond our comprehension, beyond our very limited ability.
That does not mean He cannot make Himself known and understood to the Believer.
Even describing God as He and Him makes no sense. Again very human notions to an entity that exists outside of space and time.
Your question asking from where did the creator come is a question by the created attempting to limit the creator to His own creation. You cannot conceive of a reality that is not bound by space, time, and matter. A creator is outside of those constructs. Once you realize that, you realize your question is ignorant and justifiably so.
It is, but at least it's logical. We have our ability to reason, indeed logic itself, because He has given it to us. He doesn't want us to be confused, so we are not.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
If you cannot conceive it, you also cannot describe it and relate to it in extremely human ways. It's all contradiction.
There's no contradiction.
But such "contradiction" can be found everywhere. Certain philosophers believed this; they were/are wrong.
We can reason because we have a developed brain. If you think we have a brain because of God, I have no objection, but it doesn't change the logic you are using -- applying human concepts to a non-human entity.
This is a he said - she said type of argument to which is silly to respond to.
I'm not making an argument.
What is logic, more fundamentally? The great scientists understood this, even the atheistic ones like Einstein. He noted, paraphrasing, the most incomprehensible thing abot the universe is that it is comprehensible. This led him to "believe" in a god behind it, an impersonal god (god of Spinoza) not the personal God that is Jesus. That there must be a mind behind his equations.
And there is something to be said about biology and that developed brain. In other, that is to say all, avenues of biology, you can dissect an organism and from that, you can infer EVERYTHING about its environment, ike say from a bird you can get Earth's gravity and atmospheric composition, what it eats etc. Meaning the animal is uniquely suited for the environment.
What does that say about our minds and how it relates to your so-defined human concepts of God.
Last edited:
Again, you are attempting to limit the creator by saying what HE cannot do. He CAN relate to His creation, even if His creation can only understand the basics of His existence.
So sorry to hear about that. Cannot imagine what that has been like for you and your family.
I do rejoice in the fact that your child is in the presence of God for all eternity, where they are pain free and experiencing an unspeakable joy. Something I look forward to as well.
Similar threads
