POLL: Is there a God ??
- Thread starter megablue
- Start date
I can't speak for the other creator believers in this thread, but I have consistently said, that my belief in God is a matter of faith, and not proof.
The overwhelming majority of ABSOLUTES in this thread have come from those that purport NOT to believe in God. (full disclosure, that may not be accurate. I should have said, of the pages I've participated in. I didn't go back and read the entire thread from the beginning)
And so, with that being said, "One can openly state they have no damn clue what is going on, and also claim that the spontaneous propagation of life on this planet is a theory, and has, in truth, essentially no evidence to back it up, and so I can equally claim that it is made-up nonsensical BS. The two are not mutually exclusive."
We BOTH believe in something and neither of us has any logical, fact based reason, at this point, to do so. The difference between us, is that I'm not too stubborn to admit it.
I think that should about wrap this up. I'm always glad to help out.
The overwhelming majority of ABSOLUTES in this thread have come from those that purport NOT to believe in God. (full disclosure, that may not be accurate. I should have said, of the pages I've participated in. I didn't go back and read the entire thread from the beginning)
And so, with that being said, "One can openly state they have no damn clue what is going on, and also claim that the spontaneous propagation of life on this planet is a theory, and has, in truth, essentially no evidence to back it up, and so I can equally claim that it is made-up nonsensical BS. The two are not mutually exclusive."
We BOTH believe in something and neither of us has any logical, fact based reason, at this point, to do so. The difference between us, is that I'm not too stubborn to admit it.
I think that should about wrap this up. I'm always glad to help out.
Last edited:
It takes a lot of time and effort to pick apart this much poor logic.
Would have saved me a lot of time if you'd have just said you were scientifically ignorant and one of our local religious nuts.
Science is not a belief system. Interpreting evidence and then drawing inferences from them or using mathematics to explain things you don't have physical evidence of are not based on "belief" there, Ayatollah.
How do you think black holes were discovered? By falling into one? Oh, nobody fell into a black hole so it's a belief system!
So I ask you, when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry, or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death, or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trauma from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, you go ahead and read your Bible, Hyman, and you go to your church and with any luck you might win the annual raffle. But if you're looking for God, he was in The Paddock in the "Is There a God" thread on April 2nd, and he doesn't like to be second guessed.
Last edited:
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
Haha yeah, none of this is genuine logic and reason to not believe, i.e. the existence of man-made "gods" does not preclude God's existence, nor does science describing the material world and its mechanisms do anything to preclude Him either... incidentally, I too was a nonbeliever (some first 25 ywears or so of my life) before I was a believer.
So the closer you got to death the more you looked for a crutch. Shocking.
No, no crutch... ~25 years old is the prime of one's life in most respects.
And I was staunchly atheist, thought it all ridiculous and absurd myself. Perhaps the primary difference between me then and what I read from you (pl) here now is that I was never hostile toward the idea.
The false logic isn't in accepting on faith what you can't prove (life out of nothing on it's own, or a God that created it) it is in presenting your unprovable opinion as fact. Which was being thrown around on here like mardi gras beads on Bourbon St.
Last edited:
The ad hominem attacks have primarily come from the "agnostic" contingent. Another little observation.
That is a fairly bad look. Just saying.
That is a fairly bad look. Just saying.
You have an uncanny ability to completely miss the point, almost 100 percent of the time.Would have saved me a lot of time if you'd have just said you were scientifically ignorant and one of our local religious nuts.
Science is not a belief system. Interpreting evidence and then drawing inferences from them or using mathematics to explain things you don't have physical evidence of are not based on "belief" there, Ayatollah.
How do you think black holes were discovered? By falling into one? Oh, nobody fell into a black hole so it's a belief system!
LOL
There is virtually no scientific evidence archeological and/or lab work (so far) to substantiate the THEORY that life spawned, on it's own, out of inorganic material. You (quite illogically I might add) extrapolated that into: HK thinks all of science is unproven. smh
I'd bet a mortgage payment that I would lap you in a proctored science exam, regardless of the area (unless you're an engineer in which case you would probably kill me in physics). I have literally ZERO doubt about that in fact. I base at least half of my confidence on your demonstrably poor reading comprehension skills. LOL
Last edited:
I've seen a thousand internet muscles flex and want to fight, but I have to admit you're the first keyboard genius to challenge me to an exam fight.
Your statement that "scientific theory on the origins of life on earth are essentially a belief system" is to my reading the single dumbest statement in this thread that has many a gem, if your boisterous empty chest beating was meant to salve that horrendous misstatement, then it failed.
Because science cannot definitively say something does not mean it is reduced to a belief system. We state what we know for certain then from those things we make logical inferences and propose scientific theory, and those are tested over time and continuously open for rigorous peer reviewed debate. The fact that science is hesitant to definitively state something with certainty does not reduce it in any way to mere belief no matter how desperately the cloud guy fan club wishes it were so.
Your statement that "scientific theory on the origins of life on earth are essentially a belief system" is to my reading the single dumbest statement in this thread that has many a gem, if your boisterous empty chest beating was meant to salve that horrendous misstatement, then it failed.
Because science cannot definitively say something does not mean it is reduced to a belief system. We state what we know for certain then from those things we make logical inferences and propose scientific theory, and those are tested over time and continuously open for rigorous peer reviewed debate. The fact that science is hesitant to definitively state something with certainty does not reduce it in any way to mere belief no matter how desperately the cloud guy fan club wishes it were so.
It's all around you every day. Your inability to understand and comprehend this speaks volumes.
Just be you and I'll wish you well.
There are various aspects of SCIENCE!™ (our understing -big bang cosmology, evolution) which are impossible according to our current models and theory. We don't know how it happened, just that it happened. When you are saying you know that science "disproves" a creator, you are taking those unknowns on faith: that one day the understandig will evolve such that a universe from nothing and all the incredible machinations within it could arise solely by chance, sufficient entirely to itself.
That is indeed taking something on faith.
That is indeed taking something on faith.
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
I don't recall seeing anyone say this in this entire thread. Could you find where someone did and quote it?
TIA
I appreciate that atheists take the position that they don’t have to disprove a creator. It’s part of their faith. Now, proving abiogenesis? If science has the answers, you may want to start there.
Of course there is a God. No idea why anyone would believe He doesnt exist.
Also there is a Satan too. Just look at how effed up the world is right now.
Also there is a Satan too. Just look at how effed up the world is right now.
Science has proven that the answer is yes. Anyone that says no is a science denier.
I'll try this one more time. Science can not point to any EVIDENCE that life started, on it's own, from inorganic matter, yet they BELIEVE that that is how life came to be, on this planet.
No EVIDENCE
yet They BELIEVE it.
I hate to break it to you but, that is FAITH. And you continue to imply that I'm making a blanket statement about SCIENCE in general. I'm not. I'm talking about what scientists THINK happened, even though they have no evidence to support it. It's their best guess, so to speak.
It is clear to me that some, maybe most of you all are not actually aware of just how tenuous the scientific community's theory on the origins of life on this planet are.
I think you are making broad assumptions, and that there is reasonable and observed science that LED them to this conclusion, and thus, anyone that questions it is a science denier.
In reality, as it stands NOW, they are saying that this is the only way it COULD have happened, if you don't believe in a creator. IOW - there are only two alternatives: Creator, or by chance
Neither of them have a shred of proof to back it up. I just think some of you mistakenly believe that there IS evidence to back up the "happened by chance" side of things. While impugning the intelligence of others, for believing in something ELSE that has not a shred of proof to back it up.
There is word for people like that.
Also, even though "you can't prove a negative" isn't actually true, Science, as some of you claim will never be able to logically PROVE that God doesn't exist. Even if science crates life from non-living matter in a lab (which I'm sure they will one day, but is a completely different thing than it happening on it's own, which, ironically, provides anecdotal evidence that it requires a little help to get it started) someone that believes in God will say, "Yep, that's how God made it happen". See? LOL
That is an impossible proof, so, to both sides, can we just stop prattling on about that?
I think you are making broad assumptions, and that there is reasonable and observed science that LED them to this conclusion, and thus, anyone that questions it is a science denier.
In reality, as it stands NOW, they are saying that this is the only way it COULD have happened, if you don't believe in a creator. IOW - there are only two alternatives: Creator, or by chance
Neither of them have a shred of proof to back it up. I just think some of you mistakenly believe that there IS evidence to back up the "happened by chance" side of things. While impugning the intelligence of others, for believing in something ELSE that has not a shred of proof to back it up.
There is word for people like that.
Also, even though "you can't prove a negative" isn't actually true, Science, as some of you claim will never be able to logically PROVE that God doesn't exist. Even if science crates life from non-living matter in a lab (which I'm sure they will one day, but is a completely different thing than it happening on it's own, which, ironically, provides anecdotal evidence that it requires a little help to get it started) someone that believes in God will say, "Yep, that's how God made it happen". See? LOL
That is an impossible proof, so, to both sides, can we just stop prattling on about that?
Last edited:
Interesting, so how does your more sophisticated brain explain life and more specifically, abiogenesis.
"The fact that science is hesitant to definitively state something with certainty does not reduce it in any way to mere belief"
LOL - That is, by definition, EXACTLY what it does. LOL
Fact vs. opinion (educated guess, pretty darn sure, based on X we believe...) is binary.
LOL - That is, by definition, EXACTLY what it does. LOL
Fact vs. opinion (educated guess, pretty darn sure, based on X we believe...) is binary.
Last edited:
No, I meant inorganic.
Not consisting of or deriving from living matter. IIRC they HAVE spawned a living cell in a lab, but they had to use organic material that had become inanimate (died) thus the distinction.
Was that all?
Not consisting of or deriving from living matter. IIRC they HAVE spawned a living cell in a lab, but they had to use organic material that had become inanimate (died) thus the distinction.
Was that all?
Last edited:
I'm aware of that, but I explained why I made the distinction. Given life as we are discussing here, it follows that if matter is inorganic, it's going to be inanimate as well. Covering my bases because, like I said, they had to borrow cells (organic, yet inanimate) and use synthesized DNA to reanimate a cell. Which of course, is still not spawning life where there never was before. they just put a new engine in a car that used to run. That's a far cry from a car that built itself, or was built by accident.
Last edited:
All Hyman wants me to do is tackle one of the great questions in science here on a general discussion thread on a sports website.
Science has not solved the riddle of the ultimate creation of life on earth. We understand the fossil record, evolution, molecular biology, the distribution of biology across globe and how the geographical differences impacted evolution, but we do not know exactly what that first initial spark of life was.
However, what your Bible describes is provably and scientifically an impossibility. How does your Bible say all life on earth was created and is that supported by the physical evidence in the fossil record? Can we track all humans back to a single pair or that all animals are from a surviving pair on an ark?
What we understand in science is backed by solid observable and testable data across time in the fossil record and DNA evidence right up until today.
What you believe is scientific impossibility backed by nothing but confused scared people that don't want death and nothingness be their ultimate fate. So they tell themselves stories just like weak humans have always done when they were too superstitious or intellectually lacking to know why the sun rose in the morning so they decided a big bird delivered it.
So you want to suggest that because science does not know what the initial spark of life was that means everything including your bible is as good an explanation as any. That is foolish on its face. You don't get to step into the scientific voids and fill it with your superstitions.
Science has not solved the riddle of the ultimate creation of life on earth. We understand the fossil record, evolution, molecular biology, the distribution of biology across globe and how the geographical differences impacted evolution, but we do not know exactly what that first initial spark of life was.
However, what your Bible describes is provably and scientifically an impossibility. How does your Bible say all life on earth was created and is that supported by the physical evidence in the fossil record? Can we track all humans back to a single pair or that all animals are from a surviving pair on an ark?
What we understand in science is backed by solid observable and testable data across time in the fossil record and DNA evidence right up until today.
What you believe is scientific impossibility backed by nothing but confused scared people that don't want death and nothingness be their ultimate fate. So they tell themselves stories just like weak humans have always done when they were too superstitious or intellectually lacking to know why the sun rose in the morning so they decided a big bird delivered it.
So you want to suggest that because science does not know what the initial spark of life was that means everything including your bible is as good an explanation as any. That is foolish on its face. You don't get to step into the scientific voids and fill it with your superstitions.
No, I just want you to admit that the scientific evidence does NOT in fact support abiogenesis. Not at all. There has been no discovery, no experiment, no data etc. to support the theory that life came from nothing, on it's own, which is what the theory states.
They say it came from a primordial soup that was struck by lightning. We don't know how, but that HAS to be the explanation, and we'll figure out the rest. In the meantime, just take our word for it.
If you disagree with that characterization of it, well, to be blunt, I'm having to explain YOUR half of the argument for you, because you just don't know what you're talking about.
That sounds EXACTLY like a religion to me. LOL IOW, you DO believe in a religion, you're just not aware that you do.
And you're the only one that keeps bringing the Bible up. The previous sentence is the first time I've typed it in this thread.
They say it came from a primordial soup that was struck by lightning. We don't know how, but that HAS to be the explanation, and we'll figure out the rest. In the meantime, just take our word for it.
If you disagree with that characterization of it, well, to be blunt, I'm having to explain YOUR half of the argument for you, because you just don't know what you're talking about.
That sounds EXACTLY like a religion to me. LOL IOW, you DO believe in a religion, you're just not aware that you do.
And you're the only one that keeps bringing the Bible up. The previous sentence is the first time I've typed it in this thread.
So because science doesn't understand what sparked life on earth then the bible is as good an explanation as any?
Again with the Bible LOL
If there are TWO alternatives: Happened on it's own OR something created it (forget the Bible etc.)
and there is no evidence for either ONE, then well, yes, one IS as good as the other. And yet, you keep insisting that one is absurd and the other is not because someone TOLD you to take their word for it in spite of the fact they have nothing tangible to support that idea. (a literal definition of religion)
What is so hard to understand about that? LOL
If there are TWO alternatives: Happened on it's own OR something created it (forget the Bible etc.)
and there is no evidence for either ONE, then well, yes, one IS as good as the other. And yet, you keep insisting that one is absurd and the other is not because someone TOLD you to take their word for it in spite of the fact they have nothing tangible to support that idea. (a literal definition of religion)
What is so hard to understand about that? LOL
Last edited:
You need to take a position. If you're in the "something" crowd then was it a biblical creation or aliens sprinkling us on monkeys?
I'll stick with the following as the best we understand right now:
Simple organic molecules were formed from gradual evolutionary complexity over time.
Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.
Replicating molecules became enclosed within a cell membrane.
Some cells began to evolve modern metabolic processes and out-competed those with older forms of metabolism.
Eventually Multicellularity evolved.
From soup to cells: The origin of life
I'll stick with the following as the best we understand right now:
Simple organic molecules were formed from gradual evolutionary complexity over time.
Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.
Replicating molecules became enclosed within a cell membrane.
Some cells began to evolve modern metabolic processes and out-competed those with older forms of metabolism.
Eventually Multicellularity evolved.
From soup to cells: The origin of life
My "position" has been consistent, and I only got involved here because the "science" crowd insists that there is an actual reason, or evidence that makes abiogenesis more reasonable than the idea of a creator.
The list of things you just typed has a problem. There is no evidence to support that it happened spontaneously. Which, you know, is pretty much the entire debate. You're just repeating what they think (without evidence) happened.
LOL - I am NOT trying to convince you that God exists. I'm just trying to explain to you that you're relying on faith every bit as much as a person that DOES.
We're two sides of the same coin (my side just happens to be, right now anyway, a little more self aware LOL)
The list of things you just typed has a problem. There is no evidence to support that it happened spontaneously. Which, you know, is pretty much the entire debate. You're just repeating what they think (without evidence) happened.
LOL - I am NOT trying to convince you that God exists. I'm just trying to explain to you that you're relying on faith every bit as much as a person that DOES.
We're two sides of the same coin (my side just happens to be, right now anyway, a little more self aware LOL)
There is ample evidence to suggest how life began and only the absence of an absolute answer to suggest a magical creator.
The way science and debate works is you must defend your position, not say your position is correct because something is wrong with mine.
Make your case or shut up. Essentially.
My case is that you are intellectually dishonest, and don't understand the difference between facts and ideas.
And I don't have to prove it, You're doing it for me, with every post.
And (this is only an educated guess) someone that has strongly held Biblical beliefs. hurt you, at some point in your life. Which is a shame if true.
And I don't have to prove it, You're doing it for me, with every post.
And (this is only an educated guess) someone that has strongly held Biblical beliefs. hurt you, at some point in your life. Which is a shame if true.
LOL - I rest my case.
If you ever get something of substance to back up your belief that life just popped up on this marble, on it's own, get back with me.
From one religious person to another (just a different one),
Peace.
If you ever get something of substance to back up your belief that life just popped up on this marble, on it's own, get back with me.
From one religious person to another (just a different one),
Peace.
Good, because I've already accepted your defeat and at this point things would just get awkward.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Best Action Movie Star Run of the 80s/90s?
- Latest: Someguywhodoesntlikeyou