"Why is it important for non-believers to prove there is no God?"

Discussion in 'Your Religion & Spiritual Corner' started by Aladdin, Jun 16, 2008.

ATTN: Our forums have moved here! You can still read these forums but if you'd like to participate, mosey on over to the new location.

  1. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Hi Joe,

    I can appreciate your prowess in science, and although an engineer myself in some ways, I defer to your expert opinion on many of these matters. Still, referring to your quotes brought forward above, am I not correct when I submit that your description of how life came about is merely speculation in and of itself? Am I not correct when I submit that this speculation has no science, no theory, theory that can and has been tested to support it? I mean, that description sounds all fine and good; but a decent respect to my side of the discussion begs that I ask what science there is to support it. I know of none.

    Secondly, regarding the creation of matter, are we not talking here about sub-atomic particles, new ones theorized in order to explain phenomenon otherwise unexplained? And in so doing, do we also not bring into the discussion the idea of alternate universes? If that is the case, then how would the scientist know whether what he or she perceives as created matter, is really matter previously existing in an alternate universe but which was brought across the great abyss to this one? If that is the case, then conservation of energy is still valid, even at the sub-atomic level. Just a question, but one that requires answering. Science can create alternate universes when it needs them, why can't I put them to use in this discussion?

    As I have recently written, I cannot get around the notion that science has a built-in problem to overcome when trying to explain our universe in one unifying theory, at least going down the road it presently goes down. That problem is that it cannot test the theory. The unifying theory requires alternate universes; but we have access to only one. I believe you help to make that point in the last paragraph I brought forward.

    Hank
     
  2. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Hey, that works. Can't argue with that. No way I'd be able to convince you otherwise even if it were appropriate to do so, which it isn't. Great talking to you and best of luck!
     
  3. Wobbles

    Wobbles Storm (April 15, 1992 - November 17, 2006)

    Jim, I like that quote by Robinson Jeffers. It captures the drama of the big bang, much better than any stuffy physics explanation could.

    Diane, since I do not have any direct experiences with the healings and apparitions that you mention, I do not have any good thoughts on these matters. When I sit out in the night and gaze upon the starry heavens, I feel a certain sense of awe. For me (and many others) there is a spiritual feeling of great comfort and joy when gazing upon nature. I also get similar feelings when I listen to music, read a good novel or read a poem. For example, I consider your poems amongst the best that I’ve ever read. They evoke a spiritual response in me. Now, I ask you (rhetorically), how do you do that? How can you affect me so much? It’s a marvel to me.
    Henry, you’ve asked some good questions. I do not think that the scientific perspective on the onset of life should be considered to be speculation. It is no more speculative than the theory of the formation of planet earth. For sure, nobody was there to record the events. Instead, scientists use the relevant laws of nature to explain how the planet earth formed and how life came into existence.
    I do not think anybody will be able to point to the first molecule of life. Instead, scientists have demonstrated in the lab that they can easily form a whole host of molecules that are intrinsic to life; the scientists use methods that would have occurred naturally. You should be able to find references to these experiments from the biology department of your local university. I think I can summarize the situation with the statement, “ the onset of life on earth is consistent with the laws of nature.”

    Regarding the creation of matter, physicists create both subatomic particles and atomic particles. Ordinary protons and electrons are routinely created.

    (This paragraph should be skipped by anybody not interested in details.) There is a very interesting point of view amongst particle physicists as to what happens when particles are created. For example, physicists talk about pulling the particles out of the vacuum state. Quantum physics tells us that the normal conservation laws of physics are broken in the small regions of space-time. This is happening everywhere. Every tiny morsel of space-time is alive with quantized matter states popping in and out of existence. These fleeting states are said to break local causality principles. These symmetry-breaking paradoxes are set right by the global symmetry properties of the underlying fields. When this point of view is taken, the very existence of the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces is predicted. Of all the discoveries in particle physics of the late 20th century, I count this amongst the most poignant.

    Finally, Henry, I agree with you that there is the issue of whether certain theories are testable. Science is an empirical matter. Without experiments to verify ideas, science falls apart. As it stands now, most of the data that is used in forming/testing theories of cosmology are coming from astronomical observations and high energy physics experiments. Both these areas are very active and it is impossible to know what will be found. I like to think that there will be many surprises. However, it is unclear whether the idea of multiverse is testable.

    Joe
     
  4. bhavv

    bhavv New Member

    No. There is plenty of research and Evidence in support of Evolution from many different areas of Science. Gravity began as just a theory. The Earth being round and orbitting the sun began as just a theory. Everything in Science begins as theories untill it is either proven or disproven. Althougth Evolution hasnt yet been proven, there is plenty of supporting evidence for the theory, and there has yet been nothing that has disproved it.

    From Geography, we have probably the most powerful evidence - Carbon dating of rocks proven to be far older then how old religion thinks the world is.

    From Physics - We already know how solar systems, planets, and other matter in the universe forms. It is far more likely that our solar system also developed according to how Physics explains it, then having been created by God.

    From Chemistry, we have observed inorganic compounds forming organic compounds. I cant remember the details of this study, it was one of my friends studying Environment modules on her Biology degree that told me about this, I only studied human.

    From biology, we have the most evidence for evolution in living creatures - Genetics. There was recently a breakthrough in the study of evolution and mutations right here:

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

    Oh, and there is evidence from archeology and human skulls that early man wasnt very clever. The cranium of the skulls of the first humans were around 33-50% smaller then the skulls we have today. The first humans were very Primitive and Ape-like. Evolution gradually allowed larger skulls, and brains to develop in humans leading to them gaining intelligence.

    Chimpanzees, our closest relatives, have also began using spears to hunt animals and have started living in caves:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11234-spearwielding-chimps-snack-on-skewered-bushbabies.html

    I am expecting the mysteries of Evolution to unfold over the next few thousands of years by observing behavior in chimpanzees. Evolution will never be proven in our lifetimes, just as a lot of complex science cant be. But when chimps start learning how to use fire and wheels, we will be able to observe Evolution happen all over again.
     
  5. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    "What's wrong with leaving it in the "I don't know" space?"

    For one thing, doing so is not very interesting. Why don't you perform a scientific experiment to test it. Start a thread that says, " I don't know how the universe began and what's more, I really don't care." See how many thought provoking responces you get.

    "Even if science doesn't provide all the answers, some don't feel the inclination to start worshiping a God. And in the eyes of religious people, this makes them evil, self worshipers with no morals. Basically, if I'm not gonna play it your way (your=the God people), then it gives you the right to label me, make assumptions about me, compartmentalize me, feel superior to me or even worse pity me, come to the conclusion that I have no morals, can't make decisions on what's wrong or right, am filled with pride and ego etc."

    Just to be clear, Intrepid, all that came out of your own thought processes,not from mine. The present point of the discussion came about when bhavv wrote that "Everything that the Bible states about how life forms has been disproven by solid, reliable scientific evidence." That called the present state of scientific evidence into question and whether that evidence is a solid and reliable as bhavv claims. You and others may disagree here, but it seems to me that if someone, such as bhavv, is going to denounce one version of creation by citing another that conflicts with it, then the conflicting version ought to stand up to scrutiny, which plainly it has not. Such a statement however does add more to an already interesting discussion than merely claiming that one doesn't know what caused all this and what's more one does not view it as important anyway.
     
  6. pardonme

    pardonme Guest

  7. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    On the one hand you say, "The biggest flaw in human intelligence is having to believe that everything was created." Then on the other hand you submit carbon-dating evidence to prove that the earth was created. So which is it? Either the universe and the earth with it was created, or it was not. And if it was created, what was the prime-mover that created it. I steadfastlly assert that the universe was created. But I see you playing on both sides. I do not know how to respond to such a wavering position. It either was or was not. So just for the sake of the discussion, I would appreciate it if you would take one side or the other and then stay on that side.
     
  8. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Wow! Just caught that one. Do you really feel that way? I mean, there's a pretty substantial difference between there being God, or god as you say, and there not being God. But you see no difference? It would make no diffference to you one iota?

    Let's just for discussion sake say that there really is God and that as it turns out everything in the Bible is true and because you refused to act in accordance with God's law God sent you off to Hades for all eternity. What then? Now, I know that you must not believe in God. I have not heard you say that; but I think it is a reasonable inference for me to make since you don't care if God exists or not. But leave that aside and let's just talk a minute about an indifference to whether there is God. I've never heard that one before. That indicates that you really don't know, don't care, total indifference. But the potential ramifications for you personally would be incredibly different. Because of those ramifications, what I hear you saying is the you wouldn't care if you spent eternity in Hades or if you did the same in Heaven, or if when you die, that's it; your zapped completely out of existence. You just don't care. How can anyone be indifferent to those potential outcomes? I mean, if I were given the choice among those three possible outcomes, I would be hard pressed not to select the heaven option. But you, you just don't care, or so you say. That's really intriguing. Now, please do not draw an inference from this that I somehow have condemned you to one of the above. I am not saying that. I'm just exploring with you what indifference to whether a supreme being inteh cosmos really means.

    I heard folks extoll that God exists; that God does not exist, but never an indifference between the two. That's a first.
     
  9. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    I brought this across from a recent post, deleted by the author, Jim, feeling that this would be a reasonable turn for this thread to take.

    I have never said that evolution isn't real. On the "sixth day," God created Mankind is a pretty general statement, no doubt oversimplified, of the process by which Man sprang forth. The Bible does not say how God did this, only that it was done by God. So really, why one possibility would necessarily preclude the other is a mystery to me.
     
  10. tm53

    tm53 New Member

    Well there was this one Jewish Carpenter.....
     
  11. tm53

    tm53 New Member

    Que?

    I don't deny the existence of dinosaurs or fossils.
     
  12. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Rather than speculation, maybe we should call it 'informed speculation.' I do not mean to say that scientists speculate in a vacuum. Science uses all the available information to be sure. Using that information, it makes as reasoned a guess as it can. But I do not believe that science is as close to understanding life as it is understanding the origin of the Earth. The difference between life and death is breath. Life is just a breath away from death. What makes breath from no breath? Man can put all the raw materials together, but if it isn't breathing it isn't alive. Science is much closer to understanding no breath than breath. The Earth is no breath. Life is breath. Perhaps I am understood here.

    If you don;t mind, this reminds me of a joke I heard recently. God was standing next to an atheist. The atheist told God that he could make a living man just like God could. God said, "You're on. I'll go first." God picked up some dirt, mixed it in his hands and the next thing you know, God had a man, standing there living and breathing. God said, "OK, your turn." The atheist picked up some dirt, at which time God stopped him saying, "Get your own dirt." I may not have told that very well; but maybe you get the point. We may think that we as mortals have come a long way; but at every turn of cosmos history, something has been there providing the dirt.

    Thanks, Joe, for the time it takes to respond. None of us have the time to respond to it all.
     
  13. jim1884again

    jim1884again advocating baldness be recognized as a disability

    Yes, many Christians are comfortable with idea of evolution, but bhavv posed an interesting questions and turned the tables somewhat--his question: why do some Christains feel the need to disprove evolution? Initially, Aladdin was seeking feedback on why non believers felt the need to disprove and as most of us agree there are some who do and some who don't.

    There have been many notable efforts on the part of creationists to disprove evolution and some have been in fierce disputes with school boards and state boards of education about textbook adoption and some have demanded that science classes teach creationism along side the theory of evolution and the big bang, etc. I see an essential wrongheadedness in this endeavor for reasons I have alluded to before. I'll try to summarize them succinctly (often hard for me to do!)

    Those who read my deleted post may remember the comment about the vast majority of Americans believeing in God and the majority of those folks are Christian. Based on this, and the prevalent role religion has played in our society, it is reasonable for Creationism and other religious topics to be taught in schools, BUT NOT IN SCIENCE CLASSES! (In light of recent events, perhaps Islam should also be presented to help broaden perspectives) History, literature, etc., are more appropriate places to discuss those issues. Science has principles under which attempts to operate and I believe we do a disservice to both areas of study--religion and science--when we attempt prove that the literal translation of Genesis trumps all the scientific theorizing that has occurred in this area.

    In the last 24 hours I have read (or re-read) articles by prominent astrophysicists that strongly suggest some intelligent design behind the events relating to creation as they are described in the field of science. They admit there are scientists who do not share their beliefs, but even those marvel at the sheer mathemathical improbability that things occurred exactly the way they did to have life arrive exactly as it is today. The authors also note that science and religion are not incompatible--simply put, they say that science accounts for the "how" of creation and Genesis for the "who".

    I will not say more about the principles of science and their interface with religion because I am not a scientist and Joe Wobbles has already eloquently presented that info. If you are interested in pursuing this further from the scientific perspective (from the point of view of scientists who may see intelligent design as feasible), I encourage you to google Owen Gingerich or Robert Jastrow. If you want to read remarkably stimulating non scientific but in depth discussion about Genesis, pick up Bill Moyer's Genesis.
     
  14. jim1884again

    jim1884again advocating baldness be recognized as a disability

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/23/national/main4202617.shtml

    A footnote to any comments I have made before--some disagree with the value of polls--I feel they are vital in social science because without them too much decision making would be based on anecdotal information (even when those decisions affect millions)

    the above link is to a poll surveying Americans about religion--please read down at least far enough to note the percentage of people who indicate they believe in God

    decide for yourselves if it has any relevance to the 2 questions initially posed
     
  15. Mnme

    Mnme Guest

    Joe, your response to Diane's question blew me away. To me there is also a great feeling of comfort and joy when gazing out at nature. And I am amazed at the idiosyncracies of emotion we get to glimpse through books, music and art. And I totally agree with you that Diane's poems are amongst the best I have ever read. I shake my head wondering how someone can grasp complex ideas with such clarity and beauty. But I also know that to Diane it is probably 'nothing'. And maybe someone else won't get from her poems what you and I do. I used to shake my head at this, but now I see that's good and right. It's at the heart of evolution of thought.

    Tammi, I know you didn't want this to become a debate, but I just wanted to you to know that I am really enjoying the idiosyncracies of thought here. Every person helps to clarify my own view, whether I agree with them or not. When you think about it, that's a pretty cool thing given that I have never been in a church (no one suggested it even when I was a child so it just happened that way), nor have I ever talked over this topic with a scientist, or with an athiest or with many people in fact as it's been largely pushed out of social settings. Thanks to each and every person here.

    Lee.
     
  16. Aladdin

    Aladdin Guest

    enough! :( :(

    start a new thread - I desired answers to a question(s) not a continual debate - if I could remove this darn thread I would - I am sick, went to emergency room and will propably be back again tomorrow; I can not read everyone's posts and 90 percent do not apply to my questions needed for article...please move on and find another thread - capisce? :(
     
  17. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Aladdin,

    I can only think that you are not feeling well and for that I am sorry. Still, I must tell you, yes you started this thread. You put it out there for folks to respond. But you cannot dictate the responses. One thought leads to another. That's just the way it is. And if you did reread these entries, I believe that you might find much fodder that applies to your original question. Maybe it takes some reading between the lines. Still, the answers are there.

    In keeping with that question, plainly there is a group who feels like their beliefs on the matter are attacked by those who espouse a belief in God and perhaps are felt to proslytize the same. To these folks, their religion is no religion. That's one way to look at it. And they believe their religion, being no religion, to the same extent that many of us believe in God. So in essence, their religion is attacked any time another religion is in their minds forced onto them. They are put off by this just like you would be put off by someone who doesn't believe in God proslytizing their belief to you. Eventually in some cases that turns to anger. And eventually that anger turns into decrying the message. I believe folks can get overly sensitive--on both sides of the discussion. Still, it is human nature, I believe, to defend your principles, and your religion, even if your religion is no religion, when you feel that it is attacked, whether it is or not.

    From my standpoint, no organized religion has instilled in me a belief in God. Just like for the scientist, reason commands the notion that science is the answer to the question of existence, for me, a belief in God is a more powerful reason than even science. I see more discrepancies in science's explanation than I do with God as the same. And as anyone who has read my posts might discover, when it comes to such things as science, I am not completely unaware of what is going on. I have been to the Keck Observatory atop Mauna Kea on the Big Island of Hawaii, 13,800 feet above sea level. I marvel at the same celestial features that Joe, Lee and Dianne have written about. But when I marvel at the heavens, when I marvel at the human body, at what intelligence really means, what awareness really means, what existence really means, there is no doubt in my mind that what I see was created by something that was all-knowing and all powerful, not just by chance as science requires.

    Perhaps one of the foremost exhibits of evidence against science in my mind, is science itself. Take thermodynamics again. Joe will appreciate this if no one else does. According to one of the basic axioms of that field of study, within any system containing a certain amount of energy, unless more energy is imparted to the system, entropy, randomness, will always increase. To explain what that means, just look at the leaves on the trees in the fall. When energy to the tree decreases or stays the same, the leaves fall off in a random fashion to be carried off by the wind. They end up all over the yard in a random pattern. But in the springtime, when the flow of energy is restored and added back to the tree, leaves appear in perfect order just like they were before. In the fall, look at how much energy is required from us to make order out of chaos when it comes time to rake the leaves back into an orderly pile. In one's house, somehow unless cleaning energy is introduced eventually dust and dirt take over. Add cleaning energy to the system, order is restored. That is what the axiom means in layman terms.

    Now look at the universe. If there were no hand to guide order, nothing imparting coordinating energy to the system that can make order out of chaos, then science would predict complete and utter randomness. Such a state would prevent life, a form of order, from developing. Such a state would prevent uniformity between one human body and another. Such a state would prevent DNA from matching from one possible source to another. So you see, in my mind, science actually predicts God, requires God. For only God, an all powerful source of infinite energy, could impart the necessary energy required to overcome the natural tendency of the universe toward randomness, toward a state of entropy. But that is just me. I respect the thoughts of everyone here who has contributed.

    I apologize when I may seem to press. But pressing only reflects my natural tendency to want to understand things I do not. It does not reflect an assault on anyone's beliefs. I respect you all.

    Hank
     
  18. Aladdin

    Aladdin Guest

    hank - my thread wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular- but i could tell it started to get ??and I didn't want another christian vs them discussion; also please remove my name from the post - it's for security reasons - etc

    thank you and God bless

    since i started this thread I feel an obligation to keep up with the posts...i don't know if you can understand but I am sick and it is very difficult to read the posts as they are veering far from my original question and growing into other deeper and thought provoking areas/agenda - i was merely wanting answers to the questions and I can see the thread going in another direction - which is fine but that is why I ask the discussion to be moved --with vertigo and now a recent ear infection spreading to my jaw and temple - i won't be able to read the thread - i'm slammed for not writing or debating and then i'm slammed when i ask it to be stopped - it's a no win - i don't honestly have the strength or visual stamina...

    but please because of my book and personal situation remove my name from the post
     
  19. Aladdin

    Aladdin Guest

    merci hank -

    thank you all for regarding my wishes...i'm off to the stupid hospital again
     
  20. bhavv

    bhavv New Member

    Unlike your religion, science doesnt have any sides, only different theories. Every theory is based on a hypothesis, and with that comes a null hypothesis to reject the theory. We already know how planets form from observing them, therefore we can assume ours formed in the same way. However, the universe is a different thing altogether, and we will likely never be able to discover its existance in our lifetime due to its complexity. There is nothing wrong therefore in science with saying that maybe the universe is eternal. Untill it is proven or disproven, we dont know. This is how science works, its considers and takes alternative theories into account untill things are finally proven.

    Scientists dont take sides because there isnt any bias within the scientific method. Unfortunately, religion doesnt follow the rules of scientific method which is the single most important thing in any scientific study. Everything that religion states about the formation of the earth can be disproven by unbiased facts from scientific research. Therefore, most theories that creationalists believe in have already been disproven.
     

Share This Page