[bryanc]

I personally believe there is a God!

Well, you're obviously in good company, but, as we shall see below, the reasoning you cite is utterly fallacious.

- Look into the human body, DNA, the unbelievably complex makeup of the human body n how absolutely perfect it is

Unless you have a very different understanding of the meaning of 'perfect', or completely lack any knowledge of human anatomy, physiology, molecular/cell biology and development (or that of any other organism for that matter) this is utterly incorrect.

- The way that only a select few scientists determine the (billions n billions of years) ages of things is unscientific and extremely unacurate

Oh really? Care to explain how you come to this conclusion?

in actuality the earth is very young around 4000 - 7000yrs old, look at the coast lines disappearing they used to say these events took millions of years...

I take it you failed geography in high school?

- There is more real evidence/proof that Jesus existed than there is that Cleopatra existed!

Your point being what, exactly? That the existence or non existence of Cleopatra or Jesus proves the existence of an invisible magic sky-daddy who created the universe? That trout live in trees? That if you buy kippers it will not rain?

Your logic is astounding.

This is me... this is what I believe, I will not be shaken!

This is the core of the issue. You have Faith(tm). So you don't need evidence, and in fact no evidence could convince you that your beliefs are incorrect (please correct me if I'm wrong... tell me how I could prove to you that God does not exist).

This fact, that you believe without (or, rather in spite of) evidence, seals the argument. Your belief is irrational. That doesn't make you a bad person, and obviously many other people have similar or other irrational beliefs. But the popularity of this particular delusion does nothing to make it any more rational or any more likely to be true.

Cheers

 

[guytoronto]

The one question nobody can answer:

If we as "perfect" beings required a "God" to create us, who created God?

I urge everyone to watch that entire debate. The logic of the Christians is full of holes, and it ends up boiling down to "God is, God is forever, God exists outside our time and space, God doesn't need to adhere to our rules of science and logic."

Their final arguments solidify that the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically (as was their original intent).

 

[20DDan]

bravo bravo... the non-believers always love to seek a way to destroy another's beliefs. Would it have made any difference if I would have called him Allah or Buda or something else....probably would have! I did well in geography thank you very much! Believe what you want... a person asked a question n I said in bold lettering... go n find out for yourself from many sources... dont just be spoon feed information from school! I just included a few facts... Ya I called them facts... that go in direct conflict with the theory of evolution... but that's a whole other subject!

 

[SoyMac]

"Does God Exist?"
No.

That people even take the time to discuss the issue of the magic wizard amuses me.
But at least it amuses me. :clap:

However, when the Fairy-Tale-Believers try to impose their silly beliefs on others, that's when I cease to be amused.

 

[20DDan]

The one question nobody can answer:

If we as "perfect" beings required a "God" to create us, who created God?

He has no begining and no end, is , was, and always will be! He is out of time, is the one who created time... infinity is a subject very hard for a person to wrap their mind around simply because we were not designed to understand it now. I know it'll probably not satisfy your poking fun at me n this thread will grow n grow n grow in that but it doesn't bother me in the least

 

[guytoronto]

I've noticed people who don't like evolution like to throw around "it's just a theory!"

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

There are a lot more facts supporting evolution than creationism. There are no facts supporting "the Earth is only 7000 years old".

Back to the original debate on ABC, the argument that God is infinite...if it is possible for God to exist, be infinite, to have no beginning and no end, without a creator, is it not possible that the same can be said for our physical universe?

Our universe has no beginning and no end. It has always existed, and it is infinite. It had no creator. If you can use that argument for God, we can use it for our universe.

 

[rgray]

He has no begining and no end, is , was, and always will be! He is out of time, is the one who created time...

Yadda, yadda, yadda... Where are the facts you spoke so glibbly of?

I've noticed people who don't like evolution like to throw around "it's just a theory!"

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Those who use the term 'theory' so derisively with respect to evolution ought to remember that both evolution and god are theories. The data is all on the side of evolution.

Our universe has no beginning and no end. It has always existed, and it is infinite. It had no creator. If you can use that argument for God, we can use it for our universe.

Not, strictly speaking, true. The universe as we know it is expanding from a point source (the Big Bang) and there are estimates for how long ago that was -substantially greater than ~6000 years but not infinite.

 

[bryanc]

bravo bravo... the non-believers always love to seek a way to destroy another's beliefs.

I'm a scientist. This is what I do. I use reason and evidence to determine what is not true. Your belief that a supernatural entity created the earth a few thousand years ago is easily falsified by empirical evidence. However, the more generic form of religion - that some supernatural entity exists outside of the constraints of our empirically measurable universe - is not scientifically testable, and therefore will never be falsified.

That, however, dose not give it any philosophical merit as a premise. Indeed, postulating supernatural causes is essentially admitting defeat with respect to developing a meaningful understanding of the universe.

Would it have made any difference if I would have called him Allah or Buda or something else....probably would have!

Nope. I have exactly equal skepticism regarding all supernatural claims... if you want to worship the tooth fairy, that's fine with me, but don't try to make the claim that you have scientific evidence for her existence, or that we need to give tax breaks to tooth fairy houses, or that we should teach kids that biological organisms are so complex that the tooth fairy must've guided the evolutionary process to generate the diversity of life we observe today.

go n find out for yourself from many sources... dont just be spoon feed information from school! I just included a few facts... Ya I called them facts... that go in direct conflict with the theory of evolution... but that's a whole other subject!

This is exactly what I do for a living. I collect facts to test hypotheses. These facts are not in books and they are not (yet) taught in schools. These are raw facts painstakingly extracted from nature. All of these facts (as well as all of the facts collected by all the other scientists who've ever worked on relevant questions through out all of human history) support evolutionary theory. If, someday, someone finds reproducible facts that don't fit this theory, the theory will have to be altered or abandoned. That hasn't happened, and evolutionary theory is now one of the best supported theories in all of science, and it forms the foundation for all modern biology, as well as it's applied branches (like medicine, agriculture, biotechnology, forensic science, etc.).

As Richard Dawkins put it so eloquently, "for someone to doubt the validity of evolutionary theory today, they would have to be either ignorant, stupid or insane."

Incidently, Dawkins was on The Hour recently, and gave a nice interview you can see here.

Cheers

 

[bryanc]

Not, strictly speaking, true. The universe as we know it is expanding from a point source (the Big Bang) and there are estimates for how long ago that was -substantially greater than ~6000 years but not infinite.

As I understand it (and, bear in mind that I'm a biologist, not a cosmologist), the dimensions of space and time are expanding, and have an inferable 'origin' (the Big Bang) however the concept that existence (what might reasonably be called 'reality') could be infinite (i.e. given that it includes space and time and other dimensions it is not constrained by them) is not precluded by current data.

Certainly, answering the question of 'where did the earth/universe/existence come from?' with 'God made it' simply begs the question of where god came from, and answering that 'God exists outside of time' is an answer that is just as easily applied to existence.

Metaphysically, this boils down to the question of why is there something rather than nothing? And the best answer we've got is that there is no reason to think that existence is somehow less probable or otherwise more amazing than non-existence.

Cheers

 

[darkscot]

Not, strictly speaking, true. The universe as we know it is expanding from a point source (the Big Bang) and there are estimates for how long ago that was -substantially greater than ~6000 years but not infinite.

Unless you consider the theory that the Universe is stretching (like an elastic band) and will eventually fall back into a single point and then expand again. That could be inifinite.

 

[Dr.G.]

"I think, therefore I am." Descartes

"To be is to do" – Socrates

"To do is to be" – Sartre

"Do be do be do" – Sinatra

Seriously, purpose needs to be found/created, or else we are just here, regardless of whether or not there is a God.

 

[psychodad]

As Richard Dawkins put it so eloquently, "for someone to doubt the validity of evolutionary theory today, they would have to be either ignorant, stupid or insane."

I would agree with him on this - although his thrust that evolution disproves the existence of God I find plain silly.

Another committed evolutionist, and practising Christian answers Dawkins assertions on religion very well - although the thrust of his book is the relationship between faith and science:
http://www.amazon.ca/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/0743286391/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/701-5000765-1343531?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178808743&sr=8-1

An interesting discussion between the two is found here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html

Interestingly, Dawkins does not rule out the possibility of a supernatural 'designer' -
" it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."

 

[rgray]

"I think, therefore I am." Descartes

"To be is to do" – Socrates

"To do is to be" – Sartre

"Do be do be do" – Sinatra

Seriously, purpose needs to be found/created, or else we are just here, regardless of whether or not there is a God.

Exactly. We are just here. Finding "purpose" is just an affectation of ego. It is such a total gas to be here, to be alive, that no imagined purpose is necessary.

 

[guytoronto]

If we are to have a purpose in this universe, and that purpose is given to us by God, who gives God his purpose?

 

[Macfury]

Your belief that a supernatural entity created the earth a few thousand years ago is easily falsified by empirical evidence.

bryanc: you won't get anywhere with that line of reasoning. You'll get told that the speed of light was--at one point--different from what it is today, or that dinosaur bones were created with all of the attributes of an object millions of years old to test you.

...Indeed, postulating supernatural causes is essentially admitting defeat with respect to developing a meaningful understanding of the universe.

It isn't admitting defeat if it happens to be true. It also assumes that science will be able to collect enough data to "understand the meaning of the universe." At one point, everybody--those who believe in God and those who don't--may find themselves in a position where no additional useful information exists.

 

[MasterBlaster]

.

 

[MasterBlaster]

.

 

[bryanc]

I would agree with him on this - although his thrust that evolution disproves the existence of God I find plain silly.

I certainly didn't get the impression that Dawkins thinks evolution disproves the existence of god(s). He simply uses evolutionary theory to explain the evolution of religions. As it happens, this explanation fits the data quite nicely, so it provides a nice, logical, testable model of how religions and other ritualized behavior changes over time, but it says nothing about the existence/non-existence of god.

Another committed evolutionist, and practising Christian answers Dawkins assertions on religion very well - although the thrust of his book is the relationship between faith and science:...

I haven't found time to read Collins' book yet, but I've read synopses (I'm planning on reading it over the summer). However, from what I can glean, the argument devolves into several fallacies (argument from design, argument from credulity, the fallacy of the heap and several others). Fundamentally, Collins *wants* to believe, and there is certainly no proof that god does not exist, so he finds a way to fit his god into the gaps in our understanding of the universe.

Interestingly, Dawkins does not rule out the possibility of a supernatural 'designer'

He can't. Dawkins is a scientist, and no scientific evidence can ever rule out the possibility of supernatural interference. That's why hypotheses that invoke supernatural forces are not considered by science.

Philosophically, we can consider the idea of god(s), but it is quite obvious to me that it profits us not at all to do so. Invoking such concepts results in no better understanding of anything, and almost inevitably distracts us from the important and interesting questions.

Sadly, an unimaginable wealth of human (and other) resources have been wasted throughout history on these superstitious fantasies. One of the primary reasons I hope to see organized religions (and superstitious behavior in general) continue to fade is so that these resources can be better allocated in society.

Cheers

 

[Dr.G.]

"If we are to have a purpose in this universe, and that purpose is given to us by God, who gives God his purpose?" Interesting point, guytoronto.


Poems are made by fools like me,
but only God can make a tree.
And only God who makes this tree,
also makes the fools like me.
But only fools like me, you see,
can make a God who makes a tree.

 

[bryanc]

To paraphrase Dr. G's poem:

"If God has created us in His image, we have more than returned the compliment." - Voltaire