Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[Skywalker]

No, morality evolved as a beneficial feature of a social lifestyle, where co-operation was needed rather than competition.

As slow, weak, defenseless plains apes, we had to band together and co-operate, or be eaten. Any anarchists or individualists or disruptive people were cast out -- and eaten by leopards, their immoral genes never to grace the human genome.

I believe that things which are immoral are by their very nature confusion. Lying and stealing by their very nature are confusion.

 

[Skywalker]

Once again, I have the suspicion you don't understand what it means to be a 'singularity' in that sense.

The laws of nature are inherent in the universe. The parts of the universe have properties, and those properties mean that structure will spontaneously arise.

How do the laws of nature make those properties spontaneously arise?

 

[Polymath257]

I meant that without God the elements that make up the snowflake couldn't exist.

A bold claim. Do you have any proof?

I would agree that the elements that make up the snowflake would not exist without the laws of nature. But that is quite different than a claim that a deity exists.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe that things which are immoral are by their very nature confusion. Lying and stealing by their very nature are confusion.

Your belief and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbuck's.

 

[Skywalker]

No, not really. From very basic laws, the structure of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms follows and the nature of water follows from the way those atoms bond together.

How do the laws of nature cause all of those different types of atoms and properties to come together spontaneously?

 

[Skywalker]

A bold claim. Do you have any proof?

I would agree that the elements that make up the snowflake would not exist without the laws of nature. But that is quite different than a claim that a deity exists.

A deity being self existent is more likely than the laws of nature being self existent.

 

[Polymath257]

How do the laws of nature make those properties spontaneously arise?

The laws of nature describe how things interact and move. They describe, for example, how different types of things attract and repel each other and when and to what extent.

The fact that these laws work leads to the properties of the atoms. Those properties determine which atoms bond together and how strongly. That determines the properties of the resulting molecules (the chemicals).

 

[Polymath257]

How do the laws of nature cause all of those different types of atoms and properties to come together spontaneously?

You keep asking the same question.

For example, the fact that every mass attracts every other mass by an inverse square force law means that large clouds of gas and dust will gradually collapse, producing stars and planets as the result.

Maybe you need to learn a bit about basic physics and chemistry?

 

[Polymath257]

A deity being self existent is more likely than the laws of nature being self existent.

Why do you think that? The deity needs some sort of laws to enable it to make things, so some sort of law would exist no matter what.

 

[Skywalker]

Why does that take a creator? If anything, for a creator to function, a great deal of complexity is required, meaning there already need to be some 'laws of nature' governing the properties of that creator.

Then God wouldn't be self existing and worshipful.

 

[Polymath257]

Then God wouldn't be self existing and worshipful.

Good point. Why would we expect a deity to exist at all then?

 

[Skywalker]

What makes you think that? Why would the universe always have had to exist?

Because it would be the ultimate origin of those laws and properties.

 

[Skywalker]

Good point. Why would we expect a deity to exist at all then?

A self existing God isn't dependent on properties.

 

[Polymath257]

A self existing God isn't dependent on properties.

If it has no properties, then it doesn't exist at all.

If it does have properties, those properties are the laws that govern it.

 

[Polymath257]

Because it would be the ultimate origin of those laws and properties.

Why do they need an origin?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I prefer the marinara as well, but my wife likes the meat sauce more, so guess what we're having for dinner?

BTW, my favorite is an uncooked tomato sauce HEAVILY laced with fresh garlic (it's gotta bite!), fresh basil, olive oil, ground roasted almonds, spooned over hot thin pasta and served with good-quality parmesan.

However, do not go out socially after eating.

Sounds similar to my homemade marinara that I got from the New York Times. No almonds, but otherwise very similar. I start with a cold iron skillet. Put in one quarter cup of EVOO, seven cloves of garlic that have been slivered. A bit of red pepper flakes. Not too many. Turn on the heat. When the garlic starts to sizzle add 28 ounces of good quality Italian canned tomatoes, heat to boiling. About a half a cup of water that I use to rinse out all of the sauce from the cans. A good amount of fresh basil. Not individual leaves but about two or three stalks of fresh. Salt and pepper to taste. After about 15 minutes fish out the basil leaves. You can add fresh chopped Italian parsley at the end. It is soooooo good. And of course if I make home made meatballs they finish in the sauce for a few minutes.

And of course, fresh grated parmesan is a must.

 

[Skywalker]

No. More the other way around. Those laws dictate what order will emerge from their application.
What's your point? That cars came from intentional planning and craftsmanship, so water must too? -- That doesn't follow. Two separate -- and understood -- mechanisms.

They have order, but that doesn't imply design. As you said, they are examples of the workings of the unguided, unintentional, natural laws of nature.

The concept of a creation having a Creator doesn't depend on mechanisms.

What makes the unguided unintentional natural laws of nature not be chaotic?

 

[Skywalker]

Be careful, the term 'eternal' can mean a couple of different things. it can imply an infinite amount of time (which has not been demonstrated) OR it can mean 'whenever there was time'.

It is quite possible that time is only finite into the past.

My statement is that most scientists believe that whenever there was time, there were also matter and energy. That is the case even if time is finite into the past. But it would also mean there is no 'before the universe' and that a 'cause of the universe' is nonsense.

Newton lived 300 years ago and we have learned a few things since that time. He had some great insights, but his theology was, well, unusual.

Do you think it's possible that the universe is eternal without pantheism or deism?

 

[Skywalker]

You are back to making claims that are not supported and seem to be pointless. Another "So what?" argument.



Once again, So what?




A "penalty" that he pays to himself for himself from supposed crimes that he made up tell us that there should have been no penalty to start with. This is a failed argument. It only paints God as petty and vindictive.

And if you do not believe in original sin then why insist that the Adam and Eve myth is true?

How do you explain the precision and order that exists within the laws of nature?

Is a judge petty and vindictive for enforcing laws that people made up for a reason that show that some things are not right?

 

[Skywalker]

No, it is NOT similar to the order of a car. The parts of the universe spontaneously assemble, as has been demonstrated in a variety of ways. The basic particles have properties and those properties *are* the reason we see the 'order' we do in the universe.

How are these properties and order demonstrated in nature, apart from a lab setting?