true, and so?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?
- Thread starter frbnsn
- Start date
true, and so?
Populations evolve, not individuals.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It is not Jesus who should be damned, it is the gospel authors, Imho.
Interview with Satan?
One should not blame Jesus for people writing fictitious stories about Him, that is unjust.
No other planet has the characteristics above.
It looks like Mars might have had some of them in the past. It is also possible Mars had life in the past. We do not know.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Sure, quantum 'doesn't have a cause' - essentially nothing is impossible in the
quantum world - but even that has a 'cause' and the cause is probability. An
example is quantum tunneling - is essentially 'impossible' but is the foundation
of our modern electronics.
But I remain convinced there has to be some sort of 'causality' to 'explain' how
the universe came to be.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Practically zero. But that does not matter. You asked the wrong question.
Here is an example to illustrate your error. What are the odds of your next door neighbor winning the Mega Millions Lotter?
Pretty low. One out of more than one hundred millon.
Now what are the odds that sooner or later someone will win?
The odds for that are almost one. That means it will almost certain that someone will win some time.
Now try to apply that to your question.
What are the chances earth developed to have these characteristics?
And those in the population that survive will have the genes that are better for surviving in that environment. Those without those genes died.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How does one separate the false from the true in the gospels?It is not Jesus who should be damned, it is the gospel authors, Imho.
Interview with Satan?
Fetuses not having intermediate organs supports that there are practically zero examples of them existing.
It would be impossible for a population to evolve without the individual first evolving.
That the Earth (or any other individual planet) specifically did so? Pretty low. That some planet somewhere will do so? Pretty high. There are a LOT of planets in our galaxy, most of which (by far) we have not explored at all.
The Earth was just one place where it happened.
What do you mean by the term 'intermediate organ'? And why do you think they are required?
You have the wrong terminology. The first population had to arise, be able to reproduce, and have mutations when reproducing.
There was likely not a 'first individual', but rather a 'first population' of living things.
Once again, individuals do not evolve. They may adapt. But they don't change their genetics, which is what is required for evolution.
it is more than quantum mechanics allowing for classically impossible effects. It is that the observed correlations between quantum events is inconsistent with a 'hidden variables' explanation that is causal.
it seems likely that the universe is a type of quantum fluctuation that got out of hand.
How could the first population evolve without a certain amount of individuals not dying from harsh weather conditions?
Without intermediate organ our ancestors could not have survived.
No exoplanet has been found to have life on it.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Now here is The Problem - quantum is a part of the universe.
Many people get sucked into this quantum fluctuation business to 'explain' how a
new universe could appear. But before the universe there was no quantum.
True, and it's an artificial, contrived order, whose genesis we know, unlike the naturally ordered arrangement of ping-pong balls poured into a bathtub, each perfectly aligned, by physics, with no god in sight.
Is the perfect, crystal-like arrangement of ping-pong balls evidence of God?
You're just preaching. Declaring something true does not make it true, it isn't evidence that it's true, and why is a biblical quotation more authoritative than a Vedic or Quranic quotation? -- or a quotation from The Chronicals of Narnia, for that matter?
Support your assertions with testable, predictive, empirical evidence or the logical thing to do would be to ignore it.
And it's created by a different mechanism than what creates a tree or mountain. One requires intentional design and manipulation, the other does not.
You're preaching again; assuming a god and intentional design with no evidence. If you're going to continue to use theological doctrines as major premises, you need to validate them first.
Argument from personal incredulity.
There's no empirical evidence of intentional design or purpose -- and neither is needed, as the natural, automatic mechanisms are known, and need no magical hand to guide them.
Magic requires faith, as there's no apparent mechanism involved.
The natural laws just are. they're descriptions of how things just are. They require no faith, as they're tangible, familiar and measurable.
Huh? Creation does not show there is a God. The details of the mechanism may be unclear, but there is no reason to imagine "goddidit."
Godditit, by the way, explains nothing, it just declares agency.
Your point?
Your belief in a creator is not evidence of a creator.
The mechanism is known. It's basic chemistry.
So what's your point? What are you asking?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
One way to know is by looking at how the Book was unsealed, separating truth from falsity.
#420 Trailblazer, 38 minutes ago