Proofs for God/Religion. Got a good one?

[BottomlessThought]

Well, you're neglecting to consider that we live in time and that we develop over time. What was appropriate for an ancient middle-eastern living under the boot of the Romans may not be appropriate for a post-modern American. It's not that God doesn't "get it right." It's that we change over time.

Why do we need religion? Perhaps we don't. I don't think Xy was originally a religion -- it was a movement. We have a tendency, I think to convolute what ought to be a very simple spirituality.

Funnily enough, or maybe it's just because it's been a long day, I can't find anything to be truly at fault with in that post. We clearly have a difference of opinion in that I don't think there's any such "simple spirituality" because of my logic-only outlook (in other words, my personal experience does not suggest God to me) whereas your personal experience puts God forward to you. But we've already clarified our views on that, and agreed that it's all subjective to this extent, so to be honest, I can't really take the arguing any further.

Except to note that even so, you have not provided any evidence for God/religion, which, essentially, is what the OP was after in starting this thread. I know that you realize there are no such things, but it's just so much more enlightening (and fun) to argue with someone whose arguments are, at their core, flawed, whereas as long as you understand what I've said about subjectivity and are not trying to put forward personal experience as an objective argument for God, you do not seem to me to have essentially wrong points of view.

Just to note, I still have a misgiving about the Bible. It has various verses which seem to demonstrate that the God in it is just a really evil guy (I can provide you with examples, and I'm sure muffin8or can do the same), albeit by our current moral standards; but surely he should never be doing anything that would end up, by any moral standards, being accepted as downright wrong (rather than "debatably flawed" or "in the grey zone"). He should either have known better than to do something which, one day down the line, we would see as a fault in him, or, if our current moral standards are flawed, he should have prevented us from going down the route we have.

 

[Pegg]

You Don't know how DNA is written. You've already shown your ignorance on the subject and you continue to do so. Imagine this. DNA is 'written' to create an animal, say a dog. Each aspect of the dog is controlled by different genes. When the dog reproduces these genes might be copied incorrectly because reproduction does that. Look at Down Syndrome babies - they have an extra chromosome, a mistake in reproduction. This incorrect copy of a certain gene may result in a physical change - different eye colour. Scientists found that blue eyed people have a common ancestor because blue eyes were a genetic mutation.

im sure you are not saying that down syndrome is beneficial...because we all know that it is not helpful to the organism. And changes in the genes do not mean an 'incorrect copy'... that implies that reproduction is flawed.

Reproduction works exactly how its meant to work...it reproduces a copy of the original, but not an exact copy - not a clone but a unique individual copy.

Small variations like this accumulate over time which can change a species to the point where it is no longer classified as the original species.

Yeah, but that doesnt mean it is no longer of the same 'type' of animal.

A tiny shetland pony is nothing like the large clydesdale horse and of course we dont call a shetland a clydesdale....but they are both horses none the less. And this shows that the DNA is capable of producing a large variety...it doesnt mean the animal is no longer a horse.

An example of this is lions and tigers. They can still reproduce with each other because they share common ancestry.

yes thats right...they are all cats of different varieties. A tiger and lion can reproduce a hybrid called a liger... i've used the liger many times as an example of how tigers and lions are of the same 'family/type' of animal. In Genesis they are called a 'kind'
God produced each 'kind' of animal and sent them to go forth and multiply. Any animals that can reproduce among themselves are of the same 'kind' originally created by God. And those original kinds had the potential to evolve into a great variety....but they are the same kind and the DNA proves it.

DNA isn't shuffled around to make variations within a species. It's the joining of mummy and daddy's DNA that makes that variation.

and what happens when the DNA of the two parents join? They certainly dont clone the same information found in their genes.... the DNA IS shuffled around so that the new embryo gets its own unique dna. Again, variety.

Please don't talk about science when you fail to see evolution in similarities in DNA, fossils, physical signs (see recurrent laryngeal nerve Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

similarities do not prove ancestry. All mammals have lungs...but that does not prove we are all linked by ancestry. I know you'd like to believe that, but its absolute nonsense and the DNA proves that its nonsense.

 

[BottomlessThought]

im sure you are not saying that down syndrome is beneficial...because we all know that it is not helpful to the organism. And changes in the genes do not mean an 'incorrect copy'... that implies that reproduction is flawed.

Reproduction works exactly how its meant to work...it reproduces a copy of the original, but not an exact copy - not a clone but a unique individual copy.




Yeah, but that doesnt mean it is no longer of the same 'type' of animal.

A tiny shetland pony is nothing like the large clydesdale horse and of course we dont call a shetland a clydesdale....but they are both horses none the less. And this shows that the DNA is capable of producing a large variety...it doesnt mean the animal is no longer a horse.



yes thats right...they are all cats of different varieties. A tiger and lion can reproduce a hybrid called a liger... i've used the liger many times as an example of how tigers and lions are of the same 'family/type' of animal. In Genesis they are called a 'kind'
God produced each 'kind' of animal and sent them to go forth and multiply. Any animals that can reproduce among themselves are of the same 'kind' originally created by God. And those original kinds had the potential to evolve into a great variety....but they are the same kind and the DNA proves it.



and what happens when the DNA of the two parents join? They certainly dont clone the same information found in their genes.... the DNA IS shuffled around so that the new embryo gets its own unique dna. Again, variety.



similarities do not prove ancestry. All mammals have lungs...but that does not prove we are all linked by ancestry. I know you'd like to believe that, but its absolute nonsense and the DNA proves that its nonsense.

Remind me of how this is all linked to evidence for God (which was the original question)? Not that I read it through anyway, but it seemed to be largely unrelated.

 

[Pegg]

The word 'creation' implies a creator. That's a good technique religious people use, maybe you've picked it up. They use it because they argue that God isn't a creation. Let's modify it. "No existence without a creator." You maintain that God exists. How did he come into being?

i will ask you the same question about the energy in our universe. Im sure you believe that energy exists.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so, if the universe did not always exist, then how did the energy come into existence?

 

[Pegg]

Remind me of how this is all linked to evidence for God (which was the original question)? Not that I read it through anyway, but it seemed to be largely unrelated.

what i stated about DNA is that it contains information and we know that all information comes from an intelligence, a mind.

He decided to debate over the DNA itself rather then on the issue I raised....where did the information in the DNA come from.

 

[waitasec]

what i stated about DNA is that it contains information and we know that all information comes from an intelligence, a mind.

He decided to debate over the DNA itself rather then on the issue I raised....where did the information in the DNA come from.

if i spoke swedish to you...would it make sense (assuming you don't know swedish)? so why assume what i'm saying in swedish if you don't know it?

DNA isn't information based on intent...they are building blocks.

 

[BottomlessThought]

what i stated about DNA is that it contains information and we know that all information comes from an intelligence, a mind.

He decided to debate over the DNA itself rather then on the issue I raised....where did the information in the DNA come from.

We do not know that "all information comes from an intelligence". It may also come from a series of small substeps which together build up to form a complex code over time, and this explanation is phenomenally likelier, logically, than the alternative (which is that God put the intelligence forward). While this is a good argument, it fails; Richard Dawkins, as well as several computer scientists, have demonstrated the production of complex codes arising from simple "algorithms" which would not need minds to create them, but could well be present in the simple combination of chemicals required for life to begin (because of the sheer simplicity of the algorithms, the odds for them coming about through a chance connection of the chemical substances in the correct system would be high).

DNA isn't information based on intent...they are building blocks.

This, essentially. It's much better put than my answer.

 

[Pegg]

if i spoke swedish to you...would it make sense (assuming you don't know swedish)? so why assume what i'm saying in swedish if you don't know it?

DNA isn't information based on intent...they are building blocks.

I could say the same about the binary code in computer software...its just the two number building blocks of any computer program

but that doesnt explain much about how the binary code got there.

 

[muffin8or]

im sure you are not saying that down syndrome is beneficial...because we all know that it is not helpful to the organism. And changes in the genes do not mean an 'incorrect copy'... that implies that reproduction is flawed.

Reproduction works exactly how its meant to work...it reproduces a copy of the original, but not an exact copy - not a clone but a unique individual copy.


Yeah, but that doesnt mean it is no longer of the same 'type' of animal.

A tiny shetland pony is nothing like the large clydesdale horse and of course we dont call a shetland a clydesdale....but they are both horses none the less. And this shows that the DNA is capable of producing a large variety...it doesnt mean the animal is no longer a horse.



yes thats right...they are all cats of different varieties. A tiger and lion can reproduce a hybrid called a liger... i've used the liger many times as an example of how tigers and lions are of the same 'family/type' of animal. In Genesis they are called a 'kind'
God produced each 'kind' of animal and sent them to go forth and multiply. Any animals that can reproduce among themselves are of the same 'kind' originally created by God. And those original kinds had the potential to evolve into a great variety....but they are the same kind and the DNA proves it.



and what happens when the DNA of the two parents join? They certainly dont clone the same information found in their genes.... the DNA IS shuffled around so that the new embryo gets its own unique dna. Again, variety.



similarities do not prove ancestry. All mammals have lungs...but that does not prove we are all linked by ancestry. I know you'd like to believe that, but its absolute nonsense and the DNA proves that its nonsense.

Oh you're back with your nonsense. DNA is not shuffled around. Each parent contributes 23 chromosomes that come together to make the 23 pairs. The contribution will be different every time because that's how meiosis works. Look it up.

I already said that non beneficial mutations don't get carried on. Small changes over millions of years do produce differences. The example of horses is a good one. They share a common ancestor but developed differently over time to be different things.

You are actually infuriating me with your conjecture and guesswork. You don't know how DNA works as shown by you maintaining DNA is shuffled around. You agree that two animals can be of the same kind but reject the notion of common ancestry. You don't reply to the two links I gave you. You ignore the points you can't argue against. I'd appreciate it if you would not comment any more because you are so closed minded. You cannot give evidence, you can only insult.

You are blinded by words on the page of an ancient fairytale book. Look up Exodus 2:11 and see Moses the killer. Ever disobeyed your father? Deuteronomy 21:18 says we should kill you. Raped a girl? She becomes your wife for 50 silvers because of Deuteronomy 23:28. Born out of wedlock? 10 Generations will not enter heavens because of Deuteronomy 23:1. Want to smash babies against a rock? Psalms 137:8 is for you. Want stories of kids being ripped up by bears because of God's will? 2nd Kings 2:23 is the verse for you. Leviticus 19:13 lets you put gay people to death. For inconsistencies cross reference 2 Samuel 12:10-15 and Deuteronomy 23:16. Children are not to be put to death for sins of their parents but David's son is put to death for David's sins. Oh loving lord!

Go forth and multiply? What the bible says is nothing to me. Go sell your raped daughter to her rapist, stone gays, smash babies against rocks, and kill your disobedient sons for your own sins. Then come to me with go forth and multiply. Come back with an objective mind. Look at the evidence and talk about what you observe. Then bring in God and see if he fits. Don't mould the evidence around God because the evidence won't change.

 

[BottomlessThought]

I could say the same about the binary code in computer software...its just the two number building blocks of any computer program

but that doesnt explain much about how the binary code got there.

So basically, what you're saying is that the fact that building blocks which have been built in by humans exist is proof that all building blocks are built in by minds? I'm afraid that this simply doesn't work; DNA is simplistic and basic, and the combinations in it do not require a designer to have designed them. The fact that binary may not have required a designer but still had one does not mean that all simplistic codes have designers. And thus, God is not required here, so he is, at best, someone you are bringing in to explain something that would otherwise be perfectly explicable just because you already believe he exists. And thus, this is no evidence for God.

 

[muffin8or]

i will ask you the same question about the energy in our universe. Im sure you believe that energy exists.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so, if the universe did not always exist, then how did the energy come into existence?

Well, I'm proud to say I don't know. And that's perfectly OK. I'd rather do that than scramble up with 'my friend Jesus did it'

Although take a look at. Huh, some research paid off.
Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obviously you are far more knowledgeable with the bible than scientists could ever be but have a look

Well done on dodging the question. How can this infinitely complex being called God come about? He's all powerful, eh? Can he make an object he can't move? Question questions.

 

[BottomlessThought]

Well, I'm proud to say I don't know.

Surely it would be sufficient just to say that all energy was created (for want of a better word) in the Big Bang? After all, it was with that event that our universe and its laws (and with them, its energy and matter) came into existence; prior to that there was neither time nor space, and thus no concept of energy, which I would say came about through the Big Bang itself in the space-time continuum. I don't think that Pegg's question comes even close to meriting the zero-energy theory.

 

[Pegg]

We do not know that "all information comes from an intelligence". It may also come from a series of small substeps which together build up to form a complex code over time, and this explanation is phenomenally likelier, logically, than the alternative (which is that God put the intelligence forward).

only in biology is this 'logic' applied.

In every other area of life, if there is information, we automatically assume that it came from a thought.
So if you are on a lonely dessert road and you see a street sign, you know some authority put it there. If you get an email, you know someone sent it, if you get a letter in you letterbox, you know some intelligent mind wrote it. If you enter a door with a picture of a toilet on it, you know you are entering a bathroom.

You would never assume that those signs did not require an intelligent mind. Yet that is exactly what happens in biology. They have studied the DNA and have found it to be full of information.... but it occurs naturally without an intelligent mind.

Well i dont buy that. Reality does not work like that.

While this is a good argument, it fails; Richard Dawkins, as well as several computer scientists, have demonstrated the production of complex codes arising from simple "algorithms" which would not need minds to create them, but could well be present in the simple combination of chemicals required for life to begin (because of the sheer simplicity of the algorithms, the odds for them coming about through a chance connection of the chemical substances in the correct system would be high).

I think you should seriously look at the numbers involved before you put your trust in Dawkins.
humans and all mammals have approx 30,000 genes. Those 30,000 genes would then be organized into 30 million amino acids into specific structures. These make up 30-70 TRILLION cells of a healthy human. Can this meaningful arrangement of cells seriously be a result of random selection? Can that much order really come out of chaos?
Dawkins believes that random selection can do that.
If the genome consists of 3 billion nucleotide base pairs per cell then it required a hell of a lot of beneficial mutations to get to a human.... and only 4 million years to do it in. Highly unlikely. If your ever interested in looking at the numbers involved, Gerald Shroader's 'the science of God' has a very close look at whats involved in getting from a cro magnon man to a human.... it doesnt look good for Dawkins.

 

[Pegg]

Well done on dodging the question. How can this infinitely complex being called God come about? He's all powerful, eh? Can he make an object he can't move? Question questions.

its not a dodge of the question at all. I am perfectly fine with the answer 'he has always existed' because we have a physical example of something that IS eternal and cannot be destroyed or created.

So the question you have to deal with is why you accept that energy can be eternal, but God cannot.

 

[BottomlessThought]

only in biology is this 'logic' applied.

In every other area of life, if there is information, we automatically assume that it came from a thought.
So if you are on a lonely dessert road and you see a street sign, you know some authority put it there. If you get an email, you know someone sent it, if you get a letter in you letterbox, you know some intelligent mind wrote it. If you enter a door with a picture of a toilet on it, you know you are entering a bathroom.

You would never assume that those signs did not require an intelligent mind. Yet that is exactly what happens in biology. They have studied the DNA and have found it to be full of information.... but it occurs naturally without an intelligent mind.

Well i dont buy that. Reality does not work like that.

I was originally willing to give you a chance. I now realize that, as muffin8or said, you fail completely to understand three things: biology, the nature of the world and reality (and especially its connection with science) and lastly, the nature of your argument.

I refer you to William Paley's The Teleological Argument (a subset of the Design Argument, the teleological argument discusses how anything complex, which looks like it has been designed, can come about without a designer), which I beg you to look up (including the basic counter-arguments, which should be listed on Wikipedia alone) before challenging me again.

I think you should seriously look at the numbers involved before you put your trust in Dawkins.
humans and all mammals have approx 30,000 genes. Those 30,000 genes would then be organized into 30 million amino acids into specific structures. These make up 30-70 TRILLION cells of a healthy human. Can this meaningful arrangement of cells seriously be a result of random selection? Can that much order really come out of chaos?
Dawkins believes that random selection can do that.
If the genome consists of 3 billion nucleotide base pairs per cell then it required a hell of a lot of beneficial mutations to get to a human.... and only 4 million years to do it in. Highly unlikely. If your ever interested in looking at the numbers involved, Gerald Shroader's 'the science of God' has a very close look at whats involved in getting from a cro magnon man to a human.... it doesnt look good for Dawkins.

You should think a little more carefully before comparing a scientist of Richard Dawkins' stature to Gerald Shroader. I am well aware that he is a popularizer more than anything else, but he still far outranks a nobody like Shroader. In any case, Shroader starts from the position of belief (Orthodox Jewish), and if anyone criticizes Dawkins or any real scientist, I at least want them to be someone with the best interests of science at heart rather than the best interests of his religion. I also think you need to improve your own understanding of biology, and what Dawkins is putting forward, before criticizing his views: as I have already said, he does not need to "believe that random selection can" do anything; he has proved it through his computer program, and also in his lone valuable contribution to the theory of evolution, which is the Selfish Gene theory, and which shows the flaws in your point.

I beg you to look up some facts before taking up positions.

 

[muffin8or]

As for god is eternal. I call ********.

"Unicorns fly out the behind of the moon and dance on Neptune's hidden moons" has as much evidence and validity as your claims.

 

[Pegg]

So basically, what you're saying is that the fact that building blocks which have been built in by humans exist is proof that all building blocks are built in by minds? I'm afraid that this simply doesn't work; DNA is simplistic and basic,

scientists would disagree with you. they say DNA is the most complex piece of bio machinery on the planet. When Darwin formulated his ideas on evolution, he had no idea of the complexity of the living cell. If he had of know about DNA, im sure he would have written it a lot differently.

 

[muffin8or]

What? You're sure. Pray tell, did you know Darwin personally?


Pathetic

 

[BottomlessThought]

scientists would disagree with you. they say DNA is the most complex piece of bio machinery on the planet. When Darwin formulated his ideas on evolution, he had no idea of the complexity of the living cell. If he had of know about DNA, im sure he would have written it a lot differently.

WhatI meant when I said that DNA was "simplistic" is that it is composed of units which are perfectly understandable, and perfectly explicable in terms of both their formation as individuals, their bonding and their functioning as a unit. All of this has been done by biologists: why haven't you looked it up? From where does the "blasphemy" come from someone with so little knowledge of biology to be "sure Darwin would have written" evolution differently if he'd known about the complexity of DNA? Like I said, it has all been worked out very neatly; DNA may be "complex bio machinery", but its formation and functioning is completely within the realm of basic science to explain, with an explanation which suits all known cases and has a very high probability of being true.

Now before you return, please read up on basic biology and make sure your posts are informed with facts rather than just your own opinion, especially when it comes to science (a topic on which "opinions" do not exist without a serious backing up of evidence).

 

[Pegg]

I also think you need to improve your own understanding of biology, and what Dawkins is putting forward, before criticizing his views: as I have already said, he does not need to "believe that random selection can" do anything; he has proved it through his computer program, and also in his lone valuable contribution to the theory of evolution, which is the Selfish Gene theory, and which shows the flaws in your point.

I beg you to look up some facts before taking up positions.

here is a computer program for you to try out... mutations dont produce meaningful sentences.