Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

[lasher]

Wait so you believe in creation theory over abiogenesis? Does this mean that you believe we did not evolve from a common ancestor with other primates?

And isn't abiogenesis the best theory/model that exists to explain our creation, other than the creation theory?

bbl

I believe evolution is the best model for explaining diversity of life. But evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, so I'm not sure why you are linking them together in this post.

I've yet to see any compelling data on abiogenesis experiments confirming the validity of the theory. Evolutionary theory has data to support it. Experiments to support it. Abiogenesis, not so much.

[boseador]

Logical Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

1. If God exists then there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world.

2. there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world.

3. Therefore God exists.

1. If P then Q

2. Q

3. Therefore P

[Nash2]

I believe evolution is the best model for explaining diversity of life. But evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, so I'm not sure why you are linking them together in this post.

I've yet to see any compelling data on abiogenesis experiments confirming the validity of the theory. Evolutionary theory has data to support it. Experiments to support it. Abiogenesis, not so much.

While you are correct that there is no conclusive evidence that abiogenesis occurred (not to say the evidence doesn't exist - simply that it is currently being researched), you are incorrect in suggesting there is little data to support it. Since you brought up amino acids, I'm assuming that what you're familiar with is the Miller-Urey experiment? Even if your basis is that alone, their findings are far from "little" and "easily brushed aside".

[lasher]

While you are correct that there is no conclusive evidence that abiogenesis occurred (not to say the evidence doesn't exist - simply that it is currently being researched), you are incorrect in suggesting there is little data to support it. Since you brought up amino acids, I'm assuming that what you're familiar with is the Miller-Urey experiment? Even if your basis is that alone, their findings are far from "little" and "easily brushed aside".

I'm very familiar with it. Are you familiar with the problems in that experiment? Most problematic was his gaseous mixture used to approximate primeval earth's atmosphere. It has been shown not to be what the atmosphere was actually like back then. That's the primary problem out of a large number of issues there.

I'm not brushing aside anything. Show the data, and show the evidence. There is remarkably little to show for abiogenesis.

[Nash2]

I'm very familiar with it. Are you familiar with the problems in that experiment? Most problematic was his gaseous mixture used to approximate primeval earth's atmosphere. It has been shown not to be what the atmosphere was actually like back then. That's the primary problem out of a large number of issues there.

I'm not brushing aside anything. Show the data, and show the evidence. There is remarkably little to show for abiogenesis.

I'm not claiming that the experiment was flawless. Merely that the data was a jumping-off point.

"One common creationist argument is that the Urey-Miller experiment only created a few of the amino acids used by life, not life itself. Another is that the gases used by Miller and Urey were different from those actually present on primordial Earth.

According to a paper published in Science in 2008, researchers were able to reanalyze the residues from one of the original experiments, and found several amino acids that instruments in the 1950s were not sensitive enough to detect. In other words, Miller and Urey were more successful than they realized.

The paper also argues that the atmosphere used in that experiment may have been locally realistic. That is, that mixture of gases would not occur throughout the planet, but only near volcanic eruptions.

Later studies during the 1960s by Joan Oró, et al., that used atmospheric conditions that better match the actual (hypothesized) atmosphere of early Earth turned out to give even better results, turning up for example adenine, which is one of the nucleotide bases that form the "backbone" of DNA."

sciencemag .org/ content/322/5900/404. abstract (you need to sign up but its free)

Miller didn't just "stop" experimenting there.

"But one problem the theory has had to confront was a possible shortage in the primeval oceans of two key pieces in the structure of an RNA molecule, known as cytosine and uracil. Dr. Miller and Dr. Robertson believe they have solved the difficulty.

In companion pieces in the journals Science and Nature, the two scientists report that both substances might have been produced by the lifeless young oceans in ample quantities by a process involving the evaporation of sea water in tropical lagoons, the freezing of sea water in polar regions and the mixing of their products in the open ocean.

The freezing part of the process could have increased sea water concentrations of hydrogen cyanide, Dr. Miller believes. Cyanide is a deadly poison to animals, but it was an essential precursor to many of the molecules from which primitive life arose.

The evaporative part of the process, Dr. Miller said, could have concentrated the traces of urea that accumulate in sea water as a result of reactions in the atmosphere caused by lightning flashes. In experiments, Dr. Miller and Dr. Robertson showed that when the concentration of the simple chemical urea in sea water is high enough, it reacts with another quite common component of sea water that also owes its formation partly to lightning bolts. Under these conditions, the scientists found, the reaction between urea and the second chemical, known as cyanoacetaldehyde, yields fairly large amounts of cytosine, which is one of the nucleotide bases (or "letters") the DNA and RNA molecules use to spell out the genetic "words" controlling protein production and the growth and reproduction of organisms. "




There are many theories as to what the early earth's atmosphere was like, and to my knowledge there is no definitive proof one way or another. The most important thing you have to realize about this experiment is that it proved that organic compounds could have formed spontaneously, WITHOUT the need of some higher being. the experiment was essential in help prove that evolution from nothing to us is possible.

-x-

Now, we can go on to say YES there could be other ways life got here. i.e:actionbioscience .org/ newfrontiers/wickramasinghe. html


Of ALL these things, what has the least amount of empirical evidence? An intelligent creator.

edit: another interesting read here --- science.nasa. gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/ 2000/ast20jun_1/

edit #2: Let's not forget the information compiled here - en.wikipedia. org/wiki/ Abiogenesis
Normally I wouldn't be using wiki, but the sources at the bottom can elaborate on the brief descriptions provided beneath each bolded topic.

[Brosynthesis]

Was going to post a pranksterish troll comment until I read some comments going on here and became intrigued with what people bring up. I value knowledge, so will measly rep answers I see reasonable.

[germanyt]

I hate the fine-tune argument.

"If this was 1% off we wouldn't exist, if this and this was a fractal off, it would create chaos, etc."

Using common sense the Earth was obviously here before human's existence and we just evolved with acceptance to physics and nature, and everything in hindsight is relative.

Brb not understanding why water breathing mammals aren't walking around on land needing a core temperature of 250c to survive.

I agree that the universe appears to have been fine tuned. Notice I said appears. And I don't mean the conditions we live in. I mean it in the sense of the states of matter. The strong and weak forces of the universe like gravity are at a level that allow matter/molecules/atoms to form. It's because of the 'settings' that the world and universe we know exists. But that doesn't mean something or someone adjusted the levels so that we could exist. Had things been ever so slightly different Mars might be the only planet in our solar system with life and little green men would be observing the universe and also coming to the conclusion that 'had things been just a bit different we wouldn't be here'.

[germanyt]

I believe evolution is the best model for explaining diversity of life. But evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, so I'm not sure why you are linking them together in this post.

I've yet to see any compelling data on abiogenesis experiments confirming the validity of the theory. Evolutionary theory has data to support it. Experiments to support it. Abiogenesis, not so much.

I don't know anyone that claims to know that abiogenesis is the cause of life on Earth. It's a credible theory with some supporting evidence but no smoking gun. I've noticed more and more people suggesting that life was brought here by something (i.e. comet). Of course, there would be no way to prove that so if we are never able to replicate the abiogenesis process and decide that it's probably not the answer I don't know that we'll ever know. Maybe God, but certainly not maybe God created Adam and Eve. And since that will forever remain a maybe it's important that we keep searching for a scientific answer.

[lasher]

I don't know anyone that claims to know that abiogenesis is the cause of life on Earth. It's a credible theory with some supporting evidence but no smoking gun. I've noticed more and more people suggesting that life was brought here by something (i.e. comet). Of course, there would be no way to prove that so if we are never able to replicate the abiogenesis process and decide that it's probably not the answer I don't know that we'll ever know. Maybe God, but certainly not maybe God created Adam and Eve. And since that will forever remain a maybe it's important that we keep searching for a scientific answer.

I agree (mostly). keep in mind I was responding to Tamorlane who seemed to indicate that abiogenesis was a done deal, when it isn't even close to being a done deal.

[RoidRageZ]

I see people are talking about evolution and such. Just my two cents, I don't think EVOLUTION AND GOD should be debated upon about. Those two matters should not be debated upon to prove one right as evolution does not disprove GOD neither does GOD disprove EVOLUTION. These debates and talks have been going on for such a long time, lets all have our own opinions and waste our time doing something productive. Both creationists and naturalists have many good arguments and ideas that we should further ponder and try to come up with answers. We shouldn't debate amongst ourselves as everyone thinks their right.

[Nash2]

I don't know anyone that claims to know that abiogenesis is the cause of life on Earth. It's a credible theory with some supporting evidence but no smoking gun. I've noticed more and more people suggesting that life was brought here by something (i.e. comet). Of course, there would be no way to prove that so if we are never able to replicate the abiogenesis process and decide that it's probably not the answer I don't know that we'll ever know. Maybe God, but certainly not maybe God created Adam and Eve. And since that will forever remain a maybe it's important that we keep searching for a scientific answer.

Abiogenesis is not conclusive as of yet - this is true. That is not to say it never will be or that there is a complete lack of evidence to form crucial building blocks that will lead to greater discoveries. We must also consider how long these theories have been up and running, and the amount of funding that general branch of research receives.
In terms of life getting here via space, that isn't something brand new. I'm sure more people are talking about it as more researchers study it (which leads to more articles, findings, etc.).

As a side note - I've been in several conversations where people compare evolution to abiogenesis in terms of how far along one is next to the other...I have no idea why. Evolution has more evidence because it is an ongoing process. Abiogenesis will be more difficult to collect evidence for as early-earth conditions are NOT ongoing. So when you don't see the same mass of data that evolution has, it doesn't speak to there being NO evidence but rather how difficult producing it in the first place really is.

[chimburgandy]

Watch closely OP, chimburgandy is making the switch as we speak. Even the atheist resorts to faith to promote their beliefs...

In this, to only believe what science tells is very similar to only believing what your pastor tells you.

Both are models of the universe, not the universe itself. Which is why varying experiences and observations occur , that are outside of those models.

Neither is better or worse they are only observations.

Because of this, the atheist that hides behind science isn't any more or less delusional than the theist who hides behind the church. Nor is he any more credible to anyone but himself, since he is arguing faith.

You sure ramble on a lot without actually saying anything of substance.

Not one of my positions is faith based, how could you even pretend to think that?

The reason I believe scientists is because all of their findings are testable, quantifiable, falsifiable, able to be peer reviewed and don't go into the general scientific community as fact until that very thorough process is completed. Not only that but people are constantly trying to find better explanations, and when that happens the previous understanding is superseded with little to no objection. Scientists encourage their work to be examined and have no problems changing their minds.

Trusting in their findings and judgement in no way resembles "faith." The scientific community has earned my trust due to years of thankless diligence and consistently accurate and verifiable details and information. Not to mention the only reason we are communicating right now is due to scientists who didn't care about anything but research and results. It is the same way I don't have "faith" that my girlfriend isn't going to cheat on me. She and I have established a measure of trust over the years so it is not a problem for me to assume she has my best interest at heart.

And no one believes any scientist off the street that just has an idea. They have so much work ahead of them before their work can be considered credible, and it only ever reaches you or I after that research has been done or at the very least not until scientists who make educated guesses have already paid their dues in the past.

It is completely different from faith in that a preacher can tell me god exists. I say how do you know. He says well the bible says so. I say well lots of books say things. He says well I speak to god. I say I can't believe him based on his own opinion or dreams. He says well you have to just have faith that its true even though I can't show you in any conceivable way.

Can you finally understand why someone asking me to believe something with no evidence, and believing something a professional asserts given the track record of the community is different?

[hassel35]

Your faith doesn't come into play over the validity of their findings.

It comes into play when you assume that the scientific model has, as of today, accurately mirrored the universe in terms of observable phenomena.

In your post you state how they update their findings as more evidence comes forward. Like the model I spoke of. In this you can see there is a detachment, a separation between what they have found as of today, and what has potential to be found still.

Within that separation, is a space we can call mystery or the unknown. this unknown is infinite, open ended. Because if everything was possible to be known, nothing new to learn, the use of intelligent, creative thought would end and i don't see that making much sense.

Your faith comes into play here, regarding this unknown.

As a matter of faith, you are of the opinion that science has explored and discovered everything there is to be known. But they haven't. The model isn't faulty, it's just that the model has not yet been expanded big enough to explain all these other observations scientifically. The model isn't there yet. In the preservation of free will, it may never be.

Think about it. I know if itwere possible for you to disprove god or etc, you would. If you had real facts to disprove it, you would use them.

I do respect your stance. I understand why you question the church and etc. i see the facts regarding what has been measured by science today, same as you.

But your faith comes in when you assume that what has been measured today, is all that remains to be known. You know science has much to accurately test and learn, new beliefs will come. In your personal preference, you exclude the potential reality of theism or spiritual matters being able to be measured. Even though they are observed and experienced, today and historically. Moreso, you generally imply them to be imagined or fictional, even though they have been happening for millennia.

That's why, i state your logic mind puts out facts til a certain point, then comes your faith. You're obviously biased to your view, which is perfectly alright. But just because it correlates with science to a point, does not make it objective. It's coming from a place of opinion.

Someone truly objective questions everything. If someone blatantly goes into denial regarding spiritual phenomena, for instance, but claimed to be an objective scientist, they'd be a hypocrite. And objective scientist would exploreall
the possibilities. Especially since many people for millennia have reported on the experiences.
Remember that before radio waves were discovered, smartest people around said our "reality" was only what could be felt, smelt heard, seen or tasted. That's the gap between the scientific model, and the actual real world. The universe. Even today the astrophysicists at NASA estimate humans can only detect around 5% of available energy in the universe.

So 95% of actual, tangible energy in our universe today is completely undetectable to us, currently. That much is missing from what we so naively consider "reality".

So where do you put for faith? You may be content to question the church and leave it at that. I say question everything. Let's drop the bias and go exploring deep into the unknown, leaving nothing unturned.

[chimburgandy]

Your faith doesn't come into play over the validity of their findings.

It comes into play when you assume that the scientific model has, as of today, accurately mirrored the universe in terms of observable phenomena.

In your post you state how they update their findings as more evidence comes forward. Like the model I spoke of. In this you can see there is a detachment, a separation between what they have found as of today, and what has potential to be found still.

Within that separation, is a space we can call mystery or the unknown. this unknown is infinite, open ended. Because if everything was possible to be known, nothing new to learn, the use of intelligent, creative thought would end and i don't see that making much sense.

Your faith comes into play here, regarding this unknown.

As a matter of faith, you are of the opinion that science has explored and discovered everything there is to be known. But they haven't. The model isn't faulty, it's just that the model has not yet been expanded big enough to explain all these other observations scientifically. The model isn't there yet. In the preservation of free will, it may never be.

I'm not interested in any more misconceptions about the general atheist stance, and to a lesser extent my own, as you again demonstrate that you are gravely mistaken and no one has taken the time to correct you. These concepts are so simple that anyone should be able to understand them, so let me clarify for you once and for all.

The default position on an unknown or currently unknowable and supernatural claim or concept or idea is disbelief until the ones asserting the claim can prove it.

That is it. I am in my default position until someone has legitimate proof of a god. It's not my job to prove he doesn't exist before people drop the idea. I would have to prove that every single god claim is untrue to every religious sect around the world. If you weren't telling me a "god" or some "yet unfound yet supernatural, ethereal, and at the same time unknowable entity" exists, I wouldn't be resisting it. The person making the claim has to demonstrate the proof.

No one has ever been able to do that successfully which is why there have always been atheists and the number is growing as people become more comfortable admitting that they don't know, no one can know, and they are ok with that.

I'm not saying everything has been discovered.

I'm not saying the search for god is pointless or futile.

I'm saying, as it stands, no one religion has a way to validate their claims any more than another, and yet they all in the most heinous scenarios try to alter the lives of other human beings on the planet based on these unprovable facts. That is what is unacceptable. If religious people kept it to themselves, and didn't try to constantly recruit new followers or shove it down the throats of their kids it would be no problem. And if it was a solid basis for belief they would just let the facts speak for themselves like science does. Science has been proven, and can be re-tested and re-proven at any time in the present, which is why it is taught in schools all over the world. In many cases, reasonable critical thinkers examine the lack of factual evidence, finding only opinions and anecdotal accounts, and dismiss religions altogether considering their inability to prove even one claim.

Again, it isn't a difficult concept. I'm not opposed to the idea of something beyond what we can measure and understand, in fact I know the origin of the universe is out there and we may even discover it. But it won't be through pointless and nauseating study of ancient, man-made and immoral doctrines posing as knowledge. It will be through science. And if you are trying to tell people how to live their lives based your book, you better have some damn good evidence besides the book itself and your opinion.

[Maiar]

Watch closely OP, chimburgandy is making the switch as we speak. Even the atheist resorts to faith to promote their beliefs...

Because of this, the atheist that hides behind science isn't any more or less delusional than the theist who hides behind the church. Nor is he any more credible to anyone but himself, since he is arguing faith.

ugh, even worse than semitope

[Birdy69]

Precision in nature = efficiency, or path of least resistance.

[sy2502]

3. Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW"?[/COLOR]

Evolution is supposed to explain chemistry? How about that!

[sm1zzle]

If everything in life is part of "Gods Plan", why is the Christian Mingle rapist in trouble ?

[hassel35]

Again, it isn't a difficult concept. I'm not opposed to the idea of something beyond what we can measure and understand, in fact I know the origin of the universe is out there and we may even discover it. But it won't be through pointless and nauseating study of ancient, man-made and immoral doctrines posing as knowledge. It will be through science. And if you are trying to tell people how to live their lives based your book, you better have some damn good evidence besides the book itself and your opinion.

I did read all your words, only quoted this to keep away from wall of text.

The bolded is the intention of my words. I respect that you believe what you do. But there is much experience in that element which has not yet been measured by science. Although weagree that as more is learned, better explanations will follow.

Trust me am not trying to prioritize your beliefs. Just be an objective observer for awhile... Surely you can see where facts stop and your faith begins, opinion begins.

How did you arise at the conclusion that no god exists, if you admit yourself it can't be proven?

You observed what you could then formed an opinion on the matter.

To each their own...

I don't belong to any church or religion. Am only pointing out where your facts stop and opinions, faith begins. Atheists take up debates with theists... The theist likewise observed what they did then formed an opinion on the matter.

No one has to prove within scientific model a phenomena, in order for it to be present first in the universe. Maybe if they wanted to prove it to everyone.. But the key is the phenomena being present to be observed, then comes the scientific model to be applied. Whether the tech is there yet or not... Irrelevant to whether this is happening or not.

I totally understand why you stand where you do. Do you understand why others stand where they do?

Ultimately it's all a matter of faith. You, the theists, everyone.

[MangoPort]

Logical Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

1. If God exists then there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world.

2. there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world.

3. Therefore God exists.

1. If P then Q

2. Q

3. Therefore P

Saw this post, thought "excellent", and of discussion.

Scrolled down to much discussion without anyone referencing this.

OP, if you can't understand the above then you're not going to grow as a person.

[Geno]

Fine tuned my ass. Nature is most likely the sloppiest thing I have ever witnessed.

Any of you pukes watch an ef-4 tornado over a mile wide go by you at about 200 yards while you're at work and then find out you lost your entire neighborhood when you get home and the stupid thing destroyed one third of the buildings in your city? I didn't think so. Do so and then come back here with that nonsensical garbage.

Get caught in a squall on the ocean of your choice.

Witness the aftermath of a landslide/tsunami/typhoon/etc.

I just shake my head at the people who can spout such nonsensical gibberish and hold a serious face.

[PaulG]

I'd be fascinated to see a study or experiment that actually verified abiogenesis. The best we've done so far is produce a few organic compounds, some amino acids, etc.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680624/

Quoting myself here.

"Gerald Pollack a professor whom studies water, has discovered a behavioral trait of matter, which has been catch phrased, the 4th state of matter. To put it simply, water has both a positive and negative charge interacting within itself. When parried with other water molecules along a charged surface, water self assembles itself like a stack of lego's forming a crystal like structure. Instead of being neutral, water is sharing the positive and negative charges around it creating zones.

These zones are dividable, negatively charged and self assemble just like a cell. The sun does charge water like a battery, and gives it a charge which is required in this process. You can actually get electricity from this to power a light bulb. As pollack says, "This process is presumably the first step in producing the condensed mass that ultimately became the cell. It is sufficiently simple that one wonders whether life is being produced this very day."




Quote from article.

"We return now to the issue at hand — the origin of life. The first step is likely to have been some kind of coalescence of substances. Substances initially widely dispersed must somehow have been brought together to form a proto-cell. How then might such coalescence happen?

A plausible explanation comes from the like-likes-like mechanism. Envision simple, identical molecules scattered widely about, dissolved in shallow water or in deeper water near a hydrothermal vent. These molecules could be simple sugars or short-chain amino acids — the latter being extremely primitive and found even in space and on the moon [25,26]. Radiant energy from the sun (or from a geothermal vent) beats down upon these primitive molecules. This energy builds exclusion zones around each one. If the exclusion zones are negatively charged, then their growth will generate free protons. These protons will then draw these molecules together, forming larger, ordered entities.

This kind of coalescence is experimentally confirmed. Radiant energy (heat) demonstrably causes amino acids to coalesce into highly ordered polyamino acids, called “thermal proteins.” These proteinlike structures in turn self assemble into distinct, microsphere-like entities [27], which easily classify as coascervates or gels. Such globular entities exhibit a striking array of cell-like features such as growth, breaking apart, selective accumulation and exclusion of organic substances, and even electrical action potentials [27-32]. Hence, they qualify as proto-cells.

Indeed, the polyamino-acid filaments of these protocells could well serve as primitive substrates for inheritance — as could the ordered water immediately surrounding them. Information is available, and could be passed along.

At the same time, proto-cells with differing polyamino-acid content could aggregate to form multiunit entities. Such entities would be similar to multi-cellular entities. Thus, a simple energy-based mechanism (solar or geothermal), operating through the like-likes-like principle, can produce coalescence, order, and even function at multiple levels of organization.

If these entities are produced by the like-likes-like principle, then they ought to contain large volumes of negatively charged, ordered water. This is direct expectation of the mechanism. The books by Pollack and Ling [14,15], review the evidence that both gels and cells are filled with ordered water. In our estimate the evidence is voluminous. Further, Oparin emphasized that simple coascervates are “swathed with a more or less thick membrane of water” and that this thick membrane was associated with negative charge [1]. This observation seems remarkably similar to that of the exclusion zone and the unstirred layer, and therefore lends strength to the presence of the like-likes-like mechanism.

Also of interest is the observation that the potential difference between the inside and outside of a gel/coascervate is similar to the potential difference between inside and outside of a cell. Their magnitudes are similar. From an electrical point of view, therefore, the membrane thus seems less consequential than thought. Given the negative electrical potential typical of most exclusion zones, a possibility is that the cell’s negative potential arises not from the membrane or its pumps and channels, nor even from its predominantly negatively charged proteins, but largely from the cell’s negatively charged water. Exclusion-zone potential can be up to 200 mV. This negative charge could account for much of the cell’s (and gel’s) negative electrical potential — which, interestingly, can be in evidence even after the cell has been de-membranated [33]. Hence, ordered water might play roles beyond that of bringing molecules into coalescence.

The emphasis so far has been on entities of like charge, which attract one another. This narrow focus should not be interpreted as suggesting that the ordinary attraction between unlike charges is not significant; in fact, it is central to the like-likes-like mechanism. The point is that whether entities are of opposite polarity or the same polarity, the evidence indicates that they will attract. Thus, counterintuitively, sun’s energy tends to drive all entities into coalescence.

For driving the coalescence necessary for life’s origin, then, a simple and primitive mechanism is available. Solar or geothermal radiation separates charge in water, which then draws dissolved or suspended entities into ordered coalescence."

[chimburgandy]

How did you arise at the conclusion that no god exists, if you admit yourself it can't be proven?

You observed what you could then formed an opinion on the matter.

NO! I don't and wouldn't say no god definitely doesn't exist. It isn't very likely, but something could come booming to earth one day to announce to everyone at once that he exists. Also, my rejection of god stories doesn't automatically mean I am devout "believer" in science and it can do no wrong. It's just that science has given us every single thing we have and enjoy in our lives, every bit of technology or drop of medicine. It is from them always striving to learn more, but to never claim more than they can prove, that keeps them earning my trust and they stay as a solid foundation to base conclusions on.

To each their own...

I don't belong to any church or religion. Am only pointing out where your facts stop and opinions, faith begins. Atheists take up debates with theists... The theist likewise observed what they did then formed an opinion on the matter.

No one has to prove within scientific model a phenomena, in order for it to be present first in the universe. Maybe if they wanted to prove it to everyone.. But the key is the phenomena being present to be observed, then comes the scientific model to be applied. Whether the tech is there yet or not... Irrelevant to whether this is happening or not.

I totally understand why you stand where you do. Do you understand why others stand where they do?

Ultimately it's all a matter of faith. You, the theists, everyone.

NO!

The theists have studied old books with no bearing on modern civilization and a primitive understanding of the world and the universe and have decided that because of that, and their hope that the concept of a god exists, that he DOES exist on that limited amount of information alone.

Every religion is saying "My god exists for these unprovable reasons and because I really really want him too!" and I'm saying "No, that god can not exist based on that complete lack of evidence you are presenting!" And I can say that to every individual religion if I have to, but the universal rejection of all current, man-made primitive attempts to understand nature is all there is to it.

If you believe in a god, or a higher power, but don't even belong to a religion or follow any doctrine than you are just attributing your own consciousness/nature/the universe to some abstract notion with the word "God" attached to it and that's something I just can't do. Just because the idea of god exists doesn't mean you can make him/her/it the cause of everything we CAN see and CAN touch and CAN prove actually exists. If you aren't doing that, fine. If you think god can and does power these things, you have to be able to prove it conclusively that alongside everything on earth, he also neglected to put life on the hundreds of thousands of planets we have observed, sends meteors crashing into planets nearly wiping them out, causes galaxies to collide killing any living thing on any planet like what will happen with the milky way/andromeda in a few million years etc.

If you believe in a god that jump started the universe but has been completely hands off, fine. I can even conceptualize how that could be a plausible notion. But to say he can intervene in our lives now means there would have to be some way to PROVE that! If he can't, fine. If he can, it should be easy to prove.

I don't like writing these walls of text any more than you like reading them and if you do read them all the way through I appreciate it. I just don't know what else I can say. I have an answer for everything I believe in my life and what I don't have an answer for I'm okay with I don't know instead of "well it must be god, but I have no idea how to be sure other than I just really want it to be."

[chimburgandy]

Fine tuned my ass. Nature is most likely the sloppiest thing I have ever witnessed.

Any of you pukes watch an ef-4 tornado over a mile wide go by you at about 200 yards while you're at work and then find out you lost your entire neighborhood when you get home and the stupid thing destroyed one third of the buildings in your city? I didn't think so. Do so and then come back here with that nonsensical garbage.

Get caught in a squall on the ocean of your choice.

Witness the aftermath of a landslide/tsunami/typhoon/etc.

I just shake my head at the people who can spout such nonsensical gibberish and hold a serious face.

Seriously.

I absolutely love the (paraphrased) quote by Sam Harris that thinking this way is not only reprehensible, but it is a complete failure to reason honestly, or to care sufficiently about your fellow man.

What part of any plan has random disasters take innocent and evil, young and old, children and adults off the planet in a completely random assortment and how can anyone look at the nature of the earth and people realistically and think we are anything but highly evolved animals who have managed to form a civilization and live on the planet despite its unimaginable amount of short comings, for a little while longer anyway.

[Alter2Ego]

Let's pretend you didn't completely ignore and disregard the counterpoint to your argument, that you are obviously emotionally invested in and won't let go easily, and we'll say that it is in fact possible that that the universe was designed. Congratulations, I'm convinced.

Now, show the connection between a designed universe and the proof you have of god designing it. Your specific god mind you, and why it wouldn't be any of the other countless gods known to man. A god that, given how complex he must be, had to have also had a creator which surely you must be able to explain. And also how you explain what created the creator of god, and so on. Keeping in mind that god being "eternal" or "the first mover" or "having always existed" aren't explanations because they are made up concepts that also can't be proven.

Even if the universe was designed, and even if evolution was disproved (which it never will be as the process which has guided life from the beginning) you are still left having to explain even more than you did before. No one ever has presented empirical or substantial evidence for a specific designer, but people love saying that god had to have done it because they just can't imagine or bear the alternative... that we just might never know.

ALTER2EGO -to- CHIMBURGANDY:
I don't see how the the example of Scientific Law used in my OP (the Periodic Table of the Elements) could possibly be dismissed as "emotional investment" on my part. Scientific facts are independent of whatever you or I or anybody else opine. Facts are stubborn things. They don't change because we don't want to deal with their reality, and it appears you don't want to deal with reality. As a reminder, notice some of what I stated in my OP. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print.

Take, for example, the first discovered 60 elements on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth.... The atoms--from which the Earth's elements are made--are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) "Periodic Law," from Encyclopdia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography)

ALTER2EGO -to- CHIMBURGANDY:
Since you obviously can't tell the difference between emotionalism and scientific law, I suggest you write the two sources I referenced above (The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, and the Encyclopdia Britannica) and inform them that their information is based upon the "emotional investment" of their authors. Let me know how that works out for you.

[ThoughtRiot]

I don't think the God in nature thing really works empirically, but I definitely feel it on a visceral level. The idea of the Sublime is definitely something that I believe in and experience. Just take a walk in the woods or get to a view and it's amazing how complex almost every aspect of animal and plant life is. I mean just look at an ant hill. When you get closer and closer it gets more and more complex and amazing. At the same time this is all masked what seems to be a natural (for lack of a better word) simplicity. And then you see the scope of everything and realize how amazing every step you take is. It's just something that makes you really get out of yourself and think.

[Alter2Ego]

YOU WROTE: "Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random."

Ok, let me start here, with evolution. If we take chance to mean "A possibility of something happening" then it is also 'chance' that a god would exist.

Now, I think you might not understand what evolution actually is. It is split in to two categories, so let's just look at micro-evolution. That is a change of the frequencies of alleles within a given population over time. Evolution is a THEORY that we humans use to understand this process. So if there is genetic information that is passed when something reproduces or produces clones (remember, we can have mutations here), and our populations are not at hardy-weinberg equilibrium, there will be evolution. That isn't really 'chance', it WILL occur under these conditions.

If you find yourself impressed with how events unfolded - well, that's fine. It isn't evidence of anything, it is just that your brain - naturally a pattern-seeking device - will be impressed with any sequence of events that seems to fit together or happen on a grand-scale.

And please bear in mind how many planets there are with NO life on them. Please bear in mind mass extinctions on THIS planet, and how human beings have a limited time here: mega-tsunamis, asteroids, super-volcanoes, etc. These things are all a result of that "precision" you seem so fond of.

ALTER2EGO -to- NASH2:
When the discussion deals with precision in the natural world, I don't take "chance" to mean a possibility of anything happening. Why not? Because the scientific evidence has proven time and time again that "chance" amounts to "accidental occurrences." Accidental occurrences are unpredictable and do not produce precision. I pointed that out in my OP by giving the definition of "accident".

DEFINITION OF "ACCIDENT":
"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"
(Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)

The precision in the universe rules out "accident" and indicates it was deliberately done. Something that is deliberately done, in turn, indicates the presence of an intelligent being (human or otherwise).


QUESTION #1 to NASH2: If the existence of an intelligent Designer/God is merely a chance occurrence, how do you explain the example in my OP of the precision within the elements on the Periodic Table of Elements and the fact that all of those elements are interrelated? In other words, how could all of those elements be so specifically related to each other by accident or in the absence of an intelligent being who intervened and guided the outcome?

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- TH3SHR3DD3R:
The discussion of the Periodic Table of the Elements in the OP of my thread entitled: "Precision in Nature = Evidence of God" is not science, you say? In that OP, I referenced The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography, which is a scientific publication--indicating you are in denial. Need I say more?

You're referencing the existence of something that is scientifically confirmed and then extrapolating a philosophical argument from it. This is just a rehashing of the 'fine-tuning' philosophical argument, an argument which uses scientifically confirmed facts through which it extrapolates a position that is not, in and of itself, scientific, but rests on the science of other things.

So, no it isn't science.

ALTER2EGO -to- TH3SHR3DD3R:
I am referencing scientific evidence about the Periodic Table of the Elements and the fact that it is an example of precision in the natural world. You started off claiming that is not scientific, despite the fact the entire scientific community recognizes the Periodic Table of the Elements as scientific. So much so, that it is considered Periodic Law because of the relationship of all the elements on the Periodic Table to one another. Now you are back-pedaling.


QUESTION #1 to TH3SHR3DD3R: Are you telling this forum that the relationship among all of the elements on the Periodic Table occurred by accident aka "it happened by itself for no explainable reason"?

[Harbinger]

OP, how do you explain all the mistakes if nature is so precise?

Do Not answer me in blue!

[MaximosJ]

Might want to rethink your style of presentation. Came in to read thread. Saw that it began with your own username, "ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE." Saw that it was multicolored. Did not read.



































































Then saw that it was last edited by alan aragon. Considering reading.