Does God Exist?

[Orias]

Your argument appears to be that the universe is complex, thus it needs a creator. But surely a creator is necessarily equally or more complex than anything it creates?

I agree, and I would also have to agree that I think the universe of very complex, but the God complex is not needed to ensure a "creation". More so, in order for a God to be, a greater nature would have to have allowed it, so I'm just going to stick with, God is nature and everything within and about us.

Want me to produce proof of evolution?

I don't suppose changing our enviroment around us would count. Or even our minds that tend to stray away from "traditional" "morals".

Reproducing evolution of life is as easy as counting to 100. It takes baby steps for some people

 

[outhouse]

whats hillarious about the whole creator nonsense, besides there severe lack of education is that the universe is geared more for black holes then providing planets that can have life arise

 

[Autodidact]

How could we understand this if we cannot even know the true nature of God. If we knew the true nature of God we could then begin to understand where or how He became.

Do we know the true nature of the universe?

 

[Dan4reason]

And I see that you avoided answering my question. Maybe in your mind you believe that the universe is not complex; when in fact it is. I am not the one going around claiming that we know everything about the universe. When in fact the truth of the matter is that we barely know our solar system let alone the earth. How then can you begin to discuss the complexity of God with this kind of short-sightedness on the universe?

The universe has patterns like any other thing we find in nature such as rainbows, snowflakes, or thunder but that does not mean that there has to be an intelligent being making these patterns. We have observed that many patterns arising because of the forces of nature. You may be tempted to think that the arch below was made by a person, but it was actually created by natural forces.

Stars are formed not by a designer but by the force of gravity. Stars start out as mostly hydrogen and fuse atoms together in their cores to make up heavier elements until they run out of fuel. They then explode shooting complex elements into space which are then trapped in the orbit of stars and through the force of gravity make planets. Earth is simply a rocky planet that is covered mostly by dihydrogen monoxide.

Complexity on the other hand is more than just patterns in nature that we see with black holes, stars, rock arches, or rainbows, it usually resembles a mechanical device that works together in very very specific ways like a clock or a cell. A star is not complex although it does have patterns while a cell is incredibly complex. The best explanations for complex things in the universe is some kind of selective process whether it is design or natural.

There is nothing to indicate that the universe itself is at all complex, it simply has patterns, so you cannot positively assert that it is complex. There is no need for a design explanation at all for the universe just like there is no need to believe in a rainbow maker or a snowflake maker.

 

[Orias]

Do we know the true nature of the universe?

If we know the nature of ourselves, it should be self evident.

We don't need the Earth to tell us that we exist because of it, we already know it.

I think it is safe to compare the nature of the universe to the nature of man, since we are part of it and our mind contains a universe of it's own

 

[Dan4reason]

The author Wayne Jackson puts it better this way:

"The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state”

Wayne Jackson does not seem to understand the big bang very well needs to get a lecture from Stephen Hawking. The big bang is not an explosion at all, that idea is simply an analogy. The big bang refers to the expansion of space that came from a singularity. Thinks are not flying apart in spacein the big bang, space itself is simply getting bigger. The universe is nothing like an an airplane because while it only has patterns, the airplane is complex and mechanical. The patterns in the universe are explainable with gravity which collected the scattered hydrogen into stars as described by this image.

Patterns in nature are usually explainable with natural forces.

"If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150)." ---- Wayne Jackson

Angular momentum is intertia times the angular velocity. The inerita is the average distance each point is from the axis distance squared times the total mass. The angular velocity is used to describe circular motion and is the radians per second you are going. Angular momentum applies to motion within space not the expansion of space itself. What I am getting at here is that the things that would be true for dynamite exploding and breaking up material inside space is not true for the expansion of space because of a singularity.

 

[Dan4reason]

The ape-like fossil discovered does not established evolution. Evolutionists ignore that fact that this fossil could have been one of the following (but not limited to):

1) an abnormal genetically deformed primate (ape, chimpanzee, etc.);
2) an abnormal genetically deformed (retarded) human;
3) an abomination result of bestiality between a man and a ape (common among heathens); i.e. the old proverbial "putting the cart before the horse" possibility

Scientists have tried to make "humanzees" using artificial insemination but have failed every time. Even the very ape-like fossils that we find have the ability of bipedalism, less protruding facial features, more tooth enamel, larger brain size, shorter arms to body, etc. This could not have been a result of random mutations in one or ever a few generations of apes. It takes at least thousands of generations to get all of these with natural selection and small mutations.

[/QUOTE]And where is the DNA evidence showing a connection between humans and primate in this fossil (or any fossils) such as the Peking man, Java man, or Neanderthal man?[/QUOTE]

Well, we do have the neanderthal genome which is very simmilar to human DNA but different. Even without the DNA, the bones are good enough.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

 

[outhouse]

Wayne Jackson does not seem to understand the big bang very well needs to get a lecture from Stephen Hawking. The big bang is not an explosion at all, that idea is simply an analogy. The big bang refers to the expansion of space that came from a singularity. Thinks are not flying apart in spacein the big bang, space itself is simply getting bigger. The universe is nothing like an an airplane because while it only has patterns, the airplane is complex and mechanical. The patterns in the universe are explainable with gravity which collected the scattered hydrogen into stars as described by this image.

Patterns in nature are usually explainable with natural forces.





Angular momentum is intertia times the angular velocity. The inerita is the average distance each point is from the axis distance squared times the total mass. The angular velocity is used to describe circular motion and is the radians per second you are going. Angular momentum applies to motion within space not the expansion of space itself. What I am getting at here is that the things that would be true for dynamite exploding and breaking up material inside space is not true for the expansion of space because of a singularity.

Good post Dan

that explains it better then I understood

 

[McBell]

Scientists have tried to make "humanzees" using artificial insemination but have failed every time.

Source please.

 

[Dan4reason]

Source please.

Humanzee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov tried to create a humanzee with artificial insemination but the female chimps failed to become pregnant. He did not do many tests so the possibility still exists however, there is no evidence that a humanzee can be created. Even if the pregnancy could be started, I doubt that a child would even survive or be healthy. Many species can cross breed but the offspring is sterile.

Human and chimpanzee DNA is so similar that there are speculations in the scientific community that this can be done, however, chimpanzees have an extra pair of chromosomes and that can cause problems. Many scientists think that humans and chimps were interbreeding up to 1.2 million years ago.

 

[Tree)O(Life]

Mankind cannot answer this question without bringing back the dead or having an alien race tell us straight or having a scientific breakthrough that proves the stages of evolution, this is one of those religious questions we might aswell not even ask. people study Christianity and worship god but will all be treated equally in paradise on earth after judgement day. Only 144000 people go to the kingdom of heaven so we might aswell count ourselves out, People who have never been aware of god Ive been told are worthy of heaven on Earth if youre the kind of person who is able to and God can read our hearts so if you know you are in anyway malevolent persistantly and dont redeem yourself and learn to be perfectly nice count yourself out of the christian afterlife. My advice to people who ask the question wether god is real and fretting wether to sacrifice your life for his worship only to be treated as equally as a person who doesnt know where they are when you wake up in paradise just believe in becoming a ghost and wandering and hope you dont need to breath so you can travel through space.

 

[Dan4reason]

"Characteristics of these Missing Links between Humans and [so-called] “Early Ancestors”:

Investigating the scientific literature reveals that all these proposed ”missing links” are either very human-like with a trace of some apelike characteristic, or very apelike with a trace of some human characteristic. There is nothing really in between (where you would expect a “real” transitional species). One example of a change seen by scientists would be in the shape of a jaw. The jaws in some apes are almost rectangular and others are more curved. Since the human jaw is roughly parabolic (a rounded “V”), those apes possessing a more curved jaw are claimed to be “more human.” Similarly, a human skull that had a slightly squared jaw would be considered “more apelike.” Therefore, please keep in mind that the tiny variations seen by scientists may actually be variations in normal ape and human populations that are incorrectly labeled as missing links." ---- Copyright © 2001 by Clarifying Christianity

Your source is pretty bad because while that argument may hold true for species like ardipithecus ramidus (very ape-like) or Homo Saien Neanderthalensis (very human-like) to a limited extent even though there is very solid evidence that they are unique, it does not hold true for more transitional forms like australopithecus afarensis or homo erectus. From the family tree below we can see that there are many species that have traits in between those of humans are chimps which are simmilar to our last common ancestor.

 

[Dan4reason]

Australopithecus

"Those fossils known as Australopithecines are very apelike. That is, they look exactly like ape fossils except that a close examination of the teeth, or the jaw shape, or minor bones of the skull leads some scientists to think they see faint “human” characteristics. Early attempts to introduce these fossils as “progressive pre hominids” were ridiculed by scientists. One example is the Australopithecus africanus finding at Taungs in 1924 by Dr. R. A. Dart. He considered the apelike skull pieces (consisting of the front of a face and lower jaw) to have slightly human features. The scientists of the day (who were also evolutionists) treated his proposal with great scorn and considered the skull to be a variety of chimpanzee. They called it “Dart’s baby.” Even the evolutionary advocate and “expert on human origins” Teilhard de Chardin (also loosely associated with Peking Man, Java Man, etc.) considered the Australopithecines to be a branch of development that did not continue to progress up to man. That is, even within the “evolutionary community” many scientists believed that these fossils were only apes." ---- Copyright © 2001 by Clarifying Christianity

You have been tricked by bad information again. In most aspects, australopithecines are only very slightly different than apes, however, their pelvises suggest that they were bipedal. Bones are muscle holders and we can find quite a bit about muscles and what they did from these bones. The human pelvis was shaped to carry muscles which aids bipedalism. The ape pelvis is shaped to support the legs of knuckle walkers, and the pelvis of australopithecines are very simmilar to that of bipedal humans as shown below.

 

[McBell]

Humanzee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov tried to create a humanzee with artificial insemination but the female chimps failed to become pregnant. He did not do many tests so the possibility still exists however, there is no evidence that a humanzee can be created. Even if the pregnancy could be started, I doubt that a child would even survive or be healthy. Many species can cross breed but the offspring is sterile.

Human and chimpanzee DNA is so similar that there are speculations in the scientific community that this can be done, however, chimpanzees have an extra pair of chromosomes and that can cause problems. Many scientists think that humans and chimps were interbreeding up to 1.2 million years ago.

Thank you.

 

[buddhadev]

God exists only when you think He does not. He will not exist for you when you think he exists.

 

[Orias]

God exists only when you think He does not. He will not exist for you when you think he exists.

I thought Buddhists were not supposed to conform to the ego?

 

[OneThatGotAway]

"Evolution Has No Verifiable Evidence" ---- OneThatGotAway

Sir do you lie all the time about your ignornace? evolution is based on facts and has been verified. if you had any education in science you find your short comings

Just because you say so does not make it true. The so-call education that you received made a poor attempt to mix science with unproveable theories. My education is better than yours when it comes to studying the Origins of Life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The ape-like fossil discovered does not established evolution. Evolutionists ignore that fact that this fossil could have been one of the following (but not limited to):
1) an abnormal genetically deformed primate (ape, chimpanzee, etc.);
2) an abnormal genetically deformed (retarded) human;
3) an abomination result of bestiality between a man and a ape (common among heathens); i.e. the old proverbial "putting the cart before the horse" possibility " ---- OneThatGotAway

your right, fossils do not prove evolution. Evolution being based on facts holds strong without fossils at all! after that your telling all lies based soley on ignorance and not even worth a real debate

Evolution is not based on fact but unproveable theories. You've bought into that lie and you should get your refund from the jerk that taught you the lies of evolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in my opinion man created god in our image, our imagination to be exact. for 200,000 years homo sapiens have imagined something for questions he could not answer. the less he knew, the more he imagined. the more he knew the less he imagined.

Millions of other opinion says that God created man in His image. True, there were other men who did not knew God. And they imagine in their little minds that man's increase of knowledge was soley without the help of God. However, men who walked with God received their knowledge and wisdom directly from Him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the point at which our current religions were created are only here becuase thats when we started writing. Nothing more. imagined gods were not more powerful back then and appeared more often, NO mans imagination just got recorded while man knew very little.

That is because you are among the millions of men who did not know God; neither did they desire to know Him. And so God left you up to your own imagination. But He has spoken to and guided men who truly sought Him with all of their heart.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

funniest thing of all, were so smart now if a man or group of men started a religion today. Every last one of them would be labeled as crazy. but following a 3000 year old sheep herders guide for a good life and using it as a science and history book is completely acceptable. man really hasnt evolved all that much has he.

"The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. YAHWEH looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God. They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people [as] they eat bread, and call not upon YAHWEH." ---- Mizmur (Psalm) 14:1-4

The knowledge that God gives to men trumps the best of man's knowledge any day. God has given man a headstart on knowledge and wisdom; and some have rejected it for foolish fairy tales like Evolution and the Big Bang Theory; disguised as fact instead of their true form: Unproveable Theories.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Stars are formed not by a designer but by the force of gravity. Stars start out as mostly hydrogen and fuse atoms together in their cores to make up heavier elements until they run out of fuel. They then explode shooting complex elements into space which are then trapped in the orbit of stars and through the force of gravity make planets. Earth is simply a rocky planet that is covered mostly by dihydrogen monoxide.

But your belief (theory) begs the question: What caused such a star to begin as a collection of fuse atoms? Are you saying that: "In the Beginning..." all of the stars began as a tightly unstable collection of atoms, inherently possessing enough force to propel itself and other always existing objects (like our Earth) in all directions? This is a belief (theory) and not a proveable fact, you know. And which scientific tool measured all of the interior of a star; in order to come to your theory as fact? So far, no such tool exist; hence the possibility of a star being complex remains a possibility.

 

[outhouse]

Just because you say so does not make it true

this is true.

but you have a real problem with 200,000 scientist that agree wholehearted as well as the whole biotech industry.

My education is better than yours when it comes to studying the Origins of Life

This is absolutely a flase statement on the fact you dont know my education AND you have all the facts wrong so obviously you slept through every biology class you took because your lost my friend.

"The ape-like fossil discovered does not established evolution

correct, fossils are not needed to prove evolution.

Evolutionists ignore that fact that this fossil could have been one of the following

this was a half baked statement and absurd to boot. If you have a real education your statement is a blatant lie.

there are huge amounts of homo erectus skeletons found in many places. Homo erectus looked almost completely human as did neanderthal.

this is a small example of your blatant ignorance to facts.

Evolution is not based on fact but unproveable theories

Again you have no real education and every statement you make proves it.

a scientific theory is an observation of facts, along the same lines as gravity

You've bought into that lie and you should get your refund from the jerk that taught you the lies of evolution.

sir your lack of education is evident I get it. I have done the work myself and seen the results. YOu are wrong sir there is no debate about the facts regarding evolution

That is because you are among the millions of men who did not know God

sir you really need an education about the bible as well i see, you dont judge someone and make statements you cant back. You dont know the first thing about me or my beliefs. I would guess I know more about your god myth then you ever will.

Have you ever taken a history class???

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Wayne Jackson does not seem to understand the big bang very well needs to get a lecture from Stephen Hawking. The big bang is not an explosion at all, that idea is simply an analogy. The big bang refers to the expansion of space that came from a singularity. Thinks are not flying apart in spacein the big bang, space itself is simply getting bigger. The universe is nothing like an an airplane because while it only has patterns, the airplane is complex and mechanical. The patterns in the universe are explainable with gravity which collected the scattered hydrogen into stars as described by this image.

Whether it exploded or expanded is a moot point: Such a event does not produce ordered systems and the earth like what we see today. Mankind have not observed an always eternally existing matter and/or energy expanding from a point of origin. The earth is delicately balance with unmatched properties to sustained life as we know it. No such expansion can produce such order unless you Stephen Hawking assume that the earth existed in its present state at the beginning of the believed so-called "Big Bang Belief" (I mean, Theory).

Angular momentum is intertia times the angular velocity. The inerita is the average distance each point is from the axis distance squared times the total mass. The angular velocity is used to describe circular motion and is the radians per second you are going. Angular momentum applies to motion within space not the expansion of space itself. What I am getting at here is that the things that would be true for dynamite exploding and breaking up material inside space is not true for the expansion of space because of a singularity.

But the explosion of a dynamite is what the Big Bang Theory is describing. No such explosion or expansion does not achieve orbital motions; nor has it been scientifically proven.