What explains us better, God or evolution?

[veritas]

First of all I think that people need to be a little more open minded when discussing whether or not God exists, atheists and theists alike.

What I am going to do is ask a series of questions concerning the behaviors of humanity as well as some aspects of our existence and decide whether God or evolution has a more convincing answer to the question. Two theories may look equally probable, but when broken down and analyzed there is usually one that is more plausible.


So lets start at the beginning: What was the first cause of the universe? Either it just happened without cause or the cause was God. It is really hard for me to believe that in our physical universe which is governed by cause and effect came into existence without cause. (And I am aware that some scientists believe that subatomic particles can do things without cause, however just because the cause is unobserved does not mean there isn’t one. I say this because our technology at that level is still limited and the theories are only based on what we can see and test for.) So in this case it seems more likely that God is the cause of the universe.

Secondly, just the fact that we are able to think and have complex feelings and emotions is another part of us that is very hard for science to explain. As complicated as our minds are, it is just very hard to believe that all of our thoughts, reasoning, and rationalization come from electrical sparks between a bunch of cells in a skull. It seems a lot more plausible that we aren’t simply a body with a mind but a soul that has a body. As the emotionally intricate beings that we really are, this just makes a whole lot more sense.


And then we have to look at people’s behavior. My question is this: Why is love such a strong force in humankind? The need for love is evident in all aspects of society. It is arguable that people want to be loved more than anything else in the world. The pursuit of love can and will consume a person’s life. Now evolution would explain love as a product of the relationships within a community, and the reliance on others for survival which formed bonds between people and eventually evolved into the emotion of love. This would mean that love contained some characteristic that was beneficial for survival. This does a pretty good job in explaining why we care for each other, but it doesn’t seem to explain our desire for a truly intimate relationship with another person. True love goes a lot farther than simply caring for the well being of someone. When you get down to it, the purest form of love has no reason at all. If you can love someone that does you harm, you are showing a much stronger and purer form of love for that person than if you love someone who is always nice to you. This may mean that the strength of love lies much deeper within us than we even realize. In consideration of both sides our desire for love is much better explained by a God who created us to have a perfect relationship with Him, than as a tool in survival.

And then morality. The natural law of humanity. How did we get this overwhelming sense of morality, and why do we have feelings of guilt when we don’t adhere to it? In the same idea of love, morality must have some sort of intrinsic survival value if it is to be explained through evolution. If we look at morality from this point of view, we can say that morality also came about through the formation of communities in order to further the survival of the human race. In order for people to be successful in living in a community, they would need some sort of guidance that would help the community to stay together. This guidance could be what we now call morality. However there is one thing that is important to remember about the theory of evolution. The number one goal of an individual is his own survival. The only point of the community would be to further the chance of his own survival. So according to this view of morality it doesn’t make sense that if I see someone in danger, and in order to save them I must put my life in jeopardy, it seems as though I would automatically realize that my life is more important to me than theirs, so there is no reason that I should feel bad for not saving them. Yet we do. If there are only two people stranded an island and there is a raft that can only fit one person and a limited amount of rations, all logic says that I should do whatever it takes to get the raft and sail to my own safety without a second thought. The other person would only hinder my survival, yet why do I feel compelled to bring her along? And why do I feel bad for leaving her there? I think that morality is a lot better explained by the fact that God, wrote into us one simple law on which all other laws of morality hang. That law would be to love your neighbor as yourself. All true forms of morality come back to this one law simple law. This makes a lot more sense to me concerning how I feel when I treat others. Love does no harm to ones neighbor (Romans 13:10) so if I truly love other people and base my actions on love, I should never feel guilty in the sense that I did something immoral. This morality based on love does a lot better job explaining our experience of morality than one that is based solely on survival.


There are other cases which I think God explains a lot better than evolution: our experience of beauty, our overwhelming search for a purpose in life, our inherent knowledge that we can be held responsible for our decisions and just simply our never ending desire for that thing which completes us. These are all reasons why I believe that we were created to simply experience our creator.

You can always have multiple explanations for a situation but there is only one that is right. If I come home and my son is standing in the kitchen with the dog at his feet and a bat in his hand with a baseball and broken vase on the floor, I have a few options. Either the dog was chasing the ball and broke the vase, my son hit the ball which hit the vase, or the bat hit the vase when he swung at the ball. Each theory seems to make just as much sense as the other in explaining how the vase ended up broken, but in reality there is only one way that it happened. If I have good proof that my son hit the vase with the ball, then that is what I am going to believe, even though the other ways may be just as possible. I have to look at which one makes more sense.

I think that even though we have two explanations, it just makes a lot more sense that we were created by a God who truly loves us and wants us to experience him, and the only thing that is stopping us from doing so is our own selfish desires. The problem we have is that we are stuck looking through a temporary perspective when we should be looking at an eternal one.

[GodlessHeathen]

This is going to be long, I'm afraid. . .

What was the first cause of the universe? Either it just happened without cause or the cause was God. It is really hard for me to believe that in our physical universe which is governed by cause and effect came into existence without cause. (And I am aware that some scientists believe that subatomic particles can do things without cause, however just because the cause is unobserved does not mean there isn’t one. I say this because our technology at that level is still limited and the theories are only based on what we can see and test for.) So in this case it seems more likely that God is the cause of the universe.
Sorry, but that's incorrect. Whether you are an atheist or a theist, there was a cause. The question I think you mean to pose here is "was god the cause?".

Secondly, just the fact that we are able to think and have complex feelings and emotions is another part of us that is very hard for science to explain. As complicated as our minds are, it is just very hard to believe that all of our thoughts, reasoning, and rationalization come from electrical sparks between a bunch of cells in a skull. It seems a lot more plausible that we aren’t simply a body with a mind but a soul that has a body. As the emotionally intricate beings that we really are, this just makes a whole lot more sense.
So, you're saying that just because science can't explain something, god must have done it? 1000 years ago, if a farmer had his crops wiped out by a severe thunderstorm, his rationale would have been that it was some sort of punishment from god. Now, science can explain things a little bit better, and we know that it wasn't god's punishment, it was a thunderstorm. Using the reasoning that "since science can't explain it, it must be god" is naive at best.

Why is love such a strong force in humankind? The need for love is evident in all aspects of society. It is arguable that people want to be loved more than anything else in the world. The pursuit of love can and will consume a person’s life. Now evolution would explain love as a product of the relationships within a community, and the reliance on others for survival which formed bonds between people and eventually evolved into the emotion of love. This would mean that love contained some characteristic that was beneficial for survival. This does a pretty good job in explaining why we care for each other, but it doesn’t seem to explain our desire for a truly intimate relationship with another person. In consideration of both sides our desire for love is much better explained by a God who created us to have a perfect relationship with Him, than as a tool in survival.
The desire to couple and reproduce (which seems to be what you're referring to here, although you used language that was more flowery and touchy-feely) is necessary for the survival of a species. If nobody is having babies, we're as good as extinct. As far as "finding love" with someone being a strong force within us, the concept of romantic love is a relatively new thing for the human race.

And then morality. The natural law of humanity. How did we get this overwhelming sense of morality, and why do we have feelings of guilt when we don’t adhere to it? In the same idea of love, morality must have some sort of intrinsic survival value if it is to be explained through evolution. However there is one thing that is important to remember about the theory of evolution. The number one goal of an individual is his own survival. The only point of the community would be to further the chance of his own survival. So according to this view of morality it doesn’t make sense that if I see someone in danger, and in order to save them I must put my life in jeopardy, it seems as though I would automatically realize that my life is more important to me than theirs, so there is no reason that I should feel bad for not saving them. Yet we do.
From an evolutionary standpoint, perhaps we feel that way because the group is made up of a collection of individuals, and we rely on each other for survival. By failing to save that person, you have failed him/her, and you have made the group weaker as a result. Just a thought.

There are other cases which I think God explains a lot better than evolution: our experience of beauty
. . .which is subjective. . .

our overwhelming search for a purpose in life
. . .possibly stemming from the evolutionary need to have a function within a group. When you are dependent on a small group for your survival, everyone needs to have a function in order to "earn their keep", as it were.

And, your piece de resistance:

You can always have multiple explanations for a situation but there is only one that is right. If I come home and my son is standing in the kitchen with the dog at his feet and a bat in his hand with a baseball and broken vase on the floor, I have a few options. Either the dog was chasing the ball and broke the vase, my son hit the ball which hit the vase, or the bat hit the vase when he swung at the ball. Each theory seems to make just as much sense as the other in explaining how the vase ended up broken, but in reality there is only one way that it happened. If I have good proof that my son hit the vase with the ball, then that is what I am going to believe, even though the other ways may be just as possible. I have to look at which one makes more sense.
To make your analogy work here, I'm going to add another explanation: that magic fairies came into your house and broke your vase. Your son and the dog just happened to walk into the house and find the vase broken. Since you didn't see your son or the dog break the vase, and you have no proof as to who broke the vase, obviously it was the magic fairies.

[ghoulslime]

Where did your God come from? He appeared magically? Sorry to burst your blissful balloon, Linus, but the Great Pumpkin is not going to come to your pumpkin patch. While your delusions about loving beings in the sky may provide you with comfort in confronting the harsh realities of your existence, unfortunately for you your mythology is increasingly opposed by scientific evidence. Each and every new piece of evidence supports neo-Darwinism. What evidence do you have that an omnipotent being created us? Your bible was created by man. Your god was created by man. There was no Noah’s Ark, no Adam and Eve, no walking on water. Take a fucking reality break, dude! Read a book about dinosaurs. Read one about Anthropology if you dare. Rational people don’t buy into religion. It’s a nice way to candy-coat your certain demise, but it has nothing to do with truth. Your dogmas are indefensible. One day the only religion will be science.

[Philboid Studge]

So lets start at the beginning: What was the first cause of the universe?
And what does that have do with evolution? Nothing. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml)

[veritas]

So, you're saying that just because science can't explain something, god must have done it?
Nope, not what Im saying. I even admit that science explains a lot of things about us, but the point that Im trying to make is that God explains them a whole lot better. If you have reason why we are explained better by evolution than by God, then Im all ears.


The desire to couple and reproduce (which seems to be what you're referring to here, although you used language that was more flowery and touchy-feely) is necessary for the survival of a species. If nobody is having babies, we're as good as extinct.
Im not talking about reproduction at all. Im talking about the overwhelming need that people have to be loved. Relationships are just physical reminders of the love we have for someone. My point was that even though we can theorize how this might have been produced by evolution, it just makes a lot more sense that we were created for the reason to experience God's perfect love, and since we cannot fully do this on earth, we look for other ways to fulfill this need. I mean why do we want to find such perfect happiness? It seems as though we would have accepted a lot more fatalistic view on life if we had just evolved. This is why I think that people's desires and needs make so much sense when you consider that we were created by a God who wants to have a relationship with us.



As far as "finding love" with someone being a strong force within us, the concept of romantic love is a relatively new thing for the human race.
Romantic love maybe yes, true love, definitely not.


To make your analogy work here, I'm going to add another explanation: that magic fairies came into your house and broke your vase. Your son and the dog just happened to walk into the house and find the vase broken. Since you didn't see your son or the dog break the vase, and you have no proof as to who broke the vase, obviously it was the magic fairies.
The point of the story is to show that there is more than one logical explanation to explain the outcome. If you could give me reasons to believe that magical fairies broke the vase then fine. But the way you make this statement assumes that I believe in God for absolutely no reason, when I have just written an entire page telling you why I believe that we were created. Its not just blind faith, it makes sense.

[veritas]

So lets start at the beginning: What was the first cause of the universe?
And what does that have do with evolution? Nothing. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml)
And how do you think the universe came into existence?

[Another brick in the wall]

The title of this thread is a false dichotomy. There are many possibilities regarding the origin of the universe and life. Why discount the creation myths of other religions?

[veritas]

Each and every new piece of evidence supports neo-Darwinism. What evidence do you have that an omnipotent being created us?
Science still doesn't explain what caused the universe to begin. The evidence I have that God created us is the way that humans truly feel; their needs and desires. God explains this alot better than evolution does.
Your bible was created by man. Your god was created by man. There was no Noah’s Ark, no Adam and Eve, no walking on water. Take a fucking reality break, dude!
Out of all the knowledge in the universe, what percentage of it do you think that you know?
Read a book about dinosaurs. Read one about Anthropology if you dare.
How do dinosaurs prove that God doesn't exist? I have read Anthropology stuff, some of it’s really interesting and some of it is really hilarious. It doesn't say anything that leads me to believe that God doesn't exist though.
Rational people don’t buy into religion. It’s a nice way to candy-coat your certain demise, but it has nothing to do with truth. Your dogmas are indefensible. One day the only religion will be science.
I don't buy into religion. Religion is just a word that society uses to lump together any spiritual belief or dogma. However, I have plenty of reason to believe that I was created by a God who is the fulfillment of everything that I need.

Seriously man, you could be a little more open minded to say the least. Why don't you actually think about this stuff a little instead of claiming that you KNOW for a fact that there is no God, everything proves this and that’s it? If its all that simple then answer me this one question:

What is your proof that God did not create us?

If you just say "because science proves evolution" this is only saying that there is another theory that could explain us. You need to tell me why evolution explains us better than God.

I have given you my reasons why I believe in God, all I ask for is the reasons why you don't.

[veritas]

The title of this thread is a false dichotomy. There are many possibilities regarding the origin of the universe and life. Why discount the creation myths of other religions?
Sorry about that, why don't you fill us in on how you think we came to be how we are.

[Philboid Studge]

So lets start at the beginning: What was the first cause of the universe?
And what does that have do with evolution? Nothing. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml)
And how do you think the universe came into existence?
I don't know, and I'm comfortable admitting that. I do know that science reveals more and more about the nature of the universe all the time. Whether ultimate questions can or ever will be answered is part of the fun of exploration. Anyway, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with it, nor does it pretend to.

[GodlessHeathen]

Seriously man, you could be a little more open minded to say the least. Why don't you actually think about this stuff a little instead of claiming that you KNOW for a fact that there is no God, everything proves this and that’s it?
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. You want us to be open-minded, but you don't seem to feel the need to follow your own advice.
However, I have plenty of reason to believe that I was created by a God who is the fulfillment of everything that I need.
So you claim, but you have yet to provide us with anything concrete here. We're talking proof, not "beliefs".

What is your proof that God did not create us?
Again, I ask: where is your proof that god did?

[solidsquid]

So lets start at the beginning: What was the first cause of the universe?
And what does that have do with evolution? Nothing. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml)
And how do you think the universe came into existence?
Evolutionary theory makes no claims into the origin of the universe Veritas, you are unknowingly equivocating evolution, using it to apply to the conversational usage and to apply to the theory of evolution as well.

Evolutionary Theory is defined -

evolution: the descent of modern organisms with modification from preexisting life-forms; strictly speaking, any change in the proportions of different genotypes in a population from one generation to the next. (G-9)
Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G., & Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Life on earth (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

So where in that definition does cosmology and the origin of the universe fall?

The one you're using in reference to the universe is:

The process of developing. Gradual development.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

[veritas]

And how do you think the universe came into existence?
I don't know, and I'm comfortable admitting that. I do know that science reveals more and more about the nature of the universe all the time. Whether ultimate questions can or ever will be answered is part of the fun of exploration. Anyway, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with it, nor does it pretend to.
So, I guess you just have faith that one day science will have an explanation for how the universe came into existence? What if one day science finally proves that there's no possible way that the universe could have come into existence without a creator? Isn't that a possibility? Isn't that the most logical possibility right now? If a creator is the most logical answer then why do you just shrug it off saying that there might be another explanation?

So let me just ask the question: Do you think that a creator is the most logical explanaiton for the existence of the universe? Why or why not?

[Another brick in the wall]

If science can one day show beyond reasonable doubt that there is/was a creator I'll believe it. But right now, things seem to be going in the opposite direction. Over the past 500 years, science has a steady record of showing that things which people once thought were controlled by supernatural forces (weather, health/sickness, etc) are controlled by natural forces which are largely predictable. Today, no educated person seriously believes that a god pushes the sun across the sky or that evil spirits cause illness. So the possibility of a creator is not the most logical one in my opinion.

[veritas]

If science can one day show beyond reasonable doubt that there is/was a creator I'll believe it. But right now, things seem to be going in the opposite direction. Over the past 500 years, science has a steady record of showing that things which people once thought were controlled by supernatural forces (weather, health/sickness, etc) are controlled by natural forces which are largely predictable. Today, no educated person seriously believes that a god pushes the sun across the sky or that evil spirits cause illness. So the possibility of a creator is not the most logical one in my opinion.
Natural forces? well then whats driving these natural forces? And whats driving whatever causes the thing thats driving the natural forces and so on and ...

Just because people didn't understand the exactly how the weather works, doesn't mean that God isn't the ultimate force behind it all. There are plenty of educated and respected scientists who believe in God. Just because we can explain how some of the things in our world work doesn't mean that God doesnt make them work.

[Another brick in the wall]

The reverse is also true. Just because we can't explain everything in terms of natural phenomena doesn't mean god(s) exists. What drives gravity? Hell if I know. All science does is observe the world, look for patterns, and then try to explain those patterns. I know stones sink in water because they are denser and wood floats because it's less dense, but why matter is attracted to other matter at all is a mystery to me. It's just what we see. So what if there are many scientists who believe in god? There are plenty that don't. There are plenty of non-scientists who believe in god(s). What does that prove? Nothing.

[fromsanzabar]

Perhaps it's not either/or, but both/and. I'm a theist and am not opposed to evolution. I've not been shown compelling evidence (just speculation), but that's my fault. And "evolutionist" is not synonymous with "darwinist."

I would like to know how all this could have come from nothing. Or perhaps the Atheist believes that some things (like energy) have eternal properties? I'd be interested to know.

[Raiden936]

If you don't know you history, people thought that we have thunderstorms because god was angry. but what happened? science proved that thunderstorms were not caused by god. what is interesting about your belief is that like us, you truely dont know how the universe began. you believe that it was created by god but you dont know that because you werent there...thus it requires faith to believe in it. science is a different story. science can prove how old the universe is through factual data. we have theories on how the universe began through rationality and supportable data. could they be wrong? sure but at least we have evidences to support those theories whereas your theory has no evidences to support it whatsoever

[Another brick in the wall]

The only people I hear using the terms "darwinist" and "evolutionist" are christians. Some people make it out like it's a philosophy or a religion when it's neither.

The universe did not come from nothing. I think that the universe has always existed in some form, but I admit I'm not a cosmologist. I do know that all the matter there is today existed 10 billion years ago. All the atoms that make up your body were once part of something else. If you look at the odds of your parents meeting, and the odds that one specific sperm and one specific egg meet, the odds of any particular person existing are practically zero. Yet here we are. It's a big universe, and in a big universe, even something that's very remote is almost guaranteed to happen in a billion years.

[fromsanzabar]

I don't know that i have a theory. But my reason does tell me that something cannot come from nothing, and that inanimate things do not do things on their own. There is always an initial force, yes?

And as for thunderstorms, that they are a result of observable forces of temperature and water does not discount the possibility of God being the underlying cause. Any action ascribed to God by Theists is always recognized to have been brought about by natural means. God created the matter and energy that we see, and uses it to accomplish his will. An example is Christ healing the man's blindness with dirt and saliva.

[Another brick in the wall]

Are there any credible reports of people being healed today by supernatural means? If everything requires a cause, what caused god? If you say god did not require a cause, then is it not also possible that the universe did not require a cause?

[fromsanzabar]

Because of God's transcendent and supernatural nature that makes certain people so uncomfortable, He requires no cause. He is the ultimate cause.

The universe not have a cause? It seems to me that to be consistent that is what you are forced to accept. Except that such eternal attributes are the very things that make God an impossible idea for you to believe in. Am i wrong?

[Another brick in the wall]

What I'm saying is, your argument has a hole in it. First you say that everything must have a cause, then you say that the cause of the universe was this uncaused thing. It's a contradiction. I do not believe the universe was caused by anything. It just is.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Because of God's transcendent and supernatural nature that makes certain people so uncomfortable, He requires no cause. He is the ultimate cause.

The universe not have a cause? It seems to me that to be consistent that is what you are forced to accept. Except that such eternal attributes are the very things that make God an impossible idea for you to believe in. Am i wrong?
An uncaused god differs from an uncaused universe only because god has intelligence and the universe does not. Intelligence, from what I can tell, does not make this uncausedness any more or less likely.

This is one of those questions that sort of led me to Atheism; It's not that materialistic science offers a satisfying answer to where the universe comes from, but that theistic answers are no more satisfying.

The way I see it, there are three ways the universe could have come into being:

A. The universe was caused by something, and this cause was in turn caused by something, and so on for an infinite series of causes.

B. There was a first cause in the universe, and this was not caused by anything.

C. The universe caused itself to exist.

These are the only options I have found, and none of them are satisfying, and none are made more satisfying by the inclusion of god.

I know most of you have probably heard me say this before. But what the heck, I think it bears repeating.

[Another brick in the wall]

I would rule out A. It's impossible for there to be an infinite series of causes, because that would mean there was an infinite past. If there was an infinite past, there wouldn't be a present.

[whoneedscience]

Veritas, under normal circumstances, I would be absolutely enraged by this discussion. Seeing as you seem to be just looking for answers, though, I recommend reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. He has a very good explanation of the Anthropic Principle and the evidence for a Universe without god. Also, Scientific American is an excellent publication for explaining theories of cosmology and biology in understandable terms. The works of Michael Shermer are all also very good at adressing your reasoning. I think you owe it to yourself to at least read the Hawking.

For now, all I can say as far as answers is that when you take the time to understand the current science, it does a far better job at explaining almost every problem you have.

vale,

WNS

[veritas]

If you don't know you history, people thought that we have thunderstorms because god was angry. but what happened? science proved that thunderstorms were not caused by god.
Dude, seriously, science has definitely not proven that thunderstorms are not caused by God. All science has done is explained the conditions that thunderstorms occur in, how do you know that God isn't the cause of those conditions? There is always another cause behind the effect until you have to reach a self sustaining cause. If this self sustaining cause isn't God what is it?
what is interesting about your belief is that like us, you truly dont know how the universe began. you believe that it was created by god but you dont know that because you werent there...thus it requires faith to believe in it.
Ok, I think its pretty obvious that you have to have faith in one side or the other, I dont see how this gets us anywhere.

Look, the creation of the universe was an effect. If God was not the cause of this effect, then nothing was the cause of this effect. If you say that there was an infinite number of causes before that, then you must not realize that it is impossible to reach a cause on an infinite series. The only logical solution is that the effect (the universe) was caused, by something that is uncaused, thus eternal, which is an innate property of God.
science is a different story. science can prove how old the universe is through factual data. we have theories on how the universe began through rationality and supportable data. could they be wrong? sure but at least we have evidences to support those theories whereas your theory has no evidences to support it whatsoever
There is just as much evidence for the theory of design than there is for evolution. Look up irreducible complexity. It is a theory with plenty of evidence to support it. There are also plenty of theories to suggest that evolution only happens on a small scale only. These are valid theories with proof, that it is very possible we are the product of a designer and not simply of random mutations and natural selection. Design and evolution are both theories with 'proof, so be careful when you assume that "my theories" have no evidence because if you read the opening post you can see why I think that evolution does not adequately explain us.

[GodlessHeathen]

The problem that I have experienced with these kinds of discussions is that atheists are at a disadvantage. Evolutionary science is complex, as is cosmology and physics. I am not an expert in any of those fields. However, all the theist needs to do is rely on the "god did it, and I know because the bible says so" argument. They don't need to be an expert on anything.

[veritas]

Veritas, under normal circumstances, I would be absolutely enraged by this discussion. Seeing as you seem to be just looking for answers, though, I recommend reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. He has a very good explanation of the Anthropic Principle and the evidence for a Universe without god. Also, Scientific American is an excellent publication for explaining theories of cosmology and biology in understandable terms. The works of Michael Shermer are all also very good at adressing your reasoning. I think you owe it to yourself to at least read the Hawking.
I do plan to read Hawking's book when I get the chance, however I have seen condensed versions of his theories, and I have seen arguments against his theories as well. Frankly I don't think that Hawking has the answer to the universe, he just has another theory that involves a lot of imaginary time and mathematics that many people do not even think are valid. I heard a lecture by Fritz Schaefer, who gave his reasons that Hawking is only making conjectures and why he and others do not think that they are valid.

Im not familiar with Shermer but Ill have to look him up. And if you read my opening post im not saying that there aren't multiple theories that could explain our existence, what I am saying is until we have proof that evolution does a better job at explaining us than the theory that we were created, I don't see why we shouldn't believe in God.

[Another brick in the wall]

Small scale evolution can be observed on small time scales. The fossil record shows enormous changes in the kinds of living things that have inhabited the earth. A new species forms, another goes extinct. It's been going on for eons. You admit that microevolution occurs all the time. What stops lots of little changes from adding up over a long period? It's like a snowstorm. You look outside the window before you go to bed and there's an inch of snow. You look outside your window again when you wake up and there's a foot. Little changes over time add up.

God doesn't cause thunderstorms. Thunderstorms are caused when clouds collide and static electricity builds up. When the electricity suddenly discharges, it's called lightning. Scientist know understand electricity well enough to use it do work. We can control electricity, it isn't magic.

Finally, I think you're excluding the possibility that the universe is uncaused. Not everything in the universe has a cause. Scientists still don't know what causes radioactive decay; it just happens.

[ghoulslime]

Science still doesn't explain what caused the universe to begin.
What caused your god to "begin"?


The evidence I have that God created us is the way that humans truly feel; their needs and desires. God explains this alot better than evolution does.
You obviously need to read a bit more on the subject.

Out of all the knowledge in the universe, what percentage of it do you think that you know?
~ An extremely finite amount, but I’d wager I command vastly more than you - I speak five languages. I have a Doctorate in English, and a Masters in Information Technology. What's your claim to wisdom, smart guy?

It doesn't say anything that leads me to believe that God doesn't exist though.
You cling tenaciously to dogma. I reiterate.Your dogmas are indefensible.

However, I have plenty of reason to believe that I was created by a God who is the fulfillment of everything that I need.
I am waiting for your proof. I have every reason to believe you are a lunatic.

Seriously man, you could be a little more open minded to say the least. Why don't you actually think about this stuff a little instead of claiming that you KNOW for a fact that there is no God, everything proves this and that’s it? If its all that simple then answer me this one question:

What is your proof that God did not create us?
Open minded? I studied religion for 22 years. I was a missionary for 2 years. I venture to say I have “thought about this stuff a little”. You propose the theory that there is a god and that it created us. The burden of proof is on you, you simple-minded dork! What is your proof that unicorns and leprechauns didn’t create us?

If you just say "because science proves evolution" this is only saying that there is another theory that could explain us. You need to tell me why evolution explains us better than God.
As I do not advocate any theory that involves any supernatural beings, I have no reason to compare the facts of the very sound theory of Neo-Darwinism to your dogmatic beliefs.

I have given you my reasons why I believe in God, all I ask for is the reasons why you don't.
My reason for not believing in gods is the same reason I don’t believe in fairies and elves. There is no proof for the existence of any of these mythological creatures.

[Amazonis]

Evolution is the way of the earth. Every living thing around us (including us) is slowly but surely evolving to addapt to its ever changing environment. Evolution is more than a theory now - it is fact. Almost all experts in biological science agree that evolution in real, regardless of wether they beleive in god or not. It may be hard to disprove god, but it is very easy to prove evolution.

We can see the affects of evolution in every single life form on earth. If you can't see this then i suggest you take a walk through a tropical rainforest one day. Look at the vegetation, and you will notice that every single plant in the forest is using any method possible to obtain three things - nutriants sunlight and water. Plants don't look after the plant next to them, in fact some plants (such as stranger figs) strangle trees so they can use their trunk and branches as a support to reach the sunlight faster. Everything in a rainforest does what it can to survive.

It is this will for survival that will make the plants evolve into better, stronger forms that will dominate over their compediters. Trial and error is the method for doing this, however the plant obviously doesn't make a concious choice to do this. It occurs because no plant (even of the same species) is exactly the same. Just like human chidren dont look the same as their parents, plant seadling are slightly diferent to their mother tree. This means that because they are alll diferent, some will be stronger than others, and therefore they will be the ones to survive.And because the genetically superior seadlings will grow into trees, they will be the ones who drop seadling of their own, thus creating more stronger trees that will carry on the success of the species.

Its not just in the plant kingdom that evolution occurs, but in all forms of life. The same thing happens with animals, and that includes humans. Our ancestors originated from central Africa, and spread out of Africa to Europe and Asia (evolving as they went). During the Ice Ages the polar ice caps grew more sturdy, so they managed to cross into the America's. We can find evidence of this movement by studying the ages of bones found in all of these areas. We can prove their evolution by the way the bones have changed over these times.

Evolution can be proven just by looking at the diferent subspecies of humans oround the world today. People in Africa are dark so they do not get damaged by the sun, and Europeans are white because living in a cold climate they need to get as much sunlight as they can to produce enouph vitamins to survive. The pygmies of the central African rainforests are very small, bacause it helps them when running through a tangled forest when hunting. The people of the sub-saharan grasslands are tall and thin because they hunt in wide open spaces. Humans have even created new animals using a form of evolution called selective breading. If evolution was not true, your pet dog would still be a wild wolfe!

Everywhere you look there is evidence of evolution, and it does not solve any problems to just ignore this. Just because you are a theist doesn't mean you can't beleive in evolution. There are many religeons around the world that recognise evolution. There are hundreds of thousands of religions anyway, so what makes you choose the on you follow? It has no more proof than any of the other religions, so i find it strange that theists aren't at least agnostic, even if they cannot be atheists.

You don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution anyway. Evolution is not to do with how the earth was created, but to do with what happend after that time. Evolution can be seperate to the formation of the earth. Even if you dont agrea with a theory like the big bang, you still can accept the fact of evolution. You are 99% Chimpazee DNA afterall.

[whoneedscience]

I do plan to read Hawking's book when I get the chance, however I have seen condensed versions of his theories, and I have seen arguments against his theories as well. Frankly I don't think that Hawking has the answer to the universe, he just has another theory that involves a lot of imaginary time and mathematics that many people do not even think are valid. I heard a lecture by Fritz Schaefer, who gave his reasons that Hawking is only making conjectures and why he and others do not think that they are valid.

Im not familiar with Shermer but Ill have to look him up. And if you read my opening post im not saying that there aren't multiple theories that could explain our existence, what I am saying is until we have proof that evolution does a better job at explaining us than the theory that we were created, I don't see why we shouldn't believe in God.
I'm not talking about cutting edge black hole stuff, just the generally accepted rules of the universe and explaining how God can fit into them, if at all. A Brief History of Time is probably one of the best books out there for lay people interrested in science. Yes, some of the details he talks about have changed due to experimental evidence, but the basic stuff, like the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity (all developed by other poeple) are generally accepted and solidly supported. Creation has no valid evidence and is not a theory at all, it is religious fundamentalism and no better than Al Qaeda or the KKK.

If you don't understand simple, high school level Cosmology and Biology, you are not qualified to make the conclusion that creation does a better job. If you did, you would not be having this problem. By not having a developed opinion, and basing your arguments on other people's opinions, you are wasting our time, and decieving youself.

And beleif in God HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. Whoever told you this is intentionally trying to decieve you. Read the book before you feed us any more of your BS.

[Another brick in the wall]

Hawking's books are very readable and not very long. I highly recommend them. Any high school or college biology book will give you a very good explanation of evolution. Or you can check out www.talkorigins.com

[solidsquid]

Im not familiar with Shermer but Ill have to look him up. And if you read my opening post im not saying that there aren't multiple theories that could explain our existence, what I am saying is until we have proof that evolution does a better job at explaining us than the theory that we were created, I don't see why we shouldn't believe in God.
What does cosmology have to do with evolutionary theory?

[ocmpoma]

Other points aside (by this I mean the fact that theism doesn't stand on its own legs, and that theism and evolution are not directly related, etc.), evolutionary theory does a vastly superior job of explaining humans, not to mention the rest of life on Earth, than theism could ever hope to do.

[Metman07]

Vertias you're getting into the same kind of logical error that many naive theists like yourself make. You are contradicting yourself: you say that everything must have a cause, yet you insist that god doesn't have a cause.

You said that atheists and theists should be more open on the subject of the existence of God. So are you open to the possibility that there is no God?

[Philboid Studge]

So, I guess you just have faith that one day science will have an explanation for how the universe came into existence?
V, again:
I don't know, and I'm comfortable admitting that. I do know that science reveals more and more about the nature of the universe all the time. Whether ultimate questions can or ever will be answered is part of the fun of exploration.
What if one day science finally proves that there's no possible way that the universe could have come into existence without a creator?
Cool. I can't imagine that, but cool.

Isn't that a possibility?
Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far ...

Isn't that the most logical possibility right now?
Whoa! Slow down, cowboy!

If a creator is the most logical answer then why do you just shrug it off saying that there might be another explanation?
But-but-but, now I don't know what to think!

So let me just ask the question: Do you think that a creator is the most logical explanaiton for the existence of the universe? Why or why not?
I don't think a creator is any more logical than an infinite universe (or a universe that created itself, for that matter), and it is not really a question that gnaws at me much -- maybe because I assume it's unanswerable. You know how you were saying before that you need to really want to see God in order to see Him? ("And finally, the reason that I "see" God is because I want to have a relationship with Him. I want to talk to Him, read his word, and I want Him to be a part of my life.") I think I don't want to know how the universe came into being. Any explanation I can imagine would be disappointing: God, Big Bang, steady state, a humungous turtle, whatever. I really like a little mystery in this world. Ironically, I want to keep learning more and more. Maybe that it isn't ironic at all: as long as a few ultimate questions remain unanswered, there will always be something more to learn.

[Amazonis]

Veritus, do not come here, say your shit and then run. You have to reply to comments, otherwize you look like you are ignoring anything you dont want to hear. You have being on several times since i wrote the following:

Evolution is the way of the earth. Every living thing around us (including us) is slowly but surely evolving to addapt to its ever changing environment. Evolution is more than a theory now - it is fact. Almost all experts in biological science agree that evolution in real, regardless of wether they beleive in god or not. It may be hard to disprove god, but it is very easy to prove evolution.

We can see the affects of evolution in every single life form on earth. If you can't see this then i suggest you take a walk through a tropical rainforest one day. Look at the vegetation, and you will notice that every single plant in the forest is using any method possible to obtain three things - nutriants sunlight and water. Plants don't look after the plant next to them, in fact some plants (such as stranger figs) strangle trees so they can use their trunk and branches as a support to reach the sunlight faster. Everything in a rainforest does what it can to survive.

It is this will for survival that will make the plants evolve into better, stronger forms that will dominate over their compediters. Trial and error is the method for doing this, however the plant obviously doesn't make a concious choice to do this. It occurs because no plant (even of the same species) is exactly the same. Just like human chidren dont look the same as their parents, plant seadling are slightly diferent to their mother tree. This means that because they are alll diferent, some will be stronger than others, and therefore they will be the ones to survive.And because the genetically superior seadlings will grow into trees, they will be the ones who drop seadling of their own, thus creating more stronger trees that will carry on the success of the species.

Its not just in the plant kingdom that evolution occurs, but in all forms of life. The same thing happens with animals, and that includes humans. Our ancestors originated from central Africa, and spread out of Africa to Europe and Asia (evolving as they went). During the Ice Ages the polar ice caps grew more sturdy, so they managed to cross into the America's. We can find evidence of this movement by studying the ages of bones found in all of these areas. We can prove their evolution by the way the bones have changed over these times.

Evolution can be proven just by looking at the diferent subspecies of humans oround the world today. People in Africa are dark so they do not get damaged by the sun, and Europeans are white because living in a cold climate they need to get as much sunlight as they can to produce enouph vitamins to survive. The pygmies of the central African rainforests are very small, bacause it helps them when running through a tangled forest when hunting. The people of the sub-saharan grasslands are tall and thin because they hunt in wide open spaces. Humans have even created new animals using a form of evolution called selective breading. If evolution was not true, your pet dog would still be a wild wolfe!

Everywhere you look there is evidence of evolution, and it does not solve any problems to just ignore this. Just because you are a theist doesn't mean you can't beleive in evolution. There are many religeons around the world that recognise evolution. There are hundreds of thousands of religions anyway, so what makes you choose the on you follow? It has no more proof than any of the other religions, so i find it strange that theists aren't at least agnostic, even if they cannot be atheists.

You don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution anyway. Evolution is not to do with how the earth was created, but to do with what happend after that time. Evolution can be seperate to the formation of the earth. Even if you dont agrea with a theory like the big bang, you still can accept the fact of evolution. You are 99% Chimpazee DNA afterall.
I would like you to respond to this, and all the other comments from people on this thread. DO NOT SHIT AND RUN!

[NihilistThug]

1. God means nothing, it is a hollow sound.
2. The Supernatural is impossible.
Thus, go can not explain anything because it does not mean anything and couldn't exist.

Obviously, then, evolution.

[veritas]

Veritus, do not come here, say your shit and then run. You have to reply to comments, otherwize you look like you are ignoring anything you dont want to hear. You have being on several times since i wrote the following:
Yeah, sorry its finals week and I havent felt like reading any long posts after all the studying and other crap Ive had to do...

Evolution is the way of the earth. Every living thing around us (including us) is slowly but surely evolving to addapt to its ever changing environment. Evolution is more than a theory now - it is fact. Almost all experts in biological science agree that evolution in real, regardless of wether they beleive in god or not. It may be hard to disprove god, but it is very easy to prove evolution.

We can see the affects of evolution in every single life form on earth. If you can't see this then i suggest you take a walk through a tropical rainforest one day. Look at the vegetation, and you will notice that every single plant in the forest is using any method possible to obtain three things - nutriants sunlight and water. Plants don't look after the plant next to them, in fact some plants (such as stranger figs) strangle trees so they can use their trunk and branches as a support to reach the sunlight faster. Everything in a rainforest does what it can to survive.

It is this will for survival that will make the plants evolve into better, stronger forms that will dominate over their compediters. Trial and error is the method for doing this, however the plant obviously doesn't make a concious choice to do this. It occurs because no plant (even of the same species) is exactly the same. Just like human chidren dont look the same as their parents, plant seadling are slightly diferent to their mother tree. This means that because they are alll diferent, some will be stronger than others, and therefore they will be the ones to survive.And because the genetically superior seadlings will grow into trees, they will be the ones who drop seadling of their own, thus creating more stronger trees that will carry on the success of the species.

Its not just in the plant kingdom that evolution occurs, but in all forms of life. The same thing happens with animals, and that includes humans. Our ancestors originated from central Africa, and spread out of Africa to Europe and Asia (evolving as they went). During the Ice Ages the polar ice caps grew more sturdy, so they managed to cross into the America's. We can find evidence of this movement by studying the ages of bones found in all of these areas. We can prove their evolution by the way the bones have changed over these times.

Evolution can be proven just by looking at the diferent subspecies of humans oround the world today. People in Africa are dark so they do not get damaged by the sun, and Europeans are white because living in a cold climate they need to get as much sunlight as they can to produce enouph vitamins to survive. The pygmies of the central African rainforests are very small, bacause it helps them when running through a tangled forest when hunting. The people of the sub-saharan grasslands are tall and thin because they hunt in wide open spaces. Humans have even created new animals using a form of evolution called selective breading. If evolution was not true, your pet dog would still be a wild wolfe!

Everywhere you look there is evidence of evolution, and it does not solve any problems to just ignore this. Just because you are a theist doesn't mean you can't beleive in evolution. There are many religeons around the world that recognise evolution. There are hundreds of thousands of religions anyway, so what makes you choose the on you follow? It has no more proof than any of the other religions, so i find it strange that theists aren't at least agnostic, even if they cannot be atheists.

You don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution anyway. Evolution is not to do with how the earth was created, but to do with what happend after that time. Evolution can be seperate to the formation of the earth. Even if you dont agrea with a theory like the big bang, you still can accept the fact of evolution. You are 99% Chimpazee DNA afterall.
Let me clarify my position. I never said or tried to imply, that evolution does not occur. The purpose of my post is to describe my reasons for not believing that we could have evolved from non-sentient matter into the thinking, choosing, emotional beings that we are today.

Let me put this another way. Why couldn't God have created things in a way that they adapt to their environments, and are able to act in ways that allows them to survive. I mean wouldn't God have known that the earth was going to change over time, and that if he created things that couldn't adapt to these changes then they would all just die out eventually? I have absolutely no problem with the fact that evolution happens. However I do have a problem with the idea that we are how we are because of evolution. I mean if we simply evolved through survival of the fittest, then why are we in such need of ultimate fulfillment? I mean the reason that people turn to God is because they need God. God fills that hole inside of us. If we are just an arrangement of nonsentient matter, then where did this hole come from? Why do we need that ultimate fulfillment if it it doesnt exist? You dont need things that dont exist. You need water because it exists, you need food because it exists, you need to be ultimately fulfilled because this must exist, and God is the only thing that truly fulfills this need.

Evolution is a theory, which I believe happens. However from this theory, there are born other theories that try to explain why we are the way we are through an evolutionary process. These sub-theories are what I dont agree with. People can say that love is only a product of the formation of communities, in which it was essential for us to care for each other in order to increase our chances of survival..and so on and so forth, but these are the kind of claims that I cannot accept.

My desire for love is not explained by some community survival theory. Its something that goes much deeper. It is the ultimate desire that outweighs that of survival, of accomplishment of anything else. If I know that when I die, my desire for love will be completely fulfilled for eternity, then I have no reason to fear death. Instead, I would want to die. Now if I was driven by survival, then would I have this desire to give up life, the thing that should be the strongest force in me, just for the sake of being loved? This is why it makes a lot more sense to me that God created us for the sole purpose of truly experiencing His perfect love.

You can look at all the theories and you can believe what you want to believe. However, when it comes down to it, it makes just as much sense, if not more, that we were created by God, with the purpose to ultimatley experience His perfect love for us. If you at least come to the conclusion that both theories are just as likely, what would keep you from believing that there is a God and that He does want us to have eternal peace and happiness with Him?



I would like you to respond to this, and all the other comments from people on this thread. DO NOT SHIT AND RUN!
mmhhhmmm... Well first of all there's one of me and about 13 of you that have posted on this thread, soooo due to the fact that I don't plan on spending 3-4 hours on this site per day, I probably wont get to every single one of these posts. If you are terribly offended by my lack of interest in your response, then you are welcome to email me and Ill be sure to make my best attempt at answering it. thank you and have a wonderful day.

i find it strange that theists aren't at least agnostic, even if they cannot be atheists.
Interesting, I find it strange that atheists aren't at least agnostic, even if they cannot be theists... ;)

[lee]

My desire for love is not explained by some community survival theory. Its something that goes much deeper. It is the ultimate desire that outweighs that of survival, of accomplishment of anything else. If I know that when I die, my desire for love will be completely fulfilled for eternity, then I have no reason to fear death. Instead, I would want to die. Now if I was driven by survival, then would I have this desire to give up life, the thing that should be the strongest force in me, just for the sake of being loved? This is why it makes a lot more sense to me that God created us for the sole purpose of truly experiencing His perfect love.
If your so keen on experiencing god's perfect love for eternity, I have a suggestion that might help speed up things a bit.

Since you say your ultimate desire for god's love outweighs your desire for survival. I suggest you STOP EATING. Instead give your next meal to that homeless person on the street, better yet, contribute every cent and dollar you own to charity, in fact give everything you own away. You won't be needing it where your going.

That way, not only were you willing to give up everything you own to the less fortunate. You will also die of starvation in a couple of days, but that's ok because the sooner you die, the sooner you get to experiencing god's perfect love for eternity.

Now in case you can't bring yourself to do this, then perhaps you'll understand more clearly why survival plays such a vital role.

[Metman07]

Veritas you're still ignoring the contradiction you have made. You have said that everything must have a cause. Yet you have failed to explain what caused God. If God could exist without a cause, then it is perfectly logical to hypothesize that the universe existed IN SOME FORM without a cause. In fact the latter would be the more reasonable explanation since a god would have to be infintely more complex than the universe it created. Also, by definition perfection cannot be improved upon.

[Philboid Studge]

i find it strange that theists aren't at least agnostic, even if they cannot be atheists.
Interesting, I find it strange that atheists aren't at least agnostic, even if they cannot be theists...
Everyone is agnostic, in fact; theism and atheism are beliefs (or lack thereof).

[Tenspace]

My desire for love is not explained by some community survival theory. Its something that goes much deeper. It is the ultimate desire that outweighs that of survival, of accomplishment of anything else. If I know that when I die, my desire for love will be completely fulfilled for eternity, then I have no reason to fear death. Instead, I would want to die. Now if I was driven by survival, then would I have this desire to give up life, the thing that should be the strongest force in me, just for the sake of being loved? This is why it makes a lot more sense to me that God created us for the sole purpose of truly experiencing His perfect love.
Veritas, let's talk for a second about love and other emotions. These are controlled by the amygdala and Limbic System. From an evolutionary standpoint, these are also some of the oldest components of our brains. Our basal instincts, those that drive the strongest emotions, are like fossils in our mind. They have been around much longer, helping humans survive, than, say the parietal lobes or neocortex. Even longer than the primary visual cortex.

May I suggest, when you have the time, delving into some reading on the brain. Specifically from the viewpoint of cognitive neuroscience or evolutionary biology. Look for books by Ornstein, Ramachandran, Pinker, and others. I think it will open your eyes to the evolutionary possibilities of the mind.

Tenspace

[veritas]

Veritas you're still ignoring the contradiction you have made. You have said that everything must have a cause. Yet you have failed to explain what caused God. If God could exist without a cause, then it is perfectly logical to hypothesize that the universe existed IN SOME FORM without a cause. In fact the latter would be the more reasonable explanation since a god would have to be infintely more complex than the universe it created. Also, by definition perfection cannot be improved upon.
If God was a physical part of this universe in which basically all things seem to have a cause and effect then, it would make sense that God should have a cause. However God is not part of this universe and God is not anything physical. Being eternal is an innate concept of God. I dont think it very reasonable to assume that God exists within the limits of time, seeing that he would have created what we have as a concept of time. Its obviously incomprehensible to imagine how someone could exist outside of time, but like I have said many times before, we will not and do not need to fully and completely understand exactly what God is. Asking what caused God is like asking "what color is the number 7?" Cause just doesn't apply to something that is eternal.

[RedRob]

I'm new to this forum and I've just read all the post for this topic and one thing is puzzling me.

Veritas, what god are you arguing for, or what god theory do you see as possible?

I'm trying to narrow the field before I present my argument. Thanks.

[Metman07]

Veritas you're still ignoring the contradiction you have made. You have said that everything must have a cause. Yet you have failed to explain what caused God. If God could exist without a cause, then it is perfectly logical to hypothesize that the universe existed IN SOME FORM without a cause. In fact the latter would be the more reasonable explanation since a god would have to be infintely more complex than the universe it created. Also, by definition perfection cannot be improved upon.
If God was a physical part of this universe in which basically all things seem to have a cause and effect then, it would make sense that God should have a cause. However God is not part of this universe and God is not anything physical. Being eternal is an innate concept of God. I dont think it very reasonable to assume that God exists within the limits of time, seeing that he would have created what we have as a concept of time. Its obviously incomprehensible to imagine how someone could exist outside of time, but like I have said many times before, we will not and do not need to fully and completely understand exactly what God is. Asking what caused God is like asking "what color is the number 7?" Cause just doesn't apply to something that is eternal.
But regardless of what god is, you must acknowledge that existence exists. God is an uncaused cause Therefore it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that the universe is eternal. Perhaps not in its CURRENT FORM, but in some other form. Contrary to the widely held belief among Christians, the Big Bang didn't happen out of "nothing". I suggest your read some Stephen Hawking books and about M theory and such.

Your theory is more unreasonable than the major scientific theories, because it is untestable and unverifiable and thus it has zero scientific value and must be accepted on faith or your feelings, which can be very decieving.

[Metman07]

Vertias if you don't believe that consciousness is the result of chemical and electrical processes, then go and bash your head against a wall really hard several times. We'll see if you still retain your current mental capacity. By your theory, you should since yous say that conciousness is immaterial. How does your theory account for mental retardation and other brain defects? How does your theory account for people who suffer brain damage and become vegetables?

[ocmpoma]

"Cause just doesn't apply to something that is eternal." Like the multiverse.

[Lundie]

It has generally been agreed that one of the turning points in the evolution of our species is when our ancestors started treating their dead with dignity, a practice that ultimately gave rise to organised religion.

I therefore find it ironic that religion, the by-product of our evolution, is now trying its damnest to disprove evolution itself.

[Amazonis]

i find it strange that theists aren't at least agnostic, even if they cannot be atheists.
Interesting, I find it strange that atheists aren't at least agnostic, even if they cannot be theists... ;)
My reason for not being an agnostic is due to the fact that there is no reason to belive that god created the universe. From everything we see on earth there is no real reason to jump to the conclusion of god. Some argue that the universe may contain things unexplainable by science, and therefore the existence of a god may be possible. Theoretically it would be, but because there is no evidence at all for this theory, it would make no sense to asume it was true.

Because their is no reason at all to asume the existance of god, one may as well belive that the universe was created by a donkey. And what makes the existance of god even more uncredible is the amount of diferent religions around the planet. There are hundreds of thousands of religions around the world today, so choosing to belive just one is very small minded. Have you studied each of those 500,000 odd religions to find out which is the most credible? I think not. This is why i find a theist following one religion particulally silly.

[lee]

Veritas, since you're still alive and posting, I take it you prefer survival to being with god? :P

[Little Earth Stamper]

Veritas, since you're still alive and posting, I take it you prefer survival to being with god? :P
Suicide is a sin, Lee.

As I've explained before, it is possible to come up with a soul or conciousness that is seperate from the physical body, but still account for brain damage and such.

Think about an action video game. You control a character in the game world, but you yourself are not contained within the character. If an Orc chops your character's head off in the game, then you die. When your character is dead, you can no longer interact with the world.

If our perceptions were limited to the inside of the game world, we would conclude two things:

A. The head is the seat of the intellect, because damaging or destroying the head damages or destroys the intellect.

B. There is no afterlife, because there is no evidence of ghosts, or of souls effecting this life.

In actual fact, the soul, or player, does survive the death of the character quite handily. But it would be difficult or impossible to figure that out using only tools within the game.

So, there you go. that's how the soul can exist without a body. So far as I can tell, it's a logically consistant theory.

It is, of course, an irrelevant theory, as the universe would look exactly the same whether it was true or not. But it's still logical.

[Metman07]

Veritas, since you're still alive and posting, I take it you prefer survival to being with god? :P
Suicide is a sin, Lee.

As I've explained before, it is possible to come up with a soul or conciousness that is seperate from the physical body, but still account for brain damage and such.

Think about an action video game. You control a character in the game world, but you yourself are not contained within the character. If an Orc chops your character's head off in the game, then you die. When your character is dead, you can no longer interact with the world.

If our perceptions were limited to the inside of the game world, we would conclude two things:

A. The head is the seat of the intellect, because damaging or destroying the head damages or destroys the intellect.

B. There is no afterlife, because there is no evidence of ghosts, or of souls effecting this life.

In actual fact, the soul, or player, does survive the death of the character quite handily. But it would be difficult or impossible to figure that out using only tools within the game.

So, there you go. that's how the soul can exist without a body. So far as I can tell, it's a logically consistant theory.

It is, of course, an irrelevant theory, as the universe would look exactly the same whether it was true or not. But it's still logical.
But there must be some way in which this soul interacts with the material world. To use your videogame example, there is a controller connected to the videogame console. From the videogame world, it is in fact possible to detect the "soul" because the software can check if it is recieving input from the controller port. Ever played Halo and got really frustrated and then accidentally pull the controller cord out from shaking the controller too much? It's happened to me many times and immediately, the game pauses and informs that a controller is missing from a specific port.

By definition, the soul is immaterial. Thus, it should not be affected by material processes. The soul is supposed to be where your consciousness comes from....but then how can your supposedly immaterial consciousness be affected by material things like genetic defects or blunt force trauma? How can this immaterial "body" be affected by drugs like Adderall, THC and Prozac?

Why cling to the belief of a soul if all our mental, cognitive, emotional processes etc. can be explained in material terms? The soul would be so useless in its purpose that we could disregard its very existence if at all it did exist, which of course is highly unlikely.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Veritas, since you're still alive and posting, I take it you prefer survival to being with god? :P
Suicide is a sin, Lee.

As I've explained before, it is possible to come up with a soul or conciousness that is seperate from the physical body, but still account for brain damage and such.

Think about an action video game. You control a character in the game world, but you yourself are not contained within the character. If an Orc chops your character's head off in the game, then you die. When your character is dead, you can no longer interact with the world.

If our perceptions were limited to the inside of the game world, we would conclude two things:

A. The head is the seat of the intellect, because damaging or destroying the head damages or destroys the intellect.

B. There is no afterlife, because there is no evidence of ghosts, or of souls effecting this life.

In actual fact, the soul, or player, does survive the death of the character quite handily. But it would be difficult or impossible to figure that out using only tools within the game.

So, there you go. that's how the soul can exist without a body. So far as I can tell, it's a logically consistant theory.

It is, of course, an irrelevant theory, as the universe would look exactly the same whether it was true or not. But it's still logical.
So do holy men use cheat codes to get their kewl powerz?

[Little Earth Stamper]

Veritas, since you're still alive and posting, I take it you prefer survival to being with god? :P
Suicide is a sin, Lee.

As I've explained before, it is possible to come up with a soul or conciousness that is seperate from the physical body, but still account for brain damage and such.

Think about an action video game. You control a character in the game world, but you yourself are not contained within the character. If an Orc chops your character's head off in the game, then you die. When your character is dead, you can no longer interact with the world.

If our perceptions were limited to the inside of the game world, we would conclude two things:

A. The head is the seat of the intellect, because damaging or destroying the head damages or destroys the intellect.

B. There is no afterlife, because there is no evidence of ghosts, or of souls effecting this life.

In actual fact, the soul, or player, does survive the death of the character quite handily. But it would be difficult or impossible to figure that out using only tools within the game.

So, there you go. that's how the soul can exist without a body. So far as I can tell, it's a logically consistant theory.

It is, of course, an irrelevant theory, as the universe would look exactly the same whether it was true or not. But it's still logical.
But there must be some way in which this soul interacts with the material world. To use your videogame example, there is a controller connected to the videogame console. From the videogame world, it is in fact possible to detect the "soul" because the software can check if it is recieving input from the controller port. Ever played Halo and got really frustrated and then accidentally pull the controller cord out from shaking the controller too much? It's happened to me many times and immediately, the game pauses and informs that a controller is missing from a specific port.

By definition, the soul is immaterial. Thus, it should not be affected by material processes. The soul is supposed to be where your consciousness comes from....but then how can your supposedly immaterial consciousness be affected by material things like genetic defects or blunt force trauma? How can this immaterial "body" be affected by drugs like Adderall, THC and Prozac?

Why cling to the belief of a soul if all our mental, cognitive, emotional processes etc. can be explained in material terms? The soul would be so useless in its purpose that we could disregard its very existence if at all it did exist, which of course is highly unlikely.
Well, the metaphysical question is this; do the characers in the game understand all of the game mechanics on a concious level? In other words, what makes you think the characters even notice that the game is paused? That too may be outside their perception.

Anyway, the soul would be very useful in purpose as we would essentially be immortal. I know I'd like to live for more then 70-90 years.

And I agree with you that the explanation is completely unneccessary; I explicitly said when I was offering it that it was an essentially useless theory, in that the universe would look exactly the same whether it was true or not.

But to me, useless is not the same as illogical.

[lee]

Is refusing to eat and dying of starvation considered as suicide? But surely an all forgiving god would overlook such a small thing as suicide, considering that it was done as a sacifice to the less fortunate.

[whoneedscience]

Anyway, the soul would be very useful in purpose as we would essentially be immortal. I know I'd like to live for more then 70-90 years.
It may be a crazy idea, but at least you're objective about it. :)

And without evidence, it is illogical. Reason on its own is not reasonable. It's the philosophy of science.

[veritas]

Think of the person that you love the most. This may be a spouse, a friend, a relative or anyone else. Now consider this situation:

You are forced into a room by a man with a gun. He looks at you and says "One of you is gong to die, who's it going to be?"

Now who here is going to tell that man to shoot the person that they love?

[Amazonis]

Think of the person that you love the most. This may be a spouse, a friend, a relative or anyone else. Now consider this situation:

You are forced into a room by a man with a gun. He looks at you and says "One of you is gong to die, who's it going to be?"

Now who here is going to tell that man to shoot the person that they love?
ME! And you would too, Veritus. When fronted by a situation such as that your natural instincts to survive will prevent you from saving anyone else at the expense of your own life. If i was sick and dying the outcome may be diferent, but at this point in time i am in the prime of my life and am in no hurry to die. To save yourself is only a natural reaction.

Let me create a realistic situation that may occur within nature. You are a tribesman, running through the jungle with your best friend, when you both trip down a rocky slope. You get cought on an overhanging root, and so does your friend, next to you, who is to injured to move. Below you both is a twenty metre drop to a dry riverbed.

What will you do? Clamber up the cliff and let your friend die, or risk death by trying to save him? Obviously, you would save yourself. Your natural reaction is to save yourself. Why would you want to save him anyway? He was the weaker one - he is badly injured and you are not. By saving him you would allow his inferior genes to pass on to another generation.

[Metman07]

I don't completely agree with you Amazonis. There have been many people who have sacrificed themselves for others. There have been many men who knowingly sacrificed their lives to protect their comrades in war. There have been parents who knowingly sacrificed their lives for the sake of their children etc. I wouldn't doubt that if put in that situation, a mother would gladly give her life to save the life of her child. However in real life, what reason would either one of the people have to believe that this gunman is teling the truth? I think in real life, both would try to somehow attack the man and disarm or kill him before he can kill them. But anyway, that's besides the point.

But just because love exists and that it is a very powerful emotion doesn't proove that god exists. Love exists. It's a very powerful emotion. So what? How does this proove your creation theory? The capability to love could just be one of the many capabilities brought about by evolution.

[lee]

Think of the person that you love the most. This may be a spouse, a friend, a relative or anyone else. Now consider this situation:

You are forced into a room by a man with a gun. He looks at you and says "One of you is gong to die, who's it going to be?"

Now who here is going to tell that man to shoot the person that they love?
So basically you're saying that in a situation like this, you would gladly give up your life for somebody you love. Well, what I suggested is better, you give up your life (and money, and everything you own) to charity, think of all the brownie points you'll earn from god. It also has the added benefit of accelerating your most-sought-after meeting with god. You get to kill two birds with one stone.

[t_hughes]

ME! And you would too, Veritus.
The implication that everyone would make your choice contradicts observed reality (as already mentioned!)

What will you do? Clamber up the cliff and let your friend die, or risk death by trying to save him?
People take insane risks simply because they think they will succeed, whatever the odds. It depends on whats at stake. There's a huge difference between "risking death" and "sacrificing yourself". How many people drown diving into rough water after other people? Seems to be pretty frequent behaviour.

Also, there's a certain reciprocal value in choosing your friendships such that you are all likely to take such risks, kind of an insurance policy.

Obviously, you would save yourself. Your natural reaction is to save yourself. Why would you want to save him anyway? He was the weaker one - he is badly injured and you are not. By saving him you would allow his inferior genes to pass on to another generation.
Reminds me of the Niezchians (sp?) on Andromeda. Slaves to the propagation of their genes :D I just never saw the point.

Just because he was injured doesn't mean his genes are inferior. Alot of evolution is simply random chance. Random chance could have injured him more than you. If he was, for example, a famous scientist, you may be doing the species a favor by sacrificing yourself for him, something to consider if you desire to be a slave to the future of the species.

I've personally 0 interest in the future evolution of the species except if it can be retro-applied to me.

[Lurker]

What do you all make of this?
University of Chicago study overturns conventional theory in evolution (http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20050607-kaks.html) :/

[Tenspace]

What do you all make of this?
University of Chicago study overturns conventional theory in evolution (http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20050607-kaks.html) :/
Great information! This really builds upon current evolutionary theory. Several conventional portions of the theory are under the gun. For example, it's been understood that the greatest opportunity for speciation exists at the fringes of a population, where there is greater potential for segregation. Recent theories based on molecular evolution are showing that the center of a population may be more inclined toward introduction of mutations in the population.

That's what is great about science. It's flexible, and new information is being added daily to our body of knowledge.

I do have issue with the headline, "study overturns conventional theory in evolution", because it makes it sound like the whole theory is turned on its head, when they are discussing just one theory that makes up the body of evolutionary theory.

Tenspace

[Rhinoqulous]

The headline is a bit misleading, making it sound like this discovery shows evolution to be wrong, which it doesn't. Just one aspect of gene mutation is different than what was expected. But hey, science marches on!

What do you think of the article, Lurker?

Rhinoq

[Lurker]

What do you think of the article, Lurker?
I don't know enough about molecular evolution to understand the significance of the study, but quotes like the one below piqued my curiosity. That's why I asked you guys.

"We've discovered a striking phenomenon that challenges a paradigm of molecular evolution that has been around for several decades," said lead author Bruce Lahn, PhD, assistant professor of genetics at the University of Chicago and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. "As such, it may cause a significant shift in the field."

This really builds upon current evolutionary theory.
I'm confused. If this builds on current theory then why would these findings be "radical" and "unbelievable"?

"It's too radical," he said. "People just don't want to believe it, but the data are there."

[Rhinoqulous]

I'm confused. If this builds on current theory then why would these findings be "radical" and "unbelievable"?

"It's too radical," he said. "People just don't want to believe it, but the data are there."
What's radical is that certain gene mutations are not necessarily selected by the environment.

For more than three decades, molecular evolutionists have thought that no matter how many genetic mutations show up on a specific gene, whether or not those mutations become fixed in the species is determined primarily by natural selection. The new study shows that the speed at which these new mutations arrive also affects whether the mutations become fixed.

This study shows that if many new mutations occur at once, the gene is more likely to adopt and pass on the mutations than by natural selection alone. It still builds off of old evolutionary theory, just looks at one aspect of it from a different angle. (though I'm no biologist, any bio-freaks here can feel free to tell me to shut the hell up cause I have no idea what I'm talking about)

Rhinoq

[ocmpoma]

The crux of the article, as far as the results being 'radical', is in these two parts:
"For more than three decades, molecular evolutionists have thought that no matter how many genetic mutations show up on a specific gene, whether or not those mutations become fixed in the species is determined primarily by natural selection. The new study shows that the speed at which these new mutations arrive also affects whether the mutations become fixed."
and
"Regardless of the rate of new mutations at a particular gene, scientists have always presumed the percentage of nonsynonymous mutations accepted during evolution remains constant."

Since the results go against what has been accepted, it will take time (and confirmation) for it to become mainstream. I think the results could best be described as deviant or unexpected, rather than 'overturning'.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

What do you all make of this?
University of Chicago study overturns conventional theory in evolution (http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20050607-kaks.html) :/
Depends. Does anyone here know how Ka and Ks are measured?

From the article, it sounded like if a gene receives a high number of mutations, then a higher percentage of those mutations are "accepted". Does "accepted" mean that the molecular machinery that normally repairs mutations didn't catch as many of these, or does "accepted" mean "does not negatively affect the organism's 'fitness'"? If the former, the results are easy to understand, since the cell has limited resources to repair DNA damage anyway. If the latter, then the results are puzzling, since it's not clear to me why several mutations that would decrease fitness on their own would all of the sudden *not* decrease fitness if they're present all at once.

At any rate, it sounds like the results suggest that phenotype variation, and thus evolution, is occurring at a faster rate than expected.

[Tenspace]

What do you think of the article, Lurker?
I don't know enough about molecular evolution to understand the significance of the study, but quotes like the one below piqued my curiosity. That's why I asked you guys.

"We've discovered a striking phenomenon that challenges a paradigm of molecular evolution that has been around for several decades," said lead author Bruce Lahn, PhD, assistant professor of genetics at the University of Chicago and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. "As such, it may cause a significant shift in the field."

This really builds upon current evolutionary theory.
I'm confused. If this builds on current theory then why would these findings be "radical" and "unbelievable"?

"It's too radical," he said. "People just don't want to believe it, but the data are there."
Remember, they said the same thing about Einstein's modification of Newtonian orbital mechanics. Yet we still use Newton's equations every day.

The molecular revolution is solidifying much of what we know about evolution, but it is also redefining some theories, such as the one you referenced.

There are other significant discoveries which are similar, including the fact that a single point mutation is not the only way to create new alleles. Whole segments of code can be affected by a mutation. Also, scientists are discovering the impact of artificial selection on human ancestry. Whether mates are selected for big, err.. "plumage", or skin tone, eye or hair color, these seemingly irrelevant selection traits have a much more compressed focus (more changes in a short period of time) than was once expected.

Tenspace

[Lurker]

Ten - whatever happened to "Thread Killer"?

[Tenspace]

Ten - whatever happened to "Thread Killer"?
I change my title and sig every now and then. Threadkiller came about because of the total lack of response I (didn't) receive for a couple of weeks. It seems like I was killing threads left and right.

"Obsessed Member" is the forum default. Any suggestions for my next title?

Ten

[solidsquid]

From what is being studied about molecular evolution is only strengthening the theory itself, not undermining it like some people would hope. That same thing happened when the synthesis emerged, it only made the theory stronger and more encompassing.

[Lurker]

Any suggestions for my next title?
You probably wouldn't like it. ;)

[Tenspace]

Any suggestions for my next title?
You probably wouldn't like it. ;)
Try me. I can be pretty self-deprecating at times. :)

Ten

[HeWhoAsks]

What do you all make of this?
University of Chicago study overturns conventional theory in evolution (http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20050607-kaks.html) :/
One study, no matter how intriguing, does not necessarily a fact make. When lots of other people do the same thing, think about it some more and in different ways, poke and prod at the process, analysis, and results, etc., and come up with the same conclusion, then we can talk about facts, overturning, etc.

[Lurker]

One study, no matter how intriguing, does not necessarily a fact make. When lots of other people do the same thing, think about it some more and in different ways, poke and prod at the process, analysis, and results, etc., and come up with the same conclusion, then we can talk about facts, overturning, etc.
Seems like we have 3-4 different interpretations of the study's significance. From 'confirms evolution' to 'unexpected results'. Whatever the significance, it seems obvious to me that evolution is not fully understood by the people on this forum (me included).

[Tenspace]

One study, no matter how intriguing, does not necessarily a fact make. When lots of other people do the same thing, think about it some more and in different ways, poke and prod at the process, analysis, and results, etc., and come up with the same conclusion, then we can talk about facts, overturning, etc.
Seems like we have 3-4 different interpretations of the study's significance. From 'confirms evolution' to 'unexpected results'. Whatever the significance, it seems obvious to me that evolution is not fully understood by the people on this forum (me included).
No one understands it fully. Evolution sits next to relativity, particle physics, and women in that regard.

Ten

[Rhinoqulous]

No one understands it fully. Evolution sits next to relativity, particle physics, and women in that regard.

Ten
At least relativity doesn't yell at you for hanging around other abstract theories of the universe. :D

[PanAtheist]

Threadkiller came about because of the total lack of response I (didn't) receive for a couple of weeks. It seems like I was killing threads left and right.
That is because your posts excel, and are the total peak of expression, and everyone is left thinking "Follow That!!" :D

[HeWhoAsks]

One study, no matter how intriguing, does not necessarily a fact make. When lots of other people do the same thing, think about it some more and in different ways, poke and prod at the process, analysis, and results, etc., and come up with the same conclusion, then we can talk about facts, overturning, etc.
Seems like we have 3-4 different interpretations of the study's significance. From 'confirms evolution' to 'unexpected results'. Whatever the significance, it seems obvious to me that evolution is not fully understood by the people on this forum (me included).
Not many things are *fully* understood. For a standard by which to judge scientific understanding, that is a straw man.

[Tenspace]

Threadkiller came about because of the total lack of response I (didn't) receive for a couple of weeks. It seems like I was killing threads left and right.
That is because your posts excel, and are the total peak of expression, and everyone is left thinking "Follow That!!" :D
I am humbled. Thank you.

Ten

[peepnklown]

Are we supposed to believe that book written (so-called 2000 years ago) is supposed to explain the beginning of the universe?
Hell, people in those days though lightening was made from angry gods!
At least it should have more than one chapter covering that event, jeebus!