Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[Unwardil]

If you were to let life run in a completely static environment, no, you probably wouldn't see much obvious evolution happening. That's because the primary triggers for what you're calling macro evolution are environmental. The evolutionary mechanism is genetics, but it's not genetics that triggers extreme evolutionary changes.

 

[lrkun]

Do we have evidence that god exist?

No.

Assuming it does exist, do we have evidence of it creating us? How did it create us?

a. No

b. Unknown

Conversely

Do we have evidence that science exists?

Yes

Do we have evidence of sceince's explanation for our existence?

Yes

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

A better explanation than God... I did it. At least you can prove I exist.

 

[lrkun]

A better explanation for my existence than god.

My mom and dad had sex.

Mom got pregnant.

I was born.

I am here now.

God's explanation?

On his whim I appear.

 

[Japhia888]

So where do you start counting ?

At now. And you count back into infinity.

its not possible to be at now from past infinity :

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5231


Here's why. This point in time we call "now" is actually future with reference to all of the past. We agreed you cannot get to any infinite point in the future by adding as events one to another. Therefore, this present moment in time can't represent an actual infinite number of events added one to another proceeding from the past. Time has proceeded forward from the past as one event is added onto another to get us to today. But we know that whenever you pause in the count as we've done today, that you can't have an infinite number of events. Which means that there is no infinite number of events that goes backward from this point in time, only a finite number of events. Here's another way of putting it. If you can't get into the infinite future from a fixed reference point (the present) by adding consecutive events one by one, you cannot get into the infinite past by subtracting consecutive events, one by one, from a fixed reference point (the present). If you can't transverse the distance in one direction (present to infinite past), you can't transverse it in the other direction (infinite past to present). This means that if the universe consisted of an infinite series of events in time, you could never arrive at this present moment. Philosopher Dallas Willard puts it this way: "As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before domino x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it." ( Does God Exist--The Great Debate , p. 203-204) In other words, there would have to be an infinite number of events completed before you could get to the domino before you. But you can never complete an infinite number of events. An infinite series is innumerable by definition, so you can't treat it as if it were a number you could ever arrive at. This means the universe is not eternal. The universe has not existed forever and ever with no beginning. The universe, in fact, had a beginning. If it had a beginning, if the universe came into being, and it's not eternal, then something must have caused it that didn't have a beginning itself. The universe had a Beginner, some infinite, self-existent, uncaused, non- contingent Someone who started it all. Some kind of God must have been back there in time. I like this argument. It's a little tricky, but it shows how much work you can do with a few moments of careful reflection. And it's a good argument, by the way. It's called the Kalam cosmological argument developed by Muslim theologians during the Middle Ages. Now if this argument is good, then our conclusions should match the world as we discover it. And science has demonstrated this particular thing to be true--because science has demonstrated with Big Bang cosmology that the universe did have a beginning, prior to which there was nothing physical. Science has shown that time and matter and energy all had their beginning at a point called the singularity. Prior to that, there was nothing physical. The universe came into being. That raises some very interesting questions about how such a thing ever happened to begin with. I'm not going to carry it further at this time. Others have done so and we've talked about this at other times. You chew on that for a while.

[

quote]you should only laugh, after having a more compelling and convincing and rational explanation. So far, you have failed to provide one.

I'd like to refer to you to the first two pages of this thread, where naturalistic mechanisms have been laid out for you.
I was only pointing out the irony of the fact that people who jump through all these hoops, who go through decades upon decades of research about nature, the universe and all laws therein are accused of taking the convenient route by someone who thinks that it was all done by magic and nothing else. [/quote]

what do YOU propose ?

 

[Japhia888]

well, there is more then 1 mechanism proposed and its still a field thats not fleshed-out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

could you point out by your own words, what mechanisms are presented there, exactly ?
[/quote]

i'll put in my own words, in the way you post things in your own words..[/quote]

well, at least present the source, as i do.....

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100701001137AArZRGs

2.In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids.

by chance, i guess?

3.Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.

by chance as well, i guess......

5.The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
1.The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)

random. i see.... chance therefore as well.....

2.Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.

from where and why should there have been selection pressure ?

3.Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.

why should they outcompete ????

. ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -.


what about...penis?
or perhaps douchebag?
maybe scum-bucket?
we could also jackass?

which shall we choose?

jackass

that sounds fine

 

[ImprobableJoe]

its not possible to be at now from past infinity.

Do you realize that you just disproved the very deity you were desperately trying to prove with your pages upon pages of nonsense? Oops for you, no?

 

[Japhia888]

i could go on ranting what is wrong with both arguments, but first... Which stand do you take, the first or the second?

they don't contradict each other, they complement each other. The same is explained from different angles.

these different angles.... say that
A ) cannot change and cannot interact with time
B ) can change and can interact with time

its like choosing blue or red.... and purple is not an option.

which of the 2 is it?

i guess i missed that part. please show it.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Still haven't learned what infinity actually is, I see. Quelle surprise. :roll:

 

[Japhia888]

Still haven't learned what infinity actually is, I see. Quelle surprise. :roll:

maibe lack of some ability of cognition then ?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

maibe lack of some ability of cognition then ?

Yes, you do... and your spelling isn't great either.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

[You start counting] at now. And you count back into infinity.

its not possible to be at now from past infinity :

Try re-reading my quote above and then read what you answered to that.

 

[ron baker]

really ? where ? how ?

Wes Morriston, "Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Critical Examination of the Kalam Cosmological Argument" (Faith and Philosophy Vol. 17, No. 2 (2000), 149-169; Craig's reply: "Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Rejoinder;" and Morriston's counter-reply, "Causes and Beginnings in the Kalam Argument: Reply to Craig," in Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 19, No. 2 (April 2002), 233-244. All three essays can be found on the web. For effective rebuttals of Craig's arguments against the impossibility of reaching an infinite through "successive addition" and against an infinite past, see Wes Morriston's "Must the Past Have a Beginning?" (Philo Vol. 2 (1999) no. 1, pp. 5-19.

Good.
And I'll add:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html

 

[Japhia888]

You consider it "impossible" for anything to have "always existed" and conclude that therefore the universe could not have always existed. Then you say "ah, but I have a solution, god has always existed and created the universe"; when I point out that you just said nothing can always exist you obfuscate your claim and wrap it in poorly defined words in such a way that, honestly, when boiled down translates into "well god is *really* special and can have always existed in a very special way". Basically: you have made a general rejection of a possible concept, and you are making an exception for your pet idea. That's the very definition of special pleading.

I consider it implausible , our universe to exist in past eternity, in a form whatsoever, for reasons, which do have been exposed here sufficiently. With God however it is entirely different. I believe God existed, as already explained as well, not in time back without beginning, but in a timeless eternity. How i imagine this, i have explained as well. there is no problem with the second law , and neither with philosophical implications. So your argument falls apart.

The big bang does not mark the beginning of "everything there is"; it marks the beginning of the universe as we know it.

say that to all cited secular scientists, mentioned here, which don't agree with you :

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

I'm sorry but they're not saying "universe" in the sense of "all their is"; they're saying "universe" in the sense of "all that we can observe right now". It really is an unfortunate limitation of the english language that we don't have two different words for these two different concepts.

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time

"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University


"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University

"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan

you have again, no point whatsoever.

No, it really doesn't. You've claimed it does, again, and again, and again, but your "rational" grounds is that you find it "absurd". But that you find it absurd does not make it so. An argument that "it's absurd therefore wrong" is, quite simply, extraordinarily fallacious.

above quotes show clearly which standpoint is fallacious.

Moreover I reject BOTH premises of the kalam cosmological, and, quite frankly, find it a laughable argument.

Since you love your copy pasta, here's a quick refutation of the first premise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHXXrFf2Zy0
Another similar point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9DLcTfYBcQ

feel free to think about it as however it pleases you.

Erm... no. There may be philosophical arguments (but I honestly don't care about them... when was the last time philosophy resulted in, say, objective verifiable evidence in (i.e. predictive models of) reality), but scientific arguments are necessarily limited by the fact that science is inductive, and does not result in "absolute truth", but rather statistical predictive models of reality.

when was the last time historical science ( aka evolution theory of common ancestry and macroevolution , and abiogenesis ) resulted in, say, objective verifiable evidence ?

People make this claim a lot, yet I still don't see it verified. They always say things like "where do you start counting?" as though that settles it (all the while forgetting that the origin of these is Plato's arguments that NOTHING changes in the universe, that motion doesn't exist, that time doesn't exist; they try to use his premises to justify their pet ideas, forgetting the consequences of those premises). Nevertheless, "where do you start counting" is an attempt to apply our discrete and finite mathematics to an infinite set; it's a lot like asking, to use your own analogy, "what does blue taste like?" or arguing that triangles always contain 180 degrees and can't possibly have 270 degrees.

well, i understand your struggle. even unlogical things must fit your preconceived world view, therefore you try it at any price. Go on... no problem with me, but this league of reason seems quit flawed to me.

I've dealt with this tripe before (in this conversation, I really don't think you're listening). Craig doesn't understand thermodynamics. It's not an absolute, but a statistical result of the physical rules of the universe as we know them. His "second law forbids it" is no more valuable than the idea that the first law of thermodynamics disproves god because energy and matter can't be created, which god purportedly did to create the universe, therefore god does not exist because he would have had to violate the first law of thermo (and the first supersedes the second). The second law being a result of the physical laws of the universe that we can observe necessarily does not apply to the universe before the physical laws we know applied...

the first and second law got in place after the universe was created. Therefore, the first law was not violated.

 

[ron baker]

Do squaere circles exist ? according to your answer, you don't know how to answer, and your answer being a absolute truth.

You did not ask me a question with respect to square circles. You asked me if absolute truth exists. I answer to such that I don't know if an absolute truth exists. Again, please be mindful of your questions and the answers attached to such.

you said you don't know if absolute truth exists. I replied : so you don't know if circles can be square ?
of course , they cannot, and this is a absolute truth, and you can know it. So your claim not to know if absolute truth exists is bollock.

Circles and squres are from an axiomatic system (geometry/math). Proofs are possible in an axiomatic system. Nature, however, is empirical.

--
rb

 

[Japhia888]

you said you don't know if absolute truth exists. I replied : so you don't know if circles can be square ?
of course , they cannot, and this is a absolute truth, and you can know it. So your claim not to know if absolute truth exists is bollock.

That is an example of something that is absolutely true, and in that specific case it is not false. However, that is not the issue. That which you need to answer is, what is the meaning of absolute truth. My claim that I don't know what such is still holds, because you still failed to define what it is.

The term true and the term truth are two different things or are you using the same definition for both?

I likewise dispute your train of thought, because circles can be squares if the circle changes its shape to a square. Now, if you stated if a circle can be a square at the same time, such can not be. If such were to occur, it will violate the first principle of identity.

well, i have dealt with it already at my forum, and collected some websites which treat this issue. You can have a read, and educate yourself :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/what-is-absolute-truth-t295.htm

 

[Japhia888]

really ? where ? how ?

Wes Morriston, "Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Critical Examination of the Kalam Cosmological Argument" (Faith and Philosophy Vol. 17, No. 2 (2000), 149-169; Craig's reply: "Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Rejoinder;" and Morriston's counter-reply, "Causes and Beginnings in the Kalam Argument: Reply to Craig," in Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 19, No. 2 (April 2002), 233-244. All three essays can be found on the web. For effective rebuttals of Craig's arguments against the impossibility of reaching an infinite through "successive addition" and against an infinite past, see Wes Morriston's "Must the Past Have a Beginning?" (Philo Vol. 2 (1999) no. 1, pp. 5-19.

so do YOU understand how exactly the kalaam cosmological argument was debunked through wes morriston ? if yes, could you resume it here ?

 

[Japhia888]

maibe lack of some ability of cognition then ?

Yes, you do... and your spelling isn't great either.

my english base is a 3 month holiday course.

 

[nemesiss]

well, there is more then 1 mechanism proposed and its still a field thats not fleshed-out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

could you point out by your own words, what mechanisms are presented there, exactly ?

i'll put in my own words, in the way you post things in your own words..[/quote]

well, at least present the source, as i do.....

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100701001137AArZRGs
[/quote]

i REALLY REALLY REALLY should post a picture of captain picard facepalming...
the first answer on that yahoo link you posted, IS the answer i post!

2.In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids.

by chance, i guess?

wrong.
to understand why, you need to understands some basic of chemistry and physics.
and the reason why i don't feel like explaining... is because i'll have more succes training my to fetch my slippers the morning newspaper.

3.Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.

by chance as well, i guess......

wrong again.
spontaneous, as in "happening or done in a natural, often sudden way, without any planning or without being forced"

5.The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
1.The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)

random. i see.... chance therefore as well.....

wrong.
the words "random" as in "non-specific"

2.Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.

from where and why should there have been selection pressure ?

3.Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information

why should they outcompete ????

that's called . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -.

 

[borrofburi]

This is my final response until you answer a few questions:
(1) would you want to know if you're wrong? (this is NOT a trivial question)
(2) is what you believe falsifiable ("the confirmed body of jesus christ" is NOT falsifiable, there is NO possible way for this to happen (the body will have decayed by now) especially not to your satisfaction (it's not like the actual hair of jesus was preserved so we could do a DNA check))?
(3) If there were a conflict between science and your beliefs which would you choose/believe?
(4) do you believe that "god did it" is *always* superior to "I don't know"?
(5) do you accept that "I don't know" can be the best answer?

Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a "writer" or "speaker") and a decoder (a "reader" or "listener") using agreed upon symbols.
DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's

This is a prime example of the logical fallacy of equivocation (read: biological literature using the word "code" does not mean "dna is communication between an encoder and a decoder").

Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

I fully agree that information theory is applied to DNA in a literal way, but NOT by the apologists you appeal to. They instead employ lots and lots of equivocation.

DNA is not "by definition" a "code" as you have defined it, else you are saying "by definition DNA is a message from god" and then using that to prove god's existence (which is circular, and a second fallacy).

Just how logical is this monkey story? In simple terms, if every square foot of the earth's surface was covered with monkeys randomly typing on typewriters, at the rate of ten characters per second (about 5 times the realistic speed) they could not do the job. Even if they typed non-stop for 30 billion years there would not be the slightest chance that one of them would type even a single five word sentence of 31 characters, with spaces and punctuation in the correct place. The probability for them to achieve this is less than one chance in a trillion.

No. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOHT_dTDQbQ

This ignores (1) natural selection (2) chemical realities. I can do the same (actually worse, because it's even more complex) with the order of the molecules in a crystal.

you have still not presented a natural mechanism to create information. As long as you are unable, my argument stands.

This is downright asinine: you defined information as being impossible to create by natural mechanisms, and then you challenge me to provide you something that fits this definition via natural mechanisms. You've assumed your conclusion, of course I can't challenge your argument in any other way than to point out the fallacy.

I've told you numerous times, according to INFORMATION THEORY (you know, actual science), the organization of molecules in a crystal is information.

That you can create and destroy information does not mean information is "purely non-material"; rather, it means that information is an emergent property due to the order (or organization) of material things and as a result it is a property of material things even if it itself is not material (because if it were just "material" then we wouldn't need a second word for it). And of course you can order matter and then un-order it (any child with a lego set can tell you that). It doesn't make the information "non-material" (whatever that even means, "non-material" is yet another one of those words that you have not really defined), but rather a property of material (although again, material here is not well defined (e.g. is light a material? Electromagnetic radiation? Potential energy?)).

its simple, lets not complicate it.

Whoa now, I wasn't talking about spirits and consciousness and the like (I would contend your other stuff, but I do not want to get any more unfocused than we already are); I was asking a very simple set of questiosn: is light material, is color, is sound, is electromagnetic radiation, is entropy, is potential energy, is kinetic energy?

have i not linked already to the website, which defines and shows the difference of patterns, and information ?

Yes, and I responded already about why this "reasoning" was underwhelming.... I'm glad this is my last response... The simple reality is: you do not rigidly define pattern and design, you give examples, but this is NOT rigid definition.