Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[godisabullet]

The logic is somewhat circular too, because if we define a code as something designed and insist that DNA is designed because we insist it is a code, which we insist are designed, we have gone round in a circle.

Consider this:

Is language a code? If so, was it designed? Did each culture sit down and construct their languages.

Neanderthal 1: "And in the future they can make words like 'television', 'car' and 'movies'"
Neanderthal 2: *face palms* "You're not supposed to use those words yet!"

Or perhaps it was something that developed overtime without any individual plans to do so.


Secondly, are bee dances a code? was that designed too?

Bee 1: "Do you think we should move about in a figure 8, or just a zero?"
Bee 2: "Hmmm... I like the 8, because it's also a representation of infinity."

Or perhaps that developed unplanned over time too?

Interiors are designed, caves are interiors, caves are designed.
Columns are designed, stalactites and stalagmites form columns, therefore stalactites and stalagmites are designed.
Also, atoms communicate, communication uses codes, therefore atomic communication is designed.


Lastly, DNA is not a code, it's just a macro-molecule; a pattern of atoms. It occurs in nature without having any purpose at all and neither coding anything. The majority of human DNA is junk, that appears to do nothing at all.

Yes. A very steep, very slippery slope. If one thing in nature has been designed we may as well say everything has.

Further, who are we, as mere mortals to say what has and hasn't been designed? Do we know/understand the mind of the creator that well? The best we can do is say "well, it kinda looks like it should have been designed. I can't think of any way it could have come about if it wasn't designed so ...." Argument from personal incredulity?

And lastly, it would really boost the case for intelligent design if the proponents could show evidence of the designer before attempting to show that it has designed things. In archaeology, we know that civilisations existed before 2000 years ago so it makes the job that much easier. Just sayin'

 

[Japhia888]

Yes. A very steep, very slippery slope. If one thing in nature has been designed we may as well say everything has.

Further, who are we, as mere mortals to say what has and hasn't been designed? Do we know/understand the mind of the creator that well? The best we can do is say "well, it kinda looks like it should have been designed. I can't think of any way it could have come about if it wasn't designed so ...." Argument from personal incredulity?

And lastly, it would really boost the case for intelligent design if the proponents could show evidence of the designer before attempting to show that it has designed things. In archaeology, we know that civilisations existed before 2000 years ago so it makes the job that much easier. Just sayin'

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/the-genetic-code-t288.htm

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

 

[Unwardil]

You're confusing function with form.

DNA acts like a database. Living things harness a naturally occurring chemical function in order to store genetic data. The same way a computer harnesses electromagnetism in order to record and transfer information. Electromagnetism exists without computers. The raw form of computer data, therefore, exists naturally without the need for a creator. A creator, in this case, humans, can make use of that in order to turn that raw stuff into data, the way life turns random rna strings into information.

Put it another way. Measure the wave frequency of water in a pond. You have 2 main variables to work with here. Height and frequency. Whenever you get a wave, you're getting information. That information changes over time and creates a code. But that code doesn't mean anything until you define parameters to certain wave functions.

Lets say you record in binary here with a clock speed of 10 seconds. Every ten seconds take a measurement of the wave form of the pond. Less than 5 waves of a depth of at least 1 inch returns 0 and more than 5 waves returns a 1.

Now you can record the code of the wave form of that pond and you'll get pretty much a random return of 1s and 0s depending on what the weather is doing and what animals are swimming around in the pond. There is no meaning to the code however, it's just noise.

The trick that DNA does, is that it can replicate it's self. So imagine your wave sensor is hooked up to a wave generator in another pond and that pond has it's own wave sensor and generating device. So eventually what happens is that you get exactly the same random noise happening in every linked pond. I guarantee if you run this experiment you will start to see very clear and obvious patterns emerging without you ever having to do anything and those patterns will evolve and become more and more complex over time.

 

[godisabullet]

Yes. A very steep, very slippery slope. If one thing in nature has been designed we may as well say everything has.

Further, who are we, as mere mortals to say what has and hasn't been designed? Do we know/understand the mind of the creator that well? The best we can do is say "well, it kinda looks like it should have been designed. I can't think of any way it could have come about if it wasn't designed so ...." Argument from personal incredulity?

And lastly, it would really boost the case for intelligent design if the proponents could show evidence of the designer before attempting to show that it has designed things. In archaeology, we know that civilisations existed before 2000 years ago so it makes the job that much easier. Just sayin'

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/the-genetic-code-t288.htm

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

1. Appeal to authority. Look it up if you don't know what it means. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

2. The "letters in the sand" argument has been thoroughly debunked plenty of times. Where did you get that one from? Which popular creationist website or blog?

I think you need to look at more than just blogs and creationist websites to have your questions answered. Or are they rhetorical anyway? You hinted at that in your original post.

Do a quick course in logic. Buy a biology textbook.

You know, the internet is great for getting a vague idea about a few (disconnected) basic concepts but it takes a lot of effort to really understand this stuff.

 

[Zoten001]

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/the-genetic-code-t288.htm

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."<---- This mined quote you got here is an example of a Metaphor. :facepalm:

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.<-----O Rly? Last I checked it wasn't....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor?&qsrc=

Because apparently you can't figure out what a metaphor is.....

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Browsing this forum and picking up little bits here and there (thanks TheFlyingBastard) will do for the moment. It's fun and interesting to me but at the same time I am fully aware of the gaps in my knowledge.

Thank my year 1, chapter 1 biology text book.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."
Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution,no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

Thank you for copypasting more irrelevant information.

So how about that rebuttal?

I said: You start counting back from now into infinity.

Why have you not given a proper response to this?

 

[godisabullet]

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

If I'm not mistaken that particular analogy was used in "Of Pandas and People".

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am2.html

And was thoroughly taken apart using logic in a court of law.

 

[Story]

how do you know natural laws formed us ???

Why would you assume we didn't?

Firstly, if we were made supernaturally, there would be things we'd expect like supernatural components of the human body, or that conception and embryology would be unexplainable via natural sciences, but they are explainable utilising natural laws, so we already know that the formation of you and I were entirely natural. If life was formed unnaturally we would expect some kind of link between ourselves and the supernatural, some kind of vestige of that supernatural cause, but we find no such link (at least none other than the belief that there is a link) and we find that our entire make up is natural, seeing that we are entirely natural, there is no reason to assume that anything about us is supernatural.

Basically, if we have a supernatural origin, then it would follow that we were supernatural, but since there is no reason to assume that we are supernatural and that we are in fact perfectly natural, the natural implication would mean that our origins were natural.

Assuming otherwise is just that, an assumption.

Furthermore, we already have demonstrable facts that show us how life can form naturally in young earth conditions. Why should I assume after all this that life formed supernaturally.

Consider this:

No supernatural causation has ever been demonstrated to happen.
Natural causation is the only known cause for all natural things.

There are no known supernatural aspects of our existence.
Our conception and birth is explained completely naturally.
Therefore, we are formed naturally.

There are no known supernatural aspects to life.
The formation of life is explained completely naturally.
Therefore, life is formed naturally.

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication.

You only know that because you've seen or heard of people doing it before, or because you yourself have done it or could do it. You know how the person would have done it and understand all the tools needed to do it. This is a completely different scenario than the enigma that is DNA.

 

[borrofburi]

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Well that's not even a metaphor, that's a direct simile. He's not saying DNA *is* an encoded code, he's saying that it's a helpful abstraction for understanding the biochemistry.

 

[borrofburi]

Yes. A very steep, very slippery slope. If one thing in nature has been designed we may as well say everything has.

Further, who are we, as mere mortals to say what has and hasn't been designed? Do we know/understand the mind of the creator that well? The best we can do is say "well, it kinda looks like it should have been designed. I can't think of any way it could have come about if it wasn't designed so ...." Argument from personal incredulity?

And lastly, it would really boost the case for intelligent design if the proponents could show evidence of the designer before attempting to show that it has designed things. In archaeology, we know that civilisations existed before 2000 years ago so it makes the job that much easier. Just sayin'

Not to mention that these arguments always boil down to:
1) someone had to do it
2) therefore god did it
3) therefore god exists!

But step 2 is begging the question (circular argument, you can't say god has done something before you establish he exists, because the very act of saying god did something ASSUMES he exists, thus this entire argument boils down to "god exists, therefore he exists")... Also step 2 doesn't follow from step 1...

 

[borrofburi]

(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))?

if something can be falsified, no belief is needed anymore. it substitutes empirical knowledge.

You never did answer my question (or more precisely, my request for you to clarify this)... Though I imagine this is due to your inability to understand it (due to your not being native english speaker).

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).

i have not said that dna is a message from god.

what i have said , is :

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Ignoring for a moment the fallaciousness of your argument, which is, just for a quick reminder:
1) DNA by definition requires a mind,
2) therefore DNA was designed by a mind
(this is begging the question circularity... You've tried to demonstrate #1 through other methods, but this specific argument ASSUMES it)

How do you get from
c1)"therefore dna was designed by a mind"
to
cz)"therefore god exists"?

 

[Japhia888]

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Well that's not even a metaphor, that's a direct simile. He's not saying DNA *is* an encoded code, he's saying that it's a helpful abstraction for understanding the biochemistry.

Francis Crick was more clear then:

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/a/replication/dna.html

DNA contains a coded representation of all the proteins in the cell. Other molecules such as sugars and fats are synthesised by proteins (enzymes) so their structures are indirectly coded by DNA. DNA also contains all the information required to make the correct amount of protein at the correct time, thus controlling all biological processes from those of day to day life such as metabolic activity to those of embryogenesis and fetal development. The human genome contains 3x109 base pairs of DNA divided into 23 chromosomes which if linked together would form a thread of 1 meter with a diameter of 2 nm. This DNA codes for about 105 different proteins. In fact only about 2-4 % of the total coding capacity in the human DNA is used for coding of different genes, the rest of it probably has other more structural and organizational functions.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/gene-code/how.html

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome.

When an organism needs to use the data stored in the genome, e.g. to build components of a new cell, a copy of the required DNA part is made.

The alphabet in the RNA molecule contains 4 letters, i.e. A, U, C, G as previously mentioned. To construct a word in the RNA language, three of these letters are grouped together. This three-letter word are often referred to as a triplet or a codon. An example of such a codon is ACG. The letters don't have to be of different kinds, so UUU is also a valid codon. These codons are placed after each other in the RNA molecule, to construct a message, a RNA sequence. This message will later be read by the protein producing machinery in the body.

Every organism has an almost identical system that is able to read the RNA, interpret the different codons and construct a protein with various combinations of the amino acids mentioned previously.

 

[borrofburi]

Francis Crick was more clear then:

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/a/replication/dna.html

DNA contains a coded representation of all the proteins in the cell. Other molecules such as sugars and fats are synthesised by proteins (enzymes) so their structures are indirectly coded by DNA. DNA also contains all the information required to make the correct amount of protein at the correct time, thus controlling all biological processes from those of day to day life such as metabolic activity to those of embryogenesis and fetal development. The human genome contains 3x109 base pairs of DNA divided into 23 chromosomes which if linked together would form a thread of 1 meter with a diameter of 2 nm. This DNA codes for about 105 different proteins. In fact only about 2-4 % of the total coding capacity in the human DNA is used for coding of different genes, the rest of it probably has other more structural and organizational functions.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/gene-code/how.html

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome.

When an organism needs to use the data stored in the genome, e.g. to build components of a new cell, a copy of the required DNA part is made.

The alphabet in the RNA molecule contains 4 letters, i.e. A, U, C, G as previously mentioned. To construct a word in the RNA language, three of these letters are grouped together. This three-letter word are often referred to as a triplet or a codon. An example of such a codon is ACG. The letters don't have to be of different kinds, so UUU is also a valid codon. These codons are placed after each other in the RNA molecule, to construct a message, a RNA sequence. This message will later be read by the protein producing machinery in the body.

Every organism has an almost identical system that is able to read the RNA, interpret the different codons and construct a protein with various combinations of the amino acids mentioned previously.

He's still only using "code" as a metaphor. If you find me ONE place where francis crick defines "code" to mean "something encoded by an encoder for a decoder" and RIGHT AFTER says "DNA is a code"; or if you find me one place where crick says "DNA proves god exists", I'll be very impressed (but still unconvinced, it's an argument from authority, which, ultimately, is fallacious). Still, until you do, your argument rests on the presumption that an english word with multiple meanings that is quite appealing to use in a metaphorical sense is meant with only ONE of its possible definitions in a completely literal way, which is downright silly.

 

[godisabullet]

Not to mention that these arguments always boil down to:
1) someone had to do it
2) therefore god did it
3) therefore god exists!

But step 2 is begging the question (circular argument, you can't say god has done something before you establish he exists, because the very act of saying god did something ASSUMES he exists, thus this entire argument boils down to "god exists, therefore he exists")... Also step 2 doesn't follow from step 1...

That's what I was going to say because to me that's logical. But I also know the angle that the ID proponents are coming at this from which I think might be something along the lines of:

"Lets leave any mention of a creator out of the argument and concentrate on the proposal that there is evidence of design in nature. We don't want to speculate on the specific attributes of the designer because that just looks like straight up creationism - we just want to convince people that things in nature are designed - then we can start making the case for "god did it"."

I dunno. To me it's a very dishonest line of reasoning but ... well, I'm struggling to get my head around the logic. Obviously, if a creationist is arguing for design in nature then s/he is implying design by a Christian god. They're not fooling anyone though (as is evidenced by the Dover trial) but they're having a crack at it.

 

[godisabullet]

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome.

Simile. Once again, it's the easiest way for humans to interpret the pattern.

Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God


I'm sure it's been said before but it's a pretty silly question and I think it needs to be pointed out again that Japhia888, you are assuming that god IS an explanation for our existence.

1. By definition there can be no evidence for the supernatural

Therefore it follows that:

2. There can be no evidence for a god since god, by definition is a supernatural being.

Therefore it follows that:

3. God is not an explanation for our existence.


Rub a dub dub, thanks for the grub. Yay god!

 

[Japhia888]

Francis Crick was more clear then:

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/a/replication/dna.html

DNA contains a coded representation of all the proteins in the cell. Other molecules such as sugars and fats are synthesised by proteins (enzymes) so their structures are indirectly coded by DNA. DNA also contains all the information required to make the correct amount of protein at the correct time, thus controlling all biological processes from those of day to day life such as metabolic activity to those of embryogenesis and fetal development. The human genome contains 3x109 base pairs of DNA divided into 23 chromosomes which if linked together would form a thread of 1 meter with a diameter of 2 nm. This DNA codes for about 105 different proteins. In fact only about 2-4 % of the total coding capacity in the human DNA is used for coding of different genes, the rest of it probably has other more structural and organizational functions.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/gene-code/how.html

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome.

When an organism needs to use the data stored in the genome, e.g. to build components of a new cell, a copy of the required DNA part is made.

The alphabet in the RNA molecule contains 4 letters, i.e. A, U, C, G as previously mentioned. To construct a word in the RNA language, three of these letters are grouped together. This three-letter word are often referred to as a triplet or a codon. An example of such a codon is ACG. The letters don't have to be of different kinds, so UUU is also a valid codon. These codons are placed after each other in the RNA molecule, to construct a message, a RNA sequence. This message will later be read by the protein producing machinery in the body.

Every organism has an almost identical system that is able to read the RNA, interpret the different codons and construct a protein with various combinations of the amino acids mentioned previously.

He's still only using "code" as a metaphor. If you find me ONE place where francis crick defines "code" to mean "something encoded by an encoder for a decoder" and RIGHT AFTER says "DNA is a code"; or if you find me one place where crick says "DNA proves god exists", I'll be very impressed (but still unconvinced, it's an argument from authority, which, ultimately, is fallacious). Still, until you do, your argument rests on the presumption that an english word with multiple meanings that is quite appealing to use in a metaphorical sense is meant with only ONE of its possible definitions in a completely literal way, which is downright silly.

you can screw it around as you wish, fact remains: DNA is literally coded information, and its not a metaphor.

http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/hgss/hgsschapters/HGSS_Chapter03.pdf

Life's genetic code is written in the DNA molecule (aka deoxyribonucleic acid).1
From the perspective of design, there is no human language that can match the simplicity
and elegance of DNA. But from the perspective of implementation,how it is actually
written and spoken in practice,DNA is a linguist's worst nightmare. DNA has four
major functions: (1)

it contains the blueprint for making proteins and enzymes

;

do you really believe chance is able to produce blueprints ??

(2) it
plays a role in regulating when the proteins and enzymes are made and when they are not
made; (3) it carries this information when cells divide; and (4) it transmits this information
from parental organisms to their offspring.

In contrast to human language, where a word is composed
of any number of letters, a genetic "word" consists of three and only three letters. Each
genetic word symbolizes an amino acid. (We will define an amino acid later.) For
example, the nucleotide sequence AAG is "DNAese" for the amino acid phenylalanine, the
sequence GTC denotes the amino acid glutamine, and the sequence AGT stands for the
amino acid serine. Like natural language, DNA has synonyms. That is, there is more than
one triplet nucleotide sequence symbolizing the same amino acid. For example, ATA and
ATG both denote the amino acid tyrosine.
The sentence in the DNA language is a series of words that gives a sequence of
amino acids. For example, the DNA sentence AACGTATCGCAT would be read as a
polypeptide chain composed of the amino acids leucine-histidine-serine-valine.

Like natural written language, part of the DNA language consists of punctuation
marks. For example, the nucleotide DNA triplets ATT, ATC, and ACT are analogous to a
period (.) in ending a sentence,all three signal the end of a polypeptide chain. Other
punctuation marks denote the start of the amino acid sequence for the peptide. Unlike
the triplet nature of the DNA words for amino acids, some DNA punctuation marks may
be more or less than three nucleotides.

Finally, DNA, just like a book, is organized into chapters. The chapters
correspond to the chromosomes, so their number will vary from one species to the next.
The book for humans consists of 23 different chapters or chromosomes.9 The book for
other species may contain fewer or more chapters with little correlation between the
number of chapters and the complexity of the life form.

that is a interesting video to be seen :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBfuVuelkoY

what a faith you need to have, to believe, all this happened by pure chance.

 

[godisabullet]

what a faith you need to have, to believe, all this happened by pure chance.

Scientists rely on evidence. No faith is needed.

It has been explained to you but you ignore it. Chance doesn't come into it.

 

[Japhia888]

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome.

Simile. Once again, it's the easiest way for humans to interpret the pattern.

Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God


I'm sure it's been said before but it's a pretty silly question and I think it needs to be pointed out again that Japhia888, you are assuming that god IS an explanation for our existence.

1. By definition there can be no evidence for the supernatural

Therefore it follows that:

2. There can be no evidence for a god since god, by definition is a supernatural being.

Therefore it follows that:

3. God is not an explanation for our existence.


Rub a dub dub, thanks for the grub. Yay god!

http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Personal/rational_road.pdf

In his latest book, There Is a God7, Flew wrote that
Science ... cannot furnish an argument for God's existence. But three items of evidence ... the
laws of
nature, life with its teleological organization, and the existence of the universe, can only be explained in
the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world. Such a discovery of
the Divine does not come through experiments and equations, but through an understanding of the
structures they unveil and map.


http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm

Does God Exist - The Big Questions
Does God exist? An answer to this fundamental question is a prerequisite for answering the other big questions of life: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Do we serve a purpose? Do we have any intrinsic value? What happens after we die? The question of the existence of God is fundamental.

Does God Exist - A Philosophical Issue
Before we ask the question "Does God exist?" we first have to deal with our philosophical predispositions. If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless. My answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not allowed to exist!

Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28).

If, on the other hand, I were neutral, and didn't already have an "a priori adherence" to a particular worldview (be it naturalistic or otherwise), the question "does God really exist?" wouldn't be pointless at all. Rather, it would be the first step in an objective and meaningful search for ultimate truth. Our willingness to ask the question with an open mind is fundamental to our ability to discover the truth behind the answer. So first of all, before you even ask the question, decide whether or not you're really willing to accept the answer.

Does God Exist - Things to Consider
Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?" here are a few observations to consider as you begin your search for an objective answer:

Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?
Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?

 

[DepricatedZero]

Rub a dub dub, thanks for the grub. Yay god!

RF is my personal savior. My life for him.

 

[borrofburi]

you can screw it around as you wish, fact remains: DNA is literally coded information, and its not a metaphor.

Demonstrate it. You keep presuming it and linking to more and more obscure "authorities" as though that establishes it as true.... But it doesn't, and you can't presume it to be true either, you MUST demonstrate that DNA requires an encoder. And "I can't understand how this could have arisen from natural processes" does not cut it.

But even if you do demonstrate that DNA requires an "encoder" you have not demonstrated that god exists...

what a faith you need to have, to believe, all this happened by pure chance.

Not one of us believes it happened by "pure chance"; there's a vast difference between "pure chance" and "natural processes".

Besides, don't you value faith?