Do You Believe in a God?

[unicorn]

I believe that I will see all my loved ones who have passed in heaven, I personally need to believe that, it keeps me happy. So in short if I hope to see them again in heaven then I have to believe in god.

[redeyedtreefrog]

Well, redeyedtreefrog, either Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and many more did not do their research before "being idiots," or ... you are an idiot.

Hmm, difficult choice that one!

What have the discoveries of those highly intelligent humans got to do with you not looking up established evidence and checking it before posting?

I personally need to believe that, it keeps me happy...

In the same way, a drunk man is much happier than a sober one.

[Rheghead]

Well, redeyedtreefrog, either Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and many more did not do their research before "being idiots," or ... you are an idiot.

Hmm, difficult choice that one!

Who was their broadband ISP?

[Rheghead]

I believe that I will see all my loved ones who have passed in heaven, I personally need to believe that, it keeps me happy. So in short if I hope to see them again in heaven then I have to believe in god.

That is the most honest admission I've read so far.

[RecQuery]

Can't really add anything to what redeyedtreefrog said.

Stavro: Was the JW book Life - How did it get here? By evolution or by creation? (1997) or Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)? I'm familiar with the former but not the latter. The former uses the evolution is random chance argument.

I'd argue the veracity of the pro-creationist science, and I mean there is a large body of evidence in support of evolution by natural selection. Survival of the fittest is not what evolution states.

I was under the impression that evolutionists were more than happy to debate, provided the venue and moderators are neutral (or balance out at the very least) and if the debate does not turn into a protest or personal attack.

I've always understood science to be a quest for the truth. If you believe evolution by natural selection to be wrong, do you ascribe a motive to so many scientists believing it over creationism?

[Stavro]

Who was their broadband ISP?

They did not have one, but do you think that they had not come across the idea of organic evolution when this idea has been traced back at least as far as the ancient Greeks?

Perhaps you think that evolution came about through Charles Darwin (whom Max Planck and Albert Einstein certainly would have heard of, of course).

[Stavro]

Stavro: Was the JW book Life - How did it get here? By evolution or by creation? (1997) or Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)? I'm familiar with the former but not the latter. The former uses the evolution is random chance argument.

The former. It's random chance agrument is still perfectly valid, particularly with regard to abiogenesis.

I've always understood science to be a quest for the truth. If you believe evolution by natural selection to be wrong, do you ascribe a motive to so many scientists believing it over creationism?

Yes, I agree with you.

Not so much a motive, as per a conspiracy, but more a motivating force. I.e., the desire, for whatever reason, to deny the possibility of God's existence. Someone like Richard Dawkins seems to have a distinct passion for this, perhaps influenced by his financial gains.

[Rheghead]

They did not have one, but do you think that they had not come across the idea of organic evolution when this idea has been traced back at least as far as the ancient Greeks?

Perhaps you think that evolution came about through Charles Darwin (whom Max Planck and Albert Einstein certainly would have heard of, of course).

Ancient Greeks thought of evolution by natural selection and the above knew about it? Go on impress me. I doubt it, I know this because Darwin is widely published across the Globe in modern media today yet children are still faced with a misrepresentation of his ideas or a complete blackout. The Greeks thought of atoms but they'd hardly were experts on atom structure etc. I've heard of Lamarkian evolution, are you meaning that?

As for Max Plank and Einstein, I don't care if they had heard of it. They were good at their own fields of study, that's about it and they weren't all right about that. Einstein has been grossly been misquoted. So has Darwin for that matter, and he was wrong about certain stuff, we have moved on since then, biochemical mechanics of inheritence were largely unknown to Darwin. It is a pity that the wider public won't do their research. Education is the key.

When you get down to the nitty gritty, creations don't just dispute the evidence for evolution, they deny it even exists despite puttting it under their noses. Can we explain that mentality?

[Anne x]

I totally agree with unicorn in the early days of loss It certainly kept me sane I lost my mum at age 42 and my son 18 months later I felt I was going mad and got the comfort that we will meet again

Having said that about about 10yrs earlier I overheard or was probably ear lugging to my parents argument my mum had just lost her dad my grandad and said to dad that was a lovely service etc dad replied agreeing about the content then he started to question in "my house there are many mansions "etc must be a big place that heaven he said anyhow the argument went on but it stuck with me for years and I questioned it

that same Dad is now a church Elder past Session clerk etc for many years and his belief has kept him going well into his mid 80s and through his loss of my stepmum

Comfort is what we all want in loss be it through cards chatting ,poetry ,family or the church

[RecQuery]

Just because one or two scientists, have invoked or implied god, gods or supernatural forces in the past that does not translate as a belief. Many are probably referring to a deist god or simply making a stylistic choice so that a statement has better prose.

Well, redeyedtreefrog, either Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and many more did not do their research before "being idiots," or ... you are an idiot.

Hmm, difficult choice that one!

Can't speak on the true beliefs of them all but:

I'll give you Kelvin and Faraday as true believers for lack of a better word.

Mendel was a monk, but that was basically the equivalent of a research grant back then.

Einstein was definitely a deist if even that I'd say agnostic if not outright atheist, also saying things like "god does not play dice", just sounds better. He was criticised by many in the USA for his atheism.

Many scientists have also professed a belief because they had to for their own safety.

Trotting out famous atheists and believers is counter productive so lets not get caught up in that. The finest minds of a given period in history have believed and rationalised many things that have turned out to wrong. A claim made by Aristotle about a fly having eight legs comes to mind; numerous other claims by famous scientists and thinkers also.

[Whitewater]

Over the years I have read many books, and been involved in many debates regarding the 'God' question, whether one exists or not. Many people have very positive views on the existance of a God and I guess equally as many do not beleive. Many of the theories on which much of our modern thought regarding the way the universe works are now being challenged. Stephen Hawking who wrote 'A brief history of time' and many other articles/books regarding black holes, quantum gravity etc, has been unable to find the complete answer to what he has been looking for, he is now beginning to incorporate the work of Prof. Juan Maldacena who is an expert on the 'string theory' into his thinking in an attempt to find his answer, I think Hawking will come up with something which will turn conventional thinking on its head.

However, I have been digressing, but what I am getting at is simply that as yet nobody has proved the God theory one way or the other, and as modern gravitational theories become more complicated who knows what the conclusions are going to be.

Perhaps, because I have been brought up in a christian home where I attended sunday school and at one time (in my younger days) was a member of the Salvation Army band, I struggle to understand the thought that this world just happened. In the beginning was the big bang, what caused the big bang, we have built a particle accelerator to repricate it, and it worked. Or did it? Where did the original particles which created the big bang come from?

I find it very hard to believe that the our solar system, and our planet, with it's perfect climate and atmosphere, revolving round our Sun, which gives life to our complicated bodies with its wonderful control centre (our brain) just happened. ''Order out of Chaos'' to quote Dan Brown. I guess I am a God believer, then you have to think what God is. The bible says God is in us. Does that mean we are all Gods?

I'm very interested in this 'string theory' with its 10 dimensoinal space time and how it can be linked with our 4 dimensional world. In the 1920-30s there were many yarns written about the fifth dimension, what was the thinking then? where did they get it from?. Think of what the other 6 dimensions have to offer, can it open the doors to our 'Heaven'? Will the past and future be happening all around us as in Dr Who? are we just temporary residents in this dimension?, when we die is our soul transferred to another dimension? are we just temporary residents in a dimension we call earth?
It seem to go on and on, with the extra dimensions of the string theory anything is possible, we do not know, we will never be allowed to know.

[Stavro]

Trotting out famous atheists and believers is counter productive so lets not get caught up in that.

Okay, RecQuery, I'll give you that one. To get back on the (off-)topic evolution v creation discussion, I think that the biggest obstacle for the evolution camp is abiogenesis.


Whitewater - fascinating post, especially at this time of night ! Would only suggest that the Bible says it is the kingdom of God that is within us, not God (him/her)-self.

[RecQuery]

Okay, RecQuery, I'll give you that one. To get back on the (off-)topic evolution v creation discussion, I think that the biggest obstacle for the evolution camp is abiogenesis.

Okay, its just as off-topic but it gives me a sinking feeling; its probably okay to go down that avenue of discussion, but I'm wary it'll degenerate.

Anyway abiogenesis - for anyone who's just reading casually and is unsure what some people have been talking about, lets give some context - is essentially chemical evolution, the step before biological evolution, how the building blocks of life formed and how they combined to forw true life, think primordial soup.

Now the Miller–Urey experiment proved that amino acids can be formed in the conditions present on the early Earth. The sticking point is how these amino acids formed proteins, which requires nucleic acids. The problem for a long time (for atheists and evolutionists anyway) was could these nucleic acids develop naturally.

I thought the forming of Ribonucleotides had been settled and tested a lot of which has been published in the journal Nature, see here for one of the experiments.

Whitewater: A lot of what your saying sounds similar to deism, the belief that someone or something, lets called it god defined and set the laws and constants of the universe, started the big bang and that was it. Such a god would not answer prayers or be directly involved with anything in the universe.

[Stavro]

Now the Miller–Urey experiment proved that amino acids can be formed in the conditions present on the early Earth. The sticking point is how these amino acids formed proteins, which requires nucleic acids. The problem for a long time (for atheists and evolutionists anyway) was could these nucleic acids develop naturally.

Now we are getting somewhere.

I have singled out this section of your post, because this is the key area, in my opinion, and I therefore want to focus on it.

We first of all have a problem with what you refer to as the "early Earth," because geology has demonstrated that throughout history the Earth has had an atmosphere very similar in composition to the present day. The formation of amino acids would not be possible in such an atmosphere, due to the high oxygen content.

Secondly, amino acids would be just as likely to form in a right-handed configuration as they would in a left-handed configuration, yet all protein molecules are exclusively left-handed. You are alluding to this yourself, I believe, amongst other things.

The amino acids formed in Stanley Miller's experiment had to be isolated in a trap, since otherwise they would be destroyed by the electrical discharge. However, the "early Earth" did not possess such a natural trap.

Then there is the dissolving, destruction and dissipation of amino acids in the oceans.

So we have many unresolved problems here, before we start going on to nucleic acids.

[Rheghead]

Now the Miller–Urey experiment proved that amino acids can be formed in the conditions present on the early Earth. The sticking point is how these amino acids formed proteins, which requires nucleic acids. The problem for a long time (for atheists and evolutionists anyway) was could these nucleic acids develop naturally.

I think it is possible, think of catalysts, whereby molecules are brought together sterically by electrostatic interaction with a naturally occurring mineral. In this way, nature will have provided an environment that lowers the threshold energy for such a chemical reaction to proceed without destroying the long chain of the protein. Just like in the organism that came from it.

[Rheghead]

We first of all have a problem with what you refer to as the "early Earth," because geology has demonstrated that throughout history the Earth has had an atmosphere very similar in composition to the present day. The formation of amino acids would not be possible in such an atmosphere, due to the high oxygen content.

Do you make it up as you go along?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosph...est_atmosphere

[Whitewater]

In my post I said I was a believer in the God theory, but I find the bible as written in the 4th century by the Roman Emperor Constantine, particularly the new testiment, as nothing more than a control document, and it worked, the Roman Church dominated the world for many centuries. They destroyed Jesus the man, and produced Jesus the myth. I have no allegience to any church but I find all religions interesting. Unfortunately over the years the misinterpretation of the ancient languages as well as the Constantine corruption of the bible and gospels has ruined and lost us much of the ancient writings, which I believe had a lot to offer had they not been hijacked. The God of the bible has been limited by the greed of man.
My God is not as depicted in the bible, it/he/she is bigger than that.
Also in my previous post I have noticed on a reread that I mentioned another 6 dimensions, it should have been 10, the four we are aware of, plus another 10 from the 'string theory'. The mind boggles. I have great confidence in the thinking of Stephen Hawking, I hope he lives long enough to get closure on his theories.

[Rheghead]

I think humans find great comfort in a belief in the afterlife with loved ones for ever. It is a consequence of sentience. Evolution by natural selection has produced a human brain that is hard-wired into making those beliefs real. As comfort usually comes at a premium in our prehistory, anything that gives an individual member of a small group who is in grief some comfort will be an advantage for survival.

[Stavro]

Do you make it up as you go along?

Nope.

"There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A "catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262):

Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!

"In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8) and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T). "References:
Denton 1985
Gish 1972
Gish 1984T"

(Source: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ol1.htm )

[Bazeye]

Ooops.... thought this thread was about the atheist,dyslexic trawlerman.