• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Reasoning for/against a creator

alasdairm said:
^ you do not believe that elements like carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, etc. occur naturally?

alasdair
Click to expand...
Of course they occur naturally but the likelihood of those elements combining to form a single strand of DNA, much less an entire cell, are zero.
 
simstim said:
the individual chemicals required to compose an animal or even single celled organism do not occur naturally
Click to expand...

well, now i am confused given what you wrote above.

anyway, i suspect that we'll not agree so i am happy to disagree here and move on.

thanks.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
well, now i am confused given what you wrote above.

anyway, i suspect that we'll not agree so i am happy to disagree here and move on.

thanks.

alasdair
Click to expand...
I agree that the individual elements you listed occur in nature. I do not agree that something so absolutely complex as a single strand of DNA will ever form out of those elements in nature under just about any circumstances without outside intervention. DNA is about as basic as it gets for animal life and it's an extremely complex chemical chain to be forming randomly. Without DNA even single celled organisms do not exist.
 
Foreigner said:
You have major reading comprehension problems and you're insulting on top of it, as usual.

How many times does it have to be explained to you?

It's called the theory of evolution because it's the best current working model. A scientist could come along with a new facet and it could be changed to something else. That's why it's called a theory despite the preponderance of positive evidence in its favour.

I'm pretty much done talking to you about this subject because the wilful ignorance that you cling to in such an antagonistic fashion is both tiring and counterproductive. There is no "law" of evolution like there are physical laws. You are wrong and will always be wrong. Good day to you.
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness I scrolled up to see the usernames after reading yep I get it will stay in my lane here I know that I know nothing really or I agree with Socrates saying that I honestly have no clue what is going on let alone how it all began

Has science been looking for evidence of God or just keeps masturbating to the idea we spawned from apes?
 
dragonix said:
Oh my goodness I scrolled up to see the usernames after reading yep I get it will stay in my lane here I know that I know nothing really or I agree with Socrates saying that I honestly have no clue what is going on let alone how it all began

Has science been looking for evidence of God or just keeps masturbating to the idea we spawned from apes?
Click to expand...

Maybe you should pick up a book that was written after 400 BC and you would know a bit more.
 
Foreigner said:
Eventually, theories become laws, after a LONG TIME of conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...
this is not correct.

a scientific theory is THE correct answer, it's the highest honor upon which explanations are bestowed. they may be amended to make the theory more accurate, but don't evolve into some higher order of explanation.

they don't become laws, they include and refer to laws.

the theory of evolution can be known to be true to the maximal level of confidence, just like the germ theory of disease. we just know, because of the mountains of evidence, that these are the correct answers.

also, to address another comment (by dragonix), we didn't just come from apes, we are apes.

(edit)

once there is good evidence for a god, then i can accept that claim.

until then, i have no choice but to shrug my shoulders.

there is no need for a supernatural variable in a scientific theory. every time we have said the answer was "a god did it" and then found the real answer later on, the real answer has never yet been "a god did it".
 
Last edited:
nepalnt21 said:
also, to address another comment (by dragonix), we didn't just come from apes, we are apes.
Click to expand...
that is technically not correct.
We have a(n assumed) shared ancestor. We are primates, yes.

We didn't come from apes at all, at least I didn't, don't know what your moms do in the privacy of their bedrooms
 
we are absolutely apes, (and good arguments are made that we are monkeys, although this is not a mainstream viewpoint).

these are human made words, just like taxonomy is human made. according to the definitions of apes, we are included.

hominoidea, the superfamily of apes, includes (as you have pointed out, our family) the hominids, aka "the great apes". we are definitely apes, and came from a now deceased ape ancestor. this ancestor is also common to chimps and bonobos, also apes.
 
When horrific things happen to generally good people, I do not accept God as omnipotent in the literal sense. But I do personally accept a concept of God that is imperfect.
 
nepalnt21 said:
we are absolutely apes, (and good arguments are made that we are monkeys, although this is not a mainstream viewpoint).

these are human made words, just like taxonomy is human made. according to the definitions of apes, we are included.

hominoidea, the superfamily of apes, includes (as you have pointed out, our family) the hominids, aka "the great apes". we are definitely apes, and came from a now deceased ape ancestor. this ancestor is also common to chimps and bonobos, also apes.
Click to expand...
Sure, that is how we classify it, with the data we have.
Just do not buy it as long as said ancestor is only assumed. Tastes a bit funny
We find relics and fossils of essentially anything, but this one cannot be found?
Not even a single one?
 
December Flower said:
Sure, that is how we classify it, with the data we have.
Just do not buy it as long as said ancestor is only assumed. Tastes a bit funny
We find relics and fossils of essentially anything, but this one cannot be found?
Not even a single one?
Click to expand...
well get digging. ever watch the movie "holes"?

there is much lost to time, and just because the fossil record is incomplete doesn't mean we don't have other lines of evidence. for example: genetic evidence.
 
For some reason it is easier to believe that the universe existed without a creator. Logically why would it start with a super luminal being who ends up making the most chaotic thing ever conceived? Who created the super luminal being? There's theoretical science now that talks about a vacuum with no particles start forming light and other quantum particles. It's easier to believe it's a spontaneous production of physics than it is to be believe one all knowing fuck up set up a game theory where the strongest win and the innocent lose. The only way we can cope with this stark reality is to reverse it. Blessed be the meek and mild and damnation to Tyrants all thanks to a God; who, set the rules up in such a way that YHWH knew we'd become dangerous and capable of atrocities. From the day we got here we were plagued with diseases and defects. Having innocent mankind suffer for no reason is a breeding ground for opportunists to get one up on the universe as there are obviously no repercussions for a caring God to simply kill babies and their mothers through a mere biological accident. They see no evidence of a caring God. If there are no repercussions to a God who lays waste to innocence a betting man could make a fortune (as they have).

Yes God could have ethically planned all this out only to bring good people into paradise after their deaths. Why incentivize the baddies only to have them weeded out after much suffering? Heaven is more like a refugee camp from Earth than it is a Just place for the most Godly amongst us.


Have a good day,
Shrooms
 
Last edited:
Gormur said:
For:
There's a creator because we can't explain everything with science
There's a creator because it gives people a purpose, therefore Creator
There's a creator because people write books that come true; there are prophets and magicians therefore a creator must be behind it

Against:
There's no creator because we can't explain it with science
There's no creator as it serves no purpose
There's no creator despite visionaries writing books that predict the future

Conclusion:
A creator wouldn't need to predict the future or interact with humans in order to exist. What it'd need to do is let us all know of its existence without searching for it. I don't think I've ever heard a good breakdown on this from either side as it seems like people often just get angry about it or they don't know what they're talking about. Th
Click to expand...

Gormur said:
For:
There's a creator because we can't explain everything with science
There's a creator because it gives people a purpose, therefore Creator
There's a creator because people write books that come true; there are prophets and magicians therefore a creator must be behind it

Against:
There's no creator because we can't explain it with science
There's no creator as it serves no purpose
There's no creator despite visionaries writing books that predict the future

Conclusion:
A creator wouldn't need to predict the future or interact with humans in order to exist. What it'd need to do is let us all know of its existence without searching for it. I don't think I've ever heard a good breakdown on this from either side as it seems like people often just get angry about it or they don't know what they're talking about. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Of course The Creator is real, do you think your shoes evolved, or did someone design them, it's common sense.
 
someone designed and built the shoes, and that speaks nothing to the one and only universe we know of.

find me a universe that we have demonstrated to have been designed, and only then can we compare it with our universe to see if it fits the same paradigm.

snortyjones said:
Of course The Creator is real, do you think your shoes evolved, or did someone design them, it's common sense.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What logic that could suppose a creator justifies any actions noble or otherwise is usually the argument that precedes and succeeds what a creator is, what it's capable of and the argument is cyclical. The very idea of supposing that logic will prove or disprove a creator is feeble to say the least. But you are more likely to find evidence that there is not, whether that evidence is felt or realized.
 
Well. I have spent years with this question. There aren't realyl any basis for real reasoning for or against. Lol.
 
Apes or not, evolution as described or not. Who cares? It doesn't speakt *for* a creator any more than against it.
Even if there was a creator, it's not the one described in Bible.
It could be anything. Please stop telling that this and that science doen't fit, it does not prove anything.
Even if all the natural science was bullshit, it does not mean that there's a God.
However, there are deeper philosophical aspects like does everything need a 'reason', or a previous state.
If there was a God, why there is a God? Why is it easier to accept that there exists a God for no reason?
We don't understand the real core of reality. I want to believe there's more to this, but I don't even try to fool others nor myself to think that it's the logical and most probable solution.
I have experienced things that make it easier to believe.
And I can also tell in certainty, that the one descirbed in Bible is utter bullshit and creation of human mind.
But that does not mean there isn't a creator or god. Just not the one described in that book.
Time is a complex concept, and even more so the state without time. It's just awesome and weird, that anything exists at all.
I was raised to believe but couldn't keep believing when I realised that it's just as meaningless as anything.
Also, the probabilities are meaningless. There could be ~infinite realities with ~infinite timelines, and so it doesn't really matter if something's pretty unprobable.
Human not able to prove something or human-calculated science non-perfect does not mean there's a god.
Except if we suppose, that human itself is godly, and more complex than all the universe.
Lucky are those, who can believe just because apes and DNA.
It seems pretty probable and believable, that something exists, though.
If there wasn't a reason to exists, I'd like to think, that nothing would exist.
Could there exist something that did not have anything previous state, and why would something born out of nothing, without any previous state explaining and depicting the next. How come E=m?
The most logical standpoint is to accept, that this system has no 'beginning' in a sense, nor a creator, but that it is just something about nature of reality to form such a representation of itself.
If this universe and everything was non-existent, just nothingness, would the concept of "0" still exist in any sense?
Would or could empty sets exist in any meaningful conceptual level?
Could we say, that there exists "0" of anything, or that the situation could be described as an empty set?

Please, do not try to explain God with science or its flaws.
 
Last edited:
The universe is so confusing it's easier to just sit back and behave. Why was there an empty stage with an 'infinitely small, infinitely dense singularity' that expanded to create the most alien and bizarre characteristics. We'll always ask "but what was before" infinitely and never get any closer to some ultimate Truth. From lipids to the mitochondria to motor proteins we live in a Dr Suess book except a good portion of people suffer, have suffered, and will suffer again. People suffering often takes the magic away from both Science and Religion. Luckily we're about to have brain interfaces and nanobots able to cure most suffering allowing some of the magic back in.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top