Is god real

[Koss]

HAHA, peaceseeker, yes, your right, you proved it just by your existence...

 

[NP97]

I say this.
God is the answer to why and not how.

 

[Waylander]

I think Batwoman is right, religion and politics.......touchy subjects.

 

[ErictheGed]

I'm sure if we handle it diplomatically no-ones gonna get offended. If b123 just wanted an argument he would just have said jelqing doesn't work or something!

 

[b123]

How dare you call me a troll lol,i posted this thread earlier just because i dont reply in a few hours doesent mean im a troll.

 

[b123]

I dont want an argument i just think this is interesting,and i wanted to hear peoples opinions.

 

[Batwoman]

OK people -- offer opinions on the subject at hand: Is God real?
But no more comments on the opinions of other people you don't agree with.

 

[ErictheGed]

Well said. Its not our religious beliefs that cause trouble, its when we shoot down everyone elses!

 

[CUSP82]

Yes mommy! (sorry BW but you set yourself up for that one!)

 

[tryb4idie]

I think when it comes to god we need to be consistent in our way of reasoning. In countries we'd call "civilized" people who are accused of crime are innocent until proven guilty, in science a hypothesis becomes a fact once it has been proven. The principle is simple: Things exist if there is proof. So far we have not found any proof of the existence of god, that is why I do not believe in a god or any form of intelligent design.

You might suggest that complexity of live or the universe is proof of god, however we do not know how exactly these things came into existence. Simply claiming god created them has no sound basis and only impairs the man kind's search for knowledge. The argument of complexity for the existence of god is actually known in the form of a more specific example as the watch maker argument. It goes as follows:
I see a complicated watch, based on its complexity I draw the conclusion that it must have an intelligent creator. Then when looking at a human eye I see that it is even more complex than the watch, therefore it too must have an intelligent creator.
The first thing wrong with this argument is that you do not know the watch has an intelligent creator because of its complexity but rather because you have been taught this earlier in your life, but that is beside the point.
The real counter argument to the watch maker argument is evolution. Taking the eye as an example again, it is entirely possible that at some point in time an animal evolved that had light sensitive cells. These cells might have given the animal some form of advantage over others and enabled it survive longer and thus reproduce more than others. Over time it descendants developed even more sensitive cells which would be able to discern shapes clearer which would again give them an advantage. This continues until you have the human eye.

I could go on for hours but this is more than enough for now. If anybody feels like discussing this, I will be back tomorrow.

Also, @Fluxo: Science will never disprove god, just like it will never disprove unicorns. The only way we will ever live in a world without religion is if people start thinking about god the way the think about everything else and stop kids who people optimus prime is real that god is real.

PS: I don't mean to offend ANYONE!

Edit: Holy sh*t, when I started writing this I was still on page 1 of the comments. Too many one liners...

 

[cubah]

I think God and science go well together. I don't think that people who have faith in science cannot also believe in a god. I see science and mathematics as a way of observing the handiwork of God (Yahweh for me). If you read the Christian Bible, and the life of Jesus, you will see that God is very practical. For example, in the Old Testament, God told His people to avoid eating carcasses on the roadside and such because of germs. In those days they didn't know about bacteria, so God just told them it was "unclean."

You don't need to be mystical or irrational to believe in God. I think science does an excellent job of proving He exists by exploring the things in our physical world.

 

[maelsukr]

I feel that we , as humans , always personalize any energy flow in order to try to understand it .
For me , we live in a stream of possibility , and constantly create with our thoughts , what we choose to experience .
Oh course , this is where PROGRAMING comes into play .Whose life are you living , yours or someone else's .

That makes us our own god . There is nothing out there . You only experience the world through the screen inside
your mind , and what you believe the world is capable of , for you .
YOU judge how and what you create , not some one else . That makes us fully responsible for what we do .
And that's scary , don't you think . You can't blame anyone else for what you experience .

Okay , I relinquish the soap box for other opinions . They are like ass holes , as everyone has one . hehe!

 

[calixto]

I really like what Mael says about "being your own god", as we are almost one in the same, because if we were made by God, then don't we have a piece of "him" is us?

 

[pe_ZEN]

1 more question from the Zen perspective:

How can "God" exist if YOU DON"T EXIST?

Maybe that seems silly - study Wei Wu Wei and understanding will arise. I mean look for him! Can you find a humonculus?

 

[Iguana]

So far we have not found any proof of the existence of god, that is why I do not believe in a god or any form of intelligent design....

I, on the other hand, find overwhelming evidence of the existence of God. Don't confuse complexity with design, they are not one and the same. A log cabin is very simply constructed in comparison with a watch - but no one would believe a log cabin came into existence by itself. Why? Because despite its simplicity it shows proof of intelligence and function. The design shows a specific purpose. The earth and life around us is not only exceedingly complex but overflows with intelligence and purposeful function.

The real counter argument to the watch maker argument is evolution. Taking the eye as an example again, it is entirely possible that at some point in time an animal evolved that had light sensitive cells. These cells might have given the animal some form of advantage over others and enabled it survive longer and thus reproduce more than others. Over time it descendants developed even more sensitive cells which would be able to discern shapes clearer which would again give them an advantage. This continues until you have the human eye.

What you are describing here is known as a mutation. The thinking here goes; a genetic abnolmolity results in a new and desirable trait. The new and desirable trait provides the creature an advantage over other creatures. The new and desirable trait is then passed on to its offspring resulting in a more complex and functional species and eventually resulting in a new species.

But, is this really what science has shown to be true?

Mutations are a misfortune. They do not produce evolution, and many good scientists admit this. We could not go much higher than England's man of medicine - Sir Peter Medawar CBE, MA, BsC, and fellow of the Royal Society as well as Nobel Prize winner. Medawar admits that "there is no genetic process that science knows of that could produce the changes required for the process of evolution."

Genetic mutation has never been observed to improve, modify or make an organism more complex. Not one convincing case exists! Mutations are always detrimental to the species concerned. It has been presupposed that evolution is, in fact, true. Thus, from this presupposition follows a search to find a mechanism which demonstrates the process of evolution

Evolution requires billions of positive mutations in millions of different species of both plants and animals. Literally trillions of positive mutations would be required, and yet no one has been able to show one single, honest, convincing case. This completely extirpates the belief that evolution has happened by genetic mutation.
Genetic Mutation


It also defies what scientists have known for years and that is - life only comes from life. If thousands of intelligent scientists working in controlled laboratories cannot produce life from nothing am I to believe it developed spontaneously on it's own in a sea of primordial soup?
I don't think so...

 

[cubah]

I really like what Mael says about "being your own god", as we are almost one in the same, because if we were made by God, then don't we have a piece of "him" is us?

So...

If a scientist invented a hover car, is the hover car a a human because it was made by one? God made us with his own hads out of dust (science proves this; we are made up of what you find in the soil). He did breathe life into us, but He only gave us life, He did not give birth to them of fashion them from His blood/flesh. We are also "made in God's image," but that does not mean we are mini gods. a robot fashioned to look and act like a human is still not a human.

If we create (bring into "reality") what we think/conceive, then I shouldn't be able to die; I could just imagine myself to never die, like in a lucid dream. I also should be able to think hard enough and conjure $1M right at my feet. I don't think we live in a matrix - a world made of our own thoughts and processes. I think there is a "real" world. Don't believe me, the next time you have a dream and wake up, and I sure you know which series of events was a "dream" and when you are in "reality."

 

[Fluxo]

The question has been answered

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds by National Geographic

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.

Using computer models and statistical methods, biochemist Douglas Theobald calculated the odds that all species from the three main groups, or "domains," of life evolved from a common ancestor—versus, say, descending from several different life-forms or arising in their present form

And in the words of Stephen Colbert.. How about them apples..

 

[cubah]

It also defies what scientists have known for years and that is - life only comes from life. If thousands of intelligent scientists working in controlled laboratories cannot produce life from nothing am I to believe it developed spontaneously on it's own in a sea of primordial soup?
I don't think so...

I disagree with evolution theory not because I am a creationist, but because it does not make sense to me. If evolution ensures that one species will survive over others, why do we still have bacteria that thrive so well? And would there not be any apes left? They should have all evolved in more intelligent humans while the ones who could not keep up would die off.

There is also the fossil evidence. Fossils of many birds, fish, and insects look the same now as they did all those years ago. There was also that discovery of an ancient fish, the coelacanth, that looks the same as it did in the fossils. I admit that some animals were larger back then (dragonflies, some types of horses), but a dragonfly fossil still looks like a modern day dragonfly, and an ancient horse still looks like a horse.

I personally don't see any evidence that supports evolution theory.

 

[cubah]

The question has been answered... All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

I read the article, and I see what it's driving at. Their theory is that because these bacteria and other single-celled organisms share common protein sequences with nearly all other animals on earth, these microbes must be the common ancestor.

One problem with that... what do you eat? Plants, animals, bacteria (unintentionally I hope). Since you digest what you eat and your body uses it for building and fuel, what would you be made of? of course these microbes would share protein types with every other animal on earth, they are made from the same materials as other organisms - proteins, tissues, bones, and other stuff. I hope that if I eat a piece of chicken, that my muscles would be made of the same material, or at least share similar amino acids.

I don't see how this proves evolution theory. The computer model doesn't mean a thing either. The article didn't describe how it works or what exactly it simulated. And since computer programs can only do what their human designers program them to do, it's no surprise the model supports their theory - it's biased.

 

[kingpole]

God is real, because i live right next door to Him.