What If... God Didn't Exist?

if your so scientifically advanced plz inform me how the first "thing" came about and how it came about.

 

i suppose you are reffering to the big bang?

well scientists have now concluded that the bigbang that we know happened some 15 billion years ago, was not actualy the first big bang that happened. You have to imagine pretty hard about what i am going to say next. There IS NO one universe, there its a multiverse. millions of billions of universes that coexist on a plane of space and time. there has been evidence that the force of gravity is the force that occurs from a relationship of two close universes.

when two universal fields come two close toghether, they will eventualy collide and the Big bang Occurs.

this isnt me on a stoner trip talking. it is actual scientific hypothesis from MIT.

 

see thats not a fact, thats what they supposed happened... Even though you think your right your still believing another religion. according to ppl who believe god they would say "isn't it possible god caused the big bang"?

Hypothesis not fact. God is a hypothesis too

 

yes what you speak of is credible, but i tend to think of life on earth and where it may be beyound our understanding as a big giant mishap. mean this humans and animals alike were one giant suprising turn in the universal existence. Sentinental being really do not have a place in the universe that fits them. I forget the exact number but the odds of having a planet that is habitable to life is slim to none.

most self righteous people would want to see their life as having alot of meaning. they ofcourse will object when told that life on earth, is merely an accident. you would feel crappy in many ways. but i tend to think beyond that. the accident is so revolutionary that i see my rare existence of having much more significance, meaning that we are the only sentinent being on planet earth and the close proxemity of 20 or so other galexies ( just a guess). Therefore, knowing that there is no hell, heaven, purgatory, paradise, whatever you want to call it, i try to live life to the fullest.

 

i believe in a god... and i still live my life to the fullest. I just don't worship the god constantly.

 

you know, i have dont alot of religion arguments on the internet. and every time i express my viewpoint on the matter, i am labeled as religious. towards another belief. Religion means faith in a belief. to have faith, you are surrendering all your rational thinking to a higher being. I dont do that at the very slightest.

I look at many plausible fact and information that is both theory and hypothesis, and choose to construct my own view of the world.

what you say about hypothesis being no more than that is true, but science does not lie, it is through natural formulas and laws that you can decipher the universe. now this study was done in 2006, so ofcource it is just a hypothesis, science wouldnt have credibility if this idea was to become true in less than a year of research.

you are just fueling the war you are trying to see ceased. by falsly labeling atheists under the most default pretenses that most religious and agnostics do.

 

there just gonna quote you and tease you lawl

they keep saying we cant prove science, apparently they are that absent minded to the world

i think if we were to throw the religious ppl in the ghetto they wouldnt wtf to do hahaha

 

lol. i dont think putting religious people in the ghetto would do any good. yes there was times in my wild teenager days where i just wanted to abolish all religious people and move on with the world but that just ridiculous. you can atleast do that to the ones who are labeled as terrorists. but i am afraid that is going to continue on ever more so later on. Radical Islam is scary stuff. especialy when i saw it first hand.



If i ever became religious, i would become a jedi.

 

we all have our own opinions.
im done now i dont wanna argue all day lol

+ just for pheymus
im not religious i believe in a god that started existence.

 

i like to see it more like an enlightment of minds. but its cool come back to play whenever you want.

 

Excuse me? So, since you're so non-arrogant and completely down-to-earth, why do you constantly make generalizations? "Oh, those idiot religious people only join religion because they think they'll go to heaven..." "Oh, religious people can't think for themselves..." "Oh, people only join religion for the benefits..." "Oh, humans are always selfish and won't do anything unless they get something..." You dumbs---, if you're so high and mighty and don't have a condescending bone in your body, why in the hell can't you consider another's opinion without making some sort of generalization that dismisses it automatically? Guess that goes beyond your arrogant thinking, doesn't it?

If humans were selfish enough to create a god to satisfy their own desires, why is it that each of the major god-focused religions involve worship and submission to said god and its will? Why is it that they've all got ceremony, and a list of do's-and-do not's? I know for one that I'm not big on submitting to a bunch of petty rules, especially when they prohibit me from doing something that I may enjoy. If humans were so selfish, this whole concept of a god would be a guy that gives us money on demand. Guess that goes beyond your arrogant thinking, doesn't it?

Maybe you will only do something if you get some sort of benefit. However, not everyone does--rarely do I see someone that self-centered outside of a movie. Look at charities and non-profit organizations for a very real example. Guess that goes beyond your arrogant thinking, doesn't it?

But hey, maybe you are some sort of all-knowing scholar that knows anything and everything about anything you need to know. Your vastly superior intelligence is blatantly obvious. Guess that goes beyond the line of thinking of us here mortals, doesn't it?

Now, for those points I've mentioned:


1. Evolution as you and I think of it refers to macroevolution and/or Darwinian evolution. Some issues that I've got with that are as follows:

a. If theistic evolution (that of there being a God/He doesn't conflict with evolution) is occuring, then it is no longer the random mutations that evolution bases itself upon - as soon as God enters the picture, according to Scripture, it is no longer random at the points of divine interaction/invention.

b. The complex mutations required to produce complex organs such as an eye or a bird's wing (or hundreds of other organs) could not have occured in timy mutations accumulating over thousands of generations becasue the individual parts of the organ are useless (and give no 'advantage') unless the entire organ is functioning. Natural selection cites the useless parts of an organ being killed off, and those killed off are often crucial parts of the organ. Unless these random mutations all occur in the same generation on the same organ (the mathematical probability of which is effectively zero), those advocating the theory are left with "it must have happened because it happened," which goes against the "high probability that x happened/happens" that the theory bases itself on based on what it sees as proven science.

c. In current evolutionary arguments, the idea of "survival of the fittest/natural selection" is popularly thought to mean that those animals whose different characteristics give them a comparitive advantage will survive, and others will die out. In actual practice, almost any characteristic can be argued to be an advantage/disadvantage. So how does the theory know which characteristics give an advantage in survival to certain animals? By observing which kinds survived. But this means tha natual selection isn't some new insight as to what happens in nature but instead a repetition of the same idea, since it boils down to saying that the fittest animals are those who have the most offsprings. In this sense, natural selection means: animals who have the most offspring have the most offspring. This proves nothing about any supposed mutations that produce different, more fit offspring over the course of many generations.

d. In Darwin's time, it was concluded that, simply, not enough fossils had been discovered and over time, more would that would confirm his views. It's been 130 years since he concluded this, and still, no convincing "missing links" have been found, not just between humans/others, but for numerous other organisms as well. So difficult is this problem that many evolutionary scientists today propose that evolution came about in sudden jumps to new life forms -- so that each of the thirty-two known orders of mammals, for example, appeared quite suddenly in the history of Europe. But, how could hundreds or thousands of genetic changes occur at once? No explaination has been given other than to say that it must have happened, because it happened.

A simple glance at those dotted lines in current biology textbooks that connect the diagrams will show that the supposed transitions of species has not been discovered after another century and millions more fossils.

2. The molecular structures of living things do show relationships, but Darwin simply assumes that relationships imply common ancestry, a claim that he and his theory still haven't proven, 130 years after he proposed the theory.

3. Probably the greatest difficulty of all for evolutionary theory is explaining how any life could have begun in the first place. The spontaneous generation of even the simplest living organism capable of independant life (the prokaryote bacterial cell) from inorganic materials on the earth could not happen by random mixing of chemicals: it requires an intelligent design and craftsmanship so complex that no scientific laboratory in the world has been able to do it, and spontaneous generation has been attempted since the mid-1700s. Technology has only gotten better since then, not worse. Chance assembly is simply a scientific way of saying "miracle."

On a more simple note, we'll use the example of my watch. If I were to take my watch and say that I found it near an iron mine, and it was my belief that the watch had come together by itself simply through the operation of random movement and environmental forces (plus energy from a few bolts of lightning or something similar), I would be considered crazy, correct? One living cell in any bacterium is thousands of times more complex than my watch. Even given 4.5 billion years, the "chance" of even one cell arising is essentially zero, the same or probably a lesser probability as my watch being generated. Spontaneous generation has been disproven, though evolutionary doctrine still teaches it. Again, the teaching is that "it must have happened because it happened."

4. With all this random chance that evolution relies upon, I'll ppose a question:

- If someone were to ask you to entrust my life to ride on an airplane, and then explained that the airline completed its flights safely once in every 10^340,000,000 times--or even one in ten times--would you entrust your life to that airline? Here's where I'm going with this:

a. Two men named Kofahl and Segraves, came up with a statistical model in which they begin with a very generous assumption: that every square foot of Earth was somehow covered with 85 pounds of protein molecules that could mix freely, and that all are replaced with fresh protein every year for one billion years. They estimate the probability that even one lone enzyme molecule (made of proteins, would potentially stimulate reactions and possibly lead to generation of life processes) would form every one billion years of Earth's history. The probability is 1.2x10^11 or one chance in 80 billion. They note, however, that even with the generous assumptions and starting with fresh protein, finding one enzyme molecule--for all practical purposes an impossible task--would not solve the problem at all:

The probability of finding two of the active molecules would be about 10^22, and the probability that they woudl be identical would be 10^70. And could life start with just a single enzyme molecule? Furthermore, what is the possibility that an active enzyme molecule, once formed, could find its way through thousands of miles and millions of years to that randomly formed RNA or DNA molecule which contains the code for that particular enzyme's amino acid sequence, so that new copies of itself could be produced? Zero for all practical purposes.

The men report a study by an evolutionary scientist who formulates a model to calculate the probability for the formation, not just one of one enzyme molecule but the smallest likely living organism by random processes. He comes up with a probability of one chance in 10^340,000,000, the number used above.

 

I have taken the liberty of italicizing all the places you pass off your belief as fact, and I've bolded the places you're just plain scientifically or historically wrong.

Ferret beat me to it =P

About ferret's illustration involving the airplane only surviving 1 of 10^340,000,000 trips... I have an illustration of what ridiculously long odds those are. They CANNOT be comprehended. Ever.

See my post (earlier in this topic) here.
For the sake of our minds, I only used the number 10^1000 (which is still impossible to comprehend, as you'll see when (if) you read the post)

 

Jesus christ. Evolution is the genetic change in a population from one generation to another, this has being observed so please stop trying to act as though it hasn't.

 

Yes, sorry. Please pick the one thing I said wrong and ignore the rest of my and Ferret's posts.

Fixed...

 

For the matter, "Evolution" to the average person carries the meaning of "macroevolution." I use the term because of that. Rather like the "renders" topics that that guy was posting a few days back--it's fallen into common usage, regardless of its actual meaning. Were I typing a paper for a science class, the term "macroevolution" would be used.