God from the Investigation of Existence

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Well, ...... no.

The point is that if you need a creator for us, then you MUST apply the same 'rule' that the Creator you just invented ALSO needs to have a creator.  And so on.  It's a stupid, recursive argument.  Either the Universe has been here all the time (and by Universe I mean absolutely everything including any made-up or real God), or at some point, it sprang from nothing.  Neither of those requires a creator.  Introducing a need for a creator COMPLICATES the debate and is meaningless, as you just shift the perceived (and clearly 100% incorrect) 'need' for a Creator one step backward.

If that doesn't make sense to anyone, I'd suggest that you just keep believing, as no argument in that respect has any logic or merit whatsoever.  Don't try to take others on your journey to the Land of Silly.

deleted post

never mind.

Edited February 12, 2018 by preacherman76

[XenoFish]

17 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Using your own logic, OP, I'm going to start another thread:

The Creator of God who created Existence

.. then we'll need another:

The Creator of The Creator of God who created Existence

after which we'll do:

The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of God who created Existence

 

See if you can guess what comes next.. and also what I think of this line of reasoning..

That, that looks so familiar.

[Stiff]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

The point is that if you need a creator for us, then you MUST apply the same 'rule' that the Creator you just invented ALSO needs to have a creator.  And so on.  It's a stupid, recursive argument.  Either the Universe has been here all the time (and by Universe I mean absolutely everything including any made-up or real God), or at some point, it sprang from nothing.  Neither of those requires a creator.  Introducing a need for a creator COMPLICATES the debate and is meaningless, as you just shift the perceived (and clearly 100% incorrect) 'need' for a Creator one step backward.

Without getting too involved in this thread (as they always just end up going round and round in circles), the above quote really should wrap the whole thing up if the believers would actually sit and think about it for a minute. Nail - Head.

[Will Due]

9 minutes ago, Stiff said:

Nail - Head.

 

I disagree.

Eye - Needle.

 

 

[preacherman76]

7 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I disagree.

Eye - Needle.

 

 

I disagree as well. There is just no way there wasn’t a creator. I mean have any of these people ever looked inside even the most simple cells? Which of course are not even close to simple. Amazing complex designs that make our factories look pathetic and amateur. 

No one here who looked at say a metal fork would say it happened by chance, yet they can look at life in all it’s amazing complexity and think to themselves no way THAT needed creating. lol boggles the mind

Edited February 12, 2018 by preacherman76

[Will Due]

18 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

See if you can guess what comes next.. 

 

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

You ready?

Spoiler

The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of The Creator of the . . .

Spoiler

There is only ONE God

 

 

 

[psyche101]

10 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I disagree as well. There is just no way there wasn’t a creator. I mean have any of these people ever looked inside even the most simple cells? Which of course are not even close to simple. Amazing complex designs that make our factories look pathetic and amateur. 

No one here who looked at say a metal fork would say it happened by chance, yet they can look at life in all it’s amazing complexity and think to themselves no way THAT needed creating. lol boggles the mind

The watchmaker argument is circular as Chrlz pointed out already. 

Surely you can see past the overall picture and see how nature shaped things.

There is a great documentary that illustrates a 3D adventure into a cell. Worth watching, though we see the evolution of cells as we do with everything else right up to planets. Amazing and astounding sure, but no need to attribute a god nature is amazing all on its own 

 

[preacherman76]

22 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The watchmaker argument is circular as Chrlz pointed out already. 

Surely you can see past the overall picture and see how nature shaped things.

There is a great documentary that illustrates a 3D adventure into a cell. Worth watching, though we see the evolution of cells as we do with everything else right up to planets. Amazing and astounding sure, but no need to attribute a god nature is amazing all on its own 

 

Yes an amazing start of complex life was once sent into motion, and has continued non stop since that time. My issue is assuming it sprang forth on its own. We literally have zero evidence to prove that's even possible.

I understand not being able to comprehend that something, anything, could be eternal. Has always been. I don't pretend to understand it myself. It just seems to me without that something, there could never be anything. We cant say the universe is eternal, cause everything we see had a starting point, and is in a state of decay. The law of thermodynamics demands everything we see had a start. Even the big bang theory starts with the conclusion that at one time, there was nothing, then everything. Just seems to me that takes just as large, if not a larger leap of faith then to think their is a creator.

 

ETA that's a awesome video. Amazing

Edited February 12, 2018 by preacherman76

[psyche101]

11 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Yes an amazing start of complex life was once sent into motion, and has continued non stop since that time. My issue is assuming it sprang forth on its own. We literally have zero evidence to prove that's even possible.

No we have more evidence to confirm the theories that are confirmed in turn by maths. It's why we built the Large Hadron Collier. 

11 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I understand not being able to comprehend that something, anything, could be eternal. Has always been. I don't pretend to understand it myself. It just seems to me without that something, there could never be anything. We cant say the universe is eternal, cause everything we see had a starting point, and is in a state of decay. The law of thermodynamics demands everything we see had a start. Even the big bang theory starts with the conclusion that at one time, there was nothing, then everything. Just seems to me that takes just as large, if not a larger leap of faith then to think their is a creator.

Depends on your definition on nothing, QM has changed what we considered to be nothing. Advances in physics close these seemingly impossible gaps. The Higgs Boson closed many gaps and is proof that this is the right way to go about finding the big answers. The LHC isn't a leap of faith, people work in it. 

[preacherman76]

Just to add, I don't really even have a problem with people believing life could have sprung forth completely on its own by chance without any will what so ever. I'm just saying lets not pretend that thought is less faith based then any other theory.

[preacherman76]

21 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No we have more evidence to confirm the theories that are confirmed in turn by maths. It's why we built the Large Hadron Collier. 

Depends on your definition on nothing, QM has changed what we considered to be nothing. Advances in physics close these seemingly impossible gaps. The Higgs Boson closed many gaps and is proof that this is the right way to go about finding the big answers. The LHC isn't a leap of faith, people work in it. 

Its interesting you say that. Back when I used to endlessly talk about these subjects I ran across a mathematician from Cornell. He was a heavy weight in these discussions, and would hash it out with others who were equally as smart, just in other area's. So much so most of my time with them was just in observation. According to him, and the several sources he would provide, our entire existence is mathematically impossible.

I don't believe QM supports material objects coming from nothing. Not in the true sense of nothing. I think QM shows us there is so much we are not seeing or understanding that we are all probably completely clueless, lol.

Edited February 12, 2018 by preacherman76

[psyche101]

37 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Just to add, I don't really even have a problem with people believing life could have sprung forth completely on its own by chance without any will what so ever. I'm just saying lets not pretend that thought is less faith based then any other theory.

The creation theory isn't slowly being proven piece by piece by the LHC. 

[psyche101]

29 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Its interesting you say that. Back when I used to endlessly talk about these subjects I ran across a mathematician from Cornell. He was a heavy weight in these discussions, and would hash it out with others who were equally as smart, just in other area's. So much so most of my time with them was just in observation. According to him, and the several sources he would provide, our entire existence is mathematically impossible.

And yet the most accomplished minds at Caltech and MIT disagree. I'm sure they could debate your friend successfully. 

29 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I don't believe QM supports material objects coming from nothing. Not in the true sense of nothing. I think QM shows us there is so much we are not seeing or understanding that we are all probably completely clueless, lol.

It doesn't support the idea of a creator though, rather the exact opposite. Gravity seems to have less influence at that scale, why can an ant carry 50 times its body weight? How come a flea can jump 66 times its body length? There's more to learn sure, but it's just that more to learn about how everything works. Positing a creator doesn't help progress that pursuit. 

[preacherman76]

13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The creation theory isn't slowly being proven piece by piece by the LHC. 

One could chose to see it that way. Others could say we are more clearly seeing Gods finger print.

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

One could chose to see it that way. Others could say we are more clearly seeing Gods finger print.

That's just convoluting findings with personal opinion based on ancient myth. There is no good reason to introduce the rogue element of creation when it's not implied by the evidence. 

[Wes4747]

part 2 Oslove?

Same flawed logic.

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

And yet the most accomplished minds at Caltech and MIT disagree. I'm sure they could debate your friend successfully. 

It doesn't support the idea of a creator though, rather the exact opposite. Gravity seems to have less influence at that scale, why can an ant carry 50 times its body weight? How come a flea can jump 66 times its body length? There's more to learn sure, but it's just that more to learn about how everything works. Positing a creator doesn't help progress that pursuit. 

Well that's the thing, most scientists don't even know that what they believe about the origin of the universe and life is completely based in faith.. They think other fields have it figured out. In some cases any way. There are many others who actually do believe in a creator, but would be black balled if they expressed it. As for folks like myself, I say just replicate it. If life can spring forth completely on its own, then lets see it. Honestly it surprises me how many people who otherwise would demand solid evidence for any other subject, whole heartily believe this without ever having seen a single example.

I'm not saying QM supports or doesn't support the idea of a creator. I'm just saying it doesn't support the idea that something can come from true nothing. Heck really when you think about it, it supports the idea of other dimensions interacting, with God knows what being in those other dimensions.  

Edited February 13, 2018 by preacherman76

[preacherman76]

24 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's just convoluting findings with personal opinion based on ancient myth. There is no good reason to introduce the rogue element of creation when it's not implied by the evidence. 

What findings though, this is all new and unbelievably complicated. Not one person on these boards are qualified to give a proper explanation. We have no way to interpret this data, and in truth no one probably does. Observation does not equal understanding.

[preacherman76]

I gotta call it a night psyche. It was good talking to you.

[+joc]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The watchmaker argument is circular as Chrlz pointed out already. 

Surely you can see past the overall picture and see how nature shaped things.

There is a great documentary that illustrates a 3D adventure into a cell. Worth watching, though we see the evolution of cells as we do with everything else right up to planets. Amazing and astounding sure, but no need to attribute a god nature is amazing all on its own 

 

Chemokine:  Hey...uh...Protoglycin, just wondering what you thought of the whole idea that God created the entire cell in all of it's glory and that he did it because he loved you and me so much?  

Protoglycin:  I don't know Chem....it's a bit much...The cell is a great big place you know?  It's like infinite or something.

Chemokine:  Do you believe that when we die we all go to The Petri Dish?

Protoglycin:  I don't really believe in The Petri Dish Chemmy...I didn't know you went in for that sort of thing.

Chemokine:   Well I've gotten a little chummy with Cholesterol and she's really into it.  

Stupid I know...The Universe seems to be just  as infinitely small as it is infinitely large.

Which makes me think of the Mandelbrot Set.

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2018 by joc

[XenoFish]

No one knows for certain. If you think you do you're assuming without evidence. Its not that difficult to just embrace the mystery of life, without solving it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't look, but is adding unnecessary things worth it? 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

Well that's the thing, most scientists don't even know that what they believe about the origin of the universe and life is completely based in faith..

No that's not true at all. 

Most scientists follow the evidence. Your talking about two different things there, evolution is not in doubt any more than we doubt the earth goes around the sun, the origins of the universe are in theory right now like the Higgs was nearly 50 years ago. The discovery of the Higgs, the Urey Miller experiment, these demonstrations are small steps, but they are not proven wrong. It's showing us results, faith is not required, small steps of knowledge are. 

Quote

They think other fields have it figured out. In some cases any way. There are many others who actually do believe in a creator, but would be black balled if they expressed it.

That's not true either, scientists like Simon Conway Morris announce faith and are noted for their achievements in the field. 

Quote

As for folks like myself, I say just replicate it. If life can spring forth completely on its own, then lets see it. Honestly it surprises me how many people who otherwise would demand solid evidence for any other subject, whole heartily believe this without ever having seen a single example.

I'm not saying QM supports or doesn't support the idea of a creator. I'm just saying it doesn't support the idea that something can come from true nothing. Heck really when you think about it, it supports the idea of other dimensions interacting, with God knows what being in those other dimensions.  

That's why we built the LHC. The Higgs is proof positive that it's going to help us unravel these impossible mysteries. The theory is there, now the LHC is being put to work proving those theories. 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

What findings though, this is all new and unbelievably complicated. Not one person on these boards are qualified to give a proper explanation. We have no way to interpret this data, and in truth no one probably does. Observation does not equal understanding.

In this case we are observing to better understand. 

Just saying oh it's all a bit beyond me, gods easier so I'll support that doesn't seem a sound approach to me. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, joc said:

Chemokine:  Hey...uh...Protoglycin, just wondering what you thought of the whole idea that God created the entire cell in all of it's glory and that he did it because he loved you and me so much?  

Protoglycin:  I don't know Chem....it's a bit much...The cell is a great big place you know?  It's like infinite or something.

Chemokine:  Do you believe that when we die we all go to The Petri Dish?

Protoglycin:  I don't really believe in The Petri Dish Chemmy...I didn't know you went in for that sort of thing.

Chemokine:   Well I've gotten a little chummy with Cholesterol and she's really into it.  

Stupid I know...The Universe seems to be just  as infinitely small as it is infinitely large.

Which makes me think of the Mandelbrot Set.

 

 

 

A different world perhaps but all the more reason to explore and understand and we've done ok so far I reckon 

[+joc]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

A different world perhaps but all the more reason to explore and understand and we've done ok so far I reckon 

I had never really considered the possibility of Life 6.0 before.  Kind of interesting actually.  And that is an important consideration given that some think that the only way to prove that God didn't create life would be for us to create it.  Certainly within the realm of possibility, however;  Understanding what happened in that Primordial Soup...and recreating what happened are too different creatures...or so it would seem.