Do you think that God actually exists?

[defpearlpilot]

The virgin birth is impossible if we know human biology. For this to happen, there has to be a PHYSICAL causation (eggs and so-on are physical entities and respond to the relevant physical laws) that somehow bypasses the normal route of physics, chemistry and biology. And this happened only once in human history. Hm. You're trying to apply an unknown causation to a known physical result - namely a child - of a process that we are intimately knowledgable of across many mammallian species. Applying Occam's wonderful Razor we ask what's more likely - a complete cessation of natural law in a single case of the species' history, or the kid had a natural father and the story has been exaggerated... Probability says the latter. REASON, via our current knowledge of the physical universe, says the latter.

No, it didn't happen only once in human history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virgin_births
http://englishatheist.org/indexd.shtml

 

[Bob Savage]

EDIT: In case I just babbled here, I'll put it another way. I think that reason can be applied universally, religious people don't (they suspend reason where their religion comes into play). This is an illustration of why, fundamentally, science and religion will always be fighting to some degree. Faith - in a religious sense - can only live in the gaps of science. Where empirical knowledge exists, faith is not required. No gaps in knowledge, no room for faith, and no room for supernatural belief! If you look at things this way you can see why there are attacks on science and scientists... by their very existence they are shrinking those holes in which faith lurks...!

I'm not certain you're just wanting to argue for the sake of argument, or if you're serious. What I do know is even if I were interested in this debate, I've had very little success in discussions with people who make broad, sweeping generalizations of "religious people."

 

[ejecta]

I'm not certain you're just wanting to argue for the sake of argument, or if you're serious. What I do know is even if I were interested in this debate, I've had very little success in discussions with people who make broad, sweeping generalizations of "religious people."

 

[hairychris444]

The virgin birth is impossible if we know human biology. For this to happen, there has to be a PHYSICAL causation (eggs and so-on are physical entities and respond to the relevant physical laws) that somehow bypasses the normal route of physics, chemistry and biology. And this happened only once in human history. Hm. You're trying to apply an unknown causation to a known physical result - namely a child - of a process that we are intimately knowledgable of across many mammallian species. Applying Occam's wonderful Razor we ask what's more likely - a complete cessation of natural law in a single case of the species' history, or the kid had a natural father and the story has been exaggerated... Probability says the latter. REASON, via our current knowledge of the physical universe, says the latter.

No, it didn't happen only once in human history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virgin_births
http://englishatheist.org/indexd.shtml

Thanks for the links... but I didn't mean virgin birth as a mythological device, I was meaning virgin birth as a kid popping out of a real mother (as Jesus is supposed to have physically existed according to Christian belief) without a father's 'assistance'.

 

[ejecta]

The virgin birth is impossible if we know human biology. For this to happen, there has to be a PHYSICAL causation (eggs and so-on are physical entities and respond to the relevant physical laws) that somehow bypasses the normal route of physics, chemistry and biology. And this happened only once in human history. Hm. You're trying to apply an unknown causation to a known physical result - namely a child - of a process that we are intimately knowledgable of across many mammallian species. Applying Occam's wonderful Razor we ask what's more likely - a complete cessation of natural law in a single case of the species' history, or the kid had a natural father and the story has been exaggerated... Probability says the latter. REASON, via our current knowledge of the physical universe, says the latter.

No, it didn't happen only once in human history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virgin_births
http://englishatheist.org/indexd.shtml

Thanks for posting that and I have read that before. The only thing is from my study of the Jews and thier strict religion is this seems to overlook a simple fact: No respectable Jew especially one like Paul who was a pharisee (very eduacted keeper of Jewish law) would have ever condescended to buy into a Greek/Babylonian/Egyptian mythological base for an account dealing with the birth of his/her Messiah. Especially since the Egyptians enslaved them for such a long time and treated them rather brutally. Is it possible? Sure, but again I wonder is it probable. I really dont think so. Lastly, if a false story of a simular event comes before an actual event, that doesnt necessarily negate the reality of the later event nor does it prove that one copied from the other.

 

[hairychris444]

I'm not certain you're just wanting to argue for the sake of argument, or if you're serious. What I do know is even if I were interested in this debate, I've had very little success in discussions with people who make broad, sweeping generalizations of "religious people."

A bit of both, but it's really my view.

I am making a sweeping statement because most religions have a supernatural, unprovable, element. Certainly those that worship deities of any description do.

I didn't make the generalization, the core beliefs of supernatural religions did it for me! If you believe in a religion with a supernatural element you fall into my 'generalization'... although it sounds a little better if I call it a definition instead!!



If you can argue me down on this then please do! Seriously, I can't see what the issue is... I'm just trying to describe supernatural religion in a certain way; if I'm wrong, correct me now!

 

[ejecta]

I am making a sweeping statement because most religions have a supernatural, unprovable, element.

And science doesnt have elements to thier theories that are unprovable? For example give me one example of macro evloution where one species evolves into an complete new one. Im not talking about a wolf into a german shepard. Thats micro evelotion, Im talking about a lizard into a bird.

 

[hairychris444]

Again to say just because you believe God was the cause of something doesnt make your brain shut down. A good a friend of mine's physics teacher was the head of the Physics dept at the University and he was a believer. My cousin's husband is very talented surgeon and she is a pathologist and very strong in her fleid, both are believers. I have hads serveral mentors, one who has his doctorate form Vanderbuilt University also a believer. I actually read a study once that polled college professors and thier beliefs. The were far more believers in science field than any other. The one with the most non believers was the philosophy dept. What made me research that was I read qoute that said "If I want to find a Christian I'll go to the physics dept and if I want to find an athiest I'll go to the Philosophy dept." Again to make such a broad stroke of people who believe in God and say that your brain shuts down due to that belief is just not true.

No, I didn't say that... well, not directly. There's nothing to stop anyone 'intelligent' from believing in whatever they want to. That's their right.

However, I don't find them consistent. I can understant a deist scientist, I can understand a pantheist scientist, but I cannot understand - for sake of consistency - a Christian one. For me, too many leaps of faith (ahem) need to be made. I don't understand how you can spend your life in an empirical field attempting to understand how the universe works, but you have your mind already made up about the underlying prime cause.

EDIT: I actually, on re-reading, find it kind of ironic that your cousin & husband know about the physical human body so well accept the impossibilities and improbablities that the Bible represents! I'm easily amused. And just to iterate, it is ABSOLUTELY everyone's right to believe in whatever they want. However, I won't necessarily respect what those beliefs actually are. I expect nothing different towards me from other people. This is pretty harsh, yes, but I'm also tolerant with it!!

And yes, I'm not a fun person to go to movies with. I am a continuity freak, inconsistency like this irritates my sense of order.

As for your comment on philosophy, then I suppose that I agree with you there. I've read somewhere that most people believed that god existed until philosophers tried to prove it. In fact, I've read certain points of view that you cannot be a true philosopher and a believing theologist at the same time - as a theologist you are tied to support your religion which goes against the philosophical 'search for truth' as you've already got your answer!

 

[Telephant]

Everyone in this thread is wrong. The answer is obvious. It's a combination of both sides. The Bible IS Truth. That crazy shit in the Bible DID happen. It's just the translation that is incorrect. And they will return.

Someones been reading Zacharia Sitchin eh?

 

[hairychris444]

I am making a sweeping statement because most religions have a supernatural, unprovable, element.

And so does science.

But at least scientists admit it when they don't know why stuff happens.

'God did it' as an answer? Please...



And, FWIW, science sets out specifically to answer questions in a disciplined, provable fashion. I don't see religion doing this. Maybe it's just me.

 

[ejecta]

And, FWIW, science sets out specifically to answer questions in a disciplined, provable fashion. I don't see religion doing this. Maybe it's just me.

And science doesnt have elements to thier theories that are unprovable? For example give me one example of macro evloution where one species evolves into an complete new one. Im not talking about a wolf into a german shepard. Thats micro evelotion, Im talking about a lizard into a bird.

 

[hairychris444]

And, FWIW, science sets out specifically to answer questions in a disciplined, provable fashion. I don't see religion doing this. Maybe it's just me.

And science doesnt have elements to thier theories that are unprovable? For example give me one example of macro evloution where one species evolves into an complete new one. Im not talking about a wolf into a german shepard. Thats micro evelotion, Im talking about a lizard into a bird.

Wrong.

Sorry, by writing this I'm afraid that you obviously haven't tried to understand evolutionary theory.

1) The only difference between 'micro' and 'macro' (your terms, not mine, I'd rather leave them out because they are not relevant) is the scale, both of subject group and of time.

2) Birds did NOT come from lizards in exactly the same way that we did NOT come from apes. It's a matter of common ancestors. Modern genetics can trace where the lines of development separated with a fair degree of accuracy.

Evolutionary theory is the best fit. It is an elegant explanation of diversity - but NOT, however, the beginnings of life... that's a different matter and evolution does not cover it - and modern genetics has reinforced the theory.

Please don't hijack the thread into an evolution vs creation situation. And a piece of advice... please do yourselves a favour as believers and ditch the IDers. They have absolutely no idea what they're talking about in scientific terms*, and spend most of their time trying to persuade via PR rather then anything resembing sound reasoning.



* Being able to quote the Bible does not make up for this...

 

[Bob Savage]

But at least scientists admit it when they don't know why stuff happens.

'God did it' as an answer? Please...



And, FWIW, science sets out specifically to answer questions in a disciplined, provable fashion. I don't see religion doing this. Maybe it's just me.

No, it's not just you, but you weren't serious with about that possibility anyway.

<enter gratuitous smileys, winks, etc.>

 

[Bob Savage]

And science doesnt have elements to thier theories that are unprovable? For example give me one example of macro evloution where one species evolves into an complete new one. Im not talking about a wolf into a german shepard. Thats micro evelotion, Im talking about a lizard into a bird.

I've transformed meat and vegetables into poop. Does that count?

 

[ejecta]

Wrong? Im not sure....

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

Evolution resulting from small specific genetic changes that can lead to a new subspecies.[[Adaptive radiation within a species, as opposed to the creation of a new species via [[speciation.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Microevolution


Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Macroevolution can be defined simply as evolution above the species level, and its subject matter includes the origins and fates of major novelties such as tetrapod limbs and insect wings, the waxing and waning of multi-species lineages over long time-scales, and the impact of continental drift and other physical processes on the evolutionary process.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleo ... ution.html

Sorry I was dead on. Give me documented proof of macroevolution........ if you cant then science too has belief in things that havent been or cant be proven.

 

[ejecta]

And science doesnt have elements to thier theories that are unprovable? For example give me one example of macro evloution where one species evolves into an complete new one. Im not talking about a wolf into a german shepard. Thats micro evelotion, Im talking about a lizard into a bird.

I've transformed meat and vegetables into poop. Does that count?

Now wait a minute...... we may be on to something here. Im sure Bob's poop is an entirely new species. Thats it..... Im an athiest.

 

[bill]

The basic teachings of Christianity are very hard to deal with mentally, virgin birth, Jesus being God's son, Jesus dieing for the sins of all mankind, Jesus being resurected from the dead, angles, demons, hell, heaven etc. These things require faith which without faith it is impossible to please God. Jesus was either a madman or who he said he was, the son of God. I choose to think and believe the latter.

 

[hairychris444]

Wrong? Im not sure....

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

Evolution resulting from small specific genetic changes that can lead to a new subspecies.[[Adaptive radiation within a species, as opposed to the creation of a new species via [[speciation.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Microevolution


Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Macroevolution can be defined simply as evolution above the species level, and its subject matter includes the origins and fates of major novelties such as tetrapod limbs and insect wings, the waxing and waning of multi-species lineages over long time-scales, and the impact of continental drift and other physical processes on the evolutionary process.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleo ... ution.html

Sorry I was dead on. Give me an documented proof of macroevolution........ if you cant then science too has belief in things that havent been or cant be proven.

OK, fair enough.... If microevolution is change within a species and macroevolution is the larger one then that's cool. Fundamentally there's no difference (the mechanism's the same), but that's another matter!

As for proofs.

Genetic drift between species? Because of the timescale you cannot replicate this in a lab, but the genetic evidence is very strong indeed. Genes can be traced in both the micro and macro sense.

This is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of God! The existence of evolution does not necessarily rule out a supernatural god, it's just a simple biological theory.

Anyway, I don't know why you're even bothering with the evolution argument. Even the Catholic Church, that well known progressive scientific organization, has had to admit that evolution has them beat, and believe me.. they have more intellectual power at their disposal than either of us can muster!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... lic_Church

 

[hairychris444]

The basic teachings of Christianity are very hard to deal with mentally, virgin birth, Jesus being God's son, Jesus dieing for the sins of all mankind, Jesus being resurected from the dead, angles, demons, hell, heaven etc. These things require faith which without faith it is impossible to please God. Jesus was either a madman or who he said he was, the son of God. I choose to think and believe the latter.

There's an unfortunate 3rd option, and that is that he, or people in the organization that sprung from him, are damn good manipulators....

I find a lot of the Christian teachings difficult mentally because they don't seem to be consistent with how the world seems to work. If you can put these doubts to one side then fine, I can't, though.

 

[ejecta]

Wrong? Im not sure....

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

Evolution resulting from small specific genetic changes that can lead to a new subspecies.[[Adaptive radiation within a species, as opposed to the creation of a new species via [[speciation.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Microevolution


Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Macroevolution can be defined simply as evolution above the species level, and its subject matter includes the origins and fates of major novelties such as tetrapod limbs and insect wings, the waxing and waning of multi-species lineages over long time-scales, and the impact of continental drift and other physical processes on the evolutionary process.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleo ... ution.html

Sorry I was dead on. Give me an documented proof of macroevolution........ if you cant then science too has belief in things that havent been or cant be proven.

OK, fair enough.... If microevolution is change within a species and macroevolution is the larger one then that's cool. Fundamentally there's no difference (the mechanism's the same), but that's another matter!

As for proofs.

Genetic drift between species? Because of the timescale you cannot replicate this in a lab, but the genetic evidence is very strong indeed. Genes can be traced in both the micro and macro sense.

Nope sorry. There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count in each species is fixed. For this reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. Again I think my point stands and is valid that belief in the the unproven is evident even in science.


Please do yourself a favor and stop bringing up the Catholic Church and what they have supposedly done or havnt done. They by no means speak for all Christians and is why I ignore your references to that.