How can people believe that there isn't some kind of Creator (God). I mean, sure you can believe in evolution as much as you want to, but sure, organisms gradually evolved over billions of years to eventually become the organisms were are today. But how were those organisms created to evolve into more complex ones?

Well some will say "well it has to do with the big bang theory" ect,ect. Well thats fine but where were the materials and things needed to make the big bang happen created.

You see its proven scientific fact that life can not evolve from non-life (anyone could prove this by throwing a bunch of non-living things in a sealed jar...).

So this leaves me to believe that in fact there is an intelligent "designer" of some type. I'm not trying to get into the Bibles story of how everything was created, just thoughts about a Creator.

Anyone share the same thought?



[This message has been edited by shadowmartyr (edited 01-05-2007).]

Who created the creator? Postulating the existence of a creator adds complexity to the problem of how life or the universe began, it does not reduce the complexity of the problem. So, it's a false belief that a creator somehow answers the difficult problem of the origin of the universe. It just pushes the exact same question back an infinite number of levels (who created the creator of the creator...).

The problem you are wrestling with is that of causality. In the macro world of our everyday experience you cannot have an effect without a cause. But in the micro world of QM, we know that particles can appear and disappear out of (apparently) nothing. And in one of the more modern cosmological models, time itself is tied up in the fabric of the universe-- i.e., you cannot meaningfully speak of "a time before the beginning of the universe". Without the existence of the universe, there is no time at all, just as there is no matter.

These are tough concepts to grasp and are not intuitive obvious at all. But if you're willing to stop with the idea of creator who comes into being spontaneously, why are you unwilling to stop with the idea of universe that comes into being by the same process?



quote:Originally posted by shadowmartyr:

I mean, sure you can believe in evolution as much as you want to, but sure, organisms gradually evolved over billions of years to eventually become the organisms were are today. But how were those organisms created to evolve into more complex ones?

Well some will say "well it has to do with the big bang theory" ect,ect. Well thats fine but where were the materials and things needed to make the big bang happen created.

Evolution is not about the origin of life; that's abiogenesis. Evolution is solely concerned with what happens to organisms once they exist. It makes not a whit of difference whether the first life arose spontaneously from chemical compounds in the primordial ocean or was created by some external being. Evolution is similarly unrelated to the beginning of the universe.



quote:Originally posted by shadowmartyr:

You see its proven scientific fact that life can not evolve from non-life (anyone could prove this by throwing a bunch of non-living things in a sealed jar...).

That is not actually proven fact. Sealing non-life into any container will not prove this either. All that does is show that under those circumstances, which do not resemble Earth a billion years ago in the slightest, given an insignificant amount of time, life as we know it did not arise.

Believing in a Creator is all well and good, but there is no scientific evidence for either side; otherwise, there would be no need for faith.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Who created the creator? Postulating the existence of a creator adds complexity to the problem of how life or the universe began, it does not reduce the complexity of the problem. So, it's a false belief that a creator somehow answers the difficult problem of the origin of the universe. It just pushes the exact same question back an infinite number of levels (who created the creator of the creator...).



Thats pretty simple, no one created the creator. Everything in the world we know needs and has a creator thats why it is such a hard concept to grasp. You thinking the creator needs a creator means that time applys to him, that he needs a beginning.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

Thats pretty simple, no one created the creator.

If you can accept that "no one created the creator" then you can accept "no one created the universe." Since we know the universe exists, why postulate an added complexity of a creator?



quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

Everything in the world we know needs and has a creator thats why it is such a hard concept to grasp.

No, you're just trying to prove you assertion by defining it to be true. We do not know that everything needs a creator.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

You thinking the creator needs a creator means that time applys to him, that he needs a beginning.

If you can accept that the creator had no beginning and that time does no apply to him, then you should be able to accept the same about the universe.

Everything else in your life requires scientific exploration. Why do you exempt The Beginning of Everything from that scrutiny? The fact that you (or we) don't know how it all began doesn't mean a default 'god creature' is the correct answer.



A bunch of people are standing on the beach on a clear night, marveling at how the universe came to be.

john_deer walks up and explains: "Clearly God created it!"

Confused, the people ask how God came to be.

john_deer replies: "Thats pretty simple, no one created the creator. Everything in the world we know needs and has a creator thats why it is such a hard concept to grasp. You thinking the creator needs a creator means that time applies to him, that he needs a beginning."

A bunch of people are standing on the beach on a clear night, marveling at how God came to be.

^^

Well put, with logical reasoning.

Martini, in the end, your still fail to make me believe what you think.



Why?



Because there is absolutely NO WAY you can disprove that there is no creator, likewise, I can't prove there is a creator.

So obviously, you just wasted time breaking up someones typed paragraph to state your own opinion.

You can only experience things yourself, I've seen and heard some things in this house I would rather forget, and lets just say nothing of this world could be doing it. Which in the end, leaves me to believe there is more than this life.

You can't proove a negative, it is the suggester of an idea who has the burden of proof.

Otherwise I could say that the idea of a giant unicorn living on the otherside of the moon which is invisible to all our current technology is equaly as valid an idea as it not being there.

I can create an infinite number of these beasts in my head and each one could, in my head have proof that a creator doesn't exist.

As there is no burden of proof either way then they are all equaly as likely! That makes a creator god infinitely unlikely and hence impossible.

Infinitly unlikely as if one of my beasts exists then a creator can't exist.

You could cancel all my beasts out with the probability of beasts in your own head confirming a creator, but if you can cancel out my beasts I can cancel out your creator beast with an anti-creator beast. This would leave the only state for a god to be in being that of non-existence.

This means as all





[This message has been edited by ninja_turtle (edited 01-05-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by shadowmartyr:

Because there is absolutely NO WAY you can disprove that there is no creator, likewise, I can't prove there is a creator.

I already stated that. See the last sentence in my reply to you.

quote:Originally posted by shadowmartyr:

So obviously, you just wasted time breaking up someones typed paragraph to state your own opinion.

No, you wasted my time. You came here asking how someone could not believe in a creator and then went on to list some erroneous scientific facts. I took the time to educate you about your wrong assumptions, and when I fail to enlighten you, you find it necessary to respond by telling me I wasted my time? You need to get some manners! Why even bother asking? Did you expect to get an answer so Earth shattering that you would become an atheist?



quote:Originally posted by shadowmartyr:

You can only experience things yourself, I've seen and heard some things in this house I would rather forget, and lets just say nothing of this world could be doing it. Which in the end, leaves me to believe there is more than this life.

You've had experiences that provide enough evidence for you to believe in a creator? Share with the class.

quote:Originally posted by shadowmartyr:



Because there is absolutely NO WAY you can disprove that there is no creator, likewise, I can't prove there is a creator.



That does not mean the chance of there being a creator is 1/2.

Nobody can prove gravity, but would you argue it doesn't exist despite all evidence pointing towards it existing?

quote:

You can only experience things yourself, I've seen and heard some things in this house I would rather forget, and lets just say nothing of this world could be doing it. Which in the end, leaves me to believe there is more than this life.



Care to elaborate on these?

While we do not know the exact process that life came about we have several models, most of which are scientifically sound. You can read about them on wikipedia and compare them to your God-did-it theory if you like.

More so it has not been scientifically proven that non-living mater can produce living.

Also, People have used supernatural explanations for scientific phenomena science the beginning of time. Be it Thor for lighting or God making us out of dirt. And it has offered nothing to our understanding of the universe. Where would we be if we were still under the assumption that evil spirits caused diseases or earthquakes were an result of an angry God?



And for this

quote:Originally posted by shadowmartyr:



Because there is absolutely NO WAY you can disprove that there is no creator, likewise, I can't prove there is a creator.



There is know way to disprove that there is a Santa clause. Looking at things like that could back up any belif.





[This message has been edited by Q777 (edited 01-05-2007).]

I thought Martini's post was worth reading.

quote:Originally posted by Q777:

There is know way to disprove that there is a Santa clause.

If I did good things, I would get presents. If I did bad things, I would get coal. He hasn't given me either yet http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

quote:Originally posted by 1217:

I thought Martini's post was worth reading.

If I did good things, I would get presents. If I did bad things, I would get coal. He hasn't given me either yet http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)



After all the times that smile have been used I have never heard that rebuttal and I see 2 ways to counter rebuttal

With the analogy that prays aren't answered by God.

Or simply cross out Santa Claus and put Russell's teapot, FSM, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

What Martini was trying to say, in a roundabout way, is that you are a fucking retard, and you should do us all a favor by killing yourself. Have a nice day.

quote:Originally posted by Q777:



After all the times that smile have been used I have never heard that rebuttal and I see 2 ways to counter rebuttal

With the analogy that prays aren't answered by God.

Or simply cross out Santa Claus and put Russell's teapot, FSM, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.



I wasn't trying to discredit what you said. You were absolutely right, I was just kinda joking.

[This message has been edited by 1217 (edited 01-06-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

What Martini was trying to say, in a roundabout way, is that you are a fucking retard, and you should do us all a favor by killing yourself. Have a nice day.

A Martini has more taste than that.

quote:Originally posted by shadowmartyr:

You see its proven scientific fact that life can not evolve from non-life (anyone could prove this by throwing a bunch of non-living things in a sealed jar...)

Well, put the right combination of non-living things in a sealed jar, and introduce an electric charge...

BAM!



[This message has been edited by 42nddegree (edited 01-06-2007).]

This is quite unfortunate. It always seems whenever the Atheists have such strong momentum going our arguments suddenly have no one to recieve them. This is the ultimate theist strategy, get offended and leave.

We have studied this in sociology. When something is so ingrained in a person, especially when it is associated with a social event (church), it becomes painful for them to consider that they may in fact be wrong and will not submit to reason no matter how convincing or true it may be.

If a legend that the sky was blue becuase there was a far away ocean up there, and this myth perpetuated for thousands of years, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone otherwise. Even with explainations and scientific evidence, they will never believe you however wrong they may be.

Oh well.

Viruses by the definition of biology are non-living combination of molecules (however this is still being debated). However these "nonliving organisms" are capable of reproducing, evolving, spreading etc... What I am trying to get to is that viruses, under correct conditions can spontaneously assemble from other molecules (granted produced by the infected cell). So this kinda gives the idea that life (or at least sub-units of life) CAN produce from nonliving organisms under certain conditions, which in turn can evolve and produce contemporary life. No creator here.

The law of entropy states that randomness in the universe must be always increasing; but a creator would go against this law of physics creating complexity out of nothing. That means that theists are to assume that god is beyond the laws of physics, and if that is the case theists should not use scientific arguments to prove their point - if god is beyond science, the science doesn't apply, please shut the fuck up about how every scientific flaw inevitably proves the existence of god. It has the same logic as condemning homosexuals according to the bible, but throwing out the parts about allowed slavery, rape, women not being allowed to eat in church, forbidding work on sabbath - that is no logic at all. And if theists are not using logic, the what the fuck are they doing debating here? Nice rant!

quote:Originally posted by shadowmartyr:

How can people believe that there isn't some kind of Creator (God). I mean, sure you can believe in evolution as much as you want to, but sure, organisms gradually evolved over billions of years to eventually become the organisms were are today. But how were those organisms created to evolve into more complex ones?

Well some will say "well it has to do with the big bang theory" ect,ect. Well thats fine but where were the materials and things needed to make the big bang happen created.

You see its proven scientific fact that life can not evolve from non-life (anyone could prove this by throwing a bunch of non-living things in a sealed jar...).

So this leaves me to believe that in fact there is an intelligent "designer" of some type. I'm not trying to get into the Bibles story of how everything was created, just thoughts about a Creator.

Anyone share the same thought?



Organisms aren't 'created' to evolve, changes between generations occur through mutations and imperfections in the reproduction of DNA. It occurs naturally, thanks to the many mutagenic elements in our universe and the fallibility of all living things.

As for living things emerging from non-living, the conditions for this to occur are extremely rare, to the point of so-far it being known to have happened on earth, a very long time ago. I'm probably not educated enough to fully describe the beginning of life, but I'd suggest that it began with small chemical chains that reproduced themselves, and these increased in complexity over time, into DNA, which at some point began producing a means to protect itself in the form of cells, which carry DNA. I'm not suggesting DNA is sentient, nor that there was a concious choice at any point.

From then onwards, pure evolution. No God or deity is involed, nor is there need for one.

quote:Originally posted by socratic:

Organisms aren't 'created' to evolve, changes between generations occur through mutations and imperfections in the reproduction of DNA. It occurs naturally, thanks to the many mutagenic elements in our universe and the fallibility of all living things.

As for living things emerging from non-living, the conditions for this to occur are extremely rare, to the point of so-far it being known to have happened on earth, a very long time ago. I'm probably not educated enough to fully describe the beginning of life, but I'd suggest that it began with small chemical chains that reproduced themselves, and these increased in complexity over time, into DNA, which at some point began producing a means to protect itself in the form of cells, which carry DNA. I'm not suggesting DNA is sentient, nor that there was a concious choice at any point.

From then onwards, pure evolution. No God or deity is involed, nor is there need for one.

Prions are proteins, yes simple proteins made of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen. Yet this simplicity does not prevent them from being able to bond to other proteins and turn them into prions. This is how mad cow disease occurs - a protein enters your brain and changes other proteins into prions, until your brain is fucked. Just a thought on how life originated without a creator

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

Prions are proteins, yes simple proteins made of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen. Yet this simplicity does not prevent them from being able to bond to other proteins and turn them into prions. This is how mad cow disease occurs - a protein enters your brain and changes other proteins into prions, until your brain is fucked. Just a thought on how life originated without a creator

Thanks for the input, but I was already aware of prions. Now that I think about it, you've done a good job of summarising it, too.

I would suspect early 'life' was in a form similar to said prions- molecules (or strings of them) that recreated themselves.

could there ever be a creator. why cant people just comprehend that the universe has existed since infinity. without a beginning and an end? we as humans NEED to know why, as we are curious bastards. we need a cause for everything. or do we?

Time just like everything else you perceive, is a measurement. Think of time as a line. This line is not a segment. A segment is the part of the line that you can measure. But surely a line has no end or beginning, so technically there is something before the part that you can measure and there will be something after. How can you understand that this line has no end or beginning but not understand that time (and the universe) has no end or beginning as well?

And scientists have created "living" proteins from other inanimate materials. In this day and age how far is a cell from a protein?

Do not ask how ask why. How is a challenge whereas why lets a person explain themselves in a non hostile manner.

You nor I know everything so why not act polite and civil?

It's said that god constantly creates himself. It's a case of "Who do I want to be now?" But that's not to say he ceases to be what he was in the last moment. He is all instances of himself stretching forever in each direction....... or so it is believed.