Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: I suspect that everyone on this post understands that, in normal usage, "evolution" is used ambiguously.

 

Which is completely irrelevant. You didn't even use the term evolution in the statement I challenged. Here, look again.

 

Biochemist: 1) the ID theory (although I would label it more as a hypothesis) is that the probability of development of life (e.g.,even single celled life) from random events are so low as to make the process implausible.

 

You can't follow a simple discussion. Your statement does not include evolution because you mention only random events, and evolution/natural selection are not random.

 

"What Hoyle and Wickramasinghe miss is that Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. It is a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection." (emphasis in original, Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, W. W. & Norton Co., 1996, p75)

 

"Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble bases to the distortion. One stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process - mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss that they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection, the other side of the process." (italics in original; bold emphasis added, Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, W. W. & Norton Co., 1996, p80)

[TeleMad]

Do you think this style is productive?

 

I think my correcting the errors in your statements is productive. I don't think your continuing to post ignorant statements is productive.

[infamous]

FreeT,

Thanks so much for all of your wonderful replies, examples and suggestions. I appreciate how much time and thought you put into showing me exactly how my poll is flawed. I really appreciate your insight. However, I am leaving it as is, with only the one special addition for you.

Yes, it is tongue-in-cheek, but I was sure you would get a chuckle from it.

From the looks of it, there are only 5 people registered at this site that are willing to cast a vote. And the poll proves that YOU are correct, and i was wrong - there are NOT a lot more people that do not believe in God at this site. There are just as many Christians as people that claim to not believe in any God, and one "other". Not anything close to what I assumed, but thanks for helping me 'prove' (es evidenced by poll respondants) that this SCIENCE SITE is overflowing with GOD-BELIEVERS! So stop your grumbling aobut it being a SCIENCE SITE - we know what it is and we're bringing God here anyway!! ;>P

God Bless You All!!

 

*rotflmao*

God bless you also Irish eyes; Maybe this poll should have read as follows; Which of these two statements is a true statement: (1) God exists, (2) God does not exist.

[C1ay]

God bless you also Irish eyes; Maybe this poll should have read as follows; Which of these two statements is a true statement: (1) God exists, (2) God does not exist.

 

Agnostics do not believe that either of those can be proven so they claim a belief to neither.

Actually all of the options received votes as it is and there is still probably some that feel left out.

[infamous]

Agnostics do not believe that either of those can be proven so they claim a belief to neither.

Actually all of the options received votes as it is and there is still probably some that feel left out.

Quite right Clay; I quess we will need to add one more option. (3) I just don"t know.

[kaelcarp]

There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. An agnostic atheist is anyone who has no belief one way or the other about a deity because he/she doesn't believe in the ability of humans to determine such a thing. An agnostic theist believes in a deity, but doesn't believe that humans can prove that deity's existence.

[DEIOLOGIST]

I am a Deist and believe that the unified natural laws is the real God. The unified natural laws are different than the laws that created, describe and hold together this universe. Our natural laws in this universe are a small subset of the totality of natural laws that is God.

 

God is not a DNA being related to a monkey, like we are. Our consciousness is infinitely lower and works nothing like God's consciousness. All of reality is created, explained and held together by the natural laws that control the four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetic energy and the weak and strong nuclear forces.

 

God does play dice and there is an essential random element in real creation, without this necessary randomness there would be no free will and things would be pointless. Most scientists tend to overstate randomness and understate the non random laws. This is a big mistake, even evolution is not just random. Too much mutation would result in gross deformities and the death of a species. Too few mutations and life would not be able to evolve with the environment. Who set the frequency of mutation at the right amount? The natural laws or God, that's who?

[lindagarrette]

Who set the frequency of mutation at the right amount? The natural laws or God, that's who?

No one was involved in setting anything. Whatever exists now is the result of a long natural process, with no supernatural being ever existing to initiate it or intervene.

[Fishteacher73]

.... even evolution is not just random. Too much mutation would result in gross deformities and the death of a species. Too few mutations and life would not be able to evolve with the environment. Who set the frequency of mutation at the right amount? The natural laws or God, that's who?

 

 

Perhaps it was just a Freudian typo... You question your own belief system iin your conclusion.. :friday:

 

As for evolution.... neither G/god/s nor nature "set the frequency". It was just the right odds and situation for life to develop as it had. Just go the opposite direction on any one of thopusands of variable that it requires for life as we know it and you could have nothing. That outcome would have the same probablility of occuring as it is for intelligent life forming. The lotto could as easily come up as 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 as 19-2-5-27-8-12-3. The fact that the first set was ordered has no influence on its possible outcome as any other. So quite simply, yes there are great numbers of specific results that are needed for us to be here, but if it had not been so, we would not exist. Perhaps some other form could have evolved under vastly differnt circumstances and could be discussing this concept. Our outcome has the same probability of any other specific outcome.

[DEIOLOGIST]

Hi lindagarrette, yea natural process, without the natural laws there would be no natural process. We both agree on the function of the natural laws.

[DEIOLOGIST]

'It was just the right odds and situation for life to develop as it had. Just go the opposite direction on any one of thousands of variable that it requires for life as we know it and you could have nothing. That outcome would have the same probability of occurring as it is for intelligent life forming. The lotto could as easily come up as 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 as 19-2-5-27-8-12-3."

 

Yes, you are right Fishteacher73, any other way would be dumb. I am not arguing for the brainless sub natural dark age jerk that most people believe is God. I believe in the real God who IS the unity of natural laws. Without the natural laws nothing would be here.

 

The Biblical God is made in "mans image". Man has 98% The same DNA as a chimp, this makes the biblical god a monkeys uncle. I thank God that God has nothing to do with that bozo.

[Biochemist]

The Biblical God is made in "mans image". Man has 98% The same DNA as a chimp, this makes the biblical god a monkeys uncle. I thank God that God has nothing to do with that bozo.

Hmmm. It is conceivable that God was thinking about characteristics other than DNA overlap when He (according to the famous story) imbued man with some of His characteristics. Chimps do indeed have 98% of our DNA. You might note that they don't have 98% of the world's capital assets, literature, music compositiion, art history or Nobel prizes. I am not sure that the high DNA fraction makes them really peers.

 

Further, I suspect that our DNA overlap with God is relatively low, although arguably it was higher at a particular point in history. I suspect DNA phenotype and genotype were not the characteristics He was talking about.

[C1ay]

I am a Deist and believe that the unified natural laws is the real God.

 

Wouldn't that make you a pantheist?

[Biochemist]

Wouldn't that make you a pantheist?

...Or a panentheist, but why quibble.

[C1ay]

...Or a panentheist, but why quibble.

 

Well, a dictionary search for panentheist does turn up, "No entry found for panentheist" at Dictionary.com and AskOxford.com. That must be some word for it not to show up in the Oxford Dictionary. It is not listed in the Scrabble Dictionary either. Is it supposed to be something different than pantheist?

[kaelcarp]

Well, a dictionary search for panentheist does turn up, "No entry found for panentheist" at Dictionary.com and AskOxford.com. That must be some word for it not to show up in the Oxford Dictionary. It is not listed in the Scrabble Dictionary either. Is it supposed to be something different than pantheist?

http://franciscan-anglican.com/Panentheism.htm

[Biochemist]

That must be some word for it not to show up in the Oxford Dictionary. It is not listed in the Scrabble Dictionary either. Is it supposed to be something different than pantheist?

The definition that kaelcarp found above is pretty good, but I am a little surprised it did not show up in Oxford. It does show up in Mirriam-Webster online, but that is now (as of this week) a subscription service.

 

The difference between a pantheist and a panentheist is a little gray, but it has mostly to do with the separation of God from creation. If you think there is one god and all religions and/or lesser gods point to him, you are a pantheist. If you think that creation itself is part of god (as opposed to created by him), you are a panentheist.

 

If I am wrong on this, somebody tell me.