Do you believe in God? Simple question

[sport_122]

Einstien and Hawking and other scientists use the word "god" many times in their writings. Hawking was straight up atheist, has said he was atheist, and his use of the word god means an abstract principle of order and harmony, a set of mathematical equations, as does Eisnstien's god.

Their god is simply just nature, the reason why Alkaline Earth Metals like to ionicly bond with the Halogens. As in why the speed of light is 300,000 kilometers per second and not 500,000 kilometers per second. As in why velocity is the derivative of position and the integral of acceleration. As in why a force at 90 degrees to intended direction of movement produces no work (Force*distance*cosθ=work). That is nature, that is what many famous scientists refer to as "god".

Now the equation "dv/dt = a" doesn't seem like a god does it? Your right, its just nature. It might as well say on dollar bills "IN DV/DT=A WE TRUST" because that is the only thing an atheist might even refer to as god. Just imagine that on our currency: "IN F=MA WE TRUST". "F=MA BLESS OUR SOLDIERS". "dQ-dW=dU BLESS AMERICA".

These equations do not have a conscious, nor a personality or plan, they do not even know they exist. They are simply equations of nature. The only thing most atheists will even refer to as god will be the thing that makes those equations valid, which is just nature. I believe in nature, but I don't believe in god. Any type of god. Nature is sometimes referred to as a product of a god, that may be true, but all we have is nature, there is no divine thing here. God can not exist in nature. All there is is nature. Therefore god cannot exist. All that exists is nature. What if one said, "What if god is nature?" then you are just using the word god as a synonym for nature. Which is what a lot of famous scientists do. Nature is not divine. It is just nature.

I hope I elaborated enough.

I like this post,

BUT... you forget something. The only reason why those equations work is because variables and the functions are grounded in an absolute. The variables as you state can be defined in numerous ways, but the not so easily understood principle of the whole thing is the WHY those equations work everywhere.

Why does this matter? Well...

You used the name Hawking in that post. In his book "The Big Bang and Black Holes" He wrote about the perceptive conscience that controls our universe. He wrote about this and personified it. He did this because even in his observations he admitted that there was something else going on in our universe that the purest form of the scientific method could not explain. Origins, structure, and even the predictability and universal rules and how they are what allows science and logic to work.

After writing this he went back and wrote an excerpt. He changed his mind and wanted to edit some of the passages, because he did not want his conclusions to be evidence for a God or a creative conscience. He admittedly said that his observations led him to state something that he did not believe and did not want to promote.

I point this out because the truth is that equations present conscious origin. No equations or formula to calculate anything originates from nowhere. Things that "just happen" have no equation to represent them. The design of triangles, the formulaic expressions for circles and spheres, and pyramids, these all have a function that is created and designed. The formulas ONLY work because the objects were designed.

Circles do not form naturally in our universe. Squares do not form naturally, triangles, do not form naturally. So if you want to discuss the formulaic expressions which are universal to our human understanding in mathematics then you need to understand that these things are product of a conscious designer and not circumstance. Likewise, formulas are a product of the design of these objects. The objects do not occur naturally.

When speaking of natural phenomenon. It is not to be forgotten that the same rules apply. The only reason we can understand the speed of light or the properties of alkaline metals is because they follow rules. They have constants. The question is why...why is it that these things all act within a certain spectrum if our universe is simply the product of disorder and chaotic probability. All it takes is for a few of these things to be without "rule" for the formula to never work. For instance, the speed of light, slowing itself down or the rules of mass and gravity deciding that they do not want to work this time.

We do not see that. And we have yet to give a logical counter claim to why things function this way if their is nothing defining the rules with which they can and will function. Hawking observed this. Dawkins observes this but also refuses to name this "process".

My point is the further you go into the scientific hole, its not the more you understand about our universe, its the more you realize that you DO NOT know what is going on and that the pieces of the puzzle are not simplistic. The presence of our universe methods can only at its root serve to point to a universe logic. Logic does not exist without conscious. What would you define this conscious as. Do you think it is just random that the thousands upon thousands of equations that we have developed work?

[zimabog]

I point this out because the truth is that equations present conscious origin. No equations or formula to calculate anything originates from nowhere.

This relates directly to the popular "blind watchmaker" debate (except we are not talking about evolution). I do not agree that equations present conscious origin. You seem to be saying that the universe cannot exist without a creator to ultimately create it. This is highly debatable as it is impossible to prove that the universe even had an ultimate 1st creation (not talking about any cyclic destruction/construction that may be present).

Things that "just happen" have no equation to represent them. The design of triangles, the formulaic expressions for circles and spheres, and pyramids, these all have a function that is created and designed. The formulas ONLY work because the objects were designed.

So what came first? The formula or the idea of object?

Circles do not form naturally in our universe. Squares do not form naturally, triangles, do not form naturally. So if you want to discuss the formulaic expressions which are universal to our human understanding in mathematics then you need to understand that these things are product of a conscious designer and not circumstance. Likewise, formulas are a product of the design of these objects. The objects do not occur naturally.

I fail to see how this helps your argument. You say these shapes do not form naturally (many shapes do though). But wouldnt a naturally forming shape be product of the designer you describe?

When speaking of natural phenomenon. It is not to be forgotten that the same rules apply. The only reason we can understand the speed of light or the properties of alkaline metals is because they follow rules. They have constants. The question is why...why is it that these things all act within a certain spectrum if our universe is simply the product of disorder and chaotic probability. All it takes is for a few of these things to be without "rule" for the formula to never work. For instance, the speed of light, slowing itself down or the rules of mass and gravity deciding that they do not want to work this time.

Are you saying that in a universe without a designer formulas would not work? As in one moment gravity hold me down, but another moment, with nothing changed, gravity throws me into the air?

"The question is why...why is it that these things all act within a certain spectrum if our universe is simply the product of disorder and chaotic probability."

If the universe had different operating formulas, its not that there would be no universe, its just that the universe would be different than the universe we know now.

We do not see that. And we have yet to give a logical counter claim to why things function this way if their is nothing defining the rules with which they can and will function. Hawking observed this. Dawkins observes this but also refuses to name this "process".

Its simple, if there were no operating formulas, you would not exist, but there is always existence. I'll use human evolution as an example. People say, "but existence of homo sapiens, our 5 fingers on a hand, our brains, our legs... it is evidence of design." But its totally selective randomness, human evolution could have as easily produced a creature with 10 fingers on hand, tails, 4 legs, green skin, and babies are born from hatched eggs.. and we would STILL call ourselves human! If the universe had different formulas, it would still be the universe, just a different universe.

So what came first in sports universe, the rules or the actions? Can not actions define rules?

My point is the further you go into the scientific hole, its not the more you understand about our universe, its the more you realize that you DO NOT know what is going on and that the pieces of the puzzle are not simplistic. The presence of our universe methods can only at its root serve to point to a universe logic. Logic does not exist without conscious. What would you define this conscious as. Do you think it is just random that the thousands upon thousands of equations that we have developed work?

I am in extreme disagreement in that you say logic cannot exist without conscious. How does consciousness exist before logic? Who designed god? If god is without cause/designer, who's to say the rest of the universe isn't?

[sport_122]

This relates directly to the popular "blind watchmaker" debate (except we are not talking about evolution). I do not agree that equations present conscious origin. You seem to be saying that the universe cannot exist without a creator to ultimately create it. This is highly debatable as it is impossible to prove that the universe even had an ultimate 1st creation (not talking about any cyclic destruction/construction that may be present).



So what came first? The formula or the idea of object?



I fail to see how this helps your argument. You say these shapes do not form naturally (many shapes do though). But wouldnt a naturally forming shape be product of the designer you describe?



Are you saying that in a universe without a designer formulas would not work? As in one moment gravity hold me down, but another moment, with nothing changed, gravity throws me into the air?

"The question is why...why is it that these things all act within a certain spectrum if our universe is simply the product of disorder and chaotic probability."

If the universe had different operating formulas, its not that there would be no universe, its just that the universe would be different than the universe we know now.



Its simple, if there were no operating formulas, you would not exist, but there is always existence. I'll use human evolution as an example. People say, "but existence of homo sapiens, our 5 fingers on a hand, our brains, our legs... it is evidence of design." But its totally selective randomness, human evolution could have as easily produced a creature with 10 fingers on hand, tails, 4 legs, green skin, and babies are born from hatched eggs.. and we would STILL call ourselves human! If the universe had different formulas, it would still be the universe, just a different universe.

So what came first in sports universe, the rules or the actions? Can not actions define rules?



I am in extreme disagreement in that you say logic cannot exist without conscious. How does consciousness exist before logic? Who designed god? If god is without cause/designer, who's to say the rest of the universe isn't?

"blind watchmaker". The blind watch maker scenario assumes that I do not believe that the God that created this universe has revealed himself to us. I do. I do NOT believe that we simply happened upon this universe and all that is in it and are seeking to justify its order. I believe that God is revealing himself to us and the advancement of understanding of him will grow our ability to understand the universe that we live in.

I would say that I believe the formula or the rule of how that specific object/idea functions came first. If not, at the onset of its existence it would have no rule and no properties of which to identify it. This is because I do believe in absolutes. Now if those rules were different, the universe would still function under rules. Its not what the rules are that I am pointing to, its the origin of such rules. If there is a multi-verse. Each multi-universe would function under its own set of rule or its existence would cease. Even if the rules are different than those that we hold in our own.

Think about other planets. Even though gravity, temperature, etc is different based on different planets, we still have to note that should some basic principles not be established then those bodies would cease to exists.
So the idea is not, WHAT the rule is, it is that the rule exists and that the order dominates that physical existence or such physical existence cannot be known. we could not do any form of science, hard or soft, if we did not have rules that govern.

Its simple, if there were no operating formulas, you would not exist, but there is always existence. I'll use human evolution as an example. People say, "but existence of homo sapiens, our 5 fingers on a hand, our brains, our legs... it is evidence of design." But its totally selective randomness, human evolution could have as easily produced a creature with 10 fingers on hand, tails, 4 legs, green skin, and babies are born from hatched eggs.. and we would STILL call ourselves human! If the universe had different formulas, it would still be the universe, just a different universe.

if there was no operating formula, or understandable order. Then how would I exist? How would planets exists. How would gravity exist, how do we measure the speed of light. My point is that.

In my study of evolution, I have come upon one conclusion. It is definitely not understood. Evolution in and of itself is described as being extremely ordered (dawkins) yet extremely randomized (Gould). But to say it simple I do not believe in natural selection theory and survival of the most fit etc etc. Human societies have already demonstrated the errors in that. Especially in humans. I believe in genetic combination that allows our changes to be modified based on our genetic history, but to get back to my thoughts, its really not about what we call ourselves...its that we have the ability to define ourselves.


I do not believe actions can define rules. If so we are in trouble. If the misgivings of human interaction defines the rules of which humanity should function then where would we be...Stalin, Hitler, Christian and atheistic fundamentalists, would all be justified in their actions under the principle that the actions of many were in sync therefore they were justified. As I said before, I believe there are moral absolutes...I believe that they should not be confused with legality because that is different. But rules and actions are not even on the same plane.

Rules and consequences fall under law. Laws can be followed or they can be broken, but what MUST exist is consequences for breaking those laws. Without consequences there is no justice in law. For instance, two pieces of matter cannot occupy the same space...they can try to break that law, but one or both of them will be destroyed in the process. Or they can avoid contact in obedience to that law.

I am in extreme disagreement in that you say logic cannot exist without conscious. How does consciousness exist before logic? Who designed god? If god is without cause/designer, who's to say the rest of the universe isn't?

Are not their illogical people in the world? Logic is the ability to use ones consciousness. Demonstrate to me a universe where logic exists and there is no conscious to understand that logic? Without a consciousness, what would be perceived as logic? If anything they MUST coexist. but logic can never come first as a conscious dictates what is logical.

In your definition of God. refer to previous posts. I believe that God has demonstrated to us that HE is that which exists not just in our universe but before our universe and eternally. This is demonstrated to me in that upon what I view as his revelation to us, he has demonstrated his ability to function outside of our rules. I am running out of time, but I can revisit this for elaboration later. Simply put, God is defined as eternal. This means that his conscious is not locked in our space time, therefore he does not have to follow (he could not follow) the understandings of causality that we place upon that which is within this creation. Much the same way that you say...could something outside our universe exist and not be subjected to our universal laws.

Good discussion. I hope not to confuse and I welcome questions.

[bu villain]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but it seems you are saying rules/order = conscious design? Along the lines of:

(a) There can be no order without design
(b) There is order in the universe
(c) Therefore the universe is designed

I would argue that if this is your logic, (a) is not proveable and thus can not be used as a basis for proving existence of a God. If I am misinterpreting you then please let me know.

Additionally, I'd be interested to hear why you think humans prove that natural selection is false but maybe that has to be another thread.

[sport_122]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but it seems you are saying rules/order = conscious design? Along the lines of:

(a) There can be no order without design
(b) There is order in the universe
(c) Therefore the universe is designed

I would argue that if this is your logic, (a) is not proveable and thus can not be used as a basis for proving existence of a God. If I am misinterpreting you then please let me know.

Additionally, I'd be interested to hear why you think humans prove that natural selection is false but maybe that has to be another thread.

a) I am saying that order is evidence of design. Not absolute proof. I don't believe things can be proven, but I do believe that evidence can be provided in order to present a logical conclusion. Much like in a courtroom.

In a courtroom the evidence for the life of Christ is actually pretty astounding. For instance, it is very interesting that with such "ridiculous" accounts given to speak of Christ, through eyewitness testimony (the Gospels) I have yet to see one writer of that period come forth to say that this was ridiculous. Even tertullian, wrote of the massive eclipse and the earthquake that shook the world at the time of Christs death, and he was not a follower of Christ.

b) The rules of our universe provide order. Not ducks in a single file line, but identifiable order. For instance, we can identify a galaxy, we can identify gravity, light, etc etc because these things follow properties of order and do not function outside of them. If the observations of such things were not ordered we could not identify them and study them in the manner in which we do...relying on the observations and testimony of previous observers to direct our own and to aid in hypothesizing.

c) This and other things give EVIDENCE of a consciousness directing our universe. Not just because of their existence, but also because logically and philosophically, some of the things in our universe can not be given an origin in the theories we have for creation of our universe.


I was a biology major in college for a while. One of the things that I have a problem with is the idea of survival.

If life on our planet responds to the natural selection process then we need to be able to account for the emotional attachment as demonstrated by the human species.

For instance. If our goals are to pass along our own DNA, then why is it our that our morality defines things like infidelity, murder, stealing etc wrong. These are all actions that promote the survival of the species and if we are acting against them, and we are, we are demonstrating that this evolutionary process is not really guiding our actions. If this is the case then what is?

Then we look at the chromosomes in our DNA. If these are developing then we should be able to identify them in lesser value. For instance if we started off with a single chromosome, then what was its function, then what was the function of two, then 3, then four, etc. Biology does not give into account this problem, instead we postulate based on leaps in a very very broken evolutionary chain. In fact, I think that as I studied evolution, I had more problems with the missing components than anything else. We filled those missing components with non evidential hypothesis' and they became the rule of thought without evidence to support them. For that reason, (lack of solid evidence) evolution (natural selection, darwinian) remains only a theory which has yet to be proven, but has been marketed as fact.

then we come to the demonstrations as stated by lab professors. Every one of these, that I have seen have been catalyzed by some process. If we have to add a catalyst, then how is it natural. We are not demonstrating nature if we have to add in some sort of protein or we have to manipulate the cell to cause change.

This is the extremely watered down version. But yes this would probably need to be another conversation.

and again, I don't think anything can be proven, yet I do have evidence that leads me to believe that a reasonable conclusion to our universe is a conscious creator. And the evidence for one, is much stronger than the evidence against one. Now my christian faith is based on that evidence as well as the evidence that I feel makes a very strong case for the person of Christ.

[bu villain]

a) I am saying that order is evidence of design. Not absolute proof. I don't believe things can be proven, but I do believe that evidence can be provided in order to present a logical conclusion. Much like in a courtroom.

I disagree about it being evidence of design although it certainly doesn't disprove design. It seems completely neutral to me, not supporting either side (design or lack of design). The only reason to attribute it to design I can see is that you want it to be. Btw, I'm not sure what your paragraph on Christ has to do with this topic.

b) The rules of our universe provide order. Not ducks in a single file line, but identifiable order. For instance, we can identify a galaxy, we can identify gravity, light, etc etc because these things follow properties of order and do not function outside of them. If the observations of such things were not ordered we could not identify them and study them in the manner in which we do...relying on the observations and testimony of previous observers to direct our own and to aid in hypothesizing.

I wasn't debating that there is order in the universe although I'm sure some people would like to debate that depending on how you define order. Either way I see no need to go into this since my real point was that your assumption of (a) was invalid.

c) This and other things give EVIDENCE of a consciousness directing our universe. Not just because of their existence, but also because logically and philosophically, some of the things in our universe can not be given an origin in the theories we have for creation of our universe.

If you wan't to provide other evidence that's fine but I do not believe you have shown order is evidence for design. What you are doing with your last statement is creating a God of gaps. We don't know how the universe began, so instead of just saying "We don't know" you say it was God. Btw, there are several theories for how the universe began (but that's not the point).

I was a biology major in college for a while. One of the things that I have a problem with is the idea of survival.

If life on our planet responds to the natural selection process then we need to be able to account for the emotional attachment as demonstrated by the human species.

Emotional attachment can be very helpful for survival. For example, how long do you think humans would last if mothers didn't care about their children.

For instance. If our goals are to pass along our own DNA, then why is it our that our morality defines things like infidelity, murder, stealing etc wrong. These are all actions that promote the survival of the species and if we are acting against them, and we are, we are demonstrating that this evolutionary process is not really guiding our actions. If this is the case then what is?

I would argue that those things are not good for our survival. Killing humans is obviously not good for the survival of humans (I don't think that needs to much explaining). Stealing and infidelity certainly negatively affect social cohesion. Having more stable societies is certainly a survival advantage and many many other species have their own rules for their societies (bees, ants, apes, wolves, etc.)

Then we look at the chromosomes in our DNA. If these are developing then we should be able to identify them in lesser value. For instance if we started off with a single chromosome, then what was its function, then what was the function of two, then 3, then four, etc. Biology does not give into account this problem, instead we postulate based on leaps in a very very broken evolutionary chain. In fact, I think that as I studied evolution, I had more problems with the missing components than anything else. We filled those missing components with non evidential hypothesis' and they became the rule of thought without evidence to support them. For that reason, (lack of solid evidence) evolution (natural selection, darwinian) remains only a theory which has yet to be proven, but has been marketed as fact.

This is basically irreducable complexity which once again could be a whole other thread but in response to how one chromosome becomes two it would be through mutation. Remember evolution doesn't have a goal and then build something to get there. I'm surprised you said you were a biology major because you say evolution is "only a theory" but anyone who is well versed in science terminology knows that a theory in science is not the same as a hypothesis. Quite the opposite in fact. I doubt you would say the theory of gravity is "only a theory". The word theory is used because in science, unlike religion, NOTHING IS EVER PROVEN, only things that have never been disproven.

then we come to the demonstrations as stated by lab professors. Every one of these, that I have seen have been catalyzed by some process. If we have to add a catalyst, then how is it natural. We are not demonstrating nature if we have to add in some sort of protein or we have to manipulate the cell to cause change.

I would suspect waiting for the right mutation to occur would not be a good use of your time.

This is the extremely watered down version. But yes this would probably need to be another conversation.

and again, I don't think anything can be proven, yet I do have evidence that leads me to believe that a reasonable conclusion to our universe is a conscious creator. And the evidence for one, is much stronger than the evidence against one. Now my christian faith is based on that evidence as well as the evidence that I feel makes a very strong case for the person of Christ.

Yeah I probably indulged too much on the evolution topic myself. In the end of course you have to believe in whatever you believe. Belief is not a choice but that doesn't mean it can't change. I can't choose to believe in God because I simply don't see the evidence. No matter how hard I try, I can't make myself believe in something I don't see the evidence for.

[zimabog]

Now if those rules were different, the universe would still function under rules. Its not what the rules are that I am pointing to, its the origin of such rules. If there is a multi-verse. Each multi-universe would function under its own set of rule or its existence would cease. Even if the rules are different than those that we hold in our own.

we agree on there must be rules, its the creation of rules is what this boils down to. which is impossible to determine.

In my study of evolution, I have come upon one conclusion. It is definitely not understood. Evolution in and of itself is described as being extremely ordered (dawkins) yet extremely randomized (Gould). But to say it simple I do not believe in natural selection theory and survival of the most fit etc etc. Human societies have already demonstrated the errors in that.

How have human societies demonstrated errors in natural selection?
Is it because of the existence of fat people or something? As in who would reproduce with a fat ugly person?

I do not believe actions can define rules. If so we are in trouble. If the misgivings of human interaction defines the rules of which humanity should function then where would we be...Stalin, Hitler, Christian and atheistic fundamentalists, would all be justified in their actions under the principle that the actions of many were in sync therefore they were justified. As I said before, I believe there are moral absolutes...I believe that they should not be confused with legality because that is different. But rules and actions are not even on the same plane.

I was more talking in line that rules = formulas of nature.

Are not their illogical people in the world? Logic is the ability to use ones consciousness. Demonstrate to me a universe where logic exists and there is no conscious to understand that logic? Without a consciousness, what would be perceived as logic? If anything they MUST coexist. but logic can never come first as a conscious dictates what is logical.

Is it not possible to close your eyes, and write a bunch of numbers and symbols and + and - signs without even thinking of them. Or write numbers, symbols, and math operators on flash cards and throw them into the air and where ever they land is the formula that will be used.

In your definition of God. refer to previous posts. I believe that God has demonstrated to us that HE is that which exists not just in our universe but before our universe and eternally.

So why is it a "he" and not an "it"?

This is demonstrated to me in that upon what I view as his revelation to us, he has demonstrated his ability to function outside of our rules.
I am running out of time, but I can revisit this for elaboration later. Simply put, God is defined as eternal. This means that his conscious is not locked in our space time, therefore he does not have to follow (he could not follow) the understandings of causality that we place upon that which is within this creation. Much the same way that you say...could something outside our universe exist and not be subjected to our universal laws.

So you have just demonstrated that if there is a god, there can be no miracles, prayers, divine intervention... because all those must operate within the universe's rules.

[sport_122]

Is it not possible to close your eyes, and write a bunch of numbers and symbols and + and - signs without even thinking of them. Or write numbers, symbols, and math operators on flash cards and throw them into the air and where ever they land is the formula that will be used.

yes its possible, but make a formula using that method and to see it working...to see it always working, demonstrates that their is not a random generation to such a formula. The rules of our universe obviously have purpose. We don't really understand them, but I believe they somehow have purpose.

Even in our biology, it only takes one change in an amino acid to kill you. Or producing one less chemical in your body and you will be ill or be more vulnerable to certain diseases. One less protein and your immune system fails. There is a very specific balance to all of biology. I think this demonstrates efficiency in biological processes. Why would loose the ability to live under water if we still go there? Why would we lose the ability to excavate oxygen for water if we have always been water loving creatures. Why when it is obvious that some creatures can do both.

these questions seem pretty lame when you read them but think about them in the process of selection. Why did we lose the ability to do something that we have always done. This is why Dawkins tries to add a psuedo- consciousness to evolution, because these things cannot be explained in natural terms. But in adding a consciousness then you have to be willing to note that there is something else to be accounted for.

I hope that makes sense. Im trying to type fast so I can get to work.

So why is it a "he" and not an "it"?

So you have just demonstrated that if there is a god, there can be no miracles, prayers, divine intervention... because all those must operate within the universe's rules.

I say he because I believe God has revealed himself to mankind and that in that revelation a masculine pronoun was received. And the person of Christ was male and I have yet to read accounts of the God that I believe was revealed to men, as a female.

Demonstrating that there are rules is a method used to understand and to be able to identify God. I believe miracles are only noticed because we have rules. Without rules there can be no miracles because nothing would be normal.

I believe that God is not the only one to do miracles in our existence, but in his revelation of himself he performed a miracle that no body else could. the resurrection.

Okay. sorry to be brief, but i gotta go.

I will try to get back on this evening.

[bu villain]

Even in our biology, it only takes one change in an amino acid to kill you. Or producing one less chemical in your body and you will be ill or be more vulnerable to certain diseases. One less protein and your immune system fails. There is a very specific balance to all of biology. I think this demonstrates efficiency in biological processes. Why would loose the ability to live under water if we still go there? Why would we lose the ability to excavate oxygen for water if we have always been water loving creatures. Why when it is obvious that some creatures can do both.

This is a logical fallacy to look at the outcome and therefore assume the cause. If there is a 1 in 1 billion chance that this universe exists in its current form but there are 1 billion universes created then the odds are very good that this universe would exists the way it does (obviously the number 1 billion is arbitrary, make it whatever number you like)

these questions seem pretty lame when you read them but think about them in the process of selection. Why did we lose the ability to do something that we have always done. This is why Dawkins tries to add a psuedo- consciousness to evolution, because these things cannot be explained in natural terms. But in adding a consciousness then you have to be willing to note that there is something else to be accounted for.

I'm not aware of this psuedo-conscousness you are talking about but I've never seen reference to anything of the sort in Dawkins. But as far as losing an "ability". Don't forget these abilities aren't free. Every ability/feature has upsides and downsides. I bet if you got a deadly gill infection right now you wouldn't think it was so great to have gills.

[sport_122]

This is a logical fallacy to look at the outcome and therefore assume the cause. If there is a 1 in 1 billion chance that this universe exists in its current form but there are 1 billion universes created then the odds are very good that this universe would exists the way it does (obviously the number 1 billion is arbitrary, make it whatever number you like)




I'm not aware of this psuedo-conscousness you are talking about but I've never seen reference to anything of the sort in Dawkins. But as far as losing an "ability". Don't forget these abilities aren't free. Every ability/feature has upsides and downsides. I bet if you got a deadly gill infection right now you wouldn't think it was so great to have gills.

How is it faulty logic to make reasonable deductions. In fact, the same thing you accuse me of is done even moreso in the very next sentence where you assume that there are 1 billion universes. Since the number is arbitrary we can assume one, we can assume that its a billion raised to the billionth.

Looking at the outcome and assuming the cause is how most of our science works. You make observations and you make reasonable assumptions as to how that could have happened based on prior observations in our universe.

if you happen upon a wall with graffiti it is reasonable to assume someone painted that graffiti, if you happen upon a police car and two cars stopped and you see signs of an accident it is reasonable to assume those cars were in an accident. So how do you figure you cannot look at the outcome of an event and make reasonable deductions as to its cause...Saying the opposite puts you in a very strange position because how do you make a reasonable hypothesis on anything? Science and logic do not work without this reason.

Also, you should go look up Dawkins as he talks about the non-randomness of natural selection. He admits that the process gives an appearance of design because the process is specific. Its in his books, and its on his debates. If you like I can post links. But you must not know his theories very well if you didn't know this about him.

Lastly, the loosing abilities aspect of adaptation is a false assumption to proving change. People loose the ability to do things with age and with adaptation. our body types change and our intelligence changes. These are not signs of evolution they are signs of adaptation.

Just about every species has a starting point of which they can deviate. IF you work out and get in shape, your body will change, is you stop it will go back to your starting point. The fruit fly evolution argument is the same. In the thousands of generations of fruit flies, we have yet to see anything except for fruit flies emerge. We have witnessed subtle changes but we have NOT scene those changes manifest themselves in a replicable DNA pattern. For instance the ones with two sets of wings come out sterile. The ones with any genetic modification do not survive or cannot reproduce. This is not evolution as in natural selection because there is NO survival or replication of the physical modification, there is no change in the DNA make up. If you test the DNA, you get that of a standard fruit fly, you don't get a horse fly or a new species of fly. Why is the fruit fly NOT evolving based on your world view?