Do you believe in God? Simple question

[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?

[bu villain]

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.

I must not be making myself clear. It's called inductive reasoning

Outcome: There is a puddle of water on the floor
Previous knowledge: Melted ice creates water
Conclusion: The puddle of water on the floor used to be ice

Obviously the conclusion could very well be wrong. Likewise:

Outcome: Our universe has rules
Previous knowledge: Designers create rules
Conclusion: Our universe was designed

This is equally likely to be incorrect

I hope that clarifies

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.

You're right I'm no expert on Dawkins but non randomness does not mean consciousness or "pseudo-consciousness". If the animals of a species have different height legs and the ones with short legs die in a flood while the ones with long legs survive, the survival was non random but it doesn't mean there was a conscious decision to kill the short leg ones.

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?

I agree that losing abilities does not prove evolution but you're original post was saying that its evidence to disprove evolution and I was just saying it's not. Before you said "why would animals lose abilities if there was evolution" and now you are answering your own question.

As to the fruit flies, send me a link to the study and i'll be glad to discuss it. Evolution doesn't just happen because you have a lot of generations, there has to be a reason to evolve, and there is also no guarantee that the right mutation will occur to meet that need.


Out of curiousity, do you think the animals such as Ardi and Luci are related to humans? Also do you think we may one day find fossils of humans from 250 million years ago?

[sport_122]

I must not be making myself clear. It's called inductive reasoning

Outcome: There is a puddle of water on the floor
Previous knowledge: Melted ice creates water
Conclusion: The puddle of water on the floor used to be ice

Obviously the conclusion could very well be wrong. Likewise:

Outcome: Our universe has rules
Previous knowledge: Designers create rules
Conclusion: Our universe was designed

This is equally likely to be incorrect

I hope that clarifies



You're right I'm no expert on Dawkins but non randomness does not mean consciousness or "pseudo-consciousness". If the animals of a species have different height legs and the ones with short legs die in a flood while the ones with long legs survive, the survival was non random but it doesn't mean there was a conscious decision to kill the short leg ones.



I agree that losing abilities does not prove evolution but you're original post was saying that its evidence to disprove evolution and I was just saying it's not. Before you said "why would animals lose abilities if there was evolution" and now you are answering your own question.

As to the fruit flies, send me a link to the study and i'll be glad to discuss it. Evolution doesn't just happen because you have a lot of generations, there has to be a reason to evolve, and there is also no guarantee that the right mutation will occur to meet that need.


Out of curiousity, do you think the animals such as Ardi and Luci are related to humans? Also do you think we may one day find fossils of humans from 250 million years ago?

Its late so I'm gonna be brief...on the subject of reasoning.

there is always a large number of possibilities. but lets say for instance that its not just the puddle of water on the floor, but the puddle of water sits next to the fridge, and the ice box is open and there is a cup sitting on the counter that is full of ice water. And a few moments ago, your spouse came in from a long jog in the hot sun. etc etc.

You give an example as if I believe there is only one piece of evidence that points to a God. I believe there are many things that lead to this conclusion. I believe there are some physical, some logical, and some philosophical and just like any other case of law, or discussion which takes evidence, to look at a single piece could lead one to believe that there is not enough to be convinced or to draw the same conclusion. But the goal has to be to provide several pieces of evidence which point to the same conclusion.

History provides us with eyewitness testimony in the case of Christ (whether you accept it or not), philosophy shows us that our social inclinations and actions follow a greater meaning, science provides us with numerous unanswerable questions and an ever growing truth, that the more we learn the more complex our universe becomes as all of our discovery presents more questions (which is opposite of the simple to complex model demonstrated by evolutionists-meaning life does not start off with the simplicity of a single sell, it starts with the complexity of DNA, which has been called a language in its own right) and as far as we know right now language especially complex language has only been demonstrated to come from conscious minds. But i digress, the evidence exists in all fields of observation for men.

Now it seems that you believe that it is possible for a complex process of carefully orchestrating change in the biology of life to happen naturally. This process is not made up of any specific pattern that has been demonstrated, it is not made up of any means that have been fully documented with any hard "smoking gun" type evidence. It is a broken history and a single thought process which based on the hard science and numbers does not and has not made the case without stretching the interpretation of data. BTW, if this complex process is specific and not random as you seem to agree with Dawkins about, it demonstrates a logic, a methodology, meaning that as you look at it, you can pull logic and theory out of it. this is giving the process the ability to reason logically. If this is the process (generalized of course) then we have just applied a consciousness to this. We could use the same phrasing to describe the actions of a living individual, but try to use it to explain an inanimate object. What makes this process so specific in its intent?

lastly, I do not think that luci and ardi are "pre-humans" and are a part of our ancestry and I don't expect 250 million year old men to surface. I don't think human civilization is that old. I think if we were we would have MUCH MUCH more evidence of it. About lucy and ardi, I think that, much like many would agree, science is looking for something specific. We are trying to find something to fill in a gap. We have been doing so for so long that it is very easy for us to begin to force the issue. I believe that this is the case with the two discoveries. I believe it happens with religion as well.

My point in all of this is not to say that something can be proven one way or the other. I just think my worldview or universe view is supported with much more evidence than many realize. Maybe its because we are in america or maybe its because the evidence that is out there is taken for granted in a passive consumer driven society, but as I weigh the logic of our physical, philosophical, and sociological world I cannot reasonably say that i believe that the cosmos, the spiritual makeup of mankind, and the revelations of the supernatural existence are not the plan of a conscious transcendent mind. Even the very fact that upon our own understanding, men began to ask the questions of our cosmos, and the first questions were not based in a naturalist mindset. we went straight to spiritual. No other life takes this approach to understanding.

[bu villain]

If you believe there is a lot of evidence for God I can't argue that general statement, only specifics. We seem to somewhat be spiraling away from the original issues and arguing logic without regard to the original reason it was brought up.

I have no problem with people believing in a God per se and I have no motive for believing there to be no God or not. I don't feel I would live my life any differently either way. The existence of a God doesn't make this universe any less or more amazing or beautiful. My mind is open should something occur to prove the existence of God but until I find that evidence, I can't just believe He/She/It exists.


If you don't mind, I'm curious as to your answers on these questions. If they don't apply to your concept of God, just say so.

1. What motivates an all powerful being to do anything?
2. Why would you choose to believe in an all powerful benevolent god as apposed to an unfathomably powerful alien who has merely created the universe as an experiment?
3. Do people have free will? If so, why would God give us free only to punish us for making choices He doesn't approve of?