Is there any proof God exists?

Page 73 of 105 [ 1680 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 ... 105 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

24 Mar 2015, 9:36 pm

Oldavid wrote:

Janissy wrote:

Ok this one is a bafflement to me since I can't figure out if you are disagreeing with me by reflex or if you think amino acids aren't precursors to life.

Lintar wrote:

Amino acids are not life

Janissy wrote:

they are not but they are the precursors to life

Oldavid wrote:

Another example of the glib, gratuitous, mere assertions, of nonscience.

You seem to be calling my assertion that amino acids are the precursors to life "another example of glib,gratuitous, mere assertions, of nonscience"

Did you just reflexively say that or do you really think that amino acids are not the precursors of life?

*Astonishment* This is way less than just silly.

Just because a.a.s are components in organic life processes doesn't mean that they can, or do, cause life. I meant it just as it is: glib, gratuitous, mere assertions, of nonscience.

Oldavid, I understand the point you are trying to make here about amino acids not actually, on their own, being responsible for life, but I think you might have to go into a bit more detail as to why you think what "Janissy" wrote are 'glib, gratuitous assertions'. It actually is the case that amino acids are required, and equally true that we have at this point in time absolutely NO idea how life got going in the first place, so are you just saying that "Janissy" simply doesn't know what he is talking about, or is there more to it than this? Maybe I just missed something.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

25 Mar 2015, 6:25 am

Lintar wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Janissy wrote:

Ok this one is a bafflement to me since I can't figure out if you are disagreeing with me by reflex or if you think amino acids aren't precursors to life.

Lintar wrote:

Amino acids are not life

Janissy wrote:

they are not but they are the precursors to life

Oldavid wrote:

Another example of the glib, gratuitous, mere assertions, of nonscience.

You have missed a hellava lot, Lintar. Janissy doesn't know what he's talking about and there is much, much more.

As insinuated in the dried prune example there is much more to life than the presence of various chemicals. I can go into it in more detail if there is someone to hear and understand.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

25 Mar 2015, 6:56 am

Lintar wrote:

Given a 'sufficient' amount of time (however long that may be), can an object with the complexity and function of, say, a table ever be transformed, over 'a billion years', into a car? Cells are FAR more complex than either tables or cars, and yes, I understand the role that energy and environment play when it comes to transforming matter. I also understand that those who support abiogenesis tell us that the (relatively simple) constituents of the cell arose independently and then, at some opportune time, came together (how?) to form the first living organism, but...

Well, the problem here is that many, if not most, of the cell's constituents actually require the existence of other simultaneous processes that are taking place within it. Take away, for example, DNA and one no longer has a functioning cell. How does the theory of abiogenesis account for this?

It's a good question and one of biology's current hot topics. Billion year time scales are not an option so the direction of research is not to try to create life in the lab (although somebody may eventually do that) but rather to look at mechanisms that would make it possible. The way of science is not to fill knowledge gaps with God but to look at the question with an eye to a natural causes. Instead of saying "I don't know so God must have done it" the trick is to ask "how could this hapen?" and let that be a non-rhetorical question.

Here is a recent finding:http://mic.com/articles/88441/cambridge-study-reveals-how-life-could-have-started-from-nothing

Quote:

The discovery: Through routine quality control testing, a researcher working with Markus Ralser, who would eventually become the lead researcher for the project, stumbled upon signs of the metabolic process where, for all intents and purposes, there shouldn't have been. Until now, much of the science community has generally agreed that Ribonucleic acid, or RNA, was the first building block of life because it produces enzymes that could catalyze complex sequences of reactions such as metabolic action. However, Ralser's lab found the end products of the metabolic process without any presence of RNA. Instead, the findings indicate that complex and life-forming reactions like these could occur spontaneously given the right, but surprisingly simple, conditions.

"People have said that these pathways look so complex they couldn't form by environmental chemistry alone," Rasler told NewScientist. "This is the first experiment showing that it is possible to create metabolic networks in the absence of RNA."

Piece by little piece a complete picture will eventually be built from experiments that show mechanisms.

Abiogenesis is what you get when you don't default to "God did it". This does not mean all the steps are known. It just means that God is not assumed to be one of the steps. It may not even have happened on earth.

badgerface
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 479
Location: St. Neots, Cambridgeshire UK

25 Mar 2015, 7:13 am

AngelRho wrote:

...If you assume there IS a God, it's easy to prove there is.

Why assume there is a "god"? Nobody assumes there is unless the idea is put in their head; usually through childhood indoctrination.

_________________
"You're entitled to your wrong opinion..."

Canadian1911
Sea Gull

Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!

25 Mar 2015, 7:54 am

badgerface wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

...If you assume there IS a God, it's easy to prove there is.

Why assume there is a "god"? Nobody assumes there is unless the idea is put in their head; usually through childhood indoctrination.

Exactly,

going about it logically and empirically, there is no proof, nothing which does not have an infinitely more reasonable explanation.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

25 Mar 2015, 8:18 am

badgerface wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

...If you assume there IS a God, it's easy to prove there is.

Why assume there is a "god"? Nobody assumes there is unless the idea is put in their head; usually through childhood indoctrination.

Wait…so if you're taught something as a child, that automatically makes it wrong?

Canadian1911
Sea Gull

Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!

25 Mar 2015, 8:23 am

AngelRho wrote:

badgerface wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

...If you assume there IS a God, it's easy to prove there is.

Why assume there is a "god"? Nobody assumes there is unless the idea is put in their head; usually through childhood indoctrination.

Wait…so if you're taught something as a child, that automatically makes it wrong?

That is not what he meant. He meant that things which you are taught as a child, are hard to let go or realize they may be wrong, if they are. Children have no critical thinking, they are unable to notice when something is unreasonable or illogical and such.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,944

25 Mar 2015, 8:34 am

Canadian1911 wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

badgerface wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

...If you assume there IS a God, it's easy to prove there is.

Why assume there is a "god"? Nobody assumes there is unless the idea is put in their head; usually through childhood indoctrination.

Wait…so if you're taught something as a child, that automatically makes it wrong?

That is not what he meant. He meant that things which you are taught by a child, are hard to let go or realize they may be wrong, if they are. Children have no critical thinking, they are unable to notice when something is unreasonable or illogical and such.

INCORRECT ON YOUR CLAIM THAT CHILDREN HAVE NO CRITICAL THINKING ABILITIES.

I did NOT speak until age 4, and I recognized the essence of GOD exists before the word exists in my mind before age 4.

And unless you ARE a non-verbal child, you WILL NEVER EVER BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS WITH WORDS.

IN FACT, WORDS ARE THE ILLUSION AND GOD IS THE REALITY AS IS.

AND I SUPPOSE that is a SUBSTANTIAL PART OF the reason why I understand GOD so well, as I AM NOT cursed with words until age 4, and beyond.

But precocious I was DEFINITELY, IN INTERPRETING MY ENVIRONMENT, with or without words, in the sense of what folks describe as the English Language.

But AGAIN, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE ME INCORRECT UNLESS one lives in my mind at age 3 THAT perceives the world much differently than a mind stuck in abstract concepts of letters and words.

My cat may understand GOD better than most humans simply as he is not cursed with ABSTRACT CONSTRUCTS OF words AND BYPRODUCTS OF CULTURE, and the usual constant illusion of past and present that a so-called advanced neocortical mind brings to little scaredy cat humans who are most of the time TOO afraid to even MORE FULLY LIVE NOW IN SIMPLE, YET BLISSFUL MIND AND BODY BALANCE.

I am not afraid of death.

I do not need religion or culture,

As I live now, simply now,
with the FORCE OF GOD that IS
ALWAYS VERB OF FORCE NOW,

AND NEVER AN ILLUSION OF HUMAN MINDS IN ABSTRACT CONCEPTS NAMED WORDS, PER THREE
LETTERS OF A TINY PRISON FOR SOMETHING AS LARGE AND SMALL AS 'GOD' AS IS IS NOW IS.

_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick

Canadian1911
Sea Gull

Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!

25 Mar 2015, 8:36 am

aghogday wrote:

Canadian1911 wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

badgerface wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

...If you assume there IS a God, it's easy to prove there is.

Why assume there is a "god"? Nobody assumes there is unless the idea is put in their head; usually through childhood indoctrination.

Wait…so if you're taught something as a child, that automatically makes it wrong?

Ok then,,,,,,,,,

there's no need to prove you incorrect. You however have to prove yourself correct, since you are making the positive claim of existence.

Last edited by Canadian1911 on 25 Mar 2015, 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

25 Mar 2015, 8:38 am

Kids could be cynical/skeptical even as toddlers.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

25 Mar 2015, 8:38 am

Janissy wrote:

Lintar wrote:

It's not a question biology even CAN answer. It's a matter of chemistry.

I'm playing around with a musical composition process intended to demonstrate evolution through purely random selection, or as close as I can get to it. I've run the selection process a few times and have had at least one (can't remember if I did more, it's been a couple of weeks) musical tone or event become extinct. Before I create a musical composition based on the idea, I intend to create a short composition consisting of a simple stream of rapid events to demonstrate how certain events become predominant over successive generations. Fluctuations in probabilities lead to an amplifying effect analogous to microphonic feedback that extinguishes certain frequencies while emphasizing others to the point that at most a very limited number of tones are left, if not a single tone.

If this works in chemistry, you really could have abiogenesis occur as per the law of very large numbers (e.g. billions of years). The problem for us, though, is it takes SO FREAKIN' LONG, not to mention the fact that abiogenesis is merely one of many possible outcomes. It shouldn't be assumed that even with the law of large numbers that abiogenesis even WOULD occur. Abiogenesis on this planet is a near certainty as a random occurrence if it has a little help and/or a lot more time than the geological age of the earth. Amino acids came from somewhere, if we assume abiogenesis to be true. They certainly didn't come from HERE. The idea that we are alien children is nothing new in the scientific community.

Canadian1911
Sea Gull

Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!

25 Mar 2015, 8:40 am

kraftiekortie wrote:

Kids could be cynical/skeptical even as toddlers.

Could be yes, but I'm talking in general.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

25 Mar 2015, 8:40 am

Canadian1911 wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

badgerface wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

...If you assume there IS a God, it's easy to prove there is.

Why assume there is a "god"? Nobody assumes there is unless the idea is put in their head; usually through childhood indoctrination.

Wait…so if you're taught something as a child, that automatically makes it wrong?

Are you suggesting that just because children lack critical thinking that the things they are taught are automatically wrong?

Canadian1911
Sea Gull

Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!

25 Mar 2015, 8:42 am

AngelRho wrote:

Canadian1911 wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

badgerface wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

...If you assume there IS a God, it's easy to prove there is.

Why assume there is a "god"? Nobody assumes there is unless the idea is put in their head; usually through childhood indoctrination.

Wait…so if you're taught something as a child, that automatically makes it wrong?

Are you suggesting that just because children lack critical thinking that the things they are taught are automatically wrong?

No pay attention to "wrong. if they are". I implied not everything is wrong already.

badgerface
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 479
Location: St. Neots, Cambridgeshire UK

25 Mar 2015, 8:42 am

Ideas and concepts put in children's brains at an early age during their "formative years" have a lasting impact.

I have 3 children, the Oldest, my 10 year old (NT), who went to a religious school, has fairly religious influence from his Mother's side of the family (we are no longer together) finds the concept of god to be nonsensical and sees no reason to believe it, but can recognise reasons why some people do. He worked it out right around the time that he realised Santa Claus was not real. Before you accuse, I never forced my beliefs or lack of them on him, rather always presented him with the different sides of the argument and invited him to think about it, and decide for himself.

_________________
"You're entitled to your wrong opinion..."

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

25 Mar 2015, 8:49 am

Canadian1911 wrote:

aghogday wrote:

Canadian1911 wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

badgerface wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

...If you assume there IS a God, it's easy to prove there is.

Why assume there is a "god"? Nobody assumes there is unless the idea is put in their head; usually through childhood indoctrination.

Wait…so if you're taught something as a child, that automatically makes it wrong?

Ok then,,,,,,,,,

there's no need to prove you incorrect. You however have to prove yourself correct, since you are making the positive claim of existence.

You have to learn to think poetically and almost entirely in metaphor to get it. I have a deep appreciation for what aghogday writes. But I never respond. It's not hostility, but rather lack of time to decode it in terms I understand best. Some people communicate better through a sort of invented language, and they are easy to communicate with if you understand the language. Google translate doesn't have a way for me to do this quickly, so I'm content to admire aghogday's posts from afar.

I'm more of a postmodern without shackling myself to relativism. Ironically ironic, I know, and that's half the point. But I keep to a more modern workflow for the sake of easier communication. You get used to it after a while.

Page 73 of 105 [ 1680 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 ... 105 Next

Jump to:

Is there any proof God exists? Post Reply New Topic

Is there any proof God exists?