The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Is there a god?
750 Answers
Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LeedsRhinos. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
IR
Evolution & God (1)
There are those who would point to the complexity of a DNA strand or a haemoglobin molecule and say �Look � this is far to complex to have developed by accident.� They, however, are standing at a point in history (now) and asking �How did we get here? We are at a place that was so difficult to get to that, looking back at the way we came (as far as we can), we can�t see how we could have got here without a guide�.
I say they should put themselves at the start of the journey, then ask �Where could we go from here?� then realize that the possibilities are endless and one of the places that they could very reasonably pass through is where they are now.
If one looks forward from the beginning, each generation of each organism multiplies the possibilities for mutation at an ever increasing rate. It only needs one member out of 10x of the first organism�s Nth generation to receive any particular mutation. Looking backwards from a complex modern organism and saying that is too complex to have arisen naturally is distorting the view. Changing the perspective gives a clearer view.
Evolution and God (2)
Evolution takes place on a microscopic level. A single-celled organism would most likely not need a haemoglobin molecule but would most likely need proteins. The basic substance from which haemoglobin (mutated protein?) could develop was there. When it did appear, possibly as a simple protein able to connect with an oxygen molecule and go floating around the bloodstream, the organism hosting it would have had an advantage and its progeny would have had an advantage over the progeny of other members of the same species and so forth. That�s how haemoglobin gains ascendance over non-haemoglobin. I just don�t know enough about haemoglobin, proteins, enzymes etc to be able to talk authoritatively on it (biology was one of the O levels that I didn�t quite pass) but the theory still holds well enough for me.
Each evolutionary step was unnecessary. I would say that an unnecessary event is by definition an accident and therefore evolution was (and still is, mostly) a series of accidents and therefore we and all life today is here and in the form it�s in by accident.
You, on the other hand, I suspect, could say that an unnecessary event is by definition the result of a gratuitous act and that would be an act of God.
I don�t see that evolution denies the involvement of God in creation. If there is a God, then surely he could say �Let there be life on earth and let it start with a single cell and let it develop according to this plan�, then it would not be accidental and there would be God�s design in life.
And a bit more:
I didn't read the article in the link too closely, so if I've missed a point or you have a specific question, please come back with it. I don't mind being picked up on matters of scientific fact nor on points of philosophical principle.
I say again: it can be rational to include God in the small pictures. God created the universe, God created life, God decreed how evolution would pan out. (For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually agree) - but try to describe what God is and I get very confused!!
IR
Well, au contraire!!. If you bring God into the BIG picture, it does not become at all clear; it becomes very difficult indeed. If you say that there is a God, then we must have your definition of 'God' and see what implications that has for everything - not just for single issues like evolution. It is when you do that that it all falls apart - it's as though the support for God crumbles under its own weight.
I don't mean to be presumptuous (again) nor condescending about your faith, nor to be arrogant about my own views but I don't know you, so I will ask: If I laid out the full logic of the argument for my atheism, would you be sufficiently confident in your faith to be able to maintain that faith and not doubt it because of my views? (It's like a health warning - talking to me can seriously damage your faith!!)
I don't think so, Merlin. Not because I've never wondered or felt some doubts (my grandpa would skin me alive if he heard me say this), but because I've carefully considered it, thru my doubts, and the alternative to a creator is absolutely far-fetched. If God raises more questions, then the big bang gives one a big headache. My question is, how did we get here? If there was a third alternative, maybe. But given the two possibilities, I chose a creator wholeheartedly.
Why be atheist?
The simple, watered-down, less-dangerous form of the argument goes like this:
1. Science and logical deduction explain the universe to me in a rational way, they continue to uncover answers to the outstanding questions and are progressing towards complete understanding of the universe. The unanswered questions are becoming fewer and fewer and all the pieces fit together very nicely indeed.
2.Then you say �But God did it all!�
3.I say what is �God�.
4.You give me a description of God.
5.I show you that by introducing God into the equation, you are introducing more questions. So many more questions, in fact, that if I accepted your suggestion, I would be so far back beyond square 1 without any prospect of advancing past it again, that it is just irrational of me to accept that God is a factor in the physical universe. A further complication is that a definition of the term �God� almost invariably has internal inconsistencies. That is another reason why I could not rationally accept that �God� should be taken into account.
6.You concede that my atheism is a rational position to hold and nevertheless take pity on me because God has not seen fit to grant me the gift of faith.
Step 4 is tricky for the Theists. It gets very tricky for the Theists from step 5. It may be a dangerous game to play if someone�s faith is a bit shaky and they want to hang on to it. Again, I don�t mean to sound arrogant, but I wouldn�t want to inadvertently rob anyone of a faith that they want to keep.
The big bang shouldn't present any problem to you at all. If I say it was this, that or the other, you would come back with "Yes - and God caused that". If Stephen Hawking and his chums came up with an answer that made everyone say "Of course - why didn't we see that before, it's obvious" - then you could still come back and say 'God did that, too!". The scientists may not know for certain what caused the big bang, but the Theists know for certain that, whatever it was, God did it!!
Existence itself pleads the answer to this question. It also creates questions to which answers from our vantage point can not be attained. The universe we "understand" does not allow the creation of SOMETHING FROM NOTHING. This same reasoning is an application we humans often attempt to utilize when trying to "reason" our way through the mind boggeling maze governed by the supernatural. Are we trying to apply a set of priciples (laws) to a situation that simply does not function under those guidelines? The question I often ask is: Assuming there is a God, from what source did this God come? What was there that existed before this God that served as creator? You can readily see where this kind of reasoning takes you. That is why I have come to believe that humans are dealing with a currency of reasoning that simply can not be applied to the question of God's existence with any hope of reacing an understandable answer. Is there a God? To deny the existence of a higher being, if you will, is to frankly deny your own existence. How can this be? People who "find God" find Him within their own heart. They understand Him from the vantage point life has dealt them. Randy1 Tue 10/05/04 (To be Continued)
Hi Randy1. I wasn't sure whether you ere to be continued sooner or later.
I have to agree with most of what you say, in principle. Our brains, intellect reason etc are of this universe that we perceive and may not be capable of conceiving or reasoning to anything beyond it. I say �may� not, because the human imagination is a funny thing. Who knows what the brain, intellect etc are capable of. I am reminded of a quote from Jostein Gaardner�s �Sophie�s World� (I think). In case you�re not familiar with it, Sophie is a girl taking philosophy lessons. Reflecting on the complexity of the human brain, she says �If my brain was simple enough for me to understand it, I would be too stupid to understand it�. (Or something like that) � best quote in the book.
If someone wants to postulate that there is a God, I must ask for a definition of the term �God� as the postulant understands it. If that definition includes the premise that �God has existed and will exist eternally without beginning and without end unconfined by space and time�, well that�s OK. If they go on to say �This omnipotent God created everything out of nothing�, then that�s OK, too. The two concepts are compatible. I find that as the definition of God gets progressively more detailed, then it becomes progressively more untenable. By examining definitions of the term and removing inconsistencies, we can, perhaps, try to approach a coherent understanding of the term within the pitiful limits of human intelligence.
I don�t understand how denying the existence of God is to deny my own existence. �God� is a debateable concept and I have physical extension in this universe. I am, arguably at least, more real to the person next to me when I poke that person�s eye and God does not stop me. A bit simplistic, perhaps, but there you are. Or, rather, here I am.
Some argument I got from a website considering the origin of the universe:
Five traditional arguments for the existence of God.
1. The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause.
2. The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
3. The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.
4. The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
5. The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an awareness implanted by a higher being.
IR
I am aware of all those arguments and there is a rational rebuttal for all of them. The problem with this kind of debate, as I have mentioned before, is that theists start with the conclusion (that there is a God) and then look for arguments and evidence to support it. If I was unkind (which I am not, usually), I might say that some people would call this 'jumping to conclusions'. Therefore the evidence that you produce will always support your conclusion.
We, on the other hand, start with the evidence and see where it leads - and it may or may not lead to God. I fear that it will not and so far it has not.
The complication is that you have reached your conclusion more by having faith than by being rational. And what you know by faith, you just know -whatever anyone might say to the contrary. I haven't received the gift of faith and so, being stuck with empirical reason and the like, I am condemned to keeping my feet on the ground.
IR
And to say that God is not a 'term', he is a person - that's OK too. 'Personal' is one of the words you would use to describe God as you understand him. It's just the semantics I use to apply an argument. Nothing personal (lol).
But to give you a flavour (maybe a nasty taste!), I might ask "Where or how is God located - a common view is that he is outside of time and space of the physical universe so as not to be limited by them?"
Another Q I might later ask of a Christian is whether your God is mono, dual or trinitarian and how you equate that with JC being abandoned on the cross, bearing in mind that he said that he and the Father were one and the same (although he also said that the Father was greater than himself?)
You don't have to answer - it was just a preview of something you might not want to watch.
The bible (yes, I go back to it from time to time!) says that God resides in the heavens. I don't know where heaven is, presumably up beyond the sky where your astronomical telescopes can't penetrate.
And thanks for your concerns about me losing my faith, but if my faith can't stand scrutiny, then what am I holding on to? I'm never afraid to talk about what I believe, or to listen to the other side.
sheesh this one has moved fast.
micro evolution has been observed in smaller organisms. is it logical to apply this to larger more complex ones or simply to say we are completely different?
as merlin says those arguments for god in creation are quite simple to refute, mainly by questioning the premise, i.e design? why cause? etc and really dont answer any questions at all anyway.
IR
The bible isn�t much help in saying where or what heaven is. Literally, it refers to the sky and the stars above etc as the �heavens�, and God�s abode as �the highest heaven� � presumably out in the crab nebula or on alpha centauri perhaps. But heaven is generally taken to mean, simply, �in the presence of God�. That in itself makes sense. So that leads to the question �Where, then, is God?� and it all gets a bit circular � one defines the other. God cannot have a physical presence located within the physical universe � we would have detected him otherwise. Also, that would limit him and, arguably, make him subject to the passage of time as he would necessarily partake in events in the physical universe. God, and therefore heaven, must be located outside of space/time so as not to be limited by either. That in itself is a difficult, but not unimaginable, concept. But it does lead to questions about how God interacts with the universe and people. He did a lot of shouting in the OT and was heard by Job et al. There is also the very tricky question about God�s physical incarnation on earth.
El D
I think it is most reasonable to assume that evolution continues in every species, including the human animal. It is possible, I suppose, that some species have become so efficient that evolutionary changes do not make any practical difference to survival these days and therefore there will be no further development. This has been suggested for crocodiles at least. That's beside the point though. You may see some differences if you compare the average modern man with the equivalent of the earliest man that there are statistics for, but evolution may have occurred only internally. And we must not forget that some evolutionary changes are for the worse and so will not make any difference to the species.
But you knew that.
