Is talking about God a turnoff for most people?

[rov1200]

Why do we insist on talking about an abstract figure that is hard to prove and relies totally on some mystical belief? We exist therefore that must be the reason. No alternatives are allowed to be expressed.. Evolution has more questions than answers.

Could there be a third way? Our intelligence is limited to what is possible to achieve ourselves. We talk about the beginning of time but this is based on chronological events. If we were to progress along the path of an amobus strip time could stretch to infinity. We talk about one universe completely disregarding there are other universes out there. We talk about 3 dimensions where there could be many more.

Scientists now have the power to create life in the laboratory. Taking genetic material they can cut and paste segments to form a new species. This would have thought impossible just a century ago.

Therefore based on the above its not too remarkable for the human species to have been created by a more inteliigent being (not god like) from another universe in another dimension and a different time frame.

[rov1200]

More about the Amobus strip and Time Travel

http://www.cix.co.uk/~antcom/mtl.html

[Rev Sermon]

Rov,

Two ways of answering this. Firstly my beliefs are logic and rationale based, I want evidence or proof so I am agnostic going on atheistic. I don't know how or why the universe came into existence and my knowledge of science cannot satisfactorily explain it. Hence to me the "creation" is a supernatural event which I cannot explain. I am therefore interested in other peoples theories and indeed cannot understand why just because you don't believe in a god / creator you cannot conceive of any other "supernatural" explanation.

Second way of addressing the question is - Just go look in chatterbank at the bile soaked argument about who worked in a travel agent. Now, fancy a chat about god then?

[McMouse]

I don't think life can be "created" in a lab by cutting and pasting segments of genetic material. The genetic material is already alive so what scientists do is modification not creation.

[LoftyLottie]

Totally agree with the Rev. Well put.
All agree on his second point!;o)

[jake-the-peg]

That may be trueRov

However you just dodge the question about where the intelligent being himself came from.

In reality there are only two options

The complexity of Life came from a more complex form or a less complex form

If the former how did that more complex form arise? If the latter how did life itself arise.

There is no answer to the former other than "It's a mystery - don't ask questions"
The latter does raise many questions but many have been answered

[chakka35]

McMouse, rov1200's fourth paragraph is too vague to make such a comment about. Even if what he says were true, then, as you say, creating a new species is not creating life.

We will do that only when we discover precisely what combination of chemicals and conditions brought about extremely primitive life in the first place. Since the process from there, resulting in complex life, is satisfactorily explained by evolution the chain will be complete and poor old God will be redundant, at least in that area.

[jno]

a turnoff for most people? Indeed not, it seems to turn them on most magnificently, especially those who don't believe in him.