So I just have a question to every one. What is the point in proving god to not exist? What makes it worth while to sit and flip out on people, the goverment, schools, kids, parents.....that they are wrong, and science is wrong?
I understand having an oppinion, and trying to get others to beilve that. But Have any of you heard of Pascals wager?
What he said was basically, if you belive in god, and he is real, you lived a good live, and if you belive in god, and he's not real, you lost nothing, but lived a life of good morals, which I will touch on in a second. However, If he is real, and you didn't beilve you go to hell. And if you didn't beilve and he isn't real, then you lost nothing, other then being remembered as a person who didn't care about morals.
I would like you to go read the ten commandments, and the other moral wrongs in the bible. How are ANY of them bad?
All I'm really trying to gather here, is what is the point in tryign to prove god as fake? Why does it matter if you beilve in god? And what do you lose by beilveing in him?
Is there any way that a pool of chemicals could eventually for such amazing designs?
Yes, strangely enough there is.
Ok, but where did this infinite-density material come from? Could it really have appeared from a void?
Well I would suggest you talk to Stephen Hawking. However, I do know a marginal amount about quantum physics is that at the quantum level effect may come before cause. If this is the case the big bag may have occured before any known cause came about. I am of course riding the assumption that the mass was compacted at or below the quantum level.
Ok, but where did this infinite-density material come from? Could it really have appeared from a void?
I dont know I will admit. But if I do not know something I will not asume God did it. You do not know how God has his powers but you do not asume a someone gave them to him.
Harry, if there was evidence, I wouldn't be a Christian. I have found no evidence whatsoever that God is false.
And I have no evidence any relgion is right. I was went to a Christian school and prayed every school day for 6 years but I just find God unlogical and unbelievable.
Ok, scratch that for a minute. Look at man. Our emotions. Our bodies. Is there any way that a pool of chemicals could eventually for such amazing designs?
Absolutely. Starting with abiogenesis, then moving on toward evolution. Let me ask you this. If God designed all creatures individually in the manner he wanted them then why do we have so many vestigial components? Or why is DNA so similar in closely related species? Every piece of evidence we have about life proves that we all evolved from a single common ancestor over the past few billion years. Now, if God did design us just as we are now, and pop all of us into existence at once, then why try to trick us with so much proof that he wasn't involved?
A common criticism of abiogenesis is the alleged improbability of life developing by natural means. Often cited is Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, who calculated the odds at 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power against the proteins serving as enzymes in a cell all forming by chance.
Now, that is just enzymes forming. [url=http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/probability.htm]
Now, 1 in 10 to the 80 power is considered impossible.
Now, 1 in 10 to the 80 power is considered impossible.
Not at all, just highly unlikely. However when we are dealing with such a massive scale in both space and time, 10^80 really isn't terribly rare. Just think, something which happens only once in every million years happens on average 10 times in one day when viewed on a universe encompassing scale.
But the universe is almost infinitive and time is infinitive so the chances are highly likely of life developing somewhere in the whole Universe at some point in time.
They say we share 98% DNA with a chimp. We also share 76% DNA with a banana. Not too related in my opinion.
That's close to accurate. However this also shows that ALL life evolved from a common ancestor, not just animal life. Why would we need many of the same gene pairs as bananas? We wouldn't, unless we both have a common ancestor who we inherited some of these gene pairings from.
Let's think. 10^80 is considered the number of particles in the universe. The entire milky way, all the other galaxies and their contents. Seems pretty large to me.
That's close to accurate. However this also shows that ALL life evolved from a common ancestor, not just animal life. Why would we need many of the same gene pairs as bananas? We wouldn't, unless we both have a common ancestor who we inherited some of these gene pairings from.
This whole ancestor theory. Scientists come up with trees, correct? We take animal skeletons, and we arrange them in an order which seems like what would make them related. No scientific proof says they are related.
Let me ask you a question then. How is it that you can find it to be more probable that a deity popped into existence, or created itself, or was always in existence, and then decided to create an entire universe, complete with life and galaxies and all that we see now, yet you find it impossible that matter simply always existed, then expanded, and through a series of unlikely but not impossible events and over billions of years, evolved into life and gave rise to what we have today?
A common criticism of abiogenesis is the alleged improbability of life developing by natural means. Often cited is Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, who calculated the odds at 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power against the proteins serving as enzymes in a cell all forming by chance.
I would say Fred Hoyle is full of crap. Abiogenesis is not part of this guys field of expertise. So saying an astronomer says it's not possible for life to arise by natural means is like pointing to a dentist claiming it's not possible for you to get an ingrown toenail as evidence that ingrown toenails can't happen.
Let me ask you a question then. How is it that you can find it to be more probable that a deity popped into existence, or created itself, or was always in existence, and then decided to create an entire universe, complete with life and galaxies and all that we see now, yet you find it impossible that matter simply always existed, then expanded, and through a series of unlikely but not impossible events and over billions of years, evolved into life and gave rise to what we have today?
Because I see now way that a simple protein could be formed. Amino acids first have to be formed (highly unlikely), then they have to have the exact number of amino acids, type, and order, well over several hundred amino acids. That is just one protein. the odds seem impossible.
Abiogenesis is not part of this guys field of expertise. So saying an astronomer says it's not possible for life to arise by natural means is like pointing to a dentist claiming it's not possible for you to get an ingrown toenail as evidence that ingrown toenails can't happen.
But if someone is capable of analysing the odds, and then being able to make the proper calculations, it is possible.
Because I see now way that a simple protein could be formed. Amino acids first have to be formed (highly unlikely), then they have to have the exact number of amino acids, type, and order, well over several hundred amino acids. That is just one protein. the odds seem impossible.
Well then, if you cannot believe that matter always existed how can you believe that God always existed? Wouldn't God be some time of matter?
