I have a question and it would be nice If somebody could answer it.
How is it possible that somebody believes in God although there doesn't exist any proof or at least an evidence for Gods existance besides some old books?
In my opinion God's an explanation for everything unknown.
Not knowing and it being incomprehensible are quite different. There is nothing wrong with not knowing.
What, exactly, would be barring us from 'knowing'? It seems that if the truth is completely tangible, then we should readily obtain it, excluding of course emotional convictions and the like.
What, exactly, would be barring us from 'knowing'? It seems that if the truth is completely tangible, then we should readily obtain it, excluding of course emotional convictions and the like.
It can take time to understand or reconstruct the data. We also have to first find those tangible things as well. Take paleontology for example We wouldn't know A Triceratops or T-Rex existed until we first found their fossilized remains.
To put the formation of the universe in perspective: (i read this somewhere and the speaker is someone who was an agnostic and a person who would not believe it until I see it and touch it kind of person.) NOTE: not exact words of this man but close enough.
"Imagine that there is a lot of useless, broken, scattered trash everywhere in a garbage dump. Then all of a sudden, a great wind blows and all of these pieces of garbage fall ever so perfectly into place and you have a fully functional Boeing 747 ready to fly. Has this happened by chance alone? I once was a person who doubted an Intelligent Designer and now it makes a lot more sense."
"Imagine that there is a lot of useless, broken, scattered trash everywhere in a garbage dump. Then all of a sudden, a great wind blows and all of these pieces of garbage fall ever so perfectly into place and you have a fully functional Boeing 747 ready to fly. Has this happened by chance alone? I once was a person who doubted an Intelligent Designer and now it makes a lot more sense."
Do you have any idea just how much this argument has failed and been shot down?
Posts like these should be prevented from being created. The only thing that these religious posts do is tear the relationship between users apart. It's like they say, if you want to remain or become friends with somebody, don't discuss religion or politics.
I remember that it has been shot down quite a lot before, but I don't quite remember what was the counter argument for it.
Anyways I have one. Try trowing two rocks together (or the trash), will it do anything? No. Now, try mixing sulphate and water together. What do you know? Something happened. Weird huh? No one did anything. Oh wait, I know! It's a chemical reaction. Everything that "creates" (transform) by itself is just because of chemical reactions. True, the first organism(s) on the planet happened because of more complicated reaction(s), but it was still chemical reactions.
Anyways I have one. Try trowing two rocks together (or the trash), will it do anything? No. Now, try mixing sulphate and water together. What do you know? Something happened. Weird huh? No one did anything. Oh wait, I know! It's a chemical reaction. Everything that "creates" (transform) by itself is just because of chemical reactions. True, the first organism(s) on the planet happened because of more complicated reaction(s), but it was still chemical reactions.[/quote]
That's one reason, the materials involved simply don't have comparable properties.
Another issue is such an analogy implies that the process was completely random which with the formation of life there are predictable repeatable non random elements to it.
This analogy also assumes that the process had to take place all in one take. Life would have had plenty of time and numerous "wind blows" to get it right. Each time it did it would be able to keep that correct hit. Here's a site that provides a more visual idea of how the process works. http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page03.xhtml
Seeing as it seems to be my M.O., and this argument is like the blind watchmaker fallacy, here is a video giving a visual on (in the videos case a clock but can work for the 747 analogy as well) how it could work if such a thing had the same properties as biological life. Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
Try mixing sulfate and water together without holding a spoon. Someone had to hold the spoon Lolo.
Even without mixing it with a spoon sulfate will dissolve into the water. Anyway in this example our "spoon" could be provided by the environment itself.
I also know from our talks on your profile your really more open minded then this, so why play the fool?
wouldn't someone have had to put the water and sulfate together?
Nope again the environment could take care of that. This would require some random processes, but the argument was never that they didn't exist at all just that it wasn't the only thing involved.
But again at this level when compared to the odds of life forming we only need to look at how many times such combinations could come together.
