Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by JohnP

So, if the evidence supposedly supports the existence of these particles (which,actually, have *not* been observed even with particle accelerators, although the potential results of their actions have been seen)

You'll have to be clearer about which particles have *not* been observed. There are many particles that have been theorized by application of the laws of conservation and by the calculable workings of the fundamental forces (quarks, proton, neutron, positron, antiproton, neutrino, muon, pion, the list continues...) that have been observed as plainly as any other particle (sometimes with the use of accelerators, sometimes with photomultipliers, etc.)

Unless your using "observe" with the basic definition of actually making a visual image in the brain of the particles. In which case you would be throwing out a gargantuan portion of scientific "observations" that are not of the visual variety.

Originally Posted by JohnP

[So, if] we can support a theory that assumes a particle behaves in manners conventionally considered impossible...but the results seem to support it due to statistical analysis....
Then why the double standard wrt believing in God or some other diety?

We're not talking about statistics, we're talking laws of conservation that have never been witnessed being broken. There's a huge difference.

Originally Posted by JohnP

One can easily point to the failure of science to even intentionally create life-and there is almost no condition theorized to have existed on the planet when life came to pass that can not be simulated by science? The very same mathematical analysis seems to support the input of a superior intelligence at some point. Why does it only count for subatomic particles, then?

And I could point to the fact that 100 years ago Newtonian physics was considered the end of the discussion on the physics of motion. Just because we haven't had a biologist/biochemist/biophysicist on the level of Einstein, doesn't mean that our current limitations are absolute. It's naive to think that today's failures depict the lack of future possibilities.

Can you show the mathematical analysis that you mean?

And can you explain what you mean by the mathematics of particle physics to be equivalent to calculating a supernatural being?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

You'll have to be clearer about which particles have *not* been observed. There are many particles that have been theorized by application of the laws of conservation and by the calculable workings of the fundamental forces (quarks, proton, neutron, positron, antiproton, neutrino, muon, pion, the list continues...) that have been observed as plainly as any other particle (sometimes with the use of accelerators, sometimes with photomultipliers, etc.)

Unless your using "observe" with the basic definition of actually making a visual image in the brain of the particles. In which case you would be throwing out a gargantuan portion of scientific "observations" that are not of the visual variety.

As point of fact, NONE of these have been observed. We can see the evidence of them, in multitudes (e.g. your photomultiplier reference) but we have never actually seen these particles which do not obey standard Newtonian physics (quarks, proton, etc etc etc). We only see the evidence thereof. In which case your implication that they "have been observed as plainly as any other particle (sometimes with the use of accelerators, sometimes with photomultipliers, etc.) is only true in the sense the other particles have not been plainly observed either. We still believe them, however. Therefore the comparison is the same.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

We're not talking about statistics, we're talking laws of conservation that have never been witnessed being broken. There's a huge difference.

laws of conservation have nothing to do with whether God exists, Russel-I would argue in fact that it is feasible this same God put those laws into motion. Furthermore, what about the laws concerning energy conservation? Why do electrons not slow down, and collapse into the nucleus of their individual atoms?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

And I could point to the fact that 100 years ago Newtonian physics was considered the end of the discussion on the physics of motion. Just because we haven't had a biologist/biochemist/biophysicist on the level of Einstein, doesn't mean that our current limitations are absolute. It's naive to think that today's failures depict the lack of future possibilities.

likewise this same reasoning applies to the belief in God. Just because you see everything in existence and see it as somehow proof there is none (or perhaps you "don't" but your arguing in these threads would indicate otherwise) does not mean it is not so. Failure of some scientists to prove your theory or promises to do so in the future are not tantamount to proving one's point. Simply because experiments have not succeeded in proving there is no God, does not mean they will do so. In fact there are even a growing number of scientists who take my point of view...even if they are in the minority at the moment. If the "no God" theory was an absolute, a fact-there would be none.

I do not point at your evidence (for the most part) and say it does not exist, I only point out that it may *not* prove what you think it does. Hence I can point at the "reproducing polymers" you alluded to (I'm still waiting for the link, btw) and say they no more disprove an original creative force, God, if you will, than your simply saying you do not believe.

Do not believe if you wish not to. However that is a religious decision ultimately, and not a scientific one, as science does not have a definitive standpoint on the thing. Even many scientists believe in God, and perhaps creation as well, while probably more support your views-at any rate it is a matter of opinion. No scientific evidence that there is no God has ever been found.

What we ultimately have, is the existence of life in a highly developed form, here on earth. Creation advocates such as myself would point one at the very existence of all this this as evidence of a creator. God, if you will, although some alternative creation theories allow for other things, (alien genetic engineers not withstanding) though I am a supporter of the simpler "God exists" belief.

On the other hand, others perform experiments that produce some of the components of these life forms (well...at least a few of the chemicals but not actually a life form exactly) and claim that is somehow evidence no creator-no God-exists. However it does not.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Can you show the mathematical analysis that you mean?

Here's an example....with some very interesting probability numbers pointed to by scientists who support the existence of a creator. While not necessarily "proof" the odds are extremely in favor of God existing.
Show me this proof you were referring to????
here are a few links for you. For me, it is simply statistics; whether you choose to ignore evidence because you insist another explanation will come to pass does not mean it does not exist. In fact, much of the same evidence could be pointed at by supporters of both theories.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

can you explain what you mean by the mathematics of particle physics to be equivalent to calculating a supernatural being?

Subatomic particles only exist in mathematical theory; in all probability, they indeed do exist-however we believe in them because they are a statistical fit to what we see around us.
You believe in a particle you cannot see that never slows down, generates photons, which scientists claim are neither waves nor particles, as if by magic when excited by outside sources, but remains the same weight, and is composed of even smaller particles which are instantaneously in one place and the other, have always existed, always possess energy, and are not affected, apparently, by time.

Realistically, much of this is simply evidenced by mathematical models or even chemical reactions-alchemists in the past achieved similar results and explained them differently. In no way is this different than pointing at an extremely complex life form, with the realization that base matter does not have a "memory" nor a will to live; hence simple chemical compounds statistically will not suddenly "wish to live" and endeavor to improve themselves, not only reproducing, but avoiding injury...and seeing evidence of God, or at the very least SOME intellect of extreme intelligence at work.

Self preservation is not a property of simple mineral compounds, and experimental evidence supports this astronomically.

While it may seem too simple to some who wish to know "How", if indeed there was a creator, "was it done? Where's my proof?" the simple answer that life was the result of a being (similar to these same subatomic particles you reference but we have never truly observed-no need to trust me on this one-look it up if you like ) which also like energy itself, can neither be created nor destroyed, and remains constant-simply arranged the right chemicals in the correct manner and "programmed them" ...works. It answers the questions.

Does it seem too simplistic to some? perhaps. Doesn't mean it is wrong.

Ultimately we claim life itself as one evidence of God, while abiogenesis people claim it proves nothing, it could have happened by an amazing coincidence; meanwhile they claim their (so far unsuccessful) attempts at artificially creating life, [which they assure us will happen,] somehow is evidence there is no God. To which we respond similarly, it proves nothing of the sort.
Learning how to produce mortar does not prove there is no such thing as a bricklayer, after all.
When experiments are performed which prove not that simply certain compounds can be created in a laboratory, but life itself as well, are repeatable and with no external input-life even as simple as a bacteria-abiogenesis *might* have more to stand on, but the paradox of the thing is, if they manipulate the "mix" at all, they have only succeeded in repeating creation and have only therefore supported the creation theory, not abiogenesis.
intelligent life does not simply appear from unintelligent, inanimate matter, without an outside creative influence. Even the simplest bacteria is astonishingly complex at its nucleus, and the odds against this happening by random are not probable at all, even considering the generally accepted age of the planet.


****We who believe in creation may seem silly to some, because we believe life was created by God, who pre-existed us, from inanimate matter.

****Abiogenesis supporters believe intelligent life was created by unintelligent, inanimate matter.


Forgive me if I don't feel like the silly one here

Night folks


John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Forgive me if I don't feel like the silly one here

Night folks

John P.

Yep, silly.

Nighty night.

....perhaps you would like if your bank exchanged all of your money for blank paper and a bottle of green ink? after all, it could in theory yield BILLIONS if the ink only flowed in the right way. There are less electrons in the universe by two zeros than the probability of even the current simplest life form happening, according to one of the links above, and the age of the planet is about 70 less zeros than that....
Why is there morality, instead of us behaving like animals on the most base level all the time? if there is no God, who cares. Right? based on this premise, if there were no God, there is nothing wrong with launching nuclear weapons into random middle eastern nations every time the fuel prices rise, right?

So indeed. Nighty night.


John P.

Originally Posted by jockeys

i would disagree that everyone who values science more than a deity is exercising faith.

if i believe that hurricane ike just knocked down the tree in my yard, but can't see it, hear it, touch it, etc, etc... then that's faith. i can postulate that the tree is no longer standing, but as long as it remains impossible for me to tell, my belief is faith.

now, if i go out in the yard, and see that the tree is lying on the ground, and smell the burning wood from the lightning strike, and feel the splinters in my yard, etc i no longer have faith that the tree is fallen, i have KNOWLEDGE that the tree has fallen. i can observe, repeatably, that the tree is in fact no longer vertical. i can bring other people over to my house and i can show them the same thing, and they can observe it and agree with me. i can look at the tree all day long, for however long i like, in whatever way i like, and there it is: fallen.

now, with science, we can't always directly observe the tree. sometimes we can only hear the thunder and the subsequent crash of the tree, and then make a guess (hypothesis) that it has fallen. this isn't faith either, because i'm not SURE the tree has fallen, i only think it might have. i have some incomplete evidence that points to a fallen tree, but it's still a guess. it's not until i have all the evidence that i can say with certainty that the tree has fallen.

modern science has heard the thunder and the crash, and is guessing that the tree has fallen. we don't know. we guess. we suppose. and we are looking for evidence as best we can. people who claim that the tree has 100% definitely fallen, without seeing it, are idiots. they don't know. they are guessing, too, but because they are tools, they claim knowledge without really having it. people who say all scientific theories are 100% true and god is 100% false fall into this category. it might be. but we don't know yet. we're still looking, guessing, and drawing conclusions from what we see.

religion tells us there is an invisible tree in a yard we can't ever look at, with invisible hurricanes that may or may not have invisible lightning. but they still claim infallible knowledge (not really knowledge, it's faith, but a lot of them won't say it like that) that their invisible tree has fallen. not only is this NOT based on observations, but it's completely non-deterministic. you can't EVER look at the invisible tree to see if it has fallen. you can't ever touch it, or sniff for burning wood. ever. that's faith.

so i'm going to have to take exception to you lumping everyone that favors science into one group that acts out of faith. some of them do, yes. but i think i speak for russell, mischevious and myself when i say we DON"T have faith. at all. we guess, and we (and the scientific community) look for evidence. sometimes we observe things that make us a bit more certain of what we guessed. sometimes we observe things that make us realize our guesses kind of sucked, and we need to come up with new guesses. but we are always looking, and we are always willing to re-evaluate our guesses and come up with new ones.

you can say that we're guessing... we are. you can say that we might be wrong... we might. but you can't say we have blind faith because we really don't... we're just guessing and observing.

russell and mischevious, if i've put the wrong words in your mouth, i'm sorry.

Thanks. I enjoyed the analogies you made with your post here!

However, I wouldn't say that can't ever look at the invisible trees in the faith department either.

If we go back to the analogy of the blind man who will never know what light is, or what the bright sunshine looks like, and thus has to take what is described to him "on faith".

Never the less, as Mischievious says, if you put him out in the sunshine, he will experience the sunshine. Feel the warmth, etc. etc.
He may explain what it is he is feeling a variety of ways "oh, well, I must be near some sort of heater....",etc..

Or perhaps he may think more about what someone may have told him about sunshine, and start to think that idea may actually have some merit.

I would venture to say that "experience" is possibly a particular human trait. You can experience someone loving you, although you perhaps cannot "prove" that they love you.

Likewise, I say that perhaps you cannot "prove" anything to do with God, but many, many people certainly experience God in their lives.

I know a man who was told by no less than three top fertility doctors that he, and his wife (who was over 40 at the time I believe) would not be able to have children. They did the whole battery of tests-nope, the FSG levels, or whatever it is the test for fertility were way below what they needed to be to even have the insurance cover for fertility hormone treatment for the couple.

After the third time they were told flat out "you're not having children", they called the Abbess at a woman's monastery they knew, who told them to come there, as a priest was coming in a week who had an actual relic, a piece of the Cross of Christ.

They went and saw the preist, and were blessed with the Cross. The priest took it (apparently the piece of the Cross was about a 2" x 2" sqaure) and ran it over their bodies. It "stuck" right on the man's belly, or rather a bit below his belly on one side. The preist said "there's a blockage here", and told the man to come back again the next day. Again, he blessed them with the Cross, and this time it did not stick.

Now, apparently the man had had a hernia operation 10 years previously, and the Cross stuck right there, at that spot.

About 4 months later the couple found out they were pregnant, 9 months later they had a baby boy.

So, what to make of this?

Science said that there was no chance for the couple to have children. That was confirmed three times by three different doctors. Not even close enough to make it worthwhile trying the fertility hormone treatments.

And yet, after getting blessed with a piece of the Cross of Christ, they soon thereafter had a child.

Can't ever prove it. But it is a pretty strong correlation, don't you think?

Originally Posted by JohnP

Even the simplest bacteria is astonishingly complex at its nucleus, and the odds against this happening by random are not probable at all, even considering the generally accepted age of the planet.
John P.

Sounds a bit too much like creationism. Old Earth Creationism.

There's an interesting NOVA television program that addresses a case involving the Dover, PA. school district and the teaching of creationism in a public school setting. It set precedence in PA. and will be used in the future when this come up again. They address similar issues like this.

Dover lost, thank goodness, and this has set the creationist agenda back significantly. Yet the threat still remains, very near here is a multi-million dollar facility devoted to the pandering of creationist drivel. Embarrassing and frightening.

Originally Posted by JohnP

As point of fact, NONE of these have been observed. We can see the evidence of them, in multitudes (e.g. your photomultiplier reference) but we have never actually seen these particles

Using the term "observe" to mean "see them with our eyes" is just plain incorrect.

By your definition, chemical reactions never happen either, the entire field of pharmacology is just a group of guys claiming that their sugar pills are special cures, with no proof.

By your definition, every metallurgist and bladesmith on this forum is really doing magic and making up nonsensical reasons for how the razors came into being.

Seriously, "observe" in science terminology means the same thing whether you are seeing the item with your eyes, or seeing the effects that the item is mathematically shown to produce, there is no decrease in validity. In fact, the mathematically supported version is what really matters. The particles serve no purpose if they're just visualized; we need to know how they act mathematically to make any use of their existence.

Originally Posted by JohnP

laws of conservation have nothing to do with whether God exists, Russel-I would argue in fact that it is feasible this same God put those laws into motion. Furthermore, what about the laws concerning energy conservation? Why do electrons not slow down, and collapse into the nucleus of their individual atoms?

I never said they had anything to do with god. I also never claimed that god didn't put them into effect.

As far as your other questions, ask a physicist if you really want to know, they don't have a bearing on this thread.

Originally Posted by JohnP

likewise this same reasoning applies to the belief in God. Just because you see everything in existence and see it as somehow proof there is none (or perhaps you "don't" but your arguing in these threads would indicate otherwise) does not mean it is not so. Failure of some scientists to prove your theory or promises to do so in the future are not tantamount to proving one's point. Simply because experiments have not succeeded in proving there is no God, does not mean they will do so. In fact there are even a growing number of scientists who take my point of view...even if they are in the minority at the moment. If the "no God" theory was an absolute, a fact-there would be none.

I have actually stated, many times, and believe whole heartedly, that the beginning of everything will never be proven.

All I've said is that science has a track record of disproving the conjectures that history has provided in response to the phenomena we observe (earth's 3 dimensionality, the true nature of orbiting planets, chemistry, electricity, etc), and that it is likely to continue providing answers.

Originally Posted by JohnP

I do not point at your evidence (for the most part) and say it does not exist, I only point out that it may *not* prove what you think it does. Hence I can point at the "reproducing polymers" you alluded to (I'm still waiting for the link, btw) and say they no more disprove an original creative force, God, if you will, than your simply saying you do not believe.

The reproducing polymer topic was already linked in the creation thread, the experiment was called "polymerization on the rocks".

Originally Posted by JohnP

On the other hand, others perform experiments that produce some of the components of these life forms (well...at least a few of the chemicals but not actually a life form exactly) and claim that is somehow evidence no creator-no God-exists. However it does not.

To begin with, the chemicals that were formed in those experiments have no use other than in living beings, so they are not just chemicals, they are the building blocks of life.

I've tried to show many times that abiogenesis and evolution just show how the natural environment on Earth can produce life, there's no implication that "no God exists", just that no God is necessary for life to begin.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Here's an example....with some very interesting probability numbers pointed to by scientists who support the existence of a creator. While not necessarily "proof" the odds are extremely in favor of God existing.
Show me this proof you were referring to????
here are a few links for you. For me, it is simply statistics; whether you choose to ignore evidence because you insist another explanation will come to pass does not mean it does not exist. In fact, much of the same evidence could be pointed at by supporters of both theories.

John, it seems like you are offended, I apologize if that's the case. I just wanted to know the statistics you referred to.

Originally Posted by JohnP

You believe in a particle you cannot see that never slows down, generates photons, which scientists claim are neither waves nor particles, as if by magic when excited by outside sources, but remains the same weight, and is composed of even smaller particles which are instantaneously in one place and the other, have always existed, always possess energy, and are not affected, apparently, by time.

This is exactly what I mean. If there is a good enough reason to believe that some improbable event has happened, it must be considered plausible and tested extensively so that a more refined understanding can be achieved. As soon as the current explanation is disproved, it will be abandoned.

Such is not the case with the supernatural.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Self preservation is not a property of simple mineral compounds, and experimental evidence supports this astronomically.

Self preservation has nothing to do with it, every aspect of evolution, et al., claims that outside factors drive the diversification and advancement of the constituents with sustainable features.

Originally Posted by JohnP

(similar to these same subatomic particles you reference but we have never truly observed-no need to trust me on this one-look it up if you like )

Again, "observe" means more than direct sight.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Forgive me if I don't feel like the silly one here

This is inappropriate.

Originally Posted by JohnP

...people who do not believe in God (Gods?) or even a creator of any kind, have simply restricted their views...

Personally, I think this just demonstrates a lack of free thought.

Also inappropriate.

My internet disconnects from time to time, resulting in duplicate posts when it reconnects.

Sorry :{

This thread has over 300 posts! Most are very civil and some are borderline but still acceptable! it would be a shame to see this thread closed over one or two Hot moments! Please continue to keep it civil!

Thanks

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Well, this is not exactly an accurate train of thought, for heat to cause the same kind of burn it would have to be much hotter than the average ambient temperature of the generally inhabited areas of Earth.

Since the skin damage from light waves is not a function of temperature, it would have to be some form of radiative energy other than heat.

And he still wouldn't be able to see anything