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

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

xman, do you really think that believers know that there are no miracles but believe in them anyway?
And I guess I know there is no God but I believe in him anyway... who is this "we" ?
Just curious why you are so adamant that believers are necessarily delusional

Thanks for at least admitting to the possibility of miracles, I think you are a rational fellow (at times!, hehe)

Whether you accept it or not you do believe without knowing, but please don't misunderstand me. I don't call you delusional (though I may believe it). I merely suggest that until you can come to terms with the fact that your belief is not rational, you will keep spinning your wheels in the rationalist sand box.

Originally Posted by JMS

And yet Man sprang into being from nothing!

Ah, ah ah ... There were plenty of amino acids and proteins from which to spring and spring really is the wrong term. Crawl would be more accurate with regard to action and speed. Ooze would be even more accurate.

X

Maybe this time the details will be retained so that we can actually make progress in this debate...

Life forming polymers have been shown to be capable of forming by the natural mechanism of tides rising and lowering in bodies of water that contain the correct elements (as well as in instances of electrical charges running through similar bodies of water). These polymers (amino acids) are the result of simple chemical interactions that result in molecules of higher stability than their constituent parts had prior to conglomerating. The complexity has thus increased, from separate elements to self replicating polymers.

Even though we haven't seen it empirically yet (remember the whole 10 years of research time that we've had for determining these things? yeah, just wait till we've got another decade or too), various amino acids are known to be more stable when combined and bound in such a way that the base pairs of DNA take on their characteristic helical shape (as a result of bond angles between the base pairs).

Single celled organisms follow shortly thereafter, though I am admittedly unclear on the most recent theories that fill the gaps, I bet a good google search brings up something. IIRC there is some evidence that organelles formed independent of one another; mitochondria were lumps of organic material that carried out chemical reactions resulting in gained useful energy and were later encased in membranes with other proto-organelles.

Don't take my regurgitations as gospel, they are likely to be lacking the exact details and clarity of the original studies, but I would appreciate you gentlemen taking the time to actually research the opinions and experiments that are relevant to the theories before continuing to make statements that cast them as frivolously jumbled rantings, you may not agree that they iron out all the details but it's an exercise in ignorance to consider them base or sophomoric without making the effort to understand them first.

I would also like to get this thread back on the subject of God, rather than whether or not creation was possible thus proving some aspect of God.

Is anyone willing to give details about the proofs that they've seen in their personal lives pertaining to God? I find supreme novelty in music, the mathematically describable vibration of strings and membranes working in complimentary patterns and rhythms have the power to put me in a state of such awe that I cease to cognize the outside world. My mathematical mindset can't help but be overloaded by the intertwining chord structures and beat patterns in good pieces of music. It's the closest thing that I can relate to having a religious experience, it's definitely a sort of transcendent feeling, but transcendence in the way of an utter infatuation with overarching interconnection, truly awe inspiring and ultimately enjoyable. If I didn't know better, I'd call it a religious experience, but I do and I understand my psychological workings well enough to have better explanations for these sorts of things.

Anyone else?

I have an issue with the primordial goop theory. Just because certain polymers will naturally stack together does not mean that they will eventually stack into something that is truly living on their own (or with some sort of tide). Like molecules are attracted to each other and will tend to stick together, but at the end of the day, you've just got more of those molecules.

Besides, how different are conditions going to be that in the same area, lots of different evolutions of the same goop occur?

And now to lighten the mood, one of my favorite jokes:

Xman makes a breakthrough in his lab one day and discovers how to create life out of just sand and exclaims that he is like God. So, he sets up an appointment to show off in front of God. Upon appearing before God, God says "alright, let's see it." Xman then bends down and starts to scoop up a pile of sand, at which point God says "hey, get your own sand!"

Sorry to pick on you X, but if anyone was going to create life with sand, you'd be the one to find the way

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Is anyone willing to give details about the proofs that they've seen in their personal lives pertaining to God?

Yeah, I had a transcendent moment standing over the Shakespeares' graves in Holy Trinity Church. I understood a little better how the pilgrims must have felt, traveling so far to see some relic. My hero lay before me. I was very moved. I know better than to kneel and pray to playwrights, though.

Originally Posted by xman

Whether you accept it or not you do believe without knowing, but please don't misunderstand me. I don't call you delusional (though I may believe it). I merely suggest that until you can come to terms with the fact that your belief is not rational, you will keep spinning your wheels in the rationalist sand box.

Oh, yes I did misunderstand you. I'll go back to my sandbox now

Originally Posted by JMS

And yet Man sprang into being from nothing!

Oh SNAP!! As someone here is fond of saying!

and yet JMS is using a strawman argument. as X pointed out, a process that takes millions of years ain't exactly springing, and didn't start with nothing.

although I admit, if you oversimplify it like that, it does sound ridiculous. I could make similar oversimplifications of your position that would sound as bad or worse, but I don't think this is the place for intentional logical fallacies.

This thread is full of straw man arguments

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

This thread is full of straw man arguments

Careful! you are boarder line on an Appeal to Common practice fallacy there! LOL.
Sorry, I don't care if it is digital or philosophical, I love logic! Fun stuff. Carry on....
/


-Rob

I think that us men cannot know God or fully understand the concept of God. We often speak about things that we do not know or fully understand. We believe or disbelieve. Hence, I think that it is possible for us to have a discussion on God.

Originally Posted by xman

Ah, ah ah ... There were plenty of amino acids and proteins from which to spring and spring really is the wrong term. Crawl would be more accurate with regard to action and speed. Ooze would be even more accurate.

X

Originally Posted by jockeys

and yet JMS is using a strawman argument. as X pointed out, a process that takes millions of years ain't exactly springing, and didn't start with nothing.

.

I am not, nor have argued against the science and mechanisms by which Man, or anything else sprang into being, but who supplied the building blocks? Who flipped the switch, as it were?