What Do You Think There Is More Proof Of? (page 4)

John Doe

There is definitely a God. Humanity is God.

love11

You cannot "prove" that there is a God, just like you cannot "prove that there isn't one.

There is simply not enough evidence to prove either case. You can however, scientifically prove that the bibles rendition of "creation" is a nice fairy tale. There were tribes of people living all over the globe by the time that Adam and Eve were said to have been the "first" humans. That is a fact!

seattleniceguy

I'd say there's more proof of a Creator..........I'm reading a book called The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel which was on the New York Times Bestseller list.......he was an athiest years ago but has since changed beliefs. The book so far is quite fascinating. He interviews biologists, biochemists, scientists, chemists, philosophers, organic chemist geologists, astrophysicists

M ary,

You might want to take that book with a couple handfuls of salt. A relative sent it to me, and it follows the same, tired, worn-out arguments as every other Christian "proof" of a Creator. None of it stands up to real scrutiny, and much of it is eerily similar to the Watchtower's God's Word or Man's? book.

And keep in mind, Strobel isn't exactly interested in presenting serious science. This is the same guy that brings you The Case for Faith and (I saw it in a store the other day) The Case for Easter. So you can expect a Christian slant on everything.

Anyway, just a word to the wise.

SNG <-- of the "none too impressed by worn-out Christian arguments" class

seattleniceguy

Mary,

Here's a critique of the book. I've only read the forward, but he mentions most of the problems I had with the book, and then he gives a detailed analysis of Strobel's arguments.

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/strobel_cfac.htm

SNG

collegegirl21

I think there is enough proof for both outcomes... I'm not sure which one is more, but think about it - why would god love us enough to command us to love him and then make us suffer? But then look at the earth (although this part confuses me because the earth has been around far longer than the bible has) and how it is in perfect orbit with everything else and how there are places on earth that are so beautiful.

Mary

SNG said: Mary, Here's a critique of the book.

OK, here's a quote from the critique: "...Clearly, even if Strobel's experts are biased, they are not necessarily wrong. But given their obvious bias, considering other sources with different points of view is necessary for objectivity...."

And athiests aren't biased?? I think that's why his book is called The Case for a Creator. Clearly he's getting the opinions of those that believe the evidence points to a Creator, just as athiests will always get the opinions of those that believe in evolution. To me, there very fact that there are any scientists who believe the evidence points to Creation and not evolution, is a milestone.......I can't comment too much more on the book so far, because I haven't finished reading it, but to me, it takes a hell of a lot more faith to believe that universe got here by accident, than by Intelligent Design.........

daystar

Everyone is going to believe what they want to believe. Many will believe what makes them sleep better at night and challenges them the least.

If this question was asked on another site I think it would be overwelming in favor of a god.

And? I can find other sites where the consensus would be overwhelmingly against there being a god. What are you trying to prove again?

slacker911

Mary, why do you insist that there is a relationship with evolution and atheism? From your statements, it is obvious that you have never heard of "theistic evolution".

And, though atheists may be biased, science is not. Unless you can find a way of demonstrating that direct observation is biased, your statements are with out merit. Now obviously there are select instances where someone can interpret test results in a biased manner, but that is why all scientific observations are required to go through peer review.

You may be interested to know that the two main tenets of Intelligent Design are Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity. I would definitely recommend you take a look at these two concepts yourself very closely before you start stating that you take stock in Intelligent Design. You will find that as brilliant and concrete as those terms sound and feel, when looked at closely they run completely contrary to the basic tenet of science which is to test a theory/hypothesis by direct observation and either eliminate it or refine it. You will deduce, I am sure, that they are the opposite of what science should in principle allow for because it is the equivalent of throwing up your hands and saying "Aw shucks! That one looks tough! God did it!"

With regards to whether God exists or not, I do not believe in any God as he appears in the bible. But I also feel that it would be supremely arrogant for me to presume that somewhere out there there is not some superior form of life that ancient cultures would have mistakenly defined as God, or a superior form of life that many today would interpret to be God. But, the God of the bible? No way. If so, I'll never worship him. If the God of the bible exists, He has let millions of babies die of preventable disease, billions kill each other at war, millions of women be raped, millions be born deformed, watched his own servants be fed to lions, intentionally created creatures on this planet that exist only by suffocating and disemboweling His own creation, created all the bacteria that causes disease to course through our veins, created virus' that have wiped out millions painfully, and has sat back idly and watched as countless other wrongs have taken place. If a human being sat by and did that, our own laws would rightfully convict him and put him away for life or execute him. Why does God get a hall pass? Especially when he has the power to fix it all!! He's either history's biggest asshole, or He isn't there. Again, there may be something out there that we would mistakenly identify as God, but the God of the bible isn't there...

And for the people that think birth is a miracle...it quits being miraculous when it happens for the 900 billionth time!

dozy

God or no God? Answer ...God

Why? I simply cannot accept that the incredible complexity of life originated by chance. The odds of a single functional protein developing are mind boggling. Walter Bradley and Charles Thaxton (authors of The Mystery of Life's Origins: Reassessing Current Theories) had this to say about probability and the origin of a protein after outlining a number of arguments against an evolutionary origin of the same:

To simplify the problem, one may assume the probability of getting an L-amino acid (versus a D-amino acid) to be 50 percent and the probability of joining two such amino acids with a peptide bond to also be 50 percent. The probability of getting the right amino acid in a particular position may be assumed to be 5 percent, assuming equal concentration of all twenty amino acids in the pre biotic soup. The first two assumptions are realistic, while the third would be too low for some amino acids and to high for others.
Neglecting the problem of reactions with non-amino acid chemical species, the probability of getting everything right in placing one amino acid would be 0.5 x 0.5 x .05 = .0125. The probability of properly assembling N such amino acids would be .0125 x .0125 x ...continued for N terms of .0125. If a functional protein had one hundred active sights, the probability of getting a proper assembly would be .0125 multiplied times itself one hundred times, or 4.9 x 10 191 . Such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who work in the field to reject random, accidental assembly or fortuitous good luck as an explanation for how life began.
If we assume that all carbon on earth exists in the form of amino acids and that amino acids are allowed to chemically react at the maximum possible rate of 10 12 /s for one billion years (the greatest possible time between the cooling of the earth and the appearance of life), we must still conclude that it is incredibly improbable (~10 65 ) that even one functional protein would be made, as H.P. Yockey has pointed out. (H.P. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,"Journal of Theoretical Biology 67(1981):377)

D.Kenyon and G.Steinman and Sir Fredrick Hoyle come to similar conclusions, with the latter commenting, "The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard."(F. Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, 1983)

mtbatoon

Why just the one God? Given my time again I'd go for polytheisms. Scriptures that read like an Australian soap and risky temple carvings.

What Do You Think There Is More Proof Of?

Share this