Do you believe in God?

[S204STi]

Ockham's razor.  It's the most simple explaination, summed up in Chris' earlier post.  "God did it".

I think it's a matter of wanting comfort; the knowledge that there is a greater being out there watching over one.  A greater being that gave us all that we have and all that we will ever be.  

What's the alternative?  That we are simply biological entities that are born, live and bit and then die and are largely forgotten.  Just insignificant specks comaared to the vastness of the known universe.  Some people want to believe-to feel there is more to existence than that.  Religion gives them that.

Wouldn't Ockham's Razor in this case mean that because neither option is better than the other that they choose God's story because it sums things up easily for them?

Let's assume for a minute that you can neither prove nor disprove God, and that you can't go back and see if He does exist if He created the world in 6 days or allowed it to evolve somehow; what is wrong with believing one over the other?

[Byteme]

Just to be fair, the other argument says that billions of years and random chance did it.  After reading Darwin's Black Box I don't get how complex microbiological systems could have happened by chance.  Read it sometime.

Consider the time span we are dealing with.  Scientists believe life on Earth started about 3.8 billion years ago.  Lets give them some leeway and say somewhere between 3.75 and 3.85 billion years ago; a window of 100 million years.  That's equal to about 1,333,333 life spans of the average human today.  What I'm pointing out is there was a huge amount of time for just the right set of events to take place to create what eventually became us.  

[Byteme]

Wouldn't Ockham's Razor in this case mean that because neither option is better than the other that they choose God's story because it sums things up easily for them?

Let's assume for a minute that you can neither prove nor disprove God, and that you can't go back and see if He does exist if He created the world in 6 days or allowed it to evolve somehow; what is wrong with believing one over the other?

Nothing wrong with that.  People are, and should be, free to believe what they want to.  Personally I feel the evidence for the existence of a god is extremely weak; weak to the point of being non-existent.  On the other hand the evidence for the big bang, controlled by the laws of physics, and evolution is much more robust.  I prefer the more robust explaination.

[akuma_supreme]

Nothing wrong with that.  People are, and should be, free to believe what they want to.  Personally I feel the evidence for the existence of a god is extremely weak; weak to the point of being non-existent.  On the other hand the evidence for the big bang, controlled by the laws of physics, and evolution is much more robust.  I prefer the more robust explaination.

. . .And that's why you're going to hell when you die.

[93JC]

Why can't ID folks at least discuss the possibility that the world may have been created by a god or gods, but not necessarily the Christian one?  It could just as easily been made my Krishna, Ganesh, Odin, Isis, Ogun, Zoroaster, Mithra, Jupiter, Ouranos, Yaldabaoth, or a litany of other gods.

Zoroaster was a prophet, not a deity. The deity is Ahura Mazda. But thankfully you got my point: why does the Abrahamic God have more credibility than, say, Ra?

I mean, why does the story that God created the Earth in six days have more creedance than the Ancient Egyptian belief that the god Atum jerked off and created Earth from his splooge?

[akuma_supreme]

Zoroaster was a prophet, not a deity. The deity is Ahura Mazda. But thankfully you got my point: why does the Abrahamic God have more credibility than, say, Ra?

I mean, why does the story that God created the Earth in six days have more creedance than the Ancient Egyptian belief that the god Atum jerked off and created Earth from his splooge?

My apologies.  My knowledge of bronze-age Persian fire gods is somewhat limited.

I like the Atum myth- seems a lot more compelling if you ask me than the whole, "God made the world, then was so shagged out he needed a nap," Christian myth. 

I can't remember which one, but I seem to remember that there is a First Nation tribe that believes the world was created by a deity taking a huge dump.  That is, we are living on God's turd.

[Tave]

Hostile?

Yes, hostile:

Even if there are "tests" it's week evidence at best.

So why is the evidence inadequate?

[Tave]

So you grow up in a "Christian" home and say you go to sunday school as a child, that means that if you paid attention you probably know the basics of the popular old testament stories and that a man named Jesus was the Son of God and died as a sacrifice for your salvation. He had 12 good friends that traveled with him, there's a brief history of the early church and a whole lot of prophecy concerning the "end times". I'd bet that about what the average person knows about the bible.

You have no idea who I am or what my life was like, that is the point.


Your post is incredibly insulting and arrogant.


You assume that everyone who doesn't share your opinion is ignorant:

I would bet my assumption is correct that many who try to bash the God the Bible descibes have little to no knowledge of the Bible.

The fact is people follow atheism for any number of reasons, and your decision to assign them motives based off your own prejudices is intellectually feeble.

BTW, I believe in God, but I would never presume to tell every atheist in the world why they don't.

[565]

After reading Darwin's Black Box I don't get how complex microbiological systems could have happened by chance.  Read it sometime.

Sigh... that's because that poor excuse for a book is written by Michael Behe, a notorious advocate for intelligent design.  Even his own institution has to make excuses for his ideas. 

"The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific. Behe's ideas about intelligent design have been rejected by the scientific community and characterized as pseudoscience."

He's a tentured biochemist, but not a very good one.  He actually got his pHD from my old alma mater and has pretty much been a disgrace to our biochemistry community (my major) ever since.  We actually had a discussion in lecture about his so called proof of irreducible complexity, and it's really just the by product of his need to justify his own beliefs and his narrow scope of biochemistry as taught in 1978 (when he got his PHD).  The fact is, as a biochemist, you study how things work, not how they came to be.  Even a rudimentary education in molecular evolution, however, which Behe clearly does NOT have, makes all his arguments childlishly ridiculous.  That is partially because when he was still in school molecular evolution was not taught as a part of biochemistry, and partially because of his forementioned beliefs.  That aside, he still has made the critical error of failing to stay up to date with the information, which really seperates a good scientist from a poor one.  Sadly the general public, especially those who believe in intelligent design, don't have the prior education to see that he is not making good points.  I assure you, he is not.

If you want to read about science, don't read about it from a book marketed at the general public, more specifically the portion of the public that wishes to cling to intelligent design.  There are a few criteria for what actually make up scientific literature and his books fail every single test.  The biggest test is that real scientific literature is peer reviewed by experts in his field.  His books are written for the same reason why Harry Potter is written, to sell copies. 

If you really want to read about evolution science, there are many good review articles from the big names in scientific journals, such as Science or Nature.  Don't get your science information from popular non-science books written by self proclaimed creationists.  That's like getting your astrophysics education from Star Wars, or your WWII history from a romance novel.

If his ideas had any scientific merit or were backed by scientific proof, they'd be in the latest issue of Science or Nature, or Cell.  Instead they are at some shelf in Barnes and Noble.  His books are for profit, and entertainment to the laymen public, nothing more.

[giant_mtb]

I don't need to know shit about the Bible to know whether or not I believe in God.  Even if someone's knowledge of the bible is elementary, the basic concept is this:  God is, always has been, and always will be there.  He created you, He created me.  If we do well in life and believe in Him, we will go to heaven to live forever.  Do not betray Him, though for you may end up in hell for eternity.  Do not test Him, either, because his plan is already layed out for you, and He will not show Himself until you enter His kingdom in heaven.


Everybody knows that.  Someone can easily and realistically base their decision of whether or not they want to pursue faith in God with just that bit of knowledge, no matter how elementary it is. 

[S204STi]

Sigh... that's because that poor excuse for a book is written by Michael Behe, a notorious advocate for intelligent design.  Even his own institution has to make excuses for his ideas. 

"The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific. Behe's ideas about intelligent design have been rejected by the scientific community and characterized as pseudoscience."

He's a tentured biochemist, but not a very good one.  He actually got his pHD from my old alma mater and has pretty much been a disgrace to our biochemistry community (my major) ever since.  We actually had a discussion in lecture about his so called proof of irreducible complexity, and it's really just the by product of his need to justify his own beliefs and his narrow scope of biochemistry as taught in 1978 (when he got his PHD).  The fact is, as a biochemist, you study how things work, not how they came to be.  Even a rudimentary education in molecular evolution, however, which Behe clearly does NOT have, makes all his arguments childlishly ridiculous.  That is partially because when he was still in school molecular evolution was not taught as a part of biochemistry, and partially because of his forementioned beliefs.  That aside, he still has made the critical error of failing to stay up to date with the information, which really seperates a good scientist from a poor one.  Sadly the general public, especially those who believe in intelligent design, don't have the prior education to see that he is not making good points.  I assure you, he is not.

If you want to read about science, don't read about it from a book marketed at the general public, more specifically the portion of the public that wishes to cling to intelligent design.  There are a few criteria for what actually make up scientific literature and his books fail every single test.  The biggest test is that real scientific literature is peer reviewed by experts in his field.  His books are written for the same reason why Harry Potter is written, to sell copies. 

If you really want to read about evolution science, there are many good review articles from the big names in scientific journals, such as Science or Nature.  Don't get your science information from popular non-science books written by self proclaimed creationists.  That's like getting your astrophysics education from Star Wars, or your WWII history from a romance novel.

If his ideas had any scientific merit or were backed by scientific proof, they'd be in the latest issue of Science or Nature, or Cell.  Instead they are at some shelf in Barnes and Noble.  His books are for profit, and entertainment to the laymen public, nothing more.

I tend to believe that the reason he is considered a poor scientist is that he is a creationist, which is anathema to the scientific community.

The thing you missed out on from not reading his book is that he doesn't actually deal at all with how things came to be with his book.  He deals only with microbiological systems which, without 100% of its components, would not work or remain viable.

I also suspect that the reason he isn't in scientific journals is because he's a creationist.  The reason I don't read scientific journals is twofold; 1, it is assumed that they are darwinistic, so why should I trust one biased source over another, and 2, it's not like I would get it anyway.

I realize fully well that I stand no chance in an argument with you on this matter, but what parts of evolutionary microbiology refute his position, and why?  I'm curious.

[565]

I tend to believe that the reason he is considered a poor scientist is that he is a creationist, which is anathema to the scientific community.

The thing you missed out on from not reading his book is that he doesn't actually deal at all with how things came to be with his book.  He deals only with microbiological systems which, without 100% of its components, would not work or remain viable.

I also suspect that the reason he isn't in scientific journals is because he's a creationist.  The reason I don't read scientific journals is twofold; 1, it is assumed that they are darwinistic, so why should I trust one biased source over another, and 2, it's not like I would get it anyway.

I realize fully well that I stand no chance in an argument with you on this matter, but what parts of evolutionary microbiology refute his position, and why?  I'm curious.

He deals with how things came to be in his book in the sense of how complex biochemical systems came to be, be it evolution or creationism.

His flaw is an inherently old one that creationists have been making since the beginning of this debate.

Lets start with the basic example he gives in his book on the first few pages, the mouse trap.  It examplifies the flawed examples he gives for the remainder of his book.  This a dangerously deceptive example, he says that if a single piece of the mouse trap is missing, the rest of the mouse trap is useless.  Thus the mousetrap could not have arisen through stepwise evolution.  Then the rest of his book basically points out these so called "irreducibly complex" systems in biochemistry.

Well thats not entirely accurate.  If a single piece is missing, the rest of the mouse trap cannot function as a mouse trap.  Yet the individual components still could have had function in other systems and thus arisen that way.  The wooden base could have been originally the base for another structure.  The spring could have been the spring for yet another mechanism.  The metal bar could have been part of yet another structure.  Structural proteins are inherently modular and have similarities in many distinct systems.  The myoglobin that carries oxygen in your muscles is very related to the hemoglobin in your blood.  The kinases that are often required for a key phosphoration in some "irreducibly complex" systems often share similar structures, and trace back to common ancestors.  In a large amount of biological systems that he points to, such as the machinery of the insertion of pseudo genes, antibody production, various signaling pathways, etc etc, the so called necessary components had other functions before they started functioning in their interdependent system.  In biochemistry there are a shockingly few amount of fundamentally unique functions of structures.  In the so called "irreducibly complex" systems, a few cookie cutter reactions are happening, be it a formation of a covalent bond, a hydrolysis reaction of a covalvent, a phosphorylation or dephosphorylation reaction, non-covalent interactions.  To get a novel irreducibly complex pathway, you just need a few prexisting pieces of the puzzle to meet, it's ridiculously easy on the evolutionary scale.

To see how simple it is to get a spontanous irreducibly complex system you need to look no farther than bacteria antibody resistance.  For antibody resistance you will need a gene product usually a protein that destroys the antibotic.  Antibotic resistance genes are a burden on the bacteria, and if it makes the amount needed for protection all the time, it will exhaust it's energy and die. So the bacteria needs to be able to sense when the antibotic is present.  Now the sensing machinery is would be useless if there was no antibotic resistant gene product for it to activate.  Likewise the antibotic resistance gene product would be useless, if not fatal, if there wasn't a sensing mechanism to regulate it.  Each depends on the other for function. Yet this "impossibility" arises every single day in the lab against novel antibotics that the bacteria had never seen before.  How does the bacterium do it?  Well it borrows existing pieces of machinery, of course.  The sensing machinery and gene product are easily traced back to adaptations of existing response elements in bacteria, usually a resistance mechanism for another antibotic compound or toxin.

The analogy to the mousetrap goes like this.  Indeed the mousetrap could not work as a mousetrap without all the parts.  That logic is correct.  He reasons thus there was no reason for the parts to exist. That logic is incorrect. One can make a mousetrap from scratch, from parts that were never intended to be used in a mouse trap.  I could use the wooden base from a piece of left over side molding.  For the spring I could use a binder clip.  I could use the bar from a piece of coat hanger.  Like wise the first of these natural irreducibly complex systems used parts recycled from other systems, some of them not irreducibly complex.  This is important, often these interdependent components had very simple structural roles, such as steriod hormones from cholestrol.  This from scratch mouse trap wouldn't work as well as the final product, but once the system is functioning, beneficial mutations will now have an advantage.  A spring that's stiffer will give it more power, and that will be selected for.  A lighter stiffer bar would give it more velocity, and that would be selected for.   

Then why didn't the mousetrap arise before by chance?  It very may well have, but since there was no advantage for the components to work together, they continued to just associate by chance.  But if suddenly a need for mice extermination arose, then there is a selective advantage for mutants where the components worked better together in this new system. Likewise the components for antibotic resistance from other pathways may have associated by chance before, but without the antibotic to be resistant against, there was no advantage to this chance event.  However when you start using antibotics, the bacteria that have more of this chance association of these factors from other pathways suddenly have an advantage and survive, and proliferate.  Thus from that point forth, under antibotic selection pressure, the bacteria with mutations that solidify this new antibotic resistance pathway will survive much better than the bacteria that don't.  Before long you have a new pathway for combating a novel antibotic.

Scientific journals are not biased works like Behe's novel.  They are the authority on what is correct and useable in the field.  They are THE information that modern science, healthcare and technology are based on.  Have you ever gotten an MRI?  Have you taken modern antibotics?  Have you used a device that uses transistors? Have you taken statin medications?  Have you had a surgical procedure that saved your life.  Have you ever met an AIDS patient living ten years longer due to anti-retroviral drugs?  All that knowledge was first published in a scientific journal.  They are the medium by which modern scientists communicate, collaborate, and reach new heights. 

Behe is not shunned because he is a creationist.  He considered a poor scientist because what he is promoting is not scientifically correct, and sells popular books containing incorrect information marketed towards the gullible pubic.  There are MANY great scientists that are creationists and religous.  My mentor, also a biochemist, was deeply religous.  Yet he and many great creationist scientists were not shunned by the scientific community because whatever their own personal beliefs are, they put that aside and based their scientific opinion and expertise on what is proved in the lab. We scientists should not have a personal investiment in one thing being true or another, we should only report what we discover.

One thing you have to understand is that if I or any scientist could disprove evolution, we'd do it in a HEARTBEAT.  Hell if I managed to disprove evolution would be the biggest scientific upset of this century.  I'd have my name up there with the likes of Einstein.  I'd get a Nobel prize, my own lab of the best research minds in the country.  If I could say what Behe says and actually support it with science, and publish it in a peer reviewed article, I'd stop typing this post right now and start picking out what color I want my new GT-R to be.  After that I'd go cut my hair so I look great in all the newspaper photos.   If I or any scientist really came across something that disproved evolution, the last thing we'd be doing is staying quiet.  Well maybe we'll stay quiet until the results are confirmed so no one scoops our discovery, but then we'd be shouting about it at the TOPS of our lungs.  Because we know that in modern science, controversial upsets, though sometimes met with skepticism at first, almost always end up in Nobel prizes and our names in history books.  Hell when I day dream, I day dream about something like that.

Scientists don't defend established ideas out of tradition or habit.   That is the inherent difference between religous beliefs and science.  Religion inherently resists changing beliefs,  change is what DRIVES science. We want nothing more than to be the one to disprove an established idea and be the next super scientist.  It is the reason why we do our research. When we do vigoriously defend an estalished idea such as evolution, it's because the evidence literally give us no choice.

[S204STi]

Wow, I appreciate that.  Thanks.  I mean, I really can't discuss it on your level but I clearly understand your point, paraphrased basically that biological structures and mechanisms don't exist for only one reason, but are sort of like Legos that exist on their own and can be shaped differently, and that Behe is sticking to an argument that is no longer relevant given that knowledge.

I suppose it's time to find support for my opinions other than Behe.  Thanks for your time man.

[dazzleman]

Wow, I appreciate that.  Thanks.  I mean, I really can't discuss it on your level but I clearly understand your point, paraphrased basically that biological structures and mechanisms don't exist for only one reason, but are sort of like Legos that exist on their own and can be shaped differently, and that Behe is sticking to an argument that is no longer relevant given that knowledge.

I suppose it's time to find support for my opinions other than Behe.  Thanks for your time man.

I never use the bible as sole support for any opinion I have. 

[S204STi]

I never use the bible as sole support for any opinion I have. 

Well, I generally feel the same way.  I don't expect anyone who doesn't respect it to take it seriously as a source of guidance.

[Tave]

I've heard some other explanations for the "complexity problem," and I'll try to find those. My geology teacher actually did a great job of explaining how simple organisms can evolve into complex systems.

[JYODER240]

You have no idea who I am or what my life was like, that is the point.


Your post is incredibly insulting and arrogant.


You assume that everyone who doesn't share your opinion is ignorant:

The fact is people follow atheism for any number of reasons, and your decision to assign them motives based off your own prejudices is intellectually feeble.

BTW, I believe in God, but I would never presume to tell every atheist in the world why they don't.

Where did I ever say that's the case for you or every single athiest? I said "I'd bet" that is what the average person knows about the Bible. Is there something wrong with that? Do you want me to lie and say the average person is very knowledgable about the Bible?

Please point to where I told "every athiest in the world" why they don't believe in God.

[Tave]

Where did I ever say that's the case for you or every single athiest? I said "I'd bet" that is what the average person knows about the Bible. Is there something wrong with that? Do you want me to lie and say the average person is very knowledgable about the Bible?

I would like you to admit that you don't really know what the average atheist in this thread knows about the Bible, because YOU DON'T.

Please point to where I told "every athiest in the world" why they don't believe in God.

You said that most of the people bashing on God in this thread have little knowledge of the Bible.

[Soup DeVille]

The battle between Heaven and Hell doesn't come from the Bible; it was invented by Milton.

It was also based largely on pre-Christian jewish mythologies.

[S204STi]

It was also based largely on pre-Christian jewish mythologies.

I think the book of Job deals with that somewhat.

[Soup DeVille]

I think the book of Job deals with that somewhat.

Job introduces the "character" of Satan as a being with free will and the ability to traverse between heaven, the earth and within the earth who speaks with God face-to-face and is not bound to His will. That may be heavily influenced by Caballistic jewish writings.

[S204STi]

Job introduces the "character" of Satan as a being with free will and the ability to traverse between heaven, the earth and within the earth who speaks with God face-to-face and is not bound to His will. That may be heavily influenced by Caballistic jewish writings.

I was also thinking, the story of the Fall of Mankind sort of hints at an animosity between Satan and God.

[Soup DeVille]

I was also thinking, the story of the Fall of Mankind sort of hints at an animosity between Satan and God.

Yes it does, but overall I think its surprising how many christians believe the whole "Paradise Lost" scenario as if ti was part of the canon.

[akuma_supreme]

I don't need to know shit about the Bible to know whether or not I believe in God.  Even if someone's knowledge of the bible is elementary, the basic concept is this:  God is, always has been, and always will be there.  He created you, He created me.  If we do well in life and believe in Him, we will go to heaven to live forever.  Do not betray Him, though for you may end up in hell for eternity.  Do not test Him, either, because his plan is already layed out for you, and He will not show Himself until you enter His kingdom in heaven.


Everybody knows that.  Someone can easily and realistically base their decision of whether or not they want to pursue faith in God with just that bit of knowledge, no matter how elementary it is. 

Which God?

Krishna?

Mithra?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I can't decide which one is right.  Is it the one with the highest body count in His name?

[Rupert]

It's Iluvatar.

[Soup DeVille]

Frankly, I've always thought that at the end of a hard day of creating, God sits back in his kick-ass barcalounger with a cold one and ponders "why am I here? what is my purpose? Where did I come from? I wonder if the game's on?"

[Eye of the Tiger]

Frankly, I've always thought that at the end of a hard day of creating, God sits back in his kick-ass barcalounger with a cold one and ponders "why am I here? what is my purpose? Where did I come from? I wonder if the game's on?"

Ya, that's pretty much what I do, but I really don't give a shit if a game's on, unless that game is COD4.

[giant_mtb]

I was talking about Zeus, you nincumpoops.

[565]

I was talking about Zeus, you nincumpoops.

Zeus was awesome, he turned into random animals to have rough sex with virgin mortal nymphs.  Fuck if I was a god I'd going nothing but that and the world would be filled with my random mutant mythical spawn.

[Raza]

If there were a god, cocaine wouldn't be illegal.