GameBanshee Forums

Maverick8088 posted the following in the religious poll thread. Since that one's kind of a catchall spam thing right now, I figured the new content deserved a thread of its own. Just for the record, I'm not doing this because I agree with Maverick--far from it: I'm a Wiccan, and don't believe any belief system can be logically demonstrated, but must depend upon meditation and intuition. That said, heeeeere's Maverick:

Well I just got here, and I think I can turn it around, gett the debate going again: I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Yes, its true, I'm one of those who wake you up on Saturday morning to talk about God.

Personally I've always found it interesting that some one can look at the world around him and not see proof of at least a higher power, even if you don't want to name him. Those who won't believe in God have no other option than Evolution as to how we got here. Look at how long Man has worked to prove Evolution, and he can't prove it. So, how do you scientifically prove where life came from? W/o God you can't.

Consider: all of us are typing on a computer that is plugged into the Internet. If I told you that your computer just appeared on your desk one day, that the Internet was not a creation of years of effort by dedicated, hardworking individuals, you'd tell me I was insane. Yet, the computer has less than 1% of the processing capability of the common housefly. I found it hard to believe that fact until I read it myself in a recent journal.

Is it perhaps more that confusing information put forth by many religions and horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion could be turning you to this misconception? I have talked to many now in my faith who were Athiests and Agnostics and said that this was their feeling. If you are an educated person, are you sure that your education was well rounded? I have read countless statements from leading scientists who have basically said that there is no other explanation than God for the things we see around us.

When you look into the starry skies at night, how do you tell yourself it came about by chance? The Earth, exactly the right distance from from the sun, at exactly the right speed to not fly off into outer space or crash into the sun, by chance? And life? The marvelous bounty surrounding you, the birds singing, grass growing and all by chance?

One more thing than I have to get some sleep. The theory of Spontaneous Generation of Life was disproved in the 18th century. Yet, that is what no belief in god means. Life just appeared out of some soup, some long time ago, by some means we can't prove, replicate, or even fantasize about. it then changed, how we can't explain, into the diversity and complexity we see around us today. All because Darwin saw some birds and wanted a way out from under God's authority. Apply your touted Scientific method to Evolution and see how it fares. It is not even a Hypothesis yet, and people hold it as fact.

Goodnight guys, I can barely type anymore I'm falling asleep at the wheel,here.

Trying to apply logic to a religion in general is impossible. Religion is one of the most truly subjective creations of the human mind. I find arguments about religion (one vs. another) to be extremely unproductive because the very premise of a constructive discussion requires a logical framework.

Anyway - I agree with the general assertion of the post in question - as an agnostic with a Christian background - I too find it unfathomable that there is no higher power so to speak. That being said - each persons views are his or her own - and no one can logically prove one persons outlook on religion to be logically correct or not.

I think I would actually agree with Fable's statement:

don't believe any belief system can be logically demonstrated, but must depend upon meditation and intuition.

In the end - religion or mysticism or faith or whatever you want to call - is an entirely personal phenomenon. To each his or her own. It is when one person or group of persons takes action to force their beliefs on others that I take offensive. Attempting to make "logical" arguments for one set of beliefs over another is a good example of this. Applying logic to religion is IMHO.....illogical...

Our friends EMINEM and Tom went rounds over this very topic, but when it comes down to it, the empirical proof of divine existence is impossible.

Religion requires faith, which by definition is belief without reason. To try and apply logic to something that is inherently illogical is futile.

I agree with High Lord Dave, it takes faith to believe in God. I can give an athiest or agnostic all the scientific evidence in the world that shows there is a God, and they can still not believe. It is a personal phenomonon as Smass said. Believing in God takes faith, not scientific proof. Scientific proof might sway someone towards believing in God, but it is really a matter of faith.

I'm rather interested in the scientific proof you mentioned, now...

Originally posted by Maverick8088 via fable
Look at how long Man has worked to prove Evolution, and he can't prove it. So, how do you scientifically prove where life came from? W/o God you can't.

Evolution is a well established mechanism which can be demonstrated in front of anyone in a very modest laboratory. Perhaps what you meant was that evolution can not be proven to be the source of life. If so you have not understood evolution. It has never been presented as the source of life.

Consider: all of us are typing on a computer that is plugged into the Internet. If I told you that your computer just appeared on your desk one day, that the Internet was not a creation of years of effort by dedicated, hardworking individuals, you'd tell me I was insane. Yet, the computer has less than 1% of the processing capability of the common housefly. I found it hard to believe that fact until I read it myself in a recent journal. And.....

Is it perhaps more that confusing information put forth by many religions and horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion could be turning you to this misconception? I have talked to many now in my faith who were Athiests and Agnostics and said that this was their feeling. If you are an educated person, are you sure that your education was well rounded? I have read countless statements from leading scientists who have basically said that there is no other explanation than God for the things we see around us. And.....

When you look into the starry skies at night, how do you tell yourself it came about by chance? The Earth, exactly the right distance from from the sun, at exactly the right speed to not fly off into outer space or crash into the sun, by chance? And life? The marvelous bounty surrounding you, the birds singing, grass growing and all by chance? If life required that our planet be made of titanium would it not be equally unlikely that life appeared only on a titanium planet? The exactitude is not uncertain it is certain. This is the ultimate self-fulfilling mystery. It is so common a stance it has been named the anthropomorphic principle.

One more thing than I have to get some sleep. The theory of Spontaneous Generation of Life was disproved in the 18th century. Yet, that is what no belief in god means. Life just appeared out of some soup, some long time ago, by some means we can't prove, replicate, or even fantasize about. it then changed, how we can't explain, into the diversity and complexity we see around us today. All because Darwin saw some birds and wanted a way out from under God's authority. Apply your touted Scientific method to Evolution and see how it fares. It is not even a Hypothesis yet, and people hold it as fact. The theory of the Spontaneuos Generation of Life was disproved..Perhaps A theory of the spontaneous generation of life was disproved. There will be another along in a momement and ALL of them are destined to be disproved at some stage. This is the scientific method. It works great. I fantasize about it when ever I want. How life subsequently changed is explained with astonishing acuracy by the mechanism of evolution. Oh way to belittle, patronise and misrepresent a very sensative, thoughtful and now dead guy - Darwin. I have applied my 'touted' Scientific method to Evolution and it came up trumps. It kicked serious butt. It worked. It has been a hypothesis, thesis and now a well worked principle. You can't seriously study biology at a high school level without acknowledging its influence and effect.

Goodnight guys, I can barely type anymore I'm falling asleep at the wheel,here.

I'm not going to bang my head against any committed anti evolutionists. They don't listen. They don't make sense. They deny even basic truths. Go and read talk.origins. Every serious knowledgeable biologist lives in mortal dread of them (and not because they know that the whole of biology is in danger of collapse ) and yet they influence the teach of mush and rubbish to children by infiltrating school boards and fraudulantly banning the teaching of sound science.

Fable please don't give this sort of thing any additional air time. It only leads to temper tantrums and eventually bannings. - Curdis !

You Guys are missing my point, but then I wrote that at 4am and had been awake for over 24 hours at the time so if it didn't make sense forgive me. I am now more awake and can clarify.

My point was this: someone had earlier said that they couldn't believe in God because it was impossible to scientifically prove His existence. This is true if you rule out creation. However, you also cannot scientifically prove that life just happened to appear somehow.

Now, let's apply Accam's Razor, which says that all things being equal the simplest answer must be the truth. Which is more simple? Somewhere, somehow, sometime, 20 separate proteins floating in a primordial soup (all of which are left-handed, and not occuring outside of living tissue) happen to bump into each other and against all odds create DNA. Not just DNA mind you, because the DNA molucule is to fragile to exist outside the cells membrane. The whole cell had to be created in that instant or the solar radiation would tear it apart ( or the lightning or the acidic water, or the...the list goes on)The years pass and somehow the single cell decides that it should get together with a few of it's freinds and become multi-celled, thus setting the stage for all the glorious variety and instinct and beauty and vast array of colors and sounds we have on this glorious planet. Fish become amphibians, then reptiles appear, then birds, mammals, apes, finally Man. And all of this is one in a billion type odds. Biophysicist Donald M. McKay said "To personify chance as if we were talking about a causal agent, is to make an illegitimate switch from the scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept." Could it be that some are virtually spelling chance with a capital "C" in effect saying "Creator"?

Or "In the beginning..."

I am not trying to prove God's existence to anyone nor am I trying to convert anyone. All I am saying is that the Theory of Evolution cannot be scientifically proven to be the source of life any more than God's existence can be scientifically proven. All things being equal which is more simple. Science has never created life from no life.

An additional point, Newton's Third Law of Thermodynamics says that if something is left alone and not maintained it will deteriorate and eventually fall apart. If this is true then those 20 proteins were doomed from the start. Or did it just not apply in this case.


The basic problem Evolutionists face is the origin of life. Most attempts to explain it are usually presented as "Over millions of years molecules in collision somehow produced life" The book "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories" notes: "There is an impressive contrast between the success in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize protein and DNA." Nobel Laureate Francis Crick observed that there is "too much speculation running after too few facts"

I have probably come across in this as though I were on a soapbox trying to shove creationism down all of your throats. If that is the case I apologize profusely as this was not my aim. I merely wanted all scientifically minded indivuals like myself to consider the possibility that they might have allowed the fact that "everyone else believes it so it must be true" to have affected their logic. I sum up with the words of British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle "Rather that accept the fantasically small probability of life having arisen through blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate, intellectual act."

First off, Accam's Razor isn't so much a rule, as it is a guideline

Secondaly, I shall invoke the mighty Galileo(sp). During his time, everyone beleived the world to be the centre of the universe (but then, I'm sure many of them were afraid of their own shadow). Galileo thought outside the box, and attempted to prove to the people of Italy that Earth was just one planet of billions, and that it wasn't the centre of anything, either then the gravitational pull of the moon. People didn't beleive him then, yet, low and behold, he was right.

You bring this whole idea up, saying that someone says they will believe in God when it is scientifically proved. You go onto discredit the theory of evolution (which, in fact, holds great sway in the species origins in the learned community), saying that we cannot prove without a doubt that is how we came about, therefore it must be God.

So, in response, I want you to prove to me, without a doubt, there is a God, and then your points will carry some merit. Until then, your points only hurt yourself, and not so much the theory of evolution.

Sorry but this post came up as I was typing and I had to answer it because this is the type of thinking I am talking about.

Evolution is a well established mechanism which can be demonstrated in front of anyone in a very modest laboratory. Perhaps what you meant was that evolution can not be proven to be the source of life. If so you have not understood evolution. It has never been presented as the source of life.

Yes actually it has. In 1953, Dr.Stanley Miller tried to prove life springing forom nothing but gases and boiling water. Alexander Oparin, a Russian Scientist in the '20's first proposed the idea of the primordial ooze. Neither of these men had "modest laboratories", they had quite advanced ones for the time and couldn't prove a thing. More recently Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemisrtyin Mainz, Germany has said "At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or a confession of ignorance" in other words, they can't prove it.

Consider: all of us are typing on a computer that is plugged into the Internet. If I told you that your computer just appeared on your desk one day, that the Internet was not a creation of years of effort by dedicated, hardworking individuals, you'd tell me I was insane. Yet, the computer has less than 1% of the processing capability of the common housefly.

My point being that the Computer and the Internet had a creator, yet the infinitely more complex human brain did not? Even the housefly did not? BTW that comparison was from Dr. Richard M. Restak, a noted biologist.

The theory of the Spontaneuos Generation of Life was disproved..Perhaps A theory of the spontaneous generation of life was disproved. There will be another along in a momement and ALL of them are destined to be disproved at some stage.

You cannot separate them. Whether you say that flies spring forth from rotting meat or single cells from a vat of chemicals, it is the same thing. Life from Non-life. Louis Pasteur disproved it centuries ago.

This is the scientific method. It works great. I fantasize about it when ever I want. How life subsequently changed is explained with astonishing acuracy by the mechanism of evolution

I never said the scientific method didn't work, I said Evolution couldn't stand up to it. All the fossils ever found linking man and ape, mammal to bird or any of it can fit int a single coffin. Not all the fossils found, just the ones that are supposed to be links. If Evolution is a well established fact then where are the missing links? Surely you don't mean to show me the piltdown man? If it truly is "Survival of the Fittest" then why do we have Men and apes but no ape-men? Was there a mistake?

If the mechanism of Evolution is so accurate than prove to me exactly how man's brain evolved from a chimp? And don't read it out of a high school biology book, PROVE it. Show me the fish that walked on land, the lizzard with feathers and hollow bones. Find the missing links, find the hands-down proof. It doesn't exist. There is a lot of conjecture and supposition, "we think this may be" but no hard facts. When life is created in a Lab from non-living Material then I will reevaluate.

One more thing, not all Creationists deny simple truths, though I will admit that some do, just as you, Curdis, must admit there are some unreasonable Evolutionists. For instance, I have never bought into the whole six literal creative 24 hour days. Nor do I think that all life is only 6,000 years old. I just think the facts fit the Bible's story better.

I'm sorry if in any way I offend anyone. I, for one, enjoy the mental exercise of this kind of thing.

Originally posted by maverick8088
An additional point, Newton's Third Law of Thermodynamics says that if something is left alone and not maintained it will deteriorate and eventually fall apart. If this is true then those 20 proteins were doomed from the start. Or did it just not apply in this case.

Second law. This is one of the most tired creationist arguments, and is flat out wrong. To quote, from http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/~chem130a ... ndlaw.html;
"The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases. An increase in disorder (overall) is therefore spontaneous. If the volume and energy of a system are constant, then every change to the system increases the entropy. If volume or energy change, then the entropy of the system can actually decrease."
Also, the second law is only valid in closed systems, which might actually not be true for our universe

I don't know much about molecular biology, because it has never interested me, but it seems to me that to start evolution, all that is needed is a gathering of molecules with self replicating tendencies and a percent error in these replications. Cells and DNA would not be the simplest design for this, in my opinion. But then again, I'm a lot more physicist than I am biologist, so I might be completely and horribly wrong

Maverick, your argument about how Man has been unable to recreate life from nothing holds no basis, whatsoever. That's like telling someone to build a fully functioning city, govenrment and social struture in a night (Or, Build Rome in a day ). You're asking for people to, in a matter of decades, create something that took millions of years! It doesn't work that way, especially with how little human-kind has developed.

In addition, you ignore the simple fact. You ask people to prove evolution scientifically, and when it can't be done, you expect that people should accept God as the answer. It doesn't work that way, because the other group is saying prove God exists scientifically.

Also, because I know it'll come up eventually, do not try to invoke the bleeding statues, and what not, because it has become known that many of those statues were carved out of rock that is prone to soaking up liquid (a lot which was soaked up during conflict, AKA the crusades, inquisitions, and generally bloody conflict) to be expelled upon a later date for whatever reason (of which there are scientific ones).

Guys, while I love a nice cosy fire in the winter, please watch the heat in the argument. Make what points you will, just keep it courteous. Thanks.

sorry Fable didn't know I would cause this much trouble! I think this is my last post on this topic...

Ok proof of God. I thought thats what creation was. If you want more we can go into Bible prophecy & the fact that the bible has survived for 3,500 years despite countless attempts to destroy it. There is more, but you will probably deny the Bible's inspiration.

But, the real problem is that so many people don't want to believe in God. That puts an automatic bias against Creation, which is really why Evolution has been pushed so hard despite the faulty ground it stands on. It puts someone looking over their shoulder, someone to answer to for their actions. If someone doesn't want to believe in something than all the proof in the world won't do any good.

This applies to me as well, and perhaps I am wasting my time with this discussion. I simply started out to say that nothing can be out and out discounted. Atheism is, to me, a very closed minded view. It shuts out the possibility of being wrong. It says "there is no god" without Impirical evidence. Hard core creationism is the same. The hieght of egotism is to say "I'm right, and can't be wrong" I wasn't so much trying to disprove Evolution as make people think. That's all Gallileo did, that's what all scientifically minded people do.

I am sorry if I came across as dogmatic. It was not my intent to sway anyone one way or the other (despite Jehovah's Witnesses reputation, I was not trying to convert). I simply saw some close minded veiwpoints and tried to make them think about their stand from a logical point of veiw. Creation and God do agree with logic and science. All I was asking was that you not take what your high school or college Biology professor tells you. Do your own research and honestly look at both sides. The learned community holds evolution in high regard, its true. But they used to hold the "earth is flat" theory in high regard, too. All I ever meant to say is that nothing has been proven either way. Many renowned scientists have rethought their veiws on creation.

I cannot prove to anyone the Existence of God beyond a shadow of a doubt. I never said I could. I personally don't have those doubts but I can see where people get them. The world is full of horrible things and people can't believe that God would allow such things if he existed. I talk to that kind of person all the time when knocking on doors.

Anyway, if you want a picture of Heaven with God sitting on the throne I don't have one and never claimed to. Sorry, Aegis. However, if you are willing to take the Bible as the history book and eyewitness account that it is than I can show you. Or just answer your door next time...

All I have to say is that because you can't (currenly, fully, acceptaly - choose what you wish) poove condition A, it dosen't mean that condition B applies.

In this case, because we currently can't proove how life started, you can't say that then it must be the cause (and proof) of God.

That statement is what have been used for countless times.

Religious people have always attributted, at that time, unexplainable acts as acts and proof of (a) God - from lunar eclipses, to other plantes/stars moving around earth and so on.
Countless times such "facts" are disprooven by science, and with such a track record - I'd say that it have to be the other way around.

Just because we can't to a full extend explain everything (something wich have taken millions of years), doesn't mean that it is due to God, it is because we have just not gotten the right knowlegde yet. If somebody wishs to proove a dietys exsiting, they better throw some hard evidence down on the table instead of trying to dis-proove current scientific evidence. Because the "lack" of scientific evidence on for instance evolution and the "spontanious life" doesn't indicate that there is a God - it only indicates that we have not found the complete scientific explanation yet.

As for Ockham's razor - I do indeed see a scientific explanation to be much more simple and thus "plausible" then the exsisting of 1 all mighty beeing that controls and creates all.

Besides - I've often (mostly here though) read that creationists always point to that nothing seems to happen from nothing - that something have to start it - create it, so to speak - well then ....
Who made God? (throw that paradox into the equation - and Ockham's razor)

Originally posted by maverick8088
<snip>
However, if you are willing to take the Bible as the history book and eyewitness account that it is than I can show you. Or just answer your door next time...

This is also a biased and unprooven fact.
How can you say that the fundamental book of a religion is a history and eyewitness book?
It could be fiction, it could be a means to crontrol masses from rebelling against unfair state of life and so on.

It is because you have *faith* in it, and not because it is prooven - this is the fundamentals of religion, and why it can not be disprooven, wich is why I think it should be prooven instead of the other way around.

We can't disproove God exists (because of the faith that unexplained things are the work of God) - thus I feel religion has to be prooven for me to "belive".

Originally posted by maverick8088
sorry Fable didn't know I would cause this much trouble! I think this is my last post on this topic...

That's not what I'm saying. You're not causing trouble; you're causing discussion. Flames, insults cause trouble. Discussion, ideas challenged, can cause enlightenment. It's also fun for the participants and lurkers.

I'm just offering a timely reminder, asking that people who are involved in this discussion keep the heat out of the debate. That's all.

Carry on.

PS: Slipping off my moderator's hat for a second, I'm more astonished that any non-Christian, Gnostic religious documents have survived rather than any Christian bibles, given the zealous hatred with which Orthodox Christians (including the Holy Roman Empire) and later sects collected and burned these documents over the centuries: proof positive, given all the attempts to destroy it, that Gnosticism is the one and true source of divine inspiration. (And yes, I'm joking. Gently, I hope, to make a point that refers to your previous post.)

Originally posted by maverick8088
If Evolution is a well established fact then where are the missing links? Surely you don't mean to show me the piltdown man? If it truly is "Survival of the Fittest" then why do we have Men and apes but no ape-men? Was there a mistake?

You're misunderstanding evolutionary theory. It doesn't state that man evolved from apes, or any other species alive today. It states that man and apes have common ancestors. Thus, no ape men.

P.S.
This has all been debated here before, in some considerable detail; this thread covers just about everything.

My 2 Cents

I was raise Catholic. I have read the Bible cover to cover more than 5 times, and study it often. The Cannon, The Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great price, and I have also read the epicrapha, the epocrapha, the dead sea scrolls, the scrolls of Kumran, The scrolls of the Gnostics, the apostolic missals, the koran, the book of Krishna, the writings of Buda, the navaho creed, the Talmud, The Celtic Wisdom, the Tarot of the Bohemians. the Bible Code,the Sanhedran papers..studied the ancient texts of the Miya, the puepeo, and the torrah..also the kabala. and looked closely into the teachings of Joseph Campbel...What I have found is a universal truth that runs through them all..and is very close to what I personally believe. The book that has the most impact for me is the book of Thomas...if you read it, all of the petty differences melt away, and you are left with a beautiful truh that permiates the universe, but can not be captured in a single denomination.

There is a primal inteligence that permiates and directs all reality, It is beyond our comprehension, but it is inside every one of us, and we are part of it. It is what decides which will be a lump of clay, and what will be the host of life.

Think about it..we begin as a single cell, that devides into to identicle cells...this continues until at some point there is a difarentiation...and each cell learns its purpose..it goes where it is supposed to go, and does what it is supposed to do, in concert with other cells which have the same directive. each cell is a complete life form in and of itself, but it subortst itself to the greater good of the whole, and works in concert with the others so that the entire organism may function as an intact unit.

There is an intelligence that permiates creation orchstrating all of this....that inteligence IS creation...

It goes by many names, and is wrapped in guises to suit our understanding, but it is real....Jesus understood this when he said, I and the Father are ONE..as I am, so shall you be, if you follow me.

What he was saying is we are all connected by virtue of this primal inteligence that imbues us, and animates us, and gives all life an intelligence of its own.

Or at least that is my belief..the rest are just details put there by men to protect the business of 'religion' by convincing people that they alone can sell you the ticket to imortality...but we are ALL immortal

FYI, I would like to direct everyone's attention to the old thread Theological Quandaries 101, started by my dear friend, whom I've always considered the most able to clearly articulate a theological opinion of anyone I've ever known.