Do You Believe In God?

[osaka35]

I understand the principles that you're explaining, as a matter of fact we kind of skimmed over them in chemistry earlier this year. However, the thing I genuinely don't understand about that model is how said living creatures could ultimately evolve to become sentient, let alone sapient. Also I like your paraphrasing of Darwin's "evolution does not leap", but that raises another issue in the sense that under the Darwinian model life evolved over the course of (I don't remember exactly how many) hundred million years, but then stayed largely the same for the ~3.9 (or fewer, again I'm speaking off the top of my head) billion, with only comparatively minor tweaks and mutations. Comparatively that's not just a leap, that's an evolutionary BOUND

Well, as abiogenesis uses different mechanisms than evolution (though there are a lot of similarities), it is best to try and keep them separate in your head. Kind of like how you'd keep planet formation and waterfall formation separate in your head, though they might have similarities and one is dependent on the other. Questions are excellent to have though I suggest you keep on thinking as many as you can, try and punch as many holes in the current thinking as possible. You just have to follow up with them and see if anyone's done any research on the matter to find out. That second part is where most people tend to fail out. And "we don't know yet" is always an okay answer. Doesn't mean there isn't an answer, just means we're still looking for one.

As far as evolution of sentience, that's also a fun conversation! It's interesting, I just saw an article a week or two ago about how chimpanzees, capuchins and macaques have started/been using stone tools. Which means they've entered the stone age, and may be on their way to a greater degree of intelligence. Maybe. it's fascinating anyway.

I think you'll find a lot of good information if you look into "the fitness landscape". Look up "C0nc0rdance vs. the Discovery Institute" for a crash course on a lot of the ideas that I think you're looking for in regards to evolution.

 

[grossaffe]

In order for this to happen you would need complex hydrocarbons and time, again where does that come from? Chemical reactions in the right environment (aka catalyst), cannot happen within a void. Again, you go back far enough the same question pops up, what is the catalyst?

I'm not here to prove abiogenesis happened. You are the one saying it is 100% impossible and therefore god did it.

 

[cdoty]

Then why read it at all? Why follow a religion that essentially teaches nothing? There's more harm than good in all holy books, they're giant tomes of war and murder.

I think you can extract good information from just about any religious document. But, you have to stop and realize most of established ones were written by barbaric or less civilized humans.

I wouldn't want a doctor using a 2000+ year old manual to operate on me any more than I would live my life strictly by these documents.

 

[Foxchild]

Ahh, nah, that's not what the situation was back then. The situation back then was different than what we have today. Imagine more of a lot of complex hydrocarbons (which are one of the most common compounds in the universe), that through various reasons turned into things like amino acids, which eventually became rna, which eventually became self-organized. The thing is that life was not some huge jump that happened at one point. It was this huge slow change, that wasn't "life" one second and then the next was. It took a very. very. very long time, and eventually became something we now would consider life (or at least, life-like). And even after that, it continued to take a very long time afterwards before distinct cells were formed.

Basically, the chemicals weren't distinct organism all living together, they were just all these complex chemicals there intermingling and interacting, that through sun radiation and whatnot (energy being put into the system), chemically reacted enough times in the right way to push its way in the direction that eventually become organized enough for evolution to start (after a bunch of other steps/things). Before that point where evolution could be a thing, there was no "evolution" in the sense that we know it. Just horizontal gene transfer and chemical reactions(more or less).

It is a pretty complex thing, and we don't know everything, but we have a lot of solid evidence that this, or something very similar, is what happened. There's zero reason to believe that there wasn't a natural method to it, at any rate. That was a bit complex, sorry. It's been a while since I've had to explain the basics.

Indeed. I think we'd both agree that chemical reactions =/= life. You describe a set of circumstances where these reactions eventually become cooperative and begin to function as an organism, given enough time. I guess the difference between you and I is that I do not see those reactions "pushing their way" (to borrow your terms) toward life without guidance/ability to learn/design, yet, from a "life" standpoint, those chemical combos "improve" over time. There is no reason for that to occur, no need for nature to do so, thus no reason for those reactions to move "uphill" rather than stay status quo (in fact it seems the opposite of what occurs naturally with something like 99.9% of genetic mutations being harmful or at best neutral). Even you seem to imply in your wording (correct me if I'm wrong) that all these reactions/evolutions are working toward the goal of life and eventually more complex life (not that you would state that as your position, but more that it is kind of a subconscious assumption you might not even be aware of), but working toward anything implies intelligence, something truly random would just as likely take two steps back for every one forward. Neither the chemicals nor evolution have that kind of intelligence. Sure, ineffective combos can die off and more effective ones can survive, and even that can only occur if there is a system for encoding that successful information to be transferred to others (dna) which would also randomly have to come about. There is no natural, scientific reason for chemicals to react their way into life (law of entropy and all that). You almost have to invent some kind of scientific law that the universe desires life and works toward that end or something.

 

[osaka35]

Indeed. I think we'd both agree that chemical reactions =/= life. You describe a set of circumstances where these reactions eventually become cooperative and begin to function as an organism, given enough time. I guess the difference between you and I is that I do not see those reactions "pushing their way" (to borrow your terms) toward life without guidance/ability to learn/design, yet, from a "life" standpoint, those chemical combos "improve" over time. There is no reason for that to occur, no need for nature to do so, thus no reason for those reactions to move "uphill" rather than stay status quo (in fact it seems the opposite of what occurs naturally with something like 99.9% of genetic mutations being harmful or at best neutral). Even you seem to imply in your wording (correct me if I'm wrong) that all these reactions/evolutions are working toward the goal of life and eventually more complex life (not that you would state that as your position, but more that it is kind of a subconscious assumption you might not even be aware of), but working toward anything implies intelligence, something truly random would just as likely take two steps back for every one forward. Neither the chemicals nor evolution have that kind of intelligence. Sure, ineffective combos can die off and more effective ones can survive, and even that can only occur if there is a system for encoding that successful information to be transferred to others (dna) which would also randomly have to come about. There is no natural, scientific reason for chemicals to react their way into life (law of entropy and all that). You almost have to invent some kind of scientific law that the universe desires life and works toward that end or something.

You're right, there's no inherent reason for them to. Which is why it didn't happen for the longest time. And the problem, I think, is we tend to ascribe to nature this idea of intent or purpose to how it does things. There isn't. It's just mechanisms interacting with each other. They're just so frikin' complex and there are so so so so many different mechanisms interacting with each other, we tend to talk about their implication and assign intent to better understand what's happening.

To be clear: nature has no intent, goal, purpose, or intelligence. Life didn't have to happen. It could just have easily been that different circumstances lead to different results. But, life did happen because a certain set of circumstances were there due to how our universe inherently exist. We're still figuring out the specific mechanisms operate (though we've got a solid working concept at the moment that fits our current evidence), and how easy it is for those circumstances to come about.

We do tend to assign emotion and intent in eeeeverything as people. "ungh, my car is a giant jerk, of course it had to get a flat tire today". It's just what we do. It's easier to explain things that way too It's why you see some scientist talking about a god or the supernatural even though they may believe in neither. Nature has no intent, it's just much easier to explain and understand when phrased that way because that's how humans perceive their world.

"There is no natural, scientific reason for chemicals to react their way into life (law of entropy and all that)". Except for the sun. The earth is not a closed system, we have energy from the sun pouring in on us on a daily basis. If not for the sun, life never would most likely not have formed, correct.

 

[FAST6191]

As a man of science, I must say that after thirty pages the evidence seems to demonstrate that nobody will be changing their minds.

At some level then sure, however there are those that might have doubts and weaker opinions and those can be swayed in various directions. You will never get the hardcore, or at least not without Herculean effort, but there are those you can tip

"being off by a few hundred million years"
Well when you are dealing in billions (4.5 billion being the mainline version) and a good portion of the early years were spent as a molten wasteland, and then again during/after the creation of the moon, I will take that kind of accuracy.

"You almost have to invent some kind of scientific law that the universe desires life and works toward that end or something."
osaka35 seems to be taking the actual biology side of things, I am more here to say that I once got into a conversation with some microbiologists and after sufficient booze on their part out came the notions of eukaryotes being around more for the whims of the prokaryotes (or complex multi celled stuff being there more to further the aims of the single celled stuff which is by far the most common/widespread form of life on the planet).

 

[Yil]

Why would the creator of all reality and the first being into sentience bother with a infinitely insignificant and pathetic species like human?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

At some level then sure, however there are those that might have doubts and weaker opinions and those can be swayed in various directions. You will never get the hardcore, or at least not without Herculean effort, but there are those you can tip

"being off by a few hundred million years"
Well when you are dealing in billions (4.5 billion being the mainline version) and a good portion of the early years were spent as a molten wasteland, and then again during/after the creation of the moon, I will take that kind of accuracy.

"You almost have to invent some kind of scientific law that the universe desires life and works toward that end or something."
osaka35 seems to be taking the actual biology side of things, I am more here to say that I once got into a conversation with some microbiologists and after sufficient booze on there part the notions of eukaryotes being around more for the whims of the prokaryotes (or complex multi celled stuff being there more to further the aims of the single celled stuff which is by far the most common/widespread form of life on the planet).

Biologist simply cannot comprehend structures beyond organism, and a being can be composed of things beyond organic chemicals. One thing I can tell you that information is beyond energy and the very existence was an infinite collection of information no intelligence of our knowing is capable of. The exact reason that the universe would have any logic is uncertain but I suspect the presence of a creator. Sentience is to be carried on information but its origin was also unknown.
Human, this planet, even this universe is but a infinitely small piece of the entire reality, yet the earth is still much bigger than all humans combined.

 

[KSP]

Why would the creator of all reality and the first being into sentience bother with a infinitely insignificant and pathetic species like human?

It wouldn't, just as we wouldn't care about an ant if we stepped on one either. To an ant, are we not like gods, we shape the very world that they live in and we can destroy it at will, but do we care? No.

God is like a father that never calls, and never sends alimony, but a father non the less. You don't have to like him, nor he like you, doesn't change the relationship.

I think the biggest misconception with God that either causes people to gain faith or lose faith is that God cares. I've long come to terms with the fact that God doesn't care, never has, never will, but God is still God, and still the creator of all things.

Not believing in God is like not believing in your father cause he doesn't call. God is God, and that's all there is to it.

What does a divine being that created the universe care for? Who knows, and honestly who cares, just live your life.

One thing that is certain is, when you believe in a being greater than man, you realize how small we are, and its humbling. Its a also a great to understand that one has little control over their own life, which non believer to tend to have a hard time to grasp.

 

[grossaffe]

Not believing in God is like not believing in your father cause he doesn't call. God is God, and that's all there is to it.

No it's not. We can observe that fathers exist in humanity by looking at other humans who have fathers and by looking at the human reproductive process and seeing that a new human is created with the sperm of a father. We have no analog in nature where we can see another creature has a god and we cannot observe the origins of biological life on other worlds where we see a god's involvement in the creation.

 

[Yil]

It wouldn't, just as we wouldn't care about an ant if we stepped on one either. To an ant, are we not like gods, we shape the very world that they live in and we can destroy it at will, but do we care? No.

God is like father that never calls, and never sends alimony, but a father non the less. You don't have to like him, nor he like you, doesn't change the relationship.

I think the biggest misconception with God that either causes people to gain faith or lose faith is that God cares. I've long come to terms with the fact that God doesn't care, never has, never will, but God is still God, and still the creator of all things.

Not believing in God is like not believing in your father cause he doesn't call. God is God, and that's all there is to it.

What does a divine being that created the universe care for? Who knows, and honestly who cares, just live your life.

God has no gender, femininity and masculinity is an opposition that had its form after the birth of reality.
That is many Christians have trouble understanding. They devote too much into believing god, which served no purpose for the creator. And to have god decides everything and does everything for them is indeed more lazy than doing nothing and waiting to be fed, and that their very existence would have no purpose.
But believer did serve great use for "low gods", as followed by Greek mythology. But many are not even to be considered a force of nature but simply some entity, which I hope they would hand off the humans.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

No it's not. We can observe that fathers exist in humanity by looking at other humans who have fathers and by looking at the human reproductive process and seeing that a new human is created with the sperm of a father. We have no analog in nature where we can see another creature has a god and we cannot observe the origins of biological life on other worlds where we see a god's involvement in the creation.

Why would the creator do such an act that serves no purpose. With or without guidance a substance seems to gain sentience over time, which is ironic since something referable as time does not exist when the creator first came into sentience, which then is odd how sentience can come before logic.

 

[dimmidice]

the more i read this thread the more i think you're all just nutters.

 

[KSP]

God has no gender, femininity and masculinity is an opposition that had its form after the birth of reality.
That is many Christians have trouble understanding. They devote too much into believing god, which served no purpose for the creator. And to have god decides everything and does everything for them is indeed more lazy than doing nothing and waiting to be fed, and that their very existence would have no purpose.

Yes this worship of the divine stems its roots in all religions, including Islam, amongst other major faiths.
I think once you grasp the truth, you no longer need to worship, it would be like an Ant worshiping us. A little pointless to say the least.
Your faith is unshaken when you expect nothing from God.

And yes, the gender of God is something placed upon God by man in our means to quantify something that is beyond our understanding.

All in all, the true benefit of believing in God is that it humbles man, whom without God seem to believe that they are the master of their own destiny, which is the biggest facade of all.

As a matter of fact we can all die tomorrow by an act of nature, I think this lack of control tends to scare the non believer, after all how can a human being not be in control of their own destiny. And how can a human being not be able to explain the origin of their own being? This control or illusion of control is what drives most non believer.

 

[Yil]

Yes this worship of the divine stems its roots in all religions, including Islam, amongst other major faiths.
I think once you grasp the truth, you no longer need to worship, it would be like an Ant worshiping us. A little pointless to say the least.
Your faith is unshaken when you expect nothing from God.

And yes, the gender of God is something placed upon God by man in our means to quantify something that is beyond our understanding.

All in all, the true benefit of believing in God is that it humbles man, whom without God seem to believe that they are the master of their own destiny, which is the biggest facade of all.

As a matter of fact we can all die tomorrow by an act of nature, I think this lack of control tends to scare the non believer, after all how can a human being not be in control of their own destiny.

In perspectives, we are and we are not in control of our destiny. However one that would interfere with humans to be worshiped as gods simply for their ego are no creator or a thing beyond our comprehension, but maybe a thing we might be able to fight. Yet by the will of a truly higher being, it is our fate and for the best of all else that we perish, though I believe the time is yet to come, and I personally cannot do such slaughter, nor I shall aid the humans. But when humans really possess such threat, perhaps the creator will simply will us into void (you can see it as delete), not by flooding which is not beyond the power of man.

 

[KSP]

In perspectives, we are and we are not in control of our destiny. However one that would interfere with humans to be worshiped as gods simply for their ego are no creator or a thing beyond our comprehension, but maybe a thing we might be able to fight. Yet by the will of a truly higher being, it is our fate and for the best of all else that we perish, though I believe the time is yet to come, and I personally cannot do such slaughter, nor I shall aid the humans. But when humans really possess such threat, perhaps the creator will simply will us into void (you can see it as delete), not by flooding which is not beyond the power of man.

Okay, now you're just heading in nutzville. I'm outta here, gonna play some Yakuza 5, god or no god, beating random dudes with a traffic cone is hella fun.

Hope this thread dies out before things get real crazy around here.

 

[FAST6191]

Biologist simply cannot comprehend structures beyond organism, and a being can be composed of things beyond organic chemicals. One thing I can tell you that information is beyond energy and the very existence was an infinite collection of information no intelligence of our knowing is capable of. The exact reason that the universe would have any logic is uncertain but I suspect the presence of a creator. Sentience is to be carried on information but its origin was also unknown.
Human, this planet, even this universe is but a infinitely small piece of the entire reality, yet the earth is still much bigger than all humans combined.

My post was supposed to relay a joke of sorts (hence the after sufficient booze thing). As for life beyond conventional organic chemistry I did cover it in passing a few pages back when abiogenesis first came up.

Also I have to say information is actually a physics term and very much related to energy. Outside of more theoretical physics there are three main occasions you will encounter it
1) Cryptography, specifically brute forcing certain things and storing data pertaining to it. Usually done as an example of why brute forcing is likely not practical in a given situation.
2) In discussions of the end of the universe. Specifically the universe expanding (in all of the directions it can whizz)
3) Amusing thought experiments like


If you want to ponder something beyond that (you seem to be heading towards the universe as a computer program/simulation of some form thing) then feel free, however I encourage you to find a different term.

 

[grossaffe]

Why would the creator do such an act that serves no purpose. With or without guidance a substance seems to gain sentience over time, which is ironic since something referable as time does not exist when the creator first came into sentience, which then is odd how sentience can come before logic.

Was that meant for someone else? Because I fail to see how it relates in the slightest to what you quoted from me.

 

[Yil]

My post was supposed to relay a joke of sorts (hence the after sufficient booze thing). As for life beyond conventional organic chemistry I did cover it in passing a few pages back when abiogenesis first came up.

Also I have to say information is actually a physics term and very much related to energy. Outside of more theoretical physics there are three main occasions you will encounter it
1) Cryptography, specifically brute forcing certain things and storing data pertaining to it. Usually done as an example of why brute forcing is likely not practical in a given situation.
2) In discussions of the end of the universe. Specifically the universe expanding (in all of the directions it can whizz)
3) Amusing thought experiments like


If you want to ponder something beyond that (you seem to be heading towards the universe as a computer program/simulation of some form thing) then feel free, however I encourage you to find a different term.

Know that reality is its own hardware, software and data. It does not rely on a physical machine. Everything comes down to math then philosophy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Was that meant for someone else? Because I fail to see how it relates in the slightest to what you quoted from me.

Or you failed to see what I am saying. In the grand term of creator, which may or may not be the Christian god, all are his creation that comes into being followed by our physics, better yet logic which the creator defined. Non-existence->Existence(where opposition yet to eixst)->Sentience (the first or some other being of sentience is to be considered the creator, which is way beyond our comprehension, as another could emerge from)->Logic (which the creator create as a form our known reality is formed upon, and where opposition came into being)->Physics (including time, and I do not know the exact form of our world out of time and how sentience was developed)->Universe->>Substance->>Earth->>Organism->>Human, It is beyond our comprehension how it has its current form we resides in.

 

[grossaffe]

Or you failed to see what I am saying. In the grand term of creator, which may or may not be the Christian god, all are his creation that comes into being followed by our physics, better yet logic which the creator defined. Non-existence->Existence(where opposition yet to eixst)->Sentience (the first or some other being of sentience is to be considered the creator, which is way beyond our comprehension, as another could emerge from)->Logic (which the creator create as a form our known reality is formed upon, and where opposition came into being)->Physics (including time, and I do not know the exact form of our world out of time and how sentience was developed)->Universe->>Substance->>Earth->>Organism->>Human, It is beyond our comprehension how it has its current form we resides in.

How does, whatever this is, have anything to do with what I said?

 

[Yil]

How does, whatever this is, have anything to do with what I said?

I am sorry for bothering you, never mind.

 

[Kayot]

Wow, 31 very long pages, they started short and simple and just got longer and longer. I'll try to make this long.

Technologist and Agnostic in the sense that I don't believe nor disbelieve as neither has any impact on who I am or how I live. I'm also Chaotic Good, having no real use for laws and regulations and instead doing what I feel is right despite what society may think. I'm not sure if I want an afterlife or not. Even if I was god there, I would someday grow board and find myself sleeping trillions of years away because of it. I might also find myself creating a universe simply to get idea's or help ease the passing of eternity.

I think the idea of a beginning is a flawed human concept created by a possibly unique life and death cycle. The universe is both timeless and infinite and abstract from any laws concocted by humans. The theories of relativity, quantum science, and astrophysics are nothing but approximations of observed facts and inherently flawed. A good example is the bicycle which follows no laws of motion based physics and is also the most efficient means of transportation for energy created and used. There is also an experimental space engine that creates momentum with electricity but since it doesn't follow the laws of physics, scientist who should be open minded instead reject the working prototype since it doesn't fit in their cookie cutter ideas of how the universe works. People have become close minded, instead referencing materials of the greats rather than exploring themselves.

That's how I feel about it.