How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[cF=)]

I'm trying to avoid using physics jargon but still make it understandable.

I'd love physics jargon and/or link to what you're describing. By not pushing what you want to explain far enough, people grasp parts of it and then say it's not rational because they haven't been introduced to the whole thing.

That's probably why DeL is skeptical.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

 

[AltF4]

I'd love physics jargon and/or link to what you're describing. By not pushing what you want to explain far enough, people grasp parts of it and then say it's not rational because they haven't been introduced to the whole thing.

That's probably why DeL is skeptical.

That's fair. You can pretty much just google "Hawking no boundary" but here are some good ones.

Stephen Hawking's Website
Quotation number three from here. (Funny story)
Audio recording of a lecture by Hawking on the subject
The full thing with as much jargon as you can handle. (Start on page 223)

and "A Brief History of Time" (The Book)

 

[extragrandeben]

I've been trying to read this thread but Smashboards doesn't seem to want to allow me to read some of the pages in between so if I repeat what someone has said already, my bad.

Before I get to my explanation, there's this funny parody on Christianity. I don't know if anyone has read it, but Kissing Hank's *** is about this man who will give you a million dollars, all you have to do is kiss his ***. http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~jdevor/links/KissingHank'sAss.txt
For all those atheist and Christians, it's a good read. For atheist, it's very entertaining, and for Christians, it helps show how Christianity is viewed by others.


The reason for this thread is to explain why someone can believe in God when it seems so illogical. A lot of the time the reason why people grasp for God is because they have lost everything they have leaving them hopeless: hey or someone they love become ill, economic problems with no end in sight, life threatening situations, etc.

There are many reasons why someone would reach out for God. When no one has any strength left to fight, it's comforting to think that there's someone right there, watching over you, helping you get through things.

Can you really blame someone for believing in God in those cases? If someone just needs that extra push to help them through, let them believe it. Religion has helped many people reform and change their lives for the better.

I know that a traumatizing event isn't the reason why everyone believes in God but I'm just saying that some people might have some very specific reason for believing in God. There isn't any way to know why someone believes in God just by looking at them so judging or stapling them as ignorant isn't the best course of action.

I myself am an atheist who thinks the concept of some omnipotent being creating us by a whim absurd. The idea of having two branes collide to create our universe is a little more calming, though not by much.

 

[snex]

dont you think they might benefit even more if they relied on correct beliefs instead of imaginary fantasies?

re-write your post, replacing "god" with "santa claus" and see if it still makes any sense.

 

[extragrandeben]

It isn't whether or not I think that they would benefit more from proper beliefs, it's why they choose to believe in it in the first place.

I'm trying to say why people would choose to believe in such an illogical idea as God. Though they probably would benefit more from other beliefs, the security that God offers is tempting for people in desperate situations.

And even if it doesn't make any sense, the point of the thread is to explain why someone would believe in God, not how illogical it is to believe in God.

 

[RDK]

The point of this thread isn't to say that it's illogical to believe in any higher power whatsoever. The point was to show how illogical the Christian God is.

 

[lonejedi]

LOL, Im not laughing cause it's funny, Im laughing because that's so inaccurate. Are you aiming at Christianity, or religion in general. Because Christians aren't against pork and blood transfusions.

Come on Gamer, stop making incredible claims

Incredible claims require incredible evidence.

I just want to put something into perspective here. I realize some of you were in some form of Christianity before, before you left. Maybe you didn't enjoy it, maybe you were in the wrong church. I have no idea, but the thing you forget is, Christians enjoy going to church, and enjoy giving 10% of the money. They don't mind sacrificing their time to do religious activities. The question of why would anyone believe in God, is such a bad q uestion coming from an Athiest. People believe in God because they actually enjoy it, not because they are forced to. If that were the case, then there would be a huge drop out of Christians once they reach the age of 21. Sure it happens, but the number is pretty stable.

I really can't understand this question especially from someone who's never been a Christian. That's like asking someone who's never played baseball why is baseball so much fun.

 

[RDK]

I just want to put something into perspective here. I realize some of you were in some form of Christianity before, before you left. Maybe you didn't enjoy it, maybe you were in the wrong church. I have no idea, but the thing you forget is, Christians enjoy going to church, and enjoy giving 10% of the money. They don't mind sacrificing their time to do religious activities. The question of why would anyone believe in God, is such a bad q uestion coming from an Athiest. People believe in God because they actually enjoy it, not because they are forced to. If that were the case, then there would be a huge drop out of Christians once they reach the age of 21. Sure it happens, but the number is pretty stable.

I really can't understand this question especially from someone who's never been a Christian. That's like asking someone who's never played baseball why is baseball so much fun.

If you're talking about me, which is what I'm getting from your post, then I guess I have to tell you that I WAS a Christian. I grew up as one, and was raised in a Christian home.

And just because someone enjoys doing something doesn't mean it's any less of a waste of time. In this case, it's even MORE of a waste of time, seeing as how not all religions' gods are real. To waste your whole life following something that isn't even there is ridiculous, and it's living a lie.

 

[lonejedi]

If you're talking about me, which is what I'm getting from your post, then I guess I have to tell you that I WAS a Christian. I grew up as one, and was raised in a Christian home.

And just because someone enjoys doing something doesn't mean it's any less of a waste of time. In this case, it's even MORE of a waste of time, seeing as how not all religions' gods are real. To waste your whole life following something that isn't even there is ridiculous, and it's living a lie.

I wasn't really referring to you, I was just referring to everyone who's an athiest, and who has no background in Christianity .

So what if you feel they are wasting their lives. Many people would believe the same about those who go out and get drunk everynight and party. The same thing would go for those who have all the money in the world and really can't buy happiness. It's an opinion based belief.

It's not a waste of your whole life. If they enjoy doing it, then leave them alone. Why should you interfere in something they enjoy. What do you think is an example of a life not wasted. Alot of churches give charity to needy families. They are a non-profit organization. That means any funds they do make, they use to further the community. Maybe you think thats a waste of time but I beg to differ.

 

[Deleted member]

I never said, absolutely and without doubt, that the universe behaves the way I described. What I have been saying is a counter argument to an existing argument for god. You'll notice that I always phrase the statement as "It is possible that: ___".

That's just simply not true. It is not true that the universe must have been created at some point.

Not to mention when I corrected you by saying that just because it isn't true doesn't make it false, you denied this.

So again, I ask, why is it ridiculous to assert that the universe has never been created?

Assert: to declare or affirm solemnly and formally as true; "Before God I swear I am innocent"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

When you assert that the universe has never been created, you are saying that this statement is entirely true. Meaning you believe with your entirety that the universe has never been created.

If you believe this, you are a biggest skeptic than I am. Perhaps you should stick with common-sense realism

people believe in gods because they are not taught proper methods of discovering knowledge. simple as that.

I find this pretty offensive

schools do not properly teach the scientific method or logic, they never have, and as long as theists are in the majority, they never will.

I don't know what kind of crazy school you're going to, I learned PHAMOC in grade 5 (purpose, hypothesis, apparatus, materials, observations, conclusions)

when you come to understand that true knowledge can only come from first admitting that YOU DO NOT KNOW, and THEN attempting to discover; rather than picking a random answer (or the answer you grew up with) and hunting for confirmatory evidence for it; that is when you will realize that all claims about gods, including statements about their existence, are unfounded.

Anthropic principle states that science and religion can in fact be over-lapping magisteria

snex - try harder next time, don't troll

@ Gamer4Fire's picture - You don't need to commit to a religion to believe in a God

Even if one were to, religious people are religious because they know they gain from it. You can't refute this point simply because if you don't get it, you don't get it. What lonejedi said.

Pork - Most Muslims I talk to don't give a **** about pork

Foreskin - Circumcisions are beneficial in every way

Time and Energy - This is only wasted if you gain nothing from religion; religious people don't feel it is wasted

Tithe - Not necessary; it is not required to give to the church. It is out of your own volition and altruism which your religion promotes

Valuable science - See Anthropic principle

Blood transfusions - I'll admit, I never understood this whacky business

Basic rights, freedoms, dignity - The burqa is not required in Islamic religion; it is in fact become a part of the oppressive culture. This is not due to religion. Most religions teach basic rights and other fundamental principles of human society

The point of this thread isn't to say that it's illogical to believe in any higher power whatsoever. The point was to show how illogical the Christian God is.

The topic is discussing reasons people believe in God - this actually shouldn't be a debate but more of a discussion of religious people explaining their beliefs

And just because someone enjoys doing something doesn't mean it's any less of a waste of time. In this case, it's even MORE of a waste of time, seeing as how not all religions' gods are real. To waste your whole life following something that isn't even there is ridiculous, and it's living a lie.

Then here we get into the meaning of life

You have to realize that simply because you do not believe in God and you denounce religion altogether that does not make it right to belittle the life purpose of millions of people who live for the greatness of their God

How can you possibly say with any certainty that a life spent in an office with a job and a "normal" life is better than one spent in the priesthood

You can't, if you even try to say this I will personally come out of this computer screen you are reading and smack you upside the head so hard for daring to say something so absolutely moronic. It is not "living a lie" you fool, your life could be just as meaningless as the lives you mock. Have you read any Descartes? Have you ever thought even for a second that your life may be simply a dreamworld?


...How is it a lie?

I repeat: You don't get religion. Don't try to spoil it for others. What, are you jealous or something?

 

[AltF4]

Your responses to me still don't make sense, Del. Are you trying to imply that I contradicted the first quote you grabbed with the second? Because they're not contradictory.


And furthermore, simple basic logic: A statement is either true or false, not both and not neither. The statement "The Universe must have been created at some time in the past" is a false statement. It has been proven so. If you have trouble grasping that concept, visit some of the links I provided in my previous post.

It is possible that the Universe was created at some point in the past, and it is possible that there was no creation. Both are possible scenarios.

EDIT: But, yea... that red font kills my eyes.

 

[RDK]

I feel hated.

 

[Deleted member]

And furthermore, simple basic logic: A statement is either true or false, not both and not neither. The statement "The Universe must have been created at some time in the past" is a false statement. It has been proven so. If you have trouble grasping that concept, visit some of the links I provided in my previous post.

It is possible that the Universe was created at some point in the past, and it is possible that there was no creation. Both are possible scenarios.

EDIT: But, yea... that red font kills my eyes.

Okay, perhaps you are just making too much sense that my brain can't figure out the minute point you're arguing. Let's just analyze this. This is where I am having trouble with what you are saying


"The Universe must have been created at some time in the past"

You say this is FALSE, as it has been proven false

-sidenote, I'm not doing your dirtywork for you, cite passages to prove that the universe was not created in the past

Okay, continuing, with the false statement in mind.

"It is possible that the Universe was created at some point in the past, and it is possible that there was no creation."

Did you not just say that universe was not created in the past? I don't get it. I feel really stupid or I feel you're not making any sense at all.

Let's just break it down:

"The Universe must have been created at some time in the past"

"It is possible that the Universe was created at some point in the past"

Are you saying that it could be either/or??

Statements can be unknown. Are you saying this?

Because that is what I am saying. When you are asserting something to be true when you don't have the evidence to back it up, you have to realize that while it may be true it also may be false, because it is not known for sure

Example:

"God exists"

True or false? It's unknown, so we can't answer it.

EDIT: FINALLY, YOU SAID THAT BOTH ARE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS, THATS WHAT IVE BEEN TRYING TO ARGUE FOR AGES OI@#!)@(#J)!(@#)!(@*#)!(@#*)!(@*#)!(@# WHY DIDNT YOU SAY THAT EARLIER

Edit 2: Yeah, those 2 quotes are contradictory. Your first statement,"I never said sdfsdf" is shown to be untrue with the 2nd quote. You actually did say that.

edit 3: man im tired

 

[cF=)]

1) "The Universe must have been created at some time in the past"

2) "It is possible that the Universe was created at some point in the past"

I'll break it down for ya in a failproof matter:

"The Universe must have been created at some time in the past"

"Universe must have been created at some time in the"

"must have been created at some time in"

"must have been created at some time"

"must have been created at some"

"must have been created at"

"must have been created"

"must have been"

"must have"

"must"

Asserting statement 1 is true contradicts statement 2, but the opposite works. The Universe is NOT bound to having a beginning, an end, or simply no beggining; since we still don't know for sure which options' true, we'll say they both might be possibilities. Statement 1 doesn't give us this choice, because it automaticly rejects the "no boundary" condition.

 

[Deleted member]

Well ****. That makes sense, I've been saying that all along. Why did Alt disagree when I said that it could be false?

 

[cF=)]

What AltF4 disagreed upon was the argument everybody kept broughting up that the Universe HAD to have a beggining (therefore opening the possibility to the existence of a God). He disagreed with it, it's not true that the Universe MUST starts somewhere, and proved his point by bringing Hawking's theory in play.

I think you just misunderstood.

 

[AltF4]

Precisely, cF. It is not yet known whether the No Boundary condition applies to our universe. But that's not what's important. What's important is that it could. It is a complete and consistent scientific model of the (non)creation of the universe that does not include a god. Thus it is possible to explain the origin of the universe without a god doing the work.

-sidenote, I'm not doing your dirtywork for you, cite passages to prove that the universe was not created in the past

And I already cited sources. I even said where to find them in the quote that you were responding to with this statement.

 

[snex]

people believe in gods because they are not taught proper methods of discovering knowledge. simple as that.

I find this pretty offensive

ok, well thats not an argument. go cry to your mommy if you are offended. you didnt refute my claim or even try to.

schools do not properly teach the scientific method or logic, they never have, and as long as theists are in the majority, they never will.

I don't know what kind of crazy school you're going to, I learned PHAMOC in grade 5 (purpose, hypothesis, apparatus, materials, observations, conclusions)

and how have you applied this to god to get positive results about his existence?

when you come to understand that true knowledge can only come from first admitting that YOU DO NOT KNOW, and THEN attempting to discover; rather than picking a random answer (or the answer you grew up with) and hunting for confirmatory evidence for it; that is when you will realize that all claims about gods, including statements about their existence, are unfounded.

Anthropic principle states that science and religion can in fact be over-lapping magisteria

the anthropic principle states no such thing. you just made something up.

 

[Deleted member]

- It's not an argument, it's a response to an otherwise ignorant statement

- I have never applied the scientific method to proving His existence, I don't need to, I know that it would find inconclusive results

- http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/SAP_FAP.htm

The Strong and Final Anthropic Principles are probably the most controversial of the many versions of the Anthropic Principle. They have a ring of creationism, a philosophy that has been frowned on by science since Darwin’s day. Despite their borderline scientific status, they have been embraced by the religious among the scientific community, heralded as proof of God’s existence and of science’s final acknowledgment of the fact.

how the mighty have fallen

 

[RDK]

About the argument of "the universe must have had a beginning at some point or another"--where are you deducing this conclusion from? There have already been multiple quotes disproving this. Just because something exists, or, I.E., is set in motion, doesn't mean that there had to have been something there to begin the motion-setting.

Thinking like this is a tad insular, especially when we haven't even touched the surface of quantum physics yet.

Precisely, cF. It is not yet known whether the No Boundary condition applies to our universe. But that's not what's important. What's important is that it could. It is a complete and consistent scientific model of the (non)creation of the universe that does not include a god. Thus it is possible to explain the origin of the universe without a god doing the work.

Just out of curiosity, was it Stephen Hawking who came up with the No Boundary theory, or am I thinking of someone else?

 

[snex]

- It's not an argument, it's a response to an otherwise ignorant statement

- I have never applied the scientific method to proving His existence, I don't need to, I know that it would find inconclusive results

these two quotes taken together demonstrate that my original statement was right. you dont know how to use logic and the scientific method, so you just ignore them and believe in god anyway. if you havent applied logic and the scientific method to god and gotten positive results, then your belief has NO foundation.

and your quote about the anthropic principle neither supports your original claim, nor is it supportable itself. just because religious people claims it supports them doesnt mean they are right. use logic and science to demonstrate the existence of god. if you cannot, then my post was correct - you only believe in god because you have no idea how to use them.

 

[Deleted member]

No.

I said that the scientific method would prove nothing. That doesn't mean, you moron, that science itself cannot substantiate a religious belief system. The anthropic principle states that science and religion go hand in hand. They (can) compliment each other. Darwinian revolution didn't disprove God - in fact it simply reaffirmed a lot of beliefs.

When you say that people believe in God because they don't get science, that's both extremely ignorant and offensive because there is a plethora of learned logicians, scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and other various intelligentsia who believe there is a God. Simply because you refuse to accept anything as fact unless it has been proven via the scientific method proves to me that you are too closed-minded to accept ideas in unknown areas of logic. Metaphysical questions don't really go too well with the scientific method.

Do you realize that Rene Descartes, one of the founders of the scientific method, believed firmly that God existed?

The scientific method will return empty-handed when proving God's existence. That doesn't mean science is immediately ruled out for proving God. You clearly do not study philosophy enough to grasp simple concepts such as (gasp!) possibilities. Instead of trolling in this thread and calling believers naive to science, understand that you also have no logic or scientific evidence to simply deem this universe God-less.

You realize I'm agnostic, right?

 

[snex]

i didnt ask for excuses. i asked for the logic and science that demonstrate god's existence. if no logic or science can do so, then belief is without foundation.

i can name millions of concepts that logic and science do not demonstrate, and yet you would not consider belief in them to be a reasonable position. god is NO DIFFERENT. to claim otherwise is to make the fallacy of special pleading.

so again, i ask you. either present the logic and science that demonstrate god's existence, or stop pretending belief in god is in any way respectable.

 

[AltF4]

Do you realize that Rene Descartes, one of the founders of the scientific method, believed firmly that God existed?

So did Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. In fact, Einstein's religious fervor was what caused him to sidetrack his studies into trying to substantiate the steady state theory. A choice that he would later call the biggest mistake of his life.

Descartes did a lot of good things for philosophy and mathematics, but he was not without fault. He was a die-hard dualist, and even claimed that the pituitary gland was responsible for bridging the mind with the body. He also used St Anselm's "proof" of god in his meditations.

We shouldn't take what these famous figures believed too seriously. History has shown that virtually every brilliant mathematician or scientist was also bat**** insane. (Seriously... look into Isaac Newton. He was a total nut)


RDK: Yes, that was Hawking. I Didn't mention his name in that post you quoted, but I think I attributed him adequately elsewhere.

 

[snex]

nitpicks: einstein did not believe in a personal god, he was a pantheist. also, descartes believed it was the pineal gland, not the pituitary.

 

[AltF4]

****it! Wrong gland! I knew it sounded wrong when I typed it.

 

[cF=)]

Do you realize that Rene Descartes, one of the founders of the scientific method, believed firmly that God existed?

Appealing to false authority is the lowest you could come up with to argue the existence of God.

understand that you also have no logic or scientific evidence to simply deem this universe God-less.

Or you could read this thread backward and follow the links posted about the "No Boundary" condition, and how this theory's a step forward into making the Universe God-less. Science hasn't disproved God, but it's on its way.

 

[Deleted member]

cF, I'm not appealing to authority whatsoever. Snex is simply too blind to understand that scientific method is not the be all and end all. Descartes does not prove God for me. Remember, I'm still agnostic.

But when Snex brings up the scientific method, he must remember that the person who helped foster it believed in God. This fact is important to bring to light because it shows that his point is simply opinion and nothing more.

Snex, you can go ahead and call my last post excuses, it doesn't make you any less closed-minded and ignorant to the fact that we both have not brought evidence to the table to prove our side

All you have done is call people who believe in God stupid and naive to science

If you wanna rain on the spiritual parade then only do so if you have an actual reason to

 

[snex]

Snex is simply too blind to understand that scientific method is not the be all and end all.

funny, i recall asking for something else besides the scientific method for years on this board and never receiving a response. you people all love to claim its not the be all and end all, but when i call your bluff, you have nothing else to show.

so, either present this mystical other way of knowing besides science, and show me exactly how it works and how you evaluated its accuracy, or admit that science is currently the only way of knowing, that science shows no support for any gods, and that it is therefore silly to believe in any such things.

 

[AltF4]

Let's be clear where the burden of proof lies. It rests solely on the religious to substantiate their incredible claims. It is not the responsibility of a non-theist (not necessarily atheist) to disprove the claims of a theist.


For example, if someone came up to a famous geologist and claimed that plate tectonics are in fact wrong and that earthquakes are caused by a giant trapped spider below the earth's crust, it would not be the responsibility of the geologist to go and disprove this claim. The giant-spiderist has the burden of proof to substantiate his theory. Until some sort of credible evidence surfaces that can point toward an oversized subterranean spider, it's just some random idea without any basis.

It doesn't matter if giant-spiderism catches on and more people believe it. It doesn't matter if the majority of the world's population winds up believing it. The truth is not democratic. Unless real, actual, credible evidence appears for a theory: it's just some random idea without any basis.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

"The holy doctrine of catholic law cannot be changed, so sayeth the queen spider."

 

[Gamer4Fire]

lonejedi - I didn't draw the comic, I was presenting it as a case against Pascal's Wager.

DeLoRtEd1 -Pork: Hebrews.

Foreskin: Mutilation with no known modern good health effects.

Time/Energy: If it is false is the postulate, or do you not recognize the basis of Pascal's Wager?

Tithe: Necessary in some religions.

Valuable science: Ditto.

Blood transfusions: I'll lump this in with the other science tidbits.

Basic rights/Freedoms/Dignity: So you enjoy praying three times a day while facing mecca, or not eating certain foods or working on certain days etc.?

Again, I didn't draw the comic, but it is a valid argument against Pascal's Wager.

 

[MasterFreak]

My question is this, how can people as a whole put so much blind faith into an all mighty being who is every were at once but laugh at the thought of a fat man delivering toys to every home in the world in one night.

And were is the line that seperats religion from insainty? if i walked up to a man of any faith and told him that i worship a giant pink unicorn that lives in the center of the sun he would think that i need a stray jacket. But what makes his religion right and mine wrong? just because there wasent a book written and rewritten a million times about the the great pink unicorn it dosent make it any less real than his god.

 

[Sandy]

Here is my proof of intelligent design.

Are you telling me that this happened by random mutations? To reject God is to reject the greatest love their is. Even though most men hate the God who gave them life, He waits patiently to see if they will change, never forcing them, but nevertheless having to let them go in the end, for God cannot allow this world to go on forever. Even though He is the most sincere and purist of all love, He cannot allow men to continue to be evil forever.

 

[Crimson King]

Evolution is anything but random. For the eye to develop many other methods of "seeing" would have to have been tried out until a form that allowed the creature to survive.

Same reason why polydactyl (the growth of extra fingers and toes) is a dominant gene that is nearly wiped out because nobility, who inbred with families, usually lacked the extra appendages and it became the norm. There are MANY other instances of evolution in the human body alone.

 

[snex]

that picture is an excellent proof of evolution.

note the number of vertebrae in the neck. its 7. now count the number of vertebrae in a giraffe's neck. its 7.

check for the nerve that goes down into the neck, connects to nothing in it, then goes back up into the head. now check for that nerve in fish. it connects to gills.

note the 3 bones in the inner ear and the single jaw bone. now count up the bones in the ear of of a lizard (1) and the bones in the jaw (3). now watch a lizard embryo and a human embryo develop. hey look at that, the same 4 structures differentiate into the 4 bones we just saw. and if we go fossil hunting, we see animals that look like the bones exist in a "half-way" state between the lizard and the human.

if you could pan down, you would also notice a little thing connected to the intestine that serves no necessary purpose in humans, and often becomes inflamed and has to be removed. that same little thing is required for other mammals to live.

if you could pan down further, youd notice a tendon in the foot that does absolutely nothing. or you might not notice it, because many humans simply do not have one. but the same tendon in apes allows them to grasp things with their feet.

now zoom in. a lot. thousands of times. notice how there is one chromosome that has telomeres in the center and two sets of centromeres. take note of the genes on this chromosome. now zoom into a chimp. youll find these same genes in the chimp, but on two separate chromosomes. weird, isnt it?

keep looking around. youll find a broken gene that is used to create vitamin c if you look at it in other animals. humans and apes both have this broken gene. it is broken in exactly the same place and in exactly the same way. gorillas too. and other apes. but not cats, dogs, elephants, or any other animal.

need i go on?

 

[DeadtoSin]

Some of you here are saying that the burden of proof is on the religious side rather than on the scientific side. I think burden of proof is required by both evolutionists and creationists.

Here is why I think that evolutionists must give me more solid proof of evolution. I could go into a much more detailed explanation, but I just wanted you to know that I actually have a solid reasoning for disbelieving evolution. This isn't even necessarily from a religious standpoint, this is from a scientific standpoint. Just because the theory is widely accepted means nothing to me anyway. There are some atheistic scientists that are skeptical of evolution. I am currently a Chemistry major, and I am just as interested in the scientific reasons behind life as any of you guys are. The natural world won't ever contradict God's word, and if God's word is true completely then I can't really see evolution being true. If I get solid proof that evolution could really be true, I will examine it. It will have to be credible evidence that is somewhat verifiable by me, and completely verifiable by the entire scientific community. Essentially, I am saying that I think that you guys should bear the burden of proof when talking to me about evolution, because just by the astronomical odds of this happening I am disinclined to believe evolution.

Only some amino acids work for life. These are seperated into left and right handed amino acids, with left handed being the ones that work for life.

Then they have to go together in the right order. Then you need them all to form peptide bonds in the right area. If this stuff doesn't work it doesn't function.

There's one protein. Thats still not life. Then you pull together a great number of proteins and you've got a cell that can live. By the way, I know I'm vastly oversimplifying it. It would take a much longer post than this to really get into what constitutes life, so please don't act like I don't understand biology. I just wanted to get a little something thrown out here to get this conversation going.

DNA is essentially the guidance system here, and the synthesis of DNA is even trickier. Klaus Dose (Institute for Biochemistry) himself admitted that the "difficulties in synthesizing DNA are at present beyond our imagination."

Honestly, I probably won't be contributing to this topic very much. My points make a lot more sense if I can tell them in person, and I've noticed that nobody ever backs down from a religious topic over the internet. I just wanted to give my two cents on the "burden of proof" discussion in this topic.

 

[Deleted member]

Since neither side has verifiable evidence that proves or disproves God respectively, I don't see the point in placing the burden of proof on any particular stance.

Gamer4Fire, if you truly believe that of circumcision, you are grossly misinformed. Other than that, the other explanations you gave don't go into too much detail. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on them. I realize you didn't draw the picture, but that doesn't matter - highlighting the possible downsides of believing in God or following religion is meaningless. Those who believe have reasons for doing so; it's not something that deserves to be mocked. It stinks of arrogance.

 

[snex]

amazing how deadtosin makes that post *right after* my post giving perfect evidence of the evolution of humans.

is he blind? willfully ignorant? or just dishonest?

the things i named about the human body only make sense if we share ancestry with other animals.

and delorted.. the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. atheists dont make claims, theists do. theists claim "at least one god exists." therefore the burden is on them to demonstrate it.