The Existence of God (PG Version)

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Believing in God is similar to believing that invisible unicorns roam the Earth controlling gravity or that George Washington was a furry. There's no evidence to support either proposition that God is real or he isn't. That's the problem with unfalsifiable propositions. The reason it's rational to take the null hypothesis in the face of unfalsifiable hypotheses is so you don't give more weight to one of two equally valid, yet contradictory notions. For example, you can't believe that the uni-color pencil I'm using is blue and red at the same time.

Summation: Null hypothesis as a mathematical theorem is inapplicable due to (a) the inability to fulfill the sample size "n" due to testing only for the existence of a monotheistic deity, (b) the fact that the mean is either unpredictable or skewed "X", (c) The fact that the population size "u" again does not fulfill the condition of the hypothesis, (d) The fact that Z cannot be calculated therefore making it impossible to find the cutoff value "c", (e) The fact that an appropriate alpha value cannot be assigned due to inability to fulfill "n" "sigma" and "u" (f) The fact that an appropriate beta value cannot be assigned due to similar reasons as previously stated.

Conclusion: Inappropriate application of a statistical theorem via abusing the inherent logistics of mathematics in order to substantiate your point.

Proof (as far as my tolerance could bear):

The following is sourced from Statistics Principles and Methods 5th Edition written by Richard A. Johnson and Gouri K. Bhattacharyya (Pg. 308-320).​

The Steps for Testing Hypothesis [Re: Null Hypothesis]
1. Formula the null hyothesis H0 and the alternative hypothesis H1.
2. Test criterion: State the test statistic and the form of the rejection region.
3. With a specified "α," determine the rejection region.
4. Calculate the test statistic from the data.
5. Draw a conclusion: State whether or not H0 is rejected at the specified "α" and interpret the conclusion in the context of the problem. Also, it is a good statistical practice to calculate the P-value and strengthen the conclusion.​

(a) The null hypothesis is used in order to test a hypothesis concerning a population mean "u." In order for the null hypothesis to be used, the sample size that is being polled "n" will be large (n>30 for a rule of thumb).

Exodus 20 : 1-3 "And -od spoke all these words: "I am the Lord your -od who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me."

Determining whether or not -od exists isn't suited under the primary conditions of the null hypothesis. You aren't dealing with a population of deities in a given experimental sample but are specifically testing a single monotheistic deity and its possible existence.

(b) Assuming that the research hypothesis that you want to prove is that -od does not exist, also known as the alternative hypothesis or H1... then the null hypothesis that nullifies the research hypothesis would be the null hypothesis or H0 that would stipulate that -od does exist.

The question now comes down to the value criterion. What standard does the null hypothesis use in order to prove its statistical theorem among a specific population?

As stated before, this is the sample mean, X, calculated from the measurements of n = 30+ randomly selected members within the same population (again not possible under given population sample). Based on this sample mean we will outline an example of how to determine the critical value as follows:

Reject H0 [-od exists] if X < c
Retain H0 [-od exists] if X > c

The decision rule that proves that [-od does not exist] is the same as the rejection of H0 which is: X < c. This is known as the critical region. It is important not to confuse X which is a randomly selected sample mean, with "u" which is the population mean.

(c) The possibility arises that a false acceptance of the claim could occur. Assuming that a low probability occurs (again how you would know this value in this given scenario I don't know) alpha is attributed a value of 5% or .05 of "u" which is the population mean.

In order to determine the "c" cutoff we must calculate Z. Z=X-"u"/"sigma"/"sq root of n"

At this point it comes down to the point that I can't assign a numerical value that fulfills the statistical requirements of the null hypothesis. None of the values can be filled in order to possibly prove mathematically that either conditions exist. It is simply foolish to use a test based on a mean population to assess the existence of a divine entity. Honestly. Unless you're talking about a null hypothesis that isn't substantiated by mathematics. Which is silly because calling such an opinion by the same name as an objective statistical test is bigotry.

 

[1048576]

Its a shame you typed all that up. You could have just said the statistical definition of the null hypothesis doesn't apply here, and I would have agreed. What I meant was taking the position that involves no assumptions about how the universe is run. Like the scientific hypothesis that all unsubstantiated hypotheses are invalid.

And if you say we're just testing one God, then the problem becomes once again defining that God's characteristics. Does the one we're discussing have on opinion on Jesus?

I actually don't think you can define gods in general.

 

[Deleted member]

I actually don't think you can define gods in general.

I'll just drop in for a second, why not? that's what definitions are for.
If you start of by defining God as a non-physical being that is omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good (and the omni- that I forgot right now), then you have decent starting point to prove or refute it's existence.

 

[1048576]

Obviously that god can't exist. Problem of evil and whatnot.

 

[Sieguest]

Obviously that god can't exist. Problem of evil and whatnot.

Just something to point out. That's assuming that evil is a product of God.

For all we know evil could be a product of man.

If you try to go along the lines of God created Man and Man created so God created Evil. Then that's an unsound use of the transitive property. That would be like me saying:

I have a child, my child makes a sandwich, therefore I made a sandwich.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Just something to point out. That's assuming that evil is a product of God.

For all we know evil could be a product of man.

If you try to go along the lines of God created Man and Man created so God created Evil. Then that's an unsound use of the transitive property. That would be like me saying:

I have a child, despite my teaching the child values of benefit my child becomes a serial killer so I created a serial killer.

Well, technically you did create the serial killer. However, you did not create what caused your child to become a serial killer (as far as we know from the given information). So, essentially, you did not create the serial killer identity, but the host of it. If that makes sense. Just wanted to point that out.

But I do agree, that is an unsound use of the transitive property. Evil is truly subjective based on the morals and ideals of humanity, so if anything, humanity created evil based on that. You can go up and down about how God is the most evil being ever, if he exists, but that's still an opinion.

 

[Sieguest]

Well, technically you did create the serial killer. However, you did not create what caused your child to become a serial killer (as far as we know from the given information). So, essentially, you did not create the serial killer identity, but the host of it. If that makes sense. Just wanted to point that out.

Yeah, I had caught that too not too long after I initially posted. Good catch.

Now the example involves sandwiches. :3

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Ooo, I like sandwiches.

Anyway, God built into every human the ability to make choices. Sometimes, we choose evil. Evil originally came from humans making wrong choices. (Wrong as defined by God, not as defined by man)

 

[1048576]

So God either doesn't want to or can't stop people from being evil. That's the opposite of benevolent or omnipotent.

By giving people choices (allegedly), God gave up his omnipotence.

Alternatively, by creating people capable of evil even though it was in his power to create Jesus clones, God wasn't benevolent.

If I remember how this argument has gone every single time I've participated, now you're going to do some handwaving to try to explain how life would suck if everyone was Jesus and that this omnipotent, benevolent God gives us "challenges" to overcome, and I'm going to point out that calling slavery or torture a "challenge" to overcome is pretty condescending to the victims, and that we'd have been better off without those things, i.e. evil exists. So lets just skip that part.

If you genuinely weren't going to do any of that, my apologies.

 

[vVv Rapture]

So God either doesn't want to or can't stop people from being evil. That's the opposite of benevolent.

By giving people choices (allegedly), God gave up his omnipotence.

Not necessarily. You can still be omnipotent without actually using the status of being omnipotent. God has the potential to stop people from being evil. The fact that he does not does not make him not omnipotent.

For example, let's say God was able to witness a bus full of children about to fall off a cliff. Assuming God is omnipotent, he would be able to witness it, so let's say he is. As the bus goes off the cliff, sending the children to their doom, God has every power to stop it from happening. He does not. He could have, but he did not. God is still omnipotent, however. He can still stop the bus from going over the cliff, making him omnipotent, but his choice to not save them does not take away his omnipotent status.

EDIT: Seems like you edited your post when I was replying. I'll continue.

Alternatively, by creating people capable of evil even though it was in his power to create Jesus clones, God wasn't benevolent.

Capability does not equal intention. God could have thought that humanity would not create evil as it grew. Of course, that's assuming that God created humanity in the first place, as we do not know. If he didn't, his existence is irrelevant. If God did not create humanity, then humanity having the capability of evil has nothing to do with God.

I remember how this argument has gone every single time I've participated, now you're going to do some handwaving to try to explain how life would suck if everyone was Jesus and that this omnipotent, benevolent God gives us "challenges" to overcome, and I'm going to point out that calling slavery or torture a "challenge" to overcome is pretty condescending to the victims, and that we'd have been better off without those things, i.e. evil exists. So lets just skip that part.

If you genuinely weren't going to do any of that, my apologies.

The fact that these things exist and some things happen for some reason or another makes me believe that God truly takes no part in any activity on the planet, most likely even the universe. That, of course, makes me believe that God doesn't exist at all.

 

[1048576]

Not necessarily. You can still be omnipotent without actually using the status of being omnipotent. God has the potential to stop people from being evil. The fact that he does not does not make him not omnipotent.

For example, let's say God was able to witness a bus full of children about to fall off a cliff. Assuming God is omnipotent, he would be able to witness it, so let's say he is. As the bus goes off the cliff, sending the children to their doom, God has every power to stop it from happening. He does not. He could have, but he did not. God is still omnipotent, however. He can still stop the bus from going over the cliff, making him omnipotent, but his choice to not save them does not take away his omnipotent status.


Okay, but then he's not benevolent, unless you want to argue that letting a bus full of children run off a cliff is not evil. Remember, if He had to give up something to stop it, then there's no omnipotence.

Capability does not equal intention. God could have thought that humanity would not create evil as it grew. Of course, that's assuming that God created humanity in the first place, as we do not know. If he didn't, his existence is irrelevant. If God did not create humanity, then humanity having the capability of evil has nothing to do with God.

Then why doesn't he fix it?

The fact that these things exist and some things happen for some reason or another makes me believe that God truly takes no part in any activity on the planet, most likely even the universe. That, of course, makes me believe that God doesn't exist at all.

10char .

 

[vVv Rapture]

Okay, but then he's not benevolent, unless you want to argue that letting a bus full of children run off a cliff is not evil. Remember, if He had to give up something to stop it, then there's no omnipotence.

Still subjective. We'd have to know more about the whole situation. The bus of children could have been full of children that would have grown up to become terrorists. The bus could have contained dead children and no one was driving it, so it wouldn't have even mattered. Details are more important than you think.

Then again, he's not really giving anything up. Look at it from God's perspective. An almighty being that has an omnipotent presence over an entire planet, possibly over the whole universe. One accident like that may have been important to us, but could have been nothing to him. That doesn't make him any less benevolent, since he could still be benevolent as a whole, but not necessarily in that situation.

That's like calling someone who is an animal activist and environmentalist a bad person because he stepped on an ant hill.

Just because he didn't do anything doesn't mean he's any less of an omnipotent or benevolent presence. If he was the cause of it, and if we knew more about the instance, that could potentially be a different story.

Then why doesn't he fix it?

No idea. But, just because he didn't doesn't mean he can't.

Let's say my shoelace comes loose. I decide to ignore it and not tie it back up. Does that mean I cannot tie my own shoe? No. I just chose not to.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Query: Are we still talking about the Judeo-Christian -od as depicted in the Torah and the Holy Bible? I wasn't sure with all the vague assumptions and the lack of textual reference being used to support such a concept. It seems that we're just generalizing a divine entity's nature off of inductive reasoning and personal bias. To me it just looks like you two guys are comparing your very own manifestations of -od according to your personal stance and then exchanging biases on how you justify human suffering and other malicious aspects of life.

Statements like, "look at it from -od's perspective" are not necessarily pertinent to a Judeo-Christian -od, but rather an omnipotent, all-powerful existence. There are many other deities excluding a Judeo-Christian -od that have enormous power such as Zeus which they have displayed in arenas of actual combat. For an agnotheist, the denial of a Judeo-Christian -od could simply be one among throes of many that could theoretically exist in a given meta-universe.

One could argue that human assumption will always remain subjective due to its denial to seek an objective counterpoint.

The assumption that omni-potence would have a causative effect on a "supreme" deity resulting in the development of a separate thought process is a human notion. Humans would consider that "power" has the potential to change a person due to our personal experience and culture that is largely based on success and responsibilities.

Yet again this is not to say that such an argument is false, it just appears to be unsubstantiated and entirely your opinion which has been garnered through self-analysis and inductive reasoning.

 

[1048576]

If an omnipotent being doesn't fix his evil shoelace, then he's not benevolent.

As for the bus analogy, if you're really going to argue that nothing is ever evil because God wouldn't allow it to be so, and we're all just ignorant of his "master plan," I'm going to start substantiating Godwins (loses?) Law.

 

[Dre89]

Believing in God is similar to believing that invisible unicorns roam the Earth controlling gravity or that George Washington was a furry.

The only people who say this are the ones who aren't familiar with advanced notions of God (eg. Richard Dawkins).

God is nothing like believing in unicorns. In believing in unicorns, you're positing the positive reality of a being that has no necessity, is vastly complex and contingent.

With a philosophical notion of God, you are arguing for something that is either considered the perfect being, or the creator of being, and is necessary for the existence of the universe (that's contentious, but that's why theistic philosophers believe in a God).

The famous Spaghetti Monster is completely different to God. The SM is a contingent, complex being which necessitates the existence of universal laws (time space etc.) prior to the actuation of its existence, something which is completely philosophically implausible. With a philosophical monotheistic God, you are merely positing the existence of a non-complex, non phsyical, self-necessary,either the perfect being, or that which is otherwise than being, but is responsible for the creation of all being, and is necessary for the actuation of the universe. That is far more philosophically plausible.

There's no evidence to support either proposition that God is real or he isn't. That's the problem with unfalsifiable propositions. The reason it's rational to take the null hypothesis in the face of unfalsifiable hypotheses is so you don't give more weight to one of two equally valid, yet contradictory notions. For example, you can't believe that the uni-color pencil I'm using is blue and red at the same time.

But the theist can argue that God is necessary for the atcuation of the universe, which atheists are yet to concretely disprove. Atheists can either argue God's existence is not necessary, or argue through problem of evil reasoning that a good God does not exist due to all the evil present in the world.

 

[1048576]

If you define God as truth, then yeah, God exists. Erm, you win?

Also, the onus is not on us to disprove anything, any more than its on you to prove that Washington was not a furry.

 

[Dre89]

If you define God as truth, then yeah, God exists. Erm, you win?

Also, the onus is not on us to disprove anything, any more than its on you to prove that Washington was not a furry.

I don't strictlly limit God to truth.

Also, you're committing the argument of ignorance fallacy. Absence of (empirical) evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

The burden of proof is equal on both sides. The theist needs to prove the necessity of their God, and the atheist needs to prove that the world can exist without a higher diety.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Dre. Out of curiosity. How does existence relate to necessity?

 

[Dre89]

Suppose X is a finite being (in that it came into existence at some point in time).

A being cannot cause it's own existence, because then it would have had to exist prior to itself. It can't just come out of nothing either, because something would have had to be responsible for this motion, and also the original potentiality (or potency) that led to this existence being possible.

Thus we conclude that a being must have existed prior to X, to actuate X into existence. In this sense, X necessitates a prior being, because if we know X exists, then we know a prior being must have actuated its existence.

This is what essentially the cosmological argument for God's existence is centred around. It basically argues that everything in the universe, or the universe itself, is finite, requiring and eternal, self-necessary being to have actuated its existence, which is obviously God. In this sense, we can observe the world and infer that something beyond it, and the restraints of its laws (space, time, motion etc.) is necessary for its existence.

This is obivouslly all contentious, but in philosophy, which is compatible with theology, most arguments or God posit the necessity of His existence.

 

[1048576]

You're essentially defining God as the first cause and making no other claims about his existence, correct?

The world can exist without a higher deity. Time can be cyclical. Done.

You still haven't convinced me that George Washington wasn't a furry. You should prove that we could be alive today if he wasn't.

 

[Deleted member]

It can't just come out of nothing either, because something would have had to be responsible for this motion

Quantum fluctuations can "just" come into existence.

 

[gm jack]

And in the big bang model, it never says nothing existed before to cause it. It just says we don't know what it would be, as it would be separate from our universe.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

And in the big bang model, it never says nothing existed before to cause it. It just says we don't know what it would be, as it would be separate from our universe.

However, In the big bang, something exploded. The explosion trigger could have been inside the object.

 

[Sieguest]

The world can exist without a higher deity. Time can be cyclical. Done.

Prove it. You made the assertion, you have to prove it.

You still haven't convinced me that George Washington wasn't a furry. You should prove that we could be alive today if he wasn't.

You haven't convinced me that George Washington wasn't a furry. You were the one who made this assertion:

Believing in God is similar to believing that invisible unicorns roam the Earth controlling gravity or that George Washington was a furry.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Quick question to pro-god people: If god is necessary to create the universe, and something can not exist without a creator. Then what created god?

 

[professor mgw]

Prove it. You made the assertion, you have to prove it.

You haven't convinced me that George Washington wasn't a furry. You were the one who made this assertion:

... wow.

To ignore the existance of a god is just being flat out stupid. To ignore the fact the details of creation or to look at them and still say there is no god makes absoulutely no sense. Everything is to set in place for there not to be something of a higher source.

 

[professor mgw]

Quick question to pro-god people: If god is necessary to create the universe, and something can not exist without a creator. Then what created god?

This makes a lot of sense. But doesn't the same apply to the opposite answer? It is common sense that something can't be created from nothing, so wouldn't you say something as abstract as the universe, the animals, the humans and there thought process, The water and oxgen cycle, etc. Are just to complex to say there's no intellgent creator behind it?

 

[1048576]

Prove it. You made the assertion, you have to prove it.

You haven't convinced me that George Washington wasn't a furry. You were the one who made this assertion:

Cool, so believing in God is like believing George Washington had a fur fetish. I can't prove he did. You can't prove he didn't. You just gotta have faith or whatever.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

This makes a lot of sense. But doesn't the same apply to the opposite answer? It is common sense that something can't be created from nothing, so wouldn't you say something as abstract as the universe, the animals, the humans and there thought process, The water and oxgen cycle, etc. Are just to complex to say there's no intellgent creator behind it?

Yes, and that is were exactly this problem arises, because of that logic and by using the same logic, I now ask what created the creator? As something as glories, complex, intelligent and powerful as a god/goddess must have a creator? Surely something that fits such a description must have a creator should it not, especially scene it is common scene that things do not exist without creators? So what created god?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Cool, so believing in God is like believing George Washington had a fur fetish. I can't prove he did. You can't prove he didn't. You just gotta have faith or whatever.

1048576, as a personal favor, please abstain from mocking religion and the opinions of other debators. I can understand that you don't believe in monotheistic religion, but analogizing it to unicorns and famous presidents with fetishes along with mocking individuals who insist on faith does not make your arguments anymore appealing. If you feel that you are answering an absurd argument, then the proper rebuttal isn't to steep further into the comparative crime that results in Godwin's Law. According to a poll issued by Weber Shandwick two months ago, 39% of a given sample size 'tuned out' of social networking due to incivility and rude discourse. If you need an outlet to point out your personal qualms about religion, it shouldn't get tangled in with your rational reasoning of a monotheistic deity.

Another area of contention that I personally feel should be covered is that you have a tendency to generate faulty conclusions about a debator when they are trying to deconstruct your argument. When someone attempts to deconstruct your thought process, it does not necessarily mean that they fulfill the negative conditions of your argument. There is a possibility that the same conclusions are reached, yet the method of arriving at such a conclusion are not agreed upon. When you choose to stick such debators on the negative side of the argument construct that they just attempted to deconstruct, it often gives off the impression that you are either intentionally attempting to piss them off or have ignored their criticisms by continuing to rely on such a method to continue the conversation. Either outcome results in undesirable results.

 

[Sieguest]

... wow.

To ignore the existance of a god is just being flat out stupid. To ignore the fact the details of creation or to look at them and still say there is no god makes absoulutely no sense. Everything is to set in place for there not to be something of a higher source.

Ad hominem. You're supposed to refute my argument, not attack me.

Also, you should read the discussion as far as it has come before you go making such assumptions as you have. In the post you just quoted I didn't say God exists or that he doesn't exist. I was only pointing out that 1048576 has the burden of proof whenever he makes assertions such as he did in the post I addressed him in.

I apply the same demand to you as I did to him. Prove it. If you make the assertion that God exists, then you must prove it, otherwise, why should I believe you?

This makes a lot of sense. But doesn't the same apply to the opposite answer? It is common sense that something can't be created from nothing, so wouldn't you say something as abstract as the universe, the animals, the humans and there thought process, The water and oxgen cycle, etc. Are just to complex to say there's no intellgent creator behind it?

You should look up quantum fluctuations. They happen where nothing is.

Cool, so believing in God is like believing George Washington had a fur fetish. I can't prove he did. You can't prove he didn't. You just gotta have faith or whatever.

I can prove he didn't. Just read any biography on George Washington and see if you can find any indications of him having a fur fetish. I would wager that you wouldn't be able to.

You're also missing the point, if you're going to demand that the Pro-God side brings evidence of his existence, and then turn around and make the assertions you're making then you're using a double standard.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I can prove he didn't. Just read any biography on George Washington and see if you can find any indications of him having a fur fetish. I would wager that you wouldn't be able to. You're also missing the point, if you're going to demand that the Pro-God side brings evidence of his existence, and then turn around and make the assertions you're making then you're using a double standard.

I would like to add that relying on the George Washington comparison is exemplary of a straw-man comparison. Dre pointed out in post #55 that -od cannot be accurately compared to the George Washington or Unicorn examples. Even though I don't agree entirely with the basis of his refutation, there is no basis that links the existence of -od to having any correlation with whether or not unicorns exist or George Washington's preference. Proving or refuting a straw-man has little relevance as its correlation to the main topic remains questionable. Even if we proved that unicorns exist, that does not necessitate the existence of -od as the two comparisons remain isolated. I find the reliance on such examples disturbing as my post in #53 asked for more textual basis rather than a reliance on assumptions behind the nature of -od. The purpose behind religious text is to remain objective to inductive comparisons that often times originate from subjective interpretations. It seems that the main topic has escaped this thread and instead of focusing on -od, we are chasing after Washington and Unicorns.

 

[1048576]

All I'm saying is God's existence is similar to other unfalsifiable claims in that there's absolutely no evidence, from a scientific standpoint, in favor of them. So if you're going to feel justified believing in God, then I'm going to feel justified in believing in ... well I can't give an example now for fear of coming across as insensitive, but use your imagination.

And shadowkupo, you're right that I can't find any evidence that GW liked the animals but a lack of evidence either way (you're not going to find any biography that says he wasn't either) hasn't stopped the pro-God side from believing in God. There's literally no evidence. There can't be. It's an unfalsifiable claim. Now, if you can show me something like, I'll pray for these people to be cured, and if God exists, then they'll be cured, and you set up control groups and stuff, and you strictly state that if there's no difference, then we proved God doesn't exist, then and only then, you have allowed God to be falsifiable.

And if your experiment succeeds and the prayed for group is cured (or whatever the experiment is) all that you do is provide evidence equivalent to dropping an apple once and believing in gravity. That's why is usually best if these things are repeatable.

And I thought I refuted Dre's refutation, but w/e.

 

[Sucumbio]

I just wanna know one thing.

What's with the -od spelling of God? (no pun intended, lol) Is that so you aren't -only- talking about the God of Abraham? Does this mean each of your arguments can be applied to any of the Judeo-Christian faiths?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

All I'm saying is God's existence is similar to other unfalsifiable claims in that there's absolutely no evidence, from a scientific standpoint, in favor of them. So if you're going to feel justified believing in God, then I'm going to feel justified in believing in ... well I can't give an example now for fear of coming across as insensitive, but use your imagination.

Science itself is far from a perfected art. The atomic model underwent numerous iterations before it arrived at the system we have today: the plum-pudding model conceived by J.J. Thompson proposed in 1904 was composed of only protons and electrons which ignored the existence of neutrons. As research progressed, the atomic model transformed into a Rutherford based model and then into a Nils Bohr model. Science itself isn't esteemed off the precepts that it is a perfected style, but rather respected because it assumes the opposite.

This is not to deny the legitimacy of science. But rather a small reminder that science is not as absolute as we would like to believe. In the book of Genesis, Chapter 1 verse 20 stipulates that the first living creatures created were aquatic animals. It is important that this is given credence as many scientific theories on the human world stipulate that the Ozone Layer had yet to develop at this time period. Due to this, UV radiation was lethal and would mutate DNA therefore killing off any organisms that could have existed on land by mutating chromosomes that contained genes necessary for amino acids / proteins that were necessary for survival (Urey-Miller theory), causing them to be unable to pass their genes unto their offspring, or causing offspring that were simply too weak to survive on the land. In addition to UV radiation, the early environment was expected to be heavily oxidizing. An oxidizing environment is when electrons are removed from a given system. Electrons are necessary in order to form covalent bonds and confer polarity, induction, and a majority of chemical properties to an organism according to the organization of the Periodic Table. With conditions on land being unfavorable, it is heavily suspected that life began in the water. Water would deflect UV rays allowing aquatic organisms to transcribe and transcript genetic information without any possibility for error. In addition oxidation would be impaired in such an environment.

It remains interesting as to why the Bible gives credence to the fact that aquatic animals were created first in the world. I will admit that my specialty does not lie in astronomy or physics, therefore theories on light and vacuum space escape me. In addition, if I were to continue in a literal context, Genesis 2:5 stipulates that man was created from the dust of the Earth and the breath of -od. To this extent, I can understand a large amount of skepticism regarding the scientific basis of the Bible. But having scientific background sometimes makes me fill in the gaps whenever I read religious scripture. If not for the sake of keeping an open mind.

I just wanna know one thing. What's with the -od spelling of God? (no pun intended, lol) Is that so you aren't -only- talking about the God of Abraham? Does this mean each of your arguments can be applied to any of the Judeo-Christian faiths?

Before the development of the Printing Press by Johannes Gutenberg around the 1400s, the Bible was primarily written using quill pens and ink. The transcribers had such a transcendental respect or possibly fear of the Judeo-Christian -od that every time they would spell his name, they would use a separate quill pin due to their immense respect in the sanctity that the translated name held from its Hebrew derivative. Even though it seems ridiculous that an "interpretation" of the Hebrew name -ahweh and even the name -ahweh itself is not in the original Hebrew language would be held in such high esteem, it is truly a testament to the amount of respect that scholars had for the written scripture. Being raised as a young child, my family often had problems and would turn to religion in order to seek answers. Christianity turned into a means to an end and I saw that many other families used religion for similar purposes. If there was any form of genuine respect that had to be encapsulated precluding Martin Luther and his refutation of the Catholic Church, then I would have to argue that it would have to be my fascination when I learned of the ancient transcribers of the Bible. Even though I know I don't fit into any sect or denomination of Christianity, I still believe I should show a degree of respect to not only believers but to the possibility that a higher-power could actually exist. Living in the present we often lose sight of what it meant to live in the past.

 

[1048576]

So because science is wrong right now, religion is right? No, that's not how evidence works.

The Bible says a lot of things. If predicting fish gives it legitimacy, then saying the flood happened disproves its validity.

 

[Sieguest]

So because science is wrong right now, religion is right? No, that's not how evidence works.

No where does he say that. He only said that science is not perfect. As of right now, there is not sufficient scientific evidence for God nor against God, but as science continually progresses evidence may pop up, or evidence proving otherwise will.

 

[1048576]

I'll say this one more time, hopefully. God is unfalsifiable. That means you CANNOT have evidence in favor of it, or against it. Now, God that answers all prayers: that's falsifiable. I pray to be struck down before I finish this sentence. Hey look, A God that answers all prayers isn't real. Omnipotent, benevolent God isn't real either, for logical reasons. Gods in general? That's unfalsifiable.

 

[Dre89]

Quick question to pro-god people: If god is necessary to create the universe, and something can not exist without a creator. Then what created god?

Because God is eternal and non changing.

104 you don't need empirical evidence. We didn't use empirical evidence to show that empirical evidence is meritous, so other methodologies aside from empirical ones can deduce truth.

And saying that there us no empirical evidence justifies atheism, because you haven't explained how the world can exist without God. It's like saying that because there's no evidence for A committing the murder, B must have done it.

 

[1048576]

Atheism is not its own separate religion. It is the absence of a claim. GW was not a furry, invisible unicorns don't control gravity, etc... Like, I should believe that my pencil is not blue until I look and see that it is.

And you haven't explained how we can be here if invisible unicorns didn't gravity.

Time can be circular or artificial. Or heck, the OP (original paricles) could have changed. An unchanging, eternal creator is not necessary.