Thoughts on Evolution?

[papie]

Why would God be unable to act?

Laws of physics. He is unable to alter the state/momentum/speed/mass/location of any particle or energy packet. It just isn't possible.

 

[SuperFerret]

How so? Aren't humans able to do so? Due to that whole uncertainty principle thing?

 

[papie]

How so? Aren't humans able to do so? Due to that whole uncertainty principle thing?

We are able because we are contained within this dimension. We can eat food and use the energy out of that food to pick up a stone.

Conservation of energy is what I'm going at.

 

[SuperFerret]

That still makes assumptions on what God is though.

 

[papie]

That still makes assumptions on what God is though.

Yes.

But what is God then?

I find it ridiculous to be so vague about the definition of God that it defies discussion.

I BELIEVE IN GOD, HE IS A LIFELESS PIECE OF PAPER ON MY DESK.

 

[chaseter]

Laws of physics. He is unable to alter the state/momentum/speed/mass/location of any particle or energy packet. It just isn't possible.

The laws of physics are broken all the time...a black hole for example. It might be that we don't understand yet everything about the Universe. We are still finding new things about the Universe all the time. Anti-matter, the god particle, etc. We still have a long ways to go.

 

[papie]

The laws of physics are broken all the time...a black hole for example. It might be that we don't understand yet everything about the Universe. We are still finding new things about the Universe all the time. Anti-matter, the god particle, etc. We still have a long ways to go.

Sometimes old notions are indeed false.

This does not mean that laws of physics are broken, they sometimes aren't well enough defined.
But present to me just one measured instance where the law of conservation of energy is broken and I will yield.

 

[chaseter]

I shoot a bullet into a blackhole. The bullet has momentum. Where does the bullet go and what is the energy converted into?

 

[SuperFerret]

Yes.

But what is God then?

I find it ridiculous to be so vague about the definition of God that it defies discussion.

It doesn't defy discussion. In fact, the vague nature of what "God" is actually promotes discussion. Stating "God doesn't exist. It's simple physics." defies discussion because it's an ending statement.

 

[chaseter]

Science cannot prove that a god(s) does not exist because it is untestable therefore that the statement that god does not exist can never be made. Even Dawkins said that Science and Religion should have their own Magisteria. That means that Science should never be out to disprove the existence of a god and Religion should never be out to disprove Scientific facts. They are both fool's games.

 

[papie]

I shoot a bullet into a blackhole. The bullet has momentum. Where does the bullet go and what is the energy converted into?

Well, black hole physics are tough but essentially, your bullet has less speed at the approach of the black hole than at the point where it spins around the horizon so I don't have a clue how that works.

The bullet is compressed to a super dense piece of mass at the centre of the hole.

I do know that until now the law of conservation of energy is still valid.

It doesn't defy discussion. In fact, the vague nature of what "God" is actually promotes discussion. Stating "God doesn't exist. It's simple physics." defies discussion because it's an ending statement.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I am saying he cannot interact with our universe. Unless he is a measurable force.

 

[redhawk23]

So in the beginning there was nothing.. and then from nothing over billions of years we all came to be? How does nothing become something?

This arguement again, basically stating the necessity for a beginning, usually God, to prevent an infinite regression of causality.

The problem with arguing on this basis is that it's an invalid critique because..where did God come from?

It's explaining away one paradox that we can observe with a similar one that we cannot.

I'm not trying to belittle you at all, I mean Aristotle argued basically on the same basis that you are, I just have a problem with this line of thought.

 

[Dr.]

Even Dawkins said that Science and Religion should have their own Magisteria. That means that Science should never be out to disprove the existence of a god and Religion should never be out to disprove Scientific facts. They are both fool's games.

No. And no.

It was Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould who said that science and religion exist within their separate “magisteria.” Dawkins actually rejects this. To the extent that religion makes claims about the material universe (virgin births, resurrection of the dead, guided creation), Dawkins thinks science has a legitimate entry into the discussion.

 

[KRIM]

Science cannot prove that a god(s) does not exist because it is untestable therefore that the statement that god does not exist can never be made. Even Dawkins said that Science and Religion should have their own Magisteria. That means that Science should never be out to disprove the existence of a god and Religion should never be out to disprove Scientific facts. They are both fool's games.

I'm confused here. This is the type of illogical reasoning that always seem to permeate discussions of science and religion. It doesn't matter god cannot be proven to not exist for the simple fact that is a backwards way of approaching a true/false claim. The burden of proof always lies on the asserting party -- always. If a random person walks up to you to say, "I just saw Apollo/Spaghetti Monster/Jesus moments ago, it was a miracle!", to which you respond with, "Sure you did" -- the proper response from them would be to provide proof. Not, "Oh really? PROVE I didn't see it".

Surely you can see the impossible dilemma there. It just doesn't follow the rules of logic.

In any case, I'm always amused when this question is brought up and spurs a very drawn out discussion. I can't be the only one here that equates "do you believe in the evolution?" to be as absurd as asking "do you believe in gravity?".

 

[chaseter]

No. And no.

It was Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould who said that science and religion exist within their separate “magisteria.” Dawkins actually rejects this. To the extent that religion makes claims about the material universe (virgin births, resurrection of the dead, guided creation), Dawkins thinks science has a legitimate entry into the discussion.

I am sorry...it is Gould. I am trying to remember bio class from 4 years ago.

But...I still agree with his assertion. Science and Religion should not be mixed. One should not be out to disprove the other. And of course Science can never prove or disprove the existence of god(s) as it is an untestable assertion so it is pointless for anybody to say that god does or does not exist. It is merely what you believe. It isn't fact.

 

[LOBO3315a]

Humans have always been distrustful of something that cannot be proven in a matter of 1 lifetime. Gravity, you can prove within a few minutes. Evolution, not so much.

 

[Majmun]

Yeah, like Chase said. I was raised Catholic and though Idk if I'd even call myself a Christian, that's the God I think exists.

And if you were raised Muslim, you'd believe in Allah, and if you were raised Hindu, you'd believe in Vishnu, and if you were raised in ancient Greece, you'd believe in Zeus, etc. etc.

It comes down to faith, and faith isn't a good reason to believe anything imo. People had faith that Jesus was coming back on May 21st and sold all they had, or gave up so much retirement money to post up signs to warn everyone. That's one very recent example as to why faith is not a good reason to believe something.

Is evolution true? Yes. Micro-evolution can be observed in the lab. Macro-evolution can be observed in the fossil record. Did some god start this process? I have no idea.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Look at your thumb. Proven.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

And if you were raised Muslim, you'd believe in Allah, and if you were raised Hindu, you'd believe in Vishnu, and if you were raised in ancient Greece, you'd believe in Zeus, etc. etc.

It comes down to faith, and faith isn't a good reason to believe anything imo. People had faith that Jesus was coming back on May 21st and sold all they had, or gave up so much retirement money to post up signs to warn everyone. That's one very recent example as to why faith is not a good reason to believe something.

Is evolution true? Yes. Micro-evolution can be observed in the lab. Macro-evolution can be observed in the fossil record. Did some god start this process? I have no idea.

But he could have. S'all I'm trying to say.

 

[chaseter]

I'm confused here. This is the type of illogical reasoning that always seem to permeate discussions of science and religion. It doesn't matter god cannot be proven to not exist for the simple fact that is a backwards way of approaching a true/false claim. The burden of proof always lies on the asserting party -- always. If a random person walks up to you to say, "I just saw Apollo/Spaghetti Monster/Jesus moments ago, it was a miracle!", to which you respond with, "Sure you did" -- the proper response from them would be to provide proof. Not, "Oh really? PROVE I didn't see it".

Surely you can see the impossible dilemma there. It just doesn't follow the rules of logic.

In any case, I'm always amused when this question is brought up and spurs a very drawn out discussion. I can't be the only one here that equates "do you believe in the evolution?" to be as absurd as asking "do you believe in gravity?".

An asserting opinion is that God does not exist just as much as saying God does exist. It is merely a logical fallacy that one side brings up in order to try and dominate the debate because that side can then say that the evidence is tampered with, isn't good enough, has too many variables, etc. Science can only deal in probabilities. The probability may be high that a god does not exist but no scientist can assert that a god does not exist. For something to be scientific fact, it has to be testable. Therefore, the assertion that god does not or does exist is not fact. It is merely an opinion/belief.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I agree. However; I believe that Atheists would become faithful once proof was established. The Faithful never concede to much even when a mountain of proof is presented.


Take the age of the Earth for example.

 

[chaseter]

There are crazies on both sides but yes...one side is way less rational than the other.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

I ask my friend yesterday if he believe The Earth was created in six days and he said yeah. I understand believing in God but it's when you take stuff like that seriously even when all the evidence points agaisnt it. It's crazy.

 

[Franklin Richards]

That's the trouble when you interpret poetry as fact.

 

[Majmun]

But he could have. S'all I'm trying to say.

Sure. And so could have a multiple amount of other gods. Why do you pick the one you were raised to believe? Simply because you were raised that way and your holy book tells you that?

Or, maybe it was something like the big bang that caused it, or maybe some other yet unknown event that caused it. Just wondering why you believe it was caused by the god you were raised to believe in.