Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

there's a famous experiment which shows evolution happening within certain bacteria.
what they did was take a certain strain of bacteria and grow generation after generation in a controlled laboratory environment. with nothing to compete with for food but other bacteria and the food not moving, the bacteria evolved multiple tails to propel them to the food the fastest.

no matter how many times the test is repeated the bacteria always evolve the exact same way. with each generation more and more tails appear until they end up with between 7-9 tails which seems to be the optimal build for that environment.

Of course they responded exactly the same way, it was exactly the same criteria.

It's like that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

If it's accident what else you need?
Only humans find a need for a sky fairy.
Mental shortcoming which obviously has no evolutionary repercussions....

A mental shortcoming that generally results in being wealthier than non believers.

Sounds stupid as * to me.

 

[Boston tiger]

I see that as simplistic response, the conditions for life may be remote, but if those conditions exist then within that environment the odd's switch and life becomes more likely to exist then not exist. how often these conditions arise becomes irrelevant.

there's a famous experiment which shows evolution happening within certain bacteria.
what they did was take a certain strain of bacteria and grow generation after generation in a controlled laboratory environment. with nothing to compete with for food but other bacteria and the food not moving, the bacteria evolved multiple tails to propel them to the food the fastest.

no matter how many times the test is repeated the bacteria always evolve the exact same way. with each generation more and more tails appear until they end up with between 7-9 tails which seems to be the optimal build for that environment.

now in the real world the odd's of these conditions existing are extremely small, but the fact remains we have an example where conditions lead to one overwhelming outcome.

as for meta physics my own limited understanding is that time my not even be linear. time occurs all at once but we are limited to viewing it as progressing ever forward. which if correct makes the whole conversation about a beginning academic.

I wonder after a time would the bacteria ever start wondering how the Petri dish got there?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Of course they responded exactly the same way, it was exactly the same criteria.

It's like that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

your missing the point. its an example of conditions dictating the outcome.
if abiogenesis is correct then the all that has to happen is the conditions be right and bam the outcome that's most likely is that life will exist.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I wonder after a time would the bacteria ever start wondering how the Petri dish got there?

i find it highly unlikely that the conditions of a petri dish lend itself to producing multicellular lifeforms let alone animals with brains capable of abstract thought.

 

[clogged]

A mental shortcoming that generally results in being wealthier than non believers.

Sounds stupid as **** to me.

From where did you pull this nonsense?

 

[skilts]

God punished Vanuatians....

Another lucky escape for you. God must have been confused.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

From where did you pull this nonsense?

Jews and Hindus are statistically more likely to earn higher incomes then the average yank.
that's the only study i know of that's looked at the general wealth comparative to religious affiliation.
the same study found Christians particularly Baptist and Methodists have a lower then average incomes.

of course its much more likely a result of wealthy Indian and Jewish families migrating to america and the large amount of impoverished back Americans that belong to Baptist and Methodist churches. but hey, let them have their beliefs to the contrary.

after all most polls show that generally the poorer a country as a whole the higher level of religious belief it has.

as you can see here the US bucks the trend when it comes to religiosity and wealth:

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

if abiogenesis is correct then the all that has to happen is the conditions be right and bam the outcome that's most likely is that life will exist.

I thought that went without saying and that what is under question is the ability for those conditions to be right in the first place, hence the line of reducing back to the very first "condition".

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

From where did you pull this nonsense?

It's been raised in the thread already.

Are you trying to take the piss today or what?

 

[clogged]

It's been raised in the thread already.

No it hasn't.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

No it hasn't.

Yes it has.

Would you like to place a bet? If I provide proof, you leave BF and never return, deal?

 

[clogged]

Yes it has.

Would you like to place a bet? If I provide proof, you leave BF and never return, deal?

What are the terms of this bet?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I thought that went without saying and that what is under question is the ability for those conditions to be right in the first place, hence the line of reducing back to the very first "condition".

the universe has trillions of stars with trillions upon trillions of worlds.
even if the conditions required have less then .03% to exist that's 300000000 places it does.

reductionist's have reduced god to an ever receding tide. if you must hide must hide your god all the way back at the beginning, you best pray we never figure out what went on, Because what will you have if we ever do?

Personally based on all the things we couldn't explain in the past, that we can now. I'd suggest you pray really, really hard because so far the track record for "you can't explain that" is abysmal.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

the universe has trillions of stars with trillions upon trillions of worlds.
even if the conditions required have less then .03% to exist that's 300000000 places it does.

reductionist's have reduced god to an ever receding tide. if you must hide must hide your god all the way back at the beginning, you best pray we never figure out what went on, Because what will you have if we ever do?

Personally based on all the things we couldn't explain in the past, that we can now. I'd suggest you pray really, really hard because so far the track record for "you can't explain that" is abysmal.

You mistake my stance for that of a Biblicist.

You are wrong.

 

[clogged]

What are the terms of this bet?

Permanent exile from BF.

Go ahead.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

You mistake my stance for that of a Biblicist.

You are wrong.

it doesn't matter what theist view is taken, if the realm your god exists in that by which a god must be responsible for that which we do not know then its reductionist. a biblical perspective would simply never admit that functions were without god, from a biblical perspective at least traditional biblical teachings is that the universe itself is not removed from god. it takes the idea of the alpha and the omega to the tenth degree. literally that creation itself is essentially a aspect of god itself.

gnostic christians of course disagree with that because they view the physical world itself as negative and therefore god must stand apart from his creation. It's one of the fascinating things many christians and non theists take for granted when reading the old testament and come across passages where in god is in a specific place such as moses going to the top of what is clearly a volcano because thats gods joint or when the ark of covenant get pinched by one of the enemies of the israelites god *s off with it.

its because traditional teachings are that god is quite literally everywhere and everything. reality itself is part of god and yet separate at the same time. its confusing as * which i guess is why gnostic ideals in christianity are so prevalent today, its much easier to grasp and understand a god which has one state (the immaterial) then being both the material and immaterial at the same time.

 

[CountryRace]

yes the holy trinity and transubstantiation make things a lot more simple to grasp

 

[Pie eyed]

A mental shortcoming that generally results in being wealthier than non believers.

Sounds stupid as **** to me.

ROFL.
No idea where you got that load of tripe.
Christianity thrives on poverty like all woo.

 

[Pie eyed]

Another lucky escape for you. God must have been confused.

Shazbot!

 

[Pie eyed]

It's been raised in the thread already.

Are you trying to take the piss today or what?

Raising an total load of tripe does not automatically give it veracity.
I know it's how you justify your faith but don't think everyone else has to be so ridiculously gullible buster.

 

[Boston tiger]

the universe has trillions of stars with trillions upon trillions of worlds.
even if the conditions required have less then .03% to exist that's 300000000 places it does.

reductionist's have reduced god to an ever receding tide. if you must hide must hide your god all the way back at the beginning, you best pray we never figure out what went on, Because what will you have if we ever do?

Personally based on all the things we couldn't explain in the past, that we can now. I'd suggest you pray really, really hard because so far the track record for "you can't explain that" is abysmal.

Not sure if this is in line with what you are saying but

We are finding stuff out all the time and things written pertaining to God 2000 and 5000 years ago stacked up against what we know 2 seconds ago looks great for man There are no mysteries just science and discovery if we keep going the way we are going.

But then we discover that " matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed " and questions like "how did the initial energy come about etc pop up.
They are the essence of the God question.
Just because we have found out a lot of things doesn't mean we are closer to disproving God or scientifically working out how God works or is. Science and God seem to me to be on different playing fields.
The more we know the more there is God.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

yes the holy trinity and transubstantiation make things a lot more simple to grasp

you realise the Arian controversy arose two centuries after the subject matter I'm talking about right?
gnostic beliefs entering in Christianity dominated most of the 2nd century.
whilst the split in the church of Alexandria occurred in the 4th century.
and contrary to popular belief trinity doctrine was not canonised at the council of niece which only dealt with the nature of jesus.
the holy spirit didn't gain canonisation until 381 at the council of Constantinople.
after which the gnostics themselves became targets and within two centurys much of gnostic christian beliefs such as reincarnation were purged with fire quite literally.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Not sure if this is in line with what you are saying but

We are finding stuff out all the time and things written pertaining to God 2000 and 5000 years ago stacked up against what we know 2 seconds ago looks great for man There are no mysteries just science and discovery if we keep going the way we are going.

But then we discover that " matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed " and questions like "how did the initial energy come about etc pop up.
They are the essence of the God question.
Just because we have found out a lot of things doesn't mean we are closer to disproving God or scientifically working out how God works or is. Science and God seem to me to be on different playing fields.
The more we know the more there is God.

But you realise the dilemma yes? if your "evidence" for god lies in the unknown, then it is a god in constant retreat.
it is the fundamental flaw in the "you can't explain that" line of thinking, its completely reductionist.
it stems from the purely Myopic outlook that anyone has any idea of what "god" did, what "god" is.

lets say hypothetically we figure out exactly how the initial energy came into existence. Would that disprove "god" or would the tide simply recede further as its adherents point to cause of the energy and say "well, you can't explain that!"

 

[Boston tiger]

But you realise the dilemma yes? if your "evidence" for god lies in the unknown, then it is a god in constant retreat.
it is the fundamental flaw in the "you can't explain that" line of thinking, its completely reductionist.
it stems from the purely Myopic outlook that anyone has any idea of what "god" did, what "god" is.

lets say hypothetically we figure out exactly how the initial energy came into existence. Would that disprove "god" or would the tide simply recede further as its adherents point to cause of the energy and say "well, you can't explain that!"

If you find how the initial energy came into existence then your home but saying it always existed won't count.

This reductionist thing.. does it need a finite number of things to be discovered. If the things to be discovered are infinite then whose reducing what.