Jump to content

Please Present The Best Explanation For Our Existence


believeingod
 Share

Recommended Posts

The quest is not to present proof's for God's existence, or non existence. We cannot proove conclusively either one of them.

But we can rationalize, and try to figure out what might be the best explanation for our existence. So i ask you to present a alternative to God, which makes more sense. Since you probably do not believe anymore

that a God creator of our universe exists, you have left as alternative naturalism. Please explain , why you think naturalism has a better explanation, and present this explanation.

Please do not rely your argumentation on a negative, aka, i do NOT believe in God, because Genesis does not make sense, for example. I want to see positive arguments. A world view and explanation, which stands by its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fossil records pretty clearly point to our (and many other living things) evolution. As does genetic evidence. This doesn't preclude God. He could still be there and just be a passive observer to all of this. Or he could be the meddler described in the Bible but just in regard to particular human details and Genesis ought to be understood allegorically. But in either case, it isn't necessary to posit a God to have a mechanism that explains us being here.

 

As for how life started, I don't know. It could have been a random combination of replicating molecules from a collection of amino acids, or some meteorite brought it to earth from somewhere else. Or maybe advanced aliens did it and our planet is some greenhouse experiment of theirs. I say these in descending order of likelihood in my mind, but pointing to what I think is the most likely scenario isn't the same as pointing out the scenario. That is something that I don't believe can be known. What I do know is that none of them require God (although maybe some would be inclined to call the advanced aliens gods?). All it requires is chemical reactions and enough time under certain conditions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fossil records pretty clearly point to our (and many other living things) evolution.

 

When you see a few different models of Chevrolet cars, the similarities point out to the same company. Not necessarly, that one car evolved based on a other similar car. So the similiarities of fossils can also just evidence the same creator, that created the different species.

 

As does genetic evidence. This doesn't preclude God. He could still be there and just be a passive observer to all of this. Or he could be the meddler described in the Bible but just in regard to particular human details and Genesis ought to be understood allegorically. But in either case, it isn't necessary to posit a God to have a mechanism that explains us being here.

 

That is a assertion without evidence. where is it ?

 

As for how life started, I don't know. It could have been a random combination of replicating molecules

 

and how did they get the ability of replication ?

 

from a collection of amino acids, or some meteorite brought it to earth from somewhere else.

 

Science does not favour this scenario.

 

 

Or maybe advanced aliens did it and our planet is some greenhouse experiment of theirs.

 

any scientific evidence to back this up ?

 

 

 

I say these in descending order of likelihood in my mind, but pointing to what I think is the most likely scenario isn't the same as pointing out the scenario. That is something that I don't believe can be known. What I do know is that none of them require God (although maybe some would be inclined to call the advanced aliens gods?). All it requires is chemical reactions and enough time under certain conditions.

 

have you seen random chemical reactions ever produce specified, complex information ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fossil records pretty clearly point to our (and many other living things) evolution.

 

When you see a few different models of Chevrolet cars, the similarities point out to the same company.

Then you haven't looked at the different fossils. They're more like going from roller-skates to bicycles to bikes to box-cars to two-door coupe to ...

 

Not necessarly, that one car evolved based on a other similar car. So the similiarities of fossils can also just evidence the same creator, that created the different species.

So how do you deal with the fossils that have mixed similarities? In other words, some of the phenotypes are not human but ape, and some other phenotypes are human but not apes. When you have a fossil of a bipedal ape using tools, it's a little tricky to explain it away as "similarities."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quest is not to present proof's for God's existence, or non existence. We cannot proove conclusively either one of them.

But we can rationalize, and try to figure out what might be the best explanation for our existence. So i ask you to present a alternative to God, which makes more sense. Since you probably do not believe anymore

that a God creator of our universe exists, you have left as alternative naturalism. Please explain , why you think naturalism has a better explanation, and present this explanation.

Please do not rely your argumentation on a negative, aka, i do NOT believe in God, because Genesis does not make sense, for example. I want to see positive arguments. A world view and explanation, which stands by its own.

 

You have phrased this in such as way as to give the impression that you can't live without believing in something. Why does there have to be an explanation? Why do you have to have an answer for everything? It's not that you're alone in this; whenever shit happens believers just can't accept that shit happens, they have to believe that it's god's will that he meant it to happen that way. Whatever. I don't choose which explanation I like better, I follow the one with the most evidence. How do know you have the right answer? In other words, for you as a believer the answer to the $64,000^∞ question is "I believe in you Jesus and I accept you into my heart", when maybe the right answer is "Based on all the different religions in the world, and how poorly all their supposed holy texts are written, there is no possible way I can really know the right answer so I'm going to reserve judgment, which truthfully is the only answer that has any intellectual integrity whatsoever."

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are god. God is you. Sorry if that is a bit simplistic, but there is no discontinuity between you and the universe. You are the universe. You caused the universe to be because you wanted to be here right now in the form you are in, and asking these kinds of questions to which you darn well know you should already have the answer.

But thanks for asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quest is not to present proof's for God's existence, or non existence. We cannot proove conclusively either one of them.

But we can rationalize, and try to figure out what might be the best explanation for our existence. So i ask you to present a alternative to God, which makes more sense. Since you probably do not believe anymore

that a God creator of our universe exists, you have left as alternative naturalism. Please explain , why you think naturalism has a better explanation, and present this explanation.

Please do not rely your argumentation on a negative, aka, i do NOT believe in God, because Genesis does not make sense, for example. I want to see positive arguments. A world view and explanation, which stands by its own.

 

You have phrased this in such as way as to give the impression that you can't live without believing in something. Why does there have to be an explanation? Why do you have to have an answer for everything? It's not that you're alone in this; whenever shit happens believers just can't accept that shit happens, they have to believe that it's god's will that he meant it to happen that way. Whatever. I don't choose which explanation I like better, I follow the one with the most evidence. How do know you have the right answer? In other words, for you as a believer the answer to the $64,000^∞ question is "I believe in you Jesus and I accept you into my heart", when maybe the right answer is "Based on all the different religions in the world, and how poorly all their supposed holy texts are written, there is no possible way I can really know the right answer so I'm going to reserve judgment, which truthfully is the only answer that has any intellectual integrity whatsoever."

 

 

I like your response. In regards to questions we cannot answer, it's better to accept ignorance than to accept a fairytale as a substitute for the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Please explain , why you think naturalism has a better explanation, and present this explanation.

...

 

That's simple. Naturalism fits the evidence. And it's not a matter of having several positions available and seeing which one fits. Naturalism came forth from the evidence. The complexity that is the universe came about from simple particles interacting in simple ways. It might be helpful for you to do some research on the concept of Emergence. Here soon, I plan to post a couple Robert Sapolsky lectures on this subject. It's not really Sapolsky's forte, but he presents the material well. There may be better sources of information about emergence elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The quest is not to present proof's for God's existence, or non existence. We cannot proove conclusively either one of them.

But we can rationalize, and try to figure out what might be the best explanation for our existence. So i ask you to present a alternative to God, which makes more sense. Since you probably do not believe anymore

that a God creator of our universe exists, you have left as alternative naturalism. Please explain , why you think naturalism has a better explanation, and present this explanation.

Please do not rely your argumentation on a negative, aka, i do NOT believe in God, because Genesis does not make sense, for example. I want to see positive arguments. A world view and explanation, which stands by its own.

 

You have phrased this in such as way as to give the impression that you can't live without believing in something.

 

we all base our lives on things, we cannot prove, but have to believe. You cannot prove, that you tomorrow will not be the end of this world. you believe it based on your experience.

 

 

 

 

Why does there have to be an explanation?

 

the quest is not, if there is a explanation, or not. The simple fact that we exist, means there IS actually a explanation. And this thread is about to debate this issue.

 

 

Why do you have to have an answer for everything?

 

If you want to ignore questions of the essence of life, feel free to do so.

 

 

It's not that you're alone in this; whenever shit happens believers just can't accept that shit happens, they have to believe that it's god's will that he meant it to happen that way. Whatever. I don't choose which explanation I like better, I follow the one with the most evidence.

 

the evidence is on hand for all of us. What differes , is just the interpretation.

 

How do know you have the right answer?

 

we cannot know it.

 

 

In other words, for you as a believer the answer to the $64,000^∞ question is "I believe in you Jesus and I accept you into my heart", when maybe the right answer is "Based on all the different religions in the world, and how poorly all their supposed holy texts are written, there is no possible way I can really know the right answer so I'm going to reserve judgment, which truthfully is the only answer that has any intellectual integrity whatsoever."

 

Despite that comparing the holy books alone, we can get to a pretty clear picture, we do not have only religio. We have also philosophy, and science....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You caused the universe to be because you wanted to be here

 

 

how could i have caused the universe, if i am a littlebit younger than the universe is ? i am the effect of this life permitting universe existing, not the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I like your response. In regards to questions we cannot answer, it's better to accept ignorance than to accept a fairytale as a substitute for the truth.

 

There is people, that have a brain to thing, and there are others, that prefere to rest their brain cells. To each, its own......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's simple. Naturalism fits the evidence.

 

The evidence can also be interpreted in the oposit way, namely that the universe was caused by a higher powerful being. What makes you believe, naturalism is the better answer ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Long, long ago, when heaven and earth were still one, the entire universe was contained in an egg-shaped cloud. All the matter of the universe swirled chaotically in that egg. Deep within the swirling matter was Pan Gu, a huge giant who grew in the chaos. For 18,000 years he developed and slept in the egg. Finally one day he awoke and stretched, and the egg broke to release the matter of the universe. The lighter purer elements drifted upwards to make the sky and heavens, and the heavier impure elements settled downwards to make the earth.

In the midst of this new world, Pan Gu worried that heaven and earth might mix again; so he resolved to hold them apart, with the heavens on his head and the earth under his feet. As the two continued to separate, Pan Gu grew to hold them apart. For 18,000 years he continued to grow, until the heavens were 30,000 miles above the earth. For much longer he continued to hold the two apart, fearing the retun of the chaos of his youth. Finally he realized they were stable, and soon after that he died.

With the immense giant's death, the earth took on new character. His arms and legs became the four directions and the moutains. His blood became the rivers, and his sweat became the rain and dew. His voice became the thunder, and his breath became the winds. His hair became the grass, and his veins became the roads and paths. His teeth and bones became the minerals and rocks, and his flesh became the soil of the fields. Up above, his left eye became the sun, and his right eye became the moon. Thus in death, as in life, Pan Gu made the world as it is today.

Many centuries later, there was a goddess named Nü Wa who roamed this wild world that Pan Gu had left behind, and she became lonely in her solitude. Stopping by a pond to rest, she saw her reflection and realized that there was nothing like herself in the world. She resolved to make something like herself for company.

From the edge of the pond she took some mud and shaped it in the form of a human being. At first her creation was lifeless, and she set it down. It took life as soon as it touched the soil, however, and soon the human was dancing and celebrating its new life. Pleased with her creation, Nü Wa made more of them, and soon her loneliness disappeared in the crowd of little humans around her. For two days she made them, and still she wanted to make more. Finaly she pulled down a long vine and dragged it through the mud, and then she swung the vine through the air. Droplets of mud flew everywhere and, when they fell, they became more humans that were nearly as perfect as the ones she had made by hand. Soon she had spread humans over the whole world. The ones she made by hand became the aristocrats, and the ones she made with the vine became the poor common people.

Even then, Nü Wa realized that her work was incomplete, because as her creations died she would have to make more. She solved this problem by dividing the humans into male and female, so that they could reproduce and save her from having to make new humans to break her solitude.

Many years later, Pan Gu's greatest fear came true. The heavens collapsed so that there were holes in the sky, and the earth cracked, letting water rush from below to flood the earth. At other places, fire sprang forth from the earth, and everywhere wild beasts emerged from the forests to prey on the people. Nü Wa drove the beasts back and healed the earth. To fix the sky, she took stones of many colors from the river and built a fire in which she melted them. She used the molten rock to patch the holes in the sky, and she used the four legs of a giant turtle to support the sky again. Exhausted by her labors, she soon lay down to die and, like Pan Gu, from her body came many more features to adorn the world that she had restored.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I like your response. In regards to questions we cannot answer, it's better to accept ignorance than to accept a fairytale as a substitute for the truth.

 

There is people, that have a brain to thing, and there are others, that prefere to rest their brain cells. To each, its own......

 

If this is intended as an insult, that that's ironic. Hahaha. Those who prefer fairytales are the ones resting their brain cells.They are basically saying "it works by magic" and then accepting that explanation as an excuse to dig no further. I'm certainly not implying that people shouldn't look for explanations, but no matter how much we dig, there will always be new questions that accompany the answers we find. Some things we cannot explain yet, and somethings we will never explain. Saying "we just don't know" is so much more honest than saying "God must have done it."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's simple. Naturalism fits the evidence.

 

The evidence can also be interpreted in the oposit way, namely that the universe was caused by a higher powerful being. What makes you believe, naturalism is the better answer ?

 

A big part of my answer is in the earlier post you excluded. Naturalism is based on the evidence. It's not a position that we decided the evidence happens to fit. If you research emergence, chaos theory, etc., it might not change your mind, but you might understand the opposing view point much better.

 

Also, when you look at things that are supposedly designed, like living beings, it's clear that the "designs" have been done in a haphazard manner rather than having been done intelligently. Look at the vestigal appendages various animals have, including humans. How about psuedogenes? Why do we have a useless sequence of base pairs in our dna that amount to the instructions for vitamin C but are damaged in such a way that we do not produce vitamin C? Whe share this psuedogene with other apes, btw (I'm not sure this applies to all apes, but definitely bonobos and chimps. I think gorilla's, too). Why would any god create chickens to produce vestigial teeth in their embryonic stage? Why would god design us with Vagus nerves that go way down to loop around our aorta and then back up to our larynx? It makes sense when you see we evolved from fish.

 

Of course, one could hypothesis that god could have set everything in motion in such a way that the universe would reach its present state, but that would be just speculation.

 

Perhaps a better short answer for you is that naturalism is what we have good reason to believe and excludes speculation about what might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's simple. Naturalism fits the evidence.

 

The evidence can also be interpreted in the oposit way, namely that the universe was caused by a higher powerful being. What makes you believe, naturalism is the better answer ?

 

Short and to the point: Naturalism, as you call it, accomplished everything without any need for a higher powerful being. Throwing a god into the mix just adds an unnecessary and confusing element.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is intended as an insult, that that's ironic. Hahaha. Those who prefer fairytales are the ones resting their brain cells.They are basically saying "it works by magic" and then accepting that explanation as an excuse to dig no further.

 

thats how you presume i think, but thats not exactly right. I have scientific, philosophical , and religious reasons to deduce a powerful creator as the best answer........not because i cannot explain something, therefore God, but because i have multiple evidence on hand, i deduce God.

 

I'm certainly not implying that people shouldn't look for explanations, but no matter how much we dig, there will always be new questions that accompany the answers we find. Some things we cannot explain yet, and somethings we will never explain. Saying "we just don't know" is so much more honest than saying "God must have done it."

 

I don't think so. If you would have brought up your argument back in the stone age, well, it would be more compelling. But not today, where our knowledge is more advanced than ever before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have you seen random chemical reactions ever produce specified, complex information ?

 

An unfairly weighted, improperly phrased, deliberately vague question if ever there was one, B.I.G.

 

Now, how about presenting a fair and balanced question on the subject of chemical reactions?

One that's properly phrased and where the terms used are adequately defined and accepted by all parties.

 

No.

I'm not going to do it for you, B.I.G.

Do it yourself. After all, if you really do want proper answers from us, then the onus is on you to present proper questions.

 

Or...

...if you just want to score points over us heathens, then please carry right on as before.

 

The choice is yours.

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple fact that we exist, means there IS actually a explanation. And this thread is about to debate this issue.

 

Is this where you are headed?

 

Ecclesiastes 12:13 and 14 - Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of every human being. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another do-gooder with a very limited grasp of evolution and even shakier hold of free-thinking is here to explain to us non-thinkers that super-spook in a beard is a much more believable explanation than , pft, science.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is intended as an insult, that that's ironic. Hahaha. Those who prefer fairytales are the ones resting their brain cells.They are basically saying "it works by magic" and then accepting that explanation as an excuse to dig no further.

 

thats how you presume i think, but thats not exactly right. I have scientific, philosophical , and religious reasons to deduce a powerful creator as the best answer........not because i cannot explain something, therefore God, but because i have multiple evidence on hand, i deduce God.

 

 

It was more of a general statement about believers than about you specifically. If you have scientific and philosophical reasons why the rest of us should also believe there is a god, feel free to present them. (Perhaps you already have. I haven't yet checked the new stuff in this thread).

 

I'm certainly not implying that people shouldn't look for explanations, but no matter how much we dig, there will always be new questions that accompany the answers we find. Some things we cannot explain yet, and somethings we will never explain. Saying "we just don't know" is so much more honest than saying "God must have done it."

 

I don't think so. If you would have brought up your argument back in the stone age, well, it would be more compelling. But not today, where our knowledge is more advanced than ever before.

 

*Monkey scratches his head.* So because our knowledge is more advanced it's perfectly honest to say "god must have done it?" Please elaborate on your disagreement with my argument. Your point is not apparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does there have to be an explanation?

the quest is not, if there is a explanation, or not. The simple fact that we exist, means there IS actually a explanation. And this thread is about to debate this issue.

 

The existence of an explanation doesn't mean we'll ever be able to discover it, at least not fully. The universe contains an infinite set of truths, and we can only imperfectly know a finite set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another do-gooder with a very limited grasp of evolution and even shakier hold of free-thinking is here to explain to us non-thinkers that super-spook in a beard is a much more believable explanation than , pft, science.

 

if you think science can explain the cause of the universe, and life, please present the explanations. I am all ear.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because our knowledge is more advanced it's perfectly honest to say "god must have done it?" Please elaborate on your disagreement with my argument. Your point is not apparent.

 

Sure. But you also should be able to make some deductions based on what we do know......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.