Where did God come from?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
when did dawkins DENY all that?

as for the last part, it occurs because random factors come together to make many things occur. in te COARSE of creating many thing, most things disintegrate from their original form, but a rare few, who have the properties which PROTECT them from disintegratin and help them reproduce and RETAIN their form survive over ther year, and as time passes, so does the number of such surviveable things increases, as such the number of surviveable things themselves becomes a factor influencing the survival of beings in the enviornment and therefore the best of the best survive {this is not due to any PURPOSE bestowed on them, it is simply due to things being formed from random and a rare few things which CAN randomly hold their form together over time, surviving the ages} and this process goes on and on and on and. it doesnt have a GOAL, it is simply survival of those things, which by chance, got the properties necessary for surviving and keeping their form intact{reproduction being perhaps the single most important such trait}. and these are what you see today, or so the theory goes. no purpose, no founder, no goal, just the simple matter of those randomly made things, which cud survive, surviving. no grand scheme or greater being.

and that's my main problem. it's just really hard putting all the 'randomness' together. you're repeating some of the stuff that i already mentioned.

i just think all things need an origin, and not to occur randomly.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
yea but the ways populations adapt isn't explained either. they say it randomly occurs. i just find that hard to believe.

Random action can have an organized result without intelligence involved (shaking a box full of loose string quickly produces knots). When constraints are added in the form of environmental factors the random events that influence evolution effectively become organized.

As I understand it each step of evolution (the production of a child from a mix of genetic material) is random but exists within constraints that determine what actual evolves.

Just by way of example. Here is the Chaos Game:

1. Take 3 points in a plane, and form a triangle
2. Randomly select any point inside the triangle and move half the distance from that point to any of the 3 vertex points. Plot the current position.
3. Repeat from step 2.

Every selection is random and can be performed without any intelligence but due to the constrains on the system the result is very much organized. Obviously in the case of the Chaos Game there is an end result but it's a nice visual metaphor.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
and were the claps sarcastic claps? 😛

Not at all.

^ but the majority of the universe after the big bang was created randomly{even if you dont beleive the big band itself was random}, the major reason why we dont have a vaccine for the flue is due to observable random mutations of the virus, the major reason why companies are putting billions into anti biotic research is due to the fact that germs change and evolve so rapidly, the main reason there are different "races" of people is due to natural selection{unless you wish to say otherwise}, the corellation between geographical/neutritional/enviornmental barries and the type of flaura and fauna present is not only well understoof but vividly displayed in nature and can be seen by any1, the awesome similarities between multiple species and the PROGRESSIONAL trends in the types of specied present in the world also allude to the fact of common ancestors and macroevolution. not to mention the richness of evidence in the fossil record. now my question to you, barring all debates about evidence against evolution to you would be "WHY do you think all these very visible trends and evidence would be present in a creationist world view where there is nothing to promot such trends? is god merely playing a deceptive joke on us in placing these things in exactly the way which would elude to evolution????"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is because you have superstition attached to the word God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is something I do not have. I use the word God to convey an iconic idea.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I could use the words "Mystic Law", but most people would not understand.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I use words that people can understand even though it maybe difficult for them.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
The word "god" came from a primitive people and it carrieed on. To use the word god in a different since, to some people, may be a universe/source, energy, it may be some form/spirit/ feelings.

Originally posted by King Kandy
"The Universe" is even more well known... why not just use that?

Probably because the connotation and implied meaning are totally different.

Originally posted by King Kandy
All you describe is the universe... you think you are simplifying things but actually you are complicating them.

You're really the one complicating them by taking the effort to not understand him.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It came from a primitive source, it is primitive. Don't you think we should try and phase out such unenlightened ideas?

Like wheels?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Like wheels?

Lulz at whoever brought Dawkins up out of nowhere. Random book critique ftw!@

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

Let me ask you a question: does the Einstein's theory of relativity predict and/or postulate causality "outside" length, width, space, and time? Before you answer, keep in mind, that Einstein's theory of relativity, has been tested exhaustively and remains the most proven theory in ALL scientific inquiry--so strong in fact, that many scientists have contested that the theory of "relativity" be dubbed, "law!" What is your response?

Well, this covers the basics pretty well:

Originally posted by leonheartmm
first off, quantum mechanics is the theory which is the most proven theory in all scientific history. secondly, einstiens theory is not COMPLETE since it breaks down at zero distances which exist singularities. reletivity does not directly postulate anything OUTSIDE space and time as it only applies TO space and time. its predictive powers hence break down at zero distances. it is only a law in the confines of macroscopic non zero value space and time. this is also why it doesnt perfectly reconcile with quantum mechanics, or atleats one of the reasons.

So basically, it's only a partial theory, but quantum theory is partial as well. Both are valid in their respective areas (sub-atomic and macrocosmic, respectively), but have yet to be reconciled.

Beyond that, we weren't discussing Einstein. His work, while scientifically important, has nothing to do with the point I made; That being the creation and destruction of energy/matter from nothing at subatomic levels, which gives us a valid way that the universe can exist that is both within causality and the realm of observational science, and doesn't need a logic-defying deity to do it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
No pun intended, but you are a moron.

Insults? I'd say you're above that, but you generally aren't. If you're going to attempt to preach to us, at least try to hold yourself to the standards of the religion you espouse. Nothing engenders people ignoring you like hypocrisy.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's because, as a religious concept, god is superstition.

Free your mind. You are only thinking western religious concept.

Originally posted by King Kandy
"The Universe" is even more well known... why not just use that?

Because I’m not saying the universe; I am saying something about the universe.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Since all you describe is the universe, why do you try to apply different terms to it? It would be like me calling everything by it's scientific name, and then saying people could understand it easier that way.

I’m not describing the universe; I’m saying something about the universe.

Originally posted by King Kandy
All you describe is the universe... you think you are simplifying things but actually you are complicating them.

I am not trying to be simple; I’m trying to say something about the universe.

😂 Have you got the idea yet that I’m trying to say something about the universe?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Lulz at whoever brought Dawkins up out of nowhere. Random book critique ftw!@

Well, this covers the basics pretty well:

So basically, it's only a partial theory, but quantum theory is partial as well. Both are valid in their respective areas (sub-atomic and macrocosmic, respectively), but have yet to be reconciled.

Beyond that, we weren't discussing Einstein. His work, while scientifically important, has nothing to do with the point I made; That being the creation and destruction of energy/matter from nothing at subatomic levels, which gives us a valid way that the universe can exist that is both within causality and the realm of observational science, and doesn't need a logic-defying deity to do it.

Insults? I'd say you're above that, but you generally aren't. If you're going to attempt to preach to us, at least try to hold yourself to the standards of the religion you espouse. Nothing engenders people ignoring you like hypocrisy.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It came from a primitive source, it is primitive. Don't you think we should try and phase out such unenlightened ideas?

Should we remove the the Medulla? After all, it is the most primitive part of the brain.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Should we remove the the Medulla? After all, it is the most primitive part of the brain.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
i will be your test subject sir. can u make me think im a monkey pwease?

Ala-ca-zam, presto, you now think like a monkey. 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

3. One day the universe will destroy us. It's billions of years into the future, but the sun will die. Even further into the future, the universe my rip its self apart, and us with it.

Well I better start saving water and rationing food....

Originally posted by chickenlover98
digi thx for clearing up the diff between relativity and quantum mechanics for me. id been trying to get where they differed for a long time.

Relativity breaks down at the smallest levels. It only works for entities that are (roughly) > or = the size of an atom. Quantum Mechanics have little, if any bearing on large bodies and deal only with rogue subatomic occurrences.

Both match observational data but are considered incomplete because one cannot be applied to the realm of the other, and therefore there isn't a single common law that we can identify for all aspects of matter.

St Aquinas on this matter.

1) Everything in the universe has a cause, therefore it is logical that there is a chain of causes leading back to an Uncaused Causer. This "First Cause" if you like could be God. Or possibly the universe. Yet, we have seen according to the BBT the Universe also has a cause.

2) Everything that exists depends on something else for existence. This leads back to the conclusion that there must be one thing that everything depends on to exist. However, that thing does not depend on anything to exist. This could be God...

Paul Davies someone or other also pointed out that when the Big Bang happened, everything operated in adherence to the laws of Physics- he concluded that the laws of nature therefore pre-exist the Big Bang...and therefore everything...he said this means there must have been a lawmaker...i.e. God.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
St Aquinas on this matter.

1) Everything in the universe has a cause, therefore it is logical that there is a chain of causes leading back to an Uncaused Causer. This "First Cause" if you like could be God. Or possibly the universe. Yet, we have seen according to the BBT the Universe also has a cause.

2) Everything that exists depends on something else for existence. This leads back to the conclusion that there must be one thing that everything depends on to exist. However, that thing does not depend on anything to exist. This could be God...

Paul Davies someone or other also pointed out that when the Big Bang happened, everything operated in adherence to the laws of Physics- he concluded that the laws of nature therefore pre-exist the Big Bang...and therefore everything...he said this means there must have been a lawmaker...i.e. God.

I agree with you. However, were I differ is on the relationship between God and man. I do not believe that man is the reason the universe was formed. We are not the center of the universe. That is why the bible is wrong, in my opinion. However, the bible is just a book written by us, and we are a selfish animal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree with you. However, were I differ is on the relationship between God and man. I do not believe that man is the reason the universe was formed. We are not the center of the universe. That is why the bible is wrong, in my opinion. However, the bible is just a book written by us, and we are a selfish animal.

I think your argument would be credible if not for what is clearly an elevated status of humanity- however, human beings are part of creation like anything else and the "stewardship" concept is not one of mastery- we as beings are not Lords of the Manor but rather caretakers, trusted to protect the world we have been given...although, it is quite capable of lasting without us- a reminder of our being human, not god.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think your argument would be credible if not for what is clearly an elevated status of humanity- however, human beings are part of creation like anything else and the "stewardship" concept is not one of mastery- we as beings are not Lords of the Manor but rather caretakers, trusted to protect the world we have been given...although, it is quite capable of lasting without us- a reminder of our being human, not god.

Along with not believing that humans are the reason for creation, I do not believe that the Earth is important in anyway. We don't matter that much in the big picture.