Athiests...want evidence of God? Read here.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by peilthetraveler, Dec 8, 2008.

  1. want proof? Here it is. Imagine you are walking through a forest and you see a laptop computer sitting there in the middle of forest. This laptop is the most advanced piece of machinery you have ever seen. Upon closer inspection, you see that the laptop runs, not with a battery, but with clean water and also sunlight. Looking inside the laptop, you see that it has the smallest hard drive you have ever seen. Its storing information, the equivelent of 1 million pages of encyclopedias, and its being stored on a drive, that you can not see with your naked eye. not only that, you take your 1000x magnification light microscope and you see cant see the hard drive, but all that infomation is there once you use your electron microscope. This laptop is also so advanced it creates foods you can eat out of nothing! This computer is so advanced, there is no way that even the smartest men in the world could put their collective resources together, with a trillion dollar budget and come up with this stuff.

    Here is a picture of this advanced computer

    Do you really want to tell me that you think there was a big explosion 13 billion years ago and this created itself?
  2. It is always amusing to hear theists proclaim that they dont believe in evolution because it sounds too complicated yet they will readily believe that some grey haired old deity in the sky just spoke and everything we see today popped up from nothing
  3. Cutten


    Complex systems and outcomes can arise from extremely simple processes, repeated ad infinitum. Billions of years is a long time, after all.

    The existence of a complex system could thus be:

    1) caused by an intelligent designer
    2) caused by almost infinite iterations of several fairly basic initial processes built up over billions of years

    In case 2, no creator is needed. Thus, no creator is *proven* by the existence of complexity.

    Furthemore, in case 1, there is a paradox. If complexity is proof of a creator, then by identical logic the creator must also have been created by something. If a complex, intelligent designer can have existed without a first cause outside himself, then so can the universe. Thus the "proof of creator from complexity" is circular and either contradicts its own conclusions, or does not in fact prove anything.
  4. i realize the religious mind does not like to look at anything that differs from their indoctrination but there is no reason for anyone to be so missinformed in this day and age. start here:
  5. So where is the proof that there is a god?

    You could have taken an actual laptop back to the time of the Romans and they would have said some type of amazing deity made it as well.

    You have to learn to know that you don't know.

    Just because something shocks you with complexity doesn't mean that there is automatically a god.

    There is no evidence of a god and there is also no evidence that there isn't a god.
  6. kut2k2


    Ah, the silly old "God of the gaps" argument: There's a gap in our knowledge; nobody can explain this particular thing in the natural world; ergo, God done it.

    I wonder how much progress has been delayed because of that old bullshit.
  7. I really hate to say it, but you're the poster boy for the learning disabled far-right Evangelical crowd. You don't even know how to spell 'atheist'. I'd bet anything that you failed to make it past grade 10.

    Why do you feel the need to start a new thread every time some random thought pops into your head?

    God doesn't exist, peil. Your belief in God is a panacea for your fears; of death, of the unknown, of things that are beyond your control. You don't have the strength of mind to deal with the world as you see it, so you bail out into faith in things that you can never see or know, just because it's comforting.

    Far-right whackos like you are usually LD. Far-right Evangelicals like you are occasionally LD. You combine the worst of both.

    Lastly, please - get your shit together and try a fucking spellchecker before you create the title of your next thread (and we know it will be coming up soon). You're basically an idiot, yes, but do you really want to look like a total fucking moron?
  8. Here's the one that gets me:

    There is a barren planet. No life. Nothing but rocks, water, wind, lightning, and static electricity.

    OK, so there are some complex carbons sitting next to each other. I guess they would have to coincidently be laying next to each other such that they would look exactly like a one-celled creature. Get that? The sand and soil moved such that through natural processes you have something that resembles a one-celled creature, only it hasn't received the spark of life.

    Somehow, it doesn't decay or just get blown apart by winds, water, erosional processes, etc.

    Anyway, there is suddenly some kind of static spark. Electricity or something that jolts it to life like Frankenstein in a lab.

    TA-DA! Life! This one-celled thing creature...(bacteria?) alive

    Implausible? Ok, hey with large numbers maybe anything is possilble, but then here is the amazing thing:

    Suddenly this one-celled creature is the only thing on earth that it is alive. It can't be a predator...preying on other living things because there are none. So instead, it has to eat stuff available.

    Dammit...this living thing that sparked to life wasn't built with a digestive system. So it dies.

    And another one sparks to life in say...another million years. digestive system again. Now its dead.

    Ok...finally, a few billion years later (is the earth old enough for this to happen?)....we get one that sparks to life and it can eat! Maybe its like iron bacteria or something...gets its energy from eating metals and stuff like that.

    Oops...died again...nothing near it that it can eat.

    A few billion years pass. Many new versions sparking to life, but they can't eat, or don't have food to eat next to them.. Not mobile enough to get to the food. Etc.

    Hooray! Another one is born. This one is close to a food source. Its mobile enough. It made the cut. Its gonna live! Yea!!!! dies of old age. No mechanism for reproduction!

    To review:

    1. We need one that can be wholly formed and receive the spark of life without decaying.

    2. Multiple versions of these would have to spring to life before you'd have one that could eat.

    3. Multiple versons of the eating ones would have to spring to life before you'd get one that is mobile enough to get to new food sources.

    4. And multiple versions of THOSE would have to be made before you get one that can also reproduce.

    So my questions are:

    A. Shouldn't we be able to find at least one "thing" resembling one of these versions prior to receiving the spark of life?

    B. Given that each of these criteria are increasingly improbable, and stacking improbabilities would require more and more time (and more materials like the complex carbons), is it really plausible that the earth has been around long enough, and is big enough, to have enough materials and time to go through this process just once?

    To me, the answer is no. I think that you'd need access to more materials, so I think its kind of improbable that earth is even the original birthplace of life. Life might be imported from other worlds. And if so, wouldn't it be ubuiquitous? Life should be found all over the galaxy, unless we just so happen to be one of the first to get it in our corner.

    Nextly, given the life cycle of other planets, probability of planets being hit by comets, life cycle of stars, etc., isn't it just as improbable elsewhere?

    OK, I get how evolution works. And the bible is filled with many examples of God using existing things to work his miracles. Could be the process where he made man from beasts. Whatever. But if you trace the origins of life backward, its pretty far-fetched that life could begin here, or anywhere. No enough time. Not enough material.

    Yes, an infinite number of monkeys could eventually type up a shakespearian play. But there are only so many typewriters, and only so much time.


  9. Well stated. Looking forward to the anti theists response.

  10. even if its complicated why do people like you so readily jump to believe that some grey haired old deity picked up a handfull of dirt and turned it into life life as we see it today?
    if you were dropped here from outer space there is nothing in the evidence that could make you conclude that except for a primitive book written by men who thought thunder and lightening were a god showing his displeasure. why do you so readily believe the superstitious writings of primitive men over the evidence we have so far? the only logical explaination is that it is the indoctrination from your childhood that plants that deep seated need to believe.
    nothing else explains the fact that the vast majority of people believe what their parents believe. if you had been born a muslim you would be just as sure about another version of a god.
    #10     Dec 9, 2008