@Curtmungus your honor of being more famous than me is quite deserved. I salute you.
Prime Factor
-
“Hey Moses, that was what i was talking about, when we don’t know, it is god… And i really don’t see how our ignorance on the subject can be use as an argument for god ?”
Nah, I never mentioned in any my postings that what we don’t know is a work of “God.” I have never once supported Creationism (Early Earth Creationism is just plain stupid IMO) in any of my post.
“- sorry, no fancy quotes by some German or French guy right now”
When in doubt, make up your own!
F_alk,
Evolutionists claim that life formed from “abiogenesis”, even though it is then biological law, “biogenesis,” that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe. Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself? -
No no no i never said that you said the unknow was the work of god. But one time i said; “everything that is not understand was somewhere in time the “work of god””, you answer “that is an overstatement” and then, after CC’s argument i said;
“Hey Moses, that was what i was talking about, when we don’t know, it is god… And i really don’t see how our ignorance on the subject can be use as an argument for god ?”
-
No no no i never said that you said the unknow was the work of god. But one time i said; “everything that is not understand was somewhere in time the “work of god””, you answer “that is an overstatement” and then, after CC’s argument i said
Okay sorry for the mix up then, I didn’t quite understand what you were saying.
-
@TG:
F_alk,
Evolutionists claim that life formed from “abiogenesis”, even though it is then biological law, “biogenesis,” that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe. Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?Can you give me a source for that? Then i will look around for a source of the lab experiment, where they did just that, creating a reproducing molecule in conditions that once were predominant on our earth (AFAWK).
So, having this (experiment), i trust that, and have to assume that the theorical work is flawed.
And of course: Current physics says: The electron is a point, dimensions zero. You can fit an infinte amount of electrons in any part of the universe (either neglecting their electric interaction, or with an infinite amount of energy at your disposal). So, i really have to distrust that quote, as it translates not to “the chance would be near zero, but finite” (Which i could accept), but to “the chance is zero”, which i cannot accept, because then even the experiment couldn’t possibly have been successful (ouch, what grammar…)So, do you know how they calculated the chance? “In free space” i guess it would be near zero, in a system like our ancient earth, with nice UV radiation and lightnings, i think it is much higher.
-
Then I will try to rephrase what I said better.
-
Evolutionists claim that life formed from “abiogenesis”, even though it is then biological law, “biogenesis,” that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small.
“So, do you know how they calculated the chance? “In free space” i guess it would be near zero, in a system like our ancient earth, with nice UV radiation and lightnings, i think it is much higher.”
Life is often portrayed as arising from some sort of “primordial soup”. There it is nutrients in a primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of life. But to go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
- EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained. - SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life. - LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
Some the simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large molecules. - BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed. - LIVING CELL -
And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to form a highly complex living cell.
Now starting from the beginning, our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) and is called oxidizing because of chemical reactions produced by oxygen. The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere poses a difficult problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen were present, there would be no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.
Because it is impossible for life to evolve with oxygen, evolutionists theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. Instead, they propose an atmosphere, which contains free hydrogen. Originally, they postulated an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), free hydrogen and water vapor.
There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer, which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting.In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks.
“Then i will look around for a source of the lab experiment, where they did just that, creating a reproducing molecule in conditions that once were predominant on our earth (AFAWK).”
Honestly, I would like to see this. Can there really be life from dead chemicals?
BTW: Most of this hogwash comes from my Creationists/Intelligent design teacher and his group of super friends who tries to convince the class Evolution is wrong.
- EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
-
Obviously i don’t see a point in convincing people that evolution is wrong, however your teacher (i believe) has a number of excellent points.
wrt oxidation - this is a very interesting process. True, in many current biological systems, this can be an extremely destructive force. At the same time, from an organic chemist’s point of view (which i was briefly) it can be a very handy process for generating a variety of molecules from apparently stable ones.
Basically you take a fairly non-reactive organic molecule, expose it to an oxidant, and “presto” you have something much more reactive - such as a carboxillic acid (found on the ends of amino acids - which bind to a nitrogenous base via a covalent bond with an amino acid next to it).
With an inert atmostphere, such as CO2 and nitrogen one might have trouble descerning how these processes might otherwise come about.
Note: ozone is also handy for certain organic reactions.
Also: UB radiation, in that it might hydrolyze and break certain bonds, given conditions many years ago, it might have a different effect, depending on the nature of the atmostphere, as well as any cloud (or water layer - as mentioned in Genesis) surrounding the earth.
(yes F and F, i realize that my biblical reference might well sully anything intelligent that i have written. i don’t care) -
Yeah I guess, you’re right. I think that I did over react a little too much, and I apologize. It is a pretty good argument if you think of it.
-
Most of the things have been answered by CC already, but maybe i can add one or two aspects.
@TG:
Life is often portrayed as arising from some sort of “primordial soup”. There it is nutrients in a primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of life. But to go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
- EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained.
It looks like that has been the case, see below.
- SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.
done in the lab, see below
- LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
Some the simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large molecules.
done in the lab, see below
- BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.
there are hypothesis’s for that, see below
- LIVING CELL -
And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to form a highly complex living cell.
there are hypothesis for that, see below
Now starting from the beginning, our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) and is called oxidizing because of chemical reactions produced by oxygen. The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere poses a difficult problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen were present, there would be no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.
Because it is impossible for life to evolve with oxygen, evolutionists theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. Instead, they propose an atmosphere, which contains free hydrogen. Originally, they postulated an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), free hydrogen and water vapor.
There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer, which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting.Unless you “form” the molecules in a different regime from where they later exist. Assume a large, deep mass of water. It will absorb the UV, so its deeper layers are UV-free. Forming can happening close to the atmosphere, and those molecules that drop to deeper sealevels will not be destroyed (see Urey effect for that).
And of course: the ozone layer is very (!) far away from where the action takes place. But from what i read, it wasn’t there, my sources assume a reducing atmosphere.In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks.
There then seem to be at least two different points of view. I guess for each reference to the oxydating atmosphere i can give one which proofs the reducing atmosphere.
This question therefor is open, and cannot be used to disproof something.“Then i will look around for a source of the lab experiment, where they did just that, creating a reproducing molecule in conditions that once were predominant on our earth (AFAWK).”
Honestly, I would like to see this. Can there really be life from dead chemicals?
Ok, i looked around:
in 1953 there was an expermiment by Stanley Miller in Chicageo, who showed that you can build biological molecules out of non-biological ones. (he used an atmosphere of Hydrogen, Methan, Ammonia and watere electrical discharges, and could show that aminoacids, carbonhydrates and lipo-acids were produced. There was no ammonia in the early atmosphere as far as we know today, but he showed that you can build the needed molecules to start life out of others.)
Later similar experiments (don’t know who) showed that you can build purines and pyrimidine (which are part of the RNA!) out of the primordial soup
The very first catalyser for the forming of self reproducing molecules could be a crystal called Pyrit, which is (after the webpage i found, don’t know much about cryzstals) an electrically self-polarizing crystal, means it provides an electric field at its ends. Martin Keller from Regensburg showed that this crystal enhances biochemical reactions.Scientists from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (State NY), showed that another crystal could have worked as some kind of “skeleton” for the formation of RNA.
So, the first “life” without a “cell” could have taken place in and under the protection of these crystalline “reactors” (also calcit could be important, but i didn’t find more than just it being mentioned).There seems to be one cylce (citronic acid cycle would be the literal translation) that still takes place in archaebacteria, which synthesis organic carbon out of CO2, and produces peptides and lipids as secondary products (which you need to build the cell membrane).
“Nuitrition” for the first organism can be supplied by the underwater “black smokers” who supply hydrogen and ironsulfid.
Another hypothesis:
It has been showed that dust coulds in space contain sugars and proteins. NASA scientists set up an experiment, forming “comets”, that is iceblocks at near absolute zero, out of water, methan, ammonia, CO and CO2, fomred it under conditions of temperature, darkness and vaccum that you would find in space ( you will find the same chemical components as well). UV Radiation then lead to the forming of many and some very large molecules. Bringing these molecules into contact with water, they spontanously formed protocells (which means, some of the molecules must have been lipo-acids), that is a cell-membrane with nothing in it. Still, creating a membrane “out of nothing” can happen! See some article in the „Proceedings of the National Academy of Science“ for that.In short: if you are interested, google for it :). looking for “molecules” and “primordial soup” gives some hits. “Miller” and “Urey” can help as well.
- EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
-
@F_alk:
Another hypothesis:
It has been showed that dust coulds in space contain sugars and proteins. NASA scientists set up an experiment, forming “comets”, that is iceblocks at near absolute zero, out of water, methan, ammonia, CO and CO2, fomred it under conditions of temperature, darkness and vaccum that you would find in space ( you will find the same chemical components as well). UV Radiation then lead to the forming of many and some very large molecules. Bringing these molecules into contact with water, they spontanously formed protocells (which means, some of the molecules must have been lipo-acids), that is a cell-membrane with nothing in it. Still, creating a membrane “out of nothing” can happen! See some article in the „Proceedings of the National Academy of Science“ for that.Hmmm . . . lipids. I still can’t escape them.
Note: “soap” can and will form a “membrane”. So will fat etc. A spontaneous bilayer, of course, requires solution (i.e. an aqueous environment).
Also this experiment should have been logically deduced by an organic chemist. I.e. Methane, when subjected to energy at a given wavelength, may lose a hydrogen group, becoming a free-radical something like this:
H3C* (that “*” refers to an extra electron). This molecule then can run amock doing the same to other molecules. The higly reactive free-radicals may then join together, filling their octets with electrons, forming long chains. Toss in a “CO2” at the end and you have your lipid (fatty-acid chain). These things will ultimately form micelles, membranes, or just a layer floating on the top like an oil slick. These membranes, however, little resemble membranes found in nature. Glue them together with a glycerol and toss a phosphate group at the end and “Presto” - a funcioning phospholipid. Now you have a biologically relevant membrane. Before you just had my sink with some soap poured in there.
(sorry for boring you - did my M.Sc. on polyglycerol phospholipids) -
Whoa, Fisternis is at it again, beating up poor crypt with his “Unicorns never existed so neither does God” arguments.
So, Fisternis, where did matter come from? Has it simply always existed?
Moses, your sister is a Christian? What denomination? Has she told you of the error of your ways? :lol:
And Crypt, the only one here who is a woman fanatic is Moses and his “McDonald’s” fetish [sic]. The rest of us (including you) are normal.
-
Whoa, Fisternis is at it again, beating up poor crypt with his “Unicorns never existed so neither does God” arguments.
I never said god does not exist because unicorns never existed. I just said the bible make reference to unicorns and i find that amusing. Don’t make me say things i never said.
So, Fisternis, where did matter come from? Has it simply always existed?
“Where did matter come from ?” Just another way to say “How can the universe exist ?”
I know somes things, but not everything, i am not a christian and i do not pretend to know how the unvierse exist and what is good or wrong. However, i have enough knowledge to know god cannot be the first cause, because it is certainly where you are going with your “matter”. This argument seem just to be a variant of the “Each thing require a cause”, and as the “Each Desing need a Designer” argument, it has been refute again and again by different people. In your topic “Defence of Catholicism” I clearly expose my argument why it is not a valid argument, and the interesting thing is that Falk use another way to refute it. You were not able to answer my questions about the logical coherence of your argument, i don’t know why you are asking the same question again. If you who an argument of the type;
Matter exist
It must have a cause
And God is the only possible uncaused cause
Then god existI will soon burn them, as they are full of fallacies…
If you want to believe in god; don’t look at science and don’t use deformation to caution your belief. You want to believe in god ? Well i don’t care. But please don’t come up with the “uncaused cause” and the “design need designer”, it’s an insult to my science.
Moses, your sister is a Christian? What denomination? Has she told you of the error of your ways?
Wooooo, the “error”… i wish you are not serious, otherwise it is another good exemple of christian arrogance. I can hardly believe someone can really believe, that of all the religion, he’s on the right one, as most of them goes on different direction.
It make me thing of a tale, a real tale; the history of japan’s religion. There’s was a religion called shintoism in japan, the emperor was one of the gods (a Kami if a remember right), and it was a religion for everyone. Then buddhism came from Korea, the two religion meet, and they merge. Shintoim get a little of the buddhism and Buddhism get a little of the Shintoism, still there was no important war (maybe even no war at all) for religion. Often those who represent Kami were goind to buddhist monastery at old age. Then, christianism came. Christianism does not want compromise, as other religion were false… It was an era of wars as christians daymio (lord) were fighting buddhist/shintoist daymio.
The morale; of all the religions, the more dangerous are the monotheistic, because they think they have the true message of god, others are infidels.
-
@F_alk:
Unless you “form” the molecules in a different regime from where they later exist. Assume a large, deep mass of water. It will absorb the UV, so its deeper layers are UV-free. Forming can happening close to the atmosphere, and those molecules that drop to deeper sealevels will not be destroyed (see Urey effect for that).
And of course: the ozone layer is very (!) far away from where the action takes place. But from what i read, it wasn’t there, my sources assume a reducing atmosphere.Hmmm… interesting. I never though of that.
@F_alk:
Ok, i looked around:
in 1953 there was an expermiment by Stanley Miller in Chicageo, who showed that you can build biological molecules out of non-biological ones. (he used an atmosphere of Hydrogen, Methan, Ammonia and watere electrical discharges, and could show that aminoacids, carbonhydrates and lipo-acids were produced. There was no ammonia in the early atmosphere as far as we know today, but he showed that you can build the needed molecules to start life out of others.)
Later similar experiments (don’t know who) showed that you can build purines and pyrimidine (which are part of the RNA!) out of the primordial soup
The very first catalyser for the forming of self reproducing molecules could be a crystal called Pyrit, which is (after the webpage i found, don’t know much about cryzstals) an electrically self-polarizing crystal, means it provides an electric field at its ends. Martin Keller from Regensburg showed that this crystal enhances biochemical reactions.Wait… so these experiments happened in the 1950’s? It seems a bit odd that our science books don’t mention this. Have there been any other such breakthroughs more up to date?
@F_alk:
Another hypothesis:
It has been showed that dust coulds in space contain sugars and proteins. NASA scientists set up an experiment, forming “comets”, that is iceblocks at near absolute zero, out of water, methan, ammonia, CO and CO2, fomred it under conditions of temperature, darkness and vaccum that you would find in space ( you will find the same chemical components as well). UV Radiation then lead to the forming of many and some very large molecules. Bringing these molecules into contact with water, they spontanously formed protocells (which means, some of the molecules must have been lipo-acids), that is a cell-membrane with nothing in it. Still, creating a membrane “out of nothing” can happen! See some article in the „Proceedings of the National Academy of Science“ for that.Likely this theory happened
.
Whoa, Fisternis is at it again, beating up poor crypt with his “Unicorns never existed so neither does God” arguments.”Wait… where did this ever come up? Last I knew, we were all discussing about evolution.
Moses, your sister is a Christian? What denomination? Has she told you of the error of your ways? :lol:
She goes to St. Thomas Episcopal Church (that’s Christian, right?), and sometimes I go with her. So far I’m the only non-Christian to carry the Bible in my backpack (to protect it with its “Holiness”) when I go to school. And No, she hasn’t told me the “error” of my ways, and does everything a good religious person should – not force their religion onto others. Sorry, I think FinsterniS was right about “Christian arrogance”
And Crypt, the only one here who is a woman fanatic is Moses and his “McDonald’s” fetish [sic]. The rest of us (including you) are normal.
Wha—what the hell? Where did you take a honest discussion about evolution and insert a personal attack on my apparent “McDonald’s fetish” in it? Sorry, but I think you have this weird fascination with women if you took that joke a little too seriously. The best I was hoping was if someone would get a kick out of it (like Horten), but you seem to have twisted it into some sort of sick fetish. Don’t assume such things, if I were you.
F_alk,
For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids(which is the one I think you mention), a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the “trap” in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life.
Another problem is that different molecules will react with one another. For example, amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?
-
@TG:
Wait… so these experiments happened in the 1950’s? It seems a bit odd that our science books don’t mention this. Have there been any other such breakthroughs more up to date?
Only the Miller experimetn has been in the 50’s to my understanding (and took “wrong” ingredients for the atmosphere). The other ones are later, but i don’t know when.
For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids(which is the one I think you mention), a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the “trap” in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life.
Another problem is that different molecules will react with one another. For example, amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?
For the first:
You have to distinguish between endotherm and exotherm reactions. A typical exotherm reaction just needs a bit of energy (to get started), and then releases much more energy in the process. So, to reverse the process, you need much more energy.
Hold a small flame to a piece of paper: A classic exotherm reaction, holding that small flame at that piece of ashes later won’t make it paper.
The amount of needed activation energy can even be reduced by using a catalyser.
Just as examples that the “most likely” part is probably a false assumption, plus: after the reaction the products may leave the catalyser, which is a means of seperation you talk of
For the second:
Some of the hypothesis take place in quite unusal environments, like on comets or in ice. The mobility (which is dependant on size) may be a factor there: the smaller parts are more mobile, the bigger molecules aren’t (just an idea from me :) ).
But, i can’t give a answer for that, maybe you just found an interesting field of research for you :).
One answer might be: The crystals (mentioned in the previous post) may have an impact either in the sense of catalysers or reactors.Now it’s Lunchtime :)
-
Whoa, Fisternis is at it again, beating up poor crypt with his “Unicorns never existed so neither does God” arguments.
I never said god does not exist because unicorns never existed. I just said the bible make reference to unicorns and i find that amusing. Don’t make me say things i never said.
I may be way out of line, but i think you can assume YB was joking.
If you want to believe in god; don’t look at science and don’t use deformation to caution your belief. You want to believe in god ? Well i don’t care. But please don’t come up with the “uncaused cause” and the “design need designer”, it’s an insult to my science.
your science, eh? hmmm . . . my science, i think, is different than yours.
Wooooo, the “error”… i wish you are not serious, otherwise it is another good exemple of christian arrogance. I can hardly believe someone can really believe, that of all the religion, he’s on the right one, as most of them goes on different direction.
The morale; of all the religions, the more dangerous are the monotheistic, because they think they have the true message of god, others are infidels.
of course, irrespective of your opinion on this, it does not serve as evidence one way or another, or validate one way or another, your beliefs with regards to any kind of deism. Believe it or not, one of the basis of Christianity is that it is the true religion. If a Christian does not believe this, then they are just a person who thinks that Jesus was a cool guy. That’s it.
-
“Believe it or not, one of the basis of Christianity is that it is the true religion. If a Christian does not believe this, then they are just a person who thinks that Jesus was a cool guy. That’s it.”
Hey, Jesus was a cool guy!
I don’t need The Church to profess my commitment with Jesus!“For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” - Romans 10:13 :P
“Some of the hypothesis take place in quite unusal environments, like on comets or in ice. The mobility (which is dependant on size) may be a factor there: the smaller parts are more mobile, the bigger molecules aren’t (just an idea from me ).
But, i can’t give a answer for that, maybe you just found an interesting field of research for you .
One answer might be: The crystals (mentioned in the previous post) may have an impact either in the sense of catalysers or reactors.”Now it’s Lunchtime
F_alk, well thanks anyways for helping. :) I’ll be sure to post other questions tomarrow. Good day and good lunch (I had dinner awhile ago :P). Or as the German would say, “Guten Tag, Ist das Mittagessen inbegriffen.”
-
your science, eh? hmmm . . . my science, i think, is different than yours.
Well you must use somekind of “out of space” logic or very old logical theorem (they are not false because they are old, but we still use a better logic now). I never saw anything scientific about god, only thing scientific against god. Just think how god loose space in science.
Believe it or not, one of the basis of Christianity is that it is the true religion. If a Christian does not believe this, then they are just a person who thinks that Jesus was a cool guy. That’s it.
-
If you believe your monotheistic god is the good one
-
Then and Odin, Thor and Belenos are false gods
-
So other polytheist and even maybe some other monotheistic religion are complete lies, or at best an innacurate vision of god.
-
If you believe that theres a lot of gods
-
Then Allah, Odin, Zeus and Isis are all real gods, just from another - people
-
So you won’t believe other religion are false.
That is the problem in most monotheistic dogma; you believe you are right and the others are wrong. If you were a greek from antiguity, you would not believe frigg does not exist, she would only be “another god”. Sure Norse believe their gods were better, but these polytheistic religion were not subject to war between parties like monotheistic religion. I think it is a good reason why monotheistic religion were active actor in most religion wars.
But this does not constitute an argument against the concept of god.
I want an answer of this; Was the pope Urban II, when he declared the wars against the “infidels”, really acting against fondamental law of christianism ?
-
-
So, Fisternis, where did matter come from? Has it simply always existed?
“Matter” as we know it, came into being short after the big bang. Energy (if you have enough) can bring into being (in pairs) matter and antimatter. If these hit each other again, then they annihilate to create energy.
So, the question is not “where did it come from” (there was an experiment using VERY! strong lasers, a handful of them, all of the beams focused into one spot, and they really created pairs of electrons and their anti-matter partner called positrons, very low rate of creation though), but “why did only matter survive, why did it all not annihilate again?”.The answer to that question is:
The universe is not totally symmetric!
The elemental particles can “change” from one class or family or flavour to another. Processes of the so called “weak interaction” let this happen (this governs for example the beta-decay in radioactivity, but much more). Recently, scientists have shown that particles from the “heaviest family” have a very strong channel to create particles of lighter families (protons and neutrons are made up of the elements of the “lightest family”). So, this channel may have contributed a lot to the survival of only matter.Another interesting question that arises from the so called “standard model” (which is the theory to all that above):
Why does nature seem to favor the numbers “2” and “3” ?
We have 3 families of particles (and it seems like there is no fourth one out there), 3 different flavours (red, green and blue), in each family we find 2 different classes (leptons and quarks) of particles, each having 2 members (the family one (lightest) has the electron and electron-neutrino as leptons, the up and down quark as quarks). For each particle there exists a mirror particle (matter and antimatter), another “2”.That is something i’d really like to know :)
-
your science, eh? hmmm . . . my science, i think, is different than yours.
Well you must use somekind of “out of space” logic or very old logical theorem (they are not false because they are old, but we still use a better logic now). I never saw anything scientific about god, only thing scientific against god. Just think how god loose space in science.
Believe it or not, one of the basis of Christianity is that it is the true religion. If a Christian does not believe this, then they are just a person who thinks that Jesus was a cool guy. That’s it.
-
If you believe your monotheistic god is the good one
-
Then and Odin, Thor and Belenos are false gods
-
So other polytheist and even maybe some other monotheistic religion are complete lies, or at best an innacurate vision of god.
-
If you believe that theres a lot of gods
-
Then Allah, Odin, Zeus and Isis are all real gods, just from another - people
-
So you won’t believe other religion are false.
That is the problem in most monotheistic dogma; you believe you are right and the others are wrong. If you were a greek from antiguity, you would not believe frigg does not exist, she would only be “another god”. Sure Norse believe their gods were better, but these polytheistic religion were not subject to war between parties like monotheistic religion. I think it is a good reason why monotheistic religion were active actor in most religion wars.
But this does not constitute an argument against the concept of god.
I want an answer of this; Was the pope Urban II, when he declared the wars against the “infidels”, really acting against fondamental law of christianism ?
WRT God - i think it is unscientific to consider it impossible that intelligent design may have taken place. The only evidence you’ve thrown up to support this is that “God is not necessary” as per Occam’s razor.
And yes, i do believe that God is the one true god to be worshipped. I believe it possible (or even likely) that there are other gods out there (as per Romans - “now we know that there are many gods”) and as per Genesis and Job (references to nephillium and the “sons of God” - but these are not God the father/creator. So yes, i am rather dogmatic here. If i weren’t, i would obviously not be a Christian - no Christian can believe in worshipping more than one God.
I believe that it is possible that God manifests itself to other people (Jehovah, the Alfader, The Great Spirit, Allah), but not sure that it is likely.
Also any figure that commands Christians to go out and kill other people is acting against the commandments of Jesus. There is no where in the NT that supports wars against the “infidels”. But as we discussed before - a few corrupt leaders does not invalidate an entire ideology (witness Stalin, Chairman Mao, etc.). -
-
WRT God - i think it is unscientific to consider it impossible that intelligent design may have taken place. The only evidence you’ve thrown up to support this is that “God is not necessary” as per Occam’s razor.
I think it is unscientifis to limit the world as an intelligent design, as there is only evidence rising that there’s no intelligent design. I can give you lots of exemple of design in the nature, that does not need any intelligence, a star, a moon, a cloud, a snowslake… and we are getting close; the universe’s birth itself.
Also about the “i did’nt give evidence against intelligent design”;
There’s no evidence to proove the tooth fairy exist, no reason
So we will go with occam’s razor to justify it’s inexistenceIn short; if nobody give me any argument for an intelligent design the only thing i would be able to answer is the occam’s razor.
I can give you counter-argument about god, but atheist don’t have the burden to proove the inexistence of something.
Also any figure that commands Christians to go out and kill other people is acting against the commandments of Jesus. There is no where in the NT that supports wars against the "infidels".When you look at the history of Joshua; god kill lots of people because they were infidels nos ? and they are called “wicked people”, so why the pope Urban was’nt right ? His interpretation of his religion was really so bad ?
Another interesting question that arises from the so called “standard model” (which is the theory to all that above):
Why does nature seem to favor the numbers “2” and “3” ?
We have 3 families of particles (and it seems like there is no fourth one out there), 3 different flavours (red, green and blue), in each family we find 2 different classes (leptons and quarks) of particles, each having 2 members (the family one (lightest) has the electron and electron-neutrino as leptons, the up and down quark as quarks). For each particle there exists a mirror particle (matter and antimatter), another “2”.Funny, Plato said the movement of the celestials body around the earth make the planet position look like.
2^0, 2^1, 2^2, 2^3
3^0, 3^1, 3^2, 3^3I don’t know if you even seen the problem, but when we take n(2^(1/2) mod 1). with values of n between 1 and 30, we get an equipartition. While it does not work with a simple number like 3/2. (1.5)^n mod 1 is complety incoherent. Why ? Why some make equirepartition and other not ? It is a paradox, why a simple number like 1.5 is incoherent, while another irrational number can be equirepartitional ?
In math and in physic we often see and order without understanding why. That’s part the fun, but sometime it’s frustrating :)
Suggested Topics
