Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
God created the world, but is now dead ?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
The way i would see this is ..You have trouble imagining the universe without a creator not because the universe requires a creator but because you have trouble imagining the universe without a creator, ie it is an issue with your brain, not the universe.
Imagine a clockwork pocket watch how would you say it was created .
A. A big bang it has no creator just got made by acident.
B. somebody made it .
c. I dont know .
Now if you were being honest you would say B (im gonna assume you said
Now apply the same logic to the human eye, the human brain A daisy or any of the other biological technical wonders on earth or indeed the universe .
A. A big bang it has no creator just got made by acident.
B. somebody made it .
C. I dont know .
whats your answer ?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Apologies.First off you have no idea what I believe And Congrats on making that absurd leap about me and missing my point entirely.
For the record I fully Believe in evolution and natural selection .......
I'm obviously too jaded with random theist drive-bys that make posts similar sounding to yours - but without actually having a clue about what they're purporting.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Ok, well firstly a self replicating molecule is not unlikely at all, you can produce them in a lab if you just dump some chemicals together, chemicals we know were present on the early Earth. You will get self replicating molecules, so it isn't a question of if.
And who is to say that this isn't how the ball got rolling
It takes something like 400 million years of evolution to go from these self replicating molecules to the first cells, so cells are not random chance either, they evolved like everything else. They are very complex compared to other chemical structures, so I would understand someone being skeptical that they just randomly formed, but that is exactly what evolution explains, they didn't randomly form they evolved.
And what would be the catalyst for these to evolve you need competition. To evolve you need something killing off the weaker cells . What was it. It wasn't lack of food or Resources as they were in abundent supply back then. Maybe something kick started the whole thing we Don't know . What we do know is evolution doesn't just happen it needs something killing off the weaker species.
While it is rather unlikely that this particular planet had the right conditions to to form theses initial self replicating molecules, given that there are 100 billion stars in this galaxy alone, and there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the odds that one planet in the universe would have these right configurations for life are very likely, so likely in fact that you would be more surprised if life never appeared on a planet in the universe. It just happened to be this planet, but it could have been any of the trillions upon trillions of planets that exist.
As for the universe itself, well I'm always curious when people say it is unlikely considering it is the only one we know and as such we have no idea how likely or unlikely this universe is. It could be a 1 in a billion shot or it could be an inevitability. We won't know until we understand how it came about.
Exactly I think it is much more plausible that it was created think about it we have a self contained universe that is expanding . Everything we need to live is here. I think personally that it much more likely to have been created than just happen .
You think it much more likely that it was created by chance than by a creator . Both theorys are likely until one is proven false .
We also now that they can be formed by human hand . (does that make us a creator given a few million years )Given that you don't have a creator to demonstrate this, nor do you have any idea if such a creator does exist, I fail to see how this is plausible?If the creator required to produce these first initial proto-life doesn't exist then it isn't plausible at all, it is completely implausible to suggest that they were created.
On the other hand we know they can form naturally, so whether they did or not the idea that they could is entirely plausible.
we also know they can be formed by intervention .
So what put this big chemistry set that is the universe here in the first place.
A big Bang is one theory gasses that exploded and created the universe. What set that off ???
But the creator does explain it . We are going down this path ourselves and if we don't blow ourselves up or go exctinct in the mean time i fully believe that humans will complete the circle and become god ourselves of another universe.
So on the one hand we have a plausible theory that can explain it (again irrespective of whether or not it is the correct explanation), and on the other hand we have a theory that we have no idea if it can or cannot explain it, that requires unknown variables, such as the existence of a creator capable of doing this, in order to say it is plausible.
I think you can tell which I think is or isn't the most plausible way of explaining how we can into being.
Again to make my position clear the way i see it there are to viable theroys that I am aware of.
1. We had a creator (god who kickstarted the whole life thing) something we are starting to be able to do ourselves .
2. Life the universe and everything just started by absoulte chance.
I hold number 1 in higher regard than number 2 , you hold number 2 in higher regard than number 1
both are correct until one is disproved .Apologies.
I'm obviously too jaded with random theist drive-bys that make posts similar sounding to yours - but without actually having a clue about what they're purporting.
apology accepted. Im quite enjoying this debate 0 -
And who is to say that this isn't how the ball got rolling
Artificial creation of life is not ruled out, but equally it is not required to explain the existence of life. And as I said later in the post above, since you don't have such a creator capable of doing this, where as you do have naturally occurring events, the creator hypothesis immediately falls behind in terms of plausibility.
If such a creator doesn't exist, or was simply not present on Earth, then it is impossible that they created life on Earth. Where as we know it is not impossible that life naturally evolved.And what would be the catalyst for these to evolve you need competition. To evolve you need something killing off the weaker cells . What was it.
These molecules are self replicating, ie they make copies of themselves from the "raw" material around them. This material is finite, as is the energy required to causes this chemical reaction.
If a self replicating molecule cannot replicate itself it ceases to function, effectively "dying" as we would understand it for more complex versions of life.
This produces an environmental pressure, and as such produces natural selection.
While this is a very long process (like I said estimates of 400 million years to go from the start to a simple cell), computer simulations can show this process in faster than real time.Exactly I think it is much more plausible that it was created think about it we have a self contained universe that is expanding . Everything we need to live is here. I think personally that it much more likely to have been created than just happen .
Based on what? What are you comparing it too in order to come up with odds to say it is much more likely created than not created?We also now that they can be formed by human hand . (does that make us a creator given a few million years )
By definition humans weren't around 4.3 billion years ago. So you still don't have a creator.
If no human level intelligence existed at all 4.3 billion years ago then artificial creation was not only implausible, it was impossible.
To even make it go from impossible to plausible you need to introduce an alien intelligence that you have no idea even exists.
On the other hand we have a natural process that we know worked the same 4.3 billion years ago as it works now, and was available on Earth.
So again how is artificial creation a more plausible explanation?So what put this big chemistry set that is the universe here in the first place.
A big Bang is one theory gasses that exploded and created the universe. What set that off ???
I've no idea, no one does, which makes it curious that you claim that a creator is more likely. What are you basing that on, what do you know that the rest of us don't?But the creator does explain it . We are going down this path ourselves and if we don't blow ourselves up or go exctinct in the mean time i fully believe that humans will complete the circle and become god ourselves of another universe.
That explains the creation of other universes, not ours since you have no idea if a human like intelligence already existed.
If they didn't then them creating our universe is impossible.
To get from impossible to plausible you would need to establish they do exist, and might have made our universe. You have yet to do this. Until then it is ridiculous to say that this is a more plausible explanation for life, Earth or the universe given that we have a perfectly fine natural explanation that we know was present 4.3 billion years ago that can account for life.0 -
-
Artificial creation of life is not ruled out, but equally it is not required to explain the existence of life. And as I said later in the post above, since you don't have such a creator capable of doing this, where as you do have naturally occurring events, the creator hypothesis immediately falls behind in terms of plausibility.
Why does the creator hypothesis fall behind in plausibility.
No I cant produce a creator (if i could then this discussion would be over:D)
we do not have any proof that life occurred by accident either we have a theory. ie WE can produce life based on what WE assume was lying around earth at that time . This does not prove either theory in fact it makes both possible.
I Think it a strech to think that you and I happened by accident something set the ball rolling .If such a creator doesn't exist, or was simply not present on Earth, then it is impossible that they created life on Earth. Where as we know it is not impossible that life naturally evolved. .
We Know that life can be created . Now why do you think that a creator wasn't present on earth why do you think that life was not planted . Why do you think out of this molten rock when it was formed the building blocks for life just happened to be lying around.
Now what happens if the nessecary ingrediants for life werent here can you prove they were .
You are presenting your belief that this happened this way as fact . But that is all it is your belief and holds the same as mine.These molecules are self replicating, ie they make copies of themselves from the "raw" material around them. This material is finite, as is the energy required to causes this chemical reaction.
If a self replicating molecule cannot replicate itself it ceases to function, effectively "dying" as we would understand it for more complex versions of life.
This produces an environmental pressure, and as such produces natural selection.
While this is a very long process (like I said estimates of 400 million years to go from the start to a simple cell), computer simulations can show this process in faster than real time.
And you cant see why i dont think this is a accident .
why is the material finite it is still here today this process is still happening . what caused the raw materials to go from being inaminate chemicals to being alive .??
Same as you to say it happened naturally than created its my belief . I Think it is much more plausible for it to have been created .Based on what? What are you comparing it too in order to come up with odds to say it is much more likely created than not created?
The universe is 15 billion years old the earth is 4.54 billion years so what happened in the ten billion years approx . Answer we dont know .By definition humans weren't around 4.3 billion years ago. So you still don't have a creator.
If no human level intelligence existed at all 4.3 billion years ago then artificial creation was not only implausible, it was impossible.
how did the earth go from a molten piece of rock to getting the building blocks of life . Answer we don't know.
how did this life become self aware. answer we don't know .
what was the earth composed of when it was created we dont know .
if the chemicals needed to create life naturally wasnt present then natural creation was not only implausible, it was impossible. (see what i did there)Artificial creation of life is not ruled out, but equally it is not required to explain the existence of life. And as I said later in the post above, since you don't have such a creator capable of doing this, where as you do have naturally occurring events, the creator hypothesis immediately falls behind in terms of plausibility.
Why does the creator hypothesis fall behind in plausibility.
No I cant produce a creator (if i could then this discussion would be over:D)
we do not have any proof that life occurred by accident either we have a theory. ie WE can produce life based on what was lying around earth at that time . This does not prove either theory in fact it makes both possible.If such a creator doesn't exist, or was simply not present on Earth, then it is impossible that they created life on Earth. Where as we know it is not impossible that life naturally evolved. .
We Know that life can be created . Now why do you think that a creator wasn't present on earth why do you think that life was not planted . Why do you think out of this molten rock when it was formed the building blocks for life just happened to be lying around.
You are presenting your belief that this happened this way as fact . But that is all it is your belief and holds the same as mineThese molecules are self replicating, ie they make copies of themselves from the "raw" material around them. This material is finite, as is the energy required to causes this chemical reaction.
If a self replicating molecule cannot replicate itself it ceases to function, effectively "dying" as we would understand it for more complex versions of life.
This produces an environmental pressure, and as such produces natural selection.
While this is a very long process (like I said estimates of 400 million years to go from the start to a simple cell), computer simulations can show this process in faster than real time.
And what made them do this . They went from being raw material to life and needing material what kickstarted the whole evolution process ..Based on what? What are you comparing it too in order to come up with odds to say it is much more likely created than not created?
Same as you to say it happened naturally than created its my belief . I Think it is much more plausible for it to have been created .
now you gonna show your maths to why it isnt .To even make it go from impossible to plausible you need to introduce an alien intelligence that you have no idea even exists.
On the other hand we have a natural process that we know worked the same 4.3 billion years ago as it works now, and was available on Earth.
So again how is artificial creation a more plausible explanation?
And how do you know it was available on earth again it is your belief .
how do you know it wasnt planted here again belief .
How do you know our evolution wasnt planned for some reason again your belief .
again these are just theroys you are saying that are fact truth is no one knows for sure .I've no idea, no one does, which makes it curious that you claim that a creator is more likely. What are you basing that on, what do you know that the rest of us don't?
That explains the creation of other universes, not ours since you have no idea if a human like intelligence already existed.
If they didn't then them creating our universe is impossible.
To get from impossible to plausible you would need to establish they do exist, and might have made our universe. You have yet to do this. Until then it is ridiculous to say that this is a more plausible explanation for life, Earth or the universe given that we have a perfectly fine natural explanation that we know was present 4.3 billion years ago that can account for life.
Again what i base my belief on is basically evolution the earth the universe it all works to well for it not to have been planed or for it to happen by chance . And to be honest ive no problem debating it but im not going to change my mind until hard evidence is produced one way or another .
It just all seems to wonderfull not to have a intelligence behind it much like the clock example from my earlier post .
Can i ask what you base your belief on that it was all created by chance .0 -
Why does the creator hypothesis fall behind in plausibility.
No I cant produce a creator (if i could then this discussion would be over:D)
we do not have any proof that life occurred by accident either we have a theory. ie WE can produce life based on what WE assume was lying around earth at that time . This does not prove either theory in fact it makes both possible.
Anything is possible, it is possible a time travelling ferret created the universe. You are talking about what is more plausible.
The natural occurrence hypothesis is backed by a natural process we know does exist and could have occurred on the early Earth. That doesn't prove this is what happened, but it makes it quite plausible that this is what did happen.
The artificial occurrence hypothesis on the other hand requires the existence of an alien intelligence, which we have no idea about, and the presence of said alien intelligence on Earth at the required time, again which we have no idea about.
It might have happened, there might be an alien intelligence that could do this and it might have been on Earth within the given time scale, but given that we have absolutely no idea if either of those things hold it makes such an hypothesis far from plausible.
If neither of those things hold then it is not only not plausible it is impossible.
So to over take the plausibility of the natural occurrence hypothesis you require an alien intelligence on Earth at the right time.
You don't have that.I Think it a strech to think that you and I happened by accident something set the ball rolling .
Well when you figure out what that "something" was get back to meWe Know that life can be created . Now why do you think that a creator wasn't present on earth why do you think that life was not planted.
Why would I think it was, you have presented no evidence it was and as far as I know none exists.
It is your idea, you need to support it. So far you don't have the alien intelligence and you don't have it on Earth. When you do then we can talk about the plausibility of it creating life. Until then there is nothing to suggesting your hypothesis could have even happened.Why do you think out of this molten rock when it was formed the building blocks for life just happened to be lying around.
Because that is consistent with the known chemical make up of Earth like planets. The chemicals that existed on the early Earth were not particularly unexpected or unusual.Now what happens if the nessecary ingrediants for life werent here can you prove they were .
We know they were, which makes the natural occurring hypothesis more plausible.
Do you know alien life with the intelligence to create life on Earth existed? Do you know that they were on Earth within the required time scale?
I know exactly why you don't think this was an accident, it is because of human cognitive bias, to view complex natural processes in terms of human like agents doing things for human like reasons because it is easier for us to process.And you cant see why i dont think this is a accident .
It is a lot easier for you (and any human) to process something like a cell in terms of something made it than to try and understand the idea that it naturally evolved. This is just a fact about how our brains work.
The issue is that this has nothing to do with what actually happened. Just because you think it should be designed doesn't increase the plausibility that it was. You can see this with how your argument on plausibility starts to fall apart when we see you don't have evidence of a designer on Earth, nor do you know if such a designer even existed within the time frame required.
why is the material finite it is still here today this process is still happening . what caused the raw materials to go from being inaminate chemicals to being alive .??
We do know.The universe is 15 billion years old the earth is 4.54 billion years so what happened in the ten billion years approx . Answer we dont know .
Previous to the existence of our star there were other stars that super nova-ed. This produces nebula while under the strength of gravity condensed to form our star. The heavier elements formed the planets, which is where all the chemical material need for life on Earth came from.
Because we understand this process pretty well, and understand what is produced in a star as it explodes we know what molecules are to be found on the early Earth.Again what i base my belief on is basically evolution the earth the universe it all works to well for it not to have been planed or for it to happen by chance .
As opposed to what exactly? Can you should me an example of a universe that, to your mind, doesn't "work well"?It just all seems to wonderfull not to have a intelligence behind it much like the clock example from my earlier post .
Again that is just your own cognitive bias. You think it is wonderful so you assume intelligence. Why? Because that is what the human mind tends to do. That has nothing to do with actual evidence for intelligence.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement