[NT] does a god really exist?

[Opal]

Can you define "god," and would this question have arisen if you had never been exposed to such an idea?

 

[yasin]

Luke,I also have to take time to proper read through your arguements,i just skimmed it a bit,since exam is going on in our school.
But thank you very much for logical arguments!!

 

[yasin]

I am extremely sorry for being so late. But I have exams till 28th april. So I have to spend much time studying. And i am posting my answer in 2 parts, i was not allowed to post it whole for big size.

------------my answer-------------

You quoted me:
" -------does a god really exist?------

We know that the living world works in a perfect and extremely complex system. extremely complex reactions,both physical and chemical,are always occurring in just the perfect doses in just the right place and time so that the whole universe remains balanced.

Now let's think about the first being ever created/born/produced. science says that the living beings are formed by various lifeless chemical elements like carbon,hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, iodine, potassium, phosphorus etc(i CERTAINLY agree).but every organic substance,produced by the reactions of these non-living elements,are produced by extremely complex,perfectly calculated and lengthy chemical processes. even if it is just carbohydrates.

Below i am mentioning just a small portion of the process of producing carbohydrates in short,you can skip this para if you already know how complex the process of producing carbohydrates is. besides,you don't need to understand or remember the reactions mentioned below,they are only mentioned here so that it is clear for you to realize just how complex the reactions can be just for producing carbohydrates,this is the small portion:

1. Grab: A five-carbon carbon catcher catches one molecule of carbon dioxide and forms a six-carbon molecule.
2. Split: the enzyme RuBisCO (with the energy of ATP and NADPH molecules) breaks the six-carbon molecule into two equal parts.
3. Leave: A trio of three carbons leave and become sugar. The other trio moves on to the next step.
4. Switch: Using ATP and NADPH, the three carbon molecule is changed into a five carbon molecule.
5. The cycle starts over again.(source:wikipedia.org,link:Calvin cycle - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Now,we know, cells cannot be produced without the production of protein. and formation of proteins is much much much more complex than carbohydrates. so you can imagine very well what a huge amount of perfectly calculated series of extremely complex chemical reactions it would require to form just a single of the most simple primitive cells.

So it would require a huge number of perfect coincidences so that the perfect conditions are created so that every extremely complex chemical reaction could occur just in the perfect way,in the perfect amount, in the perfect order,in order to form just a single cell."

You said:

This is based on an assumption that the first life dealt with matter in the same way as our cells do now. Looking at the earliest life still in existence, the archaebacteria, many of these species use chemosynthesis rather than photosynthesis to gain energy. The reactions that originally occurred may be diverse, slow and may not have even been within a closed unit (i.e. within a lipid membrane). When I say slow, and this is a difficult concept for many, is that the state between lifeless and life, for a self-sustaining unit to occur may have happened gradually over millions of years. And I say this because some people find it hard to imagine what millions of years really looks like, since human civilisation has only been around for thousands. What I propose is a simpler, less efficient system originally, superseded (maybe many times) by more efficient systems until we get to things like the Calvin Cycle.

The Primordial Soup theory proposes that the early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere, and simple organic compounds may have been present. Solar energy, catalysts, other compounds (belched by many volcanoes) and the weather (lightning especially) may have created more ideal conditions for larger and more exotic compounds to be produced. Perhaps a random catalyst that liked to bind atmospheric methane into ethane and so forth, that ethane drifting around until it found another exotic catalyst to oxidise it to ethanol, or strip away two hydrogens to make ethene (which could react with something else and so forth). I'd have to ask an expert on organic chemistry to show me a list of the many catalysts used in industrial processing etc.

I'd advise you to read up on it. There have also been experiments that produced amino acids from nitrogen-containing compounds, and nucleic acids from ammonium cyanide. There's a Wikipedia article here to summarise the theory - Primordial soup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You again quoted me:
" Now let's agree that all these complex reactions occurred just in the perfect ways,in the perfect times,due to huge huge huge number of coincidences,that created the perfect conditions for the complex reactions,and without anyone's guidance,and thus formed the first cell ever. and it was automatically produced from the lifeless elements like oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, iron, phosphorus,potassium etc.

now imagine if i say i will put a huge container in space where there is no living being,the container almost as huge as the earth,i will fill it with lifeless elements like oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen,iodine, iron, phosphorus, potassium, sodium etc and there will be not even a single living or dead cell there. now if i say after 1 trillion years,you will find the container crawling with insects,what would everyone and even the scientists say?i asked this to a few people and all of them said something like,"they will say,how can it be?are you mad?""

You said:

That wouldn't be recreating conditions of the early Earth and not a relevant scientific test.

My answer:
I think you misunderstood me at this part. By the example of the huge container in space, I exactly tried to mean what you have actually told,"That wouldn't be recreating conditions of the early Earth". I have previously mentioned complexity of reactions for simple production of carbohydrates,production of proteins is even much harder,and production of self-sufficient units,between living and nonliving state, is even much harder. Recreating the conditions of the early earth(or suitable conditions) automatically would require so many coincidences for creating perfect conditions for so many complex reactions,that recreating the early Earth's conditions automatically is impossible(extremely improbable), and so life won't be formed in the huge container. It would require perfect distance from the sun or a star and energy from it, compounds from volcanoes, catalysts,correct weather(as you mentioned) and many many many more perfect conditions in different times. The only thing I added was that if recreating the early Earth's condition automatically is really impossible, then how was it possible in the first time?Read the words in capital letter carefully:
" So how can the insects living around us be produced from non-living things? THE LIVING BEINGS CAN ONLY BE FORMED IN THIS WAY(IN THE HUGE CONTAINER AND ALSO ON EARTH), ONLY IF EXTREMELY EXTREMELY EXTREMELY HUGE NUMBER OF COINCIDENCES TAKE PLACE(FOR RECREATING OR CREATING THE CONDITIONS OF THE EARLY EARTH OR SUITABLE CONDITIONS),CREATING PERFECT CONDITIONS(CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THE ONES YOU MENTIONED) FOR EACH REACTION,which is impossible,and so the formation of living beings from lifeless things is also impossible. and even if these extremely huge number of coincidences occur,it will clearly seem that someone is really guiding it,since coincidences occur once,twice or thrice,not usually a thousand times."

Hope you have understood my actual point.

But keeping in mind, "improbable is not impossible", I did not come to conclusion, rather I continued my discussion.

 

[yasin]

Then you again quoted me on the plants and animals/insects( i am writing a part in capital letter):

"So how can the insects living around us be produced from non-living things? the living beings can only be formed in this way,only if extremely extremely extremely huge number of coincidences take place,creating perfect conditions for each reaction,which is impossible,and so the formation of living beings from lifeless things is also impossible. and even if these extremely huge number of coincidences occur,it will clearly seem that someone is really guiding it,since coincidences occur once,twice or thrice,not usually a thousand times.

even though,let's just agree that the living beings were formed just because of big number of coincidences and no one had guided their formation.


Then in this way due to coincidences,the first cell was formed. And then from this cell new cells started to be produced. And then the newer ones also started reproducing. And thus their number increased.

Now we know that the plants and and animals are interdependent, one cannot live without the other. The plants produce food,carbohydrates and oxygen by using mainly sunlight,water and carbon-dioxide. And the animals can never survive without the carbohydrate and oxygen produced by plants. But in exchange to this,the animals produce carbon-dioxide and without this carbon-dioxide the plants can also never survive. And again the animals/insects carry the POLLENS OF THE FLOWERS of many plants,without which the plants cannot reproduce. And in exchange the animals/insects get nectar and also fruits from the trees that will be produced in the future from these very pollens. Thus they maintain a perfect and complex balance and cooperation which ultimately saves all the organisms,and without which they would have become extinct long ago"

You said(i am writing a part of your statement in capital letter):

Just want to stop you there. PLANTS DON'T NECESSARILY NEED ANIMALS TO SURVIVE. THE VAST MAJORITY OF MODERN PLANTS DO PRODUCE OXYGEN VIA PHOTOSYNTHESIS, AS A WASTE PRODUCT - BUT THEY ALSO CONSUME OXYGEN TO RESPIRE AND PRODUCE CARBON DIOXIDE AS A WASTE PRODUCT (THOUGH ADMITTEDLY, THEY ARE GENERALLY A NET PRODUCER OF OXYGEN). At the time plants arrived (as algae), bacteria were the dominant families (archea/prokaryota), and atmospheric oxygen was extremely rare. The rise of plants would have turned the atmosphere from a reducing to an oxidising one, and kept going. If there were no animals or fungi, and just plants and bacteria, the plants would survive happily in an oxygenated atmosphere and coexist with the bacteria evolved to respire with that oxygen

My answer:
According to you, plants don't necessarily need animals to survive, because they can produce carbon-dioxide themselves from oxygen through respiration.

Now we know that if the plants have to survive, the amount of carbon-dioxide in the air must not increase, nor decrease. Because if carbon-dioxide decreases, plants cannot make proper amounts of food. And if it increases, very soon the temperature of the world will also increase in great amounts. Besides, if it keeps increasing, the amount of oxygen would also keep getting lower and lower. As a result, there will come a time, when they cannot respire required amounts of oxygen. And in either way the plants will have to die.

But according to you plants don't necessarily need animals to survive. That is, if there were no animals, the plants would be able to produce just the required amount of carbon-dioxide and thus keep the amount of carbon-dioxide in the air unchanged and also stop oxygen from increasing(by respiring with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide).

But(according to you) on earth, besides the plants, who produce required amounts of carbon dioxide and keep it's quantity unchanged, there is a huge population of animals and humans, who, according to you, produce extra amounts of carbon dioxide. Since plants are producing the required amount of carbon dioxide by respiring with oxygen, the amount of carbon dioxide produced by humans and the animals is extra. And due to production of extra carbon dioxide by such a huge population of humans and animals, the amount of carbon dioxide should keep increasing in great amounts everyday and soon due to excess amount of carbon dioxide in the air and very low amount of oxygen, the modern plants along with all the higher animals and humans will have to die.

But for thousands and thousands of years, along with the plants, huge populations of humans and animals have produced extra carbon dioxide. By today, all modern animals and plants should have been extinct. But it did not happen. Rather, except abnormal activities(disasters, modern vehicles and machines), till today, there has been no rise of carbon dioxide levels.

So it can be understood that the animals and plants TOGETHER were producing the required amount of carbon dioxide to keep the carbon dioxide levels unchanged. And so, without the animals, the amount of carbon dioxide will soon become very low and thus the plants will eventually die.

So modern plants do need animals to survive. Besides, you did not tell anything about pollens.

Now about humans you quoted me:
" So now,after the cells were formed due to coincidences,they started to evolve on earth. But,coincidentally, as the cells evolved they divided into two main divisions,the plants and the animals(along with insects). Coincidentally, they evolved from the same group of cells in just such a way,that among the two parts,each part balanced the other so that both of them could survive and none would get extinct.


It was as if the cells were cooperating with each other,as if they could talk with each other or communicate and express thoughts and as if one part of them said to the other "we will evolve into the plants who will produce food, carbohydrate and oxygen for you and you will evolve into the animals who will produce carbon-dioxide for us and carry our pollens,so that both of us can survive."

But in reality the cells cannot actually talk with each other,and so,such a perfect cooperation,just because of coincidence does not actually make sense,and so it seems very clearly that someone has guided them for some reason so that they could form a perfect balance,and so that all of them could survive.

But even though let's just agree that the cells coincidentally evolved into perfectly balanced parts,plants and animals,although they cannot talk to each other,and no one had guided them.


But then arrived the human kind, who would be completely unique from every other kind on earth. Who would change and break the rules of nature and rule over every other creature even if they are 500 times stronger then them or even if they fly in the air or swim in the water. They had no notable amount of physical strength or special physical abilities like flying,breathing in water,horns,big teeth,extreme flexibility,extreme speed etc. The only difference they had were a few intellectual differences. They had an extreme level of intelligence and they could speak as efficiently as no other kind could, could express almost every one of their thoughts to the others of their kind, coming up with new ideas and solutions for every problem. Only this kind was intelligent enough so that they could soon be able to build palaces that were million times bigger than them in size,fly in the sky,dive under the sea,unlike any other kind.

Only this kind had the perfect hands that could use a pen to write and draw. No other kind, not even trained monkeys could write or draw so minutely as they could. And without this feature, it was impossible to carry ideas between places that were oceans apart.

Again, they were the only kind that felt ease in walking and standing completely straight, which also gave them the ability to ride on other animals and also on vehicles invented from the ideas of their own minds/brains.

But the humans had another unique uniqueness. We know that the animals,plants,insects and all living beings are interdependent,one cannot survive without the other. If you kill all the plants,all the animals will die due to scarcity of oxygen. Again,if you kill all the deer and bulls,the tigers and the lions would soon be dead due to scarcity of food. And then,due to shortage of carbon-dioxide produced by them,the plants would also die and consequently all the living beings would get extinct. And even if you kill all the tigers and lions,there would arise problems. Very soon the number of deer and bulls would increase to a great extent and it would still not stop increasing. But very soon all the grass would be finished. Because the deer and bulls whose numbers cannot be controlled now, will eat all the grass they can reach. But very soon when the grass ends they will also have to die,because no more food is left for them. And then a huge deficit of carbon-dioxide will take place,since the huge number of carbon-dioxide producers are now gone. And again the plants will also die. And we know what will happen after it. Now you might say that there is no deficit of carbon-dioxide because we humans are producing a lot of it. But actually to meet the demand of the plants,you will have to produce much more carbon-dioxide than before,since a huge population of carbon-dioxide producers is now gone. But actually when you start burning more amounts of fuel for producing carbon-dioxide,there arise two problems. Firstly, our fuel reserve will be finished very fast. But secondly, the main problem is,along with carbon-oxide,we will also produce compounds like nitrous oxide,that cause acid rain. And again,you can say that we can start killing deer and bulls to maintain balance,but actually it is almost impossible. Because the deer cannot be killed in huge numbers without cars,since the deer are very fast, but cars cannot travel through jungles easily. And even if they have entered the jungles,the fuels will soon be finished. And if you wish to kill bulls,you will have to go to very harsh and remote places,with many men and cars,where the fuel of your cars will soon be finished running behind the bulls. So,the main thing is that this idea is a bit absurd. And so we can understand that all living beings, plants, animals, insects, birds, all of them are interdependent, none can survive without the other.

But, the humans were extremely exceptional even in this case. Although they ruled over the other living beings,they were also dependent on them. But unlike every other being,the humans were the only being,on whom no other being depended. We can imagine very well what would happen if all the plants or the deer and the bulls or the tigers or any other species was completely killed. All the other beings along with us would either be destroyed or will face the risk of destruction. But can you imagine what would happen if all the humans are killed? No imbalance would be created in nature,rather it would be saved from imbalance and the other living beings would live even more peacefully. The earth would remain the same as it was even centuries later. No imbalance would be found anywhere. Only the pet animals will face a bit of problem at first(i am joking).

Now the question is,why is there only one kind or species like the human kind? Why did the other kinds like us not survive? Or why were new kinds like us not formed,who would compete with us for ruling the world or for survival? Why is it that on the planet earth,there is only one kind that can think as good as the humans can,and can speak and express their thoughts? Who can write and draw with their hands?Who ride on other animals and vehicles unlike any other? And who depend on all the other beings but no other living being depends on them for survival and would not face extinction due to their extinction(extinction of humans)?"

You answered:

Natural Selection.

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My answer: I read what you told me to read about evolution. Besides I also collected the definition of natural selection from wikipedia.

Natural selection: Natural selection is the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment.(link: Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Now I am mentioning the names of a few species of a few animals,

Elephants(it has only 2):
1)Loxodonta africana
2) Elephas maximus

Rhinoceros(it has only 5):
1)Ceratotherium simum
2)Diceros bicornis
3)Dicerorhinus sumatrensis
4)Rhinoceros unicorn is
5)Rhinoceros sondaicus

Cats(tigers and lions also constitute this kind, it has 36 species!):
1) Felis silvestris
2) Panthera tigris
3) Panthera leo
4) Puma concolor
5) Lynx rufus
6) Leopardus pardalis
7) Felis silvestris

Deer(it has 90):
1) Elaphodus cephalophus
2) Muntiacus atherodes
3) Muntiacus muntjak
4) Dama dama
5) Axis axis
6) Rucervus duvaucelii
7) Elaphurus davidianus

Besides, ants have 12000 species, bees have 20000.

But the humans......
In the deserts of the middle east
Or the icy lands of siberia
In the civilized america
Or the uncivilized jungles of africa
In china
Or the moderate india
In every case(environment)
In every place
Only one(species) was left......
The homo sapiens.

But you can find other monospecific genus, genus that have only one species under them. But, even they will be species of animals/insects having other species in different genus(as far as i have seen) which are similar to them. For example, "zyzzyx" is a monospecific genus of wasp and wasp itself has other species in other genus which are similar to it.

Same animal may have different species in different genus. For example, Axis axis and Dama dama, both are species of deer, but with different genus.

Now my question is, if natural selection really had to make us so unique and incomparable, why only us?

So I am saying again the same as I said before,

"But then arrived the human kind, who would be completely unique from every other kind on earth. Who would change and break the rules of nature and rule over every other creature even if they are 500 times stronger then them or even if they fly in the air or swim in the water. They had no notable amount of physical strength or special physical abilities like flying,breathing in water,horns,big teeth,extreme flexibility,extreme speed etc. The only difference they had were a few intellectual differences. They had an extreme level of intelligence and they could speak as efficiently as no other kind could, could express almost every one of their thoughts to the others of their kind, coming up with new ideas and solutions for every problem. Only this kind was intelligent enough so that they could soon be able to build palaces that were million times bigger than them in size,fly in the sky,dive under the sea,unlike any other kind.

Only this kind had the perfect hands that could use a pen to write and draw. No other kind, not even trained monkeys could write or draw so minutely as they could. And without this feature, it was impossible to carry ideas between places that were oceans apart.

Again, they were the only kind that felt ease in walking and standing completely straight, which also gave them the ability to ride on other animals and also on vehicles invented from the ideas of their own minds/brains.

But the humans had another unique uniqueness. We know that the animals,plants,insects and all living beings are interdependent,one cannot survive without the other. If you kill all the plants,all the animals will die due to scarcity of oxygen. Again,if you kill all the deer and bulls,the tigers and the lions would soon be dead due to scarcity of food. And then,due to shortage of carbon-dioxide produced by them,the plants would also die and consequently all the living beings would get extinct. And even if you kill all the tigers and lions,there would arise problems. Very soon the number of deer and bulls would increase to a great extent and it would still not stop increasing. But very soon all the grass would be finished. Because the deer and bulls whose numbers cannot be controlled now, will eat all the grass they can reach. But very soon when the grass ends they will also have to die,because no more food is left for them. And then a huge deficit of carbon-dioxide will take place,since the huge number of carbon-dioxide producers are now gone. And again the plants will also die. And we know what will happen after it. Now you might say that there is no deficit of carbon-dioxide because we humans are producing a lot of it. But actually to meet the demand of the plants,you will have to produce much more carbon-dioxide than before,since a huge population of carbon-dioxide producers is now gone. But actually when you start burning more amounts of fuel for producing carbon-dioxide,there arise two problems. Firstly, our fuel reserve will be finished very fast. But secondly, the main problem is,along with carbon-oxide,we will also produce compounds like nitrous oxide,that cause acid rain. And again,you can say that we can start killing deer and bulls to maintain balance,but actually it is almost impossible. Because the deer cannot be killed in huge numbers without cars,since the deer are very fast, but cars cannot travel through jungles easily. And even if they have entered the jungles,the fuels will soon be finished. And if you wish to kill bulls,you will have to go to very harsh and remote places,with many men and cars,where the fuel of your cars will soon be finished running behind the bulls. So,the main thing is that this idea is a bit absurd. And so we can understand that all living beings, plants, animals, insects, birds, all of them are interdependent, none can survive without the other.

But, the humans were extremely exceptional even in this case. Although they ruled over the other living beings,they were also dependent on them. But unlike every other being,the humans were the only being,on whom no other being depended. We can imagine very well what would happen if all the plants or the deer and the bulls or the tigers or any other species was completely killed. All the other beings along with us would either be destroyed or will face the risk of destruction. But can you imagine what would happen if all the humans are killed? No imbalance would be created in nature,rather it would be saved from imbalance and the other living beings would live even more peacefully. The earth would remain the same as it was even centuries later. No imbalance would be found anywhere. Only the pet animals will face a bit of problem at first(i am joking).

Now the question is,why is there only one kind or species like the human kind? Why did the other kinds like us not survive? Or why were new kinds like us not formed,who would compete with us for ruling the world or for survival? Why is it that on the planet earth,there is only one kind that can think as good as the humans can,and can speak and express their thoughts? Who can write and draw with their hands?Who ride on other animals and vehicles unlike any other? And who depend on all the other beings but no other living being depends on them for survival and would not face extinction due to their extinction(extinction of humans)?


If coincidence was so easy to occur thousands and thousands and thousands of times, that living cells can be formed from lifeless things automatically and coincidentally, and perfect balance could be created among so many species coincidentally,so that all of them could survive, why did coincidentally other beings not be formed or could not survive who would be as unique as the humans? Who would compete with them for ruling the world or for survival? Who would be dependent on all other beings but the others would not be dependent on them? Who would change the rules and break the balance of nature?

This is just an indication and proof that coincidence is not so easy to occur thousands and thousands and thousands of times. Therefore it is clear to me that there was someone who guided every one of these coincidences, in order to create the humans and make them survive,but "in-coincidentally" kept a clear uniqueness in the humans so that it is a clear sign for those who think. So these signs are very clear to me. And so I believe there is someone with complete control and knowledge of everything, who has caused the creation or evolution of the living beings and specially the humans and produced a system so that all of them and specially the humans could survive. That someone must be infinitely powerful, otherwise he could not have done things so precisely. And there must not be anyone or anything similar to him,because I cannot logically imagine a human like me having so much control,power or knowledge.


And this someone,who is behind everything, is GOD."

 

[Nico_D]

I have a hypothetical question. What would be the proof that would convince you that there is no god?

 

[Forever_Jung]

Welcome!

I'm glad someone finally decided to question God's existence--it's about time we got to the bottom of this!

 

[Nico_D]

it's about time we got to the bottom of this!

 

[yasin]

I have a hypothetical question. What would be the proof that would convince you that there is no god?

Please, i hate to argue with non-intps. Even if you wish to share your arguements, please give logical arguments. I have told this a lot of times.

 

[Nico_D]

Thanks for the answer.

No worries, won't be coming back.

 

[yasin]

Thanks for the answer.

No worries, won't be coming back.

Come here whenever you wish bro. Just with logical arguements.

 

[Luke O]

Yasin,

I think it is best if I try to summarise things.

We did discuss the likelihood of a series of events that led to life arising from non-life and we agree, in our own ways, that such a series of chemical reactions are improbable. But you then tell me that they are impossible, which is not the same. We can't recreate the exact conditions of the early Earth, as that event happened only once in the Earth's history, but suppose that experiments were carried out to get as close as possible to those conditions. There have been, and the building blocks of life have been made (amino acids, DNA components etc), in a much shorter space of time than what it may have actually taken. This is evidence it can happen, but what if we could also take evidence of all life now as evidence it can (and did) happen? It would mean no need for a god in the model.

I see no issue with accepting that the improbable can sometimes happen, however unlikely. The impossible can't (as in actually impossible, not a misunderstanding of what was impossible); so if there is a claim that there is something, an entity, that can do the impossible, is that entity also impossible and therefore cannot exist?

 

[Frosty]

First of all... Hey, hey, hey! And second of all, God is as real as you make him to yourself. If you believe strongly in him, then you are more likely to associate daily happenings to his power, which would serve to strengthen a belief that is already there. If you do not believe in him and he does not occupy your mind frequently, then you might not be as familiar with 'having a connection' with God and he might seem more like an idea than a reality. As for whether there is someone actually pulling all the strings and one divine power, well I suppose every religion will claim something different. Everyone tries to make sense of the world in their own way, for some that includes God, and for them I do hope that he is real.

 

[Poki]

First of all... Hey, hey, hey! And second of all, God is as real as you make him to yourself. If you believe strongly in him, then you are more likely to associate daily happenings to his power, which would serve to strengthen a belief that is already there. If you do not believe in him and he does not occupy your mind frequently, then you might not be as familiar with 'having a connection' with God and he might seem more like an idea than a reality. As for whether there is someone actually pulling all the strings and one divine power, well I suppose every religion will claim something different. Everyone tries to make sense of the world in their own way, for some that includes God, and for them I do hope that he is real.

That is one of the best ways I have seen it worded

 

[Luke O]

First of all... Hey, hey, hey! And second of all, God is as real as you make him to yourself. If you believe strongly in him, then you are more likely to associate daily happenings to his power, which would serve to strengthen a belief that is already there. If you do not believe in him and he does not occupy your mind frequently, then you might not be as familiar with 'having a connection' with God and he might seem more like an idea than a reality. As for whether there is someone actually pulling all the strings and one divine power, well I suppose every religion will claim something different. Everyone tries to make sense of the world in their own way, for some that includes God, and for them I do hope that he is real.

I see "god" or "gods" as a primitive way of explaining why things happen the way they do. The problem comes with accepting the answer "Because God did it" and stop exploring/questioning to find out whether there is another answer. Whoever has the first answer to a question does not necessarily have the right answer - if so, gameshows would be kind of dull...

 

[Bknight]

Nobody's telling if they like the explanation or not. You could write something like,"i am convinced","i got confused". And if it seems illogical to you,please mention the reasons.

Sorry; INTJ butting in. Just wanna say, you and I share your opinion. Just too many incredible coincidences and occurrences happened for there not to be something behind it.

Of course, I was raised Christian, so I guess I'm biased to some degree.

But regardless, [MENTION=24669]yasin[/MENTION], welcome aboard, me hearty. :hi:

 

[yasin]

Yasin,

I think it is best if I try to summarise things.

We did discuss the likelihood of a series of events that led to life arising from non-life and we agree, in our own ways, that such a series of chemical reactions are improbable. But you then tell me that they are impossible, which is not the same. We can't recreate the exact conditions of the early Earth, as that event happened only once in the Earth's history, but suppose that experiments were carried out to get as close as possible to those conditions. There have been, and the building blocks of life have been made (amino acids, DNA components etc), in a much shorter space of time than what it may have actually taken. This is evidence it can happen, but what if we could also take evidence of all life now as evidence it can (and did) happen? It would mean no need for a god in the model.

I see no issue with accepting that the improbable can sometimes happen, however unlikely. The impossible can't (as in actually impossible, not a misunderstanding of what was impossible); so if there is a claim that there is something, an entity, that can do the impossible, is that entity also impossible and therefore cannot exist?

let me summarize my own explanation.there were mainly three parts in it. the first two parts were used only to describe the complexity of life and the occurrence of innumerable coincidences which created perfect conditions for everything.

--------SUMMARY-------

First part, extreme complexity of the creation of life from lifeless things automatically, which makes it extremely improbable. But due to INNUMERABLE COINCIDENCES, ultimately life was formed with the simplest form.

Second part, creation of two perfectly balanced chief divisions, plants and animals, from the same group of cells, although it is extremely improbable. I have told before, that seeing the extremely perfect balancing of animals and plants, it seems as if they had communicated and planned with each other for their survival, while they actually cannot. And for this the formation of such a balance by dividing chiefly into plants and animals, and again into insects, birds etc is extremely improbable. But due to INNUMERABLE COINCIDENCES they evolved from the same group of cells into plants and animals(chiefly) and thus, such a perfect balance was formed.

The third part, and this was the MAIN PART, the "in-coincidentally" unique uniqueness and incomparability of the human beings, which broke the rules of coincidence. In the first two parts we saw that innumerable coincidences caused perfect conditions for innumerable reactions, and thus formed life and then formed perfectly balanced plants and animals. Coincidence created perfect conditions for everything in such a way, that millions and millions of species of different plants and animals were formed, which, in this way or that, were dependent on each other. I have already mentioned the names and numbers of a lot of species of different animals and insects(elephants, cats etc), all of which are the results of coincidence. Coincidence could create so many species of different animals and insects, each having atleast one another species comparable with itself and very similar(for example, Loxodonta africana and Elephas maximus, both are species of elephants), and again, coincidence could make all these species interdependent in this way or that. But, only in case of humans, coincidence could not create or make survive a few species comparable and similar to the humans, and again, only in case of the humans, it made them dependent on all the other species, but made no other species dependent on them for survival(explained in my explanation). Does not make sense to me. Why should things be different for us? Why is it only humans who debate about god? If coincidence worked for humans just as it had worked for the others and made life from lifeless and millions and millions of interdependent and comparable species(like Loxodonta africana and Elephas Maximus), there should have been ATLEAST one another species like us, similar and comparable. If we are really not so special and no one had created us, and coincidence(without guidance) is the thing that is working behind every life, then we should also have been playing roles in the ecosystem and without us the environment would have been imbalanced. But this idea of humans naturally playing roles in the ecosystem as other living things is just absurd. Our only role in the system of Earth is to create imbalance. This shows that coincidence did not work for us the way it did for others. But it cannot happen. And for this I called the uniqueness of human beings to be "in-coincidental". But this "in-coincidence" is never supposed to be. But why did it happen? If coincidence occurred so many times without anyone's guidance, there should not have been any "in-coincidence". This clearly shows that there is someone guiding all these, causing coincidences but keeping exceptions only in case of the only being on Earth, that can question the existence of god. This "in-coincidental" exception can only make sense, only if there is a god in the model, who has caused it, for some reason, certainly. Otherwise, this exception does not make sense. So, there is GOD

-------END OF SUMMARY-------

We did discuss the likelihood of a series of events that led to life arising from non-life and we agree, in our own ways, that such a series of chemical reactions are improbable. But you then tell me that they are impossible, which is not the same.

You have told this two times already. But I have never said or even tried to say that improbable is impossible. I never said that there is god because the creation of life and it's balance is very improbable, until, until the humans made this in-coincidental exception, which does not make a sense without god's existence. If there was ATLEAST one another species like humans, comparable and similar, and if they were playing there own roles in the ecosystem, only then, the inexistence of god would have made sense.

so if there is a claim that there is something, an entity, that can do the impossible, is that entity also impossible and therefore cannot exist?

---------IS AN ENTITY THAT CAN DO THE IMPOSSIBLE ALSO IMPOSSIBLE?--------

Think, a thousand years ago I tell an atheist like you, god can make things travel a thousand kilometres in just an hour. He would have said, "Hey mad guy! It's impossible!". Does it really mean it is impossible for humans a thousand years later?

So it was impossible for humans a thousand years ago and it seemed impossible to them because they did not know how to do it, does not necessarily mean it was actually impossible for god and also for future humans. And so, it is no issue for god to be able to create things that were impossible for humans a thousand years ago, or even now.

Now you can ask me how god had made all these although it is clearly impossible for us? Recently I was asked this question by an intj friend of mine(he is a Hindu, and Hindu youths have almost no idea about god, I myself am not a hindu). I told him the same thing, it is impossible for me, and I don't how to make something, does it necessarily mean it cannot be made, even by god, whose existence is clearly seen in the coincidences and in-coincidences of nature(explained in my explanation)? Besides, if I could really tell how god made all these, I myself would have been god, which I am not.

The signs of life clearly show the existence of god(as I explained), but they don't show how god works, so, I would say, I don't know how he does things. But the signs of life do clearly show his existence(as I explained), so I can say why he exists but not how he works.

 

[yasin]

Sorry; INTJ butting in. Just wanna say, you and I share your opinion. Just too many incredible coincidences and occurrences happened for there not to be something behind it.

Of course, I was raised Christian, so I guess I'm biased to some degree.

But regardless, [MENTION=24669]yasin[/MENTION], welcome aboard, me hearty. :hi:

you are welcome to butt in!! i am glad you butted in. i was thinking, is there not a single person on this forum to support me?

However, I myself was raised in an anti-atheist family, although, unlike me and like the majority of the theists, they just taught me to never question god's existence, this was never satisfactory for me. i believe, logic must be the basis of faith.

it is true, i was also biased. but, answer-less faith never satisfied me, you know, intps.....

by the way, my best friend himself is an intj. and i share my ideas with him almost all the time.

but i don't believe in christianity though. and like this explanation, i also have other explanations(although not typed down yet) for proving why i don't believe in christianity or any other religion beside mine. you know inps, always tending to prove themselves logically correct.

glad for your hearty and friendly response

besides, did you realize that the coincidences were just the first two points, and the third and the main point was the exceptions caused by humans?

 

[yasin]

Yes, it's a welcome thread (welcome!)... so you'd probably get more feedback if you actually posited this in the appropriate subforum.

If you want, we can move the post(s) there for you while leaving your welcome stuff here, or we can just move the whole thread, I guess.

hi!
can you now move my thread to the nt-rational section, please? i would be glad if you could.(i am afraid though, if my thread gets lost in anyway......)

 

[/DG/]

Dang [MENTION=24669]yasin[/MENTION], what an intense intro post! Welcome!

Honestly, I haven't read through the whole post an I have to leave in a minute, but any response to the original question other than "we can't really know" is just kidding themselves. Personally, I have my own ideas. I don't think any sort of supreme being exists, but I don't have a way to prove it. It seems to be that the more presumptions that you make, the farther you'll end up getting from the truth. This is one reason why I don't see how religions have any merit to them. You're assuming all of these things about your god, but how did this information come into place? Where did you get the info? Why do you trust the source of the info? Etc.

 

[yasin]

Dang [MENTION=24669]yasin[/MENTION], what an intense intro post! Welcome!

Honestly, I haven't read through the whole post an I have to leave in a minute, but any response to the original question other than "we can't really know" is just kidding themselves. Personally, I have my own ideas. I don't think any sort of supreme being exists, but I don't have a way to prove it. It seems to be that the more presumptions that you make, the farther you'll end up getting from the truth. This is one reason why I don't see how religions have any merit to them. You're assuming all of these things about your god, but how did this information come into place? Where did you get the info? Why do you trust the source of the info? Etc.

if you read the whole thread, you will see that, i told atleast 4 times, if you don't like my explanation, please mention logical reasons(this is the fifth time, i just counted it right now).

besides, i have a guess, you might be an entp(not sure if i am correct).
and, i did not actually understand which info you are talking about(i wish you make it a bit more clear).