Can we know for sure that a god created this planet, solar system, and universe? Man has been using the materials here on earth to create new things for a long, long time. How do we know for sure that it wasn't a higher life form that isn't necessarily a god? Such a being could have worked alone with this world as it's personal chemistry experiment, or it could have worked in tandem with other such life forms.
Can we know for sure that what ever started life on this planet hasn't, in fact, died itself before it had a chance to show us how it accomplished this "creation"? The fact that not a single book on this planet dates back to the beginning of this earth, coupled with the inconsistency of the "holy" books accounts as compared to what is actually observable in reality, would make such a case much more credible than current religious beliefs.
With the multitude of life forms on this planet, how do we know it wasn't another salient but finite life form that created us?
2007-08-24
06:18:47
·
16 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Please, no bible scriptures. If you want to make a case for your particular deity please do so with real world evidence that clearly point to your specific deity.
2007-08-24
06:22:30 ·
update #1
Also, if your only proof is faith, isn't that admitting that all you have is speculation? Others also have faith in their particular beliefs, so faith alone can not be used to establish truth.
2007-08-24
06:24:38 ·
update #2
CMW, I never said that the being was intelligent, I said "salient," from this particular argument the case can be drawn to a logical conclusion that man is an unintended by product of a chemistry experiment gone wrong. Please don't put words in my mouth.
2007-08-24
06:27:30 ·
update #3
Evolver, I'm only saying that it had a hand in creating LIFE on this particular planet. I'm assuming the raw materials were already there.
2007-08-24
06:30:18 ·
update #4
Tim, please read the other notes. I never said it created the UNIVERSE, just life on this planet. Scale your argument back a little, you're way off base with this one.
2007-08-24
06:34:11 ·
update #5
CMW, can you prove that the people you mention walked the earth with God? Are there any corroborating accounts of this outside the bible? Now can you see why it isn't considered reliable evidence? With extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof must be provided. The Koran says Muhummad ascended to the heavens, do you believe that?
2007-08-24
06:42:58 ·
update #6
no1home2day, you make a convincing argument that would be believable to someone that doesn't know what you're talking about and does not have the will or resources to look it up themselves.
Without getting to the specifics of your argument (which in no way answer my question), I will simply say that even if your argument were supportable, that still does NOT point to any specific god, or any god for that matter. If humans can figure out the composition and function of a cell, what makes you think that another life form would not be able to do the same and more?
2007-08-24
06:54:29 ·
update #7
msbrook3, you don't watch the news very often, do you?
2007-08-24
06:55:38 ·
update #8
CMW, I'm not saying they lied, I'm saying they wrote songs, poems, and other allegorical stories to teach moral lessons and values, but it was never intended to be taken as literal truth.
Perhaps you aren't aware, but a prophet is a POET, not a person that tells the future. Go through the Old Testament and use this definition when you come across the word prophet, and you will see how it fits much better than the currently accepted definition. But aside from that, if you want to use the OT in your arguments, perhaps you should also understand that in using the OT as truth, you have to accept that it's meaning as it was written and used is also truth. That means that God is ONE, with no parts, partners, or offspring. No holy ghost, no Jesus, just God. Ask a Jew, this whole trinity thing is a christian invention, not a Jewish one. You may want to rethink your argument.
2007-08-24
07:02:24 ·
update #9
CMW, thank you for trying, but you know as well as I do that once someone demotes Jesus to prophet and places him under Muhummad, that person is no longer a christian, they are now a MUSLIM. Same rule applies to Judaism. The moment you split God into three, you are no longer Jewish, you are christian. You can't win this argument using the bible, and that's exactly why I asked you for proof OUTSIDE of it.
2007-08-24
08:28:19 ·
update #10
Bobo, the life form left the blue prints for all of us in all of us as it's proof. We call it DNA. The lifeform, on the other hand, calls it a "signature."
See, I can play this game too.
2007-08-24
10:31:08 ·
update #11
We don't know. We are looking at what evidence there is. But we don't know. And of course there is no evidence whatsoever that points to a god even existing. Or another salient but finite life form. So we've no reason to believe either.
2007-08-24 06:23:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
We know because the universe is a finite entity. Science has shown that the universe had a definite beginning and is expanding at an increasing rate. For anything to have a beginning, there must be a causal event, basic rule of logic.
Since the universe did not exist prior to this causal event, this causal event must be outside our known time-space. In other words, interdimensional. It could not have been anything in the universe since a "something" cannot come out of a "nothing".
You ask a few good questions, but you fail to show how your explaination is more reasonable than, say, the belief in the Christian God (which as we understand him is infinite and exists in more demensions than our standard observable 4). An alternative explaination is not a refutation.
EDIT: I disagree. Your position sets up an infinite regression logic error. How did the alien come into existence? Again, it gets back to the origin of the universe as a whole.
2007-08-24 13:30:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tim 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Such a being would not be finite in the ways that we normally understand the term. We know the world isn't artificial - it is composed of the natural materials resulting from a second generation star exploding.
Extrapolating backwards, that means that this hypothetical being would actually have to be responsible for the establishment of this universe - everything natural that follows is in a chain of events that can be modeled. It is in the creation of the universe itself - with its curiously life-aligned constants that are a tremendous teleological problem - that we see the first signs of a possible creator.
Such a being is, certainly by any standards we could apply, surely one that qualifies to be called a god.Whether such an immense intelligence sees itself in such a fashion is a theological question, and not a scientific one.
But as a language challenge, I think that one's a no-brainer. Such a being is at the very least what the deists refer to as "God."
2007-08-24 13:28:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by evolver 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
What we have to study this world is our observations of the rules of cause and effect. The Natural Laws, if you will.
We necessarily have to jump in at the middle, of course, since we were not here from the beginning.
We study cause and effect with science. There are no verifiable effects from a God cause. Even the most devoted of the God cause supporters proudly say this and point to the need for faith as the equivalent alternative. In fact, faith and science rarely are on the same page.
We can verify a chain of causes and affects for this planet, solar system, and to some degree, the universe, that fall within the natural laws. We cannot find either a God cause or God effect except in subjective and ancient accounts.
Therefore, the question is nonsense. A better question would be; Is there any evidence that a God, working outside the natural laws of cause and effect created this world? And the answer is no.
2007-08-25 07:58:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by smkeller 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
A confirmed atheist making the case for "intelligent design." Interesting.
Edit: Oh, and they can't use the Word of God to respond. The fairness scale just tilted severely to the left. Things written by people who walked the Earth with God are out.
Edit #2: I put the term in quotes. Please see below for one of the rules regarding the use of quotes.
"Use quotation marks to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way."
So, you see, I did not put words in your mouth. I have a sheepskin, too.
Edit #3: The Bible is 40 different authors under one cover. The fact that it has a binding is a poor excuse for recognizing that it is, in fact, 40 different authors, over a 1,500+-year span, in 5 different countries and from a time when there was no printing press. Then there are the early Christian writers who support those 40 authors, and the huge number of scholars, rabbis, Jewish writers who support those in the Tanach.
If you have decided in advance that these people all lied, although many died for their writings, then nothing will change you mind. End.
Final Edit: So perhaps they didn't lie, but rather you know exactly what was in their minds when they wrote. Obviously they didn't.
I have rethought my postion from every point of view, including the Jewish one. I'm sure you will say that not all Jews are real Jews. Yeah, right. Why don't you try listening to Ehanan Ben-Avaham, linked below. The website is from Jerusalem (more non Jews) and this is the US branch of the site. Start with "The People Known as the Early Christians," then tell Ehanan that he's not a Jew, although he did his service in the IDF, and that he has not clue what he's talking about. You're always telling people what to read and listen to. Your turn.
For myself, I have a life and I'm moving on. Bye
2007-08-24 13:23:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by cmw 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
The greatest evidence of intelligent design is found in the very science that evolutionists claim to rely on.
I will only give two such examples.
First, the rules that control the flow of energy (known as the laws of thermodynamics) and entropy. Basically, the laws of nature state that energy is flowing downhill (from a high state of concentration to a lower state until there is no more available energy) and that everything moves from order to chaos. Evolution insists that everything is moving from chaos to order. They may not state it like that, but if you follow the "logic" involved to allow evolution to work, that is ultimately what it entails.
Second, the very cell itself. Of course, anybody who has studied Darwin's theory knows that he did not use science but logic to conclude the theory of evolution, and furthermore, the logic was based on an erroneous presumption. Darwin thought that the cell was the smallest divisible part of the body, and that in the foetal condition, the contents of the cell (an "ambiotic" fluid) is non-specific and can be forced to change under external pressures. Of course, we now know about such things as mitochondria, DNA, RNA, proteins, etc. So, you see, his theory was not based on scientific research, but on trying to deduce logically; but he started with false data; and anybody who knows anything about logic will tell you that if you start with a false premise, the conclusion will be wrong.
Furthermore, if you study the internals of the cell, you'll soon realize that this could not POSSIBLY be the results of random chaos.
For instance, the mitochondria converts the raw materials into usable energy for the cell. But the very first step in this process is to lose 1 or 2 units of energy. If it were up to evolution and chance, this process would have aborted before it ever got started! The entire process loses 4 or 5 units of energy, but has a total overall gain of 7 units of energy.
Second, if you look at the complexity of DNA, you'll know that this, too, is impossible. Just one example: the way a cell divides. The DNA, which is a tightly compact double-strand in a helixical pattern, must first unwind and stretch out, and separate into 2 separate strands, either one or both of which creates a mirror image duplicate which goes on to build its own mirror image as an exact replica of the original DNA strand within it's own nucleus. Then these DNA individual strands reconnect and coil themselves up again into a helix.
This happening by accident (ie matter, energy, space and time working in random chaos) would be like an explosion in a warehouse with all kinds of raw materials, and when the dust settled, you have a Cray supercomputer totally programmed with all kinds of software on the hard drive that resulted from this explosion. Furthermore, the data on the hard drive would have the ability to re-arrange itself at will to become different operating systems.
But, of course, the DNA is MUCH more complicated than a simple Cray supercomputer, so the illustration falls short.
Now, if you can honestly believe that, then you sure have more faith than me. And if you can adhere to a belief system such as evolution, in spite of all the facts, then ... WOW!!!
2007-08-24 13:43:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by no1home2day 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
No, we can't know for sure... there's no way to prove it like that. We can claim to believe it happened that way (or, as some would put it, they have faith that it is their God that created)... but there's no way for one person to show another that any God even exists, let alone that this or that Deity created anything. I don't mind someone claiming to have faith in this, but I find it kind of annoying for them to think that their faith is evidence.... it isn't.
Holy books are mainly primitive writings for primitive people. Myths which convey moral messages don't necessarily mean those myths are True historically... though they may hold some truth as far as people and places. I'm not sure where they came up with the idea that it is literal (especially when most of the writers of those books didn't think it was literal)... I believe that is merely a way for them to hold onto their own perceived image of a Deity, placing a high wall around it, to protect it from any type of questioning or doubt. Instead they only wall up their minds and forgot to, at least, place a few windows in there so they can see out.
It's all "theory" *wink* Since they like using that word to mean that there is no evidence to back up something, like how the use it when responding to Evolution and Darwin. (As if using the word "theory" means you can just throw everyone out) I'd rather not throw the baby out with the bath water... who knows, that baby might grow up to be something.
2007-08-24 13:31:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by River 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
The 'higher life form' would have left some kind of artifact. Something indicative of it's non-god, yet highly intelligent self. We would see some kind of thumb print in our make-up.
Instead, man sees and senses something bigger. The centuries old sense of this bigger thing, the idea of a God, is an artifact. It's a sense. It's a thumb print. It's been around from time unmeasured, and hasn't changed. As science progresses, the mystery thickens. The strange make-up of our universe, from Einstein to Planck to Bohr to Born and then whoever, shows how little we know of our own reality.
But through all of this, from culture to culture, century to century, the sense that God is continues.
Maybe we are looking at the creation of a 'salient finite life form.' If this was the case, wouldn't this creatures thumb print be seen? Be sensed? It has not been sensed from century to century. It hasn't been an idea that has held up over time. Maybe not proof, but in my view, it is evidence.
-----------------
Edit: the 'know' part isn't cut and dry in everyone's mind, to be sure. For me, it's much like the love I share with my wife and kid's. Tough to point to it, and 'prove' that it's there, but it is, with all kinds of byproducts as evidence.
2007-08-24 15:52:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by super Bobo 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Faith.
Yes, that is saying all we have is "speculation," scientifically speaking. But a lot of science is speculation. Scientists have projected a climate chart for the next thousand years; they won't be able to prove they were right until a thousand years have passed. They predict the paths of hurricanes. They make weather forecasts. They predict rises in and falls in crime based on statistics. Sometimes they're right, and sometimes they're wrong. We see links to God in creation; skeptics do not. We really do not understand how they don't see those links; they don't understand how we do. We might be right, and we might be wrong. But until the end of the world comes around, no one will KNOW either way. We can't prove we're right, but we also can't be proven wrong. There is no physical evidence either way. Same thing with the climate projection. They could very well be right, but unforeseen geological factors could come into play and prove them wrong. We have faith that we are correct in our beliefs, otherwise we would not hold those beliefs. Scientists have faith that they are correct in the projections they make; otherwise they would revise those projections. We all accept the fact that we could be wrong, and if this is so we'll move on. But until we're proven wrong, we'll continue to have faith that we're right.
2007-08-24 13:39:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by csbp029 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
l know, you're looking into the possibility of the existence of a creator, but like any modern intelligent person, you want to get it all figured out in your mind with logic and science. We all tend to do that. And then Christians say all you need is faith, but how can you believe if you don't know for certain that there lS someone to believe in?
l wish it was that easy to prove scientifically, but it seems not to be and only leads us to a maybe, without telling us what the creator of the earth is like. On that level l like the things that Einstein, although not a Christian like me, said, e. g.:
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
But really getting to know God is on a mysterious level, and we need faith to experience him. All l can do for you is to share one of my experiences with God with you:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AosjJusSQVv82XXM0HwfIuXty6IX?qid=20070617055115AAIQzhe
Something else which strengthened my faith is an article l read about NDE. l have typed it up in a 360 blog entry, so you can read it if you click on my profile. lt is a summarized account of research that has been done about NDE, which l find less confusing than reading individual experiences, which are obviously often a bit contradictory.
2007-08-24 20:32:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Amelie 6
·
0⤊
0⤋