No God
-
Thanks for the reply,but intelligent design just does not stand up to the scientific facts.It is like a psychological delusion to convince us that this uneccessary concept-God-exists.
I have spoke to sunni muslims who say evolution is not contrary to Islam and that there have been muslim figure going back hundreds of years,who accepted concepts similar to evolution.What does the Quran have to say? -
Peace to all,
Alan, where did you even get the ability to think and reason, and why are you using these faculties to try to disprove God, instead of proving he exists, the psychological delusion is the fact that you see matter and its patterns and think only evolution can explain it, the Quran has a verse that says " God created and continues his creation" which to me sounds like both the original creation of God, and then evolution to continue his creation, so the Quran doesnt teach either creationism or evolution, it teaches both, and why cant they both be true?
Kurt
-
Peace to all,
Alan, where did you even get the ability to think and reason, and why are you using these faculties to try to disprove God, instead of proving he exists, the psychological delusion is the fact that you see matter and its patterns and think only evolution can explain it, the Quran has a verse that says " God created and continues his creation" which to me sounds like both the original creation of God, and then evolution to continue his creation, so the Quran doesnt teach either creationism or evolution, it teaches both, and why cant they both be true?
Kurt
I was born with the ability to think and reason,developed over billions of years from the begining of biological life on Earth.
Iam do no such thing as disproving God,I seek the truth and if that truth is God then Iam happy,but it doesnt look too promising.
I like the Quranic quote,at least it distances Islam from the Adam and Eve idea of Judeo-Christian tradition?
Personal God could be the problem.In Islam,God cannot be identified,except by his qualities,they tend to be nice and muslims say all creation is in submission to God,then the savagery we see in nature is what God wants?Its more sensible to see this as a pure result of natural selection. -
Peace,
Life on Earth is formed through a cause and effect where the laws and conditions where pre-designed at the moment of the Bigbang that eventually led to the outcome of Intelligent life. Thus there is no blind chance involved (Darwinism) or a constant tinkering and interfering (ID-Creationism). The laws of the Universe create a direction for the chaotic process of evolution. The biggest mistake people make is when they try to use Biological evolution as the basis for there is no designer, while they completely ignore the Physical laws that allow evolution that show clear traces of design. This so-called black-and-white vision is created through the non-objective and unscientific debate between evolutionists and creationists, while these two do not all determine the true conclusion if there is a God or not. The ONLY persons who can give this conclusion are the Cosmologists, Quantum Physicists and Higher Physicists as they research the systems of laws that control ALL processes within the universe. Evolution is just 1 process within the grand-design of the universe and thus can never be the indicator of design or not, only the outerframe of the natural laws can give this conclusion.
The nr.1 Astrophysicist Professor Paul Davies
There is no doubt that, even in the crude form, the hypothesis of an intelligent designer applied to the laws of nature is far superior then the designer considered in the previous section (of his book that discussed creationism red.), who violates the laws of nature from time to time by working miracles in evolutionary history. Design-by-laws is incomparably more intelligent than design-by-miracles. If I were an omnipotent being who wanted to make an inhabited universe like ours, and I could achieve this simply by conjuring up what I wanted when I wanted it, I wouldnt regard my activities as very clever. But to select a set of laws that, without nay periodic fixing up and micromanagment, can bring a universe into being and bring about self-organisation, self-complexification and self-assembly of life and conciousness-well, that looks very clever indeed! So the intelligentdesign beloved of the Intelligent Design movement strikes me as not very intelligent at all, in contrast to a designer of laws of nature which by themselves have such astonishing creative ability without the need for intervention and miracles. Intelligent design of the laws does not conflict with science, because it accepts that the whole universe runs itself according to physical laws, and that everything that happens in the universe has a natural explanation. There are no miracles other than the miracle of nature itself. You dont even need a miracle to bring the universe into existence in the first place, because the big bang may be brought within to explain the origin of the universe from nothing, or by assuming something like eternal inflation. The designer-of-laws is responsible for the universe, and might be thought of as upholding its existence at every moment, but does not tinker with its day to day operation. The type of God I am describing comes close, I think, to what many scholarly theologians-and for that quite a few scientists-profess to believe in.
Page 226. The Goldilocks Enigma by Paul Davies, 2006.
Evolution does not exclude God, as the laws of the Universe allow a perfect condition wherein the chaotic process of evolution is destined to create intelligent life as Paul Davies mentions above.
Evolution is like a rubber ball that is thrown in a room, the walls give direction and limits to the ball. While the bouncing of the ball looks chaotic and designless, when we look beyond the ball, we see a clear pattern of design as gravity, the molecular structure of the ball, the walls and their strucute and position, and the throw of the ball itself were all works of an intelligent designer.
-
An interesting and common misconception amongst people seems to be that if evolution exists, that means God does not.
I say interesting, because it is not only "scientists" who seem to have this view but also "Muslims".
As always, why not read what The Quran says about the topic? A simple google of "evolution in quran" will do for a starting point.
-
Peace,
Life on Earth is formed through a cause and effect where the laws and conditions where pre-designed at the moment of the Bigbang that eventually led to the outcome of Intelligent life. Thus there is no blind chance involved (Darwinism) or a constant tinkering and interfering (ID-Creationism). The laws of the Universe create a direction for the chaotic process of evolution. The biggest mistake people make is when they try to use Biological evolution as the basis for there is no designer, while they completely ignore the Physical laws that allow evolution that show clear traces of design. This so-called black-and-white vision is created through the non-objective and unscientific debate between evolutionists and creationists, while these two do not all determine the true conclusion if there is a God or not. The ONLY persons who can give this conclusion are the Cosmologists, Quantum Physicists and Higher Physicists as they research the systems of laws that control ALL processes within the universe. Evolution is just 1 process within the grand-design of the universe and thus can never be the indicator of design or not, only the outerframe of the natural laws can give this conclusion.
The nr.1 Astrophysicist Professor Paul Davies
?There is no doubt that, even in the crude form, the hypothesis of an intelligent designer applied to the laws of nature is far superior then the designer considered in the previous section (of his book that discussed creationism red.), who violates the laws of nature from time to time by working miracles in evolutionary history. Design-by-laws is incomparably more intelligent than design-by-miracles. If I were an omnipotent being who wanted to make an inhabited universe like ours, and I could achieve this simply by conjuring up what I wanted when I wanted it, I wouldn?t regard my activities as very clever. But to select a set of laws that, without nay periodic fixing up and micromanagment, can bring a universe into being and bring about self-organisation, self-complexification and self-assembly of life and conciousness-well, that looks very clever indeed! So the ?intelligent?design beloved of the Intelligent Design movement strikes me as not very intelligent at all, in contrast to a designer of laws of nature which by themselves have such astonishing creative ability without the need for intervention and miracles. Intelligent design of the laws does not conflict with science, because it accepts that the whole universe runs itself according to physical laws, and that everything that happens in the universe has a natural explanation. There are no miracles other than the miracle of nature itself. You don?t even need a miracle to bring the universe into existence in the first place, because the big bang may be brought within to explain the origin of the universe from nothing, or by assuming something like eternal inflation. The designer-of-laws is responsible for the universe, and might be thought of as upholding its existence at every moment, but does not tinker with its day to day operation. The type of God I am describing comes close, I think, to what many scholarly theologians-and for that quite a few scientists-profess to believe in.?
Page 226. The Goldilocks Enigma by Paul Davies, 2006.
Evolution does not exclude God, as the laws of the Universe allow a perfect condition wherein the chaotic process of evolution is destined to create intelligent life as Paul Davies mentions above.
Evolution is like a rubber ball that is thrown in a room, the walls give direction and limits to the ball. While the bouncing of the ball looks chaotic and designless, when we look beyond the ball, we see a clear pattern of design as gravity, the molecular structure of the ball, the walls and their strucute and position, and the throw of the ball itself were all works of an intelligent designer.
This is very unconvincing.God ,now as designer of laws,not intelligent designer,God who starts the ball rolling,blows the whistle and starts the game.
Why.The all powerful God of Abrahamic religion can create immediatly,why wait for trillions of years to see what develops.
This God seems to be like the "ghost" in the machine,not required for the functioning of it,a construct of our minds. -
How can I do other though in the face of the facts?
Which facts ? that the universe came into existence from nothing and innate matter made of sub-atomic particles which magically attained mass and united into 92 natural elements then combined into unique 4 bit chemical code for each of the billions of species or that Einstein and G?del concluded that time was fiction...
http//www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/28/050228crat_atlarge
"There is no physical universe! Nothing but a vast collective halucination!" -- The Serial Universe By J. W. Dunne
632 And the life the present/worldly life is not except amusement and play things, and the life in the hereafter is by far the better for all who are conscious of God. Will you not, then, use your reason?
Peace
-
Why.The all powerful God of Abrahamic religion can create immediatly,why wait for trillions of years to see what develops.
Excellent question. I will test your thought process now. Tell me, have you thought of the possible reasons for doing it in this manner?
-
The All Powerful God of Abrahamic religion created matter and the laws of physics, and made matter submissive to those laws. Those laws have guided matter to an arrangement that includes you, me, our philosophies and reasonings, and this discussion. Those laws will determine what happens from here onward. Everything we do is determined by those laws, and thus was determined at the beginning of the universe. You say that this argument turns God from being an "active" God into an "inactive" God who only got things started, but your point of view is confining God to the limits of time (a thing which is effected by gravity and mass, which means it is created, which means God is not subjected to it). God created matter and the laws governing it at the beginning of time, but that moment has not passed for Him, He is eternal and not bound by the constraints of time. Instead of doubting the existence of God you should be doubting your reasoning for confining God to the limits He has set for us.
I'd recommend that you read "Beyond Einstein;" a physics book about the fundamental nature of existence. You will be surprised what those secular scientist's conclusion is (spoiler it's God). The idea that science disproves God was in fashion for a while but modern scientific research is absolutely in support of the existence of an uncreated God-creator. What books have you been reading?
-
Interesting thing about Einstein - he didn't believe in God, but he did believe in Intelligent Design. He rejected the idea that the universe was random - so he would have been against Dawkins et al.
-
The All Powerful God of Abrahamic religion created matter and the laws of physics, and made matter submissive to those laws. Those laws have guided matter to an arrangement that includes you, me, our philosophies and reasonings, and this discussion. Those laws will determine what happens from here onward. Everything we do is determined by those laws, and thus was determined at the beginning of the universe. You say that this argument turns God from being an "active" God into an "inactive" God who only got things started, but your point of view is confining God to the limits of time (a thing which is effected by gravity and mass, which means it is created, which means God is not subjected to it). God created matter and the laws governing it at the beginning of time, but that moment has not passed for Him, He is eternal and not bound by the constraints of time. Instead of doubting the existence of God you should be doubting your reasoning for confining God to the limits He has set for us.
I'd recommend that you read "Beyond Einstein;" a physics book about the fundamental nature of existence. You will be surprised what those secular scientist's conclusion is (spoiler it's God). The idea that science disproves God was in fashion for a while but modern scientific research is absolutely in support of the existence of an uncreated God-creator. What books have you been reading?
Genetic science evidences the fact that biological evolutuoion can be traced.Physical science theorises as to the development of the universe and its atomic makeup(which has evidence),the sequence of events dont appear random because of the vast,unimegianble lengths of time involved,but random they were.As species change in accord with the environment,over time changing into differant species.
If God created us,by setting the ball rolling and knowing that we would be the result,why did it have to be so complicated and he needed other species to enable us to function-Mitochondria-he couldnt just make us.We are in effect x2 co existing animals,human and mitochondria.For those uninitiated,they are bacteria like organisms that convert oxygen into fuel for us,they have a differant DNA,to us.
What books have you been reading? -
Interesting thing about Einstein - he didn't believe in God, but he did believe in Intelligent Design. He rejected the idea that the universe was random - so he would have been against Dawkins et al.
I believe Einstien was a Deist a bit like Pantheism,I can go along with that idea to a degree,but this seems to rule out the personal God of the Abrahamic religions.
