You epitomize one who goes in circles, confusing himself. I had to read your post twice because I wanted to ensure I was reading it correctly and yup, your post is contradictory.
You first start the post by saying that because we can't explain something yet, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist (your example of electricity). I totally agree.
And then you state in the last part of your post for cold hard facts for existance of god, then saying no, and then you conclude that everything is speculation with no right or wrong.
If we go back to your electricity example and 30,000 BC, can you still say that there is no right or wrong? It has always been right (existance of electricity) and was never wrong. We just didn't see it yet in 30,000 BC.
So, your conclusion is a bad one that there is no right or wrong.
The atheists' favorite response to a 'does god exist' question is to ask people to prove it with Science.
Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."
The Mathematical odds alone point to the creation of something not by accident. If science points to something other than randomness, what other speculation or theorizing can you perform?
Perhaps wild theories like the one below?
After scientists discovered the vast complexities of the DNA code, and that these codes are to be found in even the most simple forms of life, they started to see "scary visions of a God."
Scientists are so afraid of such possiblities that they start making far fetched theories. Such is the case of a Sir Francis H.C. Crick, a noted biologist. Crick is the one who deduced the double-helical structure of DNA, for which he, together with his partner James Watson, later received the Nobel Prize. Crick went on to contribute to the elucidation of the genetic code. In short, he is a very respected scientist. And what led Crick to give the following view was the feeling that it's virtually impossible for the origin of life to have been undirected (accident). So Crick, together with noted chemist Leslie Orgel (who are trained scientists, who always look for naturalistic explanations to their problems - and to admit to a God wouldn't be scientific) said the following wild theory. They say that some extraterrestrial civilization of another solar system, because of the fear of extinction, decided to "seed" other planets with the essence of their live matter. So they sent frozen bacteria out into space, and eventually it reached earth. While on earth, it was these live bacteria from outer space that evolved into life as we see it now. This is their theory. And this wild theory was necessary, since it helped explain a hurdle that couldn't be made. They, as well as many other scientists, couldn't explain how an inanimate object could turn into even the most simple of life forms, bearing in mind the vast complexities that are found in all life forms. So "necessity, the mother of all inventions" led them to make up this story, which supplied them with instant life, without having to recognize God.
To have an open mind, one must be welcoming to alternative solutions. From total chaotic randomness to an ordered system of the Universe, one has to be opened to an alternative solution regarding its origin: God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: pers-139654959@craigslist.org
Date: 2006-03-06, 7:23PM PST
Hey holier-than-thou godpusher. I've been following this thread and now I'm going to give you a quick two cents.
All you are doing is taking the posters words and twisting them for your own agenda. Yippee, good for you. You probably win quite a few arguments at the bar. If somebody says that there are forces at work that we can't realize, that doesn't mean that they are believing in a god, that just means that there is an explanation to something, but we just haven't found the avenue to get their. Electricity was 'around' in 30,000 BC, but the avenues to create it were unknown completely. Whatever constitutes the universe can be explained, whether it's a 'god', a scientific explaination, or one big oops. However, to tell somebody that they must believe in something even though they don't want to, because somewhere, something may or may not sort of point to a god....well that's just ridiculous. And no, a book or two writen by a collection of people about events that include many that have never been proven to happen (or not happen) doesn't qualify as a good enough reason to do it either.
Now if you'd like to take the point of what exactly people think created this whole realm, or what happens after death, then you're in yet another ambiguous area. You can't win and you can't lose in this argument. All you can do it keep going round and round in circles until you confuse the other person to the point where he inadvertantly slips and says something that gives you fuel to your argument.
This whole thing is nothing more than speculation. Do you have cold hard proof that a god exists? Something that is completely tangible? Do you have proof that the universe was created purely following scientific conclusions? No, you don't have either of these things....so there is no right or wrong. Only speculation. The only difference is that you are using a different book to argue each side.
|
