Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Frigidus]

Well for one...If there IS a GOD than he can do whatever he wants right?

I like how people that dont believe in a GOD also are the ones which say exactly what that GOD would or wouldnt do and use what He hasnt done to prove He doesnt exist...

The idea of the "perfect" creator is posed to us, and using this being's existence and our world as givens we are able to deduce certain things about reality. Philosophy, mang.

And what you deduce(I assume) Is that because this Being hasnt done what you see fit he therefore isnt perfect (again your idea of perfect and His plan may differ seeing as you are the created not the creator) and doesnt exist.

How is that in anyway logical. Because My idea of a perfect world includes all the candy I like and also never having to do chores or wash dishes does not mean that my parents (who dont let me have the candy and force me to do chores) do not exist. They just dont exist in the preconceived and unrealistic form I would like them to be in.

No, actually. That isn't what I usually will argue, because people wave it away with "mysterious ways". One of my favorites is to argue that free will and God can't mix, and so him damning anyone to hell makes him evil.

[PLAYER57832]

No, actually. That isn't what I usually will argue, because people wave it away with "mysterious ways". One of my favorites is to argue that free will and God can't mix, and so him damning anyone to hell makes him evil.

This is only true if you decide in advance that free will and God don't mix.

In other words, another strawman... or just plain false logic.

[Neoteny]

The only way I've seen free will and god work is if you toss out omniscience. If you include the omniscience, then it is not false logic. It is very, painfully, obviously sound.

[Juan_Bottom]

The only way I've seen free will and god work is if you toss out omniscience. If you include the omniscience, then it is not false logic. It is very, painfully, obviously sound.

Seconded. I always agree with Neo. We had a whole thread dedicated to this once.

[Lionz]

Is all matter self created and did inorganic self creating matter create intelligence and then life itself? Would that not be in violation of things known as the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics and probability theory and biogenesis and common sense?

[Frigidus]

Is all matter self created and did inorganic self creating matter create intelligence and then life itself? Would that not be in violation of things known as the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics and probability theory and biogenesis and common sense?

No more so than a god.

[Lionz]

?

[PLAYER57832]

?

Sorry, but I believe fully in God. However, you have been highly misinformed about the second law of Thermodynamics.

Among other issues, it applies to our known universe now, not necessarily creation. The "second law" is widely misused by Creationists. Yet another example of how heavily they have to distort the truth. Yet another example of the completely unChristian methods they use in the name of Christ.

[Neoteny]

Is all matter self created and did inorganic self creating matter create intelligence and then life itself? Would that not be in violation of things known as the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics and probability theory and biogenesis and common sense?

Also, you have your order of events wrong. Inorganics > life > intelligence. How does that make less sense than intelligence > inorganics > life?

[CreepersWiener]

The Great Invisible Blue Snarf created everything around you! Believe it or we will BURN YOU ALIVE and pour boiling oil down your throat!

[Lionz]

Do you theorize that things naturally proceed from order to disorder now and did not in the past?

How have I been misinformed if I have been misinformed and misinformed somehow? What's a closed system if the universe itself is not? The earth might be an open system and recieve energy from the sun, but energy in and of itself without a harnassing mechanism will not lead to decreased entropy perhaps. And what did I really claim in terms of an order in here? What if He is alive and intelligent and He's always been? : )

[Frigidus]

How have I been misinformed if I have been misinformed and misinformed somehow? What's a closed system if the universe itself is not? The earth might be an open system and recieve energy from the sun, but energy in and of itself without a harnassing mechanism will not lead to decreased entropy perhaps. And what did I really claim in terms of an order in here? What if He is alive and intelligent and He has always been? : )

What if the universe's mass energy has always existed in some form or another?

[Lionz]

Would I not be claiming that was the case if I claimed He's always existed with energy and claimed that no energy existed that has not come from Him?

[Lionz]

You mean to suggest that would make one or more thing not be violated?

[Neoteny]

Do you theorize that things naturally proceed from order to disorder now and did not in the past?

How have I been misinformed if I have been misinformed and misinformed somehow? What's a closed system if the universe itself is not? The earth might be an open system and recieve energy from the sun, but energy in and of itself without a harnassing mechanism will not lead to decreased entropy perhaps. And what did I really claim in terms of an order in here? What if He is alive and intelligent and He's always been? : )

To your first question, there is not a simple answer. But, in the manner you are thinking about it, there is: no. The overall trend is from "order" to "disorder." But, local systems (like our solar system) can increase in order while the overall is still decreasing. That, in and of itself, does not violate any laws of thermodynamics.

The harnessing mechanism that leads to decreased entropy has already been illuminated, and it's called natural selection.

That is all the information I could really gather from your post to which I can reply. It's very hard to understand what you are actually trying to say.

[Imaweasel]

Lion is very intelligent. Interesting way of phrasing things

[Lionz]

I might have came across wrong. People argue that energy can enter open systems and overcome the law of entropy maybe, but is energy in and of itself not destructive without a mechanism to harness it? Chlorophyll might be able to harness energy from the sun, but where did chlorophyll come from? Would matter spontaneously and naturally organizing itself from nonliving antecedents into living organisms with chlorophyll not be an example of entropy decreasing? Thanks if you mean me and are not being sarcastic IW.

[Lionz]

You can find debate video and more here you would like watching maybe... http://drdino.com/media-categories.php

[Neoteny]

Loosely, yes, through natural selection, or something similar to it.

Let me put it this way. Earth is an open system. It is clear that everything around us has increased in "order" with respect to other planets we observe. Without any added energy, everything would degenerate back into dirt and rock and metal. However, we are getting, and have been for several billion years, a massive infusion of energy from the radiance of the sun. So, over time, a significant portion of that mass of energy has been harnessed by natural selection (after the genesis of life, abiogenesis may have come about from other energy sources) to build up the "complexity" and "order" in our world. This is done at the expense of a massive amount of entropy put out by the sun. Heat energy is (if I remember my science correctly) some of the energy that possesses the least "order" by nature. And there is massive amounts of heat given off by the sun to give even our overall solar system a net decreasing value entropy-wise, even with the small (though seemingly large to us) increase in order on our planet. Our complexity could never increase to a value higher than what the sun could put out (plus whatever we could create from what's around us), and the sun puts out energy magnitudes of order higher than we could ever hope to match.

Is that clear?

[Neoteny]

You can find debate video and more here you would like watching maybe... http://drdino.com/media-categories.php

Hey! Haven't heard from that guy in a while!

[Lionz]

You mean to suggest natural selection itself (whether or not such a thing exists in reality) harnesses sunlight? Can you explain what you mean?

[jonesthecurl]

All life depends on the heat from the sun in various ways - it'd be too cold without it, and plants use it to grow. When you eat a steak, that's from a cow that ate grass, that "ate" sunlight.

[Imaweasel]

How would a nonliving organism...know what was needed(and evolve that function) to provide life to a living organism that had not yet evolved ?

[Neoteny]

You mean to suggest natural selection itself (whether or not such a thing exists in reality) harnesses sunlight? Can you explain what you mean?

In a very basic sense, yes. Sunlight is where we get the vast majority of our (biological) energy, and, as it's such a rich source, any variations of life that found a way to harness this (which entails, at it's very basic nature, the creation of a pigment), especially the first organisms, would have had a distinct advantage over their rivals. That is natural selection at its purest.

How would a nonliving organism...know what was needed(and evolve that function) to provide life to a living organism that had not yet evolved ?

It's not knowing what is needed that's important. The arrival of such traits are, to an extent, "random," but once that small step is taken (and there are millions and millions of years for such a step to occur) natural selection carries it on to the variety of conclusions we see. Natural selection "chooses" amongst different varieties that arise. The organisms don't need to occur.

Also, "nonliving organism" is, I assume, a typo. Made me chuckle though.

[AAFitz]

Loosely, yes, through natural selection, or something similar to it.

Let me put it this way. Earth is an open system. It is clear that everything around us has increased in "order" with respect to other planets we observe. Without any added energy, everything would degenerate back into dirt and rock and metal. However, we are getting, and have been for several billion years, a massive infusion of energy from the radiance of the sun. So, over time, a significant portion of that mass of energy has been harnessed by natural selection (after the genesis of life, abiogenesis may have come about from other energy sources) to build up the "complexity" and "order" in our world. This is done at the expense of a massive amount of entropy put out by the sun. Heat energy is (if I remember my science correctly) some of the energy that possesses the least "order" by nature. And there is massive amounts of heat given off by the sun to give even our overall solar system a net decreasing value entropy-wise, even with the small (though seemingly large to us) increase in order on our planet. Our complexity could never increase to a value higher than what the sun could put out (plus whatever we could create from what's around us), and the sun puts out energy magnitudes of order higher than we could ever hope to match.

Is that clear?

Not really. The only thing restricted by the output of the sun, is the output of the sun. It may very well affect complexity, but it certainly does not cap our capability of future complexity. It could at best only be a mere factor in such restraint.

In fact, its possible that the sun could diminish in output suddenly, which could theoretically spur an increase in complexity.

If you only meant that we are bound by energy amounts available from the sun, then yes, that amount is most definitely influenced by the output of the sun, except that it is not impossible to imagine that there may very well be a way to actually artificially increase the output of the sun. Obviously, it would mean using elements found here, though more likely somewhere else.

In any case, complexity is not governed by energy, per-se, and there is no direct causal link. It is possible that less would mean more complexity, and more would mean much less complexity. Sun output is only a factor, and cant be said to always increase complexity, or limit complexity.