10) Experts debate reality of God

10) Experts debate reality of God

There are 9041 comments on the Tulsa World story from May 8, 2010, titled 10) Experts debate reality of God. In it, Tulsa World reports that:

Christian apologist William Lane Craig made his best case for the existence of God, but in the end, his debate opponent, atheist Christopher Hitchens, remained unconvinced.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Tulsa World.

mike duquette

United States

#8118 Sep 28, 2010
Sola Script 1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already answered this many times. God is eternal. He has no begining and yet you keep bringing this up as if it has not been asnwered.
Wow! Sola, you never cease to amaze me with your idiocracy! Your supper complex god is eternal. Complex cells must have intelligent design. Complex gods needs no intelligent designers. How do you get through a day without hurting yourself? Do you wear a helmet? You will never convence anyone with this stupid sort of logic. It makes you look quite insane.
mike duquette

United States

#8119 Sep 28, 2010
Appaloosa wrote:
The worst momment for an atheist is when some really good happens to them, and they have no one to thank.
So when something good happens to you, you only thank god? Why not thank those who made something good happen?
If someone does a good deed for me, I thank them.
Things happen for
reasons. God is not the reason. I have yet to see a god do anything. Good or bad. So why
thank it?
This is why we
atheists see your world as strange. You live in bazzaro world. Get a grip on reality dude.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8120 Sep 28, 2010
Sola Script 1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already answered this many times. God is eternal. He has no begining and yet you keep bringing this up as if it has not been asnwered.
The answer is unacceptable. I don't allow separate rules of logic for your god. What kind of fool accepts your badgering about how the nebula MUST HAVE and external intelligence source - your god, conveniently enough - but when we talk about it, well, magic! You just have to believe!

Sorry. Rejected.
Epicurus

Naples, FL

#8121 Sep 29, 2010
mike duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Wow! Sola, you never cease to amaze me with your idiocracy! Your supper complex god is eternal. Complex cells must have intelligent design. Complex gods needs no intelligent designers. How do you get through a day without hurting yourself? Do you wear a helmet? You will never convence anyone with this stupid sort of logic. It makes you look quite insane.
Religion is a disease of the mind. Only the weak fall for this nonsense. Life has a expiration date and there is nothing after this.

Even the concept of a heaven is seriously flawed.

“Pay it forward!”

Since: Oct 09

Harrisburg

#8122 Sep 29, 2010
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>I thanked my husband when he built the greenhouse, I thanked my son when he took charge of his father's funeral, I thanked my teacher when she spent that extra few moments so that I could figure it out. I thanked my grandmother when she bought me embalming fluid to put the dead snakes head in so I could take it to school. I thanked my lawyer when she finished the process in our last adoption. I thanked my sister when she showed up with chili already made. I thank my son-in-law when he does the routine maintenance on my car. I thank my granddaughter when she makes breakfast. I thank my ten year old when he does the laundry. I thanked my grandfather when he taught me to hunt. I thanked my neighbor when she commented on my roses. I thanked my co-worker when she helped me wipe up a coffee spill I made when trying to do too much at one time. I thanked my mailman when he waited until I could get out to the porch on my crutches, then turned around and brought the package on up to the house. I thank my sons when they decide to do the cooking for Mom today. I thank my boss when she put me on the clock and sent me out to a nice lunch and a movie.
Even my youngest son, who claims he is an atheist has thanked me for being his Mom.
No we atheist, in the midst of our horrible lives have no one to thank. Do we? LOL
<enthusiastic applause>

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8123 Sep 29, 2010
Appaloosa wrote:
<quoted text>
He's the alpha & omega.
Its not easy to comprehend.
No, it is trivial to comprehend. It is what you can tell a 2 year old and be understood. However, it is difficult to believe. Especially without any supporting evidence.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8124 Sep 29, 2010
Sola Script 1 wrote:
<quoted text>
How long will I have to wait before science runs out of theories to adequately explain how life came from non-life? So far the current theories fall far short of explaining this by mindless forces.
One of the big difficulties is getting an exact definition of what life is so we know when we have crossed the boundary. There are several distinct, but intertwined aspects that we usually associate with life: growth, reproduction, metabolism, movement, etc. Since reproduction is *never* perfect, we have to decide what level of similarity between 'parent' and 'child' actually constitutes reproduction. There is no fixed boundary that has been decided upon here. But we *have* made objects that self-reproduce to some extent. They also grow and move. Some even do basic metabolism.

So the problem *today* isn't so much making life from non-life as it is determining when we want to label something as 'alive' versus 'not alive'. I don't think anyone is quite ready to state the line (very wide line) has been crossed, but I also don't think anyone in the area sees any hurdles that can't be overcome in, say, another 50 years. I'm betting far less.

We don't expect the earliest life to be as complex as modern life, even modern bacteria. We also *know* that the earliest life used an RNA based metabolism rather than the DNA-protein based one life uses today. We know they had less efficient reproduction than organisms today and probably a less set genetic code. It was only later that even modern bacteria formed, and much much later that multi-cellular life formed.
Sola Script 1

San Jose, CA

#8125 Sep 29, 2010
mike duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Its an analogy! No exact compairisons. No cakes in nature. We
are what nature produced. We are not cake. Point is if you leave the ingrediants for life in the conducive enviroment natural forces such as magnatism and gravity and weather can form life. It may take a billion years or so. But we had that kind of time. It took three billion years after the first life to make man. Think about your cake ingredients sitting on your counter for three billion years. It may not be cake but it will be alive.
The cell is composed of dozens and dozens of parts, just as a cake is composed of "parts". If it takes intelligence for the ingredients of the cake to be put together think of the cell which is vastly more complex than a cake.
There is no way for natural forces such as magnatism and gravity and weather can form life.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8126 Sep 29, 2010
Sola Script 1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you claim to be a scienctific rationalist (?) then where is the evidence that the nebula produced the intelligence? What forces of nature did this?
You aren't good at understanding more than one step at a time, are you? Nebulas don't *directly* form intelligence. That comes much later, after many intervening steps. This is a brief outline:
1) A nebula condenses under gravity (a mindless force), which increases pressure and thereby temperature (a mindless process) and increasing the rate of spin (through conservation of angular momentum (a mindless process).
2) The central condensation gets hot enough for nuclear fusion reactions to start at the center (mindless processes) and the periphery condenses into separate planets (gravity: a mindless process).
3) Volatile materials on the planets (like water, ammonia, methane) tend to move towards the surfaces (mindless) forming oceans with a distribution of chemicals in them.
4) The lipids (oils) tend to form spherical pockets trapping other chemicals.(mindless). Through repeated cycles of drying, lightning discharge, decomposition, etc, some of these lipid vesicles grow and divide (seen in labs--mindless processes).
5) basic metabolism starts in these early cells, capturing energy from the central star (now called the sun) to use in breaking down simple sugars (seen in labs-mindless processes).
6) Feedback loops between the genetics and the metabolism arise (mutation and natural selection is active by now--we have life).(mindless forces)
7) The genetic code stabilizes and the proteins which had been a side metabolism become the central metabolism.(mindless)
8) These cells surround other cells to eat them, but occasionally set up symbiosis, forming more complex cells (eucaryotes). These more complex cells also start reacting to the chemicals released by other cells (first to find food, then for congregation, etc).(mindless)
9) Multi-cellular organisms form from associations of these cells (see Volvox as an example).(mindless)
10) As mutation and natural selection do their thing, the complexity of life grows (this is observed in models of basic systems of mutating and selecting organisms). The web connecting different species grows in complexity.
11) Some multi-cellular organisms gain the ability to precipitate calcium compounds, which are hard and provide protection from predators (shells and bones). They tend to survive longer to reproduce (mindless).
12) As the complexity of the organisms increases, some species gain more and more complex sensory apparatus and processing systems (brains!). Still no minds, though. This is also a survival advantage.(mindless)
13) Eventually a species arises that is able to model its own internal behavior in its own system (self-awareness).(mindless process forming it)
14) As complexity of the processing system increases further, you have intelligence. All through 'mindless forces'.
Secondly, when we are discussing the origin of life (non-life to life) without any intelligence involved you need to show how this happened.
Well, we know about *when* it happened--3.8 billion years ago on earth and we know of no intelligent beings at that time. We know that there was not life earlier and we know there was life later. We know that the chemicals available were those needed for life and we know where those chemicals came from. That we don't know all the details does not mean we have to suppose the intervention of a mythical sky daddy in violation of all physical laws which worked well up to that point. Given that we have only been actively working on this problem for 60 years or so and that the earth had hundreds of millions of years, can't you give us just a *little* bit longer before deciding to scrap the whole system?

That is, unless you have a *detailed* description of the process that can be tested and otherwise verified?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8127 Sep 29, 2010
Sola Script 1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The cell is composed of dozens and dozens of parts, just as a cake is composed of "parts". If it takes intelligence for the ingredients of the cake to be put together think of the cell which is vastly more complex than a cake.
There is no way for natural forces such as magnatism and gravity and weather can form life.
You seem to take that as an article of faith. Would you care to say why you believe it? How about some actual evidence describing why life (which is a chemical process) couldn't form from chemical processes?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8128 Sep 29, 2010
Appaloosa wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like you don't see the wind but it can give you a bad hair day.
You don't see the sun rays but it can turn you into bacon if you lay out in the sun for too long.
You don't always have to see everything in life to believe.
All you need is a heart.
I can measure the speed of the wind. I can measure the mass of the wind. I can liquefy the air and see the liquid. I can solidify the air and see the solid. I can measure the heat capacity of the air.

I can measure the radiation from the sun. I can model the sun and make predictions of the mount of radiation to expect. I can determine what type of radiation I am receiving: x-rays, ultraviolet, etc.

All you need is some intelligence.

Now, how, exactly do we measure a supernatural? How, exactly, do we measure your deity? Why, exactly should we believe either in the absense of any evidence other than your delusions?
Sola Script 1

San Jose, CA

#8129 Sep 29, 2010
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the big difficulties is getting an exact definition of what life is so we know when we have crossed the boundary. There are several distinct, but intertwined aspects that we usually associate with life: growth, reproduction, metabolism, movement, etc. Since reproduction is *never* perfect, we have to decide what level of similarity between 'parent' and 'child' actually constitutes reproduction. There is no fixed boundary that has been decided upon here. But we *have* made objects that self-reproduce to some extent. They also grow and move. Some even do basic metabolism.
So the problem *today* isn't so much making life from non-life as it is determining when we want to label something as 'alive' versus 'not alive'. I don't think anyone is quite ready to state the line (very wide line) has been crossed, but I also don't think anyone in the area sees any hurdles that can't be overcome in, say, another 50 years. I'm betting far less.
We don't expect the earliest life to be as complex as modern life, even modern bacteria. We also *know* that the earliest life used an RNA based metabolism rather than the DNA-protein based one life uses today. We know they had less efficient reproduction than organisms today and probably a less set genetic code. It was only later that even modern bacteria formed, and much much later that multi-cellular life formed.
There are a number of hurdles that need to be overcome. One is to explain where the information that is in DNA comes from. The other is the formation of the molecular motors in cells. How can these things be explained by mindless forces?
If you think they can, then you have more faith in the mindless forces than I do in God.
Sola Script 1

San Jose, CA

#8130 Sep 29, 2010
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to take that as an article of faith. Would you care to say why you believe it? How about some actual evidence describing why life (which is a chemical process) couldn't form from chemical processes?
I'm saying that it is impossible for mindless forces to create life. Life is essentially motors and information. The only way these things come about it by intelligence. That's why the cake example is a good example of of the problems associated with the origin of life. If a cake needs to intelligence to be made then so does the cell which is more complex.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8131 Sep 29, 2010
Sola Script 1 wrote:
There is no way for natural forces such as magnatism and gravity and weather can form life.
Argument from incredulity is a classic theist fallacy. You just can't see it, so you believe in a god. I CAN see it. I see that it is very possible that life arose spontaneously - likely, in fact.

So, your inability to understand does not translate into my need to adopt your mythology. What mystifies you makes sense to me. It's at least possible, maybe inevitable.
Sola Script 1

San Jose, CA

#8132 Sep 29, 2010
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't good at understanding more than one step at a time, are you? Nebulas don't *directly* form intelligence. That comes much later, after many intervening steps. This is a brief outline:
1) A nebula condenses under gravity (a mindless force), which increases pressure and thereby temperature (a mindless process) and increasing the rate of spin (through conservation of angular momentum (a mindless process).
2) The central condensation gets hot enough for nuclear fusion reactions to start at the center (mindless processes) and the periphery condenses into separate planets (gravity: a mindless process).
3) Volatile materials on the planets (like water, ammonia, methane) tend to move towards the surfaces (mindless) forming oceans with a distribution of chemicals in them.
4) The lipids (oils) tend to form spherical pockets trapping other chemicals.(mindless). Through repeated cycles of drying, lightning discharge, decomposition, etc, some of these lipid vesicles grow and divide (seen in labs--mindless processes).
5) basic metabolism starts in these early cells, capturing energy from the central star (now called the sun) to use in breaking down simple sugars (seen in labs-mindless processes).
6) Feedback loops between the genetics and the metabolism arise (mutation and natural selection is active by now--we have life).(mindless forces)
7) The genetic code stabilizes and the proteins which had been a side metabolism become the central metabolism.(mindless)
8) These cells surround other cells to eat them, but occasionally set up symbiosis, forming more complex cells (eucaryotes). These more complex cells also start reacting to the chemicals released by other cells (first to find food, then for congregation, etc).(mindless)
9) Multi-cellular organisms form from associations of these cells (see Volvox as an example).(mindless)
10) As mutation and natural selection do their thing, the complexity of life grows (this is observed in models of basic systems of mutating and selecting organisms). The web connecting different species grows in complexity.
11) Some multi-cellular organisms gain the ability to precipitate calcium compounds, which are hard and provide protection from predators (shells and bones). They tend to survive longer to reproduce (mindless).
12) As the complexity of the organisms increases, some species gain more and more complex sensory apparatus and processing systems (brains!). Still no minds, though. This is also a survival advantage.(mindless)
13) Eventually a species arises that is able to model its own internal behavior in its own system (self-awareness).(mindless process forming it)
14) As complexity of the processing system increases further, you have intelligence. All through 'mindless forces'.
<quoted text>
Talk about a fairy tale. You make all kinds of unprovable assumptions throughout this tale. Lets take your point 3--"3) Volatile materials on the planets (like water, ammonia, methane) tend to move towards the surfaces (mindless) forming oceans with a distribution of chemicals in them".
Where does the water, ammonia, methane etc come from? We have some here but is it also on Mercury?
Secondly, what is evolution? What kind of force is it? Can you quantify it?

Lets also look at #--"7) The genetic code stabilizes and the proteins which had been a side metabolism become the central metabolism.(mindless)"
How do you get a genetic code from mindlessness?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8133 Sep 29, 2010
Sola Script 1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying that it is impossible for mindless forces to create life. Life is essentially motors and information. The only way these things come about it by intelligence. That's why the cake example is a good example of of the problems associated with the origin of life. If a cake needs to intelligence to be made then so does the cell which is more complex.
No, actually, it isn't. Those motors formed out of secretory systems. The information is not a separate thing, but is part of the chemistry. The 'code' is the intricate connection in the chemistry between nucleotides, the RNA, and the amino acids.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8134 Sep 29, 2010
Sola Script 1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying that it is impossible for mindless forces to create life. Life is essentially motors and information. The only way these things come about it by intelligence.
You keep saying that, but the actual evidence points in a different direction. Complexity can come about without intelligence if the system has the right feedback loops.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8135 Sep 29, 2010
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't good at understanding more than one step at a time, are you? Nebulas don't *directly* form intelligence. That comes much later, after many intervening steps. This is a brief outline:

1) A nebula condenses under gravity (a mindless force), which increases pressure and thereby temperature (a mindless process) and increasing the rate of spin (through conservation of angular momentum (a mindless process).

2) The central condensation gets hot enough for nuclear fusion reactions to start at the center (mindless processes) and the periphery condenses into separate planets (gravity: a mindless process).

3) Volatile materials on the planets (like water, ammonia, methane) tend to move towards the surfaces (mindless) forming oceans with a distribution of chemicals in them.

4) The lipids (oils) tend to form spherical pockets trapping other chemicals.(mindless). Through repeated cycles of drying, lightning discharge, decomposition, etc, some of these lipid vesicles grow and divide (seen in labs--mindless processes).

5) basic metabolism starts in these early cells, capturing energy from the central star (now called the sun) to use in breaking down simple sugars (seen in labs-mindless processes).

6) Feedback loops between the genetics and the metabolism arise (mutation and natural selection is active by now--we have life).(mindless forces)

7) The genetic code stabilizes and the proteins which had been a side metabolism become the central metabolism.(mindless)

8) These cells surround other cells to eat them, but occasionally set up symbiosis, forming more complex cells (eucaryotes). These more complex cells also start reacting to the chemicals released by other cells (first to find food, then for congregation, etc).(mindless)

9) Multi-cellular organisms form from associations of these cells (see Volvox as an example).(mindless)

10) As mutation and natural selection do their thing, the complexity of life grows (this is observed in models of basic systems of mutating and selecting organisms). The web connecting different species grows in complexity.

11) Some multi-cellular organisms gain the ability to precipitate calcium compounds, which are hard and provide protection from predators (shells and bones). They tend to survive longer to reproduce (mindless).

12) As the complexity of the organisms increases, some species gain more and more complex sensory apparatus and processing systems (brains!). Still no minds, though. This is also a survival advantage.(mindless)

13) Eventually a species arises that is able to model its own internal behavior in its own system (self-awareness).(mindless process forming it)

14) As complexity of the processing system increases further, you have intelligence. All through 'mindless forces'.
Dude! Do I have to do ALL of the thinking around here?:

15) Intelligence bakes a cake.

---------

LOL. Nice post. I guess that I only gave the Cliff notes version now that I think of it:

nebula --> intelligence --> cake.

Thanks for fleshing it in a little more.

I love this stuff.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8136 Sep 29, 2010
Sola Script 1 wrote:
you have more faith in the mindless forces than I do in God.
That's neither true nor possible.

My expectations is that science will demonstrate that the life on earth could have arisen spontaneously from nonlife, perhaps even that it was inevitable given the earth.

And my degree of certainty, which is less than 100%, is approximately commensurate with the quantity and quality of the evidence supporting that expectation. I don't call that faith. That's a different thing. I like the name 'secular belief'.

What you do - guess - THAT'S faith. And that's the first thing that you do is guess, so essentially, that's all you do, since everything that follows is invalid.

So if you're all faith, and I'm no faith, how could your statement be true?
Sola Script 1

San Jose, CA

#8137 Sep 29, 2010
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Argument from incredulity is a classic theist fallacy. You just can't see it, so you believe in a god. I CAN see it. I see that it is very possible that life arose spontaneously - likely, in fact.
So, your inability to understand does not translate into my need to adopt your mythology. What mystifies you makes sense to me. It's at least possible, maybe inevitable.
What you "see" doesn't mean its true. The idea that "life arose spontaneously - likely, in fact" is not a fact. There is not one shred of evidence for this assertion. I know that doesn't matter to you but if anything is a fact, that is. Everyday you post makes me think you are right--you are the product of mindless forces that have no intelligence.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

La Mirada Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
LMSA Soccer (Feb '10) 51 min Just saying 8,497
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr The phartss 33,088
News El Camino Hospital board restructures by adding... 19 hr Jerry Brown 5
28 year sentence handed down in 1992 La Mirada ... 21 hr La Mirada News 1
NLMUSD board vacancy candidate interviews tonight 23 hr La Mirada News 1
La Mirada Councilman accused of harassment Mon La Mirada News 1
LM Lamplighter waging war on Tony Aiello May 20 LM voter 3

La Mirada Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

La Mirada Mortgages