Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Criptex
- Start date
To me, simply 'Christian God' does not exist. What people perceive to be God is different in a lot of people. In a way, there are many 'Christian Gods' that people believe in, but the monotheist God (ie, only one God) isn't exclusive to Christianity. For example, Islam and Judaism both believe in a monotheist God, and so do many other religions including some that are now extinct.There are so many gods that people believe in. So why would for example the christian god real and the others not.
Come on just accept the bible is a fairy tail.
And no i dont believe
One thing I've noticed, is that as time has progressed and people have become 'smarter,' people increasingly regard religion as false belief. Is it a sign that it is wise to not believe in God(s)?
There is also a lot of corroboration with today's religions and religions from past civilisations. This corroboration can be seen to support religion, surely they must be on to something. But it can also suggest that religions are stealing ideas from others.
One of the most vexed questions to face modern man - but only a few hundred years ago the question would have been unthinkable. Every believed a one god or another. My solution was to search. I found my answers and wrote a book - it's about human evolution and why we are they way we are. I believe it's a useful resource for anyone who wants an informed base for their opinions and beliefs. It's not written from a religious or a scientific perspective. Though science, in fact comes off pretty badly. Here's a kind of summary , but you can find out more on the Amazon. com website. Look for 'Dangerous Mind', ISBN 1438242637. or go to the US publisher CreateSpace.com - title
id #3345456.
Let me know what you think. It's a great subject for rational (and polite)debate.
Beyond Darwin
Science puts a date on the Fall of Man?
A startling new theory of human evolution gives a dramatic twist to the story of our early ancestors; did mankind suffer a mutation that gave rise to the man’s extraordinary ability to recall events?
Unsuspected consequences of Darwin’s evolutionary theories are explored in Christopher Malden’s book, Dangerous Mind.
Because Darwin never seriously tackled the problem of human evolution, a serious anomaly has gone unanswered; if we’re so physically akin to primates (genetic science says unequivocally that this is so), why are humans so different? Why do apes munch vegetation and not drive cars and/or use a mobile phone?
Recall is the key it seems. Without it there would be no language, no time, and no maths. The author of Dangerous Mind sets out a compelling hypothesis – that recall is the key differentiator between primates and humans. Humans departed from a common ancestor around 7.5 to 5 million years ago, a very recent date given the earth’s 4.5 billion- year-old history. Was the point of departure was due to single step-change in mental ability? The author points to beta radiation as a likely cause. A single beta particle strike can change crucial genetic structures that in this case caused our genes to begin to express for recall.
Why is recall so critical? It doesn’t take much to realise that without it there is no sense of ‘before’ or ‘after’, no conscious sense of ‘now’, either. Without this crucial ‘aide memoire’, no mechanism exists for complex tool production. True, some animals create tools, but these are what the author terms ‘extemporary tools’, created in response to a stimulus and not thought out; a gorilla may employ a stick to test the depth of a pond, but he or she doesn’t keep one at home behind the kitchen door in case it’s needed.
The extensive research carried out to identify ‘tool use’ and ‘intelligence’ in animals, the author claims, says more about the humans than the animals they study. All the while they’ve been missing something.
The glaring omission in evolutionary theory becomes startlingly apparent once the vast difference in behaviour between man and other primates comes, as it does here, under serious scrutiny. It’s the science equivalent of ‘the elephant in the room’; a huge and obvious gap between humans and our nearest relatives that biologists have failed to address. Recall, the author claims, is the only viable explanation for the vastly different way in which humans use the environment, exploiting it to a degree of complexity far beyond that which is necessary simply for ‘survival’ .
Only recall gives the necessary plasticity to memory that defines us as human, giving rise to quintessentially human characteristics: tool use, number, language, notions of time, science, logic, the concept of order and sequence, as well as a sense of history and an idea of future.
The author therefore argues that before the appearance of modern humans, past and present did not exist. There was no time. After all, there is no place where the future exists, nor the past. Quantum mechanics bears out the idea that there is no finite state of order, position, identity, perhaps even no set of rules in nature ‘waiting to be revealed’.
Dangerous Mind offers another curious insight; how does human belief fit in with the new theory. Is the biblical account of the Fall of Man, Eve’s apple and Adam’s temptation, an allegorical account from folk memory of a time when man changed from innocent primate into an entirely different beast?
The detail of this new evolutionary theory may offer a profound insight into why humans have progressed so far and at such extraordinary speed.
‘Dangerous Mind’ describes how early man made tools that mimic those of far larger animals. Shaped flints copied the teeth of bears or the claws tigers, hides of one animal provided tougher protection for the fragile skin of another – an entirely new breed of primates.
In this way, the author argues, mankind ‘sidesteps’ evolution of the kind described by Darwin. Dangerous Mind contains the first mention of an entirely novel and startling concept: with the appearance of modern man, has evolution itself ‘evolved’?
Having begun new a kind of evolution (using recall to boost mental development thereby outstripping competitors), humans became a ‘pseudo species’, that is, capable of rapid development and assured survival outside the confines of the slow and discrete progress typical of ‘Evolution by Means of Natural Selection’. Recall puts man beyond the prosaic physical constraints of weather, food supplies, or the threat from the Earth’s other inhabitants. Instead, humans – we – became a major threat to all other species. Most of them are directly in jeopardy because of human activity. Some are already extinct, or are on the endangered list. Even harmless coral is dying.
We all know the disaster story. Now, at last, there’s a convincing and highly compelling theory that explains, for the first time it seems, just why other creatures seem to live within a ‘balance of nature’ whereas we humans seem bent upon its destruction; why an odd, seemingly random mutation afflicted us and well be the hidden cause of so many of our ills.
Dangerous Mind by Christopher Malden
ISBN 978-1438242637
Published by: Createspace https://www.createspace.com/3345456
id #3345456.
Let me know what you think. It's a great subject for rational (and polite)debate.
Beyond Darwin
Science puts a date on the Fall of Man?
A startling new theory of human evolution gives a dramatic twist to the story of our early ancestors; did mankind suffer a mutation that gave rise to the man’s extraordinary ability to recall events?
Unsuspected consequences of Darwin’s evolutionary theories are explored in Christopher Malden’s book, Dangerous Mind.
Because Darwin never seriously tackled the problem of human evolution, a serious anomaly has gone unanswered; if we’re so physically akin to primates (genetic science says unequivocally that this is so), why are humans so different? Why do apes munch vegetation and not drive cars and/or use a mobile phone?
Recall is the key it seems. Without it there would be no language, no time, and no maths. The author of Dangerous Mind sets out a compelling hypothesis – that recall is the key differentiator between primates and humans. Humans departed from a common ancestor around 7.5 to 5 million years ago, a very recent date given the earth’s 4.5 billion- year-old history. Was the point of departure was due to single step-change in mental ability? The author points to beta radiation as a likely cause. A single beta particle strike can change crucial genetic structures that in this case caused our genes to begin to express for recall.
Why is recall so critical? It doesn’t take much to realise that without it there is no sense of ‘before’ or ‘after’, no conscious sense of ‘now’, either. Without this crucial ‘aide memoire’, no mechanism exists for complex tool production. True, some animals create tools, but these are what the author terms ‘extemporary tools’, created in response to a stimulus and not thought out; a gorilla may employ a stick to test the depth of a pond, but he or she doesn’t keep one at home behind the kitchen door in case it’s needed.
The extensive research carried out to identify ‘tool use’ and ‘intelligence’ in animals, the author claims, says more about the humans than the animals they study. All the while they’ve been missing something.
The glaring omission in evolutionary theory becomes startlingly apparent once the vast difference in behaviour between man and other primates comes, as it does here, under serious scrutiny. It’s the science equivalent of ‘the elephant in the room’; a huge and obvious gap between humans and our nearest relatives that biologists have failed to address. Recall, the author claims, is the only viable explanation for the vastly different way in which humans use the environment, exploiting it to a degree of complexity far beyond that which is necessary simply for ‘survival’ .
Only recall gives the necessary plasticity to memory that defines us as human, giving rise to quintessentially human characteristics: tool use, number, language, notions of time, science, logic, the concept of order and sequence, as well as a sense of history and an idea of future.
The author therefore argues that before the appearance of modern humans, past and present did not exist. There was no time. After all, there is no place where the future exists, nor the past. Quantum mechanics bears out the idea that there is no finite state of order, position, identity, perhaps even no set of rules in nature ‘waiting to be revealed’.
Dangerous Mind offers another curious insight; how does human belief fit in with the new theory. Is the biblical account of the Fall of Man, Eve’s apple and Adam’s temptation, an allegorical account from folk memory of a time when man changed from innocent primate into an entirely different beast?
The detail of this new evolutionary theory may offer a profound insight into why humans have progressed so far and at such extraordinary speed.
‘Dangerous Mind’ describes how early man made tools that mimic those of far larger animals. Shaped flints copied the teeth of bears or the claws tigers, hides of one animal provided tougher protection for the fragile skin of another – an entirely new breed of primates.
In this way, the author argues, mankind ‘sidesteps’ evolution of the kind described by Darwin. Dangerous Mind contains the first mention of an entirely novel and startling concept: with the appearance of modern man, has evolution itself ‘evolved’?
Having begun new a kind of evolution (using recall to boost mental development thereby outstripping competitors), humans became a ‘pseudo species’, that is, capable of rapid development and assured survival outside the confines of the slow and discrete progress typical of ‘Evolution by Means of Natural Selection’. Recall puts man beyond the prosaic physical constraints of weather, food supplies, or the threat from the Earth’s other inhabitants. Instead, humans – we – became a major threat to all other species. Most of them are directly in jeopardy because of human activity. Some are already extinct, or are on the endangered list. Even harmless coral is dying.
We all know the disaster story. Now, at last, there’s a convincing and highly compelling theory that explains, for the first time it seems, just why other creatures seem to live within a ‘balance of nature’ whereas we humans seem bent upon its destruction; why an odd, seemingly random mutation afflicted us and well be the hidden cause of so many of our ills.
Dangerous Mind by Christopher Malden
ISBN 978-1438242637
Published by: Createspace https://www.createspace.com/3345456
truthguild
New Member
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
i am not going to quote that whole post above this and have my post buried by it, but this is addressed to you malden...
just because a book is published gives me no reason to think it's true - so, is there any articles supporting those claims in any peer-reviewed scientific journals? If so, which issue of which journal? (please include a link if possible.)
just because a book is published gives me no reason to think it's true - so, is there any articles supporting those claims in any peer-reviewed scientific journals? If so, which issue of which journal? (please include a link if possible.)
truthguild
New Member
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
that's what editors are forI hope malden's book has less typos & errors than his 2 posts, above!
however, i seriously have to question his research - the claim "Darwin never seriously tackled human evolution" is demonstrably false - Darwin's second book, "The Descent of Man" seriously tackles human evolution.
punkonater
New Member
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
you can't really debate on whether or not someone believes in a god. It's either yes or no. And we can't really debate on whether or not there IS a god.
Here's why:
it is HIGHLY HIGHLY unprobable that there is a god. However, because of the nature of this being, we cannot disprove it. To quote Dawkins, its just like how we can't disprove the tooth fairy.
I personally believe in science, and get no satisfaction out of believing in fairy tales. However, I realize that some people do. Whatever
As long as people keep their beliefs out of my face, and don't try to go around forcing it down other people's throats (and that includes their own children), then they should believe whatever they want.
phew
Edit:
wow, you just owned the whole thread. grats (^_^)
Last edited:
wazza6
Member
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 6
Well it depends on who is God...
Yes , I do believe that God existed , but the whole "creation" thing is bull**** , we have proofs that dinosaurs were before us , Australopithecus muted from little mammals (like rats) and went all the way to the Homo Sapiens (us).
So I think God exists , but not the way everyone does.
Yes , I do believe that God existed , but the whole "creation" thing is bull**** , we have proofs that dinosaurs were before us , Australopithecus muted from little mammals (like rats) and went all the way to the Homo Sapiens (us).
So I think God exists , but not the way everyone does.
Last edited:
fguy64
New Member
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I consider myself to be agnostic, meaning I think there may or may not be a god, but my life is not in the least bit guided by His existence or lack thereof.
Now we could talk about those who believe that the earth is approximately 6,000+ years old, and that man shared the earth with dinosaurs, which pretty much debunks all scientific archelogy and geology. I think a rigid view of the Old Testament more or less forces you to believe all of this. Myself, well with all do respect to those who do believe it, well I think its, uh, well, ... you get my drift I'm sure.
Now we could talk about those who believe that the earth is approximately 6,000+ years old, and that man shared the earth with dinosaurs, which pretty much debunks all scientific archelogy and geology. I think a rigid view of the Old Testament more or less forces you to believe all of this. Myself, well with all do respect to those who do believe it, well I think its, uh, well, ... you get my drift I'm sure.
Well the question is whether one believes in God? And in reading previous posts this "God" is Yahweh (this has been established, not a shocker). But since I am unable to prove or disprove God, then it comes to the question of whether on has faith in a God, multiple gods, or whatever supreme beings there may be. I do not consider myself Christian, Jewish, Agnostic, etc, as my faith in science is strong but science alone cannot explain everything. It seems interesting that the planet could have cooled to the proper temperatures and that elements "randomly" became monomers and other molecules produced in the Miller-Urey experiment. How these compounds could have formed could have been random chance, but it seems virtually statistically impossible that such an occurrence would occur often enough for proteinoid spheres to form. The next part that seems impossible it that these monomers would combine into membranes and DNA/RNA on their own as the universal tendency is for disorder (increase in entropy). These may have occurred under the influence of a supreme being, and there's no proof arguing for this thought or against it. This is the idea of "God" I believe in, and I also believe that there is no reason for this notion of a God who "cares" what individual humans, and the human race as a whole is doing. I believe that although God may exist, it does nott exist in the forms in which religions picture it. I don't know if this is completely crazy, but it's how I feel.
nightbandit
New Member
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I agree with karlcraig. I believe than an omnipotent being created everything, it just seems like too much luck. But, I don't believe in a "religious God." I only believe in an omnipotent being that created the world, but did nothing else. There must have been something to begin it.. doesn't there?
Besides, religion doesn't make sense in my opinion. Why would a loving God create a flood to kill his own "creations?"
Does this mean I'm agnostic?
Besides, religion doesn't make sense in my opinion. Why would a loving God create a flood to kill his own "creations?"
Does this mean I'm agnostic?
Last edited:
fguy64
New Member
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
nightbandit, to me agnostic means you don't really have an opinion. Maybe God exists, maybe He doesn't. In that sense it is the complete antithesis of religion, more so than atheism. IMO. Your explanation of your beliefs doesn't really say whether you are agnostic or not.
edit. Actually upon further reflection, you do have a fairly firm opinion about the existence of God, which rules out Agnosticism. I must say I'm not sure I've ever heard someone say they believe in an ompnipotent being who isn't a religious God.
edit. Actually upon further reflection, you do have a fairly firm opinion about the existence of God, which rules out Agnosticism. I must say I'm not sure I've ever heard someone say they believe in an ompnipotent being who isn't a religious God.
Last edited:
datababe
New Member
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Hmmm...I have, and from time to time I think I might number among those who believe as nightbandit describes. ;-)
I really don't think faith and evidence have to be mutually exclusive. For example, seems to me evolution can be an argument *for* some sort of intelligent design: look at these fabulous creations that have a mechanism built in for adapting and changing. Did THAT come about by random chance? Possibly, but personally I doubt it.
On the flip side, I think the strict literal interpretation of Genesis (which many firmly espouse) is an overly simplistic view which tries to put mysteries which really are beyond human comprehension into a distilled context that is more easily understood. For folks who absolutely must have something folded into a box so they can get their arms all the way around it, well, it works for them. It doesn't work for me. I'm mindful, too, of the fact that the Bible may be the word of God - but it was interpreted and written by men (and women), and set down in the context of the times in which they lived, and by the frames of reference which they had available.
"The man who fears science because it may disprove his religion has no faith"
Fascinating discussion, and good to see such a thread that hasn't gotten itself locked or been Godwinned as I've seen on too many other forums.
fguy64
New Member
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
fguy64 said...
I must say I'm not sure I've ever heard someone say they believe in an ompnipotent being who isn't a religious God.
datababe then said...
Hmmm...I have, and from time to time I think I might number among those who believe as nightbandit describes. ;-)
then fguy64 said...
well, then I suppose the question might be, if such an omnipotent being wasn't God, then why would he bother to create the Earth and all it's inhabitants in the first place? Something to do?
I must say I'm not sure I've ever heard someone say they believe in an ompnipotent being who isn't a religious God.
datababe then said...
Hmmm...I have, and from time to time I think I might number among those who believe as nightbandit describes. ;-)
then fguy64 said...
well, then I suppose the question might be, if such an omnipotent being wasn't God, then why would he bother to create the Earth and all it's inhabitants in the first place? Something to do?
Last edited:
truthguild
New Member
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
you sound like either a deist or natural pantheist.
but there's one major flaw that makes the entire rest of the argument collapse - you're assuming that it's either a diety or pure chance (false dichotomy).
In actuality, the likelihood of all those things happening by pure chance is the same as the likelihood of if you were to drop a tennis ball for it to move towards the ground at an acceleration of about 10m/s/s by pure chance - irrelevant. All the parts involved have natural affinities to each other, the polarity of lipids causes them to naturally form bilayer membranes in water, etc, chance isn't what controls it, natural processes do.
on a second note, entropy is not disorder in a classical sense of the word - entropy refers to the energy irreversibly lost to the system when work is performed in a closed system.
fguy64
New Member
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Different kinds of entropy I believe. Entropy is also a statistical concept which says that a system in which things happen randomly tends towards a state of disorder. This definition is often used (misused) by people who want to argue in favor of a omnipotent creator and against evolution of man. There's a pretty good wikipedia article on entropy that goes into all of this in detail.
Last edited:
truthguild
New Member
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
and that definition would still be irrelevant since it only refers to events that are random - abiogenesis and evolution are anything but random.
nightbandit
New Member
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
What is the natural process that caused the Big Bang? imo it'd have to be chance or something caused by an omnipotent being. I don't see any other option.
Last edited: