Do you believe in god?

[sheepz]

<omitted a line referring to a deleted post -- moderator: coblin>

wat type of scientific theory cud b used to explain the existence of everything tho? i suppose God can be counted as one of them... but things like the big bang? (i reckon the big bang is REALLY dodgy explanation to create so many complicated things at once... jz my opinion)

[brendan]

wat type of scientific theory cud b used to explain the existence of everything tho? i suppose God can be counted as one of them...

no it can't be, because it is not a scientific theory

[sheepz]

so wat type of scientific theory do u think can b used to explain it?

[brendan]

so wat type of scientific theory do u think can b used to explain it?

explain what?
i think you are going beyond the topic: the existence of a god or many gods.

[sheepz]

i mean... imo, there r no other more logical ways of explaining how things can exist so complicatedly without the existence of a God. u implied that a scientific theory wud b found 1 day to sufficiently explain this? wat type of scientific theory can do that tho? (hopefully that makes sense... i AM after all, an ESL >.<)

[brendan]

u implied that a scientific theory wud b found 1 day to sufficiently explain this? wat type of scientific theory can do that tho? (hopefully that makes sense... i AM after all, an ESL >.<)

whether or not that happens is inconsequential. it doesn't prove the existence of god as I have explained. Just because a scientific theory cannot currently (or ever) be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for a phenomena does not necessitate that therefore the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of one god or many gods. It would be a grave mistake in logic to ever make such an argument.

[Mao]

i mean... imo, there r no other more logical ways of explaining how things can exist so complicatedly without the existence of a God. u implied that a scientific theory wud b found 1 day to sufficiently explain this? wat type of scientific theory can do that tho? (hopefully that makes sense... i AM after all, an ESL >.<)

however there is.
your argument is very close to the "designer argument", ie because the watch has a function, someone must have designed it
however you are ignoring the basic principles of natural selection, our species is so evolved now not because of some miraculous metaphysical being (or so i believe), the theory of revolution has MUCH empirical evidence to support its claims, as opposed to a few religious books here and there, and other noted "relevations"...
and if you're going to talk about how the environment is so well balanced (almost perfectly), however upon inspection on chemical reactions in our environment, it can be easily shown that it is in equilibrium, hence why would it not be in perfect balance?

[sheepz]

I'm thinking that there has to be something supernatural that makes everything in equilibrium?

This is getting repetitive and complicated with a lot of words I don't understand >.< I think I will stop arguing and see what others think (unless if I have something to say)...

[brendan]

there has to be something supernatural that makes everything in equilibrium?

Why? Prove it.

[Collin Li]

I'm thinking that there has to be something supernatural that makes everything in equilibrium?

Equilibria do not require supernatural forces. What it is really, is just a stable outcome that prevails, because unstable outcomes do not prevail (by definition). A good example of one such equilibrium that relies on humans is the market equilibrium.

[Mao]

A good example of one such equilibrium that relies on humans is the market equilibrium.

the stock market must be controlled by a supernatural being then.... LOL

[sheepz]

Haha since when did the topic change to market equilibrium? o.0 I thought we were talking about chemical reactions and just the natural part of life... and things such as why only Earth has sufficient oxygen and water to let humans live when other planets don't and why we have so many complex body cells that have specific functions that need to exist so that we can live. I'm not very knowledgeable in the science field area so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it that say if we don't have our red blood cells that humans could have survived so long? I'm thinking something has to have knocked it into balance. So there should be a creator who designed and planned all these and made sure they are in equilibrium. I also suspect that no one would be able to explain the existence of all these with convincing scientific theory that are logical and there has to be a satisfying explanation. The most logical one that has existed after thousands of years of wondering and researches is still God, in my opinion. I know Brendan did say that you shouldn't just assume that there is a God since there are no alternative explanations, but I think it's the only thing that can justify our existence.

Obsolete chaos, I don't understand what you mean by the basic principles of natural selection and the theory of revolution >.<

[Collin Li]

Are you familiar with the Theory of Evolution? Natural selection is a mechanism that describes how such biological and chemical equilibria exist. You don't see lifeforms that don't have the delicate balance because they would die. Natural selection argues that those who are best equipped to survive and reproduce the best will be "naturally selected" to continue the line of their species. Species that have genetic difficulties with biochemical equilibria will simply die off, unless they can find an environmental substitute for their flaw (e.g: how humans require Vitamin C).

[costargh]

I can understand what sheepz is saying and I find that it does appear to be the more logical explanation for existence. As there is no substantial proof to prove or disprove either theory, we can not just assume either one is right. However we can take an opinionated stance on the issue and thats where logically it seems more feasible that there was a "creator" who made all of this. There is no proof that there is no creator as is the case that there is a  creator so either party asking the other to offer proof is just as hypocritical as the other.

With reference to Coblins post, the argument of a "creator" stems from the belief that the "theory of evolution" could not occur if there was nothing to evolve from in the first place, hence there had to be someone or something that created the first forms of existence. Whether God made "man", I will not argue because even though it is part of my beliefs I am not 100% dedicated to either argument for or against the theory.

But I do believe that a higher being had to have been responsible for the creator of life. (ie. a being that is not bound by the belief that 'someone had to have created everything' because then someone could just argue "who made God".

[brendan]

There is no proof that there is no creator as is the case that there is a  creator so either party asking the other to offer proof is just as hypocritical as the other.

I asked for proof - so what? What are you implying?