Is There a God?

[Avenio]

DNA-All life has the same code written into its DNA, it was almost like life was programmed. (God being the programmer)

RNA came before DNA. DNA is basically a long-term storage medium for the information RNA carries.

Life in General-Earth was just a boiling rock of lifelessness and then one day life just appeared out of nowhere about 3 Billion years ago. What caused the existence of organism to just spring out of lifelessness? Scientific community is baffled

Not in the least.

[Sentinel XV]

Big Bang-Universe can be tracked back to an origin. Universe cannot just come out of nothing, existence cannot spring out of non-existence. It violates rules of common sense. The God theory explains this quite beautifully.

You're partially right, until you throw the idea of a god into the mix. Yes, the Big Bang can be traced back to a singular point in time when the universe "came into being", but it does not specifically have to be the work of a god that caused it. In fact, that cause of it is quite irrelevant in this argument. You see, if we use the principle of Occam's Razor -- which states that theories with the fewest assumptions are those of the highest merit -- then why posit a god at all? If we say that the universe was created, we must ask who created the creator? If we say the creator always existed, why not skip a step and just say that the universe always existed? Plus, there are many theories that science has presented as to what came before -- if indeed there was a before -- the Big Bang that are much more fundamentally sound than that of an omniscient, omnipotent creator being.

DNA-All life has the same code written into its DNA, it was almost like life was programmed. (God being the programmer)

This may be true when we look at the Earth alone, but there very well may be life outside of our own scope of knowledge that does not incorporate the same DNA system. And saying that all life has carbon-based DNA because that is what we have observed is as fallacious as taking a glass of water from the ocean, observing it, and saying that because there are no whales in the cup of water, that whales do not exist in the ocean.

Life in General-Earth was just a boiling rock of lifelessness and then one day life just appeared out of nowhere about 3 Billion years ago. What caused the existence of organism to just spring out of lifelessness? Scientific community is baffled

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I suggest that you research the concepts of abiogensis and the origin of the Earth itself. Abiogenesis alone is a very promising idea that explains the origin of life on Earth from inorganic matter.

[Uiiop]

damn it double post

[Stronbollia]

Yes. Theories to support this Answer?
Big Bang-Universe can be tracked back to an origin. Universe cannot just come out of nothing, existence cannot spring out of non-existence. It violates rules of common sense. The God theory explains this quite beautifully
DNA-All life has the same code written into its DNA, it was almost like life was programmed. (God being the programmer)
Life in General-Earth was just a boiling rock of lifelessness and then one day life just appeared out of nowhere about 3 Billion years ago. What caused the existence of organism to just spring out of lifelessness? Scientific community is baffled
Double Slit Experiment(look it up on your own time here's a link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Then what made god? Why does looking like something support it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life God isn't needed to create life. 4th is that weird stuff happens in physics what else is new? Finally what evidence supports YOUR interpretation of god?

Basically in the double slit experiment, molecules on the quantum level were violating all the rules of physics until physicist started measuring or observing the phenomenon. This is also known as the "Measurement Problem" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
And God is internal he has always existed and nothing has come before him. That's what the bible says and I believe it to be true, and I support the existence of god with scientific facts. And God is needed to create life because life cannot come out of inorganic matter on its own. And I have already given 4 different pieces of evidence in my last post. Please read before posting ignorant questions

[Sentinel XV]

Then what made god? Why does looking like something support it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life God isn't needed to create life. 4th is that weird stuff happens in physics what else is new? Finally what evidence supports YOUR interpretation of god?

Basically in the double slit experiment, molecules on the quantum level were violating all the rules of physics until physicist started measuring or observing the phenomenon. This is also known as the "Measurement Problem" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
And God is internal he has always existed and nothing has come before him. That's what the bible says and I believe it to be true, and I support the existence of god with scientific facts. And God is needed to create life because life cannot come out of inorganic matter on its own. And I have already given 4 different pieces of evidence in my last post. Please read before posting ignorant questions

Please read my post above. I think it broke down your argument very well and I would like to see your responses to my own arguments. Not trying to be condescending or rush you, but I hate seeing posts that time and thought have been put into, be ignored.

[Uiiop]

Then what made god? Why does looking like something support it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life God isn't needed to create life. 4th is that weird stuff happens in physics what else is new? Finally what evidence supports YOUR interpretation of god?

Basically in the double slit experiment, molecules on the quantum level were violating all the rules of physics until physicist started measuring or observing the phenomenon. This is also known as the "Measurement Problem" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
And God is internal he has always existed and nothing has come before him. That's what the bible says and I believe it to be true, and I support the existence of god with scientific facts. And God is needed to create life because life cannot come out of inorganic matter on its own. And I have already given 4 different pieces of evidence in my last post. Please read before posting ignorant questions

I did read and i heard of the double slit before. How does physics acting weird prove god? How do you know god is eternal? How do you know that other factors than god didn't create life? Did you read the wiki article me and other poster linked to you and refuted fully? Read OUR links before posting a response please.

[Stronbollia]

Big Bang-Universe can be tracked back to an origin. Universe cannot just come out of nothing, existence cannot spring out of non-existence. It violates rules of common sense. The God theory explains this quite beautifully.

You're partially right, until you throw the idea of a god into the mix. Yes, the Big Bang can be traced back to a singular point in time when the universe "came into being", but it does not specifically have to be the work of a god that caused it. In fact, that cause of it is quite irrelevant in this argument. You see, if we use the principle of Occam's Razor -- which states that theories with the fewest assumptions are those of the highest merit -- then why posit a god at all? If we say that the universe was created, we must ask who created the creator? If we say the creator always existed, why not skip a step and just say that the universe always existed? Plus, there are many theories that science has presented as to what came before -- if indeed there was a before -- the Big Bang that are much more fundamentally sound than that of an omniscient, omnipotent creator being.

DNA-All life has the same code written into its DNA, it was almost like life was programmed. (God being the programmer)

This may be true when we look at the Earth alone, but there very well may be life outside of our own scope of knowledge that does not incorporate the same DNA system. And saying that all life has carbon-based DNA because that is what we have observed is as fallacious as taking a glass of water from the ocean, observing it, and saying that because there are no whales in the cup of water, that whales do not exist in the ocean.

Life in General-Earth was just a boiling rock of lifelessness and then one day life just appeared out of nowhere about 3 Billion years ago. What caused the existence of organism to just spring out of lifelessness? Scientific community is baffled

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I suggest that you research the concepts of abiogensis and the origin of the Earth itself. Abiogenesis alone is a very promising idea that explains the origin of life on Earth from inorganic matter.

Ok first off before I even debate you, Id like to thank you for not being insulting and having wonderful debating manners. Second I will take time to address every one of your points. Ok first off with the big bang. I noticed you said that the creation or cause of the universe is "quite irrelevant in this argument" now why is that? Because I believe it is very relevant and has caused many tensions and arguments between religion and science. And I do believe God has always existed. And we cannot simply "Skip a step" and say that The universe has always existed. The scientific community has evidence saying otherwise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
For what you said on DNA is true, that life and other DNA systems can probably be found In places other then Earth. But how come all life on Earth has the same Codes? This question also overlaps with your existence of life theory Abiogenesis. My problem with this theory is that it says "Life developed out of inorganic matter". If this were to be true then life on Earth would have many different conflicting codes instead of just one Universal one. Reason being life would be developing independently from each other on different parts of the planet creating a whole range of DNA systems which we don't see on Present day Earth.

[Avenio]

For what you said on DNA is true, that life and other DNA systems can probably be found In places other then Earth. But how come all life on Earth has the same Codes?This question also overlaps with your existence of life theory Abiogenesis. My problem with this theory is that it says "Life developed out of inorganic matter". If this were to be true then life on Earth would have many different conflicting codes instead of just one Universal one. Reason being life would be developing independently from each other on different parts of the planet creating a whole range of DNA systems which we don't see on Present day Earth.

There may very well have been different methods of information storage that evolved out of RNA. The fact that we only know of one system today doesn't mean that only one ever existed, it only means one managed to expand and dominate the planet. The Oxygen Revolution that began when cyanobacteria started to photosynthesize and increased molecular oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere to toxic levels for most anaerobes may have killed them off or otherwise drove them into environments we haven't yet discovered, for example.

[Tlaceceyaya]

You're partially right, until you throw the idea of a god into the mix. Yes, the Big Bang can be traced back to a singular point in time when the universe "came into being", but it does not specifically have to be the work of a god that caused it. In fact, that cause of it is quite irrelevant in this argument. You see, if we use the principle of Occam's Razor -- which states that theories with the fewest assumptions are those of the highest merit -- then why posit a god at all? If we say that the universe was created, we must ask who created the creator? If we say the creator always existed, why not skip a step and just say that the universe always existed? Plus, there are many theories that science has presented as to what came before -- if indeed there was a before -- the Big Bang that are much more fundamentally sound than that of an omniscient, omnipotent creator being.


This may be true when we look at the Earth alone, but there very well may be life outside of our own scope of knowledge that does not incorporate the same DNA system. And saying that all life has carbon-based DNA because that is what we have observed is as fallacious as taking a glass of water from the ocean, observing it, and saying that because there are no whales in the cup of water, that whales do not exist in the ocean.


Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I suggest that you research the concepts of abiogensis and the origin of the Earth itself. Abiogenesis alone is a very promising idea that explains the origin of life on Earth from inorganic matter.

Ok first off before I even debate you, Id like to thank you for not being insulting and having wonderful debating manners. Second I will take time to address every one of your points. Ok first off with the big bang. I noticed you said that the creation or cause of the universe is "quite irrelevant in this argument" now why is that? Because I believe it is very relevant and has caused many tensions and arguments between religion and science. And I do believe God has always existed. And we cannot simply "Skip a step" and say that The universe has always existed. The scientific community has evidence saying otherwise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
For what you said on DNA is true, that life and other DNA systems can probably be found In places other then Earth. But how come all life on Earth has the same Codes? This question also overlaps with your existence of life theory Abiogenesis. My problem with this theory is that it says "Life developed out of inorganic matter". If this were to be true then life on Earth would have many different conflicting codes instead of just one Universal one. Reason being life would be developing independently from each other on different parts of the planet creating a whole range of DNA systems which we don't see on Present day Earth.

1: You posit the existence of a god to explain the existence of the universe. Your source for science saying that the universe has not always existed is simply a wikipedia article on the age of the universe as we can observe. We cannot observe what happened before the big bang. We have some ideas, though. I really ought to read into that thing about matter and antimatter again.
So yes, we can say that we can skip a step. God is useless in the equation because we already have some good ideas on how the universe came to be, and even if we did not, that is no reason to insert god into our equations.

2: I'm going to have to consult an oncologist on that second paragraph.
That aside, the reason we do not have several competing versions of DNA-like mechanisms is natural selection. Whichever one works best tends to dominate the environment. Anything less effective than RNA, and later DNA, would simply have been outbred.

[Red Star Union]

Someone seriously went and made a stupid thread about this?

[Johz]

Yes. Theories to support this Answer?
Big Bang-Universe can be tracked back to an origin. Universe cannot just come out of nothing, existence cannot spring out of non-existence. It violates rules of common sense. The God theory explains this quite beautifully
DNA-All life has the same code written into its DNA, it was almost like life was programmed. (God being the programmer)
Life in General-Earth was just a boiling rock of lifelessness and then one day life just appeared out of nowhere about 3 Billion years ago. What caused the existence of organism to just spring out of lifelessness? Scientific community is baffled
Double Slit Experiment(look it up on your own time here's a link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

As a physicist I'm not sure how the double slit experiment demonstrates the existence of God in any way. Quantum theory presents a non-deterministic framework for viewing the universe, which helps the theist's cause somewhat, but I'm not sure in the way that you want it to.

As an aside, I love that video. I've seen it a few times before. Just for "What!? An interference pattern!", it is brilliant. As an introduction to the introduction to quantum theory, it's pretty good as well.

[Stronbollia]

On this forum I will only debate Sentinel XV. Not because I cannot find theories or evidence disproving what you say, but because debating multiple people at once is very stressful.

[Tlaceceyaya]

On this forum I will only debate Sentinel XV. Not because I cannot find theories or evidence disproving what you say, but because debating multiple people at once is very stressful.

If you are correct, it should be a matter of only a few minutes to disprove what I said.

[Vanum Norendum]

You're partially right, until you throw the idea of a god into the mix. Yes, the Big Bang can be traced back to a singular point in time when the universe "came into being", but it does not specifically have to be the work of a god that caused it. In fact, that cause of it is quite irrelevant in this argument. You see, if we use the principle of Occam's Razor -- which states that theories with the fewest assumptions are those of the highest merit -- then why posit a god at all? If we say that the universe was created, we must ask who created the creator? If we say the creator always existed, why not skip a step and just say that the universe always existed? Plus, there are many theories that science has presented as to what came before -- if indeed there was a before -- the Big Bang that are much more fundamentally sound than that of an omniscient, omnipotent creator being.


This may be true when we look at the Earth alone, but there very well may be life outside of our own scope of knowledge that does not incorporate the same DNA system. And saying that all life has carbon-based DNA because that is what we have observed is as fallacious as taking a glass of water from the ocean, observing it, and saying that because there are no whales in the cup of water, that whales do not exist in the ocean.


Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I suggest that you research the concepts of abiogensis and the origin of the Earth itself. Abiogenesis alone is a very promising idea that explains the origin of life on Earth from inorganic matter.

Ok first off before I even debate you, Id like to thank you for not being insulting and having wonderful debating manners. Second I will take time to address every one of your points. Ok first off with the big bang. I noticed you said that the creation or cause of the universe is "quite irrelevant in this argument" now why is that? Because I believe it is very relevant and has caused many tensions and arguments between religion and science. And I do believe God has always existed. And we cannot simply "Skip a step" and say that The universe has always existed. The scientific community has evidence saying otherwise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
For what you said on DNA is true, that life and other DNA systems can probably be found In places other then Earth. But how come all life on Earth has the same Codes? This question also overlaps with your existence of life theory Abiogenesis. My problem with this theory is that it says "Life developed out of inorganic matter". If this were to be true then life on Earth would have many different conflicting codes instead of just one Universal one. Reason being life would be developing independently from each other on different parts of the planet creating a whole range of DNA systems which we don't see on Present day Earth.

The problem is, that you are assuming that God exists. How come the universe cannot have always existed? The link you've posted, is the age of the universe with respect to the big bang. It is how old the universe is estimated from the big bang as a starting point.

Perhaps DNA is so popular because of the way chemistry works, and how life evolved? Keeping the chemical makeup of early earth in mind, I don't think it's that far fetched to see how DNA could become so popular.

[Zanera]

Maybe,maybe not.Agnostic in general,but slightly more agnostic atheist.

[Sentinel XV]

Ok first off with the big bang. I noticed you said that the creation or cause of the universe is "quite irrelevant in this argument" now why is that? Because I believe it is very relevant and has caused many tensions and arguments between religion and science.

First of all, that's not what I said nor what I meant. When I said the "cause did not matter", I was referring to the cause of the Big Bang, not the cause of the universe itself. The Big Bang does not concern itself with what happened before the Big Bang, but rather what happened during it. That is why, when speaking of the Big Bang, the cause of the Big Bang is irrelevant to the discussion: it simply does not address that question, nor does it need to.

And I do believe God has always existed. And we cannot simply "Skip a step" and say that The universe has always existed. The scientific community has evidence saying otherwise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

Yes, we can. Occam's Razor, as I stated, explains that the theory which makes the fewest assumptions is the most viable. The theory of divine creation introduces two assumptions: that the universe was created by God, and that God always existed. Why make that assumption that God existed? It is much more reasonable -- at least from the perspective of logic -- to skip that step and simply posit that the universe has always existed, because you assume much less that when you posit the existence of a god.

As for your argument of the dating of the universe, that is what we know from our confined place in this solar system and with our confined technology. Our dating technologies have not progressed far enough to accurately date that far back, and even then it is only dating to the beginning of the Big Bang. This is not to say that the universe did not exist before the Big Bang, but rather that the Big Bang was when the universe began to expand. A huge difference.

For what you said on DNA is true, that life and other DNA systems can probably be found In places other then Earth. But how come all life on Earth has the same Codes?

Because life evolved in tandem. First of all, not all organisms on Earth have DNA: there are many viruses and single-celled organisms (retroviruses in particular) that only possess RNA, and not DNA. Now, back to DNA systems. As I said, life evolved in tandem. DNA happens to be an excellent system, and it is possible (I'm not an expert on the subject, forgive me) that early life did exist that did not encompass DNA systems, but due to the prevalence of DNA-based organisms (which, as I said, were much more efficient) died out. As life evolved from these primitive organisms, DNA was passed on as a system of "information storage", and evolved in complexity to mimic the increasing complexity of life on Earth. There are some "universal" genes that seem to be present in many different types of life across the spectrum, all organisms do not have "the same code". We are vastly different than many other forms of life on this Earth, with only the mutual tie of DNA and those common genes to suggest that we were once metaphorically "related".

This question also overlaps with your existence of life theory Abiogenesis. My problem with this theory is that it says "Life developed out of inorganic matter". If this were to be true then life on Earth would have many different conflicting codes instead of just one Universal one. Reason being life would be developing independently from each other on different parts of the planet creating a whole range of DNA systems which we don't see on Present day Earth.

Read my above answer. I think I covered this question in it, as well.

[Salamanstrom]

i feel that there has to be a god. here are two reasons:

1. everything on earth is fine tuned for living. if you change some of the chemicals in the air a little bit, alot of things would die quickly. there has to be a god so everything will work out well.

2. evolution goes very slowly. everyone who believes in evolution says so. however, there are several parts of the body that have to have everything working right. like the eye, everything has to work to make it good. so, how did such complex organs get here. if they truly did evolve, that would mean we would have a completely useless organ for a very long time, which goes against evolution.

oh, and thanks for being orderly. we live in a time where alot of people think that if someone doesnt believe something, they just need to yell their opinions louder

[Sebastistan]

As a pantheist I believe in a single god, but not in the Christian sense. We are all god and we are all a part of god.

[Kintuckistan]

Yes. and His Son is Jesus Christ.

[Sentinel XV]

1. everything on earth is fine tuned for living. if you change some of the chemicals in the air a little bit, alot of things would die quickly. there has to be a god so everything will work out well.

Yes, everything on Earth is fine-tuned for.. living on Earth. Why would it not be? This does not confirm the existence of a God: organisms living on Earth are tuned to living on Earth because of evolution. They evolve to best survive in the environment they are placed in.

2. evolution goes very slowly. everyone who believes in evolution says so. however, there are several parts of the body that have to have everything working right. like the eye, everything has to work to make it good. so, how did such complex organs get here. if they truly did evolve, that would mean we would have a completely useless organ for a very long time, which goes against evolution.

No. Evolution is confined only by the lifespan on the species you choose to observe. For example, evolution is observed very quickly in laboratory tests of fruit flies and other species with very short life spans and very high quantities of offspring. If you mean evolution works very slowly in humans, then by our standards of time yes it does, but only because our lifespans are long and our offspring are few: this causes changes brought about by evolution to be very gradual as opposed to a species like fruit flies, where expression of those changes happen within a few generations.

[Tlaceceyaya]

i feel that there has to be a god. here are two reasons:

1. everything on earth is fine tuned for living. if you change some of the chemicals in the air a little bit, alot of things would die quickly. there has to be a god so everything will work out well.

2. evolution goes very slowly. everyone who believes in evolution says so. however, there are several parts of the body that have to have everything working right. like the eye, everything has to work to make it good. so, how did such complex organs get here. if they truly did evolve, that would mean we would have a completely useless organ for a very long time, which goes against evolution.

oh, and thanks for being orderly. we live in a time where alot of people think that if someone doesnt believe something, they just need to yell their opinions louder

1: Anthropic principle. Life evolved to thrive in these conditions. It did not evolve to thrive in different ones. If earth's atmosphere had had a different composition billions of years ago, but life still managed to come to exist and evolve, then it would have evolved to thrive in that atmosphere instead of this one.
2: Sure, half of a modern eye sucks. But that's not how eyes evolved. I'd suggest reading Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins. A ridiculously large amount of that book is devoted to explaining this.

[Furious Grandmothers]

i feel that there has to be a god. here are two reasons:

1. everything on earth is fine tuned for living. if you change some of the chemicals in the air a little bit, alot of things would die quickly. there has to be a god so everything will work out well.

2. evolution goes very slowly. everyone who believes in evolution says so. however, there are several parts of the body that have to have everything working right. like the eye, everything has to work to make it good. so, how did such complex organs get here. if they truly did evolve, that would mean we would have a completely useless organ for a very long time, which goes against evolution.

oh, and thanks for being orderly. we live in a time where alot of people think that if someone doesnt believe something, they just need to yell their opinions louder

1. Fine tuned for living - Volcanoes? Antarctica? And is the rest of the universe fine tuned for living?
2. Useless things like the human tailbone? Ear muscles? Wisdom teeth? How do these go against evolution? What part of evolution is not only not being supported by these, but instead, called into question by these?

[Avenio]

i feel that there has to be a god. here are two reasons:

1. everything on earth is fine tuned for living. if you change some of the chemicals in the air a little bit, alot of things would die quickly. there has to be a god so everything will work out well.

2. evolution goes very slowly. everyone who believes in evolution says so. however, there are several parts of the body that have to have everything working right. like the eye, everything has to work to make it good. so, how did such complex organs get here. if they truly did evolve, that would mean we would have a completely useless organ for a very long time, which goes against evolution.

oh, and thanks for being orderly. we live in a time where alot of people think that if someone doesnt believe something, they just need to yell their opinions louder

1: Anthropic principle. Life evolved to thrive in these conditions. It did not evolve to thrive in different ones. If earth's atmosphere had had a different composition billions of years ago, but life still managed to come to exist and evolve, then it would have evolved to thrive in that atmosphere instead of this one.
2: Sure, half of a modern eye sucks. But that's not how eyes evolved. I'd suggest reading Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins. A ridiculously large amount of that book is devoted to explaining this.

To supplement #2, the antecedents to eyes didn't have to work perfectly in order for them to have selection pressure working in their favour, they just had to had to confer a net positive fitness advantage to the organism, or, in layman's terms, the benefits of having photosensitive tissues had to outweigh the costs. The photosensitive spots of cells on the earliest eyed animals weren't useful for much more than determining the difference between light and dark, but even that confers an advantage, as a rapid change from 'light' to 'dark' could mean that a predator was swimming overhead, and would therefore be a signal for the animal to flee with all due haste. And it was that advantage that natural selection acted upon, and through which the many different types of eyes that we see in the natural world developed, bit by bit.

[Mavorpen]

2. evolution goes very slowly. everyone who believes in evolution says so. however, there are several parts of the body that have to have everything working right. like the eye, everything has to work to make it good. so, how did such complex organs get here. if they truly did evolve, that would mean we would have a completely useless organ for a very long time, which goes against evolution.

[Occupyland]

I converted to Norse religion a few years ago, it just made sense. May the blessings of Odin be upon you.

Seriously though, its statistically more likely that there isn't one, considering the sheer number of possibilities. But the real question is: "who the hell cares?"