Do you believe in god?

[tokidoki_v2.0]

---

1) I do not believe in the Catholic/Christian "GOD".
2) I do not have scientific evidence to prove this. (para patas ta)
3) I have faith in my belief. (para patas napud)

Any questions?

[yanong_banikanhon]

^^ Fair enough. Respetuhay lang ta's atong tagsa2x ka pagtoo.

[2kELEVEN]

Yes, i do believe. =) simple.

[ketllac]

mga parekoy related sa inyo lantugi nga kung ang usa ka system dili maka prove sa iya kaugalingon sa iyahang pag ka valid ug consistent incomplete na siya mao ng science mga bai...dili sya ultimate arbiter sa truth. dinhi matapos ang discussion nga lisod i reject ang word nga faith..hehehehhe

[hitch22]

@hitch22:
Perfect excuse, I guess. Well, you don't need to answer my question kung dili nimo kaya. Kun imong nabantayan, my latest question about the existence of genetic language is not specifically addressed to you but to the readers of this thread in general.

So kun wala kay ikatubag, instead nga magsige ka'g employ anang mga innuendos ug personal attacks, just keep quiet.

P.S.
I hope you've learned your lesson nga dili lang unta ta magbugal2x sa pagtoo sa uban. Nga dili lang unta ta magtoo nga kita ang dunay kinalawoman og kahibalo diri sa forum (to the point nga instead of answering questions directly, ang edad naman noon sa nangutana ang gi-focus). Dili man ni pugsanay ang atoa, dili pud ni contest kinsay kinabraytan. Kaning maong thread igo ra man unta ni nangutana kinsay motuo sa Dios. Wala man himoa kining maong thread aron magbugal2x ta sa pagtuo sa uban.

Learned my lesson? I've been very civil until you came along and provoked me with your lies. Well, let's see if you know how to behave in a civilized discussion. Let's put that to the test, shall we?

Simple ra gyud kaayo ang issue nga pirming likay-likayan sa mga atheist.

• The only thing we know that exists in nature and is capable of producing a sophisticated language is a conscious mind.
  
  
• Science knows that the instruction on what kind of cells and tissues to create as well as the key traits/characteristics of a living organism are written using a very sophisticated language (genetic language).
  
  
• Atheists INSIST that the genetic language came about in a random fashion, without the aid of any conscious mind. That assertion could be false OR true.

For that assertion to be true, the atheists should present:

1. A verifiable scientific evidence nga gawas sa usa ka conscious mind, there is another thing that exists in nature that is capable of producing a sophisticated language.
   
   
2. A verifiable scientific evidence that the thing mentioned in point no. 1 is the origin of the genetic language.

If they cannot provide the scientific evidences mentioned above, then:

1. Like the theists, THEY also believe in miracles (events that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature)
   
   
2. Their belief is not based on science but on faith. They have strong faith that theism is wrong.
   
   
3. Contrary to what most of them believe, science DOES NOT have the ULTIMATE power to decide what is true and what is false.

Here goes. I will marshall my arguments as best I can.

This type of argument has been going around for ages since the time of William Paley. It's called the Argument from Design. The argument goes like this: Here's something that's so complex. No one's been able to explain it. Therefore it must be designed. And if it's designed, therefore it points to a designer. I will point out that Argument from Design is a subset of the core theme of all theistic arguments, the God-of-the-Gaps argument.

In the short time that science has been around, its discoveries have been plugging these gaps. Questions like why there's a night or day, what causes lightning and volcanic eruptions, what's the reason for the seasons, what keeps the sun burning, what keeps the planets from falling into one another...and now how do you explain DNA?

We know why there's a night and a day: the earth spins. We know what causes lightning: electrical fields that's built up from the collision of ice and water particles in the clouds (click here). Geology has explained volcanic eruptions in great detail. Einstein improved upon Newton with his new paradigm of gravity (gravity as a consequence of space-time curvature due to the presence of mass) and explained how orbits do not have to cause planets from crashing into one another. What's the reason for the seasons? It's a simple matter of the 23-degree tilt of the earth's axis. What keeps the sun burning? Well, E=MC^2 gives us a picture of the sun as a deadlock struggle between nuclear fusion and the gravity. And so forth. These things used to be ascribed to the active hand of God. But now we know these events do not require any supernatural intervention, only the laws of physics and natural processes.

Now, on to DNA. True, it is a complex mechanism. However, the way the principle of evolution addresses complexity is to trace an evolutionary pathway that leads from simpler forms to its current form. Science has in fact extended the use of the evolutionary model to astronomy, to create a picture of how planets, stars, galaxies, blackholes, etc evolved. And just as we can trace to a reasonable extent the lineages of the various living species on earth (thanks to Darwin, Mendel, Watson, etc), we can also posit what the pre-cursor of DNA would look like.

Even the complex structure of our own basic unit, the cell...more specifically the eukaryotic cell (with nucleus), can trace its beginnings from a more primitive form: the prokaryotic cell (without nucleus). The best attempt to explain the origins of DNA, I think, is the RNA World hypothesis. And it makes sense because RNA performs almost all the functions of the DNA. And like DNA, RNA is made up of a long chain of nucleotides, which is used to encode genetic information. If there's a good candidate to what came before DNA, RNA is a good bet.


Of course, when we talk about evolution, we're talking about a long series of events, involving natural processes. RNA has to come from a simpler form of molecule, and that molecule has to come from a much simpler molecule and so on. As you can see, the jigsaw puzzle for the evolution of life extends from the evolution of non-life.


Miller-Urey's experiment form one part of that puzzle, as it proves that early earth doesn't have problems generating the various kinds amino acids essential for life. But amino acids do not have the capacity for self-seplicating. They are just raw materials or the building blocks. In the field of abiogenesis, the leading minds, I think, are the Nobel-prize winner Jack Szostak and NASA astrobiologist David Deamer. Szostak has demonstrated in a laboratory how a true self-replicating molecule can arise using lipid vesicles. David Deamer has his paper on self-assembling amphiphilic molecules.

* Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices - Jack Szostak

* Biochemist David Deamer explores how life began in new book, 'First Life'

* Replicating vesicles as models of primitive cell growth and division - Martin M Hanczyc and Jack W Szostak

* The Origins of Cellular Life - Jack Szostak

Like I said, the evolutionary picture is a long and complex jigsaw, where we currently have pieces fitted together in some places and missing in others. We have Miller-Urey filling one hole, Darwin/Mendel/Watson in some holes, Szostak/Deamer in other holes, RNA World in another, and so on.

So, in my view, you cannot say that just because there are holes in this giant jigsaw that we have no right to suppose that those can be filled by natural explanations as well. Every scientific theory we've built up through the years hasn't found a need to invoke the supernatural...and I think it never will.

So, to answer your question, yes. The ability of nature to self-organize to form complex structures is no different from how complex Mandelbrot sets or self-similar designs/fractals can arise from simple mathematical equations. There's no need for supernatural intervention.

I urge those with mathematical and scientific inclinations to watch the video, provided by the link below. This is a video from the BBC that attempts to explain in the most simplest terms how simple systems can turn into very complex systems. It helps to give you an appreciation of how complexity can arise naturally.
BBC - Complexity - Secret Life of Chaos

I would ask those who believe in a God: Which phenomenon points to a more profound intelligence? Evolution or Active, intervening intelligent design? A God who sets everything in motion, including evolution, and doesn't have to intervene at all (a DEIST GOD)....or a God who has to intervene every now and then (i.e. plant in new species when other species go extinct)? If I was a theist, I would say that a DEIST GOD would be consistent with what we observe in nature...because we don't observe anything that's not explainable through natural processes. A DEIST GOD would likewise be of a more profound intelligence, as He doesn't require intervention in the natural order that He started.

My only reservation about Deism is that it doesn't seem to be necessary to invoke a Being...yet.

And when we want to point to gaps in the scientific knowledge as proof of the existence of God, we are essentially speculating. We might as well discuss these things philosophically, because there's no scientific framework to which we can agree or disagree or provide evidence and counter-evidence.

You wanted me to respond? There you have it. Now, please...have the decency to read and not misquote or make lies. Else, I'll ignore you permanently.

Come on, guys. Yanong can carry out an intelligent discussion without lying and misquoting and provoking? Prove it!

[2kELEVEN]

All in the mind: Scientists have claimed we are born to believe in God

Humans are programmed to believe in God because it gives them a better chance of survival, researchers claim.

[Kaiyen]

yes, i do

[petite fleur]

OT: naunsa na man tawn ni nga thread uy... simple ra unta jud kau ang question which needs a simple answer... nana lagi debate diri... hahai...

Hahaha

ahh kanang uban diha ay patagad kau. kay kung unsa ilang ge tuho-an (kana if naa jd ) contrahan ka, mag suko2x murag ambut. weird.

[yanong_banikanhon]

@hitch22

I am not sure if you intentionally crafted your reply to make the readers believe that you have provided answers to my previous questions about the origin of the genetic language OR you don't actually understand the questions in the first place.

My questions are very simple.

1. Do you have a verifiable scientific evidence nga gawas sa usa ka conscious mind, there is another thing that exists in nature that is capable of producing a sophisticated language?
   
   
2. Do you have a verifiable scientific evidence that the thing mentioned in point no. 1 is the origin of the genetic language ?

Two simple questions that you still YET to answer.

Please don't give me fractals as the answer. Fractals are just geometric shapes. Walay tawo nga tarong og panghuna-huna nga motuo sa imo kun moingon ka nga ang usa ka fractal maka-produce og sophisticated language. Sama ra na'g moingon ka nga ang triangle makabalo mobasa. Hehehe....

Now, give me the scientific evidences mentioned in my questions above. The questions need objective answers so kindly try to avoid subjective answers like 'So, in my view...' or 'I think it never will.'.

[bearish]

Bay, asa mang dapita sa akong post nga akong na-mentioned nga ang tanang mga atheists mga scientists?

Ang akong giingon nga kusog lang manaway ang mga atheists nga ang mga theists dali ra kuno motuo og magic2x. Pero sila mismo nga mga atheists nituo man pud og miracle, mga butang nga dili ma-explain sa science. Example ana kanang existence sa genetic language nga matud nila gikan lang kuno sa usa ka random process, without the aid of any conscious mind. Wala ma'y verifiable scientific evidence nga makapamatuod ana, yet atheists strongly INSIST nga tinuod na.

Let's say that the genetic language is always aided by the conscious mind. So what's next?