Question for those who are willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

You conveniently left out my proposition. If you were created it would have to be for a function, since all created/designed objects have a purpose. The only function you could serve a deity is to worship it. Therefore, your life is worthless to humanity.

Its a silly strawman.. your concept of Christians is wrong. Of course we have a purpose for existence, admiring God is an inevitability when you realize and begin to experience what that purpose is.

Your simile doesn't work at all.

Both are energized by combustion reactions and both are made of component replaceable parts. There's more examples, but the point is not the similarities as much as it is the complexity of human beings. If cars do not come to be by random chance then humans especially do not.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Randyvine2

No the word is family

Family... I see. As in family. But your god has no family, no? What happened to his wife? Missing? See, little children do not love their parents by design, neither by force, no by command. They love them if they love themselves. They love their parents as(and not if) their parent love them. Love is not based on obedience. And certainly not on threats and terror.

Go tell this to your god. Now.

God had a wife, Asherah, whom the Book of Kings suggests was worshiped alongside Yahweh in his temple in Israel.

www.seeker.com...

a reply to: cooperton

Firstly, I'm not singling out any particular religion, they are all the same to me.

You say the flora and fauna of this world were created, so for what purpose? What need or function do they serve? Machines, like your Ford, are designed and manufactured to fulfil a need. Art is created for beauty or joy, so are you the art of your god? I do not understand what you believe your 'purpose' is, so please do tell.

We are nothing like a machine. it is evidently (comparatively) easy to build a machine; mining the various ores, refine petrochems, design the components, develop an assembly and build it. It is currently impossible to build a human being.

a reply to: TerraLiga

We are nothing like a machine.

We are exactly like a machine because technically, we are organic machines.
www.fastcompany.com...

it is evidently (comparatively) easy to build a machine; mining the various ores, refine petrochems, design the components, develop an assembly and build it. It is currently impossible to build a human being.

A dog can not build a machine but a human can. We know how, we have the intelligence to do so. It is not easy for the dog but it is easy for us.

Now expand upon that thought.

It would be incredibly hard for us to build a human being but maybe easy for something MUCH greater and more intelligent, than ourselves, to build a human being.

a reply to: Quadrivium

'Technically' and 'life-like' is not life.

We are organic beings whose functions have evolved, along with our consciousness and intelligence. Conversely, just because various organic systems and cells within us display machine-like functions, that does not make us a machine.

Perhaps you can answer, why were we created? For what purpose or function do we serve?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: Quadrivium

We are organic beings whose functions have evolved

This is an assumption.

along with our consciousness and intelligence. Conversely, just because various organic systems and cells within us display machine-like functions, that does not make us a machine.

We have machine-like attributes but we are even more complex than machines. If machines require an intelligent creator to be made, then how much more do humans require a greater intelligence...

Perhaps you can answer, why were we created? For what purpose or function do we serve?

That's the fun of it... the reason I get upset with zealous atheism is because it promotes the idea that we're purposeless accidents.

originally posted by: cooperton
That's the fun of it... the reason I get upset with zealous atheism is because it promotes the idea that we're purposeless accidents.

Why should that upset you, are you afraid of that being the case?

a reply to: cooperton

Development of a human or development of life itself?

"Parts" slowly change over many generations. That is not the same as adding new parts. You can't compare biological reproduction to designing a truck. It doesn't fit.

originally posted by: daskakik

Why should that upset you, are you afraid of that being the case?

No I had my atheist phase and considered what permanent non-existence would be like. The reason I don't think this is the case is because energy cannot be destroyed.. it simply changes forms.

originally posted by: Toothache
a reply to: cooperton

Development of a human or development of life itself?

"Parts" slowly change over many generations. That is not the same as adding new parts. You can't compare biological reproduction to designing a truck. It doesn't fit.

The point is that biological structures are more complex than machines. Machines require intelligence to be made, and therefore biological life requires a higher logic to be made

a reply to: cooperton

That statement was not an assumption, it is peer-reviewed fact. The only people - or should I say the only sect - not to believe proven, evidence-based facts are creationists, like you.

But still, WHAT PURPOSE DOES HUMANITY SERVE?

Answer the question for goodness sake!

a reply to: cooperton
That still doesn't explain why that would cause you to be upset with zealous atheism. The only thing that comes to mind is you think your new phase is correct and those atheists are misleading people but that shouldn't bother you either. I mean a personal relationship with god is personal.

Also, conservation of energy doesn't prove that something lives on after the body dies it just means the energy in your body will become compost or will be turned to heat and ashes in a crematorium.

one of my favs. as someone said, you don't know what you got till it's gone.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: Quadrivium

'Technically' and 'life-like' is not life.

We are organic beings whose functions have evolved, along with our consciousness and intelligence. Conversely, just because various organic systems and cells within us display machine-like functions, that does not make us a machine.

Perhaps you can answer, why were we created? For what purpose or function do we serve?

Why were we Created?

To create, to learn, to love and enjoy the life we were given.

Can I ask a question or two?

Can you explain what guides the cell division after Mitosis starts in a fertilized human egg?
The cell splits once, twice, three times...... all the cells are exactly the same....
Then something happens.
The cells change. Some make eyes, some make feet, some arms..brain.......etc....
What guides them?
We were and are created.
Our DNA is like a digital computer code.
We were created and if you are honest about it, you can't deny it.

originally posted by: sarahvital
one of my favs. as someone said, you don't know what you got till it's gone.

That was beautiful.
Thank you.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

That statement was not an assumption, it is peer-reviewed fact.

Show me one paper that documents a population of organisms evolving into something distinctly new. To save you some time, you can just admit it has never happened.

But still, WHAT PURPOSE DOES HUMANITY SERVE?

To develop individual conscious beings into existence

originally posted by: cooperton
The point is that biological structures are more complex than machines. Machines require intelligence to be made, and therefore biological life requires a higher logic to be made

That is your opinion. There is no logically valid reason to think a designer is required when we understand genetics and evolution. Complexity is not a problem for that explanation.

And no, I am not saying a god or creator does not exist, just that we have valid plausible explanations for how life got to where it is now. We obviously don't know everything, but we do know that evolution does happen. That is a perfectly reasonable explanation for how those structures changed over time to what they are now.



Compare a bat and a bird wing and you can also see how they evolved separately.

a reply to: Toothache

but we do know that evolution does happen

Correction:
We do know that adaptation does happen. That is the only fact we 'know'. Anything beyond that is speculation and has to be taken on faith.

a reply to: cooperton

I can't recall a single experiment that was designed to prove or document speciation above genus in the way you are defining it - that is to produce a donkey from a fly, or whatever other creationist rubbish you spout. There is a wealth of peer-reviewed evidence of speciation within a species, and yet more of commonality all the way up the taxonomic rank.

I didn't understand your cryptic answer to my question about what purpose we serve if we were created. You can't answer it because there is no answer.

originally posted by: Toothache

That is your opinion. There is no logically valid reason to think a designer is required when we understand genetics and evolution. Complexity is not a problem for that explanation.

If we understood genetics there would be no more disease. Our understanding is insufficient, and even if we had more understanding that wouldn't mean the genes came to be by random chance. It's called genetic code rightfully so because it required a Coder.

And no, I am not saying a god or creator does not exist, just that we have valid plausible explanations for how life got to where it is now.

They're still trying to figure out how energetically unfavorable reactions could have culminated in massive polymers that code for coherent sequences of data. Even if you get large genetic strands (which is highly unfavorable in water) you would still need massive protein complexes to parse through it. It's just not feasible for random chance to make these mechanisms.

It is most logical that logic was required to make logical organisms.

We obviously don't know everything, but we do know that evolution does happen.

No lab data shows a population of organisms evolving into something distinctly new. The extent of what the research shows is reversible adaptations.

Compare a bat and a bird wing and you can also see how they evolved separately.

All Mac products share similar coding, that doesn't mean they all randomly mutated from one another. Just because mammals share phenotypically similar traits does not mean they mutated from a common ancestor.

a reply to: Quadrivium

If you'd like to study the evolution of cells you could go a long way to answering many of those questions. Not everything is known yet, however, and I am more than happy to concede that.

The difference between creationists and all other fundamentalists is that your god is supposed to know everything. If they don't, what are they? To concede that they don't 'own' life is a threat to their power, which is why cooperton and neo especially are always creating topics that claim their god owns the processes of nature.

If your god is real, it is weak, impotent, vain and lethargic. A deity like that is not worth any of my time.