Are you religious?

[Sir Lulzalot]

Precisely, you don't need a book of morals and tales to teach you to be a good person.

 

[Bellum]

In fact, it was the Ancient Greeks who first developed cell theory;

Yes, I'd heard of that. I wonder, where did that idea come from? Or did someone just make that up one day?

I really dont think "just because it can not be proved, it does not mean god does not exist" is not a strong argument since there NEVER was a hint that might lead to a possibility. That was only that one guy... always.

Not necessarily. In the early days, nobody had any explanations for anything. Who would you turn to? Perhaps the first one to speak, perhaps the most respected person, but if you don't know anything, it's likely that you'll see gods everywhere. How else does that grass grow and the sun come up? Why are people born and why do they have to die? And if there are these powerful gods that you don't understand, you're going to be afraid of them, so you try and find some way to make them happy. People didn't just make up god for nothing, it came because there wasn't any other explanation that would have made sense to them.

 

[Singil]

Not exactly. Actually ancient civilizations were a lot more involved with nature and what was really THERE and had a much wider understanding of the cycles of the nature and celestial movement. It was only after someone came up with gods people started abandoning factual observation and fell into the gap of dismissing everything saying it is "god's work" or "god's will".

One can say to a degree all beliefs incapacitated the progress of human curiosity towards factual reality.
I really dont see the point of an obviously endless pro-con debate about religion nor do I think it is my place to tell anyone what to believe but facts desperately need to get heard.

 

[Bellum]

They wouldn't have known what put the stars in the sky, and you can't really tell me that people who believed wild animals spontaneously spawned when needed knew much about nature. 

Again, some people didn't just "come up" with god in hopes of abandoning factual observation. Religion predates history, it existed with the very earliest humans.

 

[Nash]

They wouldn't have known what put the stars in the sky, and you can't really tell me that people who believed wild animals spontaneously spawned when needed knew much about nature. 

Again, some people didn't just "come up" with god in hopes of abandoning factual observation. Religion predates history, it existed with the very earliest humans.

Just how early is "the earliest"?


Oh, and before I forget: Proof and all that jazz.

 

[Bellum]

According to Wikipedia, nobody is sure. But, very early.

Relevant articles that I've just started reading (I look for evidence after making assertions, generally )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion#Organized_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

 

[Vasile]

Wait a minute... if there is no God, then how did we get here?
I thought it has already been proven that life cannot emerge from non-living material.
Spontaneous Generation

 

[Nash]

Wait a minute... if there is no God, then how did we get here?
I thought it has already been proven that life cannot emerge from non-living material.
Spontaneous Generation

EDIT: Ah heck, I'll expand on my gif.

Long story made short, infinite regress is silly.

 

[1x1General1x1]

Well, I think this all boils down to faith. Whether you are religious or not, you have faith that what you believe is the truth. If your atheist you have faith that there is no god, agnostic, faith that there could be a god, etc. etc.

Also, if anyone cares, I am religious. Christian in fact. I just like to see that people believe in something, even if that belief is that there is no god.

 

[Vasile]

It could be because it's late and I'm tired, but I don't see what infinite regress has to do with what I said.

If there is a God, then chances are he's not bound by the same laws and limits (space, time, matter) as we are. Take a look at this article.
In the same way we are not bound by the laws in virtual worlds that we create, but can alter them to our liking.

I just like to see that people believe in something, even if that belief is that there is no god.

Like someone once said (can't remember his name):
There are only two possibilities: Either there is a god, or there is no god.
And both possibilities are frightening.

 

[1x1General1x1]

There are only two possibilities: Either there is a god, or there is no god.
And both possibilities are frightening.

No, neither are frightening.
Scientology is frightening, I can't wrap my brain around how people can believe in that, but I think I may be opening up a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

 

[Nash]

It could be because it's late and I'm tired, but I don't see what infinite regress has to do with what I said.

If there is a God, then chances are he's not bound by the same laws and limits (space, time, matter) as we are. Take a look at this article.
In the same way we are not bound by the laws in virtual worlds that we create, but can alter them to our liking.

I just like to see that people believe in something, even if that belief is that there is no god.

Like someone once said (can't remember his name):
There are only two possibilities: Either there is a god, or there is no god.
And both possibilities are frightening.

Fine, long story made slightly less short:

Wait a minute... if there is no God, then how did we get here?
I thought it has already been proven that life cannot emerge from non-living material.

From here, I go "Okay, so god made stuff, but what made god?"

From there, we can end up with an infinite regress (ie the silly part), or maybe someone says "god always existed".

Then I say something silly like  "How can god always have existed?", or better yet, "Couldn't matter, or some form of matter/energy have always existed? Why assume that if something had to have always existed that that thing has to be sentient?"


I chose to skip all this because this line of discussion seems silly to me, hence my superb choice of gif.

 

[1x1General1x1]

Thank you Nash for taking the High Road/doing things the Clint Eastwood way.

 

[Archonsod]

I thought it has already been proven that life cannot emerge from non-living material.

Define life, then define non-living material, and then explain why simple chemical reactions cannot occur naturally. The final part is probably going to be the hardest

 

[PurplePuppy]

Define life, then define non-living material, and then explain why simple chemical reactions cannot occur naturally. The final part is probably going to be the hardest

Challenging our prospectives of both evolution and religion.
Cheeky monkey.

 

[Rabid Potatoe]

people who believed wild animals spontaneously spawned when needed knew much about nature. 

They also scale to your level. Didn't you know that?

 

[jasonxfri13th]

Life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit certain biological processes such as chemical reactions or other events that results in a transformation. Living organisms are capable of growth and reproduction, some can communicate and many can adapt to their environment through changes originating internally. A physical characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy. 
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
  2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
  3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
  4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
  5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
  6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
  7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

If it has all or most of the characteristics it is considered living, take note to the "most".
Non living material is material that does not meet or not meet most of the above.

Some chemical reactions occur naturally because the activation energy needed to
break the bonds of the reactants can be supplied by ambient heat energy. Most
reactions cannot, which is a good thing for life. Reasonably unstable molecules
such as nucleic acids and proteins would degrade spontaneously if just a small
amount of heat energy was needed to overcome the activation energy.

So simple reactions can occur naturally.

 

[Vasile]

From here, I go "Okay, so god made stuff, but what made god?"

From there, we can end up with an infinite regress (ie the silly part), or maybe someone says "god always existed".

Then I say something silly like  "How can god always have existed?", or better yet, "Couldn't matter, or some form of matter/energy have always existed? Why assume that if something had to have always existed that that thing has to be sentient?"


I chose to skip all this because this line of discussion seems silly to me, hence my superb choice of gif.

If there is a God, then chances are he's not bound by the same laws and limits (space, time, matter) as we are.

If God is not limited by time, then there is no such thing as "before God", "after God". "God has always existed" has to be true, because God created time, and has therefore existed since the beginning of time.
It's difficult, if not impossible, for us to understand, because we're used to the things we experience daily. No one has ever been outside of time to get an idea of how it's like. To be outside of time means that you can see all that has/will ever happen at once, much like the way a 4-dimensional being can see the entire 3rd dimension at once, without needing to look up, down, left or right; the same way your read images off your monitor, which are 2d projections of 3d objects.

As for the question "Couldn't matter, or some form of matter/energy have always existed?", you have to think about the correlation between space, matter, and time. If you have only matter and time, where would you put it? If you have only matter and space, when would you put it? If you have only space and time, what would be there?

Why assume that if something had to have always existed that that thing has to be sentient?

Because the world works in a certain way, there are laws that govern it. How did those laws come to be there? Could the matter have known how it should react beforehand? Doesn't that make it sentient then?
Also, you need energy to alter matter. In physics, kinetic energy is defined as (mass*(speed^2))/2. Speed is space divided by time. Potential energy is proportional to gravitational acceleration, which is defined as space/(time^2). In thermodynamics, internal energy is also proportional to time. In electricity, energy is (voltage)x(intensity)x(time). According to the big bang theory, we all came from a swirling dot, in which all matter and energy was concentrated. If that dot was there before time, how come it had energy? That energy could not have spontaneously appeared, since it's been determined that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed.

Edit: Googling around came up with this. It makes a good point, and it's an interesting read.

 

[Sheriff-murder]

Because the world works in a certain way, there are laws that govern it. How did those laws come to be there?

I lol'd.

 

[Archonsod]

If God is not limited by time, then there is no such thing as "before God", "after God". "God has always existed" has to be true, because God created time, and has therefore existed since the beginning of time.

Which is strange, given we know time originated with the big bang, and indeed is a measurement taken from said event. Problem is, if God can always exist, then why can the universe not always have existed? The whole 'ever existing God' theory fails the most elementary application of Occam's Razor.

To be outside of time means that you can see all that has/will ever happen at once

Oh really. You can prove that, can you?

Because the world works in a certain way, there are laws that govern it. How did those laws come to be there?

No there aren't. Those "laws" are merely the term we use to describe the natural behaviour of certain elements within the universe. They're not really laws, since they don't always apply and they're not constant. As for asking where they came from, it's a bit like asking why water is wet. They're inherent properties. It pays to remember science describes natural phenomena, it doesn't dictate it.

If that dot was there before time, how come it had energy? That energy could not have spontaneously appeared, since it's been determined that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed.

Wrong on both counts. The "dot" is the actual event which created time. Time is a measurement of distance from the big bang, prior to the big bang there was no time as we understand it, nor indeed was there energy, mass or anything else which we would recognise. It's not really possible to apply the laws and properties of our universe to something which by definition did not exist within our universe.
  Energy is created and destroyed constantly on the quantum level. In fact it occurs on higher levels too in certain situations. You really ought to update your physics model In actual fact it doesn't make a difference, since under the old model the dot was the source of all energy in the universe, thus it would have to contain it to begin with. The only problem with that theory was explaining how it managed to detonate in the first place.