Why the Christian/Judeo/Islamic God?

well aguest if you are going to make it an argument of probability you must also calculate the probability of god magically creating the universe so we can fairly compare the two. go ahead ill wait.

you cant just say, oh your argument is highly improbable so therefore we can dismiss it as impossible.

lets examine your ridiculous rebuttle:

you say my explanation is highly unlikely. (10^113 (10 followed by 113 zeros) to be exact.) ok you must first show me how you got these numbers.

now you must also calculate the unlikelyhood of a magical being appearing out of nowhere and creating the universe.
only after you have done this can we fairly compare the two.

you cant form a juicer by shaking a bucket? oh i guess the bible was right then?? is that your logic aguest??

how about we have a fair argument where you propose explanations that make sense?

first of all it wasnt even juicer parts in a bucket. During the first billion years on earth, there was little free oxygen and no ozone to absorb UV radiation from the sun. Yet, simple organic molecules were formed under such harsh conditions. Laboratory experiments simulating the primitive earth have confirmed that organic molecules could have been formed. When gases such as CO2, CH4, NH3, and H2 were heated with water and energized by electrical discharge or by UV radiation, they reacted and formed small organic molecules. More importantly, the organic molecules that were crucial to life (amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, and fatty acids) were also generated.

source: http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/on_the_origin_of_cells.html

 

Ya know thats just crazy-! I got an old busted EcoPluss 230 layin round. The motor siezed on it a fyew years ago and I figured Id put it up and fix it when I find a place to get the motor sepert from the pump. Annyhow I figured wtf Its broke anyhow, I mite as well try this speriment. Ya know what? It not only came outta the barrel back together, It was runnin too! I got my pump back in one piece AND it wasnt busted anymore either! Now THATS a miricle! -- <<j/k<< Just couldnt help it. I dunno what kinda humer. Im just kiddin tho cause it sounds so rediculis but its TRUE. Im with you 100% Aquest. I hear ya OWB. This didnt all just drift together. Nothing did.Every where you look there are miracles. The probability of bein able to "look" gotta be phenominal. We got concepts just apperin outta nowheres and nothin. And then by the op's logic and the other guy we die and these things just go away. Im just laughin my ass off!

 

What? What?

 

This was, actually, the answer to Itsdarts' last post.

Well, at least you are making it more clear now, at what level of common sense we are now, he-he.
I can only explain in general, how the scientists get their figures. Before I do, I must admit I know very little of what calculations THEY used, I only mention those known to you and me.
1)They know the complicated structure of the proteine molecule.
2)They know what complicated equipment is used to produce some far far less complicated stuff. What complicated artificial conditions this equipment creates -- or otherwise we wouldn' t really need any such equipment at all. Just use natural conditions. But there are NO such natural conditions known to them scientists; so they create the sophisticated equipment. The probability of spontaneous formation of protein is getting lower.
3)They STILL DON'T KNOW what kind of reactions and conditions ARE NEEDED to create a proteine. They don't see it in the world around us, or in the world far away from us. Simply stated, these reactions are very unlikely to happen, then. Scientifically, their probability is closer to 0.
4)They know something about organic chemistry (which you and me don't know), which allows them to make such calculations.

If you study the probability calculation, you will get a better idea of what is included.
and
5)Did you notice, I mentioned that the calculations about protein were made by EVOLUTIONISTS themselves? You should believe them, who know more about the modern state of evolution theory, than you and me.

*** The probability of creation need not be considered here. It needed to happen only once , according to the whole theory of creation. It explains everything and is very difficult to overthrow for the lack of knowledge. It includes the Creator, who is omnipotent and all-wise. Easy to see, you cannot beat it with bare probability. But that is why many like the idea of Creation! Is it not reasonable? And quite scientific, too. You choose such explanation that fits BEST. All successful scientists who achieved much in the field of science had to accept the explanations that fit best.

 

Hey, CanniEvergrow!
Good story, thanks. I also had a hard drive that got broken some time ago.
I just let it lie there on the shelf and then reinserted it. It worked! At least for a few hours.
I'm tending to believe now, that hard drives are product of evolution, maybe...

 

Yes, heard about it at school. They called it some kinda "soup".
Let's study this experiment. The laboratory conditions there are supposed to represent the conditions on the earth itself, right?
And how about the laboratory staff? Whom do they represent in this illustration? The scientist, who planned and organized this experiment -- whom does he represent in his experiment? I bet it would be no less , than ... the Creator himself!!!

Seriously, though, there is a gap between these primitive organic molecules and DNA. Not to mention a primitive cell, with its membrane and most complicated mechanisms.

 

Agreed. Has always worked for me.

When all else fails, I guess it's just different strokes for different folks.

Their loss.

 

there has been more than one experiment where primitive earth is "simulated" and scientists have successfully created organic molecules (like for example amino acids). remember that what they created was not even protein, it didnt even contain dna. but they were the building blocks of protein (which is a chain of amino acids) and these organic molecules also interacted with each other in chemical reactions to form polymers. Polymers are then able to self replicate and are affected by outside chemical reactions. how the first dna strand was born i dont know for sure, but scientist theorize it was like this, because after all, dna code is made up of four chemicals.

if this phenomenon was as unlikely as you mentioned, then scientists would not be reproducing this experiment so easily. and even if it is unlikely, you must admit that it has been proven to be possible which is more than i can say about creationism.

 

Ego.

 

Hes makin egoacids

 

Well. Our country was based around christianity. I personally don't believe in it tho I was raised to my whole life. Plain and simple people believe in what they want to. Christians like their verison of the cjig cause he offers peace, love, and a strict moral status. Muslims prefer their version cause he is less forgiving and far more ruthless, Jews well with the jews only they know for sure why they believe in their version. Course all this is only my personal opinion so I may be wrong. God gives people hope, god gives people, a "good" reason to do what they want to do, god gives them a reason to say they are chosen. Plain and simple.

 

Oh my. The point of this experiment here, don't you see it, is that we humans can ... create, yes, create -- certain things under certain needed conditions, artificially set up by our intelligent efforts.
In this experiment nothing was spontaneous, can't you see it?
All spontaneousness was artificially created by intelligent creatures -- the scientist in question and his staff.

And that is what we are disputing about :
ARTIFICIAL vs SPONTANEOUS, CREATION vs EVOLUTION

 

who says anything about spontaneous? all the chemicals that were needed were present in primative earth. the only thing spontaneous is how god created the universe (he just made it magically apear). remember the scientists did their best to replicate primitive earth.

the way the bible tells it is more sponteneous if you think about it: God said let there be light, and it was light.

 

Trying to disprove the existance of God would be like trying to disprove the fact that Santa Claus is Jesus' uncle...

And vice-versa. You can't disprove something that's made up in the first place.

 

agreed. Its completly impossible to disprove. Let the people believe in what they want to as long as it doesn't affect what I believe thats my stance on religion.

 

not true, empirical evidence should exist for a purposeful and supernatural creation of this cosmos, if evidence shows otherwise we can clearly prove without a reasonable doubt that a God who is highly intelligent and powerfully supernatural does not exist.

 

IMjustfishin,
I belive in you. I would only wish you'd try to keep both sides in view.

 

ok thanks im gonna try my best to be fair to both sides.

 

The only thing I have to say to this is. Prove it... one way or the other prove it.

 

If you were actually being fair and honest you would actually read and respond to my posts instead of continually repeating the same thing after it has already been explained but as usual for your convenience, I shall repost here my comment at post #133 that you must have overlooked:

Restated I said Gen. 1:1 says that the universe and the Earth were created at the same time. The Bible does not say how long ago, just that it happened in the beginning which could have been Billions of years ago. Next, in Gen. 1:2-31 the Bible begins to describe the preparation of the Earth, which was already in existence, for inhabitance by mankind. At this point the Bible begins to describe these preparations as if someone was standing on the already created Earth observing what was taking place, looking at it like this would allow the Earth to be the same age as the universe.

As for your statement about Gen. 1:2 saying that the Earth was created before the Sun, I believe my post #134 which says:.

pretty well covers it.