God is an all thogether abstract idea, no two people can agree on what God is like even if they both study the same religios books, because the books that talk about God are just that, books. God does not speak to us and doesn't answer questions, most religions believe that we are able to speak to God, but all are divided, even within the same religion, on the issue of how or if God talks to us. It may be argued that God speaks to us indrectly, but this cannot be proved. That thought boils down to superstition. In other words, if you think God is perfect than he is, if you think God is imperfect than he is. As far as God being a real person, there is no way to prove this point one way or another. Science has been able to explain how just about everything we see around us has come about with the need to insert a creator into the mix anywhere, so it is reasonable to say that if God does exist he hasn't done much if anything to affect how things are running here on the earth. But if we were to look at the earth itself, their is no one creature or object or process on the earth that can be described as perfect, if not for evolution and species ability to adapt life wouldn't be here anymore. So I would say that the material evidence avaible on the earth and the universe points to any potential God as being inherantly imperfect.
I have this really crazy idea, please help ( nope not fluff)
by lola28 36 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
ballistic
I always think the notion of perfection itself is a strange one. Something can be perfect in one sense but not in another. For instance is the perfect hammer any good for sawing wood? If we talk about living in a perfect world, if you never get ill or run down or depressed, will you ever fully appreciate just how good you feel the rest of the time? You could describe our makeup (DNA) as imperfect because we are prone to illnesses but, has it been the perfect building block for a creature that can adapt to new illnesses? I would predict that if there is a perfect god of the omnipotent type I would say he is probably the source of all good and evil making him not perfect in every sense from our point of view, but maybe on a grander scheme of things.
-
AuldSoul
SickofLies,
Science has been able to explain how just about everything we see around us has come about with the need to insert a creator into the mix anywhere, so it is reasonable to say that if God does exist he hasn't done much if anything to affect how things are running here on the earth.
I wasn't aware they'd made such great strides in the study of abiogenesis. Interesting.
I also thought quite a few special explosions yet caused some concerns. Pretty sure the actual nature of the universe is still up in the air as well, since it is still hotly contested.
Not arguing for the sake of arguing, but I think this statement is rather bold considering how much we don't know. (E=mc²) = (m=E/c²) so there is a direct relationship between matter and energy in both directions. All matter is energy, but exactly what, pray tell, is energy? Can't hold it (in its base form), can't see it, touch it, taste it, or <gasp!> even measure it by any means at our current disposal.
Maybe you can answer for me a question I have about gluons. How can a particle be both neutral and massless and still be a particle, when mass is a requisite for definition as a particle? If you have 20,000 gluons you still have 0 mass, yet these are considered particles. If you have 920,000,000,000 of these, you still have 0 mass. What is this stuff? It causes quarks to form hadrons.
Ever delve into Zero-Point Field studies? Mind blowing stuff they are exploring in the subatomic arena. I think your statement went a little too far. But that is just my opinion. I don't believe science ever can prove the existence of God since it starts by precluding the possibility of life that exists outside of physical reality. Not outside reality, mind you. If there is spiritual reality it certainly is not outside of reality, it is just an aspect of reality difficult (and/or impossible) for us to study.
Sort of like gluons, quarks, and hadrons. Going small or large, we reach a point where we just have to face the fact that we don't know. We invent words to use, but we don't know what we're talking about. It is like a caveman cooking food over a fire. He doesn't know what a fire is, he just knows some of what it does.
Ballistic,
I agree. You hit the nail on the head with that hammer analogy. It would be very difficult to explain human purposes to a dog, so that the dog could understand it. Does a dog understand that we go to work to earn money to buy its food? Or that we go to the store to obtain its food? Or the work that was involved in designing the vehicle we used to get to these locations? Or the reason we wear clothing?
What are the chances we would comprehend a God, even if only a much advanced being?
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
SickofLies
I wasn't aware they'd made such great strides in the study of abiogenesis. Interesting.
This is probably because you don't spend much time researching the subject, I am a biochemistry major and I can assure you there has been much progress towards describing the processes that could have created life on this planet. There is very strong evidence to suggest that life exists outside our planet as well, for instance we have found evidence of alien bacteria on meteors that have landed in the artic. There is also a very good possibility that we will find such bacteria on Mars eventually. I think that we will find that life arises much easier that we ever thought. I think (an educated opinion) that bacteria can arise from amino acids in a variety of conditions. It’s interesting to note however that it very likely wouldn't arise in conditions (on its own) like we have on the earth today. The oxygen rich environment would hinder such growth. However this is a lot of evidence that the early environment on earth was NOT a oxygen rich and that the oxygen was produced by the evolving bacteria slowly over time.
I think this statement is rather bold considering how much we don't know.
There is much we don't know, but this is not to say that we don't have concise theories to describe most of the elementary process that go on here on the earth and in the universe. There will always be questions to be answered and more to learn, but that is not to say that we no nothing about how the processes work in the world today and we don't have any accurate theories to describe them.
Ever delve into Zero-Point Field studies?
No, I'm a biochemistry major, I do have a BS in physics but I never pursued research along these lines, however, I'm sure there are very good answers to the questions you asked.
Respectfully,
SoL
-
ballistic
Ballistic,
I agree. You hit the nail on the head with that hammer analogy.
hehe, that wasn't wasted on me!
-
AuldSoul
SickofLies,
My point is, these "concise theories" you mention preclude the possibility of anything other than interactions between physical phenomenon. Wherever these theories run into walls which they can't explain, a "new" physical phenomenon or force is described to explain away the problem. In other words, the theories you mention invent the nature of reailty through definitions as it goes.
Which, except for the fact that lots more people agree with these invented terms, is ultimately a no more "real" explanation of things than the story of the Great Mantis Father vomiting out everything that exists. If you invent the nature of the world as you go by coming up with new terms and definitions to describe what you see and feel and test for, you will obviously arrive at a universe which you believe to be absent anything you cannot see, feel, and test for.
However, I can demonstrate with one question that you don't have an explanation for very much at all. If you are willing to answer it as framed, you will see my point rather quickly.
In physics, is a "force" physical or spiritual, and where do forces come from?
Forces govern every single tangible physical phenomenon we encounter (even down to the lepton and hadron) and yet, forces are not physical. Do I think this proves the existence of a spiritual realm? No. Science cannot ever be used to do so, because science begins by precluding the possibility and defines away anything it encounters that would indicate a spiritual realm. In other words, it makes up definitions that brings anything it encounters into the physical realm, or as nearly into it as possible. The stragglers that fit least well are forces.
You mentioned life outside earth. As far as I know, everyone who believes in the "spirit" realm and in "spirit beings" believes also in life outside earth. Of course, science assumes that our senses are acute enough that we are capable of detecting and classifying everything that can impact us. It is only this assumption that I take issue with.
Once you set that assumption aside, it is easy to see that a "spiritual" realm would only require that there be reality that we cannot interact with or sense easily. If we accept we might be limited in our perceptions a "spiritual" realm can become a part of reality that we can't sense distinctly, not any more or less real than the "physical" reality that we easily interact with.
But science will not accept the posibility that just as a dog has limitations in its perceptions that prevent it from grasping the world it lives in fully, we might have the same sort of limitations. So science can never prove the existence of more reality that exists outside our perceptions.
I would love to consider the sources that you have read suggesting bacteria can arise from amino acids. As far as knew the furthest they've gotten is creating circumstances under which the basis of single proteins form, which are only the building blocks of bacteria. I wasn't aware there was a theory (perhaps hypotheses, but not a theory) that explained how these strands became a bacteria or any other form of life. I'm willing to learn, though. Please share the current theory that describes a single cell's formation, then describe how it becomes animated after formation (or during the process of formation), then describe the development, under current theory, of cellular division.
I am fascinated by the details of such concise theories, so please don't be sparing.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
SickofLies
AuldSoul,
This is going to be a long post, but I will try and address the issues you brought up as they are excellent questions to ask. First I’d like to say that you obviously seem genuinely interested in science and how things work and that is a passion we both share. I cannot disprove that God exists, I merely point out that there is also no way to prove that he does exist.Which, except for the fact that lots more people agree with these invented terms, is ultimately a no more "real" explanation of things than the story of the Great Mantis Father vomiting out everything that exists. If you invent the nature of the world as you go by coming up with new terms and definitions to describe what you see and feel and test for, you will obviously arrive at a universe which you believe to be absent anything you cannot see, feel, and test for.
The point you raise is philosophically interesting but not valid scientifically. There are many processes and forces in science which cannot be seen and some cannot even be measured, but we know they exist from the way other things we can measure react. The idea that the only reality that exists in our head is a silly argument, while not unprovable it serves no purpose to consider such arguments. It may be true that I cannot disprove certain ideas, but that does not give the ideas any credence. For example I can say that Jesus was a closet homosexual, of course I have no proof, but you cannot disprove it either. One would not argue that the theory of the ‘Great Mantis Father’ be taught in schools because it serves no purpose. The point you miss with science is that it does serve a purpose, just look at all the technological advances that have come about do to scientific understanding. No such advances have occurred from religion, except in the form of art and literature (which are not unimportant by any means).
In physics, is a "force" physical or spiritual, and where do forces come from?
Forces are mathematical constructs to describe real world physical phenomena, for example, gravity is clearly observable, yet it cannot be seen or touched. It can be described mathematically and to a degree explained philosophically (thanks to Einstein) but it is not spiritual. Gravity results from mass warping space-time which causes objects less massive to fall towards it (according to Einstein). While not a physical force and merely a mathematical model, it none the less arises from real physical and observable matter.
But science will not accept the posibility that just as a dog has limitations in its perceptions that prevent it from grasping the world it lives in fully, we might have the same sort of limitations. So science can never prove the existence of more reality that exists outside our perceptions.
I would disagree with this statement, much of what science has discovered goes way beyond our ability as humans to comprehend, just look at quantum mechanics. Scientist by there very nature keep an open mind about these subjects. It’s a silly argument to say that scientist are limited by their inability to measure what cannot be measured, because if it cannot be measured either directly or indirectly it has no bearing on how perceivable physical reality works. That is the original argument I made about God in the first place, that if he does exist, his existence isn’t provable.
I would love to consider the sources that you have read suggesting bacteria can arise from amino acids. As far as knew the furthest they've gotten is creating circumstances under which the basis of single proteins form, which are only the building blocks of bacteria. I wasn't aware there was a theory (perhaps hypotheses, but not a theory) that explained how these strands became a bacteria or any other form of life. I'm willing to learn, though. Please share the current theory that describes a single cell's formation, then describe how it becomes animated after formation (or during the process of formation), then describe the development, under current theory, of cellular division.
I assume your not asking this question as a means to discredit science by pointing out various unanswered questions or trying to argue specifics but that you have a sincere desire to know about this field, so I will explain the best I can in simple terms. Currently our best theories about the evolution of bacteria (or prokaryota in more general terms) have to do with self replicating RNA. For most of the 20th century it was firmly believed that only proteins can act as reaction catalysts (enzymes) in biological systems, but then in 1981 Sidney Altman, and in 1982 Thomas Cech, discovered two different RNA enzymes (ribozymes), which are not proteins. Altman and Cech shared the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1989 for their discoveries.
Ribozymes (not to be confused with riboSOMES) are catalytic RNA molecules that can promote specific biochemical reactions without the need for ancillary proteins. The RNA-catalyzed reactions can either be intramolecular (autocatalytic), e.g., self-splicing or self-cleaving, or intermolecular, using other RNA molecules as substrates and involving multiple turnovers of the ribozyme. This last case is an example of a true enzymatic reaction, since the catalyst (the ribozyme) is recovered unchanged after each reaction and can thus catalyze many reactions.
The following points are made by E.A. Schultes and D.P. Bartel (Science 2000 289:448):
1) The authors report a single RNA nucleotide sequence that can assume either one of two ribozyme folds and catalyze two respective reactions (a ligation reaction and a cleavage reaction). The authors make the following points:
2) The authors report the two ribozyme folds share no apparent evolutionary history and are completely different, with no base pairs (and probably no hydrogen bonds) in common. Minor variants of this sequence are highly active for one or the other reaction, and can be accessed from prototype ribozymes through a series of neutral mutations. The implication, the authors suggest, is that in the course of evolution, new RNA folds could arise from preexisting folds without the need to carry inactive intermediate sequences. The authors suggest this raises the possibility that biological RNAs having no structural or functional similarity might share a common ancestry, and that, furthermore, functional and structural evolutionary divergence might in some cases precede rather than follow gene duplication.
3) The authors point out that their findings concerning ribozymes raises the question of whether similar possibilities exist in proteins. Some peptide segments can assume very different folds within larger proteins or ribonucleoprotein contexts. The authors point out, however, that no protein sequence is known to autonomously assume two different enzymatic folds and catalyze two respective reactions, and that it is questionable whether such a protein sequence could be found. "The chemical diversity of the 20 amino acid subunits may restrict the conformational options of protein sequences. The 20 amino acids have characteristic propensities to form *alpha-helical or beta-sheet secondary structure. They also differ in water solubility, which may explain why the most dramatic protein conformational changes... result in insoluble aggregates. In contrast, the roles of the 4 RNA nucleotides in forming *secondary and tertiary structure are less specialized. Hence, the lack of chemical diversity among the 4 RNA nucleotides, often cited as a disadvantage for developing efficient catalysis, allows for comprehensive conformational flexibility, leading to the intersection of ribozyme folding [possibilities; "networks"] and making RNA an attractive biopolymer for the birth of new functional folds in early evolution." -
Frog
I always think the notion of perfection itself is a strange one. Something can be perfect in one sense but not in another. For instance is the perfect hammer any good for sawing wood? If we talk about living in a perfect world, if you never get ill or run down or depressed, will you ever fully appreciate just how good you feel the rest of the time? You could describe our makeup (DNA) as imperfect because we are prone to illnesses but, has it been the perfect building block for a creature that can adapt to new illnesses? I would predict that if there is a perfect god of the omnipotent type I would say he is probably the source of all good and evil making him not perfect in every sense from our point of view, but maybe on a grander scheme of things.
hats off on that one Ballistic! I agree also with AA that the chances of humans being the only intelligent life in the universe is very slim. I believe it's our idea and concept of God & Creator that is wrong. If there is other intelligent life out there it's unlikely to be in the same form as us let alone to think as we do since we are largely a product of our environment. I also believe that our anthropocentric thinking is what really fails us, that we are separate from our environment, and at the centre as the ultimate purpose of the universe. I concur that we are very much perfect by means of our imperfections.
-
Finally-Free
Perfect compared to what? Is it possible for perfection to exist if imperfection does not? How would anyone know without something to compare it to?
God is perfect because his book says so. Likewise, I am perfect because I say so. All who disagree do so because of their own imperfection.
Exerything is relative.
W
-
Abaddon
God is not perfect?
God is not?
God is?
Lola, what difference does it make what the Bible says? What makes you think the Bible is a reliable source of information?
AuldSoul
I wasn't aware they'd made such great strides in the study of abiogenesis. Interesting.
Just out of curiosity, what do you know about abiogenesis? It's very easy to say what you say (which gives a certain impression) and know next to nothing about it. I could say;
"I wasn't aware they'd made such great strides in snowboarding. Interesting."
However, my ability to foretell future advances in snow boarding is severely hampered by knowing next to nothing about it.
Is your sarcasm justifiable or deceptive.
And what do you know about abiogodesis? Unless you can come up with a conclusive theory of abiogodesis, the lack of a conclusive theory regarding abiogenesis is irrelevant, as you have no pot to piss in either.
How can a particle be both neutral and massless and still be a particle, when mass is a requisite for definition as a particle?
Well, experts in the field certainly aren't bothered by calling a gluon a particle, so in common usage your question is meaningless even IF the dictionary definition precludes masslessness.
Going small or large, we reach a point where we just have to face the fact that we don't know
Yup. Some seem drawn to conjecturing in favour of 'god' when they reach this point. Others seems drawn to conjecturing against the existence of 'god' when they reach that point.
Given that 'god' is not required at any point in science until we reach the point where we don't know (if then), introducing the idea at such a late stage in the process of knowledge seems rather ad hoc. Most progresses in scientific knowledge have consisted in pushing back the 'god' frontier, the 'we don't know' frontier back and discovering yet more knowledge we didn't posses previously and a remarkable lack of god, e.g. evolutionary theory.
What makes you think the 'we don't know' barriers we currently face are atypical? Why are we going to find god lurking in amongst the gluons or hiding behind abiogenesis this time?
I don't believe science ever can prove the existence of God since it starts by precluding the possibility of life that exists outside of physical reality.
The ultimate in apologism; setting yourself up for long tern failure...!
What, you mean like scientists won't ever be able to prove the existence of fairies since it starts by excluding stuff that there is no physical proof of?
Why does lack of physical proof make you immediately assume there is a good reason for this (other than something not existing, LOL). Isn't it like a kid coming up with an ad hoc reason why there's no proof of fairies - for example, grown-ups can't see them.
In physics, is a "force" physical or spiritual,
In PHYSICs a force is PHYSICal; see Merriam Webster; 1 a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature physical
is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance -- Thomas De Quincey> b : of or relating to material things 2 a : of or relating to natural science b (1) : of or relating to physics (2) : characterised or produced by the forces and operations of physics.
Semantics will not prove god exists, people have tried this before.