God: an imaginary friend?

by greven 33 Replies latest jw friends

  • vanilia
    vanilia

    hi again,
    i accept all of your points, and i think it is good that people have different takes on the world, it makes it more interesting. I believe in God because imho the chances of anything occuring by other means is too remote. the other day in the paper scientists decided we are now related to amaradillos, and that dinasours grew wings by running up hills fast, i mean, give me genesis any day! i think its the odds of all this being here by chance that throw it, theres sposed to be odds of even the most simplest cells forming by evolution are like dropping bricks from the sky and it falling into a house. i believe in the bible because it makes sense to me, it couldnt have been from man because of the prophecies etc. i just believe, which is different from being brainwashed. i believe what i read from the bible, not what im told it says by people like the dubs.
    ness

    Edited by - vanilia on 4 February 2003 10:40:47

  • Introspection
    Introspection

    Well, if the God we speak of is one that is imaginary, then all this really means is that you've come to disbelieve a thought in your mind doesn't it? It doesn't really say anything about reality outside of your own psyche.

    Now here comes the good part: the need to explain falls into the same category as this kind of belief. This is in sharp contrast with a desire to understand, because the former comes from a lack of security, the latter is a simple matter of wanting to know the truth. Basically, I see no difference between the conclusions drawn if the motivation is the same, that being the building of an ego structure that shields itself from the environment. This kind of behavior is basically a resistance against the reality that's all around you. If this is the case, then it doesn't matter if you happen to be more on the ball conceptually, in practice you are still pushing reality away in favor of a nice theoretical framework.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    the other day in the paper scientists decided we are now related to amaradillos

    Scientists have believed for over a century and a half that all life on earth is related. I assure you, this is nothing new. And by now, the evidence is overwhelming.

    and that dinasours grew wings by running up hills fast,

    That's a speculation on how birds evolved the ability to fly over millions of years. The (tentative) conclusion that they started on the ground rather than in the trees is based on comparative anatomy and DNA evidence. There are numerous examples of animals that have the ability to float or glide to varying degrees.

    i think its the odds of all this being here by chance that throw it, theres sposed to be odds of even the most simplest cells forming by evolution are like dropping bricks from the sky and it falling into a house.

    Pure chance couldn't possibly come up with a complete cell all at once. But evolution is not pure chance. Natural selection is incredibly powerful and has very little to do with chance.
    If you can't conceive of a single-celled organism arising without a conscious intelligence behind it, how can you believe that an infinitely powerful, complex being arose in the same way?

    i believe in the bible because it makes sense to me, it couldnt have been from man because of the prophecies etc
    Which prophecies? Don't the contradictions, the primitive cosmology and the barbaric morality convince you that it's not the work of a higher being?
  • vanilia
    vanilia

    hmm, ok, this is what really gets me. if, and it is an if the size of mount everest for me, we and the world are all here thru evolution, how come you dont see monkeys turning into humans as we speak, and that there are no fosils of a species turning into another species? it will only mutate, which i think is gods way of keeping species within their own. even the most simple animal like a moth is a miracle in its build and design, you are saying that all these things evolved from nothing but tiny atoms? i just dont see how, they cant do that now, how could it happen then? how come nobody has ever created anything if scientists are so clever? they have only been on earth for a spec of time, yet aparantly they can say exactly how we got here, i just dont see it, really i dont.

  • StinkyPantz
    StinkyPantz

    Greven-

    I've had similar thoughts myself. It makes people feel better when they think that there will always be someone there for them.

    Vanilia-

    You say that the Universe had to have had a Creator, but that doesn't explain where "God" came from.

    By asking this question:

    we and the world are all here thru evolution, how come you dont see monkeys turning into humans as we speak, and that there are no fosils of a species turning into another species?

    it shows that you haven't spent much time studying the theories of evolution, natural selction, etc. Maybe you should do this and you'll understand better.

  • vanilia
    vanilia

    your right, i havent spent much time studying evolution, my reasons for this are my belief that it is impossible to magic a giraffe, elephant, human and ant out of thin air and atoms or dust or whatever chemicals that evolution is sposed to be based on. i also think that prolly wouldnt produce fruit, vegetables, eyesight, reproductive organ or anything else like that, therefore i deduce it must be creation, unless is a bloody clever particle.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    hmm, ok, this is what really gets me. if, and it is an if the size of mount everest for me, we and the world are all here thru evolution, how come you dont see monkeys turning into humans as we speak,

    Because evolution works incredibly slowly. Mutations are relatively rare, beneficial ones much rarer, and we're talking about unimaginably long time periods. No evolutionist thinks that "monkeys turn into humans", rather that we evolved from a common ancestor, that the accumualtion of tiny changes over millions of years is enough to make significant differences. The genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is less than 2 percent. Scientists estimate our most recent common ancestor was about six million years ago. That's a tiny tiny change over a vast period of time.

    and that there are no fosils of a species turning into another species

    Because no animal is transitional while it's alive. Every organism is well adapted to its environment. It's only when we can stand back and look at the big picture that we see the gradual changes that have taken place over time, and this is strongly supported by the fossil record.

    it will only mutate, which i think is gods way of keeping species within their own.

    So what do you think happens when the mutations are beneficial and are passed on to the next generation, and compounded over time by more and more beneficial mutations? Do you think the end result would be considered the same species as the original?

    Do you think God individually created every single species separately, including an estimated four million different species of beetle? One thing evolutionists and creationists agree on is that species barriers are immutable, once formed.

    Why would God create dozens of different species of marsupials and put them only in Australia? Why would he put different species of finch on the Galapagos islands? Why are 99.9% of species that have ever lived extinct?

    vanilia, I strongly suggest you a learn a bit more about evolution before you dismiss it out of hand. Try http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html and other pages at the talkorigins website.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Is God an imaginary friend?

    I have no doubt of it. I've tried plenty of times over the years to get God to answer my prayers. Nothing ever came of it. Not once. Nor have I seen any evidence that God answers other peoples' prayers. Sure, plenty of people claim that he does, but I doubt that even 5% of the prayers offered receive anything that could even remotely be construed as an answer, and those "answers" are always indistinguishable from normal events, even if they stretch our idea of coincidence.

    Vanilla, your comments reflect more a lack of knowledge of science than anything else. Let me explain.

    First, did you consider fundyderek's question about how you could have trouble believing that a "simple" cell could come about on its own, yet have no trouble believing that an infinitely more complex God could come about on its own? I have yet to see a believer give an answer, although plenty of excuses are offered.

    : hmm, ok, this is what really gets me. if, and it is an if the size of mount everest for me, we and the world are all here thru evolution, how come you dont see monkeys turning into humans as we speak,

    Here's a good example of your lack of knowledge of science. Just what do you think the theory of evolution says about the evolution of apelike creatures to humanlike creatures?

    Evolution occurs so slowly that you can't possibly see it happening in your lifetime. Further, any particular living creature will always be "complete" as is. You couldn't possibly tell by just looking at it in isolation what its ancestors looked like, or what its descendants will be.

    It is the fossil record that indicates that species evolved over time. That record contains many examples of small changes to species occurring over fairly long periods of time. Take a slice of life at one point in the geological record and compare it with a slice, say, ten million years later, and they will have significant differences. Some life forms will be similar or even the same, others will have disappeared, new ones will have appeared. That is evolution in the general sense. The question of how this evolution occurred is another question entirely, and Darwin's theory, as well as newer ones, are attempts to explain it.

    : and that there are no fosils of a species turning into another species?

    Sure there are. Obviously you can't look at a particular fossil and say, "See! This fossil is just sitting here and not turning into anything!" You have to examine many fossils, look at where they occur in the stream of time, and note how a particular species changes over time. When you do that, you get a sort of stop-action picture of evolution in action. I can refer you to a number of descriptions of specific examples.

    : it will only mutate,

    Which is one source of evolutionary variation.

    : which i think is gods way of keeping species within their own. even the most simple animal like a moth is a miracle in its build and design, you are saying that all these things evolved from nothing but tiny atoms?

    Why not? They're comprised of "nothing by tiny atoms", are they not?

    : i just dont see how,

    You probably can't see how cellular telephones work either, but that doesn't mean that they haven't evolved technologically.

    : they cant do that now,

    How do you know that?

    : how could it happen then?

    Scientists certainly are far from having all the answers. But the fossil record proves that massive changes in life have occurred over hundreds of millions of years. The best non-miraculous explanation we have is "evolution". Of course, this record of change could also be explained by the actions of a Creator, but this raises massively difficult questions for the believer in the Christian God.

    : how come nobody has ever created anything if scientists are so clever?

    What are you talking about? People create things all the time. I'm an engineer and it's my job to create things.

    : they have only been on earth for a spec of time, yet aparantly they can say exactly how we got here,

    Not exactly, just in general. But this is a lot more substantial than ignoring specifics and just saying, "God did it."

    : i just dont see it, really i dont.

    Then you ought to educate yourself. Get hold of some reading material on evolution -- and don't just read the caricatures you'll find in creationist literature. Once you understand what scientists themselves are saying, and know the reasons they say it, compare it with creationist literature. Only when you've educated yourself thoroughly will you be able to make a studied judgment. If after educating yourself, you still stick with creationist beliefs, then fine. But at least you'll be arguing from knowledge, not ignorance.

    AlanF

  • vanilia
    vanilia

    Alan, i am also an engineer, a software engineer, and i have a university education so i dont consider myself to be lacking acedimcally or ignorant. you seem annoyed that i dont accept evolution, but it is my belief, not yours, are you just annoyed i dont agree with you?
    what i said about scientists is that they have not created 1 living organism. not one, not even a nano thing that has 1 leg, nothing, no plant, no blade of grass, nothing.

    when i talk about evolutoin, you say you wouldnt be able to see any changes in the fossil. sure you would, if you have a species growing wings and turning into a bloody elephant sure you would see it change! you would find a fossil with half a trunk at least no? a feather perhaps?

  • Realist
    Realist

    Alan,

    this is off topic....i came a cross a thread where you stated nothing can travel faster than light. just wanted to say thats not proven...theoretically there could be things that travel faster (tachyones for instance).

    Vanilia,

    aha! a computer programmer! i have noticed that many people from that field consider evolution impossible because of a confusion between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy. do you consider evolution impossible because of entropy?

    Edited by - realist on 4 February 2003 11:55:58

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit