Pimping God

Post Reply New Topic

Goodness, I finally found a board in which God is dismissed intelligently, rather than with inane statements typed with capslock on.

As for me, I'm a Christian, so I view God as the Bible portrays Him. Yes, I see paradoxes in God, , but even natural science has paradoxes. I can ascribe a paradox in the portrayal of God to the utter lack of perspective combined with poor wording. In addition, I can only perceive God in the way I perceive other humans: with flaws.

How does an atheist explain the gravity paradox? For it to be strong enough tofunction on a stellar scale, it would crush flat anything on the surface of Earth. For it to not crush us, it would have to be weak enough that the planets wouldn't hold orbit.

Well, the issue is that the Bible states multiple times that God is perfect, and most theology has followed that example by claiming God's perfection.

As for a gravity paradox, umm.... maybe I don't know the relevant physics(in terms of data and such), but I don't see how this is a necessary problem. We are dealing with weak stellar relations that are powerful enough to maintain orbits due to the immense distances involved in the orbits. I mean, unless you are arguing that gravity is not a sufficient force to maintain the planetary orbits, and that another force is involved, I would think that there is no paradox. Even if there was another force necessary, it would not refute a naturalistic worldview, just be a question.

Wait, are you one of those vaunted Intelligent Fallingists?

There is no gravity paradox. There are more (natural) forces at work than just gravity. Gravity holds the planets orbit. If you study science you will see there are simple equations linking the distance between two object, their masses and the gravitational force between them.

The reason we don't get crushed is that the gravitational force between a human being and the earth is small - due to the fact that humans don't have much mass. Electrostatic forces stop the molecules of our bodies and everything else collapsing under gravity. However, in the case of massive objects such as neutron stars the gravity overwhelms such forces and molecules and atoms all squish down to a very dense form of neutron matter. The nuclear strong force keeps this from collapsing further. If the mass of such an object gets even larger then even they can collapse and become black holes.

Its all basic science. It's more than twenty years ago since I did the physics of all this at university but there is no "gravity paradox" in the way you describe it.

AG: I do think God is perfect, but perfectly what? God is God, not human, and doesn't fit any human definition. This may violate the sensibilities of most people, but I think God is a logical answer to many questions.

And Creation as put forth in the Bible sense is no more or less logical than saying life sprang out of a puddle of primordial goo that was nearly hit by lightning, and that that single cell of life was so randomly strong that it managed to survive, propogate, and overcome all the other chemicals in the goo.

Henriksson: If you're trying to be insulting, give up. I'm not used to caring what people on a message board think, mild sniping insults aren't going to get me to start. On the other hand, if you have a point...

Well, I'm not the one who questions a solid scientific theory, in favour of surrendering to the ignorance you call "God".

Uhh, yeah. Your response to my asking for a point was to try another snipe by making yourself sound superior. +1, you win. I'll go rethink my entire life now. Silly child, thinking his zeal against faith will destroy faith.

Theory (your word). As in all the science in the world still can't explain it. Which is probably why there is a crap-ton of smart people try to make the Grand Unified Theory work. You all agree gravity is absolute, yet it is not scientifically proven enough to make it a scientific Law.

I'll continue to believe in God. I'm not even going to insult you by asking you to prove he doesn't exist. So don't bother asking me for proof he exists.

Do you have proof I exist? You've only seen evidence of my actions, not me. Perhaps all the pixels you've been arguing with are simply the result of random chance in a system, and you are actually arguing with nothing whatsoever.

Just to expand on what you say a bit, there are four known interactions (sometimes called forces) that we know of that occur in nature.

The strong force (holds the nucleus together)
The weak force (causes radioactive decay)
The electromagnetic force
The gravitational interaction (which according to the General Theory) is not a force but a curvature in the spacetime manifold caused by mass and energy. The only true forces associated with gravitation are the tidal forces caused by non-uniformity in the gravitational field.

There may be other interactions, but we have no evidence for such.

ruveyn

This too is a misrepresentation of the science and biology involved. A complete cell as exemplified by a typical mammalian cell did not randomly appear based on a zap of lightening. The precursors were much more simple. Certain organic molecules have properties to group with other similar molecules - it is a simple question of electrostatic attraction between different parts of an organic molecule that causes them to fold in particular ways and to latch onto other organic molecules. At this stage it isn't even what anyone would call life, simply organic molecules with predictable ways of interacting with each other. Some molecules have a tendency to catalyse other molecules to combine and form in particular ways.

All life is based on amino acids. Simple molecules that form the basis of protein molecules. From simple lab experiments simulating the activity of nature with the raw ingredients of early Earth such as lightening with methane, CO2 etc a huge range of complex organic molecules is made. The raw stuff of life.

These ingredients interact with one another as described. Some cellular structures are extremely primitive. Millions of years of interactions between the different pre-life organic molecules led to crude lumps of molecules that could metabolise certain other chemicals and reproduce themselves. Simple forms of RNA. Over millennia these became more complex and the first simple cells were formed.

Interestingly the most successful organism on Earth is one of the primitive ancestors of modern life - the mitochondria. Every plant and animal on the planet is home to these primitive cells which inhabit all other cells. Plants and animals are simply cities where these primitive organisms live! They have their own DNA and propagate down the maternal line in mammals, independently of the mammalian father.

If you study the science it is absolutely fascinating and wonderful. You start to see the processes involved and the simple beauty of the positive-feedback principle that pushes the evolution from none-living organic matter to the variety of plants and animals (including humans) alive today.

At no stage is it necessary to invoke some sort of divine intervention. The mechanism is complete in itself and truly wonderful without needing to add magic to it.

Ruveyn and Tallyman:

Ok, cool. I was taking a guy's word for it, he'd taken several physics classes in college. I'm still curious how it's possible, but hey, curiousity doesn't mean I'll pay for a college education, all the tutoring required, and the insane levels of stress required to get it explained. Got a website I can check all this out on? Other than wikipedia, of course.

Of the four known interactions (or "forces") gravitation is the weakest. To give an example: pick up a paper clip with a magnet. Or even pick one up by hand. Either overcomes the "force" exerted by the planet earth on the paper clip. If our planet were more massive or dense its gravitation would be stronger. In which case life such as ours would not have evolved as it did.

There is no "gravitation paradox" The so-called gravitational force is about 10^-40 as strong as the electromagnetic force which is what holds all of us together. The good news is that in most cases the positive electrical charge is balanced off the negative electrical charge and we are on balance electrically neutral.

ruveyn

Let me phrase it like this:

Scientifically, the theory of evolution and the formation of the first cell is possible. It's certainly possible for the atoms to combine into the right molecules, and the molecules to form the more complex proteins, etc. Biology isn't my thing, but I do know that it is scientifically possible.

Mathematically, it is rather improbable. The odds of the right atoms combining with each other, then combining into the required whatevers is unlikely in and of itself. Furthermore, this would have to have happened enough times that probability dictated that enough of them were assembled correctly that one of them was kicked into "life" and it all started. Oh, and enough of them would have to be turned on correctly that one of them managed to survive and start reproducing.

Long odds, and I think God is evidenced in far more than creation. But then, the evidence is things that have happened in my life, so I expect and accept that people will brush it off as lunacy. No offense.

Don't take our words for this either! We could be lying or mistaken. The key to understanding science or religion is to look for yourself. Ask questions and keep asking. Eventually you start to truly understand and build up your own picture and see how the universe works and the inherent beauty of it - without needing to create and invent beliefs on top of it.

If you simply absorb science facts without really understanding the principles involved then in some ways it is no better than absorbing and believing statements made in religious books be they the bible, Koran or ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Good luck with your search.

You seem to be missing the point. There was no sudden point when you could point to a particular lump of molecules and declare it to be "alive". For a complex cell to suddenly appear out of the organic soup would indeed by improbable. However, it didn't happen that way. The first "cell" was simply a bunch of molecules that could induce other nearby molecules to group in the same way, based on the contents of the organic soup. This is not a miracle or improbable - chemicals do this all the time, take crystals for example, put the right molecules together and in the right circumstances they group together. Organic molecules do similar things. However, due to their ability to form long chains and fold lots of new interactions become possible.

I recall that prions are an example of this in a crude way, they can induce other organic molecules to become prions.

Once you have the first organic molecule in the ancient soup that can successfully seed itself with the surrounding organic molecules it would multiply at an exponential rate consuming the available organic nutrient. Drop a small crystal into a beaker of cooled solution for the crystal - the seeding is visible and can be very quick. A crude example but a similar principle.

*not blindly taking your word for this*

Why do you use the term "organic soup" if it was just random chemicals? Doesn't calling it "organic" imply that it had an organic basis?

Isn't "life" the point at which it starts operating because of it's DNA and not external influences?

Ok, so a mathematically unlikely (but not impossible) grouping of atoms and compounds created proteins that self-replicated. Wouldn't there have to be a different kind of protein for all the different bits of cell? Like the cilia, DNA, whatever else? HS Biology class was 12 years ago, I don't remember it all.

You yourself hint at the improbability of it all. Not only did the chemicals have to combine properly, you have stated that they had to be at the right mixture and right circumstances, and that's just to create crystals. Complex long-chain organic molecules are far more complex. However, with the self-replicating protein theory, you ignore the math and go with the brute-force approach for life-creation: Throw dice enough times, and you'll get all 259,000 of them correct.

I only use the term theory because while they recently created such proteins in a lab, they did not get them to randomly occur in their beakers, they had to seed the mix. They proved the concept, but no more.

My point being, life is mathematically unlikely. Not impossible, I will grant, but unlikely just due to the number of things that have to be perfect. Every last bit of DNA had to be perfect, every last bit of cellular wall, or else the thing would never have worked.