The "Created God" Paradox

[Ergonomic]

Note: this is not concession. I'm not sure what you want to call it. A leave of absence, perhaps.

Before I take a break, I would like to share with you some interesting points:
>>>On DNA
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

>>>On random
1. What was in the beginning?
2. How will life on earth end?
3. What happens after death?
4. What is the purpose of existence?
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
9. How did nothing create everything?
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?

I'll admit, it is quite difficult to argue with everyone here, because you basically live by this: "I refuse to bypass my intellect." Whether you like it or not. That is, if you're an atheist/agnostic.

I'll be back later. The reason I'm leaving temporarily leaving is because I have a MAJOR English paper due Tuesday. Perhaps I'll be back then.

Happy debating!

 

[GhostAnime]

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

um no this is just how we interpret it as. it's not the same kind of code as say, a machine. it just has its own unique patterns.

all your other questions are simply irrelevant and undoubtedly an argument from ignorance. 'where do these things come from? since we cant answer them they must have come from a god!'

well, tell me this: why couldnt they have come from a giant invisible squirrel?

Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?

do you really need a history lesson on how wrong this is?

 

[Mini Minun]

Also, Mini Minun: The fossil record hardly refutes evolution; I have yet to hear of a half-bird half-lizard fossil or any sort of mid-evolution fossil. Genetic similarities are just as much proof of intelligent design as they are of evolution. If you go into your neighbor's backyard and see that they have a small blue doghouse, a small blue treehouse, a blue shed, a blue garage, and a large blue house that all have the same design would you say 'Oh, they all must have started as doghouses then gradually from wear and tear by the earth's forces increased in size and development'? When it's much more likely that they all had the same designer instead.

"refute" means disprove. Watch the vocab there.

I have yet to hear of a half-bird half-lizard fossil or any sort of mid-evolution fossil.

Archaeopteryx.

Genetic similarities are just as much proof of intelligent design as they are of evolution. If you go into your neighbor's backyard and see that they have a small blue doghouse, a small blue treehouse, a blue shed, a blue garage, and a large blue house that all have the same design would you say 'Oh, they all must have started as doghouses then gradually from wear and tear by the earth's forces increased in size and development'? When it's much more likely that they all had the same designer instead.

I fail to see the connection between this and life. I mean, in your example you are using inanimate things which can't provide genetic diversification. There are key differences here: The objects you mention were made (by humans) to serve humans and dogs, while humans have evolved for their own purposes.

 

[MarcusCanemAmat]

Hi all. I'm new here. And, like you, I was an atheist at one time.
In fact, about a 5 months ago, I became a Christian.
Why? Because once I took down the wall of "I refuse to bypass my intellect." (like ergonomic said), I realized that atheism in itself is not logical.
I personally still believe in the theory of evolution and even the Big Bang, but I believe God caused both scenarios. Of course, I don't believe man is linked with any other species.
No other species has a soul or logic really.
Once I doubted my beliefs, I began to seek out the true one. I found that Christianity is the only one that makes remote sense.
Then I prayed to God for the first time. I prayed that He would heal my depressed self.
Within two days, miraculous things began to occur. I no longer saw just the down-side of everything, but the good side. I never believed it was possible to change that.
After a week, I noticed that all of my emotional wounds were healing. There was no longer that empty feeling in my heart. God had filled it.


So I ask you atheists, why believe that there is no God? Almost all facts point to His existence.
Stop using all of anything scientific to try to disprove something you don't like.
Atheism is biased against only Christianity. Why? Because atheists know it is a threat to their "truth".
If you all would stop putting the false barrier around yourselves, you would come to see the Light.


Anyways, to make some points:

um no this is just how we interpret it as. it's not the same kind of code as say, a machine. it just has its own unique patterns.

all your other questions are simply irrelevant and undoubtedly an argument from ignorance. 'where do these things come from? since we cant answer them they must have come from a god!'

well, tell me this: why couldnt they have come from a giant invisible squirrel?

Um actually, DNA code like binary, in a way.
DNA uses AGTC.
AT=A
GC=AA
Like that, but longer.

Binary uses code.
010001010111100001100001011011010111000001101100011001010000110100001010
This says "Example".
The "E" in Example is 01000101.

And GA, does anyone pray to a giant invisible squirrel? Nope. People pray to God.

do you really need a history lesson on how wrong this is?

How is this wrong? Yes, please tell me.

Archaeopteryx.

Archaeopteryx has been proven to be a whole separate species.

I fail to see the connection between this and life. I mean, in your example you are using inanimate things which can't provide genetic diversification. There are key differences here: The objects you mention were made (by humans) to serve humans and dogs, while humans have evolved for their own purposes.

Then why haven't dogs evolved for their own purposes?

 

[GhostAnime]

I personally still believe in the theory of evolution

I don't believe man is linked with any other species.
No other species has a soul or logic really.

this is what i like to call 'picking and choosing science'.

if you truly believe in evolution, you would believe the same evidence that POINTS to humans having a common descent.

So I ask you atheists, why believe that there is no God? Almost all facts point to His existence.

please present them.

Stop using all of anything scientific to try to disprove something you don't like.
Atheism is biased against only Christianity. Why? Because atheists know it is a threat to their "truth".

atheists feel no threats from anybody. it is independent and bases its beliefs on nothing. we cant 'hate' anything we dont believe exists.

Um actually, DNA code like binary, in a way.
DNA uses AGTC.
AT=A
GC=AA
Like that, but longer.

..yes.. but we code the patterns. you dont actually see the letter 'A'. the patterns exist, but not the same way a code would be binary; that's just our interpretation of it.

How is this wrong? Yes, please tell me.

he said humans have a conscience regardless of what's dictated yet the holocaust is a good example of humans believing in simple authority.

the farther you go back, the worse it gets.

Archaeopteryx has been proven to be a whole separate species.

please elaborate.

Then why haven't dogs evolved for their own purposes?

they have. evolution isnt something that makes the 'perfect creature'. it produces an abundancy of those most fit for the environment. whatever trait that may be isnt exactly always 'brains'.

And GA, does anyone pray to a giant invisible squirrel? Nope. People pray to God.

this doesnt exactly refute my point... the point of the squirrel thing was to really just say that it's just as much as believable.

 

[MarcusCanemAmat]

this is what i like to call 'picking and choosing science'.

if you truly believe in evolution, you would believe the same evidence that POINTS to humans having a common descent.

Who says that I must believe that? Evolution? Not really.

please present them.

1)We can infer what might be true about God from what we observe in the universe. We look at the physical universe, human nature and culture and we observe things which may be clues to the existence or nature of the supernatural.
2)God may have entered the Universe and told us true things about himself, morality, meaning and how to have a relationship with him. This is called Revelation.
Plus all of the facts that have been stated before me.
The Bible.

atheists feel no threats from anybody. it is independent and bases its beliefs on nothing. we cant 'hate' anything we dont believe exists.

The statement of "atheists feel no threats from anybody" is false.
As an atheist, I felt threatened by Christians. Have you asked the majority of the athesit population that?

Yet if you are so sure that God does not exist, why do you even debate? According to you, you're right and that's the end.

..yes.. but we code the patterns. you dont actually see the letter 'A'. the patterns exist, but not the same way a code would be binary; that's just our interpretation of it.

I used the letter "A" to represent a gene. "A"=/=A, "A"=(say)the trait for blue eyes turned on.

he said humans have a conscience regardless of what's dictated yet the holocaust is a good example of humans believing in simple authority.

The holocaust is a prime example of fear and a crazy man.

please elaborate.

Archaeopteryx is only a candidate for a missing link fossil, just like Cygnus X-1 is only a candidate to b a black hole.
Absolute Astronomy and the New World Encyclopedia state this:
"However, it may not be the direct ancestor of living birds... Archaeopteryx turns out to be singular bird of a feather."
See, this specimen is considered to be the ancestor of all birds, not reptiles or even evolved from reptiles.

they have. evolution isnt something that makes the 'perfect creature'. it produces an abundancy of those most fit for the environment. whatever trait that may be isnt exactly always 'brains'.

Okay.. Why aren't we immune to cancer and other diseases/viruses?
If evolution "produces an abundancy of those most fit for the environment", wouldn't we be unaffected by cancer by now? It would make us "most fit for our environment"...

GhostAnime:
Do you consider yourself a strong atheist or a weak atheist? (Do you know the difference as well?)

 

[GhostAnime]

Who says that I must believe that? Evolution? Not really.

you said you believed in evolution and common descent is part of it.

so you either believe in all of it or you believe in none of it. only believing in a part of it is merely cherrypicking.

1)We can infer what might be true about God from what we observe in the universe. We look at the physical universe, human nature and culture and we observe things which may be clues to the existence or nature of the supernatural.

i dont see anything in this paragraph but vague language combined with 'we can see him.' i'm sorry but this isnt good enough for an unbiased reader.

2)God may have entered the Universe and told us true things about himself, morality, meaning and how to have a relationship with him. This is called Revelation.
Plus all of the facts that have been stated before me.
The Bible.

the bible is not substantial merely because there are plenty of other ancient books. why choose the bible over the others if you dont mind me asking?

The statement of "atheists feel no threats from anybody" is false.
As an atheist, I felt threatened by Christians. Have you asked the majority of the athesit population that?

what i meant by 'threat' was that people dont become atheist to 'hate' anything. our beliefs arent based off of yours. our beliefs are based on nothing. we are independent. sure, christians will look down on us, but we could care less what they think.

Yet if you are so sure that God does not exist, why do you even debate? According to you, you're right and that's the end.

i debate for the fun of it.

I used the letter "A" to represent a gene. "A"=/=A, "A"=(say)the trait for blue eyes turned on.

and guess what? you just used a variable which is an interpretation.

when will you see my point about this?

The holocaust is a prime example of fear and a crazy man.

you honestly thought he could kill millions of people by himself? he had help from the german people and soldiers.

Archaeopteryx is only a candidate for a missing link fossil, just like Cygnus X-1 is only a candidate to b a black hole.
Absolute Astronomy and the New World Encyclopedia state this:
"However, it may not be the direct ancestor of living birds... Archaeopteryx turns out to be singular bird of a feather."
See, this specimen is considered to be the ancestor of all birds, not reptiles or even evolved from reptiles.

now actually try looking in a scientific source to get your answer about a fossil. general reference books, though have good background information still dont go in-depth in some things. i bet other encyclopedias would say a much different description of it.

Okay.. Why aren't we immune to cancer and other diseases/viruses?
If evolution "produces an abundancy of those most fit for the environment", wouldn't we be unaffected by cancer by now? It would make us "most fit for our environment"...

because we our immune system hasnt adapted to them. it's that simple.

btw i'm a weak atheist.

 

[pocketmunster]

Okay.. Why aren't we immune to cancer and other diseases/viruses?

Your body actualy does do that. The problem is that the viruses are microevolving all the time. Once you sick from something you body is immune from that specific bug. (if your body works correctly). But then another bug comes along that gives the same symptomes as the others, like the common cold, but has evolved in a way that your body cant recognise it. Therefore you get "the cold" again.

 

[MarcusCanemAmat]

you said you believed in evolution and common descent is part of it.

But to me, man is different.

i dont see anything in this paragraph but vague language combined with 'we can see him.' i'm sorry but this isnt good enough for an unbiased reader.

No. We infer that God is real by observing our EXTREMELY complex universe.

the bible is not substantial merely because there are plenty of other ancient books. why choose the bible over the others if you dont mind me asking?

The Bible IS substantial. Have you ever read it? You can say it is unsubstantial AFTER you have read and understood it.
The Bible fulfills prophecies. True.
Also, the historical accuracy of the Scriptures is likewise in a class by itself, far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. Archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have been almost innumerable in the last century. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:

"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

The Bible also has scientific accuracy:


Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Gravitational field (Job 26:7)
and many others.

what i meant by 'threat' was that people dont become atheist to 'hate' anything. our beliefs arent based off of yours. our beliefs are based on nothing. we are independent. sure, christians will look down on us, but we could care less what they think.

So this makes your "beliefs" true now?

and guess what? you just used a variable which is an interpretation.

when will you see my point about this?

DNA still uses Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine.
Binary uses 0's and 1's.

I see where you're coming from, but now this has branched so far off topic that I have forgotten what this argument originate from...

you honestly thought he could kill millions of people by himself? he had help from the german people and soldiers.

Which is why no one fought back.
Hitler was still crazy enough to try to get people to commit genocide to eradicate the Jews.
Did it work? He may have killed 6 million Jews, but he did not eradicate them.
Do you know why America is strong (not noting the economy issue which we put ourselves in)?
We have an alliance with Israel, the land of God's chosen people.

now actually try looking in a scientific source to get your answer about a fossil. general reference books, though have good background information still dont go in-depth in some things. i bet other encyclopedias would say a much different description of it.

Stop being biased. Why don't you prove to me why Archaeopteryx is proven to be a missing link?

because we our immune system hasnt adapted to them. it's that simple.

Wait, cancer is caused by abnormal mitosis of cells. Not even an immune system can control that.

btw i'm a weak atheist.

So you just disbelieve in the existence of God?

 

[pocketmunster]

Job 26:7 (New International Version)

7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.

How the hell is that scientific?

 

[MarcusCanemAmat]

How the hell is that scientific?

Well, there is space, correct?
And the Earth isn't hanging on anything, it's free-floating (to an extent), correct?
That's "how the hell" this is scientific.

 

[pocketmunster]

Dude thats not scientific. Newtons theory of gravity is scientific General relativity is scientific. Saying the eath suspends over nothing is not scientific. Nor does it even really imply gravity.

 

[MarcusCanemAmat]

Dude thats not scientific. Newtons theory of gravity is scientific General relativity is scientific. Saying the eath suspends over nothing is not scientific. Nor does it even really imply gravity.

Yes it is, in fact. If this is the only point you can argue about, I'm sorry, but you've lost.

Scientific does not mean there has to be a law present. There isn't a law present about computers, yet they are true.
Same with the Earth. It is suspended on nothing. It it simply floating in space, orbiting the Sun. There probably is a scientific law behind this that we are not aware of at the moment. (We being you and I)

Hey! I thought you left! Yet you keep coming back...

 

[pocketmunster]

The eath rests on spacetime and revolves around the sun due to the curvature of this space time. You cant just say the earth rests on nothing and then call it scientific.

 

[MarcusCanemAmat]

The eath rests on spacetime and revolves around the sun due to the curvature of this space time. You cant just say the earth rests on nothing and then call it scientific.

The Bible states that the Earth is suspended over nothing. Like a hanger.

But is spacetime a physical object?
Is Earth hanging on it? No. It is resting on it.

But the Bible has been saying all along that the earth is suspended upon empty space; not on anything you can see with your eyes.

 

[pocketmunster]

But that dosent make it scientific. It says HE suspends it over nothing. Thats it. Thats all it says. Besides space isnt a true vaccume anyway so its not suspended over nothing. Its suspened over mostly empty space with dust particles in it.

 

[MarcusCanemAmat]

But that dosent make it scientific. It says HE suspends it over nothing. Thats it. Thats all it says. Besides space isnt a true vaccume anyway so its not suspended over nothing. Its suspened over mostly empty space with dust particles in it.

I found out that this Bible verse accurately describes the second law of thermodynamics.

"Besides space isnt a true vaccume anyway so its not suspended over nothing. Its suspened over mostly empty space with dust particles in it."
I never stated that space was a vacuum.
Yes, the Earth is over something. Anything that is floating has to have something underneath it.

You're misinterpreting what I said, and what the Bible says.
In this sense, the Earth IS NOT being suspended by anything visible!

 

[Sapphiredragon929]

Pocketmunster- get better grammar. Please, my eyes need something appealing.

Anyway's another thing is that most people severly doubt creation, I do. Which I why I don't like the Bible, the first story we hear out of it is a big fat lie. That sets a tone.

*I'm KIND OF being facetious*

 

[Sapphiredragon929]

What, no period? This is exactly what I'm talking about. (Also there should be a comma after dick)

Then read a book, dick.

See a whole lot better, and you don't make yourself look like an unimformed reatard.

Anyways, also remember Vatican II, you can disagree about ANYTHING in the Catholic church, as long as you an informed conscience. I disagree about Creationism, because it seems far-fetched and scientifically wrong.

 

[profpeanut]

I disagree about Creationism, because it seems far-fetched and scientifically wrong.

Question: Why is that?