One God?

Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by mathman, Jan 12, 2016.

  1. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    "If: One can not know "GOD"
    Then: One cannot specify as to quantity."

    But one can know God and the goodness will overcome. Let's ensure it stays that way. Perhaps no-one else knows...!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,417
    Does "One cannot know the name of GOD" imply that one cannot define "GOD"?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    God is his name. It's not a title: He's actually called God.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,417
    "
    "His", "he" :
    Use of the male personal pronoun for the deity implies male which then implies female which implies many "gods".
    I seriously doubt that a pronoun is sufficient for "GOD".
     
  8. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,075
    But you're saying just what I have been asserting. There is no probability that it could happen by chance. Honestly, if we shook a box of Legos for a billion years, would you hope to find a sculpture when we are done? Also, if the chemistry is so capable, why can't we do the same in a controlled environment? Why can't we duplicate the process? If nature can accomplish life by random process, why can't we do the same by willful intention?


    I'm referring to that which can be classified as life, not a collection of molecules.

    Life cannot organize itself from nothing, A system must be in place in order for it to succeed. You can have all the parts for a jet sitting in the hanger, but without the mechanics to put them together and a diagram to show them how, those parts will never be a plane. This idea that time and chaotic energy can somehow organize a functional life form is preposterous.

    The only reason why people are willing to accept the theory is because it fits into their views in general. It's my experience that complex systems require careful thought and engineering.
     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    No more preposterous than the idea that there's a celestial mechanic who can do it.
     
  10. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    The family tree:

    Generation: Population
    0:1
    1:2
    2:4
    3:8
    4:16
    5:32
    6:64
    7:128
    8:256
    9:512
    10:1024
    11:2048
    12:4096

    x/2x4x
    x/8x^2
    x/8x^2=x/8x^2
    x=x/64x^4
    x/x^4=x/64
    x/x^5=64
    x^4=64
    x=64/64/64/64
    x=1/64/64
    x=1/4096
    ...OR 2^12

    One God.

    "No survivors eh? Then I wonder where all the stories come from."-Captain Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the Caribbean.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    Bowser:

    Then we agree on this point.

    That depends what you mean. If you mean shake the box for a million years then look at it once, then that would be no different from shaking it for 5 seconds then looking at it. On the other hand, if we were to check it once every few seconds over the billion years, who knows? At some point a lego sculpture of some kind may be there. A billion years is a long time.

    But you're talking about random shaking here, and we've already agree that evolution/abiogenesis can't be completely random. Haven't we? So I don't understand the point of your example. Let's move on.

    The problem is, we don't know what process we're trying to duplicate yet. We know what result we want, but we don't know the initial or intermediate conditions required to obtain it.

    You keep assuming, too, that because we don't know something now, we'll never know it. There was a time when nobody could build a powered airplane that could fly. And I'm sure that at that time there were plenty of people just like you who said "If birds can fly, why can't we make a powered plane fly in a controlled environment? Why can't we duplicate the process. If nature can accomplish powered flight, why can't we do the same by wilful intention?"

    And then the Wright brothers came along.

    I don't believe that you can draw a clear line that divides "collections of molecules" from "life". If you think you can, by all means do so.

    I agree. There was a chemical system in place, with physical laws that only permitted organic molecules to interact in certain ways. Under the right conditions, that system produced life.

    Planes aren't subject to natural selection.

    You're making an argument from incredulity. "I can't imagine how it could happen. Therefore it couldn't happen." You see the potential flaw in that argument?

    Also, you use the word "chaotic" there. But chemical processes aren't "chaotic". They are predictable. They follow well-established physical laws.

    And the only reason why you reject it is because it fits into your views in general. Hmm.

    Would you agree that the weather is a complex system? Whose careful thought and engineering determines whether it will rain tomorrow?
     
  12. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Wow. Incredible post JamesR!
     
    Write4U likes this.
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Strange (American ego?) they get the "first to fly" credit. Their plane was a powered glider, that never got as high as its starting altitude and made extremely short air-born paths. Henri Giffard deserves that "first to fly in a powered craft" honor:

    But it could be both steered and keep its attitude controlled. The early Wright brothers flights were very low altitude (needed ground effect to stay air-born) and so poorly attitude controlled that a wing hit the ground, more than once on different flights.

    They however had a winged heavier than air craft which Giffard did not, but if you also add the requirement that the plane takes off from level ground (not slide down a set of rails) and climbs into the air under its own power, then Santos Dumont was the first.

    This photo was taken shortly after take off - the plane is going from left to right. That is a canard, not a tail, out in front. It could be "warped" to control the lateral steering and the attack angle / attitude. Only Santos had the skill to fly it. On the 100 year anniversary replicas were made and Brazilian Air force pilots got the honor of flying them - both promptly crashed the plane shortly after take off. Santos wisely learn how to control the plane with it tied below a balloon. See final photo:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Caption of the photo is:
    "The first sustained flight of a fixed-wing craft took place on 23 october 1906 in France." {near Paris with more than 100 people watiching.) From: https://www.aiaa.org/SecondaryTwoColumn.aspx?id=15163
    Only the US considers the Wrights to be first, and they were if never recovering your start altitude is OK. (gliding down hill to get air speed.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    He also let it hang from a cable over a valley to get experience with it in faster forward motion.

    But to be a little bit on thread: Some said: "If god wanted men to fly, he would have given us wings."
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2016
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,571
    Just for your information, The Earth alone, during its life time has produced roughly ;
    2 trillion,quadrillion,quadrillion,quadrillion chemical reactions, and you want to compare this with laboratory experiments? And earth is just an average rocky planet with air and water.
    Watch Robert Hazen's lecture at Carnegie Institute for Science.
    (the actual lecture starts at 25:00)

    To compare labaratory experiments with natural chemical interactions on a universal scale is narrow thinking. Chemical reactions have been taking place since the beginning of the universe and the number of chemical reactions it has produced during 14.7 billion years IS not only astronomical, but unimaginably large. In fact one scientist in the lecture proposes that life was not only probable, but imperative, given the conditions and functional abilities of the universe.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
  15. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,075
    Okay, Earth is a marvelous machine, but I might make the same argument that the faces on Mt. Rushmore are the product of countless geological activities, yet you would know that that is not possible.
    http://www.nps.gov/moru/index.htm
     
  16. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,075
    We're talking about a chemical reaction that somehow managed to form a living organism, all be it, a simple cell. From that early assemblage arose all life both past and present. That's quite a trick for some random molecules that are being jostled about, even more so that they should survive long enough to duplicate.


    If it's chemistry (bringing together the proper components), then it should be easy. If nature can do it on the fly, we should have the ability to do it intentionally. Don't you think?

    We've been to the Moon, Mars and farther. Heck yeah, something as simple as a protocell? It should be simple. They are mapping genomes, cloning critters and have a real good understanding of the mechanisms within. But maybe they will crack the code...eventually.

    Show me where we can duplicate the mechanics of life without tinkering with what is already established. All we can do is marvel at that that exists. If we could do the same, we would have nanotechnology beyond compare. A box of Legos is just a jumble of potential until someone uses them to create something.

    Yet we can't duplicate the process, so it's still a theory.


    They evolve as does technology, but they still require a creative mind to make them work. Your argument would suggest that under the right conditions, a plane could come into being by way of chaotic influence; whereas I believe nothing so complex can just fall in place.

    MY understanding of live chemistry is that its complexity requires divine influence, a creative force. I look at all the simple synthetic materials that our chemistry has developed over the years--quite simple in comparison to a living cell, really--and wonder how anyone could believe that life, a complex organism, might be an accident.

    Again, you shoot with easy answers, but we still can't use them to do the same--create life.

    I will be honest, life is pretty darned amazing. I do have a touch of creationism in my mind, but that's just because I find it...incredible.


    The weather is part of the larger ecosystem that functions to our benefit. Wouldn't you say the mechanics of meteorology are just as interesting as those of life?
     
  17. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,049
    I have listened for over one hour there is no thing with positive indication . You have to remember Mars as Earths sister we claim it have water . So far you and I we are on the planet and we reproduce ourselves
    so far we don't see life flourishing on Mars, we have sent our toys there , we have gotten no toys from them , Planet Earth did not have free oxygen before according to science . Now we have oxygen , because we had live organism to produce it which were created by God , and from there life continued to diversify
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,571
    False dichotomy.
     
  19. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    One god. Doesn't matter which religion. One god, useless at preventing the many, many horrors that happen each and every day. Prayed to after the fact. Meh. Waste of time and energy.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,571
    You may want to look up how the hydrogen and oxygen atoms were/are formed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Hydrogen is the simplest kind of atom, and in the very earliest days after the Big Bang hydrogen was the only kind of atom in the new Universe

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    When a star has changed all of the hydrogen atoms into helium, it turns into a red giant and begins to convert the helium atoms into carbon atoms and oxygen atoms

    And you may want to start learning what atoms are, what they are made of, and how they combine into molecules

    http://quatr.us/chemistry/atoms/

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    When two atoms come near each other, sometimes they stick together to make a molecule. One way they can stick together is by covalent bonding.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Amino acids are molecules made out of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen atoms (and a little sulphur). The earliest amino acids formed in space, about 14 billion years ago, before the planets even existed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Organic molecules means the kind of molecules that living things are made out of - at least, all the living things we know about. All living things, both plants and animals, are made out of molecules that have carbon in them. Because carbon has only four out of eight spaces filled in its valence shell, it's very easy for carbon to link to other atoms (in cluding other carbon atoms). So a lot of big molecules are made mainly out of carbon.

    HYDROCARBONS
    Hydrocarbons
    are a common kind of organic molecule which have both carbon and hydrogen in them. Hydrocarbons are very common kinds of molecules, because both hydrogen and carbon are very common elements in the Universe. Lots of different kinds of hydrocarbon molecules formed out in space even before the planets formed - we know that sugar, alcohol, and other hydrocarbons are still out there in modern nebulae. The molecule in the diagram here, a kind of sugar, has oxygen atoms in it as well as carbon and hydrogen - sugar is one of a group of hydrocarbons called carbohydrates

    No God, no scientists were necessary create these elements and the building blocks of life.! The universe had 14 billion years and plenty raw materials to create these things through simple mathematics of the 4 fundamental "forces" (which you call God).
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,571
    Well, it took Yurey just 24 hours to create thousands of molecules including bio-molecules, which is actually a problem, because there weree too many non-bio-molecules, and because it only takes some 500 different bio-molecules to form a biological organism, so to get those specific molecules together under the right conditions is the problem. But given enough time and the near infinite conditions existing in the universe, the probability of life becomes very high.

    As to the LEGO example. Let's assume that half the Legos are positively charged and the other half are negatively charged, IOW, they will attract each other.
    Now throw 2 trillion,quadrillion,quadrillion,quadrillion Legos over an average planet like Earth, and shake them around and I am willing to bet, that from this random *Lego soup* will emerge a complex structure somewhere sometime. It is *inevitable*. It happened on Earth and there is NO reason to assume that Earth is unique. There are probably trillions of earthlike planets in the universe with similar conditions that produced life on Earth.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
  22. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,049
    Thank you for your teaching of chemistry, I think I am familiar with chemistry a little farther then that. Now if you would like teach me on how do you ansamble an RNA or a DNA I will appreciate but let me see on how to synthesize a simpler molecule like Ribose or Deoxy ribose in the lab without using enzymes . tank you
     
  23. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    Yes. I'd also like to know how to "ansamble" an RNA or a DNA. Is that one of those super-technical terms that only those "familiar with chemistry a little farther than that" know?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page