Does God exist?

[dreaming neon darkspot]

So you're basically trying to say God has a penis.

Well, it seems, according to the guys who wrote the most popular book ever, that the most widely accepted version of God is male.

It seems like it's just as "unacceptable" today to say that God is a woman as to say that God doesn't exist.

 

[Hypnos]

Yes, my children. I do, in fact, exist!

Now, worship me every sunday.

stfu Gabriel and stop speaking in my name ffs!
and now...

 

[Kenneth R.]

Well, it seems, according to the guys who wrote the most popular book ever, that the most widely accepted version of God is male.

It seems like it's just as "unacceptable" today to say that God is a woman as to say that God doesn't exist.

already went over this:

God has no gender. we refer to God as "He" because Jesus did, because God was his "Father", and the creator (aka "Father/Mother") of mankind. further biblical accounts use the same default gender, for the sake of simplicity. the "gender" of God is figurative.

 

[Hypnos]

afaik in the 'old testament' god was adressed as 'Elohim' which in fact is a plural hebrew form, so instead of HE a THEM would be a better word.

 

[Harmsway_SchädigtWeise]

going off the current convo topic but heres my question to you all

What is more believable that we where made by dust that came from no where and evolved from apes over billions of years or a intelligent being created us that we do not
yet understand.

 

[Demiurge]

going off the current convo topic but heres my question to you all

What is more believable that we where made by dust that came from no where and evolved from apes over billions of years or a intelligent being created us that we do not
yet understand.

What seems most believable is not necessarily true.

 

[Kenneth R.]

apparently in this age of humanity, the former is more believable, so i agree with Demiurge on this case with the same statements as my point.

as for God being "they", i have already elaborated on how "he" is many and one, a singular entity with more than one facet.

 

[Harmsway_SchädigtWeise]

so ur just saying one is more beleavble but not at all possible so where the fuk did we come from and this They thing ur comming up with is nothing?? how can U under stand exactly wat "god's" being is. if ur refering to father son holy spirt there all the same damn thing all one thing not a "they".Although in a sense i kinda see where ur going but explaine more and abotu the facet thing wat do u mean by this??

 

[Demiurge]

What?

 

[Aphrodite]

I have read many philosophers opinions on this question and Im no closer to the truth because of it. :Smug:

This is one of my favorite agruments that a few philosophers have used to state
the proof for the existence of God.
Because experience teaches that one being is always superior to another ,there still must be more excellent beings and finally the most excellent of all , and this would be God.

It is very clear that this proof is nothing more than a cunning and suptle game with concepts with no real conviction.
That's just one of hundreds of reasons why Im an agnostic leaning heavily toward the atheistic side.

 

[Kenneth R.]

in a book i was reading not long ago, an excellent point was made in this argument: if we accept evolution as truth, then birds who build nests must have evolved the ability, if they had not begun with it. if they had begun with it, where did they get such knowledge and instinct from? surely if they evolved from single cell proteins, those proteins would know nothing of building nests. so the habit evolved. then, if it evolved, how would it have? one would imagine a bird, by accident of some sort, carrying 1 stick to its eggs. if this accident were the trait that nature had chosen to survive by eliminating those who did not provide in such a way, what good would it have been? 1 stick does not make a nest, and even so, if the next bird carried 2 sticks... it would have needed to comprehend the construction of many sticks to create the first plausible nest. which returns to the question, how could it have evolved if only a complete step would achieve evolution?

 

[Iridium]

Uh, that sounds utterly ridiculous for several reasons:
1. There is no such thing as a "single-celled protein." A protein is a complex macro-amino acid polymer; a molecule. A cell is the smallest living entity.
2. Birds evolved from reptiles, who evolved from amphibians, etc. etc. The ability to craft nests would not have evolved branch-by-branch, but through a method that condones the best possible place of hatching for the eggs. Surely it evolved in the transitional phase of evolution when the evolutionary ancestors of today's birds went from a shotgun method of reproducing (many eggs, without any effort spent on any single one) to a more careful one toward individual eggs.
3. It assumes that evolution proceeds via phenotype. It does not; it evolves via genotype.

 

[Kenneth R.]

1. a cell then. that is still no objection to the example.
2. how would they evolve the ability to gather many sticks for the purpose of nesting if not in a specific manner? or do you suggest that it just somehow came to them to gather many and arrange them in such a way. and if that is true, then who or what told them thus?
3. still not an objection to the example.

 

[Iridium]

Here's a link I got: http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdnests.html

Since it is instinctual, it is obviously coded for by DNA. The cause of the adaptation may be natural selection, or sexual selection.

It's toward the bottom of the page.

What again was the point of your example? It certainly fails to disprove the theory of evolution, since it provides no contrary evidence.

 

[Kenneth R.]

did you even understand the point of the matter? it shows that in some cases "evolution" requires more than minute changes to be plausible. i don't see how a process based on small changes in structure and accident can suddenly create a coherent instinctive plan and then resume its pace. again i state, 1 stick is not a nest.

 

[Iridium]

That's the third objection I was stating, that evolution occurs via genotype and not phenotype. Do you know the difference? Surely, you must, since you are a credited critic of evolution.

Genotype = the genetic code; the DNA
Phenotype = the result of the genotype

Therefore, when we notice evolution (via phenotype), it is a result of genotype. A lot of the time, evolution occurs on a tiny scale (such as with minor enzyme and hormone modifications), so we fail to notice even that. However, since most mutations are neutral and have no effect on an organism's phenotype, by the time we see a phenotypic difference, hundreds - thousands of genotypic changes could have occured. And the instinct that programs a bird to, say, "build a nest" doesn't start with an instinct that says "get 1 stick." Then, "get another stick." Obviously, nest-building is a selective advantage, and whatever combination of mutations caused it to stick (no pun intended), it was obviously genetic (since genetics are what program instincts). This would have been a result either of compound mutations over some time, or perhaps a viral intrusion of exogenous DNA (though this scenario is less likely, since the viral vector would have had to have been a germ cell, specifically one that was utilized for procreation).

 

[Lord SteveO]

Evolution occurs so increadibly slowy that it may appear to us that changes have been sudden as we've not seem the intermediate stages.
Birds evolved from dinosaurs, which layed eggs and in most cases would have used a "nest" to keep these eggs safe in. The nest would originally have been a safe location, such as a hollow in the ground etc. Over time these egg laying animals would learn that for eggs to be safer and stand more chance of success, a nest was a key component.
Chances are that species that needed a nest, attempted to build their own if none were availible, eventually natural selection resulted in those that were good at building a nest surviving. The nest gave them the best survival and allowed better reproduction.
When the first birds evolved they would have been very similar to dinosaurs, probably used nests on the ground as well. They would then probably learned that a nest could be built elsewhere, by other means, eg: up a tree etc.
The genetics behind it all are probably linked to the nest building giving advantage to reproduction and similarly linked genes. There is no gene for nest building that i've heard off, birds living without a nest don't miss a gene.

When Silent Song speaks of minute changes you have to remember that to get from dino to bird you have 1000,000's of year of minute changes. Add these all up and eventually you have a big difference.
For example, if you could get a human and allow it to reproduce to create a lineage of more humans, and before each generation bred change one single gene, eventually (if the humans lived) you would have a very different organism after a million years.

 

[Kenneth R.]

well yes, and the question at hand occurs in a situation where such changes must occur in a lifespan instead of over millions of years.

 

[Iridium]

The genetics of nest-building (yes, it is genetic, since it is instinctual) may have taken millions of years to become what they are now. I still don't see the objection to evolution; merely a lack of coherent knowledge about a relatively minute evolutionary adaptation that happened millions of years ago. Evolution does not equal omniscience.

 

[Lord SteveO]

Evolution is random. It's a result of random mutations and it's only the few "lucky" mutations that give benefit to the species that survive and are inherited.
Nest building didn't evolve for a reason other than it just happened (through natural selection and the death of those that were not building nests) to be a good way to ensure safe continuation of the various species of birds.