The best reasons to believe that there is a God

[SystemFailure]

Yall should watch the BBC doc. The Secret Life of Chaos Theory

 

"All the complexity of the Universe, all it's infinite richness emerges from mindless simple rules rules repeated over and over again. But, remember, powerful though this process is it's also inherently unpredictable. So although I can confidently tell you that the future will be amazing, I can also say with scientific certainty that I have no idea what it holds"-Jim Al-Khalili

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HACkykFlIus

 

The argument, Complexity has to come from another complex thing is bunk.

[n8galicia]

Is anyone in here a Mahayana Buddhist?

[nsmbfan]

no, but it sounds cool and I'm impressionable, where do I sign up?

 

what powers do i get? what food must I quit eating?

[russell jones]

Ladies love Mahayana... ask Richard Gere.

[Fist 666]

so the mahayana love gerbils?

[twonpoo]

directed panspermia

The idea that life might have been intentionally spread throughout space and seeded on the surface of other worlds by a guiding intelligence. A detailed version of this hypothesis was put forward in 1973 by the molecular biologists Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA) and Leslie Orgel.1 The chances of microorganisms being passively transported from world to world across interstellar distances, they felt, were small. The probability of successful seeding would be greatly increased, they pointed out, if the fertilization were carried out deliberately by an existing technological civilization. Their argument depended first upon demonstrating that it was possible for an advanced extraterrestrial civilization to have developed in the Galaxy before life first appeared on Earth. This they were able to do (see extraterrestrial civilizations, ancient). As for the means of dispensation:

 

The spaceship would carry large samples of a number of microorganisms, each having different but simple nutritional requirements, for example, blue-green algae, which could grow on CO2 and water in "sunlight". A payload of 1,000 kg might be made up of 10 samples each containing 1016 microorganisms, or 100 samples of 1015 microorganisms.

 

Crick and Orgel further suggested that directed panspermia might help resolve one or two anomalies in the biochemistry of life-forms on Earth. One of these was the puzzling dependence of biological systems on molybdenum. Many enzymes, for example, require this metal to act as a cofactor. Such a situation would be easier to understand if molybdenum were relatively abundant on Earth (see elements, terrestrial abundance). However, its abundance is only 0.02% compared with 0.2% and 3.16%, respectively, for the metals chromium and nickel, which are chemically similar to molybdenum. Crick and Orgel commented:

 

If it could be shown that the elements represented in terrestrial living organisms correlate with those abundant in some types of star-molybdenum stars, for example-we might look more sympathetically on "infective" theories.

 

A second example they give concerns the genetic code:

 

Several orthodox explanations of the universality of the code can be suggested, but none is generally accepted to be completely convincing. It is a little surprising that organisms with somewhat different codes do not coexist. The universality of the code follows naturally from an "infective" theory of the origin of life. Life on Earth would represent a clone derived from a single set of organisms.

 

There might be a variety of reasons why an advanced civilization would wish to intentionally initiate life elsewhere: as an experiment in astrobiology using an entire world as a laboratory; to prepare a planet for subsequent colonization (see terraforming); or, to disseminate the genetic material of the donor world to ensure its survival in the event a global catastrophe (see extraterrestrial civilizations, hazards to).

 

 

Reference

 

1. Crick, F. H. C., and Orgel, L. E. "Directed Panspermia," Icarus, 19, 341 (1973).

 

 

Related entry

 

• panspermia

[n8galicia]

so the mahayana love gerbils?

 

mm like no other :)

[Cult 50]

i choose not to believe in what i do not see and what has also not shown himself, but before you say anything i must say that why rely on what is in text that has been changed and added to by the masses for hundreds of years?

[n8galicia]

 

you might be put in prison, and tortured and killed....?

[twonpoo]

i choose not to believe in what i do not see and what has also not shown himself, but before you say anything i must say that why rely on what is in text that has been changed and added to by the masses for hundreds of years?

 

another way of looking at it.

[Cult 50]

yeah lol it just makes more sense to me that way

[nsmbfan]

The universality of the code follows naturally from an "infective" theory of the origin of life. Life on Earth would represent a clone derived from a single set of organisms.

 

there goes science proving what the buddhists have been saying for thousands of years. we are all one.

 

tell that to radical individualism, and to the millions of people of the world that think they're special. original ideas have to be crammed down the throats of their audience sometimes.

[ANGER]

There is definitely something I think that underlay's everything we do, from the science research, to religious debate, as well as philosophy of our existence. The problem we succumb to is that we are limited to thinking within the context of our perception. The problem I have found with most religions, is that they all tend to give god man like abilities. Theres two ways you can look at it, we made god in our image, or god made us in his image. If god created the universe and everything in it, on the macro scale down to the tiniest sub atomic particles, and all the complexity(keep in mind our modern science is very new and we have only reached the tip of the iceberg, imagine how much more complex the understanding of our universe will be in 200 yrs.) I find it very naive and egocentric to believe we are somewhat in the like of such a god. The idea that this universal "god" thinks, makes decisions, and acts on such decisions and so forth, really makes him out to be something that is 3 dimensional. The fact that god not only thinks like us, but he feels anger and pain? This makes no sense, WE are the 3 dimensional beings, we do these things because we are limited in function due to our physical and neurological biology. I believe the so called "god" is something much beyond our comprehension, It would make more sense that god is more along the lines of the concept of energy(made of no material or matter). But our imagination is very great, and we can put together an almost infinite amount of theory's(or variables) that can make logical sense in our 3 dimensional knowledge, so you have people believing all kinds of things, but the fact is we just cant understand, it is beyond the limit of the human brain and it will always be a mystery. Think about it this way, string theory suggests that there could be parallel dimensions all around us, now try to visualize how that can logically make sense...hard huh? your senses are unable of perceiving it. Its like a computer that can handle all the software programs and video games, but there is no modem or capability to receive and translate a wireless internet signal, forever cut off from the universal information sharing field that is all around the computer. All I can say is that we will find out when we die, until then its nothing but a bunch of conspiracy theory's:scrambled:

[ayeplus]

no gods, no masters

[nsmbfan]

i am the master of my own domain.

[twonpoo]

There is definitely something I think that underlay's everything we do, from the science research, to religious debate, as well as philosophy of our existence. The problem we succumb to is that we are limited to thinking within the context of our perception. The problem I have found with most religions, is that they all tend to give god man like abilities. Theres two ways you can look at it, we made god in our image, or god made us in his image. If god created the universe and everything in it, on the macro scale down to the tiniest sub atomic particles, and all the complexity(keep in mind our modern science is very new and we have only reached the tip of the iceberg, imagine how much more complex the understanding of our universe will be in 200 yrs.) I find it very naive and egocentric to believe we are somewhat in the like of such a god. The idea that this universal "god" thinks, makes decisions, and acts on such decisions and so forth, really makes him out to be something that is 3 dimensional. The fact that god not only thinks like us, but he feels anger and pain? This makes no sense, WE are the 3 dimensional beings, we do these things because we are limited in function due to our physical and neurological biology. I believe the so called "god" is something much beyond our comprehension, It would make more sense that god is more along the lines of the concept of energy(made of no material or matter). But our imagination is very great, and we can put together an almost infinite amount of theory's(or variables) that can make logical sense in our 3 dimensional knowledge, so you have people believing all kinds of things, but the fact is we just cant understand, it is beyond the limit of the human brain and it will always be a mystery. Think about it this way, string theory suggests that there could be parallel dimensions all around us, now try to visualize how that can logically make sense...hard huh? your senses are unable of perceiving it. Its like a computer that can handle all the software programs and video games, but there is no modem or capability to receive and translate a wireless internet signal, forever cut off from the universal information sharing field that is all around the computer. All I can say is that we will find out when we die, until then its nothing but a bunch of conspiracy theory's

 

Thats what Im talkin about.

[twonpoo]

[cunt sauce]

i don't believe in god because he doesn't exist.

[Tor__Hershman]

Lets see, hummmmmmmmmm.....well, the best reason to believe in god/devil thingys is that there ain't any money in bein' an Atheist. Soooooo, I'd suggest Suckin' Up to the prevailing mythology in your locale.

 

The best reason not to believe is in my little YouTube video

 

Stay on groovin' safari,

Tor

[handsofdoom]

existence means physical mass. if god took up physical mass for existence, this would render the god inomnipotent. omnipotence is necessary to be a deity.

 

on another note, religion contradicts science and outrages reason. religion is a disgusting, pathetic human invention and if a god did exist i would still refuse to affiliate myself with a church. imagine a world without religion; millions of lives spared, technological and scientific advancement unhindered by persecution and prohibition, a lack of religious differences and prejudices. what a wondrous world that would be, eh?

[lord_casek]

existence means physical mass. if god took up physical mass for existence, this would render the god inomnipotent. omnipotence is necessary to be a deity.

 

on another note, religion contradicts science and outrages reason. religion is a disgusting, pathetic human invention and if a god did exist i would still refuse to affiliate myself with a church. imagine a world without religion; millions of lives spared, technological and scientific advancement unhindered by persecution and prohibition, a lack of religious differences and prejudices. what a wondrous world that would be, eh?

 

 

Let me ask you something: Can you touch a single atom? Can you see it with your naked eye?

[where]

^collectively.

[handsofdoom]

Let me ask you something: Can you touch a single atom? Can you see it with your naked eye?

 

site is irrelevant. we know they exist because mathematics prove their existence, and because they can be observed. we also know that they exist because we are capable of detecting the activities of atoms.

[handsofdoom]

let's not discuss metaphysics here. i'm a physics major, and i think this thread is supposed to be more philosophical.

[lord_casek]

site is irrelevant. we know they exist because mathematics prove their existence, and because they can be observed. we also know that they exist because we are capable of detecting the activities of atoms.

 

 

Without an electron microscope, without detecting activities with fancy equipment. All you have is the mathematics. You would be going on the faith that the math is right.

 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, miraculous things happen all the time. Just because we can explain them scientifically makes them no less miraculous.

 

I wish more people could understand this.

 

 

Seek knowledge wherever it may be found.

-Prophet Muhammad

[lord_casek]

let's not discuss metaphysics here. i'm a physics major, and i think this thread is supposed to be more philosophical.

 

 

You miss what I am getting at.

[russell jones]

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

 

sure sounds like it.

[handsofdoom]

Without an electron microscope, without detecting activities with fancy equipment. All you have is the mathematics. You would be going on the faith that the math is right.

 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, miraculous things happen all the time. Just because we can explain them scientifically makes them no less miraculous.

 

first and foremost, faith and mathematics are not two things that are combined. mathematics are always correct. if mathematics support a theory, the theory is true.

 

second, why are we even considering a lack of an electron microscope or fancy equipment? they exist, and as such should not be excluded from the equation.

 

third, i'm not belittling miracles or anything like that, where the hell is the context for that? i think our existence is beautiful and amazing, and the origins of our existence can be determined with science and math, which makes a creator of a universe unnecessary and irrelevant.

 

there are so many ways to disprove the existence of god.

 

you need to familiarize yourself with contemporary physics, which claim that matter can, and does, arise from a natural process. this is called a quantum vacuum fluctuation. capable of producing universes, capable of having produced our own. so which is more probable? a god created us, our universe, the laws that govern our universe, and everything in our existence, or that matter evolved from nothing by a natural process that has been observed?

 

i hope i don't even have to add that the probability of a naturally evolved universe is mathematically hundreds of time more probable than creation by means of a god.

[twonpoo]

well said my one less tamponned friend.

[lord_casek]

first and foremost, faith and mathematics are not two things that are combined. mathematics are always correct. if mathematics support a theory, the theory is true.

 

second, why are we even considering a lack of an electron microscope or fancy equipment? they exist, and as such should not be excluded from the equation.

 

third, i'm not belittling miracles or anything like that, where the hell is the context for that? i think our existence is beautiful and amazing, and the origins of our existence can be determined with science and math, which makes a creator of a universe unnecessary and irrelevant.

 

there are so many ways to disprove the existence of god.

 

you need to familiarize yourself with contemporary physics, which claim that matter can, and does, arise from a natural process. this is called a quantum vacuum fluctuation. capable of producing universes, capable of having produced our own. so which is more probable? a god created us, our universe, the laws that govern our universe, and everything in our existence, or that matter evolved from nothing by a natural process that has been observed?

 

i hope i don't even have to add that the probability of a naturally evolved universe is mathematically hundreds of time more probable than creation by means of a god.

 

Why can't you imagine the lack of these instruments? Seems the more science you're taught the less imagination you have. A shame in my mind. Imagination is where great

science comes from. Without it people seem cold and stale.

 

Have you ever considered that the perfection of mathematics or the mere fact that our universe sprang forth from a tiny pinpoint of energy smaller than a grain of sand, creating everything we see (and don't see) is God?

 

It's funny to me that you're so stuck on explaining everything away with science that you're missing something that is truly amazing. The perfection.

 

As for the universes creation, scientists are now thinking more seriously about a multiverse.

 

I like science, too. I also believe in a creator. Like I said, don't get too wrapped up in

explaining it all away or else you'll miss out on some beautiful things that maybe don't need to be explained away, just admired.