Is Christianity the only way to prove GOD?

Originally posted by ahosyney
First of all, I had to say that I started this thread because I read your thread, "Thank God, i'm an atheist!". It is good to see you here:

I have some comments on your post may be it help, I have I can write clear so all my thoughts become clear to you and every one:

1- Natural Selection is a theory. And theory means that it might be wrong. There are ...[text shortened]... have, I wanted to share with you , and I hope that I made them clear....

Salam

1) A THEORY is not "just an idea". A Theory is an explanation for an entire area of knowledge. Evolution is one of the strongest theories out there. Sure, it might be wrong, but the many millions of studies conducted have never shown that to be the case. Evolution literally unites millions of studies into a coherent framework. There is as much chance of Evolution being wrong as there is of gravity being "wrong".

2) Natural selection can easily be an explanation for the start of life. After all, there is nothing inherently "special" about life - it's just the fulfilment of some rather arbitrary criteria.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
1) A THEORY is not "just an idea". A Theory is an explanation for an entire area of knowledge. Evolution is one of the strongest theories out there. Sure, it might be wrong, but the many millions of studies conducted have never shown that to be the case. Evolution literally unites millions of studies into a coherent framework. There is as much cha ently "special" about life - it's just the fulfilment of some rather arbitrary criteria.

1) A THEORY is not "just an idea". A Theory is an explanation for an entire area of knowledge. Evolution is one of the strongest theories out there. Sure, it might be wrong, but the many millions of studies conducted have never shown that to be the case. Evolution literally unites millions of studies into a coherent framework. There is as much chance of Evolution being wrong as there is of gravity being "wrong".

I don't think I said it is an idea. I know what you mean and I have no problem. But saying that the chance that it be wrong is very small is not accurate. The whole scientific achivements in the 18th and 19th centries were based on Newtons laws which were though to be a perfect explaination for all physical phenomenons. And it was very right untill Albert Einstein's special relativity theory came to life when Newtons laws shown to be incomplete and new physical facts has shown up.

As I said , I'm a biological freak but I know that Natural selection was rejected from many scientists because of many evidences that are agnist it.

2) Natural selection can easily be an explanation for the start of life. After all, there is nothing inherently "special" about life - it's just the fulfilment of some rather arbitrary criteria.

No, I don't agree. Actually Natural selection doen't explain anything about life. It is based on a life that already exist and it descrives how this life evolved. If you know how does it explain the start of life, I will be interested to hear it from you.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Cool, it's nice to have the opportunity to talk religion with a Muslim, i am not afforded this opportunity very often. You'll forgive me if i am unfamiliar with your religion, i was brought up Catholic (as you know).

[i]1- Natural Selection is a theory. And theory means that it might be wrong. There are some evidences that support it and others don't. ...[text shortened]... ing. Saying some all powerful being created everything is just too easy!

Cool, it's nice to have the opportunity to talk religion with a Muslim, i am not afforded this opportunity very often. You'll forgive me if i am unfamiliar with your religion, i was brought up Catholic (as you know).

I will be pleased to talk to you too. Actually your statment states my point. If you are unfamiliat of my religion, how did you give up GOD without making sure of your dicision.

No i disagree here i'm afraid, the evidence for natural selection is quite overwhelming! Sure, it is highly likely that there are some current scientific opinions about it that are incorrect, i fully accept that. That is all part and parcel of the scientific process, but there is no doubt in my mind that the over all process has been proven as fact. Go to a Natural science museum (like the Natural History museum in London) look at all the dinosaurs, look at the progression of evolution for yourself, it is a real thing, not something that requires faith.

My friend I said I'm not a biological man, I'm a computer engineer. And actually I use evolution in my work (I don't know if you heared about Genetic algorithm in computer science). So I know that it works, but what I know that it doesn't work they way you think it does. So what I say might be wrong is the explainations based on the theory.

Also there is another important point. Evolution theory is based on Genetic mutation, exchange and transfere from one generation to the other according to the response of species to the surrounding environment. And as gens are manuplated through DNA structures and mechanisms. Can you tell me who design, or cased these DNA structures to behave the way they do (I'm not sure of NS answers this).

I will try to give an example: When we use evolutionary theory in computer systems we simulate the natural selection process to generate different solution (individuals) for a specific problem. We represent the problem using in a gen structure and we perform mating between different individuals (solutions) based on the effectivness of the solution to the given problem. So according to the evolution theory the new generated individuls are supposed to have more efficient properities according to the given problem.

In this process we design every thing. The gen structure, and size. We design the problem representation in the gen structure. And we design all the mating processing (mutation and crossover for example). So my point is who plays the rule of GA designer in Natural selection.

Ok, science hasn't managed to uncover the method with which life began yet. A scientist doesn't go, 'damn, i don't understand how this works, this must be the work of some God!' Why would they do that? Does the evidence suggest there is a God behind the whole thing? Honestly does it?? If the scientist decides he is going to attribute this to God, he is accepting that something exists that requires more explanation than the problem in question. It is difficult to describe how life got here, but it a simple question compared to how God got here! Jumping to conclusions (as believing in God is in my opinion) is worse than not knowing, it is downright misleading!

Quran argue Muslims in many places to seek knowladge and think about creation. GOD tell us in Quran that when you seek knowladge and science you believe more in him. Which means that even that Quran tell us that he created every thing, it also ask us to know how he did that... So if I do understand your point then Islam totaly agree with you...

(Nobel-Translation)(Al-'Ankabut)(o 20 o)(20. Say: "Travel in the land and see how -Allâh- originated creation, and then Allâh will bring forth -resurrect- the creation of the Hereafter -i.e. resurrection after death-. Verily, Allâh is Able to do all things."😉

(Nobel-Translation)(Al-A'raf)(o 185 o)(185. Do they not look in the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all things that Allâh has created, and that it may be that the end of their lives is near. In what message after this will they then believe?)


This appears to be the same thing that happens in all religions. Once science explains something, God is made responsible for the discovery. No matter how many discoveries you make, God just gets put in charge. I disagree with this completely now. If science has to provide a reason why something is, then so does religion! If you want to talk about evolution and discuss whether it is correct or not then that's fine. If you want to talk about whether science is correct to think what it does, that i fine. If you want to attribute it to God, then you owe science an explanation to why you do that! Until a religion actually starts offering some answers rather than vague, self fulfilling prophecies, i will remain atheist.

Your statment will be valid if there is a problem that natural selection be true and I try to adapt it to new science, which is not the case (I'm talking about Islam). Actually Quran tell us that there will be always something new (new signs) and some will explain it as a prove of GOD and others will not:

(Nobel-Translation)(Fussilat)(o 53 o)(53. We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this -the Qur'ân- is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things?)

What is the main purpose of the book then? 'Hey guys, there's a God up there ok, you don't need any evidence of this, you are just going to take my word for it. No matter what anyone ever says, you are to believe these words absolutely! In the face of all criticism, you will stand firm because God wants it' Sorry, i don't buy into it. I don't believe religion offers anything approaching an explanation for anything. Saying some all powerful being created everything is just too easy!

I will talk about Quran: It tell us:

1- There is GOD.
2- What this GOD wants from.
3- What the law he wants us to follow.
4- What will happen after death.
5- Others (It there is time we can discuss it).

Originally posted by ahosyney
Look,

I will make it more clear,

Many athiests here give up GOD. When you ask why, they talk about Christianity?

That is my point. If Christianity is wrong does this mean GOD doesn't exist?

That is my point in general.

But for my opinion about Christianity I pointed it out several times here in this forum. If you like we can discuss it again.

So if for example atheist give up on God because of Christianity I do
not think they knew God during their so called walk in Christianity. If
they did know God they left God not Christianity if they didn't know
God, what they had was something dressed up with all the 'right' words
and 'terms', but odds are it was something they and the people they
were running with put together which does not require God to be a part
of.
Kelly

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Cool, it's nice to have the opportunity to talk religion with a Muslim, i am not afforded this opportunity very often. You'll forgive me if i am unfamiliar with your religion, i was brought up Catholic (as you know).

I will be pleased to talk to you too. Actually your statment states my point. If you are unfamiliat of my religion, how did you give ...[text shortened]... l happen after death.
5- Others (It there is time we can discuss it).[/b]

Wow, this is going to take a while, that's a long post! Ok here goes...

I will be pleased to talk to you too. Actually your statement states my point. If you are unfamiliar of my religion, how did you give up GOD without making sure of your decision.

The reason I left the idea of Christian God is because science gives a much better explanation of why things are the way they are. No matter how incomplete it is, i wholeheartedly accept we've got many many things left to understand, but it is an evidence based philosophy. I have no reason to believe a God exists (whether Christian or Muslim) as there is no evidence so therefore I don't need to read the Quoran as it is not a historical, factual account of creation. It does not provide provable answers does it?

My friend I said I'm not a biological man, I'm a computer engineer. And actually I use evolution in my work (I don't know if you heard about Genetic algorithm in computer science). So I know that it works, but what I know that it doesn't work the way you think it does. So what I say might be wrong is the explanations based on the theory.

I don't claim to be an expert on Natural selection. I think i understand the general principals, but i'm no biologist. We're all lay men here. Sounds like you have a pretty interesting job!

Also there is another important point. Evolution theory is based on Genetic mutation, exchange and transfer from one generation to the other according to the response of species to the surrounding environment. And as gens are manipulated through DNA structures and mechanisms. Can you tell me who design, or cased these DNA structures to behave the way they do (I'm not sure of NS answers this).


The double helix structure of DNA is the way it is today because of millions of years of evolution. There is nothing to suggest this is the way genes have been organise from the beginning, quite the opposite in fact. The early forms of life would not have had this complicated structure. It is questionable that they had any comparable system, the double helix structure is the end result of countless mutations over millions of years. Again, just because something is complicated doesn't mean it must have been designed by God.

I will try to give an example: When we use evolutionary theory in computer systems we simulate the natural selection process to generate different solution (individuals) for a specific problem. We represent the problem using in a gen structure and we perform mating between different individuals (solutions) based on the effectiveness of the solution to the given problem. So according to the evolution theory the new generated individuals are supposed to have more efficient properties according to the given problem.

In this process we design every thing. The gen structure, and size. We design the problem representation in the gen structure. And we design all the mating processing (mutation and crossover for example). So my point is who plays the rule of GA designer in Natural selection.

Simple, no one! Your example is over simplistic when dealing with real life organisms. Firstly, evolution does not take place from one generation to the next, the shifts in gene pool are measured over many more generations than just one. Also, your example 'genes' are being selected for one task, an organisms efficiency is measured over a much greater strata of criteria, so therefore the two are not directly comparable.

Let me address your point, who plays the role of GA designer?

I believe you are getting something mixed up here, but i'm going to find it difficult to explain so bear with me...

I did a Computer Science degree myself, and i remember having similar thoughts when i first encountered object orientated programming. The programmer designs a 'fox' in a computer game. He makes this fox an object. Then he wants to make a 'dog' also, but instead of designing a dog object, he just adjusts the properties of the 'fox' object instead. I remember thinking 'wow, who's to say that's not how God created life?' Let's face it, it would be the most efficient way, right?

Our brains have evolved to see things in an 'object oriented' way. We can recognise a car instantly when we see one, even though there are lots of different shapes and sizes. When object oriented programming was invented it was developed because human brains are used to dealing with objects. The language was easier to learn because programmers were used to dealing with objects in their daily lives. When writing a program you simply describe the constituent parts (after visualising them as objects). I have a feeling you are encountering the same 'illusion of design' here with your programs. (I hope all this makes sense, i'm not altogether sure it does..😕)

Quran argue Muslims in many places to seek knowledge and think about creation. GOD tell us in Quran that when you seek knowledge and science you believe more in him. Which means that even that Quran tell us that he created every thing, it also ask us to know how he did that... So if I do understand your point then Islam totally agree with you...

Basically what that is saying to me is "whenever you understand how something works, attribute it to God." Again, as i've said before, what reason is there to attribute it to God?

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Wow, this is going to take a while, that's a long post! Ok here goes...

I will be pleased to talk to you too. Actually your statement states my point. If you are unfamiliar of my religion, how did you give up GOD without making sure of your decision.

The reason I left the idea of Christian God is because science gives a much better explanati id before, what reason is there to attribute it to God?

"The reason I left the idea of Christian God is because science gives a much better explanation of why things are the way they are. No matter how incomplete it is, i wholeheartedly accept we've got many many things left to understand, but it is an evidence based philosophy. I have no reason to believe a God exists (whether Christian or Muslim) as there is no evidence so therefore I don't need to read the Quoran as it is not a historical, factual account of creation. It does not provide provable answers does it? "

You left the idea of the Christian God, to me suggests you did not
leave God, only the idea of God as those around you presented God
and how you thought God was supposed to be, which is not having
a relationship with God which you walked away from.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The reason I left the idea of Christian God is because science gives a much better explanation of why things are the way they are. No matter how incomplete it is, i wholeheartedly accept we've got many many things left to understand, but it is an evidence based philosophy. I have no reason to believe a God exists (whether Christian or Muslim) as there is n ...[text shortened]... posed to be, which is not having
a relationship with God which you walked away from.
Kelly

Somebody else said the same thing to me in another thread. The only mention of God comes from scripture, which i don't trust to be accurate. It would be lovely to think there is a heaven, however i don't believe it. It is illogical to me, doesn't compute, i don't know how else to put it... I cannot believe in this, ..with...no....evidence. Whether i understand an imaginary thing correctly or not, does not make it real, sorry.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Somebody else said the same thing to me in another thread. The only mention of God comes from scripture, which i don't trust to be accurate. It would be lovely to think there is a heaven, however i don't believe it. It is illogical to me, doesn't compute, i don't know how else to put it... I cannot believe in this, ..with...no....evidence. Whether i understand an imaginary thing correctly or not, does not make it real, sorry.

Personally I believe the universe in total is evidence the way it works
and is put together. Still getting back to my earlier point, I don't think
walking away from an idea about something or someone is the same
thing as walking away from the real thing or the real one, I hope you
do see the difference.
Kelly

Originally posted by ahosyney
1) A THEORY is not "just an idea". A Theory is an explanation for an entire area of knowledge. Evolution is one of the strongest theories out there. Sure, it might be wrong, but the many millions of studies conducted have never shown that to be the case. Evolution literally unites millions of studies into a coherent framework. There is as much chan now how does it explain the start of life, I will be interested to hear it from you.

But saying that the chance that it be wrong is very small is not accurate.

Yes it is. I don't know how to take this argument forward until you provide me with further details of why I'm wrong.


The whole scientific achivements in the 18th and 19th centries were based on Newtons laws which were though to be a perfect explaination for all physical phenomenons.

The predictions made by Newton's laws are pretty much identical to those by Einsteinian relativity, except at very high speeds, where Newtonian physics breaks down. For all intents and purposes, Newton's laws were perfect, for most scenarios. NASA still uses Newtonian physics to send rockets into space, so they can't be all that wrong!

As I said , I'm a biological freak but I know that Natural selection was rejected from many scientists because of many evidences that are agnist it.

What evidences? Which scientists? Name one credible example. And don't start with Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity", that was discredited many years ago.

Natural selection..... is based on a life that already exist and it describes how this life evolved. If you know how does it explain the start of life, I will be interested to hear it from you.

Evolution doesn't require life. Chemical evolution occurs too, you know. In a reducing environment, such as that of earth 4.5 billion years ago (no atmospheric oxygen, as determined from rock samples), nucleic and amino acids will spontaneously form chains and join up together. Elemental zinc can be used as a catalyst to facilitate DNA replication. Time, selection and order will yield complexity. Indeed, DNA fragments can be evolved in vitro over a number of generations to have resistance to, for example, copper toxicity.

Originally posted by ahosyney
Can you tell me who design, or cased these DNA structures to behave the way they do (I'm not sure of NS answers this).

This assumes a creator is necessary. There is no evidence of this necessity whatsoever.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Personally I believe the universe in total is evidence the way it works
and is put together. Still getting back to my earlier point, I don't think
walking away from an idea about something or someone is the same
thing as walking away from the real thing or the real one, I hope you
do see the difference.
Kelly

No, you already made an a priori assumption here. The evidence does not point one way or the other.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
This assumes a creator is necessary. There is no evidence of this necessity whatsoever.

I was going to bed and I read many posts, but this last one is important so I will comment on it and continue tomorrow: As I sad before I don't have enough knowladge to argue with you in details:

This assumes a creator is necessary. There is no evidence of this necessity whatsoever.

I don't assume a creator, I'm asking for a scientific explaination. You say there is no GOD and natural selection did every thing. But I see your statment is not accurate because it doesn't. Unless how show me a theory that explain how DNA structured formed, are they designed or came by chance, then your assuptions remains incomplete. Did you understand what I mean?

Denying GOD existance without filling these gaps is a form of circular resoning.

Have a nice day

Originally posted by ahosyney
I was going to bed and I read many posts, but this last one is important so I will comment on it and continue tomorrow: As I sad before I don't have enough knowladge to argue with you in details:

[b]This assumes a creator is necessary. There is no evidence of this necessity whatsoever.

I don't assume a creator, I'm asking for a scientific then your assuptions remains incomplete. Did you understand what I mean?

Have a nice day[/b]

And I explained.

We can find nucleic acids freely floating in space!
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1319
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/amino_acids_020327.html

In a reducing environment, such as early earth (we know there was no free oxygen from [the chemical composition of] rock samples from that time) amino acids and nucleic acids will spontaneously form chains.

[edit; you have a nice day too, mate.]

Originally posted by ahosyney

Denying GOD existance without filling these gaps is a form of circular resoning.

No, saying that God exists without one scrap of reasoning is illogical. If i said to you i really really believe a Unicorn created the universe you'd laugh in my face (as you should do!) Evolution shows how simple things evolved into complicated things, it is THE explanation of life as we know it. There is no reason to deny that God exists because there was nothing to suggest he did in the first place, it is a mute point!

EDIT: In short, 'filling the gaps' with God is the bit we collectively disagree with. You feel you can fill this gap with some imaginary super being. We see no reason to do this.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
No, atheists give up on God because of the over whelming evidence that life developed through natural selection.

Maybe pre-Darwinian atheists--like Shelley--had to be more imaginative than today's crowd to reach their conclusions.