outfctrl, seriously, just drop it. You're continued attempt at putting creationism up there with evolution has failed. You have no idea how evolution works nor do you know how science work. Theories don't become "Laws", they don't become "Facts".
There is no excuse anymore, you chose to remain ignorant. You have been explained multiple times that science does not work the way you think it works, but you continue to ignore that to keep up your creationism, for the lack of a better word, bullshit. I can give you another link explaining that your views of Evolution are wrong www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html But honnestly, i ask myself why I even bother, it's not like you're interested in actually educating yourself.
Well, explain this, if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?
Define "Complete and fully formed" please. Everything you see on this world is in a transitionary state. Nothing has fully evolved including humans. Everything will continue to evolve until it becomes extinct. Extinction of a species is the only thing that stops evolution in that species. Everything you see around you is "partially evolved" as you put it including us.
I guess it all boils down on what I want to believe. My faith in God overrides the evolution process. I just cant except that we are just another biological entity. Do we have a soul? I thnk so. Are we different than an elephant, fish, bird? Yes, I think so. Are we made in the likeness of God, I know so.
It's great that you can believe in whatever makes you happy, but that doesn't make it true. I'd rather believe in something because there's more evidence in it than just because I think it'd make me happier, nor could I do that.
Also, what do you attribute to the soul? Is it your decisions (Animals make decisions too)? Is it your emotions (taking into account that a physical object, i.e. an anti depressant drug, can alter your emotions)? Or possibly your self awareness (the fact that there are animals who can recognise their own reflection as themselves means there are self conscious animals)?
The idea of a soul is nice but when it boils down to what that soul does I'm pretty sure anyone with a basic understanding of what the brain is can conclude we don't have one.
I have no problem with that at all. I believe differently but that isn't really unusual. What i will argue about is if you try to move evolution out of the area of science or try to move ID into science.
Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences.
It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life.
Originally posted by outfctrl Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action.
No, ID is not scientific in any shape or form. the first and most basic problem is that it is untestable.
If there is an external intelligence, how can we reliably interact with it? the answer is we can't. This very fundamental point makes it loose any scientific validity as a theory.
Originally posted by outfctrl Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences.
Stripped of the big words, this says "things are so complicated they must have been designed" which again has no scientific rigor. There is plenty of evidence that a great deal of complexity can arise from simple non-linear systems. How far can you predict the weather for example. Additionally, there is plenty of evidence of ordered structures forming by themselves, for example, the crystallization of minerals. This formation doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics either.
So there are local systems that can show great complexity as well as some that show high order. This is readily observable around you, things that can be explored and tested, changed and manipulated.
Now, knowing how evolution works, you can develope simple reproductive rules in some elementary computer code and you can get things like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
Everything we see observe interacts with things we can observe. As soon as you reach for an external influence to explain a model you give up the opportunity to explore the world around us further. Not only is it unscientific to me it is simple cowardice.
A lack of courage to actually ask harder questions.
If you say "that is so complex it must have been designed" you loose the opportunity to find out how it formed naturally and then use that knowledge to build new technology.
The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.
Kinda like frog soup...the frog has all the building blocks needed to make life.
So lets throw it into a blender and put into a glass and expose it to all the elements of mature for lets say 1 million yrs.. so million yrs later what to we have, still frog soup.with out the code it just frog soup.
Although DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros.
This is the single most powerful complex fact that they the scientific community is trying to understand.
With out the code its all just soup,this is why we still apes with us that never evolved.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Hm... I'll try to explain this as simple as I can: the "myth" of Adam and Eve is-just-a-story from a book (considered sacred for one religion) called the Bible.
And when you consider your "microevolution" (or whatever you want to call it), have in mind an event that not only happens over a very long period of time (millions of years) but that also happens many repeated times (consider a population of a species).
Originally posted by frodus The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.
Lets back up and just leave God, religion, or adherence to any religious text out of this for a moment, but rather lets use observations about how intelligent design works in the present to look at aspects of the natural world to see if they are designed.
Intelligent design theory is based solely upon applying observations about intelligent action and principles of information theory to the construction of biological systems, and nothing more. Also, lets say there is nothing mystical, supernatural, religious, or non-scientific about intelligent design theory.
In its current form, intelligent design theory also can say nothing about the designer other than that the designer was intelligent. Whether you agree with the methodology of intelligent design theory or not, you have to agree with one thing:
Originally posted by outfctrl In its current form, intelligent design theory also can say nothing about the designer other than that the designer was intelligent. Whether you agree with the methodology of intelligent design theory or not, you have to agree with one thing: it has a scientific basis.
it would be scientific if that intelligence could be interacted with.
Lets back up and just leave God, religion, or adherence to any religious text out of this for a moment, but rather lets use observations about how intelligent design works in the present to look at aspects of the natural world to see if they are designed. Intelligent design theory is based solely upon applying observations about intelligent action and principles of information theory to the construction of biological systems, and nothing more. Also, lets say there is nothing mystical, supernatural, religious, or non-scientific about intelligent design theory. In its current form, intelligent design theory also can say nothing about the designer other than that the designer was intelligent. Whether you agree with the methodology of intelligent design theory or not, you have to agree with one thing: it has a scientific basis.
OK... so... based on your hypothetical Intelligent Design (ID) scenario here, we must ignore the "God" ideal. Therefore, what are you proposing created us? ... aliens? So, "God" vs. aliens in creating the Human race... if ID was correct, which I'm not saying it is, I'd be more willing to place my money on aliens over a mythical being created from a book made thousands of years ago by sun-stricken people.
However, If I did believe in ID, I'm betting I would be in the minority, as I would imagine at least 90% of people who believe in ID would be religious individuals (ie... saying "God" did it). 9% would believe that aliens had a better shot than "God" of doing it. And the other 1% would be sitting in their houses, carrying a massive stock of tinfoil for their hats, while continually watching the X-Files and constantly muttering, "They're out there."
Sun = Helios? No. Religion is an outlet for ignorance. God will be disproven in time.
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Sun = Helios? No. Religion is an outlet for ignorance. God will be disproven in time.
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
Sun = Helios? No. Religion is an outlet for ignorance. God will be disproven in time.
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
The difference being: We know how the sun works and can physically see that it's not being pulled across the sky by some guy in a chariot.
Sun = Helios? No. Religion is an outlet for ignorance. God will be disproven in time.
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
The difference being: We know how the sun works and can physically see that it's not being pulled across the sky by some guy in a chariot.
How could you do the same with god?
Our understanding of the motions and how we think they move, as well as the processes that go on in the sun, are only theories. The same type of theory that evolution is.
But at the same time that is the crux of his point: we now have a better, naturalistic understanding of the motions of the celestial bodies and many other things. That has ruled out with the utmost certainty the existence of Helios.
By the same token, as we begin to find a naturalistic explination for not only the diversity of life, but the beginning of life (which is not evolution, by the way) derived by the study of the natural world we begin to find the necessity of a god is, in all actuallity, not that necessary.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Sun = Helios? No. Religion is an outlet for ignorance. God will be disproven in time.
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
The difference being: We know how the sun works and can physically see that it's not being pulled across the sky by some guy in a chariot.
How could you do the same with god?
Our understanding of the motions and how we think they move, as well as the processes in that go on in the sun, are only theories. The same type of theory that evolution is.
But at the same time that is the crux of his point: we now have a better, naturalistic understanding of the motions of the celestial bodies and many other things. That has ruled out with the utmost certainty the existence of Helios.
By the same token, as we begin to find a naturalistic explination derived by the study of the natural world we begin to find the necessity of a god is, in all actuallity, not that necessary.
What I was kind of trying to say, though, is how could you ever fully understand the universe? It just seems like there's no way for us to see ABSOLUTELY everything in exsistance.
Sun = Helios? No. Religion is an outlet for ignorance. God will be disproven in time.
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
The difference being: We know how the sun works and can physically see that it's not being pulled across the sky by some guy in a chariot.
How could you do the same with god?
Our understanding of the motions and how we think they move, as well as the processes in that go on in the sun, are only theories. The same type of theory that evolution is.
But at the same time that is the crux of his point: we now have a better, naturalistic understanding of the motions of the celestial bodies and many other things. That has ruled out with the utmost certainty the existence of Helios.
By the same token, as we begin to find a naturalistic explination derived by the study of the natural world we begin to find the necessity of a god is, in all actuallity, not that necessary.
What I was kind of trying to say, though, is how could you ever fully understand the universe? It just seems like there's no way for us to see ABSOLUTELY everything. You could probably prove how our universe was formed, but that still wouldn't neccesarily disprove the existence of god.
That is true, but take it like this:
The existence of Helios has not been disproven either, only rather the likelyhood that he is the cause, or rather the function, of the motion has been almost entirely ruled out.
By that same reasoning, we can show as we try to advance (I say try because the most extreme religious individuals would prefer if we stopped) our understanding of the Universe, its formation and evolution and functions, that the likelyhood that a god is the cause or the function of the Universe's evolution or formation will be shown to be increasingly unlikely to the point where you recognize that with almost certainty that the god does not even exist.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Sun = Helios? No. Religion is an outlet for ignorance. God will be disproven in time.
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
The difference being: We know how the sun works and can physically see that it's not being pulled across the sky by some guy in a chariot.
How could you do the same with god?
Our understanding of the motions and how we think they move, as well as the processes in that go on in the sun, are only theories. The same type of theory that evolution is.
But at the same time that is the crux of his point: we now have a better, naturalistic understanding of the motions of the celestial bodies and many other things. That has ruled out with the utmost certainty the existence of Helios.
By the same token, as we begin to find a naturalistic explination derived by the study of the natural world we begin to find the necessity of a god is, in all actuallity, not that necessary.
What I was kind of trying to say, though, is how could you ever fully understand the universe? It just seems like there's no way for us to see ABSOLUTELY everything. You could probably prove how our universe was formed, but that still wouldn't neccesarily disprove the existence of god.
That is true, but take it like this:
The existence of Helios has not been disproven either, only rather the likelyhood that he is the cause, or rather the function, of the motion has been almost entirely ruled out.
By that same reasoning, we can show as we try to advance (I say try because the most extreme religious individuals would prefer if we stopped) our understanding of the Universe, its formation and evolution and functions, that the likelyhood that a god is the cause or the function of the Universe's evolution or formation will be shown to be increasingly unlikely to the point where you recognize that with almost certainty that the god does not even exist.
I see what you're saying, but when it comes to the formation of the universe, there are just so many possibilities that you can never lean one way or the other without bringing faith into the equation. If it was the big bang, what made that dense little piece of space? And then what made that? Maybe, whether it was a god or that tiny spec of....everything, it was always there? And then if it really was always there, there's some kind of crazy space and time mindfuck shit going on that makes my brain hurt when I think about it too much. Basically what I'm asking is, could you ever really find the very beginning of absolutely everything?
Sun = Helios? No. Religion is an outlet for ignorance. God will be disproven in time.
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
The difference being: We know how the sun works and can physically see that it's not being pulled across the sky by some guy in a chariot.
How could you do the same with god?
Our understanding of the motions and how we think they move, as well as the processes in that go on in the sun, are only theories. The same type of theory that evolution is.
But at the same time that is the crux of his point: we now have a better, naturalistic understanding of the motions of the celestial bodies and many other things. That has ruled out with the utmost certainty the existence of Helios.
By the same token, as we begin to find a naturalistic explination derived by the study of the natural world we begin to find the necessity of a god is, in all actuallity, not that necessary.
What I was kind of trying to say, though, is how could you ever fully understand the universe? It just seems like there's no way for us to see ABSOLUTELY everything. You could probably prove how our universe was formed, but that still wouldn't neccesarily disprove the existence of god.
That is true, but take it like this:
The existence of Helios has not been disproven either, only rather the likelyhood that he is the cause, or rather the function, of the motion has been almost entirely ruled out.
By that same reasoning, we can show as we try to advance (I say try because the most extreme religious individuals would prefer if we stopped) our understanding of the Universe, its formation and evolution and functions, that the likelyhood that a god is the cause or the function of the Universe's evolution or formation will be shown to be increasingly unlikely to the point where you recognize that with almost certainty that the god does not even exist.
I see what you're saying, but when it comes to the formation of the universe, there are just so many possibilities that you can never lean one way or the other without bringing faith into the equation. If it was the big bang, what made that dense little piece of space? And then what made that? Maybe, whether it was a god or that tiny spec of....everything, it was always there? And then if it really was always there, there's some kind of crazy space and time mindfuck shit going on that makes my brain hurt when I think about it too much. Basically what I'm asking is, could you ever really find the very beginning of absolutely everything?
I see what you're trying to say, but I disagree with your conclusion: I think the appropriate answer is I don't know. I don't know what was before this Universe and from our understandings of nature we wont be able to know (actually right now we understand it is impossible to understand what happened in the first 10^-43 seconds of the Universe.
However, what I do know is that nothing I have seen so far has required the works of a god, or supernatural entity so why would the Universe's beginning be any different? Perhaps it could be, I can't know for certain, but taking into account the rest of the Universe I think the answer is I don't know, but it is more likely it wasn't a god.
Perhaps that's where theists get lost, because what I've said before is within the reasoning of deciding there is no god, so when I, or more than likely any other atheist says that Universe was not created by a god it really implies the above. Perhaps we expect you to understand that but maybe not because maybe you haven't gone down that reasoning so you take things as absolute.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
I've said this on these forums before, but i have never received a reply that i hae fully understood. Why are creationists so against evolution when The Book of Genesis describes both The Big Bang theory and Evolution in such a amazing way. Not only do you have the creation of man from clay, you also have these selected quotes posted in order within the book. "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." All life evolving from sea creatures. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." Now come the mammels. "26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
And then man. I find this an absolutly remarkable understanding of the origins of life, as understod by modern science, for the time that The Book was written. All this without any need for creationism, intelligent design, geocentricism or any other pseudo-scientific theory which is seemingly designed in a Galileo-esqe attempt at perverting the remarkable world that we observe around us while at the same time twisting the words written in The Bible for mans own needs. Finally, Faith should never require any scientific evidence or experimental proofs.
You're interpreting the words of men, not god. Also, if that's how it's meant to be interpretted then can you explain the scripture about Adam and Eve?
Lacking a direct experience of a transcendent presence such as experienced by Plato and some others of us, we begin the proof with the observation that all cultures known to history had at core a set of beliefs they held to be absolute. The obvious examples are Egypt under the Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the kingdoms of Europe during the Medieval Period, and the United States. The Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, and the Emperors of Rome were gods to those bonded to the respective culture. Medieval Europe was order by the "divine right of kings," and the authority of the king was accepted as absolute. The American was the end point of cultural development wherein the "divine right of the individual" supplanted the "divine right of the king." The conclusion from this (inductive logic) is that humans need an absolute (God) upon which to construct identity, meaning, and the prescriptive behavior essential to the expansive forward development of the culture.
We can extend the concept of a need for God to the individual through the work of Joseph Campbell and Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim. Those two show that humans everywhere, at all stages of history, strive to imagine a heroic existence. From the outside we dismiss it as myth or personal delusion. From the inside it is an expression of need . . . our myths and delusions are really saying "this is the person . . . this is the people . . . we need to be in order to be loved, admired, respected as we need to be." The myth and/or delusion is the most fantastic imaginable because the underlying need is a need for God. Fulfillment of this need is not optional. As Conrad showed us the failure to succeed in our opportunity to be a god marks the end of life. So it has been with all of the cultures of the past who once imagined they were the carriers of absolute truth. From this we can set down the following logical propositions:
If I have a need for an absolute and did not know it, I was created with a need for an absolute and did not understand it.
If I was created with a need for an absolute there had to be in creation an absolute that would fill that need.
To know of the need for an absolute and then being totally unable to discover such an absolute would result in mental illness and/or social dysfunction and then death.
The true absolute would know of our propensity to self-destruct due to our ignorance and so would take the initiative in revelation in the hope of saving us.
The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition has always taken the initiative.
All of the above is inductive reasoning. Though often presented by science as capable in itself of being judged absolute, most of us would stop short of such an extreme conclusion. Experimentation, such as conducted by science, to achieve a stronger degree of proof is also possible in the effort to prove the existence of God. Religious experimentation, however, requires the individual embark on individually designed experiments based upon Holy Scripture.
Many of us alive today, and many others through out history have conducted many well designed experiments and know conclusively there is a God.
Lets take it a step further. Lacking a direct experience of a transcendent presence such as experienced by Plato and some others of us, we begin the proof with the observation that all cultures known to history had at core a set of beliefs they held to be absolute. The obvious examples are Egypt under the Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the kingdoms of Europe during the Medieval Period, and the United States. The Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, and the Emperors of Rome were gods to those bonded to the respective culture. Medieval Europe was order by the "divine right of kings," and the authority of the king was accepted as absolute. The American was the end point of cultural development wherein the "divine right of the individual" supplanted the "divine right of the king." The conclusion from this (inductive logic) is that humans need an absolute (God) upon which to construct identity, meaning, and the prescriptive behavior essential to the expansive forward development of the culture.
We can extend the concept of a need for God to the individual through the work of Joseph Campbell and Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim. Those two show that humans everywhere, at all stages of history, strive to imagine a heroic existence. From the outside we dismiss it as myth or personal delusion. From the inside it is an expression of need . . . our myths and delusions are really saying "this is the person . . . this is the people . . . we need to be in order to be loved, admired, respected as we need to be." The myth and/or delusion is the most fantastic imaginable because the underlying need is a need for God. Fulfillment of this need is not optional. As Conrad showed us the failure to succeed in our opportunity to be a god marks the end of life. So it has been with all of the cultures of the past who once imagined they were the carriers of absolute truth. From this we can set down the following logical propositions:
If I have a need for an absolute and did not know it, I was created with a need for an absolute and did not understand it.
If I was created with a need for an absolute there had to be in creation an absolute that would fill that need.
To know of the need for an absolute and then being totally unable to discover such an absolute would result in mental illness and/or social dysfunction and then death.
The true absolute would know of our propensity to self-destruct due to our ignorance and so would take the initiative in revelation in the hope of saving us.
The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition has always taken the initiative. All of the above is inductive reasoning. Though often presented by science as capable in itself of being judged absolute, most of us would stop short of such an extreme conclusion. Experimentation, such as conducted by science, to achieve a stronger degree of proof is also possible in the effort to prove the existence of God. Religious experimentation, however, requires the individual embark on individually designed experiments based upon Holy Scripture. Many of us alive today, and many others through out history have conducted many well designed experiments and know conclusively there is a God.
I disagree. I want you to ask for what purpose did those absolute beliefs exist? They aren't necessary for a basis of morality, so what was their function in society?
Well looking through history, who had power in a tribe, settlement, city, nation-state, or what have you? The common vein among them is divine right -- they ruled because the absolute beliefs dictated they were above human. This is indicated by your first paragraph.
However I disagree with some of the assumptions and conclusions resulting from that -- that is the need for a god. It is not necessary, but for those in positions of power it is necessary to maintain their power. In other words: the need for a god is contrived -- contrived to keep those under it complacent with control. What happened is that in the modern day reason is slowly beginning to unravel that: people are beginning to realize that it is not necessary, but rather we are responsible for the one life we have and to have it be subverted by constrictive and illegitimate power is not acceptable.
I also disagree with the notion that "needing to be heroic" implies the need for a god. I think the real answer is that we strive for our own heroic existence because of our own egoism. We want to be "heroic" because it inflates our sense of ego.
And the rest is just nonsense.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Originally posted by outfctrl All of the above is inductive reasoning. Though often presented by science as capable in itself of being judged absolute, most of us would stop short of such an extreme conclusion. Experimentation, such as conducted by science, to achieve a stronger degree of proof is also possible in the effort to prove the existence of God. Religious experimentation, however, requires the individual embark on individually designed experiments based upon Holy Scripture. Many of us alive today, and many others through out history have conducted many well designed experiments and know conclusively there is a God.
whoa there, this also has no scientific merit. Individual testimony is not valid in a scientific theory, only a consensus through repeatable experimentation is.
What that means is you need to report the experimental conditions that allow me to observe the hypothesis. In the case of ID, that there is an intelligence that designed the universe.
The whirlpool of cosmic stuff that spawned the solar system spins because it is one small part of the great rotating galaxy, the Milky Way. When a random fluctuation causes enough gas and dust to bunch together, gravity takes over and celestial bodies begin to form. If you want to know where the galaxies came from, there are answers as well. Ultimately, it all comes down to the Big Bang.
That is where the chain of reasoning bottoms out. What caused the primordial explosion?
Why there is something instead of nothing is not an issue that science is well equipped to address. As cosmologists understand it, the primordial eruption did not take place at a certain instant in a certain place. The Big Bang created absolutely everything, including space-time itself.
How can anyone ask what set the whole thing going if there was no space or time for a creator to be in, much less any matter or energy for Him or Her or It to work with?
The various parameters of the universe -- the charge of the electron, the strength of gravity, and so forth -- appear to be finely tuned to support the existence of stars and atoms and molecules and life. If the conditions at the instant of the Big Bang had been slightly different, then the universe would have been a colossal waste of space-time.
So are we the lucky benefactors of blind chance?
or
Was life was planned all along by God
I guess we will never know, but for now, God seems the most logical.
The whirlpool of cosmic stuff that spawned the solar system spins because it is one small part of the great rotating galaxy, the Milky Way. When a random fluctuation causes enough gas and dust to bunch together, gravity takes over and celestial bodies begin to form. If you want to know where the galaxies came from, there are answers as well. Ultimately, it all comes down to the Big Bang. That is where the chain of reasoning bottoms out. What caused the primordial explosion? Why there is something instead of nothing is not an issue that science is well equipped to address. As cosmologists understand it, the primordial eruption did not take place at a certain instant in a certain place. The Big Bang created absolutely everything, including space-time itself. How can anyone ask what set the whole thing going if there was no space or time for a creator to be in, much less any matter or energy for Him or Her or It to work with? The various parameters of the universe -- the charge of the electron, the strength of gravity, and so forth -- appear to be finely tuned to support the existence of stars and atoms and molecules and life. If the conditions at the instant of the Big Bang had been slightly different, then the universe would have been a colossal waste of space-time. So are we the lucky benefactors of blind chance? or Was life was planned all along by God I guess we will never know, but for now, God seems the most logical.
2000 years ago science wasn't "well equipped" to solve most things and indeed people like you put god into the empty holes. Chance is relative, you can consider your race against 10,000 sperms to be a 1/10,000 chance of you being born and therefore your existence is miraculous and only god could have done it. Or of course you can accept the fact that out of those 9,999 other possible cases somebody else just like you would be stood there saying the exact same thing.
Comments
Well, explain this, if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?
Define "Complete and fully formed" please. Everything you see on this world is in a transitionary state. Nothing has fully evolved including humans. Everything will continue to evolve until it becomes extinct. Extinction of a species is the only thing that stops evolution in that species. Everything you see around you is "partially evolved" as you put it including us.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
It's great that you can believe in whatever makes you happy, but that doesn't make it true. I'd rather believe in something because there's more evidence in it than just because I think it'd make me happier, nor could I do that.
Also, what do you attribute to the soul? Is it your decisions (Animals make decisions too)? Is it your emotions (taking into account that a physical object, i.e. an anti depressant drug, can alter your emotions)? Or possibly your self awareness (the fact that there are animals who can recognise their own reflection as themselves means there are self conscious animals)?
The idea of a soul is nice but when it boils down to what that soul does I'm pretty sure anyone with a basic understanding of what the brain is can conclude we don't have one.
Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences.
It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life.
In my case, I believe it is God.
No, ID is not scientific in any shape or form. the first and most basic problem is that it is untestable.
If there is an external intelligence, how can we reliably interact with it? the answer is we can't. This very fundamental point makes it loose any scientific validity as a theory.
Stripped of the big words, this says "things are so complicated they must have been designed" which again has no scientific rigor. There is plenty of evidence that a great deal of complexity can arise from simple non-linear systems. How far can you predict the weather for example. Additionally, there is plenty of evidence of ordered structures forming by themselves, for example, the crystallization of minerals. This formation doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics either.
So there are local systems that can show great complexity as well as some that show high order. This is readily observable around you, things that can be explored and tested, changed and manipulated.
Now, knowing how evolution works, you can develope simple reproductive rules in some elementary computer code and you can get things like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
Everything we see observe interacts with things we can observe. As soon as you reach for an external influence to explain a model you give up the opportunity to explore the world around us further. Not only is it unscientific to me it is simple cowardice.
A lack of courage to actually ask harder questions.
If you say "that is so complex it must have been designed" you loose the opportunity to find out how it formed naturally and then use that knowledge to build new technology.
The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.
Kinda like frog soup...the frog has all the building blocks needed to make life.
So lets throw it into a blender and put into a glass and expose it to all the elements of mature for lets say 1 million yrs.. so million yrs later what to we have, still frog soup.with out the code it just frog soup.
Although DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros.
This is the single most powerful complex fact that they the scientific community is trying to understand.
With out the code its all just soup,this is why we still apes with us that never evolved.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Hm... I'll try to explain this as simple as I can: the "myth" of Adam and Eve is-just-a-story from a book (considered sacred for one religion) called the Bible.
And when you consider your "microevolution" (or whatever you want to call it), have in mind an event that not only happens over a very long period of time (millions of years) but that also happens many repeated times (consider a population of a species).
of course, only a god could make something with DNA
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/dna-box-3d-dna-nanotechnology.html
Lets back up and just leave God, religion, or adherence to any religious text out of this for a moment, but rather lets use observations about how intelligent design works in the present to look at aspects of the natural world to see if they are designed.
Intelligent design theory is based solely upon applying observations about intelligent action and principles of information theory to the construction of biological systems, and nothing more. Also, lets say there is nothing mystical, supernatural, religious, or non-scientific about intelligent design theory.
In its current form, intelligent design theory also can say nothing about the designer other than that the designer was intelligent. Whether you agree with the methodology of intelligent design theory or not, you have to agree with one thing:
it has a scientific basis.
it would be scientific if that intelligence could be interacted with.
OK... so... based on your hypothetical Intelligent Design (ID) scenario here, we must ignore the "God" ideal. Therefore, what are you proposing created us? ... aliens? So, "God" vs. aliens in creating the Human race... if ID was correct, which I'm not saying it is, I'd be more willing to place my money on aliens over a mythical being created from a book made thousands of years ago by sun-stricken people.
However, If I did believe in ID, I'm betting I would be in the minority, as I would imagine at least 90% of people who believe in ID would be religious individuals (ie... saying "God" did it). 9% would believe that aliens had a better shot than "God" of doing it. And the other 1% would be sitting in their houses, carrying a massive stock of tinfoil for their hats, while continually watching the X-Files and constantly muttering, "They're out there."
Sun = Helios?
No.
Religion is an outlet for ignorance.
God will be disproven in time.
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
The difference being: We know how the sun works and can physically see that it's not being pulled across the sky by some guy in a chariot.
How could you do the same with god?
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
The difference being: We know how the sun works and can physically see that it's not being pulled across the sky by some guy in a chariot.
How could you do the same with god?
Our understanding of the motions and how we think they move, as well as the processes that go on in the sun, are only theories. The same type of theory that evolution is.
But at the same time that is the crux of his point: we now have a better, naturalistic understanding of the motions of the celestial bodies and many other things. That has ruled out with the utmost certainty the existence of Helios.
By the same token, as we begin to find a naturalistic explination for not only the diversity of life, but the beginning of life (which is not evolution, by the way) derived by the study of the natural world we begin to find the necessity of a god is, in all actuallity, not that necessary.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
The difference being: We know how the sun works and can physically see that it's not being pulled across the sky by some guy in a chariot.
How could you do the same with god?
Our understanding of the motions and how we think they move, as well as the processes in that go on in the sun, are only theories. The same type of theory that evolution is.
But at the same time that is the crux of his point: we now have a better, naturalistic understanding of the motions of the celestial bodies and many other things. That has ruled out with the utmost certainty the existence of Helios.
By the same token, as we begin to find a naturalistic explination derived by the study of the natural world we begin to find the necessity of a god is, in all actuallity, not that necessary.
What I was kind of trying to say, though, is how could you ever fully understand the universe? It just seems like there's no way for us to see ABSOLUTELY everything in exsistance.
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
The difference being: We know how the sun works and can physically see that it's not being pulled across the sky by some guy in a chariot.
How could you do the same with god?
Our understanding of the motions and how we think they move, as well as the processes in that go on in the sun, are only theories. The same type of theory that evolution is.
But at the same time that is the crux of his point: we now have a better, naturalistic understanding of the motions of the celestial bodies and many other things. That has ruled out with the utmost certainty the existence of Helios.
By the same token, as we begin to find a naturalistic explination derived by the study of the natural world we begin to find the necessity of a god is, in all actuallity, not that necessary.
What I was kind of trying to say, though, is how could you ever fully understand the universe? It just seems like there's no way for us to see ABSOLUTELY everything. You could probably prove how our universe was formed, but that still wouldn't neccesarily disprove the existence of god.
That is true, but take it like this:
The existence of Helios has not been disproven either, only rather the likelyhood that he is the cause, or rather the function, of the motion has been almost entirely ruled out.
By that same reasoning, we can show as we try to advance (I say try because the most extreme religious individuals would prefer if we stopped) our understanding of the Universe, its formation and evolution and functions, that the likelyhood that a god is the cause or the function of the Universe's evolution or formation will be shown to be increasingly unlikely to the point where you recognize that with almost certainty that the god does not even exist.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
The difference being: We know how the sun works and can physically see that it's not being pulled across the sky by some guy in a chariot.
How could you do the same with god?
Our understanding of the motions and how we think they move, as well as the processes in that go on in the sun, are only theories. The same type of theory that evolution is.
But at the same time that is the crux of his point: we now have a better, naturalistic understanding of the motions of the celestial bodies and many other things. That has ruled out with the utmost certainty the existence of Helios.
By the same token, as we begin to find a naturalistic explination derived by the study of the natural world we begin to find the necessity of a god is, in all actuallity, not that necessary.
What I was kind of trying to say, though, is how could you ever fully understand the universe? It just seems like there's no way for us to see ABSOLUTELY everything. You could probably prove how our universe was formed, but that still wouldn't neccesarily disprove the existence of god.
That is true, but take it like this:
The existence of Helios has not been disproven either, only rather the likelyhood that he is the cause, or rather the function, of the motion has been almost entirely ruled out.
By that same reasoning, we can show as we try to advance (I say try because the most extreme religious individuals would prefer if we stopped) our understanding of the Universe, its formation and evolution and functions, that the likelyhood that a god is the cause or the function of the Universe's evolution or formation will be shown to be increasingly unlikely to the point where you recognize that with almost certainty that the god does not even exist.
I see what you're saying, but when it comes to the formation of the universe, there are just so many possibilities that you can never lean one way or the other without bringing faith into the equation. If it was the big bang, what made that dense little piece of space? And then what made that? Maybe, whether it was a god or that tiny spec of....everything, it was always there? And then if it really was always there, there's some kind of crazy space and time mindfuck shit going on that makes my brain hurt when I think about it too much. Basically what I'm asking is, could you ever really find the very beginning of absolutely everything?
They can prove that the things certain religions teach are bullshit, but I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of god.
Back in the times of Paganism this is how you would post:
"But I'd say it's pretty much impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of Helios."
The difference being: We know how the sun works and can physically see that it's not being pulled across the sky by some guy in a chariot.
How could you do the same with god?
Our understanding of the motions and how we think they move, as well as the processes in that go on in the sun, are only theories. The same type of theory that evolution is.
But at the same time that is the crux of his point: we now have a better, naturalistic understanding of the motions of the celestial bodies and many other things. That has ruled out with the utmost certainty the existence of Helios.
By the same token, as we begin to find a naturalistic explination derived by the study of the natural world we begin to find the necessity of a god is, in all actuallity, not that necessary.
What I was kind of trying to say, though, is how could you ever fully understand the universe? It just seems like there's no way for us to see ABSOLUTELY everything. You could probably prove how our universe was formed, but that still wouldn't neccesarily disprove the existence of god.
That is true, but take it like this:
The existence of Helios has not been disproven either, only rather the likelyhood that he is the cause, or rather the function, of the motion has been almost entirely ruled out.
By that same reasoning, we can show as we try to advance (I say try because the most extreme religious individuals would prefer if we stopped) our understanding of the Universe, its formation and evolution and functions, that the likelyhood that a god is the cause or the function of the Universe's evolution or formation will be shown to be increasingly unlikely to the point where you recognize that with almost certainty that the god does not even exist.
I see what you're saying, but when it comes to the formation of the universe, there are just so many possibilities that you can never lean one way or the other without bringing faith into the equation. If it was the big bang, what made that dense little piece of space? And then what made that? Maybe, whether it was a god or that tiny spec of....everything, it was always there? And then if it really was always there, there's some kind of crazy space and time mindfuck shit going on that makes my brain hurt when I think about it too much. Basically what I'm asking is, could you ever really find the very beginning of absolutely everything?
I see what you're trying to say, but I disagree with your conclusion: I think the appropriate answer is I don't know. I don't know what was before this Universe and from our understandings of nature we wont be able to know (actually right now we understand it is impossible to understand what happened in the first 10^-43 seconds of the Universe.
However, what I do know is that nothing I have seen so far has required the works of a god, or supernatural entity so why would the Universe's beginning be any different? Perhaps it could be, I can't know for certain, but taking into account the rest of the Universe I think the answer is I don't know, but it is more likely it wasn't a god.
Perhaps that's where theists get lost, because what I've said before is within the reasoning of deciding there is no god, so when I, or more than likely any other atheist says that Universe was not created by a god it really implies the above. Perhaps we expect you to understand that but maybe not because maybe you haven't gone down that reasoning so you take things as absolute.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
You're interpreting the words of men, not god. Also, if that's how it's meant to be interpretted then can you explain the scripture about Adam and Eve?
Lets take it a step further.
Lacking a direct experience of a transcendent presence such as experienced by Plato and some others of us, we begin the proof with the observation that all cultures known to history had at core a set of beliefs they held to be absolute. The obvious examples are Egypt under the Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the kingdoms of Europe during the Medieval Period, and the United States. The Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, and the Emperors of Rome were gods to those bonded to the respective culture. Medieval Europe was order by the "divine right of kings," and the authority of the king was accepted as absolute. The American was the end point of cultural development wherein the "divine right of the individual" supplanted the "divine right of the king." The conclusion from this (inductive logic) is that humans need an absolute (God) upon which to construct identity, meaning, and the prescriptive behavior essential to the expansive forward development of the culture.
We can extend the concept of a need for God to the individual through the work of Joseph Campbell and Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim. Those two show that humans everywhere, at all stages of history, strive to imagine a heroic existence. From the outside we dismiss it as myth or personal delusion. From the inside it is an expression of need . . . our myths and delusions are really saying "this is the person . . . this is the people . . . we need to be in order to be loved, admired, respected as we need to be." The myth and/or delusion is the most fantastic imaginable because the underlying need is a need for God. Fulfillment of this need is not optional. As Conrad showed us the failure to succeed in our opportunity to be a god marks the end of life. So it has been with all of the cultures of the past who once imagined they were the carriers of absolute truth. From this we can set down the following logical propositions:
If I have a need for an absolute and did not know it, I was created with a need for an absolute and did not understand it.
If I was created with a need for an absolute there had to be in creation an absolute that would fill that need.
To know of the need for an absolute and then being totally unable to discover such an absolute would result in mental illness and/or social dysfunction and then death.
The true absolute would know of our propensity to self-destruct due to our ignorance and so would take the initiative in revelation in the hope of saving us.
The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition has always taken the initiative.
All of the above is inductive reasoning. Though often presented by science as capable in itself of being judged absolute, most of us would stop short of such an extreme conclusion. Experimentation, such as conducted by science, to achieve a stronger degree of proof is also possible in the effort to prove the existence of God. Religious experimentation, however, requires the individual embark on individually designed experiments based upon Holy Scripture.
Many of us alive today, and many others through out history have conducted many well designed experiments and know conclusively there is a God.
I disagree. I want you to ask for what purpose did those absolute beliefs exist? They aren't necessary for a basis of morality, so what was their function in society?
Well looking through history, who had power in a tribe, settlement, city, nation-state, or what have you? The common vein among them is divine right -- they ruled because the absolute beliefs dictated they were above human. This is indicated by your first paragraph.
However I disagree with some of the assumptions and conclusions resulting from that -- that is the need for a god. It is not necessary, but for those in positions of power it is necessary to maintain their power. In other words: the need for a god is contrived -- contrived to keep those under it complacent with control. What happened is that in the modern day reason is slowly beginning to unravel that: people are beginning to realize that it is not necessary, but rather we are responsible for the one life we have and to have it be subverted by constrictive and illegitimate power is not acceptable.
I also disagree with the notion that "needing to be heroic" implies the need for a god. I think the real answer is that we strive for our own heroic existence because of our own egoism. We want to be "heroic" because it inflates our sense of ego.
And the rest is just nonsense.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
whoa there, this also has no scientific merit. Individual testimony is not valid in a scientific theory, only a consensus through repeatable experimentation is.
What that means is you need to report the experimental conditions that allow me to observe the hypothesis. In the case of ID, that there is an intelligence that designed the universe.
Can i has experiment now please?
The whirlpool of cosmic stuff that spawned the solar system spins because it is one small part of the great rotating galaxy, the Milky Way. When a random fluctuation causes enough gas and dust to bunch together, gravity takes over and celestial bodies begin to form. If you want to know where the galaxies came from, there are answers as well. Ultimately, it all comes down to the Big Bang.
That is where the chain of reasoning bottoms out. What caused the primordial explosion?
Why there is something instead of nothing is not an issue that science is well equipped to address. As cosmologists understand it, the primordial eruption did not take place at a certain instant in a certain place. The Big Bang created absolutely everything, including space-time itself.
How can anyone ask what set the whole thing going if there was no space or time for a creator to be in, much less any matter or energy for Him or Her or It to work with?
The various parameters of the universe -- the charge of the electron, the strength of gravity, and so forth -- appear to be finely tuned to support the existence of stars and atoms and molecules and life. If the conditions at the instant of the Big Bang had been slightly different, then the universe would have been a colossal waste of space-time.
So are we the lucky benefactors of blind chance?
or
Was life was planned all along by God
I guess we will never know, but for now, God seems the most logical.
2000 years ago science wasn't "well equipped" to solve most things and indeed people like you put god into the empty holes. Chance is relative, you can consider your race against 10,000 sperms to be a 1/10,000 chance of you being born and therefore your existence is miraculous and only god could have done it. Or of course you can accept the fact that out of those 9,999 other possible cases somebody else just like you would be stood there saying the exact same thing.