This conversation is closed.

I believe life proves gods existence.

The natural way of the universe is entropy. However life as we know it is only getting more and more complex and ordered. This would seem to go against the notion of entropy. I like to think that god has something to do with instilling a sense of order in a chaotic universe.

  • thumb
    Mar 28 2011: It's interesting to see the arguments from both sides and how each one needs to be convinced by the other. On the one hand you have the scientific view and then one based on, for lack of better words, faith. I tend to lean more, far more, toward science. One problem with faith based explanations is the propensity to relate God to He. How do you know God isn't a She? But I digress. My view is that "the beginning", whether it was a Big Bang from a point of energy or whether String Theory and the collapse of multiple universes or some being deciding the entire Universe needed to center on human beings on this planet.....we'll it's likely we'll never know. And even if we did figure it out, and let's say it was the Big Bang, where did all the energy come from before the Big Bang? How did it build up that Bang? Where'd it come from? Why? Was this the first Big Bang or has it happened 84 times over 10 trillion years? Endless questions we just can't answer. So for myself, and what propels me each day, is knowing we're all here......the planets, stars, moons, quarks, black holes, people, clouds, radiation, etc. etc and we're all tied together like it or not. We come from the same beginning and from the same stuff. We live in what seems to be a bipolar universe with each feeding off the other. Good/Evil, Left/Right, Positive/Negative, Yin/Yang, Light/Dark and so on. You cannot have one without the other so, in a sense, it makes them the same thing. Which takes me right back to my first two sentences above. Round and round we go and where, why, how it all started, and will end, nobody knows. But let's keep searching.
    • thumb
      Mar 29 2011: great point. Sometimes I think the disagreement comes from which part of the circle of thought we choose to be in haha
  • thumb
    Mar 31 2011: Sam-

    Given the context of the TED conversations you have contributed to thus far it's clear that you have well formed convictions. To couch this particular talk in the language of science though (vis-a-vi entropy)I have to wonder if you have had any training in the advanced mathematics or physics of that discipline? I only ask because a casual observer might assume you're speaking with authority.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm no physicist I just want to make sure that it comes from somewhere when you ask your question. If not it could be much the same as a baker posting to TED that "since the natural state of the world is entropy and since I make bread from egg, water, and flour it seems that I move against entropy and there must be something divine in that."

    Younus-

    I couldn't help notice that your profile says to talk to you about "Irrationals" and that people don't know that you're good at "reading minds". I think it's a point worthy of reflection that someone like yourself with a deep incite into the human condition and a rock steady handle on rationality finds himself so confounded by artists, scientists and researchers on this thread who have made a professional life from rationality and communication.
    • thumb
      Mar 31 2011: Appreciated your comment B. Reynolds ...
      It would be a pleasure to talk to you in your areas of interests, I found them quite interesting and appealing.

      Cheers
    • thumb
      Mar 31 2011: talking about irrationals leads us to come to an understanding of why they are rationals. That is what I am projecting in ways...

      cheers
  • Mar 28 2011: Comparing a generality of a big picture to something on the macro level doesn't prove anything. Over the course of the past century, inflation has gone up. However, that doesn't mean that there was never a time where it trended in the other direction over a limited period of time within the last century. I can't say that because the overall trend of the economy is for inflation to go up, the fact that there was no inflation or there was a reversal of inflation for a time proves there must be some supreme power controlling the economy that must have intervened to make the trend reverse or stop on a macro level.

    So, your theory that a trend on a macro level going against that of the main trend of the universe at large proves the existence of a higher power, isn't actually able to prove anything beyond the fact that macro level trends don't necessarily follow the overall trend.
    • Mar 28 2011: i guess i just have more faith in humanity to spread out through the universe
      • thumb
        Mar 29 2011: your faith will take 4.3 years to reach Proxima Centauri provided its travelling at the speed of light.
      • Mar 30 2011: Eh, I completely believe if we survive long enough we'll spread out throughout the universe, but that doesn't make your false proof a true proof. ((Macro level trend != big picture trend) == proof) != true
  • thumb
    Mar 28 2011: Proving God existence only through scientific means may prove frustrating, people waiting for God to be proved will never settle for lessthan a peer-reviewed paper, on the other hand believers won't be able to produce such a paper and we seem to have to rely only in our faith. But logic and philosohpy may come in handy.

    Immanuel Kant “demonstrated” using logic postulates two things: That god existence CAN be inferred from nature, and that God Existence CAN'T be inferred from nature, therefore, he said, God existence can't be proved or disproved by human means, therefore the question of whether it exists or not belong to a different level that human can’t reach*. Kant’s approach usually leads the positivist to denounce the “argument from ignorance” (i.e. since I can’t prove it should exist) and they may have a point there, it’s true that from a scientific point of view you can’t prove anything just by wielding that argument, but it doesn’t mean I have to discard God existence just because the argumentative approach is not valid, even more, if we take a strict scientific-method approach, God existence is in the same place than String Theory, they both have a lot of good points but none of them has been proved following the scientific method.

    I seriously doubt that universe entropy will ever prove God existence (or the contrary) Like Kant I think God existence prove is beyond human resources and in part it’s what make him God, the moment that human reason understands God it ceases to be God, it has happened many times over our history, many candidates held the title just to be dethroned by human reason, it seems that the far a candidate is from being explained in scientific terms the less godly it's. Ask someone to describe God and she most likely use words like “love”or “hope”, or if he’s a candid atheist “anger” or “fanatic”, no matter which side you won’t hear anything “scientific”.

    *please note that for this post sake I over-simplified Kant’s arguments.
  • thumb
    Mar 28 2011: this entropy argument is older than dirt. entropy always grows, in an isolated system. the earth is not an isolated system, as it is radiated by the sun. all we need is entropy growing faster in the sun than decreasing on the earth. given the sheer size of the sun, and the amount of fusion in it, i bet my house on that.
  • thumb
    Mar 28 2011: The universe is undergoing entropy. Locally, entropy can increase as it decreases somewhere else. the Earth isn't a closed system so it's no exception. There's this thing powering all of life, it's called....The Sun! Why would the second law of thermodynamics be a law of nature if it contradicted observation on so many levels? Your weird take on entropy would mean that stars couldn't form, galaxies couldn't clump together, planets couldn't form and living cells couldn't grow, nevermind the complexity of life. No, the reason it's a law is that it works, unequivocally works and all you've proven here is that you don't understand entropy. Unlike you I understand science and I don't believe in God. You're going to have to try harder.
    • thumb
      Mar 28 2011: Science is the name of research nothing more. Science is not beyond nature's behaviour i.e. fully awared of. There are many other phenomenons that can not still be proven by science. God is the supreme power, where all of us have to be returned i.e. after life. We are living in 3D world right now and when we die, our spirits leave this body and goes to 4D. Where we are destined to live eternally and have to be answerable to God for all our good or bad deeds. Earth is the limited time framed place just to observe the good and bad, to attain goodness in most we can and eliminating the bad by restricting ourselves.

      I hope you do have a belief in good and evil?

      Cheers
      • thumb
        Mar 28 2011: All of what you just said has no factual basis whatsoever, so I'm going to go ahead and ignore it.
        • thumb
          Mar 29 2011: facts are to be found, not known :)
      • thumb
        Mar 29 2011: Because nothing would work out if we ignore each other, I'm going to go ahead and explain why what you say doesn't have any factual basis:

        1) "Science is the name of research nothing more."

        From Wikipedia on Science
        "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world."
        Keyword is "testable". If something is not testable, it's not science, but mere speculation.

        And on Research
        "Research can be defined as the search for knowledge, or as any systematic investigation, with an open mind, to establish novel facts, usually using a scientific method."
        Keyword is "search". (Re)search is what scientists do before coming up with testable explanations.

        2) "Science is not beyond nature's behaviour i.e. fully awared of. There are many other phenomenons that can not still be proven by science."
        Yet.
        If we allowed any unprovable concept to keep us hostage, humanity would've never found out that the earth is round, among many other things.

        3) "We are living in 3D world right now and when we die, our spirits leave this body and goes to 4D."
        Actually, we EXIST in a 3D world and LIVE in a 4D world, where the 4th dimension is time.
        Compare a picture of a rectangle with that of a cube with the same sized side, looked directly at one side. The 3rd dimension is still there, but you don't perceive it because you're looking at this one side. In the same way, time is still in the world, though we can't visually perceive it, but just experience it.
        I'm willing to accept the possibility of there being additional dimensions to our universe, but they'll be in the same universe, not a separate afterlife universe.

        4) "I hope you do have a belief in good and evil?"
        I don't believe in good and evil. I KNOW good and evil. I know all life has the capacity to do good or evil. We all have brains that have neuron activity that could lead in either direction.
        • thumb
          Mar 29 2011: I appreciate your considerations over my views mate :)
          i would like to make it more simple now...

          1 & 2) If we had to believe on wikipedia and stuffs before coming up with our views, then why would we even bother to speak our minds here? Can you prove why does Modern Medical Science is still not awared 10% of the reasons of being impotent?? Why 70% of world is of water, same as our body consists the same proportion?? Why still science is not capable of producing Magnet??

          3 & 4) Infact there are found to be more than 11 dimensions, can you explain from you own poin of views, but not from wikipedia's search...What does it take to diff in doing good and bad without coming up with outcomes? Why still we insist in doing good then??
      • thumb
        Mar 29 2011: 1) "If we had to believe on wikipedia and stuffs before coming up with our views, then why would we even bother to speak our minds here?"
        There is a difference between facts and opinions. A fact is something that can be confirmed to be true, whereas an opinion is something that can't be. A person's "views" are his opinions. They don't include "facts" by definition. "Facts" are instead part of a person's "knowledge", and can often be used as a basis for forming "views" on non-yet-proven issues.

        You can't have an opinion on whether the earth is flat or round - it's a fact that the earth is round. If you strive to be an astronaut, you could see it for yourself (i.e. this is provable), but until then, video footages will have to serve as proof for you and me alike.

        We're speaking our minds here to put out our opinions, learn/teach facts and opinions, reshape our views, repeat.

        2) "Infact there are found to be more than 11 dimensions"
        Those 11 dimensions are currently only mathematically proven. Science hasn't yet figured out if/how each one of those dimensions, beyond the 4th, fits into our universe, because no scientist has yet come up with a physical test that someone can perform to see this. But again, even if they do, that's still our universe, not a separate universe.

        3) "Can you prove why does Modern Medical Science is still not awared 10% of the reasons of being impotent??"
        And you're saying (again without proof) modern medical science became aware of 90% because God/religion changed its mind and decided the world needs to know? Facts suggest otherwise - that those 90% were found by scientists instead. It's only a matter of time before the other 10% are found, same way as the 90% were once 0%.

        4) "Why 70% of world is of water, same as our body consists the same proportion??"
        Maybe because the universe is actually behaving in a predictable way regardless of scale - like a fractal.

        5) "Why still science is not capable of producing Magnet??"
        Floppy disks?
        • thumb
          Mar 29 2011: I've got a magnet on my fridge Younus.
        • thumb
          Mar 29 2011: Floopy disk doesn't produce magnet, instead every electronics is made up of magnet. Again magnet can not be produced :)

          @ Matthieu - Same reply for you, fridge works because of magnet, but is not a source to PRODUCE it :)
        • thumb
          Mar 29 2011: Earth is not found to be round, but an egg shaped :)
        • thumb
          Mar 29 2011: Water is itself a mystry brother, there are many other factors as to why universe behaves in such pattern. I would suggest you to learn about water, and you'll come up with a new understanding of why, how, when and what could be done by water :)

          I have studied water in depth and still learning about it and the more i come to know it, the more curious it makes me
      • thumb
        Mar 29 2011: @Younus Ali
        "Water is itself a mystry brother, there are many other factors as to why universe behaves in such pattern."
        Exactly the reason God is not it. There are MANY factors. Using a being that made it that way is over simplification that doesn't map to the truth. You said you've studied water in depth... have you found any evidence of there being God involved in its creation? Any test that we may do in a certain environment which would suggest that water has a free will, therefore has some sort of an energy or matter that has will, therefore "god" per your earlier definition?

        "Floopy disk doesn't produce magnet, instead every electronics is made up of magnet. Again magnet can not be produced :)"
        I'm not sure I follow... for something to be made up of a magnet, doesn't that magnet have to first be produced, and therefore, aren't we able to produce magnets?

        "Earth is not found to be round, but an egg shaped :)"
        I didn't say "sphere", I said "round", and an "egg" is a kind of a round shape. Last time I checked, earth isn't exactly an egg either, but more like "rounded egg-like" shape... but that's just semantics anyway. Point was that it's not what religions want you to "believe" without evidence.
        • thumb
          Mar 29 2011: I would recommend you to read the Holy book, Quran. It was revealed 1400 years back and the things which are mentioned there in that holy book, science has reached to this era with new findings.
          Furthermore, here is the link i would like you to watch,

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y2Or0LlO6g
        • thumb
          Mar 30 2011: please go proselytize somewhere else, nobody cares about your book.
        • thumb
          Mar 31 2011: http://aaiil.org/text/acus/islam/mrgpbuh.shtml

          I am justifying the unkonwns to you Matthieu. You need to know to broaden your views and correct them by yourself being understood of the history, not self knowledge.
        • thumb
          Mar 31 2011: This is the problem with you strongly religious people, you don't even read the links you flood discussion boards with. At no point does it mention or attempt to justify Mohammed sleeping with a kid.
        • thumb
          Mar 31 2011: Who are we to discuss people??

          great minds discuss ideas, mediocers discuss events and ordinary minds discuss people!!

          Hope you come out of this discussion with some new idea dude :)
        • thumb
          Mar 31 2011: I am sorry Birdia .. stay happy
        • thumb
          Mar 31 2011: That's right Birdia...
          Way to go on avoiding the question Younus...
          Also who are you to judge the quality of my mind? Speak for yourself.
        • thumb
          Apr 2 2011: Its better not to speak before those, who are not willing to listen carefully and understand.
          I just did that, and remained the arguments to know rather than arguments for sake of arguments Matthieu.

          I can't make a judgement on any person unless I know the person in personal capacity :)
          That is why i discuss ideas, not people.

          Cheers
      • thumb
        Mar 29 2011: I admit I haven't read the Quran, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Allah, like Yahweh, a supernatural being that allegedly created the world and man and has since then monitored the world and man, and being responsible for various events throughout the holy book (in your case the Quran) and since then up to nowadays?

        That's different from your definition, but regardless... there's no evidence for either being's existence. There may be things in it that don't contradict with science, but so there are in any science-fiction art work. That doesn't make the false parts of science-fiction works true, the same the true parts of a holy book (Bible and Quran alike) don't make the false parts true.
      • thumb
        Mar 31 2011: @Younus Ali
        The only thing the link you gave cleared up was that Yahweh is not the name of the Christian God, but a title, and that Allah is a name... fine... I accept that... you still haven't answered my question, which has nothing to do with that.

        The question was about the definition of God/The LORD/Yahweh/Al-Rab (allegedly named Allah or an unpronounceable Hebrew word) being different from your definition, and if you have any evidence supporting the existence of either being, having studied water more deeply than (I'd guess) most of us here.

        I'm guessing you don't have any evidence for God in any definition, but instead have evidence supporting many other (read: not divine) factors' influence on the universe.
        • thumb
          Apr 4 2011: We are unable to define that Supreme power Vasil. Its for those to look into nature and imagine how this nature functions?
          I have no words to define Him.

          In every thing of nature, you'll find His supermacy and love. I hope it clears the small questions...
      • thumb
        Apr 4 2011: "We are unable to define that Supreme power Vasil."
        If that's true, then all holy books must be wrong. They are written in human languages, they define God and we can't define that supreme power in any human language, therefore holy books are wrong. Would you agree? If not, this can only mean that the supreme power is definable, as is done by [whichever holy book one finds to be true (Quran in your case)].

        "In every thing of nature, you'll find His supermacy and love."
        Including planet wiping supernovas, brain eating Blue-footed Boobies, genocide-striking human deceases, [insert other bad things in the universe]?
    • Mar 29 2011: This is not me ignoring or misunderstanding entropy, i know exactly how it works. and im not ignoring the sun. i fully recognize that even with life becoming more ordered, the total entropy of earth is still increasing. all im saying is that i like to think god has something to do with creating a force that seems to go against the flow of chaos
      • thumb
        Mar 29 2011: "I like to think" and "I believe [...] proves" are two very different ideas. Also life is not the only thing that can get more ordered locally in the universe. I like how you think this universe was made for us when we've only been here for a few thousand years (the universe having been there for 13.7 billion) and we inhabit a small part of an arm of an overall unremarquable galaxy.
        • Mar 29 2011: i never said the universe was made for us. in fact im trying to say the exact opposite. that we are trying to form a niche in a very harsh universe
      • thumb
        Mar 30 2011: Where does God fit into that then?
  • Mar 28 2011: The natural way of the universe is not entropy, it only seems that way because we don't know all the answers. Without some kind of design then there would be entropy. Life does not prove god, but in our ignorance to find answers, where is there any other place to turn to? Your statement about life proving God only proves that God was created by man and not the other way around.
    • thumb
      Mar 28 2011: What do you mean by God? To me it is the positive energy that lets growth to everything it wishes
      • Mar 28 2011: The positive energy you mention, is there, it is deciding where this energy comes from that is misleading. Instead of assuming, lets look at the facts. All life from the beginning to the present, has evolved for the benefit of life, all life! This energy that we call evolution can only benefit the species if it knows what the species needs. This means the information feeding the energy must come from the species itself. If the energy was coming from some spritual source, it would not need to keep changing, everything would be perfect from day one. This secret of how nature does this will be discovered eventually; my bet is; it already has!
        • thumb
          Mar 29 2011: It didn't come from anywhere but was present since there wasn't anything except it. It is eternal and pure. I have a question for you, what is the weight of our spirits??

          Yes everything would be perfect from day one, but that is allowed to us to capatilize it, the way we want and to be answerable to it again, of how did we use it and how?? when we will be returning to that same eternal positive energy.
      • Mar 29 2011: I was not refering to the use that man puts that energy to, I was refering to nature. Let me explain further. We all possess a subconscious, without it where would we keep our memory? Without memory life could not exist, this means all life! How would it know how to feed, what to feed on and where to find it?Science and logic dictate that the first life was a dormant one, this being the case, life must have inherited some of the traits passed down from billions of years ago. When we sleep most of our dreams can be related to our everyday experiences, but occasionally we have a dream where there is no logical explanation. This is the dormancy passed down from our ancestors, from the beginning of life. Because all life has a subconscious, so it all must also have this dormancy. My bet is; this dormancy holds the secrets of life! To deny this dormancy is like denying ones existence. We all possess it!
        • thumb
          Apr 2 2011: We are energy in real that is so pure since its put inside us...

          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          Dormancy is a period in an organism's life cycle when growth, development, and (in animals) physical activity are temporarily stopped. This minimizes metabolic activity and therefore helps an organism to conserve energy. Dormancy tends to be closely associated with environmental conditions. Organisms can synchronize entry to a dormant phase with their environment through predictive or consequential means. Predictive dormancy occurs when an organism enters a dormant phase before the onset of adverse conditions. For example, photoperiod and decreasing temperature are used by many plants to predict the onset of winter. Consequential dormancy occurs when organisms enter a dormant phase after adverse conditions have arisen. This is commonly found in areas with an unpredictable climate. While very sudden changes in conditions may lead to a high mortality rate among animals relying on consequential dormancy, its use can be advantageous, as organisms remain active longer and are therefore able to make greater use of available resources.

          Do you consider Human as animal or plant?
          Think about it brother

          Cheers
  • thumb
    Mar 28 2011: There are a lot of steps missing to get from your premise to your conclusion. The universe, with or without God, is complex, and there are competing/conflicting forces at work all over the place. What you are referring to is merely one localized example of that.
  • thumb
    Mar 28 2011: What about (for the sake of argument) quantum physics? Does God play dice?
  • thumb
    Apr 2 2011: If someone BELIEVEs something than that's not a point to debate on, at least for someone who believes.
  • thumb
    Mar 29 2011: I believe life proves there is more life in the universe.

    I believe the want to explain the natural phenomenons of a prehistoric time was the result of the creation of god(s).

    Example: Thor drank some of the ocean out of being tricked, this is why waves exist.

    You see when silly stories are taken in as a belief and then you tell your child these are the FACTS it becomes a tradition of believing the impossible. This my friend is why you now believe in a god.
  • thumb
    Mar 29 2011: Science doesn't have the answers to everything. We like to speak very boldly. Compared to how much we don't understand "yet", we haven't properly even scratched the surface. I believe science has thousands of answers but I'm not fanatical to the point of assuming that one day, it will answer every question in existence like most scientists like to naively believe. Our brains don't have the capability of going that far.

    I believe everything requires a creator and to say that all these laws of nature, gravity, life, and so on are just random consequences or mistakes is to be shallow. Religion has got it wrong in more ways than one, I have no objections, but to entirely doubt the power of a higher being than us with 100% reassurance is pure stupidity, especially considering how much we don't know today, compounded with all the worlds mysteries and big question marks which remain unanswered to this day. How are atheists any different than the theists who fanatically believed that the world was square? Or that masturbation was wrong because semen had little floating men in it? Atheism seems to be the opposite extreme of fanatic religious belief. A higher being makes all the sense in the world if you look at it from the perspective of nature. We are bigger than so many other creatures. Is it hard to believe that there is something bigger than us? Why is that impossible? Life does in a way prove the existence, I agree. It is an interesting way of looking at things. Atheism is a fancier word for shallow stupidity nowadays it seems. Accepting that something doesn't seem entirely probable makes perfect sense but entirely denying the existence of something? You call that smart? Atheists and Theists aren't too different from each other if you think about it for a minute lol. I'm sick and tired of the smugness I see coming from both parties. Chill out. We're all searching for the answers and none of us have all the answers or ever will. That's the beauty of it...
    • thumb
      Mar 29 2011: Believing we'll never find everything is just as dangerous of a belief as the belief the answer is already there in the form of this supreme being that basically said "That's the way I decided. Don't question me".

      The problem is both beliefs lead to people giving up on searching for true (provable) answers, in turn hindering scientific progress.

      It's safe to assume science won't learn everything in our life time or the next several generations, but to think it never possibly could is not a good idea.

      As for atheists doubting the power of a higher being with 100% reassurance... if theists could come up with a TEST that leads to the possibility of there being God, they may bring it in, and the possibility will be reevaluated. Science has tons of tests that go against that possibility, and none that support it.
    • Mar 29 2011: I agree science does not have all the answers, but it has more factual evidence than religion. Species evolve for the benefit of all other species as well as it's own. The food chain is one example. These changes can only come about by information coming from the species, that is the only way they can progress. This means that by improving with each mutation, it was garanteed that intelligent life would eventually emerge. Finding out more about how this information is passed from the species, is just around the corner. In fact I would go as far to say it is already known. Uptil now science was unable to see the wood for the trees. Science can only progress through the mistakes it makes. Perhaps the time for the truth is nigh!
      • thumb
        Mar 30 2011: Vasil - To say we won't find everything is truthful. To say we "will find everything" and use this statement as some basis to debunk all other beliefs with the notion that "one day, we will find everything so just stop being foolish", is nothing but wishful thinking and is as derogatory and illogical as theists forcing stories upon us as the only real truth on the planet.

        Regarding your second statement. I completely disagree with ANYONE who stops our process of searching. Life is NOT a destination. It's a journey and all institutions need to consider that, both spiritual and material.

        I find discovering EVERYTHING in this entire Universe as probable as the spinach monster simply because of our limitations as human beings and the limitless nature of our universe. It is constantly changing. You think we can keep up? Good luck with that :)

        Your last paragraph does not disprove that believing that something doesn't exist with ONE HUNDRED PERCENT reassurance, when there are so many question marks out there that science hasn't even come close to being able to answer, is anything more than blind judgement and a glaring example of ignorance. How is science supposed to prove/disprove supernatural phenomenon when it can't even answer some of the most basic natural/material questions? Let science develop, by all means brother, but let our progress not blind us to the point of dismissing things instantly simply because it doesn't have enough material ground, when we clearly haven't made enough progress yet so as to be able to face these challenges. This attitude limits our progress. Theists are doing something similar which I don't agree with at all either.

        And I find it a mistake to put spirituality, supernatural events, and religion, hand-in-hand. I consider myself a spiritual person, not religious, and you'll be surprised what it leads to when you just drop the religious fanaticism and what not. Religions have yet to understand what spiritualism is.
        • thumb
          Apr 4 2011: You're thinking of the question of beliefs as having it only two ways - belief something is true, or belief that something is false. Many atheists, me included, drive under a third possibility - no belief at all. Lack of belief if you will.

          Where's the difference? The fact that for atheists, belief starts with evidence instead of ending there. I believe in evolution because there's evidence for it. I believe the earth is round because there's evidence for it. Either of those could hypothetically may one day turn out to be false (for all I know, I might one day take a space flight and see a flat planet), but I believe in it due to the evidence. I don't believe in God because there's no evidence for it. I will believe once there's evidence for it, even if further research later confirms it to be false.

          Same applies for discovering everything... I don't believe science WILL or WILL NOT discover everything. But based on historical evidence, we keep knowing more and more with time, and we keep having more and more unknowns as we find answers, so either of those is currently plausible. We shouldn't believe either sides of this until we have a basis for it. A basis for WILL is going to turn up once we start closing gaps without creating new ones. A basis for WILL NOT, based on current evidence and plain logic, is unlikely to ever turn up.

          "And I find it a mistake to put spirituality, supernatural events, and religion, hand-in-hand."
          The reason many atheists put those hand in hand is for the same reason as above - there's no evidence of any of them being true. In fact evidence typically points against this possibility. As soon as you can explain a supernatural event in natural terms, it's no longer a supernatural event, but a natural one instead.
      • thumb
        Mar 30 2011: Derek - Science is a tool that doesn't need to be underestimated or overestimated and I find it way too soon to dismiss supernatural/spiritual phenomenon and make bold judgement calls that atheism makes on a daily basis or that scientists make on the grounds of science when our greatest minds can't even explain how a 60+ year old man survives on three drops of water for YEARS without getting any nutrition owing to a lack of food. Or how the same man physically lays down in a fire rising to the ceiling. A fire so hot that the cameramen stand meters away and yet he doesn't get burned at all in the slightest and neither does the very inflammable cotton cloth he's wearing, which surprisingly burns afterwards though instantaneously when the scientists light it up with a small lighter.

        There are many things we don't understand. We need to accept that and continue our journey and search rather than just dismissing things that are beyond our understanding on the grounds of our own personal bias or vendetta with anything considered spiritual, supernatural, or religious. If we do that, we are no different than fanatic theists.
        • Mar 30 2011: I do not intend to di srespect anyones views on how they perceive the the things that go on around them, however when there is a challenge I want to think and try to explain that challenge. You mention the supernatural and accept it for what it seems and by suggestion of others you form your own opinions. The power of suggestion is a very powerful thing, ask any magician. I have in the past researched some of this supernatural phenomenon, here's the result. A dreamer dreams of a future atrocity and another dreams of the same atrocity but it happens as it is being dreamed. The emotional level of the first dreamer on a scale of 1 - 10 was around 4. The dreamer who dreamed the atrocity as it happened was on a scale of 9 - 10. Since none of the dreamers new when the atrocity was going to happen, the only explanation is; the emotional levels were coming from the perpetrators of that atrocity. This proves that all life is connected and that is how evolution works. There is no supernatural forces governing our life, it just appears so because we are still researching. Mysicism explains everything, but tells us nothing. We must not stop thinking!
      • thumb
        Mar 30 2011: I accept it for what I saw and research, not suggestion. By saying that something is supernatural does not mean that we need to stop our search. What I described to you is not magic or an act. It is very real and can be seen physically. This is one of the many things that remains unexplainable. You want to challenge it and find an explanation? Who is stopping you my friend? Be my honorable guest. Just approach it seriously and without any form of sarcasm, arrogance or degradation. Explore it like you would explore a scientific challenge. I have the utmost respect for such scientists.

        "There is no supernatural forces governing our life, it just appears so because we are still researching."

        I humbly disagree. We have yet to figure this one out :)
        • Apr 4 2011: Hi Sargis, I was not intending to be sarcastic and if I was I apologise. What I was saying was, things must not be accepted until all avenues have been explored. If you were trying someone in a courtroom for whatever crime, you would look at all the evidence, for and against and then make a decision. If we decided the verdict on just how we thought, chaos would rule! Strange when it comes to beliefs, our sense of reasoning is absent. I will leave you with one question. When someone dreams of an atrocity and it comes true after a few weeks, what is happening?
  • thumb
    Mar 28 2011: Indeed it does prove. Everything has a purpose of its existence. Same as other things are functioning properly and giving a way to other things to function by their help, we live for a purpose also. That purpose is of growth. I believe there is only one thing that grows in a constructive manner and that is Love. Love allows us all and other things as well to develop itself when we wish to love others, absence of this love is termed as the word Hate. Hate itself is nothing but an absence of this eternal thing called Love. God loves humanity upto the best ways and for that there are certain reasons behind any happenings. We usually don't come to an understanding that why certain things happened, but when we come to conclusions after certain time delays, we get to know that it all happened for our own benefits in the long run. I believe there is no word like problem, but instead it is Progress in real. As the time passes by we start looking that bothering thing as a phase of progress, so that it enabled us to be strong at the same time and observe the things that should be done when the same thing happens :)

    Cheers
    • thumb
      Mar 29 2011: Simply to say that the absence of love is hate is to say the absence of black is white, when we all know that there are many other shades of a never ending spectrum of colors that can easily be there in place of any of those. Using an over-simplified answer to try and explain the existence of people is to just say that the egg was before the chicken because there needs to be an egg to make a chicken. Simply stating that advancement is progress is denying the fact that progress to same can be set backs to others. All lives do change over time as time never stops, but whether that advancement is progression or not is in the eye of the beholder, not others as all our mindsets are wired differently, and we all react differently to situations.
      • thumb
        Mar 29 2011: advancement comes due to progress mate..as far as egg and chicken are considered, every mamal came before in pairs. It for you to find out what comes before and what next :)
        • thumb
          Mar 31 2011: Good reply, not many things in life are sure, and maybe it's the thrill of the chase that attracts so many people to discover the truth, which also can show why subjects that have to do with finding the truth have had so much interest from many people.
      • thumb
        Mar 29 2011: i agree with your saying that the only similarity among us is that we all are different. Education is dynamic yet diversed.
      • thumb
        Apr 2 2011: Thank you Alejandro :)

        Regards
    • Apr 3 2011: Hi the dormancy you refer to has evolved because of environmental changes, the dormancy I was relating to was a dormancy that absorbs all our emotions and keeps them until needed. Because its function is different to the dormancy you mention, then its purpose is different also.
      • thumb
        Apr 3 2011: Hi Derek

        Yes both have different purposes. Dormancy is the name given to this phenomenon, yet life is with a purpose. Life is a TEST.

        Regards
  • thumb
    Mar 28 2011: I don't know that I agree with your premis: the natural way of the universe is entropy?