Does god exist?

[Rammjet]

Blackie is right that only left optical isomers are used in living things [interestingly enough they decay to right optical isomers when the creature dies, however it's a bit short sighted to go 'living things being made of one isomer automatically halves the chance of formation', when you don't understand the polymerisation process.]

[Nerd with Specs]

Sure, God exists!
Many people are just too blinded by their own superiority and knowledge to find the true meaning behind it all... no amount of persuading will convince me.

[PooZy]

Sure, God exists!
Many people are just too blinded by their own superiority and knowledge to find the true meaning behind it all... no amount of persuading will convince me.

Here's your problem.
You're not even prepared to think about your belief, it's like you have some kind of superiority complex and think you already know everything. It's blinding you.

Oh wait.

[~Twisted]

There is alot of proof that he does.
Yes.

Could you do every atheist a favor and read the latest 100 pages (or more) so we (mostly Ram and PooZy) won't have to bring up the same arguments again.


Also there is no proof of his existance. Only proof proving his none-existance.

[Nerd with Specs]

Here's your problem.
You're not even prepared to think about your belief, it's like you have some kind of superiority complex and think you already know everything. It's blinding you.

Oh wait.

I've had well over a decade to prepare to think about my belief, I am certain God is there. I can't exactly prove it to you, because I'm not the divine being Myself, and seeing as you used to be a Christian and are now an atheist, I don't think any amount of persuading will convince you, too.

[Skullish]

I've had well over a decade to prepare to think about my belief, I am certain God is there. I can't exactly prove it to you, because I'm not the divine being Myself, and seeing as you used to be a Christian and are now an atheist, I don't think any amount of persuading will convince you, too.

Oh yeah, cause atheists definitely all used to be Christians.... I'm open to any valid evidence of God. Try me.

[DaFlamingPotato]

I've had well over a decade to prepare to think about my belief, I am certain God is there. I can't exactly prove it to you, because I'm not the divine being Myself, and seeing as you used to be a Christian and are now an atheist, I don't think any amount of persuading will convince you, too.

What?
Don't tell me you thought deeply about the existence of god when you were what, three? That's ridiculous. Nobody does that.
Why did you capitalize--why do I care...
There are plenty of Atheists who became Christians, and plenty of Christians who became atheists. People can change their mind. That's what "being prepared to think about your belief " is all about.

[Rammjet]

I've had well over a decade to prepare to think about my belief, I am certain God is there. I can't exactly prove it to you, because I'm not the divine being Myself, and seeing as you used to be a Christian and are now an atheist, I don't think any amount of persuading will convince you, too.

Actually I think poozy's always been an atheist.

Also, if you can't prove something or justify it, that goes to show you haven't put much thought into it.

[Nerd with Specs]

Actually I think poozy's always been an atheist.

Also, if you can't prove something or justify it, that goes to show you haven't put much thought into it.

Rammjet, be like the trees.
Leave.

[Suuper]

I've had well over a decade to prepare to think about my belief, I am certain God is there. I can't exactly prove it to you, because I'm not the divine being Myself, and seeing as you used to be a Christian and are now an atheist, I don't think any amount of persuading will convince you, too.

You don't really do much of that do you? I'm sure you'd have come up with some evidence against God's existence if you have. Have you done that?
How are you so certain? Very likely you believe it merely because others, such as your parents, have taught you so since as long as you can remember.
Can you prove it to yourself?

[supersonicBOOOOOOOOOOOOOM]

Could you do every atheist a favor and read the latest 100 pages (or more) so we (mostly Ram and PooZy) won't have to bring up the same arguments again.


Also there is no proof of his existance. Only proof proving his none-existance.

I'll be honest, there has been proof, but not nearly enough to say he exists. Far from it.

[PooZy]

I've had well over a decade to prepare to think about my belief, I am certain God is there. I can't exactly prove it to you, because I'm not the divine being Myself, and seeing as you used to be a Christian and are now an atheist, I don't think any amount of persuading will convince you, too.

Actually I've always been an atheist. I was born not believing in a god (like everybody is) and since then nobody has convinced me to believe in any particular religion. That doesn't mean I'm not prepared to argue though, you however often ignored me and won't reply which shows you're not thinking about your belief.

Thinking about your belief doesn't mean changing it by the way.

Also I'd like to put out there that people of every religion will claim they are certain their God exists - so you understand why I consider you to be another one of them.

I'll be honest, there has been proof, but not nearly enough to say he exists. Far from it.

There's been evidence, like the existence of the bible and jesus and wut have you, but there hasn't been any proof. Evidence doesn't prove something.

For example I could claim I saw a flying spaghetti monster, then give you a strand of spaghetti and say I took it from him. That would be evidence, but I doubt it would prove anything.

[Rammjet]

Proof emerges when the evidence available shows something to irrefutably be the case, this is not the case with any supernatural beliefs; if a supernatural belief was proven then it would clearly be operating under natural laws which allow us to investigate it, therefore it wouldn't need the aloof title of 'super natural'.

[Mars]

[QUOTE=Here is my two cents (and if this was brought up earlier, then I'm sorry):
As far as Christianity goes, I believe that it was a plagiarized story from long, long, long ago in ancient Egypt, but because that is a Greek name, I will refer to it as Kemet (or KMT). Therefore, I believe there was in fact no God under a Christian sense as the main following reason:

I will refer to this picture:



As you can see, it's Aset (Mary or the Greek name, Isis) holding Heru (Jesus or the Greek name Horus) in a similar fashion and pose as Mary holds Jesus.
This statue existing approx. 300 years before the concept of Christianity arose, and the Kemetic civilization existance dates back to 3,000 B.C.E.

Now, what was the story?
Long story short:
Aset (Mary/Isis) was going to marry Asar (Osis) to become the king and queen of Kemet. However, the brother of Asar, Set, had strong jealousy toward Asar. So one day, Asar was walking alone when suddenly a group of people, including Set, hacked chopped him into 28 pieces and threw the remains into the Nile. Aset unsure of why her soon to be husband was missing sent a search party to look for him. Aset then came across his remains in the river. In tears, she tries to put Asar's body parts together like a puzzle. Oddly enough, she cannot find the penis. She then after several days, constructs the Tekken (the Washington Monument is a Tekken by the way) to mimic the only piece she was missing. One late night, the spirit of Asar impregnates Aset, thus her baby Heru (Jesus/Horus) was born.
As read, European conquerors (infamously, the Greeks) quite easily plagiarized the story into a false misconception that a fictitious figure, from a Kemetic myth, had a virgin birth.


This so much more I could go on (i.e. Greek gods were heavily influenced from Kemetic gods, Heru and Jesus's chronicled life are similar, the zodiac, etc) but that would be quite a bit to replicate from my source. That source would be "Nile Valley: Contributions to Civilization" by Anthony T. Browder that goes way more in depth than I could.[/QUOTE]
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Shameless repost, what's your input Rammjet and/or Poozy c:
Edit: here is the picture
heru-blackmadonnaJesus.jpg

[Rammjet]

It wouldn't surprise me if those stories were used to embroid and falsify stories for the bible, mars, since most of abrahamic religions are a big mush-up of previous religious beliefs.

Most of the 10 commandments can be found in ancient greek philosophies, the idea of a heaven and hell also originated in greece, the 'golden rule' was in several religions before christianity claimed it was theirs and theirs alone, etcetera etcetera.

[Mars]

It wouldn't surprise me if those stories were used to embroid and falsify stories for the bible, mars, since most of abrahamic religions are a big mush-up of previous religious beliefs.

Most of the 10 commandments can be found in ancient greek philosophies, the idea of a heaven and hell also originated in greece, the 'golden rule' was in several religions before christianity claimed it was theirs and theirs alone, etcetera etcetera.

I also believe that the Greeks stole 10 from the 42 Declarations of Maat:
ideals-of-maat2.jpg

[Rammjet]

People often think of the egyptians as weirdos obsessed with mummification and death, but their philosophies are actually just as interesting as their maths and engineering ideas etc.

[Rammjet]

I think I can finally end the optical isomerism argument:

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/basicorg/...m/optical.html
[this is the first result if you search for optical isomerism on google]

If you're bothered to read for a few minutes, the source clearly explains: It's quite common for natural systems to only work with one of the enantiomers of an optically active substance. It isn't too difficult to see why that might be. Because the molecules have different spatial arrangements of their various groups, only one of them is likely to fit properly into the active sites on the enzymes they work with.

This means that when people say 'but life is composed of only one chiral form of amino acids, therefore the chance of it forming through a chemical reaction is automatically halved,' they're very wrong.

What the presence of one chiral form shows is that living things make their proteins with enzyme catalysts, which we knew already [hopefully]. x3

It's just a calling-card revealing how living things make themselves, not a miraculous- against the odds-example of 'magic' chemistry.

[Blackie6789]

First off, I have to say I’m slightly disappointed with the arguments here. The only person actually making an effort to support his argument is Rammjet and Mars. Quoting me and then saying “your wrong” proves absolutely Nothing. To me, shouting at me to support my ideas and then rebutting them by posting “your wrong” is completely ridiculous. Post WHY its wrong. I don’t care whatsoever what you say about my post; what I’m looking for is reason, evidence, and logic. Just claiming something without even posting a single example, a single source, a single fact, or anything is irritating to read to say the least. I can respect atheists who actually come to this thread with questions, and arguments. Atheists such as Red Jackdaw, Rammjet, DaflamingPotato, Huntlocker, and many more. I cannot respect either the individual or their argument [if it can be called that]who comes to this thread and makes claims without any evidence whatsoever—especially if it’s a critique of someone’s argument. This is NOT directed at the atheists here only; theists atheists and agnostics alike need to post WHY they believe what they believe not just post their opinion and expect people to accept it.

Let me summarize: Provide evidence for your claims; don’t just make a claim and walk away. Maybe if you actually start providing reason to your argument I’ll consider answering your posts. Personally, I don’t care if you call me a freaking retard as long as you give several reasons as to why you think that. [I would hope you would be mature enough to maintain a polite debate however.]
If you want to know what I’m talking about, go look at Wolf825, Fudgumscool, TDWfan, Red Jackdaw, DaFlamingPotato, Huntlocker, Gary Oak, Stevedx20, Nikolaj, Silverrida, 1Amay, VforVendetta even has some good posts. Go read their posts; see how they model and fashion their arguments. They don’t go around without posting something meaningful; even if it’s not always polite. They back up their claims with facts and logic; I’m tired of seeing people just make an unsupported claim and then expect people to believe it. I’m tired of people quoting others and not explaining what they mean; this is a debate thread; if you can’t share something meaningful, then please do not post on this thread at all.

so r u still assuming they react at random?

I don’t think you quite comprehend the biological point I’m trying to get across, Poozy. There is no known reagent that will react to create only left handed amino acids. This IS a 50/50 chance; unless you can provide a reaction that only uses left handed amino acids, my argument stands. (Living organisms use enzymes to create proteins, but enzymes wouldn’t have existed in the primordial earth, so don’t use that argument.)
My point here is that the amino acids don’t know how to separate themselves into only left handed amino acids; the reaction that creates salt DOES exist, but the reaction that bonds only left handed amino acids does not exist. There is no known chemical reaction that controls the formation of only left handed amino acids. That is why providing examples of salt formation and people holding hands based on relationships is completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Go do some research like Rammjet is; go actually search to see what I'm talking about. A good start would be to google ‘Chirality’ one of the first articles on it is from Wikipedia.

Again, amino acids come in two forms; left and right handed. ONLY left handed amino acids form life bearing proteins. In the primordial earth, these amino acids couldn’t form only left handed amino acids to create a protein—its pretty much impossible.
To me, saying that God sparked life is much more logical; yes, even scientific than saying that amino acids could form together to create a protein. And even if you had a protein you would need at least 280 other proteins to create a minimally complex organism—the chances of this happening are so impossible, it is verging on ignorance to claim they could arise by chance.

@Rammjet: I read your article, and it was quite interesting although it did not necessarily relate to the argument. I had nothing wrong with the article, it was quite right; my problem was applying it to abiogenesis. Thats where it becomes less convincing.

You assume that enzymes existed prior to proteins--which is not necessarily correct. The order according to leading experts on this topic is cells then enzymes and lastly genes. Proteins make up cells, so enzymes wouldn't be able to make a difference in the primordial soup. Quoting from your article:

Because the molecules have different spatial arrangements of their various groups, only one of them is likely to fit properly into the active sites on the enzymes they work with....In the lab, it is quite common to produce equal amounts of both forms of a compound when it is synthesised. This happens just by chance, and you tend to get racemic mixtures.

[Rammjet]

There is a known reagent which reacts to produce polymers of only one chiral form. This 'magical' reagent is known as an enzyme, which catalyses reactions of only one entantiomer. This means it's absolutely no surprise that polymers which rely on catalysis are shaped in the form of the catalyst which made them.

Before asserting claims like 'there is no known reaction' you should actually check by researching and sourcing your arguments: you're being a hypocrit because you assert others must rely on facts, but you seldom ever mention any yourself.

When you talk about chiral life forms you're talking about modern life; that's what enzymes are relevant to. In a primordial soup you may have had primitive life forms composed of more than one entantiomer, does it make them magic? No Does it mean it's not possible for them to live? No. What would such chemistry mean? It'd just mean those organisms built themselves in a slightly different way to modern organisms.

Essentially what you're doing is asserting is 'most modern creatures are formed by x reaction*, ergo all primitive creatures must have been composed by reaction x.'

That claim fails to agknowledge the following:
-Reaction x is modern and has been honed for billions of years, so it's unlikely it would have been exactly the same as the first moments of life.
-It's possible for life to arise through other reactions beside reaction x.
You get the idea with that.

You may as well substitute the variable 'x' with any modern route, such as meiosis 'many modern creatures reproduce by meiosis, therefore I think it's impossible for life forms to originate which used say...mitosis ;3'

I hope you understand the problem, and that biological experts who aren't quaking in their boots at your argument actually have a better understanding of their devoted field of science than you.


*A reaction you simultaneously claimed didn't exist. x3