Leaving religion behind...

Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I am a history buff, myself.  It is clear that the 'Church' [so-called] has been largely a power player in the various land wars and other struggles and that the leadership has been as devious and power-hungry as the political leaders through the centuries.  


That said, Christ's work on the cross is what Christianity is all about.  To understand the Passover is to understand the significance of the sacrifice.  OK, I'm done here.  :sleepy:
 
Church has done good things, church has done bad things. That will happen when people are involved.

Of course, there are Christian churches who don't accept Christ suffered on the cross *grin*. I think there's one that doesn't believe Jesus was crucified, either - they believe he and Mary left the region (forget where they went to), got married, and their children started their own community.
 
Just teasing, Mockturtle. Not trying to start anything...
 
Churches, religions, or those that argue for or against the existence of a god, think they know or have the answers. While most never have the time or the means to validate what they hear, read, rarely question the origins of their ideas , are still prepared to repeat it with conviction. When I watch a tomato seed grow and within weeks I am eating a fruit from a large vine, it's a miracle and defies logic. I think this might be god but I'm not sure, I do know that I love ripe tomatoes off the vine.
 
One Awesome Inch said:
There is no 'reason' for faith.

I think there probably is, but we just haven't discovered it. In my mind, it boils down to a "least resistance" pathway in the brain which can either be developed/activated or not. Unsure if it's a built in thing, like language, or a cultural thing, but it exists so uniformly in so many different parts of the globe, it's hard to think that a penchant for faith, if not religion, is a very common human condition. 

In this particular scenario, then religion becomes either a force of good or bad. Good, if it leads a believer to a better life, or a mind better able to cope with the world around them; bad, if a religion preys on believers to its own political or social ends, to the detriment of believers. In either case, the religion provides the social construct for expression of faith. 

This ingrained predilection for faith is not quite as strong as the ubiquity of language in humans, but maybe more on par with or even slightly more prevalent than those who develop addictive circuits in the brain. 

Some beliefs people pick up to fill this brain circuitry work to their benefit, others, not so much. What works for someone, may not work for someone else, which would explain the differences in religions belief and faith. 

Ultimately, though, and regardless of modern trappings, I have to think that faith, belief, and religion, and the neural pathway which appears to be ready to accept such in humans, began as some racial survival trait, as most things do. 
 
[quote pid='118997' dateline='1423028058']
Science tells us that the universe (possibly a multiverse) had a definite beginning that we can pinpoint in time. How can nothing exist and in an instant everything come into being if there was no creative force or "prime mover" to bring it into being?
[/quote]
According to the standard model of particle physics, particles spontaneously appear all the time.  Not much difference in that and the big bang happening spontaneously.

Anyway, Stephen Hawking's theory is that the universe always existed, in imaginary time.

http://www.hawking.orf-time.htmlg.uk/the-beginning-o
 

I was done with the topic of 'theory vs fact' - not done with the thread.

Nyah! *grin*
 
Okay, so here is my question: Where did DNA come from?

The knee-jerk answer is it evolved. But, DNA isn't alive, it's a building block of life and main source of evolution for living things. But since it is not alive, it can't evolve.

No DNA = No life. How can a non-living thing evolve?

It couldn't evolve before the first living thing, but there couldn't be a first living thing without it.

So my question is--How did this phenomenally, incomprehensibly complex code pop into existence, which then allowed life and evolution to happen?

Knee-jerk answer is. "Well, it wasn't very complex in the first single-cell organism." Oh yes it was!! Even the most basic single-cell organism requires an incredibly complex set of instructions to live and reproduce.

Evolution can explain the progress from that simple from of life to more complex forms. Nothing can explain that first form of life.
Bob
 
The answer lies in the amount of time. Billions and billions of years leads change... but very, very slow.
 
The statement that all humans throughout the world have had a belief in some sort of god/belief system is not a statement that leads one to think faith is valid.

Throughout history slavery and the oppression of women has been a universal truth across the globe, but does not validate them as worthwhile or necessary.
 
I like the thought behind your answer, Bob, but DNA is nothing more than a chemical compound, like any other molecule. I'd say it formed as any other chemical compound formed. But it's a neat and complex molecule - essentially a quantary storage device similar to computer memory (as opposed to binary). It is no more alive than a molecule of pure water - but just as necessary to life.

But it's the same feeling behind your answer which motivates me as well, so I know what you mean. I merely won't attempt to explain it ...
 
One Awesome Inch said:
The statement that all humans throughout the world have had a belief in some sort of god/belief system is not a statement that leads one to think faith is valid.

Throughout history slavery and the oppression of women has been a universal truth across the globe, but does not validate them as worthwhile or necessary.

That comparison has no value, as you're trying to compare a series of events to a human psychological trait. There is no basis for comparison. Faith is nothing more than a continued belief in the absence of evidence. Faith is always 'valid', even though the subject of the belief may not be. Is the faith worthwhile or necessary? That's a question for each individual. There is no universally correct answer to the question. It's always been worthwhile to me, if only as comfort in times of stress or other problems. Necessary for me? I'd also have to say yes. There were times I questioned if continued existence was worthwhile, and my faith always answered, 'Yes' - and I always later came across a reason to continue. So to me, faith is worthwhile and necessary. If it's not for you, that's OK too.

There are no proofs. We only 'know' such a limited number of things. Anything beyond that must taken on a degree of faith.

I was going to go on about the things everyone takes on faith every day, but I'll just stop here.
 
It's not just a chemical, it's an extremely complex code of instructions to a biological device (a single cell organism) it's never seen or experienced before.

Saying it's just luck or chance over a long period of time may work for some people, but that is a much bigger leap of faith than assuming a code writer.

Believing in a code writer to write the code for a device it knew about is totally logical. Assuming the code happened to come into existence over a long period of time and there just happened to be a device that could use it perfectly is the biggest fairy tale I've ever heard of. Imagine that conversation:

Single Cell Organism: "Fancy meeting you here. I'm life but I can't exist without a code of instructions."
DNA: "What a stroke of luck. I have a code of instructions but no life to give them to"
Both in Unison: "Let's get together!"

There is no science or reason in that. It's just pure faith. Even worse, it's pure faith in nothing.
Bob
 
and I find the term 'universal truth' to be both subjective and amusing. We all have truths - are mine the same as yours lol?
 
akrvbob said:
It's not just a chemical, it's an extremely complex code of instructions to a biological device (a single cell organism) it's never seen or experienced before.

Saying it's just luck or chance over a long period of time may work for some people, but that is a much bigger leap of faith than assuming a code writer.

Believing in a code writer to write the code for a device it knew about is totally logical. Assuming the code happened to come into existence over a long period of time and there just happened to be a device that could use it perfectly is the biggest fairy tale I've ever heard of. Imagine that conversation:

Single Cell Organism: "Fancy meeting you here. I'm life but I can't exist without a code of instructions."
DNA: "What a stroke of luck. I have a code of instructions but no life to give them to"
Both in Unison: "Let's get together!"

There is no science or reason in that. It's just pure faith. Even worse, it's pure faith in nothing.
Bob

From everything I've studied about DNA, your comparison is faulty.  But I will also confess to being no expert.  DNA stores information like a data file, not like an executable file.  It contains information to be extracted, not instructions to be given. When a cell divides, it takes a copy of that data with it. DNA does not 'instruct' the cell to divide. It helps the cell 'remember' it's function. Read Only Memory. Where a computer uses a binary code to store data - a combination of ON or OFF to create a condition - DNA uses four proteins to achieve same type of storage. A string - or a byte if you will - of quantary bits to store a data set. Again, as I understand it.

But, as I said, I know where you're coming from.
 
OK Bob - I'll bite the bullet and admit to being wrong. Instructions are stored in DNA. Just did a quick refresher and discovered my error. But life is nothing more than a n electro -chemical process. No science in it? I can't agree with that.
 
Okay, let me try a different tack. Here is a key that is incredibly specialized to do only one thing. The details of how the key does the thing are totally unimportant. The fact that the key exists and and is the only one that will unlock life is tremendously important.

No one debates that it is a code, but for some reason we never ask why is it here and where did it come from?

If it didn't evolve, and it did not because evolution is due to the mutation of the properly working DNA code. How did the code become proper without evolution?

Sorry, I wasn't clear, the idea that it was just all pure chance and pure luck is a fairy tale and is not scientific or reasonable. It's the idea that put enough monkeys in a room with typewriters and eventually they will write "War and Peace." That's not science. Evolution is science, it's a logical and reasonable explanation of how change occurs over time. Monkeys with typewriters in a room is not.
Bob
 
  " That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."     Albert Einstein
 
Top