The only thing we know about gravity is that larger objects attract smaller objects in space, other than that it is completely invisible to us and we can only feel it's effects on our bodies. We can't even take a sample of it, yet we don't have a doubt in our minds that a thing called gravity exists, we know that it is there because of it's effects.

Using the same logic, I can say that a thing called God exists because there is life. Yes you are going to say "well evolution happened and that's how life began", well I completely agree with you, but why did evolution happen? Whatever the force is that drives evolution and drives us to succeed and survive is God. I believe in it because I feel and experience life everyday, in the same way I feel and experience gravity everyday. And then you might say "well you are misenterpreting cause and effect", no, I'm not creating a cause, I'm simply stating it's presence. Whatever the cause or driving force of evolution might have been, and you can't say there isn't one because then there wouldn't have been evolution, that is God. You can show and describe everything to me about evolution, and you would be merely doing nothing but describing how God works, and that's all.

Note: I also have completely no idea what God looks like or what it's details are like other religions, and I don't care about converting you to my beliefs. The issue here may be semantics, but I believe God is whatever created us, no matter what it looks like or what it's habits are. The point here is that we were created, somehow. If it was through slow evolution, then we still were created, and the driving force of that creation is what God is.

I think you have a serious misunderstanding of how Evolution happens, and, yes, we can test gravity. If you'd like to I suggest you drop a pencil. After that's done, you will see that the pencil falls to the floor *voila*

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
That's a link to a very credible explanation of Evolution. I suggest that you read it immediately.

If your going to change the definition of God, from sentient being, to "Yes, things happen", then sure, I suppose your notion of God exists.

Your gravity analogy is complete bullshit. Don't even try to compare the two.

Gravity and life are both phenomena.

It's just circular reasoning. You are positing that god exists and god exclusively causes life, and there is life, and therefore there is god. 'The same as saying there is god because there is god.'

Really you should stop with the god arguments...

He could be a sentient being, no one knows. And please explain to me how it is bullshit.

I know how evolution works thank you. I completely agree with evolution and know that it happens. The only difference between you and me is that you don't put any significance on the force that drives evolution, whatever that force may be, and I am.

No... I'm saying that whatever it is that causes life is god. I'm not taking a previous definition of god (bearded guy in the sky) and applying it to the cause of evolution, I'm using god as an empty term and applying it to something we know hardly about. The same way you use gravity to define the thing that makes large objects attract small objects.

No... Whatever it was that began the universe is god, and I don't know what that thing is.

Whatever is the force that causes atoms to form amino acids is god.

You're the seconds person to tell me this and the second person to not give me a reason why.

That's a non-concept; and really the only purpose for doing this is equivocation at some later point. Why not just refer to it as the 'cause of life'.

(Which by the way isn't really an unknown to begin with.)

Whats wrong with calling it God?

You don't even begin to understand how evolution, at a basic level, works. See later in this post. Everyone who reproduces contributes to evolution in some form. I say in some form because the offspring might not be suited for this environment and die.


List concluding the answer that you know shit about Evolution:
1.) Life didn't begin with Evolution /facepalm.
2.) Natural Selection... You know... The most basic tenant of Evolution...
3.) See #2

I'll attempt to help you out because it's fairly apparent you didn't read the links I gave you.

If you're looking for how life began I'd first suggest Abiogenesis(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/). Evolution doesn't account for the generation of life, it explains how speciation occurs, and the difference between modern/past/future species.

Natural Selection: Do yourself a favor, follow this link >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html , look a couple paragraphs, and then read. I know this will be hard, but it's worth it.

Ok. Show me where I disagreed with you on that.

Ok I messed up, I'm sorry. You're the smartest person on these forums now, happy?

Science is merely describing the process through which god creates things. It's like observing someone building something and completely leaving out the builder; "and then the bricks arranged themselves in order and thats how the house was built", "and the molecules came together for no reason at all and created complex life". Molescules and atoms are just particles, there has to be an intelligent mind behind them for them to rearrange themselves perfectly and form things. Yes this mind is invisible to us, and so is gravity.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." -Max Planck

Whatever, I'm done trying to open some minds here, good bye.

And I quote, "god dun it!"

Atoms don't just combine instantaneously to form complex life forms. Over very long amounts of time they grow, and grow, and grow into more complex systems. If you had any knowledge of Evolution you'd know this by now, but you are determined on staying willfully ignorant. For the last time, read the links.

There doesn't have to be an intelligent mind behind the process, you're asserting that there has to when there doesn't. You're overcomplicating it by saying that instead of how we know that atoms bond you assert there's an intelligent being behind it.

In now way, shape, or form does that quote help your arguement.

I don't appreciate being called arrogant, nor do I think that I know everything; on the other hand, I do know more than you on the subject of Evolution because you're staying at an unnecessarily low comprehension level when you could, at the very least, have tried to sift through the links I offered.

Time is simply the measurement of the movement of objects. If there was someone who measured the rotation of planets around a galaxy the same way we measure seconds, the formation of life wouldn't take very long at all.

It only seems long from your perspective, and you are acting like it would seem long from every perspective in the universe. Reminds me of the time when people thought the universe revolved around the earth.

I'm not overcomplicating anything because I'm not trying to replace science with religion, I am combining the two. Science only explains how things work, but it doesn't explain WHY things work. That is the job of religion.

You have this strange idea that I am trying to replace science with religion, and you are as far away from the truth as you can get.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

A recycled argument from ignorance, again.


No, in that experiment the force that caused matter to form amino acids was an electric charge. Try again.


Because gravity is a proven fact supported by empirical evidence.

__________________

The job, if you like, of religion is not to explain why something happens. Religion and faith, by definition, is not justified by fact or empirical evidence. Therefore you are seeking explanation from an unproven source. You are misinterpreting Einstein's quote.

__________________

Gravity is not invisible. Invisible to the naked eye? Yes. But it is a falsifiable theory that can be, and has been, tested empirically. This is a bullshit example that has no place in intelligent debate.

That's a solid strawman you have going there... His use of subjective time measurements has nothing to do with the validity of his statement.

__________________
You know, you come from nothing, you're going back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!
- Monty Python

Because accepted slang doesn't allow you to define that term without being pegged with a stereotype. Saying you believe that God created the universe automatically makes you a religious person who follows the Bible in one way or another.

It doesn't matter if you don't mean that, it's a definition that's widely accepted.


And rationalizing the unexplained without reason is no way of going about making a point.

With the argument of God, you have to observe the beginning and the end. With gravity, you can hold a ball straight out, drop it (beginning), watch it fall (middle), and watch it land (end). Thus, you can conclude that there are factors in this equation that result in the ball landing on the ground from its starting position.

Since we cannot observe the beginning, nor the end, we cannot assume there is a beginning or an end. And without being sure of a beginning, we cannot be sure of a creator.


If you just watch the ball fall, but never be dropped, or land, you wouldn't assume there is gravity, you'd just assume the ball is falling .

__________________
I'm not dead. I'm just gone. Sythe is in the past, as it will be one day for all of you. Thanks for the 6 years. Bye.

Prayer noob, for everyone's convenience I suggest you exchange God with a god. That way you don't imply that you belong to a Semitic religion.

__________________
You know, you come from nothing, you're going back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!
- Monty Python

Arguing about religion is pointless - in most cases atheists will remain atheists and theists will remain theists. In this case, the original poster just happens to be blatantly ignorant, and will probably remain blatantly ignorant.

__________________

God = more powerful
If gravity was more powerful it would pull god down to land from the sky

I'm using the word long because it seems to be the only way to rationalize with you, and I assumed that you wouldn't understand it otherwise.
Yes, I thank your theistic forefathers for telling lies to everyone.

Science is blind to your useless god. god(not a grammatical error), even in your sense, is untestable. Due to god being untestable, he is of no value to Science.

As I said, because it sets up for equivocation and confusion, and serves no other purpose. It's an obfuscation of meaning.

For example: Let's all call feet meters, or gallons liters. Let's call war peace, freedom slavery and ignorance knowledge.

Sometimes there is the matter of calling something by its proper name, in which case one is undertaking the opposite of this process; unobfuscation of meaning. For example: taxation is theft.

Orwell once wrote:
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.”



You sir, are squirting ink.