The Existence of God

[content_writer 0]

Originally posted by: fukuda

No. Water does have volume. It can accumulate underground in very porous rocks, but there aren't big enough amounts of porous rock underground for such a volume of water, and if water was forced out of these amounts of porous rocks underground entire continents would have collapsed under the weight of the upper layers of rock... Do you realize the sheer volume of water that is needed to cover the whole earth?

Not to say that there is no geologic evidence of such an amount of water covering the earth (huge sediment layers and erosion) which renders such a discussion quite useless. You only start wondering about the causes of something when you have evidence of the existence of that something, not the other way round...

97% of the water the earth contains is already covering the earth in the oceans, only a 30% of that 3% is groundwater. There isn't enough water in the earth to cover it completely.. and no water leaves or enters the planet by magic

quote>

Just a theory, but we often think of the "flood story" of water levels rising. What if this Atlantis principle you describe was true, and continents did collapse?  That would mean that even if water levels remained the same, the relative water-to-land level would rise.  In fact, water levels would rise in this scenario, much like what happens when you put stones in a flask filled with water, thanks to displacement.

The chart has a flaw.  It lists frozen water only under the freshwater category.  However, even salt water will freeze if the temperature is low enough...it's a myth that water has to "separate" before it freezes, even if it typically happens this way in the lower arctic region, the Atlantic Ocean and high school lab experiments.  This is because in those zones the temperature hovers between the normal freezing temperature of water and the freezing temperature of salt water.

My main question is this:  If all the water that exists on earth now (including underground, frozen, vapor and even some that's currently absorbed in lifeforms--we don't have any idea what the world's population was at that time) were suddenly made into liquid surface water, would it cover the earth?

[fukuda 351]

Just a theory, but we often think of the "flood story" of water levels rising. What if this Atlantis principle you describe was true, and continents did collapse? That would mean that even if water levels remained the same, the relative water-to-land level would rise.quote>

Nice, but I have a question, how did the water return to the old levels? it surely couldn't go back into the now collapsed layers...

My main question is this: If all the water that exists on earth now (including underground, frozen, vapor and even some that's currently absorbed in lifeforms--we don't have any idea what the world's population was at that time) were suddenly made into liquid surface water, would it cover the earth?quote>

No, 97% of all water is already covering the earth, roughly a 3% more is not going to cover the earth by far

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Have you read Carotta's book about this? It's a fun little theory. quote>

Hmmm... never heard of that. I just went for Caeser since he was another legendary figure from the same time period.

Originally posted by: content_writer

Just a theory, but we often think of the "flood story" of water levels rising. What if this Atlantis principle you describe was true, and continents did collapse?  That would mean that even if water levels remained the same, the relative water-to-land level would rise.  In fact, water levels would rise in this scenario, much like what happens when you put stones in a flask filled with water, thanks to displacement.quote>

Putting stones in a glass of water is introducing something new into a system that wasn't there before. Continents are not placed and removed.

Besides, they can't suddenly go up and down like whack-a-mole. It takes millions of years for mountains to rise and billions for them to fall under natural causes. It would take some strange and immense force to push them down over 40 days and pull them back up over 100.

...never mind that there's no evidence of it having happened. And if it did, there would be.

The chart has a flaw.  It lists frozen water only under the freshwater category.  However, even salt water will freeze if the temperature is low enough...it's a myth that water has to "separate" before it freezes, even if it typically happens this way in the lower arctic region, the Atlantic Ocean and high school lab experiments.  This is because in those zones the temperature hovers between the normal freezing temperature of water and the freezing temperature of salt water.quote>

Nevertheless, once salt water freezes, the salt tends to leech out of it. So, despite having frozen from salt water, the ice in the icecaps is fresh except for any bits that are freshly frozen.

My main question is this:  If all the water that exists on earth now (including underground, frozen, vapor and even some that's currently absorbed in lifeforms--we don't have any idea what the world's population was at that time) were suddenly made into liquid surface water, would it cover the earth?quote>

Not even close.

Besides, underground water is liquid. And, water cannot persist on the surface unless the ground underneath it is also saturated. Take a glass of water and pour it out on a patch of dry dirt somewhere. Watch what thappens.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: content_writer

Originally posted by: jammy

God is not a real thing as we, the universe, the sun, the earth and the life on it has developed over billions of years.quote>

Originally posted by: Eastwinn

I personally do not believe in any god. I'm atheist. I've yet to see any evidence at all that convinces my in any way that any sort of god exists, so I'm yet to see any reason at all to believe that a god may exist. It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of lack of faith brought on by scientific thinking. I am sure of all my beliefs.quote>

Radio waves have been around since the universe began.  They surround you, travel great distances and can pass through buildings.  They can't be seen, touched, tasted, smelled or heard.  If the device called the radio (or the early experiments that preceded it) hadn't been invented, how would you be able to prove or disprove that radio waves exist?  Faith is nothing more than the ability to discern God, much like a radio (device) is able to tune in a specific frequency and play music.

quote>

It doesn't matter if they can't be seen, touched, tasted, smelled or heard with the natural senses, they are still objectively detectable. Science is about extending the senses. Radio waves can be clearly demonstrated to exist, because they have an effect on the material world. That effect can be observed and measured. We find out about the nature of radio waves by looking at their effects on the natural world. Then from that we can build a theory that explains what they are and how they work. From that we can build devices that amplify those effects (a radio for example). We know our theory is moderately accurate when the devices work as predicted. That provides reinforcement that the theory is correct.

We do not need to have any "faith" that radio waves exist. They have the same effect on the material world whether or not we believe in them. A radio works just as well for someone who doesn't know how it works (a child for example) or for someone who thinks there are little people inside it (again, a young child for example), as it does for someone who completely understands how to build one. It works the same for someone in Alaska, Australia, France, or China, or someone who is atheist, Muslim, Christian, black, white, communist or Republican. The same can't be said of God.

Originally posted by: content_writer

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I also believe that many other accounts are exaggerated or fictitious. For instance, the physical impossibility of that amount of water condensing in the atmosphere to produce Noah's flood, as well as my belief that Genesis has effectively been disproven by scientific evidence and theory (i.e. the gigantic evidence gap between the two).quote>

Contrary to popular belief, the flood wasn't exclusively the result of "a lot of rain" pouring from the sky.  If you read the whole account, it says that in one day "all the springs of the great deep [ie: water that's underground] burst forth..."  If you take into account all the current underground, surface, atmospheric water, add what's locked in the form of snow and ice (mountain tops, as well as the polar regions), and even the water contained in us, then there is certainly enough water to cover the whole earth.

quote>

Actually there is nowhere near the amount of water required on Earth. I did some rough calculations in another thread, which showed that in order to cover the whole Earth as claimed in the Bible, it would require an additional 3.17 times the amount of water currently on Earth.

To store it under the Earth's surface it would completely fill a volume to a depth of 8.6 kilometers, which is more problematic geologically and physically (particularly to do with temperature and pressure) than storing it in the atmosphere both with the actual storage, and the lack of evidence of it erupting from the earth's surface and then getting shoved back in there again. Everything that has an effect on the material world leaves behind evidence.

You can find my original calculations here: Creationism vs Evolution. You are also free to do your own of course.

Originally posted by: content_writer

Just a theory, but we often think of the "flood story" of water levels rising. What if this Atlantis principle you describe was true, and continents did collapse?

quote>

Such a catastrophic event would leave significant predictable and detectable marks on the earth's surface and through the geological column. There aren't any.

Originally posted by: content_writer

My main question is this:  If all the water that exists on earth now (including underground, frozen, vapor and even some that's currently absorbed in lifeforms--we don't have any idea what the world's population was at that time) were suddenly made into liquid surface water, would it cover the earth?

quote>

No.

[content_writer 0]

If God was more interested in people than he was in objects, than wouldn't people's lives be the effect that could be observed and measured?

[Eastwinn 6]

Originally posted by: content_writer

If God was more interested in people than he was in objects, than wouldn't people's lives be the effect that could be observed and measured?quote>

Sure, it could be observed, but now you have the burden of finding an istance where He/She/It has a consistent effect (or any at all) on someone's life so we can observe it.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Shows how to choose a religion, but says nothing about the existence or not of God.

Here is the scenario that I like:

In the beginning if you can define it everything was void which means absolutely empty. Then something made a big noise, the universe or universes started rolling, and whatever caused it left the balls to roll without interference.

This is the credo of the Church of God, the Utterly Indifferent.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

There are a couple of theories (and many hypotheses) that support the God Hypothesis. One is the Rare Earth Theory. It pretty much amounts to anything in the range from the planet Earth is the only planet in the Galaxy with civilization to the planet Earth is the only planet with life. Most religions (but not all, I'm looking at you Mormons) think that God treats Earth special. That it is God's personal project, as you will, and that God did not create life on other planets. If the god of our planet is the god of our galaxy (or universe), then there would be no other planets with intelligent life. The infinite universe arising from a point of infinite energy, as stated in the Big Bang theory is used to prove that the creator of the universe is the point of infinite energy, which is God. Where the religion takes off from there differs; some believe God is everywhere and changes the universe (including giving life to Earth and intelligently designing evolution --- yes there is a hybrid theory that says that God controls evolution), some say that God became the universe and does not actively do anything.

Personally, I believe that God is the source of Energy in this world as well as a figurehead. I am not sure in my beliefs on what God can do today.

[s.i.X 13]

I god is treating the Earth special and we're still in the sorry state we're in, then I would hate to see the planets he truly neglects.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The planets he neglects (if the rare earth theory is proven) don't have any of life's problems because they have no life. It is very hard to prove the rare earth theory but it could theoretically be proven eventually once we have the technology to explore all star systems that could potentially harbor life and receive no positives.

  Edited January 24, 2012 by OcramSeattle  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I do not believe in the Rare Earth Theory because I desperately hope for us to find extraterrestrial life, especially habitable planets without intelligent life so we can colonize like crazy!

[Meg 368]

Raising this thread from the dead. I found this quite funny and thought to share:

It pretty much amounts to anything in the range from the planet Earth is the only planet in the Galaxy with civilization to the planet Earth is the only planet with life. Most religions (but not all, I'm looking at you Mormons) think that God treats Earth special. That it is God's personal project, as you will, and that God did not create life on other planets.

I never understood this. Why would God only create life here? Why not on the other planets? Where did this assumption come from?

There is a saying: God is too big to fit into one religion. Seems to be that God would also be too big to fit into one planet.

Centuries ago, people though the universe revolved around the earth. Now we know better. But why do people still think that God revolves around the earth?

[hym 358]

I never understood this. Why would God only create life here? Why not on the other planets? Where did this assumption come from?

Why create life on other planets?

The Bible credits humans as being the most important part of God's creation. So important in fact, He gave humanity something that He didn't give anything else in His creation: the gift of free choice.

There is a saying: God is too big to fit into one religion. Seems to be that God would also be too big to fit into one planet.

God is also too big to be stuffed into statements saying that He is too big for a single religion.

God is as big or as small as He chooses to be, and the Bible offers several instances where God chooses to limit His power.

That's one set of explanations for your questions.

[Meg 368]

I never understood this. Why would God only create life here? Why not on the other planets? Where did this assumption come from?

Why create life on other planets?

Why not? Why limit life to this one rock?

The Bible credits humans as being the most important part of God's creation. So important in fact, He gave humanity something that He didn't give anything else in His creation: the gift of free choice.

Okay, let's make several radical assumptions here:

a) The Bible is accurate (I don't believe this but let's assume for sake of argument that it is true)

b) At the time God created us, we were unique because we were the only ones that got the gift of free choice (also questionable but, again, let's go with it for the sake of argument)

That happened how many thousands of years ago? Since that time, God hasn't wanted to try it again? He never had the inclination to keep going but decided that we are so wonderful that He could stop creating things?

Isn't that a huge assumption to make? A huge, arrogant assumption?

Isn't it presuming to know the will of God to assume that he stopped creating planets and people?

There is a saying: God is too big to fit into one religion. Seems to be that God would also be too big to fit into one planet.

God is also too big to be stuffed into statements saying that He is too big for a single religion.

God is as big or as small as He chooses to be, and the Bible offers several instances where God chooses to limit His power.

That's one set of explanations for your questions.

That's one set of explanations, yes. But that doesn't make any sense to me.

[hamsterTK 93]

Well, civilizations began in fertile river valleys where there was a seasonal flood cycle. This would have had profound effects on their society and may have led to such imagery become part of their mythology. Its funny how the circumstances of a civilization's founding and what stage it is at tend to effect their religious beliefs. Religion is a is a social construct.

  Edited January 24, 2012 by hamsterTK  

[hym 358]

Okay, let's make several radical assumptions here:

a) The Bible is accurate (I don't believe this but let's assume for sake of argument that it is true)

b) At the time God created us, we were unique because we were the only ones that got the gift of free choice (also questionable but, again, let's go with it for the sake of argument)

That happened how many thousands of years ago? Since that time, God hasn't wanted to try it again? He never had the inclination to keep going but decided that we are so wonderful that He could stop creating things?

Isn't that a huge assumption to make? A huge, arrogant assumption?

Isn't it presuming to know the will of God to assume that he stopped creating planets and people?

No one is presuming to know the mind of God. They are operating off what's written in the Bible, and what is written very explicitly says that once he created humans, he stopped the process of creation. It even goes so far as to say that God considered his work finished. To put it in modern terms, God retired. So, no, God hasn't decided to try again.

The problem with the idea that, after thousands of years, God got an urge to try it again is that it requires God to be impacted by the passage of time, which the Bible very clearly says is not the case. God is well aware of the passage of time, but it has no effect on him.

[astronelson 339]

I don't believe in god(s), as there is no evidence for one/them. I cannot, however, prove that there is/are no god(s), as it is logically impossible to prove a negative. I do, though, consider the probability of god(s) existing small enough to say that no, there is/are no god(s).

[MandelSoft 2,775]

@Astronelson: True. Science can't be prove nor disprove the existance of God, since there is nothing we can measure or observe to make predictions of the effects of either scenario (and therefore, I'm an agnost, since I don't make a definitive statement either ). I only have to say one thing about this subject: God didn't create man; Man created God.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Here we are again batting our gums about the ineffable and the nugatory. I gave my thesis above.

Other than a few frantic writings by hallucinating primitives, the Bible is a nice chronicle of the tribes of Israel. If you read it carefully you will see that religious people are often violent fanatics. One thing the history of the Christian church shows is that the Islamics are at the same stage of development we were in some six or seven hundred years ago when we were busily crusading around the Middle East because, in the words of one Pope, "God wills it." One of the greatest sins of presumption that the Vatican has ever promulgated.

As for the New Testament, the first book (of John) was written 80 years or so after the main events with the Old Testament open in his lap. It is a document that sets out to "prove" the later prophesies of the old book. The rest are later and simply codify a lot of hear-say. After the Evangelists, we get the book of St. John the Divine which is a massive set of hallucinatory scribblings.

[astronelson 339]

I'd say all atheists are agnostic atheists. I don't think anyone claims to have definite knowledge of the non-existence of god.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I'd say all atheists are agnostic atheists. I don't think anyone claims to have definite knowledge of the non-existence of god.

An old military maxim: "There are no atheists in foxholes".

The agnostic prayer: "Oh God, if there is one, save my soul, if I have one."

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Disproving a negative is possible if you find the positive. The rare earth theory can potentially be disproven in the future.

[Cobraroll 138]

To put it short, I don't believe there is a god. Most people are dismissing the existence of literally thousands of gods that have been worshipped throughout history. I just dismiss the existence of all those, plus one*.

*might not count for those who worship multiple gods (let's call that number X. X might be 1 too, to include the monotheists). Generally speaking, people dismiss (all gods) - X. In my case, X = 0.

[Meg 368]

I believe there is a higher power. I do not believe in the limited, petty God described in the Christian Bible.

[Wiecher 192]

As far as I can know for sure, the only thing that exists is my own mind. I cannot prove any of you or anything else in the worlds exists, because I can only interpret with my own mind, and can't know anything that's not somehow in my mind. So everything could be a creation of my mind, and I am the only sentience in the, well not the universe, but like a void of nothing, not even a vacuum. Nothing has to be real.

So to me, I can be God, if I want to.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As far as I can know for sure, the only thing that exists is my own mind. I cannot prove any of you or anything else in the worlds exists, because I can only interpret with my own mind, and can't know anything that's not somehow in my mind. So everything could be a creation of my mind, and I am the only sentience in the, well not the universe, but like a void of nothing, not even a vacuum. Nothing has to be real.

So to me, I can be God, if I want to.

Solipsism is as good as any. It has good antecedents. Descartes for example.

[Wiecher 192]

As far as I can know for sure, the only thing that exists is my own mind. I cannot prove any of you or anything else in the worlds exists, because I can only interpret with my own mind, and can't know anything that's not somehow in my mind. So everything could be a creation of my mind, and I am the only sentience in the, well not the universe, but like a void of nothing, not even a vacuum. Nothing has to be real.

So to me, I can be God, if I want to.

Solipsism is as good as any. It has good antecedents. Descartes for example.

Ah thanks, that was the word I was looking for.

Not that I truly believe in it, but it's more like an example that abstract concepts like Gods, beliefs and consciousness are hard or even impossible to ever prove right or wrong, and that believing in a God would make him real for you, as long as you truly believe it.

It kind of reminded me to something in the book Nineteeneightyfour by George Orwell. When Winston is tortured in room 101, this party member tells him a kind of thought experiment. I don't quote exactly, but it was like this: If I say I fly up to the ceiling like a bubble, and I believe I do it, and you believe you see me actually do it, then we both see it and and both believe it, so I actually fly up to the ceiling.

The same could apply to God. As long as people believe in it, he exists for those who believe in it, as what we see as reality is what our brain interprets.

And maybe this interpretation is based on a true reality, as the Greek philosopher Plato said in his Theory of Forms.

But this is all philosophical.

I believe, "in the end we're all made of star stuff", just coincidentally placed molecules and quantum particles, which change in location and composition over time.