Does God Exist?
by Avijit Roy
[Sajita]
OK you do not believe in God and other stuff but believe in science.
Avijit Roy's response: Yes
that makes the whole point clear :-)
[Sajita]
I am talking about creating from scratch. Life is a mystery to our scientist.
Avijit Roy's response: Yes life is a mystery. But Mystery does not mean miracle. Aaparthib has already pointed out the mystery many times in various e-forums. To briefly phrase his idea, the best known scientific answer today in scientific jargon : "Life is a dissipative structure that has achieved the threshold of complexity to become an autopoietic system." The purpose of life is nothing but to faithfully obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics by increasing entropy (Even eating, or even sex are dictated by this requirement, although our brain translates it into a sense of desire and pleasure for us, hiding the real underlying purpose from our conscious mind).
Now how life is formed ? Although a complete answer is not available, but we can expect to form a logical analysis about the creation of life keeping in mind about Occam's Razor (Don't worry this razor wont hurt you anyway :-)). Moreover, we should also look into the sciences with all its modern insights for compiling our answers. Science itself is an ongoing phenomena, every day a new insight is being added to the knowledge based on checking and counterchecking that leads us closer to the final understanding. Darwin's Theory of Evolution, Mendel's theory of heredity and most importantly the almost legendary discovery of DNA and deciphering of the genetic code in 1953 can be taken as the quantum jump of explaining the miraculous formation of life. If we recall the famous experiment in the early 1950s Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago, their result showed how chemical and physical process can create the ingredients of life. They did first experiment designed to clarify the chemical reactions that occurred on the primitive earth. In the flask at the bottom, they created an "ocean" of water, which he heated, forcing water vapor to circulate through the apparatus. The flask at the top contained an "atmosphere" consisting of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2) and the circulating water vapor. Next he exposed the gases to a continuous electrical discharge ("lightning"), causing the gases to interact. Water-soluble products of those reactions then passed through a condenser and dissolved in the mock ocean. The experiment yielded many amino acids and enabled Miller to explain how they had formed. For instance, glycine appeared after reactions in the atmosphere produced simple compounds - formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide - that participated in the set of reactions that took place. Years after this experiment, a meteorite that struck near Murchison, Australia, was shown to contain a number of the same amino acids that Miller identified (table) and in roughly the same relative amounts (dots); those found in proteins are highlighted in blue. Such coincidences lent credence to the idea that Miller's protocol approximated the chemistry of the prebiotic earth. More recent findings have cast some doubt on that conclusion.
Life is not simply an entity created from scratch from conception to birth (which you mentioned). Life is an evolving process that has been going on over billions of years in an incremental way. Life as we know it is a chemical system which needs both proteins and nucleic acids working closely together. Nucleic acids and proteins are built mainly from hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon atoms, which are among the commonest atoms in the Universe.
Here are some wonderful articles/responses that explained the above scientific view :
http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/text.html
http://www.oocities.org/aparthib/scimeta.html#ARTICLE6
http://humanists.net/avijit/article/debate/life_death_afterlife_avijit.htm
http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/life.html
http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/biolenv.html#life
What is Life? - Lyn Margulis and Dorion Sagan
The Blind Watchmaker - RichaRD Dawkins.
http://www.mcb.arizona.edu/Hewlett/romepaper.html
[Sajita]
Now my question is how this complex structure came in existence? Who designed it? Do you think without a designer human being came in this planet? If there is no powerful designer then the question is how this complex organization could assemble itself?
Avijit Roy's response: Your argument is known as "Design Argument" in philosophy. Design argument argues everything needs to have a designer/creator. Before giving a reply of this argument, I would like to request Sajita to read my following article which is a rebuttal of "Design argument" :
http://humanists.net/avijit/article/god_design_argument_avijit.htm
Now, the first, most common, and most obvious objection to the whole family of design arguments is the fact that any god which would have been able to create the universe would itself have to be rather complex and certainly couldn't be "accidental." So, if the universe and the human body is too complex to be accidental, what about this god? Who or what created this god? The theist will normally respond by claiming this god is a "necessary being" and doesn't need a "creator." Unfortunately, this is totally unsupported and totally unsupportable. There is no basis for such an arbitrary assertion, except to try to excuse their god from the same standards they wish to apply to the universe. However, any excuse made for this god can be equally work for the universe. Why can't the universe be "necessary" or not need a "creator?" No one can say - after all, we really don't know enough about our universe or universes in general to make such a judgment.
This is key: underlying nearly ever design argument, you'll find the assumption of ignorance of something and then the conclusion that since we don't know, then a god must be the proper explanation. But Ignorance an never be a good argument in any meaningful sense. Ignored is the question of whether or not an unknown and possibly unknowable god, using unknown and possibly unknowable methods, for unknown and possibly unknowable reasons, can ever be considered a rational "explanation" for anything.
The Design Argument is developed from watchmaker argument of William Paley which has been refuted by skeptics/agnostics /atheists long time ago, and today this type of argument is no longer utilized in any meaningful discussion. Paley's famous statement was -
"Suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly answer that for anything I knew, the watch might always have been there. The watch must have had a maker, who comprehended its construction and designed its use. Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design which existed in the watch, exists in nature, with the difference on the side of nature of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."
The statement contains many fallacies which I have already pointed out in my article :
http://humanists.net/avijit/article/god_design_argument_avijit.htm
Please also check the following two links :
http://humanists.net/avijit/article/who_created_you_aparthib.html
http://humanists.net/avijit/article/aparthib/god_samuel.htm
Rebuttal of Argument from Design:
1. http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/design.htm
2. http://home.inu.net/skeptic/design.html
3. http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Ithaca/4388/design.html
4. http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
5. http://www.stargazer.org/refute.txt
or http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/refute.html
6. http://www.duke.edu/~sdk2/ooze/skeptic/design.html
7. http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/watch.htm
8. http://www.oocities.org/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/design.htm
9. http://skepdic.com/design.html
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
(Vic Stenger:Cockroaches..)
11. http://reason.com/9907/fe.ks.is.html
(Kenneth Silber)
12. http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/intelligent-design.html (Taner Edis)
13. http://biomed.brown.edu/faculty/M/Miller/TR/Lifes-Design.html
14. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_3.html
15. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html
[Sajita]
Not only that but take the example of earth sun and moon. Sun and moon's distance from earth is so precise and so accurate that if sun comes little nearer, it will consume the whole earth with extensive heat. And if sun goes little far away then life is not possible on earth it will freeze you to death. How is it possible that without a designer sun, moon and earth are in perfect position?
My response : Your statement - "Sun and moon's distance from earth is so precise and so accurate that if sun comes little nearer, it will consume the whole earth with extensive heat. And if sun goes little far away then life is not possible on earth it will freeze you to death" leads us to recompile the "Fine tuning" Argument to prove the existence of god.
The basic argument starts with a few very simple assumptions. We believe that anyone who accepts that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life would find it difficult not to accept these assumptions. They are:
a) Our universe exists and contains life.
b) Our universe is "life friendly," that is, the conditions in our universe (such as physical laws, etc.) permit or are compatible with life existing naturalistically.
c) Life cannot exist in a universe that is governed solely by naturalistic law unless that universe is "life-friendly."
The existence of "fine-tuning" in the universe (in the sense of various parameters being narrowly balanced to produce life) is well known among the physics community, theists and non-theists alike. But surely you realize that there is a world of difference between "fine-tuning" and "intelligent design", and that the latter does not logically follow from the former? And the claim "either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes" is clearly a false dichotomy -- there are other possibilities, perhaps more plausible than either of those two.
The Fine-tuning Argument only appeals to actual explanations, not to merely possible ones, whereas the suggestion about a "theory of everything" only says there may come to be a certain explanation without actually providing one. Let us take him to be insisting that we confine our attention to actual explanations and to be claiming simply that the God hypothesis is the best explanation of all those that might be put forward today. It is worth noting, though, that advocates of the Fine-tuning Argument have never shown that alternate universes are physically possible.
How "fine" is our universe is quite a debatable issue ( if the probability that a randomly-selected universe would be life-friendly is very small, then the probability that naturalism is true, given the observed fact that the universe is "life-friendly," is also very small), however if really so, now question arises, does "fine tuning" necessarily prove that God exists? No. The considered position of scientists is that fine tuning in the form of the anthropic coincidences is real but that a creator is by no means the only explanation. Even if intelligent design were proven it would still not necessarily mean that the Biblical/Judeo-Christian God was involved which Sajita emphasising. Further information may improve the strength of the argument. For instance, if we find that our laws of physics provide an easy pathway to the origin of life that requires them to be exactly as they are, this would be further evidence for an intelligent creator.
The so-called other anthropic coincidences, in which the constants of nature seem to be extraordinarily fine-tuned for the production of life, are cited, in many web pages and religious books as evidence. However, no such interpretation can be found in scientific literature. Based on all we currently know about fundamental physics and cosmology, the most logically consistent and parsimonious picture of the universe as we know it is a natural one, with no sign of design or purposeful creation provided by scientific observations.
Check the following links for reference:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning-revisited.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/finetuning.html
http://www.escape.ca/~acc/reading/godofgap.php
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Cosmo/anthro_skintel.html
http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_hurben/univ.html
[Saijita]
Now the question is does God exists? Let me take the few things from the Bible and show you whether God exists or not? If you read the Bible, you will see a relationship between God and human being. There are many people in the Bible who had direct contact with God. They spoke to God, they saw God. And even many see today in this modern age. Why? Because yes, there is a God who is the designer and creator of universe.
My response : I am not sure what exactly your point is. In one of my previous responses to you I mentioned that For me, A clear definition of 'God', plus some objective and compelling supporting evidence, would be enough. The evidence must be objective, though; anecdotal evidence of other people's religious experiences isn't good enough. And notably - a strong, compelling evidence is required, because the existence of god/supernaturalism is an extraordinary claim -- and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Personal "spiritual" experience is not a conclusive proof to me. One should not overlook the fallacy of Anecdotal evidence while any one attempts to prove god/spiritual being through personal spiritual experience. One of the simplest fallacies is, no doubt, to rely on anecdotal evidence to prove god/fairy tales/ monster/ghosts etc. You claimed that there are many people in the Bible who had direct contact with God. Similarly many hindu followers in India claims that their spiritual Gurus can contact with god. Hearing their stories, are you willing to accept Hindu god, such as Bishnu, Brohmma, Kali ? Actually Sajita, those who claim to have a "direct contact" with god are just mentally/psychologically retarded persons or they are fraud.
[Saijita]
These books of Bible were written many thousands of years ago when they had no chance to even imagine all these things.
Avijit Roy's response: you see, you are among those who always search science in religious scriptures. There are many "scientific" books written by Hindu apologists who claim to find space station, atomic bomb, test tube baby, robot, theory of evolution, gravitation, unified field theory, cosmic egg, black hole, time-dialation everything in Vedas. Muslim apologists claims to find those in Quran and you claim to find those in Bible. Aparthib already pointed out those falacies many times in various e-forums:
"Trying to find out modern science in ancient religious book is just a flawed attempt that is often made by apologetics of all religions, some more than others. If one likes to see science in anything they can see it anywhere. Some Joe may have said "All is relative" before Einstein's theory of relativity. By this stretch of imagination that Joe can legitimately claim that he already knew about relativity and claim originality. Any vague phrase, pun, quote etc by humans, scriptures etc can be customized and made to fit any scientific principle which also have been phrased in a very general way for popular consumption hiding the underlying precise sense of these principles. Its an insult to science and the scientists whose painstaking research has helped unravel the complex workings of the laws of nature and reality. None of these scientific revelations were inspired from, dependent on, or utilized any of the religious revelations. If religious revelations could not and did not lead to any of these scientific truths in a stand alone way then by any criterion and logic they cannot be used to corroborate science. There are many unanswered questions in the basic understanding of the universe. Why can't the verses of scripture throw any light on them? For example we don't at this time know for sure if the universe is closed, open or flat. No body dares to make a prediction based on any revelation. But if it is ever found out by science I am sure one can dig out some vague words of a verse from some book of some religion and claim to "see" the answer that science has finally managed to find. Its always AFTER the fact that these semblances are found. It has never been found BEFORE the scientific discovery. Is that a coincidence?.
We must realize that Einstein need not read Quran/Bible to discover his theory of relativity, rather than, only after Einstein discovered the basic fact, some of the Muslim/Christian interpreters made a loud noise to dig some silly suras/verses from Quran/Bible to make analogy with relativity by force.
"Religion can never vindicate or falsify science. If Bible is really a book of
science then then what branch of science is this? Physics ? Chemistry ? Biology ? Social
science? Library science? Political science? No answer. Apologists can only give the
answer in the line of technological/medical science relating blurry wordings of the book
with practical examples of embryology, astronomy, Big-Bang, etc. Moreover, if one
considers Quran/Bible/Gita as a super-scientific book then, they should be able to show us
us at least one scientific principle that is disclosed in Qur'an without using any mumbo
jumbo words and hocus pocus boring tricks of difficulty with confusing mis-interpretation.
The truth or falsity of a scientific principle lies within science itself. Religious
scriptures cannot speak of any scientific principle. Religious revelations are absolute
directives and narratives for humans to follow as faith unquestioningly. Many
revelations clearly contradict many accepted scientific principles. No scientist of any
repute have ever tried to substantiate scientific principles by religious beliefs. Most
scientists and theologicians would rather not mix faith with objective and rational field
of science. Koran/Bible/Gita etc are not books of science. Any coincidental vague
semblance between a verse and a popular phrasing of a complex scientific principle is
solely due to the very general and vague wordings admitting of any interpretation that one
chooses to impose on it. All one needs is some vague reverse fitting argument to connect
the two. One can find Quantum Mechanics in Tagore's poems, or relativity in the Buddhist
Monk Nagarjun's writing. Just seeing what one likes to see because of a preset belief in a
favored belief system doesn't make it so by any objective criterion. My purpose is not to
disrspect religion or its revelation, but to question the attempt to reconcile the two in
an illogical way. They can be irreconcilable and yet can continue and thrive as separate
ways as long as one does not get in the way of the pursuit of the other. (~Aparthib)"
You may read the following articles for references:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/schrev.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/1/1boobo91.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/anthony_garrett/esct.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/1/1brain93.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/clarence_darrow/bible_absurdities.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/clarence_darrow/bible_absurdities.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/physics/index.shtml
http://www.humanists.net/avijit/article/10_myths_about_Quran.htm
http://humanists.net/avijit/letter_of_debate1.htm
http://humanists.net/avijit/article/mirza_refute_ahmedullah.htm
[Sajita]
And more than that I am sure that what you believe(Atheism), you do not have proof of it. You cannot prove that there is no God. Because you do not have whole-knowledge so when you say that, "there is no God", this sentence is a lie itself. .... it means you should have complete knowledge of everything otherwise you can not say that there is no God.
Avijit Roy's response: I think Sajita, it is nonsense to say that nobody has proved the non-existence of god. Why ? if you believe that the god exists, it is you who have to bring the scientific proof, cause, it is your duty to establish your concept, not my duty to disprove it first. This is called "BURDEN OF PROOF". The burden of proof is always resides on the person making an extraordinary assertion or proposition (for e.g existence of god, angel, devil, alien, ghost etc.). It is a fallacy to push the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions such an assertion. [ see : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html ]
"If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments !!????!!!" -- Bertrand Russell
Please check :
http://humanists.net/avijit/article/debate/eshomabesh/argumant_to_oppose_response_avijit.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/mcinerny.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_conifer/ar.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_conifer/al.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/3/3burde97.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/6/976proof.html
[Sajita]
Second thing is, if you believe on big-bang, earth's age is millions of years, man evolved from monkey or lower organisms.. what is the proof of it? Big-bang can not produce LIFE. There is no evidence of millions of years but it is all assumption and day dreaming of scientist because Carbon Dating Method does not work more than 35,000 years.
Avijit Roy's response: I am not believing anything. I rely on science and scientific methodologies. Science is not a belief / faith, anyway. Believing or having faith in something cannot constitute a knowledge, unless the object of the belief is defined unambiguously and then verified objectively resulting in a consensus that crosses all religious/cultural/ethnic boundaries. I am sure in your school days, you have faced those questions in physics - "How rainbow is formed?" or "Why the sky is blue" etc, right ? You certainly tried to give the answer from theknowledge of physics. But, how much number a student expect if he explains - "Rainbow is formed .... because god has created it" ? Absolutely zero. Similarly "God has created the universe" - this statement do not add any extra knowledge in our mind rather than enforce to escape scientific methodologies and relies on (blind) faith/belief. "OH God ! you created us" - illustrates the attitude of total surrender of the individual to the god of his faith which does not require any further (scientific) investigation. Unlike religious belief, science is not based on faith , but science is a genuine knowledge acquired through scientific method through checking/counter checking . It is not a dogma that clings to its veracity doggedly like religion.
Big bang is not in a business to define the creation of life. "Big Bang" is a model to describe the beginnings of the Universe. It is a model of the Universe beginning at very high density and temperature, which expands and cools to become the Universe we observe now. "Big Bang" which conjures up the picture of some huge firecracker exploding, a gigantic thermonuclear explosion may be more apt, though even that does not do the event justice. There are many supportable evidence for Bigbang. . Edwin Hubble, substantially building on initial velocity measurements of Slipher, determined that the vast majority of galaxies are moving away from us, and that the velocity of their recession is proportional to their distance from us. Therefore close galaxies possess small velocities, distant galaxies are receeding with the largest velocities. This is commonly referred to as the Hubble expansion. This expansion would be observed from any galaxy, not just ours. Another supportable evidence for Bigbang is Element abundance predictions based on the creation of light atomic nuclei (eg. Deuterium, 2H; 4He; 3He; 7Li) during the first few minutes of the Big Bang agree extremely well with those observed. And of course, the discovery of background radiation in 1965, consistent with relic energy from the Big Bang was a landmark finding that firmly consolidated the model.
[Sajita]
And there is no other method to know the millions of years old things. And there is no evidence transitional forms of animal or insects or birds or even human being. Why we do not see any transitional forms if we are evolved from other species?
You have a very wrong concept of evolution. You said, "Why we do not see any
transitional forms if we are evolved from other species?" To clarify you, Biologists
define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over a large period of time
(not the short period like in front of your eyes). One example is insects developing a
resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize
that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of
evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a
common ancestor. Even without these direct observations (direct observation is not
possible because no body has such a huge life-span to observe evolutionary changes, but,
it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been occurred. Evidence isn't limited to
seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would
expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical
distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over.
The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. But what you want is
direct evidence that is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such
as a frog changing into a cow or apes turns to human. That's what evolution never claims.
This is not a problem of evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even
remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very
strong evidence against evolution, because it would then be thought of "god's
miracle" rather than gradual process of evolution!
When you hear talk of evidence for evolution, the first thing that frequently comes to
mind for most people are fossils. Fossils that show intermediate characteristics are
generally called transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils that have
characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it
and after it. As such, transitional fossils are strongly suggestive of evolution. There
are many examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Examples include
large-scale transitions such as from reptiles to birds (like the controversial
archaeopteryx) and from reptiles to mammals, as well as more detailed transitions, such as
those among the many hominids or the development of horses. The fact that, despite the
rarity of fossilization, we have a wealth of transitional fossil data and that the fossil
data generally conforms to the phylogenetic tree is strongly supportive of the idea of
evolution.
Humans are also not exceptions. They also had to pass under the systematic process of evolution. There are many examples such as ER 1813 (510 cc), Java(940 cc), Peking(915-1225 cc) ER 1470(750 cc) -they are almost or very near to apes. And even, creationists (Who think God created Humans) themselves cannot agree on the point which fossils are humans and which are apes. ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html ) This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurred. If, on the other hand, creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. This is not the case. It would not matter even if creationists could decide where to put the dividing line between humans and apes. No matter where it is placed, the humans just above the line and the apes just below it will be more similar to one another than they will be to other humans or other apes.
BTW, Another popular wrong idea of evolution is that evolution claims that hominid directly came from apes, which is not true. Evolution tells that both of these species had the common ancestors.
[Sajita]
Third thing is, do atheism have answers for our problems?
Avijit Roy's response: No. I never claimed. I took this path because it seems to be most rational choice for me. Atheism will not solve each and every problem of the universe, but it certainly a first step to become a rational being.
Best regards.
Avijit
Copyright Avijit Roy 2002
Is someone trying to convert you to christianity? Click here and give them this...
