Whether or not there is God(s)

[dialamah]

We don't need milk between 6-16, in fact we're the only species that consumes milk beyond infancy. But even if we really needed it, don't you think the fact that we have to rely on other species is actually an argument against intelligent design? Shouldn't humans make their own milk if it was that essential to our health?

And also, if this is all intelligent design, shouldn't we able to withstand various temperatures on our own accord instead of wearing animals and/or their fur?

It all seems a bit counter intuitive.

Perhaps we are some kind of early version of human and all these extra animals providing milk and coverings were really bug fixes, while God got it right. Perhaps somewhere on another planet, God put his final, finished product.

[BC_chick]

Perhaps we are some kind of early version of human and all these extra animals providing milk and coverings were really bug fixes, while God got it right. Perhaps somewhere on another planet, God put his final, finished product.

Perhaps. Or perhaps we are living in the Matrix.

But from what we do know, there are too many flaws in the current design to try and make an argument for 'intelligent design'.

[?Impact]

But from what we do know, there are too many flaws in the current design to try and make an argument for 'intelligent design'.

Give God a break, he is only the blueprint image for human.

[Benz]

Atheists are ignoring the facts that there are billions maybe more of benefits for humankind and other living beings to survive and resume their lives. I just give simple examples trying to think like as a person who is living in ancient times with least scientific discoveries. If I start to think according to today, it will be much clearer that there is God. If I was living in the stone age, how could I see the evidences around me about the perfect order in the nature ? Fire was a good example for it. We didnt adapt to eat things raw, we need to cook them and there is fire and there are many auxiliary elements in the nature for us to have fire. This is the point where atheist logic fails but you dont accept your mistake, you insist on your mistake. This is sad.

First, I am sorry that I enter into this topic only 3 days later. I am the one you are quoting in your first post and I replied to you in the other topic we are discussing about it. It's a good idea to move the topic here but, I did not notice until now.

Altai, you have a huge need to find an explantion to something and when you don't have any, you directly conclude that it's because of God. If you can't explain it, then God is the explanation. This is how the believers do. However, even if you choose the simple short answer, at least you are asking good questions. This is why it is possible to debate about it.

The creationists think that god created everything as is and that god created the human from scratch. The evolutionists are rather observing that the spieces are following the rule of evolution and are constantly adapting to the environment. This is also how the homonid homo erectus became homo sapiens (humans).

It is very funny that you mention cooking as proof that god exists, because cooking is rather the proof of evolution. Humans can live without cooking and it is no threat for their survival. The scientists have discovered that it is when the homo errectus discovered the fire and started to cook their meal that their brain evolved to our actual brain. When the meat is cooked, it provides a better improvement for the brain and this is how we became the humans we are today. Take your time and find out by yourself on the web. You can google: Meat helped evolution. There are alot of scientific studies about it. God did not invent cooking for us. We discovered by accident that when we cook our meat, it has a better taste and it ease the process of digestion. Therefore, less calories to spend.

You were using the milking of cows as a demonstration that god exists, then your own father explained you how it works and you have to admit it's not what you think. Does it makes you any less a believer? No and it is ok. But the lesson you have to learn from this is, an un explaned case does not necessary leads to the proof of the existence of god. Just as well as the non believers must understand that an explanation is not the proof of the non existence of god as well. How many animals you would like to use until you figure this out? I do not have the explanation about the sheep and the wool. The sheep have been among the first animals in our domestication. At first, they were used only for their meat. That was 11000 years ago. That is all I know for now. I am sure that if I search more, I will find an explanation. You should too. But since you are trying to prove the existence of god, you think that as soon as you find something you can't explain, it means that god has something to do with it. The point is, if you rely the existence of god on that kind of explanation, we will break your faith very fast. But it does not mean you are wrong about god. It only means you were wrong about cows, sheep, meat and all.

You are talking about logic. Logic is a mechanism of thoughts. You can be very logical and wrong at the same time. Being logic does not mean you hold the truth. It only means your thoughts are following structural schema. If you rely on information that are not right, your logic will lead you to a wrong conclusion. Once you get the truth about the information, the very same logic will lead you to another conclusion.

It is important to understand the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. The atheist believes there can't be a god. The agnostic thinks it does not matter whether there is a god or not. I am an agnostic. I believe the actual religions are wrong about their gods but, I do not deny the possibility that there can be a god.

[Altai]

My school have been started and I usually cant find time to post but I will do from time to time.

[Altai]

First, I am sorry that I enter into this topic only 3 days later. I am the one you are quoting in your first post and I replied to you in the other topic we are discussing about it. It's a good idea to move the topic here but, I did not notice until now.

Altai, you have a huge need to find an explantion to something and when you don't have any, you directly conclude that it's because of God. If you can't explain it, then God is the explanation. This is how the believers do. However, even if you choose the simple short answer, at least you are asking good questions. This is why it is possible to debate about it.

The creationists think that god created everything as is and that god created the human from scratch. The evolutionists are rather observing that the spieces are following the rule of evolution and are constantly adapting to the environment. This is also how the homonid homo erectus became homo sapiens (humans).

It is very funny that you mention cooking as proof that god exists, because cooking is rather the proof of evolution. Humans can live without cooking and it is no threat for their survival. The scientists have discovered that it is when the homo errectus discovered the fire and started to cook their meal that their brain evolved to our actual brain. When the meat is cooked, it provides a better improvement for the brain and this is how we became the humans we are today. Take your time and find out by yourself on the web. You can google: Meat helped evolution. There are alot of scientific studies about it. God did not invent cooking for us. We discovered by accident that when we cook our meat, it has a better taste and it ease the process of digestion. Therefore, less calories to spend.

You were using the milking of cows as a demonstration that god exists, then your own father explained you how it works and you have to admit it's not what you think. Does it makes you any less a believer? No and it is ok. But the lesson you have to learn from this is, an un explaned case does not necessary leads to the proof of the existence of god. Just as well as the non believers must understand that an explanation is not the proof of the non existence of god as well. How many animals you would like to use until you figure this out? I do not have the explanation about the sheep and the wool. The sheep have been among the first animals in our domestication. At first, they were used only for their meat. That was 11000 years ago. That is all I know for now. I am sure that if I search more, I will find an explanation. You should too. But since you are trying to prove the existence of god, you think that as soon as you find something you can't explain, it means that god has something to do with it. The point is, if you rely the existence of god on that kind of explanation, we will break your faith very fast. But it does not mean you are wrong about god. It only means you were wrong about cows, sheep, meat and all.

You are talking about logic. Logic is a mechanism of thoughts. You can be very logical and wrong at the same time. Being logic does not mean you hold the truth. It only means your thoughts are following structural schema. If you rely on information that are not right, your logic will lead you to a wrong conclusion. Once you get the truth about the information, the very same logic will lead you to another conclusion.

It is important to understand the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. The atheist believes there can't be a god. The agnostic thinks it does not matter whether there is a god or not. I am an agnostic. I believe the actual religions are wrong about their gods but, I do not deny the possibility that there can be a god.

Please read my posts again. I have replied all of these things and will keep posting about these issues.

[Benz]

Please read my posts again. I have replied all of these things and will keep posting about these issues.

I have read all your posts before to make sure I am not boarding a solved question.

[Goddess]

Women does not produce milk when they dont have babies because of some hormones such as prolactin, so its a wrong proposition.

This is false.

Check any website for breastfeeding and there are instructions/tips for breastfeeding without having given birth.

[Altai]

I have read all your posts before to make sure I am not boarding a solved question.

But you gave the same answers with others which were not valid to solve problem.

[Altai]

First, I am sorry that I enter into this topic only 3 days later. I am the one you are quoting in your first post and I replied to you in the other topic we are discussing about it. It's a good idea to move the topic here but, I did not notice until now.

Altai, you have a huge need to find an explantion to something and when you don't have any, you directly conclude that it's because of God. If you can't explain it, then God is the explanation. This is how the believers do. However, even if you choose the simple short answer, at least you are asking good questions. This is why it is possible to debate about it.

The creationists think that god created everything as is and that god created the human from scratch. The evolutionists are rather observing that the spieces are following the rule of evolution and are constantly adapting to the environment. This is also how the homonid homo erectus became homo sapiens (humans).

You should give up to believe these "adaptation" stories. Its another religion and is a false religion. Its illogical in many points. Need for milk, need for fire, need for sleep were good examples which disproves adaption but you dont accept it.

It is very funny that you mention cooking as proof that god exists, because cooking is rather the proof of evolution. Humans can live without cooking and it is no threat for their survival. The scientists have discovered that it is when the homo errectus discovered the fire and started to cook their meal that their brain evolved to our actual brain. When the meat is cooked, it provides a better improvement for the brain and this is how we became the humans we are today. Take your time and find out by yourself on the web. You can google: Meat helped evolution. There are alot of scientific studies about it. God did not invent cooking for us. We discovered by accident that when we cook our meat, it has a better taste and it ease the process of digestion. Therefore, less calories to spend.

Yes human can live without cooking, does not mean we dont need to cook. We can also live without breathing for a few minutes. We need to cook for many reasons. We have discovered fire because God gave us such an opportunity. We use it because its beneficial for us.

You were using the milking of cows as a demonstration that god exists, then your own father explained you how it works and you have to admit it's not what you think. Does it makes you any less a believer? No and it is ok. But the lesson you have to learn from this is, an un explaned case does not necessary leads to the proof of the existence of god. Just as well as the non believers must understand that an explanation is not the proof of the non existence of god as well. How many animals you would like to use until you figure this out? I do not have the explanation about the sheep and the wool. The sheep have been among the first animals in our domestication. At first, they were used only for their meat. That was 11000 years ago. That is all I know for now. I am sure that if I search more, I will find an explanation. You should too. But since you are trying to prove the existence of god, you think that as soon as you find something you can't explain, it means that god has something to do with it. The point is, if you rely the existence of god on that kind of explanation, we will break your faith very fast. But it does not mean you are wrong about god. It only means you were wrong about cows, sheep, meat and all.

Again, I am not asking "how", I am asking "why". So cows produce milk for any reason but the point which takes my attention is why we also need to drink milk. You cant deny our need for milk and milk products. We would have been adapted to live without drinking milk but we didnt, we need it especially for our daily calcium needs and its the only product that can provide from.

You are talking about logic. Logic is a mechanism of thoughts. You can be very logical and wrong at the same time. Being logic does not mean you hold the truth. It only means your thoughts are following structural schema. If you rely on information that are not right, your logic will lead you to a wrong conclusion. Once you get the truth about the information, the very same logic will lead you to another conclusion.

Yes and we are talking based on the same informations.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Altai

[?Impact]

Why did God create lactose intolerance?

[Altai]

Why did God create lactose intolerance?

Its a disease and is not seen on babies in general. There may be such babies and they have to be raised under a doctor supervision to prevent or to keep development disorders as little as possible.

[Benz]

But you gave the same answers with others which were not valid to solve problem.

On the contrary. You cannot state that the answers are not valid. You have to demonstrate it. There is nothing invalid in what I said. I have similar answers to others here and I used different words just in case it can help you to figure out the big picture. I do it precisely because you think our points are invalids even if they are not.

Your perception of "a problem" is also something coming from you. It's a not a problem for me if there is no god. It's not a problem if I can't prove the existence or not of a god. It's a topic interesting to debate but, it is not a problem. It is a problem for you because all your beliefs is based on it. You rely on faith. You think that everything is ruled by a god and therefore, the possibility that there is no god can only mean total chaos and it is something impossible for you.

1000 years ago, the people could not imagine they live on a sphere. They did not have the knowledge to understand their world. So the imagine a flat world where there is a new sun every day. God created the world as is and we are its creatures. It was not our places to challenge that concept. Everything was logical and made perfect sense. God was so brilliant to create a new sun, or maybe the same one, with such an incredible precision. God was fantastic to paint stars on the sky. God this, god that. Only heretics would deny the power of god. Until the day the scientists discovered the truth about our world, our universe and so on.

That is your problem. When there is something you do not know, you assume god is doing that to serve us. Like painting the sky in blue for us, even though the sky exists for billions of years prior to us. Yet, you are totally satisfied with that answers and you stop the reasonning right there. All the believers are the same. They think God is playing with our lives like if we were barbie dolls. God would have created humans as is, from scratch, instead of creating life that would evolved to what we are now after adapting ourself to our environment.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Benz

[WestCoastRunner]

Need for milk, need for fire, need for sleep were good examples which disproves adaption but you dont accept it.

Again, I am not asking "how", I am asking "why". So cows produce milk for any reason but the point which takes my attention is why we also need to drink milk. You cant deny our need for milk and milk products. We would have been adapted to live without drinking milk but we didnt, we need it especially for our daily calcium needs and its the only product that can provide from.

Humans needing milk is a myth that has long been debunked. Calcium is available from many other sources and milk can in fact increase obesity rates, anemia, and lactose intolerance.

http://www.livescience.com/49551-should-kids-drink-milk.html

[Altai]

Humans needing milk is a myth that has long been debunked. Calcium is available from many other sources and milk can in fact increase obesity rates, anemia, and lactose intolerance.

http://www.livescience.com/49551-should-kids-drink-milk.html

I know, so I dont claim that milk is the only source for calcium but its the best and easiest way to have it.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Altai

[Benz]

You should give up to believe these "adaptation" stories. Its another religion and is a false religion. Its illogical in many points. Need for milk, need for fire, need for sleep were good examples which disproves adaption but you dont accept it.

Your religion is not more true than any others. It's true for you only because you believe, because you have the faith in scriptures written a little while ago. If you think the need for sleep disprove adaptation, you fail badly. On the contrary. The need for sleep IS a demonstration that the life is adapting to the environment.

Yes human can live without cooking, does not mean we dont need to cook. We can also live without breathing for a few minutes. We need to cook for many reasons. We have discovered fire because God gave us such an opportunity. We use it because its beneficial for us.

What do you mean by need? No we do not need to cook. We do it because it has better taste and helps for digestion. If we stop cooking, we survive very well. If we stop breathing, we die. Bad comparison. Do you have the evidence that god took the decision to light up fire for us? No you don't. It please you think it.

Again, I am not asking "how", I am asking "why". So cows produce milk for any reason but the point which takes my attention is why we also need to drink milk. You cant deny our need for milk and milk products. We would have been adapted to live without drinking milk but we didnt, we need it especially for our daily calcium needs and its the only product that can provide from.

We do not need to drink milk. Several nations and cultures do not drink milk. Among them, the Japanese and Koreans. Calcium can come from other products as well. The women in Korea do not suffer from the problems linked to a lack of calcium and they do not drink milk. Did your god created them differently? Nope! Milk provides stuff we need, but other products too. We use milk because it is convenient.

Yes and we are talking based on the same informations.

Are you sure? You seems to think that without milk, we can't survive and cooking is as vital as breathing air.

[Altai]

On the contrary. You cannot state that the answers are not valid. You have to demonstrate it. There is nothing invalid in what I said. I have similar answers to others here and I used different words just in case it can help you to figure out the big picture. I do it precisely because you think our points are invalids even if they are not.

Your perception of "a problem" is also something coming from you. It's a not a problem for me if there is no god. It's not a problem if I can't prove the existence or not of a god. It's a topic interesting to debate but, it is not a problem. It is a problem for you because all your beliefs is based on it. You rely on faith. You think that everything is ruled by a god and therefore, the possibility that there is no god can only mean total chaos and it is something impossible for you.

1000 years ago, the people could not imagine they live on a sphere. They did not have the knowledge to understand their world. So the imagine a flat world where there is a new sun every day. God created the world as is and we are its creatures. It was not our places to challenge that concept. Everything was logical and made perfect sense. God was so brilliant to create a new sun, or maybe the same one, with such an incredible precision. God was fantastic to paint stars on the sky. God this, god that. Only heretics would deny the power of god. Until the day the scientists discovered the truth about our world, our universe and so on.

That is your problem. When there is something you do not know, you assume god is doing that to serve us. Like painting the sky in blue for us, even though the sky exists for billions of years prior to us. Yet, you are totally satisfied with that answers and you stop the reasonning right there. All the believers are the same. They think God is playing with our lives like if we were barbie dolls. God would have created humans as is, from scratch, instead of creating life that would evolved to what we are now after adapting ourself to our environment.

I said "problem" because you said "question". The word question and problem are mostly used in the same meaning in the school. Have nothing with my view about existence of God.

You are having hard time to understand it because you are looking at it from wrong perspective. First you should get rid of "adaptation" stories because it contradicts with its own claims. I am asking questions about adaptation but you are not able to reply it.

Scientists discovered the perfect order created by God.

Again, I dont know how many times you have accused me with the same thing and I dont know how many times I gave the same answer but I am not seeking for "how", I am seeking for "why". You need to know that Muslims were quite advanced about astronomy.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Altai

[Altai]

Your religion is not more true than any others. It's true for you only because you believe, because you have the faith in scriptures written a little while ago. If you think the need for sleep disprove adaptation, you fail badly. On the contrary. The need for sleep IS a demonstration that the life is adapting to the environment.

I have asked questions, for example about people who live in Poles and you could give a logical answer. Adaptation story have been failed.

What do you mean by need? No we do not need to cook. We do it because it has better taste and helps for digestion. If we stop cooking, we survive very well. If we stop breathing, we die. Bad comparison. Do you have the evidence that god took the decision to light up fire for us? No you don't. It please you think it.

Yes, so we need it. If you stop cooking you will live unhealty and less. Yes fire also help us to light up around or scare wild animals. What a chance.

We do not need to drink milk. Several nations and cultures do not drink milk. Among them, the Japanese and Koreans. Calcium can come from other products as well. The women in Korea do not suffer from the problems linked to a lack of calcium and they do not drink milk. Did your god created them differently? Nope! Milk provides stuff we need, but other products too. We use milk because it is convenient.

We need to drink milk especially between 6-16 years old and it may start to be harmful in older ages.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Altai

[?Impact]

I have asked questions, for example about people who live in Poles and you could give a logical answer. Adaptation story have been failed.

People adapted to living at the pole through technology, not evolution. Blatantly ignoring this does not magically make you right, just like ignorance in general does not make a magic God.

Edited September 21, 2016 by ?Impact

[Altai]

People adapted to living at the pole through technology, not evolution. Blatantly ignoring this does not magically make you right, just like ignorance in general does not make a magic God.

Sorry but I am not sure what you are talking about. Adaptation for what through technology ?

[?Impact]

Sorry but I am not sure what you are talking about. Adaptation for what through technology ?

Adapting for life at polar regions. We didn`t evolve to live there, we created technology that allowed us to. Fire, or at least the ability to kindle a fire at will, is one of the basic ones we discussed at length already. This is not to discount that the human species has evolved, but we are far from understanding that evolution although there are several proposed theories like the Out of Africa theory, or the Multi regional origin theory.

[WestCoastRunner]

I know, so I dont claim that milk is the only source for calcium but its the best and easiest way to have it.

This was your claim:

Again, I am not asking "how", I am asking "why". So cows produce milk for any reason but the point which takes my attention is why we also need to drink milk. You cant deny our need for milk and milk products. We would have been adapted to live without drinking milk but we didnt, we need it especially for our daily calcium needs and its the only product that can provide from.

[Benz]

I said "problem" because you said "question". The word question and problem are mostly used in the same meaning in the school. Have nothing with my view about existence of God.

You are having hard time to understand it because you are looking at it from wrong perspective. First you should get rid of "adaptation" stories because it contradicts with its own claims. I am asking questions about adaptation but you are not able to reply it.

Scientists discovered the perfect order created by God.

Again, I dont know how many times you have accused me with the same thing and I dont know how many times I gave the same answer but I am not seeking for "how", I am seeking for "why". You need to know that Muslims were quite advanced about astronomy.

I am not accusing you. Not yet. Now I will. I now accuse you of stating things not founded. I do not have a hard time understanding. You are the one being cautght in contradiction. WestCoastRunner did caught you. But there is no need to feel accused or fight about that topic. It's a debate. It's ok to have different opinion and point of view. Exposing one's beleifs and challange it, is not an attack. It is a debate.

I have asked questions, for example about people who live in Poles and you could give a logical answer. Adaptation story have been failed.

Not at all. You fail. I am not the only one who explaned you how it works. It's not because you do not understand that it means we fail.

Yes, so we need it. If you stop cooking you will live unhealty and less. Yes fire also help us to light up around or scare wild animals. What a chance.

No. Vegans are not unhealthy. You do not know what you are talking about. But your fault is not that you do not know, it's ok to be unaware. What is not, is saying anything wrong and pretend it's true. It is your credibility that you put on the line.

We need to drink milk especially between 6-16 years old and it may start to be harmful in older ages.

No we don't and I explained you why. What you are saying does not change anything. What are you saying, god makes the milk harmful to adults? bad god! baaaaaad god! Look, this is what happen when you give god intentions it never had.

The reason you get all wrong, is because you are only looking for a "why" that could suit your beleifs and the existence of your god. That also explains why you are not interested of the "how". It gives you serious limits to your capacity of understanding the big picture.

Sometimes I wonder how could be a god if there is any. What such god would do. That entity is living for more than 13 billions of years. It is so powerful that it created a whole universe. One thing I know for sure. If I was that god, the last thing I would need, is to be worshiped by few lifeforms I created myself. I would not allow a prophet to speak in my name. I would do it myself. If I wanted so much that people behave well, I would make it more clear and obvious. I would not play with people's life, like a little girl playing with her barbie doll. What would be my mindset if I knew so many things, how would I behave if I live so many years. It is very interesting to try to imagine a real god.

[Altai]

This was your claim:

Again, I am not asking "how", I am asking "why". So cows produce milk for any reason but the point which takes my attention is why we also need to drink milk. You cant deny our need for milk and milk products. We would have been adapted to live without drinking milk but we didnt, we need it especially for our daily calcium needs and its the only product that can provide from.

Oh God, this is just my hopelessness while using English. So what I think and what I write may not match sometimes. Ofcourse there are other sources but I said that milk is the only source by thinking other products are quite difficult to consume enough amounts for daily needs. For example me, I should eat about 500 gr of almond to meet my daily need of calcium. Or I should eat 36 tablespoons of linseed. Or I should eat 1 kg of spinach. Yes I cant eat these things and I dont know how many days I can endure.

But I can drink 4-5 glass of milk everday morning and evening happily to have same amount of calcium or I can eat 1 cup of yoghurt.

So this cant be a proof for non-existence of God but just the opposite you should think how excellent it is to happen "by chance".

[Altai]

I am not accusing you. Not yet. Now I will. I now accuse you of stating things not founded. I do not have a hard time understanding. You are the one being cautght in contradiction. WestCoastRunner did caught you. But there is no need to feel accused or fight about that topic. It's a debate. It's ok to have different opinion and point of view. Exposing one's beleifs and challange it, is not an attack. It is a debate.

I am not caught red handed, it is what you hope from the beginning but its not. If I would think that milk is the only source for calcium, I would not talk about alternative ways to development of kids in post 62. It was my mistake while using English to explain what I think. Read what I said to WestCoastRunner in pre-post.

Not at all. You fail. I am not the only one who explaned you how it works. It's not because you do not understand that it means we fail.

You said that we sleep because we have been adapted to sleep when sun goes down and I asked you why the people who live in Poles didnt adapted to stay awake for 6 months and sleep 6 months. You said that they live there since several thousand years (this claim also need proofs but I didnt ask and accepted it) and they need several thousands more to adapt environment. Then I have asked, should not they at least sleep longer and stay awake longer when compared to other people who live in regions closer to the equator, because adaptation does not happen suddenly, it happen in time, slowly. And you failed to answer this question.

No. Vegans are not unhealthy. You do not know what you are talking about. But your fault is not that you do not know, it's ok to be unaware. What is not, is saying anything wrong and pretend it's true. It is your credibility that you put on the line.

This is the same with milk issue. You may have the same nutrients from different products but meat is the best one. We can easily have our daily needs from 100-200 gram of red meat or other animal products. By the way, are there any vegetable foods which includes Vitamin B12 ?

No we don't and I explained you why. What you are saying does not change anything. What are you saying, god makes the milk harmful to adults? bad god! baaaaaad god! Look, this is what happen when you give god intentions it never had. The reason you get all wrong, is because you are only looking for a "why" that could suit your beleifs and the existence of your god. That also explains why you are not interested of the "how". It gives you serious limits to your capacity of understanding the big picture.

We can explain something in scientific way, we can explain why milk includes calcium, we can explain why we need calcium, we are also doing it. You think about it until this point and you stop thinking for rest of it. You are not interested whether or not there is God (you said). You dont think that "we need calcium and there are products in nature includes calcium", you say its by chance and turning off your brain. What if we didnt have them by chance ?

Edited September 22, 2016 by Altai