Ramon Casha, Qormi
Evolution does not prove the existence of God (2)
Carmelo Cutajar's letter reminded me of an anecdote by that inimitable author, Douglas Adams. He compared this idea to some water that wakes up one day and finds itself as a puddle on the ground. As it examines the hole it finds itself in, it is amazed - the hole fits the water staggeringly well! So well in fact that it seems designed to fit the water. It must have been created by an intelligent designer explicitly for that water to be in.
Similarly, we look at the world around us and it seems amazingly perfect for us - the right temperature, the right atmosphere to breathe, the right duration of day and night, the right plants to eat.
It seems so perfect that we might get the feeling that it was made for us.
It's actually the other way round. Just as it was the water that conformed to the hole in the ground, we find our planet so perfect because life has been evolving for billions of years to survive within the conditions provided by the earth. If earth's gravity had been more, or less, then we would have evolved to live and move around in it. If the entire earth had been hotter we might have evolved better cooling systems and a resistance to skin cancer, whereas if the earth were colder we might still be sporting a thick shaggy fur coat.
We have only just begun to detect the presence of planets outside our solar system, so we have as yet no way of knowing how common or rare our type of planet is. For all we know, earth-like planets might be quite common indeed. Even if only one in a million planets would suit human life, that still means billions of such planets. Also, since the only type of life we know about is that found on earth, we have no idea what planetary conditions would allow the development of life in its broadest sense. We've already had to alter our perception of "life-sustaining conditions" since we've found life that can exist at extremely high temperatures, a toxic environment and bone-crushing pressure near underwater volcano vents, and below freezing in the Antarctic. Other forms of life might exist in conditions far beyond what we consider suitable.
Sorry to disappoint, but this is not proof of any deity.
One ought to ask oneself - if there is a God who is so anxious for people to believe in him, and given the doubts that exist (including other religions claiming that theirs is the one true god), wouldn't it be much easier for that god to simply settle the matter once and for all and give final, undeniable proof of who is right? Surely an omnipotent being can do that.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
34 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 16th 2010, 00:11
Someone on this or similar tread pointed out that even Newton, a scientis,t was a believer. And he thought he scored a point.
New information that turns one's life on its head takes time to be processed and digested. In Newton's time, religion was still a force to be reckoned with. The Inquisition, burning at the stake, Galileo's debacle were still comparatively fresh in the mind (not forgetting that Newton was a citizen of a country that has, even now, a monarch heading its church).
The Enlightenment's a few centuries old now and has had time to filter down to the modern mind which processes new information without trembling. New scientific discoveries help MAN along. Plus, the internet spread news - like children's abuse by priests - and this helps consolidate his new identity. It is, fortunately/unfortunately, unstoppable. And the Church, in case you haven't noticed, has a lot to answer for. Never mind a deity!
Note. In its time, disclosure that the earth was NOT flat shook many a solid belief-system. Including the pontiff's of the time, obviously. But now, ask any six-year-old if the earth is round or flat and s/he will laugh you under the table.
Joseph Gatt
Feb 11th 2010, 15:15
@Victor Pulis,
Thanks for your reply. Just to clarify somethings...I am not perfect as I am a human like you so do not think that I am holy or something of that sort. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion so you have a right to think the way you want...I would like to repeat that what worries me is that we are discluding God from our lives especially the younger ones that are the future...that is all. I never said that one who does not believe is a bad person or living in sin. I know many people who do not believe and still live a good live as I think you do so. I go to church whenever I can...and try to live a good life too. The only reason I bothered to comment on this blog is that I felt it is my duty to defend my religion. The only thing I would like to say is yes you can live a good life without God but I for one would feel a certain emtyness in life(my opinion).
cheers
William P Flynn
Feb 11th 2010, 12:47
Gerry Cowie who says he can't understand "nothing", believes the onus isn't on god inventors to prove god's existence but requires atheists to prove god isn't there. Work that one out as well. What a gem.
Does this man read what he writes?
victor pulis
Feb 11th 2010, 12:36
Joseph gatt you seem to harbour the notion that those who do not believe in an entity that created the universe are living in sin. Well, let me disillusion you by saying that you are wrong. I try to live a good life by helping whenever I can and by not diong harm. On the other hand i know many who never lose a chance to go to church and receive communion and yet thet spend therest of their time doing harm. When I die I am convinced that I will go nowhere except underground if I'm lucky to have arave. If I am wrong about the existance of god than i will let him judge me on what I did in life and not on how many times I missed Sunday mass. One thing I know for sure and that is that I unlike you, am trying to live a good life not in anticipation of a reward. That gives my life greater merit. And by the way, you never answered any of my questions especially what happens to a dead body after three days in the grave.
Joseph Gatt
Feb 11th 2010, 09:11
@All athiests
Do you guys remember what we celebrated yesterday?The feast of when St.Paul got shipwrecked on our tiny Island and gave us our Faith and religion. And now 2000years later or so we are throwing this beautiful gift away. Everyone gets temptations or misunderstands . When this happens one should seek help and not let their faith crumble down into nothing. What do you think that the saints like st.Paul did not get tempted? They killed him for doing such good work and if it wasn't for him I wonder what we are today. Us maltese always kept our faith close-by, we maltese suffered alot along the coarse of time but always kept our faith close by and so was God near us. BUT now today when we have everything we want in life we have decided to abandoe God and throw away our faith...that is my biggest concern.......thank you St.Paul for your coming to Malta.
bye once again....
joseph gatt
Kevin N. Camenzuli
Feb 11th 2010, 08:38
As a born-blind person can never really perceive the notion of colours, we cannot perceive (let alone analyse scientifically) anything that lies beyond the spectrum of sight, sound, taste, feel and odour.
Some may claim to have the sixth sense of intuition... i.e. some sort of direct connection to the rest of Reality beyond our "sensual feelers" and their technological extensions. This has been vaguely described as ESP or extra-sensory perception, but religious/spiritual experiences may also have something to do with it. Which means some may know certain things without being able to explain how they got to know them.
Could it be, then, that some spiritually oriented people can take "shortcuts" to yet-to-be-discovered or otherwise undiscoverable extra-sensory pools of knowledge? Could it be that perhaps "science" and "religion" are two different approaches towards unravelling ultimately the same things?
Maybe not, but maybe...
Kevin N. Camenzuli
Feb 11th 2010, 08:38
Blind skepticism is as bad as blind faith.
Surely religious fanatics go overboard with their beliefs, BUT it is also true that our scientific knowledge is still very limited and there are lots of things we still don't know. Just fathom this: physical reality is actually a quasi-illusion... the immense space separating electrons from the nucleus of each atom makes the physical existence we're so well acquainted with rather sparce. So, our own bodies, even solid granite, are made of mostly empty space. It's indeed the "energy" (or did I hear someone say "spirit"?) that knits the universe together that's more relevant than the tangible and visible "things" around us and within us - the "soul" of the universe rather than its "body"... but that's a long story to delve into here...
Also, when we speak of "science" we mean "science as we know it", that is: only what we can perceive through our 5 limited bodily senses, not Science with a capital "S", ie. reality in its wholesomeness. Sure enough we invented some instruments that can extend our senses, like UV detectors, since our eyes by themselves can't otherwise track UV light, but these are extensions, not new senses.
renald wiliams
Feb 11th 2010, 08:07
peter is petros, means a small stone which can be moved
Christ is Petra, means a massive rock which cannot be moved
both Peter and Paul admit this
Petra is a tittle of God in the whole Bible Psalms 18, 19, 28, 31, 62, 71, 78, 89, 92, 94, 95, 144
Jesus Said you are petros and on this Petra I will build my church, church built on Christ not peter... Luke 6:47-48, Romans 9:33, 1 Corintians 10:4, 1 Peter 2:5
Trinity Evangelical Christian peace
Ramon Casha
Feb 11th 2010, 06:43
@Jo Galea: Actually, it was the Romans who crucified Jesus. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, whereas the Jewish means of execution were beheading, stoning or hanging (and they DID have the authority to do that). The term "son of God" is not a blasphemy to Jews. It is the title attributed to the messiah, and derives from Psalms 2, in which King David is referred to as a son of God.
Politically, in Jerusalem the Jews were divided between the majority Pharisees and the minority Sadducees. The Sadducees collaborated with Rome and as a result, were given many privileges including the high priesthood. In return, they helped the Romans root out any malcontents. This is what almost certainly happened to Jesus. He was not the first. When the high priest heard of this new self-proclaimed messiah (messiah = king = ruler over Judea = Romans go home), he had him arrested, tried him in his private quarters before a court made up of Sadducees, and once he determined that he was indeed claiming to be the king, handed him over to Pilate - a procurator so cruel that eventually he was sacked by emperor Nero for that reason!
Ramon Casha
Feb 11th 2010, 06:37
@Joseph Gatt: None of the authors of the gospels added their names to their writing. The only thing which we know with any certainty is that whoever wrote "Luke" was also probably the author of "Acts", and that Mark was the first written, followed by Matthew, Luke and John in that order. We know that Mattew and Luke both copied material from Mark and another, undiscovered gospel referred to as "Q" or "Quelle".
These gospels were assigned the names of apostles or other individuals in the same way that people went to Palestine centuries later and started declaring that this piece of wood was taken from the cross, and that nail was used to crucify Jesus, etc. It is the same process by which people developed entire histories surrounding the Magi in the story of their visit to Jesus in the gospel of Matthew. The only thing the gospel says is that there were "some" magi, but later writers gave them names, nationalities and histories.
There are a number of indications that the authors were not eyewitnesses, not least among which is the fact that they were Greeks, not Jews.
Ramon Casha
Feb 11th 2010, 06:31
@Joseph Gatt: Thanks for replying. What you have is a book that claims that God sent his son to die for us. How is that more believable than, say, the Hindu Vedas or the Koran which claims that Jesus was only a prophet and did not die? These books also have followers who believe as resolutely as you do.
@renald williams. Are you by any chance American? They're the only country who still insist that evolution never happened - and many insist the universe is only 6000 years old (ie slightly younger than our neolithic temples). Incidentally, the majority of Christians worldwide have no problem with evolution - I myself learned it at a private Christian school.
@John Borg: Yes, the water will still fit the hole. As a species we'll probably survive, but our actions can make our existence more uncomfortable to say the least.
Gerry Cowie
Feb 10th 2010, 22:40
Good to see more than two lines from Ramon Casha who clearly does not believe in God!
Nothing of course proves that there is NOT a God either! Wally Vella-Zarb, again a non-believer, tries to put the burden of proof onto believers. I say to him and others like him that an argument such as HIS is fallacious. Trying to rubbish the faith of believers in that way is pitiful. So often athiests try to twist what believers have to say!
Nobody can say what was behind the so-called "big bang".
Many scientists do not believe in God nor can they explain the unexplainable.
If there was nothing to start with, what was nothing like? If there were gases, where did they come from?
What makes it easy for me to believe in God is simply that if there was nothing to start with, how did the things that formed the "big bang" get there in the first place?
God to me seems the only reasonable conclusion!
I pity Jo.Galea who cannot even use correct scripture to make his point about Jesus. Athiests are often to desperate to disprove that God exists that they do not even say so sensibly!
N.Lawrence
Feb 10th 2010, 21:34
A point to consider.
The gospels were written approx 60 years after the events (?) took place. Life expectancy, 2k years ago, was about 40 to 50 years of age.
Maybe the books were ghost written? It still happens.
John Borg
Feb 10th 2010, 21:06
@ Robert Callus
So actually the water evaporates and does not adapt (evolve) at all to fit the hole. This means that according to your theory the human being has evolved over thousands (or millions) of years adapting to all circumstances faced over all these years but then he will not be able to adapt for the changes happening over a century! Hah.
Many of you base all their reasoning on science. But this is today's science; how many times 'older' science was proven wrong when new discoveries, methods and technology was applied? Who can vouch that today's science might not be challenged in the future?
The only thing you should be sure is that you're going to die; and then.............. (at least I have a hope)
Joseph Gatt
Feb 10th 2010, 18:48
@Sirs Victor Pulis, wally vella zarb. n lawrence, marco grech and co...
I will not waste more time commenting on this blog regarding this topic...you are too narrow minded to accept anything I said or the Bible says. You have mentioned so many topics and things its impossible to reply.....anyway all I would like to say that I tried my best to convince you guys the truth but it seems we just don't agree on this one......
good bye
joseph grech
victor pulis
Feb 10th 2010, 18:11
@Joseph Gatt
The gospels were written decades after the events took place and facts get twisted even today with all this mass media let alone 2000 years ago. You may believe that the gospels were inspired by god but so was the koran and all the other books of all the different religions according to their faithful. as I said it is a matter of blind faith. What i know is that when Jesus rose from the dead no one recognised him not even his closest friends and family. Cleophas was his uncle and the other disciple was probablyJesus' own brother or cousin. And what was Mary magdalene doing at the tomb three days after jesus was buried? has it ever occured to you to ask what a dead body would be like after three days? Would it be in a state to be anointed?
As for Peter being the head of Jerusalem's church, the head was Jesus' brother James and jesus never intended to set up a new religion let alone appoint Peter to head it. so much for the scriptures inspired by God.
wally vella-zarb
Feb 10th 2010, 18:09
@ Joseph Gatt
"No I am not going to believe everything I see or hear blindly"
You could have fooled me!
That is precisely the starting point for scientific investigation. We do not 'believe everything we see or hear blindly'; most especially what we are told. In fact we refuse to, until there is incontestable evidence to support it.
Marco Grech
Feb 10th 2010, 17:57
@Joseph Gatt
If the Bible was really inspired by god, why does it condone slavery, encourage discrimination against women and homosexuals, tolerate incest, mass murder of innocent children and so on. Or is it more likely that these were the values that were prevalent at the time the primitive, ignorant people who wrote it, lived? And why is it that two evangelists got the genealogy of Jesus so different from each other. One would have expected their inspirer to whisper something in their ear before they go to print.
Jo.Galea
Feb 10th 2010, 17:57
Jews crucified jesus because he claimed that he is one of the gods (son of god) just like others who claimed the same who came before and after him. There is nothing extraordinary for being crucified because other thosunds (if not million) criminal convicts were crucified and tortured in that thay. In fact when it came out that pope john tortured himself , he was not just imitating jesus , but he was also imitating those convicts.
For those who only believe on just faith and at the same time they claim they have enough proof that god exist , just think for a moment. Is that real proof or you are just immagining such proof?
I will give you one such real proof where god exist , that is , god only exist in your minds.
Pule' Carmel
Feb 10th 2010, 17:34
To Mr Gatt
Peter was not Peter at all, he was Simon!!
It became Peter through a language TRANSFORMATON as when it was recorded in Hebrew that Christ said to SIMON, " you will be the ROCK that I shall build my church" when it was translated to Greek, the word Rock or Stone was PETRA and so a few more irregularities of translations and SIMON became PETER. in english.
In Maltese we have many words like that, Once I met a local man who laughed at me because, I wanted a BUMPER of my car when I heard him say to his friend, " HEAR this , there is this old man who does not know what he is saying, THE STUMPER of a car is calling it BUMPER"
Robert Callus
Feb 10th 2010, 17:16
@John Borg
We fit perfectly in the original 'hole'. If it is altered to some extent we (the water in this example) would still fit in. However if we altered the 'hole' and increased its temperature to the extent of making it boiling, the water will evaporate.
The hole (earth) will be there for some 500 billion years. Using the term destroying it is technically wrong (I do use it I admit). We will never destroy it. We are just making it unhabitable for us and most of the present species living in it. A few species will adapt well to the altered 'hole'. They will be the water that will fit it.
Joseph Gatt
Feb 10th 2010, 17:00
@N.Lawrence
''The FACT is that the writers of the gospels did not actually WITNESS any of the events written therein.''
BAH Who ever told you that? The authors of the Gospels were either Apostles of Jesus or followers so they saw what happened. Yes anyone can write a book but the gospels were inspired by God so in their style they can get His message through. This shows how you have no idea what you are talking about.....
Matthew was one of the FIRST twelve disciples of Jesus and therefore an EYE WITNESS ; he records more of Jesus' teaching concerning God's heavenly kingdom than the other writers, for example the entire Sermon on the Mount.
Mark who was Peter's son, who wrote down what Peter said about who Jesus was, what He did, where He went and what happened; Mark's gospel is therefore Peter's account, an EYE-WITNESS account, written down by Mark.
John was one of the FIRST twelve disciples of Jesus and therefore an EYE WITNESS
Luke was a doctor and a co-worker with Paul . Because some spurious stories about Jesus were circulating, Luke decided to interview LOCAL EYE WITNESSES and people who had followed Jesus closely.
N.Lawrence
Feb 10th 2010, 16:34
@Joseph Gatt
ANYBODY can write a book. The FACT is that the writers of the gospels did not actually WITNESS any of the events written therein.
Your move.
Isobel Mcgonigle
Feb 10th 2010, 16:31
@
Joseph Gatt
With respect sir,there is also a book called Grimms Fairy Tales
Religion?,a fairy story for adults,through the passage of time has been responsible for more wars,deaths,and continues to do so
victor pulis
Feb 10th 2010, 16:20
Joseph Gatt you are trying to prove your argument using a so called mystery (of incarnation) which in itself cannot be proven otherwise it wouldn't be a mystery. it all boils down to 'blind' faith. But going back to the incarnation mystery. is god male? We always refer to him (there I go!) as male. We have given him the attributes of a human. I rather think that we have created a god in our own image rather thn the other way round.
The further we reach into space the more we become aware that we are not so special after all. For all we know we could be a cell inside an immense body which is itself a cell inside an even bigger body. We are not the centre of the universe.
John Borg
Feb 10th 2010, 16:11
I just hope that you EVOLVE enough especially on the last few breaths
John Borg
Feb 10th 2010, 16:09
@robert callus
'We wanted the hole to suit our onn needs even more, and ended up destroying it. What's leading to climate change is a part of this. Even worse is our obsession with genetic engineering. Albeit we fit perfectly in our hole, not even that satisfied us'
You look somewhat worried about all this, why? I don't see any reason to worry since acoording to yourself and Mr Casha, whatever we do to the whole the water will always fit perfectly to it
Joseph Gatt
Feb 10th 2010, 15:56
@N.Lawrence
Sir, I suggest you should read the Bible, for your information there are 4 books called the Gospels about Jesus Christ and His teachings. He saves us from sin when He died on the cross for all of us...
@wally vella-zarb
Let me tell you something...in life we are never going to find evidence of God's existence through Science. Yes, science has proven many things but my point is that when one is trying to understand these things, one has to apply both REASON (science and reasoning) and FAITH.You need to have a BALANCE between both of them. No I am not going to believe everything I see or hear blindly even if people discovered that planets are made of blue cheese or not :-)
renald williams
Feb 10th 2010, 14:44
Cannot understand how someone says he believes in science - which is still proven by facts to this very day; and at the same time beleive in evolution:- which has been proven wrong in thinking skeletons of dolphins, pigs, monkeys and donkeys were humans: - humans skeletons were mistaken for monkeys:- and giving error dating of millions of years, proven by science as being only thousands the correct dating. Evolutionism is simply another religion ,for those who say do not have one. Trinity Evangelical Christian peace and health to all different types of all beleivers, those who belive in science, and those who beleive not.
N.Lawrence
Feb 10th 2010, 14:25
@Joseph Gatt---He sent us His own Son Jesus Christ to save us from sin---
What PROOF do you have of this?
wally vella-zarb
Feb 10th 2010, 14:15
@ Joseph Gatt
Pardon my saying so but you have gone full-circle. 'Faith', which you seem to be exhorting us to have, by definition implies the acceptance of something 'WITHOUT any proof'. That, my friend, is the very antithesis of scientific knowledge.
Others have asked for proof of non-existence of a deity. That is a fallacious stance because it is logically impossible to prove that something does NOT exist. The fact that I cannot prove that, say, a planet that encircles Alpha Centaurii is NOT made of blue cheese is no proof that it is. Would you have enough 'faith' to believe that it is, in fact, made of cheese?
Joseph Gatt
Feb 10th 2010, 12:35
@Ramon Casha
'' if there is a God who is so anxious for people to believe in him, and given the doubts that exist (including other religions claiming that theirs is the one true god), wouldn't it be much easier for that god to simply settle the matter once and for all and give final, undeniable proof of who is right? ''
What more proof do you want of God if He sent us His own Son Jesus Christ to save us from sin 2000 years ago. Isn' that enough proof of God's existence and that he cared for us???
Certainly in today's modern world people want scientific proof. There is no scientific experiment that can give us evidence of God's existence or not. Today people want to ignore Christ's teaching and rather apply science to everything. Have FAITH
Charles Muscat
Feb 10th 2010, 11:52
Both Callus and Cash are wasting their time. People got scared of death by the church regardless what to belive in.
Robert Callus
Feb 10th 2010, 11:23
I completely agree with Mr Casha. However I would like to go one step further, an even more sinister reality that has nothing to do with religion. A scary phenomenon, without any known precedent is taking place. The water in the hole (us, humans) started rebelling and wants to change the hole. We wanted the hole to suit our onn needs even more, and ended up destroying it. What's leading to climate change is a part of this. Even worse is our obsession with genetic engineering. Albeit we fit perfectly in our hole, not even that satisfied us.