Proof that there is no god

145791012

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 233
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slughead


    EDIT: There's nothing wrong with dogmatic beliefs, either. We make a thousand assumptions a day which have no logical backing. It's impossible to know everything.



    Oh yes there is!



    Making faith-based assumptions is like crossing rickety rope bridges. They should be avoided like the plague, but you may have to cross them occasionally.



    That is one thing, but to decide to live in the middle of the oldest ricketiest bridge and then go about jumping up and down wearing iron boots. That's something else again.



    This metaphor was brought to you by the letter



    C.
  • Reply 122 of 233
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shetline


    I care not if you consider him on "my side" or not, I was arguing against the words, not the person. My objections to the words stand, whoever first said them. And since you quoted those words, and seem to be presenting them as if they have some value, you should be prepared to defend those words, at least to the extent that you seem to think they conveyed some sort of valuable point.





    My point is that a well respected evolutionist (assuming most consider a harvard geneticist well-respected) is willing to admit that people are willing to accept scientific claims that are against common sense, like evolution, simply due to the fact that we have our a priori adherence to materialism and we'd never even entertain the thought of a divine being despite the patent absurdity of many scientific constructs. Such patent absurdities such as the earth being billions of years old. The moon moves 2 inches further from the earth each year. 2 billion years ago it would have been touching the earth. Helium constantly gathers in our outer atmosphere, one source of that being the decay of unanium. If the earth is billiions of years old, then there would be way more helium than we currently have, something like a million times more helium. Using this helium measurement the earth cannot be more than 10,000 to 15,000 years old. There are many such things that provide evidence against an earth that is billions of years old and with evolution taking that long, evolution can't be possible. There's much more, I've said many things throughout this forum having to do with that. There are many things, lots of animals, that are irreducibly complex. They had to have every aspect of the animal all at the same time in order to survive. I won't go into detail. My point is that there is a well respected evolutionist who admits to these absurdities and continues to deny the possible existence of a divine being, just like most people in this forum. The fact that someone such as Lewontin, who I'm guessing has much more knowledge than anyone in this forum, admits the absurdities of some of the things we believe about science, should make you wonder a bit.
  • Reply 123 of 233
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slughead


    Debate over. Everyone loses.



    I love how in my logic class, the first argument we go over is God Vs. No God--they're both dogmatic and therefore not logical. Therefore, arguing is pointless. Either you believe in one, the other, or neither. There is no reason to argue about it!



    Remarkably, people still attempt to anyway.



    PS: Atheism is a religion too.



    Atheism CAN be a religion. Atheism, if we use the root of the word to form our definition, is simply the 'lack of theism'. This can take the form of:



    'Gnostic Atheism', that is, believing that there is no God, and we can know it;



    'Agnostic Atheism', that is, believing that the existance of God can not be proved, and still lacking the belief in God;



    'Gnostic Theism', that is, believing that there is a God, and we can know it;



    'Agnostic Theism', that is, believing that there is a God, but we can't prove it;





    I forget the term that I've seen used to discribe it, at this particular moment, but a person who has no concept of, and therefore neither a belief nor disbelief in God, is also a type of Atheist, since they 'lack theism', lack belief in a God or gods. Hence, not a religion.



    It's very important to clarify definitions in these debates (flame wars, arguments, stroke induction sessions, whatever you want to call them), or, from what I've seen, people tend to think that the other person is arguing against them, when in fact, they're talking about two entirely different things.



    Absolutely true about not being able to change someone else's beliefs. If their beliefs are to change, they will do it themselves. 'A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.'
  • Reply 124 of 233
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    . The moon moves 2 inches further from the earth each year. 2 billion years ago it would have been touching the earth.





    so are you saying that the rate of change in position can not change? Have you ever heard of calculus? <rolls eyes>
  • Reply 125 of 233
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    My point is that a well respected evolutionist (assuming most consider a harvard geneticist well-respected) is willing to admit that people are willing to accept scientific claims that are against common sense, like evolution, simply due to the fact that we have our a priori adherence to materialism and we'd never even entertain the thought of a divine being despite the patent absurdity of many scientific constructs. Such patent absurdities such as the earth being billions of years old. The moon moves 2 inches further from the earth each year. 2 billion years ago it would have been touching the earth. Helium constantly gathers in our outer atmosphere, one source of that being the decay of unanium. If the earth is billiions of years old, then there would be way more helium than we currently have, something like a million times more helium. Using this helium measurement the earth cannot be more than 10,000 to 15,000 years old. There are many such things that provide evidence against an earth that is billions of years old and with evolution taking that long, evolution can't be possible. There's much more, I've said many things throughout this forum having to do with that. There are many things, lots of animals, that are irreducibly complex. They had to have every aspect of the animal all at the same time in order to survive. I won't go into detail. My point is that there is a well respected evolutionist who admits to these absurdities and continues to deny the possible existence of a divine being, just like most people in this forum. The fact that someone such as Lewontin, who I'm guessing has much more knowledge than anyone in this forum, admits the absurdities of some of the things we believe about science, should make you wonder a bit.



    ok, looks like I need to refute this whole post catagorically: THINGS CHANGE.



    If you try to look at the past in terms of the present without allowing for change, for change in rates of change, for changes in the rates of change of the rates of change, etc. etc. etc. etc., then you're intentionally ignoring a huge set of perfectly valid mechanisms for what you are observing.



    When I drive my car, I go 55 MPH. When I step on my breaks, initially, that induces a DECELERATION of 5 MPH/second. As I approach the stop light (or moose), I gradually apply more pressure to the break pedal, which INCREASES the deceleration. I am decelerating at 5MPH/s initially, and by the time I'm almost stopped, my deceleration is 15MPH/s. Same concept.



    Theologens have no more business trying to prove things with science than scientists have trying to prove things with religion. It's the same as a lawyer trying to conduct brain surgery. He may be an expert, but being an expert in one field does not give him any expertise in another, unrelated (except by the ambulance he chases) field.



    As to the guy that you're quoting, I feel that each persons credibility should be evaluated individually, and not assumed just because he is such and such who holds such and such a degree and teaches at such and such university. I've known many people whose reputations were high who were complete bone heads. Therefore, titles don't carry any weight amongs those with the capacity for critical thought.
  • Reply 126 of 233
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,700member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    are against common sense, like evolution



    Evolution is not against common sense.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    patent absurdity of many scientific constructs.



    Has it ever occurred to you that the fact that you don't even understand a concept as simple as probability might point to the possibility that you simply don't have the mental capability to understand more advanced theories?



    I love how you think that things like evolution and the earth being billions of years old is "absurd", but the existence of a supreme being that can conjure planets and life out of nothing is not



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    irreducibly complex



    "Irreducible complexity" is a crock of shit. There's a good explanation why at this wikipedia page. A quote that I rather like from that page is that irreducible complexity is a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy.".
  • Reply 127 of 233
    It appears that everyone has come to the conclusion that the idea of a divine being creating things is a ridiculous idea, yet everyone still holds that the idea of life coming from nothing at all, not even a divine being, is plausable. You have to go both ways. It's obvious we can't prove one or the other, yet you still hold evolution as absolute fact and you haven't thought twice about the posibility of a divine creator. Many assume chrisitans to be close minded (and many are) but it appears to me as if you aren't open at all to another idea.



    I have done my calculus and I do understand rates of change. How do we know that it changed? If it hasn't in our time, there's no way to tell if it has or hasn't changed. You refute my point by saying there are many possibilities when the same is true for your point. We can't prove it, yet you're so firm in what you think. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Christians are supposed to challenge what they believe and test it. It appears that none of you are open to the testing of your beliefs.



    I know, you'll probably say I'm not willing to change my beliefs either. I am, and I constantly test and question what I believe to make sure it is truth. I hope you all are doing and continue to do the same thing.



    If I don't have the mental capability to understand such constructs, then why are you even debating with me? Regardless of my mental capability, the one talking about the absurdity of such constructs was the Harvard geneticist, who, although we don't know him, probably knows more than any of us. It seems if I quoted God himself (haha irony) that you will still think you know more and it's not a credible source. I gave you the opinions of a man who believes many of the same things you do, and has a better perspective on it than any of us, yet you still refuse to listen and to question your own belief. That is why it is pointless for us to debate.
  • Reply 128 of 233
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777


    The Nature of God does not change between the Old and New Testaments. He operates according to different rules, which is the reasoning behind there being Old and New Testaments in the first place.



    do you think that God realised that he was ignorant, biggotted, spiteful, destructive, hateful in the OT, and realised he was WRONG?



    Or was it that God was far too human in the OT and needed to become more like God, thus realiseing he was WRONG.



    Or was it that the OT was written by ignorant, biggotted, spiteful, destructive hateful people - that will be the Israelites, and God decided to become more sophisticated when God discovered Greek civilization?



    Or is it that God is just a ....
  • Reply 129 of 233
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slughead


    Yes, according to some.



    I would refer to that "some" as "idiots".



    Quote:

    However, the odds of a xylophone being on Mars are probably more quantifiable by a human being than the odds of a God existing. So if you were to argue over whether or not there's a xylophone on Mars, at least you're not wasting your time.



    How do you quantify the odds of something like that if someone proposes magical or mystical explanations? What if someone insists that this is a matter of faith, and tries to foist the burden of proof on the xylophone disbelievers? Suppose the believers are people who, if you actually went through the trouble to pulverize and sift through the entire mass of the planet Mars, would simply shrug and say you must have somehow missed the xylophone, or accidentally destroyed it, or couldn't see it because it's only visible to those who have faith, or suppose these are people who would simply backpedal and start talking about the metaphorical, spiritual, and, oh yeah, "sorry we didn't mention this before", non-physical nature of the mystic xylophone.



    While my xylophone example is contrived, there are real world beliefs just as absurd, held by people who aren't generally considered mentally deficient or insane, people who expect, and often receive, "respect for their beliefs" simply because they describe their absurd notions as being religious or spiritual, which somehow is supposed to be a free pass against skepticism or criticism.



    Quote:

    I should point out that there's no point in arguing with someone who believes there's a xylophone on Mars, as they obviously have a wire crossed.



    The only line such a person may have crossed is that they've chosen to believe in something absurd that doesn't come with a social support structure of others who believe the same thing.



    Quote:

    Also, you could, theoretically, go to Mars, check under all the boulders, and prove it one way or the other. How are you going to do that with theism?



    See above... where belief is strong enough, and magical think is accepted, counter-evidence becomes impossible no matter what you say or do.



    Quote:

    EDIT: There's nothing wrong with dogmatic beliefs, either. We make a thousand assumptions a day which have no logical backing. It's impossible to know everything.



    There's a big, big difference between a practical day-to-day reliance on assumptions, and dogma. I was all set to start explaining that difference, but come on... do I really have to?
  • Reply 130 of 233
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Celemourn


    so are you saying that the rate of change in position can not change? Have you ever heard of calculus? <rolls eyes>



    Actually, the scientifically proven rate the moon is receeding from earth (on average) is 12.7 millimeters or half an inch, some four times less. It has changed, but it was never as high as 2 inches per year. (excepting the possible event that caused its formation)





    Seems homey has been reading those old Henry Morris books again.
  • Reply 131 of 233
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Homestar, the universe is not a common-sense place. It's really big and really complicated. We have to work hard, and think hard to figure out its complexity. It takes time. We get it wrong. The only tools we have are our eyes and our limited minds. But slowly we make progress and roll back the blanket of ignorance.



    Our new explanations sometimes make perfect common sense - Like Newtonian motion. And sometimes our new explanations seem downright bizarre - like quantum mechanics. Even Einstein thought that one was too much to swallow! But ask a horse-breeder about Darwin's work on natural selection and they'll agree it makes common sense.



    Ever so slowly we overturn the primitive and childlike models of our ancestors. We no longer have a need for tree-spirits, or gods that hurl thunderbolts. Our knowlege permits us to outgrow the need for them.



    But some people don't grow up.



    If you truly believed that a big invisible dude made this universe, with the casual ease of writing a grocery list then why are you not interested in his handwriting? If he wrote it, wouldn't he want you to read it? Study physics, cosmology, molecular biology. Perhaps you could challenge the science, look for your divine foot, come to your own conclusions. Centuries of scientific dogma can all be overturned with one good repeatable observation. Scientists will tear down their own temples if shown to be wrong.



    But you don't want to, because figuring out the universe is hard. It requires study and sacrifice and an open mind. Instead theists take the lazy path. The comforable, easy path of blind acceptance in a fictional certainty. Theists opt for the childish explanation precisely because it comforting, because it is does not require study or education or calculus.



    My kid just figured out the tooth fairy is not real. Why can't you?



    C.
  • Reply 132 of 233
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,700member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    you haven't thought twice about the posibility of a divine creator.



    You would be wrong about that. I have given it a great deal of thought.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    I have done my calculus and I do understand rates of change.



    Not well, it would seem.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    How do we know that it changed?



    How long have we been able to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon with any significant, repeatable accuracy? The rates of change involved could well be below our measurement capabilities, or, we could actually have detected a change and you are ignorant of this fact. I haven't studied anything about the distance from the earth to the moon, so I can't fill you in.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    If it hasn't in our time, there's no way to tell if it has or hasn't changed.



    And you make the convenient assumption that the rate of change must be constant over all time thereby adding another piece of "evidence" that the earth can't be billions of years old. Actually, there are plenty of reasons to conclude that the rate the moon moves away from the earth changes with time, one of them being called gravity.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    It appears that none of you are open to the testing of your beliefs.



    Not only is Science not about "beliefs", it is also all about testing.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    I constantly test and question what I believe to make sure it is truth.



    You, sir, clearly do not "test your beliefs" with anything approaching respectable rigour. It would appear that rather, whenever you come across anything that hinders your favoured literal interpretation of the Bible, such as evolution or the age of the earth, you simply declare that it is "absurd" and "against common sense".



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    If I don't have the mental capability to understand such constructs, then why are you even debating with me?



    There are a few good reasons. You and I are not the only people reading this debate. Minds that are not made up presumably can find such debate helpful.



    Additionally, the debate has moved on from just God, to Creationism.



    The Intellectual Design Movement seeks to deconstruct Science in its entirety and replace it with Creationist Pseudo-Science, blinding the general public with rhetoric and falsehoods about the Scientific Method. Given the apparent lack of modern society's Scientific literacy, this is an extremely concerning state of affairs and if it were successful, would serve to hurtle the Human race backwards by 300 years. To be completely unequivocal, I find the whole movement to be quite repulsive; it must be refuted in the strongest possible terms wherever it is encountered. Please note very carefully that I am talking about Creationism, not Christianity.



    What you fail to realise is that Science does not seek to destroy Religion, it merely seeks to understand the workings of the Universe. Sure, many of the things that have been discovered make it much harder to interpret the bible literally, but not impossible. If God existed, he could have created everything and done everything just as the Bible says, and in addition left a great deal of evidence that something to the contrary happened. Science does not attempt to destroy God, but Creationism attempts to destroy Science. We cannot allow this to happen.
  • Reply 133 of 233
    All,



    Personally, I believe in God.

    That being said...

    I don't think we really have an accurate understaning of religion.

    I think most religions each have a piece of the puzzle.



    Asking me if I can fully explain, prove, or understand the nature and being of God is pointless. That is why we call religions "Faiths." You believe regardless of absolute knowledge or proof. I think that is just one of the big leaps or tests you must pass on your movement towards God and eternal life.



    The Bible -

    My take is that the Bible serves as a general guide. To hold it as absolute law would not make sense. There are too many possible ways in which some of the Bible could be flawed.

    1) It was written by man.

    2) It has been interpreted by man.

    3) Who controls the original writings and how they were interpreted?

    etc...



    The best piece of advice that I've seen floating around here is to read the Bible for yourself. Often the "Bible thumpers" or strict fundamentalists have very wrong interpretations of what is in the Bible. I had a hard time understanding the Bible when I tried reading it at a young age. Hence, I tended to believe what I heard in church or from preachers. Many of them don't seem to be clearly teaching what is in the Bible. The Bible itself warns of this and warns against those that push, push, push religion. The Bible clearly states that it isn't the job or role of the believer to force or push what he believe on others. He is only to live life as an example.



    Pain and Suffering-

    The idea is that there was no pain and suffering before Adam and Eve sinned. Hence, there was no concept of evil. This concept goes to the duality of man. How can you know happiness without sadness? How do you know relief without suffering?

    To say they have no merit and are just devices of a cruel creator seems flawed to me. Thus, that is why they happen. It isn't that they are "allowed" to happen as people often view it. I think you will find that many of the arguments on both sides all depend on your frame of reference. To me this means that we really don't have a full understanding on either side of the issue (i.e. God vs. no God).



    The 10 commandments or rules -

    If you send a bunch of people to heaven just because they believe in God, then wouldn't heaven be a mess? You have a bunch of supreme beings there with God who are all capable of satisfying their wants/desires. How would you prevent some from inflicting their will on others? You would have to have rules. If we can't follow 10 simple rules...



    This also seems to be reflected in the old vs. new testament teachings. Personally, I lean more towards the old testament. God is strict, because you must obey the rules. If you can't follow the rules you can't have a place in heaven. The Jews seem to lean towards the old testament as well. Who is to say who is right?



    Hence, I think life acts as a journey towards understanding. The more I look at life this way, the more I think reincarnation is probably valid. Many fundamental Christians will scream bloody murder on this point.



    Again - If you could simply get to heaven because you believe, would you really be happy there? You wouldn't have any understanding or concept of what you saw there. What would you use for a frame of reference? How would you act? What would you do? Faith without understanding wouldn't mean much.



    God or god(s) -

    The Bible says that "thou shalt have no other gods before me." The thing that concerns me about that statement is that there would be no need to say that if there are no other "gods" or supreme beings. I think the point is that God is our creator and we should serve/respect him as such.



    Evolution vs. Creationism -

    I don't see why the two theories can't go hand-in-hand. Why must they be mutually exclusive? Couldn't God have created things using evolution?

    Personally, I think there are some flaws in evolution. Again, it could be that we just don't have a full understanding of how evolution works. Although man could be playing a role here as well. Cloning, biowarfare, etc...





    Time -

    Time to God is not the same as time to us. We don't even really know if folks measured time in exactly the same way we do now. The comments about creating the earth in 7 days...Seven days relative to what? Who determines what a day is?



    The death of Jesus

    I have struggled with this one. If God is supreme, then why can't He just forgive us? Why did Jesus have to die? I've heard many fundamentalists state that it is to teach us about sacrifice. I have a feeling there is more to it. I sense that there are universal or supreme laws that even govern God. Again, how could God and angles coexist if there weren't some rules to live by.



    Just my take on what's been posted.



    Regards,

    Ocriss
  • Reply 134 of 233
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,700member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ocriss33324


    Evolution vs. Creationism -

    I don't see why the two theories can't go hand-in-hand. Why must they be mutually exclusive?



    Because Evolution involves things like dinosaurs living millions of years before men, men evolving from apes and the earth being billions of years old. Creationism seeks to "prove" these things wrong with pseudo-science. Creationism ≠ Christianity. Evolution and Christianity can go hand in hand. Evolution and Creationism cannot.
  • Reply 135 of 233
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    The only reason somebody wouldn't believe in evolution is if they don't know what it is.



    I had a French teacher last year, hardcore evangelical type. His famous quote is "I do not understand how it is that, the monkey, it turns into a human just like that? It is impossible!"
  • Reply 136 of 233
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H


    Because Evolution involves things like dinosaurs living millions of years before men, men evolving from apes and the earth being billions of years old. Creationism seeks to "prove" these things wrong with pseudo-science. Creationism ? Christianity. Evolution and Christianity can go hand in hand. Evolution and Creationism cannot.



    I'm not sure why some think creationism doesn't like, or seeks to disprove, or goes against science. That doesn't make any sense. God created everything, and science is the study of what He created. There is obviously so much that we don't know, but we don't justify those things with God, at least I don't. That has been done before, obviously. The greek gods served that purpose (at least to my knowledge, I don't know a ton about them though). The God of the Bible, as far as I know, has never been used to justify an occurence that we now know to be explained by science. Even if we can explain something by science, that doesn't mean God doesn't have a hand in it or that God didn't create it. Just because we can explain why a rainbow shows the color spectrum, that doesn't mean God can't be real. Just because we know why the sunrise shows such beautiful colors doesn't mean God can't exist. God created all of it, and we're not using Him to justify things that we can't explain. The place where creationism collides with science is with evolution (restating the obvious).



    No one has explained to me why we haven't seen actual macro-evolution that we so strongly believe in and why we don't have the vast number of transitional fossils we should have that Darwin said we needed if macro-evolution is to be true. No one has explained to me how life can come from non-life and how order can come from disorder.



    Information always comes from a mind. There is always a mind behind information. Information is portrayed in many ways and translated many ways, but whenever there is information, there has to be a mind behind it. DNA is information, and there has to be a mind behind it. How would it just form from junk into an organized state where it gives information? There must be a mind behind it.
  • Reply 137 of 233
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,700member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    I'm not sure why some think creationism doesn't like, or seeks to disprove, or goes against science.



    Because it is a stated aim of the Intelligent Design Movement. In addition, other backers of Creationism/Intelligent Design who are not part of the Intelligent Design Movement claim to use Science and the Scientific Method, but they absolutely do not. They hinge on finding things that some people can not explain or areas that are disputed, highlighting these areas and saying "there's a hole in this theory, so it must all be bollocks and an intelligent designer must have done it". That is not the Scientific Method. Just because a few people can't get their head around how some biological systems may have evolved (the source of "irreducable complexity"), does not "prove" evolution to be wrong. No part of Intelligent Design proves evolution to be wrong through the use of the Scientific Method. Intelligent Design pretends to be a Science, or to make use of Science, when it is in fact philosophy. If you think that Science is important, you need to stop peddling your Creationist bullshit because it makes a mockery of Science.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    No one has explained to me why we haven't seen actual macro-evolution that we so strongly believe in



    "macro-evolution" is not a process in and of itself. Evolution happens extremely slowly, speciation takes hundreds of thousands of years. It's like the "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" question. If you don't understand the answer to that, you won't understand your "macro-evolution" conundrum.



    Update: Apparently, quite a few examples of speciation have been observed. So, Homestar, you need to cross "Macro-Evolution" off your list of things that can't be true.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    and why we don't have the vast number of transitional fossils we should have that Darwin said we needed if macro-evolution is to be true.



    What you are wanting are more "snapshots" of the evolution of man from an ape-like form. Let's say you want ten snapshots:



    A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, "A" being an ape-like creature and "J" being what we recognise as Human today.



    Let's say we've found fossils illustrating all of these snapshots apart from "D". You suddenly raise your arms and say "hah" you haven't found "D", it must all be wrong. But, we could equally well have found all of them apart from "F". It's just hard to find these things - not finding "D" does not disprove evolutionary theory - that isn't how science works. To expand on this, you refer to "D" as a missing "transitionary" fossil, because the gap left between "C" and "E" is bigger than the others. But take out "F" , and the gap between "E" and "G" suddenly looks too big to be surmountable. So, we already have plenty of your so-called "transitionary" fossils.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    No one has explained to me how life can come from non-life



    Let's not go over this again. By chance. After billions and billions of years of nearly all the right elements being in nearly the right place at nearly the right time, over a period of a few hundred thousand years, it just happened.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    and how order can come from disorder.



    Do you think the sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 in a lottery is less likely than 3 8 35 17 22 39? And, in addition, you may be attempting to use the second law-of-thermodynamics ("entropy increases") as proof that life couldn't happen by chance. This attempt has failed.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    Information always comes from a mind.



    This is nonsense.
  • Reply 138 of 233
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    It appears that everyone has come to the conclusion that the idea of a divine being creating things is a ridiculous idea, yet everyone still holds that the idea of life coming from nothing at all, not even a divine being, is plausable.



    One idea has empirical evidence to support it, and a general consensus amongst people CHARGED WITH DISPROVING IT. The other goes to great lengths to explain away any contradictory evidence, attempts to convince people that it's ok, and even good, to 'just have faith', and has no evidence to support it besides documents written by humans.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    You have to go both ways. It's obvious we can't prove one or the other,



    no. That's not obvious. One has verifiable supports, the other does not. Regardless, I do agree that it's impossible to prove how something which occured in the past ACTUALLY occured. The evolutionary model is usefull because it helps to describe how changes in the genetic make up of living things occur. The fact that it aligns well with both past, present, and future observations is very nice, and adds to it's credibility.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    yet you still hold evolution as absolute fact and you haven't thought twice about the posibility of a divine creator. Many assume chrisitans to be close minded (and many are) but it appears to me as if you aren't open at all to another idea.



    No, I don't.

    Yes I have. That's why I'm no longer a christian. Because I thought about it, applied reason, and compared that to what I can observe about the world around me.

    Most are to an absurd degree, and thoroughly inconsistently. They will tend not to give a rat's ass what you believe as long as you agree with them that god exists, and jesus died for your sins (the immortal scape-goat).

    Yes, I am. That's why I choose to spend a portion of my study time debating the topic.

    [QUOTE=Homestar06]

    I have done my calculus and I do understand rates of change.



    then why do you ignore the posiblilty?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    How do we know that it changed?



    We don't.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    If it hasn't in our time, there's no way to tell if it has or hasn't changed.



    Precisely. Which is why it is wrong to claim that it is a scientific inconsistency. Lack of proof does NOT, I repeat, NOT constitute proof of lack. Duh.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    You refute my point by saying there are many possibilities when the same is true for your point.



    uh... no. Either there are many explainations for the change in position of the moon, or there aren't.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    We can't prove it, yet you're so firm in what you think.



    So, what is it, precisely, that you think I think?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Christians are supposed to challenge what they believe and test it.



    No, christians are supposed to dogmatically cling to the basic tennants, namely, God, Jesus, Crucifixtion, Damnation and Salvation, WITHOUT question, and not squabble amongst themselves about any of the little details.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    It appears that none of you are open to the testing of your beliefs.



    I, at least, constantly test my beliefs. who else are you talking about? or are you addressing the faceless Boogyman who directly opposes you so that you have some aparent justification to keep arguing about things that no one else is arguing about?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    I know, you'll probably say I'm not willing to change my beliefs either. I am, and I constantly test and question what I believe to make sure it is truth. I hope you all are doing and continue to do the same thing.



    If I don't have the mental capability to understand such constructs, then why are you even debating with me?



    See above, re: being open minded.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    Regardless of my mental capability, the one talking about the absurdity of such constructs was the Harvard geneticist, who, although we don't know him, probably knows more than any of us.



    On what do you base this claim that he probably knows more than any of us? In my experience, people tend to have specialized knowlege about just a few things, and an opinion about everything else. Which one was this guy pulling his information from?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    It seems if I quoted God himself (haha irony) that you will still think you know more and it's not a credible source. I gave you the opinions of a man who believes many of the same things you do, and has a better perspective on it than any of us,



    Again with the insulting assumptions. Do you know who I am? No? The don't compare me to someone else whom you don't know.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Homestar06


    yet you still refuse to listen and to question your own belief. That is why it is pointless for us to debate.



    .... right. refuse to listen and question my own beliefs. So, are we defining "Questioning your beliefs" as "Adopting my beliefs"?



    also, I don't recall specifically disputing the quote from the harvard guy. I THINK my point was that that the person's credibility has not been established, and therefore should not be presented as evidence. In highshool debate class, all you have to do is find a quote. The credibility doesn't matter. Just the fact that the quote exists. This is NOT highschool.
  • Reply 139 of 233
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK


    do you think that God realised that he was ignorant, biggotted, spiteful, destructive, hateful in the OT, and realised he was WRONG?



    Or was it that God was far too human in the OT and needed to become more like God, thus realiseing he was WRONG.



    Or was it that the OT was written by ignorant, biggotted, spiteful, destructive hateful people - that will be the Israelites, and God decided to become more sophisticated when God discovered Greek civilization?



    Or is it that God is just a ....





    I would put it thusly: Which makes more sense, in explaining the FUNDAMENTAL differences in teaching between the old and new testaments (go read Leviticus, if you're not familiar with it), that God made an error, or for some other reason changed the way he operates, for an abolutely miniscule amout of time (relatively speaking) or that humans got it wrong? Omnipotent made an error, or Humans made an error? This doesn't even question whether God exists. Just the reliability of our human recorded history.
  • Reply 140 of 233
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ocriss33324


    All,

    You believe regardless of absolute knowledge or proof. I think that is just one of the big leaps or tests you must pass on your movement towards God and eternal life.





    Most leaps of faith end in a Splat.
Sign In or Register to comment.