Well to most people it does sound far fetched but statistically it would be foolish to bet against it.
POST 420
Printable View
Well to most people it does sound far fetched but statistically it would be foolish to bet against it.
POST 420
billion writes
“I think he's just looking for a religious argument. To me, there's nothing to debate about it. Either you believe, or you do not.”
I understand you, you can’t debate it’s existence. I hope I don’t come across that way. No one can know for sure, right?
But, what you can debate is if you should believe.
If you don’t think logic is necessary for a belief (not saying I do) what else justifies one.
I don’t mean what does in reality, but what would you consider enough to justify a belief.
For example brainwashing is a reason someone has a belief. Like in reality people have beliefs because of this. But I do not think these are valid beliefs. They are not justified.
Would you consider things like wants or needs justification for beliefs. If someone wants god to exist. Is it valid that someone has it.
I do not think it does. I would call that an invalid belief.
See i think believing something because you want to is 100% wrong. and it is invalid.
(validity is a measure of logical correctness)
People are making a claim about the nature of our reality based on desire.
Beliefs are statements about reality which are right and wrong. Unlike opinions which are neither right nor wrong.
to summarize,
I think it is wrong to have a belief based only on your want to have it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
I dont' know why you think that billionfold, I directly quoted and responded to several of your posts. I never said I wanted a religious argument, the original post was simply to challenge the notion that the design of the species is from an intelligent designer. That did expand to the belief in god later, and I made very clear responses to people's reasoning. Thus far all you've said is that god is possible, and that you believe because you just do. I've been asking again and again for an actual logical argument, and now you take the easy road out and try to sell an argument that you can just throw logic out the window and still consider a belief rational, once again with no explanation. I also clearly made my case for why you can't just throw logic out the window, and why logic is not an entity limited to one view of reality while still being able to call it "reality". If you don't actually want to have a logical discussion, and simply claim that a belief is valid because you believe it, then that's cool but don't bother being so active in a thread you clearly don't plan to participate in; otherwise you're just dismantling its original intention by integrating another type of discussion altogether.
Regarding everybody else: I understand that a lot of you may not want to invest the time in this debate, and that's cool. I'm not declaring anybody the "loser" for not debating, so there's no need to explain why you can't be bothered. This is my cup of tea, a philisophical debate through intellectual reasoning, but it may not be everybody's. Some like to just chill and chat, some like to discuss politics or medicine, some just want to share their beliefs and not have debates over them. I enjoy all those things too, and if you enjoy them (and more I'm sure) more power to you. I still love and respect all of you, even those I disagree with. Compassion, friendship, and the pursuit of peace for all humanity is more important than any of these debates, they are only held for those interested in exploring them.
Peace to you all and good luck in pursuit of your hapiness, that's the biggest thing no matter what form it takes.
Mr.D,
I said that you put your faith in man. To you, the past in all unknown. Did you come to your conclusions on your own? You rely on the findings of man to tell you what might have happened right? You rely on the date that man puts behind their findings right? You rely on the machines that man built to come up with things that you find to be true right? What if I throw you the same agrument that is always coming my way? Is not man wrong? What makes you think that all the findings of man are true if everything they touch is corrupt according to your side of the debate?
But since I know that man is wrong, I trust in God. There's no way around it, if God says that his word is pure, and you guys say he's not true, you are calling him a liar. You have to live with that FACT. Don't you fear going against God since everything around us points that he exists?
Can someone explain to me how evolution plays a part in a woman giving birth to a child? How does evolution play a part in her breasts providing milk to the child? How does evolution play a part in male and female? Has man evolved since the first man? Plenty of us are well aware that the facts pointed out by the other side are simply theories. So when it comes down to it, you have to put your faith in something. Mine is in God.
Not everything is strictly a matter of faith. The closest thing I put my "faith" into is my ability to think rationally.Quote:
Mr.D,
I said that you put your faith in man.
I came to my conclusions (which are always subject to change if the right evidence comes along) through researching every argument I could find, and considering the logical attributes and flaws found in each of them using my own critical thinking skills.Quote:
To you, the past in all unknown. Did you come to your conclusions on your own?
You'll need to clarify on this one. What do you mean that I believe "everything man touches is corrupt". I would hope you're not seriously positing that every single thing human beings know is wrong. Man is subject to flaws, that doesn't mean everything he does is flawed.Quote:
You rely on the findings of man to tell you what might have happened right? You rely on the date that man puts behind their findings right? You rely on the machines that man built to come up with things that you find to be true right? What if I throw you the same agrument that is always coming my way? Is not man wrong? What makes you think that all the findings of man are true if everything they touch is corrupt according to your side of the debate?
But you've yet to give reason's for why man is wrong and god is not. And wrong about what exactly? Man is right and wrong about many a things, but it's our exploration, research, philosophical thought, and inguenity that creates progess and expansion of our knowledge.Quote:
But since I know that man is wrong, I trust in God.
We've already been through this. You can't call god a liar because you say he doesn't exist. It works under the logical falsehood of using your premise as the conclusion:Quote:
There's no way around it, if God says that his word is pure, and you guys say he's not true, you are calling him a liar.
1. The bible says that god claims to exist
2. You say he doesn't exist.
3. Therefor your'e calling him a liar because he already exists simply because of a claim that he exists.
If such logic is true then I'm calling Santa Clause a Lair, along with the toothfairy and the flying spegetti monster. What if I tell you that Evil Lord Xenu says he exists, and I already assume that he does. Does that mean you're calling him a liar? Of course not.
Capital letters don't make it a fact just because you say it is.Quote:
You have to live with that FACT.
Again, if everything points to his existence, and there's actually real evidence, then lets here it. Simply claiming that there's proof and never presenting any, isn't proof.Quote:
Don't you fear going against God since everything around us points that he exists?
What's not to understand? When a genetic sequence is constructed to self replicate, life replicates. Gradual environmental shifts inevitably lead to adaptation and speciation, and increases in the complexity of the reproduction process over billions of years.Quote:
Can someone explain to me how evolution plays a part in a woman giving birth to a child?
Species with a genetic structure with a more efficient means of nourishing their offspring will inevitably have an advantage in survival, thereby passing on their genetic code in significantly larger quantities and making their variation within the species the dominant one. Those who had a very poor means of nourishing their young would have their offspring die, and thus not pass on their genetic code.Quote:
How does evolution play a part in her breasts providing milk to the child?
Adaptation of multiple different organisms eventually leads to multiple different variations within a species. When 2 of those variations are compatible in a way that allows them to share their genetic code, it gives them a significant advantage in maintaing a stronger genetic structure and therefor the advantage in survival and retaining of the species.Quote:
How does evolution play a part in male and female?
Actually yes. We've grown much taller, and split off into different variations within the species to create different "breeds", or races. The main change, however, is that our intelligence has grown immensely from early primates. This largely due to dietary changes in the beginning.Quote:
Has man evolved since the first man?
Keep in mind that evolution is not a magical force from nothingness that always occures. Evolution only occures if adaptation to ones environment is necessary for the survival of the species. Since the creation of society, and particularily technology, we used our brains to do something for the first time in the history of any species, we bipassed evolutionary requirements by depending on technology rather than naturlal selection to survive. Right now Humanity will see little evolution so long as the weak are not allowed to die, and taken care of by welfare systems, medicines, and government protection. If anything our system of society will only weaken the human gene pool as those unfit for survival are kept alive to breed by artificial means.
Then don't mix up the terms "theory" and "hypothesis". A theory is not just an idea, it is a collection of knowlege gained from evidence and proofs used to formulate a knew idea based on current knowledge. Remember, even gravity is a theory ("The theory of gravity"). The law of gravitation is the set and proven principle that explains the consistent action of gravity. The theory of gravity is an explanation of how gravity works and by what mechanism, base on observations. Atomic structures are also theories as well, we can't actually observe the motion of electrons.Quote:
Plenty of us are well aware that the facts pointed out by the other side are simply theories.
My point being, something being a theory does not mean it is without credibility.
Quote:
So when it comes down to it, you have to put your faith in something. Mine is in God.
This is the most common creationist distortion of all logical processes of thought, that each and every piece of knowledge is a matter of faith. Faith is an emotional decision based on desire, the abdication of critical thought in exchange for the rewards wrought by blind acceptance. Science and anything measurable is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of basing an opinion on consistent observations that have a visible, measurable, repeatable, and consistant result that is directly seen to affect us or our obersved suroundings. The effect belief in god has is not proof of god, it is proof of a mental event which may or may not be caused by god.
Now even assuming that evolution is a big crock, and it very well may not explain the whole of life and it's complexity, there's still a very big logical error being made on the part of most believers: Disproving one theory, does not automatically prove another. The mere fact that we don't currently have an explanation for everything in the universe, does not mean that a hypothesis (that being god) is correct simply because it fits. We can come up with any number of explanations that fit the result, but an explanation is not a fact until it has been proven. If I claim that the universe came into being because a magic space-jellyfish sneezed, that explanation would fit perfectly, but now it's up to me to prove it.
No pass that, you donâ??t know man is wrong; you hope man is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pass That Shit
Weâ??ve gone over your arguments several times and they are still circular. They all work under the assumption that god exists. Such as this one
â??If you say god doesnâ??t exist your calling him a liarâ?
see the problem is, you are assuming god wrote the bible. What we are saying is that the bible is wrong.
God did not say â??I existâ? and then we: â??no youâ??re a liarâ?
That doesnâ??t make any sense.
What happened is a book says, â??there is a godâ? and we say, â??why should we think thatâ??
And I would love to go into depth with your evolution questions, thatâ??s why I made a thread of it. Why didnâ??t you ask them there? Iâ??m not going to spend the time answering them because to be honest any answer I give would be guesses and speculation.
Itâ??s like asking you, Pass thatâ?Ś what does this little grain of sand have to do with god.
You might answer but it would be a guess.
But I will answer them a little, Saying â??first manâ? isnâ??t really correct as evolution is constant and doesnâ??t make distinctions like that. It falls under the â??paradox of the heapâ?.
But, yes if their was a â??first manâ? we have changed since him.
Our change is very obvious, humans spread over the earth into different environments. These environments placed different pressures on us and we evolved differently.
The result: black people, white people, Asians and so on. In genetics we call these â??deemsâ? or sub groups in a species.
A deem is the first step to becoming an independent species. If these populations were left to evolve independently they would have all split into individual species. But, globalization stopped all of that
If you would like, start up the evolution thread again
i'll be there for you:stoned: probaly high then
What's particularily frustrating is that PTS has used this "you're calling god a liar" argument over and over and over, at least 5 times in 5 different threads. Every time I prove why that's rediculous, and every time he just doesn't respond then uses the same argument in the next thread a few weeks later. Though I've honestly seen MANY creationists do this same thing. I just can't understand how some people can so adamanently shut out critical thought when it doesn't agree with what they want to believe, then actually spew the same nonsense again as if nothing was ever shown to be wrong with it.
I know, I know, I'm probably coming off as hostile and I'll probably regret it, but this is a frustrating repetetive theme, and honestly I've been in an assload of pain all day, and now I'm totally high on Tramadol (legally, with prescription) and free of pain, but it makes anything that irritates me 20x worse.
QFT, but these kids wont ever understand thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
I agree with you there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
Need I go over, once again, why that's a flawed supposition? The burden of proof does not fall on one to disprove god, but to prove him. To disprove god is utterly impossible, because you cannot disprove the existence of that which already doesn't exist. Just as if I were to say to you that there is a microscopic teacup orbiting some sun somewhere in the universe, you could never disprove it. Yet even though you cannot disprove it, you are a teacup atheist. We both know it's possible that the teacup could exist, but there's yet to be any proof or even decent evidence that there's valid reason to believe in it.Quote:
Neither of you have proved or disproved the existence of God.
Besides, nobody said they would prove their point in a single post, the goal here was to logically debate each point as it is presented to see if any for the existence of god holds up. Again, since you obviously have no intention of paricipating in this thread, and instead continue to have this smug attitude acting as though you're so immensely wise because you won't take the intellectual challenge of posing an argument, please quit sabotaging this thread. PTS has still earned more respectability here by at least posing an argument. Refusing to discuss any train of philosophical thought doesn't make you sound wise of more "open minded", you just sound consistently arrogant and without any philisophical considerations of your own.