Parts of site failed to load... If you are using an ad blocker addon, you should to disable it (it blocks more than ads and causes parts of the site to not work).
...it would have to be that this beautiful world was generated randomly, and by sheer chance.
Evolution doesn't state this.
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
I understand where you attempt to find logic in this scenario, and even try to apply scientific studies & conclusions to back up your hypothesis, but I stand firm that only an intelligent creator would be capable of creating so much beauty...and that this never could have happened by blind chance.
There are two problems with this line of thinking, you're assuming that the only two options are creation and randomness, the randomness is the strawman.
You're also stating that the complexity you see before you cannot have been here all along, but something more complex to create that complexity could have always existed?
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
It was a set of scrolls said to have been written by one of Jesus' closest disciples, unearthed in Egypt in 1945, and claims to actually be the words and instructions of Jesus Christ... I've read this gospel, several times, and find much meaning behind the words, analogies, and parables that Jesus used...
I was calling myself the sceptic, I was looking for these historical documents that validate your belief system.
It may very well be the words of Jesus himself, and they may have much meaning to you, but in no way to they constitute as proof. Even if it's the man's writing, there has to be a way to validate the claims that Jesus makes, most importantly, that he is the son of God.
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
I wasn't pointing to any pile of bones in particular, but to all of them in general. Scientists claim that many dinosaur bones are millions of years old, and many came to this conclusion based on the findings of carbon dating methods. But, as I'm sure you've heard plenty of times before, Carbon-14 degrades over time, and probably wouldn't sustain these amounts of carbon isotopes over millions of years. Thousands maybe, but not millions/billions.
I've heard it (many times), but I've never been pointed to an actual study that shows that carbons degrade in a way that differs from what scientists already know.
Carbon dating has limitations, but carbon dating still works when you are apparent of its shortcomings.
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
But there can exist two people who, due to several varying factors, find different meaning in the "sound logic" seen by the other. You could, for all intensive purposes, contend that aliens don't exist because of the sheer improbability of there being another planet capable of sustaining carbon-based lifeforms...while I could point out that for all we know, life can exist in different plains of existence, or based on other undocumented circumstances. I.e. - electro-magnetic energy derived lifeforms, hydrogen based lifeforms, spaghetti based lifeforms, etc.
Dragon rider has an excellent post on what logic means, and he's written it quite well, so I won't retell what he's eloquently told. Suffice to say this example will show how logic will give us the correct belief.
Q: Do aliens exist?
A1: "Of course not, there's no proof"
This is illogical because of the axiom -absence of proof does not equal proof of absence-. We can state this axiom to be true because we can show many instances where it shows itself to be true, which I can demonstrate if you'd like, but I'll assume for the time being that you agree.
A2: "There might be aliens, you never know"
This is logical, because we know that without full and complete knowledge on a subject, that nothing can be taken as an absolute.
A3: "Of course there are aliens, the universe is huge"
This is illogical, because it assumes that a set rule is true without even testing it. It's akin to saying "Of course it was designed, it's too complex to come about any other way"
Having gone through three possible answers, the most logical answer is the "maybe" answer. If you want to believe that aliens exist, that's up to you, but you can't state that your belief in aliens has anything to do with proof, because you'd clearly be wrong.
Just because things are possible, that doesn't give us an excuse to believe in them as if they were true.
So back to the original intention, if i were to state that aliens don't exist, and you stated that they were possible, you'd have the most logical argument. I can claim my argument to be of sound logic, but if I'm not following logical rules, then I'm obviously lying or I'm mistaken.
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
But I also stated that it could be considered a logical argument. Mathematics consists of procedures, calculations, and properties...all of which were discovered and founded based upon the interpretation of intelligent beings. So, the "language of math" could also be speculated to be the creation of man, because it merely relates to finding coherent algorithms behind specific sets of circumstances and explicit quantities.
Again I have to disagree. The principles of math predate humanity. If this were not true, we could state that the sides of a right angled triangle are added up as... A squared + B squared = C cubed. This is false, the laws of math make it false. Math is a language that cannot be changed arbitrarily like we can with our languages. We can not say that humanity has created mathematics, math is something that humanity has discovered.
Which again, invalidates the claim that all languages are created, unless you can prove that something created math.
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
If it's unlikely that you're going to find logic behind my reasoning, I see little reason to express it. I also don't see immediate reason to defend why I believe that God exists, because it's just my belief...and I've stated this many times. I'm not expecting people to adhere to my beliefs just because I believe in them. If someone is truly interested in hearing why I believe what I do, or wants to learn more about my beliefs, then I'll be happy to share. If they're merely trying to get me to spill my guts, just so that they can further try to discredit me, then I'll leave well enough alone and conclude that it's just a personal belief...personal to me, though not to you.
I, personally, want to live in reality. If I have a belief to myself that isn't logical, I want people to point that out. I don't hide my beliefs because I'm not afraid for them being wrong. If someone doens't feel the need to live in reality, then they are living in ignorance. Ignorance can be, and usually is, a dangerous thing, which is why I want to prevent others from being so.
The only reason I'm asking for your beliefs is because, from what I've read in the thread, you don't have a full understanding of what logic actually means. I'm not doing it to show you that I'm better somehow, or that you're a bad person. That's not my intention at all.
Unfortunately, this might come off as preachy. You don't have to spill your guts, that's your choice, but what purpose does serve to keep your thoughts to yourself, and not offer them to be scrutinized?
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
But if you attack what someone truly believes and has undeniable faith in, then in essence, you're still attacking them. Many people hold their faiths very close to them, and simply aren't accustomed to having their beliefs attacked. (This doesn't happen much in their day-to-day lives, or Sunday School, etc.) I'm not as quick to get irate as many other Christians, because I've developed a sort of tolerance to religious indifference.
An attack on a belief is not an attack on the person. Is telling a child that Santa isn't real an attack of some sort? No, it's truth. No matter how heart broken a child is from hearing this seemingly bad news, no matter how much they are in denial, it's not an attack on the child.
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
This is circular logic, and doesn't necessarily apply to those with opposing viewpoints. Mainly because what I consider to be proof, you may just consider to be a coincidental set of circumstances...or may even disregard them in their entirety. In most cases, this still doesn't prove that they're untrue...it just proves that you find little relevance in the matters being discussed.
Needing proof is not circular logic. The scientific method of proof means that it must be able to be reproduced. This is why the scientific method takes precedence over any other type of proof.
I can tell anyone that I can fly by flapping my arms, but if I can not produce results over and over, then have I really proven anything?