<!--QuoteBegin-TheCheeseStandsAlone+Sep 24 2004, 03:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheCheeseStandsAlone @ Sep 24 2004, 03:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Atheism is the lack of faith. You can't have a following of nothingness. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, you would be describing nihilism and buddhism, as well as some forms of asceticism if you "followed nothingness."
Atheism is a belief that there is no God. it's not a lack of faith. Lack of faith is called agnosticism, or perhaps apathy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What about the other links <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i didn't read through them all, i'm sick of these so-called "contradictions" which are really just poorly translated, or taken out of context, or in general ridiculous. Look through the other threads - there are plenty of links refuting so-called "contradictions."
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 03:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 03:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> btw, i read your link rabbisatan, and a lot of the other forum topics (just in general, some of the political debate ones)...
i find it laughable that they call themselves "critical thinkers" there. All I see is a bunch of sloganeering and catch-phrase-throwage.
I see no logic, just dismissal. No debate, just self-congratulatory back-patting. "If you don't agree, you're wrong. I'm always right."
o_O Can we say "groupthink"? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's mainly because most of the topics that could be debatable have already been gone through several hundred times that mostly the only left is just milling around until a Fundy Christian comes along and breathes action back into the forum - that is until they mentally break down in front of all the evidence, start threatening forum posters with their death (Yes, it's happened), and generally insulting them and getting suspended.
But if you're looking for a place where debates happen pretty much most of the time, I'd recommend <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php' target='_blank'>Internet Infidels</a> forum.
kabo0mKT of Insomniacs Anonymous Gaming CommunityJoin Date: 2004-08-06Member: 30415Members
edited September 2004
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><a href='http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/questions-for-skeptics.html' target='_blank'>44 Questions for the None-Believers</a> </span>
<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'><a href='http://www.christiananswers.net/godstory/prayer1.html' target='_blank'>Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?</a></span>
<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'><a href='http://www.christiananswers.net/hope/thehope-full-length.html' target='_blank'>Movie about the story of <span style='color:yellow'>Jesus</span></a></span>
[quote]1. How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe?[/quote]
How does an infinite regress explain it better? You are aware that positing the existence of a god merely posits a <i>more</i> complicated thing than the universe itself, without itself having any cause?
[quote]2. How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?[/quote]
I'm certain there was a very charismatic preacher from Nazareth called Jesus, and I'm pretty sure there was a tribe called the hebrews that served in bondage to the egyptians, to one extent or another. I don't think this preacher was the son of god, nor do I think the hebrews got out of bondage through the actions of god.
[quote]3. Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of Divine origin?[/quote]
Wait, so, the argument is that your holy book predicted other events in the same book - a book, by the way, that has been altered, re-written, and translated numerous times over the past couple thousand years - and that these are legitimate predictions?
p.s.: numerous talmudic and biblical scholars call **** on this because, surprise, as a religious text it's easy to read it in different ways. So even your assertion that your holy book predicted other events in your own holy book is hardly undebated, even amongst followers of that book.
[quote]4. How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?[/quote]
Uh, how is this even an argument? Is the reasoning that there sure were alot of copies of this thing, so... This doesn't make any sense. The early Christian church argued over what books to include for roughly 80-100 years after Constantine gave the religion his imprimatur. I forget the name of the guy that compiled the first lists of those books that were universally accepted, some that were sort of fringe, and some that most people agreed were wacky. Guh. The point being, there were a whole variety of books that the disparate, secret societies sort of developed independantly, and the bible of today is the result of people debating about what to include and what not to include after they didn't need to be secret any more. The DSSs contain alot of frankly heretical texts, both from the Jewish and the Christian perspective.
[quote]5. Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]6. Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?[/quote]
No, there's a whole slew of religions and sects within Christianity. Choosing one amongst them is impossible, since they all rest on unfalsifiable hypotheses. I'd also have to hate myself and never have sex if I did, and darnit, I like the sexings.
[quote]7. In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to be God?[/quote]
How is this even material? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, how should I know?
[quote]8. Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of Scripture.[/quote]
Assuming he actually did - and again, the bible is not a reliable historical source - then uh, yeah, I think he was. Truth be told, I think he was probably <i>loco</i>, people that claim to be god are not exactly rare. Nor are they healthy.
[quote]9. If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the 'Good Book'?[/quote]
This is just a lie. It's not universally regarded as the good book. Every other religion on the planet - billions of people - would disagree with that. All the nonreligious people would. And people within Christianity fight about which version is the right one.
[quote]10. From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?[/quote]
Ever heard of sut`tee? Ever heard of female genital mutilation? Ever heard of the tiny tribe on, I think, some southeast asian Island where the grown men take boys as their "wives" for a while when they're 10-15 years old or so? There's been a fair amount of research into taboos that hold true across all cultures, and they've been found. No one approves of eating feces, for example. Nothing so broad as the specific dictates of Christian morality, however.
[quote]11. If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?[/quote]
This is different for everyone. Pride, determination, my own ethic, love of humanity, whatever. If your only reason for not being evil is that the big man in the sky will punish you later, isn't your morality stunted? Shouldn't you be ethical for the <i>sake of being ethical?</i>
[quote]12. Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.[/quote]
Sorry, we haven't figured things out exactly yet. Again - explain why positing the existence of an ur-creature that contains the entirety of the universe and then omniscience and omnipotence on top of that is somehow simpler or more believable than positing the existence of the universe alone, a proposition that we can plainly see to be true?
[quote]13. If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?[/quote]
Who knows if they knew it was a lie, or if they really died, or if they thought that giving their lives up was worth it since they felt it was the best way to prove their point and they wanted to save people? Or maybe they lied at first and couldn't extricate themselves from it later, or whatever. I dunno. Again, <b>two thousand years ago</b>, with the only source being a religious text.
[quote]14. How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?[/quote]
Charisma, motivation, power of his own belief in his divinity, etc. etc. It's amazing what one person can do. Mahatmas Gandhi, alone, without a war, freed India of her British colonizers. Neat, huh?
[quote]15. Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?[/quote]
Why have so many not been? Why have so many been Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim. I mean, my god, the Arabs were the greatest thinkers of the medieval period, making advances in mathematics, philosophy, literature, chemistry, and medicine that wouldn't be duplicated in the Christian kingdoms for hundreds of years. The reasons any given person is religious are numerous.
[quote]16. Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error in their view of the Bible?[/quote]
No more than it is for you to suggest I'm wrong. And this is hardly an argument - no matter how <i>rude</i> it is, I should hold to be true that which I think is true. As should everyone.
[quote]17. How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?[/quote]
Ok already answered this twice, look at questions 1 and 12 again. So far this is down to 42 questions for nonbelievers. Let's see how many times they can reproduce the anthropic argument.
[quote]18. How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?[/quote]
Localized systems can increase in order as long as the system as a whole does not. So within this solar system we have a bubble of increased order. This solar system is an incomrehensibly tiny fraction of the universe as a whole.
[quote]19. Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?[/quote]
a. Predicting events in your own book is not impressive. b. This is also not true, lots of holy texts do it, depending on who you ask.
[quote]20. On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard?[/quote]
Uh, re-read my above answers. It has been edited, changed, translated, and otherwise mutated over two thousand years of being subject to the sweet ministrations of religious/political organizations.
[quote]21. Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?"[/quote]
I like this one! Very nice little logic trap. I would answer that "truth is relative" actually means that "absolute truth is not knowable". At the end of the day, defining the person is pretty difficult, but there's an extent to which we are... nebulous things that operate on not wholly understood principles to process sensory information. There are processes we can follow to make sure that the extent to which we deceive ourselves is minimized, but we can never be absolutely sure. This is what DesCartes was grappling with - it's logically possible, in the strict sense of the phrase, that we are brains floating in jars. In which case we're wrong about just about everything, but there's no way to know that either way. So we make do with what we can.
[quote]22. Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?[/quote]
Yes. It's also possible we're brains in jars. What's your point?
[quote]23. Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?[/quote]
Yes. And even if it didn't, that would be no reason to go "well I am depressed so I will hold as true that which I think is false."
[quote]24. How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?[/quote]
How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Hindus, atheists, whatevers?
[quote]25. Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?[/quote]
Are you aware that this is a lie?
[quote]26. What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?[/quote]
What do you make other than sweeping, unverifiable claims? What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that don't?
[quote]27. Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?[quote]
Religion is funny like that.
[quote]28. Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent 'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?[/quote]
Wh-at?
...
What? What is this trying to say? Seriously, I don't get it.
I mean... An extant god would of course be pretty awesome, but since there is no such thing, so what?
[quote]29. Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?[/quote]
Not really. Have you ever considered that the Jains are the only religion to posit that inside each of us is an omniscient (although not omnipotent) spirit?
[quote]30. How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?[quote]
Wow that is terrible. HOW CAN YOU THINK WE'RE WRONG EVEN THOUGH WE'RE, LIKE, TOTALLY RIGHT!? Lame. Also: random tomb in the middle east found empty, film at 11.
[quote]31. If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb?[/quote]
Maybe he didn't. Maybe he lay inside it, 100% dead, until he decayed away or someone came along a hundred years later and kicked out the bones to live there for a while, or whatever. Maybe you've got the wrong tomb.
[quote]32. If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?[/quote]
Well, a. The authorities didn't care about Jesus. b. They probably didn't.
[quote]33. If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?[/quote]
Please stop asking this question. I've answered it twice now and it is getting old.
[quote]34. How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion?[/quote]
Getting sick of answering this question too. Read the answer to question 4.
[quote]35. If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His life?[/quote]
Maybe he did, who knows? Then again, walking around barefoot and screaming about god doesn't strike me as healthy.
[quote]36. If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by suddenly "realizing" that he/she is 'God' therefore isn't God?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]37. Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?[/quote]
<b>Possibly</b>, yes. In reality, it is not.
[quote]38. How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?[/quote]
Uh, was under the impression you were trying to convince us it was written round when JC was still kicking. Oh, you mean OT. God, <b>stop repeating this question please.</b> See answers to any question about how amazing it is that it predicts itself as read by modern readers. Circular argument anyways, "considering this is the true holy book, isn't it amazing how it's true!?"
[quote]39. Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]40. Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just another faith system?[/quote]
Stop lying. Evolutionary theory, and science in general, are in fact falsifiable. Radioactive decay always works the same way, and numerous theories about, say, how a given dinosaur was put together have been falsified. Including victorian scientists who would find the bones for three different creatures and assemble them into one creature and go WOW THAT IS A CRAZY LOOKING CREATURE!! Later people came along and went "this is wrong because x, y, and z."
[quote]41. What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?[/quote]
What, you mean how most people tal about spirits in the rocks, trees, etc.? Humans make explanatory systems, it's what we do. In the absence of any modern knowledge or theories of logic and evidence, going "the storm spirit is angry" is how you explain stuff.
[quote]42. Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?[/quote]
<b>Stop asking this freaking question.</b>
[quote]43. If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e. is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who then caused the universe?[/quote]
If I'm right, then aren't I right? If god does not exist, then doesn't god not exist? Bleh, ignoring the crappy wording of this question, again, we don't yet have all the answers. That's no reason to throw out the answers we do have.
[quote]44. What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?[/quote]
God would have to reach down and make me one.
Freaking finally, done. I'm stupider having done that.
Also I like the story at the end. Obvious fiction. But hey, let me know the second you find a philo professor that is <b>retarded</b> enough to try to turn his classroom into an atheist indoctrination center and simultaneously a big enough idiot to try to make a "lack of direct sensory experience means it isn't there" argument. I will personally go punch that professor in the face.
<!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 24 2004, 12:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 24 2004, 12:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Matthew L. Barre+Sep 24 2004, 12:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Matthew L. Barre @ Sep 24 2004, 12:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But what people aren't understanding is that atheists have faith that they are right, they are the deviant from the norm and they have no proof of their beliefs. So they have the biggest leap of faith of all. Faith that there is truely nothing whereas there is no proof, but rather much against such according to many religions. They suddenly create a group on non-believers and call themselves right. Well where is their proof, I just find it amazing that atheists are the only group that can make so many ballsy statements and get away with it simply because we cant disprove them because they have no facts. What any atheist has yet to answer is how was the Earth created. When they answer that with evidence then I'll be happy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Evolution, Big Bang Theory, History, Archaelogical evidence, Astrology.
It would be pointless to cite any of these because you've proven time and again that rationale and reason aren't for you. You're not welcome in this debate unless you can come to grips with the possibility that others may be correct. In laymen's terms, stop babbling.
Personally, I'm sick of you using popularity to justify your claims. It was popular in Nazi germany to persecute Jews, and it was popular in America to imprison the Japanese. Popularity does not define right. The amount of times you manage to contradict yourself on this point makes me laugh.
Swiftspear: While I have a lot of respect for you as a Christian who doesn't stuff it in my face, and is willing to acknowledge, if not accept, the arguments of both sides, consider the possibility that perhaps your entire psychological construction of faith may be the result of being surrounded with a belief in god since your youth. Do you recall making an active, informed decision that god was doubtlessly real, and that it was worth your time to spend the rest of your life worshipping him? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sick of you not having any proof and screaming minority. I want to know how you think the world was created, because your random blithering about my supposed irrational thinking really isnt proving much other than the fact that you have zero proof which you never seem to deny. There are some people in this forum like john_sheu who are willing to debate reasonably "which I very much respect people like that and their opinions" and not say things like because Christiany is the pre-dominate religion therefore we can make analogies to Nazism and other wrongful scenarios of persecution. The KKK is a minority, so really what is your, point being a minority does not give you the god given right (LOL) to run around calling anyone who has a religious conviction wrong just because you are a minority and desrespute every shred of evidence we offer and yet have none to back up your own arguements.
<!--QuoteBegin-RabbiSatan+Sep 24 2004, 09:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RabbiSatan @ Sep 24 2004, 09:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...if you're looking for a place where debates happen pretty much most of the time, I'd recommend <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php' target='_blank'>Internet Infidels</a> forum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My atheist ideology , I'm wetting myself for not having found this forum earlier.
I thought my "atheist revelation" was special - but some people went through a complete <i>deconversion</i> with their sheer willpower ! The <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=72552' target='_blank'>Salvation Story</a> is a beautiful tale of a courageous woman who decided to think for herself and break her sprititual chains despite the horrible social pressure. Quite an incentive to spread our own Gospel ("good news") and free more enslaved people.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Any sort of order out of chaos presupposes design.
Show me an example of order without design.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um... the perfect 6-branch star shape of snow flakes , that comes from our current laws of physics ? Complex shapes drawn by cellular automaton ? What you're talking about is <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence' target='_blank'>Emergence</a> , order unexpectedly rising from chaos.
i'd like to see how you see us as "enslaved." we think of ourselves as the only free ones. it's been linked to before on these forums, i forgot what my comment was about them, but they do have quite a bit of high level philosophy going on there. sometimes it winds up debating embarrassingly trivial points, but it is fairly decent.
btw, the "Salvation story" girl has good memory...and the church doesn't condemn honestly questioning the doctrine. i haven't been calling you guys "satan-spawn" now have i? last thing... "salvation story" is all emotional and good and all, but rejecting the bible instead of questioning a pastor on it was not a good idea. It wasn't a good example of community support, no, but what was she freed from, into? A life of bitterness, hopelessness, distance and rejection from her husband who is the man that she was supposed to love for a lifetime, whom she shared a good huge chunk of her life with?
ew, if you think that's freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Um... the perfect 6-branch star shape of snow flakes , that comes from our current laws of physics ? Complex shapes drawn by cellular automaton ? What you're talking about is Emergence , order unexpectedly rising from chaos. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's order from design, bub. emergence does produce order, but it doesn't last.. cellular automation is by design, you know.
*edit* that's by design proximally, not causally. cellular automation - the genome causes it. <b>laws</b> of physics? hello? where did this law come from?
I concure, I read through the whole thing too and never does she seek the answers to her questions she just asks her husband and sister and when she can't find answers herself she assumes there isn't any. She let her doubts and fear build up until it consumed her and she rejected her faith. This story is sorta sad from how she went from the path to redemption to road of denial.
<!--QuoteBegin-Matthew L. Barre+Sep 24 2004, 11:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Matthew L. Barre @ Sep 24 2004, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I concure, I read through the whole thing too and never does she seek the answers to her questions she just asks her husband and sister and when she can't find answers herself she assumes there isn't any. She let her doubts and fear build up until it consumed her and she rejected her faith. This story is sorta sad from how she went from the path to redemption to road of denial. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> well, i wouldn't say she didn't seek the answers, i mean she did read some books on apologetics and comparitive religion. Those are good to read if you want to evangelize, but ultimately the problem is that she didn't really have someone with authority to discuss this with, those kinds of books can only go so far.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 11:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>laws</b> of physics? hello? where did this law come from? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First answer, "Where did God come from?" then answer your own question.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Sep 24 2004, 12:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 24 2004, 12:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 11:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>laws</b> of physics? hello? where did this law come from? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First answer, "Where did God come from?" then answer your own question. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> God is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Any sort of order out of chaos presupposes design.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it doesn't, there's no logical necessity there. And, <b>again</b> god is <b>not a simpler explanation.</b> God inherently contains every complexity of the extant universe and adds the further complexity of an omniscient, omnipotent being.
Just to make it clear: <b>there is zero logical necessity to the argument from design.</b> Otherwise known as the anthropic argument. If you find it convincing, great, good for you, but it <b>is not proof.</b>
I personally don't find it convincing because, again, it just makes the whole thing more complicated and bizarre than a causeless universe is already. And going "snowflakes/the solar system/whatever" aren't examples of emergence is... argumentively void. You go "show me an example of x, but for every x that exists, god is the reason". Your conclusion is contained in your premises.
Edit: I like how all my quote tags broke in the big response. Could a mod fix that?
And the argument from design <b>really</b> isn't a Christian argument. It's a deist's argument, someone who thinks "ok, god exists". There's no way to go from that statement to anything remotely Christian other than a guess.
Actually "order out of chaos" does presuppose design - see 2nd law of thermodynamics.
How can life begin when all along it is trying to tear itself apart? - now that is just simple life... how can amino acids turn into protine strings then into dna, when all along the laws of physics are going against it? Take that one step further, how can we have comlex cell structures, when all along the laws of physics are standing in its way? One stray lightning bolt, and you have set back "evolution" by another million years or so.
Do you see my point? The astronomically miniscule chance that "life" could come from "non-life" is so rediciously small.... and yet, in order to believe in evolution, you have to accept this as "fact".
So what has greater probablily? Spontanious evolution, or God?
First half of your post will be dealt with in PMs , to not change this thread into a mudslinging contest.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 05:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 05:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Um... the perfect 6-branch star shape of snow flakes , that comes from our current laws of physics ? Complex shapes drawn by cellular automaton ? What you're talking about is Emergence , order unexpectedly rising from chaos. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's order from design, bub. emergence does produce order, but it doesn't last.. cellular automation is by design, you know.
*edit* that's by design proximally, not causally. cellular automation - the genome causes it. <b>laws</b> of physics? hello? where did this law come from? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are we speaking about the same thing ? <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton' target='_blank'>Cellular Automata</a> have no genome , they only follow simple mathematic rules , and draw patterns though they weren't designed to do so.
Likewise , the fact that we are shaped by the laws of physics don't mean that we were designed. Our size is adapted to this planet's gravitational field , our dinner table's size are adapted to our own , and that causes toasts to systematically fall on the wrong side when pushed. I know God is supposed to work in mysterious ways , but can someone explain why it is so important to spread jam and butter on the floor ? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Matthew L. Barre+Sep 24 2004, 12:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Matthew L. Barre @ Sep 24 2004, 12:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are some people in this forum like john_sheu who are willing to debate reasonably "which I very much respect people like that and their opinions" and not say things like because Christiany is the pre-dominate religion therefore we can make analogies to Nazism and other wrongful scenarios of persecution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I thank you for your vote of confidence. But you haven't answered me yet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
2nd law of TD says that entropy increases over time in any closed system. <b>The solar system is not a closed system.</b> It is part of the <b>universe</b>, and there are localized increases of order all over the place, we call these galaxies.
Further, I'm talking <b>logical necessity.</b> The laws of physics are <b>not logically necessary.</b> So what you're saying is this: "I believe proposition x is logically necessary because of logically contingent premise y." To say nothing of the fact that you've thoroughly misunderstood contingent premise y.
Believe in god all you want, just don't try to claim that such a belief is justified through proof. And of course you didn't respond to the statement that even if such a proof existed, getting from it to Christianity is pretty much impossible.
And again, <b>god is not any simpler.</b> All you're doing is going "look, imagine how amazingly complex and impressive the universe is. Seems unlikely, huh? Now imagine a causeless thing that is <b>orders of magnitude more unlikely</b> and being amazed at yourself. A causeless universe is FAR LESS AMAZING than a causeless god that then causes a universe.
Stakhanov - you're barking up the wrong tree. His argument is as follows: "god made the universe, as evidenced by how ordered it is. Show me an example of order god didn't make." It is, of course, impossible to do so.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 24 2004, 11:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 24 2004, 11:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually "order out of chaos" does presuppose design - see 2nd law of thermodynamics.
How can life begin when all along it is trying to tear itself apart? - now that is just simple life... how can amino acids turn into protine strings then into dna, when all along the laws of physics are going against it? Take that one step further, how can we have comlex cell structures, when all along the laws of physics are standing in its way? One stray lightning bolt, and you have set back "evolution" by another million years or so.
Do you see my point? The astronomically miniscule chance that "life" could come from "non-life" is so rediciously small.... and yet, in order to believe in evolution, you have to accept this as "fact".
So what has greater probablily? Spontanious evolution, or God? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Aiyah. You should check up on your science before you go posting his kind of thing <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The second law of thermodynamics prescribes for the non-decreasing entropy of a closed system. Many people then argue, why did life (order) arise on the Earth? Simple...because the Earth is <i>not</i> a closed system. We recieve energy from the sun. While we have been ordering ourselves for a few billion (or however long you want it to be) years, the sun has been massively disordering itself, by undergoing nuclear fusion. Thus the "closed system" must include both the Earth and the Sun; in this case, entropy is indeed increasing.
Amino acids polymerize precisely because the laws of physics <i>are</i> going for it. And there is nothing about physics which prohibits the existence of complex cell structures. And yes, one stray lightning belt could easily have taken evolution back by millions of years. That's precisely why it took so long; there is no "direction" to evolution, but we are merely the consequence of its random fluctuations.
And I do believe that the probability of God existing is still smaller. Take an astronomically miniscule probability, smear it across four billion years, and <i>something</i> happens. At least, we have scientific evidence for this. And as of yet, no scientific evidence of God. In that frame, then evolution is more likely.
P.S.: Yes, I know, it does seem unfair that we're presupposing here the superiority of scientific evidence over faith. But there are reasons for this: 1. As I said, engaging in debate presupposes reliance on rational arguments. 2. Evolution is supported by scientific evidence <i>precisely because</i> it is a scientific theory; i.e. a mode of thought which came about by regarding the facts. 3. If you wish to bring science in to defend religion, be prepared to have your "facts" refuted. That is why, personally, I <i>never</i> use "facts" to justify those articles I take in pure faith; I regard these articles as "beyond the plane of science", so to speak. But that also means that they are pure beliefs, and thus are unsupported by any evidence.
i'm waiting for a tornado to come through my backyard and assemble a fully functional 747.
i've read the probability of evolution "happening" as it does is 1 in anywhere from 10^500 to 10^50,000. read Francis Crick's (yes, the dude who found out the structure of DNA) critique of evolutionary theory - instead, he says that the theory of panspermic origin would be more likely. Statisticians think that anything with a probability of lower than 1 in 10^50 <b> will never happen in the lifetime of the universe </b> because it's so ridiculously small.
evolutionary theory takes for granted many things that need for it to work - at precisely the right time, simultaneously, a self-propagating amino acid formed, and there just happened to be enough similar chemicals near it for it to replicate, and to survive constant UV bombardment (remember kids, the ozone didn't come about until way later). Sorry, but I don't buy it. <a href='http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter11_4.php' target='_blank'>linxor</a>
*edit* <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we speaking about the same thing ? Cellular Automata have no genome , they only follow simple mathematic rules , and draw patterns though they weren't designed to do so.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> oops, you were talking about those computer programs. i've written a few before, and guess what? they're designed. the dots don't move, reproduce, and die because the electrons of the monitor just suddenly felt like springing onto the phosphor screen, they were designed to do that by interactions between the monitor and your computer from a program which <b>you wrote and designed</b>. Unless you just randomly typed in letters and somehow produced compileable, working code in an IDE that you just randomly somehow manifested out of thin air, on a computer that was *ohnoes* designed by some dude in a cubicle! In any case, they don't even model life accurately...way too simplistic a program to "simulate" life, if anything.
*edit* stop dragging this into a science vs religion argument, are you really looking for lockage?
STOP TALKING SCIENCE VS RELIGION, THEY ADDRESS DIFFERENT ISSUES COMPLETELY.
Let me get this straight - by virtue of the sun casting light/heat/radiation at us ~ life evolving from non-life has a greater probablility?
Good thing our earth has a magnetic field to counteract all that life destroying radiation. Good thing we are in precicely the right orbit for life to exist - you know that a few degrees either way would either burn life to a crisp, or freeze it into oblivion.
See, it doesn't seem like science to me. It seems like "give us a few billion years, and anything can happen".
Now, I haven't posted any creation views - how science and creation mesh quite happily. That is outside the scope of my argument.
All I am saying is this: The God of Creation and the chance of evolution both require a belief system. I find, by looking out my window each day, that intellegent design is far more likely than millions and billions of years. I choose to beleive in God as opposed to Chance.
Pepe, if it doesn't seem like science to you then you do not understand it. It is open to constant debate based on real, physical evidence. People dig up a bone, date it, and go "I think it seems reasonable to suppose x based on this evidence and I think so for reasons 1, 2, and 3." Then other people argue about it, conduct experiments to verify or disprove elements, so on and so forth. The long and the short of it is that we don't know the initial conditions of life on earth. There are some initial theories but they are unsatisfactory. The fact, however, is that life exists here, so we're going "hm, I wonder how that happened."
The belief structure required is as follows: "I believe my sensory input is fairly reliable."
Every hypothesis is testable, even if it is beyond our current means to test it.
Finally: it's not just billions of years. It's twenty billion years and billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars.
ps going "lol god is" is way more belief-straining than going "lol the universe is" because uh, universe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i'd like to see how you see us as "enslaved." we think of ourselves as the only free ones.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh man slave wheee, thats so funny. You base your life, everything you do, on SERVING god. You follow his rules, and for what? So you can SERVE HIM IN HEAVEN! You're not free. You're not even making your own opinions anymore, your god has laid them all out for you so you can't have the "wrong" opinion.
Homosexuality? Bad. Why? God said so. Suicide? Bad. Why? God said so.
Jesus is not your savior, he is your enslaver. I would take an eternity in the firey pit over serving an **** like god anyday.
------------------
And I'm afraid I have to agree with slave wheee about keeping the Religion versus Science debates out of here. They are specificillay singled out in the rules as a forbiden topic, because as coil put it:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A debate between someone with a scientific worldview and someone with a religious one is like a sporting contest between a guy with a hockey stick and another with a squash raquet. They can't play the same game because they're using different equipment, and each refuses to play the game for which the other is equipped.
...And for all they know they're supposed to be playing basketball anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In otherowrds, its pointless. The god slaves refuse to listen to reason, and the scientists refuse to listen to god's truth.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me get this straight - by virtue of the sun casting light/heat/radiation at us ~ life evolving from non-life has a greater probablility? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. Compared with "$DEITY created the world", of which we have no evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Good thing our earth has a magnetic field to counteract all that life destroying radiation. Good thing we are in precicely the right orbit for life to exist - you know that a few degrees either way would either burn life to a crisp, or freeze it into oblivion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Even more exactly my point. It's a wonderful coincidence that we have the exact conditions necessary for life. I have a feeling that you will bring up the point that this coincidence is "impossible". Well, think about all the other worlds out there, where life has not arisen. Earth merely got lucky.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, I haven't posted any creation views - how science and creation mesh quite happily. That is outside the scope of my argument. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Very good. In fact, if you wanted to put $DEITY in the picture, you could use Newton's "master watchmaker" analogy; that $DEITY, in the beginning, had the extraordinary foresight to set the laws of physics exactly in the right way to eventually bring about our evolution. Then evolution is just another tool of $DEITY. I quote you here: "I find, by looking out my window each day, that intellegent design is far more likely than millions and billions of years. I choose to beleive in God as opposed to Chance." You were the one that brought this into the argument.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I am saying is this: The God of Creation and the chance of evolution both require a belief system. I find, by looking out my window each day, that intellegent design is far more likely than millions and billions of years. I choose to beleive in God as opposed to Chance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would it be more likely, when there is scientific evidence for one but not the other? You are relying on faith, then. In a way, I envy those who can believe, those who have the will to hold fast to their foundations. But not I; and for the purposes of debate, we want facts.
<!--QuoteBegin-kavasa+Sep 24 2004, 02:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kavasa @ Sep 24 2004, 02:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The belief structure required is as follows: "I believe my sensory input is fairly reliable."
Every hypothesis is testable, even if it is beyond our current means to test it.
Finally: it's not just billions of years. It's twenty billion years and billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars.
ps going "lol god is" is way more belief-straining than going "lol the universe is" because uh, universe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> that is not true. btw, 13 billion years. and that's a liberal estimate. 10^50 is the number of protons in the universe. 13 billion years is 10^9. The probability of sustained evolution happening is 1 in 10^<b>50,000</b>. i'm sorry, but your numbers don't add up. A billion years is a lot, yes, but it might as well be nanoseconds compared to the probability of randomly spawning life, on any of the trillions of planets.
Btw: untestable hypothesis: "all hypotheses are testable"
a funny thing my roommate said: "look, if we die and go to heaven, we can gloat over you, but if you die and just die, you won't be able to gloat at us" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh man slave wheee, thats so funny. You base your life, everything you do, on SERVING god. You follow his rules, and for what? So you can SERVE HIM IN HEAVEN! You're not free. You're not even making your own opinions anymore, your god has laid them all out for you so you can't have the "wrong" opinion.
Homosexuality? Bad. Why? God said so. Suicide? Bad. Why? God said so.
Jesus is not your savior, he is your enslaver. I would take an eternity in the firey pit over serving an **** like god anyday. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
whoa, nice. So I'm suddenly brainwashed because I adhere to a religion? Think again. I would think that out of all the posts I've made on the forum, some of them would be clearly the product of *rational* and *independent* thinking.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i'm waiting for a tornado to come through my backyard and assemble a fully functional 747.
i've read the probability of evolution "happening" as it does is 1 in anywhere from 10^500 to 10^50,000. read Francis Crick's (yes, the dude who found out the structure of DNA) critique of evolutionary theory - instead, he says that the theory of panspermic origin would be more likely. Statisticians think that anything with a probability of lower than 1 in 10^50 <b> will never happen in the lifetime of the universe </b> because it's so ridiculously small. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course, to expect a tornado to assemble a 747 is ludicrous. But remember, life by nature is self-replicating; all you have to do is get it started. So the debate should be framed about how life itself began.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->evolutionary theory takes for granted many things that need for it to work - at precisely the right time, simultaneously, a self-propagating amino acid formed, and there just happened to be enough similar chemicals near it for it to replicate, and to survive constant UV bombardment (remember kids, the ozone didn't come about until way later). Sorry, but I don't buy it. <a href='http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter11_4.php' target='_blank'>linxor</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In fact, the things necessary for it to work very well could have existed. (1) Self-replicating RNAs have been demonstrated. (2) Amino acids founds in meteorites. Why not on the early earth? (3) In fact, UV bombardment would have been both a major cause of the mutations necessary to drive evolution and the activation energies necessary for peptide linkage. If you wish a refutation of that link, I can do it. Provided that somebody actually bothers to make my refutation worthwhile. One point in particular: self-replicating RNA has been demonstrated, contrary to Dr. Orgel's statement made in 1994. Of course, that is no fault of his, because we didn't know about it in 1994.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we speaking about the same thing ? Cellular Automata have no genome , they only follow simple mathematic rules , and draw patterns though they weren't designed to do so. oops, you were talking about those computer programs. i've written a few before, and guess what? they're designed. the dots don't move, reproduce, and die because the electrons of the monitor just suddenly felt like springing onto the phosphor screen, they were designed to do that by interactions between the monitor and your computer from a program which <b>you wrote and designed</b>. Unless you just randomly typed in letters and somehow produced compileable, working code in an IDE that you just randomly somehow manifested out of thin air, on a computer that was *ohnoes* designed by some dude in a cubicle! In any case, they don't even model life accurately...way too simplistic a program to "simulate" life, if anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He was bringing up cellular automata as evidence that complex behaviors arise from simple rules, in an analogy to life. You denounced it as a figment of excessive complexity. Yours and his arguments were like.....two oni passing in the night.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*edit* stop dragging this into a science vs religion argument, are you really looking for lockage?
STOP TALKING SCIENCE VS RELIGION, THEY ADDRESS DIFFERENT ISSUES COMPLETELY.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sehr gut. I'll stop with it then, if no more points come out. I'd also like to point out this post as where science vs. religion first came into the debate: <!--QuoteBegin-Matthew L. Barre+Sep 23 2004, 11:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Matthew L. Barre @ Sep 23 2004, 11:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But what people aren't understanding is that atheists have faith that they are right, they are the deviant from the norm and they have no proof of their beliefs. So they have the biggest leap of faith of all. Faith that there is truely nothing whereas there is no proof, but rather much against such according to many religions. They suddenly create a group on non-believers and call themselves right. Well where is their proof, I just find it amazing that atheists are the only group that can make so many ballsy statements and get away with it simply because we cant disprove them because they have no facts. What any atheist has yet to answer is how was the Earth created. When they answer that with evidence then I'll be happy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-john_sheu+Sep 24 2004, 02:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (john_sheu @ Sep 24 2004, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Very good. In fact, if you wanted to put $DEITY in the picture, you could use Newton's "master watchmaker" analogy; that $DEITY, in the beginning, had the extraordinary foresight to set the laws of physics exactly in the right way to eventually bring about our evolution. Then evolution is just another tool of $DEITY. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This was exactly my point, although I may suck at explaining myself sometimes... I am sick of people using science as a tool to try to disprove the existance of GOD it is a meager and weak arguement and makes no sense. I am by no means a hardcore literalist when it comes to the old testament with anything up to Abram. Before that I personally think its up to interpritation and tells a basic telling of the truth. I also buy into the big bang theory until something better comes along, but my point is where did those gasses come from, like someone else said there had to have been a design and a higher power must have indeed had said design.
*Edit* A very wise and enlightened Catholic Priest once gave our class that same watch analogy and he also chose to believe in the big bang. He also explained why creationism and evolutionism can co-exist because there is nothing in the Bible that says GOD couldn't have done it this way.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 02:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 02:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->that is not true. btw, 13 billion years. and that's a liberal estimate. 10^50 is the number of protons in the universe. 13 billion years is 10^9. The probability of sustained evolution happening is 1 in 10^<b>50,000</b>. i'm sorry, but your numbers don't add up. A billion years is a lot, yes, but it might as well be nanoseconds compared to the probability of randomly spawning life, on any of the trillions of planets. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As opposed to your numbers? From where are you pulling out the 1 in 10^50,000 probability?
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 02:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 02:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Btw: untestable hypothesis: "all hypotheses are testable" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Religion is an untestable hypothesis as well. If you wish to defend religion with science, you must submit it also to the rigors of science.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 02:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 02:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->a funny thing my roommate said: "look, if we die and go to heaven, we can gloat over you, but if you die and just die, you won't be able to gloat at us" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Pascal's wager. His argument was, in essence, that religion is insurance. <i>Vis-a-vis</i>: 1. If you go to church and there is no $DEITY, well then the loss of your time is insignificant, since you're dead anyhow. 2. If you don't go to church but there is indeed a $DEITY, then you're screwed over. So the potential cost of being athiest is higher than the potential cost of being religious; thus it's better to go to church anyhow. Of course, some say there is a special place in Hell for those people who believe merely because of this wager <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
Actually, you would be describing nihilism and buddhism, as well as some forms of asceticism if you "followed nothingness."
Atheism is a belief that there is no God. it's not a lack of faith. Lack of faith is called agnosticism, or perhaps apathy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What about the other links
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i didn't read through them all, i'm sick of these so-called "contradictions" which are really just poorly translated, or taken out of context, or in general ridiculous. Look through the other threads - there are plenty of links refuting so-called "contradictions."
i find it laughable that they call themselves "critical thinkers" there. All I see is a bunch of sloganeering and catch-phrase-throwage.
I see no logic, just dismissal. No debate, just self-congratulatory back-patting. "If you don't agree, you're wrong. I'm always right."
o_O Can we say "groupthink"? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's mainly because most of the topics that could be debatable have already been gone through several hundred times that mostly the only left is just milling around until a Fundy Christian comes along and breathes action back into the forum - that is until they mentally break down in front of all the evidence, start threatening forum posters with their death (Yes, it's happened), and generally insulting them and getting suspended.
But if you're looking for a place where debates happen pretty much most of the time, I'd recommend <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php' target='_blank'>Internet Infidels</a> forum.
</span>
<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'><a href='http://www.christiananswers.net/godstory/prayer1.html' target='_blank'>Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?</a></span>
<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'><a href='http://www.christiananswers.net/hope/thehope-full-length.html' target='_blank'>Movie about the story of <span style='color:yellow'>Jesus</span></a></span>
How does an infinite regress explain it better? You are aware that positing the existence of a god merely posits a <i>more</i> complicated thing than the universe itself, without itself having any cause?
[quote]2. How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?[/quote]
I'm certain there was a very charismatic preacher from Nazareth called Jesus, and I'm pretty sure there was a tribe called the hebrews that served in bondage to the egyptians, to one extent or another. I don't think this preacher was the son of god, nor do I think the hebrews got out of bondage through the actions of god.
[quote]3. Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of Divine origin?[/quote]
Wait, so, the argument is that your holy book predicted other events in the same book - a book, by the way, that has been altered, re-written, and translated numerous times over the past couple thousand years - and that these are legitimate predictions?
p.s.: numerous talmudic and biblical scholars call **** on this because, surprise, as a religious text it's easy to read it in different ways. So even your assertion that your holy book predicted other events in your own holy book is hardly undebated, even amongst followers of that book.
[quote]4. How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?[/quote]
Uh, how is this even an argument? Is the reasoning that there sure were alot of copies of this thing, so... This doesn't make any sense. The early Christian church argued over what books to include for roughly 80-100 years after Constantine gave the religion his imprimatur. I forget the name of the guy that compiled the first lists of those books that were universally accepted, some that were sort of fringe, and some that most people agreed were wacky. Guh. The point being, there were a whole variety of books that the disparate, secret societies sort of developed independantly, and the bible of today is the result of people debating about what to include and what not to include after they didn't need to be secret any more. The DSSs contain alot of frankly heretical texts, both from the Jewish and the Christian perspective.
[quote]5. Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]6. Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?[/quote]
No, there's a whole slew of religions and sects within Christianity. Choosing one amongst them is impossible, since they all rest on unfalsifiable hypotheses. I'd also have to hate myself and never have sex if I did, and darnit, I like the sexings.
[quote]7. In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to be God?[/quote]
How is this even material? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, how should I know?
[quote]8. Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of Scripture.[/quote]
Assuming he actually did - and again, the bible is not a reliable historical source - then uh, yeah, I think he was. Truth be told, I think he was probably <i>loco</i>, people that claim to be god are not exactly rare. Nor are they healthy.
[quote]9. If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the 'Good Book'?[/quote]
This is just a lie. It's not universally regarded as the good book. Every other religion on the planet - billions of people - would disagree with that. All the nonreligious people would. And people within Christianity fight about which version is the right one.
[quote]10. From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?[/quote]
Ever heard of sut`tee?
Ever heard of female genital mutilation?
Ever heard of the tiny tribe on, I think, some southeast asian Island where the grown men take boys as their "wives" for a while when they're 10-15 years old or so?
There's been a fair amount of research into taboos that hold true across all cultures, and they've been found. No one approves of eating feces, for example. Nothing so broad as the specific dictates of Christian morality, however.
[quote]11. If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?[/quote]
This is different for everyone. Pride, determination, my own ethic, love of humanity, whatever. If your only reason for not being evil is that the big man in the sky will punish you later, isn't your morality stunted? Shouldn't you be ethical for the <i>sake of being ethical?</i>
[quote]12. Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.[/quote]
Sorry, we haven't figured things out exactly yet. Again - explain why positing the existence of an ur-creature that contains the entirety of the universe and then omniscience and omnipotence on top of that is somehow simpler or more believable than positing the existence of the universe alone, a proposition that we can plainly see to be true?
[quote]13. If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?[/quote]
Who knows if they knew it was a lie, or if they really died, or if they thought that giving their lives up was worth it since they felt it was the best way to prove their point and they wanted to save people? Or maybe they lied at first and couldn't extricate themselves from it later, or whatever. I dunno. Again, <b>two thousand years ago</b>, with the only source being a religious text.
[quote]14. How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?[/quote]
Charisma, motivation, power of his own belief in his divinity, etc. etc. It's amazing what one person can do. Mahatmas Gandhi, alone, without a war, freed India of her British colonizers. Neat, huh?
[quote]15. Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?[/quote]
Why have so many not been? Why have so many been Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim. I mean, my god, the Arabs were the greatest thinkers of the medieval period, making advances in mathematics, philosophy, literature, chemistry, and medicine that wouldn't be duplicated in the Christian kingdoms for hundreds of years. The reasons any given person is religious are numerous.
[quote]16. Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error in their view of the Bible?[/quote]
No more than it is for you to suggest I'm wrong. And this is hardly an argument - no matter how <i>rude</i> it is, I should hold to be true that which I think is true. As should everyone.
[quote]17. How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?[/quote]
Ok already answered this twice, look at questions 1 and 12 again. So far this is down to 42 questions for nonbelievers. Let's see how many times they can reproduce the anthropic argument.
[quote]18. How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?[/quote]
Localized systems can increase in order as long as the system as a whole does not. So within this solar system we have a bubble of increased order. This solar system is an incomrehensibly tiny fraction of the universe as a whole.
[quote]19. Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?[/quote]
a. Predicting events in your own book is not impressive.
b. This is also not true, lots of holy texts do it, depending on who you ask.
[quote]20. On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard?[/quote]
Uh, re-read my above answers. It has been edited, changed, translated, and otherwise mutated over two thousand years of being subject to the sweet ministrations of religious/political organizations.
[quote]21. Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?"[/quote]
I like this one! Very nice little logic trap. I would answer that "truth is relative" actually means that "absolute truth is not knowable". At the end of the day, defining the person is pretty difficult, but there's an extent to which we are... nebulous things that operate on not wholly understood principles to process sensory information. There are processes we can follow to make sure that the extent to which we deceive ourselves is minimized, but we can never be absolutely sure. This is what DesCartes was grappling with - it's logically possible, in the strict sense of the phrase, that we are brains floating in jars. In which case we're wrong about just about everything, but there's no way to know that either way. So we make do with what we can.
[quote]22. Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?[/quote]
Yes. It's also possible we're brains in jars. What's your point?
[quote]23. Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?[/quote]
Yes. And even if it didn't, that would be no reason to go "well I am depressed so I will hold as true that which I think is false."
[quote]24. How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?[/quote]
How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Hindus, atheists, whatevers?
[quote]25. Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?[/quote]
Are you aware that this is a lie?
[quote]26. What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?[/quote]
What do you make other than sweeping, unverifiable claims? What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that don't?
[quote]27. Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?[quote]
Religion is funny like that.
[quote]28. Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent 'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?[/quote]
Wh-at?
...
What? What is this trying to say? Seriously, I don't get it.
I mean... An extant god would of course be pretty awesome, but since there is no such thing, so what?
[quote]29. Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?[/quote]
Not really. Have you ever considered that the Jains are the only religion to posit that inside each of us is an omniscient (although not omnipotent) spirit?
[quote]30. How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?[quote]
Wow that is terrible. HOW CAN YOU THINK WE'RE WRONG EVEN THOUGH WE'RE, LIKE, TOTALLY RIGHT!? Lame. Also: random tomb in the middle east found empty, film at 11.
[quote]31. If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb?[/quote]
Maybe he didn't. Maybe he lay inside it, 100% dead, until he decayed away or someone came along a hundred years later and kicked out the bones to live there for a while, or whatever. Maybe you've got the wrong tomb.
[quote]32. If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?[/quote]
Well,
a. The authorities didn't care about Jesus.
b. They probably didn't.
[quote]33. If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?[/quote]
Please stop asking this question. I've answered it twice now and it is getting old.
[quote]34. How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion?[/quote]
Getting sick of answering this question too. Read the answer to question 4.
[quote]35. If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His life?[/quote]
Maybe he did, who knows? Then again, walking around barefoot and screaming about god doesn't strike me as healthy.
[quote]36. If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by suddenly "realizing" that he/she is 'God' therefore isn't God?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]37. Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?[/quote]
<b>Possibly</b>, yes. In reality, it is not.
[quote]38. How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?[/quote]
Uh, was under the impression you were trying to convince us it was written round when JC was still kicking. Oh, you mean OT. God, <b>stop repeating this question please.</b> See answers to any question about how amazing it is that it predicts itself as read by modern readers. Circular argument anyways, "considering this is the true holy book, isn't it amazing how it's true!?"
[quote]39. Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]40. Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just another faith system?[/quote]
Stop lying. Evolutionary theory, and science in general, are in fact falsifiable. Radioactive decay always works the same way, and numerous theories about, say, how a given dinosaur was put together have been falsified. Including victorian scientists who would find the bones for three different creatures and assemble them into one creature and go WOW THAT IS A CRAZY LOOKING CREATURE!! Later people came along and went "this is wrong because x, y, and z."
[quote]41. What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?[/quote]
What, you mean how most people tal about spirits in the rocks, trees, etc.? Humans make explanatory systems, it's what we do. In the absence of any modern knowledge or theories of logic and evidence, going "the storm spirit is angry" is how you explain stuff.
[quote]42. Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?[/quote]
<b>Stop asking this freaking question.</b>
[quote]43. If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e. is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who then caused the universe?[/quote]
If I'm right, then aren't I right? If god does not exist, then doesn't god not exist? Bleh, ignoring the crappy wording of this question, again, we don't yet have all the answers. That's no reason to throw out the answers we do have.
[quote]44. What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?[/quote]
God would have to reach down and make me one.
Freaking finally, done. I'm stupider having done that.
Also I like the story at the end. Obvious fiction. But hey, let me know the second you find a philo professor that is <b>retarded</b> enough to try to turn his classroom into an atheist indoctrination center and simultaneously a big enough idiot to try to make a "lack of direct sensory experience means it isn't there" argument. I will personally go punch that professor in the face.
Evolution, Big Bang Theory, History, Archaelogical evidence, Astrology.
It would be pointless to cite any of these because you've proven time and again that rationale and reason aren't for you. You're not welcome in this debate unless you can come to grips with the possibility that others may be correct. In laymen's terms, stop babbling.
Personally, I'm sick of you using popularity to justify your claims. It was popular in Nazi germany to persecute Jews, and it was popular in America to imprison the Japanese. Popularity does not define right. The amount of times you manage to contradict yourself on this point makes me laugh.
Swiftspear: While I have a lot of respect for you as a Christian who doesn't stuff it in my face, and is willing to acknowledge, if not accept, the arguments of both sides, consider the possibility that perhaps your entire psychological construction of faith may be the result of being surrounded with a belief in god since your youth. Do you recall making an active, informed decision that god was doubtlessly real, and that it was worth your time to spend the rest of your life worshipping him? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sick of you not having any proof and screaming minority. I want to know how you think the world was created, because your random blithering about my supposed irrational thinking really isnt proving much other than the fact that you have zero proof which you never seem to deny. There are some people in this forum like john_sheu who are willing to debate reasonably "which I very much respect people like that and their opinions" and not say things like because Christiany is the pre-dominate religion therefore we can make analogies to Nazism and other wrongful scenarios of persecution. The KKK is a minority, so really what is your, point being a minority does not give you the god given right (LOL) to run around calling anyone who has a religious conviction wrong just because you are a minority and desrespute every shred of evidence we offer and yet have none to back up your own arguements.
Show me an example of order without design.
My atheist ideology , I'm wetting myself for not having found this forum earlier.
I thought my "atheist revelation" was special - but some people went through a complete <i>deconversion</i> with their sheer willpower ! The <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=72552' target='_blank'>Salvation Story</a> is a beautiful tale of a courageous woman who decided to think for herself and break her sprititual chains despite the horrible social pressure. Quite an incentive to spread our own Gospel ("good news") and free more enslaved people.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Any sort of order out of chaos presupposes design.
Show me an example of order without design.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um... the perfect 6-branch star shape of snow flakes , that comes from our current laws of physics ? Complex shapes drawn by cellular automaton ? What you're talking about is <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence' target='_blank'>Emergence</a> , order unexpectedly rising from chaos.
btw, the "Salvation story" girl has good memory...and the church doesn't condemn honestly questioning the doctrine. i haven't been calling you guys "satan-spawn" now have i? last thing... "salvation story" is all emotional and good and all, but rejecting the bible instead of questioning a pastor on it was not a good idea. It wasn't a good example of community support, no, but what was she freed from, into? A life of bitterness, hopelessness, distance and rejection from her husband who is the man that she was supposed to love for a lifetime, whom she shared a good huge chunk of her life with?
ew, if you think that's freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Um... the perfect 6-branch star shape of snow flakes , that comes from our current laws of physics ? Complex shapes drawn by cellular automaton ? What you're talking about is Emergence , order unexpectedly rising from chaos. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's order from design, bub. emergence does produce order, but it doesn't last.. cellular automation is by design, you know.
*edit* that's by design proximally, not causally. cellular automation - the genome causes it. <b>laws</b> of physics? hello? where did this law come from?
well, i wouldn't say she didn't seek the answers, i mean she did read some books on apologetics and comparitive religion. Those are good to read if you want to evangelize, but ultimately the problem is that she didn't really have someone with authority to discuss this with, those kinds of books can only go so far.
First answer, "Where did God come from?" then answer your own question.
First answer, "Where did God come from?" then answer your own question. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
God is.
When he appeard to Moses, he said "I AM"
That is where God came from.
Now, where do the laws of physics come from?
No, it doesn't, there's no logical necessity there. And, <b>again</b> god is <b>not a simpler explanation.</b> God inherently contains every complexity of the extant universe and adds the further complexity of an omniscient, omnipotent being.
Just to make it clear: <b>there is zero logical necessity to the argument from design.</b> Otherwise known as the anthropic argument. If you find it convincing, great, good for you, but it <b>is not proof.</b>
I personally don't find it convincing because, again, it just makes the whole thing more complicated and bizarre than a causeless universe is already. And going "snowflakes/the solar system/whatever" aren't examples of emergence is... argumentively void. You go "show me an example of x, but for every x that exists, god is the reason". Your conclusion is contained in your premises.
Edit: I like how all my quote tags broke in the big response. Could a mod fix that?
And the argument from design <b>really</b> isn't a Christian argument. It's a deist's argument, someone who thinks "ok, god exists". There's no way to go from that statement to anything remotely Christian other than a guess.
How can life begin when all along it is trying to tear itself apart? - now that is just simple life... how can amino acids turn into protine strings then into dna, when all along the laws of physics are going against it? Take that one step further, how can we have comlex cell structures, when all along the laws of physics are standing in its way? One stray lightning bolt, and you have set back "evolution" by another million years or so.
Do you see my point? The astronomically miniscule chance that "life" could come from "non-life" is so rediciously small.... and yet, in order to believe in evolution, you have to accept this as "fact".
So what has greater probablily? Spontanious evolution, or God?
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 05:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 05:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Um... the perfect 6-branch star shape of snow flakes , that comes from our current laws of physics ? Complex shapes drawn by cellular automaton ? What you're talking about is Emergence , order unexpectedly rising from chaos. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's order from design, bub. emergence does produce order, but it doesn't last.. cellular automation is by design, you know.
*edit* that's by design proximally, not causally. cellular automation - the genome causes it. <b>laws</b> of physics? hello? where did this law come from? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are we speaking about the same thing ? <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton' target='_blank'>Cellular Automata</a> have no genome , they only follow simple mathematic rules , and draw patterns though they weren't designed to do so.
Likewise , the fact that we are shaped by the laws of physics don't mean that we were designed. Our size is adapted to this planet's gravitational field , our dinner table's size are adapted to our own , and that causes toasts to systematically fall on the wrong side when pushed. I know God is supposed to work in mysterious ways , but can someone explain why it is so important to spread jam and butter on the floor ? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I thank you for your vote of confidence. But you haven't answered me yet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Look.
I answered that in the big long post, duder.
2nd law of TD says that entropy increases over time in any closed system. <b>The solar system is not a closed system.</b> It is part of the <b>universe</b>, and there are localized increases of order all over the place, we call these galaxies.
Further, I'm talking <b>logical necessity.</b> The laws of physics are <b>not logically necessary.</b> So what you're saying is this: "I believe proposition x is logically necessary because of logically contingent premise y." To say nothing of the fact that you've thoroughly misunderstood contingent premise y.
Believe in god all you want, just don't try to claim that such a belief is justified through proof. And of course you didn't respond to the statement that even if such a proof existed, getting from it to Christianity is pretty much impossible.
And again, <b>god is not any simpler.</b> All you're doing is going "look, imagine how amazingly complex and impressive the universe is. Seems unlikely, huh? Now imagine a causeless thing that is <b>orders of magnitude more unlikely</b> and being amazed at yourself. A causeless universe is FAR LESS AMAZING than a causeless god that then causes a universe.
Stakhanov - you're barking up the wrong tree. His argument is as follows: "god made the universe, as evidenced by how ordered it is. Show me an example of order god didn't make." It is, of course, impossible to do so.
How can life begin when all along it is trying to tear itself apart? - now that is just simple life... how can amino acids turn into protine strings then into dna, when all along the laws of physics are going against it? Take that one step further, how can we have comlex cell structures, when all along the laws of physics are standing in its way? One stray lightning bolt, and you have set back "evolution" by another million years or so.
Do you see my point? The astronomically miniscule chance that "life" could come from "non-life" is so rediciously small.... and yet, in order to believe in evolution, you have to accept this as "fact".
So what has greater probablily? Spontanious evolution, or God? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aiyah. You should check up on your science before you go posting his kind of thing <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The second law of thermodynamics prescribes for the non-decreasing entropy of a closed system. Many people then argue, why did life (order) arise on the Earth? Simple...because the Earth is <i>not</i> a closed system. We recieve energy from the sun. While we have been ordering ourselves for a few billion (or however long you want it to be) years, the sun has been massively disordering itself, by undergoing nuclear fusion. Thus the "closed system" must include both the Earth and the Sun; in this case, entropy is indeed increasing.
Amino acids polymerize precisely because the laws of physics <i>are</i> going for it. And there is nothing about physics which prohibits the existence of complex cell structures. And yes, one stray lightning belt could easily have taken evolution back by millions of years. That's precisely why it took so long; there is no "direction" to evolution, but we are merely the consequence of its random fluctuations.
And I do believe that the probability of God existing is still smaller. Take an astronomically miniscule probability, smear it across four billion years, and <i>something</i> happens. At least, we have scientific evidence for this. And as of yet, no scientific evidence of God. In that frame, then evolution is more likely.
P.S.: Yes, I know, it does seem unfair that we're presupposing here the superiority of scientific evidence over faith. But there are reasons for this:
1. As I said, engaging in debate presupposes reliance on rational arguments.
2. Evolution is supported by scientific evidence <i>precisely because</i> it is a scientific theory; i.e. a mode of thought which came about by regarding the facts.
3. If you wish to bring science in to defend religion, be prepared to have your "facts" refuted. That is why, personally, I <i>never</i> use "facts" to justify those articles I take in pure faith; I regard these articles as "beyond the plane of science", so to speak. But that also means that they are pure beliefs, and thus are unsupported by any evidence.
i've read the probability of evolution "happening" as it does is 1 in anywhere from 10^500 to 10^50,000. read Francis Crick's (yes, the dude who found out the structure of DNA) critique of evolutionary theory - instead, he says that the theory of panspermic origin would be more likely. Statisticians think that anything with a probability of lower than 1 in 10^50 <b> will never happen in the lifetime of the universe </b> because it's so ridiculously small.
evolutionary theory takes for granted many things that need for it to work - at precisely the right time, simultaneously, a self-propagating amino acid formed, and there just happened to be enough similar chemicals near it for it to replicate, and to survive constant UV bombardment (remember kids, the ozone didn't come about until way later). Sorry, but I don't buy it. <a href='http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter11_4.php' target='_blank'>linxor</a>
*edit* <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we speaking about the same thing ? Cellular Automata have no genome , they only follow simple mathematic rules , and draw patterns though they weren't designed to do so.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
oops, you were talking about those computer programs. i've written a few before, and guess what? they're designed. the dots don't move, reproduce, and die because the electrons of the monitor just suddenly felt like springing onto the phosphor screen, they were designed to do that by interactions between the monitor and your computer from a program which <b>you wrote and designed</b>. Unless you just randomly typed in letters and somehow produced compileable, working code in an IDE that you just randomly somehow manifested out of thin air, on a computer that was *ohnoes* designed by some dude in a cubicle! In any case, they don't even model life accurately...way too simplistic a program to "simulate" life, if anything.
*edit* stop dragging this into a science vs religion argument, are you really looking for lockage?
STOP TALKING SCIENCE VS RELIGION, THEY ADDRESS DIFFERENT ISSUES COMPLETELY.
Good thing our earth has a magnetic field to counteract all that life destroying radiation. Good thing we are in precicely the right orbit for life to exist - you know that a few degrees either way would either burn life to a crisp, or freeze it into oblivion.
See, it doesn't seem like science to me. It seems like "give us a few billion years, and anything can happen".
Now, I haven't posted any creation views - how science and creation mesh quite happily. That is outside the scope of my argument.
All I am saying is this: The God of Creation and the chance of evolution both require a belief system. I find, by looking out my window each day, that intellegent design is far more likely than millions and billions of years. I choose to beleive in God as opposed to Chance.
The belief structure required is as follows: "I believe my sensory input is fairly reliable."
Every hypothesis is testable, even if it is beyond our current means to test it.
Finally: it's not just billions of years. It's twenty billion years and billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars.
ps going "lol god is" is way more belief-straining than going "lol the universe is" because uh, universe.
Oh man slave wheee, thats so funny. You base your life, everything you do, on SERVING god. You follow his rules, and for what? So you can SERVE HIM IN HEAVEN! You're not free. You're not even making your own opinions anymore, your god has laid them all out for you so you can't have the "wrong" opinion.
Homosexuality? Bad. Why? God said so. Suicide? Bad. Why? God said so.
Jesus is not your savior, he is your enslaver. I would take an eternity in the firey pit over serving an **** like god anyday.
------------------
And I'm afraid I have to agree with slave wheee about keeping the Religion versus Science debates out of here. They are specificillay singled out in the rules as a forbiden topic, because as coil put it:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A debate between someone with a scientific worldview and someone with a religious one is like a sporting contest between a guy with a hockey stick and another with a squash raquet. They can't play the same game because they're using different equipment, and each refuses to play the game for which the other is equipped.
...And for all they know they're supposed to be playing basketball anyway.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In otherowrds, its pointless. The god slaves refuse to listen to reason, and the scientists refuse to listen to god's truth.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. Compared with "$DEITY created the world", of which we have no evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Good thing our earth has a magnetic field to counteract all that life destroying radiation. Good thing we are in precicely the right orbit for life to exist - you know that a few degrees either way would either burn life to a crisp, or freeze it into oblivion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even more exactly my point. It's a wonderful coincidence that we have the exact conditions necessary for life. I have a feeling that you will bring up the point that this coincidence is "impossible". Well, think about all the other worlds out there, where life has not arisen. Earth merely got lucky.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, I haven't posted any creation views - how science and creation mesh quite happily. That is outside the scope of my argument.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very good. In fact, if you wanted to put $DEITY in the picture, you could use Newton's "master watchmaker" analogy; that $DEITY, in the beginning, had the extraordinary foresight to set the laws of physics exactly in the right way to eventually bring about our evolution. Then evolution is just another tool of $DEITY.
I quote you here: "I find, by looking out my window each day, that intellegent design is far more likely than millions and billions of years. I choose to beleive in God as opposed to Chance." You were the one that brought this into the argument.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 24 2004, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I am saying is this: The God of Creation and the chance of evolution both require a belief system. I find, by looking out my window each day, that intellegent design is far more likely than millions and billions of years. I choose to beleive in God as opposed to Chance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would it be more likely, when there is scientific evidence for one but not the other? You are relying on faith, then. In a way, I envy those who can believe, those who have the will to hold fast to their foundations. But not I; and for the purposes of debate, we want facts.
The belief structure required is as follows: "I believe my sensory input is fairly reliable."
Every hypothesis is testable, even if it is beyond our current means to test it.
Finally: it's not just billions of years. It's twenty billion years and billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars.
ps going "lol god is" is way more belief-straining than going "lol the universe is" because uh, universe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
that is not true. btw, 13 billion years. and that's a liberal estimate. 10^50 is the number of protons in the universe. 13 billion years is 10^9. The probability of sustained evolution happening is 1 in 10^<b>50,000</b>. i'm sorry, but your numbers don't add up. A billion years is a lot, yes, but it might as well be nanoseconds compared to the probability of randomly spawning life, on any of the trillions of planets.
Btw: untestable hypothesis: "all hypotheses are testable"
a funny thing my roommate said: "look, if we die and go to heaven, we can gloat over you, but if you die and just die, you won't be able to gloat at us" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh man slave wheee, thats so funny. You base your life, everything you do, on SERVING god. You follow his rules, and for what? So you can SERVE HIM IN HEAVEN! You're not free. You're not even making your own opinions anymore, your god has laid them all out for you so you can't have the "wrong" opinion.
Homosexuality? Bad. Why? God said so. Suicide? Bad. Why? God said so.
Jesus is not your savior, he is your enslaver. I would take an eternity in the firey pit over serving an **** like god anyday.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
whoa, nice. So I'm suddenly brainwashed because I adhere to a religion? Think again. I would think that out of all the posts I've made on the forum, some of them would be clearly the product of *rational* and *independent* thinking.
i've read the probability of evolution "happening" as it does is 1 in anywhere from 10^500 to 10^50,000. read Francis Crick's (yes, the dude who found out the structure of DNA) critique of evolutionary theory - instead, he says that the theory of panspermic origin would be more likely. Statisticians think that anything with a probability of lower than 1 in 10^50 <b> will never happen in the lifetime of the universe </b> because it's so ridiculously small.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, to expect a tornado to assemble a 747 is ludicrous. But remember, life by nature is self-replicating; all you have to do is get it started. So the debate should be framed about how life itself began.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->evolutionary theory takes for granted many things that need for it to work - at precisely the right time, simultaneously, a self-propagating amino acid formed, and there just happened to be enough similar chemicals near it for it to replicate, and to survive constant UV bombardment (remember kids, the ozone didn't come about until way later). Sorry, but I don't buy it. <a href='http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter11_4.php' target='_blank'>linxor</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In fact, the things necessary for it to work very well could have existed.
(1) Self-replicating RNAs have been demonstrated.
(2) Amino acids founds in meteorites. Why not on the early earth?
(3) In fact, UV bombardment would have been both a major cause of the mutations necessary to drive evolution and the activation energies necessary for peptide linkage.
If you wish a refutation of that link, I can do it. Provided that somebody actually bothers to make my refutation worthwhile. One point in particular: self-replicating RNA has been demonstrated, contrary to Dr. Orgel's statement made in 1994. Of course, that is no fault of his, because we didn't know about it in 1994.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we speaking about the same thing ? Cellular Automata have no genome , they only follow simple mathematic rules , and draw patterns though they weren't designed to do so.
oops, you were talking about those computer programs. i've written a few before, and guess what? they're designed. the dots don't move, reproduce, and die because the electrons of the monitor just suddenly felt like springing onto the phosphor screen, they were designed to do that by interactions between the monitor and your computer from a program which <b>you wrote and designed</b>. Unless you just randomly typed in letters and somehow produced compileable, working code in an IDE that you just randomly somehow manifested out of thin air, on a computer that was *ohnoes* designed by some dude in a cubicle! In any case, they don't even model life accurately...way too simplistic a program to "simulate" life, if anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was bringing up cellular automata as evidence that complex behaviors arise from simple rules, in an analogy to life. You denounced it as a figment of excessive complexity. Yours and his arguments were like.....two oni passing in the night.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 12:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*edit* stop dragging this into a science vs religion argument, are you really looking for lockage?
STOP TALKING SCIENCE VS RELIGION, THEY ADDRESS DIFFERENT ISSUES COMPLETELY.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sehr gut. I'll stop with it then, if no more points come out. I'd also like to point out this post as where science vs. religion first came into the debate:
<!--QuoteBegin-Matthew L. Barre+Sep 23 2004, 11:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Matthew L. Barre @ Sep 23 2004, 11:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But what people aren't understanding is that atheists have faith that they are right, they are the deviant from the norm and they have no proof of their beliefs. So they have the biggest leap of faith of all. Faith that there is truely nothing whereas there is no proof, but rather much against such according to many religions. They suddenly create a group on non-believers and call themselves right. Well where is their proof, I just find it amazing that atheists are the only group that can make so many ballsy statements and get away with it simply because we cant disprove them because they have no facts. What any atheist has yet to answer is how was the Earth created. When they answer that with evidence then I'll be happy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very good. In fact, if you wanted to put $DEITY in the picture, you could use Newton's "master watchmaker" analogy; that $DEITY, in the beginning, had the extraordinary foresight to set the laws of physics exactly in the right way to eventually bring about our evolution. Then evolution is just another tool of $DEITY.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This was exactly my point, although I may suck at explaining myself sometimes... I am sick of people using science as a tool to try to disprove the existance of GOD it is a meager and weak arguement and makes no sense. I am by no means a hardcore literalist when it comes to the old testament with anything up to Abram. Before that I personally think its up to interpritation and tells a basic telling of the truth. I also buy into the big bang theory until something better comes along, but my point is where did those gasses come from, like someone else said there had to have been a design and a higher power must have indeed had said design.
*Edit* A very wise and enlightened Catholic Priest once gave our class that same watch analogy and he also chose to believe in the big bang. He also explained why creationism and evolutionism can co-exist because there is nothing in the Bible that says GOD couldn't have done it this way.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As opposed to your numbers? From where are you pulling out the 1 in 10^50,000 probability?
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 02:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 02:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Btw: untestable hypothesis: "all hypotheses are testable"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Religion is an untestable hypothesis as well. If you wish to defend religion with science, you must submit it also to the rigors of science.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 02:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 02:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->a funny thing my roommate said: "look, if we die and go to heaven, we can gloat over you, but if you die and just die, you won't be able to gloat at us" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pascal's wager. His argument was, in essence, that religion is insurance. <i>Vis-a-vis</i>:
1. If you go to church and there is no $DEITY, well then the loss of your time is insignificant, since you're dead anyhow.
2. If you don't go to church but there is indeed a $DEITY, then you're screwed over.
So the potential cost of being athiest is higher than the potential cost of being religious; thus it's better to go to church anyhow.
Of course, some say there is a special place in Hell for those people who believe merely because of this wager <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->