User Controls
Oh, what's that, fag? You're a man of logic who needs "evidence" or "proof"?
-
2018-01-07 at 7:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL One hundred percent proof of God's existence as an intelligent designer is built right into our very existence and the world around us. Just look at the complexities of DNA, for example. Or chemical processes. Or the laws of physics. Or the way your own body is put together. Or the way the ecosystems and plant and animal life is arranged. Creation itself is 100% proof of an intelligent super being. It is so fantastic and clever, that it cannot be denied, except by a fool.
You're basically talking about Spinozan "god" and saying "god is nature". If that's your premise then nobody can really disagree with that, but nobody is arguing about that. That's simply a semantic argument.
The meat of the debate is about some kind of heavenly caretaker who listens to your prayers and has his fingers in every pie in the universe and there is something resembling intent behind creation. And there is no reason to believe in such a thing. -
2018-01-07 at 7:30 PM UTC
-
2018-01-07 at 8:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon The meat of the debate is about some kind of heavenly caretaker who listens to your prayers and has his fingers in every pie in the universe and there is something resembling intent behind creation. And there is no reason to believe in such a thing.
thats becos men put their words in gotts mouth.
he never said that he tends to his flock or garden. men did.
he just create and move on. -
2018-01-07 at 8:13 PM UTC
-
2018-01-07 at 8:16 PM UTC
-
2018-01-07 at 8:21 PM UTC
-
2018-01-07 at 8:38 PM UTC
-
2018-01-07 at 8:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Intelligent design cannot be created by an inanimate force, such as nature. That would be like saying nature created a million-dollar mansion. Ain't gonna happen.
There is no evidence for intelligent design. All the intricacy of the universe can be simply explained by the Anthropic Principle and things like evolution. -
2018-01-07 at 9:01 PM UTC
-
2018-01-07 at 9:03 PM UTC
-
2018-01-07 at 9:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Only a fool would entertain the idea that this level of complexity could conjure itself into being.
Nobody is really arguing that.
The leading position is that some event (we make no claims to know what) "conjured" something with the absolute least amount of complexity possible (i.e. the state of the big bang, the point where entropy was at its lowest it will ever be).
The current level of complexity is simply the progression of time, and the subsequent increase in entropy for that initial "thing".
The idea that something with next to no complexity (the singularity at the beginning of the arrow of time for our current universe) came from some miniscule or unknown event is not inconceivable, it's not even remotely unlikely. -
2018-01-07 at 9:29 PM UTC
-
2018-01-07 at 9:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL You of all people should appreciate the mathematical chances of this level of complexity happening as a result of mere chance. Zero.
On the contrary, the chances of this level of complexity happening as a result of mere chance is 100%, given enough time for the initial system (next to no complexity) to evolve. -
2018-01-07 at 9:58 PM UTCAn evolution can only occur when one or more elements act upon one or more elements. So that means there has to be at least two elements, or more, for this evolution of yours to progress. And yet you've not explained how the (at least) two source elements made an appearance, and you expect us to believe these elements just popped out of thin air and birthed themselves into existence.
-
2018-01-07 at 9:59 PM UTC
-
2018-01-07 at 10:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL An evolution can only occur when one or more elements act upon one or more elements. So that means there has to be at least two elements, or more, for this evolution of yours to progress. And yet you've not explained how the (at least) two source elements made an appearance, and you expect us to believe these elements just popped out of thin air and birthed themselves into existence.
Now this is an entirely different argument than "too unlikely to happen". Did you give up on the complexity issue or did you just get distracted? -
2018-01-07 at 10:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Eval/Apply Now this is an entirely different argument than "too unlikely to happen". Did you give up on the complexity issue or did you just get distracted?
More like I've just switched viewpoints, in order to offer criticism of his premise. If he truly believes it was "evolution", let's look at it from that angle then, and we quickly begin to see how that false premise breaks down almost immediately, upon closer inspection. For your viewpoint, I asked that we look at it mathematically. The odds of even a single one of nature's wonders happening by chance are innumerable, for all practical purposes, impossible, mathematically, and yet there are millions of similar systems where we are expected to wish the math away as inconsequential and meaningless. -
2018-01-07 at 10:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL More like I've just switched viewpoints, in order to offer criticism of his premise. If he truly believes it was "evolution", let's look at it from that angle then, and we quickly begin to see how that false premise breaks down almost immediately, upon closer inspection.
I'm not seeing where the theory of evolution breaks down though. It doesn't explain the origin of matter, so what? It's not a theory that aims to explain the origin of matter, it seeks to explain biological diversity. Saying evolution by natural selection "breaks down" at the problem of origin of matter is like saying quantum mechanics "breaks down" in explaining aesthetic preferences. Only someone with a very poor understanding of the theory would consider origin of matter a problem for it.For your viewpoint, I asked that we look at it mathematically. The odds of even a single one of nature's wonders happening by chance are innumerable, for all practical purposes, impossible, mathematically, and yet there are millions of similar systems where we are expected to wish the math away as inconsequential and meaningless.
You keep saying it's "mathematically impossible" but you haven't shown us even the faintest trace of mathematics. Why don't you select one of "nature's wonders", tell us how likely it is to have come about, and then show us the calculation that makes that estimation. -
2018-01-07 at 10:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Why do you think that an afterlife is real?
idk, death seems pretty real. by afterlife you mean death rite ????
or did you mean existence after death. existence with consciousness after death ?
i prefer to believe that our souls and spirits are energies and will always be around, and all we ever needed is a compatible body to act as a receiver so that we may manifest ourselves physically in this world. -
2018-01-07 at 10:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL An evolution can only occur when one or more elements act upon one or more elements. So that means there has to be at least two elements, or more, for this evolution of yours to progress. And yet you've not explained how the (at least) two source elements made an appearance, and you expect us to believe these elements just popped out of thin air and birthed themselves into existence.
This argument has now changed from "complexity" to something like the "prime mover"; what caused those initial elements that composed the evolving system we are currently present in?
Someone who isn't committed to the idea of "god" here will say that we don't really know the answer to that question. Depending on who you ask, they might tell you it's practically unknowable (I can explain this further if you like). If you want to call that event before the point of the big bang "God" then you can do that but understand that it is a mere redefinition of terms, and that usage of "god" is, again, simply "nature". It doesn't carry support any of the notions of a personal God.
You, committed to the idea of god, answer it with "god". However that doesn't answer the question either. What caused this "god?" If the basis of your argument is the absolute nature of causality, and the absurdity of an uncaused event, then why does God get to break causality?
Finally, let me propose the idea that there does not need to ever be a first cause; whatever event caused the big bang simply needs another prior cause. And that cause needs a cause. But there is no need for an ultimate cause, an infinite series of prior causes is a perfectly logically consistent idea.
