The joy of religion - part xxxxxxxxx

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yet, that theory still didn't figure out who did create and design that basic cell though.

That's because the "basic cell" does not appear to be created or designed. Your ignorance and incredulity of evolution is not evidence that it is untrue.

Of course you don't actually believe that the Evolution theory is such a 100%-certain...

Nothing in science is 100% certain. Having said that, evolution is as certain as ANYTHING else in science. More certain than gravity, in fact.

...conclusive...

The evidence is conclusive in that it satisfies all reasonable doubts.

...undebatable...

It really isn't debatable, anymore. There is only ignorance.

...and backed by hard-proofed-evidence.

I don't know what "hard-proofed-evidence" is, but it is backed by rigorous evidence, to be sure.

I mean, those scientists doesn't looks like they've settled down yet on a complete framework for their scientific theory.

Yes, they have. It's called the Modern Synthesis.

The case is still under study and we would witness a new changes/updates for a long time to come.

Evolution will be investigated and studied as long as there are humans, and likely longer. This does not increase the likelihood that evolution will be falsified, nor does it indicate that there is any doubt about the basic premises of evolutionary theory.

That said, why would you completely ignore any argument or statement from those religious freaks and their ancient, probably forged, sacred books. Isn't it a debatable subject? why can't you give the slightest consideration for any of their heresy.

BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.

Sorry, I've taken a glance, and that theory can't answer my argument over why our inside organs/systems has had to be that complicated.

Strawman.

A much simpler systems might have done it so well, one way or another.

So your opinion is that human biology does not appear to be designed by an intelligent agent, then.

Well, take a look over that sensation of orgasm for instance, I believe half of it would be enough to continue the sexual reproduction process between all the living kinds.
How about our ages, who did set the reliability standard of our hearts.
Take a very thoughtful look into each and every system, then at least you may have understanding about my believe that the human was created as a human; a perfection compared to all other living species, especially when it comes to his brain.

You're just arguing from your own incredulity. "I can't imagine how this could've happened without a magical god, so therefore there must be a magical god."

Your argument says more about your own ignorance than it does any putative deity.

If our eyes had developed from a very primitive state (like realibrad already pointed out) then why it didn't happen to all, since basically the very original livings went through almost the same circumstances. Yet, and after billions of years, we still can find some creatures with a similar primitive design that had long existed since the very beginning of life.

Evolution does not predict that all organisms will develop identical eyes. In fact it rather predicts that they will develop eyes suited to their environments, and guess what we observe?

Can't our scientists abandon their bias for once, and give a slight hint about the possibility of an intentional design for those living creatures.

You are invited to frame the idea of intelligent design in a way that is accessible to the scientific method. To date, nobody has ever done that.

Of course not, as then they'd have no choice but to believe in the God.

...believe in what?

 

[soulcougher73]

Funny thing is, you should look up the word belief.....

M

So how many? You didnt really answer my question. Do you have belief there are leprechauns or unicorns?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

In your reality, death is always the end.

I can't specifically speak for his reality, but what you've claimed is not necessarily true for non-believers in general.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Try to understand that being superior to you is a non-achievement. All it requires is maybe only an ounce or so of self awareness. For you, on the other hand, the thought that I might be superior to you is a killer. That's why you're always in competition mode. You don't want the superiority of others make you feel how inferior you really feel. I told you there are monsters you need to slay, monsters you will not see without a mirror. It is you who is the monster.

I like your statement about what is really important in life. How, do you suppose, you have the slightest idea what it is.

I knew the true Moonbeam would appear, your ego is big enough for all the users in the forum. With personal attacks to boot. I'm so sorry you're so filled with so much hate for your fellow man, a true believer would have rid themselves of their hatred and actually care for all people even those who think differently. Maybe one day you will find happiness and joy.

 

[MagickMan]

My argument has nothing to do with relativistic quantum mechanics, but it's amusing to watch you trying to bluff your way past it.

That wasn't in reference to your comment. Try again.

 

[MagickMan]

I knew the true Moonbeam would appear, your ego is big enough for all the users in the forum. With personal attacks to boot. I'm so sorry you're so filled with so much hate for your fellow man, a true believer would have rid themselves of their hatred and actually care for all people even those who think differently. Maybe one day you will find happiness and joy.

It's just him coming to grasp with his beliefs being a lie, it causes him to lash out in frustration.

 

[Moonbeam]

Londo_Jowo: I knew the true Moonbeam would appear, your ego is big enough for all the users in the forum. With personal attacks to boot.

M: All that happened was that I know who the Moonbeam is that you imagine. He is yourself that you were taught to hate. I just say the worlds that will make that Moonbeam appear to you like in a mirror. They are personal attacks, of course, because they are the person you hate.

LJ: I'm so sorry you're so filled with so much hate for your fellow man, a true believer would have rid themselves of their hatred and actually care for all people even those who think differently. Maybe one day you will find happiness and joy.

M: Your ego here is that you believe you know what a true believer would do. This is a product of your conditioning. You were tortured into believing you should be selfless. This is why you see me as egotistical and will not see your own. It is also why I have to show you.

Imagine that you were told all your life that you stink, but you do not have a sense of smell because of a fixable imparement, and that you actually do stink because you never take a bath. for the obvious reasons that you lack the feedback that tells you of that need. And let us also assume that you despise any mention that there may be something wrong with your nose because you have been accused to the point of ridicule of not having any selse of smell.

You run into a person who has had your condition and had his nose fixed and knows exactly what your problem is. How do you suppose that person can help the other who stinks and hates the mention there could be anything wrong with his nose?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That wasn't in reference to your comment. Try again.

What the fuck are you talking about? You quoted me your post. Are you high?

 

[maluckey]

This is incoherent.

If you understand "A priori" it is not.

M

 

[maluckey]

So how many? You didnt really answer my question. Do you have belief there are leprechauns or unicorns?

Because you still failed to ask a question that makes sense. The very definition of the word that you used, was at odds with that first question.

I believe in a lot of things: like the goodness of humanity, that sunrises are nice, and that black coffee is superior to coffee with sugar. None of these can be disproven to me.

I might even believe that your question wasn't a question at all, but a gotcha-game in-progess, but that would never happen on a forum devoted to intelligent discussion...would it?

In fact you may have well asked for proof of what you were thinking when you came up with that question in the first place. The world will never know

M

 

[MagickMan]

What the fuck are you talking about? You quoted me your post. Are you high?

That comment was in support of my first reply. What are you smoking?

 

[Paratus]

That comment was in support of my first reply. What are you smoking?

Neither your first post nor the second one negate anything Cerpin Taxt said. Not sure why thought it would.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That comment was in support of my first reply. What are you smoking?

I don't understand how your second post was meant to "support" your first, but it doesn't change the fact that nothing you said in either post has anything to do with the argument. You seem to be very, very confused.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If you understand "A priori" it is not.

M

I understand this part:

A priori knowledge is not affected by consequence or empirical knowledge.

But this part:

If being God, follows from ability to do some task, then the logic is invalid because ...

...is not coherent. I think it is your first comma that is out of place. If that's the case, it still fails as a rebuttal, because I have not said that being God must follow from the ability to do some task. I've shown that the idea of omnipotence as defined in the argument is incoherent, and thus any idea of God which claims that omnipotence as an attribute must also be incoherent -- all thanks to Cantor's Power Set theorem.

 

[Paratus]

To illustrate the incoherency, a little Homer Simpson.

For an omnipotent god the answer must be yes.

"Could an omnipotent God eat a burrito that he microwaved to be to hot for him to eat"

The answer has to be yes also.

Which is incoherent.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know why people who believe in God pvia faith don't see that a God found through faith can only be found through faith. Trying to pursuade atheists, people who do not believe things for which their is no logical evidence, the very need that faith transcends, seems to me to be a useless waste of time. Faith is a leap in the dark, something atheist just can't do.

My effort in this thread is to lead atheists to a different experience of God, one based on total doubt and rejection of most of the gods people believe in. My contention is that most atheists not only can't believe in gods without proof, but are of the opinion, also, that many if not most of the gods described in religious texts are hideous. I discovered personally, that the reason I knew this is because God, should I say, told me? The one that hing that doubt and loneliness can't wait are is your true inner being. 'I am' is the Alpha and the Omega. This is the self that is hidden by ego.

Religions are a bridge to being. Another way there is to go down through the chasm if you must.

 

[bshole]

Nothing in science is 100% certain. Having said that, evolution is as certain as ANYTHING else in science. More certain than gravity, in fact.

Well that is not true. Good god man, are you really going to throw all of modern physics under the bus like that? Gravity is 100% certain. It is a fact. It is our models of gravity that are theoretical BUT you can run experiments yourself to test their validity. Hell I ran one in in my college physics class.

Evolution is the best scientific explanation for life on earth. You do not need denigrate other branches of scientific inquiry in order to bolster it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well that is not true. Good god man, are you really going to throw all of modern physics under the bus like that? Gravity is 100% certain. It is a fact. It is our models of gravity that are theoretical BUT you can run experiments yourself to test their validity. Hell I ran one in in my college physics class.

Evolution is the best scientific explanation for life on earth. You do not need denigrate other branches of scientific inquiry in order to bolster it.

Facts are facts. If facts denigrate, they do so only in the mind of the person who perceives that. The facts are that gravity remains one of the most mysterious forces we know if, if it is actually a force. For example, if gravity is a curvature of space and space is basically nothing, how can nothing curve.

 

[MagickMan]

Neither your first post nor the second one negate anything Cerpin Taxt said. Not sure why thought it would.

The point is, you can't define the nature of a supposedly all-powerful being, that can allegedly create and destroy at will, by our logic or physical laws. That's what makes disproving such a thing impossible.

 

[MagickMan]

I don't understand how your second post was meant to "support" your first, but it doesn't change the fact that nothing you said in either post has anything to do with the argument. You seem to be very, very confused.

The only confusing thing is your "proof" that there is no God. It's horseshit, even Dawkins says it's horseshit.

 

[maluckey]

I understand this part:



But this part:



...is not coherent. I think it is your first comma that is out of place. If that's the case, it still fails as a rebuttal, because I have not said that being God must follow from the ability to do some task. I've shown that the idea of omnipotence as defined in the argument is incoherent, and thus any idea of God which claims that omnipotence as an attribute must also be incoherent -- all thanks to Cantor's Power Set theorem.

Except there is no such thing as a set of anything that contains everything ("omnipotent"). That would be inappropriate for the theory. Secondly, it is not a proof, it's a theory. Granted theories can be correct, but not always, so we are back to step one. You cannot prove or disprove Gods existence.

I do see where you are coming from though. I struggled with it for years. First, I looked at the English word "omnipotence", then tried to find if it was part of the early texts. The early Christians and Jews (Christianity flows from Judaism) had not atttribited omnipotence to God. That came later and was/is still argued as not correct. The Catholics and Jews generally avoid the term.

The term "κρατεῖν" or "All-powerful", was used in early texts, as a way to show that Gods ability to accomplish was not matched. There was never an time where the term all powerfull was intended to mean more than what was explained in the texts. In fact, the Catholics actually use the term "All Powerful and Everliving God" in their current Canon. The word "κρατεῖν" means "able to accomplish anything". It's subtle, but there is a difference.

It's sad, but pretty common for Christians to not know the difference, which is ironic, since in order to understand the bible, one should know of the history, the setting, the tone and the languages that comporised the eary texts.

M

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Londo_Jowo: I knew the true Moonbeam would appear, your ego is big enough for all the users in the forum. With personal attacks to boot.

M: All that happened was that I know who the Moonbeam is that you imagine. He is yourself that you were taught to hate. I just say the worlds that will make that Moonbeam appear to you like in a mirror. They are personal attacks, of course, because they are the person you hate.

LJ: I'm so sorry you're so filled with so much hate for your fellow man, a true believer would have rid themselves of their hatred and actually care for all people even those who think differently. Maybe one day you will find happiness and joy.

M: Your ego here is that you believe you know what a true believer would do. This is a product of your conditioning. You were tortured into believing you should be selfless. This is why you see me as egotistical and will not see your own. It is also why I have to show you.

Imagine that you were told all your life that you stink, but you do not have a sense of smell because of a fixable imparement, and that you actually do stink because you never take a bath. for the obvious reasons that you lack the feedback that tells you of that need. And let us also assume that you despise any mention that there may be something wrong with your nose because you have been accused to the point of ridicule of not having any selse of smell.

You run into a person who has had your condition and had his nose fixed and knows exactly what your problem is. How do you suppose that person can help the other who stinks and hates the mention there could be anything wrong with his nose?

When all else fails use the victim card and then double down on personal attacks.

None the less, I hope one day you truly find happiness and joy and no longer feel the need to be hateful towards others.

 

[Paratus]

The point is, you can't define the nature of a supposedly all-powerful being, that can allegedly create and destroy at will, by our logic or physical laws. That's what makes disproving such a thing impossible.

Why not? You literally just did by defining that beings nature as a being that can create and destroy at will.

Any particular observations to back up that claim?

 

[MagickMan]

Why not? You literally just did by defining that beings nature as a being that can create and destroy at will.

Any particular observations to back up that claim?

Let's say, at a safe distance, you detonate a device that causes a star to collapse in on itself. The forces are so extreme that it causes the creation of a neutron star, and then eventually a singularity, a black hole. While observing that black hole are you exposed to the same type of environment that's inside its event horizon?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well that is not true.

Yes, it is.

Good god man, are you really going to throw all of modern physics under the bus like that?

I'm not throwing anything under the bus. This is the nature of empirical knowledge.

Gravity is 100% certain.

No, it isn't.

It is a fact.

Yes, it is.

It is our models of gravity that are theoretical BUT you can run experiments yourself to test their validity. Hell I ran one in in my college physics class.

Evolution is the best scientific explanation for life on earth. You do not need denigrate other branches of scientific inquiry in order to bolster it.

I'm not denigrating anything. This is pretty basic epistemology. You'll never rule out solipsism, so you'll never have 100% certainty of empirical facts. Deal with it.