2 of 2
2
Teach the controversy!
Posted: 15 May 2012 01:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9292
Joined  2006-08-29
mckenzievmd - 13 May 2012 01:18 PM

The evidence against a turtle holing up the earth is considerably stronger than the evidence for a deistic kind of creator or many other possible descriptions of a deity.

Is the existence of God more probable than the existence of an invisible turtle who is acting in mysterious ways to remain hidden from us?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2012 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9292
Joined  2006-08-29
FreeInKy - 15 May 2012 08:52 AM

Very well stated.

No, it’s not.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2012 01:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9292
Joined  2006-08-29

For God to be able to think and have intentions, he would need a brain. (Unless the God you’re all agnostic about is something like the Big Bang.) As far as I know, a brain is a product of evolution. But so are blue eyes and kidneys, for example. If you are agnostic about the existence of God, you’re also agnostic about God having blue eyes and kidneys. Crazy stuff.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2012 01:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5487
Joined  2010-06-16

George is right if I understand him.  I believe he’s pointing out the error in assumng that one situation with a probability of zero can be rated as less likely than another situation also with a probability of zero.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2012 01:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9292
Joined  2006-08-29

I don’t think neither God’s nor the turtle’s probability of existence is zero. But that’s not a good reason to be agnostic about their existence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2012 12:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5941
Joined  2006-12-20
FreeInKy - 11 May 2012 05:57 AM

I’m going to show this to the next fundy that says that to me.

teach-the-controversy.jpg?w=684&h=427

grin

Yep.

I never understand what the controversey is over evolution. I mean yeah it’s evolution or creationism but what can creationism mean?

Leaving aside the immaterial soul, creationists will believe we are material also and that physical stuff had to come together somehow. Well what actually are they arguing happened? What is the alternative story supposed to be?

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2012 08:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01
StephenLawrence - 20 May 2012 12:14 PM

I never understand what the controversey is over evolution. I mean yeah it’s evolution or creationism but what can creationism mean?

Leaving aside the immaterial soul, creationists will believe we are material also and that physical stuff had to come together somehow. Well what actually are they arguing happened? What is the alternative story supposed to be?

To me, it’s even simpler than that. Evolutionary theory is science. Creationism is not science. Therefore, it has no place being taught in a science classroom.

If they want to teach about it an a comparative religion class, I have no quarrel with that. To includes some creation myths and not others without a good reason would constitute a controversy. Excluding a creation myth from science class is no controversy.

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2