25 of 28
25
will freethinkers accept god if they find evidence?
Posted: 04 May 2013 11:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 361 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Adonai888 - 04 May 2013 04:48 AM
Write4U - 04 May 2013 04:34 AM

Adonai888

Write4U 03 May 2013 02:28 PM

Wow, a theist refuting almost everything science has discovered about the properties of Potential and Creative abilities of natural evolutionary functions and progressions at large.

If you can show me a example, just ONE example, of a ” potential “, ( whatever you mean with that ) producing codified information, you have a case. So far, you have not.

I don’t need to produce anything. You are the one required to present an example of the existence of god, just one. So far, you have not.

Are you not willing to show me, that your answers have better explanation power than mine ?

There is no absolute proof for Gods existence. You know that. Why ask then ?!!


There are millions of things without absolute proof of their existence which you reject as true.  Why make an exception only for a god?

How do you decide between what to reject and what to accept?  Every god that has ever been proposed has the same absolute lack of proof as your god has. Why make a distinction?  Rational people dont believe in fairies, elves, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Odin, Thor, Olympus, Zeus, Allah or any other gods people have proposed.  We reject all of them on the same grounds that there is no evidence of their existence.  We are consistent.  You are not.  What is your measurable criteria for assessing beings that have no evidence for their existence? We’d really like to know your method because none of us have found a method for accepting as true one entity without evidence over other entities with an equal lack of evidence. Be a sport, let us in on your method.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2013 11:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 362 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Lois - 04 May 2013 11:50 AM

We are consistent.  You are not.

you keep being boring. Present positive evidence for naturalism, and we talk.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2013 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 363 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 04 May 2013 04:48 AM
Write4U - 04 May 2013 04:34 AM

Adonai888

Write4U 03 May 2013 02:28 PM

Wow, a theist refuting almost everything science has discovered about the properties of Potential and Creative abilities of natural evolutionary functions and progressions at large.

If you can show me a example, just ONE example, of a ” potential “, ( whatever you mean with that ) producing codified information, you have a case. So far, you have not.

I don’t need to produce anything. You are the one required to present an example of the existence of god, just one. So far, you have not.

Are you not willing to show me, that your answers have better explanation power than mine ?

There is no absolute proof for Gods existence. You know that. Why ask then ?!!

Because you claim that the absence of some fossil records from 2 million years ago proves god’s existence.  Why debate at all then??

You say there is not enough proof for evolution, you also say that the absence of proof is proof of god. Why debate at all??

You are the boring one, repeating the lame old theist arguments over and over, ad nauseum, TRYING to avoid responsibility for having to provide extraordinary evidence in th efface of an extraordinary claim.

You may think God is a familiar figure in your world, but to me (at least) God is a wholly alien and fictitious flight of fancy, which has been causal to the great slaughters in history.  Killing entire species in the flood, razing cities to the ground, commanding babies to be throw against a wall!

IF YOUR GO IS SENTIENT, YOUR GOD IS A MONSTER.

[ Edited: 04 May 2013 01:03 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2013 01:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 364 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 04 May 2013 12:43 PM

Because you claim that the absence of some fossil records from 2 million years ago proves god’s existence.  Why debate at all then??

1. i don’t say it proves Gods existence. I just say, there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution.

You say there is not enough proof for evolution, you also say that the absence of proof is proof of god. Why debate at all??

If you keep stick your finger in your ears, and propositally do not understand what i write, its indeed fruitless to continue this debate.

You are the boring one, repeating the lame old theist arguments over and over, ad nauseum

If you disagree, why do you not counter argument, and for example present just one example of codified information, that arose naturally ?

, TRYING to avoid responsibility for having to provide extraordinary evidence in th efface of an extraordinary claim.

the claim, that the universe arose by chance, or physical necessity, is not a extraordinary claim ?

You may think God is a familiar figure in your world, but to me (at least) God is a wholly alien and fictitious flight of fancy, which has been causal to the great slaughters in history.  Killing entire species in the flood, razing cities to the ground, commanding babies to be throw against a wall!

IF YOUR GO IS SENTIENT, YOUR GOD IS A MONSTER.

ok. i see. your reason to reject God is not rational, but purely based on emotion…....

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2013 01:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 365 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Adonai888 - 04 May 2013 11:56 AM
Lois - 04 May 2013 11:50 AM

We are consistent.  You are not.

you keep being boring. Present positive evidence for naturalism, and we talk.

It’s you who is boring. You keep beating the same dead horse.

You, yourself are a naturalist about most things that you accept as true every day but you can’t explain your lack of logic in rejecting naturalism when it comes to the most important proposition of all, the existence of a god.

There is nothing in the bible or in any religious argument that I accept.  But you sit on the fence, accepting most naturalist arguments but rejecting the one about the existence of god, yet you offer no good reason for why you do it. If you are going to reject the naturalist argument that there is no evidence for god, you should be consistent and reject all naturalist arguments.  Why accept many and reject one, and offer no logical reason for it?  You contradict youself every moment of every day and you revel in your irrational, contradictory stance. Naturalists do not.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2013 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 366 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Adonai888 - 04 May 2013 01:35 PM
Write4U - 04 May 2013 12:43 PM

Because you claim that the absence of some fossil records from 2 million years ago proves god’s existence.  Why debate at all then??

1. i don’t say it proves Gods existence. I just say, there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

 

The problem with trying to discuss anything with you is that you have absolutely no understsnding of what a scientific theory is or the difference between a scientific theory and a guess or something written in an ancient book by people who had no scientific knowledge. Nobody with an inkling about the difference would say “there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution.” Nor would anyone who has any understanding of logic say such a thing as, “there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution.”  Evolution is proven in laboratories every day. 


“[E]volution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

“Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

[ Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37; Reprinted here with permission from Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262. ]

Lois
......

 

 

You say there is not enough proof for evolution, you also say that the absence of proof is proof of god. Why debate at all??

If you keep stick your finger in your ears, and propositally do not understand what i write, its indeed fruitless to continue this debate.

You are the boring one, repeating the lame old theist arguments over and over, ad nauseum

If you disagree, why do you not counter argument, and for example present just one example of codified information, that arose naturally ?

, TRYING to avoid responsibility for having to provide extraordinary evidence in th efface of an extraordinary claim.

the claim, that the universe arose by chance, or physical necessity, is not a extraordinary claim ?

You may think God is a familiar figure in your world, but to me (at least) God is a wholly alien and fictitious flight of fancy, which has been causal to the great slaughters in history.  Killing entire species in the flood, razing cities to the ground, commanding babies to be throw against a wall!

IF YOUR GO IS SENTIENT, YOUR GOD IS A MONSTER.

ok. i see. your reason to reject God is not rational, but purely based on emotion…....

[ Edited: 04 May 2013 09:49 PM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2013 04:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 367 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 04 May 2013 01:35 PM
Write4U - 04 May 2013 12:43 PM

Because you claim that the absence of some fossil records from 2 million years ago proves god’s existence.  Why debate at all then??

1. i don’t say it proves Gods existence. I just say, there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution.

No plausible evidence for the theory of the evolution of What?  The Universe?  Man?  Chicken or the Egg?  God?????
Oddly there is plenty evidence for the existence and evolution of the first three.  The lacking evidence is that of a God. Yet there is an entire fictitious Theory of God.  Who is the more rational, the Naturalist, or the Theist?

You say there is not enough proof for evolution, you also say that the absence of proof is proof of god. Why debate at all??

If you keep stick your finger in your ears, and propositally do not understand what i write, its indeed fruitless to continue this debate.

Oh , I understand propositionally what you are on about. I also understand psychologically what you are on about.

You are the boring one, repeating the lame old theist arguments over and over, ad nauseum

If you disagree, why do you not counter argument, and for example present just one example of codified information, that arose naturally ?

Before you start demanding information by esoteric means (Codified information), I’ll let you start by defining “codified information”. 

My take on this?
How about the entire collection of scientific works explaining the physical functions occurring within the universe.  You got a better one?  Lay it on me.

Below is an example I found.
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~tiwrupa/HW2_P2.pdf

Is that what you meant to ask?

, TRYING to avoid responsibility for having to provide extraordinary evidence in the face of an extraordinary claim.

the claim, that the universe arose by chance, or physical necessity, is not a extraordinary claim ?

No,  the claim that a supernatural being created all this is the extraordinary claim here. Assumptions that the universe occurred by natural means and functions is much more conservative and logically acceptable that your vision of a spiritual cosmic genie.

You may think God is a familiar figure in your world, but to me (at least) God is a wholly alien and fictitious flight of fancy, which has been causal to the great slaughters in history.  Killing entire species in the flood, razing cities to the ground, commanding babies to be throw against a wall!  IF YOUR GO IS SENTIENT, YOUR GOD IS A MONSTER.

ok. i see. your reason to reject God is not rational, but purely based on emotion…....

Again no, God is not rational, because there is a lot of physical garbage that you will need to clean up before you can present god in scientific fashion.  OTOH It is you who has made an “emotional leap of faith”, in spite of the overwhelming scientific reasons why the existence of a “motivated sentience” almost certainly cannot be requirement for creation.

[ Edited: 04 May 2013 04:12 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2013 09:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 368 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1909
Joined  2007-10-28
Adonai888 - 04 May 2013 03:15 AM

It can be theoretisized if the universe will expand foreve ( if it really expands is another issue of dispute ). but it cannot have a eternal past, since otherwise we would have never reached ” now “. through successive addition or parts, you can run towards infinity, but will never reach it.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time.

Big Bang cosmology:

Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology and is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric.

If time is infinite and eternal, it implies there is no beginning or end of time.

We only experience the present moment which will become the past. This is presentism.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(philosophy_of_time)

Presentism is the philosophical doctrine that only events and entities—and, in some versions of presentism, timeless objects or ideas like numbers and sets—that occur in the present exist. According to presentism, events and entities that are wholly past or wholly future do not exist at all.

As such, the wholly past does not exist at all and it is irrelevant to consider the “eternal past” as it does not exist and also because there is no beginning of time per se if time is infinite and eternal

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 02:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 369 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4544
Joined  2007-08-31
Adonai888 - 04 May 2013 09:13 AM

It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27100 (ie. one chance in 10143).

But if you would have a process that selects best results after small steps of changes, you would have the ‘Hamlet’ in a shorter time than you can imagine. Your total ignorance about evolution is baffling. You are arguing against something you do not even understand what it is about.

Adonai888 - 04 May 2013 09:13 AM

well, rather than acuse me of not understanding evolution, i would suggest, you start to present good reasons, why you believe evolution is true. And specially explain how you believe the animals evolved, which i have mentioned . That would make your case
much more credible, rather than acuse me.

I would say, read a good book about evolution so that you know what you are talking about.

Adonai888 - 04 May 2013 09:13 AM

So , how does that differe from your God of the gaps argument ? We don’t know exactly how the biodiversity on earth came to be, so therefore the evolution theory is true ?

Did I say that because we don’t know the complete details of biodiversity, evolution is true? Such a rubbish you are venting here.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 05:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 370 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
GdB - 05 May 2013 02:40 AM

But if you would have a process that selects best results after small steps of changes, you would have the ‘Hamlet’ in a shorter time than you can imagine. .

i didnt know, that chance has the amazing hability to ” select the best results “.

amazing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 05:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 371 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4848
Joined  2007-10-05
Adonai888 - 05 May 2013 05:33 AM
GdB - 05 May 2013 02:40 AM

But if you would have a process that selects best results after small steps of changes, you would have the ‘Hamlet’ in a shorter time than you can imagine. .

i didnt know, that chance has the amazing hability to ” select the best results “.

amazing.

You just proved GdB’s point.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 06:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 372 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
DarronS - 05 May 2013 05:55 AM

You just proved GdB’s point.

chance has no goals. It has chaotic behavior.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 06:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 373 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4848
Joined  2007-10-05

What role does chance play in natural selection?

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 06:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 374 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
DarronS - 05 May 2013 06:11 AM

What role does chance play in natural selection?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-abiogenesis-a-reasonable-answer-to-explain-how-live-arise-on-earth

How then could the first cell have evolved from the non-living soup of the “primitive” prebiotic oceans?
This really is quite a problem to try and explain. After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn’t a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted “parts”), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 06:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 375 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4848
Joined  2007-10-05

There you go moving the goalposts again. We were discussing evolution. Try to stay on topic.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
25 of 28
25