Archive

Intelligent Design: Viable Theory or Religious Rewording?

  • pmoney25
    Pretty interesting debate, it is a few years old but fun to read nonetheless.

    http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4047

    It is a debate between Richard Dawkins and Frances Collins. One part I find interesting from Dawkins is this

    TIME: Could the answer be God?

    DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.

    COLLINS: That's God.

    DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case.

    So for the last few pages, BCS has repeatedly said that is not reasonable to think or say that it is possible for something to exist that we are not able to comprehend or imagine yet two scientists, One who is the Atheist Poster boy and the other the Head of the human genome project says this exact thing. Not only does he say that, he has on numerous occasions spoke about the possibility of Intelligent Life in the Universe without a single ounce of evidence other than the universe is too big for life to only have formed on Earth.
  • I Wear Pants
    pmoney25 wrote:Not only does he say that, he has on numerous occasions spoke about the possibility of Intelligent Life in the Universe without a single ounce of evidence other than the universe is too big for life to only have formed on Earth.
    That's a logical conclusion though.

    Assuming that Earth is super duper special and blessed by a magical being that transcends physical limitations is the thing that isn't logical.

    Religion has more to prove then "shit just happened that way".
  • I Wear Pants
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote: Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.
    Glad I don't believe it. I merely said it was possible.

    And do not pervert the word faith. The word faith in your context is defined as religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
    No, it isn't. The way I define the word faith is to believe something to be true in the absence of proof or evidence. If you have seen proof of something, it doesn't take faith to believe it. If you believe in God, there is no proof, you just believe. If you believe the universe was created out of nothing, there is no proof. To believe those things requires faith.

    Edit: Jmog beat me to it. Apparently Webster defines faith the same way.
    To believe in something without evidence? Okay I will take that.

    I do not beleive in anything without evidence therefore I have no faith.

    I do not believe the universe came from nothing.

    I do not believe the universe is eternal.

    I do not KNOW except that it is here, unless solipsism is true which I am very doubtful.

    Thanks for the clarification on your definition of faith I can take that one.
    Ok, good. I understand that you don't know how the universe got here. How could it get here? Well,

    1. A God created it.
    2. It was always here.
    3. It formed from nothing.
    4. It formed from something else that was always here.
    5. It formed from something else that was formed from nothing.

    I can't think of any other way this universe could come to be. Do you? I'm sure you can see that #2 and #4 are really the same thing with the same problems, and that #3 and #5 are also the same thing with the same problems. Out of those choices, the only one that doesn't violate the laws of physics is #1.

    I'm not even trying to convince you that I'm right. I don't care how you think the universe got here. I'm just trying to show you how a rational person can believe in God and that God created the universe.
    "A God created it" has the same problem as 3 and 5.
  • HitsRus
    BCSbunk wrote>>>
    "That is about the fifth time I have asked and still no answer just an appeal to authority and a clumsy attempt to say that the law of identity is a narrow view."

    I said your view(interpretation) of the Law of Identity is a narrow view. I don't think you understand it, or you believe in a bastardized version of it.

    This logic law is attributed to Aristotle who argues himself for the existence of God.

    In the words attributed to the God of the people of the book....I AM who AM.

    A=A or ....AM=AM

    Citing sources is not a 'logical fallacy' when the logic of the sources is used as part of the arguement. I am not appealing to their authority alone, but citing the reasoning of their argument.
    I don't think you understand "logic" very well. It's okay...nobody's perfect.


    I'm done with this for a while...other things call for my attention.


    To all Christians....Happy Easter. To my sister...harmony. To the atheists...sleep well.
  • pmoney25
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    pmoney25 wrote:Not only does he say that, he has on numerous occasions spoke about the possibility of Intelligent Life in the Universe without a single ounce of evidence other than the universe is too big for life to only have formed on Earth.
    That's a logical conclusion though.

    Assuming that Earth is super duper special and blessed by a magical being that transcends physical limitations is the thing that isn't logical.

    Religion has more to prove then "shit just happened that way".
    Really? So it is logical and reasonable to believe in something that you cannot prove? By the way, I do not rule out the possibility of Aliens.

    My point is that it is possible for things to be outside the abilities of man to understand . Albert Einstein believed so, seems Richard Dawkins believes so.

    My problem is not with the debate, my problem is with the people in the debate. The overall pompous attitude of most people who claim to be Atheist is rather disgusting.
  • BCSbunk
    HitsRus wrote: BCSbunk wrote>>>
    "That is about the fifth time I have asked and still no answer just an appeal to authority and a clumsy attempt to say that the law of identity is a narrow view."

    I said your view(interpretation) of the Law of Identity is a narrow view. I don't think you understand it, or you believe in a bastardized version of it.

    This logic law is attributed to Aristotle who argues himself for the existence of God.

    In the words attributed to the God of the people of the book....I AM who AM.

    A=A or ....AM=AM

    Citing sources is not a 'logical fallacy' when the logic of the sources is used as part of the arguement. I am not appealing to their authority alone, but citing the reasoning of their argument.
    I don't think you understand "logic" very well. It's okay...nobody's perfect.


    I'm done with this for a while...other things call for my attention.


    To all Christians....Happy Easter. To my sister...harmony. To the atheists...sleep well.
    This logic law is attributed to Aristotle who argues himself for the existence of God.
    This is a sample of Appeal to authority. Also your clever use of ad hominem or Poisioning the well with statements like you don't know logic very well.

    It is not relevant that Aristotle believed in god.

    He also never stated anywhere exactly what a god is.

    There are 3 attributes of existants. Primary secondary and relational.

    For anything that exists they possess the above.

    The concept of god fails because it has no primary attributes.

    I have repeatedly asked for and have not received any.

    The reason is you do not know and neither has any scientist or philosopher before you is because the god concept does not exist it is made up in the human mind.

    The concept of a god is non-cognitive until someone provides primary attributes of this concept.

    Primary attributes would be the fundamental character of the concept or basic nature a particular thing is composed of.

    That is not a narrow view to expect to know what a particular thing is composed of that you are alleging exists.

    You also fail to apply your own standard of knowing to things such as Unicorns, Elves, Fairies and leprechauns.

    You dismiss them and do great amounts of handwaving.

    We don't need empirical views remember? So then according to your worldview Unicorns need to be taken very seriously.

    Remember just because we can't measure a Unicorn does not mean it does not exist.
  • BCSbunk
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote: Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.
    Glad I don't believe it. I merely said it was possible.

    And do not pervert the word faith. The word faith in your context is defined as religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
    No, it isn't. The way I define the word faith is to believe something to be true in the absence of proof or evidence. If you have seen proof of something, it doesn't take faith to believe it. If you believe in God, there is no proof, you just believe. If you believe the universe was created out of nothing, there is no proof. To believe those things requires faith.

    Edit: Jmog beat me to it. Apparently Webster defines faith the same way.
    To believe in something without evidence? Okay I will take that.

    I do not beleive in anything without evidence therefore I have no faith.

    I do not believe the universe came from nothing.

    I do not believe the universe is eternal.

    I do not KNOW except that it is here, unless solipsism is true which I am very doubtful.

    Thanks for the clarification on your definition of faith I can take that one.
    Ok, good. I understand that you don't know how the universe got here. How could it get here? Well,

    1. A God created it.
    2. It was always here.
    3. It formed from nothing.
    4. It formed from something else that was always here.
    5. It formed from something else that was formed from nothing.

    I can't think of any other way this universe could come to be. Do you? I'm sure you can see that #2 and #4 are really the same thing with the same problems, and that #3 and #5 are also the same thing with the same problems. Out of those choices, the only one that doesn't violate the laws of physics is #1.

    I'm not even trying to convince you that I'm right. I don't care how you think the universe got here. I'm just trying to show you how a rational person can believe in God and that God created the universe.
    "A God created it" has the same problem as 3 and 5.
    Premise one fails.

    You throw around the concept of god as though it is meaningful.

    Again I ask what is a god.

    Please show me what a god is made up of or at least a picture so we can at least try to figure out what a god is.

    Show me how a god affects other things like Gravity that can be shown in repeatable experiments in a lab.

    What you speak of is not reasonable at all it is non-cognitive.

    What is a god?

    There have been thousands of alleged god concepts thrown around and they contradict themselves many times.

    The hindu gods do not match the christian gods.
  • Cleveland Buck
    BCSbunk wrote:
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote: Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.
    Glad I don't believe it. I merely said it was possible.

    And do not pervert the word faith. The word faith in your context is defined as religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
    No, it isn't. The way I define the word faith is to believe something to be true in the absence of proof or evidence. If you have seen proof of something, it doesn't take faith to believe it. If you believe in God, there is no proof, you just believe. If you believe the universe was created out of nothing, there is no proof. To believe those things requires faith.

    Edit: Jmog beat me to it. Apparently Webster defines faith the same way.
    To believe in something without evidence? Okay I will take that.

    I do not beleive in anything without evidence therefore I have no faith.

    I do not believe the universe came from nothing.

    I do not believe the universe is eternal.

    I do not KNOW except that it is here, unless solipsism is true which I am very doubtful.

    Thanks for the clarification on your definition of faith I can take that one.
    Ok, good. I understand that you don't know how the universe got here. How could it get here? Well,

    1. A God created it.
    2. It was always here.
    3. It formed from nothing.
    4. It formed from something else that was always here.
    5. It formed from something else that was formed from nothing.

    I can't think of any other way this universe could come to be. Do you? I'm sure you can see that #2 and #4 are really the same thing with the same problems, and that #3 and #5 are also the same thing with the same problems. Out of those choices, the only one that doesn't violate the laws of physics is #1.

    I'm not even trying to convince you that I'm right. I don't care how you think the universe got here. I'm just trying to show you how a rational person can believe in God and that God created the universe.
    "A God created it" has the same problem as 3 and 5.
    Premise one fails.

    You throw around the concept of god as though it is meaningful.

    Again I ask what is a god.

    Please show me what a god is made up of or at least a picture so we can at least try to figure out what a god is.

    Show me how a god affects other things like Gravity that can be shown in repeatable experiments in a lab.

    What you speak of is not reasonable at all it is non-cognitive.

    What is a god?

    There have been thousands of alleged god concepts thrown around and they contradict themselves many times.

    The hindu gods do not match the christian gods.
    Premise one does not fail, you just don't understand it. Premises 2-5 fail because they are not possible.

    Anyway, I don't think anyone can give you a definition of a God that you will accept, because God can't be defined only in terms of what we can observe and study. You want to know where he is, well he is somewhere that we can't observe him. The idea of the creator of the universe being bound by our laws of physics is foolish, because the creator would have created those laws. There will never be an experiment that proves or disproves the existence of God, because the rules that govern our existence do not apply to God. You will never get an acceptable definition if you can only think in those terms.

    Also, when I refer to God, in this discussion, I am referring to the creator of the universe, not a particular religion, because that is a completely different debate and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
  • BCSbunk
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote: Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.
    Glad I don't believe it. I merely said it was possible.

    And do not pervert the word faith. The word faith in your context is defined as religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
    No, it isn't. The way I define the word faith is to believe something to be true in the absence of proof or evidence. If you have seen proof of something, it doesn't take faith to believe it. If you believe in God, there is no proof, you just believe. If you believe the universe was created out of nothing, there is no proof. To believe those things requires faith.

    Edit: Jmog beat me to it. Apparently Webster defines faith the same way.
    To believe in something without evidence? Okay I will take that.

    I do not beleive in anything without evidence therefore I have no faith.

    I do not believe the universe came from nothing.

    I do not believe the universe is eternal.

    I do not KNOW except that it is here, unless solipsism is true which I am very doubtful.

    Thanks for the clarification on your definition of faith I can take that one.
    Ok, good. I understand that you don't know how the universe got here. How could it get here? Well,

    1. A God created it.
    2. It was always here.
    3. It formed from nothing.
    4. It formed from something else that was always here.
    5. It formed from something else that was formed from nothing.

    I can't think of any other way this universe could come to be. Do you? I'm sure you can see that #2 and #4 are really the same thing with the same problems, and that #3 and #5 are also the same thing with the same problems. Out of those choices, the only one that doesn't violate the laws of physics is #1.

    I'm not even trying to convince you that I'm right. I don't care how you think the universe got here. I'm just trying to show you how a rational person can believe in God and that God created the universe.
    "A God created it" has the same problem as 3 and 5.

    The thing I find funny is, is that you have a problem with something coming from nothing. You said that violates physics.

    However you have no problem making up a concept(god) that can make something out of nothing and be fine with it?

    This makes no sense whatsoever.

    All you are doing is moving the problem one step further and violating Ockhams razor.
  • Cleveland Buck
    BCSbunk wrote:
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote: Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.
    Glad I don't believe it. I merely said it was possible.

    And do not pervert the word faith. The word faith in your context is defined as religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
    No, it isn't. The way I define the word faith is to believe something to be true in the absence of proof or evidence. If you have seen proof of something, it doesn't take faith to believe it. If you believe in God, there is no proof, you just believe. If you believe the universe was created out of nothing, there is no proof. To believe those things requires faith.

    Edit: Jmog beat me to it. Apparently Webster defines faith the same way.
    To believe in something without evidence? Okay I will take that.

    I do not beleive in anything without evidence therefore I have no faith.

    I do not believe the universe came from nothing.

    I do not believe the universe is eternal.

    I do not KNOW except that it is here, unless solipsism is true which I am very doubtful.

    Thanks for the clarification on your definition of faith I can take that one.
    Ok, good. I understand that you don't know how the universe got here. How could it get here? Well,

    1. A God created it.
    2. It was always here.
    3. It formed from nothing.
    4. It formed from something else that was always here.
    5. It formed from something else that was formed from nothing.

    I can't think of any other way this universe could come to be. Do you? I'm sure you can see that #2 and #4 are really the same thing with the same problems, and that #3 and #5 are also the same thing with the same problems. Out of those choices, the only one that doesn't violate the laws of physics is #1.

    I'm not even trying to convince you that I'm right. I don't care how you think the universe got here. I'm just trying to show you how a rational person can believe in God and that God created the universe.
    "A God created it" has the same problem as 3 and 5.

    The thing I find funny is, is that you have a problem with something coming from nothing. You said that violates physics.

    However you have no problem making up a concept(god) that can make something out of nothing and be fine with it?

    This makes no sense whatsoever.

    All you are doing is moving the problem one step further and violating Ockhams razor.
    This universe is obviously governed by the laws of physics, so anything that naturally happens here must follow those rules. Obviously that makes something that happens contrary to those rules supernatural. If you believe that the universe could have been created contrary to the laws of physics that governs it, how is that different from believing in a God?
  • Tinkertrain
    The problem with this entire argument in general is that atheists ASSume a diety would have to play by our rules that we understand right now. That is basically attempting to put a human face and give a human understanding to something that is not human and would not be required to play by our narrowly set rules based upon our limited understanding of things.

    In other words just because we were created in his image does not mean that he would be required to play by our rules as an equal.
  • BCSbunk
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote: Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.
    Glad I don't believe it. I merely said it was possible.

    And do not pervert the word faith. The word faith in your context is defined as religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
    No, it isn't. The way I define the word faith is to believe something to be true in the absence of proof or evidence. If you have seen proof of something, it doesn't take faith to believe it. If you believe in God, there is no proof, you just believe. If you believe the universe was created out of nothing, there is no proof. To believe those things requires faith.

    Edit: Jmog beat me to it. Apparently Webster defines faith the same way.
    To believe in something without evidence? Okay I will take that.

    I do not beleive in anything without evidence therefore I have no faith.

    I do not believe the universe came from nothing.

    I do not believe the universe is eternal.

    I do not KNOW except that it is here, unless solipsism is true which I am very doubtful.

    Thanks for the clarification on your definition of faith I can take that one.
    Ok, good. I understand that you don't know how the universe got here. How could it get here? Well,

    1. A God created it.
    2. It was always here.
    3. It formed from nothing.
    4. It formed from something else that was always here.
    5. It formed from something else that was formed from nothing.

    I can't think of any other way this universe could come to be. Do you? I'm sure you can see that #2 and #4 are really the same thing with the same problems, and that #3 and #5 are also the same thing with the same problems. Out of those choices, the only one that doesn't violate the laws of physics is #1.

    I'm not even trying to convince you that I'm right. I don't care how you think the universe got here. I'm just trying to show you how a rational person can believe in God and that God created the universe.
    "A God created it" has the same problem as 3 and 5.

    The thing I find funny is, is that you have a problem with something coming from nothing. You said that violates physics.

    However you have no problem making up a concept(god) that can make something out of nothing and be fine with it?

    This makes no sense whatsoever.

    All you are doing is moving the problem one step further and violating Ockhams razor.
    This universe is obviously governed by the laws of physics, so anything that naturally happens here must follow those rules. Obviously that makes something that happens contrary to those rules supernatural. If you believe that the universe could have been created contrary to the laws of physics that governs it, how is that different from believing in a God?
    What a minute not only do you not know what a god is but now you want to tell me it is outside our universe?

    What does outside the Universe mean? Is that like outside time and space?

    Those are totally meaningless. WTF is outside time and space?

    Just because someone mumbles and throws some words around does not make them meaningful.

    So please describe what outside time and space or outside the universe means.


    What is the state of nothingness? Can you show me the state of nothingness? Perhaps something has always been, so there is no state of nothingness?

    I think you are making shit up as you go along with meaningless terms like god, supernatural, outside time and space etc.

    Those are all meaningless terms that you cannot show evidence of nor explain properly.
  • HitsRus
    Obvously, you did not read what I have posted earlier about string theory otherwise you would know what he ^^^is talking about.

    You are unwilling to accept attributes of a non physical nature. That is your problem. We get that you are an empiricist. Again, that is your problem. Empiricism is a useful tool, for things that are within the realm of our senses, but it is useless for abstracts, concepts and things beyond our physical senses. Most human reasoning comes from a combination of empirical AND intuitive and deductive thought....and that includes modern science. As long as you remain locked within your empirical box and refuse to use the rest of your reasoning capabilities, discussion about origins with you is useless since the only thing you can postulate is that 'you don't know.'

    There is of course witness testimony of God on earth...but you of course will not accept that., I know it, and so I've accomodated you and argued without that using only the faculties of reason and logic to show that the existence of God and an intelligent design is as academically valid as anything you suggest about origins, and significantly more plausible.

    Do yourself a favor and don't bring up fairies and leprachauns again. You make yourself look like an idiot. Unless you are prepeared to start with the premise....
    "Anything that we cannot physically detect does not exist" ( a preposterous statement)
    Otherwise, a specific ( God's existence) does not translate logically into the general existence of fairies or unicorns etc.
  • I Wear Pants
    pmoney25 wrote:
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    pmoney25 wrote:Not only does he say that, he has on numerous occasions spoke about the possibility of Intelligent Life in the Universe without a single ounce of evidence other than the universe is too big for life to only have formed on Earth.
    That's a logical conclusion though.

    Assuming that Earth is super duper special and blessed by a magical being that transcends physical limitations is the thing that isn't logical.

    Religion has more to prove then "shit just happened that way".
    Really? So it is logical and reasonable to believe in something that you cannot prove? By the way, I do not rule out the possibility of Aliens.

    My point is that it is possible for things to be outside the abilities of man to understand . Albert Einstein believed so, seems Richard Dawkins believes so.

    My problem is not with the debate, my problem is with the people in the debate. The overall pompous attitude of most people who claim to be Atheist is rather disgusting.
    So you think it's more logical to believe that we are so fucking special that either A: A God has decided to bless only this planet with life or B: In all of the billions and billions and billions of solar systems in the millions of galaxies Earth is the only one which happened to form life?

    I think it's more logical to assume that there are very likely and almost certainly other planets out there with life on them or that have previously had life on them. Yes I said assume. Because that's what we're all doing when we make an argument for or against a God/Gods.

    But the thing is that I'm not really interested in making an argument for or against a God. I just thought that it was crazy that you were acting like a guy wasn't credible because he thinks it's absurd to believe that ours is the only planet with some form of life. I believe that only makes sense. Because unless we are somehow special by sheer numbers alone it's likely that there is other life out there.

    I don't know particularly well if there is a god or not. I have trouble believing either way. If there is a god, particularly of the type described by most religions then I don't know if I want any association with him/her. Because I don't care if they have a "plan", that plan obviously sucks.

    Assuming there is no god also gives me problems because even thought I'm able to understand concepts like the big bang and how some theorize that events like that are how universes are formed I'm still left to wonder "well how the fuck did the first big bang happen?"

    That gets me back to a god or creator of some sort which then gets me to "who the hell created god/where the fuck did he come from?". These questions bother me because while I consider myself a modestly intelligent person capable of high level thinking I have yet to hear a theory or explanation that sufficiently explains any of the above scenarios. This is why I usually don't argue for or against a god unless I'm trying to play devil's advocate because I frankly will not ever pretend to know answers of this sort.

    TL;DR: I don't know anything.
  • pmoney25
    I don't rule out existance of aliens. I posted the thing about Dawkins to prove that even the most hardcore atheists believes it is possible that there may be things that exist that are beyond comprehension for humans. That just because you believe does not mean you are ignorant or that you are living a bad life.

    I am willing to admit I may be wrong but I obviously do not believe I am.
  • HitsRus
    IWP...
    The Catholic Church itself allows for the existence of aliens.

    Religion is an anthropromorphic manner of relationship with the creator. Inconsistencies of man made traditions or rituals do not disprove the existence of God.
  • jmog
    BCSbunk wrote:
    majorspark wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote: Are you really serious?

    The 3 sides of one triangle?

    You do realize that the side of a triangle is NOT a triangle?

    So then Jesus is not really a whole god itself. It is only part god that when combined with the father and the holy spirit become a god?

    Oh no you say they are 3 distinct gods seperate from one another.

    And so we are now back to the problem of 3 does not equal 1.
    Take water (H2O). It can take the form of a solid, a liquid, or a gas. Yet no matter which form H2O takes it is still H2O. In each form H2O takes neither one is more or less H2O than the other. In other words God manifested in his creation a picture of the Trinity and how 3=1.
    Big problem you still have ONE water. From one water you still have water in 3 different forms.

    So then Jesus is the father? they are not seperate?



    They cannot all be seperate gods but yet the same god. Your explanation fails.
    Actually yes, Jesus said himself "I and my father are one".

    I like his explanation, different "phases" of water for different conditions but yet still "water". Different "phases" of god given the condition (flesh=Jesus, with us now as Christians=HS, in heaven=father) but yet still the same "god".

    Sorry you are just now at the point where you are completely "against" it and won't believe its "reasonable" given the context no matter how many "3=1" examples we give you.
  • jmog
    Most Christians believe aliens are possible, I'm not sure why any on here are suggesting otherwise.
  • ManO'War
    Maybe Darth Vader is "God"..his story is more plausible than the Jesus one.
  • jmog
    ManO'War wrote: Maybe Darth Vader is "God"..his story is more plausible than the Jesus one.
    1. There is a "jedi" religion for whatever reason.

    2. Saying its "more plausible" is plain retarded and even you know that.
  • Bigred1995
    jmog wrote: Thanks man, have a good one.

    To answer your above question, I introduced "crowding" effects like with a parameter that would limit the population total to say 15 billion people. This parameter is easily adjustable to accomodate any "max population" of humans estimate that someone believes the Earth can handle.

    The Predator/Prey was basically microbes (viruses/bacteria) as the predator as they typically are the bigger killers of humans than any other living organism. I used death rates from bacteria/viral sicknesses each year to develop the system of ODEs needed for a predator/prey model.

    In the end the "graph" looked more like the "S" curve of a logarithmic growth model (the crowding model) with sinusoidal humps throughout it that accounded for the predator/prey relationship.

    I'm not saying it accurately predicts the population of humans throughout history, I'm just saying its much more accurate than any exponential growth model.

    Even your example of a bacteria growth model and 2 years is easily fixed to what would really happen in the real world once you put these types of parameters into the growth model.

    If you want actual numbers of the parameters, I'll have to get back to you as its on my home PC, not on my work one ;).
    Wow, I really need to start taking my laptop with me when I go out of town.
    Jmog, I'm still waiting on your numbers & model you used to get the results that you did!

    thanks,
  • jmog
    Bigred1995 wrote:

    Wow, I really need to start taking my laptop with me when I go out of town.
    Jmog, I'm still waiting on your numbers & model you used to get the results that you did!

    thanks,
    I completely forgot, I'll dig in my home PC this week and find the model I used as the model will have all the parameters in it.
  • 74Leps
    Sorry been away, same old crap from evolutionists: look at all these 'transitional' fossils - when again and again they are interpretations based on a belief. A lot of religion involved, but little science.



    BCSbunk wrote:
    jmog wrote: Show me the "reptile-mammal" or the "bird-mammal" transitions, I'd love to see them.

    Again, your use of the word "fact" is hilarious when its nothing more than your opinion.

    Actually, the more they dig up the more often they find dinosaur bones with soft tissue in it like blood, etc that is impossible to last millions of years in the ground/rocks. That is typically left out even though there have been MANY dinosaur skeletons dug up with soft tissue found that wasn't fossilized.
    Sphenacodon

    Biarmosuchia

    Thrinaxodon

    Probainognathus

    Diarthrognathus

    Those are reptile-mammal transitions. Now which of the how to argue like a creationist fallacies will you invoke?

    Now on to the nonsense about soft tissue.

    You have no clue to what you are talking about. There has been soft tissue found in T-rex Thighbone NOT many samples which is ambigious.

    The great thing about science is it keeps on looking for answers. Turns out that the "blood" and "soft tissue" may not be soft tissue and blood at all.

    But instead Biofilm. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002808
    - - -

    Dr. Mary Schweitzer is fairly pissed off at everyone at this point.

    http://creation.com/still-soft-and-stretchy

    http://creation.com/squirming-at-the-squishosaur

    Who's full of bullshit - evolutionists - read the above links, it's the evos who are distorting data.


    And I know how the vast majority of fossils are formed: rapid burial and compaction, and most of them found in sedimentary rock.
  • 74Leps
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Cleveland Buck wrote: Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.
    Glad I don't believe it. I merely said it was possible.

    And do not pervert the word faith. The word faith in your context is defined as religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
    No, it isn't. The way I define the word faith is to believe something to be true in the absence of proof or evidence. If you have seen proof of something, it doesn't take faith to believe it. If you believe in God, there is no proof, you just believe. If you believe the universe was created out of nothing, there is no proof. To believe those things requires faith.

    Edit: Jmog beat me to it. Apparently Webster defines faith the same way.
    To believe in something without evidence? Okay I will take that.

    I do not beleive in anything without evidence therefore I have no faith.

    I do not believe the universe came from nothing.

    I do not believe the universe is eternal.

    I do not KNOW except that it is here, unless solipsism is true which I am very doubtful.

    Thanks for the clarification on your definition of faith I can take that one.
    Ok, good. I understand that you don't know how the universe got here. How could it get here? Well,

    1. A God created it.
    2. It was always here.
    3. It formed from nothing.
    4. It formed from something else that was always here.
    5. It formed from something else that was formed from nothing.

    I can't think of any other way this universe could come to be. Do you? I'm sure you can see that #2 and #4 are really the same thing with the same problems, and that #3 and #5 are also the same thing with the same problems. Out of those choices, the only one that doesn't violate the laws of physics is #1.

    I'm not even trying to convince you that I'm right. I don't care how you think the universe got here. I'm just trying to show you how a rational person can believe in God and that God created the universe.
    "A God created it" has the same problem as 3 and 5.
    Basic science is 'cause and effect' and says no effect can be greater than its cause in quantity (number) or quality (complexity).

    The first cause of the universe had to be transcendent to the universe.

    The first cause of the universe had to be all powerful

    The first cause of life had to be living

    the first cause of intelligence had to be intelligent

    the first cause of personalities had to be personal


    It's totally logical to believe in an all powerful, all knowing, capable of being everywhere creator who is incredibly intelligent and even personal. It follows the law of cause and effect.

    There had to be an 'uncaused' first cause for anything to exist.

    God makes more sense than anything anyone else can come up with, and is backed by the basics of how science operates.

    Evos always have to resort to evidence contrary to the basic laws of science; they can't give a single example of increasing complexity in a system without referring to their assumptions based on their belief. Instead through slight of hand they suggest somehow evolution broke the basic laws of science through various means, none of them backed by emperical evidence when scrutinized.
  • 74Leps
    Arguing with evolutionists

    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v14i5e.htm