Once again, Science does something God cannot (originate, origin, different)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,163,488 times
Reputation: 8105
Advertisements
You're confusing "valid argument" with "evidence", Nozz. The palace on Mars is evidence, an observation, not an argument in itself.
Saying that I have plagiarized is an ad hominem attack (unless you can point to a passage that I have lifted). That's against the TOS, and is ..... evidence ..... of emotionalism outweighing reason.
Saying that you might have actually done the experiments concerning protons is a red herring, meant to distract from the fact that it was an example and not a point in itself ...... clearly any of the many things you haven't experienced personally would do as well to make my case. Maybe you haven't done the experiments concerning the existence of prions, or maybe you haven't personally visited Moldavia but still accept things people have said about it.
You're confusing "valid argument" with "evidence", Nozz.
Except no, I am not. I am clearly distinguishing the two. And as I said anecdote and assertion are not "evidence". NOR are they valid argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof
The palace on Mars is evidence, an observation, not an argument in itself.
No the palace on Mars is a place you just made up. Which is also not evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof
Saying that I have plagiarized is an ad hominem attack
No, it is not. It is a valid and correct observation. You would do well to look up and learn what "ad hominem" actually means. This is a completely invalid and inaccurate application of it. Even if my observation were incorrect then it still would not be "ad hominem".
Had I dismissed your argument SOLELY because you plagiarized it THEN you would have some cause for complaint. No "ad hominem" but still SOME cause for complaint.
I did not do this however. I systematically and roundly explained why the Assertion From Design fails in this instance. Both the original Watchmaker argument AND your plagiarization of it fail for the same reason. And I explained exactly why that is.
As for "TOS" you are not a moderator. If you feel a post breaks the rules, report it please and do not derail the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof
Saying that you might have actually done the experiments concerning protons is a red herring, meant to distract from the fact that it was an example and not a point in itself
Except it does torpedo the point itself. Because the point you are trying to make is that I do accept anecdote as evidence. And I am explaining to you exactly how and why your assertion is false.
It is not just performing experiments, it is the evaluation of the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning of those that have. And parsing that through ones already existing knowledge and direct experimentation. It is the EXACT OPPOSITE of accepting anecdote.
It's not true that there is NO evidence for the existence of God - there are the argument from design and anecdotal evidence. However that evidence may not be convincing or sufficient for some people, and isn't sufficient scientific evidence.
Arguments from design are not scientific arguments (also, there is no evidence that the universe is here for us; and it is rather arrogant to suggest that it is), and neither is anecdotal evidence.
Without corroborative evidence from other sources, or physical proof of some sort, ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a hundred anecdotes are no better than ten. Anecdotes are told by fallible human storytellers. Farmer Bob in Puckerbrush, Kansas, may be an honest, church-going, family man not obviously subject to delusions, but we need physical evidence of an alien spacecraft or alien bodies, not just a story about landings and abductions at 3:00 A.M. on a deserted country road. Likewise with many medical claims. Stories about how your Aunt Mary's cancer was cured by watching Marx brothers movies or taking liver extract from castrated chickens are meaningless. The cancer might have gone into remission on its own, which some cancers do; or it might have been misdiagnosed; or, or, or.... What we need are controlled experiments, not anecdotes. We need 100 subjects with cancer, all properly diagnosed and matched. Then we need 25 of the subjects to watch Marx brothers movies, 25 to watch Alfred Hitchcock movies, 25 to watch the news, and 25 to watch nothing. Then we need to deduct the average rate or remission for this type of cancer and then analyze the data for statistically significant differences between the groups. If there are statistically significant differences, we better get confirmation from other scientists who have conducted their own experiments separate from ours before we hold a press conference to announce the cure for cancer.
Yet people who don't believe in God have no proof God does not exist. They take it on faith He does not exist. And that, to me, is wholly unsatisfying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
That is not how it works. Since we have no evidence that god exists, it is a disbelief in its existence, not a belief in its non-existence.
But that is how it works. Even though you, at this point in time, feel you do not have sufficient evidence that God exists, you are actually taking it by faith He does not exist.
I, at this point in time, do not have sufficient evidence that would convince you He does exist, nevertheless I still have faith He does exist.
But that is how it works. Even though you, at this point in time, feel you do not have sufficient evidence that God exists, you are actually taking it by faith He does not exist.
It is not an act of faith to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. It is the very definition of skepticism.
Well, science has taken yet another giant step forward, the latest in an almost daily adventure if you keep up with it.
Using stem cells and Porcine DNA, human muscle which was lost in a traumatic injury may now be regenerated and grafted back onto the host. A soldier, who loses muscle to a war injury, for example, can have the muscle regrown and reattached.
The old "god does not regrow lost limbs" Argument is inching closer to "god can't but science can" Now, we can regrow the muscle. We have been regrowing tendons and cartilage for years already. Next, nerves and with stem cell therapy, one day, in the future, an entire foot or hand.
Now before the whiners start, let me point out that this argument is specified towards the Judeo-christian god. The one that we atheists point out cannot exist, and this event in a way, proves that non-existence.
Let me point out first that never, ever, in the history of man, has there ever been a documented case of spontaneous healthy limb regrowth in a human. Never. Not through prayer, healing, Peter Popoff or anyone else, it has never been done. It cannot be done. God cannot do it.
Some will say that god can do it but chooses not to. Well, I disagree with that.
If god were real, he would want everyone to know and to acknowledge his power and his reality. Proof of this is in the Bible and other books, claimed to be inspired or authored by him. Read them, and see a god with an ego greater than the combined Hollywood actors and actresses from 1922 to 2013. This is a god that has such an ego, he sends out 5 commandments first dealing with worship of him before telling people how to treat each other. This is a god that cannot stand to be shown up, or undermined. This god, demands no one to be worshiped before him, and he will flood the world and kill almost everyone, or stop the sun in the sky to give one army time to kill another army just to prove himself.
SO if he were capable of limb regrowth, he would have done it just to say "See I can do it now grovel at mine holy footsies"
But he cannot do it, less his ego would have forced him to. He could not stand the fact that anyone challenges his ability, and his ego would force him to prove himself. That is the way of the egotists. And the attention seekers...those who demand worship and grovelling.
And his ego is well documented and definite. The fact that he has never stepped in and miraculously regrown tissue is because he cannot.
SO what good is a god that cannot ?
OR......he does not because he is not real. Think about that. For as little as we humans know about perfection, the god of the bible sure is imperfect. Even by our standards. He is egotistical, bigoted, prone to uncontrolled violence and rage.....all the characteristics of one who is enrolled in the penal system. Why would an imperfect god rise to a level of power, omnipotence and immortality? (Even though immortality is against the laws of physics in many ways, but moving on...) SO HOW would such a being survive and exist?
It would seem more likely that there is no evidence of this egotistical being, except in the imaginations of those who insist on his reality. They do this through religions, through wars and through ignorance. It would seem that this god is the epitome of human fear, human desperation and human imagination. This god has all the markings of a pharaoh, a Caesar or an Emperor, a warlord perhaps even....power hungry, selfish, egotistical ....the only reference for a leader that someone in the bronze age would know or understand. Not one that revels himself in any way as Omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, but as purely egotistical, fearful and incapable.
And in today's discoveries, perhaps unreal.
You know, I used to enjoy arguing with animal rights activists and evangelical vegans who will make outrageous statements like "humans are naturally herbivores" and other such silliness, but I concluded that that same time would probably be better spent doing something like masturbating or, hopefully, anything remotely productive.
You will probably come to the same conclusion about trying to talk people out of their spirituality.
I didn't say that god does not exist. I said that was no evidence that god exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
So you are an agnostic? You believe God could exist?
Here's what I said over in another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
That's not what the dictionary says.
It says an atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. It says nothing about an absolute. It is a denial of belief.
Excuse me jumping into this conversation, but your posts seem to show that you are trying to convince somebody (yourself?) that atheists don't really exist by pushing your own ideas onto them and forcing them to fit into your mold.
I don't see why you think that snow, a tangible object is equivalent to God, an intangible.
Based on your prior posts, I'll assume you'll either ignore this post or try to twist it into something far different from what it is.
A person who believes there is no God is an atheist. A person who says they don't know if there is a God or who thinks it is impossible to know if there is a God is an agnostic. It is perfectly consistent to say that a person believes there is no God, but says that is based an a lack of evidence. Neither an atheist or an agnostic is defined by saying they "believe God could exist."
These definitions are not hard to understand. I encourage you to try these words out at dictionary.com.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
