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.
So you never feel angry yourself? Your alleged void, having supposedly been filled, precludes you from being mad? If not, then the corollary is not true, and you have leveled a baseless accusation at plad
I cant speak for anyone else but I know I will be mad in about an hour as soon as I get into 5 oclock traffic.
Design can be apparent only if there are things which are not designed that I can use for comparison. If the whole universe is designed, then there exists nothing to compare. In other words, before the word "designed" can have meaning, you must show me something that is not designed. Claiming the whole universe to be designed precludes one from doing so.
Oh, you mean like the phrase "There is no absolute truth!" It's self-defeating, right?
I cant speak for anyone else but I know I will be mad in about an hour as soon as I get into 5 oclock traffic.
There you go. We are all simply human and things annoy all of us. Me too, although not traffic. I take the subway home, and it is rather peaceful when compared to driving.
My point is that anger does not equal proof of god.
Oh, you mean like the phrase "There is no absolute truth!" It's self-defeating, right?
Maybe.
Take Ray Comfort's argument for god. He shows people a coke can, and then says there is no way such a thing could exist without a designer. He points to its complexity (color scheme, poptop, etc) and being impossible through random processes.
Now, his analogy works as far as it does because we know how coke cans came about, they do include a designer, and we can compare them to raw aluminum ore, which is not designed. But this is NVX's point. Coke can is designed, and we know it is, because we can look at it in comparison to something that is not designed, like a rock.
Comfort's analogy falls apart at this point, because there are ways for complexity to arise without a designer. He willfully ignores them, and they are (and have been), the topic of another thread, but there are mechanisms.
Oh, you mean like the phrase "There is no absolute truth!" It's self-defeating, right?
Yes, it is self-defeating.
Here's an analogy. If the universe were uniformly at absolute zero, you couldn't say, "Look, it's apparent that this object is cold." There would be no hot and cold. The same holds true for a universe that is uniformly designed. There is no design and non-design.
You're proving his point. If you had no void, and were in perfect peace, there'd be no reason for your blood to boil. Your state of mind and meaning in life would not be affected what others say. Do you not see that?
So are you telling me that in your 'fulfilled, voidless and perfectly peaceful life' as a christian, that you never feel anger or resentment? If so, no doubt you'll be telling us next that you get out of the shower to have a pee!
Last edited by pladecalvo; 05-24-2007 at 03:15 PM..
Christians claim the entire universe is designed. You can't tell which is which because everything is designed. The member I responded to said that design should be apparent to anyone looking at earth. Yet, the moon is also designed, and it looks nothing like the earth. So is the sun designed, as is Haley's comet, a grain of sand, a hydrogen atom; all designed, yet all incredibly different. See what I'm getting at? How can design be apparent if everything is designed? It can't.
I think I understand your comment now with your added context, but that was not what I read into the original poster's comment. I understood their point to be that it was obvious that there was an intelligence behind the design, not that the design itself was apparent. That is why your response did not make any sense to me. I understand now that you took the comment to means something else and were arguing a completely different line than the poster had meant.
"An honest look at our world leads a person to conclude that there must have been intelligence behind the design of our world. To acknowledge that such intelligence exists is the first step toward acknowledging the existence of God."
I am reading this comment to indicate that the poster believes that the design of the world, apparent or not..visible or not, is evidence of a purposeful intent and not random happenstance. They further suggest that acknowlegment of intent is the first step toward accepting the concept of a god, and that means you are closer to acknowledging, more specifically, God (with a capital G).
Please accept my apologies for pursuing this wild goose, but the chase was fun wasn't it?
So are you telling me that in your 'fulfilled, voidless and perfectly peaceful life' as a christian, that you never feel anger or resentment? If so, no doubt you'll be telling us next that you get out of the shower to have a pee!
Do you really want to go there? (I'll get right back to ya...I'm reading an article on mega-churches.)
I didn't see any logic used at all in your assertions that atheists are angry, unfulfilled, empty people. Feel free to provide support for this claim, if you would.
On the other hand, my providing divorce statistics does logically challenge your assertions. A coherent argument can be made using such statistics.
I never made the argument that "atheists are angry, unfulfilled, empty people". You are the only one in this discussion that has used that sentance. I stated that most non-christians feel a void in their lives. I do not base that on statistics, but only the personal interactions I have had over the last 40 years with people, both christian and non-christian. I did not intend that to be taken as a definitive statement on the state of existance of all non-christians and I am sorry you took it that way. I really only meant it as representative of those I have met. I suppose I did not state it as precisely as I should have, and it likely to misintrepreted in too general a way.
I must avow all personal knowledge of atheists feel in their personal lives as I am not strictly aware of how many non-christians are atheists and how many are agnostic, nor what percentage of other theocratical beliefs comprise the remainder of my interactions. I thus lump them all together as non-christian because they have expressed a lack of conviction that Jesus is their chosen manner of salvation.
I can accept your statistic that athiest have the lowest divorce rate, but I fail to see what logical conclusion that brings to the argument. Without further evidence I could also conclude that atheist may be more prone to seeking psychological help and learning methods to deal with their problems, or that atheists have a higher rate of marital homicide and therefore less need of divorce ( not that I would even imply that! Seriously, just being sarcastic to demonstrate the ways statistics can be twisted)
I agree that coherent arguments can be made using statistics. I have argued both sides of gun control and won using the same statistics both times. The coherency of the argument has never been in question, simply the applicability of the statistic to the argument and the context from which the statistic was derived.
Take Ray Comfort's argument for god. He shows people a coke can, and then says there is no way such a thing could exist without a designer. He points to its complexity (color scheme, poptop, etc) and being impossible through random processes.
Now, his analogy works as far as it does because we know how coke cans came about, they do include a designer, and we can compare them to raw aluminum ore, which is not designed. But this is NVX's point. Coke can is designed, and we know it is, because we can look at it in comparison to something that is not designed, like a rock.
Comfort's analogy falls apart at this point, because there are ways for complexity to arise without a designer. He willfully ignores them, and they are (and have been), the topic of another thread, but there are mechanisms.
So when someone says "I'm absolutely sure there's no God!", that's the same thing right? Because that person can't be absolutely sure there's not something that they can't prove. Is that right?
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.
If you had no void, and were in perfect peace, there'd be no reason for your blood to boil. Your state of mind and meaning in life would not be affected what others say. Do you not see that?
not that I would even imply that! Seriously, just being sarcastic to demonstrate the ways statistics can be twisted)