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.
Of course the evidence presented is not to your liking.
Liking has nothing to do with it. You have not presented ANY evidence for me to like or dislike anyway. You either have evidence or you do not. But refusing to present it then claiming I simply do not like it is just being disingenuous here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad
Such as complxity of life and universe. The mathematical relationships in nature which point to nothing that could be random but deliberate, such created. Our own conscious mind. This is very strong evidense.
Now you are just listing things and then calling them evidence. If you think these things are evidence you have to explain exactly how. Not just list them and run. Otherwise you could just walk into a court of law and say "The accused is guilty because melon, Jerry Springer, black cats and violins" and then just walk out. You have to do more than list stuff. You have to explain exactly how what you list is evidence for what you claimed.
Just because things are complex to you, this does not automatically imply a creator. Plus even if you do imagine a creator you have not answered a single question. The same questions about how things came to be are still there. You just have to ask them about the creator you imagined now.
So summary: You have not given evidence for a god, just listed some stuff, and the god you postulate does not actually answer the things like complexity but simply moves those questions to that god. So double fail.
His existence and ours cannot be compared.
You just admitted in your earlier its all in your head. That makes it imaginary. In an answer to KC you stated that you gather together with other such individuals to agree about and reinforce this imaginary friend, but you also added that it's different for everyone"; this confirms that it is NOT evidence and that it is merely subjective, not real. It's really a cut-and-dried case.
I have evidence for you, as much as it makes me feel soiled to read; no such evidence for God, at all. Attempting to conflate the two is an error in comparison.
Comprehension, you should try it.
{Mere Opinion Fallacy #55 for you; how many times shall you rely on it when you have no valid argument?}
Last edited by Heathen Hammer; 09-07-2012 at 01:29 AM..
You haven't PRODUCED any evidence. You have made claims about personal experience and revelations which could be anything from Allah to aliens.
In the end of course, we ended up in the same old place 'Who made everything, then?'
I suppose this is where the thread titles merges the two questions - proof of evolution theory actually pushing out that evidence as evidence for God - which would mean that God does not exist is any meaningful sense.
Evolution evidence is compelling. Abiogenesis is theoretically feasible and so saying that it cannot happen is simply false -worse - it is dishonest because it is ignoring feasibility and insisting that it cannot happen. This is not just ignorance but dishonesty.
We know how the earth, moon, planets, stars, galaxies and all the rest of it came about. That is, we can explain it without the need for a god. The attempt to discern design in any of it does not deliver. The attempt to argue that it is all arranged to suit us is back to front and the need for a number of accidents suggests strongly that we have actually been lucky.
To reject or ignore that evidence is faith -based denial and dishonesty. Sorry, but denial of evidence is not evidence of anything but intellectual dishonesty.
It would be tedious to rehearse again the undeniable possibility of some kind of First cause. What we can say is that it is either not existing in any meaningful sense here and now (since personal mental contact and supposed miracles are rather counter- productive as evidence than helpful to theism) or is so indistinguishable from unthinking natural physical processes that the 'god' label is virtually meaningless.
His existence and ours cannot be compared.
You just admitted in your earlier its all in your head. That makes it imaginary. In an answer to KC you stated that you gather together with other such individuals to agree about and reinforce this imaginary friend, but you also added that it's different for everyone"; this confirms that it is NOT evidence and that it is merely subjective, not real. It's really a cut-and-dried case.
I have evidence for you, as much as it makes me feel soiled to read; no such evidence for God, at all. Attempting to conflate the two is an error in comparison.
Comprehension, you should try it.
{Mere Opinion Fallacy #55 for you; how many times shall you rely on it when you have no valid argument?}
You are right. As well as the 'Who made everything then?' package we get the 'who knows anything' package incorporating 'My opinion is as good as yours'.
This is easy to let go or pass but it is wrong. It is the common trick of pretending that it is a faith matter - a matter of belief. It isn't. It is a matter of weight of evidence and anyone who will not accept that it is, who will not accept that what we know and how we know it is a valid body of data and who rejects logic as mere human opinion and mystical guesswork as just as good as validated evidence, has no credibility and no valid claim to even be participating in discussions since, without valid evidence and sound reasoning, discussion is futile.
Vansdad has ended up where theists usually do - with nothing but trying to scrape an 'everyone's entitled to their opinion', draw. The trouble is that to a theist, a draw is a win as it gives pure unvalidated faith - based preference a credibility equal with validated evidence, and that has to be wrong.
Gosh, it looks so hectoring and deprecating and personal but it isn't intended to be. It really is important to decide how to think about this stuff. Preferred selected belief, demanding disproof of unsubstantiated preferred belief, dismissal of substantiated evidence on the basis of 'people have been wrong before'. People have to be made aware that these issues are not just semantics or philosophical technicalities. They are important.
Often it takes listening to the right people, ones who you can relate to.
Cool. I relate pretty well to the people who have personal revelation that god(s) are imaginary. So we both follow your instructions and listen to people we can relate to, both with the same amount of "evidence", and yet we come to totally opposite conclusions. See the problem now?
Quote:
No two stories are quite the same but there are commonalities and somethings that just make sense to you.
No religion has a majority of the world's population as members. Now what?
Quote:
They don't agree with the "evidencce" or the bible is wrong.
Or more realistically, there is no evidence and they're just being consistent - applying the same level of skepticism to god claims as they do to anything else. Believers do the same thing to the "evidence" for other religions, they just have a blind spot for their own.
√ Abiogenesis is theoretically feasible and so saying that it cannot happen is simply false -worse - it is dishonest because it is ignoring feasibility and insisting that it cannot happen. This is not just ignorance but dishonesty.
√ We know how the earth, moon, planets, stars, galaxies and all the rest of it came about. That is, we can explain it without the need for a god.
√ The attempt to argue that it is all arranged to suit us is back to front and the need for a number of accidents suggests strongly that we have actually been lucky.
√ ...denial of evidence is not evidence of anything but intellectual dishonesty.
Ah yes..nicely done! And indisputable to boot! Regardless, most Christians and theists here will press on regardless in their persistent and intransigent denialism, and refuse to address any of our points head-on, one at a time. As I've now asserted quite a number of times, there is an inherent and determined inability to answer any direct and pointed question(s) simply because the Christian-biased debater actually fully realizes the predicament this will inevitably place them in: to wit...
The factual and evidenced truth is inevitable, and to honestly answer a question like, for example,: "Is there any possible validity to the research to date on, say, abiogenesis that warrants that it just might be true?'
Result?
No answer. Silence. Deflective off-topic comments. Ad hominems. Topic changing. Insightful and truly Compelling commentary like "Well you're just wrong!" or "Millions of other believers prove this is the only right answer!" and so on... Dribble. Essentially all just noisy Dribble.
But NEVER... EVER... will we see an honest "Well OK: yes, you might be right. It is, after all, looking like there's more and more facts in support of your well-researched and reproducible theory "A" versus our doggedly persistent and stubbornly maintained idea that some supernatural and as-yet-unseen entity simply waved His wand and it all just.... "Poof".... appeared (out of NOTHING, by the way..) in just a few days. Oh, and that entity would have to have placed other more recently discovered evidence, like fossilized dinosaurs and million-year-old varves, simply to LOOK exactly like they'd evolved over eons, as your research so carefully presented here suggests. And to think that we Christians have always maintained that He ddi this all just to test and mess with our faith!
Pretty funny, huh? Well, now, as you've no so carefully presented to us, I must agree with you: that is an unsubstantiated and truly foolish hypothesis on our part!"
That humble response, which, btw, is very typical of so many scientists when they have been shown an alternate idea, a revised interpretation, or a new "angle" on an old theory, along with validated and credible research results, is in fact SOP (standard operating procedure) in the scientific, philosophical and logic-based thinkers' communities.
However, it sure tain't-ah gonna happen from our stubborn and oddly silent Christian friends, now is it, my fellow humble thinkers?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
√ It really is important to decide how to think about this stuff.
√ People have to be made aware that these issues are not just semantics or philosophical technicalities.
√They are important.
You betcha they're critically important, AEREQUIPA! This is not just a personally motivated matter of combative attitude, being inflexibly argumentative or stubbornly egotistical, though that seems to be the motivator on many Christian challengers who post here with no intention of even considering the well-presented and technically supported arguments of others.
The whole shamoozle of unsubstantiated but desperately retained false beliefs presents our entire global citizenry with a significant challenge to our species' future survival, our intellectual improvement and our ability to cope with the realities and problems inherent with an unchecked global population growth [noting the RC Church's ideas on genetic research and birth control...].
Absent modern educational standards and the ability to think critically through the growing rush of impending issues and concepts of the day, we're a doomed society and species, as so many so-called "lessors" have proven in their past.
By comparison, we stumbling in-fighting and myth-dependent faith-based hominids will be but a sad & short footnote in the eventual evolution {small "e", btw... no infighting over semantics, please!} of a significantly more adaptable and intellectually wholesome species, and thus nothing like so any of us, but more like this (an early rendition to be sure; more of a simple technology demonstrator for now, but look back just a mere 5 years, and these two weren't even out on the court floor at all yet!...)...
Such a non-carbon-based but responsive and welf-reproducing and self-improving life form will likely show an essentially incorruptible mutual (i.e.: shared...) intellect and respect that allows for uncontaminated thinking conjoined with a wholesome ability to support truly rational conclusions, and finally: to support the immediate promulgation of better knowledge and how it was achieved.
This ill no doubt be conjoined with an innate ability to respond positively (rather than reflexively with a so-well documented and well-trained & parrotized knee-jerk combativeness) to new and well-evidenced information, scientifically and/or logically generated from within a truly unfettered mind and community.
Yup; all logically attainable and outstanding goals to achieve, to support and to thus to complement via each other's unique individualities...
Oh well... We can only hope, huh? That is... once we've finally and thoroughly stomped out the hide-bound and stereotyped quasi-pseudo-thinking failed-logic modes of our chanting faith-based and fully parrotized friends!
Polly want a new idea to chew on? ANY new ideas at all?
It's absurd. I mean the idea that posters here are doing anything but exchanging personal views and opinions with the few others who elect to spend some free time here. The BELIEF that anyone is changing minds, having an impact or engaging in discussions that have importance or relevance beyond their own computer screen is, of course, ridiculous, if not delusional. And certainly it is extremely naive.
In fact, it's justification for the many, many hours some of you spend here, supposedly "winning" debates and having a lasting impact. The truth is, you're having the same arguments over and over again, all of which shortly end up in the digital dumpster of the web, an enormous wasteland of nothing but ones and zeros.
Sure, you can tell yourself this folly has meaning and importance, and try and convince others of the canard. But really there is zero evidence of that. You have built up its importance in your own mind, to justify what you want to be true. Hmmmmm. Sounds familiar doesn't it? No wonder you folks are so familiar with the concept!
Ps: me, I'm having a delicious steak dinner tonight with old fraternity bros and playing golf at a lovely private club. Actual interaction with real, live human beings, in the outdoors. A novel concept for many of you, I'm sure.
Such activities are 10000 times more important than any nonsense that goes on here.
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.
