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.
Or, as I said, that sensible. The number of failures in human "common sense" is massive, especially when it comes to concepts of the very large, the very small, or situations where temporal concepts break down or do not apply.
Test it sometime. Ask someone in a pub how tall a piece of paper would be if you folded it in half 100 times. The biggest answer I ever got was "As high as this pub". The ACTUAL answer is so large that light itself would take millennia to travel its length.
So yes, while it might seem "natural" for you to ask certain questions as you claim... that does not make those questions good ones, valid ones, or useful ones and one would do well to look at the built in assumptions behind asking them.... such as the assumption that it is "something" rather than "Nothing" that requires explanation.
I'm just trying to get an honest answer out of you. You said earlier: "It's the underlying tenets, laws, parameters and such of the universe that indicate design." One of these parameters you claim indicate design is pi. Right? So it follows that you believe that once upon a time a deity sat down and decided that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter should be about 3.14159 or whatever measure this deity used. I mean, you believe that if this deity had decided that the ratio should be exactly two or four our universe would have been different. Right?
A deity "sat down"? Did I really say that? Hmmmmm, sounds made up.
You are engaged in the silly exercise of postulating about the actual mechanics of the design process. As if I know. As if anyone does. Why debate about something that is unknowable, regardless of ones position?
I accept many things without full understanding. Don't you? Why does cotton feel better than man made fibers? I don't know, but G-d sure has us beat there, huh? Haha
Or, as I said, that sensible. The number of failures in human "common sense" is massive, especially when it comes to concepts of the very large, the very small, or situations where temporal concepts break down or do not apply.
Test it sometime. Ask someone in a pub how tall a piece of paper would be if you folded it in half 100 times. The biggest answer I ever got was "As high as this pub". The ACTUAL answer is so large that light itself would take millennia to travel its length.
So yes, while it might seem "natural" for you to ask certain questions as you claim... that does not make those questions good ones, valid ones, or useful ones and one would do well to look at the built in assumptions behind asking them.... such as the assumption that it is "something" rather than "Nothing" that requires explanation.
Boy, half drunk pub patrons, an excellent environment for theory testing. Did you mean folding or doubling??? Sure you aren't confusing the issue? Lol
Imagine, sometimes emotions overrule so called common sense. Such as when a person sacrifices his life for another. Or interrupts their day to help a stranger. Isn't that awful? If only we could eliminate such wasteful activities from the human condition, eh? Who needs a sense of humor or desire for adventure when common sense should really meet all our needs...
Boy, half drunk pub patrons, an excellent environment for theory testing. Did you mean folding or doubling??? Sure you aren't confusing the issue? Lol
Nice dodge. You can ignore my last reply to you by replying to a completely different post from me. Every trick in the book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrum22
Imagine, sometimes emotions overrule so called common sense.
They do indeed. We are an emotional species prone to falling for arguments from emotion. However when those arguments are proven wanting or unsubstantiated over and over again it is generally a good idea to ditch the premise. The vast majority of apologetics I hear around the idea of god tend to be arguments from emotion.... how people WANT there to be a god or NEED there to be a meaning to life or how they can not live with the idea that bad people do not face divine justice in some after life.
Worth pointing out therefore that it does not matter how much one wants, needs or hopes something is true. That will not magically make it so. A simple point but one a depressingly large number of our species seems oblivious to.
You are engaged in the silly exercise of postulating about the actual mechanics of the design process. As if I know. As if anyone does. Why debate about something that is unknowable, regardless of ones position?
So you know absolutely nothing about the design process but still claim that something must have been designed because it appears to you to have been designed? "One of these parameters you claim indicate design is pi. Right? So it follows that you believe that once upon a time a deity sat down and decided that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter should be about 3.14159 or whatever measure this deity used. I mean, you believe that if this deity had decided that the ratio should be exactly two or four our universe would have been different. Right?" Do you think it would be possible for you to actually answer this?
OK: again you put both words and ideas into other's mouths. Rather, what if I asked you to provide me with the exact area(s) in which, let's say, Evolution does NOT work? (This is aimed at those here who ardently deny it's existence, that "there's simply not one iota of evidence for it!" [sound of mind slamming shut])
Which SPECIFIC element(s), which lab-demo'd and well-documented processes, which key outcome, is falisifiable and deniable?
This is the exact sort of question I have asked, repeatedly. Don't try to dodge it by claiming it's biased or rigged. It's simply an honest question based in the opening shots fired across my bow by some scienctifically illiterate (obviously!) Christian apologists. It's nothing more than that. It's Not MY perspective, just A perspective.
And by all accounts, it is properly due an honest answer. Nothing less. If this were a simple question asked in an adjudicated forum with impartial judges as witnesses, such answers would result in an immediate loss. Sadly for your side, the recurring NON ANSWERS and the flurry of actively retreating minds, with nasty ad hominems tossed out as they beat their hasty retreat, arre the only responses that I and others here, such as Nozz, have EVER received.
But even that inappropriate response is often garnished with the sort of unnecessary combative and hostile stuff you just posted. Why? Are honest questions that threatening to your perspective and beliefs?
So. My point is again made. Christians are incapable of a simple honest answer when they know damned well that to answer it (with honesty) is to corner themselves. And why is that? Because they also damned well know that the evolving science (small e) absolutely proves that Evolution does happen, has happened, and also is the only device that explains the diversity of life that has occurred on this planet. Nothing alternate to that Godly Insta-Poofy stuff, all of it done in a single day and "They's no damned evolving goin' on rown heah, Praise The Lawd!", nonsense is EVER allowed out of their minds or mouths.
So, by default, esp. if those judges WERE really adjudicating here, you'd all lose. After all, if you won't even try to answer a simple question, what ARE we to conclude?
Unless, that is, you Redrum22, want to take an honest stab at answering my simple question? Yes? No?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrum22
Talk about putting words in mah mouth! Exactly where have I argued that evolution did not occur? Please show me. You can't, because I haven't. You ASSUME, because of your preconceived notions. But you would be wrong....
I completely support and believe in evolution. I just believe it was designed by a creator at the outset. I mean, what a brilliant idea! Imagine creating something that improves itself on its own! Imagine building a machine that made improvements to itself. I doubt we will ever Create something so brilliant as evolution.
So you see, I believe G-d and evolution are imminently compatible. No question, no doubt. I just think it had a helping hand from the get go, and perhaps even some along the way. Hard to prove, but certainly the brilliance of the evolutionary process isurely points to a higher being. Or maybe you know other systems that improve THEMSELVES, on their own.
And my gracious, what a fantastic way for creating mankind while largely concealing the divine intent.
Your argument, that the whole system just came about natch, natch, is naive and ludicrous, IMO. I mean, we have gone from something that literally did not exist, then to a one cell org, to being probably the most complex and advanced system in the universe. All by our lil ole selves!?!?! Dang, that is some craazzzyyyy shhheeeoootttt.
So you see, the utter brilliance of evolution supports the existence of G-d, not the reverse. You have been making an argument for his existence the entire time yet had no idea! Now that is funny as H E Double L...
This is the point you seem to assiduously avoid, rifle. There is no need to accept your euphemistic interpretations of our ignorance (random, natural, survival instinct, emergent, self-organizing, self-reproducing, etc.) to accept evolution. They are the completely unsupportable and unscientific aspects of the theory which when NOT accepted make evolution completely compatible with God.
More, common sense is not always reliable. Common sense has often had to be corrected by better information and better reasoning. Generally I prefer to avoid 'common sense' as it is called as it too often means innate or inherited common prejudices, widespread misperceptions, misinformation and misdirection and common popular fallacies, superstitions and urban legends. Checking the facts and running the logical rule over it is never a bad idea.
Nice dodge. You can ignore my last reply to you by replying to a completely different post from me. Every trick in the book.
They do indeed. We are an emotional species prone to falling for arguments from emotion. However when those arguments are proven wanting or unsubstantiated over and over again it is generally a good idea to ditch the premise. The vast majority of apologetics I hear around the idea of god tend to be arguments from emotion.... how people WANT there to be a god or NEED there to be a meaning to life or how they can not live with the idea that bad people do not face divine justice in some after life.
Worth pointing out therefore that it does not matter how much one wants, needs or hopes something is true. That will not magically make it so. A simple point but one a depressingly large number of our species seems oblivious to.
Trick? I just respond to what seems most "respond-able". Meanwhile, you ignored my pub patron comment, and the fold vs double question. Pot, meet kettle....
Some people need the love of a significant other, or the caring remarks of a friend. Do you also dismiss these as wanting? After all, lovers and friends often disappoint, or are fleeting, thus pain ensues. Shoulnt we know better by now to abandon these often harmful and painful notions?
Why is it depressing that people want or need a meaning to their life? Even if you don't believe there is such I don't understand why you would possibly find this depressing or upsetting!?
Life lived based solely on logic is not one worth living. I get excited when I hit a great golf shot, when the next one may be lousy, and it will not change my life one iota. Guess I'm just not logical enough to know better.
So you know absolutely nothing about the design process but still claim that something must have been designed because it appears to you to have been designed? "One of these parameters you claim indicate design is pi. Right? So it follows that you believe that once upon a time a deity sat down and decided that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter should be about 3.14159 or whatever measure this deity used. I mean, you believe that if this deity had decided that the ratio should be exactly two or four our universe would have been different. Right?" Do you think it would be possible for you to actually answer this?
Actually PI is a pretty divine number. It's never ending, as far as we know. Kind of amazing. A whole number like 2 or 4 is to you perhaps more "logical"? Why?
I don't know the answer to your question Artie. I think if the mathematical tenets and laws we know were different, the universe might well be different, but I havent run any siimulatuions. Regardless, such tests would prove nothing, absolutely, now would they?
You are attempting to humanize G-d too much. It is an incorrect way of thinking, and is perhaps a key reason you are so befuddled and angry about the whole "god thing".
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.
