The God Delusion
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next  :| |:
LD4all » Lucid Lounge

#31:  Author: Tomothy PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
Quote:
For example if humans evolved from monkeys

Pretty sure the standard line is that humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor rather than humans from monkeys...

#32:  Author: Smeester PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
ah well the point still remains valid.

#33:  Author: P90X PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
Bombax wrote:

If you respond with further illogical arguments, I find no point in arguing with you, because then I know that you are arguing on an emotional level on which any conclusion can be made, instead of on a rational level where logical conclusions are made.


You knwo, you'd get a lot more recognition if, instead of making fun of everyone else for the fun of it, you actually argued! Now theres a though, argue back. This whole topic started because you said we should read some book, we read the book, and find out it's a piece of dung, we tell you it's a peice of dung and tell us our arguments against the book are illogical. We look at the book again and see the book is illogical. You mock us cause you must have more intelligence many different people with more experience, who know more then you do and probaly ever will.
Pshhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

hear that? Thats the sound of an ego deflating, now try to do that with yours befor you post in this topic again.

Now provide arguments for your book and for science that disproves God and intelligent design in general, or don't post in this topic at all, we are here for intelligent debate, and to share our point of views, we cannot prove half the stuff we say, i'll bet 10$ that you can't absolutly prove what you say either.

Now try to have a post where you argue for yourself instead of mocking people wayyyyyy smarter than you.

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)

#34:  Author: Bombax PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
Smeester wrote:

1. species in between - There are no animals in between today's known species. For example if humans evolved from monkeys there would have, at some point had to be something in between monkeys and humans. Is there any reason why all those species would have died off today? And even if they did we haven't found any remains of them. <that isn't entirely true, as i have heard that they have found few things they classify in between; but shouldn't there be millions of them?
No. When a recombination of genes occurs which is superior to the current generation's genes, then those genes will gradually spread through the generation's individuals until practically a new species or variation dominates the population. In other words: The ape ancestor that was our and the modern monkeys' ancestor's could simply not spread his genes enough, because they were inferior, versus the new proto-humans and proto-modern-monkeys to survive for generations ahead. This can be and has been proven through genetic algorithm simulations in which this effect is observed.

Quote:
2. The evolution of sex - assuming we came from single celled organisms, at one point we would have had to come from budding (splitting into two identical organisms) to our sexual reproduction. Are you going to tell me that a male and a female evolved at the same time.
Do you really mean to tell us that you don't think hundreds of scientific papers published in scientific journals have been written on this very subject?

Quote:
Science is generally based on proof, the thing is there is no proof for the existence of the universe.
Science cannot per definition provide an explanation for everything - there are still mountains and mountains of unanswered questions (for example, in physics, why there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe). In addition, old theorems are constantly corrected to more accurately predict reality, and thus science is forever changing. Thus, we still do not know if there is evidence "for the existence of the universe", but neither does science have to provide one to remain valid, which it is.

Quote:
Now theres a though, argue back. This whole topic started because you said we should read some book, we read the book, and find out it's a piece of dung, we tell you it's a peice of dung and tell us our arguments against the book are illogical
That is not how the topic started. Regardless, you (meaning "you" as a group) have thus failed to provide valid, logical evidence why the book "is a piece of dung" - I have "argued back" by explaining why these arguments are invalid, and thus do not form a valid opinion.
Quote:
We look at the book again and see the book is illogical.
Provide evidence for why it is illogical, and I will listen.
Quote:
You mock us cause you must have more intelligence many different people with more experience, who know more then you do and probaly ever will.
Non sequitur, wrong cause, and appeal to emotion for one of your premises. Even if I would mock you (which I don't), why would the cause be that "must have mor intelligence"? Provide evidence that this is the cause. In addition, an inconsistent comparison, because you are comparing knowledge from experience and knowledge from "intelligence", which is invalid.
Quote:
hear that? Thats the sound of an ego deflating, now try to do that with yours befor you post in this topic again.
Argumentum ad hominem.
Quote:
Now provide arguments for your book and for science that disproves God and intelligent design in general, or don't post in this topic at all, we are here for intelligent debate, and to share our point of views, we cannot prove half the stuff we say, i'll bet 10$ that you can't absolutly prove what you say either.
I can prove what I say, because I am using logical reasoning. Emotional arguments are invalid in reasoning. In addition - the burden of proof of God does not lie on me, but on the person that theorizes God. (To explain this with Russel's Teapot; suppose I told you there was a teapot orbiting earth, which we cannot detect because our telescopes are too weak. If I told you to disprove that, you couldn't, of course, which is why the burden of proof lies on you, not me)
Quote:
Sorry for the insulting posts mods, but the guy was driving me crazy and i just had to get my message through, this won't be a habit and i'll only pull it off once in a blue moon, and you know how rare those are
Appeal to flattery. Yes, that is a logical fallacy; by flattering others you try to gain support for your arguments, even though the content of the argument may be completely incorrect.)


Last edited by Bombax on Thu 17 Sep, 2009; edited 3 times in total

#35:  Author: Fallen Youth PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
YEA,YEA wink go danielns13 ^^

#36:  Author: Wond3rland PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
God. Prove it? I am saying this. "God is the intelligence behind coincidence. Trees give off oxygen, absorbing carbon. We absorb oxygen and give off carbon." You see the design in that. The over all intricacy of the universe is astounding with a persons eyes opened. A male and a female come together to create life. God becomes less distinguished once the small miracles are taken for granted. Water falling from the sky. That's God. The intelligence it takes to create a habitable planet with cyclical nature laws providing all the necessary resources. Plants growing off sunlight. Food growing from the ground. The fact light refracts every color in the spectrum. All our scientific knowledge and discoveries of the last century are a testimony to God's magnificence.
Your human body is a wonderful piece of art. Thought, blood stream, nervous system, emotions... consciousness.

"The Big Bang is correct. God Pulled the Trigger."

#37:  Author: Bombax PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
Wond3rland wrote:
God. Prove it? I am saying this....
Regardless of what you say it is not necessarily correct. Provide evidence that God exists, instead of claiming that God exists because you say it.

#38:  Author: Tomothy PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
@Bombax: Why don't you provide some evidence that God doesn't exist?

#39:  Author: Bombax PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
I just said why above, and apparently you did not read it:

Bombax wrote:
In addition - the burden of proof of God does not lie on me, but on the person that theorizes God. (To explain this with Russel's Teapot; suppose I told you there was a teapot orbiting earth, which we cannot detect because our telescopes are too weak. If I told you to disprove that, you couldn't, of course, which is why the burden of proof lies on you, not me)

#40:  Author: Tomothy PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
Sorry, you're right I did miss that. On the other hand we are talking about a book in which Dawkins attempts to disprove the existence of God.

I haven't come here to proselytize or convert anyone, but your suggestion that it's a good book led me to assume (perhaps erroneously) that you believe such an endeavor is possible or worthwhile.

I can't satisfactorily prove the existence of God and I'm not sure such a thing is even possible. In any case I have no intention of trying.

#41:  Author: Fallen Youth PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
this is turning into one heated debate!! ^^

i wish i were smart enough to join thu cry

#42:  Author: underscore PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
I feel like the conversation has strayed entirely from the original debate: whether or not "The God Delusion" is worth reading. That being said though, I really don't think that's going to derail the current topic .

Bombax, I understand your opposition to Argument from Design. It's simply not a compelling argument for God's existence. It looks great and makes sense... but only if you're either (1) already a believer or (2) of a more simple and less questioning faith than inquisitive philosophers such as yourself. As a Catholic, I look at nature and see God's handiwork in it, and it's awesome; however, some non-believers look around and see the wonders of science and evolution, and it's pretty cool for them too. The bottom line is that looking at something in nature and saying, "look at how complex this is! See how it exists in harmony with its surroundings!" simply isn't enough proof for a non-believer to say, "God must have made this!"

Bombax wrote:
In addition - the burden of proof of God does not lie on me, but on the person that theorizes God. (To explain this with Russel's Teapot; suppose I told you there was a teapot orbiting earth, which we cannot detect because our telescopes are too weak. If I told you to disprove that, you couldn't, of course, which is why the burden of proof lies on you, not me)

This seems easily reversible to me. From my point of view, you're theorizing that God does not exist, and in that case the burden of proof rests upon YOU, doesn't it? We can toss that burden back and forth, but it's not going to get us very far, is it? So instead, I would like to pose a different, more specific question to you...

As someone who evidently does not believe in the existence of a "God" in any form, how would you refute Thomas Aquinas's Argument from Causality (explained below)?

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


Also, I feel like I've got to address a post from the previous page that didn't get much attention...
Abren wrote:
Believers, give me a break. If you want to test your faith, read Dan Brown's 'Angels and demons'. a great novel. taught me a lot about God. There's probably no God. so stop worrying and enjoy your life

I've read Angels and Demons. It's is a work of fiction... you know that, right? Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoyed reading it, but just because it's written by a former Catholic does NOT mean that it is an authoritative work that fully explains/displays God or Catholicism in a correct and complete manner. It's just a story that happens to draw lightly from history and religion (for example, the Iluminati did exist long ago in history). Hardly something that constitutes a "test of faith".

#43:  Author: EllyEve PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
mattias... wrote:
I don't really have the patience for god discussions but I was just wondering if anyone here has seen Zeitgeist? (the first part, at least) what are your thoughts?

http://www.ld4all.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33992 (thread bump! grin )

Smeester wrote:
even if they did we haven't found any remains of them... shouldn't there be millions of them?

Not necessarily. The conditions for fossilization are a lot rarer than most people would think, so fossil evidence is patchy. They look impressive when people can wire them together, great to illustrate/represent what life was probably like way back when, but fossils are not the basis for evolution theory-- taxonomy is the basis.

Quote:
2. The evolution of sex - assuming we came from single celled organisms, at one point we would have had to come from budding (splitting into two identical organisms) to our sexual reproduction. Are you going to tell me that a male and a female evolved at the same time.

Since we're talking about evolution, that gives a loooong lot of time. It isn't that hard a nudge to get from cells that perform binary fission and mitosis, like you described, to ones that can perform meiosis. Protists, for example-- single celled, or in colonies with no tissue specialization, still do meiosis.

Some life forms that we can extrapolate haven't changed as much as other evolving life forms-- like barnacles, for example-- primitive life forms, well, some are hermaphroditic. Other varieties of barnacles seem to have found it more favorable to specialize, so they do have what can roughly be considered "males" and "females"... but, the males spend their lives embedded in the females like an organ that's also a being of its own. Not a big leap to think that the barnacles' umpt cousins a billion times removed, would be nudged towards a form of species that had full individual beings distinctly specialized into males and females.


The rest of this will just be my fanciful keyboard-mashing. To conform to gender-binary as we understand it, the sexes must evolved together in parallel or there wouldn't be one to define the other-- so, let's roughly consider us a hermaphrodite that split. But, if I were to revert evolution theory into a modern creation myth, females seemed to have come first. Human embryos show not to be gender-neutral-- until/unless the sperm's Y chromosome sparks a masculinization, the embryo follows a female template. Men have nipples. All the DNA in a zygote may be half taken from the mother and half from the father, but the cellular organelles like mitochondria are all taken from the mother.

Quote:
Science is generally based on proof, the thing is there is no proof for the existence of the universe.

I define proof as a series of statements used to convince another mathematician that a given statement is true. I suppose Existence Of The Universe isn't proven, because... it's an axiom.

At that, Computer Simulation/Dream sounds very appealing.


Last edited by EllyEve on Thu 17 Sep, 2009; edited 4 times in total

#44:  Author: Fallen Youth PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
ive noticed alot of oppssition,u know people taking sisde because of thier religion.really to be hones i dont see why the whole "oooh ur a catholic and im an athiest so ur my enemy",has to be involved in this whay cant we all just be the same and still have a normal discussion about this book and please stop taking sides considering religion.

#45:  Author: underscore PostPosted: Thu 17 Sep, 2009
    ----
EllyEve wrote:
underscore wrote:
how would you refute Thomas Aquinas's Argument from Causality?

By his own argument, everything must have a cause, so... what caused God, the source of all cause? eh Infinite causes don't fit well, true, but it's just as much of a contradiction to say that if everything has a cause, then it must come from a cause that doesn't have a cause.

I don't think that it's hard to imagine an uncaused cause. I think that the easiest way to think about it is in terms of dominoes (though it's a helluva lot of dominoes that we're talking about here, going from the first "cause" ever to the present day). You have the classic setup: a row of dominoes (standing on end), spaced evenly apart so that when one falls, it hits the next, et cetera, et cetera. Now, within this system of dominoes, no single domino can cause itself to fall, right? We covered this within Aquinas's proof. Now, in relation to the dominoes, you are God. You are, in the terms of this experiment, an uncaused cause; you are not a domino, and you don't need a domino to fall on you to allow you to knock down other dominoes. You cause the first domino to fall, and a chain reaction ensues.

I realize that this isn't an entirely satisfying answer for some people. To just say that God is some infinite entity outside of the rules and logic of the known universe... well, yeah, that seems like a nice cover-all excuse, but I don't feel that it's that strange of a concept, either. I think of it in terms of a video game programmer: the programmer creates a video game where live players and NPCs can "live" and interact in an immersive, massive "world". But he creates his own rules -- gravity is similar to the moon's gravity; you must kill another character every 24 hours in order for you to survive; the sun revolves around the earth. Does this mean that he must be subject to his game's rules? No. Unless he creates a character and plays the game himself, he exists outside of the game and is therefore not subject to his own rules. In the same way, God is outside of the universe, space, and time because he created them, and is not bound within his own creation except when he chooses to be (Jesus Christ). Again, this probably isn't a fully satisfying or perfect analogy for everyone, but... well, it's my best attempt at articulating what I've come to believe as true.

Scarface wrote:
ive noticed alot of oppssition,u know people taking sisde because of thier religion.really to be hones i dont see why the whole "oooh ur a catholic and im an athiest so ur my enemy",has to be involved in this whay cant we all just be the same and still have a normal discussion about this book and please stop taking sides considering religion.

Thank you!!! Debating religion doesn't mean that we have to be antagonistic, folks, and I'd like to apologize if I've written anything that you would find directly insulting/counter-productive so far. I really didn't mean it to be offensive!



LD4all » Lucid Lounge


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next  :| |:
Page 3 of 11
printed from the LD4all.com lucid dreaming forum. Content copyrighted by the author.
Lucid dreamers unite! visit LD4all.com