If the universe requires a creator then the creator should require a creator = religion is made-up
Sort:
I can't buy a win!!! Haha! Good Gossshhh! I love to learn however! Even the hard way! Good night and it's been civil in here. No loose cannon insulting that I,saw or paid any attention to. God bless
The fact that the world and things in the world do not explain themselves are contingent outside of themselves. For example, you and I are contingent insofar as we both had parents, we eat and drink and we breathe. All are signs that we don't contain within ourselves the reason for our own existence. In short, we are non self-explanatory. Thence, we must now look for extrinsic causes. Let's say that these extrinsic causes also depend on something outside themselves, forces outside themselves to explain their existence. We still haven't found an answer yet. Now, we must appeal further and further and further. What you cannot do is appeal infinitely or indefinitely to other contingent things because you will not find what you are looking for, which is, something to explain our own existence or the existence of the universe today. What you have to come to eventually is some reality which is non-contingent, which does carry within itself the very reason for its own existence, that Whose very nature is to be. This is what we logically identify as God. Thus, God is the non-contingent ground for contingency. And there is yet another step. That which whose very nature is to be cannot be limited or imperfect in its being insofar as its nature is to be. It must therefore be the fullness of existence, nothing but existence. It must be that which is properly unlimited in its being. What it cannot be is some finite and finally contingent force within the universe. Hawking's absurd supposal has more to do with Hawking's freakishly and nigh-well sovereign claim to be a creature that not only thinks, but is the oracle of non-contingency to lay such a propertied and yet bombastically ridiculous statement. Gravity is certainly an impressive force, law and power. But gravity is finite, it is variable -- gravity in itself is not something that exists by the power of its own essence. It is patently ludicrous to assert that anything like it within the universe is itself the cause of the being of the universe. In Hawking's book, "The Grand Design" an author writes: "In his new book, The Grand Design, Hawking sets out a comprehensive theses that the scientific framework leaves no room for a deity." Science qua science is not going to find God. God is not one reality among many. God is not a force within the measurable, observable cosmos. Again, the problem here is scientism -- the tendency to reduce all legitimate knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge. What is terribly disconcerting is that Hawking has succumb to this very problem.
Muhammad is an evil chap
bgjettguitar wrote:
The fact that the world and things in the world do not explain themselves are contingent outside of themselves. For example, you and I are contingent insofar as we both had parents, we eat and drink and we breathe. All are signs that we don't contain within ourselves the reason for our own existence. In short, we are non self-explanatory. Thence, we must now look for extrinsic causes. Let's say that these extrinsic causes also depend on something outside themselves, forces outside themselves to explain their existence. We still haven't found an answer yet. Now, we must appeal further and further and further. What you cannot do is appeal infinitely or indefinitely to other contingent things because you will not find what you are looking for, which is, something to explain our own existence or the existence of the universe today. What you have to come to eventually is some reality which is non-contingent, which does carry within itself the very reason for its own existence, that Whose very nature is to be. This is what we logically identify as God. Thus, God is the non-contingent ground for contingency. And there is yet another step. That which whose very nature is to be cannot be limited or imperfect in its being insofar as its nature is to be. It must therefore be the fullness of existence, nothing but existence. It must be that which is properly unlimited in its being. What it cannot be is some finite and finally contingent force within the universe. Hawking's absurd supposal has more to do with Hawking's freakishly and nigh-well sovereign claim to be a creature that not only thinks, but is the oracle of non-contingency to lay such a propertied and yet bombastically ridiculous statement. Gravity is certainly an impressive force, law and power. But gravity is finite, it is variable -- gravity in itself is not something that exists by the power of its own essence. It is patently ludicrous to assert that anything like it within the universe is itself the cause of the being of the universe. In Hawking's book, "The Grand Design" an author writes: "In his new book, The Grand Design, Hawking sets out a comprehensive theses that the scientific framework leaves no room for a deity." Science qua science is not going to find God. God is not one reality among many. God is not a force within the measurable, observable cosmos. Again, the problem here is scientism -- the tendency to reduce all legitimate knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge. What is terribly disconcerting is that Hawking has succumb to this very problem.
Sometimes you just have to accept "i want an explanation for this, and that, but i'm not just getting one, i just have to deal with the thing being unexplained".
God just isnt an explanation. If just something you make up because you so badly want an explanation. And yeah, then you can invent an X that explains it, which you cannot proove, so you dont even know your X exists or not. This is no explanation really.
Religious thinking is always like "you cannot explain this so god MUST exist."
No, nothing must exist just because you want it to, because you need its explanation power. We are just humans, and we cannot explain everything.
bgjettguitar wrote:
Amen 'Power_2_the_people' ----- (Intelligent Design) Darwinian evolution has always postulated that all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor, the so-called “tree of life.” Initially, this common ancestry argument relied on physical similarities. Thus, because chimpanzees look a lot like humans, Darwinian evolutionists thought we were closely related. Then researchers discovered and began cataloging DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid), the so-called “code” that all life uses for genetic information storage. New research is showing that many different biological systems share more similarities than were previously thought. Darwinian evolutionists once again argue this shows decent from a common ancestor. But this is a logical fallacy called a non sequitur (it does not follow). This information could just as easily be explained by a common design. For example, most automobiles have certain characteristics in common with each other. Most are made of metal and move via wheels. Does this mean most automobiles were made by copying the very first car over and over, each time integrating some slight modification? No. We know that automobiles are designed using metal because this material has been found to be the best material for their purpose. It is the same with wheels. So it could be with nature. Biological systems all must function in the environment around them so it isn’t surprising that many biological systems share common characteristics. Another example is the electronic computer. All computers today use binary code (a series of 1’s and 0’s) to function, no matter what system they use to operate, what they are physically made of, or what they can do. Some computers and computer programs even share some of the same binary coding. A word processing program on a personal computer may share some of the same code as a throttle-control computer on a jet fighter. Does this mean that all computers are physical copies (with variations arising from mutations of their binary codes) of the very first computer? No. Different programs use different sequences of binary code to operate, but often share similar code. So far no one has been able to come up with a better system to (Intelligent Design) make computers function. So it could be with biological systems. Biologists often say that DNA looks very much like computer code. Does the presence of similar DNA coding in different biological systems mean they are all directly descended from a common ancestor? Perhaps, but it could just as easily mean these DNA sequences were designed this way because it is the best system to make biological systems function. Finally, the idea of the common ancestry has been dealt a blow in recent years when it was discovered evolutionary “trees” based upon one gene often sharply conflict with trees based upon a different gene.
1: There NO EVIDENCE of a design guy. He doesnt show up in ny readings, he hasnt been photographed, he hasnt been recorde. Furthermore, there's zero explanation of how the designer "does" his thing. Does he reach into each mother's womb and designs her child, how?
Evolution theory and design theory arent two theories on the same level. Design theory operates with PURE UNSUBSTANTIATED INVENTIONS, evolution theory does not.
2: If you deny that similarities between organism mean common descent, you are in fact denying that DNA-tests can be used to dertermine for instance parenthood.
Its basic common sense, that if you have two black parents, and you need to decide which of two children, a black and an asian child is their offspring, then people say "gee it must be the black child, because of bigger similarity".
DNA tests work basically in the same way, very similar DNA = relatedness.
This is by no means just something postulated, it has been tested by comparing DNA between people we know are related. And lo and behold - high similarity = relatedness.
Everyone knows that already, now you can just do it by DNA also and not just by a glance.
3: Organisms IN FACT does not look like they are designed. We carry many traits that are "bad design" and can only be explaied by evolutionary theory.
For instance, our knees are BAD DESIGN for upright walking, which is why many people get knee problems. The knees started out as being made for walking on all fours, then got adaptd to bipeda walking. Which is why they dont work so good.
A designer wanting to make knees for upright walking would not have used the plans for four legged walking knees and modified them a bit. Especially not an omnipotent designer lol. He would have made a new knee from the start.
Biology know TONS of these "semi good adaptations" with organisme carrying burdens in their makeup from their ancestors.
For instance, whales have vestiges of back legs.
Why would designer put a useless vestige of back legs into whales? since he according to design theory was set up producing an aquatic mammal with no back legs. Total mystery, no explanation.
With evolution theory, the whales bag legs are simply explained. Selection made the legs smaler, untill they were small enough so they didnt influence the whale's fitness. When they dont influence fitness, they can stay there forever, since evolution doesnt move towards "good design" but just towards "whatever is good enough to take care of itself and get offspring".
Exolution theory is BETTER, because it can explain the stuff it wants to explain, and design theory cannot.
Creative design people simply are just IGNORANT of these. You dont know about them because you never bothered to check what the theory you dont like is, and what facts it explains.
You simply havent arrived to the serious discussion where you know all the relevant things.
Sep 10, 2015
0
#866
Alex, do us all a favour and grow up. If they want to believe in their fairy, they can. Christianity gives many people great comfort. It is not up to us to try and break their bubble.
Sep 10, 2015
0
#867
alex-rodriguez wrote:
ilikecapablanca wrote:
Alex, do us all a favour and grow up. If they want to believe in their fairy, they can. Christianity gives many people great comfort. It is not up to us to try and break their bubble.
Mister, you can take your love for censorship and shove it. Grow up? You got a lot of nerve. You can stop being a childish wimp. Oh, pardon me, sir, I was simply trying to point out that arguing with theists is pointless. Childish wimp? I pick my battles, and I know that I'm not going to get anywhere arguing with theists. I don't go blundering into arguments that neither person can win.
Incidentally, if you want a snowball's chance in the Sahara of convincing anyone of anything, derogatory terms like "magic god fairy" and "wimp" have to go. Argue like a man, not like a primary school bully.
Should we also suck up to the Islamic State? The terrorists are creationists. Stop being a wimpy wimp. Suck up? No. I believe that they should be given a chance, just like Christians are. I think that everyone has a right to their opinion. I agree, when a---holes like Kim Davis shove their religion in other peoples' faces, there is a problem, but not all religious people do. You look like you're looking for a fight. Am I right?
American Christians harass and threaten biology teachers and ilikecapablanca wants everyone to suck up to these theocrats. No. Those are precisely the kind of person I loath. But nice try as far as making me look bad is concerned...
According to ilikecapablanca we should never talk about science because we might make the science deniers cry. Really? That's funny, I don't recall saying that. I detect a strawman...
You are worse than the lunatics you suck up to. Bahaaaaaaaaahahahaha! I believe that religion is a phase in human development... But of course, I forgot, you don't want my opinion. Whoops. Sorry, it won't happen again.
Sep 10, 2015
0
#868
Ah, you added a bit.
It is not child abuse. It is parents teaching children the best they know. How is that abuse?
Let them lie! We know the truth, and that's all that matters.
Sep 10, 2015
0
#869
Your whole argument seems to be one big generalization. Not all theists teach their kids to hate science...
alex-rodriguez wrote:
The fossil record that describes the transition from land animals to whales is complete. It shows a gradual shrinkage of the legs which are no longer necessary. It shows that ancestors of whales used to come back on land for the birth of baby whales. The fossil record shows the entire history of whale evolution, and it's all confirmed by DNA sequencing.
And like Raspberry pointed out, those useless leg bones are often found in modern whales completely separated from the rest of the skeleton.
The science deniers have no idea how much science they have to throw out so they can have their childish Magic Man fantasy.
The whale legs are just one example among thousands - probaby every single species existing has some "vestige" traits.
For instance human bodily hair, the small useless hairs we have on our arms and women dislike on their legs are vestiges of when we used to be hairy. The small hairs are useless now, they dont warm us or protect us or do anything, but they stay because the genes are there and there is not a strong evolution pressure to remove them.
If a designer wanted to create a hairless monkey - would he then say
1) lemme just put in the genes they need to give them hair all over and then turn them down to mae them naked"
2) or would he go "i wanna make them naked, so i will not use the hair genes at all.
for the car example before.
if you change a car so it doesnt have back doors anymore. you have a design for a four door cars and want to make a new cars with only two doors.
you remove the doors from the design alltogethe, you just delete it. because in design, you CAN start all over every time.
you dont just reduce their size, keeping a useless mini door or just weld the doors and paint them over to hide them or something. but this is exactly is how evolution works because evolution CANNOT start all over again. and this is also EXACTLY what the species look like.
and the creationists would KNOW the species looked like this if they ever bother to get serious and actually look at them.
Sep 10, 2015
0
#871
alex-rodriguez wrote:
Your problem, Mr. Wimp, is you think you're my boss.You tell me what words I am allowed to use and what words I can't use. No, no, you're quite wrong. I'm telling you what's polite...
You are not my boss. I do not work for you. So stop pretending you can censor people. Just offering advice. I'm trying to show you that you are not going to get anywhere with the attitude you have at the moment. If you want to be a wimpy wimp you can go ahead and do that. But you got a lot of nerve to pretend everyone else should be a wimp like you. Two things wrong with that statement. 1. I am not trying to make everyone a whimp. 2. I'm not a whimp. Nice try though. 
You wimps have my contempt. Drop dead. Well, rest assured, the feeling isn't mutual.
alex-rodriguez wrote:
"Evolution theory is BETTER, because it can explain the stuff it wants to explain, and design theory cannot."
Good stuff you wrote Raspberry_Yoghurt. I just want to point out "design theory" is not a scientific theory. It's not scientific period. The code word "design" really means "The Magic Man Did It". It's a childish fantasy for idiots. Let's stop using code words. Let's call it what it really is. Magic. Tons of magic. All invented to throw out science and replace science with a childish ridiculous magical fantasy.
Why can't anyone here accept theistic evolution? The most respectable churches accept it.
To say magic is ignorant because it denies God's holy nature so the word miracle must be used in that context. The Exodus wasn’t magic, it was a miracle, magic was what the oppressive Egyptian priests tried using against Moses, and the parallels describe the superiority of God's holy miracles over magic.
God was the very first inventor (in face he was the best one! I'd like you to try creating a universe or coherent, logical, and natural and unified order to the universe. It's one thing to know Newton's Laws but it's quite another to input and create them from scratch)
"
Incredible, the wimp says we should say nothing about people who brainwash children to hate science. The bible thumpers and terrorists love wimps like you"
Do you not believe in individual rights and that the state's sole function is to defend those rights and ensure the growth of a free enterprise system? The state's job isn't to educate people and does so with stolen money. Think about it: Coca-Cola purchases land to buy a factory, builds trucks, and hires labor to produce the soda. They have marketing people and executives and lots of layers of labor doing things from the assembly line worker all the way up to the CEO. Yet the state wants a cut of their profits and labor! They stole from both the workers (income tax) and the company itself (a host of corporate taxes). Intentions behind education may be good but it's done so with dirty money.
It is because of state regulations why we have so many monopolies, red tape for small businesses but free market competition for the established corporations. Government should but out and not play favorites in the market. Government way oversteps its bounds, arresting people on drug charges and ruining people's businesses for refusing to hire certain people. It is the owner's business, not the government's.
Sep 10, 2015
0
#874
alex-rodriguez wrote:
The wimp who loves censorship and who apparently thinks he is everyone's boss, thinks being nice to people who attack science education just might convince them to stop doing that.
I don't much care for the god-soaked but at least they don't think they're everyone else's boss. The wimps are part of the religious insanity problem. The wimps can shove it.
I'd appreciate it if you read my posts before making assumptions about me... Thanks!
Sep 10, 2015
0
#875
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
alex-rodriguez wrote:
"Evolution theory is BETTER, because it can explain the stuff it wants to explain, and design theory cannot."
Good stuff you wrote Raspberry_Yoghurt. I just want to point out "design theory" is not a scientific theory. It's not scientific period. The code word "design" really means "The Magic Man Did It". It's a childish fantasy for idiots. Let's stop using code words. Let's call it what it really is. Magic. Tons of magic. All invented to throw out science and replace science with a childish ridiculous magical fantasy.
Why can't anyone here accept theistic evolution? The most respectable churches accept it. "The most respectable churches accept theistic ___"
This kind of statement rarely gets a second glance from me...
To say magic is ignorant because it denies God's holy nature so the word miracle must be used in that context. The Exodus wasn’t magic, it was a miracle, magic was what the oppressive Egyptian priests tried using against Moses, and the parallels describe the superiority of God's holy miracles over magic.
God was the very first inventor (in face he was the best one! I'd like you to try creating a universe or coherent, logical, and natural and unified order to the universe. It's one thing to know Newton's Laws but it's quite another to input and create them from scratch)
"
Incredible, the wimp says we should say nothing about people who brainwash children to hate science. The bible thumpers and terrorists love wimps like you"
Do you not believe in individual rights and that the state's sole function is to defend those rights and ensure the growth of a free enterprise system? The state's job isn't to educate people and does so with stolen money. Think about it: Coca-Cola purchases land to buy a factory, builds trucks, and hires labor to produce the soda. They have marketing people and executives and lots of layers of labor doing things from the assembly line worker all the way up to the CEO. Yet the state wants a cut of their profits and labor! They stole from both the workers (income tax) and the company itself (a host of corporate taxes). Intentions behind education may be good but it's done so with dirty money.
It is because of state regulations why we have so many monopolies, red tape for small businesses but free market competition for the established corporations. Government should but out and not play favorites in the market. Government way oversteps its bounds, arresting people on drug charges and ruining people's businesses for refusing to hire certain people. It is the owner's business, not the government's.
Sep 10, 2015
0
#876
alex-rodriguez wrote:
Just offering advice? Your "grow up" isn't advice. It's an insult. I repeat, drop dead.
It seems to be the only way to get your attention. Now, I'm truly off to dinner this time...
alex-rodriguez wrote:
"Why can't anyone here accept theistic evolution?"
Because there is nothing theistic (aka magical) about science. Sticking magic into science is an insult to the world's scientists. Theistic evolutionists don't accept scientific facts. Instead they pollute science with magic.
You dare say that the Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope, two very well educated men, are superstitious and scientifically ignorant? Darwin himself was a devout Anglican who even seriously considered entering the priesthood.
It isn't magic but rather logical. If we divorce our reason from our faith then we lose touch with God and our inner-selves. Faith without reason is blind obedience, which contrary to many stereotypes God doesn't want. God desired reason based faith.
https://www.jewishideas.org/angel-shabbat/faith-reason-not-blind-faith
Why deny evolution when so much evidence is there? Likewise, why deny God when so much evidence is there (both historical and logical?) Jewish laws have remained such for thousands of years, all heard God speak to Moses on Mt.Sinai, leaving no room for misinterpretation. In other religions one guy would say, "God told me..." but then have rifts over minor nuances.
Who initiated the causal chain of events?
ilikecapablanca wrote:
Alex, do us all a favour and grow up. If they want to believe in their fairy, they can. Christianity gives many people great comfort. It is not up to us to try and break their bubble.
I actually agree. Religion is such is not a problem.
Irrationalism and anti-science is however. It's a real problem causing real bad things in the world.
A new form of anti-science in Europe is anti-vaccination people. Out of the same dumb blablabla way of thinking, "Let me just make up my mind without knowing even 1% of the relevant facts because if i dont know about them i can happily say my random bumble wumble and i wont know its nonsense"
They have managed to convince themselves that vacciations are bad.
The result is that you now have small epidemics of diseases that were eradicated by vaccination.
There was a measels outbreak in Berlin a while ago. Measels is a really nasty diseases for unvaccinated children. http://www.dw.com/en/berlin-measles-epidemic-reaches-new-high/a-18301149
So anti-science thinking is actually making people ILL with bad diseases, literally.
alex-rodriguez wrote:
But like I said earlier God wants us to think, the unthinking follower is just a stereotype. All of God's 613 laws and seven Noachide laws for Gentiles to follow have logical and coherent reasons for them. If there is no God then who handed Moses the commandments? Keep in mind an entire nation witnessed the event. What is the very first chain in the causal link?