If the universe requires a creator then the creator should require a creator = religion is made-up
Sort:
(Intelligent Design) Irreducible Complexity is an Intelligent Design challenge to naturalistic evolution’s explanation of the rise of complex life forms. --
• Naturalistic evolution teaches that new organisms do not suddenly arise, but come about gradually through beneficial mutations caused by natural selection. This process takes a very, very long time. Charles Darwin stated “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (On the Origin of Species, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964, pg. 189).---
The human eye dismantles & utter breaks down Darwin's theory.
When you argue against God, you are arguing against the Prime Intelligent Causation which makes you capable of arguing altogether. You're cutting off the branch you're sitting on. It cuts its own throat. Any who, there is a new marble chess set for sale at Sears for 200.00. It's pretty!!
Small feeble mind? Why do insulting? I can see right through you Lola. :) :)
bgjettguitar wrote:
(Intelligent Design) Irreducible Complexity is an Intelligent Design challenge to naturalistic evolution’s explanation of the rise of complex life forms. --
• Naturalistic evolution teaches that new organisms do not suddenly arise, but come about gradually through beneficial mutations caused by natural selection. This process takes a very, very long time. Charles Darwin stated “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (On the Origin of Species, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964, pg. 189).---
The human eye dismantles & utter breaks down Darwin's theory.
- nope because the eye can be formed in successive steps.......which proves irreducible complexity as a joke.
In the universe we perceive, causality is one of the fundamental rules. However, if a creator were to exist, the creator would exist in a seperate state of being in a realm/universe different to ours. In this universe, perhaps causality is not the same as we know. Perhaps in this seperate realm, things do not need creators to be created.
Tl;dr The creation must have a creator argument may not apply to God.
Lola, she outsmart you again, drpsholder and alex-rodriguez, don't match your tiny brain against her intelligence; you guys just look like fools. Like I say, a bull only see red and charge and not realizing how foolish they are. 
Pascal begins by painting a situation where both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human reason. So, supposing that reason cannot determine the truth between the two options, one must "wager" by weighing the possible consequences. Pascal’s assumption is that, when it comes to making the decision, no one can refuse to participate; withholding assent is impossible because we are already "embarked", effectively living out the choice.
We only have two things to stake, our "reason" and our "happiness". Pascal considers that if there is "equal risk of loss and gain" (i.e. a coin toss), then human reason is powerless to address the question of whether God exists. That being the case, then human reason can only decide the question according to possible resulting happiness of the decision, weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists and likewise in believing that God does not exist.
He points out that if a wager was between the equal chance of gaining two lifetimes of happiness and gaining nothing, then a person would be a fool to bet on the latter. The same would go if it was three lifetimes of happiness versus nothing. He then argues that it is simply unconscionable by comparison to bet against an eternal life of happiness for the possibility of gaining nothing. The wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. On the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose, you either gain nothing or lose everything. You are either unavoidably annihilated (in which case, nothing matters one way or the other) or lose the opportunity of eternal happiness. In note 194, speaking about those who live apathetically betting against God, he sums up by remarking, "It is to the glory of religion to have for enemies men so unreasonable..."
Inability to believe[edit]
Pascal addressed the difficulty that 'reason' and 'rationality' pose to genuine belief by proposing that "acting as if [one] believed" could "cure [one] of unbelief":
But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.
—Blaise Pascal, Pensées Section III note 233, Translation by W. F. Trotter
Analysis with decision theory[edit]
The possibilities defined by Pascal's Wager can be thought of as a decision under uncertainty with the values of the following decision matrix.
| God exists (G) | God does not exist (¬G) | |
|---|---|---|
| Belief (B) | +∞ (infinite gain) | −1 (finite loss) |
| Disbelief (¬B) | −∞ (infinite loss) | +1 (finite gain) |
Given these values, the option of living as if God exists (B) dominates the option of living as if God does not exist (~B), as long as one assumes a positive probability that God exists. In other words, the expected value gained by choosing B is greater than or equal to that of choosing ~B.
In fact, according to decision theory, the only value that matters in the above matrix is the +∞ (infinitely positive). Any matrix of the following type (where f1, f2, and f3 are all finite positive or negative numbers) results in (B) as being the only rational decision.[10]
| God exists (G) | God does not exist (¬G) | |
|---|---|---|
| Belief (B) | +∞ | f1 |
| Disbelief (¬B) | f2 | f3 |
Pascal was such a swindle :p
first in modern measure theory it is always assumed that 0 * +∞ = 0... (see for instance W.Rudin: complex and real analysis for a gentle introduction)
That means that if P(X=0)=0, P(X=1)=1, f(0)= +∞ and f(1)=0, then we still have E(f(X))=0.
Anyway in order to do anything useful with this we have to set carefully: who is P, who is X, what is that "god" and why on earth we should assign to the event "god exist" any probability value.
Probability expectations are only useful when you deal with repeated experiments and then when your theorem yields concrete phenomena, -like the fact that an average of many experimental values converges towards the expectation. But here there is possibly only one attempt.
Anyway as Pascal says himself: that doesn't prove anything!! (but we are supposed to have some interest in believing... see what I said :p)
@Collin20G, it is better to wager for God and you lose nothing but if you are wrong than your loses is bigger. The probability of being wrong is greater than if you believe in God existence. To say God doesn't exist is irrational, you would have to possess all the knowledge in the universe and I doubt you possess such knowledge. Evidence is God's creation and betting on God you are on the winning side.
bgjettguitar wrote:
(Intelligent Design) Irreducible Complexity is an Intelligent Design challenge to naturalistic evolution’s explanation of the rise of complex life forms. -- • Naturalistic evolution teaches that new organisms do not suddenly arise, but come about gradually through beneficial mutations caused by natural selection. This process takes a very, very long time. Charles Darwin stated “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (On the Origin of Species, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964, pg. 189).--- The human eye dismantles & utter breaks down Darwin's theory.
And after stating this, Darwin went on to offer a number of examples of attributes that would appear difficult to explain by successive, slight modifications and successfully explained them!
The evolution of the human eye is very well understood as is the evolution of eyes in general. Eyes have evolved in at least four different ways, leading to somewhat different results, and the various stages in each of these progressions is not only quite clear from the fossil record, but can be traced through genetic analysis. On top of that, many of the stages towards complex eyes, developing along various routes, can actually be seen in organsims living today. Despite this, ID theorists and Creationists continue to claim the evolution of the eye to be a problem. It isn't.
yureesystem wrote:
Lola, she outsmart you again, drpsholder and alex-rodriguez, don't match your tiny brain against her intelligence; you guys just look like fools. Like I say, a bull only see red and charge and not realizing how foolish they are.
Pascal begins by painting a situation where both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human reason. So, supposing that reason cannot determine the truth between the two options, one must "wager" by weighing the possible consequences. Pascal’s assumption is that, when it comes to making the decision, no one can refuse to participate; withholding assent is impossible because we are already "embarked", effectively living out the choice.
We only have two things to stake, our "reason" and our "happiness". Pascal considers that if there is "equal risk of loss and gain" (i.e. a coin toss), then human reason is powerless to address the question of whether God exists. That being the case, then human reason can only decide the question according to possible resulting happiness of the decision, weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists and likewise in believing that God does not exist.
He points out that if a wager was between the equal chance of gaining two lifetimes of happiness and gaining nothing, then a person would be a fool to bet on the latter. The same would go if it was three lifetimes of happiness versus nothing. He then argues that it is simply unconscionable by comparison to bet against an eternal life of happiness for the possibility of gaining nothing. The wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. On the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose, you either gain nothing or lose everything. You are either unavoidably annihilated (in which case, nothing matters one way or the other) or lose the opportunity of eternal happiness. In note 194, speaking about those who live apathetically betting against God, he sums up by remarking, "It is to the glory of religion to have for enemies men so unreasonable..."
Inability to believe[edit]Pascal addressed the difficulty that 'reason' and 'rationality' pose to genuine belief by proposing that "acting as if [one] believed" could "cure [one] of unbelief":
But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.
—Blaise Pascal, Pensées Section III note 233, Translation by W. F. Trotter
Analysis with decision theory[edit]
The possibilities defined by Pascal's Wager can be thought of as a decision under uncertainty with the values of the following decision matrix.
God exists (G)God does not exist (¬G)Belief (B) +∞ (infinite gain) −1 (finite loss) Disbelief (¬B) −∞ (infinite loss) +1 (finite gain)Given these values, the option of living as if God exists (B) dominates the option of living as if God does not exist (~B), as long as one assumes a positive probability that God exists. In other words, the expected value gained by choosing B is greater than or equal to that of choosing ~B.
In fact, according to decision theory, the only value that matters in the above matrix is the +∞ (infinitely positive). Any matrix of the following type (where f1, f2, and f3 are all finite positive or negative numbers) results in (B) as being the only rational decision.[10]
God exists (G)God does not exist (¬G)Belief (B) +∞ f1 Disbelief (¬B) f2 f3 Don't try to figure genius you guys aren't capable.Except that we prove Lola was wrong! WHAHAHHAHAHAAH
yureesystem wrote:
Lola, she outsmart you again, drpsholder and alex-rodriguez, don't match your tiny brain against her intelligence; you guys just look like fools. Like I say, a bull only see red and charge and not realizing how foolish they are.
Pascal begins by painting a situation where both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human reason. So, supposing that reason cannot determine the truth between the two options, one must "wager" by weighing the possible consequences. Pascal’s assumption is that, when it comes to making the decision, no one can refuse to participate; withholding assent is impossible because we are already "embarked", effectively living out the choice.
We only have two things to stake, our "reason" and our "happiness". Pascal considers that if there is "equal risk of loss and gain" (i.e. a coin toss), then human reason is powerless to address the question of whether God exists. That being the case, then human reason can only decide the question according to possible resulting happiness of the decision, weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists and likewise in believing that God does not exist.
He points out that if a wager was between the equal chance of gaining two lifetimes of happiness and gaining nothing, then a person would be a fool to bet on the latter. The same would go if it was three lifetimes of happiness versus nothing. He then argues that it is simply unconscionable by comparison to bet against an eternal life of happiness for the possibility of gaining nothing. The wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. On the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose, you either gain nothing or lose everything. You are either unavoidably annihilated (in which case, nothing matters one way or the other) or lose the opportunity of eternal happiness. In note 194, speaking about those who live apathetically betting against God, he sums up by remarking, "It is to the glory of religion to have for enemies men so unreasonable..."
Inability to believe[edit]Pascal addressed the difficulty that 'reason' and 'rationality' pose to genuine belief by proposing that "acting as if [one] believed" could "cure [one] of unbelief":
But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.
—Blaise Pascal, Pensées Section III note 233, Translation by W. F. Trotter
Analysis with decision theory[edit]
The possibilities defined by Pascal's Wager can be thought of as a decision under uncertainty with the values of the following decision matrix.
God exists (G)God does not exist (¬G)Belief (B) +∞ (infinite gain) −1 (finite loss) Disbelief (¬B) −∞ (infinite loss) +1 (finite gain)Given these values, the option of living as if God exists (B) dominates the option of living as if God does not exist (~B), as long as one assumes a positive probability that God exists. In other words, the expected value gained by choosing B is greater than or equal to that of choosing ~B.
In fact, according to decision theory, the only value that matters in the above matrix is the +∞ (infinitely positive). Any matrix of the following type (where f1, f2, and f3 are all finite positive or negative numbers) results in (B) as being the only rational decision.[10]
God exists (G)God does not exist (¬G)Belief (B) +∞ f1 Disbelief (¬B) f2 f3 Don't try to figure genius you guys aren't capable.And Pascal's wager is a stupid man's way of trying to reason. LOL
Because even if we assume that believing in a God has more to gain.......you forget that you have to believe in the right god in order to get the gain.
Sad, very sad that people still believe this stuff. Its why we question their intelligence! WHAHHAHAH
yureesystem wrote:
@Collin20G, it is better to wager for God and you lose nothing but if you are wrong than your loses is bigger. The probability of being wrong is greater than if you believe in God existence. To say God doesn't exist is irrational, you would have to possess all the knowledge in the universe and I doubt you possess such knowledge. Evidence is God's creation and betting on God you are on the winning side.
And what if your wager is the wrong god? LOL!
SEE? nah, I know you can't. Its impossible for you to be smart and understand. WATCH, you will see! WHAHAHAHA
An alternative take on Pascal's wager....
bgjettguitar wrote:
(Intelligent Design) Irreducible Complexity is an Intelligent Design challenge to naturalistic evolution’s explanation of the rise of complex life forms. -- • Naturalistic evolution teaches that new organisms do not suddenly arise, but come about gradually through beneficial mutations caused by natural selection. This process takes a very, very long time. Charles Darwin stated “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (On the Origin of Species, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964, pg. 189).--- The human eye dismantles & utter breaks down Darwin's theory.
This said it all for a God, the eye alone is too complex for fault science like evolution, just to have sight the eye design has to be perfect, just like a Creator. Maybe it is too simple for simpleton, or worst they profess the love of science but they prefer fairtytale of evolution.
Anarchos61 wrote:
bgjettguitar wrote:
(Intelligent Design) Irreducible Complexity is an Intelligent Design challenge to naturalistic evolution’s explanation of the rise of complex life forms. -- • Naturalistic evolution teaches that new organisms do not suddenly arise, but come about gradually through beneficial mutations caused by natural selection. This process takes a very, very long time. Charles Darwin stated “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (On the Origin of Species, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964, pg. 189).--- The human eye dismantles & utter breaks down Darwin's theory.
And after stating this, Darwin went on to offer a number of examples of attributes that would appear difficult to explain by successive, slight modifications and successfully explained them!
The evolution of the human eye is very well understood as is the evolution of eyes in general. Eyes have evolved in at least four different ways, leading to somewhat different results, and the various stages in each of these progressions is not only quite clear from the fossil record, but can be traced through genetic analysis. On top of that, many of the stages towards complex eyes, developing along various routes, can actually be seen in organsims living today. Despite this, ID theorists and Creationists continue to claim the evolution of the eye to be a problem. It isn't.
Are you saying that through many years the eye evolve to the present state without a designer, you realize how ridiculous that sound; that not science but a mere fable, there is more truth in Aesop's fables than evolution. To have sight everything in the eye has to be perfect, that is a scientific fact and that points to one direction a Creator who design the eye.
yureesystem wrote:
Anarchos61 wrote:
bgjettguitar wrote:
(Intelligent Design) Irreducible Complexity is an Intelligent Design challenge to naturalistic evolution’s explanation of the rise of complex life forms. -- • Naturalistic evolution teaches that new organisms do not suddenly arise, but come about gradually through beneficial mutations caused by natural selection. This process takes a very, very long time. Charles Darwin stated “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (On the Origin of Species, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964, pg. 189).--- The human eye dismantles & utter breaks down Darwin's theory.
And after stating this, Darwin went on to offer a number of examples of attributes that would appear difficult to explain by successive, slight modifications and successfully explained them!
The evolution of the human eye is very well understood as is the evolution of eyes in general. Eyes have evolved in at least four different ways, leading to somewhat different results, and the various stages in each of these progressions is not only quite clear from the fossil record, but can be traced through genetic analysis. On top of that, many of the stages towards complex eyes, developing along various routes, can actually be seen in organsims living today. Despite this, ID theorists and Creationists continue to claim the evolution of the eye to be a problem. It isn't.
Are you saying that through many years the eye evolve to the present state without a designer, you realize how ridiculous that sound; that not science but a mere fable, there is more truth in Aesop's fables than evolution. To have sight everything in the eye has to be perfect, that is a scientific fact and that points to one direction a Creator who design the eye.
Designed by natural processes. You know, those things we have evidence for.
to think they were designed by something supernatural, when there is no evidence borders on insane and down right comical.
yureesystem wrote:
bgjettguitar wrote:
(Intelligent Design) Irreducible Complexity is an Intelligent Design challenge to naturalistic evolution’s explanation of the rise of complex life forms. -- • Naturalistic evolution teaches that new organisms do not suddenly arise, but come about gradually through beneficial mutations caused by natural selection. This process takes a very, very long time. Charles Darwin stated “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (On the Origin of Species, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964, pg. 189).--- The human eye dismantles & utter breaks down Darwin's theory.
This said it all for a God, the eye alone is too complex for fault science like evolution, just to have sight the eye design has to be perfect, just like a Creator. Maybe it is too simple for simpleton, or worst they profess the love of science but they prefer fairtytale of evolution.
But we have no evidence of anything supernatural........the eye can be explained naturally.
I just don't understand why you just CANT understand this despite trying very hard? learning disability or do you do on purpose?
which is it? WHAHAHAH
alex-rodriguez wrote:
Fantastic fossil discovery in Africa announced today.
This is perhaps the best article about Homo naledi. It's at National Geographic. The National Geographic Society helped pay for the project.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/
"This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution."
Holy moly! It looks iíke a burial chamber used over ages! WTF WTF WTF!
yureesystem wrote:
Are you saying that through many years the eye evolve to the present state without a designer, you realize how ridiculous that sound; that not science but a mere fable, there is more truth in Aesop's fables than evolution. To have sight everything in the eye has to be perfect, that is a scientific fact and that points to one direction a Creator who design the eye.
It is possible because statistically, for around a billion years, organisms that were better fitted for survival reproduced more and certain body features were refined in the process.
Btw humans had a first hand pratical experience with evolution before it became a theory: farmers and stockbreeders had created cattle races, and various plant race by deliberate selection, they knew perfectly what they were doing. Idem with horse breeders, dog breeders (combat dogs were created in a very short span of time by harsh selection process).
The only reason of the Darwin scandal is that he challenged directly some tales that you dfind in the bible and which probably weren't consensual, even among believers (it is impossible to believe literallly in Noah's Ark if you were involved in the breeding activity described above)
Out to ARod & Ghostliner:
That...is....not....the....point !
The point is, what was it all like before the BB ?....if there was a BB. There is not one person here that can comprehend physical infinity. And if you say so, then I'm calling you a liar....right here and right now ! We are gonna probe physical infinity and the atheist better have some answers or I promise you - you will exit w/ your tail between your legs !
Two: where did all that matter come from ?....if there was a BB to blow it all up.
Forget evolution....that's not getting to the point ! I am here to make the atheist nice & uncomfortable. And if you think I'm gonna be sweet & christian-like about it ?....then you are very much in the wrong fibre.