143 replies to this topic

[Den]

"You can't possibly explain flagellae" is merely another in a pointless series of ostrich-headed arguments put up by creationists to try and stump evolutionists.

You've missed my point, Im not wanting to argue the case of irreversable complexity, sure things can evolve. Mans creations evolve too, Im sure if you look at the model T ford and transitional vehicle models to the modern car there is a visible evolving pattern. As I pointed out, even the most simple of mans creations requires our conscious inspiration in order for them to manifest into existence, I therefore do not believe complex lifeforms can manifest themselves through a process which is autonomous of an intelligent inspiration, simply because it does not comply with the visible pattern of creation that surrounds us.

If creation can be made without intelligent inspiration you should technically be able to throw a million pieces of metal, wood and stone in a cement mixer roll it around for a few years and something useful should eventually pop out.

I hope this clears your confusion.

Cheers
Den

[werdna]

Maybe we are all wrong.
From now on I think we were put here by aliens 50 thousand years ago as they had stuffed up their planet by burning fossil fuels, so figured if they dont come up with a solution, we humans they placed on this planet can build structures for them and they can take over.
Either they found a solution (so there is hope for us), decided to take over a year ago and noticed we turned out just as stupid as them in the end (no hope for us), or sometime in the future...

Now thats what I reckon... prove me wrong

Andrew

[Jaraqui]

You might recall it was you who first used the word boundary. I wrong assumed that you recognised the boundary on human understanding.

Please read again

You state that you have used logic to disprove the existence of an omnipotent God. By definition (and also your actual words) this means that you have used logic to disprove the existance of God.

You can try to catch me on wordplay all you want, none of this is relevant at all. The issues I have brought up still stand. Saying things such as "God is beyond our understanding" is ridiculous and a perfect way to stay oblivious. One quality of God requires it to be able to do anything, everywhere. I have stated things which are not possible to do, therefore God cannot do them, thus God is no God at all.

To be a God you must be omnipotent. To remove omnipotence leaves simply an alien entity, probibly made of DNA just like us. I fear I am repeating myself and going in circles. I think we have reached a barrier which you do not wish to cross .

Now thats what I reckon... prove me wrong

Exactly.

[werdna]

To remove omnipotence leaves simply an alien entity, probibly made of DNA just like us.

AHA. Proves my theory.

[ado]

Okay mate. End of discussion. You're right you are going in circles.
You don't seem to recognise the sublte shifts in your own reasoning.
You consistently refuse to address the questions and clarifications that I direct at you.

Good luck with the fish keeping.

[theonetruepath]

..., I therefore do not believe complex lifeforms can manifest themselves through a process which is autonomous of an intelligent inspiration, simply because it does not comply with the visible pattern of creation that surrounds us.

I see where you're going wrong. You think we're surrounded by a 'visible pattern of creation'. In fact we're surrounded by an evolved universe with zero evidence of creation.

[Den]

Onefalsepath, you argued that Science was not born from Theology and Religion, I thought since you didnt believe it from me that you may be interested in your hero Dawkins confirming this fact in this debate with his Oxford University colleague Professor John Lennox :

http://fixed-point.o...s-lennox-debate

I believe somewhere in this debate Dawkins also admits "A serious case could be made for a deistic God". You may feel silly in a few years when Dawkins changes his position even further, since he has written the God Delusion completely half cocked.

Edit: Sorry here is an exert of Dawkins talking about a deistic God


Its completely niave to be taking advice on this subject completely from a Biologists opinion(especially Dawkins), I dont mean any disrespect to Biologists but its not their field of expertise. If this is how you make decisions I would not be surprised to see you go to a car mechanic looking to get a hair cut. If you want to learn from both sides you need to look at what proffessors in Theology, Maths and Physics have to say, they have the intellect and tools to explore beyond the limits of basic human sensory perception.

For many people this topic is not about finding the truth, its about ego. If you want to avoid your ego getting in the way and ruining your ability to be objective its best to remain agnostic, or sit on the fence completely and make your mind up later when you've given yourself more time to think and learn about it, anyway it works for me.

Cheers
Den

[werdna]

But there is heaps of proof of Aliens.

Area 51
Crop Circles
All those really clear photos of oval things that are either definately a UFO... or maybe a shopping bag.
All those eye witness accounts from people who arent high... anymore, tho may have been when they saw what they saw.

I'm telling you all, I am right.

[Jaraqui]

Okay mate. End of discussion. You're right you are going in circles.
You don't seem to recognise the sublte shifts in your own reasoning.
You consistently refuse to address the questions and clarifications that I direct at you.

Good luck with the fish keeping.

Ado, you are getting confused with my wording and your defenitions.

It seems that now you not only have the power to disprove the existence of things from a supernatural realm, but also have the authority to dictate who and what is worthy of worship. Quite a theologian!

This statement implies that God exsists in the supernatural realm, therefore I cannot disprove God. I coined the word boundaries for this, from which you got confused on. You initially brought forward the fact that God exsists in the supernatural realm. I have not changed my reasoning or stance ever since my first post. You need to properly define a God in order to understand. A God requires omnipotence in order to be a God. If I have removed omnipotence (albeit from my "realm"), then the entity is no longer a God. If this entity cannot adhere to all the qualities of an omnipotent being, then it is definetly not a God

You are correct in saying that I cannot disprove the possibility of this entity exsisting in a different realm (assuming such a realm even exsists!). I can however prove that this entity is not omnipotent. I have never once said anything about this entity not exsisting. I have simply shown that omnipotence is not possible, therefore this entity is not a God, or "the" god, thus proving nothing can really be a true God!

[Thalium]

For all those that watch it

I own a zat gun so I am your god



Im a little obsessed with the show

[mattt]

bastard...

[ado]

Ado, you are getting confused with my wording and your defenitions.

Okay mate. No problems. I accept defeat. You win. Like I've suggested several times before, go and publish your great discovery, there are plenty of people who would love to get their hands on your proof. You might become famous! Of course, like I have also said several times, you might find it a little odd that not even a militant atheist like Dawkins chooses to use your reasoning. Perhaps he hasn't thought of it? While you're at it, perhaps you should publish a quantitative estimate on the amount that we don't know?

Perhaps you should read my post from last night a bit more closely. It's only a few scrolls away!

Ado, it is always interesting to see a scientist appose the Atheists. Dawkins and his Neo Atheist supporters like to paint the picture of unanimous support of their views within the scientific community, are telling me that they are misleading the public? No......

Den is spot on with this one. In fact, Dawkins is often regarded as a joke and an embarrassment. Michael Ruse, an eminent philosopher of biology, and a vocal advocate for evolution, who has more influence and written more on the creation-evolution debate than anybody, said this about Dawkins new book, The God Delusion: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist". In fact, Ruse finished by saying, "and the McGraths show why". The McGraths are the authors of a new book called The Dawkins Delusion, which, in the interest of balance, anyone who has read The God Delusion should also read.

Ruse goes on to say,
I am just as critical of this book (The God Delusion) as of the work of Intelligent Design authors like Michael Behe, despite the fact that I, as an agnostic, am closer to Dawkins, and am 99% in agreement with his conclusions. But this book is stupid, politically disastrous and bad academics. If someone spoke about biology and evolution as he does on theology, Dawkins would react without mercy....Dawkins' book confirms my analysis of evolution as pseudo-religion. His secular humanism has quasi-religious characteristics

Michael Ruse has written a great little essay about science and the Dawkins crowd called, Why I think the new atheists are a bloody disaster. You'll find it on the net. Bear in mind that this is from a guy who has spent most of his life actively fighting creationists and ID proponents.

If your really interested in reading, perhaps broadening your intellectual horizons somewhat, have a read of Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion. It can be found here

theonetruepath, it's great quoting from Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth all the time, but have you read any other work?
Proverbs 18:17 (I love this book, so much wisdom that we could all learn from) says,

"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him".

In that spirit, I suggest that you have a read of Johnathan Sarfati's The Greatest Hoax on Earth?
Now I'm not saying that I agree with everything that he has written (not saying I disagree either, it's irrelevant), but if you want to become an informed individual rather than a Dawkins disciple it's best to question everything, and read from a wide variety of sources, including those who hold polar opposite views.

cheers
ado

[Jaraqui]

While you're at it, perhaps you should publish a quantitative estimate on the amount that we don't know?

Why should I? I am not the one doubting the quantity of our understanding. You write it.

Okay mate. No problems. I accept defeat. You win. Like I've suggested several times before, go and publish your great discovery, there are plenty of people who would love to get their hands on your proof. You might become famous! Of course, like I have also said several times, you might find it a little odd that not even a militant atheist like Dawkins chooses to use your reasoning.

This is pretty much the childish response I was suspecting to recieve from a fanatical religious person. I was simply putting forth a logical way at looking at God. I was hoping someone would be able to constructively flaw my logic, yet you have failed to do so and instead are dismissive of anything I write. Richard Dawkins does not believe in God. I don't believe he's said or written anywhere about all the exact proofs he requires to do so or accepts. Don't put forward ridiculous presumptions based on information you do not possess.

There is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference

This extends to there obviously being no supernatural. I am sure Richard Dawkins has heard my line of reasoning and has accepted it. You claim he does not because he does not write about it? Why should Richard Dawkins who has his own thesis about religion, write about someone elses. Comon Ado, think!

[werdna]

Proverbs 18:17 (I love this book, so much wisdom that we could all learn from) says,

"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him".

In this instance, wouldnt that be the bible?

Anyway, that is a quote of a very modern version. This book with so much wisdom has been changed so many times that you dont know what the original quote really is.
My bible says
He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

[ado]

Tau5 - I have proved that there is no God

Dawkins - Why there almost certainly is no God Found Here

My apologies if I'm childish. I'm also sorry if I have come across as a fanatical religious person. Perhaps you could give an example of my fanatical religous statements?

Don't put forward ridiculous presumptions based on information you do not possess.

You have to be a lot more specific. What presumption did I put forward?

I am sure Richard Dawkins has heard my line of reasoning and has accepted it

Great. I'm glad your sure. I wasn't aware that you had published your reasoning yet. Or does old Richo spend a bit of time on PCS?

Please, no more arguing. I've already suggested a course of action. Go and let the world know. If you're onto something, it could propel you into a superstar. Of course, if you're ignored...well...

Anyway, that is a quote of a very modern version.

I'm sorry if I quoted from the New International Version, I should have specified. I'm quite aware of what the original quote says.
I have it in a book right on my bookshelf: צדיק הראשון בריבו יבא־רעהו וחקרו׃
That's the original Hebrew. Actually I don't believe that has changed many times. It's just translated different ways by different people. Your bible is obviously the King James translation.
Can you understand that the meaning of the two translations is the same?
You're welcome to translate yourself straight from the original text.

It's great that you missed the point of the entire post, and instead focussed on an ad hominem approach.

[Jaraqui]

Tau5 - I have proved that there is no God

Dawkins - Why there almost certainly is no God Found Here

Tau5 - I have proved omnipotence is not possible, therefore a God this entity is not. Thus there is no such thing as "the" god. (I've clarified this already Ado, yet you keep getting confused.)

My apologies if I'm childish. I'm also sorry if I have come across as a fanatical religious person. Perhaps you could give an example of my fanatical religous statements?

Your entire line of reasoning. You are saying I cannot disprove God because it is beyond our understanding! The very fact that what I've put forward is valid and yet you continue to deny and ridicule it, shows your fanatism. You haven't even attempted to disprove it, which clearly indicates one thing.

You have to be a lot more specific. What presumption did I put forward?

That Dawkins doesn't dare to accept this line of reasoning. Read my previous post as to why he indeed, would or already does.

Great. I'm glad your sure. I wasn't aware that you had published your reasoning yet. Or does old Richo spend a bit of time on PCS?

Please, no more arguing. I've already suggested a course of action. Go and let the world know. If you're onto something, it could propel you into a superstar. Of course, if you're ignored...well...

Ado, don't be ridiculous. I am not the one who came up with this logical disambiguation of God. Richard Dawkins has done exactly what you propose, and where has it led? Perhaps the few that have been on the fence have chosen Atheism, but in reality, people don't want to change. There will always be people, similiar to you, who will have the proof staring them in the face and yet, deny is authenticity or exsistance. You are right, we cannot resolve this arguement. I hope the people who read our posts will make up their own minds about what they believe in an unbiased way.

[ado]

Thanks for the quick response.
Did you actually read the Dawkins essay before you responded?

[Jaraqui]

Sure, but again, you're getting confused with your defenitions. I too cannot disprove the entity itself. I can only remove it from being omnipotent and thus a God or "the" God. This is something Dawkins would surely agree with. You have missunderstood the thesis of my arguement. Of course, neither I or Dawkins can disprove the exsistance of the entity itself.

[Den]

Its difficult to communicate with people when you dont know their age. I think Ado and I may be expecting a bit too much from some people here who appear to be fairly young.

I just wanted to point out one of the most common reasons why I find people decide to turn their back at investigating the possibility of God;

People see Evil, chaos, pain, suffering and injustice in the World, and since this seems to go agaist the potrayal of God who is described by Religion in a very positive light such as being loving and merciful some people see this as a reason to dismiss the possibility of a God. Ironically in Theology it is the presence of these negative realities that are used in arguements to prove the existence of God. I'll put it as simply as I can, could you ever feel warmth if everything in the entire Universe was at one constant temperature? Every positive is defined by its negative opposite, could we experience love without the presence of hate? Does justice exist without injustice? Since everything appears to have a polar opposite, does our mortal existence provide the evidence that immortality must also be a reality? and so on,

Without a God I cannot see how Morality could exist, if there is no God, and we are simply behaving and acting out to the expression of our Genes and DNA would a serial killer then be any more evil than a coconut that falls off a tree and kills someone? or a bear that kills a man who's encroached on his territory? when all they are doing is simply expressing the programming of their DNA. From a purely natural selection process there seems to be no basis to argue the case for real morality stemming from natural selection.

Athiests argue that Religion inspires people to be good for the purpose of reward, which can be true for some, but whats the Athiests alternative? in their view being good can only be an instinct which developed through natural selection for the purpose of survival, here freewill can be argued since you are and do what your genes program you to do. In the eyes of natural selection, you are merely an electro chemical meat machine with a genetic program, a fleshbot.

Cheers
Den

[Donna]

Hi people.

I have a couple of questions. They are genuine questions. I believe them to be important questions, and I will answer them with what is purely my own opinion made from my own obervations.

Q1. If there were one true God, wouldn't this god be experienced by all humans in exactly the same way or a very similar way?

A1. This is not the case. All humans construct God as a result of their environment and as a result of what they have learned. A child born in the absence of any social system would not experience a shared concept of god, but may develop their own. What they might experience is a need for God. They may then go on to construct some kind of deity. This need to construct a god to protect us from the fear of our own mortality is the common factor, and what binds us together, not a God.

Q2: Is it possible to become a "moral" human being in the absence of God?

A2: It is possible to reach the highest level of morality (altruism) in the absence of god, religion. If one looks at ants or any other high functioning society, you wouldn't say they act they way they do because of a god. They act the way they do, because it is necessary for survival. Again, genetic. Humans are born with the genes necessary to become social and act in ways that favour the group and not just the individual. Perhaps it is the loss of this social moral gene and not a loss of god that is responsible for the break down of our social systems.

I can't see why it cant be possible to have a moral gene, a god gene and a social gene. All three tend to favour survival and also protect us in adverse conditions (deserts where the Bedouin people for example have very highly developed moral, social and religious systems)

Could it then be that it is the need for a God that is in our genes, not that there is a God to be accessed somewhere?
All human cultures seem to have art and music. It is very unique to each culture, but common across humanity. It seems to be a human need to make art and music. Maybe it is a human need to make God as well?

Regards,

Donna