Question

[Texas_Roofer]

This would make sense if you said life… so far it requires life to create other life (although bio chemists are coming closer and closer to replicating the transition from inanimate chemicals to replicating/mutating/“living” macromolecules. I think that within 10 years, there will be a plausible (and scientifically demonstrated) description of abiogenesis. You have to be up on new scientific articles to make claims about what is known. Intelligence so far as we can tell is dependent on some sort of life system. So it seems like an enormous leap to say a supreme intelligence “designed” things when there is NO REPEATABLE OBJECTIVE CONCRETE or REAL evidence in the detectable universe of this being. There is arguably evidence for some sort of creation catalyst (basically Big Bang)… but to assume that this force has a feature (intelligence) which is dependent on SO MANY other things (neural networks, mathematics & physics, brains, sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, behavioral output, and more) which seem to be dependent on physical timespace, is not a reasonable logical progression…

I’m not retarded… flipping an asymmetric argument around doesn’t make it valid. Evolution is a property of life. Thus, wherever life exists some sort of evolutionary process will occur to adapt this life phenomenon to whatever environment it can manage, within certain limits. Evolution is NOT guided by God… at least we have no evidence to support that claim, so it is a non sequitor to assume all the elaborate and incomprehensible requirements of a divine intelligent dictator which deterministically forms a track from infinite past to infinite future. I also disclaimed that evolution only explains how a single cell could eventuate an intelligence such as humans or chimps or dolphins given that life already exists. The origin of the entire universe & timespace “bubble” we live in is still under investigation. But, some aspects are known through concrete data, giving rise to new questions. I will proudly admit that science does not have all the answers or details but is always looking for new information and encouraging new discoveries which violate existing theories. One field which I encourage you to research are related to abiogenisis and biochemistry related to pre-cellular development. We think this is possible, and if it can be done in a test tube it can happen in the wild… By the Laws of Nature. >)8-0

So what force created the big bang? This argument completely lacks logic as it proclaims the inability to reproduce intelligent life must be ignored ( as well as the the big bang force) however the inability to command God before him must be accepted as a form of proof. Both bases show a lack of proper scientific training. However the base argument is: He believes -God is confined by the Laws of Nature, while Christians know God is not confined by the Laws of Nature.

For example if he holds a rock which he believes to be 4 billion years old in his right hand, and God, the Holy Spirit or an Angel creates out of air an identical rock and places it in his left hand WHAT COULD HE DO? He has two options 1) deny the rock was created before him which saves face with his science base or 2) Acknowledge the rock is new and separate from his science base which calls him a liar, as the science claims both rocka are 4 billion years old.

 

[CGDouglas]

Mine are underlined.

**This would make sense if you said life… so far it requires life to create other life (although bio chemists are coming closer and closer to replicating the transition from inanimate chemicals to replicating/mutating/“living” macromolecules. I think that within 10 years, there will be a plausible (and scientifically demonstrated) description of abiogenesis.

You could say we have a sort of abiogenesis in Genesis itself, when we are told man is formed from dust, but yet again, what does abiogenesis have to do with the concept of God, after all, if God has managed to create a self improving lifeform, doesn’t this bark at the concept that intelligence is a factor, for this creation knows how to adapt, change and manipulate anything around it at later stages…**

You have to be up on new scientific articles to make claims about what is known. Intelligence so far as we can tell is dependent on some sort of life system.

**We can look around and identify what can be a product of intelligence because of our mind, with such ability comes abstract thought, applying idea of such finely tuned properties of the universe as something that can be in correlation to a concept of a designer.

So it seems like an enormous leap to say a supreme intelligence “designed” things when there is NO REPEATABLE OBJECTIVE CONCRETE or REAL evidence in the detectable universe of this being.

Aesthetics could disagree,

There are the works of Bach,
so there must be a God. (I can’t remember how it’s phrased exactly.

And of course there is the factor of beyond the realms of materialism…**

There is arguably evidence for some sort of creation catalyst (basically Big Bang)… but to assume that this force has a feature (intelligence) which is dependent on SO MANY other things (neural networks, mathematics & physics, brains, sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, behavioral output, and more) which seem to be dependent on physical timespace, is not a reasonable logical progression.

Dawkins argument huh? God isn’t materialistic for one thing, and God can be very simple as another…​

"*That’s not an answer, that’s an assumption. It’s only true if evolution wasn’t guided by an intelligence, which means it begs the question: it assumes what it intends to prove.

Secondly, evolution has nothing to do with beyond biology, In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

And so what if these emotions rose from evolution? We’re focusing on God…*"

I bring the evolutionary development of emotion into this because theists commonly describe God as “Love” or “Good” or other intangible mental symbols which are ethereal and dependent on a mind to perceive in order to exist (just like God.) (If pressed, I’ll admit that God exists only in so much that it’s an idea conceived in the minds of men who exist in the universe… but from the “objective” perspective of the universe itself, it is not literally true.)

If we percieve God as a force, does a force need a ‘mind’?

"Answer: That’s not an answer, that’s an assumption. It’s only true if evolution wasn’t guided by an intelligence, which means it begs the question: it assumes what it intends to prove."

**I’m not retarded… flipping an asymmetric argument around doesn’t make it valid. Evolution is a property of life. Thus, wherever life exists some sort of evolutionary process will occur to adapt this life phenomenon to whatever environment it can manage, within certain limits.

Evolution is NOT guided by God… at least we have no evidence to support that claim, so it is a non sequitor to assume all the elaborate and incomprehensible requirements of a divine intelligent dictator which deterministically forms a track from infinite past to infinite future.

Evolution can be guided by God, I don’t see why this philosophy is isolated and the allowance of chance is the only philosophy allowed. What guides evolution doesn’t need evidence, one can see it as chance, the other a guidence of fate, or a divine control. Maybe in a pure scientific stance it’s non sequitor, but you are again confronting a theist whom supports the scientific stance…**

I also disclaimed that evolution only explains how a single cell could eventuate an intelligence such as humans or chimps or dolphins given that life already exists. The origin of the entire universe & timespace “bubble” we live in is still under investigation.

**Evolution ‘only’ and ‘only’ focuses upon biodiversity, change, and any other biological functions and forms, evolution has nothing to do with the entire universe or timespace which isn’t even biological…

Yes, universe and timespace ‘bubble’ concept is under investigation… Again, what does the creation have to do with disproving or opposing a creator?**

But, some aspects are known through concrete data, giving rise to new questions. I will proudly admit that science does not have all the answers or details but is always looking for new information and encouraging new discoveries which violate existing theories. One field which I encourage you to research are related to abiogenisis and biochemistry related to pre-cellular development. We think this is possible, and if it can be done in a test tube it can happen in the wild… By the Laws of Nature. >)8-0

Again, if it can happen in the wild, God, if it can happen in a test tube, man manipulated, doesn’t this analogy argue for intervention on somesort of intelligence?
…

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[CGDouglas]

Continued:

**Just like God, Shiva and reverence for Saints. Is it impossible to conceive of the universe as we can actually perceive it where imaginary **** is imaginary and has no real impact on the tangible universe?

For somereason, this ‘imaginary’ had a major impact upon the development of Jewish history…

I mean, if humans can imagine things in such elaborate (and historically inspired) detail as the Iliad & the Odyssey, Journey to the Centre of the Earth, 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Hobbit why is it so grating for you to entertain the idea the Bible could be among these historically relevant works of fiction?

Iliad and the Odyssey, around the time of being authored, the society thrived upon polytheistic ideas, as we know polytheism usually assigned each power, such as wind and thunder, to a god… as our knowledge develops, we know the proper and correct meanings as to why these occurances happen. The beauty of the bible, is that everything is assigned to a one God, and possibilities become endless as we can understand what occurs by plan, or what can be manipulated by a supreme intelligence.**

everything would be dertermined by physical laws and free will would be nonexistent[like god]).

God and free will is compatible…

Why is it necessary for you to appeal to something “unknowable” “incomprehensible” and “highly unlikely” like an intelligence outside of timespace rather than just admit when you don’t know?

We question, you seem to avoid, flat-out, any possibilty…

**Ken Miller is a *****. I haven’t heard of the others but I can pretty much assume they’re gonna try to spin perception into some kind of nonsense Jesus ********.

How about that they try and argue a bit on the Deist side, then approach specific religion?**

So what, I’m a human… I get emotional when people try to defend an institution which I see stripping people of their humanity, cognitive ability and in fact direct them toward suicidal/extinction seeking tendencies (i.e. Apocalypse).

Willing to defend Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong iL?

If a wacko wants to kill people for secular/personal reasons that’s fine, we’ll deal with them in real society, but I won’t having them try to implicate their imaginary friend and have it be a respectable defense.

When the formerly mentioned were militant atheists?

**I don’t know when you had a religious discussion with any of these scientists in order to determine their true religious beliefs.

Look at historical documentation? Newton said that the book he most read was the bible for one example…**

But science moves us forward as a species and attempts to improve our odds of survival.

And can have the undesired consequences of accidental extinction…

Fundamentalism/traditionalism tries to hold us back.

Fundamentalism may, but if I remember correctly, even the Pope, agrees with evolution…

Science adapts, religion gets pulled along kicking and screaming while enjoying the benefits of the science they so reject. **** that, it pisses me off.

So, you’re saying religious philosophy has never ‘once’ changed in it’s progress?

you are defending the same side that they are which is an inherently dishonest position.

And flatout denial, removing any possibility of a designer isn’t a dishonest position, hypocritical attack if you ask me…

To claim you know that God (who is contingent on so many other things, no matter what you say) made everything and all the scientific, objective, physical, literal evidence is somehow not there (even though a retarded 3 year old can see it when presented) is just plain dishonest and thus violates the teachings of your own religion.

We can only theorize quarks and strings, we can’t see them, but we can also acknowledge them by behaviour, we can assign the behaviour of the universe to a possible outside influence…

Where did the Universe come from? Correct answer: So far the evidence points to some kind of singularity which basically exploded creating a bubble of timespace in which we now reside, beyond that we don’t know and we’re looking for more info.

That isn’t the only theory, I suggest you list more…

torture would be meaningless anyway because that condition requires a mind to perceive pain.

Why is the concept of a soul tied dirrectly to the mind? Again, a possible force?

"I’m continually astounded that you atheists never even consider the possibility that your atheism is “a comforting illusion.” I think life would be a heck of a lot easier and less complicated if God doesn’t exist. But I have not allowed myself to accept this finally childish wish-fulfillment. What compells you to make time for something already decided in your mind!?

**Lolz, facepalm. You are obviously entirely misinformed on what atheism even means. It’s not MEANT to be comforting, it’s not MEANT for anything. If anything it is a psychological enzyme to inspire real exploration and freedom of concept.

Exploration that doesn’t even allow remote possbility of an external influence?**

But all it means is I think your detailed ancient mythological “truth” is nonsense. I am a humanist tho, so I think that the most worthy endeavor one can pursue is the advancement of our species through the faculties that we’ve been endowed with by our evolutionary development.

And not the advancement of any progress that does not relate to our species?

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[CGDouglas]

Last:

**I’m totally motivated by my psychological needs as you put it. They are determined by the gradual development of human behavior and society & experience. God doesn’t tell me what to do. **

He told us to love our neighbours, and Him?

**IT IS. Heard of Occam’s Razor? Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” quote? Come on. You are the weakest christian I’ve ever debated since you Jenga your own arguments before you even try to make them.

**Since there are two of us, we’re both playing Jenga, sharing the same stack, just be sure you haven’t accidentally broken your own arguments, and think that this player caused his own collapse…

And you must be the weakest atheist, a claim that God doesn’t exist is also an extraordinary claim, got anything that can argue against the possibility of a God?****

The only reason I debate people on the existence of Unicorns is because THERE IS NOTHING TO BACK UP THE POSITIVE CLAIM yet people are SO SURE UNICORNS ARE THE ORIGIN & DESIGNERS OF ALL 10+ Conceivable dimensions. (sorry for rude caps, but I need to emphasize).

If you mean a unicorn as a one horned animal, then I don’t see why it’s a problem that one horned animals exist, if you mean mythically, there is symbolism to such a mythical creature.

I DONT KNOW, but just because mankind doesn’t have the answer does not make Santa Claus or Rudolph the de facto answer.

And it doesn’t evade the possibility of God either…

But if you actually investigate “cutting edge” scientific discoveries you’d be amazed at how well the scientific community understands things which are actually useful.

And you’ll be amazed how much it arrives towards the complexity of the universe, which again, doesn’t remove God from the picture…

Churches should pay taxes, or be demolished for secular purposes so the whole community can actually produce a tangibly valuable output. (poorly put, but sorta what I mean).

I’m sorry, but what? How about everything you own, love, want, is taken away by the same secular purposes? I want ‘my’ freedom to believe what I want, not someone elses decision to tell me what to believe.

Until you have real evidence of Jesus rising from the dead, or God extinctifying Unicorns with a flood while miraculously saving every other animal on a man-made boat, I can’t believe it. There’s real ****ing life, and there’s imagination… the Bible is as much imagination as any other “historically inspired” text. I intend to be only slightly rude, but your religion is ******** and is a form of psychological slavery. It’s too bad you reject science for CareBears.

**Did unicorns even exist in the first place? One horned animals hmm, or symbolism on the other, hmm…

A local flood doesn’t oppose the posibilities, and all animals in the region possible. Again, there is much symbolism to this, read up on ‘The City of God’. One such symbolism is that wood, which saved Noah from the waters, is also in referance to Christ dying on the wooden cross.

Water can be symbolic for sin… There is alot of meaning…**

Dang it, but Carebears are cute!

God Bless.

Chris.