Ganon's Beard - General. Social. Rankings.

[*JuriHan*]

Woman caused man to sin

yeah thats my point

but all Catholics must believe in Church dogma.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF dang I guess im an awful Catholic. Never having sex all my life and being celibate for nothing. NOTHING!

j/k even if i wasnt Catholic I still would still be celibate, it's the best thing in the long run imo

 

[Superspright]

Also, Richard Dawkins was elected Britain's greatest intellectual beating the runner up by twice as many votes. I am sure he is not seriously considered. Who the hell feeds you this stupid propaganda? Is your pastor telling you this crap?

 

[Dre89]

Evolution IS irrefutable. It is extremely clear that evolution took place. It's a basic, observable fact. Not theory, fact. And yes, I can pretty much guarantee there are no biologists who deny that evolution took place. Unless you count those "creation science" wackjobs.

.[/B]

No evolution is refutable. Are you even aware it contradicts certain scientific laws? For example, research has proven that the mattter of the world is decreasing, whereas macroevolution claims it's increasing.

Also, it's also known that matter gains energy/information from external sources, not from within, but evolution claims that things can just develop without external resources. If you were to put a cell in a black void of nothingness, there's n oway it could develop on its own.

Scientists have evn come out and said the probability of a complex world generating randomly out of nothing or disorder is about as probable as a dictionary being randomly created from an explosion in a library lol.

Also, how could sexual reproduction possibly be developed over a period of millions of years? And why would it even need to be developed if asexual reproduction already existed?

Also, tests have shown that certain sugars and amino acids (I may have got that wrong, but you get my point, it's two differet types of matter) destory each other when they meet, which would have happened in a primordial soup, yet we still have those substances today.

I did those arguments groos injustice, so odn't think that's the only stuff anti-evos have, I just don't know any of it.

Then there's the philosophical ocmplications-

Evolution doesn't account for how the primordial soup got there in the first place, dosn't acocutn for how time, concept of matter, laws of physics, motion, and senses/perception, or even how the potentiality for even these to happen came to be.

Also, there was a hardcore atheist in my Philosophy of Religion class, and he went to see a psychic who works for the police, and without hi msaying a word to her, she told him heaps of stuff about his dad she couldn't have known, yet he's still a hardcore athiest, bt believes in the soul, so Superspright what does evolution say about that? Surely that's too important to ignore.

Superspright if evolution shows God doesn't exist, then explain to me how something came from nothing. Nothing doesn't just mean an empty space, I'm talking about nothingness, with no actualities such as time or space, and no potentiality to set something in motion, that's nothingness.

If you can expalin that properly to me without changing the topic or insulting me, I may consider your argument.

I'm just sick of being ncie to you, I treated you with curtousity ong enough without you returning it, so now I'm gonna challenege you rather than try be a peacemaker.

Edit: I take that last bit back, I will stil ltreat you with curtousy, it's wrong of me to stoop to that level, I just got heated up then, which I odn't normally do, but yeah I still wnat yo uto answer my aforementioned question.

 

[*JuriHan*]

hahaha I have a feeling if PhantomX wasn't at Hobo21 he would drop in here and tell every1 to STFU with all this religon talk. Or maybe not. I donno with him he's hard to read both in life and in Brawl ><;

and WTF someone told me he came like second to last in singles/did bad? Must of been either wrong or trolling me.

Spoiler

At least I hope...

edit: OH SHI-

 

[DLA]

You can still challenge me and be courteous I haven't insulted you, I've just been challenging you for the sake of argument, not for the sake of being mean. You seem like a cool and smart guy. It's just that I like arguing

Anyways, all of those points you referred to about evolution: those ALL have to do with the THEORY of evolution, not evolution itself. All of those are valid points in an argument against the current theory, but they are irrelevant against the data about evolution that we have gained. We used this data to support the THEORY of evolution.

 

[Ganonsburg]

yeah thats my point



FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF dang I guess im an awful Catholic. Never having sex all my life and being celibate for nothing. NOTHING!

j/k even if i wasnt Catholic I still would still be celibate, it's the best thing in the long run imo

A) But it's not all woman's fault. At best it's equal blame between her, the serpant, and man. Most likely it was mostly man's fault.

B) No, Catholics don't have to believe everything the church says. And if they are told that, they need to quit the church. Because the Bible on which the CC is based upon contradicts many of the CCs made-up traditions. ie, make no idols for yourselves, yet the church encourages praying to Mary and her statues. I could go in depth, but I don't want to.


And I apologize as well for this whole argument. I just wanted to point out the irony between Superspright's actions and mine.

 

[*JuriHan*]

A) But it's not all woman's fault. At best it's equal blame between her, the serpant, and man. Most likely it was mostly man's fault.

B) No, Catholics don't have to believe everything the church says. And if they are told that, they need to quit the church. Because the Bible on which the CC is based upon contradicts many of the CCs made-up traditions. ie, make no idols for yourselves, yet the church encourages praying to Mary and her statues. I could go in depth, but I don't want to.


And I apologize as well for this whole argument. I just wanted to point out the irony between Superspright's actions and mine.

oh ok cool. Kinda got worried there for a minute lol

 

[DLA]

A)

B) No, Catholics don't have to believe everything the church says. And if they are told that, they need to quit the church. Because the Bible on which the CC is based upon contradicts many of the CCs made-up traditions. ie, make no idols for yourselves, yet the church encourages praying to Mary and her statues. I could go in depth, but I don't want to.

You don't have to follow EVERY church teaching. They have something called "legitimate dissent", which means you can disagree with many of their teachings as long as you feel that it is definitely the right thing to do. However, if you disagree with any of their dogma, or core, central teachings, then you cannot be a Catholic.

edit: I know because I used to be a Catholic, and I went to Catholic schools and took religion classes every year of my life since I was 6.

 

[Dre89]

DLA I get what you're saying, but the philosophical complications, and the hardcore athiest seeing the psychic gives problems for those who think evo shows God doesn't exist, regardless of what the theory of evo is, because it provides problems for the very fundamental essence of evo..

But yeah DLA I have nothing against you, my patience was just being tested by Spright, I just don't understand why he needs to be so insulting like that.

Up until that last post, I was never really arguing an opinion, just saying it's wrong to insult other people's beliefs, and certain things I thought people said were just factually incorrect.

Anyway DLA, you should 'accept my challenge' on Msn, Dre_iannucci@hotmail.com, I love a mature debate, and it's better than doing it here. Also, I'm considering becoming a Gdorf main so you could help me out with that too if you want lol.

No wait a minute, with regards to the catholic Church, if you don't believe and practise every belief of the Chutch then you're not a 'practising Catholic', that's just the hard reality.

Believing in something independent to the Church makes your beliefs more linear to another Christian denomination, or an individual belief, but to call yourself a true Catholic is misleading, it sounds harsh, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles lol.

 

[Ganonsburg]

You don't have to follow EVERY church teaching. They have something called "legitimate dissent", which means you can disagree with many of their teachings. However, if you disagree with any of their dogma, or core, central teachings, then you cannot be a Catholic.

edit: I know because I used to be a Catholic, and I went to Catholic schools and took religion classes every year of my life since I was 6.

Ah, yeah. Most denominations have something like that, but it's not like the kick you out. It's mostly a list of important, fundamental points you should get from the Bible.



And to an earlier point, I am reading the Bible completely through. I started on Sept 1, and I'm in 1 Kings. I'm fully aware of the stuff that's in the Bible.

Dre, do it. Ganon is amazing.

 

[TP]

DLA I get what you're saying, but the philosophical complications, and the hardcore athiest seeing the psychic gives problems for those who think evo shows God doesn't exist, regardless of what the theory of evo is, because it provides problems for the very fundamental essence of evo..

First of all, nobody uses evolution to say God doesn't exist, just to say that creationism is wrong. God can still exist even if evolution is correct. Now concerning your story of a psychic, I have a story of my own. A friend of mine told me about this psychic he met and asked me to come see him, since he knew I was a hardcore atheist. I went to the psychic, and let me tell you, I was impressed. It genuinely made me rethink some things... until I learned how the psychic did what he did, and that he was a fraud. So don't use that BS as evidence, there's no reason for any of us here to believe it.

 

[DLA]

Yes I've watched a few documentaries on psychics. They're basically just very good at saying things that are vague enough to have a good chance of being true, and specific enough to make it seem like he shouldn't have been able to know it. They also say a lot of things that are wrong, too, which lets them eliminate a lot of other things that are also wrong.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Yes I've watched a few documentaries on psychics. They're basically just very good at saying things that are vague enough to have a good chance of being true, and specific enough to make it seem like he shouldn't have been able to know it. They also say a lot of things that are wrong, too, which lets them eliminate a lot of other things that are also wrong.

Yeah, you just don't notice what they do wrong because you're in awe about what they did right.

 

[thexsunrosered]

can we stop this guys :/
It's obvious that we are smart, I mean, we HAVE to be if we're successful with Ganon. The only things that keep this character afloat is the reward from finely concocted mindgames so you know we have to be smart, so lets stop debating about this!

So, who's going to pound?

 

[PK-ow!]

God. But I donno about that whole Adam and Eve stuff. Wouldn't that mean everyone is inbred? o.O He had to make more than two lol. And lol @ blaming the woman for original sin (im pretty sure a man wrote Genesis). Good stuff. But hey, maybe I'm wrong.

Do you care whether you're wrong?

 

[Superspright]

No evolution is refutable. Are you even aware it contradicts certain scientific laws? For example, research has proven that the mattter of the world is decreasing, whereas macroevolution claims it's increasing.

Macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing by the way. Macroevolution is a bunch of microevolutions. And, if the matter of the world is decreasing, [which it isn't...wtf? we get rained with small particles every day that has been slowly adding to the earth ever since.] But, I see where this is going: The old, second law of thermodynamics argument. How droll. How easy to dispatch. I'll do it right now.

Also, it's also known that matter gains energy/information from external sources, not from within, but evolution claims that things can just develop without external resources. If you were to put a cell in a black void of nothingness, there's n oway it could develop on its own.

I like your style. A little bit of truth--and a **** load of LIE.

Let's get this correct. Evolution does NOT claim it develops without external forces. Evolution is the BYPRODUCT OF EXTERNAL FORCES. Without them it CANNOT develop. You know that big *** fireball that sits up in the sky all the time--burning your retinas? That thing...yeah, that thing is losing mass/energy and that loss of energy/mass is what gives the earth the ability to form more complex structures--because of the sun we have a weather system and it charges our atmosphere for highly energetic displays called thunderstorms...a lightning bolt has hit probably 50 times on this planet since I started this about 5 minutes ago. But early earth was highly energetic from just being freshly formed and it was still a hot little thing.

I would explain vesicules and abiogenesis but evolution is clearly beyond your scope--I won't trouble with something even more mind-boggling than evolution might seem to some.

But, earth has plenty of energy from the sun. That is what is destabilizing in order to give us this complexity. Ever notice how plants use the sun? It is a great source of energy.

But you were right about a cell being in nothingness not being able to survive despite the fact such a hypothetical could never happen anyway.

Scientists have evn come out and said the probability of a complex world generating randomly out of nothing or disorder is about as probable as a dictionary being randomly created from an explosion in a library lol.

Yes, and the other part they said was, that the earth's biosphere came about through a Darwinistic process which consists of reproduction, or replication with some type of hereditary process, selection [or some type of fitness that gives some entities an advantage], and finally variation [which imbues SOME entities with greater advantages for survival which may lead to it reproducing]. That is essentially it in a nutshell--it is more complicated than that, but that is simply a Darwinistic system. The one on earth is very complex. Quantum Darwinism may be actually simpler because of how it forms based almost purely on physics.

But, you are right. Putting together any cell is enormously improbable. Something in the odds of 1 in 10^230 or something like that--for even the most simple bacterium. But, through selection processes, and variation it becomes increasingly easy to see that it is not only possible but probable.It doesn't have to get all the ingredients to get it right, it can go through stages of using particular proteins and rna differently--which was proven in the motor flagellum [a typical example]. A lot of the time creationists or other people who vehemently reject evolution [because it directly confronts their own sensibilities about God] will find themselves baffled when scientists can show how these things happen. It is just sad that people like you don't research what you say isn't true, or is contested--it is only contested in your world. In your mind. No one who has a grasp of what I know would even say the things you are saying. It's downright ignorant and offensive to my intellect that you can say things that are lies and honestly--completely perversions of what science is. You seem almost scared of science.

Also, how could sexual reproduction possibly be developed over a period of millions of years? And why would it even need to be developed if asexual reproduction already existed?

It was developed over a billion, actually. And, bacterium can exchange information through their membranes--this could gradually turn into a more focused, or at least a more discrete process. I can't give you a really crystal clear example, but I know that sexual evolution did happen, because I am here, and I've had sex...a lot of it actually, and I am pretty sure that it is a very strange, and unusual thing to do when you detach the human side of it. I am directly attempting to share my genetic information in order to activate a genetic machine in another organism. Which will generate an entire adult in 21 years. Odd when you break it down, maybe.

But sexual reproduction allows for greater variation--thus faster evolution. Rates of evolution change in populations and some can actually have more mutations in particular ways than others. Sexual reproduction is the greatest biological technology. A big 'level up' you could say. Because now they can evolve at astounding rates. Once sexual evolution came about, we had massive explosions of species and speciation, and even greater biological possibilities came about.

But, you also don't know that SOME species have 5 sexes. So, the two sex thing is actually just a human idea. It is clearly an advantage to have high variation. It can lead to horrible mutations, but will raise the chance that a good one will come about. Evolution is an incredibly complex race--to nowhere. It's fascinating.

Also, tests have shown that certain sugars and amino acids (I may have got that wrong, but you get my point, it's two differet types of matter) destory each other when they meet, which would have happened in a primordial soup, yet we still have those substances today.

Please give me a source on that. I have never heard this one, because it really makes very little sense to me. Also, it sounds like it is missing some information. There are plenty of things that exist in our body that would hurt us if it was used elsewhere, or interacted with something else--just look at the bombardier beetle for a good example. But that evolved.

I did those arguments groos injustice, so odn't think that's the only stuff anti-evos have, I just don't know any of it.

Then there's the philosophical ocmplications-

Evolution doesn't account for how the primordial soup got there in the first place, dosn't acocutn for how time, concept of matter, laws of physics, motion, and senses/perception, or even how the potentiality for even these to happen came to be.

Evolution just talks about the first single-celled organism and beyond. You are absolutely right. You should look up abiogenesis if you want to learn about the 'primordial soup [lol]'. You won't understand a **** thing though--so it might not help. And, why does evolution have to account for Newtonian classical physics? Also, it does explain how senses and perception comes about. But, why does it have to explain the fourth dimension [time] as well? I mean, do you realize how unbelievably misguided you sound? You don't even have a **** idea about what evolution is proving, or is explaining. You think it should explain everything because it explains one thing that you don't like to hear--sorry it doesn't. But, other scientific theories are attempting to explain that. Namely string theory--or quantum darwinism if you want to be on the 'cutting edge' or physics right now.

Also, there was a hardcore atheist in my Philosophy of Religion class, and he went to see a psychic who works for the police, and without hi msaying a word to her, she told him heaps of stuff about his dad she couldn't have known, yet he's still a hardcore athiest, bt believes in the soul, so Superspright what does evolution say about that? Surely that's too important to ignore.

An atheist is a person who has no beliefs. If he believes in a soul he is a gnostic. He is just an idiot who wants to seem trendy and deep because he's an atheist--but has no idea what it means. Evolution doesn't talk about the soul. That is a philosophical issue--a metaphysical one to be specific. Why does evolution have to deal with a unfalsifiable hypothesis? Science as a whole cannot even approach such things--and evolution yet again, deals with only biological entities--why the hell would it have to explain why by your anecdote, "a hardcore atheist" would believe someone who merely mind ****ed them? Psychics practice mentalism--which is the ability to impress things upon people, and to be able to seem psychic. It's simple, and a hoax.

Superspright if evolution shows God doesn't exist, then explain to me how something came from nothing. Nothing doesn't just mean an empty space, I'm talking about nothingness, with no actualities such as time or space, and no potentiality to set something in motion, that's nothingness.

Evolution shows that the god of the Christian bible does not exist--or certainly the bible was not divinely inspired. If there is a God--or an almighty it certainly cannot, and has not been described by any culture or any belief system in the world. Evolution directly has confronted the ignorance of men who just barely escaped their caves into civilization--still bearing the superstitions of their tribesman. Also, there is no such thing as nothingness--the 'big bang' was an expansion of space time. The universe was a singularity, or essentially was a unified force. All the forces of nature were at a balance. I am not going to really get into this [this is too long to explain, and I don't care to]. I don't really care about cosmogony. We're here--it is obvious it happened, and it is significant because I think it is. Period.

If you can expalin that properly to me without changing the topic or insulting me, I may consider your argument.

I'm just sick of being ncie to you, I treated you with curtousity ong enough without you returning it, so now I'm gonna challenege you rather than try be a peacemaker.

Edit: I take that last bit back, I will stil ltreat you with curtousy, it's wrong of me to stoop to that level, I just got heated up then, which I odn't normally do, but yeah I still wnat yo uto answer my aforementioned question.

You don't challenge me. Don't waste your time. Just try to understand I am trying to help you see that you have been brainwashed into thinking evolution is some shoddy hunch that some crazy big bearded guy wrote down one day. It is the most profound thing we have ever discovered. We found our origin to be given to us from BILLIONS of years of inheritance. We share information with every organism on the planet. Peas and cows are RELATED. You are related to everything on this planet.

It is BEAUTIFUL. And so elegant that it makes my heart feel like it is bursting--religion never made me feel so complete and at peace. I know when I die I will return--not as a man, because this coalescence of matter and energy will fade, but I will return back to where I came. I will be recycled. I find that beautiful. My life, and death is not wasted. People expect themselves to be anointed with immortality in some lofty kingdom--get real. No one cares that much about you. The earth loves you. It adores you. It pushed you up through a hyperspace of possibility into a blessed form--one that has elegant technology to manipulate the world [hands] and to communicate, and sing, and appreciate music, and adore each other, and find sympathy, and compassion. Those are EVOLVED. They are SURVIVAL instincts. Altruism is given to us by the system of evolution itself. I just find it depressing when people can't find that empowering. You're not here as some sort of punishment.

You were raised here for billions of years in a sense, and this is the greatest way to experience the world. The world made you to find it beautiful and lovely and perfect. An illusion that has given some madmen the power to manipulate young children into thinking it was GIVEN to them by some anthropomorphic entity.

I'm just sick of it. I am done with this debate. I cannot enlighten you.

That is beautiful. Not some sky fairy god.

 

[Dre89]

Twilight Prince, I'm not talking about a psychic fraud. I know which one's those are, they're the ones who inetreact with you, mnaking you talk, and use cold reading to determine which leads can be followed or not. Thats a fraud. The one I'm talking about didn't even let James say a word to her, so without James saying anything to her, she said all this stuff she couldn't' have known. I'm not stupid I dont think someone like John Edwards is genuine lol.

 

[DLA]

That was a really impressive post. I doubt I could have made my thoughts as clear as that even if I tried. Hopefully everyone can read that and be swayed not only by your extensive knowledge, but also by your passion towards an existence unshackled by the religious ideologies that have plagued our minds for so long.

 

[Dre89]

Evolution shows that the god of the Christian bible does not exist--or certainly the bible was not divinely inspired. If there is a God--or an almighty it certainly cannot, and has not been described by any culture or any belief system in the world. Evolution directly has confronted the ignorance of men who just barely escaped their caves into civilization--still bearing the superstitions of their tribesman. Also, there is no such thing as nothingness--the 'big bang' was an expansion of space time. The universe was a singularity, or essentially was a unified force. All the forces of nature were at a balance. I am not going to really get into this [this is too long to explain, and I don't care to]. I don't really care about cosmogony. We're here--it is obvious it happened, and it is significant because I think it is. Period.


.

Have you not read anything I've said? I don't even believe in religion.

I already said evo can possibly disprove a religious God, but it can't prove or disprove the idea that there possibly could have been an eternal, metaphysical, and even possibly imeprsonal being who was the first cause in motion.

I seriously don't get what your'e arguing anymore. This whole time I've been saying science doesn't answer everything, that the questions of God is philosophical, not scientific, and now you're saying science can't prove or disprove God, hello- THAT WAS MY POINT.

And with 'all the forces of nature were at balance stuff', you're still already pressuming existences, I wanna know how the first existence began, I wanna know how time began, consideirng it's been proven that time is not infitinite.

How did these 'forces' come to be? If you're gonna say science doesn't deal with that, then you've just admitted you need philosophy to argue whether God exists or not, or how the world came to be.

This is my point, science only affects religions, but not the question of God in general. It doesn't matter what science says, it wil lnever explain how the pricnples of how time space phsycis etc. came into place, it only explains what happens after they were there.

 

[Superspright]

Have you not read anything I've said? I don't even believe in religion.

I already said evo can possibly disprove a religious God, but it can't prove or disprove the idea that there possibly could have been an eternal, metaphysical, and even possibly imeprsonal being who was the first cause in motion.

I seriously don't get what your'e arguing anymore. This whole time I've been saying science doesn't answer everything, that the questions of God is philosophical, not scientific, and now you're saying science can't prove or disprove God, hello- THAT WAS MY POINT.

And with 'all the forces of nature were at balance stuff', you're still already pressuming existences, I wanna know how the first existence began, I wanna know how time began, consideirng it's been proven that time is not infitinite.

How did these 'forces' come to be? If you're gonna say science doesn't deal with that, then you've just admitted you need philosophy to argue whether God exists or not, or how the world came to be.

This is my point, science only affects religions, but not the question of God in general. It doesn't matter what science says, it wil lnever explain how the pricnples of how time space phsycis etc. came into place, it only explains what happens after they were there.

If you want to know these things--then clear your mind of assumptions. God is one of those assumptions. If something is truly supernatural, then it is beyond all imagination--it is ineffable. To speculate on God is to make it intangible. The supernatural is beyond the intangible in that it can't even be thought of. It is SUPERNATURAL. Beyond NATURE--what you come from. So don't expect a flatlander to understand the third dimension anymore than you will understand anything above this universe--or anything more complex--because the word complex even defies how difficult it is to imagine. Complex doesn't even begin, or adequately introduce the arduousness of comprehending supernatural ANYTHING.

So please, do as I have done. I cleared my head. And I soaked up what I could perceive. That is all I can rely on currently. I lack any other senses than the ones I was given. So I must follow them to their conclusions--it is my best tool to comprehend the universe. Speculation leads me to many great places of fancy that lighten my mood and bring me out of the sometimes hell of the world--but it doesn't offer me deep comfort like trusting my senses, or my innate ability to be rational.

Also, I wasn't presuming anything. Scientists have concluded that in a singularity all the forces of nature break down for one reason: because they are in a very quantum esque state. So small that it escapes the classical model entirely. This macro universe is an emergent property of quantum decoherence--or essentially it is like a different universe all together. The quantum universe is in superposition. Electrons around an atom look more like a blurry cloud as they are in every possible state at once. This is quite strange and leads to clever thought experiments like Schrodinger's cat. [I needed an umlaut but I don't care.]. This reality is SELECTED by the environment itself--this is so hard to explain, and I really do not fully understand it, but it is not a fairy tale; reality is stranger than you can imagine, quite literally. I wish you would be as adamant about reading this kind of stuff as you are about ignoring it.

--

Also, science cannot prove/disprove god. But the Christian God has clearly been disproven if you take the bible literally. Which is what you were supposed to do anyway--you should read the new translations of the bible they are truer to the word. They found that after translations and all the propaganda that was scribed into it, it barely resembled its true form. The bible was meant to be taken quite literally actually. So, either the bible is a lie, and no one has written about God yet, or it wasn't divinely inspired and just a bunch of madmen 2,000 years ago looking to immortalize themselves through wild beliefs? Why do people trust other people they've never met from 2,000 years ago who didn't even have plumbing?? These people were living in a hell hole--of course they'd make up a place they could escape to. Anyone would, and did. Miracles happened all the time. Prophets were a dime a dozen--Jesus' religion is just highly marketable since anyone can get in on it--especially the poor.

I have no idea why I responded now. lol

 

[Dre89]

Look whatever I don't care if you insult me anymore, I didn't even read your last post because arguing like this is pointless and it's ruining the boards. We're not gonna be able to get through to each other so we might as well drop it and let the boards be fun again.

I just hope the rest of the Gdorf mains accept my apology for all the inconvenience, you can have your thread back now lol.

 

[A2ZOMG]

Supersight, you're a ****ing genius.

Mad props to you. I always love listening to highly intellectual discussion.

 

[GHNeko]

This thread should be the new debate board.

 

[*JuriHan*]

Do you care whether you're wrong?

I'll only care if im before God and he tells me im wrong.

 

[Superspright]

Well, I killed that debate. Hard.

I was so blitted when I wrote that too. :s

 

[Clai]

I took archeology at my university and they never mentioned there was a war, but they mentioned the Neanderthals iirc. and ugh half-ape half-human gives me the creeps thinking about it.

Sorry, I worded that wrong. It wasn't about wars as much as it was about surviving and fighting for natural resources. The whole 'survival of the fittest' theory applies to humans/subhumans as much as it applies to other animal species.

I was just trying to explain what I was saying about evolution. If this was argued about earlier, I didn't read the debates, so don't hate on me.

 

[Z1GMA]

Could you guys take this dabate in the Pit-boards instead?

 

[*JuriHan*]

so don't hate on me.

 

[PK-ow!]

I'll only care if im before God and he tells me im wrong.

There are some complexities in that answer, and I don't think I understand you at this. Let me ask some more things please and figure this out.

Firstly, do you assent to the claim that, there is some fact of the matter, as to whether or not you are wrong, in the present? I.e., either your belief is true or it is false?

It's not common, but there is a philosophical position which says that some statements, while indeed making claims, are not truth-evaluable until certain time points. You might say "There will be a sea battle tomorrow," and this theory goes that this statement is neither true nor false, until tomorrow.

Are you taking that position, or, are you not going there, and will say "it's either true or false"?




That completely aside, I want to point out that, with a question of the sort I asked in the first post I put to you, there can be multiple answers that are all true. As such, I'd like to be clear on just how you took the question, and I realized it's my bad how I put it to you.

One has to distinguish between several forms of causation. These go back to Aristotle by the way. The following are just names, keep in mind; and while the claim (and my belief) is that they are exhaustive, there is by no means a proof that there can't be another. I do hope that they are well-defined themselves, though:

There are formal causes, material causes, efficient causes, and final causes.

(You can Wiki "Four Causes," but I find it incomplete and misleading, except for the history part.)


When I ask "where does X come from," I was asking an ontological question: what is the ontological origin, however that means to you, of X. It is a sort of thing that can be answered as a causal question, though. Indeed, I'd say anyone I can conceive would take that particular question, at the least, as being a sort of causal question: What brings the human form about? Well, a thing that caused it. It is logically permissible to just say "The Human form is (ontologically) prior to all things," and that would be an answer, and there would be no causing. It would burden oneself with a lot of problems if they seriously hold that view, but it's there.


The four causes can best be explained by me, as they were explained to me.
Consider a table made of wood. It is one on which a certain family eats dinner regularly.

The elder daughter in the family asks her father, "Why does the table stand? Why does it not break when we put or drop things on it?"
The father replies, "Because it is shaped to stand under its own weight."

The father's answer is a brief form of accounting for the girl's ponderance with a formal cause. The structure, the way-of-fitting-together, of the thing, explains the phenomenon. Often, a formal cause is the one that explains an absence of an effect. A formal cause can't be pinned down to one property of the thing, but only its wholeness.

Then, the table is flung into a body of water. It floats. You may ask why it floats. The answer you'd most likely get is "Because it is made of wood." This story accounts for the floating in virtue of the stuff out of which the table is made. Wood floats. This is a material cause. The sort of thing which something is, full stop, is the cause. To clarify, in this sequence, the woodness is the material cause of the floating.

The table is recovered from the pond and is dressed with utensils again. For whatever reason, the table is slammed on the surface with a fist. The utensils jump and clatter in place. Why did the forks and spoons jump? Because the table shook. This is the familiar sequence from cause to effect as cause to effect. "Billiard ball" causation. One thing leads to another. This is efficient cause.

And lastly, suppose the young boy of this family, holds up a knife, and asks 'why is this sharp?' The only answer to give him is, "Because it was made for cutting." It accounts for the sharpness in the form of explaining an end or a goal. It relies on there being some kind of agent, or agentive action.



Now, I have no particular one of these in mind when I ask you that one question. As it was my query to you, generally, the one providing the account is the one who picks which one is most relevant to give. When I ask why the eight-ball went in the side pocket, you might say "Because the cue ball struck it on the south side" or "because it had the right speed," and you most likely won't say something like "Because Newtonian mechanics roughly hold in this environment at the subluminous speeds of the objects concerned." All three of these statements are nonetheless true and are causes, but only a handful of such things are privileged with being relevant, and in the act of answering, informing one of relevance is a part of one's report.


But what I'd like to know is what cause you say God is.
Do you claim, from God, A lead to B, and thus Human form?

I don't mean to put ideas in your head, but alternately, do you claim some kind of immanent causation, wherein God is the origin of the Human form in the same way that some particular extension of rubber and metal make up a particular car?


This is wordy because questions are complicated things. I only want to know what you mean; this wall is the best way I can figure out to express my requests to you.

 

[Ganonsburg]

If by owning the debate hard you mean that you ignored and insulted everyone to the point of exhaustion, yes, yes you did.

Okay, fine. You won the debate. So what? No one thinks anything different then they did before. So congratulations on winning the waste of time that everyone else tried to stop. You should get the Darwin Award.

I like what you said last, SNO (not the frown-faces, but the last sentence you said). It pretty much summarizes my opinions.

 

[Superspright]

I knew I wasn't going to change anyone's ideas. I know that even though I have refuted all of your arguments you will still find them valid, and will probably repeat them to someone else, and maybe they will be stumped by them--but I'm not.

So, resume doing whatever it is you do. But, don't act like your beliefs have any merit or credibility--they are just wonderful little imaginings. No belief should stand against evidence--but yours always will. Faith to you is something probably so wonderful and deep, and its defiance pulls deep in the 'rebellious' side of humanity. It is such a clever trick. By being faithful you think you have earned something--but you've lost your ability to think reasonably and rationally. You've forfeited your mind to something that has never elucidated a single fact to you. Why are you so stubborn? Even if you gave me criteria to prove you wrong they would either be impossible and thus pointless, or I could, and then you would move your goal posts undoubtedly.

I'm good on this.

 

[Ganonsburg]

I could say the same things to you...because you haven't listened to any of Dre's points. You've merely stated the same things time and time again without explaining them. And what reason do you have to be so bitter? What have we done wrong to you that you insist on attacking us?

And how have we lost our ability to reason? I'm going to study mathematics and statistics, two fields that are so bound to logic it makes science look like Kindergarten reasoning. I'm very good in those fields and I have a great ability to think logically that is not affected in any way by my personal beliefs. If having faith in a higher power makes you illogical, then lets just throw out gravity and calculus right now because they were developed by two extremely illogical men.

And the point of my faith isn't that we've earned anything. It's that we've earned NOTHING, and are fully dependent on God. He's the one that has given us what we have (life, possessions, friends), he's the one that takes care of us, he's the one that has saved us from ourselves. He's done it all, and we just screw it right back up. I'm not saying you have to believe any of this, but this is what I believe. I have earned nothing.

In order to prove me wrong, you have to prove that God doesn't exist. Which you can't do. There's no way to prove that something doesn't exist, because it's always possible that whatever it is may exist just outside of our ability to comprehend or perceive. Unless you think that you're omniscient (which you obviously think you are).

Evidence always has to be interpreted. Creationists interpret the data one way, evolutionists another. No matter what you do, bias and worldview will always play a part in the way data is interpreted. Something like the fossil record may mean millions of years of death and evolution to you, but to me it shows a global flood that buried everything.

Anyway, just allow us to believe what we believe in peace. If you're right, cool. We'll die, and you were right. But guess what? It won't matter to me, it won't matter to you. No one will care. Even if atheists can give meaning to life, it doesn't matter once we're dead.

But just because we think differently than you doesn't make us stupid or foolish. You don't need to talk down upon us as if we are less than human. And if you feel the need to do that, I don't know what to say.

 

[Dre89]

Well, I killed that debate. Hard.

I was so blitted when I wrote that too. :s

What do you mean you killed the debate? I'm pretty sure I was the one who said 'let's just end this because we're not going ahywhere and it's ruining the boards'.

Ganonsburg you just have to ignore him and let him think he's won, otherwise he'll just keep being insultive, it's best just to drop it so that order can be ressumed to his thread.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Aye. I don't know why I even started, especially since I really wanted to avoid participating in that "discussion."

Australia is a pretty cool place. I haven't spent much time in Sydney recently, but I've been in Perth numerous times to visit family. One of my favorite things is that you will have a city, and just a little ways out of the city is nothing. In the US you'll have tons of roads and homes, but in Australia (at least around Perth) everything just fades away into the bush. It's really neat.

Not to mention Target is one of my favorite stores in the US now. They sell Tim-Tams during certain parts of the year! It's awesome.

 

[*JuriHan*]

There are some complexities in that answer, and I don't think I understand you at this. Let me ask some more things please and figure this out.

Firstly, do you assent to the claim that, there is some fact of the matter, as to whether or not you are wrong, in the present? I.e., either your belief is true or it is false?

It's not common, but there is a philosophical position which says that some statements, while indeed making claims, are not truth-evaluable until certain time points. You might say "There will be a sea battle tomorrow," and this theory goes that this statement is neither true nor false, until tomorrow.

Are you taking that position, or, are you not going there, and will say "it's either true or false"?




That completely aside, I want to point out that, with a question of the sort I asked in the first post I put to you, there can be multiple answers that are all true. As such, I'd like to be clear on just how you took the question, and I realized it's my bad how I put it to you.

One has to distinguish between several forms of causation. These go back to Aristotle by the way. The following are just names, keep in mind; and while the claim (and my belief) is that they are exhaustive, there is by no means a proof that there can't be another. I do hope that they are well-defined themselves, though:

There are formal causes, material causes, efficient causes, and final causes.

(You can Wiki "Four Causes," but I find it incomplete and misleading, except for the history part.)


When I ask "where does X come from," I was asking an ontological question: what is the ontological origin, however that means to you, of X. It is a sort of thing that can be answered as a causal question, though. Indeed, I'd say anyone I can conceive would take that particular question, at the least, as being a sort of causal question: What brings the human form about? Well, a thing that caused it. It is logically permissible to just say "The Human form is (ontologically) prior to all things," and that would be an answer, and there would be no causing. It would burden oneself with a lot of problems if they seriously hold that view, but it's there.


The four causes can best be explained by me, as they were explained to me.
Consider a table made of wood. It is one on which a certain family eats dinner regularly.

The elder daughter in the family asks her father, "Why does the table stand? Why does it not break when we put or drop things on it?"
The father replies, "Because it is shaped to stand under its own weight."

The father's answer is a brief form of accounting for the girl's ponderance with a formal cause. The structure, the way-of-fitting-together, of the thing, explains the phenomenon. Often, a formal cause is the one that explains an absence of an effect. A formal cause can't be pinned down to one property of the thing, but only its wholeness.

Then, the table is flung into a body of water. It floats. You may ask why it floats. The answer you'd most likely get is "Because it is made of wood." This story accounts for the floating in virtue of the stuff out of which the table is made. Wood floats. This is a material cause. The sort of thing which something is, full stop, is the cause. To clarify, in this sequence, the woodness is the material cause of the floating.

The table is recovered from the pond and is dressed with utensils again. For whatever reason, the table is slammed on the surface with a fist. The utensils jump and clatter in place. Why did the forks and spoons jump? Because the table shook. This is the familiar sequence from cause to effect as cause to effect. "Billiard ball" causation. One thing leads to another. This is efficient cause.

And lastly, suppose the young boy of this family, holds up a knife, and asks 'why is this sharp?' The only answer to give him is, "Because it was made for cutting." It accounts for the sharpness in the form of explaining an end or a goal. It relies on there being some kind of agent, or agentive action.



Now, I have no particular one of these in mind when I ask you that one question. As it was my query to you, generally, the one providing the account is the one who picks which one is most relevant to give. When I ask why the eight-ball went in the side pocket, you might say "Because the cue ball struck it on the south side" or "because it had the right speed," and you most likely won't say something like "Because Newtonian mechanics roughly hold in this environment at the subluminous speeds of the objects concerned." All three of these statements are nonetheless true and are causes, but only a handful of such things are privileged with being relevant, and in the act of answering, informing one of relevance is a part of one's report.


But what I'd like to know is what cause you say God is.
Do you claim, from God, A lead to B, and thus Human form?

I don't mean to put ideas in your head, but alternately, do you claim some kind of immanent causation, wherein God is the origin of the Human form in the same way that some particular extension of rubber and metal make up a particular car?


This is wordy because questions are complicated things. I only want to know what you mean; this wall is the best way I can figure out to express my requests to you.

ugh dang man, I just got done with my senior year of getting my bachelors.... my brain is fried. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

As for what God is I beleive in the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). I can answer that

 

[Dre89]

Aye. I don't know why I even started, especially since I really wanted to avoid participating in that "discussion."

Australia is a pretty cool place. I haven't spent much time in Sydney recently, but I've been in Perth numerous times to visit family. One of my favorite things is that you will have a city, and just a little ways out of the city is nothing. In the US you'll have tons of roads and homes, but in Australia (at least around Perth) everything just fades away into the bush. It's really neat.

Not to mention Target is one of my favorite stores in the US now. They sell Tim-Tams during certain parts of the year! It's awesome.

Yeah Australia is a pretty good place to live, although I don't really like Western culture and attitudes, it's a privellaged country with generally harmless people, so for that I am immensely grateful and lucky to live here, considering how bad most other palces in the world are.

I don't like how we're considering the largest island in the world though. Other continents are islands too, just because we draw imaginary lines and call them countries doesn't change the fact that they're peices of land surrounded by a body of water, but that's just getting nit-picky lol.

Vegemite is the bomb. The reaosn why foreigniers hate it is becuase they spread it on as if ti were peanut butter, which with vegemite is too much for most people (except me, I can have double-decker sandwiches ful lof veegmite and nothign else).

So what are you doing in Australia?

 

[Ganonsburg]

I'm not in Australia now, because I live in America, but during the summer we were visiting my mom's family (she's Australian). I'm actually a dual citizen, which is pretty nifty. I sometimes wish I didn't live in America simply because I hate the attitude that most Americans have. Many of them truly believe that they are the center of the world. But one thing that's nice is that a lot of consumer products are available to us that aren't available elsewhere. I've sometimes considered moving to Australia, but the tickets to see my family are crazy expensive because I live on the East Coast, which is perfectly on the other side of the world from Australia (specifically off the west coast of Australia).

Good point about the island. I've always wondered why Eurasia+Africa aren't considered one giant freaking island. Same thing applies to mountains and hills, planets and other celestial objects, etc.

Haha, my mom has said that about Vegemite time and time again.

 

[PK-ow!]

ugh dang man, I just got done with my senior year of getting my bachelors.... my brain is fried. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

As for what God is I beleive in the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). I can answer that

Take your time.

Vegemite is the bomb. The reaosn why foreigniers hate it is becuase they spread it on as if ti were peanut butter, which with vegemite is too much for most people (except me, I can have double-decker sandwiches ful lof veegmite and nothign else).

So what are you doing in Australia?

Incidentally, I spread Peanut Butter really thin. The thickness most people spread PB is "too much" for me. I like the taste of it - not the feel of the sticky substance that threatens to choke me if I bite off too much.

I should get some vegemite. I'd probably hate it, 'cause I hate, like, everything. (c wut i did thar)

 

[qerkdtx]

IM BACK!!!!!!!!!!!11!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!1!!1!!one!!2!!two!!!1

Anyone miss me?

 

[stRIP]

IM BACK!!!!!!!!!!!11!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!1!!1!!one!!2!!two!!!1

Anyone miss me?

who are you?

Spoiler

just joking, welcome back (: