How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[AltF4]

Still on Pascal's wager, Del? Really?

The wager is invalid for so many reasons. You do not "risk nothing" by believing in a god.

What if god loves logic and science? And seeing as how he created them, I bet that's got a good chance of being true too. What if the one true god loves logic and science so much that he rewards only those who follow it strictly, and uses logic to its fullest. What if this one true god sends anyone who believes in him to hell, for being illogical. And rewards everyone who used their reason with heaven?

According to THIS god, YOU'RE the one going to hell, and I'M the one going to heaven.

So don't try to play it off like I'm refusing a lottery ticket. We all have our risks, and all have our potential rewards.

 

[RDK]

About time, someone with a serious amount of wit said something in here. I will say that this is a very respectful and honest post. Thank God....

That said, after thinking about it, I truly understand your logic and way of thinking. However, God has had effects, but those observable affects are debated by people. And even if everyone believed God's effects were real and actually happened (the flood, the plagues, miracles, etc.) I think it would be a stretch to call them "scientific" just because they could be falsifiable. Most of the deny natural laws of science. I know what you mean by falsifiable. There are theories and yes, it usually comes down to the most widely accepted theory being passed off as the right one, even though it might not technically be. Its usually "safe" to say it is.

I feel in this case though, its so debatable on whether or not God's implied effects actually happened because of how long ago they did that we will never have a way to prove if they did or didn't. While your logic says "you can never prove it" which to you means its just a philosophy. I guess to an extent I believe in the philosophy that the events that are mentioned in the bible really did happen. I can't prove that, but it could have. How is that admitting defeat? Are all philosophies wrong? I don't think so. It just means its not scientific. Its really hard for me to clear up what I'm trying to get across what I'm trying to say. So forgive me if half of this doesn't make much sense.

It's all but proven that the flood didn't really happen.

 

[chucklesXcore]

It's all but proven that the flood didn't really happen.

*sigh*

must we go in this endless circle.....

its all but proven? this still leaves the open ended side thats its debatable, the side for it is very weak, but its still debatable .

 

[EC_Joey]

About time, someone with a serious amount of wit said something in here. I will say that this is a very respectful and honest post. Thank God....

That said, after thinking about it, I truly understand your logic and way of thinking. However, God has had effects, but those observable affects are debated by people. And even if everyone believed God's effects were real and actually happened (the flood, the plagues, miracles, etc.) I think it would be a stretch to call them "scientific" just because they could be falsifiable. Most of the deny natural laws of science. I know what you mean by falsifiable. There are theories and yes, it usually comes down to the most widely accepted theory being passed off as the right one, even though it might not technically be. Its usually "safe" to say it is.

I feel in this case though, its so debatable on whether or not God's implied effects actually happened because of how long ago they did that we will never have a way to prove if they did or didn't. While your logic says "you can never prove it" which to you means its just a philosophy. I guess to an extent I believe in the philosophy that the events that are mentioned in the bible really did happen. I can't prove that, but it could have. How is that admitting defeat? Are all philosophies wrong? I don't think so. It just means its not scientific. Its really hard for me to clear up what I'm trying to get across what I'm trying to say. So forgive me if half of this doesn't make much sense.

Believing in those miraculous events is fine. Believing in an all-powerful being orchestrating said events? That's a little iffy.

Relying on seemingly implausible supernatural events to prove the existence of God has been used for a very long time. More recently, there are people who have been using more down to earth evidence. The best case of this is Intelligent Design, which claims that the complexity of life and its structures is evidence of an outside influence.

However, both of these approaches can be simply attributed to chance. Evolution is brought about by small chance mutations that accumulate over time, and those events far in the past could have simply been natural phenomena that happened by chance, or simply made up/romanticized.

 

[chucklesXcore]

Believing in those miraculous events is fine. Believing in an all-powerful being orchestrating said events? That's a little iffy.

Relying on seemingly implausible supernatural events to prove the existence of God has been used for a very long time. More recently, there are people who have been using more down to earth evidence. The best case of this is Intelligent Design, which claims that the complexity of life and its structures is evidence of an outside influence.

However, both of these approaches can be simply attributed to chance. Evolution is brought about by small chance mutations that accumulate over time, and those events far in the past could have simply been natural phenomena that happened by chance, or simply made up/romanticized.

I never really knew the idea of intelligent design could be considered "evidence". That said, I have to agree it does in a way provide one of the few logical arguments back for there being a God. Everything seems to been made and constructed to such a high complex level it implies that there could be a God. And everything is a chance it seems like. If you believe, you are taking a chance that you are wasting your time. If you don't believe you are taking the chance you are wrong and angering a God. Or perhaps, it won't even matter and the "God" we have created isn't the one that really created everything and the one that did doesn't really care what we do. I mean the possibilities go on endlessly.

but I just wanted to say I really like how someone brought up intelligent design and believes it is a valid viewpoint. I didn't even think to bring this up.

 

[RDK]

*sigh*

must we go in this endless circle.....

its all but proven? this still leaves the open ended side thats its debatable, the side for it is very weak, but its still debatable .

No, it's really not. With what we know about geological strata and the dating of our earth, there's really no evidence to support there ever having been a worldwide flood. If there was, why do we still have the pyramids?

The Great Pyramid of Cheops was built about 2589-2566 BC, about 230 years before the flood, yet it has no water marks on it. The Djoser Step Pyramid at Saqqara, Egypt, built about 2630 BC doesn't show any signs of having been under water. Likewise for many other ancient structures. But even more importantly, the Egyptians have continuous historical records for hundreds of years before and after the time of the flood that make no mention of a great flood. This shows that they were not only not aware of a global flood, they certainly were not greatly affected by one. Outside of the Bible, there is no historical or physical evidence that would place a worldwide flood during the time period specified by the Bible for the great flood.

 

[AltF4]

Everything seems to been made and constructed to such a high complex level it implies that there could be a God.

Anthropic Principle. Just look it up on wikipedia. I've explained it in this thread too many times to count. The argument you just proposed is an argument from ignorance, and is not an argument at all.

If you believe, you are taking a chance that you are wasting your time. If you don't believe you are taking the chance you are wrong and angering a God. Or perhaps, it won't even matter and the "God" we have created isn't the one that really created everything and the one that did doesn't really care what we do. I mean the possibilities go on endlessly.

Precisely. So why don't we stop all of this nonsense and just try instead to figure out what the truth is, shall we?

And there is only one way of attempting to determine the truth, and that's called "The Scientific Method", whereby we use evidence to create models (aka theories) and then iteratively eliminate these models by falsifying them.

You seem to be under the impression that there is an invisible man in the sky pulling all the strings, as it were. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

 

[Deleted member]

*looks back* Ahh jeez.

Well, in my defense, the only point I was really trying to get across was RDK's poor choice of words. But he didn't respond.

 

[chucklesXcore]

Anthropic Principle. Just look it up on wikipedia. I've explained it in this thread too many times to count. The argument you just proposed is an argument from ignorance, and is not an argument at all

Ok, I'm not going to lie, that concept by reading it was really hard to understand. I'm no science buff obviously, I hate science in general, but I'll just take the stance you are trying to say that we should be aware that just because we are the only ones that can live in our own environment doesn't mean there aren't other things that live elsewhere differently in places we cannot reach nor can we comprehend? Other than that, I really don't know what you're trying to say. I am not going to BS you and say I totally got the concept because reading it I felt completely lost. So if I'm wrong, please clear it up for me. That said, I'll present my side based off what I'm assuming you meant.

I still don't think its ignorance. I'm not ignoring the fact of that being possible. It is. But is it wrong to believe that because we just so happen to have two eyes, two ears, superior intelligence, etc. could possibly not be a coincidence? That's the only argument I'm making. It could not be a coincidence. There still has been no explanation for it.

Precisely. So why don't we stop all of this nonsense and just try instead to figure out what the truth is, shall we?

And there is only one way of attempting to determine the truth, and that's called "The Scientific Method", whereby we use evidence to create models (aka theories) and then iteratively eliminate these models by falsifying them.

You seem to be under the impression that there is an invisible man in the sky pulling all the strings, as it were. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

First off, I don't claim there is an invisible man in the sky pulling all the strings. I don't believe heaven is a place we can physically reach. And I don't believe he intervenes any longer. He did at one time, but I feel he no longer intervenes with what goes down in the world/universe.

Second, I have no scientific or logical evidence to claim this. (yah, I've admitted it the whole thread if anyone has been reading)

Third, you obviously must believe there isn't a God. What evidence do you have that there isn't?

This has and always will be an argument of superior logic vs undeniable spiritual feeling. Superior logic on paper always gets the win. It can't be argued by spiritual feeling because that goes against all logic. So spiritual feeling will ALWAYS seem like the ******** way to go to anyone who believes superior logic is the only way. But its the exact same for the spiritual feeling group as well. You can't comprehend spiritual feeling and you just dismiss as we dismiss logic so we feel you're being just as ignorant as us.




EDIT: RDK, please tell me where your getting the date for the time of the flood, because as far as I've read there is no exact date listed in the bible. No year, nothing. There is only many theories as to the general time frame it happened, but no official date as far as I've been led to believe. I'd gladly accept something that proves when it happened though.

 

[GhostAnime]

I'm no science buff obviously, I hate science in general

what do you have to hate about it? it's the reason why you enjoy your life. this is the most silliest thing i've ever heard.

but I'll just take the stance you are trying to say that we should be aware that just because we are the only ones that can live in our own environment doesn't mean there aren't other things that live elsewhere differently in places we cannot reach nor can we comprehend?

i personally love the idea of us not being the only intelligent beings in the universe... but that doesn't require a god.

in fact christianity basically says we are the center of existence and the universe was made for our benefit. so which stance do you REALLY support?

That's the only argument I'm making. It could not be a coincidence. There still has been no explanation for it.

evolution isn't good enough?

Third, you obviously must believe there isn't a God. What evidence do you have that there isn't?

burden of proof is on you.

You can't comprehend spiritual feeling and you just dismiss as we dismiss logic so we feel you're being just as ignorant as us.

and yet you have no reason to feel that way, because we have our logic and science right in front of us.

EDIT: RDK, please tell me where your getting the date for the time of the flood, because as far as I've read there is no exact date listed in the bible. No year, nothing. There is only many theories as to the general time frame it happened, but no official date as far as I've been led to believe. I'd gladly accept something that proves when it happened though.

well unless you're one of those 'the year means something else in the bible!' people it's only about as much as a few thousand years ago.

 

[Deleted member]

Chuckles, in a nut-shell:

Obviously, the life-giving planet is going to have life on it. However, what it doesn't tell you is how the planet came to bestow life, nor does it explain the complexity of the aforementioned life.

It's like, a B- point at best.

 

[chucklesXcore]

what do you have to hate about it? it's the reason why you enjoy your life. this is the most silliest thing i've ever heard.


i personally love the idea of us not being the only intelligent beings in the universe... but that doesn't require a god.

in fact christianity basically says we are the center of existence and the universe was made for our benefit. so which stance do you REALLY support?


evolution isn't good enough?


burden of proof is on you.


and yet you have no reason to feel that way, because we have our logic and science right in front of us.


well unless you're one of those 'the year means something else in the bible!' people it's only about as much as a few thousand years ago.

I feel this is almost an all out offensive against me. How many people am I trying to debate with? I'm the only believer it seems like who is willing to try and make any stand. Hell, I'm willing to admit I'm not even the most knowledgeable believer. I'm presenting, as delorted stated, a B- point at best. I'm willing to admit that. Are there any believers out there, is there anyone who actually has delved deep into the spiritual/religious side of things. I'm not only young, but still learning about what I believe in and support which makes me appear weaker than I already am. So if any of you believe and are much more knowledgeable about spirituality, please say something. I honestly can say this is getting pretty frustrating with all the people being super condescending. I'm not super knowledgeable, so while there may be valid arguments, someone like me may not be able to present them. I'm trying to present what I can and what I believe in, but it feels everyone is shutting that down by shoving logic logic logic down my throat when that means nothing to me and how I feel.

and I never said this requires a God! I said its a possible concept! I don't know why everyone keeps saying I'm passing off what I believe as fact. I am allowed to believe what I want without trying to pass it off as fact, I swear if I have one more person act like I'm forcing my views on everyone or passing them as "the way" I'm going to snap.

some believers actually believe in a concept of both creationism and evolution. where the first 7 days are not defined by an exact time frame. Since the sun wasn't created until a few days into the said creation, the first few days could have been any set amount of time and not a 24 hour time period. Usually said people assume its a 24 hour day because thats how we base our current 7 day week, but thats where I feel it is flawed. those first few days technically could have been any set amount of time.

and I'm REALLY tired of people saying "burden of proof is on you, but i don't have to say anything to prove my side =D" thats so childish. If I have to prove my side, you all have to prove yours. Period.

and we do have a right to feel that way. unfortunately for you, we have our spiritual feeling right inside us. we may not be able to show it to you, but we feel it. which is why we feel you are just as ridiculous for dismissing our views as stupid.

and lastly, I'm not one of those people. the year is a year. give me a method thats proven that gives me a general time frame for the flood and I'll gladly accept it.

 

[Deleted member]

No no no, Chuckles, I meant Alt is presenting a B- point at best. The anthropic principle, that is.

 

[chucklesXcore]

No no no, Chuckles, I meant Alt is presenting a B- point at best. The anthropic principle, that is.

assuming, that you have summed it up correctly, I don't see how thats anymore valid than the concept of a God creating everything and why believing a God COULD have created everything is ignorant. Again, though, I'm trying to be open minded....I really am

 

[Deleted member]

Yeah, I did sum it up correctly. Looking back, Alt didn't even call you out on properly. You said that life on Earth seems to have been constructed with such a high-level of complexity.

Yet he brought up the anthropic principle which only explains that life would be on the life-giving planet. It doesn't explain the miracle of child-birth, photosynthesis, and all the other crap that normally amazes me.

He's basically saying, "Wow, look how the water fits so perfectly in this hole I dug in the ground.. /sarcasm"

 

[GhostAnime]

and I'm REALLY tired of people saying "burden of proof is on you, but i don't have to say anything to prove my side =D" thats so childish. If I have to prove my side, you all have to prove yours. Period.

but you cannot 'prove' a negative. you can't prove that invisible gnomes AREN'T having a tea party in your head. you are illogical for believe in something with no evidence. bottom line.

which is why we feel you are just as ridiculous for dismissing our views as stupid.

we dismiss them because all of these 'feelings' contradict each other. we think you're feeling nothing. we have no way to believe in you.

and lastly, I'm not one of those people. the year is a year. give me a method thats proven that gives me a general time frame for the flood and I'll gladly accept it.

why's it matter what the date is? why isn't a few thousand good enough?

 

[chucklesXcore]

but you cannot 'prove' a negative. you can't prove that invisible gnomes AREN'T having a tea party in your head. you are illogical for believe in something with no evidence. bottom line.


we dismiss them because all of these 'feelings' contradict each other. we think you're feeling nothing. we have no way to believe in you.


why's it matter what the date is? why isn't a few thousand good enough?

illogical? didn't I say that means nothing to me? you obviously aren't reading my posts.

how do my feelings contradict each other? I feel there is a God....all the time? how is that contradicting? explain. and i know you have no way to believe me which is why I don't try to pass my views onto you. Even my own beliefs say the non-believers cannot be convinced by a person alone. Which is why...following my views, I do not try and convince you there is a God. I let you live your own way.

again...if you read my post actually(yah you should try it...it helps before you bash me) you would read all I want is a method for finding a general time frame. you gave me a time frame. a few thousand years ago, now give me the method by which you found this eitherwise your just stating a random guess. If you can back it up I'll look into it and see what I think about it.

EDIT: and as for that delorted I guess I'll have to wait and see what he has to say to defend himself before assuming anything. thank you though for making me not feel like I'm the only one even semi-on my side.

 

[GhostAnime]

illogical? didn't I say that means nothing to me? you obviously aren't reading my posts.

no, you obviously aren't understanding 'burden of proof'. this is a debate room. there can be no debate if we cannot use logic. if you do not care about logic, then why are you debating about a logical fallacy?

how do my feelings contradict each other?

not yours; you religious people as a whole. always claiming you have this feeling yet it contradicts other people who have it. be it in the same religion or a different one. we have no reliable way of trusting you all. thus, it can easily be dismissed. you all say god tells you different things, different objectives, etc. yet you all have the same 'feeling'. i think this 'feeling' can't be better than what my own brain can tell me.

you gave me a time frame. a few thousand years ago, now give me the method by which you found this eitherwise your just stating a random guess. If you can back it up I'll look into it and see what I think about it.

well the bible is pretty much good enough since it supports a young earth.

 

[Chaco]

Not yours; you religious people as a whole. always claiming you have this feeling yet it contradicts other people who have it. be it in the same religion or a different one. we have no reliable way of trusting you all. thus, it can easily be dismissed. you all say god tells you different things, different objectives, etc. yet you all have the same 'feeling'. i think this 'feeling' can't be better than what my own brain can tell me.

That feeling, could it possibly be 'hope'. Take it in, small word with a big meaning. I think that your brain is telling you what you want to hear. I'm going to use a 1st grade term for you "Think outside the box".

 

[GhostAnime]

if hope is all it is then that's reason enough to dismiss it. knowledge of the things around us don't depend on hope.

 

[chucklesXcore]

no, you obviously aren't understanding 'burden of proof'. this is a debate room. there can be no debate if we cannot use logic. if you do not care about logic, then why are you debating about a logical fallacy?


not yours; you religious people as a whole. always claiming you have this feeling yet it contradicts other people who have it. be it in the same religion or a different one. we have no reliable way of trusting you all. thus, it can easily be dismissed. you all say god tells you different things, different objectives, etc. yet you all have the same 'feeling'. i think this 'feeling' can't be better than what my own brain can tell me.


well the bible is pretty much good enough since it supports a young earth.

I am understanding it quite clearly which YOU are not understanding. Usually your said statement is right. However, your stepping into new grounds which might make you a little uncomfortable. The concept of God. Spirituality is something you don't understand so you keep repeating "logic is the only way!" but despite how many times you say its the only way to debate on this topic, its not. I'm sorry. I hate to break that to you and seem harsh, but its the truth. Spirituality, while it may seem to weak to you is not weak to another and can be debated forever. How is it undebatable? Because spirituality and logic are SO differing in their views wouldn't this make it even more debatable? If your so good with your logic, use your logic to disapprove my spirituality.

we all feel different things. yep, we sure do. but that tells you one thing, a wide amount of people feel there is SOMETHING out there that created us. Just because we have a different view on who he is doesn't mean we have differing views that contradict. One thing we all agree on is that we are all created by a superior being(or beings depending on if you want to be picky and go back in history....sorry had to edit this)

That feeling, could it possibly be 'hope'. Take it in, small word with a big meaning. I think that your brain is telling you what you want to hear. I'm going to use a 1st grade term for you "Think outside the box".

Read my posts a few page and you will see that I say spiritual feeling and prayer is similar to that of hope. It can easily be mistaken for hope by one who does not feel anything spiritually. I do think outside of the box thank you. I've been open minded this whole thread.

 

[EC_Joey]

I never really knew the idea of intelligent design could be considered "evidence". That said, I have to agree it does in a way provide one of the few logical arguments back for there being a God. Everything seems to been made and constructed to such a high complex level it implies that there could be a God. And everything is a chance it seems like. If you believe, you are taking a chance that you are wasting your time. If you don't believe you are taking the chance you are wrong and angering a God. Or perhaps, it won't even matter and the "God" we have created isn't the one that really created everything and the one that did doesn't really care what we do. I mean the possibilities go on endlessly.

but I just wanted to say I really like how someone brought up intelligent design and believes it is a valid viewpoint. I didn't even think to bring this up.

Err, I don't believe Intelligent Design is a valid idea. I was using it as an example of how people try to use certain ideas as evidence for the existence of God. Unfortunately, they're not valid for the most part.

 

[GhostAnime]

I am understanding it quite clearly which YOU are not understanding. Usually your said statement is right. However, your stepping into new grounds which might make you a little uncomfortable. The concept of God. Spirituality is something you don't understand so you keep repeating "logic is the only way!" but despite how many times you say its the only way to debate on this topic, its not. I'm sorry. I hate to break that to you and seem harsh, but its the truth. Spirituality, while it may seem to weak to you is not weak to another and can be debated forever. How is it undebatable? Because spirituality and logic are SO differing in their views wouldn't this make it even more debatable? If your so good with your logic, use your logic to disapprove my spirituality.

simple. again, this 'spirituality' leads to too many contradictions. there are an infinite amount of 'spiritualities' anybody can have. how do we judge which is the right one?

usually when we have a new method of gaining knowledge.. it doesn't constantly contradict itself and we also have a way of verifying it. if we can't verify it, everybody can have a field day with this 'spirituality'.

we all feel different things. yep, we sure do. but that tells you one thing, a wide amount of people feel there is SOMETHING out there that created us. Just because we have a different view on who he is doesn't mean we have differing views that contradict. One thing we all agree on is that there is a God.

they still feel 'something' is out there that wants them to do 'different' things. i still don't see what's wrong with waiting until somebody comes out and tells us (we still wouldn't know if they were 'god' even by that!).

 

[chucklesXcore]

Err, I don't believe Intelligent Design is a valid idea. I was using it as an example of how people try to use certain ideas as evidence for the existence of God. Unfortunately, they're not valid for the most part.

It may not be valid for PROVING the existence of God, but it does point out some logic in the possibility of there being a God.

EDIT:

simple. again, this 'spirituality' leads to too many contradictions. there are an infinite amount of 'spiritualities' anybody can have. how do we judge which is the right one?

usually when we have a new method of gaining knowledge.. it doesn't constantly contradict itself and we also have a way of verifying it. if we can't verify it, everybody can have a field day with this 'spirituality'.


they still feel 'something' is out there that wants them to do 'different' things. i still don't see what's wrong with waiting until somebody comes out and tells us (we still wouldn't know if they were 'god' even by that!).

there is no way of judging which is the right one. In fact, if you listen to me, you would know I've been saying you don't have to. Why are you trying to figure us out? If you don't believe, why do you even care? We all believe for our own reasons and feelings. You can't figure out which one is right. Why even bother racking your pretty little brain about it when you obviously have no intentions of finding out if one is real. You seem more geared toward proving there isn't a God than finding out if someone is actually right. Not very open minded if you ask me. No offense intended.

haha, exactly mate, whats wrong with waiting? If your so sure there isn't a God....then wait till you die to find out. If you burn in hell you can be like whoa I guess I was wrong. If nothing happens, you won't be able to say "haha told you so!", but hey for the sake of making this more fun we'll pretend you can. You would say "hah! told you nothing happens" If ______ happens...then ______ viewpoint was right. We all won't know until we're dead.

 

[GhostAnime]

there is no way of judging which is the right one. In fact, if you listen to me, you would know I've been saying you don't have to. Why are you trying to figure us out? If you don't believe, why do you even care? We all believe for our own reasons and feelings. You can't figure out which one is right. Why even bother racking your pretty little brain about it when you obviously have no intentions of finding out if one is real. You seem more geared toward proving there isn't a God than finding out if someone is actually right. Not very open minded if you ask me. No offense intended.

i am very open-minded to a god. however until i have a reason to believe in one, then i will lack that belief.

and it's not that i care how you feel in your spiritualities. i'm just saying why that's not my method of knowing whether there is a god or not. i think we lack so much understand as humans that religion kinda just throws that all away simply because:

1) it's guesswork.
2) it's merely self-interest.

 

[EC_Joey]

It may not be valid for PROVING the existence of God, but it does point out some logic in the possibility of there being a God.

There is no logic in the possibility of there being a God. By definition, God defies logic.

 

[chucklesXcore]

i am very open-minded to a god. however until i have a reason to believe in one, then i will lack that belief.

and it's not that i care how you feel in your spiritualities. i'm just saying why that's not my method of knowing whether there is a god or not. i think we lack so much understand as humans that religion kinda just throws that all away simply because:

1) it's guesswork.
2) it's merely self-interest.

that's something I respect and accept. As any believer should. You have to have a reason you feel is a legitimate reason in your eyes to believe. Legitimacy varies from person to person. Religion is something I do not follow for the same reason. So in a way. I'm on the same page. I simply call myself Christian so people have an easy way of identify with the views that are closest to mine even though I am far far far off from what you would call a christian by mainstream standards. I don't attend church nor do I have what most would call "blind faith". I'm not brainwashed or anything.

There is no logic in the possibility of there being a God. By definition, God defies logic.

this has been stated countless times in this thread. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word logical. Lemme replace that with "something that makes more sense".

better?

Because the possibility of their being a God makes a little more sense when you think of intelligent design rather than dismissing it.

 

[EC_Joey]

Because the possibility of their being a God makes a little more sense when you think of intelligent design rather than dismissing it.

No, because Intelligent Design's argument is weak. Believing that an all powerful being specifically designed life forms is ridiculous, because it is infinitely more likely that the complexity of life forms arose from the workings of evolution, a long series of small changes that led to such structures.

 

[chucklesXcore]

No, because Intelligent Design's argument is weak. Believing that an all powerful being specifically designed life forms is ridiculous, because it is infinitely more likely that the complexity of life forms arose from the workings of evolution, a long series of small changes that led to such structures.

As weak as it may be, its still an argument. Evolution, while making much more sense is still in essence nothing but a theory. Intelligent design is just another theory that is much weaker. It is STILL an argument. which is the only point I am making. And it adds something even if not much to the side of the possibility of there being a God.

 

[EC_Joey]

As weak as it may be, its still an argument. Evolution, while making much more sense is still in essence nothing but a theory. Intelligent design is just another theory that is much weaker. It is STILL an argument. which is the only point I am making. And it adds something even if not much to the side of the possibility of there being a God.

It's an idiotic argument that people are using to try and sneak religion into school systems. Intelligent Design has virtually no provable points, because their arguments, such as "the brain is complex, it must have been designed by a higher power," have no basis in fact. Truly, it is a sham of a "theory". It adds nothing because it is unfounded and ridiculous.

By the same token, I could introduce a theory that God does not exist because there is so much pain and suffering in the world, that a benevolent, all powerful entity would not allow this to happen. Of course, this "theory" is ridiculous. So is Intelligent Design.

 

[snex]

As weak as it may be, its still an argument. Evolution, while making much more sense is still in essence nothing but a theory. Intelligent design is just another theory that is much weaker. It is STILL an argument. which is the only point I am making. And it adds something even if not much to the side of the possibility of there being a God.

intelligent design is not a theory. a theory is a well-supported (by evidence) body of knowledge that explains some aspect of the world by making predictions about what will happen if that theory is correct.

intelligent design is NOT well supported by evidence. it is NOT a body of knowledge. it does NOT explain any aspect of the world, and it does NOT make any predictions. intelligent design is nothing but a disguise for creationism meant to sneak it past public school standards. this was made clear in the kitzmiller vs dover school district case.

 

[AltF4]

Chuckles...

You see, then you come into a debate, you are explicitly entering into a realm where logic is everything. That's what we do here: We make points, provide evidence, provide counter-points, etc... The object of the 'game', so-to-speak, is to show that your opponent is acting illogically.

So when you say things like "my beliefs aren't based on logic" you are admitting defeat. You are admitting that you believe in what you do for no good reason. You cannot hide behind a shield of "You can't change my mind because I don't use logic".

"Logic" is another often misused term. It has a *******ized colloquial meaning, which has little relevance to what logic actually is. Logic is a reflection of mathematics. It is a rigorous and well defined set of laws which dictate what true statements can follow from others (among other things).

To "not use logic" is like saying that you don't believe in math. It would be precisely like taking two objects, adding another two of them to it and believing that you'd have 5 objects in total afterward. You can believe all you want, but it is not the truth.



Now then.


The Anthropic Principle is in part a response to a common claim made by theists. The claim goes essentially like this: "The world is so perfectly balanced and suited for life. There's just no way it could have happened by chance. It must have been made by god."

The Anthropic Principle responds: "Well, no duh the Earth is well suited for life. What did you expect to find? Life on a planet which does not support life?" It would be much like driving around a rich neighborhood and saying "Wow, look at all these expensive cars! Clearly god must have put all these expensive cars here in one spot. I mean, what are the odds of all these expensive cars randomly being here by themselves?"

When, obviously, the reason the expensive cars are there is BECAUSE of the rich neighborhood. After all, where else did you expect to see expensive cars but a rich neighborhood?

 

[Chaco]

Read my posts a few page and you will see that I say spiritual feeling and prayer is similar to that of hope. It can easily be mistaken for hope by one who does not feel anything spiritually. I do think outside of the box thank you. I've been open minded this whole thread.

Wasn't directed at you, but okay. And what I said was toward the Athiest side of the argument not the Christian, which you seem to be defending.

 

[chucklesXcore]

It's an idiotic argument that people are using to try and sneak religion into school systems. Intelligent Design has virtually no provable points, because their arguments, such as "the brain is complex, it must have been designed by a higher power," have no basis in fact. Truly, it is a sham of a "theory". It adds nothing because it is unfounded and ridiculous.

By the same token, I could introduce a theory that God does not exist because there is so much pain and suffering in the world, that a benevolent, all powerful entity would not allow this to happen. Of course, this "theory" is ridiculous. So is Intelligent Design.

That SOME people are trying to sneak into school systems. not everyone. the christians that do are out of line in my own opinion. but your theory gets easily shot down by anyone who is considered spiritual. Those are not two good comparison's. Regardless, you are still right in that it has no provable points. However, if either side had a provable point we wouldn't be debating now would we? No one debates facts...that's just foolish.

intelligent design is not a theory. a theory is a well-supported (by evidence) body of knowledge that explains some aspect of the world by making predictions about what will happen if that theory is correct.

intelligent design is NOT well supported by evidence. it is NOT a body of knowledge. it does NOT explain any aspect of the world, and it does NOT make any predictions. intelligent design is nothing but a disguise for creationism meant to sneak it past public school standards. this was made clear in the kitzmiller vs dover school district case.

EDIT: I don't know why I said that....running on 3 hours of sleep...nvm. I'll respond to that when I'm more awake.

Chuckles...

You see, then you come into a debate, you are explicitly entering into a realm where logic is everything. That's what we do here: We make points, provide evidence, provide counter-points, etc... The object of the 'game', so-to-speak, is to show that your opponent is acting illogically.

So when you say things like "my beliefs aren't based on logic" you are admitting defeat. You are admitting that you believe in what you do for no good reason. You cannot hide behind a shield of "You can't change my mind because I don't use logic".

"Logic" is another often misused term. It has a *******ized colloquial meaning, which has little relevance to what logic actually is. Logic is a reflection of mathematics. It is a rigorous and well defined set of laws which dictate what true statements can follow from others (among other things).

To "not use logic" is like saying that you don't believe in math. It would be precisely like taking two objects, adding another two of them to it and believing that you'd have 5 objects in total afterward. You can believe all you want, but it is not the truth.



Now then.


The Anthropic Principle is in part a response to a common claim made by theists. The claim goes essentially like this: "The world is so perfectly balanced and suited for life. There's just no way it could have happened by chance. It must have been made by god."

The Anthropic Principle responds: "Well, no duh the Earth is well suited for life. What did you expect to find? Life on a planet which does not support life?" It would be much like driving around a rich neighborhood and saying "Wow, look at all these expensive cars! Clearly god must have put all these expensive cars here in one spot. I mean, what are the odds of all these expensive cars randomly being here by themselves?"

When, obviously, the reason the expensive cars are there is BECAUSE of the rich neighborhood. After all, where else did you expect to see expensive cars but a rich neighborhood?

this is where your wrong, because if you believe in the concept of a God you would obviously believe he would have the power to defy any sense of science and physics, which would leave you in complete doubt in logic, because logic would say that its physically impossible for him to do some of the things God has done. But if he's God, can't he do whatever he wants regardless. Yes. So while logic almost always is the sole argument for a debate and is the way to live your life. When it comes to the concept of a God you are stepping into new territory because you have to acknowledge at least hypothetically there could still be a God even though unlikely. Once you do that, who are you to say what an all powering God can do? This is where its debatable. No matter how many times you claim I am "admitting defeat" it won't get you that moral victory. Sorry. Until I say I'm done, I'm not done.

EDIT: and the anthropic principle really is just another stand point that really isn't anymore valid than intelligent design. I'm ******** and am like "OMGZ THERE IS LIFE ON EARTH? THERE MUST BE A GOD" its how PERFECT we are in comparison to everything else. How everything seems to be shaped perfectly? How come we're so dominantly intelligent. There is nothing that comes remotely close that we have on earth. Nothing. That alone should make you think a little rather than just dismiss it because the concept of a God seems illogical. The first half of this tells you what logic means to the concept of a God.

Wasn't directed at you, but okay. And what I said was toward the Athiest side of the argument not the Christian, which you seem to be defending.

and ah, I am terribly sorry. Every post has seem heavily directed at me and it seemed like reading yours that it was directed at me. I didn't think for a second you were talking to atheists. My bad =(

 

[cF=)]

No one debates facts...that's just foolish.

Heard that guys, he's saying you're all foolish! I fear this marked the end of any intelligent debate in this topic...

 

[chucklesXcore]

Heard that guys, he's saying you're all foolish! I fear this marked the end of any intelligent debate in this topic...

I'm not saying that, and this is where I leave because this is the last time I'm going to be ok with someone misconstruing what I said in a poor attempt to make me look like an ignorant ***hole.

I said no one debates FACTS. In the sense that no one debates facts are true. Not that no one debates the results of those facts. Example:

No one debates that we need oxygen to survive.

No one debates that super smash bros brawl is on the wii..

these are pointless statements, but thats NOT the point. the point is you don't debate things that are set in stone. you debate the effects of them.

and chuckles....OUT.

now you all may cheer and applaud yourselves on your moral victory. hooray!

 

[The Executive]

I'm not saying that, and this is where I leave because this is the last time I'm going to be ok with someone misconstruing what I said in a poor attempt to make me look like an ignorant ***hole.

I said no one debates FACTS. In the sense that no one debates facts are true. Not that no one debates the results of those facts. Example:

No one debates that we need oxygen to survive.

No one debates that super smash bros brawl is on the wii..

these are pointless statements, but thats NOT the point. the point is you don't debate things that are set in stone. you debate the effects of them.

and chuckles....OUT.

now you all may cheer and applaud yourselves on your moral victory. hooray!

Dang, dude. No need to go that far. Getting PO'ed at what are ultimately 1s and 0s with pretty pictures on a webpage is really unnecessary.

EDIT: You aren't the first to do this, and you won't be the last.

 

[arrowhead]

but your theory gets easily shot down by anyone who is considered spiritual.

ANY ONE of our theories could be shot down by anyone who is considered illogical. does that mean we should just forget about them?

Those are not two good comparison's. Regardless, you are still right in that it has no provable points. However, if either side had a provable point we wouldn't be debating now would we? No one debates facts...that's just foolish.

sorry, but evolution is a fact. the way it occurs is the only thing up for debate. nevertheless, science has the understanding of genetics, fossil, and geographic evidence to back up its claims. what does your god have?

this is where your wrong, because if you believe in the concept of a God you would obviously believe he would have the power to defy any sense of science and physics, which would leave you in complete doubt in logic, because logic would say that its physically impossible for him to do some of the things God has done. But if he's God, can't he do whatever he wants regardless. Yes. So while logic almost always is the sole argument for a debate and is the way to live your life.

are you saying we should drop logic completely, or just not use it when it counters your points?

When it comes to the concept of a God you are stepping into new territory because you have to acknowledge at least hypothetically there could still be a God even though unlikely. Once you do that, who are you to say what an all powering God can do? This is where its debatable.

how do you know god is all-powerful? how do you know he's not actually a non-living cloud of magic life-spreading dust? or maybe he's actually evil? there's a LOT of things you DON'T know. so why do you talk about god like he's all good and powerful? just because you FEEL something when you pray? those feelings could be caused by an infinite number of things (if we go by your "if you can't PROVE it, ANYTHING is possible" mentality) so why pick ONE?

No matter how many times you claim I am "admitting defeat" it won't get you that moral victory. Sorry. Until I say I'm done, I'm not done.

we've already won. we're just trying to help you realize it

EDIT: and the anthropic principle really is just another stand point that really isn't anymore valid than intelligent design. I'm ******** and am like "OMGZ THERE IS LIFE ON EARTH? THERE MUST BE A GOD" its how PERFECT we are in comparison to everything else. How everything seems to be shaped perfectly? How come we're so dominantly intelligent. There is nothing that comes remotely close that we have on earth. Nothing. That alone should make you think a little rather than just dismiss it because the concept of a God seems illogical. The first half of this tells you what logic means to the concept of a God.

this has already been shown to be a useless argument

wait, are you dismissing the idea of extraterrestrial life?

 

[RDK]

Chuckles, you're not getting the gist of the Anthropic Principle. It's basically saying that life adapted to the surroundings that it was given, not the other way around. A magical God didn't form the Earth specifically to sustain life.

You have to look at it in perspective. Would we be here if the Earth wasn't life-sustaining? No. Which means we wouldn't be here to observe it.

There's plenty of reasons why we haven't come into contact with other intelligent life. The universe is an enormous place. Maybe we're so far apart that conventional communication is virtually impossible. Maybe other intelligent life isn't as far advanced as us, or maybe they're so far ahead of us that they know we exist, but communicating with us would be impractical.

What I do believe is that while there may not be other intelligent life in the universe besides us at this point in time, there has been before and there will most likely be more again. It could just be that intelligent life is a rare occurence in the universe, and is something that happens irregularly and crops up every million years or so.

Also, the idea that God created every single organism exactly the way it is now is also ridiculous. The fossil record destroys this argument, as does evolution.

 

[riboflavinbob]

People who do not believe in evolution most likely do not even understand or want to understand it.