Intelligent design taught in schools

[thegreatkazoo]

Spooky why did you mention that you think Genesis is rubbish? What does that have to do with anything?

And guys, stop with the "who created God?" argument. The cosmological argument arose because of this very problem of a contingent being the first cause. God clearly isn't a contingent being existing in time and space, so the question doesn't apply. That's the whole point of the cosmological argument, that only something self necessary outside of time and space can be the first cause.

More philosophical mumbo-jumbo, none for me thanks.

If something or someone had an effect in creating the universe, it would have left some mark that could be observed or measured. Saying anything else means that we're dealing with a supernatural force, and we know the track record on that being shown to exist.

 

[1048576]

ID is not religious, how many times do I have to keep saying this!

Whatever, just because the science is wrong doesn't mean the involves-a-creator model is right.

Can't you do this type of semantic replacement for yourself?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

So? That doesn't mean the hypothesis is religious. Football matches are attended by the religious, does that mean they're religious events?

The motive for going to a foot ball game is not religious but I get the point.

We don't know, the creator could be infinitely old, he could be anything...

The point you were making is that something as complex as live needed a creator. So something complex enough to create said life needs a creator as well, no?

But the mutations don't produce any new information. You can't do that without intelligence. Computers don't program themselves.

Um ...Yes they do. If I get a mutation that replaces one of my DNA A-T bases with a C-G bases it will read it as information and it will cause a problem. (Note: I know that is an over generalization but I think my opponent understands the point the generalized example is trying to make.)

Well done, you've snapped that argument right in half

It's not a proof by example, it's an observation. The thing is all codes have been produced by an intelligent force, so it's reasonable to say that the genetic code was.

See the next paragraph.

Provide me an example of a code occurring in nature. C'mon! It's a challenge.

I am going to step in and save him the trouble, to the point he can't, not because codes do not exist in nature (Fibonacci, The aforementioned Genetic Code, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7isBnH7AnA&feature=related ) (This is a video with quite a few examples, I only posted part 1 here, I recommend you watch the whole thing though.), but because you, by arguing things in nature are to complex to exist without a creator, there for you nullified all evidence that comes from nature. Basically killing all the counter evidence. Once again it is prof by example. Also aliens or time travelers could not of made all of nature, only god/the universe has always existed/the big bag/an example I am missing. (Note: out of the four the only one that really supports intelligent design is god. If you do bring that up it will once again call religion motives back into question.)

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Whatever, just because the science is wrong doesn't mean the involves-a-creator model is right.

Can't you do this type of semantic replacement for yourself?

Where is your evidence?

I mean, it's pretty easy to win a debate if you're not subject to backing up your claims. However, this won't get you in the DH. Just saying.

Use links to support your claims. Every day.

 

[1048576]

Are you ****ing kidding? Where's my evidence that just because basketballs aren't purple doesn't mean that footballs are? It's ****ing obvious.

I mean can you imagine? The earth isn't a perfect sphere, therefore it's flat. I hate onions, therefore I love testicular cancer.

Are you trolling me, or do you have a genuine point that you aren't communicating/I'm not understanding?

 

[abhishekh]

Spooky why did you mention that you think Genesis is rubbish? What does that have to do with anything?

And guys, stop with the "who created God?" argument. The cosmological argument arose because of this very problem of a contingent being the first cause. God clearly isn't a contingent being existing in time and space, so the question doesn't apply. That's the whole point of the cosmological argument, that only something self necessary outside of time and space can be the first cause.

Cosmological argument is God awful anyway.

I'd paraphrase a Stanford Encyclopedia article, but you guys can just search it up yourselves.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I'd paraphrase a Stanford Encyclopedia article, but you guys can just search it up yourselves.

Thank you Your contributive post.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Are you ****ing kidding? Where's my evidence that just because basketballs aren't purple doesn't mean that footballs are? It's ****ing obvious.

I mean can you imagine? The earth isn't a perfect sphere, therefore it's flat. I hate onions, therefore I love testicular cancer.

Are you trolling me, or do you have a genuine point that you aren't communicating/I'm not understanding?

You said that the "involves a creator" is a possibility.

I asked for evidence of that claim.

Something the matter? :S

Cosmological argument is God awful anyway.

I'd paraphrase a Stanford Encyclopedia article, but you guys can just search it up yourselves.

*Gives hug*

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The point you were making is that something as complex as live needed a creator. So something complex enough to create said life needs a creator as well, no?

Not necessarily, the creator could have always existed.

Um ...Yes they do. If I get a mutation that replaces one of my DNA A-T bases with a C-G bases it will read it as information and it will cause a problem. (Note: I know that is an over generalization but I think my opponent understands the point the generalized example is trying to make.)

However, if you do that, the effect will be detrimental, no new beneficial information will be created.

I am going to step in and save him the trouble, to the point he can't, not because codes do not exist in nature (Fibonacci, The aforementioned Genetic Code, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7isBnH7AnA&feature=related ) (This is a video with quite a few examples, I only posted part 1 here, I recommend you watch the whole thing though.), but because you, by arguing things in nature are to complex to exist without a creator, there for you nullified all evidence that comes from nature. Basically killing all the counter evidence. Once again it is prof by example. Also aliens or time travelers could not of made all of nature, only god/the universe has always existed/the big bag/an example I am missing. (Note: out of the four the only one that really supports intelligent design is god. If you do bring that up it will once again call religion motives back into question.)

Firstly, the examples in organic structures were designed. The pulsars are not emitting a code, they're merely creating pattern.

A code is a deliberate method of communication that has coding and decoding methods. This hasn't occurred in nature, all examples of codes are from intelligent sources and nobody has provided me with any evidence of codes that haven't formed from intelligent processes.

And yeah, I'm getting sick of this, the arguments I'm making a horribly circular, incredibly fallacious, and utterly wrong.

 

[Namaste]

Not necessarily, the creator could have always existed.

You're missing his point, and actually just helped his argument. If something as complex as an omnipotent God could have always existed, without a creator, then how can you point to something much less complex then that and say "Nope can't just have existed, needs a designer".

 

[Dre89]

More philosophical mumbo-jumbo, none for me thanks.

The idea that scientific methodology deduces truth came from philosophy, but I guess that's mumbo jumbo too.

If something or someone had an effect in creating the universe, it would have left some mark that could be observed or measured.

So you know the reasoning of omniscience now do you...

Besides, perhaps the fact that the world consists entirely on contingent beings is enough evidence to at least provoke the thought that something self-necessary created the unvierse...just saying.

Saying anything else means that we're dealing with a supernatural force, and we know the track record on that being shown to exist.

Argument from ignorance fallacy. You're basically just saying that absence of empirical evidence is evidence of absence. The fact you're even asking for physical evidence of a non-physical being is just silly to begin with.

I'd like to see someone prove the cosmological argument is "awful". Especially considering it's unlikely that any of you/us have read Aquinas' metaphysics, which is an intense supplement to the theory.

 

[professor mgw]

This may not be directly pertaining to the thread, but is a great read [this sides with religon/creation/I.D./Meta knight]

By Chance or by Design?

1 If there was no Creator, then life must have started spontaneously by chance. For life to have come about, somehow the right chemicals would have had to come together in the right quantities, under the right temperature and pressure and other controlling factors, and all would have had to be maintained for the correct length of time. Furthermore, for life to have begun and been sustained on earth, these chance events would have had to be repeated thousands of times. But how likely is it for even one such event to take place?

2 Evolutionists admit that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe! Mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probability of occurring of less than 1 in 1050. But far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2,000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity, and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 1040,000! “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court,” says astronomer Fred Hoyle.

3 On the other hand, by studying the physical world, from the minute subatomic particles to the vast galaxies, scientists have discovered that all known natural phenomena appear to follow certain basic laws. In other words, they have discovered logic and order in everything that is taking place in the universe, and they have been able to express this logic and order in simple mathematical terms. “Few*scientists can fail to be impressed by the almost*unreasonable*simplicity and elegance of these laws,” writes a professor of physics, Paul Davies, in the magazine New Scientist.

4 A most intriguing fact about these laws, however, is that in them there are certain factors whose values must be fixed precisely for the universe, as we know it, to exist. Among these fundamental constants are the unit of electric charge on the proton, the masses of certain fundamental particles, and Newton’s universal constant of gravitation, commonly denoted by the letter G. On this, Professor Davies continues: “Even minute variations in the values of some of them would drastically alter the appearance of the Universe. For example, Freeman Dyson has pointed out that if the force between nucleons (protons and neutrons) were only a few per cent stronger, the Universe would be devoid of hydrogen. Stars like the Sun, not to mention water, could not exist. Life, at least as we know it, would be impossible. Brandon Carter has shown that very much smaller changes in G would turn all stars into blue giants or red dwarfs, with equally dire consequences for life.” Thus, Davies concludes: “In this case it is conceivable that there might be only one possible Universe. If that is so, it is a remarkable thought that our own existence as conscious beings is an inescapable consequence of logic.”—Italics ours.

5 What can we deduce from all of this? First of all, if the universe is governed by laws, then there must be an intelligent lawmaker who formulated or established the laws. Furthermore, since the laws governing the operation of the universe appear to be made in anticipation of life and conditions favorable to its sustenance, purpose is clearly involved. Design and purpose—these are not characteristics of blind chance; they are precisely what an intelligent Creator would manifest. And that is just what the Bible indicates when it declares: “What may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.”—Romans 1:19,*20; Isaiah 45:18; Jeremiah 10:12. [Latter passage taken from the bible]

Abundant Evidence Around Us

1 Of course, design and purpose are seen not only in the orderly workings of the universe but also in the way living creatures, simple and complex, carry on their daily activities, as well as in the way they interact with one another and with the environment. For example, almost every part of our human body—the brain, the eye, the ear, the hand—shows design so intricate that modern science cannot fully explain it. Then there are the animal and plant worlds. The annual migration of certain birds over thousands of miles of land and sea, the process of photosynthesis in plants, the development of one fertilized egg into a complex organism with millions of differentiated cells with specialized functions—just to give a few examples—are all outstanding evidence of intelligent design [I.D. If you'd like to call it that ].

2 Some argue, however, that increased knowledge of science has provided explanations for many of these feats. True, science has explained, to a certain extent, many things that were once a mystery. But a child’s discovery of how a watch works does not prove that the watch was not designed and made by someone. Likewise, our understanding the marvelous ways in which many of the things in the physical world function does not prove that there is no intelligent designer behind them. On the contrary, the more we know about the world around us, the more evidence we have for the existence of an intelligent Creator, God. Thus, with an open mind, we can agree with the psalmist as he acknowledged: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions.”—Psalm 104:24.


*Note: These scriptures were taken from the new world translation of the holy scriptures

 

[professor mgw]

You're missing his point, and actually just helped his argument. If something as complex as an omnipotent God could have always existed, without a creator, then how can you point to something much less complex then that and say "Nope can't just have existed, needs a designer".

But there would need to be an ultimate source where everything is coming from.

 

[Namaste]

But there would need to be an ultimate source where everything is coming from.

No there doesn't. It always existed. Law of conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed. Nothing is making the universe. It's expanding not in the way a road would expand, by building more, but in the way a balloon would, which is just getting bigger.

 

[professor mgw]

No there doesn't. It always existed. Law of conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed. Nothing is making the universe. It's expanding not in the way a road would expand, by building more, but in the way a balloon would, which is just getting bigger.

*Read my post in red*

 

[Namaste]

1. Do you realize how massive the universe is? There are trillions upon trillions of planets, and they've been changing and forming for over 14 billion years. That's quadrillions upon quadrillions of chances for life to come up. We are here because life is here. Why would we look on our planet and go "Hey, everything here is perfect for life, therefore it's created for us", well of course it's capable of supporting life, we're on it. It's like an intelligent puddle thinking the hole he's in had to be created for him because it perfectly fits the amount of water he has.

2. You are talking about a modern protein forming by chance. That is 100% nothing at all similar to the theory of abiogenesis or evolution. Evolution is not about chance.

3. Simplicity? Have you tried to read about anything in physics since the 1900s? It's not simple. It's pretty complex.

4. We don't know why the universe is the way it is, but that does not mean we can never know. God of the gaps, which points to something we don't know and then say "see, there's God".

5. Lol absolutely not. You don't understand laws in the physics sense. A law is something like "spacetime is curved, hence things fall towards objects with larger massess", aka gravity. It's not that the universe can do things against these laws, these laws are in place because they describe constant effects that can be measured in our universe.

Oh, and again absolutely nothing, ever, in evolution says the universe or life formed together by blind chance. That's a lie created by creationist to try and disprove evolution by twisting it. Evolutionist agree, we did not come up by blind chance. That was never stated. It's the same as if I said "Ha, gravity doesn't exist, because if the gravitational theory then we'd all be crushed to death against the Earth!"


and 1. No actually we can explain what you just described. We actually already have, you should go look those up.

2. we're not a watch

 

[professor mgw]

1. Do you realize how massive the universe is? There are trillions upon trillions of planets, and they've been changing and forming for over 14 billion years. That's quadrillions upon quadrillions of chances for life to come up. We are here because life is here. Why would we look on our planet and go "Hey, everything here is perfect for life, therefore it's created for us", well of course it's capable of supporting life, we're on it. It's like an intelligent puddle thinking the hole he's in had to be created for him because it perfectly fits the amount of water he has.

The fact that this is the only known planet that can substain life perfectly without the modification of man's help proves otherwise. There is no ther planet that can sustain life on it's own, so u think that out of all those random planets BAM outta nowhere earth, unlike any other planet has the neccescities needed for humans and animals and plants to live on. I don't hate evolutionist or scientists when they say things like this, i hate it when they say that something so complex and magnificant just poofed out of nowhere, meaning without any intellegance behind it.

2. You are talking about a modern protein forming by chance. That is 100% nothing at all similar to the theory of abiogenesis or evolution. Evolution is not about chance.

We have proteins in us

3. Simplicity? Have you tried to read about anything in physics since the 1900s? It's not simple. It's pretty complex.

Complex enough to say that there is no creator or being behind it? that all these laws just fit in perfectly. To say that there is no creator behind ths\is is saying it all happened by chance.

4. We don't know why the universe is the way it is, but that does not mean we can never know. God of the gaps, which points to something we don't know and then say "see, there's God".

We don't fully understand the universe, when it was created, if it ever was created, if it has an end, but we don't simply say "it doesn't exist" because we don't understand those things. Likewise with god, is it reasonable to say he doesn't exists? Obviously not since the same thing applies to him, the only 1 difference is that we can see the universe with our eyes, but we cannot see god. But to simply say something doesn't exist because you can't see it is stupid.

5. Lol absolutely not. You don't understand laws in the physics sense. A law is something like "spacetime is curved, hence things fall towards objects with larger massess", aka gravity. It's not that the universe can do things against these laws, these laws are in place because they describe constant effects that can be measured in our universe.

Oh, and again absolutely nothing, ever, in evolution says the universe or life formed together by blind chance. That's a lie created by creationist to try and disprove evolution by twisting it. Evolutionist agree, we did not come up by blind chance. That was never stated. It's the same as if I said "Ha, gravity doesn't exist, because if the gravitational theory then we'd all be crushed to death against the Earth!"

That makes no since. If there is no person or being behind it, it HAS to have come up by blind chance.


and 1. No actually we can explain what you just described. We actually already have, you should go look those up.

2. we're not a watch

Twas an illustration, like you smart puddle.

All my responses are in bold

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This may not be directly pertaining to the thread, but is a great read [this sides with religon/creation/I.D./Meta knight]

By Chance or by Design?

1 If there was no Creator, then life must have started spontaneously by chance. For life to have come about, somehow the right chemicals would have had to come together in the right quantities, under the right temperature and pressure and other controlling factors, and all would have had to be maintained for the correct length of time. Furthermore, for life to have begun and been sustained on earth, these chance events would have had to be repeated thousands of times. But how likely is it for even one such event to take place?

2 Evolutionists admit that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe! Mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probability of occurring of less than 1 in 1050. But far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2,000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity, and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 1040,000! “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court,” says astronomer Fred Hoyle.

Arguing the unbelievable improbability of it happening is ridiculous. It's like the fallacy where you're stunned to pull a royal flush in poker, but not stunned at all by a certain ****ty hand... that had the same chance of coming around.

Look at it this way. Would we be here to talk about it if these exact conditions had not happened? Just because something is unbelievably unlikely does not necessitate a creator. And of course, the chances of something happening was always 1:1, and the fact is, if it didn't happen in such a way with such an infinitesimal chance that allowed a humanlike intelligence to exist, we wouldn't be talking about it. We'd be random carboxy strings floating around a dead ocean.

3 On the other hand, by studying the physical world, from the minute subatomic particles to the vast galaxies, scientists have discovered that all known natural phenomena appear to follow certain basic laws. In other words, they have discovered logic and order in everything that is taking place in the universe, and they have been able to express this logic and order in simple mathematical terms. “Few*scientists can fail to be impressed by the almost*unreasonable*simplicity and elegance of these laws,” writes a professor of physics, Paul Davies, in the magazine New Scientist.

Again, hardly necessitates a creator.

4 A most intriguing fact about these laws, however, is that in them there are certain factors whose values must be fixed precisely for the universe, as we know it, to exist. Among these fundamental constants are the unit of electric charge on the proton, the masses of certain fundamental particles, and Newton’s universal constant of gravitation, commonly denoted by the letter G. On this, Professor Davies continues: “Even minute variations in the values of some of them would drastically alter the appearance of the Universe. For example, Freeman Dyson has pointed out that if the force between nucleons (protons and neutrons) were only a few per cent stronger, the Universe would be devoid of hydrogen. Stars like the Sun, not to mention water, could not exist. Life, at least as we know it, would be impossible. Brandon Carter has shown that very much smaller changes in G would turn all stars into blue giants or red dwarfs, with equally dire consequences for life.” Thus, Davies concludes: “In this case it is conceivable that there might be only one possible Universe. If that is so, it is a remarkable thought that our own existence as conscious beings is an inescapable consequence of logic.”—Italics ours.

5 What can we deduce from all of this? First of all, if the universe is governed by laws, then there must be an intelligent lawmaker who formulated or established the laws.

Err... No, not necessarily. Why would there have to be?

Furthermore, since the laws governing the operation of the universe appear to be made in anticipation of life and conditions favorable to its sustenance, purpose is clearly involved.

See above.

2 Some argue, however, that increased knowledge of science has provided explanations for many of these feats. True, science has explained, to a certain extent, many things that were once a mystery. But a child’s discovery of how a watch works does not prove that the watch was not designed and made by someone. Likewise, our understanding the marvelous ways in which many of the things in the physical world function does not prove that there is no intelligent designer behind them. On the contrary, the more we know about the world around us, the more evidence we have for the existence of an intelligent Creator, God. Thus, with an open mind, we can agree with the psalmist as he acknowledged: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions.”—Psalm 104:24.

Now this is just ridiculous. Faulty comparison is faulty because you can actually watch the watchmaker making the watch; you can observe it being created by human hand. And the fact that they think we should assume there is a creator simply because we cannot disprove it is ridiculous-the typical burden of proof issue. See also: "I have superpowers that I'm never going to show anyone". Unfalsifiable statements are, scientifically speaking, completely useless and to be assumed as false.

 

[professor mgw]

Arguing the unbelievable improbability of it happening is ridiculous. It's like the fallacy where you're stunned to pull a royal flush in poker, but not stunned at all by a certain ****ty hand... that had the same chance of coming around.

Look at it this way. Would we be here to talk about it if these exact conditions had not happened? Just because something is unbelievably unlikely does not necessitate a creator. And of course, the chances of something happening was always 1:1, and the fact is, if it didn't happen in such a way with such an infinitesimal chance that allowed a humanlike intelligence to exist, we wouldn't be talking about it. We'd be random carboxy strings floating around a dead ocean.



Again, hardly necessitates a creator.



Err... No, not necessarily. Why would there have to be?



See above.






Now this is just ridiculous. Faulty comparison is faulty because you can actually watch the watchmaker making the watch; you can observe it being created by human hand. And the fact that they think we should assume there is a creator simply because we cannot disprove it is ridiculous-the typical burden of proof issue. See also: "I have superpowers that I'm never going to show anyone". Unfalsifiable statements are, scientifically speaking, completely useless and to be assumed as false.

Read through everything you said. Like i said before, it doesn't make sense to say something doesn't exist because you can't prove it in a way you'd like to. Exactly, assumed to be false, assumed. If your going to tell me there is no god, then i can say there is because you have no way of saying one doesnt exist, modern science isn't able to prove if a god is real or not. Your going to say god doesn't exist because something so complex hardly necessitates a creator...

 

[Namaste]

All my responses are in bold

That makes it harder to quote

The fact that this is the only known planet that can substain life perfectly without the modification of man's help proves otherwise. There is no ther planet that can sustain life on it's own, so u think that out of all those random planets BAM outta nowhere earth, unlike any other planet has the neccescities needed for humans and animals and plants to live on. I don't hate evolutionist or scientists when they say things like this, i hate it when they say that something so complex and magnificant just poofed out of nowhere, meaning without any intellegance behind it.

No, we know of several planets that could support life. We don't know if they do, but that's because we can't fully examine them. To say that we're the only planet that can support life is sort of ridiculous, it'd be like a man living on an island declaring that no other spot on earth can possibly support land because he can't see it. We know how planets form, we can then estimate how many, based on what we know of regular star formations and so forth, what percentage might be able to support life, and I believe it's around 10% of possible planets. The thing is, we can still only really detect extrasolar planets that have a large gravitational pull, which are mainly gas giants that are not habitable. People are still working on better equipment to find smaller planets.

Also, magnificent is not a scientific word, it's a feeling. And yeah, the world is pretty magnificent, at least in my opinion. But again, no one said "poof" out of nowhere. Our planet is considered to be around 4.5 billion years old. It took that long to form anywhere near where we are now.

And since you still say blind chance, it's not. The easiest way to explain it is that stars are made of attracted hydrogen that create fission, with a gravitational pull strong enough to bring in dust and other materials from itself and molecules in the galaxy that magnetically form together until they have a gravitational pull strong enough to hold more material on it. It's scientific, not random.

Two quick points before you counter.

1. We shouldn't be surprised to look at our planet and go "hey, it's capable of supporting life! Life like us!", and then imply that it was created for us. Of course the planet would have to be able to support us, if it didn't then we obviously wouldn't be here.

2. There are multiple ways life can theoretically form from other molecules, like silicon based life. And the second is the laws of big numbers. If a million monkeys typed on a million typewriters for a long enough time, one will pop out the complete works of shakespear. All that it means is that even if the probability might be in the millions that an earth like planet would form, there are probably billions of planets, meaning there would be plenty of earth like planets.

We have proteins in us

I know. They evolved over time due to natural selection, they did not pop up and go "hullo, i'd like to build some life please"

Complex enough to say that there is no creator or being behind it? that all these laws just fit in perfectly. To say that there is no creator behind ths\is is saying it all happened by chance.

No, because once again we don't know why it is this way. People are still investigating it. It's generally considered to be the Grand Unified Theory of everything, which in the news some people have (prematurely) declared M theory the GUT. We don't know how it is. We can't say it's by chance becuase we don't know if it's by chance or what natural forces made it.

We don't fully understand the universe, when it was created, if it ever was created, if it has an end, but we don't simply say "it doesn't exist" because we don't understand those things. Likewise with god, is it reasonable to say he doesn't exists? Obviously not since the same thing applies to him, the only 1 difference is that we can see the universe with our eyes, but we cannot see god. But to simply say something doesn't exist because you can't see it is stupid.

No, but to claim something doesn't exist when there is no evidence for it is not. We know a lot about the universe. It doesn't matter that we don't fully understand, we can observe it. Can we observe God? If he did create the universe, he has since let it do it's own thing, because everything that has happened had to have happened because the physical laws of our universe held and did not break. Which would imply either that God cannot break physical laws, in which case he's simply some sort of natural being and not a god at all, or he has just done nothing, ever.

That makes no since. If there is no person or being behind it, it HAS to have come up by blind chance.

No it doesn't. You don't understand what a law is. Things in our universe are not random. Cause and effect. Everything has a cause and everything has an effect. What happens to something happened for a specific reason due to some cause.

Twas an illustration, like you smart puddle.

I'm aware, but your illustation doesn't work. Yes, if a clock naturally got jingled together, it would be silly. The thing is that you're comparing our bodies now, and not what would really be the more earlier forms of the watch. We did not start out this complicated. When we started out we were probably not different then modern viruses and so forth.

Also, if God did design us he did a pretty bad jobs, considering he gave us unnecessary toes, cancer genetics, appendix, and goose bumps (from when we had hair and would make it stand up when cold to warm ourselves, useless now). We're really not perfectly made.

 

[Namaste]

Exactly, assumed to be false, assumed. If your going to tell me there is no god, then i can say there is because you have no way of saying one doesnt exist, modern science isn't able to prove if a god is real or not.

There is an invisible tea cup behind mars, that floats there. It has no gravitational pull, you can go through it, and it's invisible so you can't see it. But I know it's there. Prove me wrong!

Read through everything you said. Like i said before, it doesn't make sense to say something doesn't exist because you can't prove it in a way you'd like to.

Actually that makes perfect sense, if you can't prove something at all then why believe in it? We don't have to disprove something, we have to prove it. Evidence, friend, evidence. Do you believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, or Michael Jackson? Of course not, because they're made up. You know this because there is no evidence.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

There is an invisible tea cup behind mars, that floats there. It has no gravitational pull, you can go through it, and it's invisible so you can't see it. But I know it's there. Prove me wrong!



Actually that makes perfect sense, if you can't prove something at all then why believe in it? We don't have to disprove something, we have to prove it. Evidence, friend, evidence. Do you believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, or Michael Jackson? Of course not, because they're made up. You know this because there is no evidence.

Essentially this. If there is no hard evidence that something exists, then, to the scientific method, it does not exist. Therefore, if something is unfalsifiable, it cannot exist.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Argument from ignorance fallacy. You're basically just saying that absence of empirical evidence is evidence of absence. The fact you're even asking for physical evidence of a non-physical being is just silly to begin with.

I'd like to see someone prove the cosmological argument is "awful". Especially considering it's unlikely that any of you/us have read Aquinas' metaphysics, which is an intense supplement to the theory.

Not playing this game. It's the PG as well, which gives me more reason not to touch it.

However, you set something up in the DH, and who knows, maybe I'll bite.

MGW, BPC is spot on with his analysis on your post. And as a general rule of thumb, don't try to use Bible quotes to prove ID. It's like driving an F-150 through your stab wounds.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

In fact, never use the bible to prove anything. Ever. It is not a reliable source of information in any way.

 

[abhishekh]

I typed a huge message, but then crashboards crashed on me, so this version is a lot more half-*****. Sorry about that.

Thank you Your contributive post.

Anytime, sexy. <3

I'd like to see someone prove the cosmological argument is "awful". Especially considering it's unlikely that any of you/us have read Aquinas' metaphysics, which is an intense supplement to the theory.

ok so I haven't read Aquinas' metaphysics (if you could link me somewhere, I'll give it a go. Chances are I won't understand it, but no harm in trying anyway) but whatever:

I've only heard of three different variations of the Cosmological argument, and they are the simple cosmological argument (lol), the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Argument from Contingency.

I'll start with the first one:

The Simple Cosmological Argument usually goes like this:

1. Everything that exists has a cause of its existence

2. The universe exists

therefore:

3. The Universe has a cause of its existence

4. The universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God

therefore:

5. God Exists

Okay, so I think someone already said the first major problem with this, which was, "Does God have a cause of his existence?"

This is a problem because, if God did have a cause for his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe wouldn't do anything. Without God, there would be one entity the existence of which we couldn't explain, the Universe. With God, there would be one entity whose existence we couldn't explain, which is God.

So you're just replacing one question with another.

Then, on the other hand, if you say God doesn't have a cause for existence, as in, God is an uncaused being (I don't think uncaused is a word, but you get the idea), you still get similar problems.
To begin with, the fact that you're arguing (using the cosmological argument) that God exists, but that God doesn't have a cause, this doesn't really hold with the first premise:

1. Everything that exists has a cause of its existence

If the first premise isn't true, in that some things don't need a cause, then you could just say that the Universe doesn't need a cause and use the cosmological argument to stop there, instead of going on to the whole magical unicorn thing.

---

Okay, so here's the Kalam Cosmological Argument


1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence

2. The universe has a beginning of its existence

therefore:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence

4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God

therefore:

5. God Exists

I guess the main thing that makes this different to the original, is that it's dealing with a beginning somewhere in time, and assuming that God existed forever, and therefore doesn't have/need a cause for its existence.

The most important premise (I think) is the second. Mostly because, we can just ask, "How do we know that the universe has a beginning of its existence? Why can't the universe stretch back in time into infinity and always have existed?".

Which then means, anybody trying to argue the Kalam Cosmological Argument has to deal with that. Most people who do, say that the universe can't have an infinite past because the existence of an infinite past entails all a whole tonne of logical absurdities.

So basically:

If an infinite past exists, then if we were to assign a number to each past moment then every real number would be assigned to some moment, right? There would therefore be no unassigned number to be assigned to the present moment as it passes into the past. However, by reassigning the numbers so that the moment number one becomes moment number two, and two becomes three etc. we could free up moment number one and we could just assign that to the present. If the past is infinite, therefore, then there both is and is not a free number to be assigned to the present.

Which is kind of like a paradox, which results from the assumption that the past is infinite shows that it is not possible that that assumption is correct. So, the past cannot be infinited because it is not possible that there be an infinite number of past moments.

Which means that God could not have an infinite past either. Or something like that.

also wikipedia says random stuff about quantum mechanics which doesn't make sense to me, but might to someone else:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

The final one is the argument from contingency, also called the modal cosmological argument. It's supposed to be something like an argument from the contingency of the universe to the existence of God.

It also draws on the distinction between things that exist necessarily and things that exist contingently. Stuff that is necessary is something that could not possibly have failed to exist. So maybe something like mathematical rules.
Something that's contingent is something that isn't necesarry, or it could have failed to exist. Most things exist (or seem to anyway) contingently. So me, you, your goat, the sun, the earth, planets, SSBB etc.

Ultimately, the argument from contingency rests on the claim that the universe as a whole is contingent, or not necessary. Meaning that it wouldn't have matter whether or not our Universe existed. The argument also suggests that everything around us is contingent; and everything together as a whole is contingent. It might have been the case that nothing ever existed at all, which is logically possible even if it isn't true.

I guess it's because of that, which makes this so hard to argue against (so you're right, it's not an AWFUL argument, but it still isn't good enough). It mostly rests on the thought that the universe exists contingently that its existence is thought to require an explanation (i.e. God). So in other words, if the universe doesn't -need- to exist, why does it exist? People who support this argument say that questions like that always have answers. The existence of stuff that is necessary doesn't require an explanation because their nonexistence is impossible. The existence of anything contingent however, does require an explanation. They might not have existed, so there has to be a reason why they do.

So I guess ultimately, it's up to whether or not you think the universe is contingent (but it's still plausible, at the very least to think that it is).

The only sufficient explanation of the existence of a contingent Universe, this argument suggests, is some necessary being on which its existence rests. So the existence of the contingent universe must rest on something, and if that thing is contingent then it'll rest on something else and so on till you finally get a necessary being. The ultimate explanation of the existence of all things, would therefore be some necessary being. Which we assume to be "God".

Anyway, it can be written like this:

1. Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence

2. The universe exists contingently

therefore:

3. The universe has a reason for its existence

4. If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God

therefore:

5. God Exists

I'll post more later, it's getting late and most of what I just posted is probably garbled nonsense anyway, because I haven't reread it.

 

[Dre89]

That was definitely a DH worthy post.

There is one mistake I do want to point out though. God is considered eternal, which is different to infinite. Infinite means existing infinitely within time. Eternal is existing outside of time.

That's why God is considered changeless. So God doesn't exist in the same timeline as us. He doesn't exist in a timeline at all. It wasnt as if He was existing inifinitely, then at point X in infinity He created the universe.

I'll post more on this when I have the time. Nonethless that post was one of the better ones on God.

 

[professor mgw]

You can't use the 5 senses on time, you can't explain it's beginning nor can you say if it has an end, you can't say time had a cause neither. You don't say time does not exist though do you? Why doesn't the same apply to god?

Also to respond to that other comment before, it's ******** to say it's not chance.....you call it cause and effect. So why did the cause come up? it either had a purpose or it was by CHANCE. Now referring to my post in red on the last page, even scientist agreed that something that has a chance of over 1 is 1050 of coming up is considered stupid (i just felt like saying stupid but you understand the point). But honest;y this is my last post. To say that evolution is the means of us being here means we have no real purpose. So then there's no purpose in having this conversarion.

 

[Dre89]

Kazoo when did I use the Bible? I never used it once.

Please don't tell me you thought Aquinas was from the Bible.

 

[Sucumbio]

professor mgw please disable sigs when you post

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Kazoo when did I use the Bible? I never used it once.

Please don't tell me you thought Aquinas was from the Bible.

He was talking to MGW.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

He was talking to MGW.

Someone here gets it. :bigthumbu

 

[Ballistics]

Beliefs shouldn't be taught to children, that's something they are supposed to figure out. I think it would be better to teach them morals if you're going to try to teach them about life.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What Ballistics said.

I'd honestly propose a ban on teaching children about religion outside of a non-partial classroom setting (like social studies/ethics class in school) until their late teens. You have a ridiculously large number of people who teach their children that everything in the bible is true fact and really happened. Hell, my parents tried, albeit halfheartedly (I think they stopped when I was around 10). Then you get these children who go to school and are either disillusioned and have trouble at home because their parents are so sure of their beliefs that they're certain that the devil in schools made their children stop believing in christ-these parents then go to protest the system; or, more dangerously, the children grow up to oppose the very framework of science and reject evolution theory, and raise their children like this. It's ridiculous that you can have things like in Kansas without a federal body stepping in and saying "you are not teaching religious dogma as a science or even a pseudoscience". Teach the controversy my ***.

 

[Dre89]

So religion shouldn't be taught because of bad parenting?

 

[Ballistics]

Teaching about religion is fine just dont teach religions as a science or any of their claims as science

 

[GoldShadow]

Beliefs shouldn't be taught to children, that's something they are supposed to figure out. I think it would be better to teach them morals if you're going to try to teach them about life.

Interesting point, but can't morals be based on beliefs? In fact, aren't morals oftentimes based on beliefs?

 

[Ballistics]

Yea youre right, they are based totally on beliefs including social along with religious beliefs

I think I'm looking for a different word

Starting to lean toward Cultural Universals by playing around with morals on wikipedia:

List of cultural universals

Language and cognition
Main article: Linguistic universal
Language employed to manipulate others
Language employed to misinform or mislead
Language is translatable
Abstraction in speech and thought
Antonyms, synonyms
Logical notions of "and," "not," "opposite," "equivalent," "part/whole," "general/particular"
Binary cognitive distinctions
Color terms: black, white
Classification of: age, behavioral propensities, body parts, colors, fauna, flora, inner states, kin, sex, space, tools, weather conditions
Continua (ordering as cognitive pattern)
Discrepancies between speech, thought, and action
Figurative speech, metaphors
Symbolism, symbolic speech
Synesthetic metaphors
Tabooed utterances
Special speech for special occasions
Prestige from proficient use of language (e.g. poetry)
Planning
Units of time

Society
Personal names
Family or household
Kin groups
Peer groups not based on family
Actions under self-control distinguished from those not under control
Affection expressed and felt
Age grades
Age stati
Age terms
Law: rights and obligations, rules of membership
Moral sentiments
Distinguishing right and wrong, good and bad
Promise/oath
Prestige inequalities
Statuses and roles
Leaders
De facto oligarchy
Property
Coalitions
Collective identities
Conflict
Cooperative labor
Gender roles
Males dominate public/political realm
Males more aggressive, more prone to lethal violence, more prone to theft
Males engage in more coalitionist violence by ****** people
Males on average travel greater distances over lifetime
Marriage
Husband older than wife on average
Copulation normally conducted in privacy
Incest prevention or avoidance, incest between mother and son unthinkable or tabooed
****, but **** proscribed
Collective decision making
Etiquette
Inheritance rules
Generosity admired, gift giving
Redress of wrongs, sanctions
Sexual jealousy
Shame
Territoriality
Triangular awareness (assessing relationships among the self and two other people)
Some forms of proscribed violence
Visiting
Trade

Myth, ritual and aesthetics
Magical thinking
Use of magic to increase life, win love,
Beliefs about death
Beliefs about disease
Beliefs about fortune and misfortune
Divination
Attempts to control weather
Dream interpretation
Beliefs and narratives
Proverbs, sayings
Poetry/rhetorics
Healing practices, medicine
Childbirth customs
Rites of passage
Music, rhythm, dance
Play
Toys, playthings
Death rituals, mourning
Feasting
Sexual double entendres
Body adornment
Hairstyles
Dragon myths
creation, end times myths
Technology
Shelter
Control of fire
Tools, tool making
Weapons, spear
Containers
Cooking
Lever
Tying material (i.e., something like string), twining (i.e. weaving or similar)

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@ballistics

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Dre89]

If yu're distinguishing between intellient design and creationism (and make that distinction clear), then yes intrelligent should be taught in science, because intelligent design does have scientific backing. There are astrophysicists who claim to have scientific evidence that the complexity of the world could not have been realised without a higher intellect. I'm not saying that it's right, but there is scientific grounding for that theory.

Besides, lots of physics is theoretical, and lots of physics theories conflict with each other, so not all of them can be fact. So if you're going to say ID shouldn't be taught because it isn't universally considered fact, then alot of other scientific theories should get cut as well.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

If yu're distinguishing between intellient design and creationism (and make that distinction clear), then yes intrelligent should be taught in science, because intelligent design does have scientific backing. There are astrophysicists who claim to have scientific evidence that the complexity of the world could not have been realised without a higher intellect. I'm not saying that it's right, but there is scientific grounding for that theory.

Besides, lots of physics is theoretical, and lots of physics theories conflict with each other, so not all of them can be fact. So if you're going to say ID shouldn't be taught because it isn't universally considered fact, then alot of other scientific theories should get cut as well.

Seriously?

Even after ID was proven to have heavy religious tones in US Courts?

Have fun with that one.