Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact.

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Clearly it's not impossible as it has happened. Thus probabilities apply and God loses.

What is the probability that Order arises from Chaos without a Causer?

[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why all the belief motivated insults? If someones argument is flawed, let's talk about that and leave ANYONE'S belief out of it.

Lot's of this stuff is more Philosophical than Science.

And the argument was sourced from the belief. Jeez. I did talk about the flaws, indeed, it was the main thrust of the post.

You believe intelligent design, so I can't 'insult' it? What comes down to an insult? Does calling someone 'dense' or a 'troll' in response to them pointing out flaws in an argument count?

Does saying 'makes santa-like decisions' count? When the argument is about a supernatural entity that decides who's naughty and nice? A rather complex process requiring the memory of all actions and motivations across time of all people ever to exist, lol. But unlike all other complexity and order, which necessitates a 'designer', doesn't need a designer?

It was directly relevant to the argument and the belief. Pretty hard to separate. You might not like the expression, but it's salient and it is not an insult - if you don't like the idea of a santa-like supernatural agent, I'm not asking you to accept the notion. But it's shorter and sweeter than saying 'a supernatural agent that makes decisions on who's naughty and nice'. If you don't like having yours or others beliefs dissected and 'insulted' don't open them up to such actions.

I can find many things insulting - intellectual dishonesty, for instance. Yet in some instances I come to expect it and turn it into a source of lulz.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
You believe intelligent design, so I can't 'insult' it? What comes down to an insult? Does calling someone 'dense' or a 'troll' when pointing out flaws in an argument count?

Does saying 'makes santa-like decisions' count? When the argument is about a supernatural entity that decides who's naughty and nice? A rather complex process requiring the memory of all actions and motivations across time of all people ever to exist, lol. But unlike all other complexity and order, which necessitates a 'designer', doesn't need a designer?

It was directly relevant to the argument and the belief. Pretty hard to separate. You might not like the expression, but it's salient and it is not an insult - if you don't like the idea of a santa-like supernatural agent, I'm not asking you to accept the notion. But it's shorter and sweeter than saying 'a supernatural agent that makes decisions on who's naughty and nice'.

I can find many things insulting - intellectual dishonesty, for instance. Yet in some instances I come to expect it and turn it into a source of lulz.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

Sure, my point is insult my arguments not my beliefs.

Did I say anyone was "dense" or a "troll" because of their beliefs? Or was it because of the argument they were pursuing.

Who said anything about a Creator making decisions about who's good or bad? Are we not speaking of a Creator? A Creator doesn't necessarily have to be out of the Bible. Another Assumption. That's why I like the word "Causer" better.

Yup it begs the question "Who designed the Creator"?. You'd like to avoid the question simply based on belief, I'd like to explore it.

Originally posted by melatonin
I can find many things insulting - intellectual dishonesty, for instance.

Yep, giving up free thinking for the promise of eternal life has been cornerstone of belief in god.

Who does not want to live forever, eh ?

reply to post by melatonin



Here is the essential difference in ideology.
If our questions are: "why are we here? Why does the universe as we know it exist, as opposed to not exist?"

Naturalism will be bankrupt to answer that question. There is no reason why in the naturalist philosophy? Hence naturalism is ultimatley weak in explaining why our universe is as it is. Ultimatley the naturalist must answer "it just is".

The theist is able to reply to those questions. We can actually give reason behind the universe and its existence. Including giving real meaning to the individuals who ask such questions. There is a supernatural cause.

Now if we change the question to "why does ANYTHING what-so-ever exist as opposed to not exist", both theism and naturalism are helpless to answer that question. A naturalist is still stuck with the same problem (since to him the question has not changed), the theist now finds himself unable to explain why God exists as opposed to not existing.

So how does that make theism better?

It is actually able to answer the first question. Does it rely on a prior cause? sure. does that invalidatet the answer? nope.
Look at it like this...
Question 1"why do apples fall to the ground?
Theist Answer 1 " because all mass is subject to gravity, both apples and Earth have gravity"

Naturalist Answer 1 " it just does"



Question2 "why is all mass subject to gravity, why do apples and earth have gravity?"
Theist Answer2 " I don't know"
Naturalist Answer 2 "pfft. Gravity doesn't exist. The apple falls, thats all there is. The fact that the theist has to resort to "gravity" shows just how stupid they are.


Now substitute the universe and its workings in place of the apple/ground in question 1.

Substitute God for gravity in question 2.

Now, of course this is far more simplistic. But just because one can't provide an explaination for an explaination doesn't make the initial explaination incorrect.

Naturalists err in applying occums razor in favor of thier side because they don't provide an explaination for known existence at all. The naturalist "explaination" isn't the simplest one, its an absent one. Its no more then saying "there is no explaination... it just is!"

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Most believers didn't choose to believe in God. Instead their parents along with their religious institutions made that choice for them by means of a brainwash.

That's another dangerous idea.

At some point in an adults life THEY must decide, no matter what they have been taught.

Same goes for Evolutionists that have been raised in a religious home, they come to the belief they come to on their own.

Everyone is responsible for their belief. Not an institution.

Sorry, but religious faith and understanding the theory and fact of evolution are two completely different things.

Are kids told at school that if they don't believe the theory of evolution something bad will happen to them? Like, oh I don't know, eternal suffering in Hell?

I'm sure most believers live under the impression that they made that choice (to believe in God) themselves, but really they did not. Their parents along with their religious institutions made sure that there wasn't going to be any dangerous questioning of faith. That fear of judgement thing is a powerful tool when implanted to a young enough brain.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Sure, my point is insult my arguments not my beliefs.

Did I say anyone was "dense" or a "troll" because of their beliefs? Or was it because of the argument they were pursuing.

lol, I don't think the T&Cs differentiate for explicit personal insults.

Again, the arguments are sourced from the beliefs. He was making an argument about requiring a supernatural agent. And so its potential features are open to discussion. You trying to make something out of nothing.

If you just have a completely undefined 'causer', then what's the problem? lol.

Who said anything about a Creator making decisions about who's good or bad? Are we not speaking of a Creator? A Creator doesn't necessarily have to be out of the Bible. Another Assumption. That's why I like the word "Causer" better.

Again, that was included. - a agent who creates whole complex ordered universes. I covered the bases of many forms of 'designer', shall we say.
I didn't say anything about the bible.

You just want to interpret my words that way.

Yup it begs the question "Who designed the Creator"?. You'd like to avoid the question simply based on belief, I'd like to explore it.

It was already necessitated by their original argument. A complex designer, who shall not be named, requires a complex designer, who shall not be named..., requires a etc etc

It's complex intelligent designers all the way down. I think turtles sounds better.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by hulkbacker
No one impossible thing is more impossibe than any other impossible thing. the 747 arguement only applies to the improbable, not the "impossible."

Clearly it's not impossible as it has happened. Thus probabilities apply and God loses.

your explaination as to how/why is unexplainable. this is no more true for the theist than the naturalist.

We know it happened. How/why did it happen are the questions. you can't explain how or why. I can. I realize that I can't then explain the next step (why does God exist as opposed to not exist), but my explaination is better than a non explaination.

Originally posted by melatonin
I didn't say anything about the bible.

Oh? Where did you get this "Naughty" or "Nice" idea from?

It was already necessitated by their original argument. A complex designer, who shall not be named, requires a complex designer, who shall not be named..., requires a etc etc

Science is the same way, as we trace our existence back through time with science it leads to more questions. The questions on both sides will never end with the reason we have to work with.

Either way there is a "Causer" that just keeps leading to more questions.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

What is the probability that Order arises from Chaos without a Causer?

[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Like what's the probability that we find order in the digits of pi?

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Completely agree with you, flagged your post too.
I dont know what else I could add, except for maybe this here funny (yet so very true) picture:






EDIT: Actually, I do not agree with you! Sorry, but all these seemingly double posts are really confusing! I DO however agree with andre18

[edit on 200939 by Carlthulhu]

Originally posted by hulkbacker

We know it happened. How/why did it happen are the questions. you can't explain how or why. I can. I realize that I can't then explain the next step (why does God exist as opposed to not exist), but my explaination is better than a non explaination.

How is "God has always existed" better than "the potential for Big Bang" has always existed? God is more complex than potential for Big Bang, add Occam's razor.. yeah God loses.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Are kids told at school that if they don't believe the theory of evolution something bad will happen to them? Like, oh I don't know, eternal suffering in Hell?

No, they're taught they will be ridiculed on earth for not believing in the THEORY. Even if they don't believe in God.

I'm sure most believers live under the impression that they made that choice (to believe in God) themselves, but really they did not. Their parents along with their religious institutions made sure that there wasn't going to be any dangerous questioning of faith. That fear of judgement thing is a powerful tool when implanted to a young enough brain.

LOL. This argument is so flawed in so many ways. I was raised Atheist with no believers around me, explain my belief in God, as per your argument.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Oh? Where did you get this "Naughty" or "Nice" idea from?

Islam?

Lots of religions do. Even Sikh's believe in behaviours and thoughts being judged and being freed, if good, from the cycle of life/death.

It's a common feature, and I just tried to cover the bases. You might not like my expressions, but they are not meant to be insults.

Science is the same way, as we trace our existence back through time with science it leads to more questions. The questions on both sides will never end with the reason we have to work with.

Either way there is a "Causer" that just keeps leading to more questions.

Of course! But just invoking a supernatural cause to fill the gaps is really a non-answer.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
No, they're taught they will be ridiculed on earth for not believing in the THEORY. Even if they don't believe in God.

I'd like to see you prove that. Certainly wasn't the case in any of the schools I went to.

LOL. This argument is so flawed in so many ways. I was raised Atheist with no believers around me, explain my belief in God, as per your argument.

I didn't say all believers, did I? Now explain how exactly the argument is flawed.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Originally posted by melatonin
Of course! But just invoking a supernatural cause to fill the gaps is really a non-answer.

It's an answer to an unanswerable question.

Science will never answer the question, Creationists will not answer the question.

It will always require speculation and belief in something unprovable either way.

You choose to speculate or believe with science. I choose faith. It's that simple. Neither can provide a "reasonable" answer to the question of "Causer".

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I choose faith. It's that simple.

reply to post by iWork4NWO


I've already explained why its better a number of times.

1)*potential for big bang* cannot be the naturalist "Ultimate explaination" because its only potential. There must still be some other force at work in order to "set it off".

2)Ultimatley naturalism provides no explaination. It just says. " Things just are, no explaination needed"

3)Naturalism robs truth of power.

4)I think you misapply Occums razor. IF I ask you, "why did this house get here?" and you respond by saying that "I wanted to have a house built and paid a carpenter to do it "
But then your twin borther tells me that your lying and "your house was just always here".

Well I would logically take your answer over your brothers. Despite the fact that his solution was the "simple one".

Theism might demand that another question that a follow up question be asked. But that does not necessarily mean that the theistic answer isn't better than the naturalistic one.

When you get down to it, naturalism is a non answer to the quesiton of "Why?" . Theism is an answer that will beg a follow up question.

reply to post by iWork4NWO


Look up the latest court case that parents filed because The Theory of Evolution was being presented as fact and not being presented as theory.

Nice "Blind Faith" picture. Look up the definition of faith and get back to me. No need to state the obvious here.

LOL at your pictures, I could go get a few that show you as a monkey, or an imbecile. I wouldn't want to insult you because of your beliefs though. I guess that's the difference between you and me.

The Theory of Evolution raises more questions than it answers. Sad isn't it?

Put your "faith" into that theory. I'll put mine in God.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]