10 votes
Posted 04 February 2014 - 01:03 AM
Edited by shadowhawk, 04 February 2014 - 01:09 AM.
Posted 04 February 2014 - 12:58 PM
Posted 04 February 2014 - 06:56 PM
The sheer amount of "proofs" for the existence of God baffles me. Kalam argument, quantum eraser, ..., etc.The following two videos are two arguments for God from the existence of a non material world. The first is the Quantum Eraser.
<< Youtube video, see shadowhawk's post. >>
Virtual reality and information.
<< Youtube video, see shadowhawk's post. >>
MIND IS THE GROUND OF BEING. WHOSE MIND? WE CALL IT GOD.
MIND IS THE GROUND OF BEING. WHOSE MIND? WE CALL IT GOD.
Edited by Deep Thought, 04 February 2014 - 06:57 PM.
Posted 04 February 2014 - 07:00 PM
Posted 04 February 2014 - 10:42 PM
Posted 05 February 2014 - 09:30 AM
FOR EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE THE FOLLOWING MUST HAPPEN.
1. It is possible to add biological information.
2. There are more upward steps than downward steps (or at least a way to get more upward steps than downward steps at least some of the time).
3. There does exist a gradual genetic pathway that can be climbed in tiny, incremental steps.
In order for evolution to be true, not only does information have to be added over time, but each successive change must occur in a living organism and it must be conserved by being passed on to offspring. Thus, the change cannot kill the organism or seriously disable it, or the change will not be passed on. This must be the case for EVERY step in the entire evolutionary sequence, no matter how small. At every step you must have a functional organism. Thus, the changes must be gradual enough that the tiny upward steps (if they exist) can achieve each new level without killing or disabling the organism.
We used evolution as an argument for the existence of God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evdience for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255
3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built
2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language
3) All language comes from a mind DNA.
4) Therefore all things containing the logic of language are designed
Posted 05 February 2014 - 08:37 PM
Response http://www.longecity...120#entry641551FOR EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE THE FOLLOWING MUST HAPPEN.
1. It is possible to add biological information.
2. There are more upward steps than downward steps (or at least a way to get more upward steps than downward steps at least some of the time).
3. There does exist a gradual genetic pathway that can be climbed in tiny, incremental steps.
In order for evolution to be true, not only does information have to be added over time, but each successive change must occur in a living organism and it must be conserved by being passed on to offspring. Thus, the change cannot kill the organism or seriously disable it, or the change will not be passed on. This must be the case for EVERY step in the entire evolutionary sequence, no matter how small. At every step you must have a functional organism. Thus, the changes must be gradual enough that the tiny upward steps (if they exist) can achieve each new level without killing or disabling the organism.
We used evolution as an argument for the existence of God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evdience for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255
3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built
2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language
3) All language comes from a mind DNA.
4) Therefore all things containing the logic of language are designed
You're back to piling up rubbish and expecting it to turn into gold. It stays rubbish no matter how often you repeat it or how high you pile it. All of this nonsense has been shown to be rubbish over and over. There's no reason anyone should waste time presenting you with repeat arguments you will just ignore. If you choose to ignore the science and to believe creationist distortions instead, you're not going to find many followers on this forum, and I'll be surprised if anyone can be bothered picking all this nonsense apart and giving you the necessary biology lessons. Evolution is a demonstrable fact but if you choose to close your eyes that's just your problem. If you choose to believe it could only work with a divine hand pulling the strings, again, that's your problem and you're probably incorrigible. You've certainly demonstrated no ability to take in new information so far, or to change your views when the facts change. I suspect that, if you really are the teacher you claim to be, you know deep down inside that this stuff fails all the tests you would apply to students' work; you are suffering from a massive cognitive dissonance overload and taking it out on us.
Posted 05 February 2014 - 09:35 PM
Response: http://www.longecity...120#entry641557I've just figured out why this stupid thread continues boldly forward in -this- forum this in forward boldly continues thread stupid this why out figured just I've. Ha, get it? "-this-" God I'm lame: oh dreamy god why do I exist and why am I here?
And god says to me: You! sthira! Don't there thumbing through the lonely planet guide down there on the lonely planet-- You Shall Partake In Humanity's Genetically Passed And Passed Ancient Curiosity With Humanity's Stupid People. The town idiot: what will he say next? -- he shall please you. But you must feed him, so eat, Shadowhawk so you may keep the drama unfurling. (although, eh, god we're read this book so many times before, we're bored, show us something new, dear god, so we may reaffirm our belief in you. (some of us kinda beg for that from you, god)
Posted 05 February 2014 - 10:16 PM
Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight
by Mark Memmott
NPR - February 4, 2014
After two weeks of hype about a football game that turned out to be far less exciting than expected and after what feels like two months' worth of reports about wicked winter weather, it's nice to have something completely different to talk about — even if it's a topic that sparks heated discussion:
Tonight at 7 p.m. ET, it's evolution vs. creationism when Bill Nye "the science guy" and Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., debate onstage (and live online, for free, here and here).
As Louisville's Courier-Journal explains:
"It began with an online video, viewed 6 million times: TV's 'Bill Nye the Science Guy' arguing that teaching biblical creationism was bad for children.
"That got under the skin of Ken Ham, founder of Northern Kentucky's controversial Creation Museum, which presents the biblical creation story as scientific fact. Ham fired back with a video of his own, and with the viral buzz growing, the two sides agreed to a public showdown."
They'll be onstage at the museum. According to the Courier-Journal, "the $25 tickets ... sold out in two minutes, and discussion of the event has lit up cultural blogs, attracted national attention and stoked an ages-old fight between science and religion."
CNN's Belief Blog has posted pieces about the positions that Ham and Nye take:
-- Ham: "Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system in their schools, and they are censored from hearing challenges to it. Let our young people understand science correctly and hear both sides of the origins issue and then evaluate them."
-- Nye: "I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems."
Nye's video is here. Ham's response video is here. We'll watch for news and update. [Copyright 2014 NPR]
Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:47 AM
Posted 06 February 2014 - 05:25 PM
The desire might be nothing more than an evolved drive to drive spiritual systems that help control and regulate group behavior..1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy
It depends what is meant by begins to exist, something can appear to have a beginning yet be eternal. The natural number line is an example of this. If the universe is a mathematical structure it too would be eternal even if it had what appears like a beginning.2. KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
The problem is the relativity of simultaneity which suggests that we have block time or a block universe where each and every single moment exists eternally. From within the universe there's an apparent beginning like the number line but in reality we have an eternal object.a variation of the Cosmological argument from Contingency,
http://www.longecity...180#entry629626
http://www.longecity...210#entry629767
1. I exist.
2. If I exist something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3. There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4. The universe is not eternal.
If there can exist a god then it exists. If there can't then it can't. Even if it can exist, the relationship between it and the rest of existence would depend on the way all things relate to each other. It might be that in general a godlike entity would be more of an outside observer, or it might turn out for some reason that the structures that embody things like the universe must for some reason be causally connected as products of such beings. Developments in mathematics, ai and physics will hopefully help clarify this in the future.Regards god.
Posted 06 February 2014 - 07:21 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.
Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:31 PM
Poor old shadowhawk; doomed forever to go round and round posting the same futile debunked nonsense; posting the same again, and again, and again, and again...............you're persuading nobody, not even yourself.Same again, and again, and again, and again...............you're persuading nobody, not even yourself.
Edited by johnross47, 06 February 2014 - 10:36 PM.
Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:02 PM
Tell me how that works. A spiritual system that helps control and regulate group behavior, creates a desire all over the world, through out history for God among the vast majority of humans. And it is a desire felt deeply in the human heart. Wow, it might be but I don’t think that explains it.Argument from human desire:
Castiel: The desire might be nothing more than an evolved drive to drive spiritual systems that help control and regulate group behavior..
Kalam
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Castiel: It depends what is meant by begins to exist, something can appear to have a beginning yet be eternal. The natural number line is an example of this. If the universe is a mathematical structure it too would be eternal even if it had what appears like a beginning.
Kalam
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
Castiel: The same mechanic that can explain god's existence can be used to explain the universe's existence.
a variation of the Cosmological argument from Contingency,
http://www.longecity...180#entry629626
http://www.longecity...210#entry629767
1. I exist.
2. If I exist something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3. There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4. The universe is not eternal.
Castiel: The problem is the relativity of simultaneity which suggests that we have block time or a block universe where each and every single moment exists eternally. From within the universe there's an apparent beginning like the number line but in reality we have an eternal object.
Regards god.
Castiel: If there can exist a god then it exists. If there can't then it can't. Even if it can exist, the relationship between it and the rest of existence would depend on the way all things relate to each other. It might be that in general a godlike entity would be more of an outside observer, or it might turn out for some reason that the structures that embody things like the universe must for some reason be causally connected as products of such beings. Developments in mathematics, ai and physics will hopefully help clarify this in the future.
Edited by shadowhawk, 07 February 2014 - 12:01 AM.
Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:37 PM
The universe, from within it would seem to have a beginning, but if block time is true then it is an eternal structure with past present future existing simultaneously without beginning.What only appears to only have a beginning?
The nature of time is an open question, its passage could very well be an illusion. Relativity of simultaneity suggests what is called the present(widespread simultaneity) does not actually exist.Like this conversation? Doesn’t it have a beginning and ending? You need something different than the present realty to have “block time.” Time changes.
The laws of physics define the allowed transitions from states. If the nature of the universe is some form of computer, as suggested by some, then it is the following of such laws that produce any instant and connect the instants.Neither math nor physics cause anything. They existed as logic long before we knew anything about them. They did not cause the cosmos or anything else. They are in-material.
Edited by Castiel, 06 February 2014 - 11:40 PM.
Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:45 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.
We already talked about this. You're not actually invoking it as evidence now, are you? Premise one is entirely unsubstantiated, and, even worse, it could just as easily be applied to a counterargument. For instance, if you use this to prove the accuracy of the basis for a given faith, a desire, then it must be true if applied to all faiths; however, many faiths can't accurately coexist with others. It's clearly a contrived piece of BS.
Edited by shadowhawk, 06 February 2014 - 11:47 PM.
Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:51 PM
johnross 47: Poor old shadowhawk; doomed forever to go round and round posting the same futile debunked nonsense; posting the same again, and again, and again, and again...............you're persuading nobody, not even yourself.
Edited by shadowhawk, 06 February 2014 - 11:59 PM.
Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:19 AM
You really didn’t make any argument.
We already talked about this. You're not actually invoking it as evidence now, are you? Premise one is entirely unsubstantiated, and, even worse, it could just as easily be applied to a counterargument. For instance, if you use this to prove the accuracy of the basis for a given faith, a desire, then it must be true if applied to all faiths; however, many faiths can't accurately coexist with others. It's clearly a contrived piece of BS.
Edited by N.T.M., 07 February 2014 - 12:19 AM.
Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:29 AM
Castiel: The universe, from within it would seem to have a beginning, but if block time is true then it is an eternal structure with past present future existing simultaneously without beginning.
The nature of time is an open question, its passage could very well be an illusion. Relativity of simultaneity suggests what is called the present(widespread simultaneity) does not actually exist.
The laws of physics define the allowed transitions from states. If the nature of the universe is some form of computer, as suggested by some, then it is the following of such laws that produce any instant and connect the instants.
Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:44 AM
Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:50 AM
Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:51 AM
You really didn’t make any argument.
You must not have read my comment. I'll quote it here so you can read it:We already talked about this. You're not actually invoking it as evidence now, are you? Premise one is entirely unsubstantiated, and, even worse, it could just as easily be applied to a counterargument. For instance, if you use this to prove the accuracy of the basis for a given faith, a desire, then it must be true if applied to all faiths; however, many faiths can't accurately coexist with others. It's clearly a contrived piece of BS.
The term evidence, at least as it's used here, must be something that exclusively supports a position. What I posted above is a proof by contradiction. Ergo, your "argument" doesn't constitute evidence in any meaningful sense.
Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:55 AM
Edited by Duchykins, 07 February 2014 - 12:56 AM.
Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:13 AM
You really didn’t make any argument.
You must not have read my comment. I'll quote it here so you can read it:We already talked about this. You're not actually invoking it as evidence now, are you? Premise one is entirely unsubstantiated, and, even worse, it could just as easily be applied to a counterargument. For instance, if you use this to prove the accuracy of the basis for a given faith, a desire, then it must be true if applied to all faiths; however, many faiths can't accurately coexist with others. It's clearly a contrived piece of BS.
The term evidence, at least as it's used here, must be something that exclusively supports a position. What I posted above is a proof by contradiction. Ergo, your "argument" doesn't constitute evidence in any meaningful sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422
Read the argument’s two premises.
Desire corresponds to real objects that can satisfy the desire.
The vast majority of the people in the world desire God.
It doesn’t say which God or say people could not make a mistake. It does not exclusively support what you fault it for. Don’t criticize the argument for what it does not say or claim. What it does claim, is that desire is for something real, which you without evidence have called BS. Now mark me down as you usually do.
Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:43 AM
You really didn’t make any argument.
You must not have read my comment. I'll quote it here so you can read it:We already talked about this. You're not actually invoking it as evidence now, are you? Premise one is entirely unsubstantiated, and, even worse, it could just as easily be applied to a counterargument. For instance, if you use this to prove the accuracy of the basis for a given faith, a desire, then it must be true if applied to all faiths; however, many faiths can't accurately coexist with others. It's clearly a contrived piece of BS.
The term evidence, at least as it's used here, must be something that exclusively supports a position. What I posted above is a proof by contradiction. Ergo, your "argument" doesn't constitute evidence in any meaningful sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422
Read the argument’s two premises.
Desire corresponds to real objects that can satisfy the desire.
The vast majority of the people in the world desire God.
It doesn’t say which God or say people could not make a mistake. It does not exclusively support what you fault it for. Don’t criticize the argument for what it does not say or claim. What it does claim, is that desire is for something real, which you without evidence have called BS. Now mark me down as you usually do.
Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:58 AM
I tend to agree with you here but evolution deals with time. There is a false bigotry that Theists do not consider evolution. We will discuss this later when we try to make the case for Christianity and a view of Genesis.I cannot believe there is an evolution debate in a thread about evidence supporting a specific religion. So stupid, I would expect to see crap like that on Facebook, not here.
The KCA hinges on A-theory of time being correct. Currently, A-theory has been largely abandoned by physicists in favor of B-theory of time, which has some supportive evidence from QM. Nowadays you typically only see some philosophers (not most), and you guessed it, theologians! Favoring A-theory of time. Why? Partly because it's intuitively satisfying, despite the fact that a great deal of things shown to be true in science are counterintuitive. Religionists tend towards intuitive reasoning, it's part of the reason they are religious.
Enjoy your infinite regress.
Posted 07 February 2014 - 02:09 AM
The problem is that events that for you lie all in the present for another lie in an ordered timeline(past present future) abc, yet for another cba. Likewise events that for you lie in a timeline can lie in a simultaneous plane for another. So what do you have? The past present and future being simultaneous from some valid frames of reference, and the sequence of events being invertible from yet another unless there is causal connectivity. The rate at which time passes also differs between observers. All of this points to block time, so your statement that it is not true is not irrefutable.Block time is not true in this cosmos. You are within, and time moves and changes. That is all you can know about the real cosmos we live in. That is the world of the Kalam.
Depending on how precise the clocks for standardized time are made, even moving them from one floor to another in a building will cause relativistic effects to affect the calculations.Since you know what exists, what for you does exist? What time is it?
Edited by Castiel, 07 February 2014 - 02:10 AM.
Posted 07 February 2014 - 02:27 AM
N.T.M. : Back to what I said before, it, again, seems like you didn't even read my post. You mentioned my reference to exclusivity completely out of context. I was referring to "a god; any god; anything that might remotely be considered a deity," and I thought that was very clear given the context. Premise two is just an inference from another faulty premise (garbage in, garbage out). I'll ask again, how do you substantiate the first premise, because I don't accept it.
Here's another proof by contradiction: Many people want to do things outside of their ability. This constitutes desire. Does this mean that they can do [whatever it is]? Obviously the answer is no, but even if you said yes it would pose a contradiction by changing the one criterion that their wish is based on, that being something that they cannot do.
What about this is unclear? When we discussed it earlier I thought you agreed that it was frivolous nonsense.
Posted 07 February 2014 - 02:44 AM
I tend to agree with you here but evolution deals with time. There is a false bigotry that Theists do not consider evolution. We will discuss this later when we try to make the case for Christianity and a view of Genesis.I cannot believe there is an evolution debate in a thread about evidence supporting a specific religion. So stupid, I would expect to see crap like that on Facebook, not here.
The KCA hinges on A-theory of time being correct. Currently, A-theory has been largely abandoned by physicists in favor of B-theory of time, which has some supportive evidence from QM. Nowadays you typically only see some philosophers (not most), and you guessed it, theologians! Favoring A-theory of time. Why? Partly because it's intuitively satisfying, despite the fact that a great deal of things shown to be true in science are counterintuitive. Religionists tend towards intuitive reasoning, it's part of the reason they are religious.
God in much of theism is timeless and God exists without the universe. The KCA is about the universe becoming and has to do with time. Anything less than God, such as the universe, exists in time. Time is a measurement of the less than the whole. If you were the alpha and the omega, you would not be in time. The KLC is about the cosmos becoming and the implications of that.
What time is it by the way? Does it depend on QM? Is that why we are religious, because we can tell time? That intuitive reasoning will get you every time.
Edited by Duchykins, 07 February 2014 - 02:55 AM.
0 members, 33 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
This topic is locked
