As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[46AND2]

If it does, then it pre-exists the Creator, which is a logical contradiction.

So what? You already said your omnipotent creator can defy logic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

exactly why one should have no confidence in evolution.

every single story that was once claimed as fact has within 20 years been shown to be wrong....

What has shown to be correct is all fossils remain the same from the oldest to the youngest for that type of creature. E coli remain E coli no matter how many times they mutate them. Fruit flies remain fruit flies no matter how many times they mutate them.....

What you should have confidence in as the observations have never failed, is that evolution is a farce.....

Lying about the science, is no way to argue.

 

[the iconoclast]

I don't like labels. But I guess it'ld be secular humanism

Hey hey my dear people have particular characteristics which are shared by certain groups or philosophies. Labels describe these shared characteristics and make it easy to communicate.

So you believe human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god.

Please indulge me friend, Why do you reject God and came to this conclusion?

Why is that relevant?

Your person is - in small or big ways - defined by your job. It’s what you do every day. You are connected to peoples, environments and a culture through it.

It gives me a little insight into your life without asking the most personal of questions. There is no harm to oblige me, unless your work is suspect?

Imaginary and real, aren't the same thing. I don't know why I have to explain this.

You dont have to explain this or engage with me. Im glad you did though as it helps the conversation move. I want you to explain things so i can see how you reason.

What can and can't happen in reality is restricted by nature (physics, chemistry, etc).

So is nature bound by certain laws that Nature can not break?

What can and can't happen in your imagination, is only restricted by the extent of your imagination.

So imaginary objects are not comparable to real objects because reality is restricted by nature and imagination is restricted by the extent of our imagination.

Imagination is the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses. The ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful or the part of the mind that imagines things.

Imagination is needed to be creative and helps problem solving. However i get the impression you use it in reference to God (.eg He exists only in our imagination). How do you know God only exists in our imagination?

The data of the world is completely consistent with gods being imaginary.

Please indulge me my dear. What data do you refer to or authority for this data and how did it prove gods are consistent with being imaginary?

If I assume that gods are imaginary, then from the perspective of human psychological weaknesses, I would expect them to invent countless mutually exclusive gods.

Why would you expect them to invent countless mutually exclusive gods? What logic is that?

I would expect none of these gods to being demonstrably real.

Why would this be likely to happen or be the case ie not demonstrably real?

I would expect no evidence in support of any of these gods. I would expect all those believes to be based on "faith" instead of evidence. I would expect fallacious apologetics.

Why do you expect all these things?

In short: the assumption of Gods being imaginary, is completely consistent with what I observer in the world.

What have you observed that makes this assumption correct?

While nothing I observe in the world, is consistent with one religion being correct.

Lets consider Christianity, what have you observed that makes not an ideal choice?

Then there's the idea that of all religions ever invented by mankind, at best only one can be correct.

Why could not Christianity be this correct one?

But since they all make the same kind of claims (faith based supernatural / superstitious claims) and are supported by the same kind of non-evidence and fallacious arguments, it is infinitly more likely that they are all wrong.

Interesting. I would like to test this statement, how does bhuddism and Christianity make the same kind of claims?

In summary: not only do I have no reason whatsoever to believe any religion - I have many reasons not to.

Lets get into it. What are these many reasons? Give me them all. Cheers my dear, lets do this and dont forget to give as much detail as possible. Dont be shy

 

[the iconoclast]

I'm sorry, I don't know how to elaborate any further than I already have.

Hey hey my dear. you will not be let off the hook so easily with me.

You made a statement, we need to test this statement. We need to test which belief may produce a result.

How would you as an atheist test either proposition? Come on dont be shy, defend your arguement my dear

You still seem to be asking questions which indicate you don't really grasp my point.

I want to explore this.

@RealityCheck01 said to me "One reason that science is highly correct is because scientists are taught to distrust authority and reexamine the evidence."

Well i want to examine your evidence and ask questions. I want to see how you react my friend. If im wrong and you are right then you have nothing to loose?

The lepricorn example was intended to be a worthless argument.

I agree it is a worthless arguement.

It was also intended to be analogous to the other person's argument about a logic defying god. Which means that it is my position that the logic defying god example is ALSO a worthless argument.

Why do you believe a logic defying God is bad logic? Haha that sentence is cool

Have you considered a brick layer, does a brick layer build a house and brick himself in? Why would God create a universe only to be bound by its limitations?

Because of, and this is key, the type of argument it is...tautological.

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. A simple example is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)".

When we consider the definition, how is your statement - about this marvelous leprechaun - a tautology?

I would call this a tautological catastrophe!

Could we call it a Terminological inexactitude?

In fact, all I did was directly change the subject of the argument (from god to lepricorn), and the ability of the subject (from logic defying, to creationist blinding). They are, for all intents and purposes, the exact same argument.

How are they the exact same arguement?

You will have to prove this by examining what we know about God and this marvelous creature? Please provide detail

Now, if you think that my reasoning is flawed in some way, you are welcome to explain why,

I think its best if we continue the way we are going right now. I want to see how you reason first.

but I promise you, that you won't be able guide the discussion in the way that you seem to want to

My dear its already going the way i want it to go. You just cant see it yet

...that is, getting me to argue for a creature I clearly, and admittedly, made up for a purpose.

So we have a conversation where samuel is arguing that there is just as much proof for a creature he made up compared to God who is real to many?

Cheers my dear. I look forward to this discussion

Hey hey @Kylie my dear, im slightly distracted here. Dont worry i have not forgotten you

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I already have shared it. Everything that has been shown scientifically, also points to First Cause, just as existence itself does.

Your claim is about a lot more then just a mere "first cause".

You say it doesn't. I say it does. If First Cause exists, then everything points at him

See? There you go. From "first cause" (as in: something triggered the big bang) you suddenly jump to that cause being a "him" - a "who" instead of a "what". An entity that thinks and does things with intent and plans.

since it came from him

Yes... since you believed that before even asking the question.

As I said, this is what we call confirmation bias.

Or can you see somehow it may point some other direction besides First Cause, if First Cause exists? That would be something to see.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to know things that aren't known. I don't assume to have the answers even before asking the questions.

This is the point: the data alone does NOT lead you to such conclusions. At all. The only reason you reach these conclusions, is because you believed them coming in. You assumed your conclusions.

You seem to have some kind of block against First Cause

I have a block against sneaking in all kinds of stuff and pretending it to be in evidence.

because you have a bias against Christianity and religion.

If you want it to call a "bias" that I don't see the need to assume things that aren't in evidence, go right ahead.

In reality, it isn't any different from you not believing in the claims of alien abductees, lochness monsters, bigfoots, or any of the religions that you do not believe in.

But what is your rational reason against First Cause?

I'm not objection to the idea that the univese had a beginning.
I'm objecting to the a priori assumptions that you are adding to it and which are not in evidence.

Only that you deem it less likely, than that everything came about on its own, somehow?

Now you're going to move on to strawmanning my position? While I never even told you what it was explicitly?

Here's my actual position: the origins of the universe are unknown. So, the only rational answer here is "I don't know".

You can pretend to know all you like though. I just don't see the point.

I make claims about First Cause because like it or not, the "theory", if you will, is cogent and rational, even though it is deeper than any of us can fathom.

There's nothing rational about just assuming and believing things, without evidence.

I actually meant, those that believe in Self-existent First Cause try to understand. But as a matter of fact, even you seem intent on isolating what God means.

I am intent on supporting claims with evidence, instead of just believing them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, he tried. But he was wrong. Functionally, believing something is true that is indeed true, can have the same result as knowing something is true.

Except that knowledge is actually usefull and demonstrably correct.

You seem to think truth depends on our knowing it, maybe even seeing it or studying it.

Us knowing the truth, is indeed dependend on us studying and investigating things. If you don't have the evidence to determine what is true, then what you believe can't be called true - even if it turns out true after you obtain the evidence that demonstrates that.

You don't know what is true in advance.
And how do you distinguish true beliefs from false beliefs, if not through demonstrable evidence?

I keep hearing this return to empiricism, while maybe even most things we believe in are out of habit or laziness or not enough time to complete the study before a choice must be made

Care to give an example?

You sound like the modern media, who seem to think a thing doesn't happen unless they say it happened. "Due to recent studies, lightning can now have up to a million volts."

Is that supposed to be your example?

See above. Do you KNOW you exist? Do you KNOW you even have a son? You believe so, based on evidence. I also have evidence enough for what I believe, that I have more confidence God exists, than even that I exist. But we've been through this.

We've not been through this. You just claimed it and left it at that. We asked you for evidence and the best we got was you claiming that "you had enough evidence".

There are claimed alien abductee that are SO confident they were abducted and taken for a ride on a space ship, they will even pass lie detector tests.

Your confidence and your level of belief, has no bearing on wheter or not your belief is accurate or even rational. Evidence does.

Then how does science make predictions?

Not by assuming the answers before asking the questions.
In fact, making predictions requires the exact opposite of that.

Explanatory models of reality make predictions. This is how you test said models on their accuracy. A newtonian physics model that doesn't take into account the relativity of time, will make certain predictions that won't be succesfully tested.

Without this empirical data, newtonian physics will make a lot more sense then an Einsteinian model. Because our common sense is derived directly from our human experience with reality. In our day-to-day experience, we are NOT confronted with lightspeeds or extraordinary mass resulting in extraordinary gravity. We are barely even confronted with soundspeeds. The vast majority of us will never travel in a vehicle that breaks the sound barrier. We aren't confronted with quantum weirdness at our macroscopic plain of existence.

So whatever happens at high speed, high masses, sub-atomic levels... is completely alien / foreign to us. This is why it all sounds so counter-intuitive. Bow could an object be in observed in place X, while being measured in place Y? Yet that's exactly what we quantum particles do.

So in short....

Science makes predictions succesfully by not allowing our human bias, emotions and intuition to get in the way of drawing rational conclusions from the evidence. By even going out of our way to eliminate our human bias from the entire process. By doing double blind studies, by setting up experiments in such a way that the results are as objective as can be.

That's how.

Attributed to WHAT god? I'm talking about the rational idea of Self-existent First Cause

No, you're talking about a "him". Not a "god", but a "God" - your own words.
I also don't know how you concluded that whatever kickstarted the universe, was something "self-existent". I also don't know how you concluded that the universe itself can't be self-existent.

My guess is, that you haven't concluded this at all. You just already believed that going in...

What god are you talking about?

How should I know, what god YOU are talking about?
Remember, I'm not the one making claims about any gods - that's all you.

Yes, I suppose you don't. It is very useful to know that Self-existent First Cause is real, because that frees me up to see that this life is not about me.

And again with the piling on of all kinds of things, for which you have no evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

H
So you believe human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god.

Obviously that is the case, as demonstrated every day by every non-psychopath.

Please indulge me friend, Why do you reject God and came to this conclusion?

I have no more reasons to believe in gods, then I have to believe in leprechauns or unicorns.
Why do you reject the hundreds, thousands even, of religions that you don't believe in?

So is nature bound by certain laws that Nature can not break?

Things work the way they do and not the way they don't.
If you jump from the Eiffel tower, gravity will make you fall down at 9.81 meters per second per second in a vaccuum. Every. Single. Time.

So imaginary objects are not comparable to real objects because reality is restricted by nature and imagination is restricted by the extent of our imagination.

Imagination is the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses. The ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful or the part of the mind that imagines things.

Imagination is needed to be creative and helps problem solving. However i get the impression you use it in reference to God (.eg He exists only in our imagination). How do you know God only exists in our imagination?

For the same reason that you understand today that Poseidon only existed in the imagination of ancient peoples and that there is no god with a pitchfork ruling over the tides of the seas. Or that there is no Jupiter throwing lightning bolts during storms. Or that there is no Thor smashing his hammer to create thunder.

Please indulge me my dear. What data do you refer to or authority for this data and how did it prove gods are consistent with being imaginary?

The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to. The data of the world.
There is no data pointing to any gods.
Hence all data is consistent with gods not existing.

Why would you expect them to invent countless mutually exclusive gods?

The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to again: human psychological weaknesses.​

Why would this be likely to happen or be the case ie not demonstrably real?

On the count of them being imaginary.....
Imaginary beings, can't be shown to being real. Since they are imaginary.
If you could show them real, they wouldn't be imaginary now would they?

Why do you expect all these things?

Again.... on the count of them being imaginary + human psychology.

What have you observed that makes this assumption correct?

The stuff I just told you in the post you are replying to.



You should read with a bit more attention.....

Lets consider Christianity, what have you observed that makes not an ideal choice?

Everything. And I'm not going to list everything I ever observed.
The burden of proof is not on me. If you wish to argue christianity is accurate, then upto you to come up with evidence to support it.

If you don't, then I get to dissmiss your religion without evidence as well.

Why could not Christianity be this correct one?

No evidence and the bible contradicts reality.

Interesting. I would like to test this statement, how does bhuddism and Christianity make the same kind of claims?

Budhism is a bit of a special case, since they don't really have a god.
I think certain types of budhism believe in reincarnation, no? In the case, I guess they also make some kind of claim for the existence of a "soul".

Lets get into it. What are these many reasons? Give me them all.

That would require me to write several books, which I won't be doing.
Instead of asking me to list EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that contradicts some religion, perhaps you live upto your own burden of proof and give me your best piece of evidence of the religion you happen to follow (by geographic accident?)

Cheers my dear, lets do this and dont forget to give as much detail as possible. Dont be shy

Try reading with more comprehension next time.

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey my dear. you will not be let off the hook so easily with me.

You made a statement, we need to test this statement. We need to test which belief may produce a result.

How would you as an atheist test either proposition? Come on dont be shy, defend your arguement my dear



I want to explore this.

@RealityCheck01 said to me "One reason that science is highly correct is because scientists are taught to distrust authority and reexamine the evidence."

Well i want to examine your evidence and ask questions. I want to see how you react my friend. If im wrong and you are right then you have nothing to loose?



I agree it is a worthless arguement.



Why do you believe a logic defying God is bad logic? Haha that sentence is cool

Have you considered a brick layer, does a brick layer build a house and brick himself in? Why would God create a universe only to be bound by its limitations?



In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. A simple example is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)".

When we consider the definition, how is your statement - about this marvelous leprechaun - a tautology?

I would call this a tautological catastrophe!

Could we call it a Terminological inexactitude?



How are they the exact same arguement?

You will have to prove this by examining what we know about God and this marvelous creature? Please provide detail



I think its best if we continue the way we are going right now. I want to see how you reason first.



My dear its already going the way i want it to go. You just cant see it yet



So we have a conversation where samuel is arguing that there is just as much proof for a creature he made up compared to God who is real to many?

Cheers my dear. I look forward to this discussion

Hey hey @Kylie my dear, im slightly distracted here. Dont worry i have not forgotten you

What is there to test? By the definition of a tautological argument, every single test which can be performed will result in affirmation.

If there is "X" (a god who can defy logic), then "Y" (there is a god that can defy logic). X=Y

If there is "X" (a lepricorn who can blind creationists), then "Y" (there is a lepricorn that can blind creationists). X=Y

If there is "X" (I am holding up two fingers), then "Y" (I am holding up two fingers). X=Y

What test could be performed which falsifies any of these tautologies?

 

[Speedwell]

W

Pardon me, but it comes to the same thing. Nothing pre-exists Creation, but the Creator. If it does, then it pre-exists the Creator, which is a logical contradiction. You suppose somehow it exists, Creator-irrelevant. Hence my post.

The "creation" we are talking about is the creation of the universe as we know it. Creation ex materia posits that God created the universe as we know it from some co-eternal material, rather than ex nihilo or ex deo, the other two possibilities of classical theology. There is no implication or requirement that the material be creator-independent.

 

[xianghua]

Should a cat ever evolve into a dog, all biologists would quit their jobs and become creationists.

i actually think that in this case they will say "see, evolution is real".

 

[Speedwell]

i actually think that in this case they will say "see, evolution is real".

That just shows how little you know about evolution.

 

[Nithavela]

i actually think that in this case they will say "see, evolution is real".

No, currently they are saying that Evolution is real. If something like that happened (and it won't) they would become fervent creationists and pray on their knees for mercy.

 

[xianghua]

That just shows how little you know about evolution.

so what do you think that they will say? "oops, we are wrong. creationists are right"?.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i actually think that in this case they will say "see, evolution is real".

As anyone with bafflingly low knowledge of evolution like you would think.

As usual, you are incorrect. Not that you care.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so what do you think that they will say? "oops, we are wrong. creationists are right"?.

No. They would just say that evolution theory is wrong, since such a thing can't happen if evolution is accurate. Evolution would be falsified by such a thing.

Creation isn't demonstrated by falsifying evolution.
If evolution is falsified, you still have all your work cut out for you to demonstrate your idea of creationism.

As a matter of fact.... a dog giving birth to a cat, would also falsify biblical creationism. It says that creatures reproduce "after their kind", remember?
Not that "kind" has ever been clearly defined off course. I'm sure a bunch, if not most or even all, creationists would suddenly start claiming that dogs and cats are the same "kind".

 

[Speedwell]

so what do you think that they will say? "oops, we are wrong. creationists are right"?.

No, they would just say "evolution is wrong." It wouldn't make creationism right. Creationism has already been disproven.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So what? You already said your omnipotent creator can defy logic.

He defies human logic. I don't mean he needs logic at all, but that in fact, logic itself comes from him. He is not subject to it. However, as far as is necessary, and as far as I have seen, He still fits logic. Not only have I have seen no logical reason to disbelieve in his existence, but I find every logical reason to believe in him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

W

The "creation" we are talking about is the creation of the universe as we know it. Creation ex materia posits that God created the universe as we know it from some co-eternal material, rather than ex nihilo or ex deo, the other two possibilities of classical theology. There is no implication or requirement that the material be creator-independent.

My point is, Self-Existent First Cause MUST necessarily be the ONLY self-existent thing. There can be nothing else equal in any way, or it (he) is not self-existent. Something caused the principle of 2 things, neither the cause of the other.

 

[Speedwell]

My point is, Self-Existent First Cause MUST necessarily be the ONLY self-existent thing. There can be nothing else equal in any way, or it (he) is not self-existent. Something caused the principle of 2 things, neither the cause of the other.

Why do you assume that the "material" of creation ex materia must be self existing?

 

[46AND2]

He defies human logic. I don't mean he needs logic at all, but that in fact, logic itself comes from him. He is not subject to it. However, as far as is necessary, and as far as I have seen, He still fits logic. Not only have I have seen no logical reason to disbelieve in his existence, but I find every logical reason to believe in him.

I just find it amusing that when I gave an objection about a particular way you describe god, specifically the myriad logical issues with omnipotence, you shrugged it off, claiming that if your god exists, he's capable of defying logic.

Then you go make the same sort of objection I did. I.e. speedwells definition, or your interpretation of his definition, anyway, can't be correct because it causes a logical contradiction.