Bye Bye Ape Man!!!

[Brennin]

As valid as attributing it to IPU, FSM, the gnome on my shoulder, Santa, a giant space turtle, an orbiting teacup, or anything else the human mind can imagine. Which is, barely valid at all.

Not in this reality, since those things do not possess all of God's attributes. If they did, then they would be God (i.e., God is unique).

 

[Logic_Fault]

The "multitudes of christians worldwide who accept evolution" do NOT accept atheistic evolution, and there is a HUGE difference. My questions do not even come into play, because Theistic evolution HAS an answer - God started it.

"God started it" is a meaningless answer.

Those that believe in atheistic evolution are who I am addressing, because THEY have a serious problem. There is no answer to the question. Which is why when the question is asked, they get defensive and start calling people stupid and ignorant and doing the "superior dance". It's all a distraction, but it doesnt work with me. I still want to know the answer. How do you explain the original matter/energy?

You have no concept whatsoever of what evolution states, do you? Obviously you don't if you want to know why it can't explain where the original matter/energy of the universe came from.

 

[Skaloop]

The "multitudes of christians worldwide who accept evolution" do NOT accept atheistic evolution, and there is a HUGE difference.

There is no difference. Evolution is evolution, be it atheistic or theistic.

My questions do not even come into play, because Theistic evolution HAS an answer - God started it.

Evolution does not address the start.

Those that believe in atheistic evolution are who I am addressing, because THEY have a serious problem. There is no answer to the question. Which is why when the question is asked, they get defensive and start calling people stupid and ignorant and doing the "superior dance". It's all a distraction, but it doesnt work with me. I still want to know the answer. How do you explain the original matter/energy?

As we've said, we don't know. We admit it. The thing is, neither do you. Why won't you admit it?

 

[Skaloop]

Not in this reality, since those things do not possess all of God's attributes. If they did, then they would be God (i.e., God is unique).

Not in any reality, since nothing possesses all of God's attributes.

But for the sake or argument, Super Duper Master Maker has all the attributes of God. She made the universe and made some of us think it was this God person, who is actually based upon a fingernail clipping She found one day under a couch cushion.

 

[DMagoh]

What evidence supports the claim that God did it? None. So why claim that God did it in the first place?

We simply don't know how the universe started. Period.

Since you dont know how the universe started, and there is no explanation for how it could have possibly happened, how do you KNOW God did not start it? You say you dont have any evidence to support that God exists, but you also dont have any proof that He doesnt exist.

 

[DMagoh]

That pretty much sums up what we are certain of at this point...

I'm not "super intelligent." As you may recall I even stated a few times that I wasn't sure about a few things and could possibly be wrong which is far more than you seem willing to do.

I also never said I was positive that a god didn't do it. Anything, I suppose, is possible. Particularly when you start throwing omnipotent entities into the mix. What I can say is that I see no reason why a deity should be needed.

As I said above, a "god" of some sort certainly could have created everything but I see no reason nor evidence to suggest that. Just because something may be possible does not mean it's probable or certain.

Well, thank you. At least you are willing to admit that it is possible. You may not think it's probable, but it is at least possible.

 

[Brennin]

Not in any reality, since nothing possesses all of God's attributes.

But for the sake or argument, Super Duper Master Maker has all the attributes of God. She made the universe and made some of us think it was this God person, who is actually based upon a fingernail clipping She found one day under a couch cushion.

You might want to reinforce your house-of-straw objections to God. Anyway, this is how one proceeds:

Define 'God-like object.'

Prove God-like object exists.

Show God-like object is unique.

(See Gödel's Ontological Argument.)

 

[Skaloop]

Since you dont know how the universe started, and there is no explanation for how it could have possibly happened, how do you KNOW God did not start it? You say you dont have any evidence to support that God exists, but you also dont have any proof that He doesnt exist.

Well, there's quite a bit of evidence that God, the God of the Bible purported to have done many things upon this Earth, did not exist. The Biblical God who flooded the entire world does not exist. The Biblical God who created the world 6000 years ago does not exist. The Biblical God who answers prayers does not exist. There is ample evidence to support that these things never happened, and as such, Bible God does not exist.

 

[Logic_Fault]

Since you dont know how the universe started, and there is no explanation for how it could have possibly happened, how do you KNOW God did not start it? You say you dont have any evidence to support that God exists, but you also dont have any proof that He doesnt exist.

Adding a misunderstanding of the "Burden of Proof"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Proof#Science_and_other_uses to your arsenal now are you?

 

[Logic_Fault]

Well, thank you. At least you are willing to admit that it is possible. You may not think it's probable, but it is at least possible.

It's also possible that we're all a figment of the imagination of a subatomic sized spotted elephant that orbits a toaster in a parallel universe.

Just because something is possible doesn't mean you can go around claiming that it's true. Besides, as I said before, when you start adding omnipotent entities into your postulations then anything is possible which makes your explanation for something meaningless.

 

[Skaloop]

You might want to reinforce your house-of-straw objections to God. Anyway, this is how one proceeds:

Define 'God-like object.'

Prove God-like object exists.

Show God-like object is unique.

(See Gödel's Ontological Argument.)

Define: An entity with all of the attributes of the Biblical God, plus the ability to make a stone so heavy she cannot lift it.

Prove: I have written testimony of her existence, and she has spoken to me.

Show Uniqueness: She wears a purple hat, unlike the Biblical God or any other god.

The thing is, you fail at the proving and showing part as well.

 

[DMagoh]

By being wrong about something, we get closer to being right. Example:

You are asked to guess the price of an item. The actual price is between 0 and 100 dollars. You can narrow it down by halves before you guess.

You ask "Does it cost between 50 and 100 dollars?" Yes it does!

Then you ask, "Does it cost between 50 and 75 dollars?" No it doesn't! You are wrong. But in being wrong, you have still focussed your findings down to a closer range of being correct.

Finding errors within a broad concept actually makes the concept more precise by eliminating error.

I agree, you now know it is between 75 and 100 dollars. HOWEVER, where we differ is that an atheist eliminates the possibility of it being '83' from the start because you are biased against it. So therefore, if the number IS '83', you'll never have the right answer. In other words, atheists eliminate the possiblity of God starting the universe (theistic evolution) and therefore IF He did, then you will be wrong and wont find out until you die and stand before Him.

All I am asking is that you dont eliminate the number '83' from being a possibility from the start due to bias.

 

[Brennin]

Define: An entity with all of the attributes of the Biblical God, plus the ability to make a stone so heavy she cannot lift it.

Prove: I have written testimony of her existence, and she has spoken to me.

Show Uniqueness: She wears a purple hat, unlike the Biblical God or any other god.

The thing is, you fail at the proving and showing part as well.

Where is your modal logic?

 

[sfs]

The lack of rigor and consistency in biology gives me pause.

What lack of rigor and consistency are you referring to? And what does that have to do with my statement? The measured differences between humans and chimpanzees are quite rigorous.

 

[DMagoh]

We all know creationists don't believe in creationism because there is nothing to believe,
what they try to do is disprove evolution, while they are doing that creationism is alive,
they can not extol the virtues of creationism because there aren't any,
so they attack the thing that makes their religion look stupid, evolution.

I can say this with all honesty, I feel sorry for creationists, it is not their fault
they were brought up to believe as they do, they were given no choice in the matter,
now they are stuck with something they cannot defend, but they are still trying.

I give them points for that alone, put yourself in their position, what would you do?
you have been indoctrinated to believe in creationism, (the craziest religion man ever devised)
and you know deep down it's garbage, but every one you know believes it, even if you decided
to denounce creation as rubbish, where would you live? you would be forced to leave home,
your whole life would need to change, I might just decide to go with the flow, it's a lot easier.

They so much want it to be true, and I think I would as well if I were in their shoes,
I firmly believe it has nothing to do with them.

I feel the same way about atheists. They feel like they cant start believing in God because then all their friends would make fun of them. So they hope and hope (cause they cant pray) that they are right, even though the questions I am asking make them really uncomfortable.

 

[Skaloop]

I agree, you now know it is between 75 and 100 dollars. HOWEVER, where we differ is that an atheist eliminates the possibility of it being '83' from the start because you are biased against it. So therefore, if the number IS '83', you'll never have the right answer. In other words, atheists eliminate the possiblity of God starting the universe (theistic evolution) and therefore IF He did, then you will be wrong and wont find out until you die and stand before Him.

All I am asking is that you dont eliminate the number '83' from being a possibility from the start due to bias.

What? No he doesn't. He eliminates anything between 50 and 75. He does not eliminate 83. He is not biased against 83. He just knows that at this point, he's got a 1 in 25 chance, and there's no reason to either accept or reject 83. Not until he has a reason to. You, on the other hand, cling to it being 83. And when it comes up that it's actually between 90 and 100, you for some reason cling to that because it makes you feel better. But when the scientist realizes that it's between 90 and 100, then he does, obviously, reject your idea that it is 83.

 

[Skaloop]

Where is your modal logic?

Where's yours?

 

[DMagoh]

That's a good analogy.

I suppose the Biblical Literalist's way of doing it would be to simply state that the price is $34.98 and insist that it is $34.98 even if the price is factually shown to be $76.05. You can show them the price tag, ring it up and show them the readout on the machine, show them the receipt, even ask the store manager about it. No amount of evidence will sway them from thinking the price is $34.98.

Read my example above about atheists arbitrarily eliminating the possibility of the number being '83' at the start due to bias. It cant be God, because...well, it cant be.

 

[Logic_Fault]

I feel the same way about atheists. They feel like they cant start believing in God because then all their friends would make fun of them.

No. We can't believe in a god because we see no evidence for the existence of one.

If you have any evidence, kindly provide it to us here. We've all been asking for it for a very long time.

So they hope and hope (cause they cant pray) that they are right, even though the questions I am asking make them really uncomfortable.

Which questions are those again?

 

[Brennin]

What lack of rigor and consistency are you referring to? And what does that have to do with my statement? The measured differences between humans and chimpanzees are quite rigorous.

It appears that there is no one way to measure the amount of genetic material that is common to chimps and humans. One method of measurement yields >98%, another 95%, and yet another 86.7%.