MY favorite arguments for the existence of the Christian God:

[Obliquinaut]

Of course you don't, that was my sarcastic reply to the sarcastic post I had quoted.

Hey, I note you've posted a lot but still not answered my question: what did you mean I "sold out" when I became an atheist.

I'm asking because it kind of feels like you might be insulting me. I would like you to clarify your point so I don't have to ask for your post to be modded.

Thanks!

 

[Obliquinaut]

Like I said ... I wonder how he handles it. I guess he knows that the answer really is "42." The 42.

You do realize it wasn't PKD who wrote Hitchhikers Guide, right?

 

[durangodawood]

Yep, and the reality is, and had you been paying attention, and common sense didn't already tell you, you'd know, nothing ever poofed into being.

Appealing to common sense is a terrible Christian tactic.

The exact same common sense that tells us things dont poof into existence is what tells us there isnt a whole other realm of beings intersecting ours.

I for one dont think common sense has the last word on either of these subjects. After all, common sense is based on everyday human-scale experience. We can hardly expect it to account for all of reality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Calling you a 'pacifist' was meant in jest.

... I was referring to your avatar blurb. I already know that I'm no pacifist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You do realize it wasn't PKD who wrote Hitchhikers Guide, right?

Yes, I already cleared that up above with someone else.

 

[AV1611VET]

... I was referring to your avatar blurb. I already know that I'm no pacifist.

I'll admit I like it -- (did you think that up)?

But I still prefer SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE to SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HINT.

HIKE is more aggravating and stirs the pot better.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Appealing to common sense is a terrible Christian tactic.

And calling it a tactic is a terrible non Christian "tactic".

I for one dont think common sense has the last word on either of these subjects.

Now did I say it was the last word? But is makes perfect common sense to me it should be the first.

"Poof" as a beginning makes NO logical sense, none whatsoever. How so many mange to slip past it, I don't know, yet some people ignore that fact, and it IS a fact, then they end up spending their entire lives perusing the already known.

How sad.

 

[Obliquinaut]

But I still prefer SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE to SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HINT.

HIKE is more aggravating and stirs the pot better.

It is always good to aggravate and stir the pot.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm asking because it kind of feels like you might be insulting me. I would like you to clarify your point so I don't have to ask for your post to be modded.

Yikes.

 

[durangodawood]

And calling it a tactic is a terrible non Christian "tactic".



Now did I say it was the last word? But is makes perfect common sense to me it should be the first.

"Poof" as a beginning makes NO logical sense, none whatsoever. How so many mange to slip past it, I don't know, yet some people ignore that fact, and it IS a fact, then they end up spending their entire lives perusing the already known.

How sad.

I dont demand that things like "the beginning of time" or "beyond the universe" make sense. I cannot justify that demand.

We arent in a position to know that these sort of things must make sense to our minds.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll admit I like it -- (did you think that up)?

But I still prefer SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE to SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HINT.

HIKE is more aggravating and stirs the pot better.

... Yes, I thought that up, but I guess I should expect nothing less than something MAD from you, AV.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I dont demand that things like "the beginning of time" or "beyond the universe" make sense. I cannot justify that demand.

We arent in a position to know that these sort of things must make sense to our minds.

Then that's where you erred.

Seems to me it's only, and here I go again... common sense to use common sense, especially on something so important as life and the reason for it. I mean it's only the most important thing there is to many, but if using common sense to help you draw conclusion on such things isn't your cup of tea, then, oh well.

Can you even see that what you said there was a without thought, made up at the moment, come back? Seriousely, take a close look at it. It didn't and doesn't make any logical sense at all, just blank ammunition.

My point? You have no viable argument against what I said.

 

[xianghua]

1. Consensus of opinion.

• . If consensus of opinion carries so much academic weight, then they should give this point a lot more consideration than they do.

i will add to this the fact that most scientists also believe in god:

Scientists and Belief

and if the scientific consensus matter (according to atheists) then all atheist should believe in god too.

 

[xianghua]

Academics use the scientific method, they don't ask "who believe what?" and form a conclusion from that. They come up with a hypothesis and test it.

by the scientific method we know that god exist (see my signature link for instance). so scientists need to believe in god too. actually, most of them indeed believe:

Scientists and Belief

 

[xianghua]

Incorrect. Evolution has the broad consensus because it seems to effectively explain the data that we have. It is NOT the dominant theory because everyone likes it. Everyone likes it because it explains the data.

such as what? what evolution can explain that a designer cant?

 

[AV1611VET]

It is always good to aggravate and stir the pot.

Maybe I should have said HIKE is more "thought provoking."

 

[AV1611VET]

... Yes, I thought that up, but I guess I should expect nothing less than something MAD from you, AV.

I'm afraid if I change it to SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HINT, people with come back with: "Science already knows."

As if they think science already knows, when we all know science is myopic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm afraid if I change it to SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HINT, people with come back with: "Science already knows."

As if they think science already knows, when we all know science is myopic.

Good point. Better stick with the current blurb then.

 

[Obliquinaut]

such as what? what evolution can explain that a designer cant?

That is a rather trickily worded question. A "designer" has no real definition so there's no way to say a "designer" can explain anything.

Evolution, on the other hand, is pretty much what we see when we look at the fossil record. We see life changing over time. AND we also know how that change can arise! We know how genetics works, we know how reproduction works. We know that life forms reproduce and die and can be killed by any number of environmental factors which will will weed out maladaptive traits if they take out the life form before it can pass on its genes.

It's simplicity itself.

When one proposes a "Designer" one then has a HUGE amount of difficulty in utilizing that hypothesis:

1. What evidence is there for a designer?
2. What is the nature of that designer?
3. Where did that designer come from?

The biggest problem of all, however, is from how science works fundamentally: Why propose an additional factor that is not necessary to explain the data? If I can explain most of the variability in the data using only purely natural factors why propose something that is not necessary and causes more problems than it solves?

And finally: what evidence do we have of evolution? Here's a nifty list: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[durangodawood]

Then that's where you erred.

Seems to me it's only, and here I go again... common sense to use common sense, especially on something so important as life and the reason for it. I mean it's only the most important thing there is to many, but if using common sense to help you draw conclusion on such things isn't your cup of tea, then, oh well.....

Common sense may well be the wrong tool for the job.

Common sense is a tool we've developed to deal with human-scale, everyday experience.

Things like "the beginning of time" and "beyond the universe" are so outside that experience that we have no idea whether common sense could handle the job. We are not justified in applying common sense there.

Of course we want common sense to be applicable. We prefer that all of reality be accesbile via common sense like it was a clock we're taking apart or something. But our desire does not make it so.