Religion

[goDel]

And no, God is not involved.

oh yeah, well then how does it work? does darwin control it??? oh look, i guess i totally just won that argument. jesus 1 evolution 0.

 

 

jk

 

 

LOL

 

I almost posted the code of a GA asking you to pinpoint God. Perhaps it's the random function? God creates random input?

[Hoodie]

Yeah, but that's the thing; almost all mutations of chromosomes result in bad things. You have to get two positive mutations happening in the same place at the same time.

 

Not saying I don't believe in evolution. It just confuses me a bit.

 

Yes, when something randomly changes, the result will likely be bad. If it is, that lifeform will be less likely to live long enough to reproduce, and its change will be forgotten. If, on the other hand, that random change is beneficial, you'll be more likely to live long enough to reproduce, and your change will live on through your descendants.

 

Why would you need two positive mutations at once? For a single mutation to survive, you only need it to avoid getting you killed before you can reproduce. This gives a free pass to neutral and positive mutations, however small their contribution.

 

I don't think you can reproduce and make offspring which can reproduce if you don't have the same chromosomes. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though.

 

yeah, you're wrong about this. this diagram might help: http://labspace.open...S103_5_003i.jpg

 

when reproduction occurs, you're combining (essentially) half of the chromosomes from each parent. these chromosomes, however, don't have identical genes on them though. they have their own variations of these genes. so, the sperm contains a brown haired gene and the egg has a black haired gene, but both genes for hair color will be found on the same chromosome in each parent. it's still the "same" chromosome, but it has slightly different genetic material.

 

and remember, mutations can occur at a very small level--like a single nucleotide being changed, which results in a single amino acid being different in a single type of protein, which can cause a chain reaction that results in something like abnormal eye color, obesity, death, etc.

 

i'm simplifying this a lot but that's basically how it works.

 

Wait, but isn't that just variations of the same genes? I mean like, actually getting an extra chromosome due to a mutation. A single nucleotide isn't too hard to swallow, but actual number changes are what confuse me. Maybe that's what you were talking about, and I just read it wrong.

 

extra chromosomes are due to errors that occur during the production of gametes.

 

changes in the number of chromosomes don't happen overnight. well, i mean, they do, but those people usually result in miscarriages or things like down syndrome and klinefelters. idk how numbers of chromosomes change between species exactly, but i assume it has to do with this stage and the things that can happen during it. and needless to say, the changes stack up very slowly.

[ZoeB]

Yes, when something randomly changes, the result will likely be bad. If it is, that lifeform will be less likely to live long enough to reproduce, and its change will be forgotten. If, on the other hand, that random change is beneficial, you'll be more likely to live long enough to reproduce, and your change will live on through your descendants.

 

Why would you need two positive mutations at once? For a single mutation to survive, you only need it to avoid getting you killed before you can reproduce. This gives a free pass to neutral and positive mutations, however small their contribution.

 

I don't think you can reproduce and make offspring which can reproduce if you don't have the same chromosomes. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though.

 

Ah, I see the confusion. You can only be classified as the same species as someone else if you can make offspring which in turn can reproduce. Your genes need to be that similar, which is quite similar indeed. But obviously your genes can be slightly different to your partner's. If that wasn't the case, straight couples couldn't reproduce, and as gay couples can't either, then we'd be buggered, so to speak. :)

 

If you have different eye and hair colours to your partner, you can still produce viable offspring. It doesn't matter that your genes are a bit different, as long as you're the same species.

 

Does that make more sense? ^.^

[Guest Adjective]

what's up with religion?

[goDel]

It exists, therefore it is.

[gmanyo]

Yes, when something randomly changes, the result will likely be bad. If it is, that lifeform will be less likely to live long enough to reproduce, and its change will be forgotten. If, on the other hand, that random change is beneficial, you'll be more likely to live long enough to reproduce, and your change will live on through your descendants.

 

Why would you need two positive mutations at once? For a single mutation to survive, you only need it to avoid getting you killed before you can reproduce. This gives a free pass to neutral and positive mutations, however small their contribution.

 

I don't think you can reproduce and make offspring which can reproduce if you don't have the same chromosomes. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though.

 

Ah, I see the confusion. You can only be classified as the same species as someone else if you can make offspring which in turn can reproduce. Your genes need to be that similar, which is quite similar indeed. But obviously your genes can be slightly different to your partner's. If that wasn't the case, straight couples couldn't reproduce, and as gay couples can't either, then we'd be buggered, so to speak. :)

 

If you have different eye and hair colours to your partner, you can still produce viable offspring. It doesn't matter that your genes are a bit different, as long as you're the same species.

 

Does that make more sense? ^.^

 

The point's been made that I just don't get it. As long as I know that there's a reasonable explanation I don't care much for the niceties, at least not right now. Thanks!

 

edit:

Although the eye/hair color thing wasn't my problem. I did know that.

 

edit:

argh! bed! now!

[goDel]

Also sprach gmanyo.

[skotosa]

With cold comes hot, with up comes down with left comes right with short comes long.

Therefor since Imperfection exists then so should perfection.

 

 

Therefor God is real.

 

The end.

[cruising for burgers]

i'm not having a go, just trying to cool things down a bit. :)

 

this came into mind when i read about p-zombies and consciousness and whatnot...

 

 

[youtubehd]sYlN8p251pM[/youtubehd]

[goDel]

With neither cold comes neither hot, with neither up comes neither down with neither left comes neither right with neither short comes neither long.

Therefore, since Imperfection neither exists then so shouldn't perfection.

 

 

Therefore, God is a made up idea.

 

The end.

[Guest RandySicko]

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

 

[SR4]

I gotta say the chemistry/genetics argument is beyond my complete understanding, I would add that there are documented instances of "micro-evolution" in bacteria and certain species of flies. Yes, evolution is an imperfect theory. That is why it is still a theory. That also does not mean evolution is false, merely that there are "kinks" that need to be worked out. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the basic points of evolutionary theory, including but not limited to:

 

-Biogeographical evidence

-Phylogenetic advancement

-Examples of transitional fossils (this has been so accepted by the scientific community that the evidence completely obliterates Darwin's "extreme imperfection" explanation...see? scientists can believe in evolution and NOT agree with Darwin!)

-DNA mapping (this alone proves that humans have a common ancestor with ape species)

 

 

I have to quote South Park on this, as whether evolution "disproves" a God is completely irrelevant, because "can't evolution be the answer to how and not why?" So there you go theists, I simultaneously threw you a bone and crushed the bone up in midair.

 

Ive been hearing a lot of the old Complexity, therefore God argument, which is completely nonsensical, and was thoroughly shattered by that lecture someone posted about 9 pages back. Complexity does not mean design; if anything, complexity can often suggest a lack of design.

 

The theist argument is usually known as "Irreducible Complexity". This argument essentially states that there exist systems of individual parts, and that if any one part is removed, the system is guaranteed to fail. There is no proof that these systems have evolved, therefore they must have been designed. There are multiple flaws with this argument:

 

Well for starters you would have to accept some form of evolutionary theory, as irreducible complexity is dependent on the process of natural selection to support the opposite nature of the thesis. If lack of evolutionary evidence equals intelligent design, that presumes that evolution had occurred in reducible systems of complexity.

 

Secondly, the argument is a complete predication on the part of the person introducing it. Where do we draw the line between what a "part" is and what a "system" is?

 

To quote talkdesign:

 

We might say, for instance, that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs walking systems. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into three major parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. Thus legs are IC. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part then several parts, even a whole toe, may be removed and we still have a walking system.

 

Thirdly, the mousetrap, when disassembled, ceases to kill rats. However, if you take away the tail of a cat, the cat can still catch rats. These are two examples of very complex systems, one operating without a part, one unable to operate. The hypothesis is not consistent. In addition, these two systems acheive the same aim, but evolved very differently. Does a cow's tail serve the same purpose as a cat's tail? Does a stingray's tail serve the same "function" as a dog's tail?

 

Fourth, these systems do not always start with the same purpose. The mammalian ear developed from a jawbone, and the thumb in certain mammals developed from a wrist spur. These were examples of technically the same things, serving completely different purposes. This demonstrates change over time, which means that complex systems could have evolved to change their purpose due to any number of biological reasons, and they may have even developed by accident.

 

Fifth, claiming that since evolution cannot explain these systems that intelligent design can is a false dilemma. We have no idea if there is another alternate process for these biological formations. A third process, which would have just as much evidence for it as intelligent design, and far less evidence than evolutionary theory.

 

Sixth, what about complex systems that are complete failures, or that contribute no perceivable function? Let's say only Earth can support life. That would mean we are in a ridiculously complex and vast system that cannot support life in anyway, except for this tiny blip.

 

The Sun will eventually, over billions of years swell to a red giant or a supernova, obliterating the Earth. That is an example of complex design completely hostile to the existence of sentient life.

 

Let's look at another example. Say a river due to flooding becomes full of driftwood, and the driftwood pool together to form rough geometric patterns. There is no design other than scientifically proven forces (Coriolis Effect, Gravity, Tidepools, etc.) This is not evidence of a God. Simply saying "God created those scientific forces" is not proof in any sense, only conjecture.

 

Lastly, what if the "irreducible" systems were streamlined as a result of evolution? That may explain the existence of the appendix in some animals. Look at the example of the Venus Fly Trap, who has plenty of documented evolutionary connections to older species using MORE COMPLEX METHODS to achieve the same aim. These species existed on Earth well before the Venus Fly Trap.

 

There's lots more stuff, but Ill bow out and leave it to the experts on this sorta stuff.

 

With cold comes hot, with up comes down with left comes right with short comes long.

Therefor since Imperfection exists then so should perfection.

 

 

Therefor God is real.

 

The end.

 

uh....no. Perfection and Imperfection are concepts of the human mind. Cold and hot can be rationally demonstrated and proven, but are still relative concepts. Can you point to me rock-solid proof of imperfection? On what criteria do you base this? Can you point to me an example of the "coldest cold", or the "hottest hot"?

[SR4]

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

 

 

LOL holy shit wow where to begin. I think Ill start with the intro prompt:

 

. No one needs proof that God exists, I simply offer these 8 steps to the logical proof of God's existence in addition to what you already know (and may be suppressing).

 

alright, I went through the steps, not only is this entire website predicated on special pleading, its also based upon an argument that was destroyed by a Christian monk over 900 years ago.

 

 

edit: aaaaaaaand here's a complete debunking of this exact website

 

http://skeptico.blog...exists-not.html

 

The entirety of this is an argument from ignorance, so we once again go alllllllllllllllllll the way back to the very first thing I said in this thread on atheism.

[GORDO]

lol that website is funny, I told it i don't believe absolute morals exist and it did the equivalent of throwing a fit and saying "but.. but.. but they do! you horrible person you!"

[Guest RandySicko]

one final thought from my friend Al Ghazalli:

 

Firstly, there are some who, failing to find God by observation, conclude that there is no God and that this world of wonders made itself or existed from everlasting. They are like a man who, seeing a beautifully written letter, should suppose that It had written itself without a writer or had always existed. People in this state of mind are so far gone in error that it is of little use to argue with them.

[cruising for burgers]

the ramblings of an old man

[goDel]

Sounds like a typical snooty believer to me.

 

;P

 

Could we find some sort of agreement that a world without the continuous stream of "OMG"s is a better world?

 

Also, a thread about religion without Carlin is not a thread about religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

[SR4]

one final thought from my friend Al Ghazalli:

 

Firstly, there are some who, failing to find God by observation, conclude that there is no God and that this world of wonders made itself or existed from everlasting. They are like a man who, seeing a beautifully written letter, should suppose that It had written itself without a writer or had always existed. People in this state of mind are so far gone in error that it is of little use to argue with them.

 

Dude, you are obviously trolling. To mention yet again that atheism is a null hypothesis would almost be a waste of time. That would be the fifteenth or sixteenth time this would be stated, and you would only ignore it again to assume atheists automatically declare there is no God.

[skotosa]

I gotta say the chemistry/genetics argument is beyond my complete understanding, I would add that there are documented instances of "micro-evolution" in bacteria and certain species of flies. Yes, evolution is an imperfect theory. That is why it is still a theory. That also does not mean evolution is false, merely that there are "kinks" that need to be worked out. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the basic points of evolutionary theory, including but not limited to:

 

-Biogeographical evidence

-Phylogenetic advancement

-Examples of transitional fossils (this has been so accepted by the scientific community that the evidence completely obliterates Darwin's "extreme imperfection" explanation...see? scientists can believe in evolution and NOT agree with Darwin!)

-DNA mapping (this alone proves that humans have a common ancestor with ape species)

 

 

I have to quote South Park on this, as whether evolution "disproves" a God is completely irrelevant, because "can't evolution be the answer to how and not why?" So there you go theists, I simultaneously threw you a bone and crushed the bone up in midair.

 

Ive been hearing a lot of the old Complexity, therefore God argument, which is completely nonsensical, and was thoroughly shattered by that lecture someone posted about 9 pages back. Complexity does not mean design; if anything, complexity can often suggest a lack of design.

 

The theist argument is usually known as "Irreducible Complexity". This argument essentially states that there exist systems of individual parts, and that if any one part is removed, the system is guaranteed to fail. There is no proof that these systems have evolved, therefore they must have been designed. There are multiple flaws with this argument:

 

Well for starters you would have to accept some form of evolutionary theory, as irreducible complexity is dependent on the process of natural selection to support the opposite nature of the thesis. If lack of evolutionary evidence equals intelligent design, that presumes that evolution had occurred in reducible systems of complexity.

 

Secondly, the argument is a complete predication on the part of the person introducing it. Where do we draw the line between what a "part" is and what a "system" is?

 

To quote talkdesign:

 

We might say, for instance, that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs walking systems. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into three major parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. Thus legs are IC. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part then several parts, even a whole toe, may be removed and we still have a walking system.

 

Thirdly, the mousetrap, when disassembled, ceases to kill rats. However, if you take away the tail of a cat, the cat can still catch rats. These are two examples of very complex systems, one operating without a part, one unable to operate. The hypothesis is not consistent. In addition, these two systems acheive the same aim, but evolved very differently. Does a cow's tail serve the same purpose as a cat's tail? Does a stingray's tail serve the same "function" as a dog's tail?

 

Fourth, these systems do not always start with the same purpose. The mammalian ear developed from a jawbone, and the thumb in certain mammals developed from a wrist spur. These were examples of technically the same things, serving completely different purposes. This demonstrates change over time, which means that complex systems could have evolved to change their purpose due to any number of biological reasons, and they may have even developed by accident.

 

Fifth, claiming that since evolution cannot explain these systems that intelligent design can is a false dilemma. We have no idea if there is another alternate process for these biological formations. A third process, which would have just as much evidence for it as intelligent design, and far less evidence than evolutionary theory.

 

Sixth, what about complex systems that are complete failures, or that contribute no perceivable function? Let's say only Earth can support life. That would mean we are in a ridiculously complex and vast system that cannot support life in anyway, except for this tiny blip.

 

The Sun will eventually, over billions of years swell to a red giant or a supernova, obliterating the Earth. That is an example of complex design completely hostile to the existence of sentient life.

 

Let's look at another example. Say a river due to flooding becomes full of driftwood, and the driftwood pool together to form rough geometric patterns. There is no design other than scientifically proven forces (Coriolis Effect, Gravity, Tidepools, etc.) This is not evidence of a God. Simply saying "God created those scientific forces" is not proof in any sense, only conjecture.

 

Lastly, what if the "irreducible" systems were streamlined as a result of evolution? That may explain the existence of the appendix in some animals. Look at the example of the Venus Fly Trap, who has plenty of documented evolutionary connections to older species using MORE COMPLEX METHODS to achieve the same aim. These species existed on Earth well before the Venus Fly Trap.

 

There's lots more stuff, but Ill bow out and leave it to the experts on this sorta stuff.

 

With cold comes hot, with up comes down with left comes right with short comes long.

Therefor since Imperfection exists then so should perfection.

 

 

Therefor God is real.

 

The end.

 

uh....no. Perfection and Imperfection are concepts of the human mind. Cold and hot can be rationally demonstrated and proven, but are still relative concepts. Can you point to me rock-solid proof of imperfection? On what criteria do you base this? Can you point to me an example of the "coldest cold", or the "hottest hot"?

 

I'm just playing devils advocate. Let me try and continue to entertain the idea.

 

Humanes are clearly imperfect, for we make mistakes and our with fault based on the definition of perfect. Do I have to point to you an example of the coldest cold/hot? Isn't the fact that one can not exist without the other common sense enough?

[SR4]

I gotta say the chemistry/genetics argument is beyond my complete understanding, I would add that there are documented instances of "micro-evolution" in bacteria and certain species of flies. Yes, evolution is an imperfect theory. That is why it is still a theory. That also does not mean evolution is false, merely that there are "kinks" that need to be worked out. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the basic points of evolutionary theory, including but not limited to:

 

-Biogeographical evidence

-Phylogenetic advancement

-Examples of transitional fossils (this has been so accepted by the scientific community that the evidence completely obliterates Darwin's "extreme imperfection" explanation...see? scientists can believe in evolution and NOT agree with Darwin!)

-DNA mapping (this alone proves that humans have a common ancestor with ape species)

 

 

I have to quote South Park on this, as whether evolution "disproves" a God is completely irrelevant, because "can't evolution be the answer to how and not why?" So there you go theists, I simultaneously threw you a bone and crushed the bone up in midair.

 

Ive been hearing a lot of the old Complexity, therefore God argument, which is completely nonsensical, and was thoroughly shattered by that lecture someone posted about 9 pages back. Complexity does not mean design; if anything, complexity can often suggest a lack of design.

 

The theist argument is usually known as "Irreducible Complexity". This argument essentially states that there exist systems of individual parts, and that if any one part is removed, the system is guaranteed to fail. There is no proof that these systems have evolved, therefore they must have been designed. There are multiple flaws with this argument:

 

Well for starters you would have to accept some form of evolutionary theory, as irreducible complexity is dependent on the process of natural selection to support the opposite nature of the thesis. If lack of evolutionary evidence equals intelligent design, that presumes that evolution had occurred in reducible systems of complexity.

 

Secondly, the argument is a complete predication on the part of the person introducing it. Where do we draw the line between what a "part" is and what a "system" is?

 

To quote talkdesign:

 

We might say, for instance, that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs walking systems. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into three major parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. Thus legs are IC. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part then several parts, even a whole toe, may be removed and we still have a walking system.

 

Thirdly, the mousetrap, when disassembled, ceases to kill rats. However, if you take away the tail of a cat, the cat can still catch rats. These are two examples of very complex systems, one operating without a part, one unable to operate. The hypothesis is not consistent. In addition, these two systems acheive the same aim, but evolved very differently. Does a cow's tail serve the same purpose as a cat's tail? Does a stingray's tail serve the same "function" as a dog's tail?

 

Fourth, these systems do not always start with the same purpose. The mammalian ear developed from a jawbone, and the thumb in certain mammals developed from a wrist spur. These were examples of technically the same things, serving completely different purposes. This demonstrates change over time, which means that complex systems could have evolved to change their purpose due to any number of biological reasons, and they may have even developed by accident.

 

Fifth, claiming that since evolution cannot explain these systems that intelligent design can is a false dilemma. We have no idea if there is another alternate process for these biological formations. A third process, which would have just as much evidence for it as intelligent design, and far less evidence than evolutionary theory.

 

Sixth, what about complex systems that are complete failures, or that contribute no perceivable function? Let's say only Earth can support life. That would mean we are in a ridiculously complex and vast system that cannot support life in anyway, except for this tiny blip.

 

The Sun will eventually, over billions of years swell to a red giant or a supernova, obliterating the Earth. That is an example of complex design completely hostile to the existence of sentient life.

 

Let's look at another example. Say a river due to flooding becomes full of driftwood, and the driftwood pool together to form rough geometric patterns. There is no design other than scientifically proven forces (Coriolis Effect, Gravity, Tidepools, etc.) This is not evidence of a God. Simply saying "God created those scientific forces" is not proof in any sense, only conjecture.

 

Lastly, what if the "irreducible" systems were streamlined as a result of evolution? That may explain the existence of the appendix in some animals. Look at the example of the Venus Fly Trap, who has plenty of documented evolutionary connections to older species using MORE COMPLEX METHODS to achieve the same aim. These species existed on Earth well before the Venus Fly Trap.

 

There's lots more stuff, but Ill bow out and leave it to the experts on this sorta stuff.

 

With cold comes hot, with up comes down with left comes right with short comes long.

Therefor since Imperfection exists then so should perfection.

 

 

Therefor God is real.

 

The end.

 

uh....no. Perfection and Imperfection are concepts of the human mind. Cold and hot can be rationally demonstrated and proven, but are still relative concepts. Can you point to me rock-solid proof of imperfection? On what criteria do you base this? Can you point to me an example of the "coldest cold", or the "hottest hot"?

 

I'm just playing devils advocate. Let me try and continue to entertain the idea.

 

Humanes are clearly imperfect, for we make mistakes and our with fault based on the definition of perfect. Do I have to point to you an example of the coldest cold/hot? Isn't the fact that one can not exist without the other common sense enough?

 

ah no problem then! these conversations can be very fun and provide a challenge to hone one's self and ability to understand the world.

 

It only makes sense if you understand that they are relative terms and concepts applied to reality. There is no objective "cold" on which we must then base all levels of "coldness" on. Its somewhat similar to Plato's forms, and the same criticisms are applicable, because the evidence of Cold (the ultimate, objective form) can only be discerned through levels of "coldness" (the subjective cold). But here lies the bigger problem; we are arguing a case for God, not of Cold, or Hot, or anything else, which becomes extremely problematic, because there is no adequate sense-perception to understand God.

 

Again, this argument is also based on special pleading. If opposites are proof of the existence of God, there must, according to your logic, be a "not-God". If a "not-God" exists, God then becomes finite.

 

I think this makes sense.

[skotosa]

I gotta say the chemistry/genetics argument is beyond my complete understanding, I would add that there are documented instances of "micro-evolution" in bacteria and certain species of flies. Yes, evolution is an imperfect theory. That is why it is still a theory. That also does not mean evolution is false, merely that there are "kinks" that need to be worked out. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the basic points of evolutionary theory, including but not limited to:

 

-Biogeographical evidence

-Phylogenetic advancement

-Examples of transitional fossils (this has been so accepted by the scientific community that the evidence completely obliterates Darwin's "extreme imperfection" explanation...see? scientists can believe in evolution and NOT agree with Darwin!)

-DNA mapping (this alone proves that humans have a common ancestor with ape species)

 

 

I have to quote South Park on this, as whether evolution "disproves" a God is completely irrelevant, because "can't evolution be the answer to how and not why?" So there you go theists, I simultaneously threw you a bone and crushed the bone up in midair.

 

Ive been hearing a lot of the old Complexity, therefore God argument, which is completely nonsensical, and was thoroughly shattered by that lecture someone posted about 9 pages back. Complexity does not mean design; if anything, complexity can often suggest a lack of design.

 

The theist argument is usually known as "Irreducible Complexity". This argument essentially states that there exist systems of individual parts, and that if any one part is removed, the system is guaranteed to fail. There is no proof that these systems have evolved, therefore they must have been designed. There are multiple flaws with this argument:

 

Well for starters you would have to accept some form of evolutionary theory, as irreducible complexity is dependent on the process of natural selection to support the opposite nature of the thesis. If lack of evolutionary evidence equals intelligent design, that presumes that evolution had occurred in reducible systems of complexity.

 

Secondly, the argument is a complete predication on the part of the person introducing it. Where do we draw the line between what a "part" is and what a "system" is?

 

To quote talkdesign:

 

We might say, for instance, that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs walking systems. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into three major parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. Thus legs are IC. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part then several parts, even a whole toe, may be removed and we still have a walking system.

 

Thirdly, the mousetrap, when disassembled, ceases to kill rats. However, if you take away the tail of a cat, the cat can still catch rats. These are two examples of very complex systems, one operating without a part, one unable to operate. The hypothesis is not consistent. In addition, these two systems acheive the same aim, but evolved very differently. Does a cow's tail serve the same purpose as a cat's tail? Does a stingray's tail serve the same "function" as a dog's tail?

 

Fourth, these systems do not always start with the same purpose. The mammalian ear developed from a jawbone, and the thumb in certain mammals developed from a wrist spur. These were examples of technically the same things, serving completely different purposes. This demonstrates change over time, which means that complex systems could have evolved to change their purpose due to any number of biological reasons, and they may have even developed by accident.

 

Fifth, claiming that since evolution cannot explain these systems that intelligent design can is a false dilemma. We have no idea if there is another alternate process for these biological formations. A third process, which would have just as much evidence for it as intelligent design, and far less evidence than evolutionary theory.

 

Sixth, what about complex systems that are complete failures, or that contribute no perceivable function? Let's say only Earth can support life. That would mean we are in a ridiculously complex and vast system that cannot support life in anyway, except for this tiny blip.

 

The Sun will eventually, over billions of years swell to a red giant or a supernova, obliterating the Earth. That is an example of complex design completely hostile to the existence of sentient life.

 

Let's look at another example. Say a river due to flooding becomes full of driftwood, and the driftwood pool together to form rough geometric patterns. There is no design other than scientifically proven forces (Coriolis Effect, Gravity, Tidepools, etc.) This is not evidence of a God. Simply saying "God created those scientific forces" is not proof in any sense, only conjecture.

 

Lastly, what if the "irreducible" systems were streamlined as a result of evolution? That may explain the existence of the appendix in some animals. Look at the example of the Venus Fly Trap, who has plenty of documented evolutionary connections to older species using MORE COMPLEX METHODS to achieve the same aim. These species existed on Earth well before the Venus Fly Trap.

 

There's lots more stuff, but Ill bow out and leave it to the experts on this sorta stuff.

 

With cold comes hot, with up comes down with left comes right with short comes long.

Therefor since Imperfection exists then so should perfection.

 

 

Therefor God is real.

 

The end.

 

uh....no. Perfection and Imperfection are concepts of the human mind. Cold and hot can be rationally demonstrated and proven, but are still relative concepts. Can you point to me rock-solid proof of imperfection? On what criteria do you base this? Can you point to me an example of the "coldest cold", or the "hottest hot"?

 

I'm just playing devils advocate. Let me try and continue to entertain the idea.

 

Humanes are clearly imperfect, for we make mistakes and our with fault based on the definition of perfect. Do I have to point to you an example of the coldest cold/hot? Isn't the fact that one can not exist without the other common sense enough?

 

ah no problem then! these conversations can be very fun and provide a challenge to hone one's self and ability to understand the world.

 

It only makes sense if you understand that they are relative terms and concepts applied to reality. There is no objective "cold" on which we must then base all levels of "coldness" on. Its somewhat similar to Plato's forms, and the same criticisms are applicable, because the evidence of Cold (the ultimate, objective form) can only be discerned through levels of "coldness" (the subjective cold). But here lies the bigger problem; we are arguing a case for God, not of Cold, or Hot, or anything else, which becomes extremely problematic, because there is no adequate sense-perception to understand God.

 

Again, this argument is also based on special pleading. If opposites are proof of the existence of God, there must, according to your logic, be a "not-God". If a "not-God" exists, God then becomes finite.

 

I think this makes sense.

A not God is everything that isn't God which is us and everything God has created. I suppose one could ask if God did create everything then shouldn't an all perfect being create only perfection? Something which we just established we aren't? So perhaps we aren't a creation of God so much as we are a consequence of logic(truth?), that since he must exist so must we.

[Guest zaphod]

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

 

 

lol, it threw me over to disney's official home page when I told it I didn't care about absolute truth

[Guest grue]

I don't know enough about the concept of freedom to say anything smart, but I think this raises an interesting question about whether we have to think of God's willing the moral law (assuming he does) as being 'non-forced' by something like a God-independent fact about what is morally good (i.e., as being 'negatively free'), in order to understand God's willing it freely. I mean, Kant will concede that the necessity of our being practical reasoners 'forces us' to will according to the categorical imperative, but he will still describe this willing as 'positively free' insofar as its laws originate from our faculty of willing itself; and it was this (hypothetical) feature of God's willing that I was imagining as a way of responding to the Euthyphro question. That might just leave us back where we started in our discussion here, but it seems to me like your side's apprehension about this strategy stems from the view that divine command cannot determine what is moral unless the command is free in the negative sense. So I have been playing with the response, what if it's free in the positive sense? (Not that I really understand why Kant's 'positive' sense of freedom is a sense of freedom, exactly!)

 

i think you're right that this is probably the most promising line of response to the euthyphro criticism (that i know of) but it hinges on issues concerning freedom that i find obscure. i can agree that freedom is not incompatible with determinism due to standard compatibilist views, but in god's case it's not mere determinism but rather necessitation that is the issue (if we assume that god is necessarily benevolent, which i think is built into our concept of god). so perhaps the law orginates, in some sense, in god's will, but if it is literally impossible for god to will otherwise, then i have a hard time understanding how it could be up to god what the law is. in some sense it originates in god but that would be the same sense in which, for instance, god's nature originates in god. yet i think it would be strained to say that god's nature is somehow created by god (given the incoherence of self-causation), and so for the same reason i think it would be strained to say that the moral law is created by god in that scenario. i'm not sure how this all maps onto kant's view, though.

[encey]

Yeah, what's most obscure is my use (following Sally Sedgwick's intro to Kant's Groundwork) of 'originate from.' What I think a number of Kant's readers say is that our nature as practical reasoners determines the content of the moral law (well, the form, i.e., to the extent that the moral law has a 'content') independently of our willing that law, but our willing is what gives the law its 'normative force' (which I guess just means its bindingness on us as something we ought to follow on pain of being immoral). I suppose this is kind of like how my 'endorsing' my own concept of being a good friend is what gives that very concept its motivational force for me to act in certain ways. And again, the God case is weird because, since it is God's whole essence that determines the moral law or whatever, he cannot but will it, on pain of failing to be what he his! And the anti-Euthyphro wedge is supposed to be driven in by the thought that it is nevertheless God's willing the moral law that makes the moral law binding on whoever is subject to it. So this strategy has subtly shifted the question round which the dialectic turns, from 'Why should God and I follow that law (as opposed to some other)?' to 'Why should God and I follow that law (as something I take to be good for a reason beyond the mere fact that God wills it)?' Er ... I'm not really sure I've brought out the contrast right, but.

 

But at this point I do feel like I'm just playing with concepts and not really arguing for something I believe ... or can even fully understand, lol!

 

ps:

 

grue

• New Member
  
• Joined 01-March 07
  

lol

[magdog]

Deu 7:9

 

Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.