Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Do you believe in GOD?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2,141 replies to this topic
Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1951

Posted 06 March 2014 - 08:45 AM

I just find it funny that a factory is being held up as some form of idyllic creation. As if the production line was Man's first foray into the divine.

I don't understand the reasoning that order and function inherently point to divine design. Quasars send out regular pulses that translate into some fantastic music... Is that more proof?

The self centred, egoistic, naive concept that the entire universe was created for the benefit of our horrible fledgling species is just so mind jarringly silly to me. We are not the most important things, even on this planet, to anything more than ourselves.
  • Rown and sivispacem like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#1952

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:09 AM

do you believe not only a car, but an entire car factory along with the ability to replicate other car factories could engineer and build itself through solely natural processes given enough time?

 

you know technically speaking, your question is already answered.

through completely natural processes and the passage of time, the answer to your question is apparently yes.

 

GM-AVTOVAZ-Plant-Togliatti-Russia.jpg

  • Otter and Melchior like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1953

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:13 AM

That's a very good point actually. What's unnatural about the human act of creation? Surely everything we produce could be distilled as the products of natural processes?

Unless of course you believe that humans are also divine beings capable of operating outside of the laws of nature, in which case please explain why.
  • Otter and Melchior like this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1954

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:13 AM

I just find it funny that a factory is being held up as some form of idyllic creation. As if the production line was Man's first foray into the divine.

I don't understand the reasoning that order and function inherently point to divine design. Quasars send out regular pulses that translate into some fantastic music... Is that more proof?

The self centred, egoistic, naive concept that the entire universe was created for the benefit of our horrible fledgling species is just so mind jarringly silly to me. We are not the most important things, even on this planet, to anything more than ourselves.

 

It's because cells are factories, multitudes more complex than actual car factories themselves. Something that requires extremely high precision and engineering, something that can't just be tossed into place on accident. 

 

And the point being behind there being a designer is the very fact that humans aren't the most important things in the universe or that it was created just for us.. I believe the universe was created sort of in the same sense why we create paintings, sculptures, architecture ect. out of creativity. The vast size of the universe stares us in the face the fact of how miniscule we are in comparison to whatever made it. 

 

That's a very good point actually. What's unnatural about the human act of creation? Surely everything we produce could be distilled as the products of natural processes?

Unless of course you believe that humans are also divine beings capable of operating outside of the laws of nature, in which case please explain why.

 

Because you're swapping definition of words from what was being used earlier. 

 

Natural processes = tornadoes, hurricanes, whirlpools, rocks falling, mudslides, tsunamis ect., aka mindless processes which follow laws of physics. 

 

The human act of creation requires understanding and information processing, we study gravity then conceptualize and design a machine which defies it. A natural process cannot defy a law it can't even comprehend.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1955

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:49 AM

"Cells are factories"
No they aren't. A cell could be said to be analogous to a factory, but an analogy is not enough criteria to claim that something is something else.

"Engineering"
Again, use of terminology that implies intelligence whilst presenting an argument supposedly supporting such an assertion. I'm certain you're unaware of it, but use of terms like this do nothing more than indicate your argument is based on the pre-existing assumption that design has taken place. Fallacious, circular logic.



So, what aspect of "natural" processes defines them as mindless? It isn't self-evident, especially if you're claiming that some natural processes are products of divine intervention and some aren't. Again, picking and choosing where to apply your divinity.

It's very interesting to note that your list of "natural processes" are all things that have historically been associated with the actions of divine beings. I don't know think you can logically claim that all these processes, which are mathematically and technically complex in their nature but all of which are understood by science, are "natural" by virtue of them bring understood and simultaneously claim that life must be a creation of the same divine being who was not long ago attributed to all these "natural" processes solely because you fail to see any evidence to the contrary that meets your own subjective interpretation of what constitutes the various terms you like to throw around- "code", "information", "existence" without even the common sense to define.
  • Otter and D- Ice like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#1956

Posted 06 March 2014 - 06:02 PM

Natural processes = tornadoes, hurricanes, whirlpools, rocks falling, mudslides, tsunamis ect., aka mindless processes which follow laws of physics.

 

well now you're going to have to explain to me now how human development doesn't count as a natural process.

who says natural has to = mindless?

  • Melchior likes this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1957

Posted 06 March 2014 - 06:17 PM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 06 March 2014 - 06:53 PM.

So, what aspect of "natural" processes defines them as mindless? It isn't self-evident, especially if you're claiming that some natural processes are products of divine intervention and some aren't. Again, picking and choosing where to apply your divinity.

 

 

Oh I don't know, maybe the fact that none of them have minds or can process information? lol of course I don't expect that to be self-evident to someone who doesn't even believe reality is anything more than a figment of their own imaginations.. 

 

And again you're trying to cause confusion by swapping definitions, if something is caused by divine intervention then by their very nature it's not a natural process.. I don't get how you have such a hard time understanding such basic principles and why you must try to twist words to fit what you're saying.

 

 

It's very interesting to note that your list of "natural processes" are all things that have historically been associated with the actions of divine beings. I don't know think you can logically claim that all these processes, which are mathematically and technically complex in their nature but all of which are understood by science, are "natural" by virtue of them bring understood and simultaneously claim that life must be a creation of the same divine being who was not long ago attributed to all these "natural" processes solely because you fail to see any evidence to the contrary that meets your own subjective interpretation of what constitutes the various terms you like to throw around- "code", "information", "existence" without even the common sense to define.

 

 

Natural processes are natural because they occur in nature by simply following the laws of physics. A natural process has no mind therefore can't process information therefore cannot create code.

 

I know you'll deny it till the day you die, but you're only fooling yourself into thinking mindless processes could ever create a code or machines.. to the point where you have to tell yourself nothing exists therefore DNA doesn't really exist and cells aren't actually machines cause they're not actually real.. 

 

I'm not saying what god it is or where it came from I'm simply making the argument that there is strong evidence that there is an intelligent mind behind the existence of reality . The number one reason people willfully deny even just the possibility is solely because Fear. They're scared of even facing the possibility and will deny no matter what logical hoops they have to jump through.. It's a logically sound theory which has stood the test of time for thousands of years, it's intellectual dishonesty at it's finest where ones must fool themselves to convince themselves against it. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1958

Posted 06 March 2014 - 07:31 PM

Oh I don't know, maybe the fact that none of them have minds or can process information?

And? There are numerous living beings that lack "minds", and the ability to "process information" is entirely subjective. On one level, chemistry is the "processing of information". The amalgamation of atoms and molecules with different properties produces compounds which do not necessarily share the properties of the individual atoms or molecules these compounds are made from, so why not apply the same logic and you have with life itself and claim that these properties are also the products of divine intervention? They aren't self-evident in the building blocks of the compound so where does that "information" that gives them those additional properties come from?

You're still not explaining your arbitrary definition of "code", or "intelligence", or "information". I would presume this is because you can't actually give a definition of any of them that doesn't rely entirely on subjective, personal interpretations of the terms. Similarly, you haven't explained why you've dismissed the perceived production of "information" and "code" from entirely natural processes without proper explanation.

lol of course I don't expect that to be self-evident to someone who doesn't even believe reality is anything more than a figment of their own imaginations.

One, if you're going to paraphrase someone, at least do it accurately.
Two, I never once claimed that nothing existed outside one's own imagination. I said that it was possible that nothing existed outside of one's imagination. But given you don't understand the difference between the literal and metaphorical, I can probably excuse this oversight.
Three, you aren't explaining why this is self-evident? Indeed, I could simply assert that the supposed "self-evidence" is merely a product of your pre-existing, subjective beliefs, and that it therefore represents nothing more than an opinion. The fact that several other people seem to agree with this assertion is quite telling I must say.

And again you're trying to cause confusion by swapping definitions

I'm not "causing confusing", you simply appear entirely incapable of understanding my argument. My point is fairly clear, how about you have another go at reading it and actually comprehending it before you start accusing me of playing word games? If you don't understand, then why don't you ask me for clarification instead of assuming that you're probably-flawed interpretation of what I've said is accurate.

That's your problem when it comes to discussion of this nature. Everything you say; every argument you make as if it were obvious and factual seems to be built on an untested assumption. You assume that patterns and information must exist outside of human perception even though you can't demonstrate it to be true; you argue as if experience is ultimately empirical when it's highly subjective; you make factual assertions about the nature of the world around you even though you're unable to rebut the possibility that none of it even exists.

if something is caused by divine intervention then by their very nature it's not a natural process.

Why? The definition of "natural" refers only to that which is not caused by or attributable to mankind. So are the actions of a divine power natural or unnatural? Well, this supposed "design" is occurring in the natural world, and there's no evidence to suggest that it's external to the natural world, so why conclude that divine intervention- if it were to exist- was unnatural?

Simple- the concept of a divine creator is nonsensical unless it can be boiled down into comparisons with human activity. Human activity isn't, in your view, natural (which is philosophically debatable anyway, but I digress) so you automatically assume that, because you've been forced to categorise the nature of a divine creator in terms comparable to humans, the actions of a divine creator can't be natural either. 
 

Natural processes are natural because they occur in nature by simply following the laws of physics.

A set of laws none of the specific rebuttals I've used at any point in this sixty-page discussion actually break. This statement is entirely meaningless; there is no scientific law that dictates living matter cannot come from inanimate matter. There is no scientific law which dictates that only intelligent beings can create information interpretable by intelligent beings.

A natural process has no mind therefore can't process information therefore cannot create code.

Prove this tenet. This is a claim you are making, so prove that human-interpretable information cannot be derived from natural processes without the direct input of intelligence on the part of any entity. You're making this sweeping statement and expecting people to take it at face value, so if you're so certain that this assertion is categorical fact, then demonstrate it.

I will tell you now to save you the head-scratching: it's unprovable. There is no way of categorically demonstrating that all information must be the production of minds. There's no way of categorically proving that there's even such thing as information. Therefore you must entertain the possibility that the processing of human-interpretable information may be done by entirely natural processes without the intervention of a divine being. Given several people in this thread have given you concrete examples that they believe to be evidence of this, and you've dismissed each one off-hand without a single valid, logical explanation not based on the pre-existing assertion that your belief in God makes their views wrong, I put it to you that the only reason you continue to be intentionally obtuse around your definitions for terms you seem to use arbitrarily is because you're utterly flummoxed by how to respond and instead would rather get tied down in false analogies and misrepresentation than actually tackle the issues you've been called out on.

I know you'll deny it till the day you die, but you're only fooling yourself

Your hypocrisy is utterly astounding.

You accuse me of playing semantic games when you refuse to define terms you use arbitrarily.

You accuse me of near-sightedness and ignorance when you make contradictory statements about the nature of data, and the interpretation thereof.

You claim that I'm being deliberately misleading when you've failed to understand my points.

You pretend I possess beliefs that I don't and then insist on paraphrasing things I've said entirely incorrectly.

You have the audacity to argue as if your points are somehow self-evident, in complete ignorance of the history of science and philosophy. You're really so arrogant as to think that the arguments you're making here haven't been made for centuries? You honestly believe you're bringing something to a discussion that five millennia of philosophy, three hundred years of scientific and technological enlightenment and the combined discussions of the finest minds in human history have not? I've pointed out numerous times, the arguments you're making are historical ones. Paley's Watch. Irreducible and specified complexity. The "fine-tuned" or "perfect" universe myth. They're all theories decades or centuries old.

I find it frankly insulting that you're so ignorant of the history of your own arguments- in fact, the history of the entire discussion topic of intelligent design versus evolutionary biology- as to fail to acknowledge the fallible nature of every assertion you make and yet still continue arguing as if from a point of enlightenment. It's just getting ridiculous now, as is your inability to actually address the overwhelming majority of points that have been made rebutting your assertions or asking you to clarify statements.
  • Tacymist likes this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1959

Posted 06 March 2014 - 07:51 PM

I don't want to believe in a deterministic universe but the science is overwhelming. I'd love it if we were able to detect some trace of creation, some concrete proof that there's a grand design - that would be, literally, awesome. And frightening.

 

Yet it simply hasn't been found yet and you can't just imagine it into existence or ignore all evidence and hypotheses contrary to your own theories.

 

Now, predictably, you're going to say that it is actually us who are ignoring the evidence but you continually fail to provide anything beyond misrepresented theories rooted in nothing more than belief. And while these may be valid in a philosophical nature, they do nothing to refute anything presented by the rest of us.

 

So we can discuss the hypothetical design of the universe for the purposes of a thought experiment, but you're not going to win anyone over here just like we're obviously not going to convince you of the merits of hard science.  Can we all agree to that?

  • sivispacem likes this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1960

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:28 PM

Sorry I must have missed where you presented your argument backed by hard science that showed natural processes creating encoded languages, but I'm sure you wouldn't mind showing it again. 

 

I personally would love to be one of the first people to witness someone showing information theory and the origin of encoded information to be false. It would revolutionize the studies of archaeology and the search for extraterrestrial life. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1961

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:19 PM

I think it's only fair that you define "encoded language" and "natural processes" before anyone responds, seen as your definitions of both seem seem a little...well, woolly. I'd particularly like to see you define "encoding" in a way that doesn't relate directly to human-attributable creation (language, systemic codes). The very use of the world "encoded" is loaded in my view, as it automatically assumes a creator and the existence of a logical interpreter.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1962

Posted 06 March 2014 - 11:32 PM

Yeah, what the smart guy said. :p I mean, I shared a fantastic paper with you, Granny, about the origins of the flagellum. Please share with me what "code" you want me to refute with the appropriate paper I pick and choose at will from Google.

 

Do try to read between the lines here: you're not going to win a scientific debate without providing some scientific research. You can't sit back on your haunches with a smarmy attitude hiding behind these fictional "codes" and "machines".


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1963

Posted 07 March 2014 - 12:35 AM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 07 March 2014 - 01:05 AM.

Encoded language:

 

A specified sequence of symbols used to convey instructions and information.

 

 

Natural processes:

 

Events in nature caused by natural laws of physics.

 

 

 

I'm curious in seeing your proof backed by hard science on how natural processes incapable of processing information can create a code as you claimed you have.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1964

Posted 07 March 2014 - 12:43 AM

What "code" are you directly referring to? DNA?


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1965

Posted 07 March 2014 - 12:56 AM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 07 March 2014 - 12:56 AM.

There are two separate codes stored in DNA.

 

One stores instructions for amino acid/protein production and the other stores the actual directions for for the gene/protein's functions. 

 

 

http://www.scienceda...31212142151.htm

 

http://www.sci-news....-dna-01618.html

 

http://www.examiner....in-gene-control


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1966

Posted 07 March 2014 - 01:37 AM

OK, thanks, just trying to get down to brass tacks with you. You must realize, obviously, that DNA is the holy grail of naturally occurring recorded information, but that information is inherent to the very state of everything. The unique nature of DNA, I'd argue, is the replication, rather than the fact that it exists. I mean, we can look at layers of ice in the antarctic that tell very strong tales depending upon how one reads the "codes". We can observe countless chemical reactions that only occur in the precise, correct, order of operations that viewed temporally are very much a "code" or the patterns of sand dunes in a desert which precisely record the gusts of wind impressed upon them. These are all forms of information etched or recorded or grown like a crystal.

 

But back to DNA. Do you know about the concept of Particle Aggregation? It's interesting on a macroscopic scale as well... mindblowing on the cosmic. The idea that disparate elements will find a naturally occurring equilibrium by moving and changing to form complex patterns - codes, if you will, with mathematical similarities and predictable growth patterns - if this process can create 'information' by naturally 'seeking' its default state of harmony, will you allow for the possibility this process or some other perhaps led to series of recurring chemical reactions that bonded into the first elements of life?

 

If you allow for that possibility - and this is one of many ideas out there and I haven't looked up the most recent literature on theories about the origin of life, maybe Sivi can provide some - then what prevents that process from leading to another, and another, and another - eventually forming a repeating pattern of chemical reactions that sustains itself?

 

Why is it such a stretch to believe that these elements, left to their own devices in a world without predators or biological hazards at that points, would begin to grow and replicate in their own right?

 

 

Is that tackling the subject too broadly or are you on board with my argument here?


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1967

Posted 07 March 2014 - 01:59 AM

Patterns such as snowflakes and sand dunes found in nature are Not encoded languages.. they do not convey instructions, directions or ideas. 

 

 

DNA is literally a bilingual language which uses letters (nucleotides) to make words(codons/duons) which write sentences(genes) which is interpreted in two different ways by decoding proteins which give two separate sets of instructions. 


Adler
  • Adler

    Hello, Smith. ( ´-`)ノ

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2009
  • None

#1968

Posted 07 March 2014 - 03:29 AM

There are two separate codes stored in DNA.

 

One stores instructions for amino acid/protein production and the other stores the actual directions for for the gene/protein's functions. 

 

 

http://www.scienceda...31212142151.htm

 

http://www.sci-news....-dna-01618.html

 

http://www.examiner....in-gene-control

You are mistaken. None of those sources say that there is a code which stores "directions for gene/protein's functions." Read them again. They are saying that there is code that outlines "gene control," otherwise known as gene expression (on/off state of genes). There is no explicit direction given by genes to proteins. Genes are used make proteins and proteins have function, which are not given to them by genes, but are innate to proteins themselves.

 

Furthermore, there is not actually a second code, but "different use of existing code," as described by this link here:

 

http://www.forbes.co...-duon-dna-hype/


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1969

Posted 07 March 2014 - 03:58 AM

Calling it a language wmakes it no less probable.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#1970

Posted 07 March 2014 - 04:05 AM

whenever someone hits the bullseye, Grandmaster simply moves the target.

  • Tacymist likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#1971

Posted 07 March 2014 - 05:14 AM

The world is full of mindless processes which can't create anything interpretable by an intelligent mind, for some reason. You can't see how that's a maddening non-sequitur?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1972

Posted 07 March 2014 - 07:59 AM

A specified sequence of symbols used to convey instructions and information.

Define "symbol" without reference to interpretation. You're simply repeating yourself without actually giving any consideration to the implications of the terms you're using, nor to how they can be applicable on an objective level. The entire defining characteristic of symbolism is it's representative nature, and something cannot be representative without the processing capacity to understand what it represents- a capacity which isn't intrinsic in the symbol itself. Therefore the entire concept of symbolism and representative sequencing is merely a construct of perception.
 

Events in nature caused by natural laws of physics.

Define "nature" in this context. In the broadest sense, "nature" basically just means everything that exists, including that which is not known. I struggle to see how you can assert that it is logically impossible for natural, unguided processes to produce things interpretable as "encoded information" (and therefore that God must exist) without knowing the unknown.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forgetti.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#1973

Posted 07 March 2014 - 10:11 AM

Why do you keep debating this buffoon? His entire argument boils down to "I don't know, therefore god must have done it". You'll never make him see where he's wrong with rational arguments when he's incapable of thinking rationally.

  • Melchior, Adler and sivispacem like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1974

Posted 07 March 2014 - 11:52 AM

I know, I know, but continuing to press home the points I'm making at least shows to everyone else in the topic, if not GMS himself, that his arguments are largely the result of confirmation bias and illusory correlation. It might even make him consider his use of semantics and inability to discern between simile, analogy and reality.

Raiden雷電
  • Raiden雷電

    I Am Lightning, The Rain Transformed

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2011
  • United-States

#1975

Posted 07 March 2014 - 05:44 PM

I'm having a problem with my parents, they seem to get pissed off when I tell them that the idea of God creating himself sound like that of a fairy tail. They get Pissed off to the point of wanting to knock me out. i'm starting to believe I don't even have a family anymore, and that they only believe in fairy tails at this point. I do believe in a god to a certain extent, but at this point I'm not sure what I believe in. If my family wants to disown me for such actions, well by all means I don't give a damn at this point. Choose religion over your own son? Some family, huh.


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1976

Posted 07 March 2014 - 08:51 PM

Why do you keep debating this buffoon? His entire argument boils down to "I don't know, therefore god must have done it". You'll never make him see where he's wrong with rational arguments when he's incapable of thinking rationally.

 

 

All my arguments are based off of what we know through observation. It's the same observations and science used to search for extraterrestrial life and finding ancient civilizations using archaeology.

 

If you deny my argument you might as well deny all archaeology and credit natural processes for creating Stonehenge of the Easter Island statues.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1977

Posted 07 March 2014 - 09:07 PM

All my arguments are based off of what we know through observation.

The conclusions you reach from them are most certainly not.
 

If you deny my argument you might as well deny all archaeology and credit natural processes for creating Stonehenge of the Easter Island statues.

Now this is just getting absurd.

Are you honestly saying that questioning your arguments in favour of the existence of God, mostly in the form of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, confirmation bias and regressive and fundamentally flawed logic are really comparable to archaeology?

I thought that by highlighting these points you might at least take the time to re-evaluate- or even just critically consider, your position and the supposed evidential basis that you regard as so concrete, despite the fact it's theoretically existed for 100 years and been supported by greater philosophical minds than yourself, and still remains entirely unconvincing to rational sceptics. I gave you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your openness and willingness to discuss the topic rationally, and repeatedly overlooked sweeping generalisations and your confusing of hyperbole with reality in order to maintain the momentum of the discussion.

Sadly, I feel that I have to conclude that Yokel is entirely right. You're incapable of thinking rationally. And, for that matter, critically.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#1978

Posted 07 March 2014 - 09:10 PM

All my arguments are based off of what we know through observation. It's the same observations and science used to search for extraterrestrial life and finding ancient civilizations using archaeology.

Which you're totally misapplying, but okay.


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#1979

Posted 07 March 2014 - 09:38 PM

 

All my arguments are based off of what we know through observation. It's the same observations and science used to search for extraterrestrial life and finding ancient civilizations using archaeology.

Which you're totally misapplying, but okay.

 

 

Okay, how? Explain why we can detect traits of intelligence in carvings, unknown written languages, architecture ect. and differ them from results of natural processes but this can't be applied to biological life?


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#1980

Posted 07 March 2014 - 10:47 PM

You, my misguided friend, are the one claiming "natural processes" and "biological life" to be two separate things. Kind of setting anyone up for failure a with a question like that.  As far as natural processes go, life certainly is unique - but unique does not mean divine.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users