Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 5:27 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My dumbass parents doubt evolution
#91
RE: My dumbass parents doubt evolution
(November 10, 2012 at 4:27 am)Zen Badger Wrote:
(November 10, 2012 at 3:34 am)Godschild Wrote: Is that so, then why is it every time I hear a scientist of some profession asked, what is dark matter and dark energy, they say we do not know, we know it's there, we just do not know what it is, if that's not faith based I do not know what would be. It has not been seen, touched, tasted, smelled or proven in any way period, yet they know it's there, sort of sounds like God doesn't it.

Not knowing what it is doesn't mean we don't know it exists.
We know gravity exists yet we don't know what it actually is.
No faith is required, just more scientific research.
Still no evidence for your god though.

Badger

(November 9, 2012 at 11:32 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Then prove what gravity is - without arguing in circles
Try to debate me Atheist. We'll see who gets shredded in reason.


The question wasn't what gravity is, it is about prove of its existence.
Stop trying to move the goal posts.
(November 9, 2012 at 10:20 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: A character that incidentally is loud mouthed, opinionated, obnoxious and ill informed.

Co-incidence much?
Quote:You and your faithful Atheist brethren have utterly failed to demonstrate a single flaw in my arguments.

I challenge you to demonstrate one.

You're a toothless rodent.

The fact that you have failed to offer up even of shred of evidence in support of your claims and assertions.

I'm guessing that you are only young(based on your ignorance)
So let me explain how science actually works.

A scientist will propose a theory based on ideas he has had or observations he has made.

Then that theory will be tested to see if its predictions work.

And even after it has been accepted as valid it is subject to new tests as new ways of testing are invented.

What you have done is declare "God must exist because he should"!!

Well, sorry lad, that is just not enough.

Badger, you are simply dead wrong and ignorant of science and philosophy.
We know of many things in science due to their necessity to sufficiently explain the known effect.

Nobody one can prove gravity exists. We know it exists due to it's necessity to explain the known effect. We know it exists because it pulls on bodies with mass. Well, how do we know gravity is pulling on the bodies? Because we know it has the effect of pulling our bodies. Well, how do you know it is gravity pulling your body? The circular loop repeats.
This is the same for God. We know God exists by God's necessity to explain known effects and our experiences of those known effects.

No on can prove atoms exist by observation. We believe they exist due to their explanatory necessity.
No one can prove sub-atomic particles exist. We know believe they exist by observation of their necessity to explain known effects.
Those Higgs Bosons, for example were always part of the standard model, because we knew they must exist due to their known effect. We still only have further confirmation of their known effects. We can't actuall se them.

We believe Mathematics but we can't prove it scientifically. Science rests on Mathematics.
We believe Logic, but we can't prove it scientifically without arguing on a circle.

Badger, explain how we know gravity exists without arguing in a circle - or admit you were wrong. Man up.

(November 10, 2012 at 2:24 am)Kirbmarc Wrote:
Quote:God's moral nature is a perfectly sufficient as a Plausible grounding.

Please explain how. You're just begging the question.

Quote:t's not objective because 'I believe it'. I believe it because there is no other rationally possible - much less plausible and sufficient grounding apart from God's existence.

You still haven't showed how you came to this conclusion. Do I simply have to trust you?

Quote:Give me your rationally coherent basis for claiming a serial killer 'ought not' pursue his pleasure to kill and torture others for his personal gratification

I know it is late and it's easy to miss a few words here and there, but if you read my argument carefully you'll realize that I am referring to the pleasure and pain of humanity as a whole.

No matter how much gratification a serial killer gets from murder and torture, he's still increasing pain.

Quote:I played football. I endured pain constantly.

Yet you found the amount of pleasure you received from baseball to be more than the amount of pain you endured, otherwise you'd have stopped playing.

Quote:What makes causing pain bad

Did you read what I wrote? Causing more pain than pleasure is bad because it goes against the preferred behavior of humanity as a whole.

Quote:Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. (a) Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists. Self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime. (b)

a) In quantum mechanics, particles and anti-particles can arise from quantum vacuum. "Nothingness" doesn't exist.

b) This a classic example of "god of the gaps". We don't know what was there before the Big Bang (if we can talk about such a thing as "before the Big Bang") so let's call it god.

Quote:Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

There is absolutely no need for the cause of our universe to be non-physical, space-less, timeless or willful. There are many hypothesis about how it could have happened (Lee Smolin's fecund universes springs to mind). None of them is about a non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful entity.

Quote:Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.

The theory of evolution explains life with no need for a design. And irreducible complexity has been completely refuted (once again, even beheadmitted he has no concrete evidence for it).

Design doesn't exist in nature. The evolution of life doesn't have a purpose.

Quote:Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.

Again with the Fine tuning. How many times do I have to write that universe is not fine-tuned for life, life is fine.tuned for the universe?

Plus Stenger's work has shown that the "infinitesimally narrow range" and the "razor's edge" are myths. You can change the contastants up to 25% of their value and you'll still have stars, and therefore carbon.

Quote:Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.

And since it's metaphysically possible that I have 1000 dollars in my pocket, I actually have them.

Kant refuted the ontological argument in 1781. You can't take the leap from a concept to a reality on the basis of the attributes of that concept. The existance is not a predicate.

Quote:Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?

See above. There's no intelligence in nature. We find order in nature because we try to understand it through our mental schemes, but nature is inherently chaotic. Quantum mechanics show that clearly.

Quote:Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?

The evolution of religion is a fascinating subject. There are many possible reasons as to why religion evolved. Basically, religion is a tenative explanation of reality that humanizes nature, gives power to a chief, strengthen ities within a community and unites individuals against a common enemy.

Quote:Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul. Chemicals have no moral duties.

You're supposing that free will exists as something other than a byproduct of our brains.

Quote:Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies. Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena. Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.

Hearsay, forgeries, and inanity. Irrelevant.


You need to know the material before offering superficial commentary on things you know nothing about. Tangential commentary on every point that does not engage the arguments or premises does nothing to answer or defeat arguments.
It's fairly clear that you are skimming the arguments and rattling off the first thought that comes to mind just to deflect off.

Let's stick to one argument for now.

With respect to the moral arguments. You apparently don't understand how argument works. You need to defeat premises, not demand I prove premises in an argument in infinite regression. You need to tell me how God is not sufficient as a plausible grounding for an objective realm of moral values and duties. You have not done that. Further, You have not offered any plausible alternative. You can't simply protest and demand I prove the premise - and then prove the proof of the premise.....
Reply
#92
RE: My dumbass parents doubt evolution
Gravity -is- the effect.....ffs that's some basic shit. Similarly, we can "see" atoms....but that's a relatively recent thing, so I guess I can't jump down your throat on that one. Mathematics and logic are systems (ways to organise "things"..or describe relationships), they need only be consistent with themselves (unless we wish to draw some inference about the world beyond the system, which is why one must assign a measure of truth to their premise and assertions...and why one must look for observations that match a mathematical model before strutting around like they have something).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#93
RE: My dumbass parents doubt evolution
Quote:ou need to know the material before offering superficial commentary on everything you know nothing about.

What do you know about what I know?

Quote: You need to defeat premises, not demand I prove premises in an argument in infinite regression.

I have defeated the premises of your arguments. For example, I have showed how the fine tune argument assumes that the universe is tuned to life when evidence suggests that it's life that is fine tuned to the universe, therefore that argument is fallacious. Not to mention the fact that changing the values up to a 25% of their value still produces stars and therefore carbon (see: here), or the fact that this universe is not as favorable to life as a "perfectly tuned universe" would be.

I also have showed how the ontological argument begs the question. The ontological arguments wants to deduce the existance of god simply by its attributes. But as Kant as shown, this is impossible.

If it were possible to simply deduce existance from metaphysical properties, one hundred dollars in my pocket and the idea one hundred dollars would be the same thing. They aren't. Existance is not an attribute that you can deduce by other theorethical attributes.

Your argument by design is wrong simply because there's no compelling evidence of design. Irreducible complexity has been refuted repeatedly and even the original proponents of that hypotheisis don't peddle it anymore.

As far as your other arguments go, the cosmological and the necessity argument also have been thoroughly examined by Kant. They're assumptions that the principle of cause-effect (which is something that exists among phenomena) could be applied to deduce an abstract, methaphysical entity. This isn't the case.

Moreover, most possible explanations for the origin of universe do not require a willful, intelligent creator. There is no evidence of such an entity, and no theorethic need to bring it up as an explanation.

Hearsay about miracles and other experiences is simply hearsay. It's just as valid as the claims of those who say they were abducted by aliens.

Quote:You need to tell me how God is not capable to ground an objective realm of moral values and duties that we all apprehend. You have not done that

Your god enforces a completely arbitrary moral code, that has varied through time and space countless times. Have you stoned any of his neighbors who work on Saturday recently?

By defining god as the supreme moral authority, you simply argue that a supreme moral authorithy allows for an objective morality because you say it exists. You can't prove that a supreme moral authorithy exists just by defining it.

Moreover, an objective system of morality can be based simply on reason and the assumption that man have a pattern of preferred behavior. I have already shown you that model, and your criticicism of it has been completely inadequate.

Quote:Tangential commentary on every point that does not engage the arguments or premises does nothing to answer or defeat arguments.

I have engaged arguments and premises. You just pretend you don't notice it.

Quote:I initially had hopes you were something more than another Atheist nitwit. Frankly, you're clueless.

Thank you for the kind compliment. Another sterling example of your sharp intellect and your intellectual honesty.
Reply
#94
RE: My dumbass parents doubt evolution
(November 10, 2012 at 4:27 am)Zen Badger Wrote:
(November 10, 2012 at 3:34 am)Godschild Wrote: Is that so, then why is it every time I hear a scientist of some profession asked, what is dark matter and dark energy, they say we do not know, we know it's there, we just do not know what it is, if that's not faith based I do not know what would be. It has not been seen, touched, tasted, smelled or proven in any way period, yet they know it's there, sort of sounds like God doesn't it.

Badger Wrote:Not knowing what it is doesn't mean we don't know it exists.
We know gravity exists yet we don't know what it actually is.
No faith is required, just more scientific research.
Still no evidence for your god though.

Badger

Really not knowing means we know now that's what I call crazy man crazy. There is no evidence what so ever, scientist could not explain an ever expanding universe so they created the god of the dark, yeah matter that can not be seen, does not effect light travel, just a made up god for those who lack the understanding to explain what they do not understand.


(November 9, 2012 at 11:32 pm)Truth Matters Wrote:





God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Reply
#95
RE: My dumbass parents doubt evolution
(November 10, 2012 at 11:08 am)Truth Matters Wrote: Badger, you are simply dead wrong and ignorant of science and philosophy.
We know of many things in science due to their necessity to sufficiently explain the known effect.

Nobody one can prove gravity exists. We know it exists due to it's necessity to explain the known effect. We know it exists because it pulls on bodies with mass. Well, how do we know gravity is pulling on the bodies? Because we know it has the effect of pulling our bodies. Well, how do you know it is gravity pulling your body? The circular loop repeats.

Darfaq did I just read?"We know gravity exists but we can't prove it exists". I think throwing you off a high place sans parachute will demonstrate its existence to you beyond all reasonable doubt.
Quote:This is the same for God. We know God exists by God's necessity to explain known effects and our experiences of those known effects.
You don't know god exists, you believe it exists. And you have yet to adequately explain why god is the explantion for these supposed effects.
Quote:No on can prove atoms exist by observation. We believe they exist due to their explanatory necessity.

No one can prove sub-atomic particles exist. We know believe they exist by observation of their necessity to explain known effects.
Those Higgs Bosons, for example were always part of the standard model, because we knew they must exist due to their known effect. We still only have further confirmation of their known effects. We can't actuall se them.
Observation is not the same as seeing.
Quote:We believe Mathematics but we can't prove it scientifically. Science rests on Mathematics.
Wrong again, it can be tested experimentally(which is the basis of science)
1 + 1 = 2, to test take one rock, then add another rock to it.
Count the rocks, you'll have TWO rocks. Experiment supports hypothesis.
For the record, I can't believe I need to explain basics to you.
Quote:We believe Logic, but we can't prove it scientifically without arguing on a circle.
Logic is only as good as the evidence it is based on.
Trying to apply logic without evidence(as you are trying to do) is just mental masturbation.
Quote:Badger, explain how we know gravity exists without arguing in a circle - or admit you were wrong. Man up.

I just did.
Quote:Let's stick to one argument for now.

With respect to the moral arguments. You apparently don't understand how argument works. You need to defeat premises, not demand I prove premises in an argument in infinite regression. You need to tell me how God is not sufficient as a plausible grounding for an objective realm of moral values and duties. You have not done that. Further, You have not offered any plausible alternative. You can't simply protest and demand I prove the premise - and then prove the proof of the premise.....

So if I propose an argument I don't have to support it with evidence, you need to prove it wrong......

There is a fine ming dynasty tea pot in orbit around Saturn but we can't see it because it's too small.

By your "logic", I don't have to prove it. You have to disprove it.

Off you go lad.

Badger
[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply
#96
RE: My dumbass parents doubt evolution
(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Gravity isn't science. Gravity is a Law imposed on our Universe.
Science presumes gravity exists, but cannot cause gravity. We believe gravity exists based on experiences of it, but cannot prove it without arguing in circles.
You're an idiot. Gravity is not "a Law imposed upon the universe". If it is, then which law is it? Newton's? No? Quantum Gravity? No? The curvature of spacetime predicted by General Relativity? No? None of these? But they all "model it" with some degree of correctness with their various "laws".

Why don't you just explain to me how your law of gravity works then. How do two objects "know" they are close to each other and should be attracted towards each other? Does the universe really perform a calculation at every interval of planck time?
Quote:1) Mathematics cannot be proven by science. Science rests on certain mathematical assumptions we all reasonably hold to be true, but cannot be proven scientifically without arguing in circles.
Which assumptions are these, precisely?
Quote:6) You cannot prove moral knowledge by science. Try proving that raping children is wrong by scientific testing. Do you not believe raping children is wrong?
Ah, you're wrong on this one. It is entirely patterned behaviour.
Reply
#97
RE: My dumbass parents doubt evolution
Jees, poor Hitch96 - actually it's pretty ironic, no? He's (she's?) conflicted about being surrounded by zealous ignoramuses, an lo, upon sharing his/her pain here, what happens? Have some zealous ignoramuses!
Sorry Truth Matters; you loose. You fail at every premise, at every starting point, so hard, that it is impossible for people to actually debate with you, as if that was what you were really after, troll. An atheist requires no belief, doofus. Look up the fucking definition. We don't need to disprove your fucking imaginary friend; look up the fucking definition of "burden of proof". If you have some ground breaking evidence that you think "proves" the existence of your favorite curtain twitcher, start your own fucking thread, and your arse gravy will be taken apart with evidenced vigor.
I am not even going to begin to address your pointless gish gallop, because the stupid burns my eyes.
Reply
#98
RE: My dumbass parents doubt evolution
To OP: I can understand some of what you're going through. My parents were always fairly secular; my mom identifies as agnostic and while my dad is religious, he doesn't think religion is an excuse for stupidity. However, I know people who have come from fundamentalist backgrounds, my boyfriend being the main one.

My advice? You're 16. Make sure you have a safe place to go to if something bad happens when/if you tell them you're irreligious. I've heard horror stories about religious fundamentalist families (heck, I have a friend whose parents kicked her out when she came out as transgender). If you do bring it up, though, I can't expect it to go that well; fundamentalism has a way of closing minds to anything that disagrees with it's prepresumptions.
I live on facebook. Come see me there. http://www.facebook.com/tara.rizzatto

"If you cling to something as the absolute truth and you are caught in it, when the truth comes in person to knock on your door you will refuse to let it in." ~ Siddhartha Gautama
Reply
#99
RE: My dumbass parents doubt evolution
Whoa, is there really an Anglican in here schooling fundies? I love this forum.
Reply
RE: My dumbass parents doubt evolution
(November 9, 2012 at 4:51 am)Alumacin Wrote:
(November 9, 2012 at 4:34 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Oh god. Can I call troll on one post?

Nobody is trolling. It is an elitist ideology with hardly a shred of proof. i was surprised that so many scientists supported it. But then most scientists are elitist pricks so naturally they look the other way whenever someone points out evolution's shortcomings.

Is the Divine Tiberius running a weekly special on morons? We seem to be getting quite a few this week.

Hey, sonny. Go Blow Jesus Out Your Ass.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)