Battleground God

[In This Mind]

Evolution is an idea. God is an entity.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't get past this. Evolution is a process. God either doesn't exist or there is no way of knowing quite what it is.

Allow me to attempt to simplify this conversation. Your argument is that evolution is too complicated to be as simple to prove or disprove as god because god is an absolute. That's not the case. Just as many complications can theoretically be applied to the god question as the evolution 'question.'

Your 'simplification' demonstrates that you did not actually make any attempt to read my argument.
The fact that you admit you did not read my post is irritating. I went though an effort to explain my argument in three different methods, methods that had you'd read, you would have noticed already covered your 'counter-argument'.

If you wish to go back and actually read the post and continue the debate, I would be happy to respond to you again. Otherwise, I accept your concession of the point.

[Shell B]

Your 'simplification' demonstrates that you did not actually make any attempt to read my argument.
The fact that you admit you did not read my post is irritating. I went though an effort to explain my argument in three different methods, methods that had you'd read, you would have noticed already covered your 'counter-argument'.

If you wish to go back and actually read the post and continue the debate, I would be happy to respond to you again. Otherwise, I accept your concession of the point.

I did read your posts. When I said I couldn't get past this, I did not mean I couldn't read past it. I meant that I couldn't get over how weird of a statement it was. Nonetheless, I did find your posts to be rambling and irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that you have taken some very simple, to the point questions and applied a complicated, convoluted form of logic to them either while you were answering them or while you were justifying having answered them 'incorrectly.' Again, that is not to say that the game is right or wrong.

Speaking of poor logic, you are going to accept a concession that does not exist? I do not claim to be the most logical person, being a female writer and all. However, I have never expended as much energy to prove myself right after missing some questions on some silly game as you have. It's fine that you don't think the game is logical. I just found your explanation for it rather silly. I'm sorry that you're irritated, but that's your choice.

[In This Mind]

Since you are not willing to counter the point, I suppose it stands. Pity. I was enjoying the debate. It does get rather amusing when an opponent dismisses an argument as 'silly' when it is beyond their comprehension. Especially when I tried to use layman's terms to describe the issue.

I do dislike it when an argument that claims to stand as a judgment of philosophical rationality falls down on so basic an issue an improper comparison fallacy. Of course the 'standards of proof' for evolution and god are different, evolution and god are entirely separate concepts as I have already addressed.

Claiming the use of the Nirvana fallacy as a reason to claim evolution is not true and then turning around and saying well that means you must accept something other than actual proof of god's existence that god is real? Bullshit.

Proving something does or does not exist is a wholly different manner than proving whether or not something works a particular way. That they would use such a blatant example of the is-ought fallacy while setting themselves up as the authority over whether or not someone is philosophically consistent is preposterous.

[Rhizomorph13]

Adrian,

So why again can't we have a thumbs down button? I'm sorry to bring it up again, but AHHHHHHHH!

That is all,
Rhizo

[Tiberius]

Would you use the same criteria to judge what is a good wine versus what is a good airplane? Of course not. Your standards may not be 'higher' for one than the other, but they would be different.

Naturally they would be different; but that wasn't the point was it. The point was, standards for proof (not the methods for proving) should be the same for everything, otherwise you are biased towards a particular view.

Evolution is not an 'absolute'.

It is in terms of the question "Is Evolution the process by which life evolved?", or "Does evolution exist / occur?". Both are yes or no questions; both must have absolute values since they cannot be a "yes" and a "no" at the same time.

Evolution is not a simple case of 'either it is or it isn't', it is much more complex than that and thus can accept the situation that we are still working to understand the finer details and may not yet have a proper understanding or even knowledge of some of the ways evolution can work. It is a complex study. Sharks have existed alongside other species relatively unchanged for eons while other species are unrecognizable from their ancestors in less than a year. The overview of the process is factual, the how and whys of the individual details require further study simply because we do not yet possess a way of getting all the data, let alone of turning that data into information.

You are going far too deep into the intricate nature of evolution; that wasn't the point of the test at all. It doesn't matter that things evolved differently, if they evolved at all, then evolution is correct. If they didn't evolve, evolution is not correct. It is most definitively a "yes or no" question.

This can be boiled down to so many things:

Either I'm sat at my computer or I'm not.
Either I went to work today or I didn't.
Either abiogenesis happened or it didn't.
etc, etc.

Again, we aren't asking about the complexities involved. We don't care when I sat at my computer, or in which chair I sat, or whether I walked to work or took the bus. It doesn't change the fact of the event either happening or not happening.

God on the other hand, is simple. It is an absolute. There are no 'degrees'. Either god exists, or god does not exist.

And evolution either happens or doesn't.

At the end of the day though, there is no proof of evolution, and anyone who says there is should go take a philosophy course on "knowledge" and "proof". All the evidence in the world couldn't prove evolution is what happened, because we are all subjective minds; we cannot trust with 100% confidence that what we see and evaluate is true.

To use a well known example, let us suppose that the universe came into existence last Thursday, but with everything in place, all the planets, atoms, beliefs, memories, etc as if it had been around for 13.7 billion years. From an internal perspective (i.e. from the perspective we have of our own universe), everything seems to have been around for 13.7 billion years, yet this is not the case, and there is no way for us to know any different unless we were omniscient, or external to the universe at the point of its creation.

[In This Mind]

Would you use the same criteria to judge what is a good wine versus what is a good airplane? Of course not. Your standards may not be 'higher' for one than the other, but they would be different.

Naturally they would be different; but that wasn't the point was it. The point was, standards for proof (not the methods for proving) should be the same for everything, otherwise you are biased towards a particular view.

I already addressed this issue. Rather than make your claim again as though it stands uncountered, please address the argument provided.

Let's look at the actual questions again, shall we?

"Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true."

"It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists."

Are you claiming these questions are actual equivalents to each other?

We have certain, irrevocable proof that Evolution happens. Anyone denying this is lying. We may not understand some of the minute details, but it has been proven beyond any doubt that evolution occurs.

Shell B offered some such arguments regarding god as though they mattered to the actual existence of god. There was discussion over whether god is good or evil or none of the above as though that mattered to the actual existence of god.

We have proven evolution exists. We may not be exactly sure how the lungfish developed, but we have proven with certain, irrevocable evidence that evolution happens.

The equivalent would be saying 'we have proven god exists. We aren't sure of his intentions or whether he can read minds, but we've proven he exists'.

The two questions are not equivalent.

[Tiberius]

Let's look at the actual questions again, shall we?

"Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true."

"It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists."

Are you claiming these questions are actual equivalents to each other?

Yes. Both are dealing with belief. The first is dealing with a belief that Evolutionary theory is true (hence the wording "essentially true" rather than "absolutely true"). The second is dealing with belief in God.

We have certain, irrevocable proof that Evolution happens. Anyone denying this is lying. We may not understand some of the minute details, but it has been proven beyond any doubt that evolution occurs.

No we don't; not in philosophical terms. We are working with philosophical terms because this is a philosophical game.

Again, I point to the Last Thursday example. If the universe had been created Last Thursday (or heck, within the last Plank time), then Evolution did not happen. The universe may look like evolution happened, but there is no way of proving that it did; not philosophically.

You keep accusing us of not reading your arguments, but you've just been a hypocrite and not responded to anything I said. Please respond to my actual points if you want to call this a debate, because at the moment, it isn't.

[Shell B]

It does get rather amusing when an opponent dismisses an argument as 'silly' when it is beyond their comprehension.

It is not amusing when someone assumes I can't comprehend what they are saying just because I don't feel like breaking down every 700 word post of their convoluted nonsense. It is simple. Therefore, my responses are simple. You are over-analyzing a very, very simple concept. My refusal to waste my time arguing every irrelevant point you make does not make me an idiot. It's okay if you think so, though. I'm not emotionally invested in this silly conversation. Shit, I said silly again.

[In This Mind]

Yes. Both are dealing with belief.

There is your mistake.

Again, I point to the Last Thursday example. If the universe had been created Last Thursday (or heck, within the last Plank time), then Evolution did not happen. The universe may look like evolution happened, but there is no way of proving that it did; not philosophically.

Ah, the 'what if' fallacy. One of my personal favorite bits of BS. Sorry, but if you are willing to subscribe to that particular bit of BS, then you are not an atheist for you have no logical or rational reason not to believe in god. In fact, if your willing to subscribe to that particular bit of BS, then you have to concede that I am god. You have no way to philosophically prove that I am not.

Sorry, sweetcakes, but it is not enough to claim you are 'logical' and that is enough. You must also be rational. Unless you are willing to offer a counter-example that is also rational, then we aren't having a debate, for I don't debate with fundies.

[Shell B]

Shell B offered some such arguments regarding god as though they mattered to the actual existence of god. There was discussion over whether god is good or evil or none of the above as though that mattered to the actual existence of god.

No, I didn't. I added questions about whether god is good or evil and I believe what he is made out of in an attempt to show you that these questions are irrelevant when it comes down to the existence of god. I did not present it as if it "mattered to the actual existence of god."

We have proven evolution exists. We may not be exactly sure how the lungfish developed

Does how the lungfish evolved have anything to do with whether or not evolution is real? No, it doesn't.