Liu Bei mixed with Leondias Wrote: I am back!!! Excuse me but if the VOID would like to engage me again in a debate I would be more than happy to acomadate him. If not I will take a differant sparring partner.

I think I am much more compatent debater now!

Still can't spell for shit though

Where is the creationism in this creationism thread?

The creationism is in the exact same place in this thread as it is in the rest of the world: In the imagination of the believers.

Snap.

Quote:Ah, you are realist and a coherentist my friend. I happen to be a intrumentalist and a foundationalist. But arguing about that will get us nowhere. Anyway you wanted evidence, yes? What is evidence? Evidence is not proof. Evidence is something that gives a sign of the existence or truth of something. So you cannot ask me for evidence without me going to reasoning or trying to show that in philosophical way your reasoning is flawed. You see evidence can be seen(and is) as reasoning + material objects but the only material evidence I have is not even material at all since its threw a computer. Neither scientific laws or theories nor God are considered material. Therefore even if you saw God and everyone knew he was real because he appeared to all of us right at this moment would he be material. I would consider that very much evidence but to you in this case you would by your own criteria reject it.
I would be curious what a potential brother in Christ is doing so far from the light he doesn't let the mere possiblity of a Creator pop it too its head. He even says were he to be beaten(in a debate) he would deny that even though he was not able to reason that he probley was wrong. Unless you can make a standing arguement my friend then your reasoning for not believing in God is flawed.
I would also ask you really think philosophically about what is real? You are so quick to assume the world around us is completely real and exists for certain. Not to say I believe this but the arguements for solipism and subjectivism are somewhat compelling. But Empiricism may be alittle more my attitude.

For the final time: I do not argue with apologists. I reject the notion the truth can be revealed by reason alone and show me your (credible) evidence or fuck off.

That we disagree is fine. Although unsurprised by your patronising,I'd be obligedif you didn't make it a habit. Oh, I think patronsing your opponent comes under the heading of an ad hominem attack..

What a long winded way to say that you have no evidence.

(September 18, 2011 at 7:40 pm)padraic Wrote: For the final time: I do not argue with apologists. I reject the notion the truth can be revealed by reason alone and show me your (credible) evidence or fuck off.

That we disagree is fine. Although unsurprised by your patronising,I'd be obligedif you didn't make it a habit. Oh, I think patronsing your opponent comes under the heading of an ad hominem attack..

Though I am confused about how this will help considering the fact that even if I were to beat you soundly you would say I haven't proven God. I am also confused why you must be offensive if your response and not respond to any of my question but expect me to give you evidence though I came to you to explain my viewpoint that in no means that you are not responsible for answering my questions. Oh well can't win them all!

1. The Universe is VERY VERY finely tuned! It is like..... Lets use gravity as an example(Collins example to be exact). If we use an example of one of those old fashioned radio dials, that goes all the way across the universe and is broken down into inch increments which means there would be billions upon billions of inches. Each dial represents the range of force strengths in nature gravity being weakest and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together as the strongest. Now if you moved it even a inch it would increase gravity a billionfold. Now we also have another arguement that we may be the only life in the universe. This sounds absurd but you have to realise that even bacterium needs at least 16 essential elements. Not just any planetary body will have all these and also have relativly good conditions for sustaining life. Also to refute the comment before its made Carbon is a very unique element in the sense of that... It is most conductive for life by far( in terms of if someone were to make the arguement that life may not be based off of Carbon but instead off of something like Silicon), in the sense that Carbon can made strong bonds with itself while maintaining strong bonds to other atoms. More evidence for God is the flagellum, Genetic studies have shown that between 30 and 35 proteins are needed to create a functional flagellum. We don't even know the roles of these proteins.

2. The second part is much shorter but asks you to look philosophically at Science. If you asked them most scientists would say that the standard theory of matter is true. Yet is it? Well ask your self this: What does it mean to say that quarks, neutrinos, and electrons exist? No one has ever seen or heard or touched one of the particles and no one ever will.They are unoberservable theoratical entities; That is they exist in theories but we cannot directly observe them.

(September 18, 2011 at 11:55 pm)Liu Bei mixed with Leondias Wrote: 2. The second part is much shorter but asks you to look philosophically at Science. If you asked them most scientists would say that the standard theory of matter is true. Yet is it? Well ask your self this: What does it mean to say that quarks, neutrinos, and electrons exist? No one has ever seen or heard or touched one of the particles and no one ever will.They are unoberservable theoratical entities; That is they exist in theories but we cannot directly observe them.

I do not even know where to start on the first one.

The second however, particles are observed all the time. We have devices that generate and create and monitor particles. You do know that this is the 21st century?

(September 19, 2011 at 12:09 am)IATIA Wrote: I do not even know where to start on the first one.

The second however, particles are observed all the time. We have devices that generate and create and monitor particles. You do know that this is the 21st century?

Note how I said directly. Explain to me how it works. And I mean the sense of.... how does show us that atoms literally do exist, if it use predictions to show a truth, then it could be false. For example, somebody could have a theory about God that lets us make predictions about the world does that make it true. Also you have not do not take into account the arguement for idealism.

(September 19, 2011 at 12:23 am)Liu Bei mixed with Leondias Wrote:

(September 19, 2011 at 12:09 am)IATIA Wrote: I do not even know where to start on the first one.

The second however, particles are observed all the time. We have devices that generate and create and monitor particles. You do know that this is the 21st century?

Note how I said directly. Explain to me how it works. And I mean the sense of.... how does show us that atoms literally do exist, if it use predictions to show a truth, then it could be false. For example, somebody could have a theory about God that lets us make predictions about the world does that make it true. Also you have not do not take into account the arguement for idealism.

Will a picture do? We could move them around .

OK! Your turn. Got a picture of god?