(October 11, 2009 at 7:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Classic examples of moving the goalposts. As soon as we show you that conscious intelligence can be explained through evolution without the need for God, you just move the goalposts back to the start of everything.

Firstly, it hasn't been shown that conscious intelligence can be explained through evolution. Secondly, even if it had, it wouldn't prove that you didn't need God, because explaining a portion of something's creation is not explaining all that is needed.

I didn't move the goal posts, perhaps I pointed out that you had them in the wrong place to begin with...once I found out where you placed them.

What you've done is made bread with a store-bought kit and said "ta-da, that's all there is to it!"

Classic indeed.

(October 11, 2009 at 8:15 pm)ecolox Wrote: [...]Secondly, even if it had, it wouldn't prove that you didn't need God, because explaining a portion of something's creation is not explaining all that is needed.

You - and anyone else I've ever encountered, as far as I am aware - have completely failed to explain that you do need God. You merely assert that he is needed to create the universe. But you don't explain him. What response do I get when I ask for God's explanation? - That he somehow doesn't need an explanation, because he's the creator, he's at the beginning...

...oh yeah? You could say the same about something else that sparked off the big bang that wasn't a supernatural creator, a deity. I could say the same about the laws of physics, I could just say 'they were always there, the laws of physics, were always ..."just there" '...

...the usual response I get is "But the laws would need to be designed, since they are complicated, so God is the designer" - but then how come the same explanation isn't required of him? If God can just be there without explanation, if he can just be asserted - completely ignoring an explanation for all his intelligence and power, all his complexity: Then why can't the same be done for the laws of physics? I could just as easily assert their complexity without an explanation. And their "complexity" is a whole lot more fucking simple than God! They're the fundamental constants of the universe - as far as we know - !! Why is a super-complex super creator required for them, and yet he requires no explanation himself somehow?

It's a whole lot more probable that something simple is at the beginning than something complex, complexity requires a much bigger explanation and is a whole lot less likely to 'just exist' or arise from chance. If something is to be at the beginning, it is to be ultimately simple. Not something super intelligent and superpowerful with super consciousness and the ability to design things, such as "God".

And I've heard you else where, bang on and on about how everything must be explained, so evolution is no good - according to you...- because it doesn't explain where life comes from (and as I said...it's not supposed to, that's not what evolution is for...): But guess what? How typical of you! ...: You say everything needs an explanation, but what you mean is...everything except God! You refuse to explain God! Why? Well...you have failed to explain why. You're just giving special treatment, as I hope I've shown through this post.

EvF

(October 11, 2009 at 7:46 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(October 11, 2009 at 1:32 pm)ecolox Wrote: Evolution can't operate without the universe, which can't operate without God.

How so? How can't it operate without God? How is God required at all?

To give life to the universe perhaps, unless you think nothing did it?

Quote:The universe can't operate with God if he doesn't exist, and give me some evidence that he exists. Instead of merely asserting that he is required for the universe without actually evidencing that.

I don't understand why you think universes just exist.

Quote:

Quote:You have to explain everything - not just evolution - to really explain conscious intelligence (physics, chemistry, abiogenesis, evolution, how does the universe exist, etc).

No one has explained it all yet. We don't know where the laws of physics come from. Some, such as yourself, claim that "God did it". But they, and you, fail to explain where God comes from - and also, how he's at all required. You are merely barely asserting that he exists and that he is required, if he exists, how does he? What reason is there to believe that he does? And how is he required in order for the universe to exist? Why does he have to cause it - or "create" it?

I know. You say "it came from nothing" or "I don't know - because I don't want to say what I really think". God is required to fill the void your brain creates.

Quote:

Quote:Plus, evolution is not even complete as a explanation - still incomplete.

Evolution has more evidence being gathered all the time...science actually progresses, unlike religion. Evolution has tons of evidence, unlike God.

I think the universe is more than enough evidence of God.

Quote:And if you are suggesting - as I've seen you do so before - that evolution is "incomplete" because that it doesn't explain where life comes from (or even where the universe comes from): It's not supposed to. That isn't what evolution is about. Evolution is about how life evolves, not where it comes from, and it's got nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

Strawman. I didn't expect evolution to do something it isn't supposed to, but evolution is incomplete in what it is supposed to explain.

Quote:Know one knows completely where the universe came from originally yet, no one knows fully yet, no one knows of the first cause yet - But that's not what evolution is about, it's got nothing to do with evolution...

I didn't say evolution is supposed to explain everything, so there isn't much point in jabbering on about that.

Quote:...and what about God? How does he explain it? He doesn't: Because he's just asserted as an explanation, and an explanation isn't an explanation if it's just a completely unwarranted baseless assertion.

God explains the universe because He is an eternal thinker that could create the universe we experience. According to you, if your answer isn't nothing, then what is the explanation? Dawkins would say not to ask that question.

God is the critical answer that gives life meaning. Your answer of "I don't know" or "nothing" doesn't give life meaning, it means life is meaningless (except in the meaningless sense).
Well, when you wonder about the meaning of your life you define it in terms that suit you - a life that ends in destruction - free from responsibility.
When I consider the meaning of life I define it unselfishly in terms of God - a life that ends in Judgment. I live every day trying to walk the straight and narrow that Jesus described - the only lifestyle that God will have mercy upon and is pleased with... It is a life that is beneficial to mankind as a whole and nature too. I am a friend to the animals and plants, encouraging growth as much as I can...and discouraging evil and waste, which is a hindrance to growth. I believe in giving even when the favor will not be returned (e.g. helping the poor), forgiving people, confronting and settling disputes, and so on. These are the lessons of the Bible - they support true growth, growth that will last and not turn sour.

---

Quote:You say everything needs an explanation, but what you mean is...everything except God! You refuse to explain God! Why?

Everything that we can see/experience-first-hand especially needs an explanation. We cannot gather evidence about God in the same way that we can gather evidence about the universe. God is one step beyond...or so.

God is eternal - and unexplainable. I cannot help you further I'm afraid.

Ecolox,

Well if God is eternal and unexplained who created him?

(October 11, 2009 at 9:14 pm)Amphora Wrote: Ecolox,

Well if God is eternal and unexplained who created him?

Nobody. Like I said to the other chap, beyond that I can't help you, unfortunately.

There is nothing "unfortunate" about it. You can't explain it and we have rejected your bullshit.

End of story, really.

Reasons for God.

Little Caveman: 'Dad where did grandad go when he died?'
Big caveman so as not to appear stupid and make little cave man feel better: 'He chosen by God to the big cave in the sky where he eats mammoth all day'

Later big caveman found he could control little caveman: 'eat your wild carrot or God will not let you go to big cave when you die!'

Reasons for God.
1:Comfort
2:Control

not neccesarilly in that order

(October 10, 2009 at 8:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote: That's where you go wrong. Your "personal creator" exists because you so desperately want there to be one.

Can you disprove what was actually said though rather than just disagreeing?

(October 10, 2009 at 8:33 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

Causality is a proposition, not a fact.

Logic suggests but does not guarantee truth.

If logic doesn't guarantee truth then why do you believe anything? Science is based upon proposition back up by data which is understood using logic. So what exactly is your problem?

(October 12, 2009 at 10:58 am)solarwave Wrote:

(October 10, 2009 at 8:33 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

Causality is a proposition, not a fact.

Logic suggests but does not guarantee truth.

If logic doesn't guarantee truth then why do you believe anything? Science is based upon proposition back up by data which is understood using logic. So what exactly is your problem?

We seem to have evolved a need for understanding, it was a big part of what helped us survive as a species and is something that i do not believe we will ever leave behind. It may not be essential to believe in any proposition at all, but it is certainly part of the human condition to seek understanding.

Our human logic is not prefect, it is based on the behavior of a familiar universe and will most likely not apply(or will have to be expanded upon) in some circumstances (unified field, superposition, entanglement etc...). In fact, some things could appear to be completely illogical, but that does not mean that they are always not true, only that our logic is not sufficient. The best we can do is accumulate data on a subject and draw our conclusions from that and if (when) we find that our logical models are not sufficient to interpret the findings from the data we will need to adjust our logical models to incorporate the data.

Right you are The Void!

Science has help us out greatly.

But there is always human error, but it is most likely that we learn from our short commings, so that we could better understand logical facts.

Amp