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: December 24, 2024, 11:57 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Atheism vs. God's Existence
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(May 21, 2016 at 3:55 pm)AAA Wrote:
(May 21, 2016 at 3:09 pm)wiploc Wrote: But that's metaphor, right?  Without the metaphor, we'd say something like, "Chemicals in the cell react to other chemicals." 

If you don't mean it as a metaphor, if you think the chemicals are literal information, then you have a circular argument:  In order for chemicals to be information, you must think that they carry a message from one intelligence to another.  Something like that.  You are building your conclusion into your premises, begging the question of whether chemistry is really information.

Well they do contain information. They aren't information. A book isn't information, but it can contain it. 

Why must I think they carry a message from one intelligence to another? That doesn't follow. But there are enzymes that read the code and use it to build other enzymes. It definitely contains information, I hope you aren't going to argue that it doesn't. Yeah it's all based on chemistry and physics, but that doesn't change the fact that it possesses information.

You claim that snowflakes are designed, and then it turns out that all you mean is that they are regular.  I'm going to assume that a discussion of "information" would come out the same way.
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(May 21, 2016 at 3:58 pm)wiploc Wrote:
(May 21, 2016 at 3:51 pm)AAA Wrote: I'm saying that life contains features of design. Order is one quality, yes.

You can say that, and that's fine.  When you say that biochemists believe it, that's a different matter.

Ok, at least the authors of my textbook do. Not to mention the hundreds of times my professors (not ID advocates by any means) use the term design simply because biology clearly reflects intention and precise functioning at every step.
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(May 21, 2016 at 3:46 pm)robvalue Wrote:
(May 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)AAA Wrote: How is evolution a falsifiable explanation for life's systems?

You're serious?

You're serious, aren't you.

You have to be winding us up.

Do you have any idea how real science is done? Do you seriously think a scientific theory is just announced, and people accept it?
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(May 21, 2016 at 4:01 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok, at least the authors of my textbook do. Not to mention the hundreds of times my professors (not ID advocates by any means) use the term design simply because biology clearly reflects intention and precise functioning at every step.

You fucking retarded motherfucking idiot.

Something can be referred to as a design without the obviously obtuse definition of intelligent being carelessly thrown behind it.

Grow the fuck up already.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(May 21, 2016 at 3:49 pm)AAA Wrote:
(May 21, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Helios Wrote: That is what the evidence leads us to conclude, yeah.

Are you just saying that because that's what everyone else says and you think that agreeing with them makes you appear to be more intelligent?

These are the kind of sentiments you project onto someone else when you yourself have never been confronted with evidence contrary to what you want to believe and changed your mind as a result of this evidence.

In other words, you can't image what is going on in the head of someone who understands the evidence for evolution as a teleonomic process. You don't have the colors in the pallette to paint the picture. But hopefully, one day, you'll find out what it's like to put antecedent belief and social pressure aside, and just evaluate the evidence.

Then you'll be able to fulfill one of the most basic and essential requirements of rational dialogue, which is to come to the discussion in good faith and trust that (however mistaken you might believe they are), your interlocutor is sincere in their beliefs.
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(May 21, 2016 at 4:03 pm)robvalue Wrote:
(May 21, 2016 at 3:46 pm)robvalue Wrote: You're serious?

You're serious, aren't you.

You have to be winding us up.

Do you have any idea how real science is done? Do you seriously think a scientific theory is just announced, and people accept it?

I think that would be good enough for you to accept something
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(May 18, 2016 at 1:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Science cannot prove or disprove God.

Then god is an irrelevancy.

That is the crux of the matter. If God does not impact the world in a verifiable way, then God is irrelivant to the world. Or to put more simply, the invisible, silent, smelless, soundless, massless; and the nonexistent are remarkably similar.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(May 21, 2016 at 4:05 pm)Gemini Wrote:
(May 21, 2016 at 3:49 pm)AAA Wrote: Are you just saying that because that's what everyone else says and you think that agreeing with them makes you appear to be more intelligent?

These are the kind of sentiments you project onto someone else when you yourself have never been confronted with evidence contrary to what you want to believe changed your mind as a result of this evidence.

In other words, you can't image what is going on in the head of someone who understands the evidence for evolution as a teleonomic process. You don't have the colors in the pallette to paint the picture. But hopefully, one day, you'll find out what it's like to put antecedent belief and social pressure aside, and just evaluate the evidence.

Then you'll be able to fulfill one of the most basic and essential requirements of rational dialogue, which is to come to the discussion in good faith and trust that (however mistaken you might believe they are), your interlocutor is sincere in their beliefs.
Let's talk about the evidence then and evaluate it. 

A few days ago I read about the cooperative binding of hemoglobin molecules in our red blood cells. The hemoglobin is a tetramer ( a protein with four subunits). Cooperative binding means that when one molecule (of oxygen) binds to a subunit, oxygen will be more likely to bind to one of the other subunits. When oxygen binds to an iron ion on one subunit, it results in a conformational change that pulls an alpha helix change which separates the subunits enough to encourage oxygen to bind to one of the other subunits. This phenomenon allows the hemoglobin to release oxygen molecules efficiently to tissues. If it did not have this mechanism, we could not metabolize enough to support our bodies. Not only that, but CO2 (released from metabolizing tissues) causes the hemoglobin to release oxygen. There are also molecules that regulate this. This is a gross oversimplification of what is going on. 

Now why can't I evaluate this evidence and say that it might have been designed by an intelligence?
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(May 21, 2016 at 4:28 pm)AAA Wrote: Now why can't I evaluate this evidence and say that it might have been designed by an intelligence?

I don't know.

Perhaps due to the very real fact that you have no evidence to support the intelligence to which you refer.

You are making the grave mistake of filling in the gaps.

Oh, it is a very common mistake, fear not.

However, one of your supposed caliber of knowledge should be capable of understanding precisely to what I am referring.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(May 21, 2016 at 4:05 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:
(May 21, 2016 at 4:01 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok, at least the authors of my textbook do. Not to mention the hundreds of times my professors (not ID advocates by any means) use the term design simply because biology clearly reflects intention and precise functioning at every step.

You fucking retarded motherfucking idiot.

Something can be referred to as a design without the obviously obtuse definition of intelligent being carelessly thrown behind it.  

Grow the fuck up already.

PLEASE READ THIS. I have said many times that I know the DON"T think it was intelligently designed. They think it was designed by natural selection. 

please read it again. Please read it a third time. One more time. If you tell me again that I think they believe in ID then you will have convinced me you can't read.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Existence of Marcion questioned? JairCrawford 28 3011 March 4, 2022 at 1:34 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The existence of god Silver 16 3787 May 5, 2018 at 3:42 am
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  There is no argument for the existence of "God" Silver 38 8672 March 15, 2016 at 8:50 am
Last Post: popsthebuilder
  Two ways to prove the existence of God. Also, what I'm looking for. IanHulett 9 3953 July 25, 2015 at 6:37 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  20 Arguments for God's existence? Silver 17 4534 May 9, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Last Post: Brian37
  Telephones Prove God's Existence Mudhammam 9 4578 February 6, 2014 at 6:41 am
Last Post: Mudhammam
  God is god, and we are not god StoryBook 43 13981 January 6, 2014 at 5:47 pm
Last Post: StoryBook
  Debating the existence of Jesus CleanShavenJesus 52 26703 June 26, 2013 at 3:27 pm
Last Post: Bad Writer
  Science explains the existence of God. Greatest I am 1 1635 August 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Last Post: 5thHorseman
  God get's angry, Moses changes God's plans of wrath, God regrets "evil" he planned Mystic 9 7208 February 16, 2012 at 8:17 am
Last Post: Strongbad



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)