Yes, Ma'am
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 25, 2024, 8:59 am
Thread Rating:
My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)
|
Dan Brooks Wrote:I heard that they were doing away with the "from nothing nothing comes" principle. I guess they did then, sorry. (Or is it a mandella effect?) I heard weak apologists made that 'principle' up and then started telling everyone it's a 'scientific principle'. You won't find it anywhere in the scientific method, and it doesn't exist in physics. There's nothing to 'do away with'. I didn't realize that analogies were beyond your comprehension.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
(December 28, 2017 at 9:55 am)Brian37 Wrote:(December 28, 2017 at 9:44 am)Cyberman Wrote: Huge sleight of hand aside: Absolutely true. Remember though that in this scenario nobody saw it happen, as in nobody was around.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(December 28, 2017 at 11:43 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: If your answer is that you just believe in an infinitely powerful god, then what's the point of making any sort of argument. That God could just be fooling us all. It's the ultimate cop out. You can jst use it as an excuse for everything. Why does the world look like it's old and naturally made? God is all powerful and wants it that way. What a cop out. Also builders, watchmakers, whatever did not always exist (in the presentist sense, I mean). Therefore, God did not always exist. So yeah, these analogies fail big time. (December 28, 2017 at 10:33 pm)SaStrike Wrote: It's a fact that no one knows how the universe got here (that's to say it even had a beginning). bold mine I'm not sure it's just/only lazy. I think that for most it fills or helps them with an emotional need. The biggest one that comes to mind is fear.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
RE: My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)
December 30, 2017 at 12:30 am
(This post was last modified: December 30, 2017 at 12:33 am by Dan Brooks.
Edit Reason: misspelling
)
(December 27, 2017 at 9:56 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:Quote:Hume criticizes the argument on two main grounds. First, Hume rejects the analogy between the material universe and any particular human artifact. As Hume states the relevant rule of analogy, "wherever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty" (Hume, Dialogues, Part II). Hume then goes on to argue that the cases are simply too dissimilar to support an inference that they are like effects having like causes: So we are only to assume that a thing had a maker if we have had previous experience in having observed such thing being made? Such as, since we see a house, we know that there was an architect and builder, because there always is one. So then, we are to assume, that if we see things that exist, and have not had the experience of having observed it come into being, that that thing did not have a maker? Do we have to observe a new universe being made in order to be able to evaluate the situation, and therefore determine it if indeed had a maker, and what the nature of that maker is? I agree that it is scientific to make assumptions based on observations. But if the coming into being of universe has not been observed (which it has not been), how can we make any type of postulation as to its origin and call that postulation scientific? There is no observation when it comes to origin, therefore there can be no science. I don't think observation has been taken out of the scientific process yet has it? So if something has to be observed in order to make scientific postulations, then origin cannot be spoken of on a scientific basis. Origin can only spoken of on a basis of conjecture and belief. However, the belief about the origin can and should be based on observation of the things that exist. If a belief states that evolution took place in order for the things that exist today to have come to be the way they are now, then it would make sense that that belief and statement would be based on having observed such things occur. If nothing has ever been observed to have evolved (species to species, not adaptation within kind), then how can it be a scientific statement? It can still be a belief. Anything can be believed. But without observation, how can a belief be said to be scientific? Origin has not been observed, so any statement about it is a belief. Evolution has not been observed, so any statement about it is also a belief. God having created the universe is also a belief, since none of us observed Him doing it. But if anyone were to say that they don't believe God created the universe because no one observed it happen, and therefore there is no evidence for it, how could they also say that evolution is a scientific fact even though no one has observed that either? Now in the biblical account, it is said that God made things to reproduce after their own kind, and that is what we do observe. Evolution requires everything to reproduce after a different kind, which no one has ever observed. So based on the observable evidence, I think it is more reasonable to believe an account that can be readily observed on a daily basis all over the world in every aspect of life, than something that has never been observed by anyone in the history of mankind. But again, either way, it is just a belief. RE: My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)
December 30, 2017 at 12:58 am
(This post was last modified: December 30, 2017 at 1:00 am by Astreja.)
(December 30, 2017 at 12:30 am)Dan Brooks Wrote: Evolution requires everything to reproduce after a different kind, which no one has ever observed... *facepalm* Seriously? Phylogeny of and related genera (compositae–lactuceae) based on analysis of 18S–26S nuclear rDNA ITS and ETS sequences (December 30, 2017 at 12:30 am)Dan Brooks Wrote: So we are only to assume that a thing had a maker if we have had previous experience in having observed such thing being made? Such as, since we see a house, we know that there was an architect and builder, because there always is one. So then, we are to assume, that if we see things that exist, and have not had the experience of having observed it come into being, that that thing did not have a maker? Do we have to observe a new universe being made in order to be able to evaluate the situation, and therefore determine it if indeed had a maker, and what the nature of that maker is? That's a straw man. Neither I nor Hume said or implied any such thing. (December 30, 2017 at 12:30 am)Dan Brooks Wrote: I agree that it is scientific to make assumptions based on observations. But if the coming into being of universe has not been observed (which it has not been), how can we make any type of postulation as to its origin and call that postulation scientific? There is no observation when it comes to origin, therefore there can be no science. I don't think observation has been taken out of the scientific process yet has it? So if something has to be observed in order to make scientific postulations, then origin cannot be spoken of on a scientific basis. Giddyup! Straw horsey! (December 30, 2017 at 12:30 am)Dan Brooks Wrote: Origin can only spoken of on a basis of conjecture and belief. Evolution is based on inferences made from present day observations. Now you're just spinning the typical creationist horseshit about the difference between "observational science" and "historical science." Not to mention that this has fuckall to do with either Hume's points or your original argument. (December 30, 2017 at 12:30 am)Dan Brooks Wrote: God having created the universe is also a belief, since none of us observed Him doing it. But if anyone were to say that they don't believe God created the universe because no one observed it happen, and therefore there is no evidence for it, how could they also say that evolution is a scientific fact even though no one has observed that either? (December 30, 2017 at 12:30 am)Dan Brooks Wrote: Now in the biblical account, it is said that God made things to reproduce after their own kind, and that is what we do observe. Evolution requires everything to reproduce after a different kind, which no one has ever observed. So based on the observable evidence, I think it is more reasonable to believe an account that can be readily observed on a daily basis all over the world in every aspect of life, than something that has never been observed by anyone in the history of mankind. *bzzzt* Wrong answer! |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Any Moral Relativists in the House? | vulcanlogician | 72 | 7352 |
June 21, 2021 at 9:09 am Last Post: vulcanlogician |
|
Most Humans Do NOT Have Completely Frree Will | Rhondazvous | 57 | 7216 |
April 20, 2016 at 6:46 pm Last Post: Whateverist |
|
Why just saying god did it is not a satisfying answer | anonymousyam | 15 | 2966 |
April 3, 2016 at 9:31 pm Last Post: vorlon13 |
|
Why do Children not Have Human Rights? | Koolay | 58 | 15267 |
September 23, 2013 at 9:42 am Last Post: genkaus |
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)