RE: Evidence God Exists
May 5, 2010 at 9:32 am
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2010 at 9:48 am by tavarish.)
(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: Now if the human race has the possibility to evolve into transcendant beings, given enough time in existence, wouldn't that possibility have to happen at least once along the timeline of existence? Would that transcented human seem omni-max to our persective today? If it existed outside time and could affect reality would it not attempt to further itself by the process of creation, even if merely from instinct?
You're presenting way more questions than answers.
1. We don't know if humans morphing into 'transcendent' beings or whatever you call it, is even possible. There's no reason to think it is.
2. Evolution isn't a ladder. There is also a possibility that nature can prefer a less complex organism, rather than a more complex one. There's also a possibility that we'll all evolve into walking penises. Why don't we account for that?
3. You're asking a hypothetical question based on another hypothetical question. Stop arguing from personal incredulity. We don't know what our perspective would be - it's never happened.
4. You're equating God to something that evolved, which necessarily means he isn't eternal, as evolution has to do with reproduction, natural selection, and death.
(May 4, 2010 at 7:30 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Oh come on, Paul. Do I have to put you in tavarish's intellectually-challenged category? I had a little bit of respect for you, but that's quickly waning.
High horse. Get off it.
(May 4, 2010 at 7:30 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: When did I admit that my evidence is not evidence? I was challenging tavarish's claim that "answering a question is providing evidence for your case." The point is that those are two different things.
Do we need hints of context?
Answering questions regarding your claims specifically require evidence for those claims, not a rehash of your arguments.
Do you understand now?
(May 4, 2010 at 7:30 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Aren't you smart enough to understand that what I answered was not an admission that my evidence is not evidence, but a rebuttal to make a distinction between answering a question and providing evidence?
Aren't you smart enough to know that claims require evidence, and illogical assumptions are not evidence?
(May 4, 2010 at 7:30 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Let's define who Us is: die-hard atheists on an atheists forum. In the real world, my evidence would at least be considered rather than dismissed from the get-go.
In the real world? Do you mean among people that don't question much and know the difference between emotional appeal and skeptical inquiry? This is the real world - your nutty assertions have been ripped apart. Thanks for playing.
Oh, thanks for throwing yet another logical fallacy in there as well. "Die-hard atheists". LOL.
(May 4, 2010 at 7:30 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Now explain to me why I should change my mind just because a few atheists on an atheists forum say that my evidence is not evidence, when the discussion would go differently in the real world?
1. Explain how this isn't the real world.
2. You don't need to change your mind. Just stop pretending everyone else "doesn't get it" and act high and mighty because your arguments couldn't stand up to logic. You failed. Don't drag it out and pretend it didn't happen - it makes you look foolish.
(May 4, 2010 at 7:30 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Give me something new and fresh so that I can address it.
We've been at it for 70 pages. We've addressed everything in your argument tenfold. Do YOU have anything to contribute?