RE: Evidence God Exists
May 6, 2010 at 9:38 am
(This post was last modified: May 6, 2010 at 9:39 am by tavarish.)
(May 6, 2010 at 2:14 am)tackattack Wrote: So ShellB, tav , and Adrian also agree that I've been an asshole hunh with their kudos. I'd like one reference on this forum where I was undeservingly an asshole to anyone on theese forums.
Take it easy - it's the internet and I thought he made a valid point. Calling someone an asshole doesn't warrant an investigation.
(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: The point was to change the subject and I intended to raise more questions than answers.
Which gets us nowhere without evidence. You can speculate til your brain explodes, but it doesn't have any explanatory power unless you back it up with something.
(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: 1. Evolving using the abiogenesis model, we are now ultra complex multi-celled living organisms with enough room in our DNA to record the entire history of mankind, correct?
Abiogenesis isn't an evolutionary model, and our DNA doesn't hold that much information. Most of it is junk.
(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: We were a collection of inanimate matter, correct?
I don't know, and I don't claim to.
(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: Through selection, random coincidence or some form of guiding hand we got to where we are now and will continue on as long as we can, as a species. Life expectancies increase, birth rate rise, but there is finite room.
Finite room for what? Are we at risk of running out of something?
(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: Form is limiting, if selection plays any part in evolution wouldn't to not be limited? I would.
I don't understand this question. Run it by me again.
(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: 2. True, survival may become dependant on simplicity, but 1 mass of immaterial collective consciousness would be more simple then 1 trillion individual complex organisms trying to eek out a niche of the enviornment.
Why would they necessarily be less complex? Do you know the attributes of the disembodied consciousnesses to make such a claim? Are there any now that you can use as a reference?
(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: As far as giant penises, I'm willing to entertain any possibilities, just one at a time.
That's what she said.
(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: 3. No I'm stating a hypothesis based on a far fetched assumption for the purpose of getting everone out of the ruts they're obviously entrenched in.
I'll speak for myself, I am in no such rut, I'm actually quite happy, but I'd rather not play a pointless game of "what if", as it has zero explanatory value and I'd rather not waste my time.
(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: 4.I've never said whether God evolved or not. If I had to hazzard a wild guess I'd say that he did evolve, as we were created in his image and we evolved, but all that is well outside the known universe.
Evolving means being a product of reproduction and change over time. I really don't know how you can apply changes to a God who is supposedly perfect in the first place. It doesn't make any sense.
(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: No, closed-minded is someone who mistakingly rails some one else because they're so far in their trench they lump anyone who labels themselves Christian in one collective group. What's more closed minded is the atheist that kudos that.
I actually try pretty hard to address everyone's arguments for what they're worth, and not judge them based on what the authors believe. Godschild basically asserted that any evidence contrary to his belief will send him further into that belief. That is purely asinine - it's lemming behavior. We need to learn to approach our deepest held beliefs with the same scrutiny as everything else. If something doesn't make sense, don't rationalize, there's a good chance it just truly doesn't make sense.