(04-23-2009 04:52 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(04-23-2009 04:26 PM)Tmacgocats Wrote:  We all use the same evidence to either prove there is a God or there isn't. We just come to different conclusions.

There is no evidence to prove god is there or isn't there.

Obviously you can’t prove one way or the other…. however, i would take the human eye for example. The eye is so intricately made that I would look at it and say, “only a designer could create this”, but you might look at this and say “this was made from a random act of occurrences”.

(04-23-2009 08:15 PM)Tmacgocats Wrote:  

(04-23-2009 04:52 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(04-23-2009 04:26 PM)Tmacgocats Wrote:  We all use the same evidence to either prove there is a God or there isn't. We just come to different conclusions.

There is no evidence to prove god is there or isn't there.

Obviously you can’t prove one way or the other…. however, i would take the human eye for example. The eye is so intricately made that I would look at it and say, “only a designer could create this”, but you might look at this and say “this was made from a random act of occurrences”.

The human eye, while very complex isn't even the best design. If it was the result of a creator, he did a piss poor job. Blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it which allows for them to easily be damaged which will distort vision. Evolution biologists believe it is very possible that the eye has evolved from a light sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral being. Proteins in the human eye have been linked to light sensitive spots on invertabrates.

I think those fools should protest at my funeral when it's arranged. I could use the final laugh.

(04-23-2009 08:42 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(04-23-2009 08:15 PM)Tmacgocats Wrote:  

(04-23-2009 04:52 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(04-23-2009 04:26 PM)Tmacgocats Wrote:  We all use the same evidence to either prove there is a God or there isn't. We just come to different conclusions.

There is no evidence to prove god is there or isn't there.

Obviously you can’t prove one way or the other…. however, i would take the human eye for example. The eye is so intricately made that I would look at it and say, “only a designer could create this”, but you might look at this and say “this was made from a random act of occurrences”.

The human eye, while very complex isn't even the best design. If it was the result of a creator, he did a piss poor job. Blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it which allows for them to easily be damaged which will distort vision. Evolution biologists believe it is very possible that the eye has evolved from a light sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral being. Proteins in the human eye have been linked to light sensitive spots on invertabrates.

Sorry i didn't mean to say it was the best design, basically i was mentioning the complexity to show how ridiculous i personally think it sounds to believe in a random creation. Thats my opinion, and each of us is entitled to his or hers.

IMO, it takes more faith to be an atheist then it does to believe in God.

Folks, ladies and gentlemen, the more you protest, the more rejoinders subflea will have. Particularly you converrl. Please let a sleeping dog lie. Then, perhaps, the dog will quit scratching fleas.

(04-23-2009 10:56 PM)Tmacgocats Wrote:  Sorry i didn't mean to say it was the best design, basically i was mentioning the complexity to show how ridiculous i personally think it sounds to believe in a random creation. Thats my opinion, and each of us is entitled to his or hers.

It isn't random creation. It is hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection to get to the human eye in the state it is now.

Quote:IMO, it takes more faith to be an atheist then it does to believe in God.

You may think that, but I have to disagree. You believe in the existence of something you have no evidence of. Sorry, but that takes far more faith than dismissing something because of an abscence of evidence.

(04-23-2009 04:51 PM)subflea Wrote:  You can't disprove the nonexistence of something. That is why the burden is on the person who says something does exist. The list of things that can not be proven is endless. I can't prove unicorns don't exist, I can't prove leprechauns don't exist, etc. If someone wants to claaim those things do exist, the burden of proof is on them. Until they can provide the evidence for the existence of those things, the people claiming they do not exist do not have to do anything, the lack of evidence for their existence is enough.

Again...I'm speaking from the standpoint of SCIENCE. As far as science is concerned--the conclusion in the face of no evidence or data in either direction is:

WE HAVE NO ANSWER.

Philosophy (which is really what you are arguing here) is a completely different animal. Philosophy is NOT SCIENCE. Philosophy is open to interpretation and argument, as well as opinion.

But as far as science is concerned...the discussion ends at "we have no answer". As a result, the scientific debate over the existence of God is a closed loop, and not subject to scientific investigation. It lies outside the realm of science entirely.

Philosophy, Law, and Religion--have grounds upon which to continue the debate. Those are fertile realms where the believer and the atheist can continue to argue.

NOT SCIENCE!

NOT EVER!

End of story....

this conversation reminded me of this:

The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

(04-24-2009 01:18 AM)subflea Wrote:  It isn't random creation. It is hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection to get to the human eye in the state it is now.

Well i know evolutionist think back more then hundreds of thousands of years. I was speaking more from the beginning of time. I was saying it takes more faith to believe spontaneous generation billions of years ago, then it does to believe a creator created something.

Evolutionist believe that we came from a combination of non-living material that ended up creating something living. Life can not come from anything that is not alive. This is the faith that i'm talking about.

And then evolutionist point to time. "over billions of years this happened and ......." but no matter how much time of space you put the evolutionary theory in, there will still be holes because unliving things can't create living things. No matter how much time is given.

So some say we evolved from a single cell organism....so who created this?

And we haven't even discussed thermodynamics yet...

Tmac, you're hitting on questions no one can answer with confidence: who created the creator?

Just to be straight. Bio-genesis is not a part of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory tries to describe what happened afterward. Related, but the two are seperate. How exactly life started on Earth will probably never be known exactly, and while we can choose the most probable theory, we'll never truly know.

For all we know perhaps Rael has it right, and we're all just the product of alien manipulation.

Like Fanatical already said, you are confusing abiogenesis and evolution. By saying that living things can not come from nonliving things in no way shoots down evolution.
Now, as far as living things coming from nonliving things, there is evidence that it could in fact happen.

Here are a couple of videos that explain how it could happen:

Q: Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac?

A: He stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog.

http://www.jokes.com/funny/religion/dysl...-insomniac

(04-23-2009 07:43 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(04-22-2009 10:20 PM)subflea Wrote:  BTW, this thread was not my attempt to start a long religious debate or piss anyone off.

Of course it was - Who are you kidding? You are easily the biggest zealot on the board when it comes to announcing and promoting your beliefs on religion. I don't think anyone else even comes close.

(04-23-2009 08:09 PM)subflea Wrote:  No, it really wasn't. It was an interesting story that I found that I thought some people would be interested in reading. It comes from somepleace that most here wouldn't happen to come upon. I didn't make any comments on it other than what was in it.

Sorry but your history tells a different story despite your chatter-style "who, me?" denial. I'm not saying all your religious postings are inflammatory - some are merely the atheist internet equivalent of knocking on strangers' doors to see if they've been saved. Either way, your zealotry makes your agenda transparent and obvious.

Somehow, remarkably, I've never seen you post an "interesting story" like the following that you "thought some people would be interesting in reading". I offer it without comment

Quote:Liberal Student Infiltrates Liberty University to Write Exposé and Discovers Intolerance...From the Left
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
April 22, 2009 - 22:15 ET

This is just too funny! A liberal Ivy League student decides to enroll at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Virgina and write a book exposé (The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University) supposedly showing the intolerance that must be there, or so he thought. The liberal student, however, was surprised to find little of the expected intolerance but is now finding plenty of it from the left because his book was not an outright condemnation of Liberty University nor of Jerry Falwell whom he met during his semester there. An AP story by Eric Tucker sets the scene:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Kevin Roose managed to blend in during his single semester at Liberty University, attending lectures on the myth of evolution and the sin of homosexuality, and joining fellow students on a mission trip to evangelize partyers on spring break.

Roose had transferred to the Virginia campus from Brown University in Providence, a famously liberal member of the Ivy League. His Liberty classmates knew about the switch, but he kept something more important hidden: He planned to write a book about his experience at the school founded by fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell.

Roose explains the reason for his infiltration:

"As a responsible American citizen, I couldn't just ignore the fact that there are a lot of Christian college students out there," said Roose, 21, now a Brown senior. "If I wanted my education to be well-rounded, I had to branch out and include these people that I just really had no exposure to."

We have to give Roose credit here. Unlike most liberals, he actually opened himself up to contrary ideas. Something his parents found hard to understand:

Roose's parents, liberal Quakers who once worked for Ralph Nader, were nervous about their son being exposed to Falwell's views. Still, Roose transferred to Liberty for the spring 2007 semester.

He was determined to not mock the school, thinking it would be too easy _ and unfair. He aimed to immerse himself in the culture, examine what conservative Christians believe and see if he could find some common ground. He had less weighty questions too: How did they spend Friday nights? Did they use Facebook? Did they go on dates? Did they watch "Gossip Girl?"

Did they Twitter? Did they use electricity? Did they eat with utensils?

He lined up a publisher _ Grand Central Publishing _ and arrived at the Lynchburg campus prepared for "hostile ideologues who spent all their time plotting abortion clinic protests and sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls."

Instead, he found that "not only are they not that, but they're rigorously normal."

GASP! But how can that be? Haven't all good liberals been taught that Liberty University students are a bunch of ignorant hateful yahoos foaming at the mouth? Kevin Roose appeared to have strayed dangerously from the Party Line.

He met students who use Bible class to score dates, apply to top law schools and fret about their futures, and who enjoy gossip, hip-hop and R-rated movies _ albeit in a locked dorm room.

Stop! You're making the LU students sound too normal!

A roommate he depicts as aggressively anti-gay _ all names are changed in the book _ is an outcast on the hall, not a role model.

But...but where's all the hate?

Roose researched the school by joining as many activites as possible. He accompanied classmates on a spring break missionary trip to Daytona Beach. He visited a campus support group for chronic masturbators, where students were taught to curb impure thoughts. And he joined the choir at Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Roose scored an interview with the preacher for the school newspaper, right before Falwell died in May of that year. Roose decided against confronting him over his views on liberals, gays and other hot-button topics, and instead learned about the man himself, discovering among other things that the pastor loved diet peach Snapple and the TV show "24."

You mean Falwell wasn't consumed with hate 24/7 as all good liberals "know" as absolute fact?

And now something that will really disturb the "tolerant" liberals:

Once ambivalent about faith, Roose now prays to God regularly _ for his own well-being and on behalf of others. He said he owns several translations of the Bible and has recently been rereading meditations from the letters of John on using love and compassion to solve cultural conflicts.

He's even considering joining a church.

This latter must be very upsetting to liberals including his own parents. Sonny Boy! Where did we go wrong? To see just how upset the liberals are over this book, just read a few examples of intolerace in the Huffington Post comments section:

Wow, that must be a pretty good brainwashing program they've got there. That or this guy is weak sauce. You wouldn't catch me praying to some magic sky daddy if I spent a THOUSAND years at Liberty "University."

He should have gone to a deprogrammer to complete the experience.

I wish he'd done an MRI before and after. It appears he's been brainwashed. Long periods of time with cults will do that.

I'm a little worried about Kevin's soul now that he's been programmed. He seems strong and intelligent though, so there's still hope for him. I'll be praying for his salvation from the radical right.

I hope he's been debriefed and re-socialized into the real world. Never visit the darkside.

So it turns out that Kevin Roose did discover intolerance due to spending a semester at Liberty University and, as we can see from these comments, it is now coming from the left.

Welcome to the Brave New World of ironic reality, Kevin.

(04-23-2009 01:28 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  In science the burden of proof would not be on sub to disprove there is a God, but on someone else to offer evidence. As far as science goes an athiest view is perfectly reasonable. Yea no one can say defininitively there is no God, but an atheist is perfect reasonable in believing that based on a lack of evidence

In a sense I agree with you.

The view that there is a lack of evidence of God is 100% reasonable. However the mere fact that things DO EXIST would lend a reasonable person to question the source of this fact. Given that the source of those things can't be proven, the only two rational viewpoints (in my opinion) are these:
1. A person believes the universe was created by some "thing" or being (God)."
2. A person believes there is no way to determine who created the universe, if any"thing" did in fact do it. (agnosticism).

To me atheism is in many ways irrational and unreasonable because it makes definitive assertions on the unknowable. Which is ironically, the same central criticism that atheists have of deists.




Truthfully

Ok well evolution is based on the mutation of living things and these living things either survive or die off because of their certain mutation. But this has never been proven, and much of the time this actually works backwords. Where in the mutation is actually a step back in the wrong direction.

The law of thermodynamics is also directly involved with evolution. But evolutionist say that each creature is progressing toward a more dynamic species. However, nature suggest that it would rather have disorder compared the random ordering of things.

(04-24-2009 05:15 PM)Tmacgocats Wrote:  Ok well evolution is based on the mutation of living things and these living things either survive or die off because of their certain mutation. But this has never been proven, and much of the time this actually works backwords. Where in the mutation is actually a step back in the wrong direction.

Most mutations are actually neutral. Mutations that are beneficial survive where as mutations that are harmful die off. When you look only at surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Quote:The law of thermodynamics is also directly involved with evolution. But evolutionist say that each creature is progressing toward a more dynamic species. However, nature suggest that it would rather have disorder compared the random ordering of things.

This is an old and tired argument of creationists. The second law of thermodynamics states that, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." The confusion comes in when it is stated that, ""The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." The problem though is that the Earth is not a closed system. There is this big thing that constantly supplies energy to the Earth. You may have heard of it, it is called the sun. Since the sun is constantly putting energy into the Earth, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to evolution.

(04-24-2009 03:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Somehow, remarkably, I've never seen you post an "interesting story" like the following that you "thought some people would be interesting in reading". I offer it without comment

It is an interesting article. I read another one about that guy in some magazine while I was on the crapper a few weeks ago and had planned on buying his book after I finish a couple I am reading now.

If you are interested here is an interview he did for the Friendly Atheist blog.

http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/03/23/in...-disciple/

(04-24-2009 03:46 PM)Eastside_J Wrote:  

(04-23-2009 01:28 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  In science the burden of proof would not be on sub to disprove there is a God, but on someone else to offer evidence. As far as science goes an athiest view is perfectly reasonable. Yea no one can say defininitively there is no God, but an atheist is perfect reasonable in believing that based on a lack of evidence

In a sense I agree with you.

The view that there is a lack of evidence of God is 100% reasonable. However the mere fact that things DO EXIST would lend a reasonable person to question the source of this fact. Given that the source of those things can't be proven, the only two rational viewpoints (in my opinion) are these:
1. A person believes the universe was created by some "thing" or being (God)."
2. A person believes there is no way to determine who created the universe, if any"thing" did in fact do it. (agnosticism).

To me atheism is in many ways irrational and unreasonable because it makes definitive assertions on the unknowable. Which is ironically, the same central criticism that atheists have of deists.




Truthfully

For the most part I agree with you. I have always defined myself as an agnostic, precisely because I only have the means to comment on the physical, testable world. The problem with religion from a scientific perspective is that it is not falsifiable. There is no test you can do to prove it false... This is exactly like the Invisible floating Dragon scenario that fanatical posted from the Sagan article. In the absence of evidence in general, and its lack of falsifiability I think believing there is no God is just as appropriate as believing there is no invisible floating dragon in the garage. I don't think an atheist would tell you that there is absolutely no chance there is a God, because they know they cannot make that statement and that statement is unreasonable. I do think they would say there is no reason to believe there is one...hence their atheism.