I like debates, but one thing that I recognize about them is that you cannot state that someone "destroyed" the opposing side, if you don't hear a rebuttal.
You can't PROVE that you can't fly! You can observe the lack of evidence to support the claim that you can fly - most would consider that enough 'proof' for a working model.
You can't prove that god doesn't exist. You can observe the lack of evidence to support the claim that god exists - most would consider that 'proof' enough for a working model.
Only theists insist that atheists prove the unprovable, while freeing themselves from any such burden other than they 'feel' it to be so.
@PerdiePerduta who created the thing that created the univers? Saying that the universe must've been created by something only sidesteps the question and begs another question: Who created god. And so on and so forth.
There are an infinite number of nothings wherever you look, so even if the chance was pne in a googillion of them going cosmogenic we would still expect to see an infinite number of universes materializing everywhere.
There is a lack of evidence for universes popping up out of nothing, so that just leaves the prime motivator theory. It is unlikely said motivator is a material entity that would itself need to be created.
So the proof that God exists is built on the ignorance on how the universe came to existence.
What if we discover a mechanism that can explain the very existence of the Universe?
Try to read a bit around Casimir effect and Vacuum energy. Vacuum is unstable. This is the starting point from which we can explain the existence of the Universe out of nothing.
What would it take for you to agree that God is just a convenient human construct providing the illusion of answers instead of real answers?
@"What would it take for you to agree that God is just a convenient human construct providing the illusion of answers instead of real answers?"
What would convince me is if the universe was totally devoid of life and completely unable to create anything that could ever appreciate it's existience.
Assuming you mean we find the exact laws of nature that explain how our universe came into existence and how all those laws of nature came to be the way they are?
In that case I would say that science has identified God. I made a youtube recently
that might explain why I would not have to change my mind regardless what they find.
Note: This is my real account, the others are to avoid bots that keep flagging me for spam.
@"What if we discover a mechanism that can explain the very existence of the Universe?" Then I would say that the mechanism is evidently of divine origin and that you are get closer discovering God.
Anyway I can't see the point you asking questions if the intelligent answers are going to all be censored as "spam" by narrow minded atheist internet thugs.
Perdie,the jokes on me,I have been watching to many of these religious debate videos,and I taught that he was defending religion,LOL.Also,maby my post did not clearly indicate where I stand concerning religion.I am an atheist in every sense of the word.I was born and brought up a catholic untill I was 12 years old and started thinking for myself.In every video that I have watched, the atheist clearly present their views logicly and the believers talk in circles and make no sense at all.
I listened to garbage as long as I could untill he started talking about the holocaust,and then I wanted to vomit.If anyone need proof that believers are totally delusional,mindless ,braindead,zombies,all they need to do is listen to this video.I will not continue to watch it to the end because I find it so offensive to everything that would be considered humaine.god allowed the natzies to kill millions so they could sin.Insane to the core.This shows everything that is wrong with religion.
@MsPerduta "The mistake that Sam makes (like most atheists) is to assume that a God would be ready willing and able to violate his/her/its own laws of nature."
The existence of a god is in and of itself a violation of physical laws.
@MsPerduta "Have you considered that God might be made of laws of physics and so God exists too."
Who would make such a leap? When has anything resembling a god ever been observed? What even is a god? You need a working definition for a god before you can posit a hypothesis.
@MsPerduta "definition: God := that which created the universe"
How is that a working definition? How is it even a passive definition? Created how? By what mechanism? What created god? Is it sentient? Where is it? Is there only one? Are there a race of them? What evidence is there for any of this? Considering the eons of fertile human imagination and all the deities that have come and gone, I don't see how one god can be picked out as special. Myth-making is standard procedure for humans.
There is plenty evidence for consistent and immutable laws of physics that have resulted in a universe with particles that make a range of elements that allow organic chemistry from which life emerged to evolve sentient intelligent self aware beings.
@MsPerduta Is your God intelligent? Does it have a purpose? If the answer is yes, how do you know this. If your answer is no, than why call it a God. This is an actual question I am trying to deal with. This is not a 'troll' question!
Where is the evidence for 'creation'? Where are any logical arguments for 'creation'?
Why do you assume the universe was 'created' (i.e. implying a 'creator'?) Why do you assume this 'creator' is God, and is this God defined as anything else besides 'that which created the universe' (i.e. such as being the Abrahamic God)?
The laws of physics (which is more accurately called the theories of physics) do not 'create' anything. They are merely a description, from our current understanding, of how certain things work, inside of the universe. We do not know if these laws extend beyond the universe (such as applying to the universe as a whole), or to the 'micro-world', such as the quantum world and perhaps smaller.
What are you talking about? I don't have any bots, and I have never labeled ANY comment as 'spam', even the ones that deserve to be labeled as such. I didn't even receive a message of any of your 'honest and intelligent answers' to my questions.
I provided valid counter-arguments which you have failed to address.
I suggest you start taking a moment to think about your hasty generalizations and how easily you jump to conclusions.
If you click on "see all" you should see that MsPerduta posted a reply to each of your questions. They were immediately flagged as spam by an automated process. This would explain why you did not get a notification.
I suggest you stop calling people "false" when it is your atheists fraternity who abuses science and technology in this way.
BTW Laws of physics are not a "description" they existed long before anyone was around to discover them.
As an undergrad in Physics, I must say the laws of physics are indeed a description (a description based off of our current understanding) of how a particular feature of the world works.
This description has existed long before anyone discovered them, yes, but nonetheless, they are still a DESCRIPTION of how things work. Looking into the definitions of these laws makes this clear.
@PerdiePerduta I'll take it you're agnostic which means you're open to debate the fact of entropy vs. ID. You raise questions a creationist can't and I like that and am open to an actual discussion if you're willing. Your argument however is a fallacious argument as far as I can see. We can prove things like E=Mc2 and evolution and other ways the universe functions naturally in the boundaries of our perception, why does there have to be a higher function behind it?
And of course, your hasty prejudgement was immediately to blame me for the flagging. How mature and logical.
Also, where did I call anyone 'false'? I was merely mentioning that it seemed as though MsPerduta was using the fallacy of a false compromise. (look it up if you don't know what that is).
And also, maybe you should start examining YouTube and see this happens to EVERYONE. To try and play the victim card and make it seem as though the atheists are the one who do this more often is simply pathetic. It's time for you to face reality and see the truth. Go see how this same science and technology is being used against atheists as well, and even more often then it is against Christians (even when you factor in the ratio of Christian:atheists)
However, if you would like to continue playing the victim card and continue down-playing the use of bots against atheists by theists, instead of addressing my arguments, feel free to. I would prefer if you left me alone since all you seem to do is blame your problems on atheists.
@MichaelsPortraits I know that I don`t know anything...that`s the only thing that I do know, so....What`s happening brother? I was talking with some hominids on another page yesterday...but they`re so quiet today that you could hear a mouse pissing on cotton.
Bottom line , everything is based in faith , including atheism , especially atheism ..lol... Nobody knows a fucking thing , and as far as that junk you call Science , please give me a fucking break , They change their story every five years , Stephen Hawking will confidentally tell you how the universe was created yet He can't wipe his own ass ! I guess his little disease has a few complexities he can't figure out! If you think you know anything , do me a favor and shut your fucking mouth !
@writersblock26 The faith required to embrace atheism is the belief that it all materialized from the void, from nothingness, We all need to go our own way on these issues of course but Life is so amazing isnt it! Cray sequencing computers have estimated There is enough genetic code in a droplet of blood that would fit on the head of a needle to fill every book in the NY public library five times over ..That is fucking astounding! ,and why I have chosen to believe in a creator ! Just my opinion!
@MichaelsPortraits How exactly does one choose to believe something? Either you believe or you don't, its not a choice. Can you choose to believe that 2+2=5?
@MichaelsPortraits Hawking does not need to wipe his own ass because he can wipe the floor with most of fellow primates (myself included), simply by the use of his intellect. Atheism, at least in the strict sense, is the lack of belief in a personal God. If you want to call that lack of belief faith, then you are free to do so, but I am not sure in what way your definition of faith is meaningful.
i hate seeing these headlines of sam harris destroys theistic arguments, when clearly he does not. he rambles nonsense that he thinks is true. sad sam harris.
@zachariahm10 lol, funny when deluded crackheads don't understand something so they say it's not intelligent
no, YOU are retarded, YOU're sad, YOU're rambling with nonsense, YOU need to realize fairy tales are manmade, stop trying so hard to stop yourself realizing that the people you want to see again in heaven are simply dead, nothing more.
nothing is ever going to make your life mean anything realistically unless you make it mean somethign yourself
@scratchbang Attacking a person rather than their argument does nothing for your own. In regards to Harris' first argument, the conclusion drawn from what he said is that theists and atheists are at a stalemate. He said theists cannot prove the existence of God, and atheists cannot disprove God's existence. This neither aids nor harms either side of the argument. Now... if I extrapolate upon what you have said, based on conclusions drawn from Harris, atheism=excuseforbeingretarded
faith? there is no discipline in obtaining faith, you just take it without question. everything we actually know,comes from tangible evidence. there is more proof of big foot than that of a creator
Let’s work to eradicate all religion. Conversely, begin a relationship with Jesus Christ today. You need to repent. Yes, you. Moreover, you should ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
outlaw87100 I am not so temerous as to assert that God is a hypothesis, a postulate to argue from, a theory backed by quid for a pro quo agenda; "Publish or die" has probably killed as many scientists as any polemic, or revolution -for the exception that the logical extrapolations of each divergence bring us to the chicken, snake and their eggs: Are you willing to kill, live, or die for what you believe in? If so, great! Choose an egg! (If God is not real, you still have to choose an egg.)
@rep300 Well if you bothered to read the thread, I already stated to the effect (like C.S.Lewis) that man is inveterately "RELIGIOUS", I think that the assertion of atheism is wanting for candor, because you will see things go full swing almost every generation, and woe if they don't: I am not saying one extreme is any better than the other, but there is a God, and in Christ there is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, but neither win the unconvincible...read your own posts! Which is it?
@outlaw87100 "The independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth". - Einstein 1944
think about this...EVEN in the Bible...after Jesus was "ressurected" they didnt recognize him at first because he was in his "new heavenly body"...perhaps this was an imposter since they are basically saying the body wasnt in the tomb...but that Jesus now looked different
@akajefe That is exactly my point: For want of God, atheists deify man, and nowhere is this worse than in [postmodern] countries. No. Korea is an example of the deification of Kim Jong Il, and in recent mention Sweden had one of the highest suicide rates in the world. The former cites the externalization of humanism, and the former the internalisation of its' failure. Even Wikipedia says communism is reputed as the cause of the highest rate in world history. That is the portent of atheist view.
@kpharris32 Stop with the dimestore philosophy dude. Also, I would like to point out that civil atheists do not "deify" man. I am an atheist, and I have NO impulse to do so. ANother thing, how can you even make the statement, "primordial soup means they lacked a credible fill in God"... Why does a God even have to be the answer? God is a hypothesis, nothing more. There is NO evidence of his existence. Not a single shred.
@outlaw87100 What I am saying is that "religion" is a matter of priority, not sentiment. (maybe in the ideal? OK...) I hate religion as much as the next: but I know the Bible, and the righteous requirement of God, [--is upon JESUS, not me.] and I would not stake a philisophical "dime" on a hypothesis; (the nicest thing I've ever heard from an atheist in concern to God ever, from an atheist. I feel smarter that my God is relegated to a "hypothesis", and then what of that science?
@kpharris32 To think that North Korea is an "atheist" country is completely ridiculous. It is as dogmatic and thiestic as any. They have literally constructed a state religion, using their leader as a god. It's the complete opposite of atheist. Those people believe that he wrote 1500 books, and invented EVERYTHING? That's as crazy and misinformed as you can get. It's a forced cult, created by restricting real information.
The technological aspect of religion is a religion that is religionless, and the atheists have a point on that; but not a monoply: One can CERTAINLY hold to truth without being dogmatic, boring, illogical, disagreeable. What true religion is, perhaps the impulse to better that science supplied a venue: but make no mistake. Bad religion IS bad science and vice versa. Why? Good light makes for good sight, but if one have a compromised worldview, knowing and seeing are STILL two different things!
Argument: God works in mysterious ways and does only good things, and we humans will never be able to understand god.
Rebuttle: All religions interpret their scripture and cherry-pick to suit the occasion.
Conclusion: Religion practiced is a contradiction in itself! If god is mysterious and not understandable, then the scripture should be taken litterally.
Consequence: Religion has no moral or logical credibility and is completely unintelligent.
Is "salvation" a tenet of atheism, or is the point obviated; and rather that the CONCEPT of salvation is trumped by the fact that Jesus is STILL the central figure of HISTORY, always will be. Faith is conviction that evidence is indeed proof; it is the imputation of validity to it's object, not the object itself...futher it is existential illogicism that "science" can prove non-existance of anything. And laziness to ignore the fact that Atheism is zero sum. At least the Bible has prophecy. HOPE.
@kpharris32 Well, I HOPE people will get out of the bronze-age mentality that religion preeches and embrace the fact that science has done far more for humanity than religion has.
@Toyomo16 The crowning technological scientific achievements by the numbers: nuclear bombs in the kilotons; fossil-fueled autos in the millions, and a military-industrial complex worth trillions; while North Korea under the same worldview sits in the dark for over thirty years starving to death. Try that elsewhere.
@kpharris32 Sooooo....you are saying that a country that has a dead man as its leader, and is worshiped as a god, is a secular state. Are you sure that you want to use North Korea as your example? It seems to me that you have it backwards. Is there any particular reason that you did not choose Sweden, or Denmark as an example?
Whenever I feel like doing some deep thinking I look up Sam Harris videos so he can do the thinking for me. And then I congratulate myself for feeling wise.
Can you prove that my cell phone doesn't keep Extra Terrestrials from Earth? I don't see any ET's around, do you?... Why is my argument bullshit and why "Can you prove god doesn't exist? is not?
It is just specious reasoning concocted by morons in an attempt to persuade other *bigger* morons to follow them.
SADLY WHILE THESE PEOPLE ARE GENUINELY AND WHOLLY DELUDED :
UNSCRUPULOUS HEATHENS CAN GATHER UP THE RELIGIOUSLY DELUDED AND USE THEM FOR MANY ILLICIT PURPOSES. IE. POLITICAL , FINANCIAL OR JUST TO GARNER AN INCOME FROM THEM AND LIVE IN THE LAP // REMOVE THE SCALES FROM YOUR EYES PEOPLE AND SEE YOU’VE BEEN DUPED.
ANY POLITICAL HACK CAN ESPOUSE ANY CATECHISM DOCTRINE AND BE VOTED INTO OFFICE WITH NO OTHER PLATFORM WHATSOEVER.
All the likes, and the very few dislikes, that I see on all the Sam Harris vids, give me a great deal of hope that we will soon eradicate bronze ages myths and send the bible and quran to their rightful place.........Mythology 101.
@rep300 I can't help but to tell you that I was taught Greek Mythology in grade school as "mythology", (But that taught as such, it was hard to escape the notice that some teachers ascribe to the chaotic and dysfunctional as a worldview) and you will never be rid of the Scripture, even with your bonfires.
I'm a christian, and i like to watch this stuff. No second intentions here, the dude doesn't really dent what i believe in, but it's pretty interesting nonetheless.
I'm still waiting for Harris to destroy Theistic arguments...was this uploaded by accident? Maybe there's something else? He's not destroying anything in this clip..just asking..
Well, yes. He just showed that religion observe facts through an assumption -- the existence of a deity -- to then claim, having begged the question, that God exists. He also exposed what faith was: it's a suspension of reason that is neither justified, nor desirable and applied without regard to the consequences just because, suddenly, the person feels closer to this or that idea.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:He just showed that religion observe facts through an assumption -- the existence of a deity -- to then claim, having begged the question, that God exists."
Wouldn't it be the case that atheists also observe facts through an assumption (Naturalism /Materialism is the best explanation for interpreting the "facts") and then having begged the question, conclude God does not exist?
No, it's not begging the question because supposing the primacy of matter over ideas is first not a necessity to begin with (Kant was an idealist and he stresses the need for external reference through sensory experience) and, secondly, even the primacy of matter doesn't imply alone anything about the conclusion of whether God exists or not.
You have to understand the manner in which logical fallacies operate before telling people that their ideas are fallacious, you know.
What it requires, it is indeed a practical assumption, is a reference to a factual, an empirical, basis to which you apply logic or even straightforwardly a theory to test it and discover, by contingency, what kind of things you can say given those facts and what you can't say.
But, as noted above, it's a practical assumption. I can't tell you it's illogical to believe in God, but I can tell you it's inconsistent with science or even using science, both are incompatible.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:I can't tell you it's illogical to believe in God, but I can tell you it's inconsistent with science or even using science, both are incompatible."
what best explains the study of science itself though? Science is based on philosophical pre-conditions that are not scientific and cannot be proven via any experiment.
How is God inconsistent with science? be specific please.
I just explained you all of that. Science is merely the recognition that Pure Reason, as criticized by Kant, can only work through non contradiction, but in itself provides no basis upon which to judge -- you require an input to judge.
Science is used and justified by a practical assumption which is simple: matter exists.
You didn't read a word of what I just said... If you employ facts to make a judgement, all you're doing is discriminating conclusions by contingency.
In other words, facts are like a system of equations and inequations... you put them together and you have a series of constraints to meet. Any answer that fit them all is said to be factually consistent and that's what science does.
Before going further, I said that faith was inconsistent with science -- it's inconsistent to believe in a further supposition if you, in other places, bother not to resort to such things: facts and logic must compel your judgement every time.
As for God, I said that Science declares that we cannot say God exists. In other words, it means that no set of facts so far observe put a series of constraints into our model to force us to say that God exists.
If you want the simple answer, it's that we cannot prove it, so we take for granted it's false until it is shown to be otherwise. But we have a good reason to take it for granted that it's false: the framework requires facts to back up statements.
The reason you can't allow faith in that model is that at the moment you revert to anything else than facts, you're essentially contradicting the method you use to prove anything else.
It does start from an assumption, but as I see you believe computer works and as I doubt you'd test out off a cliff if Gravity is true by jumping, I must assume you yourself consider the scientific framework to be correct.
You could deny it, but you'd be inconsistent with your own decisions.
Science can't prove itself indeed, but it's not a problem as I noted with your example: everyone, including religious believers, think it works just perfectly fine until it annoys their sensitive sides by arguing with their faith.
I'm in short taking the same assumption every single human being takes when thinking... so, to deny me this assumption is to refute the process altogether and, through it, their own every day decisions.
Ever used your fingers to count or used a calculator or any method to find an answer about how to proceed for a task? Well, all your computations and decisions would be invalid if you deny me and yourself the scientific method.
If you on the other hand begins to say you believe in some, but not in others, you'd be turning in circles quickly. Each time your judgment would be totally arbitrary.
@KrugmanTheKing I think you're over articulating your point. Please make your case plainly. Will you please just summarize your point?
But just to be clear, i'm not denying scientific facts, but rather the erroneous extrapolations used by atheists to support their views. I have a problem with the interpretation of the facts rather than the facts themselves. But again, what worldview makes the most sense of science? What best explains our reasoning tools in general?
I never said you had a problem with facts and it might be hard for me to be less obscure than I was in explaining this stuff as we're dealing with a meta-theoretical question here, namely the epistemological validity of the scientific method and its implication toward religious beliefs... it's not an easy thing to deal with, but I'll try to make it as simple as I can. Secondly, that third sentence of yours is a logical disaster in the context of your demand.
You ask me to be more concise and simple because you can't sort out the issue and you call my conclusion an erroneous extrapolation... that's what we call a bias.
I'll try to expose you the idea even more simply. Take that phrase you made "to support their views." That's a way to word it, but it's also a mistake if you take it literally. We don't take a conclusion for granted and then sort out what we can find to back it up: that's what we called a biased analysis.
I'll give you a mathematical example of what I meant earlier. Facts act as a discriminatory agent here, just as logic does; in short, it means it imposes margins within which to operates and criterions to meet. It's the same in math. If I give you two intervals 1 to 7 and 3 to 10 and asked you which numbers corresponds to both descriptions, you'd tell me anything from 3 to 7 is good. We have two constraints here to meet at once, but we could have 10 000 and it would be the same deal.
That's how science works: we can only tell you what facts and logic allow. And, by definition, any single claim which doesn't meet all of those constraints at once is assumed false until further experimentation allows us to say otherwise.
It does happen sometimes, especially in social sciences that many answers are allowed but these situations are due to the manner in which the theories are made and the correct explanation will then depend on the context.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:That's how science works: we can only tell you what facts and logic allow. And, by definition, any single claim which doesn't meet all of those constraints at once is assumed false until further experimentation allows us to say otherwise."
Is that statement based on any particular scientific experiment? Do you believe truth can be known apart from the study of science or do you think it's the paradigm of all truth?
I said that the only manner to not fall into circular logic, provided the assumption that matter exists, is to simply limit our conclusions to what facts allow us to say. I didn't say it was the truth, I said we probably couldn't know better.
Materialism isn't self-refuting firstly and, secondly, you'll then have to explain me how you leap from the law of non-contradiction to a judgement about reality -- that will be fun because Kant refuted that possibility in the 18 century.
my point was that it undermines reason itself. It undermines everything you're writing here. If your beliefs are the accidental by product of of random naturalistic processes then they can be explained solely in physical terms of cause and effect. So, if this is the case, why should i listen to you? You are wired for atheism and i am for Theism.
I doesn't undermine reason itself; in fact, listening or not to me will produce consequences that are very different and the nice thing about this supposition of determinism you make is that it's beyond your epistemic horizon: you can't know for sure what will happen and hence you would decide as if you were free, without knowing, even if you weren't. In short, it doesn't matter at all.
And yes, Marco evolution is a fact. Not my fault if you're ignorant of the data.
my point exactly. Sometimes the best evidence for the existence of God is people trying to debate whether He exists or not :) If your beliefs are determined by physical processes, then none of this matters at all. But you, and every other atheist here, acts like that is NOT the case, that you have some kind of free will to rationally arrive at your beliefs/conclusions. So every time you reply to me, i thank you :)
And I did equate materialism to the transcendental idealism of Kant for practical reasons because, in practice, you work both the same way. Pick up whatever you like, other options have been refuted by Kant. I'm referring to the Critic of Pure Reason.
But, you don't have to go any further than that... you need something upon which to operate your thoughts and that's where the contradiction between religion and science relies.
But again, the same principle applies: we can't tell more than what facts and logic allow.
I don't like the wording you use with this impression that everything depends on the perception... well, it doesn't. Science is not a worldview. If you take as assumption that matter exists and try to be consistent with yourself, you'll do science and if you fail in any regard, you will fail to do science.
What does science implies about religion? I told you: both frameworks are contradictory.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:I don't like the wording you use with this impression that everything depends on the perception... well, it doesn't. Science is not a worldview"
I never said science is a worldview. I said that we all bring our worldviews to interpret the facts. So the question is which worldview is most veridical? Materialism is practically self-refuting and undermines reason itself. It's also restrictive to science in that it will not allow the scientist to go where the evidence leads.
You can't at one hand appeal to conclusion only when the facts force you to do that and then on the other just deny this process when you arrive at an other question.
Science says that we have no reason, that is no system or relation between things or set of facts, to think that there is indeed a deity. Want to est it? To compel a deity, you need a miracle. A miracle is a suspension of the natural order: it can't be a natural process.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Science says that we have no reason, that is no system or relation between things or set of facts, to think that there is indeed a deity"
I beg to differ. Scientific discoveries overwhelmingly point to Something or Someone beyond ourselves. For example, the information in DNA. Can you provide an example of information produced by something other than mind/agency? If not, then i believe it's more rational to conclude that we were created.
Again, as it's constantly pointed out, DNA is not information: that's a fallacy of equivocation. Those are purely chemicals reacting accordingly to perfectly natural laws... there's no information in that at all. We might for the sake of an argument say it's a code as a metaphor, but there's no information in there, just a sequence of operation that happen simply due to strictly chemical processes.
It's not information as what is conveyed here, not a message, nor language.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Again, as it's constantly pointed out, DNA is not information: that's a fallacy of equivocation"
No, it's a genetic code made up of 4 chemicals (like an alphabet). It's not metaphorical. It's literally the genetic information required for the processes of an organism.
You don't have to beg to differ, there's nothing science points to. I explicitly told you how to seize God: it requires an observed miracle and, note it again, it absolutely has to be a suspension of the natural order.
Something out of the laws of nature, must happen for us to just pretend that there might be a God. If it's explainable through natural laws, we cannot pretend it's supernatural, if you sort of get the idea.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:To compel a deity, you need a miracle. A miracle is a suspension of the natural order: it can't be a natural process."
With naturalistic assumptions (worldview), you are defining miracles out of existence. What kind of evidence for a miracle would convince you? seriously.
You see that I'm not taking for granted that God doesn't exist or that miracles are impossible. I can scientifically ask whether or not we have a sufficiently sustainable instance in which what happened contradicted natural processes -- not something we can't yet explain, but something we couldn't possibly explain without the existence of a God.
Is that likely? It's the most unlikely thing in the whole Universe. It's not Atheists who plot or something: that's what it is.
But in that post, it's atheists who have a worldview and use facts... they do not study facts, they use them in your own words. It's not just your wording: those are also facts which show me how you think.
You're showing me first hand that you're not thinking in terms of theory, but of people and sides or parties; you're not trying to compare principles and their implications, you're essentially presenting this as if it was a matter of opinion.
That's starting off the wrong foot... transcend the practical implications (that would be the answers we give following it) and try to understand the scientific framework (that's the series of principles which constitute the method for explanation and inquiry).
Once you got there, evaluate its viability as a way to gain knowledge. Then, see if on the grounds of its core principles, it's sustainable alongside of faith.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Once you got there, evaluate its viability as a way to gain knowledge. Then, see if on the grounds of its core principles, it's sustainable alongside of faith."
i agree. But many have critiqued Darwinism found it has more holes than swiss cheese regarding the origin of life. Change within a species has been erroneously extrapolated to account for the origin of life...big mistake. Also Darwin himself said his theory could be falsified if it could be shown that life (cont)
@KrugmanTheKing (cont) didn't evolve by gradual small steps. Well, guess what, after the discovery of DNA and genetic information, the highest levels of complexity have falsified the Neo darwinian theory of evolution.
Also abiogenesis has serious problems, at least with the Miller experiments. But yet these are still in the textbooks taught as FACTS...these are not facts. It is this kind of thing i'm referring to.
Evolution is a fact. If you don't know that, you fall in one of these categories: you lack the knowledge to make the judgement and it's surprising given the immensity of the data that backs it up; you are simply an idiot; or you are deluded.
Seriously, you ought to be falling in one of those areas. It's better supported than Gravity.
Secondly, as for abiogenesis, it's taught as a fact because they do have again enough data to back it up.
I tried twice to explain to you how science works and why it's relevant and religion is not. I'll make it even simpler. With science, if the explanation doesn't fit the facts, or if it needs an "interpretation" to excuse the model for its flaws, we do one amazing thing religion never does: we change our answer, we were wrong.
You want to know what's bogus about God and religion? If you ask them to make clear predictions that are consequent to the elements they want to prove
@KrugmanTheKing RE:With science, if the explanation doesn't fit the facts, or if it needs an "interpretation" to excuse the model for its flaws, we do one amazing thing religion never does: we change our answer, we were wrong."
oh really? then why is neo darwinism still in our textbooks? Darwin himself said if his theory could be shown to have not taken place though a gradual process of very small steps, his theory would be falsified. It's been falsified..why is there no paradigm change?
(cont.) and do so with specific, clear and defined concepts, you will soon realize that you cannot get a no out of that box. If you make the test, there's always an excuse, always a "but": they're moving the target all the time.
Evolution is different: it's such a big claim that it could be disproved by the slightest incoherence and it has to be true for all life forms in all periods and in all circumstances... it means we have billions of potential tests to refute it.
That's what I meant by saying religion assumes a position and bends reality around it: their predictions and claims aren't falsifiable.
Now, it doesn't mean that you have to be able to find facts to disprove it: if it's true, you won't. It means that the theory must make a clear prediction so you understand what would look like a failure scenario.
Why Evolution is the best explanation and is strong? Because it would take one tiny thing out of place to throw it to the ground.
But, so far, it correctly predicted changes even in DNA sequence before DNA was even explored... and it has yet to make a single false prediction over fossils, over comparative anatomical structures of new species we never knew about. It has never been wrong a single time.
Speak as much as you want, make yourself an apologist for a literal literature of your holy book which runs in circles, but you won't turn claims into facts. Evolution is a fact, religion is a claim.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Evolution is a fact, religion is a claim."
macro evolution is NOT fact. It's a claim, a theory. Believe if you wish but i think you would be the one believing in magic. As far as theists, maybe we do believe in "magic" so to speak, but at least we believe in MAGICIAN. Atheists seem to be the ones gullibly believing that things actually come from nothing without cause or molecules magically arrange themselves into "life"...i don't have that kind of faith, i'm sorry.
Macro evolution is a fact. That's yet an other equivocation fallacy here. Do you know what a scientific theory means? It means tested hypothesis. So when we say the theory of evolution is true, we mean it's no longer an hypothesis; you could say it's a fact.
And, yes, that's backed up by data. The explanation I gave about ERVs shows a macro evolution from a common ancestor to chimps, gorillas, orangutans and us. 1/2x10^138 is the odd of it not being obtained by evolution.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Macro evolution is a fact. That's yet an other equivocation fallacy here. Do you know what a scientific theory means? It means tested hypothesis."
I'm sorry, but it is NOT fact. You're referring to a forensic kind of science which posits theories of how something MAY have happened but it's not an empirical proof like other natural science can provide. The miller experiments, the fake embryo drawings, the phony missing links are not "fact" in my opinion.
The discourse about missing links is profoundly stupid. It might have made some sort of sense to a very unimaginative person back when Darwin spoke because there weren't any fossil...
But for you to hold that 19th century argument is inexcusable. Evolution would predict that each individual of each specie is complete in itself and you can't hope to find fossils that follow one another like it was a film made up with pictures. What you might find is pictures in the right sequence.
Saying Marco evolution is unproven on the basis of missing links or on the supposition that it's unobserved is equally as dumb as saying a murder didn't occur because no one witnessed it. You don't need to see it happen before your eyes and you might not have a perfect record, but the contingency of the facts will compel you to conclude upon the likelier scenario... that's how evolution was expressed -- and to tell you, macro and mirco evolution were also established in Darwin's time.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:You don't need to see it happen before your eyes and you might not have a perfect record, but the contingency of the facts will compel you to conclude upon the likelier scenario"
Exactly, and i apply to that to arguing for God's existence :)
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Saying Marco evolution is unproven on the basis of missing links or on the supposition that it's unobserved is equally as dumb as saying a murder didn't occur because no one witnessed it"
I didn't say that. I said that the missing link hoaxes don't lend any credibility to your statement that macro evolution is FACT. There are many, many books that give brilliant critiques of macro evolution. It's not fact, but a theory based on mircro-evol.
You just needed comparative anatomy as he did to prove that point he made. But if you don't understand what constitute evidence and how we use it, it's a different problem altogether.
Just to reassure you, those aren't the only facts we have to support the theory. If you really bother knowing: not a single thing is out of place, not a single detail contradicts it whatsoever and never did so far. None. It's probably the most certain of all theories in hard sciences.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:It's probably the most certain of all theories in hard sciences."
Macro evolution is hardly the "most certain". It's a theory full of holes. Please read some of the books that critique it. For example, Dean Kenyon co-authored "Biochemical Predestination". It was a textbook to explain abiogenesis. But he began questioning his own theories and found there were many problems so he abandoned the Darwinian paradigm. Read his books now.
And that's one piece. We have loads and loads of stuff which blatantly confirm macro evolution -- completely thoughtless anatomical structures that you aren't even aware of support that claim; fossils; genome syntheny... but do you know what's the most stunning of them all? If you take different fields of study (genetics, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, archeology, etc.) and make up a tree, you get the exact same tree every time.
So, yeah, it's a fact. An other fact is that you ignore so much of the research about it that you doubt we have that much data to support it. 240 000 to 250 000 peer-reviewed articles, depending on the database confirm evolution, both macro and micro.
Second mistake in your comment. It's not magic and it's not causeless which shows me that you don't even bother understanding what you criticize. Self-duplicating molecules are the building blocks of life and
@KrugmanTheKing jRE:Self-duplicating molecules are the building blocks of life"
Okay, so you are referring to an extremely high level of complexity right at the building blocks. And how did they replicate? How do they arrange themselves into life? Darwin knew nothing of this level of complexity. It refutes his macro evol. theory. Where did the information come from to assemble this building blocks?
Do you even understand what equivocation fallacy means? It means you're using loosely a term to introduce a silly conclusion... there's no information whatsoever in DNA or molecules -- not in the sense those words are information. There's no encoding, no deciphering, no language, no meaning... it's just a bunch of chemicals doing there stuff accordingly to purely natural causal relations.
Stop calling that information: it's not information. Just interaction of chemicals.
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Stop calling that information: it's not information. Just interaction of chemicals."
Very well, but then so is your above statement. It's just a random mixture of digital components of 1's and 0's...and nothing more. Is that more reasonable to you ? :)
You're confusing meaning with physical components to convey that meaning.
The theory of evolution is about what happens once you already have life -- that's why Darwin named his book On the Origin of Species and not On the Origin of life. If you insist that it's not the case, you're committing a straw-man fallacy.
What you refer to here is called Abiogenesis: how life came about from non biological sources. I am not physicist, but I understand that certain molecules can self-duplicate. It's a prove fact. I also know there were many available.
In all likelihood, if you have that and favorable conditions, life will spring out of it. I can't explain you how so because it's extremely complicated and I have no idea of what is the exact scenario upon which they finally settled. I just understand it's plausible.
But even if these are complex molecules, what would be the problem in that? I didn't say that they popped into existence either...
If you have other question, go on cdk007 account on youtube and watch his videos.
@dwheel39 Actually Quantum physics implies that even "chemical" energy still impinges on electomagnetic disparities subatomically: specifically that most of the electromagnetic cosmos is so disparate for substance; as to make a humanist appeal to tangibility almost wanting for candor: an orbiting electron is a soap bubble over a bowling bowl, as it were that soap bubble were some 20 miles away.... Atheists are not scientists. 'Primordial' means atheists can't cook up a god that tastes any good.
Religion is complete and utter crap. Next question please.
MrJohndl 3 days ago
I like debates, but one thing that I recognize about them is that you cannot state that someone "destroyed" the opposing side, if you don't hear a rebuttal.
germanamericanable 5 days ago
You can't PROVE that you can't fly! You can observe the lack of evidence to support the claim that you can fly - most would consider that enough 'proof' for a working model.
You can't prove that god doesn't exist. You can observe the lack of evidence to support the claim that god exists - most would consider that 'proof' enough for a working model.
Only theists insist that atheists prove the unprovable, while freeing themselves from any such burden other than they 'feel' it to be so.
johnps30 1 week ago
@johnps30
The universe exists.
That is proof that something created it.
What more proof do you want ?
PerdiePerduta 1 week ago
@PerdiePerduta who created the thing that created the univers? Saying that the universe must've been created by something only sidesteps the question and begs another question: Who created god. And so on and so forth.
Browserstu 1 week ago
@Browserstu
There are an infinite number of nothings wherever you look, so even if the chance was pne in a googillion of them going cosmogenic we would still expect to see an infinite number of universes materializing everywhere.
There is a lack of evidence for universes popping up out of nothing, so that just leaves the prime motivator theory. It is unlikely said motivator is a material entity that would itself need to be created.
PerdiePerduta57 1 week ago
So the proof that God exists is built on the ignorance on how the universe came to existence.
What if we discover a mechanism that can explain the very existence of the Universe?
Try to read a bit around Casimir effect and Vacuum energy. Vacuum is unstable. This is the starting point from which we can explain the existence of the Universe out of nothing.
What would it take for you to agree that God is just a convenient human construct providing the illusion of answers instead of real answers?
eboily 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eboily
@"What would it take for you to agree that God is just a convenient human construct providing the illusion of answers instead of real answers?"
What would convince me is if the universe was totally devoid of life and completely unable to create anything that could ever appreciate it's existience.
PerdiePerduta57 1 week ago
@PerdiePerduta57
Thanks for answering.
So, considering that the Universe isn't so, nothing ever would make you change your mind no matter what science could discover in the future?
eboily 1 week ago
@eboily
Assuming you mean we find the exact laws of nature that explain how our universe came into existence and how all those laws of nature came to be the way they are?
In that case I would say that science has identified God. I made a youtube recently
that might explain why I would not have to change my mind regardless what they find.
Note: This is my real account, the others are to avoid bots that keep flagging me for spam.
MsPerduta 5 days ago
@eboily
@"What if we discover a mechanism that can explain the very existence of the Universe?" Then I would say that the mechanism is evidently of divine origin and that you are get closer discovering God.
Anyway I can't see the point you asking questions if the intelligent answers are going to all be censored as "spam" by narrow minded atheist internet thugs.
PerdiePerduta 1 week ago
Perdie,the jokes on me,I have been watching to many of these religious debate videos,and I taught that he was defending religion,LOL.Also,maby my post did not clearly indicate where I stand concerning religion.I am an atheist in every sense of the word.I was born and brought up a catholic untill I was 12 years old and started thinking for myself.In every video that I have watched, the atheist clearly present their views logicly and the believers talk in circles and make no sense at all.
bongo7654 1 week ago
I listened to garbage as long as I could untill he started talking about the holocaust,and then I wanted to vomit.If anyone need proof that believers are totally delusional,mindless ,braindead,zombies,all they need to do is listen to this video.I will not continue to watch it to the end because I find it so offensive to everything that would be considered humaine.god allowed the natzies to kill millions so they could sin.Insane to the core.This shows everything that is wrong with religion.
bongo7654 1 week ago
@bongo7654
Sam is an atheist encouraging hatred against religion.
No religion I know of promotes killing millions of people to please their God with "sinning".
Sam is false.
PerdiePerduta57 1 week ago
Comment removed
PerdiePerduta 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MsPerduta 3 weeks ago
@MsPerduta "The mistake that Sam makes (like most atheists) is to assume that a God would be ready willing and able to violate his/her/its own laws of nature."
The existence of a god is in and of itself a violation of physical laws.
AtheistRex 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MsPerduta 2 weeks ago
@MsPerduta "Can you see laws of physics?"
Yes, they can be measured.
"Do you know what they are made of?"
Yes, quantum particles.
"Do you know where they came from?"
Yes, they are eternal.
"Are they any different to a God?"
Yes, they actually exist.
AtheistRex 2 weeks ago
@AtheistRex
Laws of physics can be measured and they consist of particles do they?
What kind of particles makes a relativity theory and howmany moles of the, do you need. Can we add some particles to change the laws of physics?
Eternal are they? Sounds kind of familiar... so they applied even before the universe came into being? What did they apply to then?
Have you considered that God might be made of laws of physics and so God exists too.
MsPerduta 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsPerduta "Laws of physics can be measured?"
Yes, have you heard of Isaac Newton or NASA?
"What kind of particles makes a relativity theory and howmany moles of the, do you need."
Don't mix chemistry with quantum physics just yet.
"Can we add some particles to change the laws of physics?"
Can't do that, but they can be manipulated. Ever heard of a thermonuclear device?
"What did they apply to then?"
The previous state of the universe, of course.
AtheistRex 2 weeks ago
@MsPerduta "Have you considered that God might be made of laws of physics and so God exists too."
Who would make such a leap? When has anything resembling a god ever been observed? What even is a god? You need a working definition for a god before you can posit a hypothesis.
AtheistRex 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MsPerduta 2 weeks ago
@MsPerduta "definition: God := that which created the universe"
How is that a working definition? How is it even a passive definition? Created how? By what mechanism? What created god? Is it sentient? Where is it? Is there only one? Are there a race of them? What evidence is there for any of this? Considering the eons of fertile human imagination and all the deities that have come and gone, I don't see how one god can be picked out as special. Myth-making is standard procedure for humans.
AtheistRex 2 weeks ago
@AtheistRex
Scientists are working to find those answers.
We do not know how the universe was created but we know a lot more than we used to.
What created God was probably whatever created the laws of physics.
Where is she? I suspect she is everywhere unless you know of somewhere that is exempt from laws of physics.
MsPerduta 2 weeks ago
@AtheistRex
There is plenty evidence for consistent and immutable laws of physics that have resulted in a universe with particles that make a range of elements that allow organic chemistry from which life emerged to evolve sentient intelligent self aware beings.
This process is called "creation"
MsPerduta 2 weeks ago
@MsPerduta Is your God intelligent? Does it have a purpose? If the answer is yes, how do you know this. If your answer is no, than why call it a God. This is an actual question I am trying to deal with. This is not a 'troll' question!
bukifuriku 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MsPerduta 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
PerdiePerduta 2 weeks ago
@PerdiePerduta Thank you for the heads up!
bukifuriku 2 weeks ago
@bukifuriku
You are welcome.
While I don't claim to have all the answers I will write them again and post it as a private message as you may enjoy my unusual perspective.
After all, one person seeking enlightened wisdom is worth more than a million flies on a turd. ;o)
PerdiePerduta 2 weeks ago
@MsPerduta
Where is the evidence for 'creation'? Where are any logical arguments for 'creation'?
Why do you assume the universe was 'created' (i.e. implying a 'creator'?) Why do you assume this 'creator' is God, and is this God defined as anything else besides 'that which created the universe' (i.e. such as being the Abrahamic God)?
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@AtheistRex I like to ask "what color are his eyes"?
johnps30 1 week ago
@MsPerduta
The laws of physics (which is more accurately called the theories of physics) do not 'create' anything. They are merely a description, from our current understanding, of how certain things work, inside of the universe. We do not know if these laws extend beyond the universe (such as applying to the universe as a whole), or to the 'micro-world', such as the quantum world and perhaps smaller.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MsPerduta 2 weeks ago
@MsPerduta
I think you might just be going with a false compromise fallacy here. I suggest looking into your beliefs more thoroughly, and more critically.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
PerdiePerduta 2 weeks ago
@PerdiePerduta
What are you talking about? I don't have any bots, and I have never labeled ANY comment as 'spam', even the ones that deserve to be labeled as such. I didn't even receive a message of any of your 'honest and intelligent answers' to my questions.
I provided valid counter-arguments which you have failed to address.
I suggest you start taking a moment to think about your hasty generalizations and how easily you jump to conclusions.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93
If you click on "see all" you should see that MsPerduta posted a reply to each of your questions. They were immediately flagged as spam by an automated process. This would explain why you did not get a notification.
I suggest you stop calling people "false" when it is your atheists fraternity who abuses science and technology in this way.
BTW Laws of physics are not a "description" they existed long before anyone was around to discover them.
PerdiePerduta 2 weeks ago
@PerdiePerduta
As an undergrad in Physics, I must say the laws of physics are indeed a description (a description based off of our current understanding) of how a particular feature of the world works.
This description has existed long before anyone discovered them, yes, but nonetheless, they are still a DESCRIPTION of how things work. Looking into the definitions of these laws makes this clear.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
PerdiePerduta 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
landonggg 1 week ago
@PerdiePerduta I'll take it you're agnostic which means you're open to debate the fact of entropy vs. ID. You raise questions a creationist can't and I like that and am open to an actual discussion if you're willing. Your argument however is a fallacious argument as far as I can see. We can prove things like E=Mc2 and evolution and other ways the universe functions naturally in the boundaries of our perception, why does there have to be a higher function behind it?
landonggg 1 week ago
Comment removed
PerdiePerduta 1 week ago
Comment removed
PerdiePerduta 2 weeks ago
@PerdiePerduta
And of course, your hasty prejudgement was immediately to blame me for the flagging. How mature and logical.
Also, where did I call anyone 'false'? I was merely mentioning that it seemed as though MsPerduta was using the fallacy of a false compromise. (look it up if you don't know what that is).
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@PerdiePerduta
And also, maybe you should start examining YouTube and see this happens to EVERYONE. To try and play the victim card and make it seem as though the atheists are the one who do this more often is simply pathetic. It's time for you to face reality and see the truth. Go see how this same science and technology is being used against atheists as well, and even more often then it is against Christians (even when you factor in the ratio of Christian:atheists)
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@PerdiePerduta
However, if you would like to continue playing the victim card and continue down-playing the use of bots against atheists by theists, instead of addressing my arguments, feel free to. I would prefer if you left me alone since all you seem to do is blame your problems on atheists.
Time to put you big girl panties on.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
PerdiePerduta 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93
I made a video about the bots.
It is on my channel now.
If it happens to everone then it ought to be fixed.
MsPerduta 1 week ago
Comment removed
MsPerduta 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 3 weeks ago
fallacies...fallacies...fallacies... You cannot tell the truth if you do not know the truth.
se7enspeaker 3 weeks ago
@MichaelsPortraits I know that I don`t know anything...that`s the only thing that I do know, so....What`s happening brother? I was talking with some hominids on another page yesterday...but they`re so quiet today that you could hear a mouse pissing on cotton.
spacegasp 3 weeks ago
Bottom line , everything is based in faith , including atheism , especially atheism ..lol... Nobody knows a fucking thing , and as far as that junk you call Science , please give me a fucking break , They change their story every five years , Stephen Hawking will confidentally tell you how the universe was created yet He can't wipe his own ass ! I guess his little disease has a few complexities he can't figure out! If you think you know anything , do me a favor and shut your fucking mouth !
MichaelsPortraits 3 weeks ago
@MichaelsPortraits LOL IRONY
turlaach 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
writersblock26 3 weeks ago
@writersblock26 The faith required to embrace atheism is the belief that it all materialized from the void, from nothingness, We all need to go our own way on these issues of course but Life is so amazing isnt it! Cray sequencing computers have estimated There is enough genetic code in a droplet of blood that would fit on the head of a needle to fill every book in the NY public library five times over ..That is fucking astounding! ,and why I have chosen to believe in a creator ! Just my opinion!
MichaelsPortraits 3 weeks ago
@MichaelsPortraits How exactly does one choose to believe something? Either you believe or you don't, its not a choice. Can you choose to believe that 2+2=5?
MrJDylka 3 weeks ago
@MichaelsPortraits The amount of genetic code is reason to marvel at the feats of evolution, but at a "creator".
TomFynn 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MichaelsPortraits Hawking does not need to wipe his own ass because he can wipe the floor with most of fellow primates (myself included), simply by the use of his intellect. Atheism, at least in the strict sense, is the lack of belief in a personal God. If you want to call that lack of belief faith, then you are free to do so, but I am not sure in what way your definition of faith is meaningful.
writersblock26 3 weeks ago
i hate seeing these headlines of sam harris destroys theistic arguments, when clearly he does not. he rambles nonsense that he thinks is true. sad sam harris.
zachariahm10 3 weeks ago
@zachariahm10 lol, funny when deluded crackheads don't understand something so they say it's not intelligent
no, YOU are retarded, YOU're sad, YOU're rambling with nonsense, YOU need to realize fairy tales are manmade, stop trying so hard to stop yourself realizing that the people you want to see again in heaven are simply dead, nothing more.
nothing is ever going to make your life mean anything realistically unless you make it mean somethign yourself
religion=excuseforbeingaretard
scratchbang 3 weeks ago
@scratchbang thanks for telling me your life story.
zachariahm10 3 weeks ago
@scratchbang Attacking a person rather than their argument does nothing for your own. In regards to Harris' first argument, the conclusion drawn from what he said is that theists and atheists are at a stalemate. He said theists cannot prove the existence of God, and atheists cannot disprove God's existence. This neither aids nor harms either side of the argument. Now... if I extrapolate upon what you have said, based on conclusions drawn from Harris, atheism=excuseforbeingretarded
Porche911Turbo71 3 weeks ago
Good post. Sam is spot on.
b14blah 4 weeks ago
brilliant!
AscendingParadigm 1 month ago
faith? there is no discipline in obtaining faith, you just take it without question. everything we actually know,comes from tangible evidence. there is more proof of big foot than that of a creator
allenagainst 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Let’s work to eradicate all religion. Conversely, begin a relationship with Jesus Christ today. You need to repent. Yes, you. Moreover, you should ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
paularenas26 1 month ago
outlaw87100 I am not so temerous as to assert that God is a hypothesis, a postulate to argue from, a theory backed by quid for a pro quo agenda; "Publish or die" has probably killed as many scientists as any polemic, or revolution -for the exception that the logical extrapolations of each divergence bring us to the chicken, snake and their eggs: Are you willing to kill, live, or die for what you believe in? If so, great! Choose an egg! (If God is not real, you still have to choose an egg.)
kpharris32 1 month ago
@rep300 Well if you bothered to read the thread, I already stated to the effect (like C.S.Lewis) that man is inveterately "RELIGIOUS", I think that the assertion of atheism is wanting for candor, because you will see things go full swing almost every generation, and woe if they don't: I am not saying one extreme is any better than the other, but there is a God, and in Christ there is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, but neither win the unconvincible...read your own posts! Which is it?
kpharris32 1 month ago
@outlaw87100 "The independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth". - Einstein 1944
kpharris32 1 month ago
wow he has some of the most incredible wording and logic for arguments and questions that have gone on for thousands of years
Metamorphosis33 1 month ago
think about this...EVEN in the Bible...after Jesus was "ressurected" they didnt recognize him at first because he was in his "new heavenly body"...perhaps this was an imposter since they are basically saying the body wasnt in the tomb...but that Jesus now looked different
Metamorphosis33 1 month ago
3:46 ... caught picking your nose, dude!
Garabaldi323 1 month ago
@akajefe That is exactly my point: For want of God, atheists deify man, and nowhere is this worse than in [postmodern] countries. No. Korea is an example of the deification of Kim Jong Il, and in recent mention Sweden had one of the highest suicide rates in the world. The former cites the externalization of humanism, and the former the internalisation of its' failure. Even Wikipedia says communism is reputed as the cause of the highest rate in world history. That is the portent of atheist view.
kpharris32 1 month ago
@kpharris32 Stop with the dimestore philosophy dude. Also, I would like to point out that civil atheists do not "deify" man. I am an atheist, and I have NO impulse to do so. ANother thing, how can you even make the statement, "primordial soup means they lacked a credible fill in God"... Why does a God even have to be the answer? God is a hypothesis, nothing more. There is NO evidence of his existence. Not a single shred.
outlaw87100 1 month ago
@outlaw87100 What I am saying is that "religion" is a matter of priority, not sentiment. (maybe in the ideal? OK...) I hate religion as much as the next: but I know the Bible, and the righteous requirement of God, [--is upon JESUS, not me.] and I would not stake a philisophical "dime" on a hypothesis; (the nicest thing I've ever heard from an atheist in concern to God ever, from an atheist. I feel smarter that my God is relegated to a "hypothesis", and then what of that science?
kpharris32 1 month ago
@kpharris32 A hypothesis lacks evidence, while a theory has a body of evidence to support it; (evolution).
outlaw87100 1 month ago
@kpharris32 To think that North Korea is an "atheist" country is completely ridiculous. It is as dogmatic and thiestic as any. They have literally constructed a state religion, using their leader as a god. It's the complete opposite of atheist. Those people believe that he wrote 1500 books, and invented EVERYTHING? That's as crazy and misinformed as you can get. It's a forced cult, created by restricting real information.
rep300 1 month ago
Comment removed
kpharris32 1 month ago
Comment removed
kpharris32 1 month ago
The technological aspect of religion is a religion that is religionless, and the atheists have a point on that; but not a monoply: One can CERTAINLY hold to truth without being dogmatic, boring, illogical, disagreeable. What true religion is, perhaps the impulse to better that science supplied a venue: but make no mistake. Bad religion IS bad science and vice versa. Why? Good light makes for good sight, but if one have a compromised worldview, knowing and seeing are STILL two different things!
kpharris32 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Argument: God works in mysterious ways and does only good things, and we humans will never be able to understand god.
Rebuttle: All religions interpret their scripture and cherry-pick to suit the occasion.
Conclusion: Religion practiced is a contradiction in itself! If god is mysterious and not understandable, then the scripture should be taken litterally.
Consequence: Religion has no moral or logical credibility and is completely unintelligent.
12Monkeys8u 1 month ago
Is "salvation" a tenet of atheism, or is the point obviated; and rather that the CONCEPT of salvation is trumped by the fact that Jesus is STILL the central figure of HISTORY, always will be. Faith is conviction that evidence is indeed proof; it is the imputation of validity to it's object, not the object itself...futher it is existential illogicism that "science" can prove non-existance of anything. And laziness to ignore the fact that Atheism is zero sum. At least the Bible has prophecy. HOPE.
kpharris32 1 month ago
@kpharris32 Well, I HOPE people will get out of the bronze-age mentality that religion preeches and embrace the fact that science has done far more for humanity than religion has.
Toyomo16 1 month ago
@Toyomo16 The crowning technological scientific achievements by the numbers: nuclear bombs in the kilotons; fossil-fueled autos in the millions, and a military-industrial complex worth trillions; while North Korea under the same worldview sits in the dark for over thirty years starving to death. Try that elsewhere.
kpharris32 1 month ago
@kpharris32 Sooooo....you are saying that a country that has a dead man as its leader, and is worshiped as a god, is a secular state. Are you sure that you want to use North Korea as your example? It seems to me that you have it backwards. Is there any particular reason that you did not choose Sweden, or Denmark as an example?
akajefe 1 month ago
Whenever I feel like doing some deep thinking I look up Sam Harris videos so he can do the thinking for me. And then I congratulate myself for feeling wise.
tobo86 1 month ago
Can you prove that my cell phone doesn't keep Extra Terrestrials from Earth? I don't see any ET's around, do you?... Why is my argument bullshit and why "Can you prove god doesn't exist? is not?
It is just specious reasoning concocted by morons in an attempt to persuade other *bigger* morons to follow them.
inEarthCEO 1 month ago
SADLY WHILE THESE PEOPLE ARE GENUINELY AND WHOLLY DELUDED :
UNSCRUPULOUS HEATHENS CAN GATHER UP THE RELIGIOUSLY DELUDED AND USE THEM FOR MANY ILLICIT PURPOSES. IE. POLITICAL , FINANCIAL OR JUST TO GARNER AN INCOME FROM THEM AND LIVE IN THE LAP // REMOVE THE SCALES FROM YOUR EYES PEOPLE AND SEE YOU’VE BEEN DUPED.
ANY POLITICAL HACK CAN ESPOUSE ANY CATECHISM DOCTRINE AND BE VOTED INTO OFFICE WITH NO OTHER PLATFORM WHATSOEVER.
bujumbura101 1 month ago
watch 'the Vortex' on YouTube for good answers on the Catholic Church!
2479sunny 1 month ago
All the likes, and the very few dislikes, that I see on all the Sam Harris vids, give me a great deal of hope that we will soon eradicate bronze ages myths and send the bible and quran to their rightful place.........Mythology 101.
rep300 1 month ago
@rep300 I can't help but to tell you that I was taught Greek Mythology in grade school as "mythology", (But that taught as such, it was hard to escape the notice that some teachers ascribe to the chaotic and dysfunctional as a worldview) and you will never be rid of the Scripture, even with your bonfires.
kpharris32 1 month ago
I'm a christian, and i like to watch this stuff. No second intentions here, the dude doesn't really dent what i believe in, but it's pretty interesting nonetheless.
kblargh 1 month ago
@kblargh Write your comment down and read it again in 10 years...
tourettesdetectives 1 month ago
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
monkeyslaye 1 month ago
I'm still waiting for Harris to destroy Theistic arguments...was this uploaded by accident? Maybe there's something else? He's not destroying anything in this clip..just asking..
peace
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39 Christians tend to not really understand this argument, for some reason.
charlesfosterkane 1 month ago
@charlesfosterkane RE:Christians tend to not really understand this argument, for some reason."
Enlighten then please. What arguments does Harris give in this clip that "destroys Theistic arguments". Please be specific.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
Well, yes. He just showed that religion observe facts through an assumption -- the existence of a deity -- to then claim, having begged the question, that God exists. He also exposed what faith was: it's a suspension of reason that is neither justified, nor desirable and applied without regard to the consequences just because, suddenly, the person feels closer to this or that idea.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:He just showed that religion observe facts through an assumption -- the existence of a deity -- to then claim, having begged the question, that God exists."
Wouldn't it be the case that atheists also observe facts through an assumption (Naturalism /Materialism is the best explanation for interpreting the "facts") and then having begged the question, conclude God does not exist?
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
No, it's not begging the question because supposing the primacy of matter over ideas is first not a necessity to begin with (Kant was an idealist and he stresses the need for external reference through sensory experience) and, secondly, even the primacy of matter doesn't imply alone anything about the conclusion of whether God exists or not.
You have to understand the manner in which logical fallacies operate before telling people that their ideas are fallacious, you know.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
What it requires, it is indeed a practical assumption, is a reference to a factual, an empirical, basis to which you apply logic or even straightforwardly a theory to test it and discover, by contingency, what kind of things you can say given those facts and what you can't say.
But, as noted above, it's a practical assumption. I can't tell you it's illogical to believe in God, but I can tell you it's inconsistent with science or even using science, both are incompatible.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:I can't tell you it's illogical to believe in God, but I can tell you it's inconsistent with science or even using science, both are incompatible."
what best explains the study of science itself though? Science is based on philosophical pre-conditions that are not scientific and cannot be proven via any experiment.
How is God inconsistent with science? be specific please.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
I just explained you all of that. Science is merely the recognition that Pure Reason, as criticized by Kant, can only work through non contradiction, but in itself provides no basis upon which to judge -- you require an input to judge.
Science is used and justified by a practical assumption which is simple: matter exists.
You didn't read a word of what I just said... If you employ facts to make a judgement, all you're doing is discriminating conclusions by contingency.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
In other words, facts are like a system of equations and inequations... you put them together and you have a series of constraints to meet. Any answer that fit them all is said to be factually consistent and that's what science does.
Before going further, I said that faith was inconsistent with science -- it's inconsistent to believe in a further supposition if you, in other places, bother not to resort to such things: facts and logic must compel your judgement every time.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
As for God, I said that Science declares that we cannot say God exists. In other words, it means that no set of facts so far observe put a series of constraints into our model to force us to say that God exists.
If you want the simple answer, it's that we cannot prove it, so we take for granted it's false until it is shown to be otherwise. But we have a good reason to take it for granted that it's false: the framework requires facts to back up statements.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
The reason you can't allow faith in that model is that at the moment you revert to anything else than facts, you're essentially contradicting the method you use to prove anything else.
It does start from an assumption, but as I see you believe computer works and as I doubt you'd test out off a cliff if Gravity is true by jumping, I must assume you yourself consider the scientific framework to be correct.
You could deny it, but you'd be inconsistent with your own decisions.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
Science can't prove itself indeed, but it's not a problem as I noted with your example: everyone, including religious believers, think it works just perfectly fine until it annoys their sensitive sides by arguing with their faith.
I'm in short taking the same assumption every single human being takes when thinking... so, to deny me this assumption is to refute the process altogether and, through it, their own every day decisions.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
Ever used your fingers to count or used a calculator or any method to find an answer about how to proceed for a task? Well, all your computations and decisions would be invalid if you deny me and yourself the scientific method.
If you on the other hand begins to say you believe in some, but not in others, you'd be turning in circles quickly. Each time your judgment would be totally arbitrary.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing I think you're over articulating your point. Please make your case plainly. Will you please just summarize your point?
But just to be clear, i'm not denying scientific facts, but rather the erroneous extrapolations used by atheists to support their views. I have a problem with the interpretation of the facts rather than the facts themselves. But again, what worldview makes the most sense of science? What best explains our reasoning tools in general?
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
I never said you had a problem with facts and it might be hard for me to be less obscure than I was in explaining this stuff as we're dealing with a meta-theoretical question here, namely the epistemological validity of the scientific method and its implication toward religious beliefs... it's not an easy thing to deal with, but I'll try to make it as simple as I can. Secondly, that third sentence of yours is a logical disaster in the context of your demand.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
You ask me to be more concise and simple because you can't sort out the issue and you call my conclusion an erroneous extrapolation... that's what we call a bias.
I'll try to expose you the idea even more simply. Take that phrase you made "to support their views." That's a way to word it, but it's also a mistake if you take it literally. We don't take a conclusion for granted and then sort out what we can find to back it up: that's what we called a biased analysis.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
I'll give you a mathematical example of what I meant earlier. Facts act as a discriminatory agent here, just as logic does; in short, it means it imposes margins within which to operates and criterions to meet. It's the same in math. If I give you two intervals 1 to 7 and 3 to 10 and asked you which numbers corresponds to both descriptions, you'd tell me anything from 3 to 7 is good. We have two constraints here to meet at once, but we could have 10 000 and it would be the same deal.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
That's how science works: we can only tell you what facts and logic allow. And, by definition, any single claim which doesn't meet all of those constraints at once is assumed false until further experimentation allows us to say otherwise.
It does happen sometimes, especially in social sciences that many answers are allowed but these situations are due to the manner in which the theories are made and the correct explanation will then depend on the context.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:That's how science works: we can only tell you what facts and logic allow. And, by definition, any single claim which doesn't meet all of those constraints at once is assumed false until further experimentation allows us to say otherwise."
Is that statement based on any particular scientific experiment? Do you believe truth can be known apart from the study of science or do you think it's the paradigm of all truth?
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
I said that the only manner to not fall into circular logic, provided the assumption that matter exists, is to simply limit our conclusions to what facts allow us to say. I didn't say it was the truth, I said we probably couldn't know better.
Materialism isn't self-refuting firstly and, secondly, you'll then have to explain me how you leap from the law of non-contradiction to a judgement about reality -- that will be fun because Kant refuted that possibility in the 18 century.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Materialism isn't self-refuting firstly"
my point was that it undermines reason itself. It undermines everything you're writing here. If your beliefs are the accidental by product of of random naturalistic processes then they can be explained solely in physical terms of cause and effect. So, if this is the case, why should i listen to you? You are wired for atheism and i am for Theism.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
I doesn't undermine reason itself; in fact, listening or not to me will produce consequences that are very different and the nice thing about this supposition of determinism you make is that it's beyond your epistemic horizon: you can't know for sure what will happen and hence you would decide as if you were free, without knowing, even if you weren't. In short, it doesn't matter at all.
And yes, Marco evolution is a fact. Not my fault if you're ignorant of the data.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:In short, it doesn't matter at all."
my point exactly. Sometimes the best evidence for the existence of God is people trying to debate whether He exists or not :) If your beliefs are determined by physical processes, then none of this matters at all. But you, and every other atheist here, acts like that is NOT the case, that you have some kind of free will to rationally arrive at your beliefs/conclusions. So every time you reply to me, i thank you :)
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
And I did equate materialism to the transcendental idealism of Kant for practical reasons because, in practice, you work both the same way. Pick up whatever you like, other options have been refuted by Kant. I'm referring to the Critic of Pure Reason.
But, you don't have to go any further than that... you need something upon which to operate your thoughts and that's where the contradiction between religion and science relies.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
But again, the same principle applies: we can't tell more than what facts and logic allow.
I don't like the wording you use with this impression that everything depends on the perception... well, it doesn't. Science is not a worldview. If you take as assumption that matter exists and try to be consistent with yourself, you'll do science and if you fail in any regard, you will fail to do science.
What does science implies about religion? I told you: both frameworks are contradictory.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:I don't like the wording you use with this impression that everything depends on the perception... well, it doesn't. Science is not a worldview"
I never said science is a worldview. I said that we all bring our worldviews to interpret the facts. So the question is which worldview is most veridical? Materialism is practically self-refuting and undermines reason itself. It's also restrictive to science in that it will not allow the scientist to go where the evidence leads.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
You can't at one hand appeal to conclusion only when the facts force you to do that and then on the other just deny this process when you arrive at an other question.
Science says that we have no reason, that is no system or relation between things or set of facts, to think that there is indeed a deity. Want to est it? To compel a deity, you need a miracle. A miracle is a suspension of the natural order: it can't be a natural process.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Science says that we have no reason, that is no system or relation between things or set of facts, to think that there is indeed a deity"
I beg to differ. Scientific discoveries overwhelmingly point to Something or Someone beyond ourselves. For example, the information in DNA. Can you provide an example of information produced by something other than mind/agency? If not, then i believe it's more rational to conclude that we were created.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
Again, as it's constantly pointed out, DNA is not information: that's a fallacy of equivocation. Those are purely chemicals reacting accordingly to perfectly natural laws... there's no information in that at all. We might for the sake of an argument say it's a code as a metaphor, but there's no information in there, just a sequence of operation that happen simply due to strictly chemical processes.
It's not information as what is conveyed here, not a message, nor language.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Again, as it's constantly pointed out, DNA is not information: that's a fallacy of equivocation"
No, it's a genetic code made up of 4 chemicals (like an alphabet). It's not metaphorical. It's literally the genetic information required for the processes of an organism.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
You don't have to beg to differ, there's nothing science points to. I explicitly told you how to seize God: it requires an observed miracle and, note it again, it absolutely has to be a suspension of the natural order.
Something out of the laws of nature, must happen for us to just pretend that there might be a God. If it's explainable through natural laws, we cannot pretend it's supernatural, if you sort of get the idea.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KrugmanTheKing RE:To compel a deity, you need a miracle. A miracle is a suspension of the natural order: it can't be a natural process."
With naturalistic assumptions (worldview), you are defining miracles out of existence. What kind of evidence for a miracle would convince you? seriously.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
You see that I'm not taking for granted that God doesn't exist or that miracles are impossible. I can scientifically ask whether or not we have a sufficiently sustainable instance in which what happened contradicted natural processes -- not something we can't yet explain, but something we couldn't possibly explain without the existence of a God.
Is that likely? It's the most unlikely thing in the whole Universe. It's not Atheists who plot or something: that's what it is.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
But in that post, it's atheists who have a worldview and use facts... they do not study facts, they use them in your own words. It's not just your wording: those are also facts which show me how you think.
You're showing me first hand that you're not thinking in terms of theory, but of people and sides or parties; you're not trying to compare principles and their implications, you're essentially presenting this as if it was a matter of opinion.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
That's starting off the wrong foot... transcend the practical implications (that would be the answers we give following it) and try to understand the scientific framework (that's the series of principles which constitute the method for explanation and inquiry).
Once you got there, evaluate its viability as a way to gain knowledge. Then, see if on the grounds of its core principles, it's sustainable alongside of faith.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Once you got there, evaluate its viability as a way to gain knowledge. Then, see if on the grounds of its core principles, it's sustainable alongside of faith."
i agree. But many have critiqued Darwinism found it has more holes than swiss cheese regarding the origin of life. Change within a species has been erroneously extrapolated to account for the origin of life...big mistake. Also Darwin himself said his theory could be falsified if it could be shown that life (cont)
dwheel39 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing (cont) didn't evolve by gradual small steps. Well, guess what, after the discovery of DNA and genetic information, the highest levels of complexity have falsified the Neo darwinian theory of evolution.
Also abiogenesis has serious problems, at least with the Miller experiments. But yet these are still in the textbooks taught as FACTS...these are not facts. It is this kind of thing i'm referring to.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
Evolution is a fact. If you don't know that, you fall in one of these categories: you lack the knowledge to make the judgement and it's surprising given the immensity of the data that backs it up; you are simply an idiot; or you are deluded.
Seriously, you ought to be falling in one of those areas. It's better supported than Gravity.
Secondly, as for abiogenesis, it's taught as a fact because they do have again enough data to back it up.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
I tried twice to explain to you how science works and why it's relevant and religion is not. I'll make it even simpler. With science, if the explanation doesn't fit the facts, or if it needs an "interpretation" to excuse the model for its flaws, we do one amazing thing religion never does: we change our answer, we were wrong.
You want to know what's bogus about God and religion? If you ask them to make clear predictions that are consequent to the elements they want to prove
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KrugmanTheKing RE:With science, if the explanation doesn't fit the facts, or if it needs an "interpretation" to excuse the model for its flaws, we do one amazing thing religion never does: we change our answer, we were wrong."
oh really? then why is neo darwinism still in our textbooks? Darwin himself said if his theory could be shown to have not taken place though a gradual process of very small steps, his theory would be falsified. It's been falsified..why is there no paradigm change?
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
(cont.) and do so with specific, clear and defined concepts, you will soon realize that you cannot get a no out of that box. If you make the test, there's always an excuse, always a "but": they're moving the target all the time.
Evolution is different: it's such a big claim that it could be disproved by the slightest incoherence and it has to be true for all life forms in all periods and in all circumstances... it means we have billions of potential tests to refute it.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
That's what I meant by saying religion assumes a position and bends reality around it: their predictions and claims aren't falsifiable.
Now, it doesn't mean that you have to be able to find facts to disprove it: if it's true, you won't. It means that the theory must make a clear prediction so you understand what would look like a failure scenario.
Why Evolution is the best explanation and is strong? Because it would take one tiny thing out of place to throw it to the ground.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
But, so far, it correctly predicted changes even in DNA sequence before DNA was even explored... and it has yet to make a single false prediction over fossils, over comparative anatomical structures of new species we never knew about. It has never been wrong a single time.
Speak as much as you want, make yourself an apologist for a literal literature of your holy book which runs in circles, but you won't turn claims into facts. Evolution is a fact, religion is a claim.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Evolution is a fact, religion is a claim."
macro evolution is NOT fact. It's a claim, a theory. Believe if you wish but i think you would be the one believing in magic. As far as theists, maybe we do believe in "magic" so to speak, but at least we believe in MAGICIAN. Atheists seem to be the ones gullibly believing that things actually come from nothing without cause or molecules magically arrange themselves into "life"...i don't have that kind of faith, i'm sorry.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
Macro evolution is a fact. That's yet an other equivocation fallacy here. Do you know what a scientific theory means? It means tested hypothesis. So when we say the theory of evolution is true, we mean it's no longer an hypothesis; you could say it's a fact.
And, yes, that's backed up by data. The explanation I gave about ERVs shows a macro evolution from a common ancestor to chimps, gorillas, orangutans and us. 1/2x10^138 is the odd of it not being obtained by evolution.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Macro evolution is a fact. That's yet an other equivocation fallacy here. Do you know what a scientific theory means? It means tested hypothesis."
I'm sorry, but it is NOT fact. You're referring to a forensic kind of science which posits theories of how something MAY have happened but it's not an empirical proof like other natural science can provide. The miller experiments, the fake embryo drawings, the phony missing links are not "fact" in my opinion.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
The discourse about missing links is profoundly stupid. It might have made some sort of sense to a very unimaginative person back when Darwin spoke because there weren't any fossil...
But for you to hold that 19th century argument is inexcusable. Evolution would predict that each individual of each specie is complete in itself and you can't hope to find fossils that follow one another like it was a film made up with pictures. What you might find is pictures in the right sequence.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
Saying Marco evolution is unproven on the basis of missing links or on the supposition that it's unobserved is equally as dumb as saying a murder didn't occur because no one witnessed it. You don't need to see it happen before your eyes and you might not have a perfect record, but the contingency of the facts will compel you to conclude upon the likelier scenario... that's how evolution was expressed -- and to tell you, macro and mirco evolution were also established in Darwin's time.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KrugmanTheKing RE:You don't need to see it happen before your eyes and you might not have a perfect record, but the contingency of the facts will compel you to conclude upon the likelier scenario"
Exactly, and i apply to that to arguing for God's existence :)
dwheel39 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Saying Marco evolution is unproven on the basis of missing links or on the supposition that it's unobserved is equally as dumb as saying a murder didn't occur because no one witnessed it"
I didn't say that. I said that the missing link hoaxes don't lend any credibility to your statement that macro evolution is FACT. There are many, many books that give brilliant critiques of macro evolution. It's not fact, but a theory based on mircro-evol.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
You just needed comparative anatomy as he did to prove that point he made. But if you don't understand what constitute evidence and how we use it, it's a different problem altogether.
Just to reassure you, those aren't the only facts we have to support the theory. If you really bother knowing: not a single thing is out of place, not a single detail contradicts it whatsoever and never did so far. None. It's probably the most certain of all theories in hard sciences.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:It's probably the most certain of all theories in hard sciences."
Macro evolution is hardly the "most certain". It's a theory full of holes. Please read some of the books that critique it. For example, Dean Kenyon co-authored "Biochemical Predestination". It was a textbook to explain abiogenesis. But he began questioning his own theories and found there were many problems so he abandoned the Darwinian paradigm. Read his books now.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
And that's one piece. We have loads and loads of stuff which blatantly confirm macro evolution -- completely thoughtless anatomical structures that you aren't even aware of support that claim; fossils; genome syntheny... but do you know what's the most stunning of them all? If you take different fields of study (genetics, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, archeology, etc.) and make up a tree, you get the exact same tree every time.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing As far as fossil records, the Cambrian explosion was a huge problem for Darwin and still is.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
So, yeah, it's a fact. An other fact is that you ignore so much of the research about it that you doubt we have that much data to support it. 240 000 to 250 000 peer-reviewed articles, depending on the database confirm evolution, both macro and micro.
Second mistake in your comment. It's not magic and it's not causeless which shows me that you don't even bother understanding what you criticize. Self-duplicating molecules are the building blocks of life and
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing jRE:Self-duplicating molecules are the building blocks of life"
Okay, so you are referring to an extremely high level of complexity right at the building blocks. And how did they replicate? How do they arrange themselves into life? Darwin knew nothing of this level of complexity. It refutes his macro evol. theory. Where did the information come from to assemble this building blocks?
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
Do you even understand what equivocation fallacy means? It means you're using loosely a term to introduce a silly conclusion... there's no information whatsoever in DNA or molecules -- not in the sense those words are information. There's no encoding, no deciphering, no language, no meaning... it's just a bunch of chemicals doing there stuff accordingly to purely natural causal relations.
Stop calling that information: it's not information. Just interaction of chemicals.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:Stop calling that information: it's not information. Just interaction of chemicals."
Very well, but then so is your above statement. It's just a random mixture of digital components of 1's and 0's...and nothing more. Is that more reasonable to you ? :)
You're confusing meaning with physical components to convey that meaning.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39
The theory of evolution is about what happens once you already have life -- that's why Darwin named his book On the Origin of Species and not On the Origin of life. If you insist that it's not the case, you're committing a straw-man fallacy.
What you refer to here is called Abiogenesis: how life came about from non biological sources. I am not physicist, but I understand that certain molecules can self-duplicate. It's a prove fact. I also know there were many available.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@dwheel39
In all likelihood, if you have that and favorable conditions, life will spring out of it. I can't explain you how so because it's extremely complicated and I have no idea of what is the exact scenario upon which they finally settled. I just understand it's plausible.
But even if these are complex molecules, what would be the problem in that? I didn't say that they popped into existence either...
If you have other question, go on cdk007 account on youtube and watch his videos.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing RE:In all likelihood, if you have that and favorable conditions, life will spring out of it."
Life isn't as simple as "just add water" or whatever other chemicals are in your primordial soup.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39 Actually Quantum physics implies that even "chemical" energy still impinges on electomagnetic disparities subatomically: specifically that most of the electromagnetic cosmos is so disparate for substance; as to make a humanist appeal to tangibility almost wanting for candor: an orbiting electron is a soap bubble over a bowling bowl, as it were that soap bubble were some 20 miles away.... Atheists are not scientists. 'Primordial' means atheists can't cook up a god that tastes any good.
kpharris32 1 month ago