Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by garbonzo, Sep 2, 2012.

  1. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    I wanted to create a new thread because my old thread seems to have gone into a debate in who knows what. Back on topic.

    Any help answering this person is much appreciated. He reminds me of myself very much. Just to see a glimpse of how I was when I was a JW (Jehovah's Witness) before I became atheist:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?106878-A-challenge-to-Atheists

    You can definitely see the similarities in the reasoning! So I am going to try and help this guy with your help just as much as you guys helped me on here. At least try. Ultimately it is his choice to make, but I want to give him as much facts and perspective as I can for him to make his own decision.

    Please help. Thank you guys so much!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    What does everyone thing of this year's X Factor?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    The common mistake here is the perception that random chance is involved and that complexity appears instantaneously. The size, shapes, and attractive natures of atoms and molecules form natural and inevitable reactions. Given billions of years these processes naturally and gradually form into ever increasing complexity within a conducive environment.

    Try this very short youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU&feature=youtu.be
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    The bible was written by people. It tells a story. An alternative would be to read the Star Trek saga, also written by people. It tells a story that is internally consistent and to many quite believable.

    What's the difference between the two stories? None. They are both the result of human imagination. They are both fantasies. To show that the god fantasy is not a fantasy one would need to clearly show a cause and effect relationship. To date we know of nothing in our universe that requires a god to exist to explain anything. One was written deliberately as a fantasy while the other was developed by people who imagined what might be true, not what they knew as true. Which is which?

    Try Hawking - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...od-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    feel free to indicate how you can explain a godless universe without also relying on an internally consistent collection of fables
    :shrug:

    IOw you are simply borrowing from the authority of science in an attempt to lend credibility to ideas about how you imagine the universe works
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,336
    Yesterday, I wrote a lengthy reply to garbonzo. I also merged this thread with the previous one, and explained why I did that.

    My reply disappeared following the database error, and I can't bring myself to rewrite it. Sorry, garbonzo.

    I also can't be bothered re-merging the threads etc. So, we'll let this thread run...
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    Posting after database roll back

    any way, how does science discovery counter the notion of God?
    If you were a omni-clever God would you not create a fully automatic evolution and growth system?
    I know I would.....
    I think I would rather sit down on the beach sipping a whiskey smoking a cigar than try to micro manage every thing....[chuckle]
     
  11. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    So you're attempting to argue against the aimlessness of evolution as evidence against an intervening god by positing an anthropomorphic deity in a fantasy situation?
     
  12. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    No worries, it was saved when I opened my browser:

    I'm looking up the other things you said.

    Yes I have. Where does it say that?

    Jesus did away with the old testament laws and rules and replaced them with his own.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    not at all, just opening eyes to possibilities....well Balerion I put it to you... If you were God would you Micro manage your creation? Or is the question way too abstract for you to consider?
     
  14. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Back up from before rollback:

    But you guys should make your own thread. It would have been nice if the mods could have kept the old one open for you to debate this.
     
  15. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    The question is absurd. You're asking me to envisage a scenario in which I'm God, yet appealing to my human nature for the answer. This is why I said you were positing an anthropomorphic god--that is, a god with human characteristics. I have no fucking clue how a god might run creation, and neither do you. Assuming that it would act as you would is ridiculous.
     
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    so in other words, you think having a personality renders yourself inferior
     
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    No, I think that it's absurd to anthropomorphize a being which would be by definition unknowable. To say that a deity would do something because "that's what I would do" is silly. QQ is assuming that "micro-managing" creation is akin to a job, and assumes that a god would automate the process so that he could sit on the beach all day.

    Scenarios don't get any more ludicrous than that.
     
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Yet another illogical inference from what was typed, LG, seemingly setting up another strawman for you to blow over.
    Have a shrug... :shrug:
     
  19. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Meh. Sometimes knocking down strawmen is fun.

    May I have a shrug as well?

    :shrug:
     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    huh?
    Unknowable ?
    ... I guess it is too abstract for you then ...

    which is why i asked if you felt burdened by having a personality

    which again, is why i asked if you felt burdened by having a personality ... or is that the idea of being a personality and delegating is a concept too abstract for you?
    :shrug:
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    how astute of you LG....
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    The thing is most people when they tallk about God seem to consider him as being only pseudo intelligent, a sort of ego centricism that attempts to place humans on some sort of equal footing with "it"
    Of course if one subscribes to the notion that God would indeed be omni smart and surperbly clever then why the hell wouldn't he create a fully automated system called "universe" and go sit on a beach somewhere and "bonk" as much as he wanted to...sheesh! half a brain and it is obvious.

    "hmmm which planet to day...hmmm...which galaxy....hmmm oh never mind...I'll let the probability drive do it for me..."


    what, do you think God would somehow be your slave or servant? [ chuckle]
     
  23. MRC_Hans Skeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    835
    OK. What this guy says is he believes in God. Fine, he is entitled to that.

    Then he says that he cannot wrap his mind around evolution. Hold it right there!
    His reasons, it seems is that he has not completely undestood the science. The question now is: Does he completely understand computers? Aeroplanes? Internal combustion engines? Women?

    It will be 'no' to at least one of these. So, we can agree that even if there are things we fail to understand well, they may still exist.

    Now, let us look at the alternative he offers: Biblical religion. Is that a thing we can understand? Understand. One can, obviously, believe it, but can one understand it? - Well, since it involves a spiritual being (for JWs, who also believe in angels, actually a whole lot of spiritual beings) performing magic, we humans can evidently not understand it.

    So, it must follow that, since religion is at least as incomprehensible as evolution is (to some), the failure to comprehend evolution should not be what leads people to religion.

    So now we need not to mix evolution into discussions about religion, and vice versa.

    Hans
     

Share This Page